The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-10-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS (2)AGENDA REPOT UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: October 11, 1994 Sammee Zeile SUBJECT: Recommendations From the Public Participation Process DEPARTMENT: Community Recovery Agency Background Under separate cover the Agency Board has been provided with a copy of the Community Participation Process Reference Manual, That document reported the results of the most extensive citizen participation program ever undertaken by the City. Attachment I more completely describes the meetings and groups that were involved in this program. The Reference Manual also includes copies of the citizen survey information which was collected_ The top ten (10) community priorities based upon the collected surveys are as follows: Road/Bridge Repairs Individual School District Repairs Attract/Retain Jobs Improve Road Systems Newhall Revitalization San Fernando Road Debris Removal Single -Family Residential Repair Grants/Loans Code Enforcement/Neighborhood Improvement Senior Housing Other priorities reflected in the survey results appear in Attachment II. After receiving the Reference Manual, the Council/Agency Board conducted a Study Session on September 28, 1994, to receive additional citizen and group input. The issue of ongoing citizen involvement seemed to generate the most comment at this session. A number of elaborate Adopted: R_ Benda Item: organizational concepts were presented. A full range of alternative organizations is described in Attachment Ill. The recommendations contained herein are consistent with the generally accepted practice as surveyed among Los Angeles County Redevelopment Agencies. Based upon the process which has been completed, staff recommends the following ongoing citizen involvement structure for adoption by the Board: ONGOING CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. A commitment to meaningful and ongoing public participation is critically important to effective. CRA operations. Formal appointments to the committees listed below have been avoided to promote open participation and Brown Act encumbrances. A multi -task committee approach is suggested: A. A Newhall Revitalization Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in the preparation of a specific five (5) to seven (7) year revitalization strategy and urban design plan for Newhall. Final approval authority for the Strategy/Plan would remain with the City Council/Agency Board, Members: Open to all business owners, operators, residents, property owners, or anyone interested in participating in the Newhall Revitalization Strategy /Plan. B. A Canyon Country/Saugus (Soledad/S.F. Road Corridor) Revitalization Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in the preparation of a specific five (5) to seven (7) year revitalization strategy and urban design plan for Canyon Country Revitalization. Final approval authority for the Strategy/Plan would remain with the City Council/Agency Board. Members: Open to all business owners, operators, residents, property owners, or anyone interested in participating in the Canyon Country Corridor Revitalization Strategy/Plan. C. A Housing Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in the, preparation of an overall housing framework, strategy; and activity program for the community of Santa Clarita which brings together all of the various available, funding sources (redevelopment, CDBG, HOME, MCC, etc.) on both an immediate and long- range time frame. All of the various need areas will also be addressed (single family, multi -family, mobile home, owner and non -owner occupied). Final approvals remain with City Council/ Agency Board, Members: Board of Realtors President; Inter -faith Council Representative; Local Banking Representative; Newhall Land and Farm Residential Representative, Local Residential Developer; SCOPE Representative; SCV Senior Center Executive Director; and Manufactured Home Rent Stabilization Panel Chair. D. A Santa Clarita Schools/Agency Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To establish an ongoing forum for two-way communications between the local school districts and the City/Agency. Members: The various public school Superintendents and the City Manager/Agency Director would meet on a regular basis to assure effective open and two-way communication. Each Task Force representative would be responsible for facilitating the involvement of their respective elected representatives. Existence of this group would not be intended to prohibit or inhibit elected official communication with the City/Agency, only to enhance same. E. A Business Revitalization Task Committee should be established. Purpose: To advise staff and consultant in organizing the various community resources in order to enhance its ability to attract/retain jobs and to strengthen overall economic development activities, Final approval authority remains with City Council/Agency Board. Members: Open to all business owners, operators, Chambers of Commerce; VIA, and anyone interested in participating in business revitalization. F. City Council/Agency Board consideration of private or public interest proposed projects beyond the established priorities may be undertaken as provided in State Law and local guidelines as such projects are submitted. Such projects may include joint projects with the County, and Sanitation Districts, individual school districts, etc. II. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS. In addition to the ongoing Citizen Involvement task group elements described in I above, the following procedural elements are suggested: A. A comprehensive process of citizen involvement as described in the flow diagram appearing as Attachment IV should be adopted. This process ;t with the input provided through this extensive public participation process, then proceeds to broad-based citizen task committee groups organized to address those projects identified as having priority importance, then culminates in City Council/Agency Board adoption following open public hearings. The comprehensive plan which is produced by this process will integrate the various specific priority project plans with the established General Plan and be implemented through annually adopted operating Budgets and the Capital Improvement Program. Consistent with State law, the Planning Commission role in certifying the Capital Improvement Program will be maintained. B. A Recovery Agency Newsletter/communication vehicle should be established with the community at -large, and should be regularly distributed. Spanish language translations should also be provided. C. A policy should be adopted requiring a public hearing prior to adoption of the annual Recovery Agency Budget and/or Capital Improvement Program. Purpose: To assure ongoing public notice, information, and the opportunity for participation, the Council/Agency Board of Directors shall adopt a resolution establishinga public hearing requirement prior to annual Agency Budget adoption and/or Capital Improvement Program adoption. D. The City should seek at least ex -officio representation on the Board of Directors of the two Chambers of Commerce and VIA as essential business community organizations beginning immediately. Purpose: To enhance City/Agency communications and to foster effective coordination of mutually beneficial programs with the two Chambers of Commerce and VIA. E. The Community Participation Process which has been initiated should be continued. High quality citizen education and involvement is critical to the long-term success of the Recovery Agency:. In addition, relationships which have been established between the City/Agency and the Santa Clarita Chamber of Comrnerce, the Canyon Country Chamber of Commerce, Inter -faith Council, the various Homeowners Associations, VIA, CULTURE, the various school districts, and the community generally should be continued and expanded upon. To facilitate this, at least one of the community participation consultant's contracts should be retained as needed. III., Other CRA Operational Guidelines Recommended for Board adoption are as follows: A. PROJECT AREA SIZE: The Project Area Size should be resolved as soon as possible with the settlement of current litigation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PROJECTS.. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment has requested the City/Agency to formally amend the Recovery Plan to clarify its intent to observe all relevant environmental law. A formal amendment or alternatively acceptable action (e.g. a City ordinance or Resolution) is suggested. C. HOUSING POLICY, General interest in promoting the quality of the Community's housing stock has been communicated. In furtherance of this interest, it is suggested that the City/Agency adopt a Resolution as provided for in State law which would allow it to undertake housing projects beyond the Project Area boundaries, yet within the City limits. D, SPANISH LANGUAGE SESSIONS. It is suggested that additional Community Participation sessions be conducted for Spanish language citizens of the Community. E. RECOVERY AGENCY DESIGNATION. A final designation of the name "Recovery Agency should be made for the Santa Clarita'Redevelopment Agency, F. REGULAR REVIEW. On a periodic basis, the City/Agency should undertake a thorough evaluation and review of this citizen participation process and the guidelines and project priorities which are in place, in order to affirm or modify these to enhance the public interest. With regard to the establishment of Project priorities, itis recommended that the Agency Board formally designate the following general project priorities for further staff evaluation and return to the Board: Earthquake Repair/Relief A. Residential, commercial, industrial, and mobile home earthquake. damage rehabilitation grants and/or loans. B. Debris removal (beyond FEMA) C. Vermont Street/Everett Street Area septic system repair (a public/private assessment district partnership) D. General road and bridge system repairs (Beyond FEMA, after shock movement) II.. Newhall Revitalization A. Plan development B. Public infrastructure and improvements C, Business ;attraction/ red evelopment D. Apple Street Area improvements (a public/private assessment district. partnership) III. Canyon Country/Saugus (Soledad/S.F. Road Corridor) Revitalization A. Plan development. (to be EDA -funded) B. Public infrastructure and improvements C. Granada Vila Mobile home Park improvements (a public/private partnership) IV. Joint Public Agency Projects A, The local School Districts have submitted or indicated that they would like to submit various projects for City Council/Agency Board consideration of possible CRA funding. Compilations of a complete, current identification of such projects should be undertaken as soon as the current litigation obstacles have been eliminated. At that point particular individual project details and alternatives could meaningfully be considered by the: City.. V. Economic Development A. CRA projects which provide for jobs' attraction and retention have received high support through the community participation process. B. Further study and review of the most effective means for attracting/retaining local jobs and providing economic development activities should be undertaken. G Analyze the potential for City /Agency involvement in a "learning center." A general conceptual budget for these projects is reflected in Attachment V. Recommended Action It is recommended that the Agency Board approve the above CRA Operational Guidelines and Project Priorities and direct staff to implement same. Included here will be preparation of a bond financing plan will be completed for. Agency Board review within sixty (60) days, Consultant selection processes for Newhall Revitalization, Canyon Country/Saugus Revitalization, Business Revitalization, and creation of a Housing Framework, Strategy are currently underway, and are scheduled for final Agency Board action within that time frame as well. Attachments 1. Community Recovery Agency Public Participation Meetings Summary 11, Survey Priority Ranking Ill. CRA Citizen Involvement Options W. Citizen Involvement Process Flow Chary V. CRA Bond Financing Projections (5%) com)ecovCti'I01194.1 ATTACHMENT I COMMUNITY RECOVERY AGENCY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS 1994 SUMMARY ♦ Over 13 Public Citizen Participation Meetings. ♦ Over 578 Citizens attended at least one Community Meetings. ♦ Over 644 letters of invitation sent to leadership groups throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. ♦ Over 951 Public Meeting flyers sent out to various groups, organizations, and individuals throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. ♦ Advertising of meeting schedule was placed in the Signal, Daily News, and Los Angeles Times. ♦ Numerous news releases were given to all local media. ♦ Numerous public service announcements and interviews were given on KB6r 1220. ♦ News releases and flyers were given to local companies for their bulletin boards or internal publications. ♦ 3909 surveys were distributed at public meetings, to groups, and organizations, media, and any individual requests. ♦ 232 (696) completed surveys were returned. ♦ We have received many individual or group letters of response in lieu of completing the survey. --'P-.wsmry.-0 COMMUNITY RECOVERY AGENCY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS 1994 DATE: MEETING WITH - May 12 Econ. Develop. Committee Meeting May 18 Soroptimist Club May 23 Canyon Country Chamber Bd. of Exec. May 24 Canyon Country Chamber Bus. Lunch June 7 Ckamber Legislative Luncheon, Bruce Tepper June 9 VIABd. of Directors June 13 Press Briefing City. Hall June 13Jori Council & Comm.'Study;Session June 14 Bead of Realtors June 15 s Ban Hon (Education Session) June 20 .,. VIA & Chamber Task Group #11 June 20 ;- W-Ulie Fleet, Signal June 21, Newhall Water Board District July 1 SCV Chamber Board June 23 Castaic Chamber Board June 27 .,z Public Meeting #1 July 6, • Public Meeting #2 July 7 VIA=&.:Chamber Task Group #2 July 7 '` FEMA/OES Office July 11, `Public Meeting #3 July 12%'_ Inter -Faith Council July 14 Via Ond1'Group July 15 , NetivhaWlL and and Farm July 16 CaLIT11IR,E., _... July 19' .. ._..,.. VaL Indust. Assoc &I berg July 20 - . Rasmuseen.Graup_. July 20 • SCV-Calif. Republicans July 21 ' ; '#TU"& Chamber Task Group J July 21 Public Meeting #4 July 25 School Administrators July 2& '' VIA & Chamber Task Group t4 Aug.. 2 Noxa -Profit Boards Aug .5 ; ` $CrvJCe L nbR<Ik QlSanizatiOra Aug. 18 Democratic Aliance Aug. 22 Newhall (Everett & Vermont Drives) Aug. 39 School Bd. of Trustees Association f]OMPAPT\SURVSTAT.MEM # Attended N/A 18 7 20 NIA 9 4 N/A 20 1 1S 10 14 15 COMMUNITY RECOVERY AGENCY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS 1994 Survey Distribution and Return Name of Group Number Distributed Number Retumed Accents 10 0 Board of Realtors 620 15 Calif. Republicans 20 1 City of Santa Clartta 181 50 College of the Canyons 20 1 CULTURE 215 0 Democratic Alliance 42 14 Don Schmanski 5 4 Everett Meeting 20 6 Hart School District 50 4 Individual Response 7 6 interfaith Council 1444 25 Non -Profit Organizations 21 4 Patti Rasmussen Group 53 25 Public Meeting #1 30 5 Public Meeting #2 37 3 Public Meeting #3 13 12 Public Meeting. #4 50 12 Samuel Dixon Clinic 20 0 School Administrators 31 13 SCOPE Newsletters 800 10 SCV Democratic Club 10 1 Senior Center 190 21 VIA (July 19) 20 0 Totals: 3909 232 5.94% ATTACHMENT II Survey Priority Ranking B. Community Infrastructure/Minimizing Future Disaster Impacts 4 East/West Road System Very Important Not a Responses A. Earthquake Damage Repair 94 79 33 206 1 Road /Bridge Svstem Repair 171 40 7 218 2 Individual School District Repairs 147 58 12 217 7 Debris Removal 95 Illi 17 213 S Single-Fam. Res. Repair Grants/Loans 84 92 33 209 Replace Damaged Library Books 77 103 36 216 Utilitv Companies Repairs 77 83 51 211 Business Repair Grants/Loans 75 111 22 208 Mobile Home Repairs Grants/Loans 73 98 39 210 Multi -Family Repair Grants/Loans 66 106 34 206 Park Facility Repairs 32 125 50 207 Private School Repairs 27 81 96 204 B. Community Infrastructure/Minimizing Future Disaster Impacts 4 East/West Road System 127 70 16 213 4 North/South Road System 94 79 33 206 Construct Emergency Ops Center 67 99 37 203 Public Transit Enhancements 61 92 50 203 Enhance Other Community Roads 60 97 46 203 Hart Auditorium Rehab. 56 111 44 211 Landslide Repair 54 116 34 2(4 Multi -Purpose Sports Complex 26 53 120 199 Four Oaks Drainage Improvements 11 87 82 180 C. Economic Development 3 Attract New Jobs 131 64 18 213 3 Assist/Retain Existing Employers 115 68 20 203 5 Newhall Revitalization 111 81 24 216 6 San Fernando Road Rerouting 96 78 35 209 Small/Med. Business Revply. Loans 54 107 36 197 Construct Golden Triangle Road Ext. 47 95 59 201 Comm/industrial Bldg. Reinforcement 43 122 34 199 Dillenbeck's Area Improvement 42 86 59 187 D. Housing 9 Code Enforce/ Neighborhood Improve. 83 97 27 207 10 Senior Housing Programs 82 93 32 207 Mod. Income Housing 75 80 41 196 Housing Rehabilitation Grants/Loans 61 101 33 195 First -Time Homebuyer Incentive Prog. 48 81 64 193 Low-income Housing 42 86 68 196 Mobile Home Ownership Program 23 85 77 185 ATTACHMENT III CRA CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT OPTIONS . .......... Invo y' emen 0 . .. ... ... .. 7At^:P, torts: .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ...... C omment s:...1-- 1. Elected C.C. acts alone as CRA Board 1. This option provides the elected City Council/Agency Board with control available under State Law of the important financial and policy decisions, State Law contains extensive public hearing and meeting requirements. Project/activity completion should be able to occur most quickly through this option. This option, however, provides a perception of minimal community participation, 2. Elected C.C. acts as CRA Board and forms 2. This option provides the elected City Council/Agency Board with authority and citizen advisory groups as needed, responsibility for the important financial and policy decisions as well as extensive community participation activities. Such added involvement will mean that L.A. and Ventura County Redevelopment projects /activities will not occur as quickly as in Option 1. Such added agencies with populations between 75,000 and involvement will also increase the costs of providing staff support services. Such 437,000 are almost totally of this nature (all advisory group involvement, however, may not meet the needs of some actually but one, or 95%). seeking diminished Council/Agency Board authority and responsibility for redevelopment, although it may constitute an acceptable compromise with others. 3. Elected C.C. adds 1 or more public members 3. This option may reduce the elected City Council/Agency Board authority and while it sits as CRA Board. These public responsibility for the redevelopment process by diluting the relative weight of each members could be voting or "ex -officio" elected vote, or, at least, by requiring a public discussion of non- elected member members. views. Project/ activity time -lines and process cumbersomeness would increase as a result. This option may satisfy those seeking even more control over the financial and policy actions of redevelopment. 4. Elected C.C. delegates all or a portion of its 4. This option reduces the elected City Council/Agency Board authority and authority /responsibility to an independent responsibility for the redevelopment process in whole or in part, depending upon board. the ordinance provisions providing the delegation. Total delegation maximizes the involvement of non-Council/Agency Board members. In accomplishing this, however, issues of accountability, responsibility, and the source of staff direction are raised. This option could provide for speedy project /activity completion if total delegation to an independent board were adopted; or, the slowest processing of activities if an unclear delegation were adopted. mm pn\ op fi.nsLtbl CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Donald Duckworth, Community Recovery Manager FROM: Mike Haviland, Economic Development Manager Vyto Adomaitis, CDBG Program Manager DATE: October 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Survey This memorandum is to provide you with a summary of staff research investigating organizational structures currently being utilized by other redevelopment agencies. Our research methodology was to directly contact all the redevelopment agencies in cities with populations over 75,000 within Los Angeles County. Also contacted were the redevelopment agencies of Oxnard, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley. We requested information on the existence of any formalized reporting or advisory body to the respective redevelopment agencies. In total, we contacted 21 redevelopment agencies; summarized in attachment "A". The results of the summary are that overwhelmingly, redevelopment agencies do not have any permanent advisory bodies reporting to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board (RDA). The RDA is consistently the sole policy and decision making body for redevelopment activities. Of the 21 cities interviewed, Pasadena was the one exception to the norm. Pasadena has an Advisory Community Development Committee (ACDC). The Pasadena ACDC has the authority to issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and makes recommendations regarding all RDA activities, including approval of designs, and development terms for private projects. Also, the ACDC reviews Pasadena's economic development, housing, and CDBG activities. Each member of the ACDC is appointed by a member of the City Council from each district of the City. This structure is unique and seems to represent the historical adaptation of a redevelopment program that had earlier been operated independent of the City Council by a separate board. The other common participation/advisory vehicle used in redevelopment agencies are Project Advisory Committees (PACs) as sometimes required by the California Redevelopment Law (CRL). Of the surveyed cities, 8 have PACs. We understand that conflicts between the CRL and the Fair Political Practices Commission conflict of interest regulations have thrown the usefulness of these groups into question. In addition, some cities have Relocation Appeal Boards which are not considered in our survey. In conclusion, the survey results of 21 redevelopment agencies demonstrates that redevelopment agencies are organized almost exclusively around the redevelopment agency board as the sole and exclusive decision making/policy making body responsible for the activities of the redevelopment program. cEbg1RDASMEM Appendix A Cities Surveyed For Redevelopment Organizational Structure Citv Formal Structure/Bodv Population PACs Burbank No 98,678 No Carson No 86,307 Yes Compton No 91,609 Yes Downey No 94,802 Yes EI Monte No 110,965 No Glendale No 190,192 No Inglewood No 113,623 Yes Lancaster No 115,524 No Long Beach No 436,776 Yes Norwalk No 97,303 Yes Palmdale No 98,314 No Pasadena Yes 134,824 Yes (Advisory Community Dev. Committee) Santa Monica No 89,809 No South Gate No 88,926 No West Covina No 99,824 Yes Whittier No 80,646 No Torrance No 136,747 No Pomona No 138,624 No Thousand Oaks* No 106,648 No Simi Valley No 100,889 No Oxnard* No 143,781 No 'Denotes Jurisdictions in Ventura County ATTACHMENT IV CRA Citizen Involvement Communication Process Flow' Staff Task Integration w/ Public Public g _� Approval Input Input Committee Gen. Plan & Input Budget 2 1 Each project proceeds at an individual pace 2 Finance and Program Integration with General Plan and Capital and Annual City Budget Improvement Program 3 Consultant/ Facilitator 4 Each Committee delegate to meet with City management to discuss integration of the plans. Newhall \ Revit. Task -Earthquake Committee3 Repair Canyon • Hazard Country/ City Recovery Mitigation Saugus Revit. Agency Task Management Board Public -Economic Committee3 Public Public Input Development and a Delagate Forum Hearing Housing Task • Block Grant Committee 3 from Each and *Finance Schools Task Committee 4 Approval Committee *Community Development Business Revit. Task Committee3 1 Each project proceeds at an individual pace 2 Finance and Program Integration with General Plan and Capital and Annual City Budget Improvement Program 3 Consultant/ Facilitator 4 Each Committee delegate to meet with City management to discuss integration of the plans. ATTACHMENT V CRA Bond Financing Projections (5%) 1 Per AB1290 2 State mandated 20% set aside for housing 3 County 2% for Redevelpment Agency services (per A112557) 4 First five years ® 12% 5 Existing budget program and levels escalating at 5%/year. 6 Gross financing proceeds calculated using a 4 -year amortized issue @ 7% interest in year #1, and a 24- year issue @ 7% interest in year #3. Source: GRC Copenhaver 7 Reserves equal to one year's debt service. Source: GRC Copenhaver Year #1 1 Year #2 Year #3 Year #4 Year #5 Totals Gross Tax Increment Funds $2655,180 $5,440,915 $8,363,625 $11,430,044 $14,647,240 $42,537,004 Existing Taxing A en sShace' $531,036 $1,088,183 $1,672,725 $2,286,009 _ $2,929,448 State Mandated Housing' $531,036 $1,088,183 $1,672,725 $2,286,009 S2,929,4_48 _$8_,507,401 $8,507,401 CountyAdministration' $53,104 $108,818 $167,273 $228,601 S292,945 __ $85_0,740 City Administration $318,622 $652,910 $1,003,635_ _ $1,371,605 _ $1,757,669 $5,104,441 Economic Development' $179,200 $188,160 $197,568 $207,446 $217,819 $990,193 Sub -Total $1,042,183 $2.314,661 $3,649,700 $5,050,374 $6,519,912 $18,576,829 11 Gross Financing Proceeds ' $3,530,093 $41,859,623 $4_5,369,716 Bond Issuance Casts(®5%) $176,505 $2,092,981 _ $2,269,486 Reserves? $1,042,183 $3,649,700 $4,691,882 Redevelopment Proiects Funds $2,311,406 $36,116,942 $38,428,348 1 Per AB1290 2 State mandated 20% set aside for housing 3 County 2% for Redevelpment Agency services (per A112557) 4 First five years ® 12% 5 Existing budget program and levels escalating at 5%/year. 6 Gross financing proceeds calculated using a 4 -year amortized issue @ 7% interest in year #1, and a 24- year issue @ 7% interest in year #3. Source: GRC Copenhaver 7 Reserves equal to one year's debt service. Source: GRC Copenhaver Possible Use of Projects Funds (All subject to public and Council review/approval): I. II. Note: Earthquake Repair/Relief Twenty Percent (20%) of Goal 1 (Goals and Programs description @ $68,544,000.00 Newhall Revitalization *Plan Development $100,000 *Public Infrastructure/enhancement $6,000,000 *Business attraction/redevelopment $6,000,000 $12,100,000 Canyon Country Corridor Revitalization *Public Infrastructure/enhancement $8,000,000 $8,000,000 Joint Public Agency Projects TOTAL PROJECTS TOTAL AVAILABLE PROJECTS FUNDS DEFICIENCY $13,708,800 $12,100,000 $8,000,000 $5,000,000 $38,808,800 ($38,428,348) Annual economic development support at existing budget program and levels included in gross tax increment before financing. See CRA Bond Financing Projections table. $380,452 .1. Page 2. , . .. City Proposed Settlement (5%) orecast Incremental otal AV AV 7.7s Taxing Grass Tax Agency Increment %a a - RDA Total Tax Increment Housing. Summation Setaside RDA Projects New 10th Year Base ,400,000 N/A _,__ __-_ $531036 $1,088,183 $1,593,108 $3,264,5_49 $5,018,175 $6,858,027 $8,788,344 $10,813,575 $3,500,000,000 $3,672,095,OW $3,852,651,911 $4,042,086,806 ,665,518 5265518,000 $2,655,180 20.00% $2,124,144 $5,944,091,520 $544 1,520 $5,440,915 20.00%L—$66 732 3 96.97 $6,236,362,500 $836,362,500 $8,363,625 20.00%$1,672,725 _ $2,286,009 $2,929,448 4 97-98 $6,543,004,444 51,143004,444 $11,430,044 20.00%036 $4,240,836,214 $4,449,358,1306 $4,668,133,070 5 98-99 $6,864 723 973 $1464 723,973 $14,647240 20.W% 792 99-00 $7,202,262 450 $1 2 262 450 $18,022,625 20.00% 100 $3,604,525 7 00-01 57,556397,695 ST 156 97,695 $21,563,977 20.00%a 182 $4,312,795 $12,938,386 _$4,897,665,173 $5,138,483,369 8 01-02 $7,927945,770 $2 527,945,770 $25,279,458 20.00% ,,566 $5,055,8_92 $15,167,675 9 02-03 $8,317,762,863 $2,917,762,863 $29,177,629 20.00% $23,342,103 _ $5,835,526 $3,782,285 _$17,506,577 $5,391,142,597 _ ------ __-_12 10 03-04 $5,391,142,597 $1891,142 597 $18,911,426 20.00% $15,129,141 _ $11,346,856 $9,314,8_92 11 04-05 $5,656,225,078 $2,156,225,078 $21,562,251 36.80% $13,627,342 $4,312,450_ 12 05-06 $5,934,341,665 $2,434,341,665 $24,343,417 36.80% $15,385,039 $4,868,683 $10,516,356 _ $11,776,896 _ 13 06-07 $6,226,133,245 $2,726,133,245 $27,261,332 36.80% $17,229,162 $5,452,26_6_ 14 07-08 $6,532,272,217 53,032,272,217 $30,322,722 36.80% $19,163,960 $6,064,544 $13,099,416 $14,486,965 $15,942,739 _ 15 08-09 $6,853,464,041 $3,353,464,041 $33,534,640 36.80% $21,193,893 _ $6,7_06,928 16 09-10 $7,190448,868 $3,690,448,868 $36,904,489 36.80% $23,323,637 _ _$7,380,898 17 10-11 $7,544,003,239 $4,044,003,239 $40,440,032 36.80% $25,558,100 $8,088,006 117,470,094 _ - 18 11-12 $7,914,941,878 $4,414,941,878 $44,149,419 36.80% $27,902,433 $8,829,884 $19,072,5_49 $2_0,753,797 19 12.13 $8,304,119,571 $4,804,119,571 $48 041,196 36.80% $30,362,036------ $9,608,239 20 13-14 $8,712,433,130 55,212,433,130 $52,124,331 36.80% $32,942,577 $10,424,866 $22,517,711 $24,368,357 21 14-15 $9,140,823,467 $5,640,823,467 $56,408,235 36.80% $35,650,004 $11,281,647 $12,180,556 22 15-16 $9,590,277,757 $6,090 277,757 $60,902,778 36.80% $38,490,555 _ $26,310,00_0 23 16.17 $10,061,831,714 $6,561,831,714 $65,618,317 36.80% $41,470,776 _— $13,123,663_ _$28,34_7,113 $30,484,391 24 17-18 $10,556,571,979 $7,056,571,979 $70,565,720 36.80% $44,597,535 $14,113,144 25 18.19 $11,075,638,624 $7,575,638,624 $75,756,386 36.80% $47,878,036 _— $15,151,277 $32,726,759 $35,0--,384 --- $37,547,688 $40,137,358 - $42,854,362 $45 704,962 _ 26 19-20 511,620,227,775 $8,12Q227,775 581,202,278 .36.80% $51319,840 516,240,456 _$17,383,189 $18,582 - - $19,839,982 $21 159 704 27 20.21 $12,191,594,374 $8,691,594,374 $86,915,944 36.80_% $54,930,876_ _ __ 28 21-22!W,791,055,070 $9,291,055,070 $9 2,910,551 36.80% -- $58,719,,110 468 29 T2-23 $13,419,991,248 $9,919,991,248 _ _$99,199,912 36.80%_ $62,694,345$19,839,982 $853 697 977 30 23-24 $14,079,852,217 $10,579,852,217 $105,798,522 36.80%, $66,864,666 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 94-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ("CRA") CONFIRMING ITS COMMITMENT TO SUBJECT THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS PURSUED UNDER THE COMMUNITY RECOVERY PLAN TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND THE CITY'S AND CRA'S ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Santa Clarita Community Redevelopment Agency adopted its Community Recovery plan ("The Plan") on February 22, 1994 pursuant to the provisions of Section 34000 et seq. Health and Safety Code (Disaster Project Law); and WHEREAS, The Plan adoption was exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code 21000 et seg.); and WHEREAS, The Plan provides, among other things, that a number of specific projects may be undertaken by the CRA to implement the provisions of The Plan; and WHEREAS, uncertainty has been expressed by some parties as to whether the CRA will subject specific projects to environmental review under the requirements of CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, does hereby confirm its commitment to subject all specific projects pursued by the CRA under The Plan to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's and CRA's environmental regulations. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of WIFF.R.15 WE ATTEST; ASSIST. SECRETARY STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA } I, Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1994 by the following vote of the Directors: AYES: DIRECTORS: NOES: DIRECTORS: ABSENT: DIRECTORS: CITY CLERK