Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 04/05/1976LETTER FROM HISTORICAL A letter dated March 30, 1?76, addressed to the Petaluma RESTORATION AND DEVELOP- Community Development Commission from the Historical MENT COMPANY RE 1886 Restoration and Development Cora-Dany, 121 Redwood Drive, AND 1911 McNEAR BUILD- Woodacre, regarding the restoration of the 1886 and 1911 INGS AND PROPOSED MALL McNear "uildings and proposes Nall between the 1886 McNear 3uilding and the Lar _-:art Building was read by the Recording Secretary. Deputy Director Frank Gray felt the letter should be considered as a letter of support for a specific project: i.e., the McNear Mall Project. He explained two elements would be under consideration by the Commission at a future date: The first would be the General Plan,cand the second would be specific projects for the area. He then recommended the letter be held in abeyance and action taken at a later date when specific projects would be discussed. The time schedule would be approximately one or two months in the future. Chairman Putnam asked if the developer was aware of the time schedule. Mr. Gray responded in the affirmative. He has been in contact with the two principals, Jeffrey F. Harriman and Wallace Lourdeaux. Chairman Putnam then asked to have'the letter held for action at a later date. TIMETABLE FOR ?deputy Director Frank Gray reviewed a memorandum directed WORK PROGRAM to the Petaluma Community Development Commission dated April, 2, 1976, in which he recommended a revision of the time schedu 6; which 'would mean the Commission would not be able to meet this year's tax increment deadline to begin receiving tax increments from the Project Area. In ais memorandum Mr. Gray stated he felt additional, more accurate information is needed in the areas of project financial analysis, engi-. neering cost estimates, and traffic analysis. -1-- APR. q 1976 PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Minutes of Regular Meeting-'' April- 5; 1976 _ CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting: of the Petaluma Community Development Commission was called to order by Chairman Helen Putnam at the hour -of 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cavanagh, Harberson; Hilligoss, Mattei, and Chairman -Putnam Absent: Commissioners Brunner and Perry' APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Adjourned Meeting, March 29, 1976, were aDproved-as mailed -with the exception of two typonraphical errors which were called to the Recording Secretary°s attention for correction. LETTER FROM HISTORICAL A letter dated March 30,~1976, from the Historical RESTORATION AND DEVELOP- Restoration and Development Company, -121 Redwood Drive, MENT COMPANY RE'1886 Woocacre, California, directed to the Petaluma Community AND 1911 McNEAR BUILD- Develop-ment Commission was read by the Recording Secretary. INGS AND "A" STREET Deputy Director Frank Gray recommended to the members of - PARKING LOT EXPANSION the Commission that since the letter relates to the two lots flanking the "A" Street parking lot, the .proper action would be to forward the letter to the City -Council for their consideration. The Commission agreed; and the matter will be placed on the City Council agenda of April 19, 1976. It should be noted at this time Commissioner Mattei left the podium at 4:12 p.m. to join the audience. LETTER FROM HISTORICAL A letter dated March 30, 1?76, addressed to the Petaluma RESTORATION AND DEVELOP- Community Development Commission from the Historical MENT COMPANY RE 1886 Restoration and Development Cora-Dany, 121 Redwood Drive, AND 1911 McNEAR BUILD- Woodacre, regarding the restoration of the 1886 and 1911 INGS AND PROPOSED MALL McNear "uildings and proposes Nall between the 1886 McNear 3uilding and the Lar _-:art Building was read by the Recording Secretary. Deputy Director Frank Gray felt the letter should be considered as a letter of support for a specific project: i.e., the McNear Mall Project. He explained two elements would be under consideration by the Commission at a future date: The first would be the General Plan,cand the second would be specific projects for the area. He then recommended the letter be held in abeyance and action taken at a later date when specific projects would be discussed. The time schedule would be approximately one or two months in the future. Chairman Putnam asked if the developer was aware of the time schedule. Mr. Gray responded in the affirmative. He has been in contact with the two principals, Jeffrey F. Harriman and Wallace Lourdeaux. Chairman Putnam then asked to have'the letter held for action at a later date. TIMETABLE FOR ?deputy Director Frank Gray reviewed a memorandum directed WORK PROGRAM to the Petaluma Community Development Commission dated April, 2, 1976, in which he recommended a revision of the time schedu 6; which 'would mean the Commission would not be able to meet this year's tax increment deadline to begin receiving tax increments from the Project Area. In ais memorandum Mr. Gray stated he felt additional, more accurate information is needed in the areas of project financial analysis, engi-. neering cost estimates, and traffic analysis. -1-- TIMETABLE FOR Mr. Gray reported he had contacted the Legal Counsel for WORK PROGRAM the Petaluma,Commun ty DeveJ9pment Commission, Mr. Joe CONT'D Coomes, in Sacramento. Mr. Gray stated Mr. Coomes was very helpful,in providing -the staff with further guide- lines in the way to proceed. He stated with the level of specificity the staff had developed in the Plan;_Mr. Gray's concerns were well founded. However, he suggested since the Plan is going to have to last for 20 or 25,years, it should be a general one and not delve so deeply into specifics. Mr. Coomes suggested the Environmental" Impact;Report.should only reflect:the degree of detail of the General Plan. This data is:availab"le to the Commission now. Mr. Gray stated, over the telephone, he.had reviewed"the proposed timetable with Mr. Coomes, and Mr. Coomes is to meet in Petaluma with him later in the week. Mr. Coomes stated it would be possible to meet.the",tax increment deadline if the Commission was willing to adopt a general plan and a general EIR. Mr. Gray stated the Concept A Plan is the one he would recommend for adoption. Mr. Gray advised the Commission the staff could.be prepared to discuss the matter with them at a meeting scheduled for April 19, 1976. The recommendation is to adopt Concept A rather than Alternative A as the former is not so specific and would require only a;general concept plan and a general EIR. Mr. Gray also advised that simultaneously to developing this concept plan, a priority list for approximately 25 specific projects should be established. When the General Plan is actually approved by the Commission, work could be started on the specific studies for such projects as a pedestrian mall; -a" parking project, a pedestrian bridge, and the mechanisms for financing them. A discussion was -then held regarding the next meeting time for the Commission when. the plans could be discussed.. Executive Director Robert Meyer suggested the Commission meet in a joint session with the Planning Commission and the Project Area Committee on April 12, 1976, in the evening. If action could not be taken that evening, there would.still be a possibility of taking action on. April 19. PROJECT AREA Mr. Frederick K. Schram advised the Commission he has COMMITTEE recently accepted a position,as.Manager"o.f.the Greater �— Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce and has"-r,equested permission to step down as the Chairperson for the Project Area Committee. The Project Area Committee has selected Mr. Robert Stimson as Chairman Pro Tem until the Committee meets April 12 to appoint a new .chairman. Mr. Robert Stimson also addressed the -Commission -and advised the Project Area Committee had met this morning, and a topic of their discussion was Mr. Gray's memorandum in which he stated -he -felt it would not"!be:possible to meet the tax increment deadline. Mr. Stimson reported it was the feeling of the Committee, since the momentum is moving on the Project Area, they felt it was important to keep moving ahead as probable changes in the Legislature may make it impossible in the future. When asked by Commissioner Cavanagh how many members had voted on the position they took, Mr. Stimson stated there were 11 members present at the meeting out of a possible 18 or 20, and -the vote had been unanimous. Mr. Skip Sommer advised the Commission he was a member of the Committee but had been unable to -attend the meeting and would like to cast his vote in favor of proceeding. At this time Mr. Schram presented a resolution from the Board of Directors of the Petaluma Area. Chamber of Commerce recommending the Petaluma Community Development Commission endeavor to meet the August 20 dead- line in order to establish increment base for the 1975-76 taxable year. A copy of theresolutionis on file with the Recording Secretary. AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS who was unable to attend. 1976, meeting. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT A formal Notice of Amendment to the By-laws for the Petaluma Community Development Commission's review was presented to each member of the Commission by the Recording Secretary on behalf of the General Counsel, The vote on;th:e.By-laws is scheduled for the April 12, Executive Director:Robert Meyer asked to have one member of the Commission who was able to vote and one member whose ability to vote on issues may be a Conflict of Interest to meet with Mr. Joseph Coomes, the special -2- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S Legal Counsel for the Commission on Wednesday, April 7, REPORT 1976, at 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Hilligoss was appointed CONT D as the voting member and Commissioner.Mattei as the non- voting member to attend the meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to April 12, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. to a joint,meeting of the Petaluma Community Development Commission, the Project Area Committee, and the Planning Commission. Chairman Attest: Sec tary