A divided Sonoma City Council on Monday night rejected calls to disband a committee that has yet to meet but already has garnered unusual controversy centered on the city's exploration of possible new regulations for chain and big box stores.
Mayor Laurie Gallian and Councilman Steve Barbose initially proposed the ad-hoc committee at the council's May 16 meeting in an effort, Barbose said, to speed up the process of analyzing the chain store issue.
Barbose said Monday that he might not ever have made the suggestion given the controversy that ensued.
But Barbose also defended the committee Monday, saying that "people are totally overreacting to this" and that "all these conspiracy theories are just wild figments of people's imaginations."
The council's current debate over chain and big-box stores was sparked by Staples' plans to open a store in a 14,400-square-foot building on West Napa Street that had been a Ford dealership.
Council members on April 4 rejected calls for an emergency ordinance that would have prevented Staples from opening. However, city leaders wanted to continue discussing whether the city should adopt zoning regulations that would affect future applications for chain or big-box stores.
Supporters say new regulations are needed to protect Sonoma's charms, while detractors fear such restrictions could chill economic growth.
Other than design review of buildings, the city of 10,000 inhabitants does not define or regulate chain businesses that meet zoning regulations, including in the city's historic downtown area, which is ground zero of the current debate.
Councilman Tom Rouse had asked council members to revisit the committee's formation because of his concerns and those of members of the public who had contacted him that the process was not transparent and potentially violated the city's protocols for establishing such study groups.
The main controversy centered on Councilman Ken Brown's suggestion that two people who were present at the May 16 meeting be the committee's public representatives. Those appointments were supported by a majority of the council.
One of the appointees is Ben Boyce, who is the coordinator of Sonoma County's Accountable Development Coalition and an advocate of community impact reports, which involve an extensive review of development and generally are opposed by business interests.
Boyce's appointment has drawn fierce complaints from the Sonoma Valley Chamber of Commerce, which also has two members who were appointed to the committee.
Boyce also resides outside the city of Sonoma, a fact some critics said should make him ineligible to serve on the committee.
"I would hope that the council, when it appoints citizens to the committee - ad-hoc or not - that (you) make an effort to discuss their qualifications to be on a committee," Fred Peterson, a Sonoma trial attorney, told the council Monday.
Councilwoman Joanne Sanders said she was surprised by the council's decision to appoint two people from the audience on May 16. "I had no idea we were going to do that," she said.
She supported Rouse in his losing motion to kill the committee and start the process again. Barbose, Brown and Gallian voted not to support that motion.
The result means that the committee will remain as is, with the chamber of commerce naming its second appointee.
"I'm certain the committee we have appointed is balanced and is going to do right by Sonoma and the valley," Brown said.
The committee's meeting schedule will be announced and the proceedings will be open to the public under state open meeting laws.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: