HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/25/2000Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
p, L City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
Q, City ball, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/7784301 /Fax 707/778 4498
I $ 5 $ E -Mail planningna,ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
to
1t
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2>
26
27
28
29
3 c�
31
32
33
34
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 2000 - 7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Broad, Cader - Thompson, Feibusch, Glass,
Vieler
* Chairperson
Staff: Michael Moore, Community Development Director
Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval Of Minutes: Minutes of January 11, 2000 were approved with
corrections.
Public Comment: None.
Chair Bennett — Welcomed new Community Development Director Mike Moore.
Director Report: Mike Moore indicated he was glad to be back in Petaluma.
Commissioners' Report: Commissioner Glass — Comments on January 24`
Press Democrat editorial regarding urban sprawl. Commissioner Cader - Thompson —
Tomorrow night — Corona Reach Specific Plan Meeting (7PM). Commissioner Broad —
Red neon sign at check cashing business on Petaluma Blvd. — sign sits inside window —
Code should be amended so there won't be a proliferation of that type of signs. Are you
allowed to advertise products in your business signage? Chair Bennett — About three
months ago Commission registered concerns to Council regarding proliferation of illegal
signs — no staff to enforce Sign Ordinance.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
l
2 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
3
4
5 CONTINUED BUSINESS:
6 PUBLIC HEARING:
7
S, I. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY
9 COUNCIUPETALUMA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION relative to
10 proposed Text Amendments to Subdivision VI.E. of the
I I Redevelopment Plan to provide clarification of terms, including the
12 maximum amount of bonded indebtedness and the maximum
13 amount of taxes that may be allocated, as follows:
14
15 1. finding that the proposed Text Amendments to the Redevelopment
16 Plan could not have a significant adverse effect on the
17 environment, therefore adoption of a Negative Declaration is
18 appropriate; and
19 2. finding that the proposed Text Amendment conforms to the
2n Petaluma General Plan; and
21 3. recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments.
22
(This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of January 11,
24 2000.)
25
26 Commissioners received a letter on this item from Jack Balshaw.
27
2s Pamela Tuft introduced Paul Marangella (City Management Consultant), Anne Simpson
29 (Souffle and Associates), Brent Hawkins (McDonough, Holland and Allen).
30
31 The public hearing was opened.
32
33 SPEAKERS:
34
35 Brent Hawkins (Special Counsel to PCDC) - Redevelopment Plan contains a limit on
,6 number of dollars of tax increment that can be allocated to Redevelopment Agency over
37 the life of Redevelopment Plan. It contains a limit on the amount of bonded indebtedness
38 which can be outstanding at any time during the plan. These two limits were described in
39 terms of a formula based on a coverage factor on debt service issued by the Agency. The
40 formula is complex, difficult to understand, ambiguous. Complexity of formula creates
41 uncertainty in bond market. More difficult to have bonds rated — will increase Agency's
42 cost of borrowing. If this can be cleared up, the Agency can save 75 -100 basis points on
the interest rate on any future bonds. Amendment substitutes fixed numbers of dollars
44 for the formulas that are now contained in the plan for these two limits. Fixed dollar
45 figures should be approximately what the Agency and County understood them to be
46 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted. Working with Sonoma County to identify
2
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
1 what those numbers are. Limit on bonded indebtedness stays at $80 Million, qualifying
2 language referencing formula is deleted. Limit on total number of dollars of tax
3 increment will be somewhere between $700 -800 Million. That is all that this amendment
a will do. Controls on Agency's ability to issue bonds will not be loosened. Agency's
5 ability to issue bonds is controlled by statute and by the bond market. Role of Planning
6 Commission - procedure for amending a redevelopment plan is described in California
7 Community Redevelopment Law - Planning Commission must recommend to City
8 Council concerning the conformity of the amendment to the General Plan. Amendment
9 doesn't change land uses, no change to rate or intensity of development, staff feels
10 General Plan will be unaffected by proposed amendment; amendment in conformance
11 with General Plan.
12
13 Commissioner Glass — Can you discuss when an underwriting company issues a bond?
14 First they get a legal opinion, and you talked about the uncertainties that will make a
15 bond house nervous and it's going to lead to less buying action if it's out to a competitive
16 bid.
17
18 Brent Hawkins - It creates some doubt about the amount and the ability of the agency to
19 receive a tax increment which is the securities pledged to repay the bonds. To that extent,
20 it could result in the rating agencies giving it a lower investment grade rating or no rating
21 at all, either of which would result in a higher interest rate when the agency does sell the
22 bonds.
2_
_)-t Commissioner Glass — You mentioned 75 — 100 basis points — if you took $25 Million
25 of bonded debt, that would be about $2 — 2 '/2 Million per year of savings?
26
27 Brent Hawkins — Not able to come up with those numbers here, but it's a significant
28 swing in interest rates.
29
30 Chair Bennett — Why does that create doubt on the part of the lenders of the Agency's
31 ability to receive these funds?
32
33 Brent Hawkins — Formula is very difficult, ambiguous — unclear whether the formula
.4 includes the 20% housing set -aside that the agency is required to make- — these things
15 make it more difficult to get the bonds rated.
36
37 Chair Bennett — Why aren't we just stating what it means rather than striking the
38 language?
39
40 Brent Hawkins — That's what we are doing. We're striking the formula and replacing it
41 with a fixed number.
42
43 Commissioner Vieler — By striking that language and putting a fixed number in, if the
as actual ability of the City to sustain this debt goes down, than we're left at the total of the
45 number that had been written in as opposed to the fluctuation that would have been
46 reflected with the formula? Is that correct?
3
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
1
2 Brent Hawkins — No, I don't think so. The amount of bonds that the agency can issue is
3 really determined not by what is in the Redevelopment Plan, but by the tax increment
4 flow that exists at the time that the agency issues the bonds. The bond market will not
5 purchase tax allocation bonds based on projected tax increment — you can only issue
6 bonds based on what you have a proven track record of receiving.
8 Commissioner Vieler — With the passing of the Urban Growth Boundary, there has been
9 a shuffle in terms of what projects are approved, it's conceivable that our tax revenues
10 would go down as opposed to what they were before that Urban Growth Boundary was
11 put in place. If you are assessing your bonding debt based on current figures, those
2 current figures are probably based over the last couple of years. In effect, if you were
13 looking five or ten years down the road, could not a reduction in that tax income occur,
14 and yet we would be locked in with a higher bonded indebtedness figure than what we
15 can actually sustain.
16
17 Brent Hawkins — Yes, that's possible, it has happened in a number of places. The bond
is market tries to protect itself from that situation using a couple of devices — they look to a
19 coverage factor — you have to show that you have more than enough tax increment to
20 cover debt service (I.I to 1.2 times debt service), they also build in a reserve fund which
21 is typically one year's debt service which can be used to supplement tax increment if that
22 is necessary in order to meet that service. The bond market is very conservative, they
protect themselves very well, that is why you see so few municipal defaults.
,
25 Commissioner Glass - I am a Municipal Bond Principle, so I trade this market. At the
26 last meeting I made allusions — Petaluma's credit rating is A -3, which puts them in the
27 upper echelon of cities in the State of California (we're running ahead of San Mateo,
28 equal to Los Angeles). There were allusions made that we were not in good financial
29 shape in this Redevelopment Agency, that is a long way from the truth. Redevelopment
30 agencies that ran into trouble during the real estate slump, were not rated by Moody's or
1 Standard and Poors.
32
Commissioner Vieler — Is this a State formula? Where does it come from?
;a
35 Brent Hawkins — I wish I knew — I've never seen a formula like this before, these limits
36 are always stated in terms of absolute dollars, I've never seen a formula before. This
37 particular formula is not well drafted, it's hard to figure out what it means, it makes the
38 process of figuring out what tax increment the Agency's entitled to and what bond it can
39 issue, a more difficult process.
40
41 Commissioner Vieler — (to Pamela Tuft) I believe that you were present in 1988, do you
32 remember this formula, did you have any part of it?
-13
44 Pamela Tuft — I was on staff in the Planning Department, but I had nothing to do with
45 Redevelopment — I believe it was drafted by an attorney, not the one present tonight.
4
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
t Perhaps Mr. Balshaw (who might have still be on Council in 1988), might be able to
2 answer those questions.
3
a Commissioner Feibusch - I have a technical question, the basic premise of
5 redevelopment is that additional tax revenues from improvements made in the
6 redevelopment area are to be the source of repaying monies spend in advance to create
7 development conditions in the redevelopment area. My point is, if those monies are spent
8 in a flood fix, by doing that, another flood problem is created in another part of the City.
9 How does this create funds in that manner, and, if you do that kind of operation, do you
10 have to have findings?
11
12 Brent Hawkins — Redevelopment funds can be used both to invest in public /private
13 partnerships which result in private development which increases assessed value and
14 creates additional tax increment. However, redevelopment funds can also be spent on
15 public improvements which don't create tax revenues. Before a Redevelopment Agency
16 can do that, both the Agency and the City Council have to make findings. Those findings
17 are that the facilities are a benefit to the redevelopment project area, that there is no other
is reasonable means of financing those facilities, that the construction of the facilities will
19 help in the elimination of blight, and that the facilities are provided for in the agency's
20 Implementation Plan. There are four or five findings that both the agency and the City
21 Council have to make before they can use redevelopment funds to pay for publically
22 owned facilities.
23
24 Commissioner Feibusch - The agency and the City Council are one and the same.
'5
26 Brent Hawkins - Right, that's true in most cities.
27
28 Commissioner Feibusch — But, there are findings required?
29
30 Brent Hawkins — Yes.
31
32 Commissioner Vieler — Regardless of what we do here, this is not final, it goes to the
33 City Council.
34
35 Brent Hawkins — Yes. The Planning Commission makes a report and a
36 recommendation, they don't really make a decision. The decision is make by the City
37 Council.
38)
39 Chair Bennett - The decision being made in changing the language in this document
40 really has nothing to do with creating funds or determining how those funds are being
41 spent, is that correct?
42
43 Brent Hawkins — That is correct.
44
J5 Chair Bennett — Your position is that the only thing this document is doing is clarifying,
46 making it easier to sell bonds at a lower rate?
5
Planning Commission Minutes — Januan- 25, 2000
2 Brent Hawkins — It's overcoming a technical problem in the Redevelopment Plan which
3 we think will save us some money if the agency issues bonds.
t
5 Helen Wilson — 14 San Carlos Drive ( Payran Area) — Concerned about this against
6 Outlet Mall for the reason of location — it's terrible, there is an open field from movie
7 theaters (Pacific Cinemas), that would have been an ideal place for an outlet mall if you
8 needed one (the buildings are ugly besides that), concerned because if there is any
9 expansion we're going to get flooded again. Really concerned about this, shouldn't have
10 gotten this far.
11
12 Commissioner Cader- Thompson — I believe that you may be talking about tomorrow
13 night — the Corona Reach Specific Plan Committee which is actually talking about the
14 Corona Reach area and the factory outlet; tonight is actually talking.about a change in the
15 language of the redevelopment plan.
16
17 Ilelen Wilson — I understand that, but as a member of the public, I am very concerned, I
18 wish that this hadn't come this far — ok, I am a little bit confused; will come back
19 tomorrow.
20
21 Jack Balshaw — This is not as straight - forward as presented. You got a lot more
22 information tonight which clarified it, but you are asked to approve two maximums and a
,3 clarification. You weren't given any changes — you were given the $80Million that is in
24 Section E -3 and you were left with the blanks in Section E -1. From what the gentleman
25 before me was saying, it sounds like they are working up some numbers to put in those
26 blanks. Those numbers should be worked up and presented to you to fill in the blanks in
27 Section E -1 before you act on it. It seems like the reason for E -3 should at least be made
2R valid in some way. In 1988, this language was put in at request of the attorneys, but we
29 also were assured that this 1.75 factor made them extremely conservative. You're still
30 not getting the information as to what this is going to cause. The change from the 1.75
31 factor to the State mandated 1.25 factor increases the bonding ability by 40 %. This is
32 significant. You've been asked to set maximums but you haven't been given any
33 information for changing them or leaving them alone. I believe that by eliminating the
34 details, what you are doing is leaving it completely wide open to interpretation- which
35 may be good for maximizing your bonding ability, if that's the intent, ok, but say that.
36 There is also a new section, E -4, I think the flag under which this agenda item is being
37 discussed, is really false. The public is led to believe (in the public notice and in the
3R agenda description), that you were doing something with maximums and that you were
39 doing something with clarifications, and I don't think you are. This is a sham designed to
40 match the purpose. It appears that the purpose is to eliminate conditions, not to clarify
41 them. The original language was designed to protect the City, there hasn't been any
42 discussion other than you are legally allowed to go to 1.25. I guess Bond Counsel
43 requested the change. The question raised by Commissioner Feibusch about getting
44 public monies to make improvements is to increase the taxable value within the district
35 which is the basis for paying back the bonds, but the example is, if you put all the money
46 into Payran Reach and the Council doesn't allow any development north of there, which
6
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
I they are seriously considering, then this money would not be bringing any return, other
than a small increment that may occur to houses in the Payran area. You are doing
3 something here without full knowledge of what you are doing. I will explain my reasons
4 for asking you not to do a Negative Declaration. I alluded to the Sierra Madre decision,
5 overturning an action where there was a Negative Declaration. They wanted to remove
6 the historic designation from 29 structures. No movement of dirt, no construction, no
7 harm to the environment, but the case was made that once the historic designation was
x removed, they could then be demolished or moved without anything other than a permit
9 from the Building Department. Once they were demolished or removed, anything done
10 to the land, the basis for any environmental complaint would be moot. Therefore there
I t was a track, a domino effect, between a completely innocuous action and a taking away
I2 of the public's ability for due process further down the line. The example I gave here
13 about what the City of Petaluma might do is that there has been discussion by
14 Councilmembers, that with the Payran Reach being constructed, if there is any building
15 in the flood plain, this could endanger the downtown because the Payran Bridge used to
16 be, in effect, a dam, without that there, the water can get down as fast as it wants. We've
17 got a situation where we're going to be using some of these bond monies to pay for the
I's Payran Reach. This could actually cause a problem somewhere else and leave the City
19 without any resources to mitigate that problem. I think your action here has a train
20 attached to it, that should the City Council get the money and spend it, and then decide
21 not to do any building upstream, if there was no building, they wouldn't generate the
22 revenue that the bonds are supposed to generate, and if they did the building, they would
23 tri ( their own self - fulfilling prophesy of floods. Really think about the ramifications
24 of this. I would like you to get a little upset that you've been asked to rubber -stamp
25 something without being given fitll knowledge of its impact. I think that the bottom line
26 is not so much the conditions, the clarifications, as it is the elimination of the 1.75 which
27 greatly expands the bonding ability.
2X
29 Geoff Cartright — 56 Rocca — Normally when I hear the term .Negative Declaration, I
30 shudder because it means development is going in and there's been a lot of that and a lot
31 of that has been in the floodplain — you know what I think of that. However, this is a
32 Negative Declaration pertaining to a document. Does this Negative Declaration for this
3 document mean that any development done via this document doesn't need or require
34 environmental review? I believe it does require environmental review. Perhaps someone
35 can answer that? John Balshaw was on the Council when this Redevelopment Plan was
36 passed, look at what they did with the money — the Marina Building, the Auto Mall,
37 we're still paying for those. Maybe we're going in the right direction this time. Mr.
3Y Balshaw also mentioned the 1.75, 1.25 — I'm not sure if I'm up on that, and I was
39 wondering if anyone here is? Perhaps Mr. Glass could help me with that?
40
41 Commissioner Vieler — (to Mr. Balshaw) — You alluded to the fact that if this was
42 passed, and the money was out there and development in Payran area — that this would
13 have an impact on downtown — no money to deal with it, how is that scenario any
44 different — how are you going to deal with that situation in advance?
45
11
Planning Commission Minutes — Januan 25. 2000
1 Jack Balshaw — You have to show that you are actually going to increase the tax
2 allocations, at least that is your plan (I don't think $80M Ilion in bonds will ever come
3 up), if you took this money and spent all of it on Payran Reach and subsequent to that
4 decided to have no construction in the flood plain at all generating no additional
5 revenues, that is where we could end up with insufficient funds to cover our bond.
6 Granted, the bonding companies are going to do something to protect themselves, but you
7 need to tie in what you are going to do with how much you are going to ask for. I think
8 going from 1.75 to 1.25 makes that extremely critical.
9
10 Chair Bennett — We're dwelling quite a bit on how the Council is going to spend this
1 ► money, I don't think Planning Commission needs to overlook how Council spends funds.
12 I think that's more an argument when it goes up to Council.
13
14 Commissioner Vieler — I'm concerned with something I heard at the last meeting, what I
15 want to understand about this process — Mr. Balshaw says this is tied in a way to a
16 creation of future tax dollars. Mr. Hawkins states that the bonding takes place based on
17 present tax dollars and has nothing to with what happens in the future, other than the
I s assumption (which is very rigorously examined by bonding agencies), that there will be a
19 tax flow that is already existing and in place. I am caught between the two of these.
20
21 Jack Balshaw — All I ask is that after $80Million, you use the language "subject to tax
flow from existing properties ".
23
24 Commissioner Vieler — So if that blank was filled in with that statement, based on a tax
25 flow from existing properties, that would satisfy your concerns?
26
27 Jack Balshaw — Yes.
2S
29 Commissioner Vieler — I don't have my original staff report, maybe it's very clear there,
30 I was not clear. that the 1.75 was being reduced to the 1.25 until you said that — is that
31 what is taking place?
33 Brent Hawkins — We're eliminating the 1.75 coverage factor and replacing it with a
34 fixed dollar amount. The provisions, in the ,redevelopment law that require a
35 redevelopment plan to have these limitations — the limitation on the principal amount of
36 bonded indebtedness and the limitation on the total amount of tax increment dollars that
37 are allocated to the agency over the life of the plan, came out of historic conflicts
38 between redevelopment agencies and counties over tax increment financing. Taxing
39 agencies claimed that these redevelopment projects were never completed, that they went
40 on forever, the ever - increasing tax increment was being allocated to the redevelopment
4 t agency, and there were no limits or controls on how many tax dollars would be diverted
Al 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
44 taxes. The redevelopment law was changed in the 1980's to require redevelopment plans
45 to contain these limits to protect taxing agencies so that redevelopment plans don't just
46 go on and on forever. Once these taxing limits are met, the increased tax dollars start
8
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
I flowing back to the treasuries of the agencies that levy the taxes. The way that these
2 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,
4 cannot continue to receive tax increment. This amendment eliminates this ambiguous,
5 difficult to determine formula and substitutes a fixed dollar figure which is what we
6 believe the County and the Redevelopment Agency thought that formula represented in
7 1988 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted.
9 Commissioner Broad - What conditions would need to be met for the City to issue
l0 $50Million of bonds with the existing language and with the proposed language? What
I 1 does the 1.75 coverage mean?
i2
1 Brent Hawkins — I don't know, that is the problem.
14
15 Commissioner Broad - What does the word coverage mean?
16
17 Brent Hawkins — Coverage is the excess of tax increment revenue that you need over
►s debt service. If you say 1.75 coverage, that means your tax increment is 175% of debt
19 service.
ZO
21 Commissioner Broad — So in absence of that language, you no longer have that
22 stipulation?
3
24 Brent Hawkins — That's correct. What you do have though is the bond market which
25 requires you to have a coverage factor of 1.1 or 1.2 depending on a number of factors.
26
27 Commissioner Broad — That is the same condition that exists throughout other
28 communities within the State which issue redevelopment agency bonds?
29
30 Brent Hawkins — Yes, it is a function of the market itself, it's not there because of the
31 law or the redevelopment plan, it's what the underwriters insist on.
32
33 Anne Simpson - Part of the ambiguity in this 1.75 debt coverage is there is no definition
34 of what should be included _in there — whether or not that includes the housing set -aside .
35 funds or not. We've had lawyers look at this in addition to Brent Hawkins — nobody can
36 give us a definitive answer. That is part of the reason we can't answer that question.
37 There needs to be some clarity in that definition in terms of what is defined in terms of
39 the tax increment to be included in that debt coverage.
39
40 Commissioner Vieler — It raises a question for me — how does changing language in the
4 manner that you have changed it in any way clarify whether or not the housing is
42 included in the tax assessment or not?
�3
44 Anne Simpson — We're setting a total dollar amount over the life of the plan for bonds.
45 The amount that you can issue in bonds in a given year is determined by the amount of
46 increment you have in that year. There has to be a coverage test, reserves — that is
9
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25. 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
,
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
4)
41
42
43
44
45
46
determined by the bond market. That is not going to be affected by the total debt limit,
which is what we are changing. We are not changing the total debt limit, we are
clarifying that language. It still remains at $80Million. The amount of bonds that you
can issue in a given year is not going to change because of what we are doing.
Chair Bennett — I want a clarification — I think we have heard some discussion to the
contrary. The City can go out and issue bonds, nothing prohibits them from doing that.
The action we are taking is not going to alter that capability to issue a bond, is that
correct?
Anne Simpson — Well, the Redevelopment Agency can issue bonds, right
Chair Bennett — So, we're really talking about funding mechanisms on this and what is
going to affect the interest rate.
Anne Simpson — Right, and clarifying and simplifying the language so that the rating
agencies will provide a better rating.
Chair Bennett — I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly when I say that
the Redevelopment Agency can issue bonds without this change?
Anne Simpson — We believe that they can, but it could be an unrated bond.
Chair Bennett — Right, so we're not talking about the ability to issue bonds or how much
they can issue bonds for, we're talking about clearing the way to issue bonds.
Anne Simpson — Yes.
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.
10
Planning Commission Minutes — Januan 25. 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
ao
41
42
13
44
45
46
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.
.lack Balshaw — There was a specific statement made at the beginning of the meeting
about the appeal and 1 thought that pertained?
Chair Bennett — That appeal statement appears on all Planning Commission agendas.
Jack Balshaw — I guess what I am understanding now is all this does is let you borrow
up to $80Mill1on with no conditions and you can't borrow any more than $80Million.
Brent Hawkins — The current limit on bonded debt is $80Million, subject to this 1.75
coverage. We're eliminating this 1.75 coverage. What you're left with is an $80N illion
limit on the principle amount of bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at any one
time. I don't think you have any where near enough tax increment flow to support that
kind of a bond issue. The bond market will not purchase bonds if you don't have
demonstrated tax increment flow that is sufficient to make the debt service.
Commissioner Vieler — There was a perception on my part at the last meeting that there
was a great deal of urgency attached to this because there were things that could not
move forward until this had been resolved. It does not seem that there is something here
that is so urgent that it impacts other things. I am confused why there is this sense of
urgency to pass something without the specific figures. Why are we in a rush to get
this passed.
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
1 Pamela Tuft — I don't think we're in such a rush. I was asked late last year to undertake
2 the Initial Study. The Implementation Plan for the Redevelopment Agency identified this
3 as a task, as recommended in 1998. The negotiations with the County have been actively
a pursued by the redevelopment consultants to work out what that maximum needs to be —
5 somewhere between $750 and $800 Million. Other.than the fact that as adoption of the
6 Implementation Plan of the redevelopment agency unfolds, this is a task to be
7 undertaken. I was asked by the City Manager if I could handle this because of the
x extreme staffing shortages in Planning, and the ability to undertake the work in December
9 and January fit in nicely with my General Plan and Lafferty schedules, so my answer to
10 the City Manager was that I could do it if I could wrap it up in January. This is projected
1 1 to move forward to Council in March. I don't get the impression that it's a giant rush.
12
13 Chair Bennett — Just for the record, your colleague last week (Gene Beatty) said it was
14 urgent, we were told that.
15
16 Anne Simpson — There is a timeline for this plan. The urgency revolves around when
17 we would like to issue the bonds, which is before the end of the fiscal year. There is a
18 timeline that Brent Hawkins' office has prepared. The urgency is that if we wanted to
19 issue rated debt, we do need to move this forward.
20
21 Commissioner Vieler — What is the date of the fiscal year?
22
23 Anne Simpson — We're trying to issue the bonds by June.
24
25 Commissioner Glass — How much debt are you hoping to issue?
26
27 Paul Marangella — Management Consultant — We're anticipating somewhere between
28 $15- $17Million, probably near the low end. The urgency is a function of the date of
29 issuance which we're hoping to do in May or early June.
30
31 Commissioner Broad — If this text amendment doesn't go through, can you still issue
32 the same amount of bond indebtedness?
33
34 Paul Marangella — I believe that we can still issue the amount, it's just how much it's
going to cost us. This is all coming from our financial advisors who are saying you don't
36 want to go out to the market with an unrated bond if you don't have to.
37
38 Commissioner Vieler — An unrated versus a rated bond — if you're using the formula
39 that currently exists, it seems that it's more restrictive and bonding agency would be
4.0 more prone to give you a top rating as opposed to give you a non - rating.
41
42 Brent Hawkins — It would if the language of your plan actually said that, but it doesn't.
43 Nobody can figure out what it says, that's the problem.
44
45 Commissioner Broad — So the Redevelopment Agency will, at some point in time have
-16 a hearing to decide upon offering bonds in the amount of $15- $17Million?
12
Planning Commission Minutes— January 25, 2000
1
2 (answer, yes).
3
-t Commissioner Feibusch — Since Mr. Hawkins is here and has answered my questions, I
5 just have one more question. Going back to the findings — if those findings were not
6 made, what are the ramifications?.
7
s Brent Hawkins — Unless the findings are made, the Agency would not be able to make
9 the decision to spend the money that way. What we have before you now does not
10 authorize the Agency to spend the money for any particular thing. It's just general, its
I going to apply to any bonds. The decision to actually spend the money has to be taken by
12 a separate action. Redevelopment law says that the Redevelopment Agency can use
13 funds to pay for public facilities, but before they do so the City Council has to make these
14 findings. They have to take a specific action authorizing the Agency to do that and they
15 have to make findings.
16
7 The public hearing was closed.
- 1S
19 Commissioner Glass — This is an interesting thing, the financial markets know the
20 difference between rated paper and non -rated paper, they know the difference between
21 each grade in a rating. Many firms will not trade non -rated paper. There are fewer bond
22 clients willing to invest in non -rated paper. Many mutual funds cannot invest in non -
23 rated paper. The greater bonding capacity we have with the Redevelopment Agency, the
24 less money we waste on interest rates (which only goes to the bond houses and the bond
25 clients), I have no problem with moving forward with this. I see little problem with
26 diving the language that bond underwriters and bond counsel and our bond advisories are
asking for and save the cost of the interest. Be sure that to go to market with non -rated
paper as opposed to rated paper is going to be expensive.
29
30 Commissioner Cader- Thompson — I am happy that we are moving forward with this
31 and cleaning up the redevelopment language. I am ready to move forward on it. I think
32 it's a real value for the community because we're actually going to be saving money in
33 the long run.
3-4
•5 Commissioner Feibusch — Until the blanks are filled in and this document is cleaned -up,
36 I will not vote for it.
37
3s Commissioner Barrett — I feel pretty confident that what is being asked here is a request
39 to tighten up the language of the Redevelopment Plan. I feel confident in the answers I
40 have gotten from the collective experts.
-11
42 Commissioner Vieler — There are several things I still don't understand. The issue
43 raised by Mr. Cartwright with regards to a Negative Declaration — does that then make
44 any project that Redevelopment funds are allocated to exempt from going through the
45 process?
-16
13
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
I Brent Hawkins - No, the Agency would have to go through a CEQA process for any
2 subsequent decision it makes about how to use funds that may be generated by a bond
3 issue or any other decision.
4
5 Commissioner Vieler - What is accomplished by the Negative Declaration part of this?
6
7 Brent Hawkins - It's just a finding that this amendment which is just cleaning up the
ti language that relates to financing, will not have any effect on the environment.
9
10 Commissioner Vieler - We heard that this has to come to the Planning Commission and
I l then it's a recommendation to the City Council and is not subject to appeal. What is the
12 criteria that we have to reach with regards to that recommendation?
13
td Brent Hawkins The statute says that the City Council refers the proposed amendment
15 to the Planning Commission for their report and recommendation as to conformance with
16 the General Plan.
17
1 t Commissioner Vieler - Are we then the body that is responsible for creating the findings
19 for this to move forward to the City Council?
20
21 Brent Hawkins - No.
22
23 Commissioner Vieler - We are not, we can simply issue a recommendation, and that
24 recommendation could be that there are several questions that are still unanswered with
25 regards to this issue. We are sending it to Council with the recommendation that several
26 items be reviewed.
27
Brent Hawkins - You can send any recommendation you desire. We would very much
29 like a recommendation out of this body with regards to conformity to the General Plan.
30 That is the one thing that the State Statutes specifically mention that the Planning
31 Commission needs to do, if you want to add other words of advice or recommendations,
32 that is up to the Planning Commission.
33
31 Chair Bennett - Now I am confused. We have before us a recommendation which
35 includes adoption of a Negative Declaration for approval of text amendments. You say
36 we don't have to do that. That includes the Negative Declaration findings, you say we
37 don't have to make findings. Are you sure about this?
3`
39 Brent Hawkins - Yes, I am sure about it. There is nothing in State law that requires it.
atl It is my understanding that it is your local practice and procedure to have the Planning
41 Commission do that, so that's the way it has been set up.
42
43 Chair Bennett - (to Pamela Tuft) - We've just taken a sharp degree to the right here....
44
45 Pamela Tuft - No, Brent and I had a number of conversations not long after the City
46 N4anager asked me to undertake a Negative Declaration. And Brent is very right, his
14
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
I argument, when we discussed it, is the State Statute regarding redevelopment does not
2 require you to do the Negative Declaration. I felt strongly, after spending 15 years in
3 your Planning Department, that tradition and our local Environmental Guidelines, calls
4 for the Planning Commission, when they hear a project, to also hear the environmental
5 review, and I thought the Commission deserved that. I convinced Mr. Hawkins to allow
F the Negative Declaration to walk with the General Plan consistency findings because I
7 thought that the Planning Commission would feel left out of the process if you were told
s the only thing you have a right to talk about is the General Plan consistency. I wanted the
9 full package to come past you as it moves to the Council.
10
I I Chair Bennett — So the answer is that if we choose not to make a Negative Declaration
12 finding, that is no big deal?
13
14 Pamela Tuft — You could forward your recommendations or your actions to the Council
15 with no action on the Negative Declaration and they can consider the Negative
16 Declaration.
17
Is Commissioner Vieler — We should be addressing General Plan findings; what are the
19 points?
20
21 Commissioner Glass — I think we discussed that very quickly and then moved on and
22 got bogged -down in other areas.
23
24 Commissioner Broad — I guess if there is a conspiracy hidden in this project, I haven't
25 found it yet. I don't see any problem with this site. I think the Commission would be
2G derelict if we were to allow language to stand that is going to do nothing but penalize the
27 City when it goes out to obtain bonds and to cost the City money it would otherwise have
2s to use locally for necessary projects. I am satisfied with the explanations that we have
29 been given. I am satisfied with the need to change that language. I am satisfied with the
30 proposed Negative Declaration and future environmental review that would be necessary
31 for any project. I am prepared to support the whole package.
32
33 Chair Bennett — I intend to go with the majority on this. I have had some concerns. I
34 think it has probably been as confusing an issue as we have had. I think I indicated last
35 week about being somewhat displeased with how it came to us, it would have been much
36 better if we would have had some explanation coming in and not getting a document that
37 says this is just technical work but it is urgent. I think at least we got some explanations
,s tonight, I am satisfied with this. I am prepared to support it. There have been a number
39 of issues raised including concerns. I would like those fairly well documented in the
40 study so that Council is aware that the issues that were raised as concerns have been
41 addressed and that there is a certain amount of interest, at least at this Commission, that
42 this was not just a rubber stamp.
44 Commissioner Vieler — I would like to make a recommendation. I think we are going to
45 send this to City Council. I would make the recommendation as part of this, we've
46 already talked about the documentation and the points that have been brought forward,
15
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11�
19
20
21
22
23
24
,
26
, 7
,
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
s
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
but I would highly recommend that the members of the City Council get the tape, listen
to the discussion (or verbatim minutes, which we probably don't have the staff to issue).
A motion was made by Commissioner Glass and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
recommend to the City Council /Community Development Commission the adoption of a
Negative Declaration for Approval of Text Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan, find
that the proposed Text Amendments conform to the Petaluma General Plan, and approve
and adopt the proposed Amendments based on the findings and subject to the conditions
listed below and the specific concerns be passed along to the Council (either by review of
the tape of this meeting or verbatim minutes). .
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Yes
Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: No
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner Vieler: Yes
Chairperson Bennett: Yes
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.
16
Planning Commission Minutes — January 25, 2000
1
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
Io
12
13
la
15
6
17
1 I
19
21
22
23
24
25
20
, 7
0
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
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.
II. LIAISON REPORTS.
City Council (JC -T) — Reviewed Bicycle Plan.
SPARC (DG) — Old Elm Village approved, moving forward.
Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV) None.
Tree Advisory Committee (TB) — Planting project on Prospect,
trees doing well — checking on some poorly pruned trees.
ADJOURNMENT: , 00 pm s\pc- p1an\minutes \0125
17