HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORT - JUNE 2006 8AC. Historical Influences on Land Use and Development
This section describes the historical influences on land use and development in Petaluma and within the
two Project Areas. Unless otherwise noted, this information comes from Petaluma General Plan 2025:
Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report, 2002 and Images of America: Petaluma, by
Simone Wilson, 2001.
c1 Early History
For several thousand years, the Coast Miwok native people inhabited Marin County and southern
Sonoma County, where Petaluma is located. Spanish settlers followed by Mexican ranchos arrived in
Petaluma and other California cities in the 18a' century. Following the transfer of California from Mexico
to the United States, American settlers arrived in the Petaluma area during the time of the Gold Rush.
Initially a primitive camp was established by a group of hunters in 1850 near the location of the present-
day Lakeville Street Bridge, and soon afterwards, others followed seeking hunting fields and ranch lands.
As more people flocked to the Petaluma area, a trading post was built, and settlement of the area got
underway.
c.2 Beginnings of Petaluma as a City
Modes of transportation have shaped the economic and physical topography of the City of Petaluma.
Petaluma's evolution was predicated on the Petaluma River and the link it provided to San Francisco. The
City grew on the banks of the Petaluma River. Its unique topography, in conjunction with its proximity to
neighboring towns such as Cotati and Penngrove, made Petaluma a prosperous hub of commerce and
distribution to the region.
In 1852, Garrett Keller surveyed the area, platted a 40-acre site and sold lots for $10 a piece. The streets
were laid out perpendicular to the river, creating a road network radiating outward from the river. In
recent years, this early street pattern has created accessibility problems and circulation issues near the
river.
Petaluma was incorporated in 1858 with approximately 1,340 residents and became a center for
production. The riverbank was crowded with piers, boat landings, and local manufacturing businesses.
The Petaluma River was the third busiest waterway in California in the mid 1800's.
In the late 191h century, the United States Army Corps of Engineers simplified the twists and turns of the
river channel along the stretch from downtown to San Pablo Bay in order to improve access to the City. In
the 1870s the railroad line and depot were constructed on the east bank of the river. Although the railroad
opened up the east side of the City, the east side remained undeveloped as it was primarily owned by the
rail companies and suffered from flooding problems. Overall, the flooding problems throughout the City
caused the earliest residential areas to develop on the hill overlooking the downtown, leaving the
downtown to business and light industrial uses.
The introduction of the railroad increased Petaluma's role in the region. Agriculture, primarily dairy and
chicken farming, dominated the economic landscape of the City. Large scale chicken farming arrived with
the invention of a reliable incubator in 1879, and in 1918 the City was proclaimed the "egg basket of the
world" by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Eventually, poultry farming began to decline, and chicken
farms were converted into large lot residential areas.
Petaluma Community Development Commission I1-17 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
c.3 Petaluma Becomes Bedroom Community
Petaluma's population grew at a steady rate during the early twentieth century, from 6,000 inhabitants in
1914 to around 11,300 in 1953. Along with economic and population growth, suburbanization grew
following WWII, due in part to the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1936 and Highway 101 in
the 1950s.
Petaluma developed into a bedroom community for the Bay Area in die second half of the twentieth
century. The highway provided improved access to the east side of the City, which bad easily accessible
and developable land. This drove development to the east, and the highway replaced the river as the
primary corridor within the community.
C. Central Business District Project Area (Original and
Added Areas)
The CBD Redevelopment Plan was adopted on September 27, 1976 and area was added on
June 18, 2001 2' The Project Area consists of approximately 225 acres (98 acres in the 1976 Original Area
and 127 acres in the 2001 Added Area).
The 1976 Original Area encompasses the majority of the historic downtown core of the City from
D Street to Washington Street and from Lakeville Street to Liberty and 5" Streets. The 2001 Added Area
consists of commercial, industrial and residential land uses located to the west and east of the
1976 Original Area. The western portion of the 2001 Added Area is generally bounded by Union Street,
Western Avenue, Howard Street and Liberty Street, and the eastern portion is generally bounded by
D Street, McNear Avenue, the Northwest Pacific Railroad, and Petaluma Boulevard. The 2001
Added Area does not include the McNear Peninsula or McNear Channel.
Unless noted otherwise, the CBD refers to both the 1976 Original Area and the 2001 Added Area.
1. Evidence Provided in Support of a Blight Finding at Time of
Plan Adoption and Amendment
The City Council found evidence of blight in the CBD and concluded that redevelopment was necessary
to effectuate the public purposes declared in the CRL at the time of initial adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan in 1976 and the time of adoption of the 2001 amendment.
a. Blight Findings at the time of Plan Adoption for the 1976 Original Area
The blight findings at the time of Plan Adoption in 1976 included the following:
• The existence of buildings and structures used or intended to be used for living, commercial,
industrial or other purposes, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purpose due to age,
obsolescence, deterioration and dilapidation;
• The existence of inadequate streets, open spaces and utilities;
• In some part of the Project Area, a growing lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant
and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public
health, safety and welfare;
21 The Redevelopment Plan was also amended on November 21 1994 and July 2I 1999 but these amendments did not add area
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-18 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
• In other parts of the Project Area, a reduction of proper utilization of the area, resulting in further
deterioration;
• The decline of the central business district as a viable and competitive retail commercial center;
• The lack of adequate off-street parking and poor traffic circulation in the project area;
• The lack of a safe and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian environment in the downtown area; and
• Underutilization of the Petaluma River as a recreation and transportation resource.
b. Blight Findings at the time of Plan Amendment for the 1976 Original and 2001
Added Areas
The blight findings at the time of Plan Amendment in 2001 included the following:
• Non -retrofitted umeinforced masonry buildings that could prove to be unsafe and hazardous in the
event of a major earthquake, and that could be uneconomic to rehabilitate at current market rents;
• Deteriorated and, in a few cases, dilapidated and/or abandoned commercial buildings;
• Large underutilized properties that are blighted by abandoned railroad spur tracks;
Substandard, unpaved, or badly deteriorated pavement surfaces;
• Streets with missing, heaved, deteriorated, subsided, or substandard curbs and gutters;
• Areas without adequate storm drains;
• Obsolete commercial buildings (including imposing bank structures and retail structures of irregular
configuration) that cannot economically accommodate modem retail uses;
• Vacant and possibly abandoned railroad and industrial buildings;
• Large parcels of vacant and underutilized land;
• Adverse soils conditions that increase the cost of new construction and rehabilitation; and
• Potential soils and groundwater contamination from commercial and industrial uses and informal
and/or illegal dumping.
2. Redevelopment Activities and Development from Plan Adoption to
Present
The PCDC has undertaken many redevelopment projects and activities in the CBD since the adoption of
the Redevelopment Plan in 1976. Even though these efforts have stimulated private development, the
CBD still suffers from blighting conditions as described below.
a. PCDC's Redevelopment Projects and Activities in the CBD
The PCDC has undertaken public infrastructure, parking and public facility improvements, economic
development, building rehabilitation and affordable housing activities in the CBD since the adoption of
the Redevelopment Plan. These include parking garage capital improvements to the Keller Street parking
structure; pavement and streetscape improvements; infrastructure improvements particularly for the
Theater District Project; river enhancement improvements including the undergrounding of utilities and
river access improvements; Petaluma Railroad restoration improvements; circulation accessibility
improvements; seismic improvements to umeinforced masonry buildings; business retention and
enhancement programs; street tree planting; affordable housing development; and rehabilitation of
affordable housing. Refer to Table II4 for a summary of the PCDC's projects and activities in the CBD.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 1I-19 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Table II-1
Completed and Ongoing Redevelopment Projects and Activities in the CBD
Project
Complete
In
Progress
129 Petaluma Blvd. & Land Acquisition
■
A Street Parking Lot
■
American Alley Paving
■
Balshaw Bride
■
Bicycle Plan and Implementation
■
CPSP Theater District Improvements
■
Downtown Parking Garage Construction (Keller Street Parking Garage)
■
Downtown Restrooms
■
Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Renewal
■
River Walk Improvements and Putnam Plaza Golden Concourse
■
Riverfrout Enhancement Plan and Implementation
■
Taming Basin Dredging and Docks
■
Water Street Improvements
■
Weller Street Improvements
■
Bassett St. Renovation
■
Business Property Owner Assistance
■
Central Petaluma Specific Plan & Implementation
■
D Street Underground Utilities
■
Downtown Streetscape Master Plan Improvements
■
Implementation of Central Petaluma Specific Plan
■
Main Street Im rrovements Along Major Downtown Streets
■
North Copeland/Baylis St. Improvements
■
Petaluma Railroad Depot Improvements
■
Petaluma River Trestle Engineering■
Poultry Street Extension
■
Storefront Improvement Loan Program
■
Street Tree Planting & Establishment
■
Underground Tank Monitoring
■
URM Seismic Retrofit Program
■
Washington/Copeland Roundabout Design
■
Source: Petaluma Community Development Commission
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-20 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Remaining Blighting Conditions in the CBD
Recent field surveys and existing conditions analyses determined that blighting conditions persist in
several areas of the CBD. These conditions include dilapidated or deteriorated buildings, earthquake
hazards, hazardous material contamination, incompatible uses, substandard lots in multiple ownership,
vacant and underutilized buildings and lots, and public infrastructure deficiencies.
The blighting conditions in the CBD fisted below are grouped by the current CRL definitions of blight,
and cross referenced to prior definitions.
a. Physical Blighting Conditions
a.1 Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings [33031(a)(1)]22
The CBD is hindered by a substantial number of buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live
or work. The deficient and deteriorated building analysis included field reconnaissance surveys and
photographic documentation, age of building analysis, fire hazard analysis, review of unreinforced
masonry buildings, and review of the 2001 building conditions survey, all of which are described below.
Conditions observed during field reconnaissance surveys by Seifel Consulting include the following:
• Umeinforced masonry buildings and partially reinforced masonry buildings (brick and hollow tile)
that could prove to be unsafe and hazardous in the event of a major earthquake.
• Commercial and residential buildings with apparent structural problems including cracked walls,
sagging walls, sagging roof lines and settlement.
• Dilapidated or extensively deteriorated commercial and residential buildings with deferred
maintenance including chipped and peeling paint, deteriorated roofing and siding, damaged windows
and doors, missing gutters and downspouts and deteriorated external piping.
• Aging, obsolete, damaged, and deteriorated corrugated metal warehouse and mill buildings.
• Older residential and commercial structures that, because of their age and construction type, could
also prove to be unsafe and hazardous in the event of a major earthquake.
• Buildings on land that, because of adverse soils conditions, could be subject to amplified shaking,
liquefaction, or greater damage during a serious earthquake.
Appendix B presents extensive photographic documentation of the adverse building conditions observed
during the field reconnaissance surveys. Over 50 photographs of deteriorated building conditions in the
CBD are presented, clearly documenting the unsafe and unhealthy building conditions described above
including deteriorated structures, paint, roofing and walls; mold; structural alignment problems; broken
windows; and unsafe wiring. Specific photographs that document the deteriorated building conditions in
the CBD are shown in photographs 1-5, 7-10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23-26, 28-37, 39-44, 47-49, 51, 52,
56-61, 63, and 67 in Appendix B.
The 1976 blighting condition that corresponds to deficient and deteriorated buildings is defective design and character of
physical construction (CRL Section 33031(a)), and age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of
uses (CRL Section 33031(e)).
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-21 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Age of Buildings
Building age reflects design and construction practices, and can be a contributing factor to a building's
safety for occupation and use. Building age also reflects changes in regulation and health standards that
have evolved throughout the years. Older buildings require renovation and modernization in order to keep
up with the evolving standards for a healthy and safe environment. In addition, older buildings must
undergo regular maintenance to combat the effects of normal deterioration that occurs over the life of the
building.
The CBD is primarily made up of older buildings. These older buildings consist of many historical
properties, which include several large Victorian structures such as the I.O.O.F lodge, the Masonic Hall,
the McNear Building, the Mutual Relief Association Building, and the Petaluma Opera house. These
buildings, which were constructed in the late 19th Century, have finely detailed facades and cast iron
columns, and some have been restored and seismically retrofitted. However, the majority of the buildings
in the historic downtown area of the CBD are of brick construction, and were designed for, and are
currently used for, retail commercial purposes. Many of these buildings have problems typical of aging
buildings such as deteriorated roofing and paint, and cracked and umeinforced masonry. These
deteriorated building conditions are documented in the Appendix B, specifically photographs 30, 31,
35-37, 39, 40, 44, 46-49, 51, 52 and 60-61.
The age of building analysis for the CBD was performed using County Assessor data. The County
Assessor data provided building age data for 267 of the 354 total buildingsu in the CBD. Of the 267
buildings with building age data, over 36 percent were built prior to 1930. Furthermore, over 56 percent
of the buildings were built prior to the 1955 Uniform Building Code. Structures built prior to the adoption
of the 1955 Uniform Building Code are more susceptible to earthquake damage, unless adequately
retrofitted. Conditions commonly found in such buildings include inadequate foundations and foundation
connections, informal and substandard construction, weak cripple walls, dry rot or termite damage or poor
design. In addition, buildings constructed prior to 1970 would not meet current design provisions for
earthquake forces, and thus, an additional 14 percent of buildings may be at risk during an earthquake. In
total, almost 70 percent of the buildings in the CBD are likely to be unsafe in the event of a significant
earthquake, given their age and condition, as shown in Graph II-1.
As previously discussed, field surveys of the area indicate that a significant number of older buildings are
deteriorated, dilapidated, and in some cases, abandoned, indicating that buildings have not undergone
modernization or been maintained to levels that adhere to current health and safety standards. Many of
these buildings have conditions that make them unsafe or unhealthy as places to live or work.
23 The total number of buildings in the Assessor Database (354) differs from the total number of buildings found in the 2001
Building Conditions Survey (439) performed by Seifel Consulting, Inc. This inconsistency is due to the changing landscape of
the CBD over the last 4 years and the Assessor Database, which is based on the number of parcels, whereas the 2001 Building
survey was based on the number of buildings. Thus, the Assessor data may not account for multiple structures on a single
--i
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-22 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
ai
s8uipjmg jo #
a
0
a
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
As discussed in Section B.l.a, umeinfarced masonry buildings (URMs) and buildings constructed in the
early to mid-1900s would be expected to incur the greatest structural damage during an earthquake.
URMs are typically constructed of brick, hollow tile, or concrete block, and have proven to be
particularly hazardous during an earthquake. As of July, 2005 the City has identified 44 URMs in the
City, of which 34 are located in the CBD. Of the URMs located in the CBD, 17 properties still have not
been retrofitted. Therefore, 50 percent of the identified URMs in the CBD are not adequately retrofitted,
and are likely unsafe in the event of a significant seismic event. However, building that have been
retrofitted can still be hazardous during an earthquake. See Figure H-6 in Section B. La for the location of
URM's in the CBD.
Fire Hazards and Damaue
The historic buildings in the CBD are particularly susceptible to fire danger and damage due to building
age, construction materials, density and lack of modern fire protection, combined with local climatic
conditions. The precipitation, humidity, temperature and winds affect the acceleration intensity and size
of a fire in the downtown. Times of little of no rainfall, or low humidity and high temperature create
extremely hazardous conditions, particularly affecting buildings with wood shake and wood shingle roofs
that are prevalent in the CBD. The winds experienced in the CBD can also have a tremendous impact
upon structure fires in the buildings in close proximity to one another. For example, winds carry sparks
and burning branches to other structures thus spreading the fire and causing conflagrations. Furthermore,
winds can literally force fires back into the building and create a blowtorch effect. In the historic
downtown district of the CBD, these conditions create particularly hazardous situations because of the
densely situated buildings, many of which are large, old, wooden buildings without modem fire
protection.21
According to Fire Chief Chris Albertson, the downtown has experienced 16 major fires since 1960. The
most recent fire occurred in November 2002, which destroyed a building on Kentucky Street and severely
injured one firefighter. In response to the large number of fires in the downtown, the City Council
adopted an ordinance in November 2004 amending its Municipal Code to require the installation of
automatic fire sprinklers in existing buildings in the historic building district of the CBD.
The ordinance applies to all existing buildings within the following boundary: Kentucky Street to the
west, Washington Street to the north, the Petaluma River to the east and B Street to the south.21 Properties
along Kentucky Street and Western Avenue must install the fire sprinklers no later than
December 31, 2010 (buildings with basements and below street grade areas) or December 31, 2016
(buildings without basements or below street grade areas). Installation of fire sprinklers in buildings along
Petaluma Boulevard North are also required but cannot commence until the City constructs appropriately
sized water main and laterals to the curb lines. (The existing water mains along Petaluma Boulevard do
not have sufficient capacity at this time.) Once the water main improvements are completed along
Petaluma Boulevard North, property owners will have six or twelve years, depending on building type, to
install the sprinklers. (Refer to Section C.3.c for additional information on public improvement
deficiencies within the CBD.)
24 Ordinance No. 2194 N.C.S., City of Petaluma, November 4, 2004.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-24 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
2001 Buildin Survey
A comprehensive building condition survey was performed in 2001 for the CBD Redevelopment Plan
Amendment. However, as this amendment does not add territory and the CRL requires information to be
prepared for an amendment only to the extent warranted by the proposed plan amendment, a building
condition survey was not performed for this Report to Council.
The 2001 building survey evaluated 187 buildings in the 1976 Original Area. Of this total, 80 (43 percent)
were found to be in generally good condition (category 3) to generally excellent condition (category 5).
107 buildings (or 57 percent) were found to be in the lower two rating categories, where extensive
physical deficiencies are present. The average rating for the 1976 Original Area based on the 2001
building condition survey was 2.32 (which is between category 2: extensive physical/structural
deficiencies and category 3: generally good condition with some deficiencies present).
A total of 252 buildings were evaluated for the 2001 building conditions survey in the 2001 Added Area
Of this total, only 70 (or 28 percent) were found to be in generally good to generally excellent condition
(category 3 through category 5). Most buildings (182 or 72 percent) were found to be in the lower two
rating categories, where extensive physical deficiencies are present. The average rating for the 2001
Added Area based on the building condition survey was 2.09 (which is between category 2: extensive
physical/structural deficiencies and category 3: generally good condition with some deficiencies
present) 21
a.2 Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)]2'
Factors that inhibit the proper use of buildings or lots in the CBD include hazardous materials
contamination, obsolete buildings, flooding, earthquake hazards, lack of parking and impaired vehicular
access, circulation and street conditions. These factors inhibit the proper use of the CBD because they
result in a disincentive to redevelop and invest in these properties and surrounding properties, given the
added costs and risks associated with the remediation of significant soil and groundwater contamination,
and infrastructure improvements. The following sections describe how these factors adversely affect the
CBD, as well as the public improvement deficiencies presented in Section C.3.c.
Hazardous Materials Contamination
The remediation of toxic or hazardous waste is frequently costly and thus represents a major financial
disincentive to reinvestment or development, inhibiting the proper use of buildings or lots. Often, in order
for the development of a contaminated site to be feasible, public agency assistance is necessary. The fear
of environmental liability, in particular, uncertainty over changing responsibility standards and costs, and
the high price of conducting environmental investigations are some of the leading reasons deterring the
beneficial development and use of urban sites. Developers fear that they will face liability under
environmental laws and that the cost of evaluating and remediating contaminated sites is both so
uncertain and so high that it could easily outweigh the market value of the property.
26 A total of 439 buildings were evaluated as part of the 2001 Building Condition Survey. This number does not match the total
number orbuildings identified in the age of building analysis. The inconsistency is due to the fact that the Assessor's Database
Reports buildings by parcel, compared to the 2001 Building Survey that evaluated multiple buildings on parcels, irthey were
present.
27 The 1976 blighting condition that corresponds to factors that inhibit the proper use of buildings or lots is faulty interior
arrangement and exterior spacing. (CRL Section 3303IN)
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-25 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other laws, developers may be held liable for past
releases, even though they were not directly responsible for the conditions that gave rise to the liability.
Therefore, prior to purchasing or entering into contract to develop a site, a developer must undertake
extensive environmental investigations to determine whether hazardous materials are present. In addition,
predicting the cost to conduct any potential remediation prior to development is imprecise. Finally, there
are often delays associated with obtaining governmental approvals before development of contaminated
or remediated sites may begin.
Evidence of hazardous materials on properties results in a disincentive to redevelop and invest in
properties, given added costs and risks. The redevelopment tool of the preparation of land for
development would help ensure property redevelopment and the remediation of hazardous or toxic
materials. In addition, if an area is within a redevelopment project area, under state law, the Agency could
invoke the Polanco Act, which more readily shifts liability of environmental remediation to prior
polluting property owners.
Seifel Consulting reviewed existing environmental cases and spill sites in the CBD as reported by the
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB).
DTSC oversees clean-up of hazardous sites throughout the state and SWRCB oversees the remedation of
water contamination and potential water contamination. Of the 13 DTSC sites within the City, one site, a
former manufactured gas plant on the comer of 1" and D Street, is located in the CBD. According to its
DTSC Profile Report, the site is currently used as a PG&E electrical substation and both the groundwater
and soil are contaminated with arsenic, lead and polynuclear hydrocarbons from its former use. The
contamination exceeds the state action level and remediation is required.
The SWRCB lists approximately 190 reported sites with Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT)
within the City of Petaluma, approximately 36 of which are in the CBD. The number of LUFTs within the
CBD is significant considering its small size in relation to the City as a whole. Approximately 19 percent
of the City's LUFTs are located in the CBD even though the Project Area represents only 3 percent of the
City's total acreage, as shown in Table II-2. Furthermore, 16 LUFTs per 100 acres are present in the
CBD, compared to 2 LUFTs per 100 acres Citywide, which is also shown on Table I1-2. Table B-3 lists
the LUFTs in the CBD.
Table 11-2
LUFT Sites within the CBD and Citywide
LUFT Sites
Aereage
LUFT Sites
Per 100 Acres
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
CBD
36
19%
225
3%
16
City of Petaluma
190
100%
8,627
100%
2
Source: California State Water Resource Control Board, Geotracker, January 2005.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-26 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Table Il-3
Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFTs) in the CBD
Site Name
Street Number
Street Name
Etex,Inc.
419
1st St
McNab, James & Alexander
401
1st St
Metcalf Auto Parts
494
2nd St
Foundry Wharf Bus. Park
615
2nd St
Barber Sign Company, Inc.
321
2nd St
Bar Ale Inc.
225
2nd St
Les's Truck & Auto Repair
301
2nd St
Petaluma Recycling Center
315
2nd St
U.S. Postal Service
120
4th St
Petaluma School District
11
5th St
Small's Scales
III
C St
City of Petaluma Right of Way
ill
C St
Bar Ale Inc.
17
Copeland St
Petaluma Fire Dept. HQ
198
D St
Ramatici & Baker
102
D St
D & M Automotive
210
F St
Wells Fargo Trust Dept.
25
Kentucky St
Hideaway
128
Kentucky St
Pacific Bell
125
Liberty St
Lace House Laundry/Linen
128
Liberty St
Chevron #90152
2
Petaluma Blvd S
Hansel Ford (former)
13
Petaluma Blvd S
George's Auto Repair
400
Petaluma Blvd S
Petaluma BP
421
Petaluma Blvd S
Unocal #6152
201
Petaluma Blvd S
Oliker Property
320
Petaluma Blvd S
Rose Property
101
Petaluma Blvd S
Auto World
115
Petaluma Blvd S
Mahoney Davison Property
929
Petaluma Blvd S
Andy's Auto Repair
619
Petaluma Blvd S
Alliance
215
Washington St
Unocal
300
Washington St
Dairyman's Feed & Supply
323
Washington St E
Unocal #6185
400
Washington St
Shell Service Station
421
Washington St
Ash Bag Company
224
Weller St
Source: California State Water Resource Control Board, Geotracker, January 2005.
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-27 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) through the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Control Board regulates the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Program (SLIC). Sites in
the SLIC program are generally small to medium size industrial sites with non -fuel contamination. Of the
20 sites listed within the City, 3 are within the CBD. Refer to Table U 4 for a list of SLICs in the CBD.
Again, the number of SLICs in the CBD is considerable given the Project Area's small size. Fifteen
percent of the SLICs in the City are located in the CBD, even though the Project Area is only 3 percent of
the City's total acreage. Figure II-8 shows the location of the LUFTs and SLICs in the CBD.
Table II-4
Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC) Sites in the CBD
Owner Name
Address
Town Center Theater Site
15 & 19 Petaluma Blvd S
Basin Street Properties
2nd Street and C St
PG&E - MGP - Petaluma
Comer of 1 stand D St
Source: California State Water Resource Control Board, Geotracker, January 2005.
Obsolete Buildings
The presence of obsolete buildings inhibits the proper use of these properties as well as neighboring
properties and discourages investment in the area. Many of the buildings in the CBD were built shortly
after the turn of the 20a' Century to serve a burgeoning agricultural economy that no longer exists. These
buildings include rail and river -oriented warehouses and mills of wood and corrugated metal construction
that are unable to meet modern warehousing or industrial requirements. Most lack the loading dock and
paved yard space necessary to accommodate modem trucking operations or other warehousing or
distribution uses. Obsolete buildings present in the CBD include the following:
• Many existing commercial buildings have been built on long, narrow lots and, as a result, have a
physical configuration that is inappropriate for modern retailing purposes.
• A large number of the buildings in the CBD are of unreinforced masonry construction. Although
many have been retrofitted and rehabilitated, the cost of retrofitting and rehabilitating others to a safe
standard may be economically infeasible given the current market rents.
• There are several special purpose buildings (such as grain warehouses or old, obsolete automobile
dealerships) that are no longer suitable or desirable for commercial use.
These conditions are illustrated in photographs 31, 35-37, 39, 40, 46, 47, and 49 located in Appendix B.
Earthquake Hazards
Earthquake hazards affect the entire CBD. These include proximity to dangerous earthquake faults,
buildings that are susceptible to damage during an earthquake, and soils conditions that amplify seismic
shaking. These conditions add greatly to the cost of building rehabilitation and new construction. For
more detail, refer to section B. La.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-28 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
z. h
...... ....It
Ut
3 p
j,"OMN i
I ....... .....
-t-m
tp:
2q::nm
4;tvy4:=
-Tt�=
:4:2=
.Sy
I
�ot
0
C005
Flooding
As described in the section B. Lb, a substantial part of the CBD is subject to flooding during periods of
heavy rainfall and high tides on the Petaluma River. Development within areas subject to periodic
flooding requires that the first floor be built at least one foot above the 100 year flood level. In the areas
described above, one to five feet of earth fill may be needed to meet this requirement. As a result such
development is often much more costly than development in areas without flooding problems. And, since
adjoining streets are typically not elevated, properties fronting on these streets may have limited access
during periods of flooding.
Adverse Soils Conditions
As has been previously described in section B.La, a large part of the CBD has adverse soil conditions,
including areas of Bay mud. Not only do these conditions add significantly to earthquake hazards, but
they also may add substantially to the cost of new construction. In fact, in areas characterized by the
presence of Bay mud, costly pilings would be required to provide support and stability for anything but
the smallest buildings.
Vehicular Access Circulation and Street Conditions
Many of the existing streets within the CBD are in poor condition, with below -standard pavement, curbs
and gutters. The overall street grid is incomplete and fragmented, with many dead end streets near the
river's edge. The river and the railroad are predominant features of the CBD, and they act as parallel
barriers to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. An inactive rail spur along Water Street to the
south of the Petaluma River further adds to circulation impediments. Southeast of D Street there are no
crossings of the river or the railroad, and any future crossing construction would involve complex
coordination to maintain river and rail use.'-"
These conditions cause inadequate access to individual parcels within certain areas. These parcels include
properties along the river to the north of D Street, industrial uses along the McNear Channel, and
properties along Lakeville Street that have access limitations imposed by the railroad and the lack of
improved streets. Additionally, the CBD does not have well -developed pedestrian and bicycle networks
and much of the area is not pedestrian or bicycle friendly.
Further, the CBD suffers from significant street deficiencies including deteriorated pavement, lack of
sidewalks and curbs and abandoned and deteriorated railroad tracks that exacerbates the poor vehicular
access and circulation in the CBD. Field reconnaissance surveys found many streets with poor pavement
conditions and missing sidewalks and curbs, particularly 1", H, E, Baylis, Water and East D Streets.
Deteriorated and abandoned railroad tracks traverse Water and 1" Streets, resulting in potential safety
hazards for vehicular traffic.
ig Central Petaluma Specific Plan, City or Petaluma, June 2003. p.60.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-30 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Poor vehicular access circulation and street deficiencies negatively impact the amount of traffic and
accidents in the CBD. Level of Service (LOS) was analyzed for Petaluma's roadways and intersections in
2001, as part of the Petaluma General Plan Existing Conditions Report. The LOS grading system ranges
from A (free flow with little or no delay) to F (forced flow with long queues and delays). Nine
intersections in the City were determined to operate at LOS of "D" or worse. Three of these intersections
are in the CBD 29 These intersections are:
• Lakeville Higbway/D Street
• Petaluma Boulevard/Washington Street
• Petaluma Boulevard/D Street
Collision data from 1996 to 2000 indicates that four streets with the greatest number of collisions during
that period are within the CBD. Three of the seven intersections with the greatest number of collisions are
in the CBD. (See additional description in Section c.1.)
Lack of Parking
A lack of parking in the CBD is a potential hindrance to the attraction of new development and higher
lease rates in the area. According to the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan, development of parking is
necessary in order to create the intense pedestrian oriented district that is envisioned for the downtown
area. Although some measures have been taken to correct the parking deficiency, inadequate parking still
affects areas in the downtown. According to a broker interviewed about market conditions in
Project Areas, office buildings located on the river side with only street parking are particularly affected
by a lack of parking, and as a result, rents have been lower than other buildings in the downtown.
Additionally, the broker acknowledged that downtown retailers may also be negatively affected by the
lack of adequate packing facilities.
a.3 Incompatible Uses [33031(a)(3)130
Some land uses in the CBD are incompatible with one another and contribute to adverse conditions in the
CBD. Residences are located adjacent to industrial uses in several sections of the CBD. As shown in
Figure 1I-9, this occurs particularly in the southern portion of the Project Area. In addition, new
development within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan boundaries may cause further compatibility
challenges due to the established heavy industry in the area, as identified in the 2002 Petaluma
General Plan Existing Conditions Report."
a.4 Substandard Lots in Multiple Ownership [33031(a)(4)]"
The CBD has a wide variety of lots of differing sizes and configurations in fragmented ownership, as
shown in Figure Il-9. In some areas along Petaluma Boulevard, lots tend to be small and shallow, a
condition that inhibits economic reuse and redevelopment. Lots north of the Petaluma River are
irregularly shaped due to the configuration of the river. The size and configuration of these substandard
lots contribute to the adverse physical conditions that are evident in this area.
29 Petaluma General Plan 2025: Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report, Dyett & 13hatia, October 2002,
p. 7-12.
30 The 1976 blighting condition that corresponds to incompatible uses is age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed
character or shifting of uses (CRL Section 3303Ile)), and an economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse resulting from faulty
planning (CRL Section 33032(n)).
31 Petaluma General Plan 2025 Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report, October 10, 2002, p. 4-13.
32 The 1976 blighting condition that corresponds to substandard lots in multiple ownership is the subdividing and sale of lots of
irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development. (CRL Section 33032(b))
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-31 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
:v
N
0
V
N
v3
u
a
V a "s
S
a
a
1❑C/.)�
b. Economic Blighting Conditions
b.1 Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments 133031(b)(1)1"
This section documents the presence of blighting conditions described in CRL Section 33031(b)(1) in the
CBD, including the presence of potentially hazardous or toxic waste and a high cost of building
rehabilitation.
Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section C.3.a, hazardous materials and toxic contamination are present within the CBD.
The contamination, the unknown cost to redevelop parcels, and the safety concerns while remediating the
parcels impair the value of the 36 properties with LUFTs and 3 SLIC sites in the CBD.
High Cost of Building Rehabilitation
The following analysis demonstrates that private financing techniques alone will not likely be sufficient to
undertake substantial rehabilitation of typical buildings in the downtown. It evaluates impaired
investment in terms of a private investor's ability to rehabilitate a deteriorated, older building while
achieving a reasonable return on investment. The analysis demonstrates that it is not financially feasible
for the private sector acting alone to purchase at market value and rehabilitate deteriorated buildings in
the CBD without outside financial assistance.
Prototypical Rehabilitation Pro ec
A prototypical purchase and rehabilitation project in CBD would require a subsidy of about $1.9 million
to be financially feasible for a typical developer. The ability of private developers to invest in
rehabilitation of substandard buildings is a measure of economic health within the project area. When new
rehabilitation is not feasible, needed building capital improvements are deferred and properties are not
upgraded and are poorly maintained. Under these circumstances, the properties remain blighted.
The primary constraints to rehabilitation are the age and poor condition of buildings in the area, the need
to seismically retrofit a number of buildings in this area, and the high cost of construction. The analysis
concludes that redevelopment assistance is necessary for an effective rehabilitation program to alleviate
the identified physical blighting conditions.
The costs of preserving and upgrading historic and other older buildings is difficult to determine but are
likely to be substantial in many cases. The costs associated with the rehabilitation of historic and older
buildings could involve some or all of the following:
• Historic preservation including facade preservation,
• Seismic upgrading,
Asbestos removal,
• Cleanup of contaminated sites such as the removal of underground fuel tanks, and
Interior remodeling for adaptive reuse.
The following analysis demonstrates a substantial gap between the potential rehabilitation costs and the
availability of private and public (non -redevelopment) sources to finance such projects.
33 The 1976 blighting condition that corresponds to depreciated values or impaired investments is a prevalence of depreciated
values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustment. (CRL Section 33032(d))
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-33 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
This analysis examines the feasibility of rehabilitating a prototypical mixed use project in the CBD. The
rehabilitation assumes extensive improvements as indicated above, which is likely in many older CBD
buildings. The assumptions for this analysis were obtained from discussions with Agency staff,
comparable sales information, and discussions with local real estate brokers.
This approach starts with an estimated project cost for the purchase and rehabilitation of an older building
in poor condition based on comparable sales in the CBD and the cost of undertaking substantial
rehabilitation. This project cost is then compared with the loan and equity amounts that could be
supported by projected rents generated by the completed project. This prototype is used for illustrative
purposes to demonstrate the impact of rental rates and property values on the economic value of the
investment.
The prototypical project is a 15,000 square foot, historic mixed -use building with about 5,000 square feet
of commercial space on the ground floor and 10,000 square feet of office space on the upper floors. The
project involves seismic upgrading, facade restoration to meet historic standards, asbestos removal, and
interior remodeling.
Table II-5 summarizes the estimated costs and the projected revenues of this prototypical rehabilitation
project. The site acquisition cost would be approximately $2,250,000, assuming a cost of about $150 per
square foot, per current building sales prices data. Rehabilitation construction costs would be about
$1.4 million, at approximately $120 per square foot. The total cost of the project, including soft costs and
contingency costs, would be about $4.6 million.
A typical commercial building of this size is projected to generate a gross income of $327,000 annually
given current market conditions, assuming full service office rents at $1.90 per square foot and ground
floor retail rents at S 1.65 NNN per square foot. Subtracting an eight percent vacancy loss and operating
expenses yields a net operating income of approximately $247,000 per year, before tax.
Lending institutions typically require that net operating income exceeds debt service payment by 15 to
20 percent for mixed -use projects (a debt coverage ratio of at least 1.15 to 1.2). The 1.2 debt coverage
ratio yields about $206,000 available to cover debt service and an annual cash flow of about $41,000
(used to provide the return to equity investors). The annual debt service amount could support a mortgage
loan of about $2.3 million. The annual cash flow would support about S343,000 in equity investment
yielding a 12 percent interest rate. Thus, the total amount that developers could reasonably expect to raise
from private sources is about $2.6 million, resulting in a financing gap of nearly $2 million.
The private sector does not have sufficient financial incentive to undertake a rehabilitation project in the
CBD. A prototypical purchase and rehabilitation project in the Project Area would require a large subsidy
to be financially feasible for a typical developer. Without financial assistance to help underwrite
rehabilitation costs, the private sector would not undertake purchase and rehabilitation projects in the
CBD. With financial investment by the Agency, however, the risk to the private sector is reduced, and a
positive incentive for new development is created.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-34 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Table II-5
Prototypical Purchase & Rehabilitation Project
Retail and Office Use
Estimated Project Costs
Site Acquisition Cost
$2,250,000
Rehabilitation Cost
$1,800,000
Soft Costs @ 20%
$360,000
Contingency @ 10%
180 000
Total Development Cost
$4,590,000
Estimated Income & Expenses
Rental Income
Retail
$99,000
Office
228 000
Gross Possible Income
$327,000
Vacancy Loss
8%
Total Vacancy Loss
$26,160
Operating Expenses
$54,000
Net Operating Income (NOI)
$246,840
Maximum Supportable Loan
Debt Coverage Ratio
1.20
NOI Available for Debt
$205,700
Maximum Loan
$2,292,927
Annual Cash Flow
$41,140
Return on Equity
12.0%
Supportable Value of Equity
$342,833
Total Available for Project
$2,635,760
Projected Financing Gap
Total Available for Project $2,635,760
Less Actual Development Cost $4 590.000
Financing Gap ($1,954,240)
Assumptions:
Income & Expenses
Building Square Feet
15,000
Retail SF
5,000
Office SF
10,000
Rental Income per SF (Retail)
$1.65
Rental Income per SF (Office)
$1.90
Operating Expenses per SF
$0.30
Loan Terms
Mortgage Interest Rate
7.5%
Tema (years)
25
Estimated Project Costs
Site Acquisition Cost per SF
$150
Rehabilitation Hard Cost per SF
$120
Soft Cost % of Hard Cost
20%
Contingency % of Hard Cost
10%
Source: Seifel Consulting Inc., Broker Surveys conducted during 2005
Petaluma Community Development Commission 1I-35 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
b.2 Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots [33031(b)(2)]'
This section documents the presence of the blighting condition economic indicators of distressed
buildings or lots, as described in CRL Section 33031(b)(2) in the CBD, including vacant and
underutilized lots and buildings.
Vacant and Underutilized Lots
Many unimproved and improved parcels that include vacant parcels and parcels used for parking or
vehicle storage are currently underutilized. The 2002 Petaluma Existing Conditions report identifies
vacant and underutilized land near the Turning Basin, between Lakeville Street and the Petaluma River
and in the warehouse district.35 Other parcels with these conditions are documented in photographs 20, 22,
27, 45, 46, 68, and 71 located in Appendix B. The locations of vacant and under-utilized parcels in the
CBD are indicated in Figure II-10.
Vacant and Underutilized Buildines
The presence of vacant and underutilized buildings represent a lack of demand for space in a particular
area. The lack of demand can occur for a number of reasons including the age and condition of buildings,
the compatibility of the buildings to different uses, or conditions in the economy or overall market. The
City, particularly the CBD, has suffered from high vacancy rates in the office sector.
Seifel Consulting performed a survey of knowledgeable brokers in the area between June and July 2005,
According to data gathered from these brokers, the City's office vacancy rates for existing space are
between 18 and 21 percent. When the sublease market is included the vacancy rate jumps to 27 percent.
According to brokers contacted for the survey, many of these vacancies are located in and around the
Basin Street area, which is included in the Project Area. These vacancy rates are extremely high
compared to Santa Rosa, which has an office vacancy rate of between 9 and 15 percent.
Potential causes for the high vacancy rates include the age and condition of buildings, the compatibility of
the buildings to different uses, or conditions in the economy or overall market. However, the lower
relative vacancy rates in the surrounding communities suggest that the issues are most likely building and
area specific, rather than wide spread economic or market conditions. Examples of vacant and
underutilized buildings in the CBD are shown in photographs 2, 6, 21, 50, 62, 64, 65, 66, 69 and 70 in
Appendix B.
34 The 1976 blighting condition that corresponds to economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots is a prevalence of
depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustment. (CRL Section 33032(d))
35 Petaluma General Plan 2025 Existing Conditions Opportunities and Challenges ReportOctober 10 2002 p 4-13
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-36 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
1t
�,
xuUM
lsitMly
x`�.
L
=x
E
♦
1
L
ice;}
V AWN
8
0I
}
u
u
a
,I�
C. Public Improvement Deficiencies [33030(c)]36
Prior to 1994, inadequate public improvements was a factor of blight under the CRL, and the PCDC made
findings that the CBD 1976 Original Area exhibited this blighting condition. This blighting condition
continues to exist in the CBD 1976 Original Area and is described as a blighting condition.
Under current blight definitions in the CRL, the presence of inadequate public improvements cannot be
the sole reason for redevelopment. However, as shown above, CRL Section 33030(c) permits
consideration of inadequate public improvements when blighting conditions exist in a project area.
Inadequate public improvements may be a contributing factor to blight, and an agency may undertake
needed public improvements to alleviate blight. This applies to the CBD 2001 Added Area. To the extent
they are present, inadequate public improvements typically reflect problems that exaggerate the effects of
blight.
The public improvement deficiencies still remaining in the CBD include the following:
• Poor vehicular access, circulation deficiencies and street conditions
• Water system deficiencies
• Condition, capacity and operational issues with the sewer system
Storm drainage system insufficiencies
Joint trench utilities deficiencies
A portion of the CBD supports industrial uses that have not changed significantly in the past 100 years,
and the public improvement systems serving the area have not been modernized to meet current market
needs or to account for natural obsolescence. Many of the utility systems require significant upgrading as
the area continues to redevelop from a predominantly industrial character into a mixed -use development
with urban densities. The public improvement deficiencies exhibited in the CBD are discussed in detail
below.
c1 Poor Vehicular Access, Circulation Deficiencies and Street Conditions
As discussed previously in Section C.3.a.2, the overall street grid in the CBD is incomplete and
fragmented, with many dead end streets near the river's edge. The river and the railroad are predominant
features of the CBD, and they act as parallel barriers to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Southeast of D Street there are no crossings of the river or the railroad, and any future crossing
construction would involve complex coordination to maintain river and rail use." Poor vehicle access and
circulation impacts the amount of traffic and accidents in CBD. Additionally, although some routes are
improved, the CBD does not have well -developed pedestrian and bicycle networks, and much of the area
is not pedestrian or bicycle friendly.
36 The 1976 blighting conditions that correspond to public improvement deficiencies is the inadequate provision for ventilation,
light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities (CRL Section 33032(a)), and the existence of inadequate public
improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without
redevelopment (CRL Section 33032(d)).
37 Central Petaluma Specific Plan, City of Petaluma, June 2003. p. 60.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-38 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Further, the CBD suffers from significant street deficiencies including deteriorated pavement, lack of
sidewalks and curbs and abandoned and deteriorated railroad tracks that negatively impact vehicular
access and circulation in the CBD. Field reconnaissance surveys found many streets with poor pavement
conditions and missing sidewalks and curbs, particularly 2nd, E, F, G, H, Baylis, and Petaluma Boulevard
South Streets.
As previously identified in Section C.3.a.2, three intersections in the CBD operate at a Level of Service
rating of "D" or worse (a rating of "A" indicates free flow with little or no delay and "F" indicates forced
flow with long queues and delays.) 38
Furthermore, four of five streets (Petaluma Boulevard, Washington Street, Lakeville Highway and D
Street) and three of the seven intersections in the City with the greatest number of collisions in the City
are located in the CBD." The intersections are:
Lakeville Highway/D Street
East Washington Street/Lakeville Highway
Washington Street/Petaluma Boulevard/
e.2 Water System
According to the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan, aging pipes of inadequate size and outdated
materials and the lack of a loop connection make the water service and fire protection systems within the
area inadequate to serve existing and new development. The Washington Street main water line feeds a
series of distribution lines that consist of cast iron, ductile iron, welded steel, asbestos concrete, and
polyvinyl chloride pipes, many of which date back to the 19"' century. Many of the present distribution
pipes are the oldest in the City and were installed incrementally without the benefit of a master plan.
Furthermore, according to Dean Eckerson, Engineering Manager for the City's Department of Water
Resources and Conservation, the Oak Hill Reservoir currently serving the CBD is approximately
100 years old and has reached the end of its service life. Operational maintenance issues currently exist
due to its age and deteriorated condition, and replacement is necessary for long term reliability.40
The water system deficiencies also impact the City's ability to reduce potential fire danger and damage in
the CBD. According to the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, only a few loop connections exist among
pipes vital to the provision of fire flows in the CBD. As previously discussed in section C.3.a, fires
present a significant threat for the historic buildings in the CBD. The City recently passed an ordinance
requiring the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in pre-existing buildings in the historical area of the
CBD. According to Eckerson, however, the water mains and laterals in the historic downtown are
currently not sufficient for fire sprinklers to be installed in all of the historic buildings. New water mains
along Petaluma Boulevard must first be installed before fire sprinklers can be installed in buildings along
this street.
39 Petaluma General Plan 2025: Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report, Dyett & Ehatia, October 2002,
p. 7-12.
39 Ibtd., p. 7-28 through 7-31.
an Interview with Dean Eckerson, Engineering Manager, City of Petaluma Department of Water Resources and Conservation
Department, March 29. 2005.
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-39 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
c.3 Sewer System
The CBD is composed of relatively flat terrain not conducive to a gravity flow sanitary sewer system.
According to the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan, soils within the CBD vary greatly, but none
provide ideal conditions for sewer pipelines. The river itself acts as a topographic trough that splits the
area into two sections. Soil conditions cause pipe abrasions and clogs; retain water, causing corrosion and
infiltration of pipes; and create differential settlement, shifting and cracking pipes. Before 1938, the City
had a combined storm drain and sewer system. When Petaluma constructed a separate system for
wastewater treatment, remnants of the storm drain were incorporated for transporting sewage. Over the
past 30 years, the City has improved the worst of these conditions; however, serious infiltration and
inflow problems persist because of the degraded condition of many of the pipelines.
Furthermore, according to Eckerson, numerous sewer mains in the CBD are in need of rehabilitation or
replacement, and some of the sewer lines in service are over 100 years old. Specifically, the sewer pipes
on 1st Street between F and H Streets are deteriorated and experience capacity issues. The adverse slopes
along 1st Street negatively impact the operational capacity of the sewer line. Capacity and operational
issues also are present along Washington and Howard Streets."t Additionally the existing C Street Pump
Station requires additional capacity and operational reliability to support redevelopment in the CBD.
c.4 Storm Drainage System
Central Petaluma, particularly the CBD, contains a disjointed and sporadic series of storm drains, mostly
dating back to the early part of the 20ih century, according to the 2003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
Because of the limited capacity of the existing storm drain, properties within Central Petaluma rely on
street surfaces and sheet flow over adjacent lots for drainage. This drainage pattern often results in large
areas of pending and flooded streets during storms. Properties that adjoin the river often provide for sheet
flows to the river or have privately installed and maintained drainage pipes discharging directly into the
river.
More specifically, two areas within the CBD have significant storm drainage deficiencies. According to
Eckerson, the streets south of F Street are in need of storm drainage repairs, consisting of either a
replacement of deteriorated pipes or new pipes altogether. The storm drains along H Street are also
deficient as well East D at Copeland Street. The intersections are prone to flooding, particularly along the
public rights of way. The street flooding along H Street due to storm drainage deficiencies is a potential
safety issue."
c.5 Joint Trench Utilities
Currently throughout the CBD, joint trench utilities except natural gas are typically distributed to
properties by overhead wires on poles. To improve public health and safety during storms and natural
disasters and to promote the aesthetics of the streetscape, these utilities should be placed underground in a
joint trench whenever existing streets are redeveloped, and new streets are developed."
c.6 Photographic Documentation
Refer to photographs 12, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23, 34, 41, and 72-75 in Appendix B for examples of public
improvement deficiencies described above, including street flooding and pending, deteriorated street
pavement, lack of sidewalks and curbs and abandoned railroad tracks.
41 Id.
"' id.
43 1003 Central Petaluma Specific Plan, p. 87.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-40 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
4. Conclusions for Remaining Blighting Conditions for the CBD
The CBD still suffers from several physical and economic blighting conditions. The following statutorily
defined conditions of blight are substantial and prevalent in the CBD:
• Deficient or deteriorated buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work.
• Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or
lots.
Incompatible uses.
Substandard lots in multiple ownership.
Depreciated values and impaired investments.
• Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots.
Inadequate public improvements.
The factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of building or lots
in the CBD include obsolete buildings; the presence of underutilized buildings and lots; and substandard
and vacant lots. These conditions contribute to the economic blighting conditions of high building
vacancies and limited reinvestment in properties.
The economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots in the CBD include underutilized and vacant
buildings and lots, which contributes to general economic decline of the CBD.
The analysis of blighting conditions in the CBD indicates that these conditions are so substantial and
prevalent that they constitute physical and economic blight. Thus, redevelopment is necessary for the
CBD to reach its full potential.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-41 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
D. Petaluma Community Development Project Area
The PCD Redevelopment Plan was adopted in July 1988, and amended in 1994 and 2000. The PCD
includes approximately 2,740 acres generally along both sides of U.S. Highway 101 from Old Redwood
Highway to Washington Street, the Southwest side of U.S. Highway 101 from Washington Street to
Lakeville Street, and both sides of U.S. Highway 101 from Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard South
and East of U.S. Highway 101 to the "Haystack Landing" area. The Project Area also includes
approximately five miles of the Petaluma River and Willow Brook Creek of which a majority parallels
U.S. Highway 101. Portions of major traffic arteries including Petaluma Boulevard North and South,
North McDowell, Old Redwood Highway, East Washington Street, Lakeville Street and Lakeville
Highway are also situated in the PCD."
Also included in the PCD are several major business parks and industrial uses as well as five major retail
centers: Washington Square, Petaluma Plaza North and South, the Petaluma Premium Factory Outlets,
and the Petaluma Auto Plaza. The area includes many public and institutional uses.
1. Blight Findings at Time of Plan Adoption and Amendment
a. Blight Findings at the Time of Plan Adoption in 1988
The Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1988, prior to the 1994 changes to the CRL requirements for
blighting conditions (AB 1290). The 1988 review of the Project Area found blighting conditions that met
the requirements of redevelopment law in effect at the time of Plan adoption.
The 1988 Report to Council highlights the following blighting conditions:
• The subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness
and development.
• The laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or physical characteristics of
the ground and surrounding conditions.
• The existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces and utilities which
cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment.
• An economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty planning.
• A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment.
In addition the Assessment of Conditions Report prepared in June 1988 as background for the
Plan Adoption included two additional conditions of blight:
• Mixed character of existing land use patterns.
Deteriorated land and buildings.
The 1988 EIR found that blighting conditions deterred growth in the PCD, led to undemtilization, and
hindered development. The configuration of the physical topography of the PCD significantly contributed
to the blighting conditions. Inadequate flood control drainage channels imposed substantial development
restrictions upon the PCD.
Petaluma Community Development Commission, Mid -Term Review OFThe PCD Five -Year Implementation Plan
(FY 2001-02 through FY 2006-07), April 19, 2004.
Petaluma Community Development Commission II42 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
b. Blighting Conditions in 2000
Many of the blighting conditions documented for the 1988 Plan Adoption were still present at the time of
the Plan Amendment in 2000. The blight findings at the time of Plan Amendment in 2000 included the
following:
• Flood control problems.
Inadequate road, water and sewer facilities.
Deteriorating residential, industrial and commercial units.
Lots of small size and irregular shape.
Economic dislocations.
Incompatible mixed land uses.
Fragmented ownership patterns which make ordinary development in the Project Area without
redevelopment economically unfeasible. 45
As discussed in the next section, most of these conditions persist today, despite PCDC efforts.
2. Redevelopment Activities and Development from Plan Adoption to
Present
a. PCDC's Redevelopment Projects and Activities in the PCD
The PCDC has undertaken public infrastructure, public facility and economic development activities in
the PCD since the adoption of, and amendment to, the Redevelopment Plan. These include traffic
circulation and parking improvements; curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting and landscaping improvements;
gateway entrances improvements; development assistance for a 194-berth marina and the Petaluma
Marina Hotel on the Petaluma River; the planting of street trees; the retail strategy implementation to the
Industrial Avenue site; acquisition of land and public improvements for the Petaluma Auto Plaza; and the
Petaluma Premium Factory Outlet Center. Refer to Table H-6 for a summary of PCDC projects and
activities.
45 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Petaluma Community Development Project, PCDC, 1988 page 5.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-43 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Table II-6
Completed and Ongoing Redevelopment Projects and Activities in the PCD
Project
Complete
In
Progress
Auto Plaza Project and Outlet Center
■
Bassett Street Remodel
■
Corona Reach Specific Plan & Implementation
■
Flood Control Improvements
■
Lakeville Highway Widening Project
■
Main St. Improvements/ Putnam Place Crossing
■
McDowell/E. Washington Widening
■
No. McDowell/ Old Redwood Highway Land Use Study
■
Old Redwood H /Willowbrook Bridge Re lacement Project
■
Petaluma River Marina Improvements
■
Real Property Purchase (27 Howard)
■
Retail Leakage Stud
■
Brownfield EPA Assessment Project
■
Cauf eld Extension
■
Central Petaluma Specific Plan & Implementation
■
Economic Development Promotion Program
■
Gateway Capital Improvements
■
Industrial Avenue Develo ment Preparations
■
Kenilworth/Washington St. Improvements
■
Landscape Improvements
■
Petaluma Boulevard North Improvements
■
Petaluma Marina Hotel Assistance
■
Ranier Crosstown Connection & Interchange Project
■
Redwood Crossing Master Plan
■
River Enhancement Plan and Implementation
■
Storefront Improvement Loan Program
■
Street Tree Planting & Establishment
■
Underground Tank Site Clean Up
■
URM Seismic Retrofit Program
■
Utility Undergrounding Studies
■
Source: Petaluma Community Development Commission
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-44 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
3. Remaining Blighting Conditions in the PCD
The PCD has been improved by public and private actions since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
in 1988 and the Plan Amendment in 2000. However, recent field surveys and existing conditions analyses
determined that many of the blighting conditions originally described in the 1988 and 2000 Reports to
Council still remain. These conditions include deficient buildings; incompatible uses; hazardous materials
and contamination; lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and
development; economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty planning; depreciated
values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment; and inadequate public
improvements, public facilities and open spaces.
The PCD's remaining blighting conditions are grouped by the current CRL definitions of blight and cross
referenced with footnotes to blighting conditions as defined by the CRL in 1988 at the time the Plan was
adopted.
a. Physical Blighting Conditions
a.1 Deficient or Deteriorated Buildings [33031(a)(1)]46
The PCD is hindered by a substantial number of deficient and deteriorated buildings, many of which are
unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Conditions observed during field reconnaissance surveys
by Seifel Consulting include the following:
Commercial and residential buildings with apparent structural problems including cracked walls,
sagging walls, sagging roof lines and settlement.
• Dilapidated or extensively deteriorated commercial and residential buildings with deferred
maintenance including chipped and peeling paint, deteriorated roofing and siding, damaged windows
and doors, missing gutters and downspouts and deteriorated external piping.
• Aging, obsolete, damaged, and deteriorated corrugated metal warehouse and mill buildings.
• Aging, deteriorated, and in a few cases, dilapidated residential buildings.
Older residential and commercial structures that, because of their age and construction type, could
also prove to be unsafe and hazardous in the event of a major earthquake.
• Buildings on land that, because of adverse soils conditions, could be subject to amplified shaking,
liquefaction, or greater damage during a serious earthquake.
Appendix B presents extensive photographic documentation of the adverse building conditions observed
during the field reconnaissance surveys. Over 65 photographs of deteriorated building conditions in the
PCD are presented, clearly documenting conditions that create unsafe and unhealthy buildings discussed
above such as deteriorated structures, paint, roofing and walls; deferred maintenance; structural alignment
problems; broken windows; and unsafe wiring. Refer to the following photographs in Appendix B: 78-81,
90, 93-97, 99, 102-104, 107-110, 112-119,121, 123, 124-129, 131-135, 137, 138, 140, 143-146,154,
158, 159, 163-168, 170, 172, 174-178, 184-186 and 190.
46 The 1988 blight finding included in the PCD Report to Council that corresponds to the blighting condition of deficient and
deteriorated buildings is defective design and. character of physical construction. (CRL Section 33031(a))
Petaluma Community Development Commission 1145 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Age of Buildings
Building age reflects design and construction practices, and can be a contributing factor to a building's
safety for occupation and use. Building age also reflects changes in regulation and health standards that
have evolved throughout the years. Older buildings require renovation and modernization in order to keep
up with the evolving standards for a healthy and safe environment. In addition, older buildings must
undergo regular maintenance to combat the effects of normal deterioration that occurs over the life of the
building.
The PCD is made up of a large range of buildings, which vary in both age and use. Many of the older
buildings in the PCD are wooden, farm buildings that are vulnerable to the effects of time if not properly
maintained.
Seifel Consulting used County Assessor data to analyze the age of buildings in the PCD. The County
Assessor data provided age of building data for approximately 90 percent of the 1,965 buildings in the
PCD. Of the buildings with age of building data, 145 buildings are over 75 years old, and over 500
buildings were built prior to 1955. Structures built prior to the adoption of the 1955 Uniform Building
Code are more susceptible to earthquake damage, unless adequately retrofitted. Furthermore, over 58
percent of the buildings were constructed before 1970. Buildings constructed prior to 1970 would not
meet current design provisions for earthquake forces. Therefore, over half of the buildings in the PCD are
likely to be unsafe in the event of a significant earthquake, given their age and condition, unless
adequately retrofitted. Graph 11-2 shows the breakdown of building by age in the PCD.
In addition to seismic susceptibility, many of these buildings have problems that are typical of aging
buildings such as deteriorated structures, deteriorated paint and cracked and umeinforced masonry. These
deteriorated building conditions are documented in the Appendix B, specifically in photographs 79-81,
90, 94-97, 99, 103, 104, 107-110, 113, 117, 119, 123, 132-134, 137, 138, 140, 168, and 184-186.
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (URMs)
As discussed in Section B. La, umeinforced masonry buildings and buildings constructed in the early to
mid-1900s would be expected to incur the greatest structural damage during an earthquake. URMs are
typically constructed of brick, hollow tile, or concrete block, and have proven to be particularly hazardous
during an earthquake. As of July 2005, the PCD had 9 URMs. Out of these URMs, 4 have not been
retrofitted. Therefore, approximately 50 percent of the identified URMs in the PCD are not adequately
retrofitted, and are likely unsafe in the event of a significant seismic event. Further, as discussed in
Section B. La compliance with City retrofit standards does not necessarily prevent loss of life or injury or
prevent damage to rehabilitated buildings in the event of a major earthquake. Figure H-6 shows the
location of URM's that have not been retrofitted in the PCD.
a.2 Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots [33031(a)(2)]"
Factors that inhibit the proper use of buildings or lots in the PCD include hazardous materials
contamination, earthquake hazards, adverse soil conditions, flooding and obsolete buildings. These
factors inhibit the proper use of the PCD because they result in a disincentive to redevelop and invest in
these properties and surrounding properties, given the added costs and risks associated with the
remediation of significant soil and groundwater contamination, and infrastructure improvements. The
following sections describe how these factors adversely affect the PCD.
dl The 1998 blight finding included in the PCD Report to Council that corresponds to the blighting condition of factors that
inhibit the proper use orbuildings or lots is the economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty planning.
Petaluma Community Development Commission
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger
Report to Council
June 2006
W
s5mpHngjog
Im
Hazardous Materials Contamination
As previously discussed in Section C.3.a, the remediation of toxic or hazardous waste is frequently costly
and a major financial disincentive to reinvestment or development. Often, in order for the development of
a contaminated site to be feasible, public agency assistance is necessary. The fear of environmental
liability, in particular, uncertainty over changing responsibility standards and costs, and the high price of
conducting environmental investigations are some of the leading reasons deterring the beneficial
development and use of urban sites. Developers fear that they will face liability under environmental laws
and that the cost of evaluating and remediating contaminated sites is both so uncertain and so high that it
could easily outweigh the market value of the property.
The blight analysis included a review of existing environmental cases and spill sites in the PCD, as
reported by DTSC and SWRCB. Of the 13 DTSC sites within the City, 4 sites are located in the PCD.
Three out of the four sites contained minor soil contamination that has been remediated or is in the
process of remediation. The remaining site is located on Lakeville Street and is owned by McPhail's Inc.,
an appliance company. According to the site's DTSC Profile Report, the site was formerly a foundry that
generated metal slag as waste from its operations and contained an above ground tank for diesel fuel
storage. The site was contaminated with significant amounts of lead, "Total Petrolium Hydrocarbons" and
asbestos as As part of the remediation process, McPhail's Inc. capped the majority of the contaminated
site. Even though some remediation efforts have occurred, fature uses may be limited due to the extent of
soil contamination beneath the cap.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) through the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Control Board regulates the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Program (SLIC). Sites in
the SLIC program are generally small to medium size industrial sites with non -fuel contamination. Of the
20 sites listed within the City, seven are within the PCD. Refer to Table 11-7 below for a list of SLICs in
the PCD. The State Water Resource Control Board lists approximately 190 reported sites with Leaking
Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFTs) within the City, approximately 77 of which are in the PCD. Table 11-8,
on following pages, lists the LUFTs in the PCD. Figure U-11 shows the location of the LUFTs and SLICs
in the PCD.
Table II-7
Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC) Sites in the PCD
Owner Name
Address
Joseph Felix Realty Co.
101-181 North McDowell Blvd
Former Winston Tires
181 North McDowell Blvd
Mr. Marshall Barlas EB Equipment
430 Bailey Ave
Rinehart's Petaluma Truck Stop
2645 Petaluma Blvd S
California Gold Dai Products
51 Lakeville St
George Barra Hide Company
896 Lakeville St
Two Rock Finishers
821 Petaluma Blvd N
Source: California State Water Resource Control Board, Geotracker, January 2005.
48 Department of Toxic and Substance Control, Site Cleanup- Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database, Profile
Report, ID: 49420003 - McPhail's Inc., March 2005.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 1148 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Table II-8
Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFTs) in the PCD
Site Name
Street Number
Street Name
Barlas Feed
430
Bailey Ave
Ricci Bros. Trucking
1
Cedar Grove Park
P G & E Service Center
210
Corona Rd
J & D Automotive
278
Corona Rd
Coin Amusement (former)
416
D St E
Mike Hudson Distributing
1297
Dynamic St
Maltby Electric Supply
1200
Holm Rd
Smith Property (former)
1290
Holm Rd
Laura Scudder's
1314
Bohn Rd
Pomeroy, J.H., & Co.
500
Hopper St
Shamrock Materials
400
Hopper St
Petaluma Corp. Yard
840
Hopper St
Petaluma School Dist.
526
Jefferson St
Hunt & Behrens
30
Lakeville St
California Gold Dairy Property
51
Lakeville St
Clover Stornetta Truck Garage
51
Lakeville St
Clover Stometta
91
Lakeville St
Brody Property
91
Lakeville St
Maddalena Dairy Supply
139
Lakeville St
Jerry & Dods Pump & Well
151
Lakeville St
Kaiser Sand & Gravel
950
Lakeville St
McPhail's, Inc.
1000
Lakeville St
Lakeville Shell
1001
Lakeville St
Don's Plumbing
1004
Lakeville St
Henris Supply Warehouse
172
Landing Way
Ingerson Trucking
979
Lindberg Ln
Petaluma School Bus Yard
993
Lindberg Ln
Larry's Auto Body Shop
412
Madison St
Western Charter Tours
67
Magnolia Ave
Arco Station #2150
101
McDowell Blvd N
Kmart Store #3501
261
McDowell Blvd N
Bostrom Property
745
McDowell Blvd N
Viking Freight Systems
1230
McDowell Blvd N
Dividend Development Corp
1250
McDowell Blvd N
Viacom Cable Vision
1289
McDowell Blvd N
Steel Bear Deli
5155
Old Redwood Hwy
7-Eleven Store #24323
5300
Old Redwood Hwy
Petaluma Exxon 7-0241 (Former)
5153
Old Redwood Hwy N
Jos. Ellwood Comm. Ctr.
301
Payran St
Toby's Trucking, Inc.
421
Payran St
North Bay Construction
431
Payran St
Bay Cities Concrete Pump.
444
Payran St
Petaluma Maint. Station
611
Payran St
Blunt's Garage
415
Petaluma Blvd N
Continued on next page
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-49 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Table II-8 Continued
Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFTs) in the PCD
Site Name
Street Number
Street Name
Raintree Car Wash & Gas
420
Petaluma Blvd N
Shotwell's Auto Body
600
Petaluma Blvd N
Burkhart's BP Service
701
Petaluma Blvd N
Heritage Motors
822
Petaluma Blvd N
Chevron #99728 (former)
860
Petaluma Blvd N
Shell - Favorite Car Wash
900
Petaluma Blvd N
R.O. Shelling
909
Petaluma Blvd N
Plaza Chevrolet
1221
Petaluma Blvd N
Cal West Rentals
1300
Petaluma Blvd N
Arolo Company
1490
Petaluma Blvd N
Boulevard Deli
3590
Petaluma Blvd N
Bob Benson Honda
4246
Petaluma Blvd N
Shell Service Station
4990
Petaluma Blvd N
Unocal #5406
4998
Petaluma Blvd N
Chevron #98548
4999
Petaluma Blvd N
Hlebakos & Sons Trucking
1473
Petaluma Blvd S
Caltrans S. Maint. Sta.
1485
Petaluma Blvd S
West Sonoma Co. Disposal
2543
Petaluma Blvd S
Office Helper Products
1330
Ross St
Leonard Jay Development
1334
Ross St
Rubini Property
1312
Scott St
Dave's Trucking (Former) - 0258
100
Stony Point Rd
Point Plastics
1310
Stub Rd
Unocal #6214 (Former)
440
Washington St E
Petaluma Car Wash
483
Washington St E
Triple S Tires
527
Washington St E
Exxon 7-0240 (Former)
532
Washington St E
Silva Partnership
601
Washington St E
Petaluma Development
627
Washington St E
Shell Service Station
801
Washington St E
Sonoma Marin Fairgrounds
866
Washington St E
Schram Property
300
Water St
Complete Auto Service
296
1 Wilson St
Source: California State Water Resource Control Board, Geotracker, January 2005.
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-50 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
c, a
Earthquakes
Earthquake hazards affect the entire PCD. These include proximity to dangerous earthquake faults,
buildings that are susceptible to damage during an earthquake, and soils conditions that amplify seismic
shaking. These conditions add greatly to the cost of building rehabilitation and new construction. For
more detail, refer to section B.1.a. Standard seismic hazard design requirements will be imposed on all
new development within the PCD in accordance with County and City standards to mitigate the risk of
damage posed by an earthquake."
Adverse Soil Conditions
As has been previously described in section B.l.a, a large part of the PCD has adverse soil conditions,
including areas of bay mud. Not only do these conditions add significantly to earthquake hazards, but they
also may add substantially to the cost of new construction. In fact, in areas characterized by the presence
of bay mud, costly pilings would be required to provide support and stability for anything but the smallest
buildings.
Flooding
As described in section B. Lb, a substantial part of the PCD is subject to flooding during periods of heavy
rainfall and high tides on the Petaluma River. The most recent flood occurrence on December 31, 2005
caused extensive flooding in the PCD areas including many roadways, small businesses, Petaluma Village
Premium Outlets, the auto mall and mobile home parks. While the recently completed $40 million Corps
of Engineers Flood Control project was successful in protecting properties downstream of the
Flood Control project, flooding still occurred in many parts of the PCD, as shown in the photographs in
Appendix B.
The City requires that development within areas subject to periodic flooding build the first floor at least
one foot above the 100 year flood level. In the areas described in section B. La, one to five feet of earth
fill may be needed to meet this requirement. As a result such development is often much more costly than
development in areas without flooding problems. And, since adjoining streets are typically not elevated,
properties fronting on these streets may have limited access during periods of flooding. The 2002
Petaluma Existing Conditions report states that a significant portion of commercial land between
Petaluma Boulevard North and Highway 101 remains undeveloped due to flooding constraints"
Obsolete Buildings
The presence of obsolete buildings inhibits the proper use of neighboring properties and discourages
investment needed to ensure timely revitalization of the area. A number of obsolete buildings are present
in the PCD:
Nine buildings in the PCD are of umeinforced masonry (URM) construction. Although five URM
buildings have been retrofitted and rehabilitated, the cost of retrofitting and rehabilitating the
remaining four to a safe standard may be economically infeasible given the current market rents.
• There are several special purpose buildings (such as grain warehouses and old factories) that are no
longer in demand.
These conditions are illustrated in photographs 102 and 116 located in Appendix B.
49 Environmental Impact Report, PCDC, 1988, pg. 8.
so Petaluma General Plan 2025 Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report, October 10, 2002, p. 4-28.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-52 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
a.3 Incompatible Uses [33031(a)(3)1"
Over time, many of the uses within the PCD have shifted, resulting in incompatible uses being located
next to one another. These incompatible uses include agricultural/industrial uses adjacent to residential
neighborhoods and commercial vehicle storage in residential neighborhoods.
The locations of these conditions are shown in Figure H-12. Examples of mixed character and
incompatible land uses can be seen in photographs 91, 139 and 159 in Appendix B.
a.4 Substandard Lots of Multiple Ownership [33031(a)(4)]s'-
Parcels of irregular form, shape, and size and fragmented ownership, in combination with environmental
restrictions on development inhibit development of parcels, suppressing the potential for reuse of the land
and higher assessed values.
Parcels of irregular shape and size are interspersed along both sides of Petaluma Boulevard North and
along East Washington Street.
The PCD also contains landlocked parcels (i.e., a parcel enclosed by other parcels without direct access to
the public right of way). In general, these parcels are located behind parcels along North Petaluma
Boulevard and abut the Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, leaving no access to a public
right-of-way. See Figure 11-12 for the locations of these parcels.
b. Economic Blighting Conditions
b.1 Depreciated Values or Impaired Investments [33031(b)(1)]53
This section documents the presence of blighting conditions described in CRL Section 3303l(b)(1) in the
PCD, including the presence of potentially hazardous or toxic materials, poor sales tax trends, obsolete
buildings and flooding.
Hazardous Materials
As discussed in Section D.3.a, hazardous materials and toxic contamination are present within the PCD.
The contamination, the unknown cost to redevelop parcels, and the safety concerns while remediating the
parcels impair the value of the 77 properties with LUFTs and 7 parcels with SLICs in the PCD.
51 The 1988 blight finding included in the PCD Report to Council that corresponds to the blighting condition of incompatible
uses is age, obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses. (CRL Section 33031(e))
52 The 1988 blight findings included in the PCD Report to Council that correspond to the blighting condition of substandard lots
of multiple ownership is the subdividing and sales of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness
and development (CRL Section 33032(b)), and the laying out of lots in disregard of the contours and other topography or
physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions (CRL Section 33032(c)).
53 The 1988 blight findings included in the PCD Report to Council that correspond to the blighting condition of depreciated
values or impaired investments is the economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty planning (CRL
Section 33032(a)), and a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment
Petaluma Community Development Commission II-53 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
M
1®'
1
�1
U
Qt
A
O
h
C
N
�U
CJ
a r C
^
., a
v
O A
emu•
�.
x
0
1 acoov
a
0
Obsolete Buildings
Faulty planning and/or obsolescent buildings continue to contribute to deterioration and disuse of
properties within the PCD. Uses in the PCD have also shifted over time, resulting in obsolete structures
and incompatible uses being located adjacent to one another, as discussed in Section D.3.a above. These
conditions contribute to depreciated values in the PCD and detract from investment potential.
While portions of the PCD have been redeveloped, numerous examples of depreciated values and
impaired investments remain within the PCD. Many of the commercial and residential structures are older
and have not been well maintained, were constructed from poor materials, or do not meet the changes in
building standards or evolving infrastructure. The age and obsolescence of many of the structures in the
PCD do not meet the modem day needs of the City of Petaluma.
Flooding
As discussed in Section B. Lb, the PCD is also subject to flooding, and residences and businesses have
been damaged by flooding in the past. Increased development in the PCD will require improvements and
channel stabilization to mitigate increased risk of flood damage.
b.2 Economic Indicators of Distressed Buildings or Lots [33031(b)(2)]'
This section documents the presence of the blighting condition economic indicators of distressed
buildings or lots, as described in CRL Section 33031(b)(2) in the PCD, including low lease rates and
vacant and underutilized lots.
Vacant and Underutilized Lots
A large number of unimproved and improved parcels in the PCD are currently underutilized, including
vacant parcels and parcels used for parking or vehicle storage. A number of these parcels contain
overgrown vegetation and/or standing water, indicating the extent of underutilization. These conditions
are documented in photographs 76, 77, 82-89, 101, 122, 141, 142, 147, 148, 152, 161, 169, 173, 182, 189,
and 191-194 located in Appendix B.
Additionally, the 2002 Petaluma Existing Conditions report identifies vacant and underutilized land
adjacent to the Highway 101 interchange at Lakeville Street, along North McDowell Boulevard and
between Highway 101, the Petaluma River and the railroad tracks 55 The locations of vacant and
underutilized parcels are indicated in Figure I1-13.
Vacant and Underutilized Buildings
As discussed in Section C.2.b, the presence of vacant and underutilized buildings represent a lack of
demand for space in a particular area. The lack of demand can occur for a number of reasons including
the age and condition of buildings in the area, the compatibility of the buildings to different uses, or
conditions in the economy or overall market. The PCD has suffered from high vacancy rates in the office
sector.
54 The 1988 blight finding included in the PCD Report to Council that corresponds to the blighting condition of economic
indicators of distressed buildings or lots is the economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse resulting from faulty planning.
(CRL Section 33032(a))
55 Petaluma General Plan 2025 Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report, October 10, 2002, pp. 4-13, 4-22 and
4-25.
Petaluma Community Development Commission I1-55 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
7
According to data gathered from a broker survey performed by Seifel Consulting, the City's office
vacancy rates for existing space are between 18 and 21 percent. When the sublease market is included the
vacancy rate jumps to 27 percent. According to brokers knowledgeable of the area, the extremely high
vacancy rates in the Redwood Business Park significantly contribute to the City's overall vacancy rate.
These rates are extremely high, particularly when compared with the vacancy rates in nearby Santa Rosa,
which has an office vacancy rate of between 9 and 15 percent.
Examples of vacant and undemtilized buildings in the PCD can be seen in Appendix B in the following
photographs: 80, 94-96, 112, 113, 126, 133, 137, 143-145, 153, 160, 179, 180, 187, and 188.
b.3 Inadequate Public Improvements [33030(c)]"
As described in Section C.3.c above, prior to 1994, inadequate public improvements was a factor of blight
under the CRL, and the PCDC made findings that the PCD exhibited this blighting condition at the time
of plan adoption in 1988. This blighting condition continues to exist in the PCD and is described as a
blighting condition.
Under current blight definitions in the CRL, the presence of inadequate public improvements cannot be
the sole reason for redevelopment. However, as described above, CRL Section 33030(c) permits
consideration of inadequate public improvements when blighting conditions exist in a project area.
Inadequate public improvements may be a contributing factor to blight, and an agency may undertake
needed public improvements to alleviate blight. To the extent they are present, inadequate public
improvements typically reflect problems that exaggerate the effects of blight.
Deteriorated and substandard public improvements and facilities, along with physical and economic
blighting conditions continue to hinder development in the PCD. Remaining deficient public
improvements within the PCD include:
Poor vehicular access, circulation deficiencies, and street conditions
Sewer system deficiencies
Storm drainage and flood control deficiencies
Poor Vehicular Access, Circulation Deficiencies and Street Conditions
Vehicular access and circulation in the PCD is substandard and results in safety hazards to drivers and
pedestrians. Collision data from 1996 to 2000 indicates that the streets with the greatest number of
collisions during that period are within the PCD. These streets are Petaluma Boulevard, Washington
Street and McDowell Boulevard. Three of the seven intersections with the greatest number of collisions
are in the PCD.` These intersections are:
• East Washington StreeUMcDowell Boulevard
• East Washington Street/Ellis Street/Kenilworth Drive
East Washington Street/Payran Street
56 The 1988 blight finding included in the PCD Report to Council that corresponds to the blighting condition of inadequate public
improvements is the existence of inadequate public improvements, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be
remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. (CRL Section 33032(d))
57 Petaluma General Plan 2025: Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges Report, Dyelt & Bhatia, October 2002,
pp. 7-28 through 7-31.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-57 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Participants at a community workshop held by the City in October 2001 identified "pedestrian hot spots"
or areas that need pedestrian improvements. Downtown Petaluma, Petaluma Boulevard and Highway 101
interchanges were identified as areas needing improvement."
Level of Service (LOS) was analyzed for Petaluma's roadways and intersections in 2001. The LOS
grading system ranges from A (free flow with little or no delay) to F (forced flow with long queues and
delays). Five of nine intersections in the City that were determined to operate at LOS of "D" or worse are
in the PCD.` These intersections are:
• Petaluma Boulevard/Corona Road
• McDowell Boulevard/Corona Road
• McDowell Boulevard/Washington Street
• Lakeville highway/Caulfield Lane
• Petaluma Boulevard/Payran Street/Magnolia Avenue
A significant portion of the PCD exhibits substandard street conditions including unpaved streets,
extensively deteriorated street pavement, missing sidewalks and curbs and inoperable, abandoned railroad
tracks. Street condition deficiencies create potential safety hazards for vehicle operators and pedestrians,
and impede vehicular access and circulation. Deteriorated or missing curbs and gutters result in pending
and flooding on street surfaces. Field reconnaissance surveys showed extensive street deficiencies
particularly along Petaluma Boulevard South at the Highway 101 Petaluma Boulevard South exit,
Rovina Lane, Hawthorne Court, Shasta Avenue, Copeland Street, Lindberg Lane, and East Court.
Field reconnaissance surveys also identified abandoned inoperable railroad tracks, which create safety
hazards for vehicle operators, along Hopper Street, Petaluma Boulevard South near Highway 101, and
Petaluma Boulevard South and South Point Boulevard.
Sewer System
According to Dean Eckerson, Engineering Manager for the City's Department of Water Resources and
Conservation Department, the wastewater treatment plant serving the whole City is in the PCD and was
built in 1937. This plant is beyond its useful life and currently experiences capacity issues. Furthermore,
portions of the PCD have no sanitary sewer service. The northeast part of the PCD around Petaluma
Boulevard North and Jesse Lane must use septic systems due to the lack of sewer service.60 In addition,
the pump stations in this area are inadequate to add additional users, and the topography is too steep for
appropriate pumping."
Parcels of vacant land on Petaluma Boulevard near the Highway 101 North Petaluma Boulevard
southbound exit also lack sewer system connections. This area's development potential is limited by the
lack of a sewer system and the cost to install sewer system connections is prohibitive.
58 Ibid., pp. 7-21 through 7-22.
591bid., pp. 7-12 through 7-14.
6
0 This area is part of the County of Sonoma, which according to the Eckerson, is the reason why the area is not part of the City's
sewer service.
41 Interview with Dean Eckerson, Engineering Manager, City of Petaluma Department of Water Resources and Conservation
Department, March 29, 2005.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-58 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
Storm Drainage and Flood Control
Substantial storm drainage issues exist in the PCD. According to Eckerson, the storm drainage systems in
the older neighborhoods tend to be inadequate and deteriorated, specifically along and around Edith Street
and Corona Road. In addition, areas of Lakeville Street experience significant drainage problems;
however, the most problematic areas of the street are viable wetlands, limiting the City's ability to install
storm drainage pipes.'
Photographic Documentation
Refer to photographs 76-78, 82-85, 87-89, 92, 93, 98, 102, 105, 106, 110, ill, 113, 116, 117, 120, 131,
141, 144, 145, 150, 156, 157, 162, 173, 181, 189, 193 and 195-203 in Appendix B for examples of public
improvement deficiencies described above, including flooding and pending, deteriorated street pavement,
lack of sidewalks and curbs and abandoned railroad tracks.
4. Conclusions for Remaining Blighting Conditions for the PCD
The PCD still suffers from several physical and economic blighting conditions. The following statutorily
defined conditions of physical and economic blight are substantial and prevalent in the PCD:
• Deficient or deteriorated buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work.
• Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings
or lots.
Incompatible uses.
Substandard lots.
• Depreciated values and impaired investments.
• Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots.
• Inadequate public improvements.
The factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of building or lots
in the PCD include hazardous materials contamination, flooding, obsolete space, earthquakes and adverse
soil conditions. These conditions contribute to the economic blighting conditions of high building
vacancies and limited reinvestment in properties.
The depreciated values or impaired investments in the PCD include hazardous materials, obsolete
buildings and flooding. The economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots in the PCD include
underutilized and vacant commercial buildings and spaces, which contribute to general economic decline
of the PCD.
The analysis of blighting conditions in the PCD indicates that these conditions are so substantial and
prevalent that they constitute physical and economic blight. Thus, redevelopment is necessary for the
PCD to reach its full potential.
6' Id.
Petaluma Community Development Commission 11-59 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
E. Overall Conclusions for Slighting Conditions
The Project Areas suffer from several physical and economic blighting conditions. The following
statutorily defined conditions of physical and economic blight hinder the Project Areas:
• Deficient or deteriorated buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work.
• Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or
lots.
• Adjacent or nearby incompatible uses.
Substandard lots or inadequately sized lots in multiple ownership.
• Depreciated values and impaired investments.
Economic indicators of distressed buildings or lots.
• Deficient public improvements, public facilities and utilities.
The Project Areas contains a substantial number of buildings that suffer from deficiencies, and a
significant percentage of these are unsafe or healthy for persons to live or work. The age and seismic
susceptibility of many buildings also contribute to unsafe building conditions.
Factors that substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots in the
Added Area include earthquake susceptibility; flooding; poor soils conditions; obsolete buildings; the
presence and/or risk of hazardous materials contamination; and limited parking, accessibility and
circulation. These conditions contribute to the economic blighting conditions of underutilized buildings
and lots and limited reinvestment in properties.
Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and prevent the economic development of
those parcels or other portions of the Project Areas constitute physical blight. Incompatible or conflicting
uses are present at several locations in the Project Areas, including agricultural and/or industrial uses
adjacent to residential neighborhoods and commercial vehicle storage in residential neighborhoods.
The presence of vacant and underutilized parcels in an urbanized area is another economic indicator of
blight. The Project Areas contain significant levels of distressed buildings or lots. These underutilized and
vacant commercial buildings and spaces indicate that the private sector on its own has been unable to
develop or redevelop the properties.
Public infrastructure and facility deficiencies, although no longer statutorily defined blighting factor, also
contribute to blight in the Project Areas. Public infrastructure deficiencies identified include poor
vehicular access and street conditions, circulation deficiencies, sewer and water system inadequacies, and
storm drainage and flood control deficiencies.
The analysis of remaining blighting conditions in the Project Areas indicates that these conditions are so
substantial and prevalent that they constitute physical and economic blight. Thus, redevelopment is
necessary for the Project Areas to reach their full potential. These blighting conditions continue to
constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community, which cannot be reversed or
alleviated without the assistance of the PCDC through the authority of the CP L.
Petaluma Community Development Commission I1-60 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
III. Redevelopment Program Description
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the Petaluma Community Development Commission's (PCDC) Redevelopment
Program, including the projects, activities and expenditures to implement the Redevelopment Program
under the Fiscal Merger. It describes how the Redevelopment Program will alleviate the blighting
conditions and summarizes the anticipated cost for the Redevelopment Program. The Redevelopment
Program is designed to meet the objectives of the CRL and the Redevelopment Plans' goals and
objectives, as well as to enable the PCDC to accelerate its Redevelopment Program throughout the two
Project Areas.
The Redevelopment Program for each Project Area will not be modified by this amendment. Each of the
Project Areas will continue to be governed by its own Redevelopment Plan with its respective
Redevelopment Program, set of redevelopment goals and objectives, and time limits. Under the proposed
Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, fiscal limits for tax increment collection and outstanding
indebtedness would be combined and the bonded indebtedness limit would be increased. While the
Redevelopment Program for each individual Redevelopment Project will not be modified as a result of
the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, this chapter synthesizes the Redevelopment Program planned
for the individual Project Areas into one combined Redevelopment Program for ease of administration
and to facilitate implementation.
Section B of this chapter discusses the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plans. Section C
describes the relationship be tween the Redevelopment Program and the alleviation of blighting
conditions. Section D describes PCDC's Non -Housing Redevelopment Program and its projects and
activities. Section D also includes summaries of deficiencies to be corrected and cost estimates of the
proposed projects and activities. Section E describes the Affordable Housing Program. (Refer to
Chapter IV for a description of the sources that may be used by PCDC to help fund the proposed projects
and activities.)
PCDC's costs of implementing the Redevelopment Program in constant 2006 dollars are S 164.7 million
for the PCDC Non -Housing Redevelopment Program and $78.4 million for the Affordable Housing
Program.t'
Since adoption of the Redevelopment Plans, PCDC has undertaken a number of projects and activities to
alleviate blight in the Project Areas. (Refer to Chapter II for a summary of projects and activities
undertaken to date in the Project Areas.) The continued presence of adverse conditions warrants
continued redevelopment activities. PCDC is currently in the process of implementing redevelopment
activities that will facilitate the development of the vacant and underutilized areas of the Project Areas
and revitalize commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods.
t PCDC Non -Housing Redevelopment Program costs of $164.7 million (constant 2006 dollars) are the available funds projected
to remain over the life of the redevelopment plans after the deduction of pass through payments to taxing entities, the
affordable housing set -aside fund, FY 2005/06 FRAF obligation, and PCDC non -housing administration costs.
'- The term 2006 dollars or constant 2006 dollars is used to indicate the present value of future dollars discounted back by
FY 20005/2006. For more information, refer to discussion on present value assumption in Section F.2 of Chapter IV.
Petaluma Community Development Commission III-1 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
The Fiscal Merger will allow PCDC to combine the financial resources of the CBD and PCD in efforts to
better implement its Redevelopment Program, which will eliminate blighting conditions in both Project
Areas. It will provide flexibility to combine and focus revenues from one Project Area on the needs of the
other Project Area and will allow PCDC to adjust that focus over time so that the community's overall
redevelopment needs can be addressed in a more efficient and effective manner. Thus, the Fiscal Merger
will accelerate the alleviation of the physical and economic blighting conditions.
B. Redevelopment Plan Goals and Objectives
The Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger will achieve the purposes of the CRL, the City's General Plan
and the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Each of the Project Areas' goals and objectives, previously
summarized in Section D of Chapter I, were established when the existing Redevelopment Plans were
adopted and amended. The goals and objectives are focused on eliminating physical and economic blight
and revitalizing the Project Areas. Together with land use regulations, such as the Central Petaluma
Specific Plan, River Enhancement Plan and Bicycle Plan, the Redevelopment Plan goals and objectives
will continue to guide the direction of all future development within the Project Areas.
C. Relationship Between the Redevelopment Program and
Alleviation of Blighting Conditions
The Redevelopment Program will continue to alleviate the blighting conditions that interfere with
revitalization of the Project Areas by improving economic conditions; stimulating private development;
improving public infrastructure, circulation, parking and facilities; and meeting PCDC's affordable
housing obligation. The Redevelopment Program meets the CRL requirement that PCDC expenditures be
linked to the elimination of blighting conditions. Portions of the Project Areas suffer from a variety of
physical and economic blighting conditions, as documented in Chapter II, that must be alleviated if these
areas are to continue their revitalization.
In general, the Redevelopment Program is designed to:
Revitalize areas that exhibit physical and economic blight.
Stimulate private investment and appropriate development.
Improve circulation, public infrastructure and public facilities.
Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate blighting
conditions.
Create affordable housing.
Petaluma Community Development Commission III-2 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006
PCDC's Redevelopment Program is organized broadly into five categories that reflect the division of tax
increment revenues into funds that can be used for any redevelopment purpose (Non -Housing
Redevelopment Program) and those specifically related to PCDC's affordable housing endeavors
(Affordable Housing Program). The order of presentation of the categories is for identification purposes
only, and is not intended to indicate the category's relative priority for implementation:
Circulation, Landscaping and Parking Improvements
• Public Facilities and Infrastructure
• Economic Development
• Building Rehabilitation
Site Preparation and Development
Affordable Housing (Refer to Section E)
Table III-1 provides a matrix summarizing the relationship between the blighting conditions described in
Chapter II and the projects and activities proposed to alleviate these conditions. Section D includes a
summary of the deficiencies to be corrected by the Redevelopment Program.
Petaluma Community Development Commission I1I-3 Report to Council
Petaluma Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger June 2006