daynurse
08-13-2009, 12:41 PM
Argus-Courier Editorial
Council majority’s decision backfires
<script type="text/javascript">var collab_title = 'Council majority’s decision backfires';</script><!-- /HEADLINE --><!-- MAIN PHOTO --><!-- /MAIN PHOTO --><!-- BYLINE -->
<!-- /BYLINE --><!-- PUBDATE -->
Published: Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 3:17 p.m.
<!-- /PUBDATE -->The ill-advised decision by the new City Council majority to fire Petaluma’s planning commissioners and members of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and create a new Planning Commission is coming back to haunt them.
<!--
AC =
--><!-- GRAY BOX ARTICLE CONTENT--><!-- /GRAY BOX ARTICLE CONTENT-->The four members of the council majority justified their decision in June by saying it would “streamline, expedite and enhance” the processing of building and development applications.
But in reality, it has begun to achieve just the opposite effect.
Last week, three planning commissioners who were not named to the new board sued the city, claiming the decision to dissolve the commission violated city laws. A few days later, the city canceled the first meeting of the new Planning Commission, slated for Aug. 11.
Although no one at City Hall would admit it, it is apparent that the council realized that it needed to do some backtracking to correct potential legal errors made in its haste to create a reconstituted Planning Commission. The council called a special meeting Tuesday to redo some of the code changes that led to the merger of the Planning Commission and SPARC in an attempt to deflect at least part of the legal challenges.
In addition to its claim that the council improperly removed commissioners whose terms had not yet expired, the lawsuit charges that changes to the city’s zoning ordinance prompted by the merger should have been reviewed by the Planning Commission first. That will now happen, but with the old commission — including the three plaintiffs in the lawsuit — performing the review.
The merging of the two boards was a bad idea in the first place that has now been compounded by the lawsuit and further indications that the council majority did not think their decision through without fully considering the consequences.
Now the cash-strapped city is faced with spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that it can’t afford to fight a lawsuit prompted by the council majority’s hasty decision-making.
There is no doubt that the development-approval process in Petaluma had become broken. But the problem had more to do with the longstanding culture of inefficiency in the city’s planning department — not the Planning Commission or SPARC. The internal problem was resolved last month when the city agreed to contract with a new outside firm to perform all planning services.
But the council majority created a new problem by deciding to replace knowledgeable and experienced professionals on the two boards with less qualified people whose principal attribute was their political allegiance to the City Council’s new majority composed of council members Teresa Barrett, David Glass, Tiffany Renée and Mayor Pam Torliatt. That not only sent a troubling message that talented and competent public service is subordinate to politics, but further politicized the development-approval process.
It didn’t have to turn out this way. After two years of work, the Development Code Advisory Committee earlier this year presented the City Council with a set of intelligent and sensible recommendations on how to streamline the city’s development approval process. These volunteers worked long hours to research best practices in other municipalities to devise an improved process. Unfortunately, most of the critical recommendations they made were either ignored or glossed over by majority council members who suddenly directed city staffers to consolidate the Planning Commission and SPARC.
Faced with a potentially costly lawsuit and mounting evidence that the dissolution of the two boards is undermining the integrity of the development-approval process, the council should immediately move to undo its original action, restore the previous SPARC and Planning Commission, reassemble the DCAC and provide them with adequate time to research and recommend alternate options that are truly aimed at streamlining the development-approval process.:hammer::broke:
Council majority’s decision backfires
<script type="text/javascript">var collab_title = 'Council majority’s decision backfires';</script><!-- /HEADLINE --><!-- MAIN PHOTO --><!-- /MAIN PHOTO --><!-- BYLINE -->
<!-- /BYLINE --><!-- PUBDATE -->
Published: Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 at 3:17 p.m.
<!-- /PUBDATE -->The ill-advised decision by the new City Council majority to fire Petaluma’s planning commissioners and members of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and create a new Planning Commission is coming back to haunt them.
<!--
AC =
--><!-- GRAY BOX ARTICLE CONTENT--><!-- /GRAY BOX ARTICLE CONTENT-->The four members of the council majority justified their decision in June by saying it would “streamline, expedite and enhance” the processing of building and development applications.
But in reality, it has begun to achieve just the opposite effect.
Last week, three planning commissioners who were not named to the new board sued the city, claiming the decision to dissolve the commission violated city laws. A few days later, the city canceled the first meeting of the new Planning Commission, slated for Aug. 11.
Although no one at City Hall would admit it, it is apparent that the council realized that it needed to do some backtracking to correct potential legal errors made in its haste to create a reconstituted Planning Commission. The council called a special meeting Tuesday to redo some of the code changes that led to the merger of the Planning Commission and SPARC in an attempt to deflect at least part of the legal challenges.
In addition to its claim that the council improperly removed commissioners whose terms had not yet expired, the lawsuit charges that changes to the city’s zoning ordinance prompted by the merger should have been reviewed by the Planning Commission first. That will now happen, but with the old commission — including the three plaintiffs in the lawsuit — performing the review.
The merging of the two boards was a bad idea in the first place that has now been compounded by the lawsuit and further indications that the council majority did not think their decision through without fully considering the consequences.
Now the cash-strapped city is faced with spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that it can’t afford to fight a lawsuit prompted by the council majority’s hasty decision-making.
There is no doubt that the development-approval process in Petaluma had become broken. But the problem had more to do with the longstanding culture of inefficiency in the city’s planning department — not the Planning Commission or SPARC. The internal problem was resolved last month when the city agreed to contract with a new outside firm to perform all planning services.
But the council majority created a new problem by deciding to replace knowledgeable and experienced professionals on the two boards with less qualified people whose principal attribute was their political allegiance to the City Council’s new majority composed of council members Teresa Barrett, David Glass, Tiffany Renée and Mayor Pam Torliatt. That not only sent a troubling message that talented and competent public service is subordinate to politics, but further politicized the development-approval process.
It didn’t have to turn out this way. After two years of work, the Development Code Advisory Committee earlier this year presented the City Council with a set of intelligent and sensible recommendations on how to streamline the city’s development approval process. These volunteers worked long hours to research best practices in other municipalities to devise an improved process. Unfortunately, most of the critical recommendations they made were either ignored or glossed over by majority council members who suddenly directed city staffers to consolidate the Planning Commission and SPARC.
Faced with a potentially costly lawsuit and mounting evidence that the dissolution of the two boards is undermining the integrity of the development-approval process, the council should immediately move to undo its original action, restore the previous SPARC and Planning Commission, reassemble the DCAC and provide them with adequate time to research and recommend alternate options that are truly aimed at streamlining the development-approval process.:hammer::broke: