Petaluma's Deputy Planning Manager Utilizing Husband's Transportation Engineering Firm for Downtown Overlay Traffic Studies
Tiffany Robbe serves as Petaluma's Consulting Planner for M-Group while her spouse, Zack Matley, Principal of W-Trans, develops 'traffic calming solutions' for the City
Petaluma Councilmembers have recently shown polarity regarding their support, or lack of, for the City’s proposed downtown overlay and luxury hotel project. The City’s Deputy Planning Manager utilized her spouse’s transportation engineering firm to complete the traffic studies for the overlay project. Do the Council, City Attorney and Staff not find this to be a conflict of interest, or were they completely unaware?
According to the City of Petaluma’s website, Ms. Tiffany Robbe serves as Deputy Planning Manager (Consulting Planner, M-Group).
Per her LinkedIn profile, she has served as Senior Planner for the Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group) since July 2009, and previously served as the City of Petaluma’s Senior Planner from October 2000 to July 2009.
On May 7, 2006, an obituary was published for Ms. Genevieve Drivdahl Robbe. The notice recognized her granddaughter Ms. Tiffany Robbe and her husband, Zack of Petaluma.
Ms. Robbe’s assuming office SEI filed on February 1, 2021 reported no financial interests to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). It is unclear as to why she intentionally omitted her spouse’s income and clients generating over $10k in annual revenue.
However, Ms. Robbe indicated within her 2023 and 2024 annual statements of economic interest that her spouse is actively employed with W-Trans.
Mr. Zack Matley appears to be the Associate Principal for W-Trans, traffic engineering consultants.
His wesbite bio states:
Zack Matley is a Principal and has a wide focus area ranging from Complete Street areawide planning to a unique specialization in roundabout planning operations and design. Zack is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).
Zack joined W-Trans in 1998, three years after the company’s founding. His education and experience produce a rare combination of knowledge of the urban and environmental planning disciplines, along with expertise in transportation planning, engineering, and operations. Some of his favorite projects are those that tap into both the planning and engineering realms, including Complete Street retrofits and working on the circulation-related components of Specific Plans, as well as those involving roundabout design and feasibility studies.
On October 21, 2024, the Petaluma Argus-Courier shared the following article:
In a split 4-3 vote, the Petaluma City Council recently voted to direct staff to prepare a final environmental impact report for a contentious downtown luxury hotel and zoning overlay.
City Council members John Shribbs, Mike Healy and Karen Nau voted against the item, which would allow for the final EIR to be completed and presented to the council early next year. Council members Brian Barnacle, Janice Cader Thompson, Dennis Pocekay and Mayor Kevin McDonnell voted in favor.
The hotel in question is Appellation Petaluma, a 93-room, 6-story building proposed by EKN Development Group along with celebrity chef Charlie Palmer for a vacant lot on the corner of Petaluma Boulevard South and B Street. In conjunction with the hotel proposal is a Downtown Housing and Economic Opportunity Overlay that would alter zoning regulations within three zones in downtown.
“Tonight we are not here for project approvals, we are here to receive comments on the draft EIR,” said city environmental planner Olivia Ervin during the Oct. 7 meeting. At another point she noted, “Direction to proceed with preparation of the final (EIR) does not indicate support or opposition on the project approvals.”
The council’s comments and direction to staff reiterated much of what members of the Planning Commission and the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee recommended at the joint Sept. 24 meeting, which lasted over five hours.
During the Oct. 7 meeting, Healy and Shribbs asked about a $161,000 cost listed on the 38-page staff report associated with the draft report’s preparation, and questioned why the city should shoulder the cost.
In response, Director of Community Development Brian Oh explained that “there’s a cost-sharing agreement. So all hotel costs, plus a rough proportion share of the overlay, is being covered by the project applicant.”
“With the exception of the city’s capital improvement plan, no specific projects, contracts or programs are identified in the budget,” City Manager Peggy Flynn wrote in an emailed response to Healy two days after the meeting.
She also clarified that payment authorization falls under the city manager’s purview and there is no limit on costs the city manager can authorize.
Over 20 people shared comments at the meeting, including two City Council candidates – Alex DeCarli and Lance Kuehne – who both signaled their opposition.
A representative from a local hotel union called for the overlay to be modified for more housing, while other residents questioned the thoroughness of the report.
Local historian Katherine Rinehart found the draft EIR “inadequate” because, she said, it lacked accurate information on local historic properties with problems including typos, references to buildings that do not exist and incorrect construction dates for several buildings. She also called for additional surveys ahead of zoning changes.
Planning Commissioner Darren Racusen stated at the meeting that there were “enough significant deficiencies” in the draft that he encouraged the council to revise it or delay the process through the end of the public comment period.
“I think we need to think about that threshold – when is the draft inadequate. I know staff has advised the issues can be deferred in the final draft, but I think we need to do right by the responsibilities under CEQA and do right by the community,” Racusen said, followed by audience applause.
After the Planning Commission reviews the overlay ordinance, the City Council will vote on whether to certify the final EIR as soon as early 2025.
After that, the council will vote on General Plan and Zoning amendments related to the project, and the Planning Commission and the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee will jointly review project entitlements.
The comment period for the draft EIR ended at 5 p.m. Monday.
On July 3, 2024, Mr. Matley sent a letter to Ms. Mary Bean, First Carbon Solutions regarding a VMT Assessment for the Downtown Housing & Economic Opportunity Overlay in Petaluma.
The document appears to be a supporting attachment included with the City of Petaluma—EKN Hotel and Downtown Housing and Economic Opportunity Overlay Project Administrative Draft EIR.
In summary, the letter stated:
As requested, W-Trans has prepared a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment for the proposed Downtown Housing & Economic Opportunity Overlay project in Petaluma. The project includes the proposed Petaluma Appellation Hotel development as well as a zoning overlay that could result in a net increase in employment generating uses such as retail, office, and commercial in designated areas of downtown Petaluma. The VMT assessment is consistent with the guidance contained in the City of Petaluma’s Senate Bill 743 Vehicle Miles Traveled Implementation Guidelines, 2021 (“VMT Guidelines”) and has been conducted using VMT data obtained from the SCTM19 travel demand model maintained by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). The analysis considers the potential VMT-related effects of adding a total of 387,444 square feet of development on designated parcels in the downtown area.
Conclusions
The proposed hotel component of the project qualifies for the City’s Major Transit Stop screening and may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
Future development facilitated by implementation of the zoning overlay component of the project would qualify for one or more of the City’s VMT screening parameters and may be presumed to have a less-than significant impact on VMT; one exception would be retail uses exceeding 30,000 square feet.
Upon application of the City of Petaluma’s VMT screening criteria along with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure pertaining to retail projects over 30,000 square feet, the proposed project would be considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT.
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on VMT per employee even if VMT screening parameters were unmet.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Proposed projects within the overlay that individually include more than 30,000 square feet of retail uses or otherwise do not qualify for local-serving retail VMT screening criteria established by the City of Petaluma shall be required to perform a project-level VMT analysis, incorporating measures as needed to achieve the City’s VMT thresholds of significance for retail uses.
Per the W-Trans website, the company frequently contracts with the City of Petaluma to complete similar traffic studies.
On September 26, 2023, W-Trans submitted a Traffic Impact Study for the Petaluma Appellation Hotel Project to the City of Petaluma.
Conclusions per the Study:
The project as proposed would be anticipated to generate an average of 1,174 daily trips, including 99 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
The intersections of Petaluma Boulevard/Western Avenue, Petaluma Boulevard/B Street, and Petaluma Boulevard/D Street experienced collisions at rates below the statewide average for similar facilities.
The intersection of Petaluma Boulevard/E Washington Street had a collision rate above the statewide average for similar facilities.
Based on the site’s proximity to the Downtown Petaluma SMART station and application of screening criteria established by the City, the project can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
Under existing conditions, the study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS D or better during the weekday p.m. peak hour. With project traffic added the study intersections would be expected to continue operating at the same levels of service as without.
While Petaluma Boulevard/D Street is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS E under future conditions, the other three study intersections are expected to be operating acceptably at LOS D during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The addition of project-generated trips would be expected to result in nominal increases in overall average delay and all intersections would continue operating at the same levels of service, indicating an acceptable impact on traffic operation.
The existing bicycle lanes on Petaluma Boulevard, along with planned improvements within the area, will be adequate for anticipated demand. Assuming the installation of additional transit and bike amenities outlined in this study, existing pedestrian and transit facilities are compliant with City policy.
Sight distance at the project driveway is adequate.
Based on the anticipated arrival and service rate for the valet service, there is a 5.7 percent chance that more than the three vehicles that could be accommodated in the proposed loading zone would queue on Petaluma Boulevard South.
The proposed parking supply would be adequate based on the City requirements a hotel land use at this location.
Mr. Matley was listed as one of the Study participants for VMT review.
Per the FPPC, Government Code Section 1090 prohibits an officer, employee, or agency from participating in making government contracts in which the official or employee within the agency has a financial interest.
“Making” a contract includes final approval of the agreement, as well as involvement in preliminary discussion, planning, negotiation, and solicitation of bids.
A broad range of agreements are considered a contract under Section 1090. Generally, there is a contract when an offer is made and accepted and there is something of value bargained for and exchanged by each party. This includes written contracts, purchase of goods or services, employment agreements, leases, development agreements, etc.
An official can have a “financial interest” in a contract in a variety of ways and it is not limited by the amount of the interest or how closely connected the official’s interest is to the contract.
Violations of Section 1090 can result in the voiding of contracts, criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, as well as a ban on holding public office.
How will Petaluma Council address this terrible dilemma, and will the Overlay Project be paused?
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? -Galatians 4:16
I am concerned about the quality and objectivity of M Group's work, as there have been ongoing criticisms of their projects in Petaluma. In my view, M Group’s approach could prioritize profit and project acquisition, possibly at the expense of quality outcomes for the community. Recently, Councilmember Brian Barnacle publicly defended M Group in a newspaper article, responding to critiques from community members. Additionally, after his election, he transitioned into a new role in the building sector—a field where M Group holds considerable influence in city planning decisions across the Bay Area. This situation raises questions about the dynamics between elected officials and consulting groups that influence local planning.
This is not shocking in the slightest. I’m sure they all have some sort of alternative interest in some format or another. What’s up with her getting a job with M Group after losing her job with the city when they had to shut down the planning dept? How many people did that? Would they go back to working for the city if that job opened up like people would like?