One year later, city planning changes get mixed reviews

<p>Petaluma's Planning Commission is the gateway to the city for developers that hope to build new retail, housing and other projects. Last July, the City Council modified Petaluma's planning process in an attempt to “streamline” the development review, which developers had complained was tedious, drawn-out and confusing. </p><p>Now, one year later, the council members who voted to merge the city's two planning boards into one say that it has proven to work well and encourage efficiency, while those who were opposed are not convinced it is any better.</p><p>Councilmember David Glass said that the new configuration has put all of the requirements and information before a developer at once, whereas before applicants may have been given contradictory information by different boards.</p><p>“It was broken, and now it has been transformed,” he said.</p><p>But others don't see evidence that roadblocks for development have been removed.</p><p>“Just because the same board is hearing both is doesn't mean that anything has been streamlined,” said Councilmember David Rabbitt, who noted that one board must now review the same things that two boards once did.</p><p>Councilmember Mike Healy said that “there is not compelling evidence” that the move has improved the process.</p><p><b>Background</b></p><p>The merger of the two boards was approved in June and July of 2009 in a series of decisions determined by controversial votes of the council majority. </p><p>While they said the move was an attempt to fix a system that many agreed was broken, council members Healy, Rabbitt and Mike Harris argued that the merger was a way for the council majority to install like-minded planners onto the new board. Healy notably called the merge a “naked power grab.”</p><p>Only one planner — Chris Arras, whose term on the commission just ended — received unanimous support, while other planners were mostly voted in by the majority in a series of 4-3 votes.</p><p>Ousted planners who were not renamed to the new board filed a lawsuit in August, which cost the city $17,725 in legal fees to respond to. The suit was settled this spring, with the city paying $3,000 for the planners' legal fees.</p><p>The legal costs for rewriting city codes for new Planning Commission's configuration came to $27,560, according to City Attorney Eric Danly.</p><p>Under the old process, applications would normally first go to the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee, which focused more on the design details of a project, before reaching the Planning Commission, which reviewed zoning and land-use decisions, said Geoff Bradley, a planner with M-Group, the city's privately contracted planning staff.</p><p>Under the new process, the Planning Commission reviews environmental documents and zoning issues and sends the project to the City Council with a recommendation for either approval or denial. After the council vote, the project comes back to the commission for a deeper look at design aspects. The commission also now relies more heavily on city planning staff for design input and other information to inform its decisions, said Bradley.</p><p>The seven-member board is currently made up of Melissa Abercrombie, Teresa Barrett, Dennis Elias, Alicia Kae Herries, Marianne Hurley, Curtis Johansen and Jennifer Pierre. Several commissioners contacted for this article did not return calls for comment.</p><p>While the economy has stalled development to some degree in the last year, the commission has reviewed and approved the Regency project, the Silk Mill renovation, the North River Landing apartments and shops, Beyond the Glory's move and other projects.</p><p>Since then, the North River Landing project has been stalled by funding problems and the Silk Mill project has not moved forward. The owner of the Silk Mill project would not confirm whether funding problems exist.</p><p><b>Reactions</b></p><p>Rabbitt and Healy expressed concerns that the members of the board lack architectural and design experience. </p><p>“I think it's important to have design professionals to some degree,” said Rabbitt.</p><p>Jack Rittenhouse, a former commissioner and SPARC member, who along with two other ousted commissioners filed the lawsuit against the city over their dismissal, said that the new commission has overlooked architectural and design issues and focused too heavily on land-use and policy issues. The city defines the board as being apolitical.</p><p>Healy said he is worried that with the exception of one current commissioner, Jennifer Pierre, all others were approved in 4-3 votes won by the council majority. He also said he is concerned that all commissioners live in west Petaluma, leaving the east side unrepresented.</p><p>Rabbitt said that regardless of the configuration of the Planning Commission, other factors are preventing a true “streamlining” of the review process as a whole. He suggested holding more comprehensive and transparent informal meetings with developers, city leaders and residents before the application is even submitted. </p><p>Unlike in other cities, developers in Petaluma do not have a sense for what concerns will come up in the review process, he said.</p><p>“If you really want streamlining, have meetings where you work out some of the conflicting information a developer may run into,” he said.</p><p>Healy also said that so far, “holdups are due to factors beyond the Planning Commission's control.”</p><p>Torliatt said that having one board provides “consistency” in the review process. </p><p>She said that an emphasis on more review by city planning staff has helped the commission make informed decisions, and that the inclusion of city attorneys at meetings has helped stem potential legal issues.</p><p>While the backgrounds of the planners have been called into question, some council members say their review has been thorough.</p><p>Barrett said that while the role of the commission is “very wide” and there has been somewhat of a “learning curve,” planners have been working diligently and quickly on projects. </p><p>“I know we haven't had the delays and long meetings that there were in SPARC,” she said.</p><p>She noted that after the council approved the Regency shopping center, the Planning Commission took only two meetings to nail down design details. She also pointed out that Beyond the Glory's recently approved move only took only one meeting.</p><p>“They are well versed on the General Plan and they do their homework,” she said about her fellow planners.</p><p>Glass said that the initial criticism of the move was “reactionary,” and noted that the Chamber of Commerce, which criticized the merge last year, commended the Planning Commission's handling of the Regency project in its May newsletter.</p><p>Council members expressed interest in an eventual review of the merge at their goal setting session in January, but made no formal plans to do so.</p><p>(Contact Philip Riley at philip.riley@arguscourier.com)</p>