Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 06/20/1988PCDC/Council 6/20/88 1 MINUTES OF A JOINT PCDC/CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 1988 Monday, June 20, 1988, 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Balshaw, Cavanagh, Davis, Tencer, Vice Mayor Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss ABSENT: Sobel PUBLIC HEARINGS RECESS TO JOINT MEETING WITH THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (PCDC): PCDC Roll Call: PRESENT: Commissioners Balshaw, Cavanagh, Davis, Tencer, Vice Chairman Woolsey, Chairman Hilligoss ABSENT: Sobel Each person was given two minutes to speak and was requested to print their name and address on cards to be passed on to the City Clerk/Recording Secretary. It was noted that a Court Reporter was present to record the session. The speakers were: City Manager John Scharer - The General Plan, adopted in 1987 as a result of a great deal of input from residents of the City and neighboring areas, reflects a need to generate sufficient dollars to meet the capital improvement requirements set forth in that plan for orderly growth. The purpose of the proposed redevelopment plan is to create the financing capabilities to construct those needed public improvements, foster an environment from which those public improvements have been installed, to encourage private investment, to improve the affordable housing stock and create employment opportunities. Since March of 1987, staff has met with the public to discuss the proposal. Mr. Scharer addressed the concerns he has heard citizens express. Regarding condemnation, he noted the inclusion of that word in the notice to residents is the result of mandatory State Codes notice format and he assured the Council and the residents that the redevelopment plan does not contemplate the condemning of residential property. He went on to say the Council has the authority to condemn for public works and the PCDC has the additional authority to do so to cause economic development to take place where it might not otherwise take place. He repeated there is no project in the plan which requires the condemnation of residential areas in order to assemble land under one ownership. Regarding the Denman Dam, he said the redevelopment plan is not slanted in favor or against any of the proposed flood projects set forth in the Sonoma County Master Drainage Plan. The City has commissioned a study to review and analyze the projects set forth in that plan and to recommend the most efficient project or combination of projects. It is premature to focus on any one project through the redevelopment plan. Regarding the unincorporated area, the redevelopment plan does not change the land use planning for those in the unincorporated area. It still remains with the County. It does not affect their taxes or their country life style. The areas were included in the proposed plan because the properties are now designated in our General Plan for eventual incorporation into the City. These lands were included for long term planning, because at some future day, these lands will become part of the City. The redevelopment agency project area will not benefit from any revenues until the areas are annexed. Regarding owner participation agreements, the wording of plan causes the inference that these agreements would be mandatory of each property owner. He assured the audience that is not the case. Regarding the rumor about razing the Linda del Mar subdivision, he said the City is not going to tear down Linda del Mar. State law requires 20% of the revenues be set aside to improve housing, not to tear down housing. That 20% can be used, as an example, in the Linda del Mar area if the agency adopts a plan to elevate houses. The redevelopment agency would augment funds the City is already receiving through new development to benefit low and moderate income housing and to preserve neighborhoods. He went on to say the redevelopment plan has many benefits. It will provide local funds without any assessment and without any additional property taxes which would help the City to meet the local share that is required in any project on the Petaluma River to design and construct flood mitigation. It is going to provide funds for traffic improvements that will open up the east/west circulation. It will provide funds for the sewer collection system improvements and water distribution system improvements in the older neighborhoods. It will provide funds in the older neighborhoods for improvements to the public streets, for construction of new sidewalks and for drainage improvements; and, it will provide funds to improve the housing stock in Petaluma. It was noted the E.I.R. was not a definitive document and each project in the area will have its own environmental documentation. The land uses and zoning in the project area will be acted upon in the same manner as projects outside of the redevelopment area do. The redevelopment plan counsel, Timothy J. Sabo of Sabo and Deisch, summarized the documents which were before the Council/Commission: The redevelopment plan will govern how activities are undertaken within the redevelopment project area. It provides for the financing through the use of the tax increment revenues. It lists the public improvements which are eligible for and may be financed at the discretion of the Commission/Council at some time in the future. The plan may be amended to include projects. There are no consequences if any of the listed projects is not undertaken. Regarding owner participation rights, every redevelopment project must provide for owner participation, which means if a project is proposed by the redevelopment agency some time in the future, the existing property owners who are affected by that must be offered the right to redevelop their properties in accordance with whatever those future plans are. At this time there are no specific development projects that are being contemplated where you would have to exercise the right of owner participation. The other documents before the Council/Commission are the Redevelopment Plan Report which outlines some of the aspects of the background and why this project area was selected, and it makes reference to the Planning Commission action which found that the Redevelopment Plan will be in conformance with the General Plan. It also includes the Assessment of Conditions Report which lists what elements the staff and the consultants have found that leads them to believe that this area should be considered for redevelopment purposes. Another exhibit to the redevelopment plan report is the Environmental Impact Report. Health and Safety Code Section 33032 lists the criteria used to determine 'blighted area'. They include the subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size, laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography for physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions, the existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open space and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment, a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustment. The only monies that are available are the future tax dollars which are generated above the current year's tax base. The only way the redevelopment agency will receive additional tax dollars is if there is an increase in the assessed value of the property. If there is no increase in assessed value, there are no additional taxes to be paid. The only time that property can be reassessed is by a change of ownership, new construction or up to the annual 2% which is permitted by Article XIII of the State Constitution. There is no other ability of the County, City or the Commission to raise taxes without a vote of the electorate. John Davis, co -counsel for the redevelopment plan discussed the Environmental Impact Report, the impacts identified by the report and the fact that the plan is a means to mitigate some of the impacts of development, particularly to overcome the large initial costs of constructing public improvements to meet both existing and future needs. A sound wall on U. S. Highway 101 and replacement of the Payran Street and Lakeville Bridges were mentioned as possible projects using redevelopment agency funds. The EIR language proposing flood improvements was amended to read, 'construction of one or more of the following flood mitigation measures recommended by the Sonoma County Water Agency Master Plan consisting of the following, Petaluma By-pass, Denman Dam, Willowbrook Diversion, the Payran reach, the Denman reach, and the Willowbrook reach and providing a 100 year storm protection to the areas of East Petaluma and the Northeast Industrial Park area.' METCALFE PREZONING The Mayor announced that this matter has been continued to August 15. The Public Hearing was opened. The speakers are listed below: Donald Kofoid, 2441 Petaluma Blvd. North - Outside City Limits - opposed being included in the project area. Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive - wants no assessment district paid by the citizens for the benefit of developers; the EIR should be sent back to be rewritten. Geoffrey H. Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive - tore into two pieces a facsimile of the redevelopment plan cover Robert Webb, 24 Jess Avenue - lots vacated by house moving project have not been restored to 'park-like settings' as he understood would happen, Payran Bridge has not been replaced. Rodney Andersen, 2485 Petaluma Blvd. North - in favor of the project for the sewer and water service and suggest only those County properties fronting on Petaluma Blvd. be included. Matti Christensen, 109 Rocca Drive - in favor of the project, wants the Payran reach earmarked for priority funding. Bob Martin, 171 Payran Street - handed petition to the Council which says the residents of this community have been preparing this environmental impact statement for six years now, no more development upstream from us until flood control projects are completed in our community. He feels the hydrology report is incomplete because he felt the tidal influence was ignored. Does not EIR certified at this time. Mark Ammons, 12 Hill Drive (owns 1940 Petaluma Blvd. North) - there are many obscure costs you have not discussed; let the County residents vote on this. David Vivian, 26 Payran Street - you have installed riparian rights by installing a spillway onto Payran taking the water from Rocca and Jess, putting it on Payran endangering my house. Chris Christensen, 109 Rocca Drive - the projects are necessary, but we have an issue of personal safety and health and protection of property (flood problem); make meaningful flood control your # 1 priority. Phil Joerger, 700 Fair Avenue - is this redevelopment plan subject to change? Unidentified gentleman - presented the Council with a 212 signature petition. Dave Hillendahl, 201 Gossage - the first we heard of the proposed redevelopment was by receipt of a very officious letter last Thursday; none of us in the unincorporated area had representation; request boundaries be redefined to include those properties that front on Petaluma Blvd. North. Andrea J.Nessinger, 12 Woodworth Way - 2 topics of concern, the letter we received noticing the hearing and feel that no one understands this project well enough to act tonight. David Jones, attorney, representing Helen Oberg, owner of 7 acres at the intersection of Hwy. 101 and Petaluma Blvd. North, expresses concern about condemnation wording, it is always possible to join properties to obtain a shopping center. Jacqueline Gong, attorney for Cinnabar and Old Adobe Union School Districts - express concern about the schools' tax revenues, request the City not go forward until agreement is reached with the school districts and the redevelopment agency regarding the financial impact. Thomas Gaffey, 201 Webster - he has worked under redevelopment in the City of Pleasant Hill for 13 years with very unhappy results; you will destroy the town like Pleasant Hill has been destroyed. Marvel Reaves, 1560 Contra Costa Blvd., Pleasant Hill - says cities want to leave property as blighted as they can so they can take it over like they did in Pleasant Hill. Winton Baker, 740 Petaluma Blvd. South - why is there no provision for private property owner to vote on establishment of the agency, prefers vote rather than Council action. Chris Barauskas, 37 Shasta Avenue - what happened to the General Plan, questioned status of park near Oak Creek apartments and site of proposed Rainier Avenue interchange; she has heard nothing said about a Corona highway off -ramp in these discussions yet that was put in the General Plan. Patricia del Zell, Cordelia Drive - worried about condemnation, requested the Council promise there would not be such an action. Art Cerini, 1301 Schuman Lane - replacement of Payran bridge will not solve the flood problems, this plan is only as good as the people who govern it; let's use common sense in some of our planning. John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive - take the words relating to condemnation out of the plan, it's time to get the flood problem fixed. Ed Zita, 287 Gossage - (County) if we don't want to be a part of the plan, you should exclude us. Harry Wagoner, resident for 59 years - an acquaintance living on Jess Avenue has experienced a lot of flooding; with every street you are putting in you are creating flooding. Jessie Lane - (County) in the 16 years I have been living here, a number of trees have been destroyed because of City water running through my property and I have to install drainage if I want to build, is this redevelopment going to be the same. Fran Bengtsson, 590 Cavanaugh Lane - we would like response to our letter of June 15 (the questions relate to possible flooding mitigation projects in the Denman area). Bill Bennett - (County) as owner of several rural parcels, he pays flood control tax for Zone 2A; feels he is already paying for flood control tax for improvements; please may we have answers to our questions tonight. Carol Bonkowski - since you have all of our addresses, it would be nice for you to write us to say you will not take our homes. Recess 8:45 to 8:55 p.m. Mike Staples, 615 Madison - worried about building high-rise buildings in their front yards. Emma Jeffrey came to Petaluma in 1926 - lives in Payran neighborhood; thinks the Council is working for the developers and they should be recalled otherwise the citizens are wasting their time. Chris Mathis, 32 Rocca Drive - this is the first home I have ever owned and I am here to tell you you're not taking my house. Unidentified man - all you have said is you haven't thought about condemnation yet, the contradiction is that you don't have a plan, so, 'yes' the plan hasn't thought about condemnation, because there is no definite plan, there are no boundaries. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. At the request of Mayor Hilligoss, the City Manager to respond to various questions raised during the hearing. He summarized the three major areas of interest as unincorporated area residents wishing to be excluded, the prioritizing of the flood project as #1, and the issue of condemnation as it relates to residential property. Redevelopment plan counsel Sabo explained tax increment funding: The current assessed value as of this present fiscal year, whatever taxes are generated as of the 1987- 88 tax year will continue to be distributed to all the taxing agencies in the same proportion as now. For the increment above this year's (1988-89 tax revenue) is that increase in taxes permitted by Proposition 13. It allows up to a 2% increase each year; and, if there has been a change of ownership or new construction, the assessed valuation will increase due to the reassessment as proscribed in Proposition 13 thereby increasing revenue. Based upon new construction and what will be on the tax roll for the next fiscal year, there will be an increase in tax revenue of approximately $400,000 in the project area inside the City Limits. The property owners in the project area will pay the same amount of taxes next year (plus the Proposition 13 annual change); however, that amount which is in excess of what was paid in 1987-88 will go to the Commission. The amount equivalent to the 1987-88 tax base will still be distributed to the City, the County and other taxing agencies. Of the current property tax rate which is 1% of the assessed value, the County receives approximately thirty hundredths of one percent (.30%) of the assessed value, the City receives approximately fifteen hundredths of one percent (.15%) of the assessed value and the remaining fifty-five hundredths of one percent (.55%) of the assessed value goes to schools and special districts. Under the agreement that was reached with the County, that tax revenue from property located within the project area is handled two different ways. For properties within the City, the Commission will get 100% of the County's portion of the tax bill (thirty hundredths of one percent of the assessed valuation) for the current year through 1992-93, starting in 1993-94 the County will receive 96% of their figure and the City will receive 4%. For the County unincorporated areas, all that the City will receive would be the increase represented by the other taxing agencies exclusive of the County until an annexation occurs. If an annexation occurs no later than 1992-93, then it, too, would be handled under that same formula. If an annexation occurs in 1993-94 or later then all the City would receive of the County's portion would be the 4%. Not until the County territory is annexed to the City will it be treated the same as the City property for redevelopment purposes. There will be no benefit assessment district. There will be no increase in taxes unless property is sold or there is new construction. It was moved by John Balshaw, seconded by Michael Davis to remove from the plan any reference to condemnation of residential properties and to direct counsel to make such deletions from the redevelopment plan. AYES: Balshaw, Cavanagh, Davis, Tencer, Vice Mayor Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss NOES: None ABSENT: Sobel Eliminate from the redevelopment area all parcels that at are not in a sewer assessment district that are west of Petaluma Blvd. and south of Bailey Avenue. fronting Petaluma Blvd. from the City Limits out Petaluma Blvd. as far as Bailey Avenue Unless we hear from a significant number of people west of Petaluma Blvd. that want to be in the redevelopment district in writing by June 27, we will move to eliminate everything greater than one buildable (frontage) lot depth from the redevelopment district. In answer to a question by the Council about the availability of the plan for public perusal, staff advised there are 6 copies of both the plan and EIR available on a circulating basis to save individuals the cost of purchasing the documents. There has been no problem meeting the demand for copies of either the plan or the EIR on a one week loan basis. Copies are available at the Library as well. The matter was continued to July 5. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned nt 9.45 n -m. ATTEST: atricia E. Bernard, ecor mg�Secr6­tary d mm