Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petaluma residents and council weigh June ballot for downtown overlay; staff says June feasible with March 2 deadline
Summary
Residents and business groups urged the Petaluma City Council to put the downtown zoning overlay and associated FAR increase to voters in June; staff and city attorney said only the general plan amendment (FAR increase from 2 to 6) is subject to the referendum and that placing it on the June ballot would require council action at the March 2 meeting to meet election deadlines.
Petaluma — A string of public speakers at the Feb. 2 City Council meeting urged elected officials to move quickly to place a referendum on the June ballot asking the city’s voters whether to approve the downtown zoning overlay and a related general plan amendment.
Several downtown business owners and neighborhood advocates told the council the overlay would help revitalize downtown and address long-term vacancies by allowing for greater density and encouraging private investment. "Let's put this on the June ballot, and let's let the people have their say," said Teddy Herzog of UrbanChat, echoing multiple speakers who requested a near-term election date.
At council comment the city attorney and staff explained the legal contours and timing. The city attorney and staff clarified that the only portion subject to the successful referendum signatures gathered was the general plan amendment to increase floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) from 2 to 6; other overlay zoning provisions already adopted remain in force and "are not subject to challenge," staff said. The city attorney also told the council that, if it wants the item on the June ballot, staff would need to bring the item to the March 2 council meeting because county deadlines mean action would have to happen by March 6 to make the June ballot schedule.
Council members expressed support for putting the referendum on a near-term ballot but asked for details on costs. The clerk reported county estimates last year that an on‑November ballot measure would add about $1.50–$2.50 per voter (roughly $68,000–$115,000) while a June/special election would be more expensive—$3–$9 per voter (roughly $120,000–$365,000). Council Member Kate Thompson emphasized the need to "have our ducks in a row" and requested staff follow-up on feasibility and cost considerations.
Council gave direction to staff to agendize a discussion for the March 2 meeting so the council can formally decide whether to place the general plan amendment on the June ballot. City staff said they have the capacity to prepare materials on that timeline if the council directs inclusion on the tentative agenda.
What happens next: Staff will prepare materials for the March 2 meeting with information about statutory language, ballot question mechanics, and cost estimates; council members signaled general support for agendizing the question but did not adopt a binding resolution on Feb. 2.
