Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 1 02/28/2000
9 4 I (:ITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA � AGENDA. BILL Agenda Title:eetin Date: P.C.D.C.: Adopt Resolution and Adopt Report re: Proposed PCD 28 February 2000 Plan Amendment, Submitting the Report, the Proposed Amendment and Negative Declaration Relating Thereto to the City Council, and Consenting to and Requesting that the City Council call a Joint Hearing on said Amendment Department: City Manaeer: Contact Perso,�n;,9� Phone Number: Office of the City Mgr. Fred Stouder ,_- at /MarangeJT 707) 778 -4345 Cost of Proposal: Amount Budgeted: Not applicable at this time Account Number: 902 Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Report to Planning Commission January 11, 2000 2. Planning Commission Minute Excerpt from January 11,2000 3. Report to Planning Commission January 25, 2000 4. Planning Commission Minute Excerpt from January 25, 2000 5. Letter from Bryant Moynihan dated January 25, 2000 to Planning Commission 6. Resolution 7. Draft Plan Amendment Project Report Summary Statement: A recent review of the Redevelopment Agency concluded, among other recommendations, that the large Petaluma Community Development Project Area Plan be amended to provide a clearer definition of the bonding capacity and the tax increment cap of the Project Area. The City has retaining services of Seifel & Associates, et al to assist with the proposed Plan Amendment. This Amendment, when adopted, will allow the Redevelopment Agency to move forward on needed bond issuance to further the goals of the Commission in meeting the long -term goals of the Redevelopment Agency. Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF, OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR MORE OF THE 1999 -2000 PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30, 1999. Not applicable Recommended P.C.D.C. Action: Adopt Resolution Approving and Adopting the Report to the City Council of the Proposed Amendment of the Petaluma Community Development Redevelopment Plan, Submitting the Report, the Proposed Amendment and Negative Declaration Relating Thereto to the City Council, and Consenting to and Requesting that the City Council Call a Joint Hearing on said Amendment. Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed by City Attorney: Reviewed by City Manager: Date: Date: e; Today's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File C de: ## 17 February 2000 9 4 I CITY OF PETALUMA9 CALIFORNIA AGENDA REPORT FOR 28 FEBRUARY 2000 PROPOSED PCD TEXT AMENDMENT 1. ExECUTIVE SUMMARY: The P.C.D.C. and City Council have indicated a strong desire to amend the Petaluma Community Development Project Area Plan to incorporate clearer language regarding the capacity of the Agency to issue bonds for needed and desired community projects. Our Consultant, Seifel and Associates, has prepared the proposed text amendment. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and adopt a Resolution approving and adopting the report to the City Council on the Proposed Amendment to the Petaluma Community Development/Redevelopment Plan, to submit the Proposed Amendment and Negative. Declaration to the City Council, and consenting to and requesting that the City Council call a joint hearing on said Amendment. 2. BACKGROUND: The Redevelopment Agency anticipated issuing tax allocation bonds last year to fund several major projects and programs, as previously approved by the Commission and City. Upon reviewing the history and status of the Redevelopment Agency, the Commission was advised by the consultant that it would be appropriate to amend the Redevelopment Plan to better clarify the bonding capacity of the Project Area. Attached you will find he proposed Plan Amendment, along with the Negative Declaration regarding same, and the Report regarding the need for the Amendment. A Resolution as been provided in which the Commission can accept and approve the report and recommend to the Council the calling of a joint hearing between the Council and Commission on said Amendment. As identified in the Implementation Plan, the Commission has identified numerous projects it wishes to accomplish over the remaining We of the Agency to promote economic and social growth in the community. These proposed projects range from seismic retrofit of unreinforced buildings (URM) to withstand potential future earthquakes, circulation and other infrastructure improvements, to environment enhancements to allow pedestrian and other access to Petaluma's unique river front areas as proposed in the River Enhancement Plan and being considered in the development of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, currently being readied for Council consideration. California Redevelopment Agencies are dependent upon debt financing to carry out their objective of enhancing economic development and attracting private investment in the Project Area. Tax Increment, which is developed from the increase in property value from investment by both the private and public sectors, is the basis for the payment of debt and the funding of desired programs and projects. 3. ALTERNATIVES: Not Proceed With the Amendment. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Failure to approve the proposed adoption to the Redevelopment Plan would result in higher interest rates on any bonds issued. Estimates based on a $15,000,000 bond issuance have been made that failure to modify the Plan could result in additional interest payments on the bonds as high as $150,000 per year depending on the rating of the bonds. Over ten years, that could mean an additional $1,500,000 in interest. 5. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the proposed Plan language could increase the funds available for identified projects by $1,500,000, based on a bond issuance of $15,000,000. Additionally, without the revenue advanced from the proposed bond issue, the Commission will not have sufficient funds to undertake any additional projects and, in fact, would not be able to meet its current obligations due primarily to the extraordinary costs associated with the Payran Area Flood Project; currently being completed by the US Corps of Engineers. 6. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Amendment be Adopted as Proposed so that we can proceed with the bond issuance as soon as possible. Attachments: 1. Report to Planning Commission January 11, 2000 2. Planning Commission Minute Excerpt from January 11,2000 3. Report to Planning Commission January 25, 2000 4. Planning Commission Minute Excerpt from January 25, 2000 5. Letter from Bryant Moynihan dated January 25, 2000 to Planning Commission 6. Resolution 7. Draft Plan Amendment Project Report C.C. ��AcumEti -� #I 1 To:. Planning Commission Agenda Item No. III 2 From: Office of the City Manager — General Plan Administration 3 Date: 11 January 2000 4 5 Action: Recommend to the City Council/Petaluma Community Development 6 Commission: 1) Adoption of a Negative Declaration for Approval of Text 7 Amendments to The Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community 8 Development Project; 2) Finding that the proposed Text Amendments conform to 9 the Petaluma General Plan; and, 3) recommend approval and adoption of the 10 proposed Amendments. i l Project: Amendment of the text of the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma, Community 12 Development Project to provide clarification of terms, including the maximum 13 amount of bonded indebtedness the Community Development Commission (the 14 "CDC ") may incur and the maximum amount of taxes that may be allocated to the 15 CDC (formerly calculated by a prescribed formula). The Redevelopment Area 16 boundaries are indicated on the attached map, Exhibit 1. 17 18 PROJECT SUMMARY . 19 Project Manager: Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration, Office of the ty ,. oo Manager �v4 Project Applicant: City of Petaluma/Petaluma Community Development Commission 22 23 Property Owners: various 24 Nearest Cross Street to Project Site: See attached map exhibit 25 Property Size: Project area contains approximately 2,740 acres of which approximately 2,265 26 acres are privately owned (shown on the attached map, Exhibit 1). 27 28 Site Characteristics: Central corridor of the City of Petaluma., physical settings vary from the 29 Petaluma River corridor to highway frontage, from vacant residential land to heavy industrial 30 uses. 31 32 Existing Use: Various land uses exist within the project area ranging from vacant to fully 33 developed parcels (open space, residential, commercial and industrial). 34 Proposed Use: same 35 36 Current Zoning: Various zoning designations are contained within the project area from 37 residential (R -1, 6500, R -C, R -M -G, PUD) and office /commercial (C -N, C -C, C -H, C -O, Study, 38 PUD and PCD) to industrial (M -L, M -G), as well as Public Parks (both developed and proposed) 39 and development - constrained lands designated as Floodplain Combining and Floodway. 40 Proposed Zoning: same 41 r, Q Current General Plan Land Use: The project includes low to high- density residential, commercial, industrial, open space, and Floodway. 44 Proposed General Plan Land Use: same 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PLANNING CONIIvIISSION Redevelopment Plan Text Amendments/Negative Declaration 11 January 2000 Page 2 Subsequent Actions if, Negative Declaration and Text Amendments are Recommended for Approval: The City Council/Petaluma Community Development Commission will consider the approval and adoption of the proposed text amendments to the Redevelopment Plan and the Negative Declaration related thereto. RECOMMENDATIONS _ Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward its recommendation to the City Council/Petaluma Community Development Commission to: 1) Adopt a Negative Declaration for Approval of Text Amendments to The Redevelopment Plan (see Initial Study, Exhibit 2); 2) Adopt a finding that the proposed Text Amendments conform to the Petaluma General Plan; and, 3) Recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments (Exhibit 2.13.). t ti PLANNING COMNIISSION 11 January 2000 Redevelopment Plan Text Amendments/Negative Declaration Page 3 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 4 RECOMMENDATION REQUESTED 5 6 Recommend approval and adoption of the proposed amendments of the text of the 7 Redevelopment Plan (see Exhibit 2.B.) for the Petaluma Community Development Project, and 8 the Negative Declaration and General Plan conformity findings related thereto. The amendments 9 are proposed to provide clarification of terms, including the maximum amount of bonded to indebtedness the Community Development Commission (the "CDC ") may incur and the 11 maximum amount of taxes that may be allocated to the CDC. The two amounts were formerly 12 calculated by a prescribed formula, which was difficult to calculate and comprehend. The 13 clarification of terminology will avoid a potential for multiple interpretations. The figures to be 14 contained within the new text will provide for the formula as originally intended with past annual 15 inflation figures brought current. 16 17 SETTING 18 19 The Petaluma Community Development project area includes approximately 2,740 acres of land, 20 approximately 2,265 acres of which are privately owned. The project area is located generally along both sides of U. S. Highway 101 from Old Redwood Highway to Washington Street, the -2 southwest side of U.S. 101 Highway from Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South and east 23 of U.S. Highway 101 to the "Haystack Landing" area. The district also encompasses 5 miles +/- 24 of the Petaluma River and Willowbrook Creek of which a majority parallels U.S. Highway 101. 25 Portions of major traffic arteries including Petaluma Boulevard North and South, North 26 McDowell Boulevard, East Washington Street and Lakeville Street are also included within or 27 form the boundary of the District (please see Exhibit 1). 28 29 The project area encompasses the majority of the business park and industrial uses in the 30 community and the four major retail centers: Washington Square Shopping Center and Petaluma 31 Plaza North and South, the Petaluma Village Premium Factory Outlets, and portions of the 32 `Downtown Area. The Redevelopment Area also includes many public and institutional uses. 33 There is a significant amount of vacant and/or under- utilized land within the district, which was 34 identifying as offering a good deal of redevelopment and development potential. 35 36 BACKGROUND 37 38 The project area was established in 1988. The PCD's major project subsequent to its creation 39 was the development of the Auto Plaza. Additionally, the district contributed to preliminary 40 planning, engineering, and land acquisition for the Petaluma River, Payran Reach Flood Control 41 project. In addition, program planning, engineering and environmental review for the previously 42 planned Rainier Interchange /Overpass project was partially funded. In the past the Commission „- 3 had indicated their intent to support these two major capital projects with at least $5,000,000. 44 Last, the Commission has contributed funds toward the development of the Central Petaluma and 45 Corona Reach Specific Plans. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 PLANNING COIvMSSION 11 January 2000 Redevelopment Plan Text Amendments/Negative Declaration Page 4 The goals and objectives of the Project Area Plan, as originally adopted, in Ordinance No. 1725 N.C.S. were: 1. Eliminate the conditions of blight existing in the area included within the redevelopment project area boundaries of the Project Area; 2. Ensure to the greatest possible extent that the causes of blighting conditions in the areas included within the Project Area will be either eliminated or protected against; 3. Provide participation opportunities for owner and business tenants in the areas included in the Project Area subject to the overall redevelopment objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; 4. Encourage and ensure the redevelopment of the areas in the Project Area; 5. Encourage and foster the economic revitalization of the areas included in the Project Area; 6. Finance and construct the public improvements described in Section IV (F) (2) of the Redevelopment Plan; and 7. Implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan of the City of Petaluma, California. STAFF ANALYSIS General Plan Consistency: The proposed text amendments do not modify the City's balance of land use designations. The future tax increment funds will be available, if so prioritized by the Commission, for the construction of improvements to further implement the General Plan or adopted Specific Plans for lands within the Redevelopment Project Area. The required 20% of the property tax increment that is set aside for Housing Fund projects is utilized for implementing the various housing goals and programs within the General Plan. Zoning District Consistency: The proposed text amendments to clarify the maximum bond indebtedness and the maximum amount of taxes that may be allocated from a prescribed formula to a specific dollar amount will have no impact to the zoning designations of the various parcels within the Redevelopment Area. Consistency with Any Other Adopted Plans: The text amendments, as described above, do not adversely affect the implementation of any adopted plans. i PLANNING CONMSSION 11 January 2000 Redevelopment Plan Text Amendments/Negative Declaration Page 5 PUBLIC COMMENTS 3 The attached notice (Exhibit 3) was mailed, on December 17, 1999, to property owners and 4 occupants of all parcels within the Redevelopment Area (pursuant to Section 15105 of the 5 California Environmental Quality Act, a minimum of twenty days notice is provided). In 6 addition the notice was published in the local paper and provided to the County Clerk for 7. posting. 8 9 To date one written comment has been received (see Exhibit 4). If any additional comments are 10 received between distribution of this report and the Planning Commission meeting, they will be 11 provided to the Commission at the hearing. Comments received subsequent to the Planning 12 Commission consideration of the Negative Declaration will be included in the recommendation 13 forwarded. to the City Council/Community Development Commission. 14 15 ENVIRONMENTAL REV1`EW 16 17 Pursuant to the requirements of Article 6, Negative Declaration Process, of the California 18 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), an Initial Study of potential environmental 19 impacts was prepared. The Initial Study demonstrated that,. because the project (adoption of text 20 amendments to the Redevelopment Plan) does not involve a change in use or the specific 11 development of properties there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. It is therefore recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 23 A copy of the Initial Study is attached to this report (see Exhibit 2). 24 25 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 26 27 Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City 28 Council/Community Development Commission, as follows, based upon the findings set forth 29 below: 30 31 1) Adopt a Negative Declaration for Approval of Text Amendments to The 32 Redevelopment Plan (see Initial Study, Exhibit 2); 33 2) Adopt a finding that the proposed Text Amendments conform to the Petaluma. 34 General Plan; and, 35 3) Recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments (Exhibit 2.B.). 36 37 Negative Declaration Findings: 38 39 1. That based upon the Initial. Study prepared for the project of amending the 40 Redevelopment Plan text there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a 41 significant effect on the environment. 42 2. That the proposed Redevelopment Plan text amendments will not be detrimental to the 44 public health, safety or welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 PLANNING CONMSSION Redevelopment Plan Text Amendments/Negative Declaration 11 January 2000 Page 6 keeping with the general intent and spirit of the land use and development policies and regulations of the City and is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. 3. That the text amendments do not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it has no direct or indirect impact to the resources as defined in the Code. 4. That the text amendments do not directly affect any site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 5. That the proposed Redevelopment Plan text amendments are deemed to be in the public interest. 6. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the text amendments. 7. That the proposed text amendments have been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. 8. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma, Office of the City Manager, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California. General Plan Consistency Findings: 1. Pursuant to Section 33453 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project conforms to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma; and 2. Pursuant to Section 6542 of the Government Code, with respect to activities that may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the Amendment and that are referred to in said section, such activities and undertakings conform to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1: Location Map Exhibit 2: Initial Studv 2.A. Existing Text, Subdivision VI.E. of the Redevelopment Plan, portions to be deleted illustrated by overstrike text. 2.B. Proposed Text, Subdivision VI. E. of the Redevelopment Plan. Exhibit 3: Public Notice Exhibit 4: Public Comment: Bryant R. Moynihan h. pt/ Redevelopment /ReportstPC011100amendlVegDec L-A b i Q W W ao o o� o= '+- W LU s a �o W ...E D W az o� v� Q F- cu a z City oT Peiaiun a Initial Study of Environmental Significance Planning Department 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 = Introduction: This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq) and the CEQA Guidelines. Additional information incorporated by reference herein includes: the project application, environmental information questionnaire, environmental review data sheet, project referrals, staff report, General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, and other applicable planning documents (i. e. , Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan, Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage Plan, specific plans, etc.) on file at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Site Address: See attached map exhibit APIA: various (see attached map) Posting Date: December 17, 1999 Comments Due: January 10, 2000 Lead Agency Contact: Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration Phone: (707) 778 -4345 Applicant: City of Petaluma 1 Petaluma Community Development Commission Phone: (707) 775 -4345 Property Owner: various (see attached map and accompanying property list) Project Description: Amendment of the text of the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project to provide clarification of terms, including the maximum amount of bonded indetedness the Community Development Commission (the "CDC") may incur and the maximum amount of taxes that may be allocated to the CDC (formerly calculated by a prescribed formula). Environmental Setting: Central corridor of the City of Petaluma, settings vary from river corridor to highway frontage, from vacant residential land to heavy industrial uses (please refer to attached map exhibit of redevelopment area). Responsibie/Trustee Agencies: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors will review and take action to approve the negotiated agreement on the tax increment allocation. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1. Land Use & Planning 7. Noise _ 13. Utilities Infrastructure 2. Population, Employment & Housing_ 8. Visual Quality & Aesthetics _ 14. Mineral Resources 3. Geology & Soils 4. Air 5. Hydrology & Water Quality 6. Biological Resources 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 15. Cultural Resources 10. Transportation/Traffic 11. Public Services 12. Recreation 16. Agricultural Resources 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance t Project Name: Amendment.to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Page 2 ® Determination R I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration will be prepared, distributed and posted for the public comment period of December 17, 1999 through January 10, 2000. Prepared by: Pamela A Tuft Name Director of General Plan Administration Title Sign&ure Date Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Page 3 ■ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question: A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A no impact answer should be explained where it is based in project - specific factors as well as general standards, i.e., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including: ofd site as well as on -site cumulative, project - level indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses" may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration pursuant to Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting' Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project ■ Environmental Analysis Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 4 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated VN X X Discussion: The proposed text amendments to the Redevelopment Plan do not conflict with any adopted land use plans or policies. Future tax increment revenue may be utilized, at the discretion of the Petaluma Community Development Commission, to undertake capital improvements toward implementing goals set forth in current or future adopted General Plan, Specific Plan or - apital, Improvement Programs. Mitigation Measures /Monitoring: None required. Population. Employment and Housing. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers ofpeople necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1a F X Discussion: Adoption of the proposed text amendments to the Redevelopment Plan will not induce the development of additional housing, nor will it displace current residents thereby necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing. Future tax increment funds may be utilized to fund portions of the Petaluma River Payran Reach Flood Project thereby reducing environmental impacts to existing housing units. Mitigation Measures /Monitoring: None required. 3. Geology and Soils. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? f. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? g. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? I The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? L Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? j. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? k. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? e5 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact wlMitigation Impact X Incorporated X Discussion: The proposed text amendments will have no direct or indirect impacts to the geology and soils conditions within Petaluma. Mitigation Measures /Monitoring: None required. X X X X X X X X X X X X X Discussion: The proposed text amendments will have no direct or indirect impacts to the geology and soils conditions within Petaluma. Mitigation Measures /Monitoring: None required. Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Pacie 6 4. Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact wlMitigation Impact Incorporated Air. Where available, the significance of criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X M E4 91 Nscussion: The text amendment to provide clarification of the bond and tax increment caps will not result in adverse impacts to the air quality within the Petaluma basin. Mitigation Measures/MonitorinQ: None required. 5. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course ofa stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off -site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? M X M M X Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? Paae 7 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated M X M IA 0 Discussion: The text amendment to provide clarification of the bond and tax increment caps will not result in adverse impacts to the water quality or a change in hydrologic flow patterns within the Petaluma basin. .Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 6. Biological Resources. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? C. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. X F X M M Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat I I I I I Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Page 8 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: Existing biological resources, within the Petaluma area, will not be adversely affected by the proposed text amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. Future tax increment funds may be utilized to implement a variety of adopted community enhancement plans, including but not limited to the River Enhancement Plan. Mitigation Measures /MonitorinE: None required. 7. Noise. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proj ect? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? M X X X N/A IMM Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the tax increment and bonding capacities will not result in an increase of noise impacts within Petaluma. Mitigation Measures/Monitorin t None required. Visual Quality and Aesthetics. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? " M C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or I I I I I X Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Page 9 quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w(Mitigation Impact accident conditions involving the release of hazardous Incorporated materials into the environment? C. Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the tax increment and bonding capabilities will not result in adverse impacts to the visual quality or aesthetics within Petaluma. Mitigation Measures /Monitoring: None required. 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? I►t X M FN N/A N/A EN km Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the tax increment and bonding capacities will not result in an increase to potential significant hazards or the release ofhazardous emissions within the Petaluma Redevelopment Plan Area. The Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project e10 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact X Incorporated X existence of a specific identified hazardous site within the Redevelopment Area is not directly affected by the text amendment. Future development of any known site, with or without the use of tax increment or bond revenues, will be undertaken in accordance with the applicable regulations. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 10. Trans portation/Trafic. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation, i.e., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the tax increment and bonding capacities will not result in adverse impacts to the traffic patterns or road capacity within the Petaluma basin. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 11. Public Services. a. Would the,project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? X M X X X X X X X Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the tax increment and bonding capacities will not result in adverse impacts to the traffic patterns or road capacity within the Petaluma basin. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 11. Public Services. a. Would the,project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? X M Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project Page 11 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Discussion: The text amendment will not result in adverse impacts to public services within the City of Petaluma. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 12. Recreation. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion on recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 X Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the tax increment and bonding capacities will not result in adverse impacts to the recreational facilities within the City of Petaluma. Mitigation Measures/Monitorin : None required. 13. Utilities Infrastructure. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X X X X X f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity I I I I X Project Name: Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Page 12 Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar specific limitation to the tax increment and bonding capacities will not result in adverse impacts to the utilities infrastructure within the Petaluma area. Public improvement projects that may, in the future, be funded Mitigation Measures/MonitorinE: None required. 14. Mineral Resources. Would the project: a. Result in the loss or availability of a known mineral resource that would be or value to the region and the residents or the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery size delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Ito X Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the bonding capacity will not result in adverse impacts to the mineral resources within the Petaluma area. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 15. Cultural Resources. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X X X X Discussion: Any cultural resources located within the Redevelopment area would be preserved through the City's development review processes. Mitigation Measures /Monitoring: None required. 16. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland F-7 Project Name: Amendment to the,Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? 9..- Potential Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact w/Mitigation Impact Incorporated X Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the bonding capacity will not result in adverse impacts to the agricultural resources within the Petaluma area. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Yes No a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? M F� 0 Discussion: The text amendment to provide a dollar limitation to the bonding capacity will not result in cumulative adverse impacts to the quality of the environment within the Petaluma area. Mitigation Measures /Monitoring: None required. Received: '10/27/�;9 14:39; 916 444 3826 -> SEIFEL ASSOCIAt''S; Page 2 19/27/99 WED 14: 24 FU 916 44t�� ;26 M H & A Q002 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROTECT The Redevelopment Plan ( ",Redevelopment Plan ") for the Petaluma Community Development Project ( "Project ") adopted July 18, 1988, by Ordinance No. 1725NCS, and amended _. , by Ordinance No. ` is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision VI.E. of the Redevelopment Plan is amended, to read as follows: "E. Limitations 1. �.eni+eeY� NOW ME a�ra�= m.�',arracRr' sear _ts71"saT,�l�'el�TlS�:'R�1:7 �1T.ELS!!'!i w�lal :LL�.In� —w7•w � -nom YwT1.11bwYa—i�— .a�w.w � —_ PET /Amd /PCDP 10/27/99 Received: 10/27/99 14 :39; 916 444 3826 -> SEIFEL ASSOCIATES; Page 3 10/27/99 WED 14:24 FAX 916 4• 3826 H H & A 2. No loan, advance or indebtedness to finance in whole or in part the Redevelopment Project and payable in whole or in part from tax increment revenues shall be established after a date fifteen (15) years from the effective date of the ordinance approving and adopting 4^ las1 .fn d r'' to this Plan. 3. The principal amount of Bonds representing tax allocation bonded indebtedness issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33640 et seq., exclusive of; (i) other Commission subordinated contractual obligations; (ii) other forms of indebtedness, which can be outstanding at any one time and payable in whole or in part from tax allocations attributable to the Redevelopment Project shall be limited to EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS. ($80,000,000) -" if a~4a L^ {'^ E - PET /Amd /FCDP 2 10/27/99 tr.A M 01/03/06 ATOM 11:38 VAX 8399104 14C DONOUGA- OAKLAND i to 002 AMENDMENT TO THE R.ELIEVELOPI' VIENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT V The Redevelopment Plan ( "Redevelopment Plan ") , for the Petaluma* Community Development Project ( „Project ") adopted July 18, 1.988, by Ordinance No. 1725NCS, and airiended by Ordinance No. is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision VI.E. of the Redevelopment Plan is amended to read as follows: "E. Limitations L The taxes ,allocated to the Agency pursuant to subdivision VI.B,2. of this Plan shall not exceed a curntdative total of DOLLARS( ) 2. No loan, advance or indebtedness to finance in whole or iiq part the Redevelopment Project and payable in whole or in part from tax incre -ment revenues shall be established after a date fifteen (15) years from the effective date of the ordinance approving and adopting fhi,� Plan. 3. The principal amount of Bonds representing tax allocation bonded indebtedness issued pursuant to Health and Safety 'ode Section 33640 et seq., exclusive of: (i) other Comr fission subordinated contractual obligations; (ii) other forms of indebtedness, -,,vhich can be outstanding at any one time and payable in whole or in part from tax allocations attributable to the Redevelopment Project shall be limited to EIGATY MILLION DOLLARS ($80,000,000)." 4. As used in this subsection E., the taxes allocated to the Agency pursuant to subdivision VT B 2. of this Plan shall not include: f a) the Agency's share of the County of Sonoma's cosL4 to 2cimini.rtPr r?ionprfv hqy,, C- nr flil nac¢ Firnyrr}i c: a l � PD'T /Amts /PC DP I^ EXk I�rr 2t� CITY OF PETALUMA 11 English Street Petaluma; CA 94952 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ADOPTION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPiYIENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The City of Petaluma has conducted an Initial Study for the project referenced below.. Copies of the Initial Study, text amendment details and supporting information are available at the City of Petaluma, Office of the City Manager, 11 English Street, P 0 Box 61, Petaluma, CA 94953. PROJECT TITLE: Amendment to the text of the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project LOCATION: The Project area totals 2,265 acres and is shown on the map on the reverse side of this notice. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment of the text of the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project to provide clarification of terms, including the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness the Community Development Commission (the "CDC ") may incur and the maximum amount of taxes that may be allocated to the - CDC (formerly calculated by a prescribed formula). On the basis of the Initial Study and the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the CDC and the City Council of the City of Petaluma will consider a determination that there is no substantial evidence that the text amendment would have a significant affect on the environment. COMMENTS REQUESTED: The public review period for this Notice of Intent begins on December 20, 1999 and ends at 5:00 pm on January 10, 2000. Written comments on the proposed text amendments, Initial Study or Negative Declaration are invited and should be sent to the attention of Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Adminiszration, Office of the City Manager, by 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January l 0th, 2000, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDNIENTS: The environmental documents and any comments received will be considered by the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 11th, 2000 at 7 pm. The Commission's recommendation on the adoption of the Negative Declaration will be forwarded to the CDC and the City Council, who will consider approval of the Negative Declaration and the Amendment of the text of the Redevelopment Plan at a joint public hearing, tentatively scheduled for Nfonday, February 21, 2000. These meetings and all regularly scheduled meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council can be seen on AT &T Cable Channel 28. Efforts will be made to accommodate the disabled. The City Manager's office must be notified at (707) 778 -4345 within five days from date of publication and mailing of this notice if you need s ial accommodations. Assistant Director 'etaluma Community Development Commission 2x 4 1 C,-.-.) i -r 3 - Z 0 0 J Q v Q W a 0 oy i; UI Q W Q W O O a z 'W CL O J W a z 0 v J F- W C6 December 22, 1999 Mr. Frederic Stouder, City Manager: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Mr. Stouder: la I received a copy of the NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ADOPTION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUNIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT and read the notice in the local newspaper. However, when I requested the text amendment details and supporting information from your office, I was told that the information was not available. Additionally, it does not appear that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study nor made a report, nor given recommendations contrary to the Public Notice. I am concerned about the long term impacts this course of action has on my community. I am requesting that copies of all written materials be made available to the public and that I receive a copy. I am also requesting that once the information is available to the public that the project be re- noticed to allow everyone adequate time to review the amendment and seek a legal opinion if necessary. I will outline my concerns in detail once this has been done. I look forward to your written response. Sincerely, Bryant R. Mo nihan P.O. Box C Petaluma, CA 94953 E-X4(6-i T'-- Planning Commission Minutes — January 11, 2000 p,. L U City of Petaluma, California City Council Chambers R� a City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail planning(-a,ci.petaluma.ca.us Web Page http: / /wtivw.ci.petaluma.ca.us 1 2 Planning Commission Minutes EXCERPT 3 January 11, 2000 - 7:00 PM 4 5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Broad, Cader- Thompson, Feibusch, Glass, 6 Vieler 7 8 * Chairperson 9 10 Staff: Hans Grunt, Associate Planner 11 Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration 12 Irene Borba, Associate Planner 13 Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician 14 15 16 111. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY 17 COUNCIL /PETALUMA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION relative to 18 proposed Text Amendments to Subdivision VI.E. of the 19 Redevelopment Plan to provide clarification of terms, including the 20 maximum amount of bonded indebtedness and the maximum 21 amount of taxes that may be allocated, as follows: 22 23 1 . finding that the proposed Text Amendments to the Redevelopment 24 Plan could not have a significant adverse effect on the 25 environment, therefore adoption of a Negative Declaration is 26 appropriate; and 27 2. finding that the `proposed Text Amendment conforms to the 28 Petaluma General Plan; and 29 3. recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments. 30 31 Pamela Tuft presented the staff report. 32 33 The public hearing was opened: 34 35 SPEAKERS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Planning Commission Minute - January 11, 2000 Commissioner Feibusch - Who makes up the PCDC? (answer, City Council). Commissioner Glass - Defining revenues? Will we ever spend $80 Million? Chair Bennett - Concerns that this didn't go through Planning? Pamela Tuft - There was no Planning staff available with redevelopment experience to undertake completion of the environmental review at this time. Chair Bennett - Why couldn't it wait for Planning staff? Being prepared by the General Plan Administrator implies an impact to the General Plan. Pamela Tuft - Redevelopment has been managed by the Assistant City Manager for many years. Jack Balshaw - It is inappropriate to issue a Negative Declaration in light of the Sierra Madre case, even though this does not concern a project, it will have an extremely significant impact - this is not changing anything, maximum amount of taxes allocated is not being determined; some confusion; biggest concern is technically PCDC could borrow entire $80 Million, this will allow redevelopment bonding capabilities to be used up in one or two instances, there will not be any more bonding capability left; maximum taxes not being established - this is not a simple text change. Commissioner Glass - Defined Redevelopment Agency Bond; (to Mr. Balshaw) If we're changing wording, I'm missing what you're saying, please clarify. In order to issue a redevelopment bond, blight must be determined; we're well within technical framework. Jack Balshaw - This proposal will not do the two things that the staff report says needs to be done; definition is being changed; even though there is no physical project being done, funds can be obligated - may be unable to provide environmental protection; more significant than just a language change. Bryant Moynihan - Numbers are trying to be increased, bonding capacity far less; technical change - number of goals of General Plan - environmental factors affected - land use /planning/utility infrastructure; PCDC most important funding source to implement several plans; does not believe funds will be available; fiscal position of City is getting worse; City doesn't have funds for an emergency situation; may be in conflict with public interest; documents were not available until January 7, requires more time to review; General Plan Consistency Findings are even more complicated; no PCDC adopted budget, no CIP; finding of urban blight necessary - this hasn't been done; $12 Million more expended than taken in; funds have been borrowed because of Payran Flood Fix - Zone 2A didn't come up with $18 Million - only $5 Million, (displayed a spread sheet showing bonding capacity, balance of funds if $20 Million); shortfall for Payran will come out of this; how does this fit into other goals? This is a request to raise our credit limit. Geoff Cartwright - Rainier proponents always want to take development funds. Gene Beatty - This was initially intended to be out for bonds in May. Consensus was reached to continue this item to the January 25a' Planning Commission Meeting. N i Planning Commission Minutes — January 11, 2000 1 Commissioner Glass — Petaluma is rated A -3 /A -, there are very few communities 2 rated higher in the State of California. 3 Commissioner Broad — Clarify public review period adequacy. 4 Commissioner Feibusch — I need clarification — if redevelopment money goes to 5 Payran project, don't we need to make findings? 6 Gene Beatty — We will be sure to have consultants available at the January 250, 7 meeting to answer all questions. 8 3 P' L U�r CITY OF PETALUMA CALIFORNIA r 8 5 $ MEMORANDUM City Manager's OfficelGeneral Plan Administration, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778 -4345 Fax (707) 778 -4419 E -mail: genezplan(ii!ci.petaluma. ca. us DATE: 20 January 2000 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Pamela A Tuft, Director of General Plan Administratio'i��aa Michael Moore, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendments to The Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project PROJECT Amendment to the text of the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project to provide clarification of terms, including the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness the Community Development Commission (the "CDC ") may incur and the maximum amount of taxes that may be allocated to the CDC (formerly calculated by a prescribed formula). BACKGROUND The proposed text amendment was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at the meeting of January 1 I`". Due to the late hour and a number of outstanding questions from the Commissioners and two citizens, the item was continued. City management staff assured the Commission that the bond counsel and redevelopment consultant would attend the continued meeting to respond to all questions. COMMISSION COMMENTS At the Planning Commission meeting of January 11 th, several questions were raised on the purpose of the text amendment, the role of the Planning Commission in the review of the proposal, the preparation of the report through the City Manager's office, and the reasons for the proposed clarification of terms within the Redevelopment Plan. The redevelopment consultant and advisory legal counsel to the PCDC will attend the ` th Commission meeting on January 25 to address all questions. PLANNING COMMISSION Re: PCDC text amendment PUBLIC COMMENTS 20 January 2000 Page 2 Mr. Bryant Moynihan submitted comments and questions prior to the meeting of January 111n; his comment letter was included with the agenda packet. Mr. Jack Balshaw voiced his concerns at the meeting and submitted written comments on January 14'11 (copy attached). RECOMMENDATION Following Commission discussion and deliberation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council/Community Development Commission, as follows, based upon the findings set forth below: 1) Adopt a Negative Declaration for Approval of Text Amendments to The Redevelopment Plan (see Initial Study, Exhibit 2); 2) Adopt a finding that the proposed Text Amendments conform to the Petaluma General Plan; and, 3) Recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments (Exhibit 2.B.). Negative Declaration Findings: 1. That based upon the Initial Study _ prepared for the project of amending the Redevelopment Plan text there is no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the proposed Redevelopment Plan text amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the land use and development policies and regulations of the City and is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. 3. That the text amendments do not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it has no direct or indirect impact to the resources as defined in the Code. 4. That the text amendments do not directly affect any site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 5. That the proposed Redevelopment Plan text amendments are deemed to be in the public interest. 6. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the text amendments. P t PLANNING COMMISSION 20 January 2000 Re: PCDC text amendment Page 3 7. That the proposed text amendments have been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. 8. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma, Office of the City Manager, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California. General Plan Consistency Findings: 1. Pursuant to Section 33453 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project conforms to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma; and 2. Pursuant to Section 6542 of the Government Code, with respect to activities that may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the Amendment and that are referred to in said section, such activities and undertakings conform to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma. Attachment: Letter from Jack Balshaw I h: pt/ redevelopmenUreports\PCpcdc012500 _ v,l��s��1t�lL JaC� •`,'al3hlat: 76 De-2x COE -r-I issiozer; January 12, -lX)I 1 The conttinuan. n of th�: agenda. ite-nl acd public lizarilag for the Text zs�endmeat so ►711Ut2i�i`iGll Vi.E. o :he Redevelop>3�ent Flan" provides me with she opportunivi to arsan'ae MY C ".Cer?li n a more �rderiy n!an+ner cLa�? T viral a I� i+� CiC] at the s , "'•'ell as to prGvide die_a Utz you i:3 ty15 ' STS �r ,,r l Isurs. I l f basic coilc —r:l iS 7aI 'r rl- ,.,Z"--n wrrrn 11aai you mi- 1 -11-C .C',;ev ui ` LLl +�I �, n r � are n�:i u : sUr;�e nicer cianin yap the erQU`tsed tax.. �.LCi -y °v" T �' ?fit .`Ut L.A1sln e5 Li�iat ''IIIi =, r�iC TAajf z r-:sLtr cturMu �_ f tht� 14 a I-mc.- xistin t and amounEs in wbdc:h nzt evelopni ;"ands n =a ' l•e UIseu. 3onh the ac, Ada descriI~tion aL4: ;+nt 'ztmc 3 Mforlrla-r Cn Provided U' st»= +n sapporL of this kerm ulie pu:_-cse US, -L,, provide clarification O toriris. T_i:�ia[�'e?? ''i rnaz TL I iI ail Ol:� 'ter �ondtdi ird$ � �:ed re�so' ai; d the ma;�imry -n amount of ateu i��att��yy��' ttttundelr Scec,is i. - . L?e 1? iC t4jS��,�? �:3�r�: �r 11 C'�b�..dwess i s 3in11�1yt�'r�'� toy _i -71ri l 4 .,,/IlL l,,l0 N� DOLLARS ,ri`i,�'�,.gS �j. This I- Irt11�Lni� ca'}�l .to�,C h Le llanngr. >l'f4�4i�.T\t. .I /1�...L pro-Cse -d �r.`�nvjsjloj,,� to �.'.11rcii }�//i�l�.+�E...f, There33 fore i111�.. 1 YLiii 11�11� �./�++i 11 LL1JL3,orr1 ..7 not lm a1 :l J..'.�g.. any janod fication or The ij.mouut Silowu III �. r, vlilu l:�� i�g'ija e ..i L.2C:i secdon, E. I ,1, 1 li-i e. r :card iii�`T LCa; :S that IIlcl'Y� i:= a!iiG' t ' Conf'i i o a b'iank line. Tbis Is LL identical to "'� �an l, ��,.ze, In the �Yil�ti'J?�: ,e, /Isloii to SP-c -zion E. 1, l erefore r 1 .. -t: ..' r-1 y'`ioll lid S�Jli37 ±��c��SJi.2 1� >ti�l s •:1.2i:1.v ..'_'�:� 1= ?liCii- is�. t:. iL1 'L'31 ;,7�'vi:;i.i1.111,.rt1.L- this pa %i of ifte 3' iedle-.;i;a..i+n.%rp11Sa¢..at :C'=. Bi'1u5, i� :Le two ttenn ji2sL,!�dd �bovp- Ali are r _I 'i', no action w maGdliZ,I or ,' �i.. i. �'t ..1l1 I.nAS'- �TG.- �i�1a.'I C. /. Y it "�•tll.'1 1 :�:1y�7 d e •�'� A -n LA.cl A. It '/ Vd.41L1 CJVi11+.Li2 12�- 1LUl.tiuA.:t.vJil '�. Laz.L U.i2���. 4'.1,1:1 GJ tli L�.� 11.1 S.. t1�'.+ +lg^ uilfi �'s? i~ r�r r rr1 `w cr twn,S k t :P C�:riTi T'riy third topic: of rhi- agenda and =ff report mentions p.rOVICsng clarification. Thal appears strange to that the existing language in bo&h se�.tions c.l . and EP.3, provide detaile; conditions and proc4dures for both tax allocation and bonded indebtedne s Wliii; r e proposed ch=19 -d language elamillates essenda ly all clarification as to the con-Alitions and prod lt¢s. Under the new l:ngua4e a:ay izltzepertation is alle�uable. hat ai",31 11U�rV �s�i S t+;iis "l3ii7vli:° :f>% C,iil ,v t:� ''Vitttin tale. dCCLIIIi2i�t'? 'rY'liwit is th.- purpose of the request fer Four ap^rcvwl? This request has no-thing to do with he city': cond rmings as well noted by Commissioner Mass, but is sGmVllow ;,und S on'c ow) relate-n to mAanipulct�r the i5"aan4I,. 4'f adiditior- bonds. My feeling, is tlxat L? e crux of die proposed arnendrnent is to climi;nate controls on the presuhtiy ne-cessar y conditions fbr issuing ad&iorlal bonds. These controls are most likely thole li <ted in :he existinv text on and following liBe i_1 s.c }ion E,i. gad. in- `? in st_vtion E. Ian the latter tnslance :foilowinz he esmbllis' neM Or _ ii34i �.ii�1 ti s {n_�S 41 E? TV MILLION DOLLARS ilvry i5 sii.t.:.l.l if and to She `utt'r%F the allocations ;tE 1, 75 i:'vt'rCi !?.... etc, CC, w,%. ` ! jl,S-i M -r6c0d dhat the ? .'75 figure is more -restrictive than the L2-4 --figure inentivne`;l by �:orn�SLionc:r Glass as die iega� n-inimum. Perhaps utis is r-ie key to the egg?., I b —_hove the com issiou is being as .d w unwittingly moth ' Winding procedures that could well leAd to Lhe issuance of the maximlum amounts of Winding possilble without the accessary and pru.aient documentation that the improver' e its made with such b4-mds - %would increase die taxable returns sufficiendy to repay such bonds, 'This in turn could result in the later inability to fund neces:ar• irnprovem_:ns via ADC funds co infrasmucture zal'r rich rm t 1<P v�4q-.11r?d as the :?sell; of the "Payma fix' or QIIF; TfedevelGpment are"n plc ivitles. (i.c. c Lu cLiui.i bens c.on3ZI7a`Y..nt that the widened Payran channel ti uldd lead co d owntown floods -ng) C� r?member the basic p reInise o ° redevelopment is that additions taX rev er!ues from improvemen-ts r-�de in r ie redevelopment area arz: to be the wo?.�are of reppay -ing) nnoneys spent in �dvaoc;.a to , to &-ve oprn t, us4 U ��4';lsa. d��loit in ,e redtv;,'cpMCM ama. APP"-v3- cat tier j�3eaC d alnendrnt�nt could, probably �VK)Ujd, c1lange tLs rely ioiasbip. 3 L��w11Y.zr� Iiiy refer, -- ic. - to the recent S' ma si'lndt e case i veril. -i3. , u Ile sitiye de,i i a4.141�A 1S pi.'-rdr nt iv to . `iii ?ILe Lri i� �T��33� v3Z1? C�31' lLe` amr_`?dI??t'I1L could I -pact future - projecCs. Noc s mi, ci3 as ` I pis built, t]eii S 'it ,L 35 17CC:i d ':Ind cull' C 0— funded 'be -ause of the tact that a31 L� i ti capacity Mail iiiiS!' e -n User: Up ?. 3UCIII a r,0SSjIbI' iMPact vJ iU'd iii' mote. in a full ElT . If y; a f 41 this amen�,�mv�nt -T- st be a �rove-d. p1 -ase at least incorpMafe ti e Conn- i1tions oil Tax alljocatioriS :3.t -il -"R sect"Ous ,.) Lillnib I 1av1 d11r S1L trd se, (�lU p aA ..�. Wile tbuz!rc may bt� :1. le4itimate nepY cu, generace funds to pay for Commiaed, projQCIS t'e :-ommi scion and t e put?:ic yi3f;7 d i'- know-Mg C liners la-Ild tlOt lis "�1litriA�` �LC� �3�;Cti� Li alT cli- ('tt�r' 1 as -DC tine �lt;�' L t�l:l?r :3 ii? a.t h'+ © ti7 iVh IJ�V You forward :ate x '°.,13, g {-`zi 'D1,.3.�n:na �vo.I�t.�y'-Ys sion �di.: You al 2i.-+ v'1 is Y Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 p, L U City of Petaluma, California C� City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 18 5 $ E -Mail planningAdoetaluma.cams Web Page htty: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us 1 2 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes EXCERPT 3 January 25, 2000 - 7:00 PM 4 5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Broad, Cader- Thompson, Feibusch, Glass, 6 Vieler 7 8 * Chairperson 9 10 Staff: Michael Moore, Community Development Director 11 Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration 12 13 14 CONTINUED BUSINESS: 15 PUBLIC HEARING: 16 17 L CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY 18 COUNCIL /PETALUMA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION relative to 19 proposed Text Amendments to Subdivision VI.E. of the 20 Redevelopment Plan to provide clarification of terms, including the 21 maximum amount of bonded indebtedness and the maximum 22 amount of taxes that may be allocated, as follows: 2,3 24 1. finding that the proposed Text Amendments to the Redevelopment 25 Plan could not have a significant adverse effect on the 26 environment, therefore adoption of a Negative Declaration is 27 appropriate; and 28 2. finding that the proposed Text Amendment conforms to the 29 Petaluma General Plan; and 30 3. recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments. 31 32 (This ' item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 33 2000.) ° 34 35 Commissioners received a letter on this item from Jack Balshaw. 36 Planning Commission MinUL ,S — January 25, 2000 1 Pamela Tuft introduced Paul Marangella (City Management Consultant), Anne Simpson 2 (Siefel and Associates), Brent Hawkins (McDonough, Holland and Allen). 3 4 The public hearing was opened. 5 6 SPEAKERS: 8 Brent Hawkins (Special Counsel to PCDC) — Redevelopment Plan contains a limit on 9 number of dollars of tax increment that can be allocated to Redevelopment Agency over 10 the life of Redevelopment Plan. It contains a limit on the amount of bonded indebtedness 11 which can be outstanding at any time during the plan. These two limits were described in 12 terms of a formula based on a coverage factor on debt service issued by the Agency. The 13 formula is complex, difficult to understand, ambiguous. Complexity of formula creates 14 uncertainty in bond market. More difficult to have bonds rated — will increase Agency's 15 cost of borrowing. If this can be cleared up, the Agency can save 75 -100 basis points on 16 the interest rate on any future bonds. Amendment substitutes fixed numbers of dollars 17 for the formulas that are now contained in the plan for these two limits. Fixed dollar 18 figures should be approximately what the Agency and County understood them to be 19 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted. Working with Sonoma County to identify 20 what those numbers are. Limit on bonded indebtedness stays at $80 Million, qualifying 21 language referencing formula is deleted. Limit on total number of dollars of tax 22 increment will be somewhere between $700 -800 Million. That is all that this amendment 23 will do. Controls on Agency's ability to issue bonds will not be loosened. Agency's 24 ability to issue bonds is controlled by statute and by the bond market. Role of Planning 25 Commission — procedure for amending a redevelopment plan is described in California 26 Community Redevelopment Law — Planning Commission must recommend to City 27 Council concerning the conformity of the amendment to the General Plan, Amendment 28 doesn't change land uses, no change to rate or intensity of development, staff feels 29 General Plan will be unaffected by proposed amendment; amendment in conformance 30 with General Plan. 31 32 Commissioner Glass — Can you discuss when an underwriting company issues a bond? 33 First they get a legal opinion, and you talked about the uncertainties that will make a 34 bond house nervous and it's going to lead to less buying action if it's out to a competitive 35 bid. 36 37 Brent Hawkins — It creates some doubt about the amount and the ability of the agency to 38 receive a tax increment which is the securities pledged to repay the bonds. To that extent, 39 it could result in the rating agencies giving it a lower investment grade rating or no rating 40 at all, either of which would result in a higher interest rate when the agency does sell the 41 bonds. 42 43 Commissioner Glass — You mentioned 75 — 100 basis points — if you took $25 Million 44 of bonded debt, that would be about $2 — 2 '/z Million per year of savings? 45 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 1 Brent Hawkins — Not able to come up with those numbers here, but it's a significant 2 swing in interest rates. 3 4 Chair Bennett — Why does that create doubt on the part of the lenders of the Agency's 5 ability to receive these funds? 6 7 Brent Hawkins - Formula is very difficult, ambiguous — unclear whether the formula 8 includes the 20% housing set -aside that the agency is required to make — these things 9 make it more difficult to get the bonds rated. 10 11 Chair Bennett — Why aren't we just stating what it means rather than striking the 12 language? 13 14 Brent Hawkins — That's what we are doing. We're striking the formula and replacing it 15 with a fixed number. 16 17 Commissioner Vieler — By striking that language and putting a fixed number in, if the 18 actual ability of the City to sustain this debt goes down, than we're left at the total of the 19 number that had been written in as opposed to the fluctuation that would have been 20 reflected with the formula? Is that correct? 21 22 Brent Hawkins — No, I don't think so, The amount of bonds that the agency can issue is 23 really determined not by what is in the Redevelopment Plan, but by the tax increment 24 flow that exists at the time that the agency issues the bonds. The bond market will not 25 purchase tax allocation bonds based on projected tax increment — you can only issue 26 bonds based on what you have a proven track record of receiving. 27 28 Commissioner Vieler — With the passing of the Urban Growth Boundary, there has been 29 a shuffle in terms of what projects are approved, it's conceivable that our tax revenues 30 would go down as opposed to what they were before that Urban Growth Boundary was 31 put in place. If you are assessing your bonding debt based on current figures, those 32 current figures are probably based over the last couple of years. In effect, if you were 33 looking five or ten years down the road, could not a reduction in that tax income occur, art and yet we would be locked in with a higher bonded indebtedness figure than what we 35 can actually sustain. 36 37 Brent Hawkins — Yes, that's possible, it has happened in a number of places. The bond 38 market tries to protect itself from that situation using a couple of devices — they look to a 39 coverage factor — you have to show that you have more than enough tax increment to 40 cover debt service (1.1 to 1.2 times debt service), they also build in a reserve fund which 41 is typically one year's debt service which can be used to supplement tax increment if that 42 is necessary in order to meet that service. The bond market is very conservative, they 43 protect themselves very well, that is why you see so few municipal defaults. 44 45 Commissioner Glass - I am a Municipal Bond Principle, so I trade this market. At the 46 last meeting I made allusions — Petaluma's credit rating is A -3, which puts them in the 3 Planning Commission Minut,. — January 25, 2000 I upper echelon of cities in the State of California (we're running ahead of San Mateo, 2 equal to Los Angeles). There were allusions made that we were not in good financial 3 shape in this Redevelopment Agency, that is a long way from the truth. Redevelopment 4 agencies that ran into trouble during the real estate slump, were not rated by Moody's or 5 Standard and Poors. 6 7 Commissioner Vieler — Is this a State formula? Where does it come from? 8 9 Brent Hawkins — I wish I knew — I've never seen a formula like this before, these limits 10 are always stated in terms of absolute dollars, I've never seen a formula before. This 11 particular formula is not well drafted, it's hard to figure out what it means, it makes the 12 process of figuring out what tax increment the Agency's entitled to and what bond it can 13 issue, a more difficult process. 14 15 Commissioner Vieler — (to Pamela Tuft) I believe that you were present in 1988, do you 16 remember'this formula, did you have any part of it? 17 18 Pamela Tuft — I was on staff in the Planning Department, but I had nothing to do with 19 Redevelopment — I believe it was drafted by an attorney, not the one present tonight. 20 Perhaps Mr. Balshaw (who might have still be on Council in 1988), might be able to 21 answer those questions. 22 23 Commissioner Feibusch - I have a technical question, the basic premise of 24 redevelopment is that additional tax revenues from improvements made in the 25 redevelopment area are to be the source of repaying monies spend in advance to create 26 development conditions in the redevelopment area. My point is, if those monies are spent 27 in a flood fix, by doing that, another flood problem is created in another part of the City. 28 How does this create funds in that manner, and, if you do that kind of operation, do you 29 have to have findings? 30 31 .Brent Hawkins — Redevelopment funds can be used both to invest in public /private 32 partnerships which result in private development which increases assessed value and 33 creates additional tax increment. However, redevelopment funds can also be spent on 34 public improvements which don't create tax revenues. Before a Redevelopment Agency 35 can do that, both the Agency and the City Council have to make findings. Those findings 36 are that the facilities are a benefit to the redevelopment project area, that there is no other 37 reasonable means of financing those facilities, that the construction of the facilities will 38 help in the elimination of blight, and that the facilities are provided for in the agency's 39 Implementation Plan. There are four or five findings that both the agency and the City 40 Council have to make before they can use redevelopment funds to pay for publically 41 owned facilities. 42 43 Commissioner Feibusch - The agency and the City Council are one and the same. 44 45 Brent Hawkins - Right, that's true in most cities. 46 4 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 1 Commissioner Feibusch — But, there are findings required? 2 3 Brent Hawkins — Yes. 4 5 Commissioner Vieler — Regardless of what we do here, this is not final, it goes to the 6 City Council. 7 8 Brent Hawkins — Yes. The Planning Commission makes a report and a 9 recommendation, they don't really make a decision. The decision is make by the City 10 Council. 11 12 Chair Bennett - The decision being made in changing the language in this document 13 really has nothing to do with creating funds or determining how those funds are being 14 spent, is that correct? 15 16 Brent Hawkins — That is correct. 17 18 Chair Bennett — Your position is that the only thing this document is doing is clarifying, 19 making it easier to sell bonds at a lower rate? 20 21 Brent Hawkins — It's overcoming a technical problem in the Redevelopment Plan which 22 we think will save us some money if the agency issues bonds. 23 24 Helen Wilson — 14 San Carlos Drive (Payran Area) — Concerned about this, against 25 Outlet Mall for the reason of location — it's terrible, there is an open field from movie 26 theaters (Pacific Cinemas), that would have been an ideal place for an outlet mall if you 27 needed one (the buildings are ugly besides that); concerned because if there is any 28 expansion, we're going to get flooded again. Really concerned about this, shouldn't have 29 gotten this far. 30 31 Commissioner Cader- Thompson — I believe that you may be talking about tomorrow 32 night — the Corona Reach Specific Plan Committee which is actually talking about the 33 Corona Reach area and the factory outlet; tonight is actually talking about a change in the 3,4 language of the redevelopment plan. 35 36 Helen Wilson — I understand that, but as a member of the public, I am very concerned, I 37 wish that this hadn't come this far — ok, I am a little bit confused; will come back 38 tomorrow. 39 40 Jack Balshaw — This is not as straight - forward as presented. You got a lot more 41 information tonight which clarified it, but you are asked to approve two maximums and a 42 clarification. You weren't given any changes — you were given the $80Million that is in 43 Section E -3 and you were left with the blanks in Section E -1. From what the gentleman 44 before me was saying, it sounds like they are working up some numbers to put in those 45 blanks. Those numbers should be worked up and presented to you to fill in the blanks in 46 Section E -I before you act on it. It seems like the reason for E -3 should at least be made 5 Planning Commission Minuws — January 25, 2000 1 valid in some way. In 1988, this language was put in at request of the attorneys, but we 2 also were assured that this 1.75 factor made them extremely conservative. You're still 3 not getting the information as to what this is going to cause. The change from the 1.75 4 factor to the State mandated 1.25 factor increases the bonding ability by 40 %. This is 5 significant. You've been asked to set maximums but you haven't been given any 6 information for changing them or leaving them alone. I believe that by eliminating the 7 details, what you are doing is leaving it completely wide open to interpretation — which 8 may be good for maximizing your bonding ability, if that's the intent, ok, but say that. 9 There is also a new section, E -4, I think the flag under which this agenda item is being 10 discussed, is really false. The public is led to believe (in the public notice and in the 11 agenda description), that you were doing something with maximums and that you were 12 doing something with clarifications, and I don't think you are. This is a sham designed to 13 match the purpose. It appears that the purpose is to eliminate conditions, not to clarify 14 them. The original language was designed to protect the City, there hasn't been any 15 discussion other than you are legally allowed to go to 1.25. I guess Bond Counsel 16 requested the change. The question raised by Commissioner Feibusch about getting 17 public monies to make improvements is to increase the taxable value within the district 18 which is the basis for paying back the bonds, but the example is, if you put all the money 19 into Payran Reach and the Council doesn't allow any development north of there, which 20 they are seriously considering, then this money would not be bringing any return, other 21 than a small increment that may occur to houses in the Payran area. You are doing 22 something here without full knowledge of what you are doing. I will explain my reasons 23 for asking you not to do a Negative Declaration. I alluded to the Sierra Madre decision, 24 overturning an action where there was a Negative Declaration. They wanted to remove 25 the historic designation from 29 structures. No movement of dirt, no construction, no 26 harm to the environment, but the case was made that once the historic designation was 27 removed, they could then be demolished or moved without anything other than a permit 28 from the Building Department. Once they were demolished or removed, anything done 29 to the land, the basis for any environmental complaint would be moot. Therefore there 30 was a track, a domino effect, between a completely innocuous action and a taking away 31 of the public's ability for due process further down the line. The example I gave here 32 about what the City of Petaluma might do is that there has been discussion by 33 Councilmembers, that with the Payran Reach being constructed, if there is any building 3,4 in the flood plain, this could endanger the downtown because the Payran Bridge used to 35 be, in effect, a dam; without that there, the water can get down as fast as it wants. We've 36 got a situation where we're going to be using some of these bond monies to pay for the 37 Payran Reach. This could actually cause a problem somewhere else and leave the City 38 without any resources to mitigate that problem. I think your action here has a train 39 attached to it, that should the City Council get the money and spend it, and then decide 40 not to do any building upstream, if there was no building, they wouldn't generate the 41 revenue that the bonds are supposed to generate, and if they did the building, they would 42 trigger their own self - fulfilling prophesy of floods. Really think about the ramifications 43 of this. I would like you to get a little upset that you've been asked to rubber -stamp 44 something without being given full knowledge of its impact. I think that the bottom line 45 is not so much the conditions, the clarifications, as it is the elimination of the 1.75 which 46 greatly expands the bonding ability.. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 2 Geoff Cartright — 56 Rocca — Normally when I hear the term Negative Declaration, I 3 shudder because it means development is going in and there's been a lot of that and a lot 4 of that has been in the floodplain — you know what I think of that. However, this is a 5 Negative Declaration pertaining to a document. Does this Negative Declaration for this 6 document mean that any development done via this document doesn't need or require 7 environmental review? I believe it does require environmental review. Perhaps someone 8 can answer that? John Balshaw was on the Council when this Redevelopment Plan was 9 passed, look at what they did with the money — the Marina Building, the Auto Mall, 10 we're still paying for those. Maybe we're going in the right direction this time. Mr. 11 Balshaw also mentioned the 1.75, 1.25 — I'm not sure if I'm up on that, and I was 12 wondering if anyone here is? Perhaps Mr. Glass could help me with that? 13 14 Commissioner Vieler — (to Mr. Balshaw) — You alluded to the fact that if this was 15 passed, and the money was out there and development in Payran area — that this would 16 have an impact on downtown — no money to deal with it, how is that scenario any 17 different — how are you going to deal with that situation in advance? 18 19 Jack Balshaw — You have to show that you are actually going to increase the tax 20 allocations, at least that is your plan (I don't think $80Million in bonds will ever come 21 up), if you took this money and spent all of it on Payran Reach and subsequent to that 22 decided to have no construction in the flood plain at all generating no additional 23 revenues, that is where we could end up with insufficient funds to cover our bond. 24 Granted, the bonding companies are going to do something to protect themselves, but you 25 need to tie in what you are going to do with how much you are going to ask for. I think 26 going from 1.75 to 1.25 makes that extremely critical. 27 28 Chair Bennett — We're dwelling quite a bit on how the Council is going to spend this 29 money, I don't think Planning Commission needs to overlook how Council spends funds. 30 I think that's more an argument when it goes up to Council, 31 32 Commissioner Vieler — I'm concerned with something I heard at the last meeting, what I 33 want to understand about this process — Mr. Balshaw says this is tied in a way to a 34 creation of future tax dollars. Mr. Hawkins states that the bonding takes place based on 35 present tax dollars and has nothing to with what happens in the future, other than the 36 assumption (which is very rigorously examined by bonding agencies), that there will be a 37 tax flow that is already existing and in place. I am caught between the two of these. 38 39 Jack Balshaw — All I ask is that after $80Million, you use the language "subject to tax 40 flow from existing properties ". 41 42 Commissioner Vieler — So if that blank was filled in with that statement, based on a tax 43 flow from existing properties, that would satisfy your concerns? 44 45 Jack Balshaw — Yes. 46 VA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning Commission Minu..:s - January 25, 2000 Commissioner Vieler — I don't have my original staff report, maybe it's very clear there, I was not clear that the 1.75 was being reduced to the 1.25 until you said that — is that what is taking place? Brent Hawkins — We're eliminating the 1.75 coverage factor and replacing it with a fixed dollar amount. The provisions in the redevelopment law that require a redevelopment plan to have these limitations — the limitation on the principal amount of bonded indebtedness and the limitation on the total amount of tax increment dollars that are allocated to the agency over the life of the plan, came out of historic conflicts between redevelopment agencies and counties over tax increment financing. Taxing agencies claimed that these redevelopment projects were never completed, that they went on forever, the ever - increasing tax increment was being allocated to the redevelopment agency, and there were no limits or controls on how many tax dollars would be diverted through this redevelopment process before the redevelopment project was completed and the increased tax dollars flowed back into the coffers of the taxing agencies that levy the taxes. The redevelopment law was changed in the 1980's to require redevelopment plans to contain these limits to protect taxing agencies so that redevelopment plans don't just go on and on forever. Once these taxing limits are met, the increased tax dollars start flowing back to the treasuries of the agencies that levy the taxes. The way that these limits are typically stated are fixed dollar amounts so that it is clear that when you hit that fixed dollar amount, you are through — you can't issue any more tax allocation bonds, cannot continue to receive tax increment. This amendment eliminates this ambiguous, difficult to determine formula and substitutes a fixed dollar figure which is what we believe the County and the Redevelopment Agency thought that formula represented in 1988 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted. Commissioner Broad — What conditions would need to be met for the City to issue $50Million of bonds with the existing language and with the proposed language ?. What does the 1.75 coverage mean? Brent Hawkins — I don't know, that is the problem. Commissioner Broad — What does the word coverage mean? Brent Hawkins — Coverage is the excess of tax increment revenue that you need over debt service. If you say 1.75 coverage, that means your tax increment is 175% of debt service. Commissioner Broad — So in absence of that language, you no longer have that stipulation? Brent Hawkins — That's correct. What you do have though is the bond market which requires you to have a coverage factor of 1.1 or 1.2 depending on a number of factors. Commissioner Broad — That is the same condition, that exists throughout other communities within the State which issue redevelopment agency bonds? 8 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 i 2 Brent Hawkins — Yes, it is a function of the market itself, it's not there because of the 3 law or the redevelopment plan, it's what the underwriters insist on. 4 5 Anne Simpson - Part of the ambiguity in this 1.75 debt coverage is there is no definition 6 of what should be included in there — whether or not that includes the housing set -aside 7 funds or not. We've had lawyers look at this in addition to Brent Hawkins — nobody can 8 give us a definitive answer. That is part of the reason we can't answer that question. 9 There needs to be some clarity in that definition in terms of what is defined in terms of 10 the tax increment to be included in that debt coverage. 11 12 Commissioner Vieler — It raises a question for me — how does changing language in the 13 manner that you have changed it in any way clarify whether or not the housing is 14 included in the tax assessment or not? 15 16 Anne Simpson — We're setting a total dollar amount over the life of the plan for bonds. 17 The amount that you can issue in bonds in a given year is determined by the amount of 18 increment you have in that year. There has to be a coverage test, reserves — that is 19 determined by the bond market. That is not going to be affected by the total debt limit, 20 which is what we are changing. We 'are not changing the total debt limit, we are 21 clarifying that language. It still remains at $80Million. The amount of bonds that you 22 can issue in a given year is not going to change because of what we are doing. 23 24 Chair Bennett — I want'a clarification — I think we have heard some discussion to the 25 contrary. The City can go out and issue bonds, nothing prohibits them from doing that. 26 The action we are taking is not going to alter that capability to issue a bond, is that 27 correct? 28 29 Anne Simpson — Well, the Redevelopment Agency can issue bonds, right. 30 31 Chair Bennett — So, we're really talking about funding mechanisms on this and what is 32 going to affect the interest rate. 33 34 Anne Simpson — Right, and clarifying and simplifying the language so that the rating 35 agencies will provide a better rating. 36 37 Chair Bennett — I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly when I say that 38 the Redevelopment Agency can issue bonds without this change? 39 40 Anne Simpson — We believe that they can, but it could be an unrated bond. 41 42 Chair Bennett = Right, so we're not talking about the ability to issue bonds or how much 43 they can issue bonds for, we're talking about clearing the way to issue bonds. 44 45 Anne Simpson — Yes. 46 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3,4 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Planning Commission Minutos — January 25, 2000 Chair Bennett — It really needs to be clear about what we're talking about, a lot of issues have been raised, I'm trying to sort through the issues. Commissioner Barrett — It sounds like what you're trying to do is lower the cost to the agency for putting out the bonds that you will need in the future. Anne Simpson — Yes, that's what we're really trying to do. Commissioner Barrett — What I would like to know is, you said you believe what you are doing will accomplish that end. On what basis do you believe that? Have you talked to a rating agency? Anne Simpson — Our financial advisor suggested that, yes. Commissioner Barrett — Who is the financial advisor? Anne Simpson - we've had a bond team involved in this and I don't have the names of all involved. Commissioner Barrett — Are these people who are involved with rating agencies on a regular basis? Anne Simpson — Yes, and this is their professional opinion. Commissioner Vieler — The purpose of this is in regards to what could happen. What has happened since 1988 up to present time in terms of bonds that the City has issued? Anne Simpson — There were bonds issued, we're not quite sure what happened, but there were bonds issued, I don't recall if they were rated or not, they are still being paid on. Commissioner Vieler — When we have the Commission discussion, I'd appreciate some clarification from Commissioner Glass in terms of exactly what that means. Jack Balshaw — I'm not sure on this part of the discussion, if this is approved and not appealed, does it go through? Or does it go to Council anyway under any circumstances? Chair Bennett — The appeal process states that anyone can appeal this and it goes to Council, is that correct? Pamela Tuft — This is not as complex as that, this is not an appealable item because it is a recommendation that is going on to Council. Jack Balshaw — There was a specific statement made at the beginning of the meeting about the appeal and I thought that pertained? Chair Bennett — That appeal statement appears on all Planning Commission agendas. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 1 Jack Balshaw — I guess what I am understanding now is all this does is let you borrow 2 up to $80Million with no conditions and you can't borrow any more than $80Million. 3 4 Brent Hawkins — The current limit on bonded debt is $80Million, subject to this 1.75 5 coverage. We're eliminating this 1.75 coverage. What you're left with is an $80Million 6 limit on the principle amount of bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at any one 7 time. I don't think you have any where near enough tax increment flow to support that 8 kind of a bond issue. The bond market will not purchase bonds if you don't have 9 demonstrated tax increment flow that is sufficient to make the debt service. 10 11 Commissioner Vieler — There was a perception on my part at the last meeting that there 12 was a great deal of urgency attached to this because there were things that could not 13 move forward until this had been resolved. It does not seem that there is something here 14 that is so urgent that it impacts other things. I am confused why there is this sense of 15 urgency to pass something without the specific figures. Why are we in such a rush to get 16 this passed. 17 18 Pamela Tuft — I don't think we're in such a rush. I was asked late last year to undertake 19 the Initial Study. The Implementation Plan for the Redevelopment Agency identified this 20 as a task, as recommended in 1998. The negotiations with the County have been actively 21 pursued by the redevelopment consultants to work out what that maximum needs to be — 22 somewhere between $750 and $800 Million. Other than the fact that as adoption of the 23 Implementation Plan of the redevelopment agency unfolds, this is a task to be 24 undertaken. I was asked by the City Manager if I could handle this because of the 25 extreme staffing shortages in Planning, and the ability to undertake the work in December 26 and January fit in nicely with my General Plan and Lafferty schedules, so my answer to 27 the City Manager was that I could do it if I could wrap it up in January. This is projected 28 to move forward to Council in March. I don't get the impression that it's a giant rush. 29 30 Chair Bennett — Just for the record, your colleague last week (Gene Beatty) said it was 31 urgent, we were told that. 32 33 Anne Simpson — There is a timeline for this plan. The urgency revolves around when 3,4 we would like to issue the bonds, which is before the end of the fiscal year. There is a 35 timeline that Brent Hawkins' office has prepared. The urgency is that if we wanted to 36 issue rated debt, we do need to move this forward. 37 38 Commissioner Vieler — What is the date of the fiscal year? 39 40 Anne Simpson — We're trying to issue the bonds by June. 41 42 Commissioner Glass — How much debt are you hoping to issue? 43 44 Paul Marangella — Management Consultant — We're anticipating somewhere between 45. $15- $17Million, probably near the low end. The urgency is a function of the date of 46 issuance which we're hoping to do. in May or early June. I1 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 1 2 Commissioner Broad — If this text amendment doesn't go through, can you still issue 3 the same amount of bond indebtedness? 4 5 Paul Marangella — I believe that we can still issue the amount, it's just how much it's 6 going to cost us. This is all coming from our financial advisors who are saying you don't 7 want to go out to the market with an unrated bond if you don't have to. 8 9 Commissioner Vieler — An unrated versus a rated bond — if you're using the formula 10 that currently exists, it seems that it's more restrictive and bonding agency would be 11 more prone to give you a top rating as opposed to give you a non - rating. 12 13 Brent Hawkins — It would if the language of your plan actually said that, but it doesn't. 14 Nobody can figure out what it says, that's the problem. 15 16 Commissioner Broad — So the Redevelopment Agency will, at some point in time have 17 a hearing to decide upon offering bonds in the amount of $15- $17Million? 18 19 (answer, yes). 20 21 Commissioner Feibusch — Since Mr. Hawkins is here and has answered my questions, I 22 just have one more question. Going back to the findings — if those findings were not 23 made, what are the ramifications? 24 25 Brent Hawkins — Unless the findings are made, the Agency would not be able to make 26 the decision to spend the money that way. What we have before you now does not 27 authorize the Agency to spend the money for any particular thing. It's just general, its 28 going to apply to any bonds. The decision to actually spend the money has to be taken by 29 a separate action. Redevelopment law says that the Redevelopment Agency can use 30 funds to pay for public facilities, but before they do so the City Council has to make these 31 findings. They have to take a specific action authorizing the Agency to do that. and they 32 have to make findings. 33 34 The public hearing was closed. 35 36 Commissioner Glass — This is an interesting thing, the financial markets know the 37 difference between rated paper and non -rated paper, they know the difference between 38 each grade in a rating, Many firms will not trade non -rated paper. There are fewer bond 39 clients willing to invest in non -rated paper. Many mutual funds cannot invest in non - 40 rated paper, The greater bonding capacity we have with the Redevelopment Agency, the 41 less money we waste on interest rates (which only goes to the bond houses and the bond 42 clients), I have no problem with moving forward with this. I see little problem with 43 giving the language that bond underwriters and bond counsel and our bond advisories are 44 asking for and save the cost of the interest. Be sure that to go to market with non -rated 45 paper as opposed to rated paper is going to be expensive. 46 12 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 1 Commissioner Cader- Thompson — I am happy that we are moving forward with this 2 and cleaning up the redevelopment language. I am ready to move forward on it. I think 3 it's a real value for the community because we're actually going to be saving money in 4 the long run. 5 6 Commissioner Feibusch — Until the blanks are filled in and this document is cleaned -up, 7 I will not vote for it. 8 9 Commissioner Barrett — I feel pretty confident that what is being asked here is a request 10 to tighten up the language of the Redevelopment Plan. I feel confident in the answers I 11 have gotten from the collective experts. 12 13 Commissioner Vieler — There are several things I still don't understand. The issue 14 raised by Mr. Cartwright with regards to a Negative Declaration — does that then make 15 any project that Redevelopment funds are allocated to exempt from going through the 16 process? 17 18 Brent Hawkins — No, the Agency would have to go through a CEQA process for any 19 subsequent decision it makes about how to use funds that may be generated by a bond 20 issue or any other decision. 21 22 Commissioner Vieler — What is accomplished by the Negative Declaration part of this? 23 24 Brent Hawkins — It's just a finding that this amendment which is just cleaning up the 25 language that relates to financing, will not have any effect on the environment. 26 27 Commissioner Vieler — We heard that this has to come to the Planning Commission and 28 then it's a recommendation to the City Council and is not subject to appeal. What is the 29 criteria that we have to reach with regards to that recommendation? 30 31 Brent Hawkins — The statute says that the City Council refers the proposed amendment 32 to the Planning Commission for their report and recommendation as to conformance with 33 the General Plan. 3A 35 Commissioner Vieler — Are we then the body that is responsible for creating the findings. 36 1 for this to move forward to the City Council? 37 38 Brent Hawkins — No. 39 40 Commissioner Vieler — We are not, we can simply issue a recommendation, and that 41 recommendation could be that there are several questions that are still unanswered with 42 regards to this issue. We are sending it to Council with the recommendation that several 43 items be reviewed. 44 45 Brent Hawkins — You can send any recommendation you desire. We would very much 46 like a recommendation out of this body with regards to conformity to the General Plan. 13 Planning Commission Minuccs — January 25, 2000 1 That is the one thing that the State Statutes specifically mention that the Planning 2 Commission needs to do. If you want to add other words of advice or recommendations, 3 that is up to the Planning Commission. 4 5 Chair Bennett — Now I am confused. We have before us a recommendation which 6 includes adoption of a Negative Declaration for approval of text amendments. You say 7 we don't have to do that. That includes the Negative Declaration findings, you say we 8 don't have to make findings. Are you sure about this? 9 10 Brent Hawkins — Yes, I am sure about it. There is nothing in State law that requires it. 1 t It is my understanding that it is your local practice and procedure to have the Planning 12 Commission do that, so that's the way it has been set up. 13 14 Chair Bennett — (to Pamela Tuft) — We've just taken a sharp degree to the right here.... 15 16 Pamela Tuft — No, Brent and I had a number of conversations not long after the City 17 Manager asked me to undertake a Negative Declaration. And Brent is very right, his 18 argument, when we discussed it, is the State Statute regarding redevelopment does not 19 require you to do the Negative Declaration. I felt strongly, after spending 15 years in 20 your Planning Department, that tradition and our local Environmental Guidelines, calls 21 for the Planning Commission, when they hear a project, to also hear the environmental 22 review, and I thought the Commission deserved that. I convinced Mr. Hawkins to allow 23 the Negative Declaration to walk with the General Plan consistency findings because I 24 thought that the Planning Commission would feel left out of the process if you were told 25 the only thing you have a right to talk about is the General Plan consistency. I wanted the 26 full package to come past you as it moves to the Council. 27 28 Chair Bennett — So the answer is that if we choose not to make a Negative Declaration 29 finding, that is no big deal? 30 31 Pamela Tuft — You could forward your recommendations or your actions to the Council 32 with no action on the Negative Declaration and they can consider the Negative 33 Declaration, 34 35 Commissioner Vieler — We should be addressing General Plan findings; what are the 36 points? 37 38 Commissioner Glass — I think we discussed that very quickly and then moved on and 39 got bogged -down in other areas. 40 41 Commissioner Broad — I guess if there is a conspiracy hidden in this project, I haven't 42 found it yet. I don't see any problem with this site. I think the Commission would be 43 derelict if we were to allow language to stand that is going to do nothing but penalize the 44 City when it goes out to obtain bonds and to cost the City money it would otherwise have 45 to use locally for necessary projects. I am satisfied with the explanations that we have 46 been given. I am satisfied with the need to change that language. I am satisfied with the 14 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 1 proposed Negative Declaration and future environmental review that would be necessary 2 for any project. I am prepared to support the whole package. 3 4 Chair Bennett — I intend to go with the majority on this. I have had some concerns. I 5 think it has probably been as confusing an issue as we have had. I think I indicated last 6 week about being somewhat displeased with how it came to us, it would have been much 7 better if we would have had some explanation coming in and not getting a document that 8 says this is just technical work but it is urgent. I think at least we got some explanations 9 tonight, I am satisfied with this. I am prepared to support it. There have been a number 10 of issues raised including concerns. I would like those fairly well documented in the 11 study so that Council is aware that the issues that were raised as concerns have been 12 addressed and that there is a certain amount of interest, at least at this Commission, that 13 this was not just a rubber stamp. 14 15 Commissioner Vieler — I would like to make a recommendation. I think we are going to 16 send this to City Council. I would make the recommendation as part of this, we've 17 already talked about the documentation and the points that have been brought forward, 18 but I would highly recommend that the members of the City Council get the tape, listen 19 to the discussion (or verbatim minutes, which we probably don't have the staff to issue). 20 21 A motion was made by Commissioner Glass and seconded by Commissioner Broad to 22 recommend to the City Council /Community Development Commission the adoption of a 23 Negative Declaration for Approval of Text Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan, find 24 that the proposed Text Amendments conform to the Petaluma General Plan, and approve, 25 and adopt the proposed Amendments based on the findings and subject to the conditions 26 listed below and the specific concerns be passed along to the Council (either by review of 27 the tape of this meeting or verbatim minutes). 28 29 Commissioner Barrett: Yes 30 Commissioner Broad: Yes 31 Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Yes 32 Commissioner Feibusch: No 33 Commissioner Glass: Yes 314 Commissioner Vieler: Yes 35 Chairperson Bennett: Yes 36 37 Negative Declaration Findings: 38 39 1. That based upon the Initial Study prepared for the project of amending the 40 Redevelopment Plan text there is no substantial evidence that the project would 41 have a significant effect on the environment. 42 43 2. That the proposed Redevelopment Plan text amendments will not be detrimental 44 to the public health, safety or welfare, will be in the best.interests of the City, and 45 will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the land use and 15 Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000 I development policies and regulations of the City and is consistent with the 2 Petaluma General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. 3 4 3. That the text amendments do not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as 5 defined in the Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is 6 exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it has no direct or indirect impact 7 to the resources as defined in the Code. 8 9 4. That the text amendments do not directly affect any site listed on any Hazardous 10 Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the 11 California Government Code. 12 13 5. That the proposed Redevelopment' Plan text amendments are deemed to be in the 14 public interest. 15 16 6. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration 17 and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the text 18 amendments. 19 20 7. That the proposed text amendments have been processed in accordance with the 21 applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California 22 Environmental Quality Act. 23 24 8. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for 25 public review at the City of Petaluma, Office of the City Manager, City Hall, 11 26 English Street, Petaluma, California. 27 28 General Plan Consistency Findings: 29 30 1. Pursuant to Section 33453 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the proposed 31 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community 32 Development Project conforms to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma; and 33 314 2. Pursuant to Section 6542 of the Government Code, with respect to activities that 35 may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the Amendment and that 36 are referred to in said section, such activities and undertakings conform to the 37 General Plan of the City of Petaluma. 38 39 40 16 O.L; (QI LL( A-T-aumaa -4 s IMMY 25, 2000 Hand D Clivered ',PkECEIVED Mr. Don. Bennett, 014'Man City cfPeWum Planning Coma�sgjojj I1 Ensosh st. Petalmna, CA,94952 JAN 2 5 *L1000 D'u'O tO a faVAY COMmitmCat, I wfli X101 be able to attend tonigIA's Planting Commisajon mer-bflg, I Wfictd the thOmifwes oft be aiming ackij owl Wged my pr 000fevoLtd regxuifins thono-doing but fAed to reflect the pi conunents I made at tie me., a i SpeoificAy, I imEcated that- ng. Thank yew for refteraft n'ly Concem. I RESOLUTION # 2 PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 3 4 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 5 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 6 OF THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUBMITTING THE REPORT, PROPOSED 8 AMENDMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION RELATING 9 THERETO TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND CONSENTING TO AND 10 REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO CALL A JOINT PUBLIC 11 HEARING ON SAID AMENDMENT 12 13 WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of Petaluma (the 14 "CDC ") has prepared a proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan (the "Amendment ") 15 for the Petaluma Community Development Redevelopment Project (the "Project "); and 16 17 WHEREAS, the CDC has submitted the proposed Amendment to the Planning 18 Commission of the City of Petaluma for its report and recommendations, and the Planning 19 Commission by motion and vote on January 25, 2000, reviewed the proposed Amendment and 20 recommended the approval and adoption of the proposed Amendment; and 21 22 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources 23 Code Section 21000 et seq. ), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental 24 Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter the "State CEQA 25 Guidelines ") and the local procedures adopted by the CDC pursuant thereto, the CDC has 26 prepared and completed a proposed Negative Declaration (the "Negative Declaration ") for the 27 Project; and 28 29 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment 30 Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ), the CDC has prepared a Report to the City 31 Council on the proposed Amendment; and 32 33 WHEREAS, Section 33458 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes a joint public 34 hearing on the proposed Amendment with the consent of the CDC and the City Council of the 35 City of Petaluma (the "City Council "); 36 37 NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE 38 CITY OF PETALUMA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 39 40 Section 1. The CDC hereby approves and adopts the Report to the City Council on 41 the proposed Amendment, and hereby submits said Report, together with the proposed 42 Amendment for the Project and the proposed Negative Declaration, to the City Council. 43 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Section 2. The CDC hereby consents to a joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment an requests the City Council to call a joint public hearing of the CDC and the City Council on April 3, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to consider and act upon the proposed Amendment and all documents and evidence pertaining thereto, together with a joint public hearing on the proposed Negative Declaration for the Project. Section 3. The Secretary of the CDC shall, in cooperation with the City Cleric of the City of Peta uma, prepare, publish and mail such notices and documents and do all other acts as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2000 by the following vote: ommissloner ye o Absent Healy Keller a Ter - Thompson ami ton aguire ice Chairman Torliatt Chairman Thompson Beverly Kline Recording Secretary E. Clark Thompson, Chairman i AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Redevelopment Plan ( "Redevelopment Plan ") for the Petaluma Community Development Project ( "Project') adopted July 18, 1988, by Ordinance No. 1725NCS, and amended by Ordinance No. , is hereby amended as follows: Subdivision VI.E. of the Redevelopment Plan is amended to read as follows: "E. Limitations 1--iUMMI. ,f!!Sf . : Efi !!R3�T.7:Ei'l�i:R7:tl:*:IS:Efi :• :• i1 �. RMARM • : jam. TO I n — ] /T]r'T 7 1— inn MW pun rJEUTPIT '- allocated to the Agency Pursuant to subdivision VI.B.2. of • In W.1t:11 111 lil 2. No loan, advance or indebtedness to finance in whole or in part the Redevelopment Project and payable in whole or in part from tax increment revenues shall be established after a date fifteen (15) years from the effective date of the ordinance approving and adopting the last amendment this Plan. 3. The principal amount of Bonds representing tax allocation bonded indebtedness issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33640 et seq., exclusive of: (i) other Commission subordinated contractual obligations; (ii) other forms of indebtedness, which can be outstanding at any one time and payable in whole or in part from tax allocations attributable to the Redevelopment Project shall be limited to EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS ($80,000,000)." it and to the ey,+,.e_t the same mss- sepvkeable solely lftreMax; -aUecafions applying to s ,. 6. tax .,ll..e tions the for -th —above to -s6detennine the total amount of tax al4ocations, to be Allocated to the Commission from the debt. Commission subordinated tylr-[ti'aetuil obligations, other forms of indebtedness nrl City/Commission � bt y 3 lawfully combined with tax al-loeatio ns� here shall be — no nvri A—A /Dann 7 Q inn inn nFm, A—A /VPTNn 2 Q I m Mn ". w 'r lww IN MINE �. ■� r •� AAA ATAi nFm, A—A /VPTNn 2 Q I m Mn `a April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 369 1 they had been adhered to, which they had. Payment of balance due was authorized at 2 that time. 3 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Joint City Council and PCDC) 5 6 7 ROLL CALL: COUNCIL MEMBERS 8 9 PRESENT: Council Members Cader- Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire; 10 Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt 11 12 ABSENT: None 13 14 ROLL CALL: COMMISSION MEMBERS 15 16 PRESENT: Commissioners Cader- Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire; 17 Chairman Thompson; Vice Chairman Torliatt 18 19 ABSENT: None 20 21 22 Redevelopment Plan: Discussion and Possible Action on Negative Declaration, 23 Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission and Testimony From 24 Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the 25 Petaluma Community Development Redevelopment Project; and Adoption of 26 Ordinance 2100 N.C.S. Amending Ordinance 1725 N.C.S. and Approving and 27 Adopting the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the PCD Project. 28 (Beatty /Marangella) 29 30 Ms. Seifel gave staff presentation and summary on all aspects of the report and 31 recommendations of the Planning Commission: On March 6, 2000 we presented 32 the report to Council; March 28,2000 the plan was approved; April 3, 2000 -which 33 is today- if the outcome of the hearing is favorable then our proposal is to have 34 the second reading on April 17th and that would become effective on May 17, 35 2000. The plan then would be to issue the tax allocation bond secure by the 36 PCD in June. 37 38 She explained that the formula for the plan was hard to understand and 39 requested modification for a minor amendment to clarify the formula for tax 40 increment limit, which at this time has a limit of $80millon. 41 42 Ms. Tuft handed out to City Clerk an Affidavit of Publication and Certification of 43 Mailing of the Joint Public Hearing. 44 45 Ms. Seifel explained that the first affidavit is of Notice of Public Hearing on the 46 Proposed Implementation Plan and Amendment; the second is the Certificate of Vol. 34, Page 370 April 3, 2000 1 Mailing Notice and Joint Public Hearing on Proposed Implementation Plan and 2 Amendment to each assessee of land in the project area, as shown in the last 3 assessment; the third Is the Certificate of Mailing Notice and Joint Public Hearing 4 on the Proposed Implementation Plan and Amendment to the governing body of 5 each effected taxing entity; the fourth is the Certificate of Mailing Notice and 6 Joint Public Hearing on the Proposed Implementation Plan and Amendment to 7 the residence and businesses within the project area. s 9 Mayor Thompson explained that this is a combined hearing so please make it 10 clear when you speak which subject you are referring to. The order of 11 procedures will be as follows: 12 13 Staff Presentation of Plan 14 • Consider Comments 15 • Receive Evidence and Oral Testimony 16 • Consider Objections 17 18 Ms. Seifel reiterated the purpose of the hearing. 19 20 Entered into the record was a certification of certain official actions that have 21 been taken by the City Council, City Planning Commission and the Community in 22 connection with the Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the 23 Petaluma Community Development Project. 24 25 Upon no objections, the Certification was made part of the record. 26 27 Ms. Seifel continued: Regarding the Ordinance Adopting the Amendment, all 28 financial aspects of the plan will not change. We are focusing on the Tax 29 Increment Cap; asking for it to be changed from a formula basis to an absolute 30 number, which is $800 million. 31 Everything else stays the same. 32 33 Mayor Thompson gave instructions as to directing questions to City Management 34 regarding evidence. 35 36 COUNCIL COMMENT 37 38 Council Member Healy inquired as to how this amount was figured and was 39 expected real estate development revenues figured into the equation. 40 41 Ms. Seifel explained that the 1988 plan was used and the same growth rate was 42 applied forward with a 5% growth and assessed value for the life of the plan. 43 44 Council Member Healy inquired as to the budget process for the five -year 45 implementation plan - does something have to happen in that five years in order 46 for it to be funded during that five -year period? April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 371 1 2 Ms. Seifel replied, "yes." However, it can be amended to add a project to it at a 3 later date. 4 5 Council Member Healy wanted to know how difficult it would be to get an 6 amendment before the.life of the plan is up. 7 8 Ms. Seifel replied, it is not difficult but there must be a Public Notice given and a 9 Public Hearing. 10 11 Council Member Keller gave his approval to the staff regarding the Planning 12 Commission minutes. He talked about the issuance of bonds and clarified that 13 what we're talking about is getting the best value on the bonds. 14 15 Mayor Thompson, upon no objections made the report of the Commission was 16 made part of the record along with testimony just received. 17 18 Ms. Seifel referred to the Negative Declaration; this is also a part of the report of 19 the commission to the Council. The Commission is the lead agency in 20 preparation of the Negative Declaration. 21 22 Mayor Thompson, upon no objections, made the report part of the record. He 23 then opened the floor for questions. 24 25 26 27 28 PUBLIC COMMENT 29 30 Brent Hawkins, McDunna Hall& Allen, referred to and briefly summarized the 31 Plan Amendments and shared his concern about the problems with 32 understanding the tax increment formula. He requested that an amendment be 33 made to change the formula to a fixed amount. 34 35 Mayor Thompson proposed the Amendment be made part of the Record. 36 37 Ms. Seifel discussed the Petaluma Community Development Project, California 38 requirements, how the agency will comply with the various legal requirements 39 and what steps follow. 40 41 Mayor Thompson made the Proposed Implementation Plan part of the record. 42 He clarified that first statements or testimony should be in favor of the 43 Implementation Plan, the Amendment, or the Negative Declaration. 44 45 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in favor of the Implementation Plan. 46 Vol. 34, Page 372 April 3, 2000 1 Comments /testimony in opposition of Implementation Plan, Amendment, or 2 Negative Declaration. 4 Bryant Moynihan has concerns about the PCD version of the budget and s forecast. He stated that the report to Council was not accurate relative to the 6 approved budget. He referred to #13, part 6 of the report: The $18 million bond 7 to reimburse previous funds, for the Payran Flood Fix, should be shown as an 8 expenditure -it is not. Out of the $15 million proceeds only $10,149,000 is shown 9 as an expenditure. He requested that the PCDC budget be corrected before 10 adopting the plan. 11 12 Mayor Thompson requested Mr. Moynihan have copies of his findings made 13 available for Council Members and assured him it would be clarified. 14 15 Mr. Moynihan voiced his concern about having the funds to pay for Fire and 16 Police. He also referred to the fact that we haven't had CIP approval for two 17 years and he would like this to be made public. is 19 Council Member Keller made clarification to Mr. Moynihan's comments: On the 20 adopted budget of 1999 -2000; page 72, under Public Improvements, category 21 9724 and 8545, Flood Control Project $10,149,000; Polly Klaas Center 22 Renovations, $15,000; sub total Public improvements, $10,164,000. Page 70 23 shows expenditures and transfers out on line 15 under public improvements, 24 $10,164,000. He then directed Mr. Moynihan to specific pages of the report in 25 answer to the questions and objections he made. 26 27 Mr. Stouder stated for the record, that historically the City's Capital Improvement 28 Program document was a planning document, not a financing or budget 29 document. The past CIP projected costs at a high level but this did not indicate 30 that the funds were available to spend. 31 32 This year's budget document includes an annualized twelve -month expenditure 33 of capital improvement projects even if they're multi -year projects. This lead to 34 confusion and unrealistic expectations that the money was available. Because 35 this was a planning document, the funds were not actually available for the 36 project. 37 38 Council Member Maguire voiced his appreciation for the many great efforts Mr. 39 Stouder has made to make available for council and the public, records 40 information and for clarifying what it all means. 41 42 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt to close the 43 Joint Public Hearing. 44 45 MOTION 46 PASSED: 7/0/0 April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 373 1 2 Mr. Hawkins discussed the fact that there were possible conflicts of the 3 Council /Commission members with relation to the PCD /CBD amendment. There 4 are no conflicts with regard the PCD amendment, but there are conflicts with 5 regard the CBD amendment. 6 7 Council Member Torliatt clarified her reason for stepping down from the CBD s was because she lives in the redevelopment project area. 9 10 Mr. Hawkins replied that it wasn't a problem. The PCD amendment is to change 11 the formula; the CBD is being expanded. 12 13 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 14 15 Mayor Thompson opened the meeting of PCDC. 16 17 • Redevelopment Plan - Discussion and Possible Action on Negative Declaration, 18 Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission and Testimony From 19 Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the 20 Petaluma Community Development Redevelopment Project; Adoption of Five 21 Year Implementation Plan; and Adoption of Ordinance 2100 N.C.S. Amending 22 Ordinance 1725 N.C.S. and Approving and Adopting the Amendment to the 23 Redevelopment Plan for the PCD Project. (Beatty /Marangella) 24 25 Paul Marangella read the title of the resolution: 26 27 "Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of Petaluma 28 Approving and Adopting the Implementation Plan for the Petaluma Community 29 Development Project." 30 31 Brent Hawkins, Mc Donough, Holland, & Allen, Attorneys at Law, would first like 32 to have the three members of the council who have conflicts of interest on the 33 CBD project to step down. We will then discuss the implementation plan as it 34 relates to the project. If we get a positive vote we'll bring the members back and 35 have a discussion and vote on the entire implementation plan. 36 37 MOTION: Commissioner Keller moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt 38 Resolution 00 -05 of the Community Development Commission of 39 the City of Petaluma Approving and Adopting the Implementation 40 Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project. 41 42 MOTION 43 PASSED: 4/0/3 (Thompson, Torliatt and Hamilton stepped down from vote) 44 45 Members brought back to consider resolution approving the entire 46 implementation plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vol. 34, Page 374 April 3, 2000 Commissioner Healy proposed to add a new interchanging cross -town connector to project list if we're able to get the additional funding. Commissioner Keller stated that he didn't feel it was a good time to do an amendment like this. Mr. Hawkins stated that it does need to be approved; it can be amended later. Commissioner Keller moved to keep it the way it is and make amendments as needed in the future. Commissioner Maguire concurred. Commissioner Healy feels it is better to add now so there are no impediments in trying to amend later. Mayor Thompson agreed. Commissioner Cader- Thompson feels we need to decide where we actually need transportation improvements before adding to amendment. She is opposed to adding a cross -town connector project to list. Commissioner Keller reiterated that this is not the time for this discussion; it requires general planning considerations, circulation and financial considerations. Commissioner Healy said he was only suggesting to add a fourth item to the list which is a very general list, in order to preserve flexibility for the community and the Council to make decisions in the future without the legal obstacles. Commissioner Maguire disagrees that it would be an impediment and is concerned that the language insinuates a priority. He suggested making a compromise and say "Transportation improvements." Commissioners Hamilton and Torliatt agreed. MOTION: Commissioner Healy moved, seconded by Vice Chairperson Torliatt, to adopt Resolution 00 -07 of the Community Development Commission of the City of Petaluma Adopting Implementation Plan for PCD. (Modification to add the term "transportation improvements" to the list.) MOTION PASSED: 7/0/0 April 3, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 375 1 MOTION: Vice Chairperson Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire to adopt 2 Resolution 00 -06 of the Community Development Commission of 3 the City of Petaluma Approving a Negative Declaration for the 4 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma 5 Community Redevelopment Project. 6 7 MOTION 8 PASSED: 7/0/0 9 10 ADJOURN 11 12 The Petaluma Community Development Commission was then adjourned. 13 14 RECONVENE 15 16 The Petaluma City Council meeting was then reconvened. 17 18 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt 19 Resolution 00 -62 N.C.S. Approving a Negative Declaration for the 20 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma 21 Community Redevelopment Project. 22 23 MOTION 24 PASSED: 7/0/0 25 26 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt 27 Ordinance 2100 N.C.S. Amending Ordinance 1725 N.C.S. and 28 Approving and Adopting the Amendment to the Redevelopment 29 Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project. 30 31 MOTION 32 PASSED: 7/0/0 33 34 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS 35 36 Agenda item 14 was moved to be heard before agenda item 13; agenda items 15 and 37 16 to be continued to Wednesday, April 5 at 7:00 pm Council session. 38 39 PUBLIC HEARINGS 40 41 • Public Hearing for 2000 -2001 Community Development Block Grant 42 Allocations and Approval of 2000 -2005 Consolidated Plan Strategy. 43 44 Housing Administrator Bonne Gaebler presented the Annual Community 45 Development Staff Report and provided background information in two parts: 46 ym `►i VF ATE 1 !7_1 D I aA-C B ORDINANCE NO. .2:1 ooNCS Introduced by Councilmember Pamela Torliatt Seconded by Councilmember Matt Mappuire AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1725 NCS AND APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Petaluma (the "City Council ") `adopted Ordinance No. 1725 NCS on August 17; 1988, approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan, as amended (the "Redevelopment Plan"), for the Petaluma Community, Development Project (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of Petaluma (the "Commission ") has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to carry out in the City 'of Petaluma the functions and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has proposed an Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Project (the "Amendment ") to clarify (i) the limitation on the number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to the Commission pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and (ii) the limit on the principal amount of bonds representing tax allocation bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding, at any one time and payable in whole or in part from tax allocation attributable to the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma (the "Planning Commission ") has reviewed the Amendment and recommended the approval and adoption of the Amendment, together with its certification that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Commission the proposed Amendment, together with the Report of the Commission and the Negative Declaration on the Amendment; and Ord21 o0rres 1 WHEREAS, the City Council and the Commission held a joint public hearing on April 3, 2000, on adoption of the Amendment and on approval of the Negative Declaration on said Amendment, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California; and WHEREAS, a notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in the Argus Courier, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Petaluma, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavit of publication are on file with the City Cleric and the Commission; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by first -class mail to all residents and businesses within the Project Area; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by first -class mail to the last known address of each assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Sonoma; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body' 'of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and ~ WHEREAS, the Council has considered the Report of the Commission and the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Amendment and its economic feasibility, the Negative Declaration, and provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Commission and the City Council have reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration on the Amendment, as prepared and submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15074 and Health and Safety Code Section 33352, and determined that the Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the Amendment are to clarify (i) the limitation on the number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to the Commission pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and (ii) the limit on the principal amount of bonds representing tax allocation bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at any one time and payable in whole or in part from tax allocation attributable to the Project. Section 2. The Council is satisfied that all written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing have been responded to in writing. In addition, written findings have been adopted in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity which has been filed with the City Clerk either before or at the noticed public hearing. On.. 21001cs 2 Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a: Significant blight remains within the Project Area and said blight cannot be eliminated without clarifying (i) the limitation on the number of dollars of taxes that may be divided and allocated to the Commission pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and (ii) the limit on the principal amount of bonds representing tax allocation bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at any one time and payable in whole or in part from tax allocation attributable to the Project. b. The Amendment will enable the Project Area to be redeveloped in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelopment of the Project Area, as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Amendment, will implement the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions of blight and deterioration in the Project Area; provide for planning,. development, redesign, clearance, r " reconstruction or rehabilitation of properties which need improvement;. providing affordable housing, including housing for low- and moderate - income persons, 'providing additional 'employment opportunities, and providing for higher economic utilization of potentially useful land. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Amendment is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based upon the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan, as proposed to be amended, the Commission will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including tax increments; that the,nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increments generated by new investment in the Project Area; and that under the Redevelopment Plan, as proposed to be amended, no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Commission can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity. d. The Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma, including, but not limited to, the community's housing element, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based on the report of the Planning Commission that the Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of Petaluma. e. The carrying out of the Amendment will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Petaluma and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community. Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the fact that redevelopment, as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Amendment, will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic, social and physical conditions of the Project Area. Ord. 21.00TCS 3 f. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area cannot be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Commission. This finding is based upon the continued existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements, and the inability of individual developers to economically remove these blighting influences without public assistance to acquire and assemble sites for development, and the provisions 'of public improvements, facilities and utilities, the inability of low- and moderate- income persons to finance needed improvements, and the inadequacy of other governmental programs and financing mechanisms to eliminate blight, including the provision of necessary public improvements and facilities. g. The time limitation and the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Commission that are contained in the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by the Amendment, are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Commission to eliminate blight within the Project Area. Section4.. , ""The Redevelopment Plan for the Project, as adopted by Ordinance No'. X725 NCS, is hereby amended asset forth in the proposed "Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project," attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. As so amended, the Redevelopment Plan is hereby incorporated by reference herein and designated as the official Redevelopment Plan for the Petaluma Community Development Project. The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized to combine the Redevelopment Plan, as amended by this Amendment, into a single document, and said document, when filed with the City Clerk and the Secretary of the Commission, shall constitute the official Redevelopment Plan in place of the document currently constituting said Redevelopment Plan. Section 5. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Amendment hereby approved, it may be necessary for the City Council to take certain actions, and accordingly, this City Council hereby (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Amendment; (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Amendment; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Amendment; and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Amendment. Section 6. Ordinance No. 1725 NCS is continued in full force and effect as amended by this Ordinance. Section 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Commission, whereupon the Commission is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan as amended by the Amendment. Ord. 2-LOWS 4 Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Sonoma County a notice of the approval and adoption of the Amendment pursuant to this Ordinance containing a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Amendment have been instituted under the California Community Redevelopment Law. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance Amending the Redevelopment Plan to the auditor, assessor and tax collector of the County of Sonoma, to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project Area and to the State Board of Equalization. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Section 11. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be published once in the Argus Courier, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Petaluma, California. Section 12. Severability. If any part'''of this Ordinance, or the Amendment which it approves, is held to be invalid for any reason; such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Amendment, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance, or approved the remainder of the Amendment, if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. INTRODUCED this 3r`' day of April 2000. ADOPTED this 17`x' day of April, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Healy, Cader - Thompson, Keller, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Torliatt, Mayor Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor ATTEST: WW Ord.2100NCS 5