Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/12/1976PE ALUMA COMMUNITY�DEVELOPMENT4tiCOMMISSION MINUTES` OF ADJOURNED MEETING .:.' y�r„ P ` �L>2:; °l 6' -u :7: 3:0.',P.. „ .. Irlonda A r.i"1 9J, , CALL TO_; ORDER, The,.Ad ourned, Meet ng'. of :: the',;Petal'uma,.'Communi,ty. Development Commission, the: Petaluma:P:lannin& Commission, and the Project Area Committ'ee-was called to order. by Chairman Helen Putnam at th'e hour' �of 7-'30' p,rm. ; ROLL CALL Petaluma Community Development, Commission'.: I Y"- " .. Pres'ent•: ' Gommissoners- �`Ga:_y -anagli,`',Har_berson, Hi'lligoss, and-le'. Chairman Putnam, •Abstention'sx: Commissioners Bruriner.,• 'Ma.ttei, and Perry Petaluma Plann'ng'�iComin�ssiont:. ^*., ;. . Present: Commis sione rs.,:Horcrz a,;. 'Hea'd, .,Waters.,, Wright, and _ . H'ill'igoss Absent:. ,Gomm 6sioner's Popp .and Bond ARIFI'CAT.ION' OF Gener"a CL' Counsel sMa•tthew•Hudson"'explained the reason why ABSTENTTONS`BY- Co'mmirssoners ,Brunner, Mattei;--and Perry were -,not seated .on MEMBERS"OF THE the dis withother ,members o f-,.ihe',Petaluma ,Community Develop - 'a.. PETAL'UMA COMMUNITY merit^Commission: He•had advised 'the,three, Commissioners -their, DEVELOPMENT participation n icertain"aspects of.,'the business of the Petaluma COMMISSION to . Development p C ommissi`on;;;may,' cons,,t-itute, a possible',, : • "Conflict"'' of 'Interes t.` • "The,,, three. •Commi'ssioners either own:. - fore,^�adv'ised them�torabsta nef•rom,votiigs.on1thehPlanoforttheeProject Area.. Th �' He.had there e same rule, would -apply to their consideration `of. the Plan'~for, :the .Pr.oject Area. Mr. Hudson advised any discussion'at the Commission leveltmight.possibly tend -,,to influence. ^the eligible Commissioners to vote foror, ,,against. the'.,Plan. The .Fair Political acti'Comm"s'sion . f.'eels•,that , ces'�C"oat;femptng".to :infl'uence"a-vote, one, 'way ovdh6thCommunity I e"_. 6r' con iment C' ' iss ontw s. it'se a '.member .of the? ,Petaluma p h es -to ^speak from the floor as , a , private citizen,, this, :would -'be p' rm'itfed'°under the "Fair Politics^l" Pra'c'tices Commission's rules,. Mr..' Hudson further stated that even•!though •the.:rule,ds an, unpopular one-, he would -Advise the Commissioners to adhere to it in,order..,to.,,protect themselves `o,css f' red'evelopment . -' If" a„plan' is ado,pted., there' will beand toprotect the remmMr.cer'ain points where. -some 'of, the, Co Hudson" started, as the 'Comm'iss16n, '.gets 'further ,into the, process, the matter may become 'even more complicated':' within f,rom'the.aud' Ate -,'Mrs Matteis omplete disagreement Speaking g ienc• � stated 'he 'was" ,not' in �c he advice- of ,the . tonne; ;s:..- However., he did •'feel ,the matter was being_;: carried to''extreme`s when Commissioner Brunner was not 'ab'le--to participate's'inge he merely-, had : aBusiness in the' Pr"oj ect Area' and •d'id .not- own ,property.,, He .felt the Commission from om time to times; f i id' ;themselves in: ;a very difficult': position. as every .vote would ;'have to be, uriafiimous';; ''arid` ,all -,four persons e'lig.ible to 'Sit on 'the dais would have to be in agreement ori,each decision.' -Chairman-Putnam then posed,-,a.hypo.thetical question t:o the General'Counsel Matthew Hudson: 'She'asked if,per-h,.aps both she and .Commissioner Ha'rberson suddenly„ acquired proper=ty`in the;Proj:ect-.Area,, how would the-0 mm scion-, f-unet: on w th-only two -'peoples on=U fa.-_ m Mr. ,.�Hudson.4said _he, almost ho:ped,.-. N , "this °would ha en becquse if the. C'ommissiothr,ee •members could.�:resume therltarticiere ' pp ners I£ourid. themselves in, the'• a',quorum would be ds uali-fled the'pther P. - ��, \ ,;portion and then alT'members could vote. 2 \Then 'Executive Directoa. ` Tio,ber'uto�''Meyer''introduced the-Sp"e'Ci'a'l,' Counsel_ for the Community bev lopment Commission ' Mr'% h audience that fq'llowri'g' ,r- .•_ e, t,'e 1~ast"mee g�� g s had been the,members of Joseph-Coomes: Chairman.Putna ers 1' sio_:ner Hilligoss, a member wlio could -vote.,Commissioner. en made be ho- tin arran ement and Ma't•tei, a member who: or, er- -clarify.-the, situation. could -not vote,, to meet 'With -Mr'." Coom6!§0':ifi`.-­­d' -tb�-'Mr.- Coomes,then . stated he agreed with. - Mr. Hudson"s­sta:tements and' the manner in which he,has ,,an-alyzed- the situation. Cbciuio-!§-;;b,t-Ated:'Ii�ei.'has**,appedted, before -the Fair Political Practices Commission, along with some City Attorneys and,'o.ther legal- Counselsj,.to try t.o have 'the -Fair. Polit.'i-c:ik-l- j?;-r&ctltes Commi.ssion clarify their regulations. The matter of voting on projects, does -not scilely,re'late to redevelop- ment , plans. . The problem- exists' in any maj'br public project,, - and he stated,, it is a problem "public' officials are, going, to-. have to, adjust to an -work with under the new law.,-' APPROVAL OF MINUTES AMENDMENT TOE. .` BY-LAWS PCDC RES '#10 ,The -minutes Development mailed. - of the,Regtilar",Me.etIng Of 'the Petaluma Community Commission of April 5, 1976, wereapp roved-as PCbC Reso,lution...#10- amending the: By,=Iawa..,S_ectidn. 4 Quorum to read: ",'The powers of the agency shall be vested in the members -thereof, -in .,off ice. from time ,to, -time. . .'Four members 'shall cons t-it-Iite, a quorum-foIr the purpose of conduct ing.'It s business and, exercising,its -powers and for all other purposes, s, pr6vided that a smaller number may. adjourn from ftme:'to time until.the quorum,I§. obtained,. Un-le.§s Qtherwise-required by law; action may be.take,n.by theagency upon -.a vote. Of, a majprity of. the members­presdht,-at-the time the vote is taken,." was introduce&�'by Commissioner Harberson., seconded'by.,Qommis- sioner.Hilligoss,,-and ad adopted .by five af=f rmat-ive and :t,WO': abstaining Votes,. Noted for the, record, Is, the 'fact that.., Commissiorier,-Mattei was permitted- to -:v6te - on - thi& Resolution;. . REVIEW OF The preliminary draft', City of,Petaluma Community Development, REDEVELOPMENT"-'' -'Commission.Central Business District­-,Red6velopme_nt Plan dated PLAN"' April 1976,,'was submitted.,to-the Recording Secretary and ordered filed.. Deputy'. Director, .Frank. Gray reviewed the . Plan. in its entirety; and, du ring.. the course• o•f., t,s he review, .everal correc- tiohs"and addendums: were made to the -preliminary draft..,plan.- Mr. Gtay.stressed-t-he. fact the`'Plah the Commissioners -- wer e.�x I eyiewing,tonight,was a .preliminary plan, and hewasasking for input-fromboth-the: Petaluma, Community pey_616,pm ent- Commission and the - P lann-ifig Qommillilsion-beforethe final draft planwas-formulated,., H e, also -asked - the Special Counsel-- Joseph to,",the -,,Community Development, Commission and -the­Pianning Commission the purpose of the documents which would -.,be- reviewed by... the CominissIon during the next .several months;._ Mr.-Coomes -,-'adftes,sed. both Commissions: stating redevelopment:, is a-pr-pcess available J., unaer-St4te Law� for cities to undertake in eligible project areas,. -The elilgib,i, ity of a proj ect' requires a finding Va made_hat it ,is --primarily a blighted area -- blIght--mea-­nifi`g­i�'a' -'c-'- i" t- 'c f tors 6miy na i�fi o-f-,.'fa.-tor-s�',--s"'A'l"c-h"as,.;ec.ono-,i:c, -spaa-1. lanning factors which -may be found to exist in an'area .:which impede iicirmAl-'develo-'pment-tpro,c-e.ssles. and requ assistance ' slstane to, provide! redevelopm6nt,i. One, of the documents.. -that' will 'd`e9cribd these' characteristics�,. ein the Proj qc,t Area. and what �should, be ;done. to. allevi- ate the p . rbbl6ms is the report,the,.Agency- -wall-prepare for submission to the --City Council for'" consideration, when: public hearings.. would­be held on the. Plan..,.- - This report -will -;,go into such rthTags as economic - feasibility, relocation, and th,e. con." ditidris id the` Proj ec,t Area; - The ­second,report - is the; .ETR­which is -required under State respect"to 'the,. RedeveloDment Plan- . Once, having described the con- ditions in the Rroj:ect Area -which. should -be alleviated and corrected:, tlie.Redevelo'p- ment,P ,Plan, is the -instrument, -by which this. is done,. EIR format: is ty pical. to ,any, ---other' ,pre'pared-unde-r-3-Sta-t-e-Lax4-.—The-Tfiain�-d.ifrf.eitence-is-the-p.r-pj-eg�t is not si)ecif ic but is a 25-year plan, -'to be contemplated,. and..to .,have ;some degree -of flexibility. The. Redevelopment's Plan :itself -is, ­ basically .a -legal document- which, after adopted, will- be recorded in the Rec6fdek'ls Office and, will -_be_part of the Land-RecQrds. related to the -Project Area. As, a legal document it has three basic functions. The 'first Is the delegation. of �power by,..,bhe,'CIty.. Council which- adopts the Plan, to the Commission-- to -carry out the. Plan-.. i,., Und.erdt 5 t ate_taw-;•, Redevelopment Agencies , have nclqdi varied powers' to carry out and. deal- with.,"condit ions in,the,. Project Area, i ng REVIEW OF undertaking :-public works-.a'nd-•financ ng."them n� the-�Pro§;ect , rea•. REDEVELOPMENT, Mr.. 'Coomes•<saated there : is :a ',need • for ,,flexibility 'i-ii , It,his` docu-' +p,iAN,. CONT''D, = .,;, ::meet' because cond'i'tions";will, Ic'hange.; 'n •the Project Area, �oppor tun predicted, „for ;pr,'vat^e investments 'will .occur which, cannot :be p t would .,,require 'constant _.. predicted and ,if. the Plan ,is too rXigid, i -amendments.. _ If t-,he%Plan is too ,sped_ ic,; the :Commission"'would; run the risk of inyeis'e' c&nddmna ainst',., • , , g mes ••s,tated .the., second basic tion claims ,a� the �P.larn., Mr.. Coo function' of z-,the,.Red'evelopment, Plan ,is that"of ra land ,us,e document . A Plan .is necessary'; to 'correct the.:def•ic•iencies, in, ,the ',Project , ;but there has'; ,to be .some assurance Lthese" def iciencies'will; not .'reo.cc.ur ';The third primary" , f,unction • of ,the . Plan .is the need'.''for::a .f; nancing mechanism, .and the.,method.'of. financing for redev el p nc .. y ,tax: „ , s ° funds available -.to."the Commission for o ment. is b rement:^. This.;make . public -financing in t•he 'Projpct :by ^using -t-hose . .crea,sed'aaxes which occur' under the Plan or.,;pur:suant,_:to ,the Plan: If.• the -Plan .is °a workahle ,plan and° stimul•a:tes iiVatb investment: that Ipri "stment will, „ ,p "- 'va't'e rove 1 .create, the ,new .taxes, which- allocated;to'the •Agen:cy ,' The ,Plan is a',charter toy thef.',Agency,, a land use..do.cument.; and °+an .implementation ,of . a .development 1-program. for :,an . area..-., .It, is .not, a planning document',as-you'':might :see' in -a 'General,,Plan or. pl-ann, n,g .sstudi;es:.that%have .been 'made.: 'These ;activ'iti'es will be .done ih conj,unct'ion with,':the 'P-.lan 'being implemented but not ;part -of :the Plan. If the :Redevelopment. Plan is ••adopted`, 'then .the Agency could go into specific, •projects,1h the, area.! The Plan.-, is to provide the powers land pro- visioris 'for the•.Proj ect ; Area;, not to lay •)out a, ;general^ -':plan, scheme 'of 'what ,a_ll . the prof ects .will' -'be.. After .Mr".' Grays: review +of the Redevelopment` goals'rand objectives, 'Planning' Commis- sinner aGle- .Head questioned tahether 4or­�not -an .econom °c •repor;t .should,:.be made, in order' t,o determine ::if Ith'e 1"hcrease .;in,r.sale's*:tax would, balance be''tax ;increment ,payments. 'Mr.. ;Gray indicated if redevelo,pment-'occu'rs 'pr;o.perly,. then the :tax .coffers would `be' ncreased.b,y the increased.'.assessed. evaluation, ,of the: ,pro.pe,rty, increased, sales tax;; and increasea,gasoline.'taxes., . -Chairman Putnam, asked,,,Mr•.', 'Coomes•,to: respond ,tg.� o sthe. tax in fnanc'%n an;d' , Mr,. Coomes aaated',f .the ,;p.rimar,y �s,our'ce- of funding -is -tax' increment -f nan°cing; t'he ^only way :i't can ,be .used is to :borrow money, lendersea'p,plyfmometstringelncrement.. It is his experience from prior :prod ects that P stringent, -tests' to public'.agenci�es than private busi'ness:e& for, the repayment of .the loans .Tax increment,- f'inan.cin works as a 'c ° g heck on :the Project. P1r. Gray advised the •FCommiss bg• ners there will bea -enera'1 economic analysis contained in.'T.the Vi Jj eut :R'epor't; and 'since the .Plan and .the `EIR t do no�Is;peak -about° individual 'proj+ec'ts., 16ach project -*,Will,',dev.elo,p. its own..'impleinent'ing, .fi•nancing some thrqugh 'tax increment financing;'; spine !through assessment :d;i'str'.fctss, ,and 's'ome ,may be,,,done thr`o;ugh ,tt e present or "'f'u'ture'-;park •ng° di .t'r cts Deputy Drer :Frank Gray then ;r'eviewed the concept of` ,th'e PI,1'an.,,,, -and :Mr.:. Coomes' _ made ;A^ suggestion :a "paragraph; ':b'e added- that 't'h'ese .elem;ents r'ef.lect the general concept, Rand do not f`ix or .limit the location Hof .s,,ecifi,c,.buildings�, improvements,! or rla_nd us -es to be'carried out by 'the°^Plan. He stressed ther­Paan .should, in -all respects., have some degree ,,'o'f flexibility: :Chaitman Putnam :then':asked that a .reaffirmation 'of '.the Aefinition, of "b11ght", used in redevelopment �be 'Iclarlf ed 'f•or fhe public- .and .also the fact the-..demol` tion of pieces of; property be entirely 'explained so .the ,pilblic- did not, �feel''the Agency- ' �' intended' to demolish severall pieces or blocks of •propertty within the • Cor,e� Area.• of the Czty. She istressed it -was Important to keep ' the -.publi�u informed and have a „good S' ,'siem- of ;public relations in order to clarify all 'mattbrs'. being discussed.. -IMPLEMENTAThN' fl-�r THE PLAN Mr: ' Goa which .she`' described y, .then re p viewed the Plan �P,�_ _g r as ;., 'le, p' im lementation. of the. Plan - = most impor-tant part o_f the! .�>,As- the�'revrew ro• ressed; Mr Coomes_.was available,_ _ to .answer .questi•ons pose&,by members of ,both.;the Petaluma Community.:Deyelolpment, �Commiss on, and: ,th,e .Planning Commission members. ,r"One: such „q,uestion ;was ion; the °property "wherein-• n "s-tates.'the Commission- -is authorized ­ to a'cqui�siton �of ,; the Plan, located.' 'Mr.. Coomes indicated thisgwould:upon °which ;t'hose strucare ttures.. ..:. ac xire structures without .ac, uirin the, -land, allow the Agency to relocate, where. necessary, .or rehabilitate a'^s,tructure- which, has some historical- :designa'tion. . `It. could lend as"s sttance, to the property' owner who -would not be financially able. to" demolish the :structure,, 'thus, ,giving the Agency this: power, but possession of y REVIEW OF �_�� the land would be retained by the property_ owner. A d'iscussiori REDEVEhOPMENT ensued -on• the portio,,i 'of' the,implementation regarding partic.i= PLAN . CON:TD pat ion by . owners and:'`tenant's . in ..the, :redevelopment- proj ects ''by •,. extending' reasonabl'e.`pre-ferences � °to. persons engaged' 'in.' bus ine,ss.es. - ifi -the,'Proj,ect Area t'o reenter: in.business :within "e e Project Area if' the- meet -the r.equir.ements prescribed in the.Plan.. The question was''raised whether or not this might' result in some '.type of •lawsuit:. Mr Coomes':responded- ,by n explaining` before p.ublic•hearings are held 'and 'action, is taken on the Plan, rules - and regulations will: have to' bes -adopted for -owner==participation sand .owner reentry, . of businesses in the Project Area. Reasonable pr.efererices would%be,"whatever the Council determines. -•Mr-: Coomes: indicated property, owners are'.t•o,have ;preferential, standing in _participating - in. the impleriientation'.of the -Plan;- Mr.•' Gray, asked :Mrs' Coomes: to explain, the' two typical -types -of -agreement to .be entered -into with -the. property owners,. Mr'. Coomes' ,stated 'there :will.=be- persons who want, to develop !in the, Project - Area-; . with the Agency's cooperation and want an agreement to tie -those-, mutual obligations together. The other instance would be where prop;erty, owners want to develop -property and acquire other property t'o'expand and enter into an -agreement. lso stated th'ere..might be a third situation%where pr'oper.ty:agreements, would not notbe'- needed -at a,ll;•because the properties 'are conforming finder the Redevelop- ment Plan. Under, Section 'D of, the implementation relatingto r,elocation,: assistance;,.- Deputy Director Frank 'Gray advised the Commi'ss_ion the language in `this.'section is mandated by the State,, and there is 'not much flexibility available to the, Commission .in pro- viding, -relocation assistance. Some questions were raised concerning.the fact the Community"Development .Commission :shall seek to•provide comparable al:ternate,loca= tions=for 'bus nes"s concerns-and-.eitities whicfi are to be relocated. Mr_ Coomes stated' relocationn-rulea will be,adopted,.and,:as property is acquired., they will. be enforced-. Most of, the relocation assistance; is'mand'ated .,by State:.Law. Relo- cation expenses for homeowners and` business.es :shall_ be paid.... ;Relocation cannot be done unless .,satisfactbry`'hous'ing for -residential or comparable sites, for businesses can be acquired.. • Under .the- new: Eminent Domain 'Law-, businesses will be provided compensation for --good will: Mr. 'Gray indicated' :he .felt_ it was important .to • point out that"o sme of, the limits Written' n this section will never •be.reached.as the Comm ssioii :goes through, the. prof-ect•s.,- b•u't -i' t; is: necessary. to ;establish those limits. Under Section -E,"'Other.Actions As Appropriate-," General Counsel, Matthew Hudson asked if, as: property .acquired by the Commission. is. -sold, back to the tenant, .could a- clause be `put into the agreement "a covenant to. -maintain.," s Mr. Coomeresponded it is being done- .at the present time,, p.ar•ticiil'arly ,if it, is. a special. benefit being conferred by 'the, Agency. Mr. Coomes• also :staged. as.proper,ty is -being; sold by the.. Commission a 15-day Notice of Public Hearing -is required. Public bidding is not neces,saryy however; sales. -+can be done by negotiation but have to. 'be. done .in the. open. :Mr. Gray°stated the property being !sold • need . not, be, sold•t'o the highest bidder'. ''The ;Commission would have the -discretion--of :selling the land to the prospective!owner on the merits of, the- intended°use. Commissioner. Hilligoss asked if: it would be necessary to have a 2/3 vote on the sale of pro,pert3., and •Mr.,Gray responded it would.be,done through Eminent, Domain., Planning -Commissioner Horci'za asked how the. Commission_ would. `reach. -a decision ,on ,the value, of, -.the, pr;,o.perty. Mr.. Coomes,respond'ed.by stating, ,in dealing with,the acquisition of p.roperty;..the Commission. would have: two appraisals made.; The`Commission will_ be able to bring in technical assistance if, it is required: Commissioner Head questioned whether it would',not- be advisable to' advertise land which' was available in the .Redevelopment- Area., stating it.'would not b`e necessary to attach .a sale price to the land but that the Commission _wou-ld entertain. propo.- sals,. Deputy Director Frank Gray advised. the Commission would --have the opportunity' to adver•ti"s'e ' in' trade publications,. Chairman Putnam stated she, felt Commissioner Head"-s-point:-was_a_valid one_and.._the' .Commission as well_ as •-others'- need's to know_ the steps to follow�in'•order to•have a='pro,per-;format on the validity. of procedures. Mr. Gray :stated the sale of land in the ar-ea would; ,swill be. subject -to the conditions . of the .Zoning. Ordinance :of. -.the City; - use permits,,- and:, other, normal procedures, so that they -,are not-- excluded from these types of,'. regulations.. Some discussion, -was •-held' on, the zoning'• which. would. apply to the Pr.oj ect Area,, ;and. Mr., Gray stated_ all new construction would have, 'to comply with state and local laws - =4- ,i•.'Y"• Ran �. . „ '.ia r._ • . .. .. M' i ... ��_� - _. =_ _ -�- - - �I �� _ _ __.n.r.-.:s41•+4 - _ ^, - — r '..tea..-y,. - •:.1 rl �LRE-VIEW OF _ p � — -- •in: effect,`�including tthe •Zoning -'Ordinance. `�Mr. C`�omes�� stated" REDEVELOPMENT' "after the Plan is adopted;'the Zoning'Ordinance sho.uId be',.' PLAN CONT'D ':. amee�eduestioned whetliertto°•make.alterat'ive'. or ,Robert Direct Mey' q° ons, change a building,, or build a building: it the P'roJ;ect Area, would it be necessary f'or ..the applicant' to go through site, design review, at- the.P1'arining.°'Commission• level elegate this Develo me' gY y` d �' Y p I e• ;�• • � r. is author r toomes as ,well as the Petaluma Communit nt-Commission level Mr Gra state most cities d ity' to the' P�lanniri Commission M -stated the rule in smaller cities,was to delegate the authority to' either "the Planning, Commission or the Community' -Development Commission 'The°'Planning Director,, could make tfie in itial,determinafion of?conformity with the Redevelopment Plan." Mr'. .y •,. Business Di element beJesta- Gray urt er stated the Plan re biis'hed• for• the Central Buse Director Robert' Meyer raised the question ,whether' it"'would" 'be,' • necessary . for' businesses ' "to make application'°for all_ alterations•'including interior alterations where business may want'to change a wall .or office space within i buildirig"�.' The 'matter- was 'clarified `b'y Mr'., 'Coomes and Mr. Gray to' change the ;language 'unde'r G; DESIGNS STANDARD'S., that.` th'e` Commission "in•cooperation with the Planning Commission may -adopt Jprocedures to review°any new' cons'truCt_ioh or development . "' Mr Gray further stated' the" review -primarily applies'to the exteriors of the buildings. " METHODS,,(-, :FI NANC.ING In respq „.�issioner. s question r or not tfi to- Comm Harbersom'- whether a Federal'Govern- r � 11°,.not def ifunding,` Mr.""Gray•'responded°`by stating source o ,uld be.:includ'eaea " "• alaho.0 h p� p. funds, it went s o as a r' was felt to b.e g the Pro.' ec't A`r wi end u on rE'ederal . advisable'to include the fact in the Plan 'because of 'the,�possibility of jeopardizing Aral fund'syavailable b farHUD_ranty'aMrelGpaent ggoJlecd some Chan es th'eelch'air is °such as " the w ra e- m s recentl funded y g y suggested g o paragraph oh 'the second page o' General Statement.: ;However P, ,. -, � I ,.recommendedF;INANCIarGa � 2 f the METHODS OF S eci`al Counsel Mr. ..Coomes t pg aph,be d'eleted.in its entirety. e Eced'r,und'er the tax.'i ' nt allocation n' 4 e,n ;a •ke y explain how the Project -would be Th - xecutzve �:Di'rec"tor.' then as d Mr,. Coomes to fina e s: Mr'. Coomes stated the taxes levied each year on. the taxable property in the Project Area shall be allocated to,'the' Commission to pay the inter"'est on bonds, loans,; or other indebtedness incurred by the. Community Development Coinmssiori'. There ,'are two dates to keep n:mindawliich would determine when the taxes are allocated arid the other when they would be. paid The assessed value established`in the Pro�'ect Area determines which'•!taxes ,, go to rthe tax:* agency and w_hxcli go to .th'e' Commission': The assessment rol'1 t'o be used,..s deter q mined ,,by the adepdate ' o'f the 'R6devia , Plan. The •last e ualized assessment roll on,th' p f tfie Plan. constitutes the base fore the ,Project: If the :Plan, is adopted on or' b.e'fore: August`.2G, 1976"' the,, assessment roll, in effect for Lthe 1915-76 L,fiscal year would be' the base roll for d allocatedtto theJ the'Projec.t, and any inc"cease,in'the assessed ct Area as of March 1976 would result in the tax base being � Agency,. This base would be for; the 1 _-fe of the :Proj-ect. If the August20,, 1976, target date is not • attained; then the 'next, year„''base 'roll (76-77 fiscal; year,- would be allocated,,.. to the Agency. If the Plan•is,adopter d-befoe January 1, 'I977; the Agency would,beg'in ;® receiving funds aa*of July 1977.. Mr. Coomes further stated the increment is pay- able to. the'i Commission' only if a debt has; been incurred'. Tf bonds are" not issued and'! the, ,Ci'ty •,:receives., tax increment' -to„'repay : finances' by 'the, City' ff° will. be pecessa- funds, thus creatin a corit'inua'l debt between Y g g „ Executive Director questioned whether the City was always 'go rig 'to have to -finance the Agency,. and ,Mr., Gray res'pond'ed_ by' 'stating 'it' would .have ,.to , do so, up urit;il the y. y issues bonds. Mr_ Meyer. then questioned ;whether the ;b`onds.could_ g g Age d Mr. Coomes replied in the affirmative r• .. -ime e enc _ General, Counseeraa'tthewhHud" g y be used' for o sonc:asked'if,the'A ;enc. -could' borrow f=unds:'from `. other 1 M .. : r " ed it could borrow from developers =and •from 1"enders' 'rces, _and Mrs: .Coomes ind�cat \,\ who:..' Planning Commissioner Gleriri, '-Agency 'could sou issue_ bond`s Head "then' asked'' if the Ag y �go;.;ahead and mak' he ,plans but not,.initiate them until the money was available. Mr. Coot -es stated this" 'could'be done; however, when the Pl'an'•is°•adopted, a certain Plan ado; tedcrea :not . roche felt the worspt• tying you do, would be to have t I� momentum,is created and: u could he + P P - p inned, out 5 irec-tor Frank Gray also o - r' ee wit it'., be ut D REVIEW OF tax increment financing is not the only method of financing REDEVELOPMENT the Proj ect:. He stated it,. would be possible to bor-row money PLAN GONT"D. .-against.-the supposition tax increment funds would be;avallable to the City.., The. creation of.'.a new parking dist,r-ict;-.could-also be used, -to finance certain portions of the district iind',the City'itself could.; through some of kits capital improvement°proj'ects, finance additional- improvements, in. -the area. In_ relation_ to Mr. - Head's question_ whether or. not, the, money could .be saved :until a suf ficient amount was. accumulated t' com- plete a project; Mr. Meyer .:stated, it .was his understanding:, 'fr.om a prior' meeting' with,,Mr. Coomes,, ;if there., is,tnot ;a project in„pr.ogress using, the money,: the funds are not forthcoming to., the. Agency'. Mr. Coomes stated many agent*ies' 'wh-ich Have not yet issued. bonds have entered into agreements, with cities..,"Commissioner Hillgoss questioned, whether or, not the loan from the' city,. Ito, the. agency is .an interest -free loan or :could interest be; charged, on the loan._ Mr. Coomes'res,ponded by'say ing, most cities charge interest. f " Mr. Gray then stated not all,of the�proj;ects the..Community Development'Commission will beAoing are,public:improvement projects. The Commissio'n'wih be'working, in cooperatl6h,with private enterprise,,, and in this way, will'be.getting''the . ,_stimulation of private development where,it'has not occurred in the past; This' is . one of: the best definitions of "blight" . Mr. - Coomes stated. 'the fi'rst`' repayment on 'the. loan made by the City to the ,Agency under' the r-'contr.actual agreement. ,would be the difference between the .1-977-78 assessment -roll and the current base roll. Mr. Gray' stated, historically on- ',proj ects of-: thls° type. throughout -the State', actual. time for.•repaying.the indebtedness is, approximately seven years. Commis- sioner Harberson suggested that since the City would not get the tax increment untili January 1.978,, could • the. Agency, borrow against the i ncremeri,t,, :use' the money -to purchase land, -,,and resell it.. Mr,. Gray._ind;icated this is one.'source..o:f' revenue .the Agency Would 'have. FINAL• ACTIONS •BY THE CITY. Deputy Director Frank Gray reviewed the Gefteral Statement of actions to'be taken by the City, and Mr., Meyer asked the question..whether the actions as outlined would take priority over,_o.ther:proj'ects in the,City. Mr.. Coomes responded by stating this was only` a ,general statement. of cooperation by. the 'City, to carry out the Plan,. .It is a statement of the things the:City will do if'feasible`and capable of carrying out. Some,.discuss16n was :held on Item 4.under the General Statement in this Section 5 of the Plan_ repr-digg the enforcement fo,r continued' mai'ntenance� by owners.. Mr. Coomes .suggested ,the, words' " and, provide'for`" enforcement.o_f,," be - removed from the paragraph and,have-th'e statement -merely say,." -the. City and•the Community Development Commission shall. develop _a program for continued maintenance 'by owners of :al-1 real ,property, both public and''private, within the :Proj;ect Area throughout the duration .of the Plan,", ' Th.is section is contained in the '.General Statement in order to insure the'ared-doe-s notreturn to what•.is termed a "blighted" condition. The remaining sections of. the Plan were merely.reviewed by -Mr. -Gray, and there were .no if-.'urther comments.' REVIEW Chairman.Putnam­rasked Deputy Direttor'Frank, Gray because of, OFF EIR the length of the first_ document, The Redevelopment -Plan, would it be. necessary for" the. Commission 'to review 'the EIR at this time. ,Mr. Gray stated the EIR is a key document !and �. must be - circulated by April, 1.9.,, ,1975. It would, be sent to varioUsL agencies -and- departments for, their- comments .to be in'cor,porated. -in the final draft plan of the document: He asked the Commissioners to thoroughly'review-thd, document for. •° the ir consideration on April 1;9. Planning Commissioner Horciza asked what the`Plarining �:�Commission 51 funct-ions --would, be,zwith regard t�othe HEIR,, and„Mr < <Grayu responded orVoth =Ache cE1R, and the Redeye°lopment .,Plan would Abe 1fo�r�w i-rded Ito the Planning Commis- h, Cr ,^�i+jt^� rti -i s'iorn for,�:ther revyiew�,j they,iwill xmake comments you both `documents,; and .the Redev.elop.- ment P1an,,•,wi•th. the Palann ng. Commiss.ion's, comments,; will; be ` of a `ded-`to fh `C_ unci1 ,x r, r, �: The .Environmental.,Impact ,Repor,t,f isY,the.,dotcument o:f' the �Commuriity'.Developmerit` Commis- siori whch,wl't b,e.xef_erred,.to the Planning Commission and{th'e City' Coiincil�i"� In ' 7 � r e 1 •" -- .h summary, the,-,Planning-Commi"ssion;;would make 'the 'r_ comment's `'on "the , Red'evelopment Plan to ,the City ,Council and. their comments :on the EIR to the Community lDevel`opmpn,.- ' J Commissign.;t;. Mr.� Coomes :further• ,advis,ed the Planning ;Commis'gion':would-be'''charged'y ;.. . � .. . d ,-;,t -, � �_ � .i .y •! - "- Yam_ Y - - _ _ _ _ _ J REV•f,,EW- with making one legal finding, i.e..,.the Redevelopment Plan . , OF 'EIR conforms ' to ;the Genera'1.'Plan ofthe City and also make any 'CONT',D other' -,comments on, the Redevelopment 'Phan'. ADJOURNMENT There•being`no,, ur.ther business` to,come before the Commission, :the meeting . was. '',ad j ou'rned at lO i 30 p . M. Chairman Attest:'