COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 09/14/09 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.

Agenda Item: Unfinished Business, 4B, Report from City Clerk on Certification of Petition for Initiative to Reduce City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006. Discussion and Possible Action to: Adopt Ordinance Reducing City of Petaluma Wastewater Service Rates to Rates in Effect on January 1, 2006; or, Submit the Ordinance to the Voters Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of California Elections Code Section 1045; or, Order a Report Concerning the Initiative Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9212. (Cooper/Danly)

What’s at Stake:
Proponents of an initiative to roll back sewer rates to 2006 levels submitted a petition to the City Clerks office for certification. The City Clerk certified that the petition had the sufficient number of signatures required by the California election requirements. The Council had three options; (i) vote to adopt the initiative, without alterations; (ii) submit the initiative for the November 2010 election, or (iii) request a report from City Staff within thirty days, addressing the impact of the initiative.

Public Comment:
Jim Fitzgerald and Bryant Moynihan spoke in defense of the initiative. Mr. Fitzgerald commented that the initiative would help those who are hurting financially including the elderly and those who have recently suffered job losses. Mr. Moynihan clarified that the initiative would impact sewer fees only. He went on to state that sewer rates have doubled in five years, an increase of over twenty percent annually rather than the thirteen percent that is commonly reported. Moynihan questioned the rate structure and commented that 237 million dollars had been raised for capital expenditures related to the wastewater treatment project while the cost of the project totaled 190 million dollars. Moynihan asked for an accounting of how were the other funds were spent.

Council Comments and Votes:
The Council unanimously voted to request a report from City Staff within thirty days, addressing the impact of the initiative. Councilmember Healy asked that the report contain an analysis of the capital expenditures for the new sewer plant and the rate structure.

Agenda Item: 4-3D. Introduction (First 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 Body and Appoint New Planning Commissioners to Occupy Some or All of the Seats on the 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. (Danly)

What’s at Stake:
This is an ordinance that will amend the City’s municipal code to allow the City Council to reconstitute both the planning Commission and SPARC.

Council Comments and Votes:
Councilmember Harris stated that he would be consistent in voting No on this ordinance. He stated that the process had been convoluted and had caused a lot of angst in the community. He went on to state that he felt that an email from Planning Commissioner Chris Arras presented alternatives that had a lot of merit and should be considered. Councilmember Rabbit stated that he would also be voting No, as he did not feel that the ordinance passed the smell test and never did. Rabbit also felt that the ideas presented by Mr. Arras were worth consideration and he commented that the community wanted a streamlined process, but a thorough review. Rabbit was concerned that design review would go by the wayside. Councilmember Barrett stated that she did not feel that the Planning Commission meetings were operating at a professional or complete level and personal feelings were getting in the way of moving projects forward. Councilmember Healy asked for clarification as to whether or not the adoption of the ordinance meant that the ordinance could be used again in the future. City Attorney Danly confirmed that the ordinance was amending the municipal code and could be used to again. Healy also asked if this meant that the council would have to “re-fire” the Planning Commissioners. Danly confirmed that this was a two-step process; (i) adoption of the ordinance and (ii) appointing of new Planning Commissioners.

Agenda Item: 6A. Public Hearing to Receive Public Comment, Discussion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Possible Action to Direct Preparation of Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed East Washington Place Mixed-Use Development, Located at East Washington Street and Highway 101; APNs 007-031-001, 007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040. (Bradley/Farmer)
What’s at Stake: Council to hear public comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed East Washington Place development and decide whether or not to request the final EIR. The draft EIR had been presented to the Planning Commission on August 25th. The Planning Commission had declined to make a decision as to the adequacy of the draft EIR.

Public Comment:
A representative for Regency, the developer of the proposed East Washington Place project, made a presentation to the City Council, reminding them of the results of the 2003 Sales Tax Leakage report and that report’s identification of the East Washington site as an optimal site for retail development. He also stated that the project had been extensively reviewed for five years and was consistent with the City’s General Plan. Several speakers spoke in support of bringing a Target store to Petaluma and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce also spoke in support of the project.
Speaker’s comments specific to the draft EIR included a representative from the Plaza Shopping Center North who requested that more analysis be conducted on the Urban Decay portion of the draft EIR to specifically address the impacts on existing shopping centers and appropriate mitigation measures. It was also asked if the mixed-use designation was still appropriate for the site. Representatives from the Petaluma Aquatics Advisory Board raised concerns about the development’s impact on the Swim Center. The development plan currently will allow for existing landscaping to be removed for parking, a portion of the picnic area to be removed and the Swim Center will be surrounded on three sides by parking and traffic. Access to the Swim Center and questions about pedestrian safety were raised. It was proposed that Regency be asked to pay mitigation fees that could be used for new boilers, solar panels, and renovations to the restrooms. It was also noted that an easement to the Swim Center was sold to Regency in 2004, reducing the City’s leverage to negotiate with Regency. Additional public comment specific addressed traffic mitigation, and it was noted that the draft EIR based traffic mitigated measures on traffic relief projects that were not yet started, or not completed, including the widening of Highway 101 at the Novato narrows; the Rainer over-crossing and an access road through the fairgrounds.

Council Comments and Votes:
Councilmember Barrett commented that she would like to see an increase in both local and regional public transportation options at the site. She stated that the current access to the site would put a strangle hold of traffic on the Swim Center. Council members Barrett and Glass voiced the need for teardown or demolition bond. The Council voted unanimously to request the final EIR for the project.