COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 7/6/09 Petaluma Council Meeting presented by the Council Watch Team of Petaluma Tomorrow

In reporting we may agree or disagree with the positions of any council member and it is legitimate to be critical of their decisions and question their motivations on any particular issue. Nonetheless, we should all recognize the commitment of time and energy they have made and respect that they are doing what we are not.


Executive Summary:
7/6/09 Council Meeting and Council Watch:
The two items of greatest controversy at the meeting both involved the consolidation of the Planning Commission with the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC).

Agenda Item: 3D, Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinances 2337, 2338, and 2339 N.C.S. Consolidating the Planning Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review
Committee into a Reconstituted Planning Commission and Updating the
Municipal Code Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and SmartCode© to Reflect the
Consolidation. (Brown)

What’s at Stake:
This is the second reading (final vote) towards combining the Planning Commission and SPARC with the goal of streamlining the project planning process in Petaluma.

Public Comment:
Jeff Mayne representing the Chamber of Commerce first stated that his previous comments were misconstrued and that the Chamber does not want to maintain the status quo. He read a letter from Onita Pelligrini (Chamber Executive Director) complimenting the city on wanting to streamline the planning process. However, the city should reconstitute the DCAC (Development Code Advisory Committee) and let them decide what should happen here. The city council should not make this decision after only three weeks of study. The city should study this issue for at least 90 days. The Chamber of Commerce opposes the actions proposed by the city council at this meeting.

Council Comments and Votes:

Councilmember Glass asked why would you want to continue down a path that has proven over and over and over again that it isn’t getting you where you want to go? We have a vision, we want to achieve things and we want to get things done. He is looking forward to the talent that has stepped forward to form a new Planning Commission. Let’s clean up the issues that we’ve had and let’s not be afraid to step forward. This is about moving forward.

Councilmember Healy stated that he would be voting against this. He is not convinced that is being done right. He alleges that this new process will delay a project in the works, which turns out to be the Deer Creek Plaza project.

Councilmember Harris stated that he would not be support this item. He believes that it was not properly vetted and adds to an already broken process.

Councilmember Rabbitt stated that every crisis at the city council revolves around development. The General Plan should solve this problem. He believes that a plan for this process should come out of the DCAC. We all want to streamline the process but our process here isn’t broken. He is not convinced that this will work.

Councilmember Barrett stated most people on both sides have said that the system as it is set up right now is not working. It’s nothing new. There is still a request to change the process, break the culture that has been working against development happening in the city, and yet reinstate the same people who have been on those two boards without making any change. Part of the culture that exists is the people on the commissions and committees. In order to break what has become a very inefficient and ineffective system, I think that we need to try something different.

The motion was made by Barrett and seconded by Glass. The motion passes 4-3 with Healy, Rabbitt and Harris in opposition.

Analysis:
Mr. Mayne in public comment first states that the desire of the Chamber of Commerce is not to maintain the status quo then he goes on to say that they actually do want to keep things as they are. His statement is pure contradiction.
Council-member Rabbitt's comments were about development in Petaluma in general and had nothing to do with the agenda item at hand.

Development in Petaluma has slowed drastically due to the glut of vacant retail, office, commercial, industrial and residential properties here, the slow economy nationwide and our very real water shortage. Development is not going to pick up here any time soon and will never be at past levels ever again. Both sides agree that the current planning process is flawed. Yet, once again, the vote on this agenda item makes clear the willingness on the part of Councilmembers Rabbitt and Healy to sacrifice civility and real representation of the public need in order to make a political point rather than implement change. A wholesale change in the makeup of the Planning Commission must be made to start to correct the problems that exist in our planning process. This is an excellent way to achieve the necessary goals. Healy, who likes to style himself a liberal or progressive, has consistently attacked the liberal majority of the council since he we re-elected.

It must be emphasized that the Development Code Advisory Committee is an ADVISORY committee. It is not a policy-making body.
The DCAC is also not required to adhere to the Brown Act. This means that DCAC meetings are not required to be publicly noticed, therefore effectively curtailing public process, opinions and involvement.
Public participation in government decision-making is a major cornerstone in a healthy Democracy.

Agenda Item: 4B, Consideration of and Possible Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Members to the Planning Commission. (Cooper)

What’s at Stake:
Decide which six of the seventeen applicants will be appointed to the new Planning Commission, who will serve terms of what length and decide the council liaison.

Public Comment:
Comments were made by Planning Commission applicants Ray Johnson (make this thing work), Terry Kosewic (fourteen and one-half years experience on SPARC and two years on Planning, this merger has been talked about for years), Erin Axlerod (recent college graduate, she has been studying contemporary urban development issues) and Melissa Abercrombie (member of numerous city commissions, active in many local issues including UGB and SMART code).

Developer Skip Sommer commented that it is a good idea to make this change.


Council Comments and Votes:

Mayor Torliatt said that this is incredible with all of the talent that we have here to choose from. We do need to have some institutional knowledge on this new commission. This commission needs members to represent the community and the community values that the council was elected to represent.

Councilmember Glass stated that he wanted a mix of old and new members with a cross-section of skills to vet issues for the city council. He then stated whom he was voting for and why. His choices are: Chris Arras (current vice-chair of Planning Commission and an attorney), Dennis Elias (SPARC member, real estate appraiser), Melissa Abercrombie (financial experience), Kirk Johansen (developer), Maryann Hurley (historic perspective and an architectural degree), and Jennifer Pierre (CEQA expert).

Councilmember Renee had asked the city to re-open the application process so that someone with landscape or hands in the dirt experience could apply. This was a very difficult process for her to create a well-rounded commission with all of the expertise available to choose from. Her votes are for Alicia Herries, Dennis Elias, Melissa Abercrombie, Chris Arras and Kirk Johansen; representing a mix of prior experience and community involvement.

Councilmember Rabbitt stated that he would maintain the status quo and that five of his votes would be for those who would still be on SPARC and the Planning Commission if this change had not been implemented. He doesn’t see these people as the reason that the process is broken. His sixth vote would be for architect Ross Jones.


Vote #1:
Harris – Arras, Burton, Ray Johnson, Kosewic, Miller, Rittenhouse
Renee – Abercrombie, Arras, Axlerod, Elias, Herries, Johansen
Rabbitt - Arras, Burton, Ray Johnson, Jones, Miller, Rittenhouse
Barrett - Abercrombie, Arras, Elias, Hurley, Johansen, Pierre,
Torliatt - Abercrombie, Arras, Elias, Hurley, Johansen, Pierre,
Glass - Abercrombie, Arras, Elias, Hurley, Johansen, Pierre
Healey - Arras, Ray Johnson, Jones, Kosewic, Miller, Rittenhouse

Melissa Abercrombie, Chris Arras, Dennis Elias, and Kirk Johansen were elected on the first ballot. There was a second vote to elect two from the five that got three votes.

Harris –Ray Johnson, Rittenhouse,
Renee –Hurley, Pierre
Rabbitt - Ray Johnson, Rittenhouse
Barrett - Hurley, Pierre
Torliatt - Hurley, Pierre
Glass - Hurley, Pierre
Healey – Miller, Rittenhouse

Hurley and Pierre were elected on the second ballot. Melissa Abercrombie, Dennis Elias, and Kirk Johansen all receive four-year terms. At their own request, Chris Arras received a one-year term and Maryanne Hurley a two-year term. Jennifer Pierre received a three-year term. Councilmember Barrett was unanimously re-appointed as council liaison.

Councilmember Healy once again called this a power grab.

Councilmember Glass finds it unfortunate that Councilmember Healy takes that out of what has transpired. This is not a power grab. It’s an efficiency grab and he (Healy) can’t see the efforts that we’re making.

Councilmember Rabbitt thinks that if it were efficiency grab that the old commission members would be re-appointed.

Mayor Torliatt is concerned with Councilmember Rabbitt’s remarks as numerous people with experience were appointed. The council appointed a developer to this committee. Ms. Pierre works with environmental review and CEQA and we need this expertise.

Analysis:
For years, the disconnect between succeeding Councils and Planning Commissions have been exploited by development interests, and sometimes city staff. Members of the Santa Rosa City Council each appoint one member to their Planning Commission at the beginning of the year. This certainly allows their Planning Commission to reflect the views of the members of their City Council and share consistency in the same goals.

Councilmember Healy calls this a power grab. Is he referring to the issue of him being on the losing side of a shift in the planning process or is he referring to the power that has existed for a long time in the Planning Commission being taken away and dispersed? Could it be both? It appears that he may be jockeying for media exposure as a prelude to running for Supervisor by pandering to those interests that prefer a malleable Planning Commission and SPARC, with Rabbitt and Harris as reliable stable hands.

Attorney Chris Arras received a unanimous vote, but the council majority elected the balance of the members. The Planning Commission should reflect the vision of the council majority and act accordingly. These people have a broad representation of skills and experiences that should serve the people of Petaluma well.

What Petaluma Tomorrow failed to mention is the fact that the Council's action was illegal and only with an after-the-fact IZO Amendment, did staff bring the action in compliance with our city Municipal Code. Due process wasn't followed. Public vetting was cut short and again, I would have thought PT would want to at least stay in line with their own mission statement. I suppose to Petaluma Tomorrow and to the Council Majority that the ends justify the means and so what if a few pieces of existing legislation get in the way. Shame on who???!!

hypocrisy at its finest! it is shameful how pet tomorrow behaves and treats folks, simply shameful.

they state -

"therefore effectively curtailing public process, opinions and involvement.
Public participation in government decision-making is a major cornerstone in a healthy Democracy. "

this entire reshuffling of the sparc/pc was done curtailing public process, opinions and involvement. they rammed it through with little to no public participation. this process was done by the "progressive majority" and was not done in a "healthy democracy" manner. pet tomorrow, you are one pathetic organization......truly great at talking out of both sides of your mouth!

d21033, it is a direct quote from the council watch report. it is part of the 3rd paragraph under analysis....read it again, it is right there, word for word...i did a cut and paste is all. they make that statement with regards to a action being taken that did not allow for proper public input, proper vetting by the public....how hypcritcal...and how pathetic. yes, i did partake in the process, very much so. i am angry and simply speechless as to why the DCAC wasn't listened to or, at a minimum, consulted and this action. i happen to agree with rabbitt, it is far from rhetoric, it is the facts. you don't like the facts, you agree with how this was processed so you are blind to the hypocrisy and call anything, any voice in opposition 'rhetoric'. it simply proves you can not view this with an open mind. if you did you would see how the handling of this was flawed and did not allow for the proper public input, proper vetting that petaluma tomorrow claims to strive for. they turn their heads to their mission statement when it works against them. truly pathetic....i have lost all respect for an organization that acts in this manner.

No one has bothered to answer the question re: where the City Att'y. was on this. If any illegal actions were done, where is his opinion on the actions?
Seems to me that Petaluma Tomorrow is reminding people that the DCAC is not an authoritative body; nor is the Chambera public-policy-makingbody.
Shrill fear I hear from the same few nutjobs....

you are so ridiculous in your postings. i posted a quote from pet tomorrow. shouldn't it apply across the board, not simply as directed to one group? i was quoting it...for any/all instances whether it be the DCAC or council...open government. the DCAC meetings were open to the public and the public can participate in full, many members from the public did partake from what i understand. the meetings were over a two year period and every single person who applied to be part of the DCAC that lives in petaluma was appointed. it was over a 20 member committee!

pet tomorrow pulls the public participation card but then ignores it when it comes to this issue and how this issue was handled....just as you are doing now. you will hoot and yell about public participation until it doesn't suite your needs just as in this case. you, just as pet tomorrow, are truly pathetic.

keep wasting your time trying to guess who i am.....and if you paid any attention at all to any of my post you would realize that i think bryant is simply out there to waste others time/money. as for jeff....he is a great guy and cares a great deal for this community and puts steps up to the plate....more than can be said about you i'm sure. i'm not him.....but, don't mind being lumped in the same sentence as he.

DCAC meetings were open to the public- perhaps only to those "in the know"- but when it comes to setting policies and ADVISING, a policy-making body needs to legally abide to the Brown Act and have publicly noticed meetings/Agendas.
The difference is that the Council's Agenda is required to be noticed publicly, the DCAC's meeting were not so required.
Anyone in support of this kind of micro-management style is not in favor of fully disclosed public participation. They operate in the shadows.
Petaluma Tomorrow seems to be shedding light on the muck you support.

they may be shedding light but there is no doubt, it is undeniable that they are behaving in a hypocritical manner and making hypocritical statements. they claim they are for open government, full public participation....until they have something they want to get through then the public doesn't need to be involved.....at least that is the case in point here! plain and simple.....

everyone here seems to be deflecting that issue!