Petaluma Tomorrow
City Council Candidate's
Questionnaire
Candidate: Matt Maguire
Date: September 4, 2002
As much as possible. There is a cost associated with running the model, and the above projects are not included in the City's current budget. It may be hard to legally enforce such a requirement on projects that have progressed too far in the approval process, but future projects should be subjected to the model, and should pay for the staff time and associated costs.
Not usually, but it depends on the size, location, and uses of the project. The Traffic Model is a good tool to see what the future impacts of a project will be, but other factors need to be considered too. For instance, if it is an affordable housing project downtown near work opportunities, services and recreation, that should be treated more leniently than a subdivision of single family homes on the outskirts of town. Projects with social benefits like a homeless shelter should be seen differently from a large commercial, for-profit venture.
Also, we need to examine the typical response to traffic impacts, where we keep widening the streets and trying to maintain the Level of Service as it existed in the past. High LOSs encourages more short-haul trips, which are costly to the community both in environmental impacts and infrastructure demands. Alternatives need to always be considered.
This is a problem decades in the making, and with the economic conditions that prevail today, along with the revenue structure of cities, it will take years to catch up to this. For instance, all the property taxes and all the sales taxes the city collects (its two largest sources of income) do not even cover the cost of police and fire protection. Although the streets are important, few people would trade public safety for smoother roads.
Nonetheless, I have committed to spending $15 million of Redevelopment District funds over 5 years on road repairs. I have asked the City Attorney to research current law to see if the city can levy charges on large commercial trucks, which do more damage to streets. I support putting a sales tax, parcel tax, flat tax, and/or benefit assessment district options before the voters to raise funds for repairs as soon as next year. I voted for Public Facilities funds, gas tax funds, and a pot hole repair fund in the recent annual budget adoption, totaling over $1.2 million for this year alone.
I also support expansion of our bike paths and establishing a commuter rail system, as each person not driving on the streets makes them last longer, as well as reducing congestion.
Many of our streets are not designed to take either the volume or the weight of today's traffic. In the past few years, the city has improved the standards for street construction and increased the bonding requirements for contractors building streets. Yet new development still does not pay for itself, and this is where it becomes obvious. I will continue to seek ways to make new development pay for its impacts through updating the General Plan, basing its underlying principles on sustainability, and then making our zoning ordinances consistent with the GP. We should then be able to impose more accountability for projects through an improved approval process.
For ten years, I have fought to open Lafferty to its owners, the people of Petaluma. I think we should pursue partnerships with non-profits and/or government agencies that understand Lafferty's importance, to raise the funds necessary to withstand hostile legal challenges. Our position should be to open Lafferty to full public access as soon as possible, using any way we can that assures full, unhindered access.
I oppose them in principle and fought the Factory Outlet Mall project even before I was on the City Council.
Extend the "zero net fill" area; force project proponents that want to build in the flood plain to indemnify the city and those who use their projects as a condition of approval; don't build there.
It is a significant issue, not just as it relates to the GP, but funding as well. The city gets park fees for new development, but they are inadequate to meet the needs of the community. Likewise, the city's budget for maintenance has been very tight for the eight years I have been on the council. Due to years of litigation by developers, fees are not likely to change significantly unless the state legislature acts. Yet we should increase the fees to approach the real costs wherever possible.
This shortage of parks is one reason I have fought for opening Lafferty. It is also the reason I want to get the maximum amount of park space on the Magnolia Avenue site. The city is moving ahead with getting matching funds to open the McNear Peninsula, and I have worked hard to get council support for adding the wetlands component to the new wastewater treatment plant, which will be a major park accomplishment.
The new GP community visioning process is ideal for people to express their desires for more parks, or frustration at the current shortage. Funding for land acquisition, construction and maintenance remain the biggest hurdles. We should continue to pursue Prop. 12, 13 and 40 park and water funds for our use.
Absolutely. I helped pass it.
Both. It is a liability in that it must be treated and disposed of according to health and safety regulations, and that costs money, but it is a very valuable asset that should be reused to the maximum extent possible. Along with efficiency and conservation, it can offset demands on our natural resources, and water-use decisions should be made in the context that potable water supplies worldwide are rapidly diminishing or becoming polluted.
Any project that has the reasonable expectation of creating environmental impacts must be subjected to an Environmental Impact Review process. Total cumulative impacts are required to be looked at in the Environmental Impact Report. However, interpretation by the legislative body is where the rub is often found. The reality is that, regardless of in-depth studies, it is very difficult to accurately assess cumulative detailed impacts over a period of time. Therefore, one should try to err on the side of caution, since you can always loosen up restrictions, but you can't go back and impose them if they weren't there in the first place.
Because General Plans are general by definition, trying to restrict or measure cumulative impacts of potential development raises an infinite number of possibilities, making any informed decision impossible. Better we should work to make the Zoning Ordinances consistent with the current or new GP, which I have advocated for years and anticipate doing when the new GP is adopted.
Yes. At my urging, the last three subdivisions approved by the City Council have been required to have 10% of all new units include photovoltaic systems. This is just a small fraction of what I hope to require when the new GP based on sustainability is adopted and the Zoning Ordinances made consistent with the GP.
Absolutely. I was instrumental in gaining majority council support for the project.
"Quality of Life" is a subjective term, but I think any commissioner or councilmember has a certain amount of discretion to act according to their values. I certainly try to foresee and protect those things that represent "Quality of Life" in Petaluma to me: keeping the historical downtown viable, not encouraging suburban sprawl or large commercial centers at the edge of town; enhancing the access and use of the river; expanding our bike and pedestrian paths; protecting the environment from pollution and destruction, etc.
I am not opposed to that, but I think it would be more up front to adopt a moratorium, or partial moratorium. However, "Interim Study District" may be more diplomatic.
A, downtown. That is why, years ago, I tried to stop the development of the Factory Outlet Mall.