Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 02/13/1978L L'- u., � ":-D 1 U MINUTES OF MEETING OF PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1978 REGULAR MEETING The Regular Meeting of the Petaluma Community Develop - went Commission was called to order by Chairman Helen Putnam at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Comm. Cavanagh, Harberson, Hilligoss, Perry, and Chairman Putnam. Absent: Comm. Balshaw and Bond. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 9 1978, were approved as mailed. ASSUMPTION OF PROJECT Deputy Director Frank Gray stated when a project is REVIEW IN CENTRAL proposed for the Redevelopment Project Area, it must BUSINESS DISTRICT now go through three or more phases --the Commission gets involved, the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council. Some discussion has been held with Mr. Joseph Coomes, the Special Counsel for the Petaluma Community Development Commission, to have the Commis- sion staff do the review of all Planning projects within the Project Area. If it is the Commission's desire to move in that direction, the staff could have Mr. Coomes prepare the legislation and bring it back to the City Council. Comm. Harberson asked what the procedure was at the present time. Mr. Gray indicated the applicant must first go to the Planning Commission for archi- tectural and site design review. Plans are submitted of a conceptual idea and submitted to the Planning Department. It sometimes happens that the Planning staff will review the plans using criteria established for a City-wide basis, not just as a conceptual idea for the downtown area. There can sometimes be confusion as far as the applicant is concerned, because the requirements for the Central Business District may not be as stringent as those applied to City- wide planning. Through the proposed review, the Petaluma Community Development Commission would be the only legislative body to review plans. Comm. Hilligoss asked if.a Site Design Committee of the Commission should be formed. Mr. Gray stated he would imagine the Commission would want to set up a Site Design Committee and suggested two members of the Commission be appointed. He did not feel it would be a time-consuming assignment. Councilman Cavanagh ,questioned whether there would be an appeal procedure under the process. Executive Director Robert Meyer stated each application would come before the Petaluma Community Development Commission for approval. The Commission would be the final authority. Mr. Joseph Coomes then spoke to the Commission. He stated the Commission is sitting as a separate public body, separate and distinct from the City, and that is the basic source of possible conflict which arises from the development objectives involved. The City Planning staff reacts to development in a regulatory role, but as a redevelopment agency, the Commission is reacting to development as a co -developer with private enterprise. The staff approach, therefore, would be much different. In a redevelopment context, the staff approach is one of negotiating design, cost factors, and the scope of develop- ment at the outset. The staff function in a planning sense is one of review and approval. Every city that has redevelopment has adapted its procedures to accommodate this apparent conflict which arises between acting as a developer in a project and acting in a regulatory capacity. Mr. Coomes indicated what Frank Gray was recommending is consistent with the concept of redevelopment. The redevelopment law states when a redevelopment plan is adopted, the Com- mission is charged with the responsibility to carry out that plan. It is not a city function.but a Commission function. Chairman Putnam questioned if a project did not receive Commission approval, could it be taken to the City Council. Mr. Coomes stated the Commission would have the final say; it could not be acted upon by the Commission and taken back to the City Council. February 13, 1978 ASSUMPTION OF PROJECT Comm. Hilligoss asked if there could be a time in the REVIEW IN CENTRAL future when the City Council did not act as the Commu- BUSINESS DISTRICT nity Development Commission, should there not be some (Continued) way for appeals to be heard. Mr. Coomes stated he is proposing to draft an amendment to the City Code to define the responsibilities of the Commission. As long as the Council acts as the Commission, the amendment would be in the Code. If a separate redevelop- ment agency was appointed, the Code section could be repealed. Comm. Harberson questioned what the effect would be on the Commission if citi- zens were not members, but only the City Council acting in the capacity of the Housing Authority. Mr. Coomes advised there has been an amendment to the law effective January 1, 1978, which allows the Commission to assume the functions of a redevelopment agency only and not the Housing Authority. Mr. Cavanagh asked what prompted this proposal at this time and questioned why it was not done six months ago. Executive Director Robert Meyer indicated the Commission now has a planner assigned to the Community Development�Commission. He also cited an incident where a developer in the project area had to deal with the Planning Department. There was a difference of opinion because members of the Planning staff were following their guidelines rather than considering the property for development in the Redevelopment Area. Mr. Meyer stated he felt it would be less frustrating for developers in the Project Area to deal with just one set of criteria, rather than both the Planning staff criteria and the Redevelopment criteria. There will be designs and standards established for the area which the Commission would have to approve. Comm. Hilligoss suggested the proposed legislation should include the wording that at such time when the Council did not act as the Redevelopment Agency, the City Council would have some control. Larry Klose advised the ordinance would be drawn up for approval by the City Council, delegating the power to the Commission so the Council will always have the control to withdraw the power. Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Coomes if the Commission would be looking at a:speci- fic project which had been referred to them by the staff, would there be an opportunity for input from the community. Mr. Coomes indicated there would be a number of checkpoints along the way. If the Commission is going to dispose of land, there would have to be a joint hearing of the Commission and the City Council. If the Commission entered into an owner -participation agreement involving a land transfer or exchange, a public hearing would be required. If the agency negotiated an agreement calling for site improvements, the City Council would have to approve it. There are a number of procedural checks and balances designed to insure the City Council will have control over the process and the public will participate. The most important function of the legis- lation would be to insure the developer he would have a one-stop ability to deal with City staff and have his project carried through. Comm. Harberson questioned whether the moratorium on accepting applications for permits, recently adopted by the City Council, would affect the Community Development Commission also. Larry Klose indicated the moratorium presently affects redevelopment projects because they have to go through City procedures. Chairman Putnam asked for and received consensus from the Commission to have Mr. Coomes prepare the legislation for consideration by the City Council. Comm. Harberson also asked if Mr. Coomes would research the matter of whether the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority should separate at this time. Mr. Coomes advised he would discuss the matter with the staff and have the legislation for Council review in approximately two weeks. No action was taken on the matter. STREET DEVELOPMENT Larry Klose, the Attorney for the Community Development PARTICIPATION Commission, stated the City Council has had, for many years, sewer and water benefit and participation -2- February 13, 1978 STREET DEVELOPMENT agreements where developers have extended sewer and PARTICIPATION water beyond the capacity for their own use and have (Continued) been paid back on an agreement. There was some dis- cussion by the staff of creating a similar type of proposal for redevelopment of the streets in the project area. The incident which brought the matter to light was Weller Street where the Farrell House is located. The City owns property, and Dr. Jonas proposes to develop in the area. The first thought given to the matter was to have the City Council adopt the procedure; however, the City Engineer pointed out this may create some difficulties, especially with larger developments being built in East Petaluma. The staff then scaled the matter down and decided to bring the idea to the Commission with the possibility of having the Commission adopt an ordinance just to cover the downtown area. The streets could be developed, and the City would get reimbursement as development proceeded along the front of the streets. Comm. Cavanagh asked whether plan lines had been established. Mr. Klose indi- cated the Commission could use the standard Planning plan lines for construction of streets. They would be constructed to the standard street section estab- lished for the type of streets to be developed. It would be a question of policy. There are some questions which need to be answered. Mr. Klose stated Mr. Coomes had discussed the matter with Mr. Gray earlier in the day, and he could foresee no legal or technical problems. Mr. Klose stated the staff is looking for direction to take the effort to draft the ordinance and bring it back to the Commission for their review. Chairman Putnam asked Mr. Coomes if this type of agreement had been encountered in other cities where they have a redevelopment agency. Mr. Coomes indicated the problem is rather unique, as there are very few cities which have unim- proved streets in the downtown area. He stated in Sacramento, when the agency purchased the land and put in the needed improvements, the land was sold and the cost of the improvements was returned as the value of the land. The case in Petaluma differs as the Commission needs some mechanism to have the developer share in the cost of the street improvements when the project is ultimately developed. The pro rata share of the development improvement could be made a condition of development. Chairman Putnam asked if they were suggesting this would only refer to the downtown area, and Mr. Klose responded in the affirmative. Mr. Klose indicated the problem arises when a parcel has been developed, the center parcel is not ready for development, and the third parcel on the opposite side will be developed some time in the future. If two half -streets are built, it creates an engineering problem, such as for drainage. The construction of the entire section also could be engineered and done more economically at one time. The proposed legislation would be a vehicle so the cost for the improvements could be spread to all the people who would benefit. Comm. Hilligoss asked the length of time suggested for reimbursement of the agreement. Mr. Klose indicated the current street and sewer districts are for 10 years but are paid back without interest. Such an agreement would not be a complete reimbursement because interest would be lost. Chairman Putnam received consensus of the Commission to have the legislation prepared and brought back for the Commission's review. No action was taken. PROPOSAL FOR LEASED A letter dated February 3, 1978, to Executive Director PARKING AREA Robert Meyer, from Mr. Herold Mahoney, was read by the PETALUMA BLVD. NO. Recording Secretary and ordered filed. Finance Director John Scharer stated the property was known as the Margolis Property located on the easterly side of Petaluma Blvd. North, across from Mary Street. The property has recently been acquired by Mr. Herold Mahoney. The staff had a preliminary meeting with Mr. Mahoney last week and discussed the various alternatives for the use of the property. The letter from Mr. Mahoney was intended to bring the matter to the attention of the Petaluma Community Development Commission. If the Commission is interested in pursuing the -3- February 13, 1978 PROPOSAL FOR LEASED matter, as requested in the letter, the staff could PARKING AREA work with the owner to try to reach some possible PETALUMA BLVD. NO. solutions for parking in that area. Mr. Scharer stated (Continued) Mr. Mahoney has been cautioned there would probably be no final decision until after the June election. Mr. Scharer stated Mr. Mahoney would like to lease the bare ground to the Community Development Commission and have the Commission make the investment for the improvements. This investment could be recaptured through leasing parking spaces. Mr. Scharer indicated although under normal conditions the City would be anxious to proceed with the project, he feels revenue cannot be committed until after the June election. He did state, however, if the Commission ap- proved the concept, the staff could work up cost figures and the details and have it ready to go in June. Comm. Cavanagh mentioned there was another firm interested in the land at one time or another. Mr. Scharer indicated Mr. Mahoney has purchased the land. He did feel, however, Bank of America may be one of the prime tenants to provide parking for their employees. Comm. Hilligoss asked if funds would be available for such a project and what effect this expenditure whould have on other proposed parking lots in the downtown area. Mr. Scharer indicated it would not preclude the development of other lots, but there would be some factors to be considered regarding the cost. This would be under normal circumstances; however, the matter would have to be reviewed if circumstances changed after the June election. Comm. Perry stated the 103 Committee is diligently looking for additional parking in the downtown area and perhaps funds from the AB 103 Committee could be used toward the lease of the land. Mr. Scharer stated that could be a possibility. Chairman Putnam asked the Finance Director to follow through on the matter and keep the Commission informed. PROJECT AREA Mr. Dick Lieb stated the Project Area Committee met the COMMITTEE REPORT previous week. Seven members were present, as well as the City staff. The Committee received an update on various items, including the proposed employee parking lot on North Petaluma Blvd. and the Keller Street Parking Lot Project. The Committee asked Mr. Lieb to request that Bill Liebel be assigned to the Committee to send out notices of meetings, copies of the minutes, etc. The Committee also suggested if any beautification is to take place in the downtown area, an urban design plan would be needed. This would include designing sidewalk furniture, planters, etc. It is the Committee's understanding the 103 group is talking about using some of their money for beautification. The Project Area Committee, at their next meeting, will have the cost of the urban design plan, which would be a scaled-down plan and not a full report. One of the members of the Committee is going to talk with the various banks in the downtown area to determine if there would be patronage from the banks of the proposed employee parking lot on the Mahoney Property. The Committee also discussed the proposed building on the Golden Concourse to be located between American Alley and Petaluma Blvd. North. It is the Com--- mittee's understanding that Frank Gray is working with Mr. Hansen on an owner - participation agreement and a draft of the agreement will go to Mr. Hansen for his review and comments. The Committee would like to have Mr. Liebel act as staff to the group and keep them informed of matters going on in the downtown area. Comm. Cavanagh asked how many members there were on the Project Area Committee. Mr. Lieb stated there are 13 members now, but only seven to ten are really active. They are asking other people to join with them. -4- February 13, 1978 PROJECT AREA There was some discussion regarding assigning a staff COMMITTEE REPORT member to the Project Area Committee. Mr. Scharer (Continued) stated when reorganization of the staffing for the Redevelopment Agency, the Housing Authority and the Transit was approved, Senior Planner Fred Tarr was assigned liaison between the Project Area Committee and the Commission. Mr. Tarr was selected because there would be future planning matters that would need his attention. Mr. Lieb stated Frank Gray had mentioned that possibly the Project Area Com- mittee could act as an advisory planning body to the Commission. Mr. Gray stated he felt there is a need to know how the downtown would react to certain proposals, and the Project Area Committee could be the body to contact both the business community and report to the Commission. Mr. Lieb stated another recommendation from the Project Area Committee is to add two-hour parking meters to the "A" Street ,lot in order to have more turn- over in this parking facility. Executive Director Robert Meyer indicated this matter should be brought before the City Council, not the Community Development Commission, and asked Mr. Lieb to bring the matter before the Council. OWNER -PARTICIPATION Deputy Director Frank Gray stated there have been AGREEMENTS several requests for ownership -participation agree- ments, and the staff is looking for direction from the Commission whether to prepare a draft agreement for their review. One request is from the developers of the building adjacent to the Golden Concourse, previously referred to by Mr. Lieb. The development in this case would have the Commission doing the improvements and the developer would build the building. Cost of the improvements would probably be recovered by the tax increment funds. The second request is from Skip Sommer for the Farrell Home to provide the public improvements on Weller Street. The third request is from the Historical Restoration Group. Mr. Gray indicated the staff would work on each of these proposals and bring something back for the Com- mission to review. OTHER REPORTS Comm. Harberson questioned when the service station located at the corner of Western Avenue and Keller Street would finally be removed. Mr. Scharer indicated the contract specified the building was to be completely removed by the eighth of February; however, the weather has hampered the demolition process. Comm. Cavanagh asked City Engineer David Young what the progress was on the DeLeuw Cather Report. Mr. Young advised the contract has been signed, and the City staff is presently gathering data for them. There is not much the con- sultant can do until they are provided with this information. Title reports have been ordered; some of them have been received and some are still pending. The basic data the City is to provide is the topographical information and the title reports. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Com- mission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Chairman Attest: Reco ing Secretary -5-