Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.D 07/06/2009 Late DocumentsJuly 1, 2009 Dear Mayor Torliatt and City Council, As a member of the Development Code Advisory Committee (DCAC) and a citizen of Petaluma, I am writing to you to express my support for the plan to consolidate SPARC and the Planning Commission into a single review body (Agenda Item 1 E, City Council meeting, July 6, 2009), and urge you to continue to make progress with the completion of the Development Code. I would also like to correct some of the misinformation that is being circulating regarding the background of this proposal and the work of the DCAC. March 30, 2009 Citv Council Meetinq Item 5H from the June 15 Council agenda and Item 1 E on the July 6 agenda are a direct result of the actions taken by the City Council at the March 30, 2009 meeting. It was in this session that the Council came to consensus that the consolidation of SPARC and the Planning Commission was the preferred solution to improving the development approval process. It began with the recommendation of the City Manager, was supported by six Council members, and was finally placed into a motion that was approved by a vote of 5 to 2. I've listed below some of the highlights from the minutes (video) of the March 30 Council meeting regarding the SPARC / PC consolidation with the approximate Granicus times. -City Manager recommends SPARC / PC consolidation (03:07:00) -Renee proposes change to appointment process of PC (03:48:30) -Rabbitt concurs with change to appointment process (03:51:00) -Mayor expresses support for the consolidation (03:58:45) -Vice Mayor expresses support for the consolidation (04:01:30) -Rabbitt concurs with consolidation (04:11:30) -Glass expresses support for the consolidation (04:12:45) -Glass addresses appointment of City Council liaison to the consolidated PC panel (04:15:00) -A lengthy motion is made regarding the approval process that includes the clause "...the City Council will entertain the City Manager's suggestion of combining SPARC and the Planning Commission and if that occurs, the City Council will be given options on that issue and do it sooner rather than later to incorporate it in the appointment process that is completed annually in June..." The motion is approved by a vote of 5 to 2. (04:19:00) By the end of the March 30 meeting, it was very clear that a directive had been established by the Council to consolidate SPARC and the Planning Commission into a single body, and to do it by June 2009. At no time during the course of this 4 -hour plus meeting did any member of the City Council express any opposition to this proposal. Mr. Harris voted for it as part of the motion, Mr. Rabbitt verbally articulated his approval, and Mr. Healy did not raise any objection despite its repeated inclusion in the discussion and motion. DCAC Recommendation The Rules and Responsibility Subcommittee of the DCAC was given the assignment of exploring possible changes to the review and approval process, and to make recommendations (if any) to the DCAC. The possibility of consolidating SPARC and the Planning Commission was first noted in two spreadsheets of potential alternatives titled "Roles and Responsibilities Matrix", dated October 29, 2007 and November 20, 2007. The consolidation appeared in both documents under Alternative 3 which called for disbanding SPARC. The preference of the Rules and Responsibility subcommittee was to create a proposal that would have given the authority to grant final approval of major development projects to SPARC and the Planning Commission instead of the City Council. There was strong opposition to this plan within the DCAC and from the community. The Mayor and other Council members made it known that they were also opposed and would not vote in favor of a proposal with this condition. Despite knowing the unlikelihood that this recommendation would be adopted, the DCAC voted to recommend it anyway by a narrow margin. Consequently, it was largely irrelevant by the time it was presented at the Council meeting. This proposal had been publically vetted for several months. It was always controversial and there was never overwhelming support for it at any level of the Development Code process. The Council accepted nearly every other recommendation made by the DCAC at the March 30 meeting. The function of the DCAC is only advisory, and it is common knowledge that the Council is to provide the final direction for the draft of the Development Code. As the Council gave clear direction on this issue at the recommendation of the City Manager on March 30, there is no logical reason to send it back to the DCAC or the Rules and Responsibility Subcommittee for further discussion and delay. That would be an unnecessary and time-consuming step backward in the process. The Council now needs to more forward to implement the decisions it made three months ago, and begin addressing the Development Code issues that still need to be resolved. This project is already far behind its scheduled date of completion. Consolidation Plan The plans made on March 30 will simplify and streamline the approval process, and provide the community with better public representation during that procedure. The consolidation is also necessary due to the current lack of staff personnel and resources to properly and adequately support two separate review committees. This is an adjustment that virtually all community services are now required to make due to budget cuts. I reject the claims that this is an unworkable situation that will lead to disaster in the approval and construction of new projects. The applicants, the Planning Commission, and the city staff are intelligent and skilled professionals. I am confident they can adjust to the circumstances of these difficult times, rise to the challenges, and find adequate solutions. All city operations must now do more with less (police, fire, administration, etc.). There is no reason the approval process can not and should not do the same. The results will only be disastrous if the participants make them so. 4 Conduct of Council Members The most regrettable product of the discussion of the consolidation plan at the June 15 meeting was the inappropriate and offensive rhetoric used by Mr. Healy and Mr. Rabbitt to describe the proposal as a "naked power grab" and a device intended to prevent new development. Their comments imply that those who favor the idea (myself included) are insincere, dishonest, and have ulterior motives. Derisive remarks like these have no place in a public forum where diverging opinions and ideas are to be encouraged and discussed in a respectful manner. A citizen of this community and their elected representatives should always be secure in knowing that they can present their point of view at a City Council meeting without fear of being insulted by those who disagree, and especially by those who sit at the dais. The lack of widespread support for the proposal put forth by the Rules and Responsibility Subcommittee was due to the concern that it placed too much authority in the hands of appointed committees. When it was presented, it was taken at face value as a genuine plan that was done in sincerity and was well-intentioned. No one ever accused it of being a "power grab" in any discussion at the DCAC or City Council — but they easily could have. Any member of the Council who feels it is acceptable to ridicule opposing views and proposals in the Council chambers needs to educate themselves on the basic standards of good statesmanship. In conclusion, I encourage you to support Item 1E at the July 6 meeting. The plan to consolidate SPARC and the Planning Commission is wise and necessary; and it is important that the Council follow through with its directives from March 30 and continue to work vigorously towards finalizing the Development Code. Thank you for your time and service to our community. Anthony Mills Petaluma, CA acmillsl (a)msn.corn 3 From: Crump, Katie Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:16 AM To: - City Clerk Subject: FW: City of Petaluma Land -Use Process Revisions - Commenting Again For the binder From: davealden53@comcast.net[mailto:davealden53@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 7:01 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net; mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Cc: citymgr; Chris Samson; george-aim@svn.net; acmillsl@msn.com; BRinehart@carlilemacy.com; Russel]202@comcast.net; chris@chrislyncharchitect.com; karren@remax-marina.com; kmillerhome@comcast.net; mhurley@parks.ca.gov; stevek@sageinteractive.com; rayvs@pacbell.net; terry@kozyhomes.com; wolpert@sonic.net; jwr3design@aol.com; PlanningCommission@SpenceBurton.com; will@athleta.com Subject: City of Petaluma Land -Use Process Revisions - Commenting Again To the Petaluma City Council: Having commented on the proposed land -use process revisions at the June 15 Council meeting, I expected to be content watching the process move to conclusion. But as insightful and interesting comments continued to appear, I became motivated to toss a few more thoughts into the fray. Let's start with a pair of clarifications. First, proponents for the ordinance have argued that anyone who opposes the ordinance is trying to preserve the old land -use system. They're wrong. Virtually everyone agrees that the old process was broken. With the absence of clarity, the erratic paths between SPARC, Planning Commission, and City Council, and the lack of timeliness, change was needed. But just because change was needed doesn't mean that any change is good. Whether the proposed alternative is as good as possible, or is even an improvement on the old system, is a valid topic of discussion. As another clarification, there was a disagreement during the June 15 debate about whether projects would be delayed by the proposed ordinance. There should be no disagreement. Projects are being delayed. Perhaps in the long term the process will work more efficiently. However, projects that were scheduled to appear before SPARC several times during the summer, with a decision expected in August or September, are now on hold until early August. Furthermore, these projects will appear before a newly -formed Planning Commission, followed perhaps by the City Council. Depending on assumptions about how quickly a project might be processed by a greenhorn Planning Commission and how long the Council requires, the delay could be a month, four to five months, or even longer. Holding projects until the new Planning Commission is formed is an undeniable delay. Given the delays, are they important? Despite what applicants may argue, entitlement delays can often be accommodated. Reschedule the design professionals, adjust the financing, advise the contractor to look for other work to fill the gap, and the delay is handled. This is true much of the time. But these are not normal times. We are in the midst of the worst economy in years. Consultants and contractors who are rescheduled today may not be in business a few months from now, Even worse, banks are badly spooked by the development marketplace. Unanticipated delays may cause project funding to be withdrawn. This is particularly true for projects in Petaluma, where City Hall has earned a reputation as a place where land -use applications go to hibernate. I don't know all the projects currently in the City process, and I certainly don't know which ones might be impacted by delays. But I would be greatly disappointed if a project that could truly serve the community, such as a downtown project, is lost during the changeover. So, what should we do? It isn't what I espoused even three weeks ago, but I urge the Council to adopt the new system as proposed. The old system has been badly compromised by the debate and would be hard to resurrect. We need to complete the transfer to the new system and to get it running efficiently as quickly as possible. Only then should we undertake ongoing discussion about whether new system is as good as it could be. How best to minimize the delays? One very simple action. Out of the pool of applicants for the new Planning Commission, appoint only those who were serving on the Planning Commission or SPARC before the changeover. If we start with people who are already familiar with the old process, the new body will come together as quickly as possible and minimize the delays to those projects that were caught in the changeover. This isn't a fun recommendation to make. There are good people whose applications would be declined under this suggestion. But this is a time in the history of Petaluma when experience matters more than new blood. Now, let's move ahead several months to the resumption of the discussion about our eventual land -use system. Much of the current debate has focused on the consolidation of the Planning Commission and SPARC. I agree with those who argue that the bodies should have remained separate, but others have made better arguments than I can, I needn't repeat them, Instead, I want to focus on a point that has received less attention, the greater role of the City Council in the new process. I can honestly say that I've never voted for a candidate because of his or her ability to make good land - use decisions. To ask a single Counclimember to be an expert at finance, at law enforcement, at personnel management, and at land -use is unreasonable. Instead, I expect a City Council, in Petaluma or elsewhere, to be an effective and strategic management team, to hire good people and to establish good policies such that good results happen. If a Council needs to judge every land -use action, they've failed at their management role. Not to make light of anyone's faith, but my perspective on the optimal role of a City Council in land -use is similar to my view on creationism versus evolution. To me, it has always felt unseemly to believe in a deity who spent time creating every species. Really, isn't it a bit absurd to ponder a deity spending time designing the aardvark or the platypus? I find it much easier to believe in a deity who put matter and the laws of physics and chemistry in place before the Big Bang, with full knowledge that life would evolve. Perhaps a little omnipotent pat or two were required as the universe expanded, but I prefer to think that our cosmos was determined by an effective long-term management strategy. It seems easier to believe in a deity who is an effectively delegating CEO than one who is a micro - manager of minutae. And what is a good management strategy for God would seem to be a fine strategy for the Petaluma City Council. Your consideration is appreciated. - Dave Alden