Petaluma board hears 10–15 year facilities master plan; community urges climate action, shade and campus safety

Petaluma City Schools trustees received an update on a draft facilities master plan that catalogs building and site assessments across the district, outlines a 10‑ to 15‑year project menu and proposes a three‑tier framework (preserve, improve, create) to help prioritize projects for bond implementation.

The master‑plan consultants from DTA presented technical findings from room‑by‑room architectural inspections, engineering reviews of HVAC, electrical and civil systems, landscape assessments and community engagement. Richard Taronis, principal with DTA, said the plan is intended to be a comprehensive road map “to pursue additional funding opportunities,” while Ted Catlin, senior project manager, described the plan as a broad menu of projects the district can phase over time. The presentation estimated the recently passed bond measures total about $220,000,000 and that the full list of master‑plan needs could exceed $800,000,000.

The consultants said the plan will include per‑project preliminary budgets, a categorization of project types (infrastructure, modernization, new construction), potential funding sources and a suggested prioritization framework. They described three priority levels: Level 1 (preserve — life‑cycle and safety needs, “warm, safe, dry”), Level 2 (improve — upgrades that increase functionality) and Level 3 (create — new facilities such as a district performing arts center). DTA said the facilities master plan will be finalized in late spring to early summer and noted that an updated master plan within five years is required for districts to participate in the state’s Proposition 2 matching grants program.

Public commenters tied the master plan to climate and campus priorities. Dan Osterman, representing the Petaluma City Schools Committee for Environmental Literacy and Climate Action, asked trustees to align the master plan with the City of Petaluma’s climate blueprint and to incorporate student internship data gathered under the Climate Action Pathways for Schools program. "I encourage the board to rigorously align the goals and outcomes of the master plan to the blueprint for climate action ratified by the city of Petaluma," Osterman said, noting 18 student interns had collected baseline energy, food services and waste data.

Wendy Jacobs, chair of ReLeaf, an urban‑forestry nonprofit, urged the district to expand shade canopy and plantings on school campuses and offered the group’s experience planting roughly 2,000 trees. Jacobs noted irrigation and watering are frequent constraints for school tree projects and said ReLeaf has partnered with Rebuilding Together Petaluma to provide hand‑watering support when needed.

Deb Fox, the city’s climate action manager, told trustees the three largest climate threats for the community are floods, fires and extreme heat and urged the district to require heat‑resilient design such as heat pumps, green infrastructure that captures rainwater and more shade on blacktops. "Heat pumps are essential," Fox said, adding that green infrastructure and shade protect students during longer and hotter heat events.

A parent, Jocelyn Martin of McNair Elementary, asked the district to prioritize secure, closed‑campus designs — gates, fencing and a single point of entry near the office — so staff can monitor arrivals and keep students away from streets during the school day. The consultants said fencing and single‑point entry work would typically be grouped into site‑specific drop‑off, safety or landscaping projects and that final design details would be decided in later project‑level design with site committees.

DTA staff described a range of commonly recommended projects: classroom modernizations (finishes, lighting, HVAC, accessibility), multi‑use room updates, gym and athletic improvements, roofing and solar upgrades, upgraded electrical service where needed for electrification, play‑yard and irrigation improvements and a district landscaping standard to increase canopy and reduce water use. The consultants reported many classroom buildings had not undergone comprehensive modernizations in roughly 20–25 years; the team used a room‑by‑room condition rating (poor/fair/good) to identify priority replacements.

On implementation, DTA emphasized that the master plan is intentionally broader than the bond implementation plan and is not a bond spending schedule. Amanda Bonovert (district staff) said the district will issue a request for qualifications/proposals for a bond program manager and expects an April 22 board resolution to begin selling the first two series of bonds, with a sale planned for June or July. She and the consultants said leveraging state grants — including potential Proposition 2 matching funds — and other funding sources will be part of how projects get prioritized.

The board adopted the meeting agenda at the start of the session by motion and voice vote. No other formal board decisions on the master plan were recorded at the meeting; the presentation was an informational work session and DTA asked trustees to provide notes and questions to staff to refine the draft.

The master plan update includes site maps and detailed appendices for each campus (architectural finishes, mechanical/electrical inventory, civil and landscape issues) and will identify which items are routine maintenance, which require capital projects and which may be candidates for grant matches. DTA said the final plan will be a living document to revisit as enrollment, funding and state programs evolve.