Petaluma Tomorrow
City Council Candidate's
Questionnaire
Candidate: Mike Healy
Date: September 4, 2002
It would be nice if it could be, but staff has advised strongly against it. See the attached April 19, 2002 memorandum from Director of General Plan Administration Pamela Tuft, which addresses in some detail the technical reasons why such usage is not yet appropriate. I would support using the new traffic model as soon as it is capable of providing meaningful results.
I have and will continue to support, where appropriate, development proposals for which traffic impacts have been analyzed using presently existing modeling tools and data. The key issue is to determine whether or not appropriate traffic assumptions, including cumulative impacts, are being used.
It is going to require a combination of resources, because there is no single solution that will raise the funding needed. The Council needs to evaluate carefully the maximum funding that the Redevelopment Agency can provide, without sacrificing important revitalization projects. The City needs to pursue any additional federal or state funding that may be available, but given their budget circumstances, hopes should not get too high. The bottom line is that Petalumans are going to need to vote to tax themselves to raise a considerable portion of the funds needed.
I continue to support opening Lafferty Ranch as a public park. We need to seek outside funding to help make that happen. I spoke in support of Lafferty at the Board of Supervisors meeting at which they denied Open Space District support. I support "full open access" as distinguished from docent-led tours. (As you know, the management plan contemplates that the park would be closed in the evenings and during high-fire danger situations.)
I explained my position on this issue in considerable detail in a guest op-ed piece that was published in the Argus Courier in December 2000; a copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, I have asked staff to explore the feasibility of a possible building moratorium in the 25 year flood plain; that information has yet to be provided. I have also asked for staff input regarding the adequacy of local weather data and the expected impact of the anticipated FEMA remapping effort (see attached memo).
Please see response to Question 5 above. In addition, I look forward to working on the surface water element of the new General Plan, particularly to explore whether opportunities for "Napa River type" solutions may be appropriate here. These could be especially useful just downstream from town, where it may be cost-effective to acquire diked properties along the Petaluma River and breach the levees to provide substantial additional floodplain storage; such projects could also provide further habitat restoration and recreation opportunities.
I also anticipate that with the completion of the Corps project (protected at the upstream end by the constriction weir), that the Payran Reach could become the least flood-prone stretch of the River. I noticed during a major storm event last season that the clearance below the D Street bridge was many feet less than the clearance below the Lakeville Street bridge. Thus, the focus of flood prevention in the future is likely to shift to the sections of the river both above and below the Payran Reach.
Adequacy of local parks is an important issue. The adequacy and location of the different types of park facilities that are needed are issues of equal importance to the gross number of overall acres available. Thus, I strongly support bringing the Gatti property online as a park as soon as feasible, as well as the RESA sports complex. Both of these will provide badly needed playing fields for youth and adult sports. (RESA is, of course, a public / private partnership, but with its fields available for free use by local youth sports teams, in many ways it can be considered the functional equivalent of a public park.)
The City also needs to pursue other opportunities that arise, bearing in mind the realities of the City's budget. Thus, I have been working to secure the purchase of the rest of the McNear Peninsula, which will be a wonderful, low impact park in the center of town. The most recent development plan for the Vainhagen property includes several acres of dedicated open space with public trails, plus additional property that could be given to the County to add to Helen Putnam Park. The extension of Schollenberger Park and the polishing wetlands associated with the new wastewater treatment plant (neither of which are shown in the current General Plan as park facilities) will also add to the inventory. Finally, the City's swim center is an underutilized resource that, with more support from the City, can be used more effectively by the community.
Not entirely. I think it should be amended to (1) remove the public financing component, (2) raise the reporting threshold from one cent to something like $25, and (3) fix the technical drafting flaws pointed out by Messrs. Rudnansky and Churchwell in their (non-confidential) memos dated August 3, 2001 and October 10, 2001, respectively.
It has aspects of both. If not managed proactively and effectively, it can become a very expensive liability. Santa Rosa provides a good example. On the other hand, I think Petaluma can learn from Santa Rosa's misfortunes and put in place a process whereby the tertiary treated wastewater from our new treatment plant can be put to environmentally friendly and economically sensible re-use.
One of the primary purposes of doing a General Plan is to identify and plan the infrastructure -- streets, water supply, sewer treatment, parks, etc. -- needed for General Plan buildout. With the overall infrastructure needs established, individual projects can be evaluated with respect to their individual infrastructure requirements and with their consistency with the adopted General Plan. Also, CEQA affirmatively requires a cumulative impact analysis for proposed projects. I support evaluating cumulative impacts in connection with proposed projects.
Potentially. It would depend on the details. I have supported the requirement for recently approved subdivisions that 10% of the units have photovoltaic panels. This approach has yet to be codified into an ordinance, which it should be.
Yes, subject to the conditions contained in the January 7, 2002 resolution approving the new wastewater treatment facility, specifically that outside funds be obtained to support property acquisition and construction of the polishing wetlands / park features. I continue to believe it would be inappropriate to require sewer ratepayers to pay a substantial portion of those costs. The good news is that there is now a strong likelihood of obtaining $2 million each from the Coastal Conservancy and the County Open Space District in the near future, which should be more than enough to acquire the needed property, and additional funding sources (e.g., State water bonds) can likely be tapped to support construction costs. In sum, I am highly optimistic that the City will be able to bring these facilities online without substantially burdening ratepayers.
Yes.
Not without a showing as to why the currently available plans or information are no longer valid or up to the task. The current General Plan is good through 2005. I don't agree with the premise that "cumulative impact data / tools are not yet available." Such tools are available. The fact that there may be other plans or information on the horizon does not, in itself, justify delaying consideration of proposed projects.
I'm not sure I fully understand what the question means by "greater priority, support and resources." Under California law, property owners are legally entitled to submit development applications and to have those applications, once complete, considered on the merits within specified timeframes. The City is not legally capable of telling property owners not to submit development applications, nor to selectively ignore certain applications once they are submitted. In terms of proactive use of City resources, such as the Redevelopment Agency's support of the new Marina Sheraton (located right next to the UGB, by the way), those need to be evaluated on a case-by case basis to see what potential benefits they could provide to the City. Certainly the downtown area should, and will, receive considerable Redevelopment Agency support for a range of projects to support revitalization.