Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 05/07/20011 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 City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Council Chambers The Petaluma Community Development Commission met on this date at 3:00 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien and Torliatt; Vice Chair Cader-Thompson; Chair Thompson ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Moynihan: • Attended a Cal Ed Economic Development Symposium in Monterey in April about ways cities can attract and keep revenue and jobs. • Thanked Chief Building Official Bob Berna and Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty for providing an update on the status of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in Petaluma. The five buildings still in need of retrofit are on schedule. Chair Thompson: • Was encouraged by Commissioners' recent efforts to work together and hoped they would continue to make the meetings positive and productive. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16, February 5, and April 16, 2001. • Commissioner Torliatt noted that on the January 16 minutes, page 1, line 35, "per City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 weir foot" should be changed to `per square foot." I IT, [oil d [071, A 6 MOTION 7 PASSED: 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 Commissioner Maguire moved, seconded by Moynihan, to approve the minutes of January 16, February 5 and April 16, 2001 as corrected. 7/0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion and Possible Action Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Relating to the Refunding of Bonds Issued for the Petaluma Community Development Project and Approving Related Documents and Authorizing Official Actions. (Marangella/Thomas) Finance Director Bill Thomas provided background on the item and explained the potential savings to the City. Commissioner Torliatt stated she was excited about the item; the timing was great. She commended City Management on their excellent work. MOTION: Commissioner Moynihan moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt Resolution 2001-005 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Relating to the Refunding of Bonds Issued for the Petaluma Community Development Project and Approving Related Documents and Authorizing Official Actions. MOTION PASSED: 7/0 2. Award of Bid and Authorization for City Manager to Sign Professional Services Agreement for the Engineering and Final Design of Initial Improvements for the River Enhancement Plan. Chair Thompson recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Marangella described the process the City undertook to identify the best - qualified firm to undertake this project. He then introduced the CSW/Stuber- Stroeh team, including Steve Arago, J.T. Wick, Gregg Grubin, John FitzGerald and Wayne Leach. Commissioner Torliatt asked the name of the lead contact person for the project. Mr. Marangella replied that Dennis Rinehart would be the Project Manager. He is a principal with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh. City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 2 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 Commissioner Torliatt asked if community participation sessions were planned. Mr. Arago replied that one of CSW/[St]2's first plans was a "brainstorming session" for interested citizens. Commissioner Torliatt noted that there was a lot of interest in the project among local professionals, and hoped CSW/[St]2 would seek out local talent. Commissioner Moynihan thanked Mr. Marangella for answering his earlier questions regarding project costs. Mr. Marangella displayed a map of the project area. He explained that since 1987, the City has been actively planning to improve the corridor along the Petaluma River. Numerous studies and plans have been prepared. The next step in implementation of the Plan is to complete the final design and engineering/construction specifications necessary for construction of several segments of the plan beginning in May 2002. Commissioner Moynihan expressed concern about potential costs for easements. Mr. Marangella replied that full costs for easements and land acquisition costs could not be determined until the location of the path was determined. Commissioner Moynihan noted that operation and maintenance costs for the trail had not been identified, nor had funding for those costs. Mr. Marangella agreed. Commissioner Moynihan did not think a capital improvement project could be approved without first determining the land acquisition, operation and maintenance costs. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson asked Mr. Marangella if the design must be completed before grant money could be sought. Mr. Marangella replied that it would be optimal to have a complete design in place when soliciting funds. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson thought the design was needed in order for the project to move forward, and if Commission Members spent time tearing the design apart, the project was not moving forward. The following has been transcribed verbatim, as requested by the City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 3 1 Commission: 2 3 Commissioner Moynihan: I had asked what had initiated this project and you 4 indicated a few things, including April Td of this year, where we adopted the Five - 5 Year Implementation Plan. Now, I have a copy of the IP, but it was "proposed" as 6 far as I know and it was in the staff packet, but we had neither a chance to 7 discuss it here as a commission, allow public discussion or comment, nor review 8 it, and I'd like to suggest to you there are a number of aspects of this plan which 9 don't meet with the goals of this commission, and I think, quite frankly, you look 10 at it and you review it, there are a lot of numbers that have changed. You cited 11 some of them in your presentation today, and I noticed also, going back to a year 12 ago, there was another plan, which, for whatever reason, apparently didn't make 13 the formal minutes as being approved, and that was significantly different. There 14 are some large increases in funding in the CBD project area — there's a jump of 15 $21 million, and in the larger area, the PCD area, there's a jump of $8 million. So 16 between these two plans, in the time of one year, all of a sudden we have $30 17 million more? I'm unclear how the plans changed so radically on the 18 implementation. 19 20 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella: 21 There are two factors that I would like you to consider. First of all, the report to 22 Council that was before you on April 16, contained an appendix. You may recall 23 that the attorney advised you that in order to adopt the report to Council, you had 24 to have a Five -Year Implementation Plan. So that is an appendix to the report to 25 Council. You may recall that some members of the Council recused themselves 26 from that discussion because of a potential conflict of interest. So, when the 27 commission adopted the report to Council, they also adopted the Five -Year 28 Implementation Plan. 29 30 Commissioner Moynihan: Mr. Marangella, I'm afraid that differs from our 31 understanding. 32 33 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: I'd like to clarify that. Wasn't that — when it was 34 the Mid -Year Budget, people did not step down... 35 36 Commissioner Moynihan: We asked for clarification because Mr. O'Brien 37 thought he'd have a conflict on the Five -Year Implementation Plan, and the 38 resolution before us was simply the Mid -Year Budget Review. We never voted on 39 this plan, it wasn't agendized, it didn't have public comment, and it's not adopted. 40 41 Commissioner Maguire: That's an inaccurate statement because, of course, 42 when you review the budget, it is made up of the list of projects and the funding 43 for those, and has been reviewed by the commission. Vice Chairman, it seems to 44 me that Mr. Moynihan is not familiar with the process of how things are done 45 here yet, but this is the way it has occurred for the 6-1/2 years I've been on the City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 4 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 PCDC and the City Council. There's a voluminous amount of information, we might not always realize what's being included in the steps that we're taking. However, it seems to me that these questions have all been asked in memo form, and answered in memo form, and since I don't see that we're getting any new information at this point, I'd like to just proceed... Commissioner Moynihan: I'd like to continue... Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: Actually... Commissioner Maguire: If Mr. Moynihan has new questions, new information, I'd be happy to hear that, but if we're going to go over ground that's been gone over I'd ask him to please restrain himself. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: I'd like to have very pointed questions. If you have questions, ask the questions, but if we're trying to break the process down, I don't want to go in that direction, and that's the direction that you're going Mr. Moynihan. Commissioner Moynihan: We can ask questions only if we're going to vote for a particular direction? Vice Chair Cade r -Thompson:: No, you can vote any way that you choose. But I would like to hear what other Council Members have to say, because you're breaking this process down. You have a direction, and I don't want to be here until 8:00 answering all of your questions. We have gotten a lot of your questions in memo form. Commissioner Moynihan: Madame Chair, I was unsatisfied with the answers. would like to bring to correction a couple of points. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: Mr. Moynihan, I'd like to finish, please. I understand that you're not happy with the questions, but you may never be happy with the questions and so we're going to go in a circle. Commissioner Moynihan: I think I can be satisfied quite easily. Just give me a chance. For example, the minutes of the meeting that we approved at the beginning of this meeting for Monday, April 16, do not reflect a vote being taken on the Five -Year Implementation Plan. For it to be official, it would be in these minutes. I think you seconded the motion, Mr. Maguire. Commissioner Maguire: I don't believe that we would be voting on the Five - Year separately, would we, Mr. Marangella? Commissioner Moynihan: Yes, we would. I believe in the City of Petaluma, City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 5 1 any public action that's officially taken by this commission or the City Council, is 2 properly agendized, allows for public comment, takes a vote, and is recorded in 3 the minutes. Otherwise, it is not an official action. 4 5 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: Mr. Marangella, could you please answer these 6 questions so we can move forward? 7 8 Mr. Marangella: Yes. As you may recall, there were two items that were before 9 you on the 16th. One was the budget, and the commissioners recused 10 themselves on specific aspects of the budget. The other item was the CBD 11 expansion, the plan amendment and expansion, and in the CBD plan 12 amendment and expansion is included the Five -Year Plan. Now the Five -Year 13 Plan is just a plan. I think Mr. Healy asked the question, "Is this carved in stone?" 14 and I said no, and I think right before you sat down, you acknowledged that was 15 satisfactory. You can always reconsider. In fact, you have before you, the 2001- 16 2002 budget. In that budget, you have the first phase of implementation of the 17 Five -Year Plan. As you work on the budget, you're free to make adjustments as 18 you choose. Also in the budget, you have the Five -Year Forecast, which is 19 reflecting the Five -Year Implementation Plan. So you're completely free to make 20 amendments during the budget process. All I'm saying is that as a requirement 21 for the approval of this document, included in it was a Five -Year Implementation 22 Plan, which was approved as part of this document. 23 24 Commissioner Healy: Paul, thank you for that clarification. I also had some 25 heartburn over the characterization of what happened here this afternoon. When 26 it came up on the 16th, it was done in a way that three of us had to step down, 27 due to conflicts of interest that have nothing to do with the Five -Year CIP. So, in 28 fairness, I think we should have a focused discussion on that as part of the 29 budget process in the next couple of months, but we don't really need to fight that 30 issue out tonight, or this afternoon, in order to resolve the issue before us. 31 32 Commissioner Torliatt: I believe it may have not been this Council, but prior 33 Councils had adopted the implementation plan and prioritized projects and plans 34 that this City has adopted in the past, one being the River Enhancement Plan, 35 one being the Bike Plan, and that was direction to go forward to get the design 36 and engineering done so we can implement these projects. 37 38 One of the things that I foresee in this community outreach and citizen 39 participation, is absolutely working with the property owners. We need a 40 complete buy -in from the property owners, and that's exactly where we're going 41 to have our local professionals, our average, everyday citizens who want to walk 42 on this thing when it's done, and the property owners who, I believe, are going to 43 be in a partnership that are going to benefit from this when they redevelop their 44 property. So I want to make that a priority when we're looking at each one of 45 these segments, that's what's going to happen. Because I don't want to leave the City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 6 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 property owners out. And my recollection is we actually went out for a Coastal Conservancy grant to the north of Washington Street to try to deal with some of this erosion issue that was occurring in the areas you were talking about, and I believe we were denied that grant because we didn't have a design! So that's why we need to move forward with the design phase of this, so we can benefit. I agree, actually, with Council Member Moynihan on the maintenance issue. It's an issue we face with every single project in this City, and hopefully, the economic development that's going to be generated by bringing more people down here will bring more dollars into our redevelopment agency in order to fund maintenance. And as we said, volunteers out there want to help, and we just need to be able to plug them in. Commissioner Maguire: I'm sorry to see, Mr. Moynihan, you taking this tack, because after our Mayor's plea for us to try to move ahead with the City's business, it does appear to me to be somewhat counterproductive. The way it comes across to me is that the new PCDC, the new City Council, has to review every action that a past City Council ever did, and this was exactly what staff told us at our retreat back in February was so corrosive to the morale of staff who, as you know, work hard with very few resources, and do a great deal with them. No new PCDC has to review every single thing that has occurred in the past, the Plan is not written in stone, we can review the Plan. You've had some questions here. I thought they were fairly cogently answered in the memo. We could become victims of "paralysis by analysis." The phasing, for example, is something that I understood to be common knowledge and accepted by the community at large, and you wouldn't necessarily try to build the whole thing at once because, in part, it would be so prohibitively expensive to do it at one time. You would use opportunities for construction when you can afford it. As Ms. Torliatt said, this particular project is going to be an economic development engine and San Luis Obispo is a good example of the same kind of thing. Any other part of it, any other phase of it, is going to come before this body. It is not taking a presumptuous approach to deal with this part of it. It doesn't preclude the other parts, but it makes common sense, it's an intelligent move to take at this point in time. So I hope that you would just consider those points. Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: I'd like to move ahead now with Public Comment, unless Commissioners Healy or O'Brien have any comments that they'd like to make. End of Verbatim Transcription PUBLIC COMMENT Lauren Williams, President, Petaluma Trolley, urged the Commission to save the Water Street Trestle. The Petaluma Trolley Living History Railway Museum City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 7 1 would like to be the City's non-governmental partner in the trestle repair. Mr. 2 Williams described that the trestle, as part of three miles of the historic Petaluma 3 and Santa Rosa Railroad, can qualify for Transportation Enhancement Activities 4 (TEA) Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Center (21) funds. He noted that 5 Petaluma Trolley suggested the inclusion of a historic railroad and bridge 6 consultant in the design and construction of the Petaluma River Enhancement 7 project. He emphasized that if the old railroad tracks were removed, the 8 Petaluma Trolley would die. 9 10 Commissioner Healy asked Mr. Williams if JRP Historical Consulting Services, 11 the firm Petaluma Trolley had suggested to the City, could work with CSW/[St]2 12 on the project. 13 14 Mr. Williams replied in the affirmative. 15 16 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, thought the Petaluma River Enhancement 17 Plan a worthwhile project, adding that he would much prefer to see it move 18 forward than to see a cross-town connector at Rainier. 19 20 Matt Connolly, Chelsea GCA Realty, also supported the Plan, hoping it would 21 extend to the Petaluma Village Premium Outlet area. He noted that he did 22 support a cross-town connector at Rainier. 23 24 COMMISSION COMMENTS 25 26 Commissioner O'Brien: 27 28 Had definite concerns regarding cost and revenues. 29 30 Commissioner Healy: 31 32 • Thought it important to move forward with the design and engineering for the 33 Plan. 34 • Agreed with Commissioner Torliatt that this must be done before grant money 35 could be pursued. 36 • Noted he had heard some concern that the City had not "cast the net widely 37 enough" when seeking a firm to complete the design and engineering. 38 • Thanked Mr. Williams for his information regarding the trestle. 39 40 Commissioner Torliatt: 41 42 • Stressed the importance of citizen participation and of design excellence, as 43 the City had "only one shot at this." Sustainability and low maintenance were 44 of paramount importance. 45 • Spoke to Mr. Williams about including a historical consultant in the design City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 8 1 plans. 2 Thought it important to balance spending on streets and roads with other 3 modes of transportation. 4 5 Commissioner Maguire: 6 7 • Was excited about the River Enhancement Plan. 8 . Noted that other cities, e.g. San Luis Obispo, had experienced great financial 9 benefits from completing similar projects. 10 • Was confident in CSW/[St]2,s ability to complete the project, urging them only 11 to be sure to "include the public." 12 13 Commissioner Moynihan: 14 15 • Was not comfortable that the Plan provided as much "bang for the buck" as 16 other projects. 17 . Did not think Redevelopment Agency funds should be used for the project. He 18 added that there were many other issues that should be considered before 19 proceeding with the project. 20 21 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: 22 23 • Supported moving forward with the Plan. 24 • Described the Plan as a "vision to use the river as the gem of the community." 25 She thought design excellence should be the focus of the project. 26 • Stressed the importance of a low maintenance, "natural" design, and 27 encouraged citizen participation. 28 • Thanked Mr. Williams and noted that she would like to move forward with 29 plans for the Petaluma Trolley. 30 • Noted that developers in the warehouse area needed design guidelines from 31 the City. She was concerned that funds had not been allocated for those 32 guidelines. 33 34 Commissioner Maguire: 35 36 • Stated that the Central Petaluma Specific Plan would provide the developers 37 in the warehouse area with design guidelines. 38 • Supporting the Plan. 39 40 MOTION: Commissioner Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt, to Adopt 41 Resolution 2001-006 Awarding Bid and Authorizing City Manager to 42 Sign Professional Services Agreement for the Engineering and 43 Final Design of Initial Improvements for the River Enhancement 44 Plan. City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Healy asked if the Plan included undergrounding of utilities. Mr. Wick replied that it did. He added that CSW/[St]2 would work with members of the local design community on the Plan. Commissioner Torliatt asked for regular updates on the project. MOTION PASSED: 5/1/1 (Commissioner Moynihan voting "no," Chair Thompson recused) ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M. E. Clark Thompson, Chair ATTEST: Claire Cooper, Recording Secretary City of Petaluma, California Minutes of a Regular Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting Monday, May 7, 2001 Page 10