Petaluma council sued by ousted planning commissioners
Published: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 at 5:32 p.m.
Three former Petaluma planning commissioners who claim they were illegally dismissed when the panel was disbanded and reformed with new membership are suing the City Council.
The lawsuit filed this week in Sonoma Superior Court by Spence Burton, Kathleen Miller and Jack Rittenhouse III claims the council lacked the sufficient number of votes to “fire” sitting commissioners and calls for their immediate reinstatement.
It contends the Petaluma municipal code requires at least five votes to remove an appointed commissioner whose term is not expired. The council action came on a 4-3 vote that was split along political lines.
Critics have said the replacement commissioners are more closely aligned with the slow-growth council majority and do not possess the diversity of opinion that exists in the city of 56,000 people.
The three ousted commissions would not answer questions about the lawsuit, instead referring questions to their attorney, James Sansone.
“It seems like an abuse of power, to say the least,” said Sansone. “We’re seeking a court order to reverse the decision.”
But members of the council majority defended the move.
Councilman David Glass said the three commissioners were not dismissed. The panel they were appointed to was dissolved along with a separate design review committee, Glass said.
An all-new Planning Commission was formed that consolidated both functions and other candidates were stronger than Burton, Miller and Rittenhouse, Glass said.
He said the council had the authority to chose whomever it wanted.
“There was no intention to fire anybody or hurt anybody’s feelings,” Glass said. “The only intent was to restore functionality to the planning process. What we had was broken.”
Mayor Pam Torliatt, who also backed the change, said she hoped both sides in the case could resolve the matter without a costly legal battle. The new commission is expected to meet for the first time on Aug. 11.
“My hope is that is that they don’t have unintended consequences,” Torliatt said. “What potentially could occur is it may delay projects. I would hope and think that planning commissioners or former planning commissioners would have the best interests of the community in the forefront.”
Over the years, Petaluma’s two-panel development review process had been the subject of criticism from all quarters.
Developers complained it added a layer of bureaucracy and time-consuming hearings. Residents said it vested too much authority in appointed panels. Others claimed the bodies were ineffective, causing numerous appeals.
The system had been in place more than 30 years.
“It was fatally flawed,” Glass said. “It wasn’t working.”
In the name of streamlining, the council on July 7 did away with both panels and re-formed them as one group. Also, it added a provision requiring that major projects get final approval directly from the council.
Seventeen people applied for appointment to the seven-member panel, including many incumbents.
Burton, Miller and Rittenhouse, seated by a previous council, were serving four-year terms that expired in 2011, 2010 and 2012, respectively. Miller was the commission chairwoman.
But the council chose only one incumbent, lawyer Chris Arras, and design review committee member Dennis Elias.
The remaining selections were newcomers including community activist and parks commissioner Melissa Abercrombie, environmental consultant Jennifer Pierre, green developer Curtis Johansen and state parks worker Marianne Hurley.
Councilwoman Teresa Barrett continued as the seventh member.
The choices were approved by Councilwoman Tiffany Renee, Barrett, Glass and Torliatt. Councilmen Mike Harris, Mike Healy and David Rabbitt cast dissenting votes.
“We can split hairs and argue all we want but I believe the council has the wherewithal to govern,” Glass said.
Sansone said his clients will attempt to prove a willful violation of the law, but he will not try to reverse any decisions from the new panel before they can be re-seated. He would seek attorney fees, he said.
He called the move a blatant power grab.
“The mayor got elected on a certain platform and she saw certain members of the Planning Commission standing in the way of her agenda,” Sansone said.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article