COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 3/16/09 Petaluma Council Meeting presented by the Council Watch Team of Petaluma Tomorrow


Agenda Item:
3.A Discussion and possible Action Regarding an Appeal by Scott 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

What’s At Stake:
An existing hillside one story multi-unit building at 30 El Rose Lane to be enlarged by an additional level. There are some dental and medical offices southward along El Rose all of which are single story. Eastward down the hillside is residential. 30 El Rose is at a severe near blind corner into Hayes Lane. Enlarging by adding another story will increase the feeling that the building looms over the neighborhood and the larger size will increase traffic. The building will house orthodontic practices. There has been strong opposition from the neighborhood which has appealed the developer’s plan to the Council.

Council Comments and Votes:
Harris recused himself due to a business connection in the neighborhood. Barrett was first to comment and stated although she didn’t like the project from the start she was willing to accept it with the changes made from the original plan. Glass who had generated a meeting of the two sides at an earlier point presented a number of readings from the General Plan which could be interpreted as not allowing the project. Healy commented that it was unfortunate that infill development changed neighborhoods. Rabbitt also commented that given Petaluma’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) the City must grow with infill in neighborhoods and upward as well, that SPARC’s approval was valid and the neighborhood needed to accept this decision. Renee
commented that Glass had made some valid points; however, her work on the Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC) led her to a more favorable view of the project’s suitability and that the further improvements in traffic circulation, drainage, and parking limits were favorable changes. Torliatt checked with Attorney Danley that the Council had the authority to rule on the appeal and what a 3 to 3 tie vote would mean. Danley checked his rules and reported a tie would mean the neighborhood’s appeal would be denied. She commented on the difficulties of infill construction with particular reference to traffic and size; further, that development was a privilege not a right; that in the future neighborhoods must be included in every step of the process especially in the original project concept. The vote was 4 to 2 Glass and Torliatt voting in favor of the neighborhood’s appeal.

Analysis:
Both Barrett and Renee are serving on the DCAC which has done a thorough
job of clarifying rules and procedures that have come into practice piecemeal over time.
It is unfortunate that the shortage of funds and City Staff’s reduced work week prevents completion. The significant changes to be recommended by the DCAC may end up in a ballot measure. Rabbitt is also a member of DCAC. He and Healy are proponents of 'streamlining the process at City Hall' for development interests.
"Streamlining" can easily become an effective way of circumventing and diminishing engaged and direct public participation.

That Torliatt, Glass, Barrett and Renee who comprise the progressive majority voted in a 2 to 2 split with Barrett and Renee serving on the DCAC, suggests that any resident concerned with future development would be wise to attend the 7:00PM Council Meeting scheduled for Monday, March 30th where the recommendations of the DCAC will be presented.

Translated: Commies for Tomorrow want to destroy the character of 2 responsible Councilmembers with Marxist "Poppy Gander"...Pit Bull repectfully takes a dump on the De-Gressives Lawn.....