COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 10/5/09 Petaluma Council Meeting presented by the Council Watch Team of Petaluma Tomorrow

In reporting, Petaluma Tomorrow may agree or disagree with the positions of any
Council member, and it is legitimate to be critical of their decisions or question their motivations on any particular issue. Nonetheless, we should all recognize and respect the commitment of time and energy they are making on our behalf.

Executive Summary:
Application for Federal Highway Improvement Grant for evaluating changes to protected left turn green light intersections was approved. Changes to the Washington “D” Street road diet failed. Rate rollback for sewage service moved to Special Meeting 10/13/09 (don’t miss this one). Revisions to Animal Regulations regarding feral cats, bee keeping and pot belly pigs approved. Findings for the use of low and moderate income housing funds were approved.

Public Comment:
Bryant Moynihan used this opportunity to accuse the City of using waste water fees for costs at Schollenberger. At a later point in the meeting City Manager Brown reported Moynihan was incorrect that charges at Schollenberger were incorrectly assessed. (It is also noteworthy that Mr. Moynihan also appeared at a recent Planning Commission to support the claims of the three Planning Commissioners not being re-appointed to the condensed Planning Commission/SPARC in his unceasing efforts to find the City at fault).

Agenda Item: 3 D. Resolution Authorizing Staff to Apply for the 2009/2010 Federal
Highway Safety Program for Two Projects: Petaluma Boulevard South Road Diet and the Petaluma Citywide Protected Left Turn Signal Upgrade (Marengo/Zimmer)

What’s at Stake:
Two individual projects costing each less than $900,000 may be submitted for this Federal Grant Program. Projects selected with accident records have best chance of approval. The intent of the left turn signals is to allow for continued left turns on a green light after the green arrow goes out, where it is deemed safe.

Council Questions/Clarifications:
Torliatt asked if there were other projects which could be covered. Answer was not with adequate accident records at this time. Harris asked if there was a record of the road diet success for North Petaluma Boulevard.
Answer was it’s too early for real measure but there have been no negative comments.
Healy commented that the left turn arrow lights passed some time ago were well received but wanted individual assessment. He favored no change on Petaluma Boulevard South. Torliatt asked when the grants would be awarded. Answer was probably within 6 months. Glass commented on the 11% drop in accidents since the arrow left turn signals were installed. Rabbitt commented on the parallel parking impact on Washington to “D” street and commented the arrow left turns were good.



Public Comment:
Linda Postenrieder of the Petaluma Downtown Assn. stated the opposition to road diet changes between Washington and “D” St.

Council Comments and Votes:
Healy supported the arrow left turn project but not the road diet. Harris agreed as did Rabbitt. Glass favored both as did Barrett. Torliatt commented the submittal deadline was October 8th and to submit and revise later.
City Manager Brown agreed.
Motion to apply for grant to review and change 26 green arrow signals by Healy seconded by Barrett passed unanimously. The road diet with option to revise later was proposed by Barrett seconded by Glass and failed 3 to 3 Harris, Healy and Rabbitt opposing.

Analysis:
Votes opposing certainly go a long way in reassuring the wishes of the Downtown Association; however, applying for the grant which if awarded would have provided the opportunity to search cooperatively for possible improvements. It was clear from the points of view of all council members that the views of the Downtown Association were important.

Agenda Item: Introduction (First Reading) of an Ordinance Amending Specified Provisions in Animal Regulations in the Petaluma Municipal Code Concerning Dangerous Animals, Feral Cats, Bees, Pot Bellied Pigs. Enforcement and Other Topics.
(Fish/Cook)

What’s at Stake:
There has been increasing public pressure to modify the procedure followed for feral cats which has usually involved euthanasia at the Animal Center. And there has also been interest in bee keeping and ownership of pot bellied pigs within city limits. This amendment will improve the treatment and reduce the population of feral cats and allow prudent bee keeping and owning two pot bellied pigs.

Council Questions Clarifications:
Harris wanted to be sure that the letter of 6/29/09 from a number of feral cat interests had been addressed. Answer was yes with stress on plans for close cooperation going forward. Renee and Rabbitt wanted to assure the bee program took into account flight paths and other safety concerns. Healy requested some language changes to cover bee swarms. Pam questioned pig vs. hog definitions as pertains to “farm animals”, concerns about enforcement where homeowners feed feral cats, the need for a specific wetlands map, and insurance coverage for the city by non-profits involved in the feral cat program.

Public Comment:
Ettamarie Peterson representing Liberty Forage and Sonoma County Forage Bee Keepers publication commented that bee hives in the city would benefit gardeners and that the revisions were sound. Jennifer Kurshner, Executive Director of Forgotten Felines, commented that she was one of the authors of the letter Harris had inquired about, that their group represented a variety of interested parties and that there was very good cooperation both with the Shelter and in developing the new legislation. John Serini, Chair of the Animal Service Committee, said that the new program will improve the feral cat program. Bill and Angelique Fry, pot bellied pig owners, expressed gratitude and comments on nomenclature for pot bellied pigs vs. farm animals. Gerald Moore of the Wetlands Alliance and David Yearsley Petaluma River Alliance stressed the need for protection of the wetlands area from feral cats.

Council Comments:
Torliatt pointed out that the Southeast bank of the river was largely in the county and favored the amendments. Renee again cautioned about feral cats in the wetlands. Healy felt that the revisions were a good balance of interests. Glass expressed mild concern that bees and pigs in the city might become a nuisance. Pam addressed the issue of having 4 vs. 2 pigs and with council input arrived at the 2 per household level. Harris stressed the importance of the insurance aspect.

Analysis:
A great deal of time was devoted to these amendments reflecting the best effort of all concerned. The plan for “capture-neuter-release” will gradually reduce the feral population. Individuals feeding feral cats will be gradually located and educated. These changes will be a step forward.

*******************************************************************

Comment: The cartoonist for the Argus Courier recently belittled the Council for addressing the above items, insinuating that they shouldn’t spend their time on them while there are larger, more pressing issues at hand. This shows an utter lack of the function and mechanics of our democracy and local government. The council is the forum for resolution of many issues, not all of which pertain to development or the economy.

Why is it noteworthy the Moynihan supports the claims of the three planning commssioners? So does most of the rest of the community. Additionally, the City Council has conceded by their actions that the three planning commissioners were correct. The City Council has now retroactively done what the planning commissioners who sued said the City Council needed to do in the first place. The majority has now gone back and "cured" what they did (Danly's words, not mine) so they can accomplish their naked power grab. What they initially did was in violation of the law. Now they have tried to fix the legal violations but the whole thing still smells to high heaven. As for the Rustad cartoon, it was right on. The council majority seems to want to be involved in every decision regarding every issue in town, large or small. Unfortunately, their refusal to delegate means our town is being run by a bunch of amateurs. Petaluma has much more pressing concerns which need to be addressed by the Council than feral cats. The council, particularly the majority who seems to be taking a head in the sand approach, would serve our community a whole lot better if they concentrated on the economy and a way to keep Petaluma's imminent bankruptcy from occuring.

Great point rosie, tying moyhinian or however you spell his name to the planning commision ordeal is just lame,and makes no sense(it was proven the council broke the law for goodness sakes). It just shows how petalmatommorrow tries to send misinformation to further their view. Doesn't petalumatommorrow have valid points to spread their views? guess not.

Regarding the Petaluma Blvd South road diet, Petaluma Tomorrow states:
"Votes opposing certainly go a long way in reassuring the wishes of the Downtown Association; however, applying for the grant which if awarded would have provided the opportunity to search cooperatively for possible improvements. It was clear from the points of view of all council members that the views of the Downtown Association were important."

In regards to the Petaluma Blvd South road diet- The idea that you can apply for a grant with one project and simply switch it later is great if it were true. It is NOT. That is why there were specific detailed projects associated with the grant application. I agree we could have searched cooperatively for possible improvements but that has to occur BEFORE the detailed grant application is completed.

As for the contention that 'all' Council members believe the views of the Downtown Association were important- how was that pulled from this??? Glass, Barrett, and Torliatt were ready and willing to ignore the Downtown Association's recommendation and more than willing to pass an item that has had, admittedly by staff, insufficient public notice. Doesn't Petaluma Tomorrow want open and transparent government?

The sad truth here is, that staff brought forward this grant application, not so much because of the merits of the project, but for the dollars to draw off to pay staff salaries. I don't blame staff, they are simply trying to survive. City Hall is withering and dying while nothing is done to seek sustainable additional revenue...

Steve Rustad's cartoons are poignant and priceless... lighten up!

By the way, the revision to the five year old animal ordinance was to satisfy a pig owner (after she was reported to the city), and feral cat advocates. You are right in stating that at some point it should have probably been dealt with... but next month we face another $2 million shortfall and either furloughs or firings... and we spent tens of thousands of dollars revising the five year old animal ordinance. Do you wonder why city employees are not happy campers???

I read that statemet David, in the PD today "we spent tens of thousands of dollars revising the five year old animal ordinance". Can you please provide some specific numbers as to how you compile that figure? Its easy to toss out numbers but its dificult to substanciate the figures.

IF, what you say is factual (and I don't think so), how about comparing those figures over what the city has spent in the trapping, housing for four days and killing cats over the past five years. Did you know that since the ordinance went into effect in 2004 that the number of cats killed in the city have gone up 41%? How much does it cost to trap, (animal control officer's time putting out and watching traps) house (food & care) for four days, (longer if its a weekend) then kill a cat and dispose of its remains?

The city will face another $2 million shortfall, but we can STILL afford to trap and kill cats at taxpayer expense, I guess we can keep the existing ordinance and get rid of another city employee .....in this case, you are lacking in wisdom.........

David, as you are aware Petaluma approved pot bellied ownership within all of limits in 1992. It was given a one year trial and then codified. The final ordinance was written by the planning dept. Those that had waged a hard fight to achieve legality within city limits apparently did not pay attention to the details. As we all know the devil is in the details. I thank you for support on the pot bellied pig issue but as I have expressed to all council members it did not go far enough and will probably have to addressed by another council in the future. The same for the TNRM program. It has good intentions but is solely contingent upon a non-profit to administer and none of the groups presently involved are willing/able to meet the demands of the ordinance. Would it not behoove the council to consider the possibility of making some modifications to guarantee it's success?

The Council has no choice but to rely on outside groups in regard to the feral cat issue as the city has no resources. In a few weeks, we are going to slash a further $2Million from an already dire budget and who shall we lay off? What is it people expect the city to do? There is a system in place to work cooperatively- I say give it a try. We can't spend another $20K at this juncture on this matter....

I'll ask again, is this revised animal ordinance not better than what we had?

Yes, we understand that the city can ill afford to handle ferals and outside groups are essential. My point is that the way this ordinance is presently written you are guaranteeing that the city will continue to spend money on disposing of them. By law it has no choice once they are taken into the shelter and are not adoptable.

And yes, the revisions are an improvement.

I am glad you also view the revisions as an improvement... they definitely are, and we will all be better served, and if all parties cooperate, the animals will be better served, and the city will not bleed money it doesn't have.

The issues of contention are, in my opinion, overblown. The idea of naming the city as additional insured is commonplace and if the local PTA or the local Little League can do it, so should a feral cat organization. In addition, the city agreed to annual reporting as opposed to quarterly reporting and at our last meeting, we added several weeks to the reporting period on the 'as-requested' basis.

Again, everyone needs to cooperate to make this work. The city has done it's due diligence in looking out for not only the animals, but the community as a whole, and the obligations we are required to follow as a governmental jurisdiction.... it's time for the feral cat advocates to work with the city and ensure the success of the ordinance. The only way... ONLY way feral cats will be killed, is that no group steps up to the plate and works with the city to ensure that doesn't happen. Compromise is NOT a dirty word, sometimes it is a requirement of doing business.

Yet, David you have not addressed MY question.
How has the city spent tens of thousands of dollars on getting this new ordnance? PLEASE break it down for me so I can understand. Then Please, explain to me, as afry refers to, how much is it going to cost the city to keep the status quo on killing cats when all the city has to do is make a few adjustments in the orninance in order to have a NONPROFIT (at no city expense) take care of the situation? AND don't think for a moment that Bob Dyer is going to stop calling animal services when he sees a cat....animal services MUST respond to a complaint and must take care of the situation. Have you done a cost/benefit analysis? I have and in the long run the city WINS BIG!

The situation can be fixed tomorrow evening IF the council listens to those who want to take care of the problem and fix the problems that prevent them from doing so.

We've had this orninance for FIVE years and it isn't working, the new one doesn't change anything. It is said that being stupid is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result (and NO, i'm not calling you stupid, that is just the saying). Just as you mentioned, if this doesn't work, in a couple years we can change it. Give a different solution a chance to work.

Michael, Feel free to give me a call to discuss this issue further. You know I respect your opinion although on this one we aren't seeing eye to eye.

As I understand it, there are four 'issues' that supposedly are so onerous as to keep a non-profit group from stepping up and fulfilling their own mission. They are- 1. definition of wetlands, 2. insurance requirements, 3. registering colonies, and 4. the city's need to review records when a complaint is brought forward (as opposed to a certified violation).

As to #1- The area where colonies can exist and where they cannot exist has to be defined and the best way to define the area is to use known streets. It cannot be ambiguous. It has to be something that can be easily enforced. The truth of the matter is, the prohibited area is much smaller in this Ordinance since there is no 1/2 mile buffer area- just the street definition. This area defines a 'sensitive area' not a wetland per se.

As to #2- The city requires insurance and it requires the city be held harmless for the actions of others. This is an universal requirement and is in conformance with city requirements and as recommended by our City Attorney and Risk Manager. I have had to get this insurance a number of times myself for fundraisers and the like and it is very inexpensive (if you have insurance, you simply add the city as additional insured) and very easy to comply with. It is not good public policy to forego this requirement.

As to #3- Any citizen of Petaluma can own and care up to 4 dogs or 6 cats by code. One stray cat that someone feeds does not constitute a 'colony'. For the city to have adequate police powers, the term nuisance must remain in the Ordinance. Nothing in this prohibits anyone from taking care of stray cats, only if you are taking care of more than 6 stray cats does the city ask that you register the colony with the non-profit and you care for the cats in accordance with the Ordinance. Why is that an issue? Isn't that the intent here- to provide for a systematic way to care for stray cats in a balanced and humane way?

As to #4- The city has loosened up the Ordinance to protect caregivers and only need records when a complaint is filed and only needs records within the pervue of the complaint, not all records. Again, City staff needs the necessary tools to enforce the intent of the Ordinance. But the Ordinance rightfully asks for responsibility from all parties concerned, including caregivers.

And lastly, this Ordinance has incurred much expense to the city through the direct work of our City Attorney, Risk Manager, Police Services, Animal Services, and the like. Three years of work, negotiation and compromise does not come cheap. As to whether it is more costly to euthanize the cats or work with a non-profit- that is a moot point. The city is not in the business of euthanizing cats and if the feral cat advocates would step up to the plate and fulfill their mission and work with the city and not against it, the cats will be saved and all will be right.

I hope that summarizes the issues and why it is imperative to move forward. No group has worked under this system so I can't believe they can definitively say it will not work. Cooperation and compromise will achieve the end result we all want, fewer abandoned cats, and humanely cared for feral cats.