Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 06/07/1976JUL. 9 For Monday, July 12 meeting - copies previously mailed to you. PETALUMA`COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting Monday,' June 7 1976 - 4:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: The Regular Meeting of the Petaluma Community Development Commission was called to order by Chai-rman Helen Putnam at the hour of4:15 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Cavanagh, Harberson, Hilligoss, and Chairman Putnam Abstentions: Commissioners Brunner, Mattei, and Perry APPROVAL OF The minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of April 12, 1976, and MINUTES: the Adjourned Meeting of April 19, 1976, were approved as mailed. PETALUMA CENTRAL Project Manager Janie Warman advised that the Report to be BUSINESS DISTRICT discussed by the Commissioners is the document to be forwarded REDEVELOPMENT by the Petaluma Community Development Commission to the City PLAN -- REPORT Council. Ms. Warman stated the discussion of the document at TO CITY COUNCIL this time would probably be the last opportunity for the Com- munity Development Commission to discuss it prior to the Public Hearing to be held July 12, 1976. The hearing on that date would be a joint hearing of the'Petaluma Community Development Commission and the City Council. Ms. Warman stated the information contained in the document was gathered from data contained in other reports and other documents which the staff was able to research. This document is the preliminary Report upon which the Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report are based. Because of the length of the document, Chairman Putnam asked Ms. Warman to highlight sections of the Report which she felt particularly important for the Commission to note. Ms. Warman then stated that under the redevelopment process and under California State Law, it is necessary to substantiate blight in the redevelopment project area. These can be physical, economical, or social. The Report being studied does not outline much social blight in the downtown area. Physical blight can be discussed in terms of planning or poor land use or physical structures or functional obsolescence. These matters are discussed in the Report under Physical Conditions. Another section which Ms. Warman advised the Commission to study and discuss would be the economic section. The Addendum presented to the Commission` was the proposed method of financing, and Ms. Warman stated there would be addi- tional information on it. This document stresses tax increment financing; thus, it is difficult to determine at this time which private enterprises would be coming into the Project. The theory is to obtain a working partnership between the private and public sectors. Executive Director Robert Meyer questioned the validity of the statements made on Page 4 Item B, Economia Stagnation,_partcularly in view of the fact the Assessor has not reevaluated the downtown business district in some years. Finance Officer John Scharer indicated it was his understanding the area has not been reassessed but the Assessor's Office is in the process of doing this now, and it would not be reflected on the tax base until March 1977. Ms. Warman stated their survey indi- cated the rent levels in the downtown area were from 10 to 20 cents per square foot as opposed to higher rents in the shopping centers of approximately 40 to 60 cents per square foot. Mr. Scharer agreed the rent'in the downtown area is low compared to other shopping areas within the community, however, he did not know how it compared to central business 'districts"in other communities. Mr. Meyer then questioned whether or not low.rent meant an area was blighted; or could this, in some cases, work as an: economic advantage'to business. PETALUMA CENTRAL Mr. Joseph Coomes, the Special Counsel for the Petaluma Community BUSINESS DISTRICT Development Commission advised it will be the purpose of the REDEVELOPMENT Council at the Public Hearing to consider not only the Report, PLAN -- REPORT but all the other evidence and testimony, and to make findings TO CITY COUNCIL whether or not it is a blighted area. The purpose of the (CONT''D) Report is to indicate the conditions of the area which would qualify it for inclusion in a.redevelopment area and to present a fair and accurate description of all the conditions in the area: rent levels, occupancy, assessed evaluation trends, and other circumstances which may or may not be evidence of blight. It is important, however, to accurately describe all of the conditions in the Report. Mr. Coomes stated the Commission's eventual findings as to blight will be based upon the accumulation of all the data contained in the Report as well as testimony given at the Public Hearing. The purpose of presenting the Report today is not to reach those ultimate conclu- sions. This will be done by the City Council. The finding the Commission should reach is whether or not the Report is a good description of the Project Area. These are the types of things that should be brought out at this time. Chairman Putnam asked, in view of Item 4 on the Agenda which would be a resolution approving and adopting the Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, what responsibility -would the Commission have at this time. Mr. Coomes responded by stating the Commission would be adopting the Report for submission to the City Council. In adopting the Report it does not mean the Commission is approving the Report or reaching any conclusions. He did state, however, when the Commission would sit as the City Council they would not only be considering the Report but some supplemental evidence. Mr. Scharer stated most of the review on the economic portion of the Report was prepared by EDAW, Inc., hired as consul- tants to the Agency. The staff is reviewing the Report and any additional infor- mation will be forwarded for review. Mr. Coomes stated this additional information can be submitted by the staff at the Public Hearing. Chairman Putnam asked for some clarification regarding the ability of the public to provide comments regarding the documents which are to be forwarded to the City Council and to be considered at the Public Hearing July 12. Mr. Coomes stated the submission of the three documents, i.e., the Report to the City Council, the Redevelopment Plan, and the draft of the final EIR, contain the basic information relating to the Project Area. At this time in the process, they are not the final documents. The 28 -day period is established to give the public ample time to submit their views and to provide testimony at the Public Hearing. The Commission then went back to reviewing the Report. Commissioner Cavanagh questioned Item D on Page 4 of the Report which pertains to inadequate streets, open spaces, and utilities. It was his understanding that most of the utilities in the downtown area were undergrounded. Deputy Director Frank Gray stated, however, although they are not visible on Petaluma Boulevard and Kentucky Street, utility lines and poles are placed above ground in the alleys in the downtown area. Another item which Mr. Meyer felt would probably be corrected before the Report was finalized was the upgrading of water facilities in the western section of town which would include the downtown area. Commissioner Harberson then referred to Page 50 of the Report which proposed closing Mary Street as a public thoroughfare. He advised the Commissioners he has had a great deal of communication from citizens opposing this action, but he felt it would probably be brought out at the Public Hearing. In this light, Chairman Putnam stated she had been given a petition as of this date by Mrs. Ottie Redway residing at 219 Kentucky Street which contained 105 signatures opposing the sale and or closing of Mary Street. Ms. Warman stated this particular issue was proposed by private enterprise, the Bank of America, and it would be possible for them to negotiate directly with the City. It was included in the Plan as a suggested private activity since it is within the Project Area. Mr. Coomes stated the petition should become part of the Records of the Agency at this time. Prior to the Public Hearing a meeting could be held with the group and the Project Area Committee as a strictly informational meeting to impress upon people the suggestions in the Report are just suggestions and not Project plans to be carried out. The title of the petition was then read into the Record as follows: 10Petition to Petaluma City Council. We the undersigned object to the -2- PETALUMA CENTRAL sale and/or closi:ng.of:Mary Street to any and all interested BUSINESS DISTRICT party (ies.).". :: This petition contains 105. signatures. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -- REPORT Commissioner Cavanagh.questioned.the. incl-usion of some of the TO CITY COUNCIL economic data in the Report.which was to have -.been prepared by (CONY D) Wainwright and Ramsey, and asked Deputy Director Gray whether or not.the report had..been received. Mr: Gray stated that quotes contained in: the Report are from the draft copy of the Wainwright and Ramsey report. To -date, the final report has not 'been received. - Mr. Gray indicated he expected to have it in time for the Public Hearing; and if this was not the case, the firm of Wainwright and Ramsey would be askedto give. testimony at the Hearing on July 12. Executive Director Robert Meyer then questioned the statement made under Item 5, Public Safety, Subsection D, Police Protection.. He stated it might be desirable to have 2.0 police officers per 1,000 population, and.most Police -Chiefs would go along with the recommendation. He felt different areas may have mitigating circumstances which may not require,this ratio.' The present ratio in Petaluma is 1.15 officers per 1,000 -population. Mr. Coomes.stated the last sentence in the statement could be stricken from the Report. Mr. Meyer then referred to Page 51 of the Report under Suggested Redevelopment Activities Item 3 Downtown Parking Areas relating to the Keller Street Parking Lot. The Report states the lot has three parallel parking bays. He questioned the mathematics of doubling the number of parking spaces if the gas station facing on Western Avenue -is to be purchased for inclusion in the parking lot. It -was his understanding the purchase of this piece of property containing 9,030 square feet would provide only 30 additional spaces. A brief discussion was held on the matter. Ms. Warman stated there had been some recommendation to extend the parking lot into the alley right-of-way, but no conclusion had been reached on the matter. Mr. Gray also stated by redesigning the parking lot it may be,possible to create additional parking spaces, and in addition to extending the parking into the alley right-of-way, the other consideration was to double -decking the lot. Mr, Meyer suggested this section needs some clarification. . Some discussion was then held on Item 5 under Suggested Projects, Page 56 of the Report. The question raised by Commissioner Cavanagh was whether or not the pedestrian bridge was suggested to connect the Golden Eagle Shopping -Center with the extended Golden Concourse. It was his understanding the pedestrian bridge would begin at the foot of -Western Avenue and.go over to the Golden Concourse. Mr. Gray stated this was merely a suggestion; it was not a fast rule for the Project. Mr. Meyer then questioned whether or not, since the Report does not reflect the fact, would the Head of Navigation -have to be changed to this area. Mr. Gray stated it would, indeed, have to be terminated at the pedestrian bridge. Mr. Meyer then suggested the proper federal agency, whether it be the Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers, should be contacted regarding the change of Head of Navigation on the River. Chairman Putnam questioned whether or not this would interfere with fleets arriving, and would it restrict their use of the turning basin: Mr. Meyer stated placing the bridge at this location would not interfere with navigation; however, if it was placed at Western Avenue, it could affect the cruises. Commissioner Hilligoss questioned how the make-up of Figure 3 following Page 12 of the Report had been arrived at and felt an explanation was necessary. Mso Warman stated the problems and solutions to the social, economic, and physical make-up of the downtown area had been -done as a result of input from the 22 members of the Project Area Committee. Each member of the Committee had been given a map and a problem issue sheet. Each member was asked to put a problem on the sheet and a possible solution. These had been recapped, and the graph depicted on Figure 3 is a consoldation._of. approximately 100 sheets,submitted by the Project Area Committee. Chairman Putnam indicated she -felt -the Records should show, even though the Commission is willing to adopt the Report and forward; -it to the City Council, the Commission is of the opinion the Report is a progress report. She further stated it should be considered a working paper subject to change between this -3- PETALUMA CENTRAL date and the date the Public Hearing is to be held. General BUSINESS DISTRICT Counsel Matthew Hudson advised the document is that of the REDEVELOPMENT Commission in that the members of the Commission have read PLAN -- REPORT it and -know what it contains. His opinion was the adoption TO CITY COUNCIL of it at this meeting is in the nature of an Environmental (CONT'D) Impact Report. The fact that -supplements have already been suggested by=the staff and questions raised by the Commission indicates the --document is flexible and responsive. It contains facts upon which the City Council will make their decision at the Public Hearing July 12, 1976 and,between this date and the July 12 Hearing,is subject to clari- fication and refinement. ADOPT RULES Chairman Putnam asked the Special Counsel Joseph Coomes if he FOR OWNER would give some explanation to the Commission regarding the PARTICIPANTS, proposed resolution for the adoption of rules for owner parti BUSINESS OCCUPANTS, cipants and business occupants and property owners desiring to PROPERTY OWNERS participate in redevelopment. Mr. Coomes stated it is necessary PCDC RES #12 for the Community Development Commission to adopt these rules prior to the Public Hearing. The document contains provisions referred to in the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the extent to which owner participation will be allowed and for reasonable preference for people to participate and enter into business in the Project Area. Mr. Coomes further stated the reason'for the adoption at this time is in order for the rules to be subject to review by the public and property owners in the area prior to the Public Hearing. When asked by Executive Director Robert Meyer how this would affect people who are already in business in the area, Mr. Coomes responded by stating if the property conforms to the Plan and no.major new construction is planned in the area, no action needs to be taken. These rules provide the conforming owners do not have to enter into agreements. If a business would want to acquire property from the Agency or undertake new construction which will require some public activity, then the Agency can ask the people to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement. This is away of developing a contractual relationship between the private property owner who is going to invest and the public agency which will also be spending -some money. Mr. Coomes also stated these rules would be in effect as redevelopment progresses.and would stay in effect until modified. Upon conclusion of the discussion, PCDC Resolution #12 adopting rules for Owner Participants, Business Occupants, and Property Owners desiring to participate in redevelopment was introduced by Commissioner Harberson, seconded by Commissioner Hilligoss, and adopted by four affirmative votes and three abstentions. SUMMARY OF Ms. Janie Warman, Project Manager, advised the Commission the COMMENTS ON draft Environmental impact Report for the Petaluma Central DRAFT EIR Business District Redevelopment Pian had been sent to various agencies as listed in her memorandum dated June 3, 1976. These agencies had a 30 -day review period in which to comment on the Environmental Impact Report as to its adequacy. The final date for accepting com- ments was June 3, 1976. Ms. Warman advised only a few comments had been received, and they are listed in her memorandum. Responses to the comments will be incor- porated in the final EIR. Executive Director Robert Meyer called the Commission's ,attention to the fact the Department of Fish and Game indicated they have no com- ments at this time. Deputy Director Frank Gray also advised the Commission the Corps of Engineers had informed the PCDC they may apply the Section 404 Permit Requirement. Commissioner Cavanagh questioned the statements made on Page 9, No. 2 regarding the River, Ms. Warman explained this is to be changed in the final EIR as the use of the River hasnow turned around since it has been dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and more focus will be placed on the River. The final EIR will also contain the fact the River is a tidal estuary. The- EIR does point out there are some inadequacies along the River, and it is hope- ful these can be corrected by removing some of the sheds along the River and making —4— SUMMARY OF the.banks more-aestetically pleasing. Commissioner -Cavanagh also COMMENTS. ON questioned.whether on:Page:.47,under Park Service if Center Park DRAFT EIR should be included;;. There was -some question regarding the size (CONT°D) of the park,-whether:it,,would-be suitable to include it'in the Environmental Impact.;Report;. Mr. Cavanagh then asked the question regarding the existing conditions of,the water supply and referred .to Page 43 the first.- item, second! paragraph,, and brought, to,,the atten- tion the odd -even day water rationing system,i.s only in effect during -the summer months. Deputy Director Frank Gray indicated;this-should.be_defined-in the final Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Cavanagh had .two.more.questions regarding the Report. One, he referred -..to the report on Page,l .to be prepared by,Wainwright and Ramsey which has not been, as yet, submitted. He then referred to Page 16 and questioned Item 2.b., "A "special sign district". Mr. Gray responded by stating the Project Area Committee had recommended a special sign district be established for the Core Area. The present sign.;regulations apply .to the entire City. The Project Area Committee suggested, because ofthe close nature and pedestrian orientation of the buildings, possibly special sign regulations should.be established for the. Core Area. No further discussion was held on the draft Environmental Impact Report. SUBMIT -REPORT, REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DRAFT EIR TO CITY COUNCIL; CALL PUBLIC HEARING JULY 12; 1976 Prior to the adoption - of the Resolution, Chairman Putnam indicated the resolution is a move forward, in the.process. However, she wanted the record to reflect the Report is a working document, is subject to change, can be flexible and responsive, and can have additional data incorporated into it before and during the Public Hearing to be held Monday, July 12, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Commissioner Cavanagh questioned whether the total number of police officers suggested in the Report and reflected on Page 46 requiring 62 officers would be changed before the final Report. The Clerk was asked to make a note of Mr. Cavanagh's request which had previously been discussed by the Executive Director. Resolution #13 of the Petaluma Community Development Commission approving and adopting the Report to the City Council of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for.the Petaluma Central Business District Redevelopment Project, -submitting the Report, proposed Redevelopment Plan and final Environmental Impact Report to the City Council, and requesting the City Council to call a Notice of Joint Public Hearing on said Plan and final Environmental Impact Report was introduced by Commissioner Harberson, seconded by Commissioner Cavanagh, and approved by four affirmative votes and three abstentions. ADOPT PRELIMINARY Executive Director Robert Meyer referred to a memorandum dated BUDGET May 14, 1976, from Project Manager Janie Warman regarding the PCDC RES #14 program and time schedule for the Central Business District Project© Mr. Meyer noted the schedule carries through August 18, 1976. In order to fund the Program, it would be necessary to use the funds remaining from those already allocated and to further fund in the amount of $10,535 or a Preliminary Budget of $28,000. His recommendation was for approval of the budget in order to determine whether or not there would be a pro- ject. Commissioner Cavanagh questioned whether or not sufficient funds had been allowed in the Budget for the services of the Special Counsel. Mr. Meyer suggested if additional funds were needed, they could be transferred from Section 34.610 Reserves from the original appropriation. Before acting on the matter of the Prellihinary Budget, Commissioner Harberson questioned one of the items contained in the memorandum from Ms. Warman dated May 14, 1976, regarding Community Development and Housing as noted on Page 4 of the memorandum. Mr. Harberson stated recently the City of Santa Rosa split their Community Development Commission back into a Community Development and Housing Authority. He was of the opinion they did this because they wanted the Commission members to also be members of the City Council. He also asked whether this could be considered for the City of Petaluma. Mr. Joseph Coomes responded by explaining -5- ADOPT PRELIMINARY the problem Santa Rosa had was with the provision in the State BUDGET Law which requires if you have a Housing Authority and you have PCDC RES 414 tenants and a Community Development Commission, two of the (CONT'D) tenants -must be members of the -Community Development Commission. If you have a Community Development Commission, you must have the tenants on it. He further remarked many cities, where the City Council acts as the Community Development Commission, are going back to having separate agencies because they cannot accommodate having two tenants sit on the Commission and act on both housing and redevelopment matters. Commissioner Cavanagh indicated he felt some consideration should be given to splitting it again. Mr. Gray advised it would be at least a year before there are any tenants. However, -the matter would be investigated. PCDC Resolution 415 approving the General Budget to complete and adopt CBD Redevelop- ment Plan in the amount of $28,000 was introduced by Commissioner Hilligoss, seconded by Chairman Putnam, and approved by four affirmative votes and three abstentions. The Budget was clarified by Mr. Meyer to indicate an appropriation of $10,535 for the total needed for materials and supplies, plus the $17,465 remaining from the original appropriation which needs to be reappropriated thus creating a total budget of $28,000. ADJOURNMENT There being no further businessto come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 5:23 p.m. Chairman Attest: - cordin Secretary