Concerns about planning proposal

<p>I have three major concerns about the City Council’s proposal to eliminate the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and assign their responsibilities to a newly constituted Planning Commission.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>The first relates to the council’s decision to disregard the majority of the recommendations of the Development Code Advisory Committee. I, along with council members Barrett, Rabbitt and Renée, was a member of the Roles and Responsibilities Subcommittee of the Development Code Advisory Committee. Our subcommittee was charged with formulating suggestions for streamlining the development process in Petaluma and with defining the distinct roles of the council, SPARC and the Planning Commission. We met on a regular basis for almost two years. Despite not finishing due to budgetary constraints, we reached consensus on most issues. We formulated a process for developing a major subdivision, which was submitted to council for consideration, and we discussed the importance of having qualified individuals appointed to SPARC and Planning Commission. However, we never discussed combining SPARC and Planning Commission because of the different skill sets involved.</p><p>In March, I attended the council meeting where the recommendations of the DCAC and its subcommittees were to be discussed. No substantive discussion of our subcommittee’s recommendations took place. Instead, at 11:30 at night, the city manager surprisingly suggested that Planning Commission and SPARC be combined. Council members Barrett, Glass, Renée and Mayor Torliatt directed that a proposal be drafted. The draft proposal was placed near the end of the agenda for Council’s June 15 meeting. Once again, council discussed this drastic change in the development process after midnight when most Petalumans were sleeping. Further, disregarding the suggestions of our subcommittee without discussion is disrespectful to the community volunteers who spent a lot of time and effort in formulating those suggestions. If the council majority believes eliminating SPARC and assigning their duties to a new Planning Commission will be more efficient, the council should direct our subcommittee to formulate a process for implementing this new plan. </p><p>My second concern relates to the council’s proposal to remove the four planning commissioners and two SPARC members who still have time left on their terms. These community volunteers were appointed to specific terms by the council and should be permitted to serve out the remainder of their terms. Now that the council has eliminated Petaluma’s planning staff, the current commissioners and committee members have important historical knowledge relating to the General Plan and ongoing development projects. If the council majority is serious about eliminating SPARC and assigning their duties to the new Planning Commission for efficiency’s sake, there is no need to remove the current appointees. Doing so actually results in inefficiency because new appointees will have to be brought up to speed on the General Plan and ongoing projects. While I certainly hope the decision to remove these volunteers with time remaining on their terms was not a political one by our council majority, if the current volunteers are not re-appointed, those who maintain this is a political power grab will be proven right. </p><p>My third concern relates to how much taxpayer money is being spent on preparing the legislation to implement this change. According to the staff report, combining SPARC and Planning Commission does not save money. However, money is being spent to implement this change that will not ultimately save Petaluma any money in the future. This seems fiscally irresponsible in our current economy. </p><p>I would encourage the council to think carefully before implementing such a drastic change to our community’s development process in such a hurried fashion. Livermore recently combined their design review committee and Planning Commission. However, they worked on it for two years and retained all the current commissioners and members when their new Planning Commission was formed. Development is an important issue to the citizens of Petaluma. How we proceed with development in the future should not be decided without adequate consideration by either the public or the council. </p><p>(Kathy Miller is a local attorney who currently serves as the chair of the Petaluma Planning Commission. She also volunteers as a judge pro-tem for the Sonoma County Superior Courts.)</p>