How Healdsburg lost control of the meat market

The current controversy over changes to the Meat Market project is part of a larger discussion. Open government gives us, the public, a voice in decision-making. One of the most important issues here is whether the public can or should be left out of the decision-making process on a project like the Meat Market.
So, exactly how did the changed project get approved? Here is a summary based on documents recently released by the city.
In September 2012, after public notice and hearing, the City approved the original project through a Development Agreement (Ordinance 1119). The project included a butcher store, 24-seat café/deli (with pizza, panini and take-out option), hours of operation to 7 p.m. and three hotel rooms. “A rooftop deck … will function principally as a lunch/break area for employees as well as provide access to rooftop equipment for servicing.” The Development Agreement limited the permitted “density and intensity” of use (§ 5.2), and parking was provided or paid for based on the project description. The project was not controversial because it was promoted as a project for “locals,” as stated in the Aug. 22, 2012 Tribune.
One additional hotel room was added in 2013.    
In October 2014, without any public notice, the then-city manager amended the Development Agreement to substitute a 50-60 seat restaurant serving “world class cuisine” (reportedly $200 per person and presumably open later than 7 pm), allow five hotel rooms, and permit use of the rooftop deck for private wine and food tastings and garden tours. Although the site is adjacent to a neighborhood, the City Manager apparently did not analyze whether there were increased parking, traffic, noise and light impacts, did not assess the number of additional visitors or employees and did not seek additional fees to cover parking impacts. She deemed the changes “insubstantial,” thus no public notice or hearing was required. The City Council never saw any of these changes, officially. Certainly, the public did not.
How can these changes be “insubstantial”? The new project isn’t for “locals,” as advertised. As the city knows, the community is debating the effect of increased tourism on residents and small town character, and many lament the loss of the post office site as a cherished community gathering spot. Putting another restaurant for the “1 percent” at that site is controversial, to say the least.
Moreover, no impact analysis was done, which is a potential CEQA (environmental law) violation. Under our Municipal Code 20.16.150, the new project is at least 12 spaces short of its parking requirement. If the city imposed an in lieu parking fee of $11,300/space, recommended by a city study, the project would owe additional fees of $124,330. Whether that is the right number or not, the public is entitled to know about and comment on the impacts of the new project.
Is the Meat Market process a precedent for other private deals? We hope not. Why be secretive? We thought (improved) open government was a new City Council goal. The Meat Market situation is certainly a setback for this goal and for the public’s trust in local government.
Janis Watkins, Healdsburg Citizens for Sustainable Solutions steering committee