HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06/04/2001 (2) 'DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
41, City of Petaluma, California,
• Revised Draft,Minutes of a Regular
3 Petaluma Community.Development Commission Meeting
4
5
6
7 Monday, May 7, 2001
8 Council Chambers
9
. 10
11 The Petaluma Community Development Commission met on this date at 3:00 P.M.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
15 PRESENT: Commissioners Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien and Torliatt; Vice
16 Chair Cader=Thompson; Chair Thompson
17
18 ABSENT: None
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21
None
•
24 COMMISSION.COMMENTS
25
26 Commissioner Moynihan:
27 • Attended a Cal Ed Economic Development Symposium in Monterey in April about
28 ways cities can attract and keep revenue and jobs,
29 • Thanked Chief Building Official Bob Berne and Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty
30 for providing an update on the status of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings in
31 Petaluma. The five buildings still in need of retrofit are On schedule.
32
33 Chair Thompson:
34 • Was encouraged by Commissioners' recent efforts to work together and hoped they
35 would continue to make the meetings'positive and productive.
36
37 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
38
39 None
40 .
41 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
42
43 January 16, February 5, and April 16, 2001.
• Commissioner Torliatt noted that on the.January 16 minutes, page 1 , line 35, `per
City of Petaluma, California
Revised Draft Minutes of a Regular
Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting
Monday, May 7, 2001
Page 1
DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
1 weir foot"should be changed to `per squarefoot." •
2
3 MOTION: Commissioner Maguire moved, seconded by Moynihan,to approve the
4 minutes of January 16, February 5 and April 16, 2001 as corrected:
5
6 MOTION
7 PASSED: 7/0
8
9 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10
11 1 . Discussion and Possible Action Authorizing the. Issuance and Sale of Tax
12 Allocation Refunding Bonds Relating to the Refunding of Bonds Issued for the
13 Petaluma Community Development Project and Approving Related Documents
14 and.Authorizing Official Actions. (Marangella/Thomas)
15
16 Finance Director Bill Thomas provided,'background on the item and explained the
17 potential savings to the City.
18
19 Commissioner Torliatt stated she was,excited about the item; the timing was •
20 great. She commended City Management on their excellent work.
21
22 MOTION: Commissioner Moynihan moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt
23 Resolution 2001-005 Authorizing the Issuance and,Sale of Tax
. 24 Allocation Refunding Bonds Relating'tothe.Refunding of.Bonds
25 Issued for the Petaluma Community Development:Project and
26 Approving Related Documents and Authorizing Official'Actions.
27
28 MOTION
29 PASSED: 7/0
30
- 31 2. Award of Bid and.Authorization for'City.Manager to Sign Professional Services
32 Agreement for the Engineering and Final Design of Initial Improvements for the
33 River Enhancement Plan.
34
35 Chair Thompson recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
36
37 Mr., Marangella described,the process rthe City.undertook'to identify the best-
38 qualified firm to undertake this project. He then introduced the CSW/Stuber-
• 39 Stroeh team,'including Steve Arago, J.T. Wick, Gregg Grubin, John FitzGerald
40 and Wayne Leach.
41
42 CornmissionerTorliatt asked the name of the lead contact person for the •
43
44 Mr. Marangella replied that Dennis Rinehart would be the Project Manager. He is
45 a principal with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh. •
City of Petaluma, California
Revised Draft Minutes ofa Regular
Petaluma Community Development'Commission Meeting
Monday, May 7,2001
Page 2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Commissioner Torliatt asked if community participation sessions were planned.
3
4 Mr. Arago replied that one of CSW/[Sty's first plans was a "brainstorming
5 session" for interested citizens.
6
7 Commissioner Torliatt noted that there was.a lot of interest in the project among
8 local professionals, and hoped CSW/[Stj2 would seek out local talent.
9
10 Commissioner Moynihan thanked Mr. Marangella for answering his earlier
11 questions regarding project costs.
12
13 Mr. Marangella displayed a map of the project area. He explained that since
14 1987, the City has been actively planning to improve the corridor along the
15 Petaluma River. Numerous studies and plans have been prepared. The next step
16 in implementation of Plan is to complete the final design and
17 engineering/construction:specifications necessary for construction of several
18 segments of the plan' beginning in May 2002.
19
20 Commissioner Moynihan expressed concern about potential costs for
21 easements.
Mr. Marangella replied thatfull costs for easements and land acquisition costs
24 could not be determined until the location of path was determined.
25
26 Commissioner Moynihan noted that operation and maintenance costs for the trail
27 had not been identified, nor had funding for those costs.
28
29 Mr. Marangella agreed.
30
31 Commissioner Moynihan did not think a capital improvement project could be
32 approved without first determining the land acquisition, operation and
33 maintenance costs.
34
35 Vice ChairCader-Thompson asked Mr. Marangella if the design must be.
36 completed before grant money could be sought.
37
38 Mr. Marangella replied that it would be optimal to have a complete,design in
39 place when soliciting funds.
40
41 Vice ChairCader-Thompson thought the design was needed in order for the
42 project to move forward, and if Commission Members spent time tearing the
43 design apart, the project was not moving forward.
The following has been transcribed verbatim, as requested by the
City of Petaluma, California
Revised.Draft Minutes of a Regular
Petaluma Community,Development Commission Meeting
Monday, May 7, 2001
Page 3
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Commission: •
2
3 Commissioner Moynihan: I had asked what had initiated this project and you
4 indicated.a few things, including April 3rd of this year, where we adopted.the;Five-
5 Year Implementation Plan. Now, I have a copy of the IA, but it was "proposed" as
6 far as I know and it was in the staff packet, but we had neither a chance to
7 discuss it hereas a commission, allow public discussion or comment, nor review
8 it, and I'd like to suggest to.you there are a number of aspects of this plan which
9 don't meet with the goals of this commission, and I think, quite frankly, you look,
10 at it and you review it, there are a lot of numbers that have changed. You cited
11 some of them in your presentation today, and I noticed also, going'back to a year
12 ago, there°was another plan, which, for whatever reason, apparently didn't make
13 the formatminutes as being approved, and that was significantly different. There
14 are some large increases in funding'in the CBD project area —there's a jump of
15 $21 million, and in the larger area,the,PCD area, there's a jump.of $8 million. So
16 between these two plans, in the.time of one year, all of a sudden we have $30
17 million more? I'm unclear how the plans changed so radically on the
18 implementation.
19
20 Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment Paul Marangella:
21 There are two factors that I would like you to consider. First of all, the report to
22 Council that was before you on April 16, contained an appendix. You may recall •
23 that the attorney advised you that in order to adopt the report to Council, you had
24 to,have:a five-Year.Implementation Plan.. So that.is,an appendix to the report to
25 Council. You may recall that some members of the Council recused themselves
26 from that discussion because of a potential conflict of interest: So, when the
27 commission adopted the report to Council, they also adopted the Five-Year
28 Implementation Plan.
29
30 Commissioner Moynihan: Mr. Marangella, I'm afraid that differs from our
31 understanding. -
32
33 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: I'd like to clarify that. Wasn't that —when it was
34 the Mid-Year Budget, people did not step down...
• 35
36 Commissioner Moynihan: Weaasked for clarification because Mr. O'Brien
37 thought he'd have a conflict on the Five-Year Implementation Plan, and the
38 resolution before us was simply the Mid-Year Budget,Review.,We never voted on
39 this plan, it wasn't agendized, it didn't have public comment, and it's not adopted.
40
41 Commissioner Maguire: That's an inaccurate statement because, of course,
42 when you review the budget, it is made up of the.list of projects and the funding
43 for those, and has been reviewed by the commission. Vice Chairman, itseems to
44 me that Mr. Moynihan is not familiar with the process of how things are done
45 here yet, but this is the way it has occurred for the 6-1/2 years I've been on •
City of Petaluma, California
Revised Draft Minutes:of a'Regular
Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting
Monday, May 7, 2001
Page 4
DRAFT'' . DRAFT DRAFT
PCDC.and the City Council. There's,a voluminous amount of information, we
might not always realize what's being included'in the steps that we're taking.
3 However, it seems to me that these questions have all been asked in memo
4 form, and answered in memo form, and since I don't see that we're getting any
5 new information at this point, I'd like to just proceed...
6
7 Commissioner Moynihan: I'd like to continue...
8
9 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: Actually...
10
11 Commissioner Maguire: If Mr. Moynihan has new questions, new information,
12 I'd be happy to hear that, but if we're,going to go over ground that's been gone
13 over I'd ask him to please,restrain himself.
14
15 Vice Chair Coder-Thompson: I'd like to have very pointed questions. If you
16 have questions, ask the questions, but if we're trying to break the process down,
17 I don't want to go in that"direction, and that's the direction that you're going Mr.
18 Moynihan.
•
19
20 Commissioner Moynihan: We can ask questions only if we're going to vote for
21 a particular direction?
Vice Chair Coder-Thompson::-No, you can vote any way that you choose. But I
24 would like to hear what other Council Members have to say, because you're
25 breaking this process down. You have a direction, and I don't want to be here
26 until 8:00 answering all'of your questions. We haveagotten a lot of your questions
27 in memo form.
28
29 Commissioner Moynihan: Madame Chair, I was unsatisfied with the answers. I
30 would like to bring to correction a couple of points.
31 -
32 Vice Chair'Cader-Thompson: Mr. Moynihan, I'd like to finish, please. I
33 understand"that you're not happy witht the:questions, but you may never be
34 happy with the questions and so we're going to go'in a circle.
35
36 Commissioner Moynihan: I think I can be satisfied quite easily. Just give me a
37 chance. For example, the minutes of the meeting that we approved at the
38 beginning of this meeting for Monday, April 16, do not reflect a vote being taken
39 on the Five-Year Implementation,Plan. For it to be official, it would be in these
40 minutes. I think you seconded the motion, Mr. Maguire.
41
42 Commissioner Maguire: I don't believe that we would be voting on the Five-
43 Year separately, would we, Mr. Marangella?
Commissioner Moynihan: Yes, we would. I believe in the City of Petaluma,
City of Petaluma, California'
Revised Draft Minutes of a Regular
Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting
Monday, May 7,2001
Page 5
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 anypublic:action that's officially taken by this commission or the City Council, is
2 properly agendized,:allows for public comment, takes a vote, and is recorded in
3 the minutes. Otherwise, it is not an official action.
4
5 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson: Mr. Marangella, could you please answer these
6 questions so we can move forward?
7 •
8 Mr. Marangella: Yes. As you may recall, there were two items that were before
9 you on the 16th. One was the budget, and the commissioners recused
10 themselves on specific aspects of the budget. The other item was the CBD
11 expansion, the plan amendment and expansion, and in.•the CBD plan
12 amendment and expansion is included the Five-Year Plan: Now.the Five-Year
13 Plan is just a plan. I think Mr: Healy asked the question, "Is this carved in stone?"
14 and I said no, and I think right before you sat down, you acknowledged_ ithat was
15 satisfactory. You can always reconsider: In fact, you have before you, the 2001-
16 2002 budget. In that budget, you have the first phase of implementation ofithe
17 Five-Year Plan. As you:•work.on the budget, you're free to make,adjustments as
18 you choose. Also in the budget, you have the Five-Year Forecast, which is
19 reflecting the Five-Year lmplementation Plan. So you're completely free to make
20 amendments during the budget process..All I'm saying is that asa requirement
21 for the approval of this document, included in it was a Five-Year Implementation
22 Plan, which was approved as part of this document.
23 •.
24 Commissioner Healy: Paul, thank you for that clarification. I also:had some
25 heartburn over the characterization of what:happened here this,afternoon. When
26 it'came:up•on the 16th, if was done in a way that three of us had to step down,
27 due to conflicts of interest that have nothing to do with the Five-Year CIP. So, in
28 fairness, I think we should have a focused discussion on that as part of the
29 budget process.in the next couple of months, but we don't really need to:fight that
30 issue out tonight, or this afternoon, in order to resolve the issue.before.us.
31
32 Commissioner Torliatt:. I believe it may have not been this Council, but prior
33 Councils had adopted the implementation plan and prioritized projects and plans
34 that this City has adopted in the past, one being the River Enhancement Plan,
35 one being the Bike Plan, and that was direction to go forward to get the design
36 and engineering done=so we can implement these projects.
37
38 One-of the things that I foresee:in'this.community outreach and citizen
39 participation, is absolutely working with the property owners. We need a
40 complete buy-in from the property owners, and that's exactly where we're going
41 to have our local professionals, our average, everyday citizens who want to walk
42 on this thing when it's done,,and'the property owners who I believe, are going to
43 be in a partnership:that are going to benefit from this when they redevelop their
44 property. So I want to make that a priority when we're looking at each one of
45 these segments, that's'what's,going to happen. Because l.don't want to leave the •
Citydf Petaluma, California
Revised Draft Minutes of a Regular
Petaluma Community.Development Commission Meeting
• Monday, May 7,2001
Page 6
;DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
property owners out.
3 And my recollection is we actually went out for a..Coastal Conservancy grant to
4 the north of Washington Street to try to deal with some of this.erosion issue that
5 was occurring in theareas you were talking about, and I believe we were denied
6 that grant because we:didn't have a design! So that's why we need to move
7 forward with the design phase of this, so we;can benefit. I agree, actually, with
8 Council Member Moynihan on the maintenance issue. It's an issue we face with
9 every single project in this City, and hopefully, the economic development that's
10 going to be generated by bringing more people down here will bring more dollars
11 into our redevelopment.'agency in order to°fund maintenance. And.as we said,
12 volunteers out there want to help, and we just need to be able to plug them in.
1.3
14 Commissioner Maguire: I'm sorry to see,Mr. Moynihan, you taking this tack,
15 because after our Mayor's plea for us to try to move ahead with the City's
16 business, it does appear to me to be somewhat;counterproductive. The way it
17 comes across to me is that themew PCDC, the new City Council, has to review
18 every action that a past City Council ever did, and this was exactly what staff told
19 us at our retreat back in February was so.corrosiveto the morale of staff who, as
20 you know, work hard with very few resources,•and do a great deal with them. No
21 new PCDC has to review every single thing,that has occurred in the past, the
Plan is not written,in stone, we can review the Plan. You've had some questions
here. I thought they were fairly.cogently answered in the memo. We could
4 become victims of "paralysis by analysis." The phasing, for example, is
25 something that I understood,to be common knowledge and accepted by the
26 community at large, and you wouldn't necessarily try to build the whole thing at
27 once because, in part, it would be so prohibitively.:expensive to do it at one time
28 You would use opportunities fortonstruction when you ban afford it. As Ms.
29 ' Torliatt said, this particular project is going:to be an economic development
30 engine and San Luis Obispo is a good example of the same kind of thing. Any
31 other part of it, any other phase of it, is going to come before this body. It is not
32 taking a presumptuous approach to deal with this'part of it It doesn't preclude
33 the other parts, but it makes common sense, it's an intelligent move to take at
34 this point in time. So:I hope.-that'you would just consider those points.
35 .
36 Vice ChairCader-Thompson: I'd like to move ahead now with Public.Comment,
37 unless Commissioners Healy or O'Brien have any comments that they'd like to
38 make.
39
40 End of Verbatim Transcription
41
42 PUBLIC COMMENT
43
4 Lauren Williams, President, Petaluma Trolley, urged the Commission to save the
Water. Street:Trestle. The Petaluma Trolley Living History Railway Museum
City of Petaluma, California
Revised Draft Minutes of a Regular
• Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting
Monday, May 7, 2001
Page 7
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 would likeito be the City's non-governmental,partner in the trestle repair: Mr.
•
2 Williams described that the trestle, as part of three miles of the'historic Petaluma
3 and Santa Rosa Railroad, can qualify for Transportation Enhancement Activities
4 (TEA) Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Center (21) funds: He noted that
5 Petaluma Trolley suggested the:inclusion:of a historic'railroad:and:bridge
6 consultant.irt-the design'and construction of the Petaluma River Enhancement
7 project. He•emphasized.that:if the old railroad tracks were removed, the
8 .Petaluma Trolley would die.
9
10 Commissioner Healy asked Mr. Williams if JRP Historical Consulting Services,
11 the firm Petaluma Trolley had suggested to the City, could work with'CSW/[St]?
12 on the project.
13
14 Mr. Williams replied in:the•affirmative.
15
16 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, thought the Petaluma River Enhancement
17 'Plan a worthwhile project, adding that he would much prefer to see it move
18 forward"than to see a cross-town connector at Rainier.
19
20 Matt Connolly, Chelsea GCA Realty, also supported the Plan, hoping it would
21 extend to the Petaluma Village.Premium Outlet area. He noted that he did
22 support a cross-town connector at Rainier.
23 •
24 COMMISSION COMMENTS
25
26 Commissioner O'Brien:
27
28 • Had definite concerns regarding cost and revenues.
29
30 Commissioner Healy:
31 -
32 • Thoughtit"important to move forward with the design and engineering,for the
33 Plan.
34 • Agreed with Commissioner Torliatt this must be done before grant money
35 could be pursued.
36 • Noted he had heard some concern that the City had not "cast the net widely
37 enough" when seeking a firm to complete the design and engineering.
38 •. Thanked Mr: Williams for his information regarding the trestle.
•
39
40 Commissioner Torliatt:
41
•
42 • Stressed the importance of citizen participation and of design excellence, as
43 the City had only one shot at this." Sustainability and low maintenance were
44 of paramount importance.
45 • Spoke.to Mr. Williams about including a historical consultant in the design
City.of Petaluma, California
Revised Draft'Minutes°ofa Regular
Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting
•
Monday, May.7,2001.
Page 8
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•• plans.
• Thought it important to balance spending on streets and roads with other
3: modes of transportation.
4
5 Commissioner.Maguire:
6
7 • Was excited about the River Enhancement Plan.
8 • Noted that other'cities, erg. San Luis Obispo, had experienced great financial
9 benefits from completing similar, projects.
10 • Was confident in CSW/[St]2's ability to complete the project, urging them only
11 to be sure to "include the public:"
12
13 Commissioner Moynihan:
14
15 • Was not comfortable that the Plan provided as much "bang for the buck" as
16 other projects.
17 • Did not think.Redevelopment Agency funds should be used for the project. He
18 added that there were many other issues that should be considered before
19 proceeding with the project.
20
21 Vice Chair Cader-Thompson:
• Supported moving forward with the Plan.
24 • Described the Plan as a "vision to use the river as the gem of the community."
25 She thought design excellence should be the'focus of the project.
26 • Stressed the importance:of a low maintenance, "natural" design, and
27 encouraged citizen participation.
28 • Thanked Mr. Williams,and noted that she would like to move forward with
29 plans for the Petaluma Trolley.
30 • Noted that developers in the warehouse area needed design guidelines from
31 the City. She was concerned that funds had notbeen allocated for those
32 guidelines.
33
34 Commissioner Maguire:
35
36 • Stated that the Central Petaluma Specific Plan would provide the developers
37 in the warehouse area with design guidelines.
38 • Supporting the Plan.
39
40 MOTION: Commissioner Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt, to Adopt
41 Resolution 2001-006 Awarding Bid and Authorizing City Manager to
42 Sign Professional Services Agreement for the and
43 Final Design of Initial Improvements for the River Enhancement
Plan.
City of Petaluma, California
Revised Draft Minutes of a Regular
Petaluma Community Development Commission Meeting
Monday, May 7,2001
Page 9
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 Commissioner Healy asked if the Plan included undergrounding-of utilities.
3
4 Mr. Wick replied that it did. He added that CSW/[St]2 would work With members of
5 the,local design community on the Plan.
6
7 Commissioner Torliatt asked for regular updates on the project.
8
9 MOTION
10 PASSED: 5/1/1 (Commissioner Moynihan voting "no," Chair Thompson
11 recused)
12 .
13 ADJOURN
14
15 The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
16
17 •
18
19 E. Clark Thompson, Chair
20 ATTEST:
21
22 Claire Cooper, Recording Secretary
23 •
•
•
City of Petaluma, California
Revised Draft Minutes of a Regular
Petaluma Community,.Development Commission Meeting
Monday,May 7,2001
Page 10