Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 03/29/1976CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES PETALIP-Vt COMMUNITY DEVELOP14ENT COIIMISSION Minutes of Aga j ournad Meaning March 29, 1976 An Adjourned Meeting of the Petaluma Community Development Commission was called to order by ,Chairman Helen Putnam at the hour of 7:35 p.m. Present: Commissioners Brunner, Cavanagh, Harberson, Hilligoss, Mattei,,Perry, and Chairman Putnam Chairman Helen Putnam led the audience in the -Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. The minutes of March 1, 1976, of the Petaluma Community Development Commission were approved as recorded. APPOINT ADDITIONAL Petaluma Community Development Commission Resolution #9 MEMBERS TO PROJECT approving additional members to the.Project Area Committee AREA COMMITTEE and naming Dan Peterson and Clark Thompson to the Committee PCDC RES #9 was adopted by 6 affirmative and 1 abstention. Councilman Perry abstained from voting. Some discussion was; held regarding the residency requirements of members on the Project Area Committee; however, it was determined residency was not a prerequisite to serving on the Committee as many of the landowners in the Downtown did not live in the confines of the City limits, but were members of the Project Area Committee and vitally interested in the area. LEGALITY OF VOTING In view of Commissioner Perry's abstention on the first RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS vote of the evening, Chairman Putnam asked the General ON MEMBERS OF THE PCDC Counsel, Matthew Hudson, to comment_on.the legality of members of the Petaluma Community Development Commission voting and what the restrictions would be. Mr. Hudson stated that until recently members of the agency, under the provisions of the Health and Safety Code,could vote on issues if they owned property in the project area as long as they submitted disclosure statements. However, with the passage of Proposition 9, the Fair Political Practices Commission has determined a person who owns land in a.project area, who does business in the project area, and who's business involves a portion of the project area, must disqualify himself from voting. The FPPC has stated these three factors would definitely disqualify a member from voting and any combination less than the three factors may disqualify a member from voting. Mr. Hudson further stated although he did not feel Commissioner Perry needed.to disqualify himself on the first vote this evening, when the matter of the project area itself would be voted upon.or the project plan comes before the Commission,.Mr. Perry as well as other members of the Commission should disqualify themselves from voting. Chairman Putnam then asked if there was any limitation on members of the Commission participating in the discussion. Mr. Hudson advised any partici- pation by members who had an interest in the project area should take place from the floor and not from the dias. Commissioner Brunner stated he felt the situation was ludicrous as he and Commissioner Mattei had learned at a seminar they attended the prior year the most important aspect of any redevel- opment project was to get the people who had an interest or property in the Downtown area involved. He questioned whether or not the same rationale applied to the Project Area Committee. Mr. Hudson replied by stating the Project Area Committee, by the Code, is to be made up of persons having an interest in'the Project Area, and the Committee has no decision-making power. Mr. Hudson further stated there would be no reason why members of the Commission could not participate -as long as: -they did so from the floor rather in their official capacity as commissioners.. He did not disagree with Commissioner Brunner's opinion and stated the persons with whom he had consulted had been hopeful the Fair Political Practices Commission would take the attitude the Health and Safety Code, which had been used in the past, could apply as long as members of the Commission had disclosed their interest. However, the Fair Political Practices Commissions has ruled Proposition 9 was passed subsequent to the Health.and:Safety Code, and it should apply to -Redevelopment Agency members, especially persons owning property in the project area. After Mr.. Hudson had given his advice to members of the Commission, Commissioners Brunner, Mattei, .and Perry left the Bias and joined the audience. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS General Counsel Matthew Hudson advised the Commission the Health and Safety'Code requires members of the Commission to file Disclosure of Economic Interest Statements. He also advised the Commissioners he had copies made of the Statements they had filed as council members to comply with the law. These copies were given to the Recording Secretary and made a matter of record with the Petaluma Community :Development Commission. His decision to make the Disclosure Statements a matter of record with the Petaluma Community Development Commission was to protect the members of the Commission legally. Executive Director Robert Meyer asked Mr. Hudson to explain, for the record, why the members had removed themselves from the dial. Mr. Hudson stated two of .the members, Mr. Mattei and Mr. Perry; owned property in the project .area and Mr. Brunner has his business in the project area. The kind of business Mr. Brunner, is engaged in could have a.potential of underwriting insurance in the project area. These two tests are sufficient under the terms -of Proposition 9 to -have him step down. PRELIMINARY PLAN Mr. Fred Schram, Chairman of the Project Area Committee, AS RECOMLMNDED BY precluded his review of the Preliminary Plan by stating THE PROJECT AREA the Committee has met for the past two months in an COMMITTEE attempt to align itself and draft some proposals for presentation to the Petaluma Community Development' Commission this evening. Most of the input to the group comes from businessmen, residents of the area, and interested parties.. Mr. Schram stated the Committee started outwith quite a large membership but has settled down to about twelve peoplewhohave been working .very hard on the Preliminary Plan. He.stat.ed the Committee has had excellent staff advice from the consulting firm in San Francisco, both from their offices there and working with the Committee here in Petaluma.. Mr. Schram Hien proceeded to review the entire Central Business District Project Area Work- ing Paper #2, dated March 24, 1976, which is on file with the Recording Secretary. During his review of the Plan, Ms. Janie Warman, Project Manager, pointed out the several areas described in the Plan on the wall map for the benefit of the Commissioners and the audience. Mr. Schram and Ms. Warman indicated a change should be made on.page 14 of the Plan under letter "O.v." where it recommended to.make-Kentucky Street a one-way.street with parking provided in a diagonal pattern. The paragraph states 20-25 additional spaces could be provided on the street along with substantial amount of landscaping areas. Ms. Warman and Mr..Schram asked that the last sentence be deleted from the paragraph. Ms. Warman stated diagonal parking on both sides of the street could create a type of parking mall which would entice traffic to the area; however, diagonal parking on only one side of the street could create a fast flow of traffic which was not desirable for the area. After his review of the proposed Project Area.Plan for the Central Business District, Mr. Schram stated he wished to thank members of the Committee and the members of the staff who had worked so diligently to present the Plan to the Commission tonight. Project Manager Janie Warman pointed out several corrections to the concept maps in the workbook which she wished to correct. The corrections were noted by the Recording Secretary and incorporated in the filed plan. Ms. Warman advised the members of the Commission and `the audience the redevel- opment process.being proposed was being done only under California State Law, and it was not the intention of.the Project Area Committee to get involved with Federal Urban Renewal Laws. _Ms. Warman stated she felt the Committee had done a fine job. Their purpose was.to come up with three alternatives and to arrive at a concept which was broad road and flexible but not so expensive that it could not, -2- by using the present railroad tracks'. His suggestion was to run three or four trams to. the Core Lr -ea and charge a very -reasonable rate..., He, felt- this, would. attract people to the Downtown Area,; especially those with children. Another - suggest -ion. made . by 11r. Tellander was, instead of placing- - a.. pedestrian bridge to connect the GoldenEagleShopping Center.with the west :bank of the River,. to use, ferry boats: for transportation. A. complete. report prepared by Mr.. Tellander: dated March 26.� 1976,.was presented to the -Recording Secretary and is on file. Mr-.- Fred. Schram, Chairman of the Project, Area Committee., adv,:Ls.-ed the Commission. Mr- Tellander had. given his input at, their last meeting and - the, Committee did nothave. a chance to, incorporate any of his ideas into their- report. - Mr. Wally Kleckhefer, the.developer of the Golde-n.Eagle Shopping Center, addressed the Commi-ssion stating -he had only oneword of. cant ion, i.e.,, the. Plan, when it is -,completed,. will: serve the community through - all. of the- 7G's, and 80's,, but -his concern wasfor the years after that.. He urged the. CO-mmis-slan not tolimit the potential- expansion of. the Downtown.Core.Area as it may be needed in. the. future.. If the area is: limited., the, community would.then be vulnerable to freeway shopping_ centers and felt the Commission should enter into the, Plan keeping in mind: the. Downtown-, Core Area. May have to be bigger o -r - give. way to freeway development.. Chairman Putnam asked: Ma.. Warman. to, comment on. the flexib-illtles, of Jth4e Plan... Ms.:_ Warman pointed. out several areas which - had, been indicated commercial and industrial which:- could- - b -e changed- to heavy - commercial or- to, accommodate a very light industrial use. and: in_ Subarea 4- if there was the need for- additional retail use-, the, concept: is. flexible, enough to include, this type, of development. opment.. When: asked by the Executive. Direct or Robert Meyer if he wanted- all of: the residential removed,, from the.. Project Area, Mr. Kieckhefer responded by -stating his -main concern was nit to, box - the Core Area by ringing it with residential development:- He felt e� a -1, there was ample room along �he_ River from- R, Street. down to, accommodate: residen-tial. uses:.. Mr. Fred Matte! then addressed, the Commission and stated:he- was intrigued- by the idea of the tramway and felt, it had a lot.. of mexi-t-.;. Mt. Mdt-tei- exp-res.s-ed some disappointment over the -fact the marketing survey which-, th',to-, Cou=11- had authorized had not been completed and since a judgment had to be, made on.the financial aspect of the Project. he felt it was necessary to7 have this -infor- mation. Mr. Mattel' also felt even. though everything. was in. the, planning,: stage, it was necessary to have some type of organ izat-ion, whf cli would have the authority to take properties, and he -can foresee some problems:in thia-area.- His second. concern was -the emphasis being placed on the,-'reconstruct-lon of some of the older, so-called "hi-storical"buildings. His:. business, phil-osophy-,has been. to move and change and modernize from time to time._ Mr_ Matte! further expressed, some doubts about placing parksthroughout the entire area and another c-oncern.wa,-- regarding the ' traffic and parking situation,- which_. he f&-lr needed -,mores input from the staff and those who would be- affected by. it. Mrs., Lucille Elmore- addressed the Comm:Lssriorr.stating ,she felt more emphasis_ should - b -e placed on attracting tourists:. to the City of Petaluma and- made a, suggestion - that a small zoo could-- be instituted and. further- suggested the area along the River could be. converted-, into putting- greens. for use, by children_ whose parents were shopping. Mrs.. Elmore stated in Scotland trampolines were installed., with sup-ervis-lon, for children dren tobe kept busy while their- parents shopped. Mrs. Elmore- also stated she was hopeful -the City coul&., attract businesseswhich had a. broad. tax' base rather than a lot of small businesses-_ TE'4ETABLE-- PROJECT AREA PLAN The Chairman of the,.•Project Area Committee, Fred Schram, advised the -Commissioners the Committee worked very diligently to prepare input on time.. If the Commission decided to proceed by utilizing increment taxing this fiscal,year,_this would allow three or four weeks to s ' tudy and accomplish the same. The Executive Director Robert Meyer asked.some questions concerning whether or not the Committee is going to make suggestions on how to handle the financing for the parking projects or -whether or not this recommendation would come from another group. Deputy Director Frank Gray explained the Project Area Committee responsibility was the preparation of the Plan. As far as the implementation -4- be accomplished. Ms. Warman remarked quite a bit of interest has been generated for private -enterprise to develop and restore some of the older buildings in the Core.Area. She specifically mentioned the project along the riverfront, the Great Petaluma Mill and also announced.a final bid had been made on the McNear properties, buildings commonly referred to as the 1886 and 1911 McNear Buildings. Ms. Warman introduced Mr. Jeffrey F. Harriman and Wallace Lourdeaux, the proposed developers for the Project. Chairman Putnam then opened the meeting for discussion and comments. First to address the Commission was Mr. Skip Sommer, who is in the process of restoring and developing the Great Petaluma Mill Project. Mr. Sommer expressed his desire to see a greater use of the Petaluma River and was hopeful some docking and lighting arrangements along the waterfront could be developed to accommodate regattas which plan to visit the City of Petaluma. Mr. -Sommer also suggested the utilization of the turning basin for small type boats, such as the El Toro sailboats, any type of small boat, even canoes, which would not be motorized. Mr. Sommer reported the Petaluma Mill Project is bringing new commercial enterprises into the city --18 leases have been signed not including those already there. Of the 18 only 4 are Petalumans. He stressed the point that the project is bringing new people to the area. The contractor is now in the process of earthquaking the building, and Mr. Sommer stated he was hopeful of having the shops open in July and August. He also stated the Performing Arts Theater and a major restaurant consisting of 8,000 square feet will open in August. Mr. Sommer expressed his pleasure regarding the proposed McNear restoration project. He suggested the Keller Street parking lot could have a top deck constructed which the. City could lease on long-term leases to utilize the air space. He remarked he was interested in improving the visual appearance of the River and hoped some of the sheds which line the River could be removed as he had done with his project. Anything which can be done to make the River more attractive would tend to lure additional yacht clubs and regattas to the area. Mr. Sommer also stated he would be in favor of placing additional docks along the riverfront and would be very happy to have docks fronting on his project. He advised the Commission he was negotiating with the railroad company to give him permission to place plywood over the railroad ties as a safety factor along the waterfront. The next citizen to address the Commission was Mr. John Torrens who resides at 10 Keller Street. Mr. Torrens commented this was his first opportunity to review the Plan and felt it had been very carefully worked on and well thought out. He owns properties at 8 and 10 Keller Street which he is in the process of restoring. The Plan indicates the location of these two parcels would eventually be converted to a.parking area. Mr. Torrens further commented he has yet to see the A Street parking lot filled to capacity and felt the need for double -decking the lot was unwarranted. Executive Director Robert Meyer said although the Plan does call for the Keller Street and A Street parking lots to be structural and the area where Mr. Torrens' property is located is indicated for parking, the Plan would be a long range one and would not even be considered unless the need for parking warranted it. Mr. Torrens stated he was in the process of restoring the property at 10 Keller Street to a Heritage Home and would -voice objections if the property would be included in the parking plan. Mr. Robert Tellander next addressed the Commission regarding the Urban.Redevel- opment of the Downtown area. Mr.. Tellander stated a more beautiful Downtown area would not make it a better one when it has to compete with four major shopping centers. He suggested the Plan should be made viable for the needs of mothers and children who want to shop. The proposed Plan does not make it more attractive for families with children but seems to relate more to adults. Mr. Tellander suggested the business community consider a noon to 9 p.m. business day. This would give families an opportunity, either the husband or the wife with children, to shop in the Downtown area while the other stayed at home if it was necessary. Another suggestion made by-Mr-Tellander was to utilize the approximate 10 acres between Gilardi_'s Furniture Store and Silva's Appliance Store along the tide lands.for parking and institute a tramway system -3- of the.Plan; they have had some ideas; however, this isnot_part of their responsibility. .she staff now needs to provide alternate implemention tech- niques for presentation to the Petaluma Community Development Commission. These implementing techniques would be explored between April 5 - May 3. The staff will present a draft plan to the Commission on,April 5 incorpor- atim� the comments from the.audience and the Community Development Commission. In reviewing the timetable, Mr. Gray stated the tax increment, deadline would be August 20. The contractual agreement with the consulting firm to supply the Commission with a Planner and a Project Manager ends on June 30. By that date,:the Project Plan must be completed, in order to meet these require- ments. A time schedule has been prepared by the Special Counsel, Joe Coomes. If the tax increment deadline of August 20 is to be attained, it will be necessary to adher to the schedule set forth by Mr..Coomes and have the Plan and the draft EIR for the Project Area ready by April 5. The other alternative would be to prepare the Project Area Plan and do none of the other items under, the work schedule and not meet the tags increment deadline and not prepare environmental documents. Mr. Gray then outlined,the advantagesofmeeting the tax increment deadline. One would be that the Commission would be able to use the increment which had developed during the last year. The second advantage is the increment financing can now be used under State Law. Mr -..Gray stated there are proposed amendments which could make the use of tax increments more difficult in the future. .If the project is to be postponed; State Law could change -and this tool for financing could be lost.. Finance Officer. John Scharer then stated the monetary tax increment loss referred to by Mr. Gray would be the development of the Golden Eagle.Shopping Center, the Northern California , Savings Project, and the,S.ierra National Bank, which would amount to about $20,000. Chairman Putnam asked what action was expected from the Commission at this meeting. Mr. Gray responded by advising.the staff would need direction to proceed with the preparation of the draft EIR. The cost would be approxi- mately $1,500, and this amount has been budgeted. An authorization is needed, however, to make this expenditure. Mr. Gray further advised the Commission the draft EIR must accompany the draft Plan on.April 5 in order to meet the stringent deadline. Mr. Gray stated the primary goal is to have a successful project and urged the Commission not to make a decision if they felt they were being rushed into the project. He was merely advising if this year's tax increment is to be met the draft EIR and the draft project plan must be presented April 5. Mr. Harberson stated he was prepared to make a decision on Concept A as a means of starting because the concept would probably have to be modified as the project progressed. He was also hopeful the Commission would be able to meet the August 20 deadline, since the redevelopment would have to continue to receive financing, and he did not _feel ,the Commission could continue to borrow money from the City of Petaluma to finance the activity. Commissioner Harberson then asked General Counsel Matthew Hudson since three of the members of the Commission had to step down from the dias would the vote have to be a unanimous vote on any motion made, Mr. Hudson replied in the affirmative. Some discussion followed regarding the property owned by the railroad company adjacent to the depot and near the railroad tracks -bounded by Copeland, East Washington, and East D Streets. Commissioner Hilligoss asked whether or not the railroad company would be willing to permit park use on this land as she favored the proposal for use of the railroad marshalling yard as a community park with a historic railroad theme. Mr. Gray indicated he had spoken with the Northwestern Railroad representatives last Friday and learned they would not be willing to permit this type of use in the area because of public safety factors. :the Executive Director Robert'Meyer stated with the acquisition of the McNear Peninsula, located in the general vicinity, he did not feel the need for a park in this area. The railroad property has always potentially been considered as a commercial area, and when the railroad company felt it was feasibly possible, they would either develop the land or find a developer who would be interested in converting the land to commercial uses. Commissioner Harberson stated one of the :reasons he favored Concept A was because the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission had never considered this site as a -5- park area. Commissioner Calyanagh stated although he would like to follow the schedule; he didn�t think the Commission had had adequate gime for study to make a decision. The Executive Director then`asked the Commission to very carefully weigh their decision. He advised the Downtown has not been reassessed in -the past five years, and the City has not had this'additional money available for the General Fund. He stated it was possible the City could' end up withlessmoney in the.- General he:General Fund as a result of reassessment. The possibility exists the funds could be needed for the General City Budget to provide police, fire, andother services: Chairman Putnam called on Jim Williams, a member of the Project Area Committee, to address the Commission. Mr. Williams stated he felt time was of the essence. He was hopeful the Commission would take a very positive attitude toward meeting the August 20 deadline. Mr. Meyer clarified his previous statement by stating he did not -object to the 'target date of August 20; he only wanted: the Commission to be aware of a possible consequence. After some deliberation the Commission unanimously approved a motion made -by Commissioner Harberson, seconded by Chairman Putnam to recommend the staff proceed with Concept A of the Preliminary Project Area Plan and the development of the Environmental Impact Report in an effort to -meet the August 20 deadline..: ADJOURNMENT There being no -further business to come before the Commission the meeting was adjourned at 10:.20 p.m.: CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 29, 1976 1. Page 2 - Preliminary Plan as Recommended by the Project Area Committee -'24r. Fred Schram, Chairman -of the Project Area Committee, precluded his review of the Preliminary Plan ." should say, "Mr. Fred Schram, Chairman of the Project Area Committee, prefaced his review of the Preliminary Plan ." 2. Page 3 - Line 21 - "He also stated the Performing Arts Theater and a major restaurant consisting of 8,000 square feet will open In August" should say, "He also stated the Performing Arts Theater and a major restaurant consisting of 8,000 square feet will open in October."