HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2.A Late Docs 04/13/2009From: Crump, Katie
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 2:24 PM
To: - City Clerk
Subject: FW: The demise of the Planning Department
For the binder
From: Cynthia Huisman [mailto:mrsdavidh@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:38 PM
To: ptorliatt@aol.com; citymgr
Subject: The demise of the Planning Department
Dear Pam and John,
Someone doesn't have their brain turned on today to even consider firing the Planning Dept. and hiring it out.
read David Rabbit's lament in context of hard economic times in the PD. What a cop out. This is not about
hard economnic times- this is about poor department stricture.
The first HUGE ERROR is to have it as an enterprise at all!!!! Enterprise departments have no business in
public service. Planning, water, public works- they are the heart of City- not a concession at the raceway. To
think that a department has to pay for itself to exist is crazy. It's poor planning, poor thinking, and fiscally
irresponsible. You need a Senior Planner, Assistant Planner and a Planning Aide- and work up from there.
Who is working with ABAG and their Housing Requirements, especially if Petaluma is a transit hub?? Who's
working your General Plan? Who's dealing with the public for variances and appeals to the Planning
Commission? Who can discuss this stuff EXCEPT a Plamrer!!! Who else really CARES but a Planner?
If past Councils have complicated City process with over -regulation over the past 10 years then that's your
problem and you now have a chance to amend that. To toss people out of work and expect some already too -
lean departments to pick up the slack- you'll see your talent drain at an accelerated pace.
Please Pam, use your well-balanced logic and tum this awful idea into a win for the City. Dump the enterprise
concept for this vital department, staff it with the best in the department and keep this City on even keel. It will
cost less and the Council and City Manager won't look like incompetent.
The departments all need to be restructured, looked at in a new way. I don't know if you have a Management
Team of department heads, but if you don't you should. This action does not need to happen with a team that
works together.
Thanks Pam. I'll either attend the meeting or watch from home. Please look at the sum total of the structure
before you cut off a vital limb and substitute it with people who could care less about who they serve. Public
service is not for everyone.... but it is a priviliege to be a public servant.
Cynthia Huisman
1401 Capri Ave
Petaluma
From:
Crump, Katie
Sent:
Monday, April 13, 2009 2:38 PM
To:
- City Clerk
Subject:
FW: Community Development Department
For the binder
From: Kathy Miller [mailto:kmiller@beyerscostin.com]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 2:31 PM
To: citymgr
Cc: ptorliatt@aol.com; Teresa Barrett; mike4pet@aol.com; david@davidrabbitt.com; Tiffany Renee;
mthealy@sbcglobal.net; daveglass@comcast.net
Subject: Community Development Department
Dear Mr. Brown,
I probably will be unable to attend the City Council meeting tonight and so wanted to express my concerns to you
regarding the elimination of the Community Development Department. As the Chair of the Planning Commission, I have
heard from a lot of people about this proposal and most are very unhappy about it. The biggest concern I have heard
expressed is how things will be handled if the department is eliminated. People have also told me that they believe that
the elimination of the department is a political mechanism for stalling development in Petaluma. While I realize that CDD
was supposed to be an enterprise department, there has been, until recently, a moratorium on development so the whole
enterprise department idea has been completely unworkable. Given that fact, it is hardly surprising the department is in
the red. In my opinion, eliminating the department when we finally have projects in the pipeline seems shortsighted,
particularly in light of the fact that there appears to be no concrete plan for how the city is planning on handling the work
which has previously been done by the Community Development Department. Quite frankly, the lack of a plan is alarming
to me. The city derives quite a bit of revenue from development and if there is no development because we don't have
anyone to process the applications, the city will lose that revenue. I don't think we can afford to do so. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this further.
Regards,
K nttKeev, C. NILLLei
Prom:
nt:
00:
Subject:
For the binder
Crump, Katie
Monday, April 13, 2009 8:57 AM
- City Clerk
FW: Planning Dept
-----Original Message -----
From: york [mailto:ctyorlc@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 11:54 AM
To: ptorliatt@aol.com; mike4pet@aol.com; david@davidrabbitt.com; daveglass@comcast.net;
mthealy@sbcglobal.net; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com
Cc: citymgr
Subject: Planning Dept
Greetings Madam Mayor & Councilmembers-
None of us like difficult cuts that follow difficult cuts, so I wanted to start with
that acknowledgement. We all want to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die. Please indulge a
few remarks in that area; at least that's one less speaker at the Monday Council Meeting.
The proposed elimination of the City Planning Department seems troubling to the public
interest. The activity -based funding principle didn't used to seem like a problem to me;
planning is a needed service and it was funded. I understand that by that criteria it is no
longer justifiable, but I question the wisdom of that funding approach.
While staffing for public safety indeed has to consider empirical need, there is a certain
threshold of preparedness in Police and Fire services that must be maintained. When an
iergency occurs is no time to wish we were better prepared, its too late. At some level
Tanning expertise is the same. Its a shame to look backwards and wish we'd planned better or
had more information.
The proposal to outsource these services has its own weaknesses.
> Jobbing out to private enterprise is seemingly buying in to the failed privatization
policies of the previous Executive Branch administration. Private companies have their own
profit motive at heart, not necessarily the public good. We know that even the appearance of
improprieties in a potential cozy and non -transparent relationship between entities
(developers & proponents having backdoor connections with a vendor) can be unsettling. I do
recognize that paying just for the service and not for the medical and other benefits of
full time employees is attractive.
> Which public entity could we trust the priorities and agenda of if we contracted for such
services?
County Planning? Their recent performance on the
Dutra proposal and their lack of sensitivity or responsiveness to civic and citizen concerns
alike suggests not.
Santa Rosa City Planning? Their own agendas and rightful prioritizing of their
constituents' needs make me concerned for the timeliness and quality attention to detail of
what we'd get.
Cotati City Planning? Please!
If you decide to discontinue the department,would it be wise to retain one experienced
staffer to review & critique to The Council the advice we're getting?
Unfortunately that's the only thing I came up with. I don't have any magic suggestions
on bringing the budget under control in these difficult times. Therefore please know that I'm
not the kind of voter who holds any grudges next election time on these difficult issues, and
wish you all good luck on this one.
.my York
Petaluma
1