COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 3/02/09 Petaluma Council 3/02/09 3/02/09 Petaluma Council Meeting presented by the Council Watch Team of Petaluma Tomorrow


Notes and Commentary on the March 2nd, 2009 Petaluma City Council Meeting

Agenda Item: 3. Unfinished Business

3A. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amended Cooperative
Agreement with the Sonoma County Water Agency for Funding and
Administration of the City of Petaluma Water Conservation Program Funded in
Fiscal Year 2008/2009 and 2009/2010. (Ban/Orr)

Council Comments and Votes: Adopted Unanimously by the City Council.

3B. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance 2319 N.C.S. Approving a Planned Unit
District (PUD) Amendment, Including the Unit Development Plan and
Development Standards for the Pinnacle Ridge Subdivision Project Consisting of
Eleven Single-Family Residential Units Located at 2762 ‘I’ Street, APN 019-401-019,
Project File No. 05-ZOA-0029-CR. (Moore/Borba) – Continued from the January
26, 2009 City Council Meeting.

What's at Stake: Council Members Rabbit and Glass attended a meeting with developers and neighbors on February 2, 2009. As a result of that meeting the Pinnacle Ridge developers redesigned the project, which will now go back to SPARC for review. Representatives from Pinnacle Homes gave a presentation, showing the new design, the reduced housing masses and lower height profiles of the homes. It was agreed that the final mapping of the homes would be provided to the neighbors and Pinnacle indicated that they were committed to setting up a Home Owners Association (HOA).

Council Comments and Votes: Glass stated that this is how City Hall should work for the two stakeholders. He added that process failed both sides on the way to the City Council for approval. Rabbit disagreed with Glass, stating that the process should not replicate SPARC’s process. Rabbit noted that the economy had changed, the initial design was 5 years old, and the new project is better. He stated that there were problems with the approval process and he felt that time should be spent on revenue items. Glass clarified his position, pointing out that he did not endorse convoluted or a disrupted process. Mayor Torliatt agreed that the process was not an effective one and she hopes and expects that the City avoid the same process in the future. The Ordinance was Adopted Unanimously by the City Council.

4. Discussion and Direction Regarding Submission of a Ballot Measure to the Voters
to Extend the Lifetime of the City's Urban Growth Boundary from December 31,
2018 to December 31, 2025. (Brown/Danly/Cooper/Moore)

What's at Stake: The City Manager had been asked to confirm that UGB Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would still be valid for the process of extending UGB’s lifetime to match the City’s General Plan expiration date. Extending the UGB lifetime was one of the 2009 goals identified by the City Council. The City Manager confirmed that the EIR would still be valid. The City could bring the matter to the voters during a special election in May 2009, with a cost estimated to be $90,000 to $120,000. If the City waited until the general election to be held in November 2010, the cost would range between $7,000 and $14,000. The City Manager went on to state that the matter should go before the Planning Commission, but that the City Council could choose to by pass that step.

Council Comments and Votes: Healy wanted to move forward and send the measure to the Planning Commission for review, with the goal of a November 2010 vote on an extension of the UGB only. Rabbit emphasized that he was in favor of extending the UGB, but he asked why there was a rush to act, especially in light of the City’s current budget crunch. He asked for a full accounting of the costs associated with the ballot measure and he stated that there was no funding source at this time. Barrett agreed that the City should go forward, but if it was determined that a CEQA review is triggered by the change to the UGB, the extension should be off the table because of the increase in cost. Harris commented that the City would not receive the final bills from the election until February 2011 and money could be earmarked for the ballot measure cost.
The City Manager stated that he would obtain an estimate of the costs. Renee commented that the Council had identified certain goals for 2009 and some of them would cost money.

5 A. PUBLIC HEARING

Discussion and Possible Action Regarding an Appeal by Scot Stegeman
Representing Alicia Herries and the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition of a Decision of
the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to Approve the Northbridge
Office Project located at 30 West El Rose, for an Addition to an Existing Structure,
APN 008-480-039. (Moore/Borba) – Continued from the February 2, 2009 City
Council Meeting.

What's at Stake: The Council was asked to review an appeal of SPARC’s approval of the Northbridge Office Project.

Council Questions/Clarifications: Harris recused himself from the hearing due to a conflict of interest and the City Attorney noted that the representatives for the Northbridge Office Project had raised concerns over a possible conflict of interest by Renee. The City Attorney did not feel that a conflict existed and Renee went on to read a statement to that effect.
Representatives for each side were each given 10 minutes to speak to the City Council. Representatives for the El Rose/Hayes Lane Coalition stated that the exceptions granted for this project did not meet the standards of CEQA, and that the project would jeopardize the neighborhood’s way of life. Representatives for the project noted that the project meets the General Plan’s goal of infill development; the project had gone through two approvals by SPARC, each review based on a different General Plan and four neighborhood meetings. Mike Moore and members of City Staff provided background and the basis for the decisions and approvals made to date by City Staff. Healy noted that there did appear to be existing issues with drainage for the homes near the proposed project and he asked City Staff to investigate. Barrett asked if there was adequate on site parking for staff members.

Public Comments: Sixty-one (61) public comment cards were submitted, with representatives from both sides well represented. Key areas of concern for the neighbors included increased traffic, traffic safety, the lack of a traffic study, adequate parking and drainage and sewer issues Supporters of project spoke in support of the project developers and Labor representatives spoke of the jobs the project would create. Several speakers raised issues around the entire approval process, and asked the Council to support City Staff’s recommendations. The Council voted to continue to hear public comment past 11pm, and when comments ended after midnight, the Council was polled as to whether or not they want to try and make a decision on the appeal at that late hour. Glass wanted to opportunity to regroup and stated that he did not think that good governance would be made at that late hour. Glass wanted to battle through the issue. Healy sided with Glass. Renee was willing to keep going to resolve the issues. Ultimately, it was decided that the appeal decision would be the first agenda item on at the March 16th, 2009 Council Meeting.

Analysis: It is clear that both proponents and opponents of development projects throughout the City have concerns about the current development review process. Striking a balance between the two sides is going to be difficult. The City Council will hear the recommendations of the Development Code Advisory Committee aimed at speeding up the approval process for projects meeting the development criteria in the General Plan, at the March 16th, 2009 City Council Meeting. Those recommendations have sparked great citizen concern because they would effectively allow major projects to get project approval without ever going to the City Council, and in some cases without going to the Planning Commission. Approvals would be done either administratively by city staff, or with review by SPARC or the Planning Commission. The public’s right of participation and appeal would be greatly eliminated if the Council adopts certain of the Development Code Committee’s recommendations.

The last sentence is not correct. The Development Code Advisory Committee cannot affect a citizen's right to appeal a project. The appeal process is a given. What you should be referring to is which body has final decision making authority. Nothing is meant to take away the public process, in fact the DCAC added up to 47 new steps throughout the process, front loading the process in the hopes of involving neighborhood's earlier in the timeframe.

The other piece to note is that in the past, projects went to the Council because they involved major subdivisions and/or Zoning or General Plan amendments. With a consistent General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, projects would not be required to go before Council. To require them to be heard at Council would take special legislation and change in the process not the other way around.

my question is who writes this stuff? wow, they are way off base here....yet it is presented as fact! david, you are absolutely correct. it in NOW WAY would greatly eliminate the public's right of participation, it only ADDS to the public's ability to participate. matter of fact, it adds a great deal of public participation and yes, there is always the right to appeal if need be. i sure hope the correct, responsible, proper information is being spread and not this misinformation. this is the type of stuff that gets people all fired up for all the wrong reasons.

Additional key areas of concern not mentioned in Public Comments are the application of a categorical exemption from CEQA review; areas of non compliance with zoning; and the selective interpretaion of the General Plan.

Out of curiosity... how much does it cost to file a proper appeal?

The cost of an appeal is pretty nominal- certainly doesn't come close to paying for staff time (and yeah I know, it is billed to the applicant).

Dennis- an application for categorial exemption from CEQA is what? Staff, the lead agency, determines whether the project is categorically exempt based on CEQA statutes not discretionary review. We do not have the jurisdiction to change state law ( as much as some would like to no doubt!)

Non-compliance in zoning is not allowed without a variance- again, dictated by state law, not local.

And selective interpretation of the General Plan is something we will always have. Like many 'general' documents, one side can take something out of context as much as the other side, it just comes with the territory.

All the DCAC and Roles and Responsibilities subcommittee meetings were open to the public. Very few members of the public attended any of the numerous meetings that took place. However, at one DCAC meeting, Mayor Torliatt showed up to express reservations about what was being discussed in the Roles and Responsibilities Subcommittee. She was also under the mistaken impression that the subcommittee was attempting to deprive people of the right to appeal to the City Council. She was invited to attend subcommittee meetings but never did. What this all means is that the misinformation published by Petaluma Tomorrow as fact is being fed to Petaluma Tomorrow by one or more of the committee members who don't want to streamline the development process. There was NEVER any discussion whatsoever of taking away either an applicant's right to appeal to the City Council or the right of someone opposed to a project to appeal to the City Council. Unfortunately, this is typical of the politics in Petaluma-lots of fear and misinformation designed to rally the anti-growth crowd who prefer that it be as difficult as possible to develop anything in Petaluma.

Communists for Tomorrow needs to know they will be stopped at every turn. The native Petalumans and not the Berkeley transplants will decide.....Remember Green is the new Red. The neo-Marxist Council members (I don't mean Rabbitt, Healy and Harris) will suffer at the ballot boxes if they push their propaghanda thru this Foolish Organization....Petaluma is not going to be taken by these bottom feeders on the FAR FAR Left...Till next time...

Pitbull can you explain how the remaining council members from your list are neo-Marxist?
Your comments seem inflamatory and entirely unhelpful in any useful dialogue. What exactly is their "propaganda"? It would be ridiculous to ignore environmental issues. Yes the "green-washing" has begun but unfortunately that is by folks looking to to sell,sell, sell like Dutra and Regency. Did you get their mailers? I wanted to laugh at how textbook "green" their "propaganda" is right down to the recycled paper they were printed on!

The Citizen Guide for the new General Plan states, "Social Equity: Sustainable communities must recognize and address issues of race, ethnicity, class, culture, and political power and how these issues influence decision-making practices so that certain groups are not systematically disadvantaged." The way the process is today if you have money to appeal your voice is heard, no money to appeal, you have no voice. The Planning Commission held 1 public hearing, started after 9pm, no public comment and they forwarded a recommendation to approve the Draft Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The City Council held a public hearing on the Draft Implementing Zoning Ordinance as part of the final public hearings on the Draft General Plan 2025. On May 19, 2008 the City Council adopted the General Plan 2025 and Interim Implementing Zoning Ordinance 2025.http://petaluma.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=664&meta_id=150909 The General Plan includes topics that were deferred to the Development Code. The City Council adopted the Regular Implementing Zoning Ordinance with the understanding that "The Implementing Zoning Ordinance will be in effect until the City Council adopts the new Development Code early next year. That work is well under way with the assistance of the council-appointed Development Code Advisory Committee." That work was suspended with the budget cuts and has not been completed. Is our General Plan incomplete? In the last 6 months the Planning Commission has met twice and 6 meetings were canceled due to no agendized items. Instead of a DCAC and sub-committees the Planning Commission should hold public hearings in order to complete the Development Code and send their recommendations to the City Council. Funding for staff support can come from Redevelopment Funds.

Watchdog, As the Co-Chair of the Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC) and as a professional architect, I would like to address some of your statements. The first is the General Plan is in fact complete. 100% complete, fully adopted and self-mitigating. The Zoning Ordinance is the technical document which describes in more detail the land use regulations described in general within the General Plan. It is not an opportunity for new policy that competes with the General Plan or that is of equal stature with the General Plan. It is a subservient document.
The Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) was passed concurrently with the General Plan (as is required by state law) to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the new General Plan (GP). The two documents must be internally consistent and staff added a few sections and deleted others to be sure that the IZO was a reflection of the GP.
For years, the city has operated with a Zoning Ordinance older than our prior GP that was added to and revised in a haphazard manner. The intent when we started the DCAC was to write a totally new Zoning Ordinance from scratch incorporating the Smart Code from the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area as well. The budget crisis killed this opportunity.
I agree with you that the DCAC work and that of it's subcommittees needs to be properly and thoroughly vetted in a public forum. Although the DCAC meetings were open to the public, they weren't individually noticed. I was always under the impression that whatever came forward from our committee would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Council. That is how any zoning ordinance change should take place. The work is incomplete and there are massive holes in the document and staff needs to review and recommend a document that is consistent and legally binding or the we will suffer for the next twenty years. I am not sure why there is a rush to bring a half finished product to the Council (as opposed to starting at the Planning Commission as would be the normal process).
Your comments referring to 'social equity' et al I assume refers to the work of the Roles and Responsibilities Subcommittee. This subcommittee met often and spent long hours trying to structure a process that was better for everyone, the public included. Like the other subcommittees, the work is incomplete. It should be noted that this committee added an additional +/-46 steps to an already burdensome process with the hopes of involving the public early and often, avoiding too much of an investment in a design that ultimately wasn't publicly vetted, and streamlining a circular process into something that went from point A to point B to point C. It was an attempt to increase openness and transparency. The Council heard, in my opinion, too many development proposals in the past. History has shown that good planning decisions have not been made at the Council level, only political decisions. In the past, the Council heard these proposals because most larger projects involved a Zoning Amendment (because the Zoning Ordinance was out of date), a General Plan Amendment (because the GP was 20 years old), or a Major Subdivision. At present, projects that are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and have a Mitigated Negative Declaration would not come before Council. That by no means says the project wouldn't be publicly noticed, reviewed, and vetted at the Planning Commission or SPARC level. Those are public forums and we need to have faith in our adopted processes and in those we, as a community, appoint to serve our interests. Not every decision has to be or should be made at the Council level. We are a city in debt struggling to stay above water- do we think our Council's time is best spent on micro-managing development? It's about trust in staff, trust in our boards, committees, and commissions. Some projects will always come to the Council but others may or may not. Every project has the right of appeal and no one was trying to change that.

Pitbull: "god and country" is a nice slogan... IN KANSAS. It's funny how some "Native Petalumans" are often content to live in suburban housing tracts where the "transplants" are here for the REAL character of small town Petaluma, including myself. It's called progressivism, not neo-Marxism, and it's here to stay doggie!

Did PT repost to diminish the exchange of ideas on this forum? I hope not....

Anyone interested in discussing why it is that a community such as Petaluma continues to conduct the barbaric and inhumane practice of slaughtering stray and wild cats?