Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 04/12/1976CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APR. 2 3 1976 PETALUMA COMMUNITY:DEVEL.OPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES.;OF.ADJOURNED.MEETING. Monday, April 12i 19.76 7:30 P.M. The Adjourned Meet-ing.of-the Petaluma Community Development Commission, the Petaluma Planning Commission, and the Project Area Committee was called to order by Chairman Helen Putnam at the hour of _7:30 p.m. Petaluma Community Development Commission:, Present: Commissioners�Cavauagh, Harberson, Hilligoss, and. Chairman Putnam Abstentions: Commissioners Brunner, Mattei, and Perry Petaluma Planning Commission Present: Commissioners Horciza,.Head, Waters, Wright, and Hilligoss Absent: Commissioners Popp.and Bond CLARIFICATION OF General Counsel Matthew Hudson explained the reason why ABSTENTIONS BY Commissioners Brunner, Mattei, and Perry were not seated on MEMBERS OF THE the dais -with other members of the Petaluma Community Develop- PETALUMA COMMUNITY ment Commission. He had advised the three Commissioners their DEVELOPMENT participation in certain aspects of the business of the Petaluma COMMISSION Community Development Commission may constitute a possible. Conflict of Interest. The three Commissioners either own property or do business.: in the Project Area. He had, there- fore, advised them to abstain from voting on the Plan for the Project Area. The same rule would apply to their consideration of the Plan for the Project Area. Mr. Hudson advised any discussion at.the Commission level might possibly tend to influence the eligible Commissioners to vote for or against the Plan. The Fair Political Practices Commission feels that attempting to influence a vote one way or another constitutes participation in itself, Ifa member of the Petaluma Community Development Commission wishes to speak from .the floor as -a private citizen, this would -be -permitted under the Fair Political Practices Commission's rules. Mr. Hudson further stated that even though the rule is an unpopular.one, he would advise the Commissioners to adhere to it in order to protect themselves and to protect the'process of redevelopment. If a plan is adopted,.there will be certain points where some of the Commissioners could vote on the matter. Mr. Hudson stated as the Commission gets further into the process, the matter may become even more complicated.` Speaking from the audience, Mr: Mattei stated he was not in complete disagreement with the advice of the Attorneys. However, he did feel the matter was being carried to extremes when Commissioner Brunner was not able to participate since he merely had a business in the Project Area and did not own property. He felt the Commission would, from time to time, find themselves in a .very difficult position as every vote would have to be unanimous, and all four persons eligible to sit on the dais would have to be in agreement on each decision. "Chairman Putnam then posed a hypothetical question to the General Counsel Matthew Hudson. She asked if perhaps both she and Commissioner Harberson suddenly acquired property in the Project Area, how would the Commission function with only two people on it. Mr. Hudson said he almost hoped this would happen because if the Commissioners found themselves in the position where a quorum would be disqualified, the other three members could resume their partici- pation and then all members could vote. The Executive Director Robert Meyer introduced the Special Counsel for the Community Development Commission, Mr. Joseph Coomes. Chairman Putnam advised the members of the audience that following the last meeting arrangements had been made for Commis- sioner Hilligoss, a member who could vote, and Commissioner Mattei, a member who -1- could not vote, to meet with'Mr. Coomes in order to Clarify'the situation. Mr. Coomes then stated he agreed with Mr. Hudson's statements and the manner in which he has analyzed the situation. Mr. Coomes stated he has appeared before the Fair Political Practices Commission, along with some City Attorneys and other legal Counsels, to try to have the Fair Political Practices Commission clarify their regulations. The matter of voting on projects does not solely relate to redevelop- ment plans. The problem exists in any major public project, and he stated it is a problem public officials are going to.have to adjust to and work with -under the new law. APPROVAL OF MINUMES AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS PCDC RES 410 The minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Petaluma Community Development Commission of April 5, 1976, were approved as mailed. PCDC Resolution #10 amending the By-laws Section 4 Quorum to read: "The powers of the agency shall be vested in the members thereof in office fromtime to time. Four members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes, provided that a smaller number may adjourn.from time to time until the quorum -is obtained. Unless otherwise required by law, action may be taken by the agency upon a vote of a majority of the members present at the time the vote is taken." was introduced by Commissioner Harberson, seconded by Commis- sioner Hilligoss, and adopted by five affirmative and two abstaining votes. Noted for the record is the fact that Commissioner Mattei was permitted to vote on this Resolution. REVIEW OF The preliminary draft, City of Petaluma Community Development REDEVELOPMENT Commission Central Business District Redevelopment Plan dated PLAN April 1976, was submitted to.the Recording Secretary and ordered filed. Deputy Director Frank Gray reviewed the Plan in its entirety; and, during the course of the review; several correc- tions and addendums were made to the preliminary draft plan. Mr. Gray stressed the fact the Plan the Commissioners were reviewing tonight was a preliminary plan, and he was asking for input from both the Petaluma Community Development Commission and the Planning Commission before the final draft plan was formulated. He also asked the Special Counsel Joseph Coomes to explain to the Community Development Commission and the Planning Commission the purpose of the documents which would-be reviewed by the Commission during the next several months. Mr. Coomes addressed both Commissions stating redevelopment is a process available under State Law for cities to undertake in eligible project areas. The eligibility of a prgj,ect area requir=es a finding be made that it is, -primarily a blighted area -- blight- meani eg� a combiT-anon of factors -such as econom=ic; social}` and= planning factors which may be found to exist in an area which impede normal development processes and require public assistance to provide redevelopment. One of the documents that will describe these characteristics.in the Project Area and what should be done to allevi- ate the problems is the report the Agency will prepare for submission to the City Council for consideration when public hearings would be held on the Plan. This report will go into such things as economic feasibility, relocation, and the con- ditions in the Project Area. The second report is the EIR which is required under State Law with respect to the Redevelopment Plan. Once having described the con- ditions in the Project Area which should be alleviated and corrected, the Redevelop- ment Plan is the instrument by which this is done. EIR format is typical to any other-pzepared under State Law. The main difference is the project is not specific but is a 25 -year plan to be contemplated and to have some degree.of flexibility. The RedevelopmentPlanitself is basically a legal document which, after adopted, will be recorded in the Recorder's Office and will -be part of the Land Records related to the Project Area. As a legal document it has three basic functions. The first is the delegation of power by; the ,City Council which adopts the Plan to the Commission to carry out-the.Plan. Under State Law, Redevelopment Agencies have varied powers to carry out and deal with.conditions in.the Project Area, including -2- REVIEW OF. undertaking public works and financing.them in the Project Area. REDEVELOPMENT Mr. Coomes -stated :there is a need for flexibility in this do.cu- PLAN CONT'D ment because:conditions will change in the Project Area, oppor- tunities for private investments will occur which cannot be predicted and if the Plan is too rigid, it would require constant amendments. If the Plan is too specific, the Commission would -run the.risk of inverse condemnation claims against the Plan. Mr.-Coomes stated the second basic function of the Redevelopment Plan is that of a land. -use document..'A Plan is necessary to correct the deficiencies in the Project,. but there has to be some assurance these -deficiencies will not reoccur. The third primary function of the Plan is the need for a financing mechanism, and the method of financing for redev- elopment is by tax increment. This makes funds available to -the. Commission for public financing in the Project by using those increased taxes which occur under the Plan or pursuant to the Plan.. If the Plan is a workable plan and stimulates privateinvestment;'that private investment will create the new taxes which are allocated to the Agency. The Plan is a charter to the Agency, a land use document, and an implementation of a development program for an area. It is not a planning document as you might see in a General Plan or planning studies that have been made. These activities will be done in conjunction with the Plan being implemented but , not part of the Plan. If the Redevelopment Plan is adopted, then the Agency could go into specific projects in the area. The Plan is to provide the powers and pro - Visions -for the Project Area, not to lay out a general plan scheme of what all the projects -will be. After Mr. Gray's review of the Redevelopment goals and objectives, Planning Commis- sioner Glenn Head questioned whether or not an economic report should;be made in order to determine if the increase in sales .tax would balance the tax increment payments. Mr. Gray indicated if redevelopment occurs properly, then the tax coffers would be increased by the increased assessed evaluation of .the property, increased salestax, and increased gasoline taxes. Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Coomes to respond to the tax increment financing, and Mr. Coomes stated if the primary source of funding is tax increment financing, the only.way it can be used is to borrow money to be repaid from the tax increment. It is his experience from prior projects that lenders apply more stringent tests to public agencies than private businesses for the repayment of the loans. Tax increment financing works as a check on the Project. Mr. Gray advised the Commissioners there will be a general economic analysis contained in the Project Report, and since the Plan -and the EIR do not speak about individual projects, each project will develop its own implementing financing - some through tax increment financing, some through assessment districts, and some may be done, through the present or future parking districts. Deputy Director Frank Gray then reviewed the concept of the Plan, and Mr._Coomes- made a suggestion a paragraph be added that these elements reflect the general concept and do not fix or limit the location of specific buildings, improvements, or land uses to be carried out by the Plan. He stressed the Plan should, in all respects, have some degree of flexibility. Chairman Putnam then asked that a reaffirmation of the definition of "blight" used in redevelopment be clarified for the public and also the fact the demoli.tion.of pieces of property be entirely explained so the public did not.feel the Agency intended to demolish several pieces or blocks of property within the Core Area. of the. City. She stressed it was important to keep the public informed and have a good system of public relations in order to clarify all matters being discussed. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN Mr. Gray then reviewed the implementation of the Plan which he described as the most important part of'the Plan. As the review progressed, Mr. Coomes was available to answer questions posed by members of boththePetaluma Community Development Commission and the Planning Commission members. One such question was on the acquisition,of -property wherein the Plan states the Commission,is authorized to acquire structures without acquiring the land upon which those structures are located. Mr. Coomes indicated this would allow the Agency to relocate, where necessary, or'rehabilitate a structure which has some historical designation. It'could lend assistance to the property owner who would not be financially able to demolish the structure, thus giving the Agency this power, but possession of -3- REVIEW OF the land would be retained by the property owner. A discussion REDEVELOPMENT ensued on the portion of the implementation regarding partici- PLAN -CONT'D pation by owners and tenants in the redevelopment projects by extending reasonable preferences to persons engaged in businesses in the Project Area to reenter in business within the Project Area if they meet the requirements prescribed'in the Plan. The question was raised whether or not this might result in some type of lawsuit. Mr. Coomes responded by explaining before public hearings are held and action is taken on the Plan, rules and regulations will have to be adopted for owner participation and owner reentry of businesses in the Project Area. Reasonable preferences would be whatever the Council determines. Mr. Coomes indicated property owners are to.have preferential standing in participating in the implementation of the Plan. Mr. Pray asked Mr. Coomes to explain the two typical types of agreement to be entered into with the property owners. Mr. Coomes stated there will be persons who want to develop in the Project'Area, with the Agency's cooperation and want an agreement to tie.those mutual obligations together. The other instance -would be where property owners want to develop property and acquire other property to expand and enter into an agreement. Mr. Coomes also stated there might be a third situation where property agreements would not be needed at all because the properties are c'onformiiig under the Redevelop- ment Plan. Under Section D of the implementation relating to relocation assistance, Deputy Director Frank Gray advised the Commission the language in this section is mandated by the State, and there is not much flexibility available to the Commission in pro- viding relocation assistance. Some questions were raised concerning the fact the Community Development Commission shall seek to provide comparable alternate loca- tions for business concerns and entities which are to be relocated. Mr. Coomes . stated relocation rules will be adopted, and, as property is acquired, they will be enforced. Most of the relocation assistance is mandated by State Law. Relo- cation expenses for homeowners and businesses shall be paid... Relocation cannot be done unless satisfactory housing for residential or comparable.sites for businesses can be acquired. Under the new Eminent Domain Law, businesses will be provided compensation for good will. Mr. Gray indicated he felt;it was important to point out that some of the limits written'in this section will never be reached as the Commission goes through the projects, but it is necessary to,establish those limits. Under Section E, "Other Actions As Appropriate," General Counsel Matthew Hudson asked if, as property acquired by the Commission is sold back to the tenant, could a clause be put into the agreement - "a covenant to maintain." Mr. Coomes responded it is being done at the present time, particularly if it is a special benefit being conferred by the Agency. Mr. Coomes also stated as;property is being sold by the Commission a 15 -day Notice of Public Hearing is required. Public bidding is not necessary; however, sales can be done by negotiation_ but have to be done in the open. Mr. Gray stated the property being sold need not be sold to the highest bidder. The Commission would have the discretion of selling.the land to the prospective owner on the merits of the intended use. Commissioner Hilligoss asked if it would be necessary to have a 2/3 vote; on the sale of property, and Mr. Gray responded it would be done through Eminent Domain. Planning Commissioner Horciza asked how the Commission would reach a decision on the value of the property. Mr. Coomes responded by stating, in dealing with -the acquisition of property, the Commission would have two appraisals made. The'Commission will be able to bring in technical assistance if it is required., Commissioner Head questioned whether it would not be advisable to advertise land which was available in the Redevelopment Area, stating it would not be necessary to attach a sale price to the land but that the Commission would entertain propo- sals. Deputy Director Frank Gray advised the Commission would have the opportunity to advertise in trade publications. Chairman Putnam stated she felt Commissioner Head's point was a valid one and the Commission as well as others needs to know the steps to follow in order to have a proper format -on the validity of procedures. Mr. Gray stated the sale of land in the area .would still be subject to the conditions, of the Zoning Ordinance of the City, use permits; and other normal procedures, so that they are not excluded from these types.of regulations.. Some discussion was held on the zoning which would apply to the Project Area, and Mr. Gray stated all new construction would have to comply with.state and local laws -4 REVIEW OF -in effect, including the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Coomes stated REDEVELOPMENT after the Plan is adopted,the Zoning Ordinance should be PLAN' CONT'D amended to conform with the Plan. Executive Director Robert Meyer questioned whether to make alterations, change a building, or build a building in the Project Area, would it be necessary for the applicant to go through site design review at the Planning Commission level as well as the Petaluma Community Development Commission level. Mr. Gray stated most cities delegate this authority to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coomes stated the rule in smaller cities was to delegate the authority to either the Planning Commission or the Community Development Commission. The Planning Director could make the initial determination of conformity with the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Gray further stated the Plan recommends that a specific design element be esta- blished for the Central Business District. Executive Director Robert Meyer raised the question whether it would be necessary for businesses to make application for all alterations including interior alterations where business may want to change a wall or office"space within a building. The matter was clarified by Mr. Coomes and Mr. Gray to change the language under G; DESIGNS STANDARDS, that the Commission "in cooperation with the Planning Commission may adopt procedures to review any new construction or development. ." Mr. Gray further stated the review primarily applies'to the exteriors of the buildings. METHODS OF FINANCING In response"to Commissioner Harberson's question whether or not the Federal Govern- ment should be included'as a source of funding, Mr. Gray responded by stating although the Project."Area will not depend upon Federal funds, it was felt to be advisable to "include the fact in the Plan because of the possibility of jeopardizing Federal funds available for community development projects such as the wheelchair ramps recently funded by a HUD grant. Mr. Gray suggested some changes to paragraph 2 on the second page of the METHODS OF FINANCING, General Statement. However, the Special Counsel, Mr. Coomes, recommended the paragraph be deleted in its entirety. The Executive Director then asked Mr. Coomes, to explain how the Project would be financed under the tax increment allocation. Mr. Coomes-stated the taxes levied each year on.the taxable property in the Project Area shall be allocated to the Commission to pay the interest on bonds, loans; or other indebtedness incurred by the Community Development Commission. There Are two dates to keep in mind which would determine when the taxes are allocated and the other when they would be paid. The assessed value established in the Project Area determines which taxes .go.to..the taxing agency and which go to the Commission. The assessment roll to be used is determined,by the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The last equalized 1. as roll on the date of the adoption of the Plan constitutes the base for the.Project. If the Plan is adopted on or before August,20, 1976, the assessment roll in effect for the 1975-76 fiscal year would be the base roll for the Project, and any increase in the assessed value in the Project Area'as of March 1976 would result in the tax base being allocated to the Agency. This base would be for the life of the Project. If the August 20, 1976, target date is not attained,.then th"e next year base roll (76-77 fiscal year) would be allocated to the Agency. If the Plan is adopted before January 1, 1977, the Agency would begin receiving funds as of July 1977. Mr. Coomes further stated the increment is pay- able to..the Commission only "if a debt has been incurred. If bonds are not issued and the City receives tax increment to repay finances by the City, it will be necessary to advance additional funds, thus creating a continual debt between the Agency and the City. ExecutiveDirector questioned whether the City was always going to have to finance the Agency, and Mr. Gray responded by stating it would have to do so up until the time the Agency issues bonds. Mr. Meyer then questioned whether the bonds could be used for operating the Agency, and Mr. Coomes replied in the affirmative. General.Counsel Matthew Hudson asked if the Agency could borrow funds from other sources, and Mr. Coomes indicated it could borrow from developers and from lenders plans but not�:initiate "them until the money was availableld who issue.bonds. Plannin Commissioner Glenn Head then asked if the Agency.could go ahead and make the pl Mr. Coomes stated this could lie done; however,when the Plan is adopted,`a certain momentum is created, and he felt the worst thing you could do would be to have the Plan adopted and not proceed with it. Deputy Director Frank Gray also pointed out -5- REVIEW OF tax increment financing is not the only method of financing REDEVELOPMENT the Project. He stated it would be possible to borrow money PLAN CONT'D against the supposition tax increment funds would be available to the City. The creation of a new parking district could also be used to finance certain portions of the district, and the City itself could, through some of its capital improvement projects, finance additional improvements in the area. In relation to, Mr. Head's question whether, or not the money could be saved until a sufficient amount was accumulated to com- plete a project, Mr. Meyer stated it was his under -standing, -from a prior meeting with Mr. Coomes, if there is not a project .in progress using the money, the funds are not forthcoming to the Agency.. Mr. Coomes stated many agencies which have not yet issued bonds have entered into agreements with cities. Commissioner Hilligoss questioned whether or not the loan from the city to the agency is an interest-free loan or could interest be charged on the loan. Mr. Coomes.responded by saying most cities charge interest. Mr. Gray then stated not all of the projects the Community Development Commission will be doing are public improvement projects. The Commission will be working in cooperation with private enterprise, and in this way will be getting the stimulation of private development where it has not occurred in the past This is one of the best definitions of "blight". Mr. Coomes stated the first repayment on the loan made by the City to the Agency under their contractual agreement would be the difference between the 1977-78 assessment roll and the current base roll. Mr. Gray stated, historically on projects of this type throughout the State, the actual time for repaying the indebtedness is approximately seven years. Commis- sioner Harberson suggested that since the City would not get the tax increment until January 1978, could the Agency borrow against the increment, use the money to purchase land, and resell it. Mr. Gray indicated this is one source of revenue the Agency would have. FINAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY Deputy Director Frank Gray reviewed the General Statement of actions to be taken by the City, and Mr. Meyer asked the question whether the actions as outlined would take priority over other projects in the City. Mr. Coomes responded by stating this was only a general statement of cooperation by the City to carry out the Plan. It is a statement of the things the City will do if feasible and capable of carrying out. Some discussion was held on Item4 under the General Statement in this Section 5 of the Plan regarding the enforcement for continued maintenance by owners. Mr. Coomes suggested the words,*" and provide for enforcement of," be removed from the paragraph and have the statement merely say, "the City and the Community Development Commission shall develop a program for continued maintenance by owners of all real property, both.public and private, within the Project Area throughout the duration of the Plan." This section is contained in the'General Statement in order to insure the area does not return to what is termed a "blighted" condition. The remaining sections of the Plan were merely reviewed by Mr. Gray, and there were no further comments. REVIEW Chairman Putnam asked Deputy Director Frank Gray because of OF EIR the length of the first document, The Redevelopment Plan, would it be necessary for the Commission to review the EIR at this time. Mr. Gray stated the EIR is a key document and must be,circulated by April 19, 1976. It would be sent to various agencies and departments for their comments to be incorporated in the final draft plan of the document. He asked the Commissioners to thoroughly review the document for their consideration on April 19. Planning Commissioner Horciza asked what the Planning Commission's functions would be with regard to the EIR, and Mi. Gray responded both the EIR and the Redevelopment Plan would be forwarded to the Planning Commis- sion for their review; they will make comments on both documents, and the Redevelop- ment Plan, with the.Planning Commission's comments, will be forwarded to the Council. The Environmental Impact Report is the document of the Community Development Commis- sion which will be referred to the Planning Commission and`the City Council. In summary, the Planning Commission would make their comments on the' Redevelopment Plan to the City Council and their comments on. the EIR to the Community Development Commission. Mr. Coomes further advised the Planning Commission would-be charged =6- 111 REVIEW with making one legal finding, i.e., the Redevelopment Plan OF EIR conforms to the General Plan of the City and also make any CONY D other comments on the Redevelopment Plan. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Attest: , IWJI Chairman