HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 04/16/2001 (2)1
2 City of Petaluma, California
3 Minutes of a Regular Joint Meeting of the
4 Petaluma City Council and the
55 Petaluma Community Development Commission
7
8
9
10
11 Monday, April 16, 2001
12 Council Chambers
13
14 The Petaluma City Council, already in session with all members present, met with the
15 Petaluma Community Development Commission on this date at 3:35 P.M. in the Council
16 Chambers for a joint meeting.
17
18
19 ROLL CALL
20
21 Petaluma Community Development Commission
22
23 PRESENT: Vice Chair Cader-Thompson; Commissioners Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
24 O'Brien; Chair Thompson; Commissioner Torliatt
25
26 ABSENT: None
27
28 Clerk's Note: For the purpose of these minutes, the joint bodies of the City Council and the
29 Community Development Commission shall be referred to as the Council and the members of
30 the joint bodies shall be referred to as elected by the public and/or appointed by the Council,
31 that is, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members. Action taken by specific bodies reflect
32 Council/or Commission accordingly.
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT
35
36 None
37
38 COUNCIL/COMMISSION COMMENTS
39
40 None
41
42 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
43
44 None
45
46
47
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 1
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
NEW BUSINESS
1. Central Business District Redevelopment Plan:
A. Resolution Approving and Adopting Amended Owner Participation and
Preference Rules and Authorizing Transmittal of the Rules to the City
Council.
B. Resolution Certifying Adequacy of the Final EIR, Making Necessary
Environmental Findings, Adopting a Reporting or Monitoring Program, and
Statement of Overriding Considerations if Necessary, and Authorizing
Transmittal to the City Council.
C. Resolution Receiving and Approving the Section 33352 Report to the City
Council on the Proposed Amendment to the Central Business District
Redevelopment Plan, Authorizing Submittal of the Report to the City
Council, Consenting to a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council on the
Proposed Amendment, and Requesting the City Council to Set a Date,
Time and Place Therefore.
D. Resolution Regarding Election and Resolution Regarding Use of Housing
Funds and Finding the Provision of Low and Moderate Income Housing
Outside of the Amended Project Area to be of Benefit to the Amended
Project. (Marangella)
Mayor Thompson and Council Members Healy, Moynihan and Torliatt
announced they would recuse themselves, that is, they would not participate in
the discussion and any action on this agenda item, as they believed they had
conflicts of interest.
Mayor Thompson asked Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson to preside, noting that he
had several clients within the Central Business District boundaries to whom he
sold insurance.
Council Member Healy stated that his residence was located within five hundred
feet of the boundaries of the Central Business District.
Council Member Torliatt stated that she had completed a lease transaction with
one of the owners of property within the Central Business District (CBD) with a
value over $250.00.
Council Member Moynihan had a source of income within the expansion area
that he had received during the past year in excess of the $250.00 limit
mandated by the conflict of interest legislation.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 2
2 Due to a lack of a quorum, City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced,
3 pursuant to conflict of interest rules, straws (toothpicks in this case) would be
4 drawn by Council Members who had recused themselves from participating on
5 the item, to allow a member of the Council to return to dais in order to have
6 quorum so as to continue with the City's business. The short straw, in this case,
7 allowed a Council Member to return to the dais. He stated that upon returning,
8 the Council Member must disclose the type of economic interest(s) involved,
9 personal entity(ies) which constituted the source of income, and why he/she
10 believed there was a conflict as sanctioned by the F.P.P.C.
11
12 Council Member Moynihan drew the short straw and provided information as to
13 potential conflicts of interest he may have. He had clients who owned property
14 within the redevelopment area that generated income to his firm by/from property
15 management fees and leasing commissions earned.
16
17 Mr. Rudnansky advised that it was necessary to disclose names and locations of
18 properties.
19
20 Council Member Moynihan replied that the building to which he referred was the
21 Prince Building, the owner was James Toda, and it was located at 16 Western
22 Avenue. He sold a building at 19 Kentucky Street that was owned by Olive
23 Ramirez and received a commission in excess of limits mandated by prevailing
24 conflict of interest legislation. He sold a building at 405 East "D" Street, which
25 was within five hundred feet of the redevelopment area and was purchased by
26 two gentlemen who owned property on Second Street, Jim Nelson and Dave
27 Martin; they owned property within the redevelopment area as well. Additionally,
28 he had ongoing relationships with a client, Maggie Salenger, who owned property
29 within the redevelopment area and he was currently in the process of a
30 transaction outside the redevelopment area with this client that would provide
31 him with an economic gain in excess of limits mandated by prevailing conflict of
32 interest legislation; he had a potential conflict of interest in that regard. He stated
33 that he may have more but at this time, that was all he recalled.
34
35 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella
36 reviewed the agenda bill, highlighted the executive summary, and noted the
37 supporting documentation, including eight resolutions, which, if approved, would
38 return for a public hearing that was scheduled to take place on May 21, 2001.
39 The public hearing was originally scheduled to take place at 7:00 P.M. and was
40 changed to May 21, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. He introduced the consultant who
41 prepared the report to Council, Mark Sullivan, and Elise Traynum, the City's
42 Redevelopment Agency attorney associated with the law firm of Meyers, Nave,
43 Rieback, Silver and Wilson. He advised that that the two were available to
44 answer questions about the process and or the documents presented.
45
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 3
1 Council Member Maguire asked for clarification of the number of resolutions.
2
3 Mr. Marangella replied that there were a total of eight resolutions; number five on
4 the report was just an information item to the Council that indicated the Planning
5 Commission did adopt a resolution. He then reviewed the documents included
6 with the report that would enable the City to proceed to next step which was to
7 send out 600 letters to affected property owners and businesses advising them of
8 the public hearing and giving everyone an opportunity to participate; he noted
9 that the City was running notices in newspapers as well.
10
11 Council Member Moynihan had questions regarding the use of the power of
12 eminent domain, noting that there was considerable controversy in the
13 community for a Redevelopment Agency to have this power. He asked what
14 public outreach efforts had occurred, what response had occurred, and how
15 people had been notified of the meeting and other meetings as to the possibility
16 of eminent domain powers being granted over their properties.
17
18 Mr. Marangella replied that there were three meetings co-sponsored by the
19 Chamber and PDA (Petaluma Downtown Association); notices had been mailed
20 within the existing and proposed expanded redevelopment area. Additional
21 meetings would be noticed to the same persons and businesses advising them
22 that eminent domain would be considered, non-residential eminent domain, and
23 those notices would include copies of the minutes from previous meetings as well
24 as the questions and answers to the various questions that may be of concern
25 regarding the expansion. He added that the public hearing was to be advertised
26 four times in the newspaper.
27
28 Council Member Moynihan replied that the powers of eminent domain were
29 granted within the attachment fourteen of the Amended and Restated
30 Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project
31 and stated that he wanted to eliminate such powers being granted to the
32 Redevelopment Agency; he asked for clarification of whether page 13, under
33 Property Acquisitions, which outlined those powers, could be amended or have
34 direction provided on how the resolutions presented should be modified to
35 eliminate any additional costs.
36
37 Mr. Marangella stated that was the purpose of the public hearing that was
38 scheduled. During the hearing, the Council would listen to testimony regarding
39 the pros and cons regarding the inclusion of eminent domain.
40
41 Council Member Moynihan asked Mr. Marangella if he was indicating that, at this
42 point in time, it was not at the discretion of the Council to eliminate eminent
43 domain.
44
45 Mr. Marangella replied that he did not know.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 4
1
2 Redevelopment Agency Attorney Elise Traynum, an associate with the law firm
3 of Meyers Nave, Rieback, Silver and Wilson introduced herself and asked
4 Council Member Moynihan to repeat his question.
5
6 Council Member Moynihan stated that he was concerned about the power of
7 eminent domain, as were others in the community, and the potential abuse of
8 such powers by the Redevelopment Agency. He wanted to eliminate the power
9 of eminent domain from the documents presented. He asked Ms. Traynum how
10 to modify the resolutions and the draft Amended and Restated Redevelopment
11 Plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project to accomplish that
12 goal.
13
14 Ms. Traynum replied that what was before the Council was the draft Plan and the
15 report to the City Council from the Agency regarding the purpose of the
16 Amendment. She noted that the Planning Commission reviewed the Amendment
17 and all of the environmental documents, a requirement of community
18 redevelopment law. She explained that the Council had the authority to redact or
19 add to the Plan at this time and reiterated Mr. Marangella's statement that a
20 public hearing may occur on May 21; that is, if the Council approved that today
21 and there could be further elimination of items in the Plan and additions to the
22 Plan, as long as they were not considered substantial. For purposes of the
23 record, she stated that the powers of eminent domain only affected commercial
24 properties and, even then, very limited circumstances and a public hearing was
25 required.
26
27 Council Member Maguire did not believe there was or would be an abuse of the
28 powers of eminent domain; it was one thing to fear abuse; it was another to
29 insinuate it. The City had a fairly long history of the existing redevelopment
30 districts and he had not yet had heard of any example of such an abuse.
31 Eminent domain was a common tool used by redevelopment agencies to
32 encourage economic development. He hoped Council Member Moynihan would
33 support eminent domain powers for the redevelopment district so that the City
34 could do some economic development.
35
36 Council Member Moynihan disagreed, stating that the powers of eminent domain
37 did not now and had never existed for the City's Redevelopment Agency. This
38 was done intentionally, as it effectively allowed, through developers, outside
39 parties to come in and exercise such a power, or at least present a threat of such
40 a power. He believed that availed an opportunity for abuse. He stated that the
41 City had issues with eminent domain in the past and referred to Helen Putnam
42 Plaza as an example, adding that research would produce further examples in
43 other communities. He did not believe the Redevelopment Agency needed that
44 power; private property rights needed to be preserved. He thought economic
45 development could take place without exercising eminent domain. He expressed
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 5
1 concern that eminent domain could put the Redevelopment Agency at risk of
2 litigation due to inverse condemnation claims. He asked Ms. Traynum to address
3 his concerns.
4
5 Ms. Traynum clarified that the Community Development Commission had the
6 power of eminent domain for the past twenty years and clarified that it applied to
7 the PCD (Petaluma Community Development) area, not the CBD (Central
8 Business District) area. She explained that redevelopment agencies throughout
9 California, and the United States, found the power of eminent domain a very
10 effective tool in pursuing economic development. With respect to misuse,
11 litigation and inverse condemnation, she reminded Council that there were
12 several opportunities in the process to resist those types of attacks; public
13 hearings were required. Before the agency even looked at a piece of property, it
14 had to notify the property owner that his/her property may be subject to
15 condemnation. This allowed, early in the process, the opportunity for the property
16 owner to approach the Council with any concerns. She reiterated that the
17 property owner had the right to a public hearing. She added that approximately
18 ninety-eight percent of litigation was due to valuation problems. As long as the
19 necessary steps were taken along the way, the City and the agency would be
20 guarded from the risk of frivolous litigation.
21
22 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson and Council Member Maguire supported the
23 motion with the inclusion of eminent domain.
24
25 Council Member O'Brien agreed with many of Council Member Moynihan's
26 comments. He received a lot of calls from business owners in the area who
27 expressed their fear of the powers of eminent domain. He asked Ms. Traynum
28 how the City could differentiate between residential and commercial; to him it
29 should not be selective.
30
31 Ms. Traynum replied that residential property was in areas zoned residential and
32 commercial property was in areas zoned commercial. She stated that early on in
33 the process, an appraiser would appraise the property at the residential or
34 commercial level. She added that prior to that, with the assistance of the
35 Planning Department, Planning Director, and Redevelopment Agency staff
36 members, a determination could be made very early on. She reminded Council,
37 with respect to concerns expressed about the property owners, that, should they
38 decide to, their action would allow the process to move forward into the public
39 arena for the public to come before the Council and express their concerns.
40 Concerned property owners had the opportunity to write letters addressing their
41 concerns or come before the Council and give testimony about their concerns. If
42 a majority of the Council after receiving testimony wanted to remove the
43 provision granting the powers of eminent domain they could make the decision at
44 that time.
45
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 6
1 Council Member O'Brien restated his question.
2
3 Ms. Traynum deferred to City Management, noting that it was a policy decision.
4
5 Mr. Marangella replied that a very clear distinction was implied, there was an
6 unwillingness to take residential property. Most likely, if there were mixed
7 residential/commercial areas, they would not be considered for the type of
8 economic development projects that would involve eminent domain. The positive
9 aspect to this was that there were tax benefits to friendly condemnation.
10
11 Council Member O'Brien asked whether a hotel was considered commercial or
12 residential.
13
14 Mr. Marangella replied that it was commercial unless it was a residential hotel; for
15 example, the Petaluma Hotel.
16
17 Council Member O'Brien, referring to a letter included in the packet received from
18 Jerico, they stated that, "there was no current agency plans to acquire land." He
19 asked if that was true.
20
21 Mr. Marangella replied that the agency currently had no intention of condemning
22 property to acquire property.
23
24 Council Member O'Brien asked why eminent domain was necessary.
25
26 Mr. Marangella replied that the plan was a forty-five year program. Within the
27 lifespan of the plan, it may be foreseeable that the agency may need to condemn
28 property to allow the plan to work. He added as an example a scenario where a
29 number of business owners may want to enter into an agreement to revitalize an
30 area of town and their may be one person who was unreasonable or trying to
31 gain an unfair advantage; the thread of eminent domain is what allowed equitable
32 solutions to occur.
33
34 Council Member Maguire stated that he believed, as Ms. Traynum stated, as
35 long as the necessary steps were taken along the way, the City and the agency
36 would be guarded from the perils of frivolous litigation. He agreed with Mr.
37 Marangella; that is, when talking about a forty-five year project, it was important
38 to set up the necessary tools that would allow/assist you to accomplish your
39 goals. He believed that the required public hearings, which were mandated by
40 law, provided ample opportunity for any landowner to come before the Council
41 and plead his/her case. He did not see that the Council, during his tenure in
42 town, abused that authority. He continued that whether or not his colleagues
43 were for or against eminent domain, they could accept the reports and set the
44 public hearing; that was the appropriate venue for discussion. He wanted to
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 7
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
move ahead procedurally, set the stage, and then have the discussion regarding
eminent domain.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson thought it was important to keep eminent domain.
There was a need for cohesive plan and consistency between the two agencies.
The City was going to work with the property owners. It was a forty-five year plan
and not something that would happen over night. Eminent domain provided the
City, the property owners, and City Council with the flexibility to look at a vision, a
forty-five year vision.
Ms. Traynum referred to the first resolution for approval, the Restated Owner
Participation and Business Re -Entry Preference Rules for the CBD Plan and
explained, if adopted, would allow business owners and business tenants within
the CBD area the opportunity to participate in redevelopment. This meant the
City could purchase the property through a voluntary sale or through eminent
domain. The City would be required to adhere to the owner participation rules
which allowed the business owner to either elect to be moved, temporarily, and
then return once the area was redeveloped or to be relocated to a location of
their choice with like -kind, like rent conditions. Often owners appreciated the
opportunity, as sometimes they may be able to move to a newer area of a City
where there had been a test of the economics of that particular area. She asked
the Council to consider the opportunities for commercial property owners that
would be provided either to relocate elsewhere in the City, to a place of their
choice and the opportunity to come back to the area after it was redeveloped;
they would not be put out of business 100%.
Council Member Moynihan asked whether he understood Mr. Marangella's
response to Council Member O'Brien's question, that is, it was a political decision
or a policy decision by the Commission.
Ms. Traynum replied that he was correct.
Council Member Moynihan asked whether or not it was possible for the
Commission to add residential into the plan.
Ms. Traynum replied yes, it was possible from a policy standpoint. Legally, that
would necessitate revisiting the Planning Commission stage, forming a PAC
(Project Area Committee), and they would have to have hearings, among other
things. She stated it would delay the process another year.
Council Member Moynihan asked if eliminating eminent domain over commercial
properties would require the same process.
Ms. Traynum replied no.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 8
1 Council Member Moynihan asked how to make a resolution to remove the
2 eminent domain from the proposed resolutions presented.
3
4 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson announced that she would take public comment
5 before changing the resolutions.
6
7 Public Comment
8
9 Samantha Daugherty, Executive Director of the Petaluma Downtown Association
10 (PDA), stated that PDA supported the CBD Amendment but at the time the Board
11 of Directors voted to support it, the powers of eminent domain were not included.
12 Currently PDA was surveying their membership to find out their point of view and
13 their perspective regarding the powers of eminent domain. Prior to the results of
14 the survey, PDA supported the CBD Amendment.
15
16 End Public Comment
17
18 Council Member Moynihan asked whether the other Council Members received
19 and read the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) or not; he received his earlier
20 that day as he was out of town on Friday when the report was made available.
21
22 Council Members at the dais nodded affirmatively.
23
24 Council Member Moynihan was not comfortable with moving forward and wanted
25 assurances that eminent domain issues would not come back and put the City at
26 risk of litigation and liability; he saw the numbers as being potentially huge and
27 he did not think it was necessary. He supported economic development but
28 expressed concern about what he perceived as "force feeding the community"
29 this type of legislation. He asked Ms. Traynum again the appropriate way to
30 adopt or to make a motion modifying the resolutions to eliminate the eminent
31 domain clause included.
32
33 Council Member Maguire was offended by Council Member Moynihan's
34 statement that this was being force fed to the community. He did not believe that
35 was happening.
36
37 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Cader-
38 Thompson, to adopt PCDC Resolution 2001-04A Receiving the
39 Report to the City Council and the Proposed Second Amendment
40 to the Central Business District Redevelopment Plan and the Final
41 EIR.
42
43 Ms. Traynum reviewed Council Member Moynihan's question, that is, how to
44 reserve the right to remove the power of eminent domain from the plan. She
45 asked if that was correct.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 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
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Council Member Moynihan added that he wanted to know how he could eliminate
the power of eminent domain from the nine or eight resolutions appropriately, in
making a motion.
Ms. Traynum explained that could be achieved by making a motion, having it
seconded, voting, and having it go into the minutes.
Mr. Stouder asked for clarification. He wanted to know if the process she defined
was required on all the resolutions or did it apply to specific ones.
Ms. Traynum replied that it was a general action. All of the resolutions before the
Council were to receive information. At the public hearing the Council would
actually be approving and taking action on the Plan and the EIR; it was in the
Plan that the power of eminent domain was placed. If Council Member Moynihan
got support for his motion, then, when the item returned at the public hearing, it
would come back in the form of a discussion regarding the elimination of the
power of eminent domain. At that juncture, the Council could decide whether it
wanted to include it or not.
Mr. Stouder asked for clarification. He questioned if that would be an overriding
motion that could be taken before or after approval of the resolutions.
Ms. Traynum replied that Mr. Stouder was correct.
Ms. Stouder further asked for further clarification of whether the sequence of the
motions mattered.
Ms. Traynum replied that that the sequence did not matter.
Mr. Stouder asked whether it could be made after the motion that was being
discussed whether the motion passed or failed.
Ms. Traynum replied that Mr. Stouder was correct.
Council Member Moynihan asked for clarification. He restated that he wanted the
appropriate verbiage to modify the resolutions to eliminate eminent domain from
the amended plan.
Ms. Traynum replied that would be the motion. The motion would be that he
wanted the power of eminent domain eliminated from the Amended Plan. That
motion should be taken separately from the resolutions.
Council Member Maguire noted that was not on the agenda for discussion. He
was not sure that could be completed. He estimated there was not enough
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 10
1 support for Council Member Moynihan's motion to pass and implored him to
2 recognize what Council was trying to accomplish, stating that it was the
3 procedural business of the City. He thought Council Member Moynihan should
4 bring powers of eminent domain issues up at the hearing.
5
6 Mr. Stouder, in an effort to avoid confusion, asked to review some scenarios. A
7 question was raised, can an amendment or an alteration of what was before the
8 Council be made since the agenda did not state as an option amending the plan
9 to not allow eminent domain. He asked if that motion could be made and
10 passed.
11
12 Ms. Traynum replied yes.
13
14 Mr. Stouder asked if the City would have to wait till the public hearing. He stated
15 that what the City was trying to do was to avoid further delay and lack of clarity
16 about the steps to be taken. He asked if it was true that the public hearing could
17 be advertised for both scenarios, that is with the powers of eminent domain and
18 without; a Plan that says "as is" for the sake of the discussion and a Plan that
19 says "with the exception of having the powers of eminent domain removed."
20
21 Ms. Traynum replied that Mr. Stouder was correct and continued by stating that
22 action could be taken on the item tonight, if Council Member Moynihan got
23 support for his motion; if he didn't, it was a dead issue. If he did not get support
24 and it was deferred to the public hearing, the notices had not gone out yet nor
25 had the notice been published in the newspaper. If his motion passed, to have
26 the discussion at the public hearing, the notices would so reflect. The point of
27 taking action tonight was to determine the direction; if it was eliminated tonight, it
28 was gone. Then at the public hearing, the power of eminent domain would not
29 be discussed.
30
31 Mr. Stouder asked, at the public hearing, should the powers of eminent domain
32 be eliminated at this meeting, if there was public testimony encouraging the
33 Council to include the powers of eminent domain as part of the public hearing, if
34 the Council could include the item.
35
36 Ms. Traynum replied if the Council removed the powers of eminent domain at this
37 meeting, the effect was that it would be removed from the proposed Plan. At the
38 public hearing the powers of eminent domain would not be in the proposed Plan.
39 Therefore, if the powers of eminent domain were not included in the proposed
40 Plan, the Council would not discuss or take testimony regarding it as the Council
41 would have already taken action to have it removed; what was being presented
42 at the public hearing was the Final Redevelopment Plan. The Council would have
43 written objections taken at the meeting as well.
44
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 11
1 Mr. Stouder asked for clarification. He asked if the Council could remove it at the
2 public hearing if it remained in the proposed Plan but they could not add it if it
3 was already taken out.
4
5 Ms. Traynum replied that was true for this process. What they could do was to
6 start a new action, which would kick it back to PAC stage. They would have to
7 adopt rules to form a Project Area Committee and there would need to be public
8 hearings to accomplish that. Then, the PAC would have public hearings, among
9 other things; it would start the whole process over again.
10
11 Mr. Stouder clarified that what he was trying to do was to clarify/identify the
12 consequences of actions taken at the meeting. He stated that if he understood
13 correctly, if the power of eminent domain power was removed today, it could not
14 be added to the public hearing without beginning the process over again; if it was
15 left in, it could be removed at the public hearing and the schedule could be
16 maintained. A third option was to have direction from the Council to advertise the
17 public hearing two ways, that is, a proposed Amended Plan "as is" and a
18 proposed Amended Plan that takes exception to the powers of eminent domain.
19 The Council would then have the authority to adopt either one at the public
20 hearing stage.
21
22 Ms. Traynum replied that Mr. Stouder's scenario was acceptable.
23
24 Council Member O'Brien had concerns about eminent domain but was willing to
25 move this forward if he had assurances from staff that eminent domain could be
26 taken up at the public hearing. If this was the case, he did not have a problem
27 supporting the resolutions; the eminent domain issue needed to be revisited due
28 to the concern in the community.
29
30 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked for clarification. She stated that by taking
31 this action, the Council would move forward and the eminent domain issue would
32 be discussed at the public hearing.
33
34 Ms. Traynum stated the Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson was correct.
35
36 Council Member Moynihan asked the City Attorney, in light of the conflicts of
37 interest the Council had and the selection process that occurred, of the Council
38 Members with conflicts of interest, which Council Member would be the entity
39 participating in the discussion and action at the public hearing when the item
40 returned.
41
42 Mr. Rudnansky replied it would be the Council Members voting at this meeting.
43
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 12
1 Council Member Moynihan asked for clarification of whether or not the quorum
2 would be the same individuals participating on the item at this meeting, unless
3 one of them did attend, at which point they would have to redraw straws.
4
5 Mr. Rudnansky replied that he was unsure. He noted the new rules stated that
6 once a decision making body had drawn straws and decided who was
7 participating in the initial vote, any follow up votes on that particular item would
8 be made by the same members. He said he would verify that information.
9
10 Council Member Moynihan stated, putting things into perspective, what would
11 happen was that a number of people concerned about eminent domain would
12 come to the public hearing taking the time of Council arguing their points, being
13 very upset and emotional. He did not think that was necessary as his position on
14 the subject would not change; he heard from the constituency loud and clear, he
15 had read the information presented in which the constituency made comments all
16 along, he attended some of the meetings of the various organizations that had
17 expressed concerns. He believed the businesses had an opportunity or should
18 have an opportunity equal to that of the residences.
19
20 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson wanted to proceed with the vote.
21
22 Council Member Maguire called for the vote.
23
24 Council Member Moynihan stated that he wanted to make a resolution and called
25 for a Point of Order. He had the floor and had been interrupted and he wanted to
26 complete his motion.
27
28 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson reminded Council Member Moynihan there was a
29 motion on the floor.
30
31 Council Member Moynihan replied that he was aware that there was a motion on
32 the floor and added that he wanted to make another. He wanted to know if legally
33 he was prohibited from doing so.
34
35 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked the City Attorney for direction.
36
37 Mr. Rudnansky replied that he believed the motion on the floor had been called
38 for a vote.
39
40 MOTION
41 PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
42 Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
43
44 MOTION: Council Member Moynihan moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
45 Resolutions 1 - 9 (included in the staff report), eliminating eminent
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 13
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
domain from all relative resolutions and the proposed Plan
Amendment.
MOTION
FAILED: 2/2 (Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson and Council Member Maguire
voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and Council Members Healy and
Torliatt recused)
MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
Resolution PCDC 2001-04B Requesting a Joint Public Hearing on
the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the CBD
Project Area and the Final EIR.
Council Member Moynihan asked for discussion.
Council Member Maguire stated the vote was taken.
Council Member Moynihan had not voted.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked Council Member Moynihan to state his
question.
Council Member Moynihan wanted clarification. He wanted to know if the Council
was going to vote on each resolution separately.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson advised that the Council would vote on each
resolution individually as recommended by Mr. Rudnansky; they were on
Resolution #2 indicated on the Agenda Bill.
Mr. Rudnansky clarified that the first motion was for the first resolution; this was
the second resolution.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked if Council Member Moynihan's question was
answered to his satisfaction.
Council Member Moynihan requested a brief recess.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked under what grounds.
Council Member Moynihan left the dais. Council no longer had a quorum and
asked the City Attorney for direction.
Mr. Rudnansky suggested the Council take a short recess.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 14
1 RECESS: 4:25 P.M.
2
3 RECONVENE: At 4:35 P.M., Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Council Members
4 Maguire, Moynihan, and O'Brien returned to the dais.
5
6 MOTION
7 PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
8 Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
9
10 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Cader-
11 Thompson, to adopt Council Resolution 2001-083 N.C.S. Electing
12 to Receive a Tax Increment Allocation Pursuant to Health and
13 Safety Code Section 33607.5.
14
15 MOTION
16 PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
17 Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
18
19
20 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
21 PCDC Resolution 2001-04D Finding the Provision of Low and
22 Moderate Income Housing Both Inside & Outside of the Project
23 Area is of Benefit to the Community
24
25 MOTION
26 PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
27 Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
28
29 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky noted that no action was required on item 5
30 listed on the agenda bill:
31
32 Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma Reporting on and
33 Recommending Adoption of the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
34 for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project and Forwarding the
35 Draft EIR to the City Council and Requesting that a Final EIR Be Prepared.
36
37 No Action Taken
38
39 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
40 Council Resolution 2001-083A N.C.S. Resolution Receiving the
41 Report to Council on the Proposed Second Amendment to the CBD
42 Redevelopment Plan and Final EIR.
43
44
45
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 15
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
MOTION
PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
Council Resolution 2001-083B N.C.S. (#7 City Council) Consenting
to a Joint Public Hearing on the Second Amendment to the CBD
Redevelopment Plan and Final EIR.
MOTION
PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
Council Resolution 2001-083C N.C.S. (#8 City Council) Finding the
Provision of Low and Moderate Income Housing Both Inside and
Outside of the Project Area is of Benefit to the Community
MOTION
PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by O'Brien, to adopt
PCDC Resolution 2001-04C (#3 PCDC) Approving the Restated
Owner Participation and Business Re -Entry Preference Rules for
the CBD Redevelopment Plan
MOTION
PASSED: 3/1 (Council Member Moynihan voting "No"; Mayor Thompson and
Council Members Healy and Torliatt recused)
ADJOURN
Vice Chair Cader-Thompson recessed the P.C.D.C. meeting at 4:40 P.M.
RECONVENE
At 8:35 P.M., Chair Thompson reconvened the Petaluma Community Development
Commission for the purpose of reconvening the joint meeting with the Petaluma City
Council, already in session with roll taken.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 16
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
ROLL CALL
Petaluma Community Development Commission
PRESENT: Vice Chair Cader-Thompson; Commissioners Healy, Maguire, Moynihan,
O'Brien; Chair Thompson; Commissioner Torliatt
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COUNCIL/COMMISSION COMMENTS
None
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. Discussion on Work Program, Budget and Schedule for Implementation of
Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP). (Moore)
Mayor Thompson asked Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson to preside over discussion
and possible action on this agenda item, as he would recuse himself noting that
he had several clients within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan boundaries to
whom he sold insurance.
Council Members Healy, Moynihan and Torliatt announced they would recuse
themselves; that is, they would not participate in the discussion and any action
on this agenda item, as they believed they had conflicts of interest.
Council Member Healy stated that his residence was located within five hundred
feet of the boundaries of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
Council Member Torliatt stated that she had completed a lease transaction with
one of the owners of property within the boundaries of the Central Petaluma
Specific with a value over $250.00.
Council Member Moynihan also announced that he had a source of income
within the redevelopment area that he had received during the past year in
excess of the $250.00 limit mandated by the conflict of interest legislation.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 17
2 Due to a lack of a quorum, City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced,
3 pursuant to conflict of interest rules, straws (toothpicks, in this case) would be
4 drawn by Council Members who had recused themselves from participating on
5 the item, to allow a member of the Council to return to dais in order to have
6 quorum so as to continue with the City's business. The short straw, in this case,
7 allowed a Council Member to return to the dais. He stated that upon returning,
8 the Council Member must disclose the type of economic interest(s) involved,
9 personal entity(ies) which constituted the source of income, and why he/she
10 believed there was a conflict as sanctioned by the F.P.P.C.
11
12 Council Member Healy drew the short stick and returned to the dais.
13
14 Community Development Director Mike Moore provided background information
15 that included the purpose. of the work program. He advised that City
16 Management made some modifications to the original recommendation in the
17 staff report dated March 5, which included Work Program A.
18
19 Due to development applications that were in various stages of review within the
20 CPSP area, City Management included Work Program B for the Council's
21 consideration. Options A and B both addressed the existing CPSP boundaries,
22 the vision, and policy guidance suggested in the December 1999 CPSP. Work
23 program B was provided as a means to have the Policy and Land use
24 recommendations adopted as quickly as possible.
25
26 The presumption was that, if approved, City Management would extract the
27 Policy and Land Use recommendations from the December 1999 Draft CPSP,
28 work through issues that had come up relative to the Land Use Plan, versus the
29 Illustrative Concept Plan, and come up with a Land Use Diagram that addressed
30 those issues in a consistent manner. He added that they could proceed with
31 some of the implementation steps that were discussed previously and address
32 zoning ordinances based on the needs of the entire community instead of just the
33 CPSP. Also, both options proposed a parking study and that had a scope of work
34 developed already and was consistent with what was proposed as part of the
35 General Plan Scope.
36
37 He pointed out that the significant difference between Options A and B was in the
38 environmental analysis; if the Council moved forward with Option B there would
39 be no requirement to complete the CPSP EIR. He clarified that it did not mean
40 the City wouldn't do any further environmental review. There would be project -
41 specific environmental review that would probably continue until the General Plan
42 was completed and the General Plan EIR comprehensively covered the entire
43 community including the CPSP area. Option A was a proposal to complete the
44 CPSP as it was intended. There were state requirements to be met in order for
45 the project to be a "Specific Plan." Missing from the current draft were the
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 18
1 implementation tools that are necessary to insure that the vision recommended in
2 the policies can be carried out; this included development regulations, zoning
3 regulations, design guidelines and completing the EIR which was in an
4 administrative draft stage. Option A, that is Work Program A, includes a scope
5 and schedule that would complete that process by the end of the year. The City
6 had received proposals from consultants to complete the parking study, the
7 infrastructure analysis. The City had received a preliminary proposal on the EIR
8 however there were some concerns raised already. To fully address those
9 concerns and comply with CEQA requirements, the $178,000 budgeted would
10 not cover the expenses.
11
12 Council Member Maguire asked how much more funding was necessary to
13 complete Work Program A.
14
15 Mr. Moore replied that he did not know and added that if the Council proceeded
16 with Work Program B, the historical analysis required could be done within the
17 amount budgeted.
18
19 Council Member Maguire noted that he had read Mr. Moore's staff report. He
20 wanted to know if Work Program B would be as comprehensive in terms
21 development regulations and design standards as Work Program A.
22
23 Mr. Moore replied "no,"that it would not.
24
25 Council Member Maguire thought that proceeding with Work Program B, and
26 quoted the staff report, "apply the guidelines as necessary," would be
27 administratively burdensome and without clearly delineated criteria.
28
29 Mr. Moore replied that the short-term process set forth in Work Program B would
30 entail City Management trying to resolve some of the regulatory questions by
31 creating a PUD (Planned Unit District) like zoning district that would be applied to
32 the CPSP area. As part of that process, they would be able to identify use issues
33 and some of the major questions about parking ratios, and include those in an
34. all-purpose zoning district that would apply to the CPSP area.
35
36 Council Member Maguire asked how that would be noticeably distinctive from
37 Work Program A.
38
39 Mr. Moore replied that Work Program A would entail more zoning detail than
40 would be anticipated in Work Program B.
41
42 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked, if the General Plan process was not
43 stopped, how this project would have folded into the General Plan process, for
44 instance traffic.
45
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 19
1 Mr. Moore replied that Work Program A, the original proposal, would have
2 created a process separate from the General Plan, that is separate EIR, separate
3 traffic analysis, separate parking study. There was sufficient information in the
4 administrative draft of the EIR; staff identified some major issues to be addressed
5 as part of the EIR as traffic, noise, air quality, and school impacts.
6
7 Mr. Stouder commented, for clarity, that any traffic studies, for example, whether
8 they come from the General Plan or are separate, end up being data used for
9 both, so the traffic and parking studies are not separate. It was a matter of how
10 quickly they were used for which objective. If we have two different processes,
11 different questions might arise during those processes that ask more questions,
12 but traffic counts are traffic counts, parking counts are parking counts, and
13 whether we use them for the General Plan or the downtown part of the General
14 Plan or the CPSP or something none of us have yet thought about, they are
15 valid. He did not want to leave an impression that they only had a single purpose.
16 He did not believe that was Mr. Moore's intent.
NINA
18 Mr. Moore appreciated the clarification.
19
20 Mr. Stouder added that the same traffic counts that began last fall through the
21 holiday season, so the City would have four or five different periods,
22 Thanksgiving, Christmas holiday season, back to school, summertime, how they
23 impact the CPSP area, or the downtown, or the General Plan, or matters of the
24 telescope, or the prospective use for analysis, the data is the data and it's there.
25
26 Council Member Healy wanted to know to which analysis, with respect to
27 schools, Mr. Moore referred.
28
29 Mr. Moore replied that one of the comments that had come up in previous
30 discussions about the CPSP was that there was a considerable amount of
31 residential development anticipated for the CPSP area; in fact, some
32 recommendations were that the be number increased. He thought it was
33 worthwhile to go to the school district and make sure they were aware of the level
34 of development anticipated and that they had the opportunity, if they were
35 comfortable with this, to provide input and if there were issues, they could be
36 addressed now.
ON
38 Council Member Healy recalled that the original plan was to have an EIR for the
39 CPSP tied to and dovetailed off the EIR Redevelopment expansion. At some
40 point that fell by the wayside and he wanted to know if that was no longer staffs
41 recommendation.
42
43 Mr. Moore replied that initially staff wanted to do them together. However, it
44 became important to move ahead with the Redevelopment EIR. The
45 Redevelopment EIR actually did build on some of the information in the
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 20
I Administrative Draft of the CPSP EIR. He currently thought they would build on
2 the Redevelopment EIR, since it was certified, and move forward with the EIR for
3 the CPSP based on some of that information.
4
5 Council Member Healy asked for clarification, stating that if the Council went with
6 Work Program B rather than Work Program A, the primary cost savings, as he
7 understood it, came from not doing a separate traffic study and possibly not
8 spending as much on development regulations and design guidelines.
9
10 Mr. Moore added the EIR.
11
12 Council Member Healy questioned Mr. Moore regarding the use of a PUD-like
13 approach for design issues; he wanted to know how that would work.
14
15 Mr. Moore replied that what he envisioned was, rather than creating an extensive
16 set of zoning regulations, as proposed in Work Program A, Work Program B
17 would attempt to consolidate some of that into a basic set of regulations that
18 would serve until more comprehensive zoning regulations could be adopted.
19
20 Council Member Healy thought Mr. Moore's comments were abstract and he did
21 not have a sense of how that affected the process or whether the City would be
22 giving up much. In terms of projects the City wanted to come through in the
23 interim; what was the City giving up?
24
25 Mr. Moore replied that probably some level of detail of architectural styles would
26 be given up.
27
28 Council Member Healy asked if the Site Plan and Architectural Review
29 Committee (SPARC) would be able to review projects coming forward and make
30 recommendations even though there weren't final guidelines.
31
32 Mr. Moore replied that they could. The intent was to clarify the process and then
33 provide basic guidelines built from the policy recommendations in the CPSP,
34 which would then provide the flexibility for either SPARC or the Planning
35 Commission, whichever reviewed those applications, to take whatever action it
36 deemed appropriate, not only based on the regulations but what the CPSP had
37 to say about that.
38
39 Council Member Maguire stated that was "where the rub was"for him. If the City
40 moved forward with Work Program B, he believed the City had tied its hands
41 somewhat in terms of enforceability. There was discretion to guide but no
42 authority to say, "You must adhere to these ideas." He thought that was a good
43 portion of the problem with the Basin Street Property, in that City Management
44 was doing their job of saying, "Here's what we understand should be done."
45 Fortunately, the project proponent has been very cooperative and did not say,
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 21
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
"Well, too bad, "and "Here's what the law says, and here is what I am going to do
and you know, Planning Department, sign -off on it or we'll see you in court." Had
that happened, the City would have been faced with a bad project and all the
"good visioning" would have been wasted. He wanted to know how to resolve
that if the Council did not adopt Work Program A.
Mr. Moore did not disagree with Council Member Maguire's comments. He
wanted to make if very clear that City Management wanted to see the CPSP
completed in some form. He thought it was a benefit to everyone to complete the
process. Currently, the CPSP is not quite complete, although direction from
Council was to implement it as though it were adopted. There were questions
about what that meant and, subsequent to the direction given last October, there
were questions about how the current zoning regulations were to be applied,
what they meant, and how they should be applied to specific projects. City
Management did want clarity; they did not want to spend time spinning their
wheels over process. The real question before the Council was one of time;
neither of the two work programs was an ideal solution. He thought that either
one of the work programs would take the City where it wanted to go and
hopefully, capture enough of what was in the Draft CPSP to carry it forward on a
formal basis.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, referred to the proposed timeline and the Council's
certification of the EIR and adoption of the CPSP as December 17, 2001, and
asked if that was Work Program A.
Mr. Moore replied 'yes/'that it was Work Program A.
Mr. Stouder wanted it noted that what Mr. Moore could guarantee was the
contract work, the data gathering, and the draft reports; what no one could
guarantee was what questions might arise and additional issues that come up as
part of the public review process. While he thought Mr. Moore might "guarantee
certain dates," unless the Council wanted to say, "We're only going to have these
meetings and no more and the EIR public hearings would only last time [a certain
amount of time] and no more," no one, as Council could appreciate, could
guarantee the time table. He wanted to be sure that Council realized that.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson stated she appreciated that.
Mr. Moore stated that when the timeline was established, there was no intent on
the part of City Management to short circuit the process. If all the other things
were consistent with what was done to this point, he thought they should be able
to move relatively quickly through the public review process with either Program
A or B.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 22
1 Council Member Healy inquired to what extent had staff resources and timing
2 and work priorities been part of the problem in getting this moved forward. He
3 read that as a subtext of what was presented to the Council; that is, the less
4 comprehensive approach may be more do -able because it was more achievable,
5 given the staffing in the Planning Department. He wanted to know if that was one
6 of the issues going on.
7
8 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson thought, when they were getting the
9 Redevelopment District prepared, it seemed like that was part of the reason why
10 the City was not moving forward with the CPSP also. It was not specifically that
11 the discussion was about the CPSP but the entire process the City had to go
12 through with the expansion of the Redevelopment District. She did not think it
13 was just the CPSP and asked Mr. Moore to explain.
14
15 Mr. Moore replied that the fact that 99% of staff time was spent processing
16 current development applications was one reason for the delay. Another reason
17 was the Redevelopment Project Area issues mentioned, plus the conflict of
18 interests issues that put everything related to the Redevelopment Project Area
19 and the CPSP on hold.
20
21 PUBLIC COMMENT
22
23 Linda Buffo, 841 Schuman Lane, spoke regarding the length of time it has taken
24 to get the CPSP approved and implemented and asked that Council bring
25 together the CPSP Committee to work with City Management to complete the
26 project.
27
28 John FitzGerald, 114 Fieldcrest, former member of the CPSP Committee, was
29 concerned that members of the committee were not informed of the meeting and
30 spoke in support of the committee meeting again and working with City
31 Management to successfully complete the project.
32
33 Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro Drive, spoke in support of Work Program "A."
34
35 Wayne Miller, 328 Smith Drive, member of the CPSP Committee, noted three
36 key issues: durable plan over time; clarity, regarding the approach; and
37 participatory process. He advocated creating an advisory committee for
38 preliminary design plans from the core group of the CPSP Committee to bring
39 ideas and concepts forward with developers.
40
41 David Keller, 1327 `I' Street, spoke regarding the lack of notification to the public
42 about this meeting. He had not received a staff report and noted that he was a
43 co-chair of the CPSP Committee. He thought there was no leverage in the plan
44 for compliance and asked that Council stop the process and not make any
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 23
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
decisions until proper notification was provided and the public and they were
given the opportunity to participate.
Gary Broad, 177 Grevillia Drive, agreed
he was disappointed that the matter
Planning Commission.
with previous speakers and stated that
wasn't brought to the attention of the
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, supported Work Program A.
Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard South, was disappointed in the
lack of notification given to the public and the enforceability measures for
compliance; she supported Work Program A.
Samantha Dougherty, Petaluma Downtown Association, supported Work
Program A, adding that fewer ambiguities would occur if approved.
END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Stouder reminded Council the charge was not to change or amend the
CPSP.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson referred to the "broken process," and `frustrated
citizens." Council had asked for more public notice, especially for the
committees. She supported a more specific plan approach. She related the
discussion to one earlier in the day regarding eminent domain. She referenced
the General Plan being stopped and stated the importance of making decisions
based on the whole City, not just the downtown.
Council Member Healy supported the c
public, and Work Program A. He was w
Committee, stating that he thought it we
specific areas, the first of which would t
Draft to make sure the document was
previous discussions. In looking at Woi
to the process to stick within the tim
Committee the opportunity to weigh in
work that needs to be done; such as
guidelines, utilities infrastructure, desig.
He referred to discussions reaardina i
:PSP Committee, better noticing to the
Iling to discuss bringing back the CPSP
ild be useful if it was limited in scope in
e to a review of the Final Administrative
consistent with the CPSP Committee's
c Program A, he thought it was of value
frame provided, yet give the CPSP
m some of the really key issues of the
)arking structures, historic preservation
I guidelines, over the next six months.
lustrative maps rather than a detailed
master plan approach and stated that he thought it was too late to graft a detailed
master plan approach to this process, it would set the project's completion back
years.
Council Member Maguire asked Council Member Healy if he thought the maps
should remain illustrative and not specific detailed.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 24
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
Council Member Healy thought that if the City got to the point where a specific
plan was crafted that stated, for instance, that a particular parcel has three-story
townhouses and another has a movie theater, more detailed economic analysis
and supply and demand analysis would be required. Instead, if the thought is to
have a dynamic mix of activities, whatever might be economically feasible, then
property owners and project proponents would be given the guidelines necessary
to move forward with projects that meet the spirit to have a dynamic downtown.
Council Member Maguire did not think the Draft CPSP was specific enough. He
referred to a San Francisco Chronicle article that was copied for the Council from
Beth Meredith regarding the City of Hercules, which had adopted a Physical
Concept Plan (PCP), the purpose of which was to depict exactly where buildings
would be located on specific sites. An urban code that provided specific details
about how buildings and streets were structured to create a vital and safe public
realm accompanied the PCP. He thought it might be worth considering specificity
at the level of drawings that showed what should go where; if not, he thought a
pool of ambiguity would result. He wanted a complete program: Work Program A
plus, under Design Standards, Facade Appearances and Building Orientation,
and under Development Regulations, add Pedestrian Orientation, for example.
He reiterated that he supported Work Program A with more detailed drawings.
Mr. Stouder asked to comment. Any real specific site plan had to have an
economic market analysis; it was a requirement. He estimated the cost for doing
this in Petaluma's Downtown would run approximately $100,000 - $200,000 for
what used to be called an EMAS (Economic Market Analysis). he EMAS
determined if those site-specific things suggested by the community were
actually economically feasible. As Council Member Healy indicated, the CPSP
Committee did not want to engage in that sort of level of economic analysis or
parking analysis. That was one of the reasons the Draft CPSP did not go into
detail. If the Council pursues a detailed Downtown Development Plan, at some
point, they would be faced with the question of defensibility and then they would,
pragmatically and perhaps even legally, need to do an EMAS much beyond the
scope he had ever seen done in the community. The point was if the Council
wanted to proceed with a detailed approach, it was City Management's
responsibility to tell them, in order to do that thoroughly, there were other things
City Management should do; City Management could propose what that might
cost.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked if there was a way to approach this without
going into an economic analysis.
Mr. Stouder was not sure. He noted that a lot of people worked very hard with a
lot of expertise and good, thoughtful ideas for five years to bring the City to this
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 25
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
juncture. He often said, "There were always answers that were easy, simple,
neat and wrong. "
When he heard the term "shortcut," he usually thought that meant something was
not going to be satisfactory, that he would have to go back and do it again. He
was not sure the Council wanted to do that. City Management was clear about
the process Council wanted to take and would help to that extent, or Council
should provide specific guidance about things they did not want done.
Council Member O'Brien supported Work Program A because of the Updated
Traffic Study. He was concerned about putting anything into town that would add
more traffic to Washington Street or Petaluma Boulevard, for example. He
wanted to see the results of the traffic model when they became available in the
fall. Taking all issues into consideration, he thought the City would get a lot more
"bang for their buck"with Work Program A.
Council Member Maguire stated that it would have been helpful to have learned
sooner that an economic plan would have been a significant underpinning of a
full -on specific plan. It was not included in staff report and therefore did not occur
to him, although it was an important issue. He thought that to do this right, what
the City should be doing is something that can be plugged into the General Plan.
He reiterated his desire to have the most complete, comprehensive specific plan
possible and if it took an economic plan, then he wanted City Management to
provide the cost and timeline for that.
Mr. Stouder interjected. He clarified that what was being talked about was an
economic market analysis, which was different than an economic plan. An
economic plan said, "Here's what we want to try to do and if we do this, here is
the return for it." The market analysis says, "Based upon your market area, your
growth, the number of square feet, the number of consumers, and your buying
power, would a hotel meet occupancy, was another million square feet of retail at
this consumer level going to be met with the population base and can you draw
from Santa Rosa, among other things:"That was the kind of a study that many of
the major retailers did privately for themselves. It was different from an economic
plan; a plan said this is what we want to achieve economically, a market analysis
addressed whether or not the plan that was crafted was achievable, would the
economist and consumer and the investors do in fact what was planned. It was a
different level of detail and yes; it was someone's educated analysis.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson asked if there was going to be an economic market
analysis done in conjunction with the General Plan.
Mr. Stouder replied "no." He stated that he did not mean to be flippant and
added that to some degree there was an economic analysis done in the Capital
Improvement Program of the General Plan.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 26
1
2 Council Member Healy supported Council Member Maguire's request to get more
3 specific and more detailed to the extent feasible. He believed, especially since
4 they were crafting something that was to be in place for decades and were really
5 shooting at a moving target on the economic side, it was important to retain
6 flexibility to allow property owners and others to bring forward proposals that
7 meet the economic realities of the day consistent with the design guidelines,
8 which he hoped were set very high.
9
10 PUBLIC COMMENT
11
12 Vin Smith, Basin Street Properties, spoke regarding design guidelines,
13 understanding the rules, the economic analysis his firm had done on all of the
14 parcels targeted for the Basin Street Project, and noted that the CPSP was done
15 with the oversight of an economist; Bill Lee of Economic Research Associates
16 always participated.
17
18 Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro Drive, expanded on his earlier comments
19 regarding flexibility and specificity - the range of uses created a middle ground.
20
21 David Keller, 1327 "1" Street, supported Work Program A adding that to help staff
22 and developers, Council should reconvene the CPSP Committee to validate the
23 draft, and to have a dialogue with City Management about updates on specific
24 projects that had come up, clarifications, and to think ahead of how the City
25 would use redevelopment dollars to redevelop the area, which was, if necessary,
26 to purchase and leverage key parcels or uses in the area.
27
28 END OF PUBLIC COMMENT
29
30 Mr. Moore summarized Council discussion as follows:
31
32 • Move forward with Work Program A.
33 • Proceed with the Infrastructure Analysis.
34 • Proceed with the Parking Study, as soon as possible.
35
36 He suggested, based on the comments he heard, reconvening the CPSP
37 Committee and taking the opportunity to review the scope of work with them and,
38 in terms of the regulatory design guideline portions, talk with the CPSP
39 Committee, SPARC, and the Planning Commission about a more detailed land
40 use map and return to the Council with a final Work Program, recommendations,
41 and adjusted budget.
42
43 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson wanted to incorporate charettes, from the
44 beginning, with the Planning Commission, SPARC, reconvene the CPSP
45 Committee to avoid redundancy.
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 27
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
Mr. Moore agreed, adding that one of the items he included in the packet was a
staff report he prepared regarding the processing applications during the interim
period, before a completed, adopted CPSP. He had provided a number of
alternatives, one of which was to either reconvene the CPSP Committee, using
the Planning Commission SPARC, Council, or whoever wanted to take on the
role of serving in a preliminary review/comment function, before a formal
application was filed.
Council Member Maguire asked that City Management review the original
economic plan or study to which Vin Smith referred and find out whether it could
be updated without much trouble and expense to address the marketing issues
the City Manager raised.
Mr. Moore agreed.
Mr. Smith recommended the firm of Fisher and Hall to facilitate the charettes.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson agreed with Mr. Smith's recommendation. She
summarized Council's agreement to:
• Move ahead with Work Program A with more specificity.
• Reconvene CPSP Committee.
Council Member Maguire added that he wanted more Pedestrian Orientation
than what was exhibited in the Draft CPSP.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson added that she wanted to see more green spaces
throughout the CPSP, not just the river area.
Mr. Moore added that the list of comments that Council provided at a meeting in
October 2000 would also be included. He agreed to meet with Samantha
Dougherty of the Petaluma Downtown Association about the Parking Study.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson stated that she and Mayor Thompson agreed to
participate, if needed, in those discussions.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M.
Janice Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 28
I ATTEST:
2
3
4 Beverly J. Kline, City Clerk
5
7
8
9
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
Joint Meeting of the PCDC and City Council
Monday, April 16, 2001
Page 29