HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCDC Minutes 05/06/20021
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
May 6, 2002
4
0 City of Petaluma, California
Petaluma Communitv Development Commission Meetinq
:1
Meeting Minutes
Monday, May 6, 2002 - 3:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Cader-Thompson, Vice Chair Healy,, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien,
Chair Thompson, Torliatt
ABSENT: None
< i
PUBLIC COMMENT
Erin Chmielewski, Petaluma, member of Senior Girl Scout Troop 943, encouraged
renovation of the railroad depot, Her Girl Scout Troop would like to participate as a
Senior Level Gold Award Project.
t
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 1, 2002
Motion to approve the minutes as written, M/S Torliatt/Maguire 5/0/2; Moynihan and
Thompson abstain
AYES:
Cader-Thompson, Vice Chair Healy, Maguire, O'Brien, Torliatt
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Moynihan, Chair Thompson
RESO. 2002-05
PETALUMA RAILROAD DEPOT
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Negotiations with the Northwest Pacific
Railroad Authority (NWPRA) to Obtain a Right of Entry Permit with an Option to Lease
the Petaluma Railroad Depot.
Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella presented the
staff report, Staff is recommending adoption of the resolution to authorize negotiations
with the NWPRA to obtain a right of entry permit, with an option to lease the Petaluma
Railroad Depot, The freight hauler that has occupied the depot building for many years
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
46
47
48
May 6, 2002
is now gone. A structural survey of the structures several months ago revealed
substantial damage to the interior of the buildings. The buildings are a focal point for
the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP).
Objectives to keep in mind:
•S Preserve important historical buildings in the Central Business District (CBD).
❖ Regain use of the buildings for important civic, social, and non-profit uses.
Kick-off redevelopment of depot area in CPSP.
❖ Signal City's intention to transform gateway to CBD.
❖ Create pleasant ambiance for future rail passengers and attractive linkage to new
bus transit center on Copeland Street.
The staff report also included possible deal -points for a long-term lease if the
Commission was interested.
Improvements to the depot include building, platform (work with Sonoma/Marin Area
Rail Transit - SMART on that), landscaping, and vehicular access.
Several options available:
A. Obtain Right of Entry Permit with Option of Lease
B. Direct Long -Term Lease Negotiations
C. Defer Consideration of Depot Lease - wait for development of larger site and
make it consideration for that development.
The County of Sonoma has applied for $2.2 million fund for renovation of site. That
would require a $550K match from the Commission (which would come from $8.6
million set aside in the Five -Year Implementation Plan for CPSP). Staff recommends
Alternative A.
Commissioner Maguire - Why A and not B?
Mr. Marangella - Might be more prudent to work with railroad under short-term lease.
This would allow inspections to be done. We would then come back to the Commission
with an assessment of costs based on those inspections.
Commissioner Maguire - CPSP discussions have mentioned the possibility of rearranging
the position of buildings. Has any thought been given to that?
Mr. Marangella - We did not assume any costs for moving buildings. The renovation
costs alone are quite considerable.
Commissioner Maguire asked Mr. Marangella if he had spoken to Lillian Hames,
Sonoma -Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Executive Director.
Mr. Marangella - Confirmed that he had. SMART is interested in locating small office
and meeting space within the buildings, making Petaluma the central hub of SMART.
Page 2
May 6, 2002
1 Commissioner Maguire - In that case there may be partial funding from SMART.
2
3 Mr. Marangella - Correct.
4
5 Commissioner Maguire - Will any design/renovation plans include built-in access to rail
6 when passenger trains running again?
7
8 Mr. Marangella - Yes - but almost no light rail system in California uses buildings. They
9 want covered shelters on platforms and automated ticketing. They don't need access
10 to the buildings. They do need access to restrooms. There will not be much change to
11 the footprint when commuter rail comes in. An engineer from SMART assessed the site -
12 there is room for a second rail, etc.
13
14 Commissioner Moynihan - Was not too clear about Alternative C. Are any of these
15 alternatives looking at leasing the entire six -acre site?
16
17 Mr. Marangella - No. There's a sensitive issue with the Caulfield extension. Mr. White is
18 working to open up the Caulfield extension by trading Hopper Street for the Caulfield
19 extension. It requires him to negotiate a deal with the railroad to move the team track
20 off the center of the site on to a site he has purchased, starting on 'D' Street and
21 running down the track along Lakeville. There is the issue of how that financing is going
22 to occur. Mr. White does not want to fund the full cost. He says it will be 18 months to 2
23 years before he is able to effect that change. The City should allow him to make that
24 transition with the railroad before the City expresses interest in the second parcel. So
25 we're keeping It simple. We'd like to enter into a lease on the first parcel, where the
26 railroad station is, recognizing that looking ahead, the City would like to lease second
27 site.
28
29 Commissioner Moynihan - The City is building a transit mall on Copeland, and we're
30 clearly going to park on the site whether it is leased or not. The team tracks need to be
31 relocated. That will happen one way or another when the site developed. Since the
32 City will be doing off-site improvements, it would benefit someone else coming along
33 later to negotiating a lease on the second parcel instead of locking it up. He thinks
34 PCDC/the City would be much better off pursuing a lease on the entire six acres now.
35 Regarding Alternative C - Mr. Marangella mentioned waiting until someone else
36 developed the balance of the site. What did he mean by "requiring it then"?
37
38 Mr. Marangella - They would be required to restore/redevelop buildings as a condition
39 of development. He presumed they would be given four- or five -story density, which
40 would be a tremendous benefit to that site. He has expressed to the railroad that this is
41 a considerable constraint to development of their land, and that it made more sense to
42 have public funds, particularly federal funds, renovate the depot site. They
43 acknowledged that, and they are anxious to work with the City on the depot site.
44
45 Commissioner Moynihan - Wouldn't PCDC/the City have more control over the entire
46 site if the City leased it and worked as a redevelopment agency with whomever
47 wanted to develop the balance of it?
48
Page 3
May 6, 2002
1 Mr. Marangella - That is an option. He thinks the railroad would like to lease the second
2 site to the City. He suggests taking a first step - go carefully, work on the depot site first.
3 Mr. White is working with the railroad on the second piece. That won't be finished for 18
4 months, and is a much more complicated deal.
5
6 Commissioner Moynihan - Had heard other vendors, such as Walgreen's, wanted the
7 second site. This would not sit too well with the redevelopment agency. The City should
8 negotiate a deal up front and have control over the entire site, therefore having more
9 control over what ultimately occurs there.
10
11 Commissioner Torliatt - Regarding exchange of the Hopper Street crossing for the
12 Caulfield crossing - who owns the Hopper Street crossing?
13
14 Mr. Marangella - The City.
15
16 Commissioner Torliatt - The decision will have to come back to PCDC before any
17 closings of crossings there. She agrees with moving forward to negotiate an option on
18 the property. We could negotiate in that option a right to a longer-term lease. The staff
19 report states that the City may sublease this property. We need to have sublease
20 clauses within the final lease agreement. She wants to make it clear that the process for
21 selecting people who may go into those buildings will be an open process. The tenant is
22 not predetermined. Many non -profits can make use of these buildings. She would love
23 to see SMART locate their offices there. The Chamber of Commerce/Visitors Program is
24 looking at this. The staff report also speaks to parking facilities for office uses. A site plan
25 outlining parking is not included. Where would parking be located?
26
27 Mr. Marangella - In Attachment 3 there is an aerial view. There will be minimal parking
28 available in an area 55 -foot wide area from the edge of the building to the edge of the
29 site. He understood from the CPSP that this was "not to be a parking structure or
30 destination. "
31
32 Commissioner Torliatt - We need to talk about ingress/egress to and from site if we are
33 going to lease this portion. Will that be off of Washington Street? It does not look like the
34 driveway is included in this area. $350,000 for landscaping is a lot of money! Could you
35 clarify?
36
37 Mr. Marangella - That includes landscaping of the platform. These are preliminary
38 numbers that will be refined as the City gets engineers' estimates. It could include
39 Queen Palms. Attractive landscaping is important for this major gateway to downtown.
40 The figure may be high or may be adequate.
41
42 Commissioner Torliatt - "Sonoma County Transit Request for Earmarks" - is that a notice
43 that has gone out to someone? It talks about the City matching dollars. She thought it
44 interesting that we were talking about that before we actually approved it.
45
46 Mr. Marangella - Sonoma County routinely does this with railroad stations. If city
47 councils do not support the requests, they withdraw them. They had a federal deadline
Page 4
May 6, 2002
1 several weeks ago. If the PCDC is not interested in participating with a 20% match, we
2 need to tell them, and they will go to other priorities to get funding.
3
4 Commissioner Torliatt - Supports participation of non-profit groups such as Girl Scouts,
5 It's great to have community investment. Assembly Bill 2224 will create a new legislative
6 body for SMART, Golden Gate Transit, etc. to have ownership over this railroad right -of -
7 way. Do you propose to negotiate a lease for this property before January 2003? If so,
8 will anybody be making waves about the City getting a lease on the property just
9 before legislation goes into effect?
10
11 Mr. Marangella - Has discussed the new legislation with NWPRA staff. They are very
12 supportive of getting this done before the change of legislation. If not done, they think
13 successor policy board will honor what had been done to date.
14
15 Vice Chair Healy - This is a very exciting project for the community. It would serve to
16 jump start the implementation of the CPSP. He supports Alternative A - an effort at due
17 diligence on the buildings. He would ask for a 12 -month right of entry instead of a 7-
18 month. He reminded the Commission of the discussion regarding categorizing of
19 projects around town. This one is very visible and would have lots of community support.
20 The Commission will have to discuss where it fits in priorities.
21
22 Commissioner Maguire - Is excited about this project, which is very popular in the
23 community.
24
25 Mr. Marangella - Had a meeting with Sonoma County and NWPRA on Friday, May 3rd, If
26 the City received federal funds, this would be a County project in the same way the
27 transit mall is a County project. The City would provide a $550K match. It would still
28 mean considerable work for staff but not as much as there would be if the City were
29 the principal project manager.
30
31 Public Comment
32
33 Craig Wool mington-Smith, Woolmington-Smith Ventures, LLC, Orinda, read about the
34 project in the paper. His company does public/private partnerships. He is familiar with
35 large projects. There has been no change on this site "since Jimmy Carter was
36 elected, " This is the most important site for the future of downtown and the success of
37 the CPSP - from a retail and high density/transit-based perspective. The worst thing the
38 City could do would be to parcel off the property for "a Walgreen's here, a Jack -in -the -
39 Box there." He thinks the private sector could do the entire site sooner and cheaper.
40 Whatever is done, needs to be done right. If it is necessary to lease the entire site, or
41 establish the option to lease it, do so. Don't miss this opportunity.
42
43 Commissioner Maguire - One and one-half to two years ago we went up to the NWPRA
44 to see about acquiring the whole parcel and got the cold shoulder. This is a step in the
45 right direction.
46
47 Chair Thompson - Was in favor of Alternative A. He agreed with Commissioner Torliatt
48 about adding an option for a long-term lease.
Page 5
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
46
47
48
s
May 6, 2002
Commissioner Maguire agreed.
Vice Chair Healy agreed with that. He thought it preferable to get the whole site - but
the right of entry is what the City needs to work on in the next few months. Hopefully the
Copeland Street closure situation will be clarified when we're at the point of
negotiating a lease.
Motion to adopt Reso. 2002-05 to include the language of Alternative A. M/S Vice
Chair Healy/Maguire,
Chair Thompson asked Mr. Marangella to broach issue of leasing whole site.
AYES:
Cader-Thompson, Vice Chair Healy, Maguire,
Moynihan, O'Brien, Chair Thompson, Torliatt
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
WATER STREET DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Status Report, Schedule, and Possible Direction Regarding Water Street Design
Alternatives and Improvements.
Mr. Marangella introduced the CSW Stuber-Stroeh Engineering presentation on the
current status of the project. Two workshops were held: one public workshop and one
special SPARC workshop, with over 100 participants at each. The main issue: what to do
about circulation and parking on Water Street. Once that is resolved, staff can work
with SPARC on what kinds of trees to plant, what kind of pavement to put in, etc. There
are two schools of thought about traffic and circulation: 1) No parking - make it a
destination. 2) Minimize any reduction in parking.
Currently, the project is tracking $110,000 below the straight line of the budget. The
budget did not provide full funding for the design because the level of citizen
participation was not yet known. The City withheld a contingency for use if needed
because of more citizen participation. In terms of the time line - if the design can be
completed in June, the engineering package and bidding could be completed by
February 2003.
Dennis Rinehart, CSW Stuber-Stroeh, is functioning as the Project Manager. He gave a
brief review of the status of the project, and introduced senior members of the project
team Steve Arago, Lead Landscape Architect and Land Planner; Greg Rubin, Structural
Engineer; J.T. Wick, who has been dealing with commercial aspects and land planning;
Don Curry, who will work on infrastructure on both Water Street and adjacent areas;
and John FitzGerald, who has been helping with boundary resolution issues as well as
the legal descriptions and plats associated with right-of-way acquisition.
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
46
47
May 6, 2002
They are proceeding on all four main project areas, Some are more conceptual in
nature; some involve implementation. This process is the result of quite a bit of public
input and studies; The River Walk Master Plan, 1999 Draft CPSP, and the River Access
and Enhancement Plan, Mr, Rinehart briefly reviewed the status of the first three project
areas.
Steve Arago, CSW Stuber-Stroeh, reviewed the Water Street project area, They based
their design on the River Walk Master Plan and the River Access and Enhancement
Plan, They found a basic conflict between the two. The River Walk Master Plan
recommended a total pedestrian promenade. The River Enhancement Plan did not
make that recommendation, but maintained vehicular circulation through Water Street
as well as parking.
Mr. Arago showed maps of different alternatives that were presented to the community
that addressed traffic circulation, parking, pedestrian and bicycle access, etc. The total
pedestrian/bicycle promenade got the vast majority of public support, They heard
input from area property and business owners, who were concerned about maintaining
parking, and tried to develop a plan flexible enough to address all the issues, CSW
Stuber-Stroeh refined their plans, and at a SPARC meeting in January, they presented a
scenario that tried to;
❖ Continue to provide vehicular circulation through the area, and maintain some level
of parking,
Provide a space flexible enough to handle special events,
❖ Make it possible to convert the area to a total pedestrian promenade, if additional
parking structures are constructed.
❖ Provide increased access to the river with a floating dock,
Commissioner O'Brien - Asked what purpose access to the river would serve as it's not
possible to get a dredge past the Balshaw Bridge and the dock would eventually be
"high and dry.
Mr. Arago - Replied that a program would have to be developed to remove the silt.
Commissioner Maguire - Does the parking place count include spaces in the Golden
Concourse?
Mr. Arago - No. There would be nine spaces saved in the Golden Concourse, They also
eliminated the fountains, per suggestions from the community/SPARC. They developed
three-dimensional visuals of the design, He displayed those,
They have evaluated the trestle to determine what it would take to repair it, and are
also looking at renovating the infrastructure for water and sewer on Water Street.
Commissioner Moynihan - Believed that at SPARC meeting the trestles were a big
concern,
Page 7
May 6, 2002
1 Mr. Arago - Greg Rubin will talk about the trestle; J.T. Wick about circulation and
2 parking.
3
4 J.T. Wick, CSW Stuber-Stroeh - Spoke about community meeting suggestions for
5 circulation and the need to be flexible between public space and parking. Even minor
6 circulation changes can create traffic problems. A number of policy changes may
7 come out of the CPSP, the parking study, and the General Plan Update that would
8 directly affect traffic circulation in the area. Because of this, they do not recommend
9 Alternatives A or B because they would change the circulation pattern and could add
10 congestion to intersections already failing or close to failing.
11
12 Vice Chair Healy - The pros and cons of the different circulation patterns is very helpful.
13 He asked if they had look at existing traffic counts, etc, and attempted to quantify the
14 severity of those impacts.
15
16 Mr. Wick - Some of those intersections are very close to failure, so adding any traffic
17 could create a potentially significant adverse impact.
18
19 Vice Chair Healy - There was no effort at modeling or quantitative analysis?
20
21 Mr. Wick - That kind of analysis is not needed to know that sending any more vehicles
22 through "failing intersections" would trigger the need for an enhanced environmental
23 review.
24
25 Commissioner Torliatt - Were these facts provided at the public workshops so they
26 could be used as part of the decisions?
27
28 Mr. Wick - These ideas came out of the public meeting of November 7th. They tried to
29 incorporate them into the overall design presented at the SPARC meeting of January
30 31 st,
31
32 Commissioner Torliatt - Attended both public input sessions and heard at the first
33 meeting that the public wanted to look at different traffic/parking/circulation issues
34 before looking at any design. What came back at the second meeting was one
35 design, and no alternatives. She would like the public to have input on different
36 scenarios that they want to look at, as opposed to the City making in-house decisions
37 about policy on congestion levels at intersections. The public may be willing to wait a
38 little longer at an intersection in exchange for the benefit of the enhanced area. The
39 public deserves the opportunity to make those decisions regardless of the design.
40
41 Mr. Wick - If the City "starts on that path, " the way that would be addressed through
42 the CEQA entitlement process, it would likely create a potentially significant and
43 adverse effect. The City would have to do an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
44 would have to adopt Statements of Overriding Consideration in order to approve the
45 project. The timeline would be far different.
46
47 Commissioner Torliatt - Even with adoption of the CPSP?
48
1mom;
May 6, 2002
1 Mr. Wick - Yes. The answer would be the same whether these circulation changes and
2 considerations were made through the design of Water Street, through the Draft CPSP,
3 or the General Plan update. The only way to address the potential impacts, as there
4 may be no mitigation, is through Statements of Overriding Consideration.
5
6 Chair Thompson - How do we know there will be significant impacts/changes? "Let's
7 just say this came out of the clear blue sky.' Let's say the only circulation is a large
8 circle: West on Washington Street, right on Water Street, right on Golden Concourse,
9 right on Petaluma Boulevard. Parking along the other block. How would "significant
10 impact" resulting in requirement for an EIR be measured?
11
12 Mr. Wick - It could be evaluated,
13
14 City Attorney Rich Rudnansky - You would have to do an initial study to indicate if
15 there was the chance of an adverse impact and if there were potential mitigations, but
16 this could lead to a negative declaration or a full-blown EIR.
17
18 Commissioner Maguire - If the CPSP was adopted previous to that, wouldn't that
19 contain adequate EIR review for those sorts of changes?
20
21 Mr. Rudnansky - If that was part of the overall analysis in that EIR, It might be possible to
22 use that EIR as a base document and work off of that, to limit that amount of additional
23 work needed,
24
25 Commissioner Maguire - Is Water Street wide enough for two-lane traffic?
26
27 Mr. Wick - Not and maintain the parking and access called for in the River
28 Enhancement Plan,
29
30 Commissioner Maguire - Is open to looking at a tradeoff - benefits vs, River Walk Plan,
31 He concurs with Commissioner Torliatt: With all due appreciation for the timeline, he
32 doesn't think the public has had an opportunity to give input on what they like. Until
33 then, the City may not get significant public buy -in on the project.
34
35 Commissioner O'Brien - Regarding the timeline, he agrees with Chair Thompson, He
36 hears from citizens: "How much more money are you going to waste on studies?" He
37 wants to keep the timeline moving, and not waste money.
38
39 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Would like to move forward with improvements on
40 Water Street - do the underground street improvements and then determine traffic
41 circulation and surface design, In the meantime, we need more information on traffic
42 circulation,
43
44 Mr. Wick - They have begun design work on the utilities. If the timeline is maintained, we
45 may be able to get done before the merchants' heavy season from November on.
46 They conducted an EIR on the project to date. They did not change the traffic
47 circulation. At some point, all parts of the project are linked under CEQA,
48
Page 9
May 6, 2002
1 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Do different types of streetscapes change what
2 happens underground?
3
4 Mr. Wick - No. The ancient water mains need to be replaced.
5
6 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Could we move forward with that phase?
7
8 Mr. Marangella - No construction is planned or budgeted for FY 2002-03. The intent is to
9 complete design in FY 2002-03, such that if it was the pleasure of the Commission and
10 you had funds, the City could go out to bid and begin work at the end of FY 2002-03, or
11 early FY 2003-04,
12
13 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Everything is linked together? We can't go out to bid
14 on the underground work separately and then move forward with the design?
15
16 Mr. Wick - Correct. They are all part of the same physical project, have been described
17 as such in the initial study, and in the notice to the public. One of the first rules under
18 CEQA is "You're not supposed to segment the project. " The only reason they are doing
19 environmental review on Water Street is because of the policy conflict between the
20 two adopted plans. Otherwise, we would be using the environmental document for the
21 most recently adopted plan: The River Access and Enhancement Plan.
22
23 Commissioner Torliatt - Would like to give staff direction that the consultants prepare at
24 least three parking and circulation alternatives for discussion and input at the public
25 input meeting on May 11th. At least one should include closure between the Golden
26 Concourse and where Water Street intersects Petaluma Boulevard and possibly create
27 parking to north of the Central Club. The public needs to weigh in on parking and
28 circulation and not have to look at the design at this time. Would like to make that a
29 motion.
30
31 Chair Thompson - Can the other two be alternatives they have already worked up?
32
33 Commissioner Torliatt - Sure.
34
35 Commissioner Moynihan - Asked Commissioner Torliatt to let the consultant finish the
36 presentation. He wondered about the potential for incorporating the reconstruction of
37 the rail trestle around the turning basin into the circulation plan. That's why he'd like the
38 report first.
39
40 Commissioner Maguire - Agreed, but wanted to look at two-way traffic going around -
41 Golden Concourse, Petaluma Boulevard, Washington Street, Water Street.
42
43 Vice Chair Healy - Agreed that the public should be allowed to weigh in on the
44 different options for circulation. Would like to narrow the number of issues: He does not
45 think zero parking will work. The Commission should take that off the table, and discuss a
46 more limited range of options. He is mindful of Mr. Wick's comments about further
47 impacts on the intersection of Washington Street and Petaluma Boulevard.
48
May 6, 2002
1 Chair Thompson - Thought there was a consensus straw vote that the Commission was
2 looking for a third option.
3
4 Greg Rubin, CSW Stuber-Stroeh, gave a report on the existing trestle, which is in poor to
5 extremely poor condition according to the visual analysis and materials testing. It should
6 not be used even for pedestrian traffic. Estimated costs for replacing the trestle are high
7 in all three scenarios. Access will be difficult- a lot of work would have to be done from
8 barge on water. Three scenarios: pedestrian bridge, pedestrian/light rail, replacement
9 with one that could take trains. Conclusion - trestle should be closed off and not used
10 at this point. Railroad should install more substantial barricades.
11
12 Commissioner Moynihan - Did you look at alternative to back fill and build road?
13
14 Mr. Rubin - Zero Net Fill Policy prohibits that in floodplain. Permitting process would be a
15 nightmare.
16
17 Commissioner Moynihan - Issue of incorporating trolley as part of both Water Street
18 design - tracks are shown as eliminated. Does this mean trolley not a possibility?
19
20 Mr. Rubin - Trolley becoming more difficult because of condition of trestle, but not
21 necessarily dropped.
22
23 Commissioner Moynihan - If tracks along First Street and railroad easement used it
24 would open up transportation avenues. Take some focus off Petaluma Boulevard,
25
26 Mr. Rubin - Don't know condition of rails along Water Street. Rails will have to come up
27 for utilities work. Cost to put back down $250,000, not including trestle.
28
29 Vice Chair Healy - If it's an extra $250K to put track back down - what's cost of pavers
30 vs. asphalt?
31
32 Mr. Arago - It would be more. Railroad rails within Water Street - plan accommodates
33 alignment of rails in their present location. In discussions with the railroad and SMART -
34 they have no desire to repair/maintain rails/trestle. They suggested that during
35 renovations to Water Street, the rails be removed, inspected, and stockpiled locally for
36 reuse at a later time. They said likelihood of their using them minimal.
37
38 Commissioner Torliatt - Would like to continue to pursue a trolley project in this area.
39
40 Vice Chair Healy - More into design issue - what makes Water Street special is historical
41 context. Rail tracks, whether functioning or not, do that. Pavers would not fit in.
42
43 Commissioner Maguire - On the other hand, asphalt is really ugly. We get excited
44 about things that have been there a long time. Don't want to preclude the trolley.
45
46 Commissioner Torliatt - There are many different street treatments we could look at.
47 Other comment regarding three-dimensional pictures - she thought they would look at
48 actual pictures of backs of buildings and see how the changes of grade are handled -
-••-
May 6, 2002
Page 12
1 views from street level. How integrate with trestle, bridge, Water Street bistro. Wants to
2 see "real stuff."
3
4 Mr. Rinehart - We are conducting very specific topographic surveys of area - info
5 Commissioner Torliatt wants would be part of final design process. At this time to
6 incorporate individual to 1 /100 of foot studies would have to be conceptual.
7
8 Commissioner Torliatt - Point is - present current aesthetics and how people feel about
9 them before you ever prepare final design concept. Can't stress enough - let public
10 help with design. Don't bring design forward and ask public to react to it. You hear
11 what the public says, and then you create.
12
13 Mr. Rinehart - Absolutely. These areas behind the buildings - don't know how they will
14 be used.
15
16 Commissioner Maguire - Dredging may not be significant issue. Likes dock idea. Two
17 ramps each end of one long dock instead of one ramp down middle.
18
19 Vice Chair Healy - Not hot on floating deck. There is no uglier section of river than that.
20 Instead - how about a floating bridge underneath Washington Street?
21
22 Mr. Wick - There has been a significant amount of outreach to community
23 organizations about pavement treatments, grade changes, other design issues - try to
24 define public realm so property owners know what they can do. Encouraging a lot of
25 property owners to think about how they want to present their properties to Water
26 Street,
27
28 City Manager Fred Stouder - Would Chair Thompson and Mr. Wick summarize agreed -
29 upon direction from Commission?
30
31 Commissioner Torliatt - At least three parking/circulation alternatives for discussion at
32 May 11th meeting. At least one shall include closure of street section from Golden
33 Concourse to where Water Street intersects Petaluma Boulevard. Also prepare
34 alternative with re -installation of trolley tracks. Looking at traffic circulation now - design
35 comes later.
36
37 Vice Chair Healy - Design needs to be appropriate for historical context of area. Should
38 not over -gentrify something with humble origin. "The community likes the trestle
39 because of its historical value - to replace it with something CalTrans would be proud of
40 would not cut it. " How about replicating it?
41
42 Commissioner Moynihan - Seems to be consensus to leave option of rail/trolley open.
43 Reevaluate trestle. From circulation point of view, must consider. Incorporate continue
44 what we have down Water Street around turning basins. Not sold on aesthetic aspects.
45 Don't "study to death." Not yet convinced this is good investment for community. Keep
46 it simple and be able to justify it. Incorporate something for trestle.
47
48 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Are you talking about using trestle for cars?
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
46
47
48
May 6, 2002
Commissioner Moynihan - Potentially - with rail.
Commissioner Cader-Thompson - To me, one of the directions we're trying to close from
around the Central Club up toward trestle, so we have a promenade - so don't see
that trestle option viable. Also, even if we're going to phase out cars in this area, want
every thing - doesn't like pavers - not easy to walk on - likes boat dock. Want to move
forward and not wait another six months.
Public Comment
Jeff Traypold, address not given - Thanked the Commission for work done so far. This is a
complicated process. He prefers colored concrete better than pavers. This is a four -
area design scheme. Why is Commission focusing on just one area? He would like to
see a sort of master plan and vision of how this circulation scheme is supposed to tie
into other areas of project.
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma - Grand project. Meeting this Saturday a.m. at restaurant -
Petaluma Hotel.
Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Commission should look all the way down Water
Street and make streetscape consistent - look at the larger picture.
RESO. 2002-06
KELLER STREET GARAGE
Discussion and Possible Action Approving the Final Design and Safety Improvements to
the Keller Street Garage and Authorizing the Executive Director to Bid the Project.
Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella presented the
staff report. He showed the paint scheme and a sample of the grill. When the security
guard leaves, the structure will be locked. He introduced Jerry Butler, Boyle Engineering,
Commissioner Maguire - Is the grill painted?
Mr. Butler - The grill is bronze.
Commissioner Maguire - Are the lights used the most energy efficient available?
Mr. Butler - Yes.
Commissioner Maguire - Have we looked into grant monies?
Mr. Butler - Yes.
Commissioner Maguire - The guard room is on the third floor? Is there room for it on the
first floor?
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
46
47
48
May 6, 2002 Page 14
Mr. Butler - That location was given to us.
Mr. Marangella - The first floor space needed for a recharging station for Parking
Enforcement Officer's electric cart.
Commissioner Maguire - What will the hours be?
Mr. Marangella - We are working with the Petaluma Downtown Association (PDA) on
that.
Commissioner Maguire - Have you tried sonic repellant on the pigeons?
Mr. Marangella - Yes, with mixed results. Kids tamper with the machines.
Commissioner Maguire - How do we address the pigeon problem on third floor?
Mr. Marangella - The only options are fake owls and sonic repellant.
Commissioner Maguire - Would hate to spend money on sonic repellant and find out it
doesn't work.
Mr. Marangella - We can move from the second to top floor and test it out.
Commissioner Maguire - The previous report had a scheme A and B for the front door.
Why do we just have A this time?
Mr. Butler - Place on second level within jam. Rollers just outside.
Commissioner Maguire - Can we have the grill behind the sign?
Mr. Butler - We would have to pull and raise the canister.
Commissioner Maguire - Parking garages are difficult to do right. The intent is good, but
I don't want it to look like Pelican Bay (Prison) in the middle of town.
Vice Chair Healy - A big part of the security problem is that the two stairwells are so
hard to observe from outside. Have you looked at ways of opening stairwells, making
them more visible?
Mr. Butler - We haven't looked at it structurally. Those appear to be load-bearing walls.
Vice Chair Healy - Looked at stairwells in parking garages in Santa Rosa. They are more
open. He is looking for options to make it more inviting.
Commissioner Torliatt - The existing sign at the entrance to the garage needs to be
removed. We're upgrading a capital facility - but we don't have a maintenance plan
being presented with it. She hears time and time again about how filthy this garage is.
Also, has the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) seen this? She
May 6, 2002
1 thinks every public project should have to go through SPARC. She agrees with the
2 photovoltaic idea. She doesn't know that this is a good design plan - it's an engineering
3 plan. City needs to get design consultants to work with the engineering consultants.
4
5 Mr. Marangella - He did consult with Community Development Department staff and
6 they advised that this does not require going through SPARC. With regard to good
7 design, Mr. Butler is an architect. There is not an attractive way to keep people/pigeons
8 out of the parking garage, Stairwells are structural. There are tradeoffs. These are our
9 best recommendations. He will be happy to pursue photovoltaics.
10
11 Public Comment
12
13 Samantha Freites, Petaluma Downtown Association (PDA) - They are very excited and
14 pleased that the City is coming forward with this project. The structure is now very under
15 utilized. She strongly encouraged the City to do whatever they can do to make it a
16 viable option for people to park there. She is working with staff regarding rate structure,
17 hours, etc.
18
19 Chair Thompson - Asked if it was the Commission's consensus to approve the item or
20 bring it back.
21
22 Vice Chair Healy - Would like to move forward with the painting, grill work, and lighting.
23 Security and the pay structure need more discussion.
24
25 Commissioner Torliatt - Would support that but doesn't think she wants the grill work.
26
27 Vice Chair Healy - With pigeons, there is no 100% solution. The grillwork will reduce
28 problem.
29
30 Commissioner Maguire - Likes the door shown on scheme A instead of B. The discussion
31 of making this a pay garage was predicated on the Santa Rosa model - the first 1-2
32 hours would be free.
33
34 Commissioner Torliatt - What about a maintenance plan? She still thinks this should go
35 to SPARC.
36
37 Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Has no problem with the grillwork. She would like to
38 move forward with the guard. She supports the idea of a pay garage with the first few
39 hours free for shoppers. There should be a cost per month for all -day parking. Regarding
40 maintenance - how often will the grillwork need to be repainted?
41
42 Mr. Marangella - The paint that's there now is original - about 12 years old. Part of the
43 concept of paid parking is to pay for security and maintenance. The idea is to make
44 the structure pay for itself.
45
46 Commissioner Maguire - If pigeons are kept out, it won't need cleaning as much.
47
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
46
47
48
May 6, 2002
Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Asked for clarification from Commissioner Maguire
about what he meant about the gate.
Commissioner Maguire - The earlier report showed a different version of the door in
front.
Commissioner O'Brien - Would like to move forward with the grillwork. Last year during
budget discussions, we discussed how much of the facility should be a "pay garage."
We discussed charging for 50% of garage - now we're talking about all of it. He would
like to see a maintenance budget. He asked to see the original budget, so he could
see the cost overrun. In his experience, fake owls don't work.
Chair Thompson - Thought he was hearing Commission consensus to go forward with
the painting and go along with the present pigeon proofing and lighting. The
maintenance budget and rate structure would be brought back.
Commissioner Moynihan - The garage was paid for originally through special
assessments. To charge property owners in the area to park in the garage could be
perceived as double charging. He would like to see if there is a legal issue there.
Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Would like staff to look at normal practice. "Just
because you're assessed doesn't mean there isn't a maintenance issue for the long
term."
Vice Chair Healy - Is the consensus to allow staff to bid for painting, present pigeon
proofing, lighting; and come back on maintenance issues and security?
Commissioner Maguire - Thought he heard consensus to go ahead with the grillwork.
Commissioner Torliatt - I don't want to do the grillwork.
Vice Chair Healy - Then I won't be supporting this.
Chair Thompson - Pigeon proofing - is that not similar to the grillwork?
Vice Chair Healy - It's part of it. But does not include the front door or security doors.
Chair Thompson - Who agrees with painting, pigeon proofing, and grillwork?
Commissioner Maguire - Define "grillwork. "
Chair Thompson - As it's done in the presentation.
Motion to move forward with bidding for the painting, pigeon proofing aspects of
grillwork, lighting, and non -human security. M/S Thom pson/Torliatt.
Commissioner Maguire - Does this mean everything but the guard?
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
46
May 6, 2002
Vice Chair Healy - We're talking about going to bid on physical improvements.
Mr. Marangella - We would be coming back with the guard.
Vice Chair Healy - So the motion is to approve the design lighting, painting, the pigeon
proofing aspects of the grillwork, but not the front or security doors?
Commissioner Maguire - If we don't say go ahead with the door now - what are
options are we looking at? We're looking for security against vandalism at night.
Commissioner Torliatt - I thought we were going to have a security guard.
Commissioner Cader-Thompson - A security guard is not there 24 hours a day.
Mr. Stouder - This would mean proceeding with the bid documents. A second section
can be added that would allow adding grillwork to separate sections. We can get a
unit cost bid on that in case the Commission would want to authorize that after the next
discussion.
Vice Chair Healy - This allows staff to bid and move forward with the painting, the
pigeon proofing aspects...
Commissioner Maguire - You mean, the sonar pigeon repellant?
Vice Chair Healy - No, the grillwork.
Chair Thompson - Pigeon proofing.
Vice Chair Healy - And lighting...
Commissioner Moynihan - Are we asking for bidding? Or are we going ahead with
construction without bidding? ,
Vice Chair Healy - No. This would be authorization to bid.
Commissioner Cader-Thompson - Asked for clarification. Looking at the Tuttle's Drugs
side of the garage: are we talking about the new doors that are going to be put in
there? She'd like to know what she's actually voting on.
Commissioner Maguire - Are we talking about security doors around the first floor and a
roll -up door? If not, why not?
Vice Chair Healy - No. I'm not sure that's the best way to proceed. The things I've made
part of my motion are improvements that I think everyone thinks are appropriate. I'm
not sold yet on the other aspects.
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
46
47
48
May 6, 2002
Commissioner Maguire - The problem is the massive amounts of vandalism. Without
security doors, the problem remains, particularly if we don't come to a resolution about
having a guard. He asked for suggestions on how to proceed?
Commissioner Torliatt - How are people going to get in and out?
Vice Chair Healy - Thinks problems with the garage are complex and have multiple
sources. If you improve the lighting, which improves security, and get the pigeons out of
there in substantial numbers, you're going to make it a more attractive place, and
draw more people there. He is curious to see how that works just with those
improvements in place - to see if we need these other things that make it into "San
Quentin North."
Commissioner Maguire - Appreciates the step-by-step approach but doesn't think
security issues are being addressed by Vice Chair Healy's motion. He would vote to
support going with a higher level of security.
Commissioner Moynihan - Can we ask to have it segmented and bring back bids? The
discussion of rate structure would be dependent on which components we approve.
Why not go ahead and have it segmented and bring back bids along with a
maintenance schedule? It can go either way in future.
Chair Thompson called for the question.
AYES:
Vice Chair Healy, Moynihan, Torliatt
NOES:
Cader-Thompson, Maguire, O'Brien, Chair Thompson
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Motion failed.
Motion to adopt PCDC Reso, 2002-06 Approving the Final Design and Safety
Improvements to the Keller Street Garage as provided in the staff report and Authorizing
the Executive Director to Bid the Project. M/S Maguire/Thompson.
AYES:
Cader-Thompson, Maguire, O'Brien, Chair Thompson
NOES:
Vice Chair Healy, Moynihan, Torliatt
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, spoke regarding projects where things have been done
that were not supposed to be done according to EIRs.
s !
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
2
4
5
6 ATTEST;
7
8
9 Claire Cooper, Recording Secretary
10
11
12
13
14
May 6, 2002
E. Clark Thompson, Chair
Page 19