COUNCIL WATCH
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 9/21/09 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 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:
The City received an award of $75,000 from PG&E for the Energy Efficient Design of the Ellis Cheek Water Recycling Facility. Three amendments to implement the consolidation of Planning and SPARC were approved. A resolution was passed to approve hiring an Energy Efficient Consultant to help prepare the strategy for utilization of the $514,000 grant included in the American Recovery Act of 2009.

Agenda Items:

3E. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance 2344 N.C.S. Amending Provisions of Chapter 2.08 of the Petaluma Municipal Code Governing the Terms and Duties of the Planning Commission, Electing to Treat the Planning Commission as a Reconstituted Commission, Repealing Chapter 2.50 of the Petaluma Municipal Code Governing the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee to Consolidate Planning Commission and Architectural Review Responsibilities in a Single, Reconstituted Planning Commission, and Repealing Ordinance No. 2337 N.C.S. Adopted July 6, 2009.

3F. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance 2345 N.C.S. Amending Specified Sections
of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No.2300 N.C.S. to Implement Consolidation of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Responsibilities in a Single, Reconstituted Planning Commission and Repealing Ordinance No. 2338 N.C.S., Adopted July 6,2009.

3 G. Adoption (Second Reading) of Ordinance 2346 N.C.S., Amending Specified Sections of the Smartcode© Ordinance 2152 N.C.S. to Implement Consolidation of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Responsibilities in a Single, Reconstituted Planning Commission and Repealing Ordinance No. 2339 N.C.S. ,
Adopted July 6, 2009.

What’s at Stake: Passage of these three Agenda Items will finalize the consolidation of these two entities.

Council Comment and Votes:
There were no comments. Glass made the motion to pass and Barrett seconded. Motion passed 4 to 3 Harris, Healy and Rabbitt opposing.
Agenda Item: 4B. Discussion and Possible Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing a Preliminary Budget for Preparation on an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy for the Use of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds Allocated to the City of Petaluma by the U.S .Department of Energy. (Marengo/Zimmer)

What’s at Stake:
By formula Petaluma is to be granted $514.000. Obtaining authorization to expend these funds is to submit a prioritized strategy to use these funds
in a way that would establish a schedule of energy improvements while fully using block grant funds to install the improvements.

Council Questions and Comments:
Barrett wanted to know why Cities were planning to contribute 10% for countywide building retrofit. This part of the funds would benefit
all structures throughout the County. Healy referring back to a June information asked why further advance planning expenditure was needed, citing the already known needs of the Swim Center. Zimmer explained that the conditions of this project really needed a level of expertise beyond Staff capabilities and that swim facilities were excluded from this funding. Renee wanted to know if this project would coordinate with the Climate Action Plan. Zimmer explained that it would. Harris noted that the combined costs of establishing the “strategy” exceeded 10% of the grant. Zimmer advised that up to $120.000 was allowable in this grant. Rabbitt agreed with Harris and asked how this “strategy” would impact the future and wondered how the Swim Center might be included. Zimmer advised that he’d asked for inclusion of the Swim Center three times
with answers No, Yes and finally No.

Public Comment:
Phyllis Eber of the Aquatics Advisory Board commented that Energy Efficiency was a priority for them.

Council Comments and Votes:
Barrett commented that front money spent on careful planning works best. Glass commented that from the Sonoma County Transportation Board view, the %10 collection from Cities for County advance planning was primarily beneficial to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and Petaluma. Renee wanted to assure careful tracking of results. Harris wanted the consultant to be creative so as to include the Swim Center. Torliatt pointed out the boiler and other deficiencies at the Swim Center. Healy agreed for putting emphasis on the Swim Center and moved for approving the authorization. Glass seconded and all assented.

Analysis:
This project as it proceeds can bring about energy savings for the City and residents and once implemented it could lead to further grant funding.