COUNCIL WATCH…
A Report on Council

Notes and commentary on the 6/15/09 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: 6/15/09 Council Meeting and Council Watch: The meeting on 6/15/09 covered a number of important items including a difficult budget, the future of the Planning Commission and SPARC (perhaps the most controversial issue), banning smoking in city parks, participation in an energy independence program, agreement to oppose the Governor’s proposal to raid city road maintenance funds to solve state budget problems, as well as a number of more procedural issues. The meeting was not adjourned until 12:30 A.M.


Agenda Item: 5H, Discussion and Possible Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinances 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: Nothing less than the basis on which future development takes place in the city. A key question is whether the elected Council should cede its decision making power to appointed commissions which have had a dubious record of success (ironically recognized in the opposition to this proposal). The proposed method seeks to streamline the process but is not in total conformity with the recommendations of the council-appointed Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC).

Public Comment: Bruce Qualls, representing the interests of Regency, the proposed Target strip mall center located at the former Kenilworth Jr. High site, commented that he is concerned that the proposal appears to be one that would streamline the process but would actually delay the Regency project. He expressed his concern that new members of a newly constituted commission would be opposed to the Regency project.

Two additional speakers stated the desire to move things forward. However, they want to delay a decision for up to six months to provide for additional input from stakeholders. This included a representative of the Chamber of Commerce. Additionally He raised concerns that there would be a lack of continuity between members of the current commissions and the new commission, meetings would likely be lengthy and that the Chamber lacks the information needed to endorse the proposal. The second speaker, representing the Construction Coalition wants to involve more stakeholders.

Local architect Mary Dooley also expressed concern that the combined commission was not recommended by the DCAC and the new process provides the Council with too much discretion. She noted that members may be overburdened and that the skill sets for planning and land use decisions are different.

Finally, Dave Allman noted that no one project will solve the budget problems but believes that every bit helps. He believes that the change to one commission will, in the short term, slow things down, holding up current projects that are well into the approval process. He recommended deferring action for six months and finding a way to transition from two bodies to one commission.

Council Comments and Votes:

Councilmember Glass noted that there is agreement that the current system does not work and that there is no longer the staff available to manage keeping both SPARC and the Planning Commission active.

Councilmember Renee commented that the remaining development opportunities are infill. She noted that these require a close coordination of land use and design issues and that a combined commission can do this thoughtfully and in a streamlined manner.

Councilmember Rabbitt stated that the proposed change is a mistake and that it will not streamline the process. However while comments from others focused on the merits of the proposal, he introduced an attack on the motivations of those recommending the change. He commented that the change will be a way to streamline denials, not approvals. He further stated that current issues are not problems with the process but of problems that are added to the process and that the proposal is a way to mire down projects. Rabbitt also stated that there is a continuity issue with commission members and a question of integrity – that this would be pulling the rug out from under the volunteers who had been appointed. Additional comments included his concerns that the proposal was not fully vetted and analyzed.

Councilmember Barrett responded to the tone of the remarks by Rabbitt noting that his comment that the proposal was an attempt to “streamline denials” was disrespectful. She commented that there was no hidden issue at work. She pointed out that continuity may be valuable but can also lead to entrenchment. Her suggestion was that the proposal be allowed to go forward for a year, that members be solicited and that the success of the new commission could be revisited after a year.

Councilmember Harris commented on the need for additional vetting and input from stakeholders.

Councilmember Healy endorsed Rabbitt’s conspiracy theory, characterizing the proposal as a way to remove current commission members and replace them with ones supportive of a progressive majority on the council. He referred to it as an end run around the municipal code requiring five council votes to remove a commission member and that it has “the hallmarks of a naked power grab.” The City Attorney rebuffed Healy’s argument noting that the Council was not hostage to the rule governing the removal of a single commission member and has the power to change the structure and reconstitute a commission.

Mayor Torliatt noted that stakeholders have had significant input into the process. Further, she stated that delaying a decision on this is not the answer and that delays are what caused the current problem. She commented that this will make expectations clear and things will move more quickly because the community will know what to expect.

Councilmember Glass noted that people can’t have it both ways, calling for action on the one hand and then opposing action. In response to Healy’s comment he noted that this is an “efficiency grab, not a power grab.”

Councilmember Rabbitt commented that he does not see this as “us versus them” and that he does not want spin but to move forward. Yet he continued with his previous tone noting that work was glossed over, questioned why the issue was sent to staff instead of back to DCAC for review, and noted that there is a credibility issue.

Councilmember Renee said that division on the issue was unfortunate and that rather than working toward a solution, energy was going to opposing it. She noted that as elected officials the council must have political accountability. The proposed process allowing for development related issues to come back to council provides for the needed political accountability.

After a brief discussion concerning the terms of new members a motion to support the consolidation of Planning and SPARC into one commission was made and passed on a vote of 4 to 3 with Healy, Rabbitt and Harris in opposition.

Analysis: The discussion of this issue confirms that anything threatening the interests of developers will be characterized as a plot by a supposed monolithic progressive majority to stop all development on the one hand, and on the other that development of large retail projects are the way to solve the city’s budget problems. This ignores the fact that there are differing opinions among the “progressive majority” as noted by David Glass’s comments concerning Regency made during discussion of the budget (see next item). More importantly, it relies on an old economic model of development as the primary answer to the financial health of the city at a time when more and more evidence points out that the costs to the community may well outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, to date, neither side in this argument has been able to identify a viable model to address our new economic realities.
Additionally, this agenda item makes clear the willingness on the part of Messrs. Rabbitt and Healy to sacrifice civility in order to make a political point.


Agenda Item: 5B, Discussion and Possible Adoption of Resolutions Adopting the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Preliminary Budget for the City of Petaluma and the Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC) and Introduction and Adoption of the Ordinances Appropriating Funds for the Operation of the City of Petaluma, CA from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, To Take Effect Immediately; OR Introduction (First Reading) of Ordinances Providing for Appropriations for FY 2009-2010, Adoption of Resolution Providing Temporary Appropriations of $36.2 Million Dollars for Operations to Allow for Normal City Operations Beginning July 1, 2009 and Adoption of Resolution Providing Temporary Appropriations of $3 Million Dollars for Operations of the PCDC to Allow for Normal PCDC Operations Beginning July 1, 2009. (Brown/Haas)

What’s at Stake: The degree to which cuts in staff, especially Police and Fire, would be used to meet the City’s budget shortfall versus smaller cuts and a draw down of the City’s reserves. The proposed budget would draw down financial reserves, eliminate 10 city jobs but preserve the current staffing for Police and Fire fighters. As presented by City Manager Brown the $153,652,000 budget would be 6% below last year and General Fund expenditures at $35,578,200 would be approximately 10% less than last year. Overall this budget represents a reduction of approximately $11 million compared to last year.

Public Comment: There was a request that the City continue to contribute to the Cinnabar Theater noting the economic benefit of the performing arts (a $7 to $1 return), and the benefits of civic engagement.

Bruce Qualls of Regency commented that bringing a Target to town will help close the budget gap. He indicated that their project will bring 300 temporary construction jobs and 600 retail jobs as well as $2.2 million in property and sales taxes. Additionally, the project would reduce greenhouse gasses, be built green, and meet the general plan requirements. He further indicated that to date Regency has done everything asked of it. He stated that Regency can work together with the city but that the project must make financial sense to Regency.

Council Comments and Votes:

Mayor Torliatt asked for discussion and a straw vote on the budget. There was overall agreement that supporting the proposed budget was the least worse alternative.

Councilmember Healy indicated that the budget would still result in a $2 million dollar shortfall but that he would reluctantly support it. He wanted to make sure that people understood that the proposed budget would not be the end of cuts – there will be a need for additional cuts in the future and it is likely that the remaining city reserves will be used. Mr. Healy also used the discussion of the city’s budget woes to promote the Regency project, calling for an up or down vote on Regency so the city could get the revenues that the project anticipates will be generated.

Councilmember Barrett agreed in spirit with Healy concerning the proposed budget and noted that the city may be in a situation where it cannot continue to provide some services. She noted that this will need to be continually revisited. She also noted that there are two items where monies should be allocated now – laying “purple pipe” for recycled water during the pipe repairs currently being undertaken on Washington, and funding a prescription take-back program to keep prescription drugs out of the water supply. Both of these efforts if undertaken now would be far less costly than addressing at a future point.

Councilmember Harris indicated he would support the budget with the same reservations that others have about the use of reserves. He indicated that everything needs to remain on the table for future review and cuts as needed.

Councilmember Rabbitt indicated his discomfort with moving forward and expressed concern that there were not enough cuts being made and that an economic recovery may take longer than expected. He stated that he reluctantly supports the budget and trusts the input provided by City Manager Brown.

Councilmember Glass complimented the work of the City Manager and agreed that there are no good choices – that the budget was a choice between the bad and really bad. He stated his hopes that maybe this will be an opportunity for Petalumans to really shop locally as a way to help our local economy. He also stated his desire to see the Regency project move forward and have retail leakages closed.

Early in the discussion Mayor Torliatt expressed particular concern about outsourcing city fleet and building maintenance functions and eliminating the City Manager job as ways to reduce expenditures. She asked that these items be taken off of the table. She noted service levels as a concern with outsourcing. In response to comments by both Harris and Barrett on the need to continue to look at all options she asked that these two items be at the bottom of the cut list.

A motion to adopt the budget was brought by Glass, seconded by Barrett and unanimously approved.

Analysis: There was genuine concern and discomfort at the need to reduce staff again and the longer-term prospects for city services. There was also a continuing commitment to maintaining Public Safety. Mr. Healy using the discussion as an opportunity to promote Regency is not a surprise. However, the support from Mr. Glass on the subject is worth noting, if for no other reason than it calls into question the “progressive block” and the implied anti business/development conspiracy posed by Healy and Rabbitt during the discussion of the Planning Commission (see above).



Agenda Item: 4A,Unfinished Business – Discussion and Possible Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement with Sonoma County to Implement the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program.

What’s at Stake: Participation in the program will provide a funding mechanism for energy saving and efficiency improvements to residential and commercial properties. The program provides for payment of potentially prohibitive upfront costs over time through an assessment on the subject property. Payments are added to the property tax bill and are made with the tax payments.

Public Comment: Comment focused on support of the program and requests that it be approved so that people could move forward on projects.

Council Questions/Clarification/Comment and Vote: The issue for resolution was a concern/recommendation from the City Attorney that residential participants be required to get approval from their mortgage lender before being able to participate in the program. His concern reflects the fact that mortgage payments would be subordinate to the assessment. This would potentially result in violation of mortgage agreements. Rod Dole, Sonoma County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector, commented that the county had discussed this issue with major lenders in the area and that this was not an issue.

Motion to approve the proposal was made by Renee, seconded by Barrett and passed unanimously.


Agenda Item: 5H,Discussion and Possible Introduction (First Reading) of an Ordinance Amending Specified Provisions of Chapter 8.20, “Regulation of Smoking in Certain Public Places,” and Chapter 13.28, “Use of Public Parks,” of the Petaluma Municipal Code to Prohibit Smoking in City Parks. (Brodhun)

What’s at Stake: Making city parks smoke free. The ordinance is based on the reasonable expectation for a smoke free environment, consideration of children and large groups using the parks, and fire danger. The proposal would be applied to all parks.

Public Comment: There was almost universal support of the proposed ordinance. Within this support was an expressed concern about enforcement. A representative of the County Health Department Tobacco Education Program indicated that the City would be able to get some limited financial support. One public comment expressed the concern that the ban not become a tool to “shake down” people.

Council Clarification/Comment & Vote:

Councilmember Renee asked if the ban included parking lots and was told that they are excluded.

Councilmember Harris commented that at Putnam Plaza the problem would just migrate to the alley. Mayor Torliatt suggested that potentially the alley could be included in the ban.

Councilmember Barrett brought up the enforcement model that worked in Santa Rosa. This model is based on a practice to come down early, fast and hard on violators.

Councilmember Rabbitt noted the potential problem of enforcement. He commented that he lived across from a park and curiously mentioned that he did not mind it when, at lunch time when others were not around, someone would have lunch at a park bench, and smoke a cigarette.

After making some technical changes a motion to support the ordinance was made by Barrett, seconded by Renee and unanimously adopted by the council.

Analysis: A welcome change for families and others using our parks.

Love the off-the-wall remarks... always a fun read!

Answer me this- for a group that supposedly touts open and transparent government, why wouldn't you support sending the PC/SPARC issue back to the citizen's committee that was appointed and has a huge time and energy investment already? You really think it better to float the idea near 11 pm as a lark? Show some integrity.....

David speaks the truth. "Pravda Tomorrow" is wrong as usual.

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb, together again!