HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.B 03/16/2009 Late DocumentsWMI
From: Cooper, Claire
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:26 PM
To: Crump, Katie
Cc: Padovan, Deborah
Subject: FW: Letters for Council package
Attachments: Subdivision Approval Process comments.pdf; Tree Preservation comments.pdf
From: Anthony Mills [mailto:acmillsl@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:24 PM
To: - City Clerk
Subject: Letters for Council package
Dear Ms. Cooper,
Could add these two letters to the package for the City Council for the March 16 meeting. They are for
agenda Item 4.B. under New Business (Development Code Advisory Comm.)
Thank you very much.
Anthony C. Mills, MAI, SRA
The Anthony Mills Company
7 Fourth Street, Suite 28
Petaluma, CA 94952
(707)765-6246
(707) 765-9634 (fax)
acmillslCa)msn.com
1
March 4, 2009
Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Council Members,
As a member of the Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC), I would like to
express my opposition to the plan recommended by the DCAC that proposes a new
approval process for major subdivisions in the city. This plan marginalizes the role and
participation of the neighborhood residents, excludes the community's elected
representatives (City Council) altogether, and gives far too much authority and control
over the process to SPARC and the Planning Commission. This plan will result in a
system that becomes more controversial and contentious, and will provoke greater
divergence between its participants.
The Plan
The proposed plan calls for a meeting with the owner/developer and the affected
neighborhood prior to an actual application being submitted to the city. The purpose of
the meeting is to discuss general ideas and concepts about the proposed subdivision
and address concerns. Because this meeting is required to take place prior to
application, the residents will not have the opportunity to review and consider the actual
application or the documents contained in the application package. There is no standard
for what documentation is to be presented at this meeting or what changes may be
made to the plan after the meeting but before filing of the application. Nor is there any
requirement for a timeline of when the application must be submitted after the meeting
takes place.
After the application is received, SPARC and the Planning Commission will govern the
process, and have the authority to grant all levels of approval (tentative maps, vesting
tentative maps, and final maps). The role of the City Council will be limited to
overseeing any appeals to the final approval. Consequently, a citizen of Petaluma will
be required to file forms and pay a fee in order to have their elected representatives
participate in the approval of a major development project in this city. This sets a very
low precedent for democratic government.
Expertise
One of the reasons given for excluding the City Council from the process was that the
members of the Council did not have expertise to adequately assess the quality of
proposed projects.
It is very common for City Council members to have previously served on SPARC and/or
the Planning Commission. I believe that five of the seven members currently sitting on
the Council have such experience. This makes them especially qualified to assess
major development, as well as overseeing the activities of both committees.
The election and installation of the Council members is clear indication that the public
feels they are qualified to administer over the most important matters of city government.
These include finances and budgeting, the construction of waste water treatment
facilities, civil litigation, housing, the creation of the General Plan, etc; as well as the
supervision of all city departments and advisory committees including law enforcement,
fire protection, public works, the Community Development Department, SPARC, and the
Planning Commission. The members of the City Council are capable of understanding
subdivision maps, the General Plan, the zoning code, visual analyses, EIRs, and FEIAs.
They are also proficient to inspect project sites, make necessary observations, and listen
to the concerns of the community. Based on the wide range of their experience,
responsibilities and capabilities, and the judgment of the voters of Petaluma, it is
apparent that the members of the City Council certainly do have the expertise to preside
over the approval of major development.
The decision to approve major development projects encompasses far more than just
code conformity and building and site design. These are the technical aspects of the
review and approval process; and the skills and function of staff, SPARC, and the
Planning Commission are best suited to address these subjects. The role of the City
Council is to consider the larger issues that result from major development. These
concern the economic gains versus costs to the city, its impact on homes and
businesses, the environment and natural resources, demands on community services
and infrastructure, and "quality of life" questions. It is also the duty of the City Council to
prioritize development projects to assess which best meet the goals of the city and
provide the greatest contribution. These matters are beyond the scope, function, and
expertise of SPARC and the Planning Commission. Accordingly, it takes both technical
analysis and the broader perspective to properly and completely evaluate the approval
of major development. A procedure that relies on only one is entirely inadequate and
will result in faulty and misguided decisions.
With the election of the Council comes a valuable and sacred public trust. This trust
holds that each member of the Council will insure that city government operates properly
and fairly, and that all major decisions are made in the best interest of the community.
Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the City Council to oversee the operation of all
subordinate city departments and committees (including CDD, SPARC and the Planning
Commission), and to personally address the most important and controversial issues
that affect this city. Because of its long-term economic and social impact, and the
permanence of its improvements, major development is certainly one of those issues.
The members of the Council should never abdicate that responsibility and public trust to
anyone else. Therefore, it is important that the City Council continue to oversee the
approval process and the actions of those participating subordinate departments and
committees; and should be the only body of local government that has the power to
grant approval to tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, and final maps.
Politics
The other reason given for eliminating the City Council from the approval process was
attributed to "politics' and the opinion that City Council decisions were "too political'.
It is difficult to acknowledge or accept complaints and accusations of "politics" occurring
in a democratic process. It is inherent in this system that participants will have opposing
positions and philosophies, there will be argument and dispute, and the final result will
be unsatisfactory to some. Those who concur with the decisions will typically consider
them "correct' or "just', while those who differ will seek an explanation for the outcome
that implies insincerity and ulterior motives. Allegations of "politics" and partiality
become easy and non-specific criticisms used by factions who oppose the conclusions
derived through the due process of democratic governments - including the Petaluma
City Council.
The persons who serve on SPARC and the Planning Commission are only human.
They are as capable of bias, subjectivity, and having personal agendas as anyone.
They can be dishonest, incompetent, or influenced by outside pressure as could a
member of the City Council. SPARC and Planning Commission panelists often have
professional affiliations with the building industry (architects, planners, engineers, and
contractors); which can create conflicts of interest. Further, these panelists are
appointed to their positions rather than elected. Consequently, the public has no
recourse to remove members they feel are reckless or irresponsible. These factors
could become a serious concern to those who may question the conduct and judgment
of both committees or take exception to their decisions.
Therefore, there is no reason to expect that giving full authority over the approval
process to SPARC and the Planning Commission will produce results that are any more
objective or wholesome than those of the City Council; or that the community will be any
more accepting of their final decisions. There will still be those who agree or disagree
with their conclusions; and will view their work as either fair or disingenuous. Changing
the venue of the approval system will do nothing to alter these perspectives or make the
process any less "political".
Conseauences of The Plan
The residents of neighborhoods where new major subdivisions are planned are rarely
ambivalent towards the proposed development. Their homes and lives are directly
affected, and they rightfully have serious concerns about what the impacts will be.
When these citizens feel their voices are not heard and their input is ignored they
organize and get involved, and the process frequently becomes antagonistic and
divisive. The organization may go as far as the creation of activist groups (e.g. EI Rose -
Hayes Lane Coalition), and include the utilization of outside consultants.
The proposed approval process plan creates a situation that is far more likely to result in
this type of conflict. It minimizes the participation of the neighborhood to a non -
structured pre -application meeting and "public comment" at SPARC and Planning
Commission hearings. The community cannot seek the representation or contribution of
their City Council until after the process is complete. Essentially, the directive to the
public is "If you don't like it, you can file an appeal". Under this policy, an appeal may
become the most effective and preferred method to obtain satisfactory public
representation and participation, and it will be used with far greater regularity.
These policies can only result in persons becoming more aggravated and entrenched.
There will be more organization of neighborhood action groups, involvement of outside
professionals, threats of lawsuits, etc.; and appeals are likely to become standard
procedure. Frustrated citizens won't go away; they will just pursue their objective under
adversarial conditions. The community should not be forced to go to such extremes to
make sure their interests are being considered.
A controversial and contentious approval process will only lead to more delays and risks
for the applicant. It will discourage confidence in the approval system, have an adverse
impact the applicant's ability to achieve a profitable return, and diminish their enthusiasm
3
for pursuing projects in this city. Petaluma needs to adopt a procedure that will minimize
the potential for these problems - not increase it.
Recommendation
Major development of both residential and commercial property is an important part of
the future economic and communal strength of Petaluma. The beginning of a new
growth cycle in the real estate market and the completion of the Economic Development
Strategy plan may coincide within the next two years. In order to maximize the gains of
this phase of Petaluma's progress, the city must have an approval process that is
efficient and productive, and makes the construction of new facilities profitable for the
applicant. To do so, it must reduce the likelihood of controversy and delays along the
way, and decrease the need to challenge final decisions.
The approval procedure should devote far more time, energy, and patience at the
beginning of the process (after an actual application is submitted) to insure that all
participating parties including the applicant, the neighborhood, city departments and
committees, and the City Council, are allowed adequate input and dialog to address their
needs and concerns. This will help to provide the applicant with a clear illustration of
what would be most acceptable to the community and city government, and provide
some reassurance that subsequent major design alterations will not be required. It will
decrease the probability of conflicts and setbacks during the later phases of the process,
and increase the likelihood that projects will gain approval when placed before the City
Council.
I urge you to reject the proposal from the DCAC; and adopt a directive for the creation of
a system that offers better and timelier representation to all involved, and insures that
the City Council remains the only body of government that has the power to grant
approval for tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, and final maps.
Thank you very much for considering my comments, and thank you for your service to
the city.
Anthony Mills
40 Astoria Circle
Petaluma
acmills1 ()msn.com
El
March 4, 2009
Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Council Members,
As a member of the Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC), I am
encouraging you to support the recommendation of the DCAC to alter the
existing Tree Preservation ordinance (IZO Chapter 17). The proposed alteration
is the deletion of Exception "A" (under 17.030 Exceptions). The deletion of this
exception will allow the ordinance to function in a manner that is consistent with
its stated purpose and intent, the goals of the General Plan, and the long
established effort by the City of Petaluma to protect its valuable native trees.
The list of "protected" trees is very short. It is limited to only four species (Oaks,
Redwoods, Bays and Buckeyes); and trees that are subject to special
circumstances (riparian corridors, landmark trees, etc.). The trees must be
mature and four to 18 inches in diameter (depending upon species) in order to
qualify for protection. Consequently, these protected trees account for only a
minute portion of the total inventory of trees that exist in this city. They are
worthy of protection because they are native to the area, provide natural habitats
and environmental benefits; and for the reasons noted in the General Plan under
Goal 1-G-7: Trees and the Built Environment "Recognize that trees are a
community asset, an essential element in the interface between the natural and
built environment, and part of the urban infrastructure" (Page 1-22). This goal
furthers states under Policies and Programs: 1-P-49 "Preserve existing tree
resources and add to the inventory and diversity of native/indigenous species"
(Page 1-22).
Exception "A" states: "(protected) Tree removal not related to discretionary
development applications or other development permits" is exempt from the
ordinance. This essentially means that the ordinance only applies to those
"protected" trees situated on parcels where a building permit has been issued
that specifically stipulates tree preservation as a condition of the permit. The
Tree Subcommittee was not able to conduct an accurate or scientific study to
assess how many parcels this accounted for. However, a qualitative deliberation
by the subcommittee estimated that certainly less than 10% of the parcels in
Petaluma that had these trees on them were subject to such permits and the
preservation ordinance. This means that at least 90% of the inventory of trees
designated for protection remains exempt.
The Tree Preservation ordinance cannot possibly fulfill its purpose or function if
90% of the trees it seeks to protect are exempt from its regulations. This
exemption completely undermines the intent of the ordinance and the goal
contained in the General Plan. Consequently, the ordinance is wholly
dysfunctional in its current form and must be corrected. To leave the ordinance
unchanged would be to perpetuate this error indefinitely and deny the community
1
of the benefits it is intended to provide. The Tree Preservation ordinance will
never be effective or useful if it continues to exempt the overwhelming majority of
the very trees it is designed to protect.
No other changes to the ordinance are necessary. The remaining exemptions
are very appropriate and allow for emergency situations, the safety of public and
private property, traffic visibility, and potential damage to public utilities. The
ordinance has measures for mitigation in the event a protected tree is to be
removed under non-exempt situations. Therefore, the only alteration that was
recommended was the removal of Exemption A.
One of the main functions of the Development Code is to make the zoning code
consistent with the goals of the General Plan. Considering the intent of Goal 1-
G-7 and Policies and Programs 1-P-49, this proposal is a perfect example of that
objective.
Without the deletion of this exemption, Petaluma's Tree Preservation ordinance
will remain a very admirable goal supported by comprehensive regulation that
exists only on paper and is never put into genuine practice.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Anthony Mills
40 Astoria Circle
Petaluma
acmills1@msn.com
From: Dan Hughes [dan@dvcgroup.net]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:57 AM
To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net;
mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com
Cc: - City Clerk; citymgr; Moore, Mike; White, George; 'A George Beeler'; 'Anthony C. Mills'; 'Bill
Rinehart; 'Brent Russell'; 'Chip Rees'; 'Chris Arras', 'Chris Lynch'; 'Dan Hughes'; 'Dave Alden';
'David Rabbitt';'Dennis Elias'; 'Elizabeth Emery Mori'; 'Harry Clifford'; 'John Fitzgerald';'Karren
Bell Newman'; 'Kathy Miller'; 'Larry Reed'; 'Margaret Kent'; 'Marianne Hurley'; 'Pamela
Asselmeier'; 'Steven Kirk'; 'Teresa Barrett'; 'Tiffany Renee'; 'John Mills'; 'Ray Johnson'; 'Terry
Kosewic'; 'Bill Wolpert'; 'Marianne Hurley'; 'Jack Rittenhouse'; 'Spence Burton';
tanyasullivan@comcast.net; will@athleta.com
Subject: Agendized Item 46 - Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC)
Good morning Petaluma City Council members. I am unsure if I am going to be able to attend tonight's Council meeting,
therefore I am writing to let you know my thoughts/concerns regarding item 4B that is agendized to go before you
tonight, the Development Code Agenda Bill. As a member of the DCAC and several of the DCAC subcommittees, I felt it
important to weigh in.
I have reviewed the Agenda Bill and cannot seem to find where the recommendations made by the overall Development
Code Advisory Committee are presented. During the last meeting, several recommendations were made and were to be
presented as recommendations (so I understood) to the Council. Several items were not unanimous so votes were
taken to arrive at a majority decision. The one example that comes to mind is with regard to the Roles & Responsibility
Subcommittee processing for major subdivisions. It was thoroughly discussed whether Planning Commission was to be a
decision making body or a recommending body to the Council. This was discussed as part of the Roles & Responsibility
(R&R) subcommittee meetings as well as part of the overall DCAC meeting. A vote was taken as part of both the R&R
and the DCAC level and the vote at both groups was that Planning Commission was to be a decision making body only
and items can go to Council by appeal. Again, this was not unanimous (thus the vote was necessary) but the majority
felt that Planning Commission should be a recommending body, NOT a decision making body. I feel this item, along with
other recommendations made by the DCAC, are very important and should be considered during this process. It is quite
possible they are included in the Agenda Bill and I have simply missed them (if this is the case please point them out to
me).
Lastly, I am not sure how the work done by the DCAC is to be processed (I'm not certain if anyone knows) but I do think
it is very important that whatever process this information is put through, it is allowed to go through a open public
process (including workshops and/or multiple publics hearings if necessary ) and is thoroughly vetted by the public. A
great number of people, property owners, business owners, etc., are going to be impacted by the
findings/recommendations coming as part of this agenda bill. These parties need to be made aware of this bill and need
to be given the chance to review and comment/respond if they fit to do so. My recommendation is that the findings are
presented at public workshops and Planning Commissions so the public has opportunities to review, comment, weigh in
and be part of the decision making process.
My apologies for my long winded email. Thank you for your time.
DQLL pTLL pA,_- i , �
DVC Group, Inc.
Planning -Project Management -Engineering
1939 Primrose Dr.
Petaluma, CA 94954
Office 787-775-8986
Fax 787-894-9569
www.dvcgroup.net
From: Shelley Campbell [sunsoup@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:30 AM
To: larichardson2@comcast.net; christobalfamily@gmail.com; 'Christine Orlando'
Cc: - City Clerk
Subject: FW: Petaluma City Council considers role of public in approving major projects
Please forward. Thanks!
Letters may be sent in care of: citvclerkialci.uetaluma.ca.us .
From: David Keller [mailto:dkellerl@sonic.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Petaluma Tomorrow
Subject: Petaluma City Council considers role of public in approving major projects
Dear friends:
Do you think that large development projects like Regency, Basin Street, Deer Creek, Target or Lowes should
be able to receive final project approvals without holding full hearings at the City Council? Do you think that
major subdivisions (5 units or more) should likewise not have to come to the City Council before final
approvals? We have a choice.
If you think that the public and the Council should, and must, have a clear and effective role in the evaluation
and approvals process for major developments, individually and cumulatively, you need to be at City Hall
Monday nite (tomorrow!) and speak up. Staff and the development community (including the Argus publisher,
the Chamber of Commerce leadership, and their allies) want to 'streamline' the public right out of this
process. Staff is happy to recommend that only the Planning Commission, or in many cases, only the SPARC
(Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee) - all unelected - need review a project before final approvals.
Staff even lays out conditions that shows that some of these huge projects meet staff analysis consistent with
this reasoning, the projects could be decided entirely by staff. The "Roles and Responsibilities" Subcommittee
did not reach a consensus on how to proceed.
Under their scheme, the only way you'd get a public hearing on one of these huge projects is to appeal the
decision made at a lower level - along with ponying up the money for the appeal, and being willing to battle the
appeal in front of the Council with legal assistance to make sure you address the very points of the appeal, and
being willing to be pushed back by the developer's attorneys who will demand that the appeal only cover
specific contended items with evidence and analysis. Having fun yet? Is this what we want for Petaluma's
government oversight on projects that can, and will by their very nature, have large impacts on the city at large
and on specific neighborhoods or competing businesses?
Projects, under their 'development by right' theory, can receive final approvals without the City Council holding
public hearings and discussions, if:
- they are deemed (by staff) to be in conformity with the General Plan, and,
- they are deemed to be in conformity with the (new) Development Code (including zoning, subdivision and
other related regulations), and,
- they are not requesting any legal map changes, and the project doesn't "require" any 'overriding considerations'
Diane Reilly Torres sent along a link below to this fabulous clip from last fall's candidate debate, asking just
this very question. Listen carefully to Dave Glass, Tiffany Renee, (Spence Burton) and Mile Healy answering
this question. Healy lakes his usual legalistic and technocratic stance, ie, everything will be just fine if we
follow the law...
Dave and Tiffany are definitive in insisting that the public and council shall not, and cannot be cut out of this
for the sake of Petaluma's firture,
litti):H\"vw.vouttibe.com/watch?v=iAuHmfNbMiM
As I've noted last week, "development by right" is the theory of planning that the old boys and developers want
desperately. It cuts you and the Council out of any meaningful dialogue, conversation, creativity or responses.
While it is compliant with CEQA (thus, the infuriating non -answer by Healy), but is NOT good public policy.
It's only one way of getting compliance with the law. There are certainly other ways of complying with CEQA
that don't cut the public out of the picture, but that's not what Healy, or Rabbitt or ??Harris?? or the developers
or planning staff want.
Be careful then, when Healy, Rabbitt, Planning Director Mike Moore, City Attorney Eric Danley and others say
that their policies "will comply with the law." So does the manufacturing of CheezePufs and semi-automatic
weapons and so does the minimum wage. But does that express our Petaluma community values? Does that
express how we want to grow our city? Does that express the full utilization of the community's creativity and
care?
This is not a "NIMBY" issue. It is about how we fashion our city's future, who does it, whether it is done
substantially in private in meetings with staff, and what happens to creativity and integration of a project with
our city and neighborhoods.
Tell the City Council that fort ivant the citizens of our city to be not just alloived to participate in large
decisions, but INVITED into areal, honest, transparent, responsive and meaningful approvals process. We
should insist that any and all major projects, major subdivisions, and any and all projects that are controversial
or complex must be reviewed in public, and with the public's active participation, by the City Council prior to
final approvals.
See you tomorrow nite.
David
This item is the last one on the city council's agenda, 94B: Development Code Advisory Committee
Recommendations. It is 43 pages.
httu://netalwna.aranicus.com/MotaViewer.Dlm?view id=3&event id=28&meta id=175153
This meeting also earlier will include decisionmaking on an appeal on the 30 EI Rose dental office expansion
project - and perhaps most importantly, a miserable staff process! -that has been the bane of the neighborhood.
Do you think development projects like Regency, Basin Street, Target or Lowe's should be able to receive
project approval without holding full hearings at City Council?
Tomorrow night (last item on agenda) the City Council will vote on this. To hear how 3 Council members
answered this question click here
litti):HN,v-NvNv.votitube.com/watcli?v=iALillmfNbN/IiM
Diane Reilly Torres
From: Bill Rinehart [brinehart@carlilemacy.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:41 AM
To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net;
mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com
Cc: - City Clerk; citymgr; Moore, Mike; White, George
Subject: Item 4B - Please complete the Development Code
Dear Mayor and Councilmmbers,
With all of the tough budgetary decisions you are being forced to make, I suggest that completion of the new development
code is one that could provide tremendous payback. Though the implementing zoning ordinance adapted the old code to
support the new General Plan, it falls far short of implementing the vision that went into the general plan. The framework
has been developed through the work of Community Development staff and the Development Code Advisory Committee,
but it definitely needs to be assembled, codified, and polished. This is critical to the future economic development in
Petaluma. If it gets put on a shelf, much of the general plan's vision will be overlooked, the work to date will be lost, and
application processing will continue to be frustrating for the C.D. Staff, applicants, and for Petalumans at large. The
DCAC has made several recommendations that will facilitate a more public and transparent process, while providing
applicants with detailed direction to meet the general plan goals and policies.
Please direct the Community Development department to complete the development code. I know several of us who
served on the DCAC would be willing to continue, but I think it is most important that the remaining staff members who
facilitated the meetings and did the groundwork should be dedicated to this important task.
11111"Iffla-cm
Bill Rinehart
CARLILE • MACY
15 Third Street, Santa Rosa CA 95401
Tel: (707) 542-6451 ext 1553 Fax (707) 542-5212
Best Places To Work I Northbay 2007 & 2008
brinehartcDcarlilemacv.com I www.carlilemacv.com
O
From:
Chris McCarthy [chrismac@sonic.net]
Sent:
Monday, March 16, 2009 2:45 PM
To:
mike4pet@aol.com; dave glass; Pam Torliatt; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; David Rabbitt;
tiff@tiffanyrenee.com; Mike HEALEY; - City Clerk
Cc:
Brown, John; Moore, Mike; John Mills; dstevenelias@yahoo.com; jwr3design@aol.com;
terry@kozyhomes.com; rayvs@pacbell.net
Subject:
Letter Supporting CPSP SmartCode Warrants
LJ
Warrants.pdf
1
NORTH!'/?I'VER LANDING
March 16. 2009
Mayor Pamela Torliatt
City Council Members: David Glass, Theresa Barrett, David Rabbitt, Mike Healy, Mike
Harris, Tiffany Renee
RIs: Warrants —CPSP SmartCode Amendment
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I wish to thank you and the City Council for moving quickly in addressing the
SmartCode "warrants" issue. Reviewing the " warrmus' SmartCode policy amendment
should stand on its own merit as a separate agenda item for tine council to consider.
We all applaud the hard wort: of the Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC)
and their recommendations. However, the DCAC was not charged with reviewing the
SmartCode. The proposed "warrants' amendment corrects an oversight originating from
the beta test version of the SmartCode in 2003. A "warrants" policy has been a standard
for cities and should have been adopted years ago in Petaluma.
Amending the SmartCode by adding a "warrants" policy doesn't require staff resources
or countless hours of debate and reports. it requires simple corrective action.
Whatever the outcome. I commend this council for giving this issue the attention it
deserves. Let's allow development of excellent prgjects (flat meet the needs of the
community.
Sincerely,
t � n
r
Chris McCarthy
General Partner / Petaluma resident
Cc: Mile Moore
North River Landing, LP
101 'H' Street I Building D, Suite K I Petaluma, CA 94952
o 707.778.8393 c 707.479.8753 f 707.778.8398
I u:uJ 11 ., fond, yl i i.!i
From:
Diane Reilly Torres [dreillytorres@sbcglobal.net]
Sent:
Monday, March 16, 2009 2:28 PM
To:
Cooper, Claire; Dave Glass; david@davidrabbitt.com; Padovan, Deborah; Brown, John; Mike
Harris; Pam Torliatt; Teresa Barrett; Tiffany Renee
Cc:
corey.young@arguscourier.com; David Keller; janicecader@comcast.net;
kmillerhome@comcast.net; maryglardon@comcast.net; Michael Zenone; Moore, Mike;
office@plazanorthpetaluma.com; oldeastpetaluma@yahoo.com; paul francis;
paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com; Petaluma Neighbors; CDD; Spence F. Burton;
tanyasullivan@comcast.net; Victor Chechanover; willdargieppc@comcast.net
Subject:
Late Document -Item 3B and 4B
Dear Mayor Torliatt, City Council and City Manager,
I am not sure I can be at tonight's meeting to comment on item 313 Council's Goals and Priorities and 413
Discussion and Possible Direction on Development Code Advisory Committee Recommendations, but did want
to comment on these very important items.
When you discuss your top priorities, Development and Sustainability that include "Streamline the
development review process (Improve transparency, user friendliness, timeliness, providing answers in a
reasonable time frame.) and Enable City Council to be able to prioritize development (figure out how to deal
with people already in the pipeline, be proactive), please remember The Citizen Guide for the new General Plan
states, "Social Equity: Sustainable communities must recognize and address issues of race, ethnicity, class,
culture, and political power and how these issues influence decision-making practices so that certain groups are
not systematically disadvantaged. " The way the process is today if you have money to appeal your voice is
heard, if you do not have money, you are not heard.
On April 1, 2008 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, completed their review and forwarded a
recormnendation to approve the Draft Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The City Council held public hearings
on the Draft Implementing Zoning Ordinance on April 14 and April 21, 2008 as nart of the final public
hearines on the Draft General Plan 2025
On May 19, 2008 the Petaluma City Council adopted the General Plan 2025 and Interim Implementing Zoning
Ordinance to coincide with the effective date of the General Plan 2025.
httn://Detalurna.vranicus.com/MediaPlaver.nho?view id=3&clip id=664&meta id=150909
The General Plan includes topics that were deferred to the Development Code. The City Council adopted the
Regular Implementing Zoning Ordinance with the understanding that "The Implementing Zoning Ordinance
will be in effect until the City Council adopts the new Development Code early next year. That work is well
under way with the assistance of the council -appointed Development Code Advisory Committee."
That work was suspended with the budget cuts and has not been completed, therefore our General Plan is
incomplete.
In the last 6 months the Planning Commission has met 2 times and due to no agendized items, the September
23, 2008, November 25, 2008, December 23, 2008, January 13, 2009, January 27, 2009, February 10, 2009,
Planning Commission Meetings were canceled. My suggestion is to not have a DCAC or any sub -committees
and have the Planning Commission hold public hearings in order to complete the Development Code and send
their recommendations to the City Council. Funding for staff support can and should come from
Redevelopment Funds.
As a citizen who participated in the General Plan process, I along with others did not really understand how
the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Development Code would effect the project approval process and
impact my neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Diane Reilly Torres