Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1.A 03/30/2009 Late DocumentsFrom: Shelley Campbell [sunsoup@comcast.neq Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:20 AM To: - City Clerk Subject: Southwest Hills View Platforms Attachments: Pictures 2007 and 2008 825.jpg; Pictures 2007 and 2008 828.jpg; Pictures 2007 and 2008 834.jpg; Pictures 2007 and 2008 823.jpg; Pictures 2007 and 2008 821.jpg Dear City Clerk, Please send this email and attachments to all City Council members. Thank you, Shelley Campbell To: Petaluma City Council, I have great concerns as regards the view platform selected for the southwest hills area of Petaluma. I realize that the Hillside and Ridgeline Subcommittee worked hard on locating adequate view platforms within Petaluma. My concern is that the view platform selected on I St. does not provide views of many of the hills/ridgelines currently in the city or urban growth boundary. 1 believe this oversight is due to many members of the subcommittee not being familiar with the Southwest Hills area. There are a number of public locations in this area that provide adequate views of this area. One location is further down 1 St. around the Grevillia/I St. area going down towards the Sunnyslope are about 100 yards or so. Since some of the view platforms are meant to be general areas, this area would appear to come under the selected view platforms and could be used to better view some of the hills/ridgelines in the area. Other areas that I have become familiar with are located in areas that are views that are available from multiple communities, not just a single community as is the intent of the definition of a view platform. Please look at the map provided below and pictures taken from possible additional view platforms. 1 appreciate you being open to adding more reliable view platforms along with extending the current view platform on I St. Sincerely Shelley A.S. Campbell Picture taken from the public street near located near the corner of Lavio and Westridge Drive located between the Westridge Knolls community and Westridge 1, II, 111 which contains hundreds of homes. Nearby is a public path running along the upper section of Thompson creek. The path connects Westridge 1-3 with Westridge 4, 5. Additional views of the hills are available from multiple public locations in this area. Picture taken from the public path along Lavio near upper Thompson Creek. Picture taken from I St. looking towards the Pinnacle property close to existing view platform. Picture taken from the lower section of Wallenberg Way off of Sunnyslope. Picture taken from near the curve on Wallenberg way. Picture of Sunnyslope hill. httn:Ilwww. maoo nest. com/macs?city=Petaluma& state=CA&address=S unnvs lone+Ave+%26+S unnvs I one+Rd &zincode=94952&country=US&latitude=38.22255&loneitude=-123.64046&eeocode=INTERSECTION From: Bill Rinehart [WMRatrace@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 10:39 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; daveglass@comcast.net mike4pet@aol.com; mthealy@sbcglobal.net; david@davidrabbitt.com; tiff@tiffanyrenee.com Cc: - City Clerk; Brown, John; Moore, Mike; White, George; chris.samson@arguscourier.com Subject: Agenda item 1A - Please complete the development code process Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, Thanks for scheduling a special meeting (3/30/09) to consider the Development Code and the future of Petaluma. I hope you can find a way to fund and complete the new development code. I expect there will be a lot of input about the specific details of various policies. Underlying all of this, please recognize the fundamental need for a complete and definitive ordinance. Petaluma requires a development code that gives the community development department, the Council, and its boards and commissions a basis for making informed and defensible decisions with citizen support. While the current code (the IZO) makes the new general plan legal, it lacks the general plan's vision and does not provide the teeth to make it enforceable or practical. Without a well structured ordinance, I'm afraid your meetings and agendas will be clogged with the minor details of development applications, leaving little time for you to manage other city business. While I certainly agree that the elected officials should oversee the major development decisions affecting our town, a well crafted ordinance will give you the confidence to delegate your authority where practical. I believe the most effective and cost efficient leadership will come from creating an effective ordinance. Please find a way to fund the completion of the development code. This could be the most important investment you make toward a better future for Petaluma. Thank you, Bill Rinehart 118 English Street, Petaluma 766-9462 member. DCAC From: Brown, John Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:16 AM To: Crump, Katie; Cooper, Claire Subject: FW: Development Code Advisory Recommendations, discussion for 3/30/09 From: Susan Kirks[mailto:susankirks@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 12:22 AM To: ptorliatt@aol.com; Mike Harris; Teresa Barrett; Michael T. Healy; David Glass; Tiffany Renee; David Rabbitt Cc: Brown, John; Moore, Mike Subject: Development Code Advisory Recommendations, discussion for 3/30/09 3/27/09 Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers, Hillside/Ridgeline Ordinance Discussion As I read through the notes, having not participated in this subcommittee but having experience in this area, I wish to comment: Our new General Plants lacking in identification of wildlife corridors and habitat areas in the West Hills Proposing to cluster a development away from a ridgeline and/or hillside, while a good linear thought process, In my view, does not take into consideration an important fact - the West Hills area has properties with ridgelines and hillsides that are located in wildlife corridors, may comprise sensitive habitat areas, and therefore should be considered for preservation rather than development. Developers should not be led to believe that a hillside/ridgeline ordinance automatically guarantees the right to propose a clustered development Clustering, while effective in some instances and accomplishing movement of a development away from a ridgeline or hillside, results in greater density and. if in a sensitive habitat area, would have the impact or effect of destroying the habitat area In the West Hills area, I would encourage the City Council and staff to view these as potentially sensitive natural resource areas and working with owners for potential preservation as open space may be in the best interest of the community, natural resources, and provide an alternative for owners who wish to gain financial benefit from their property. I do agree a hillside/ridgeline ordinance is long overdue and should be completed, however. I suggest an encompassing view of areas of ridgelines and hillsides, perhaps identifying 1 to 4 specific areas with ridgelines and hillsides, could be included as adjunctive information to the General Plan Consrdenng Approval of Development Applications by SPARC and Planning Commission as final decision making body 1. 1 am 100% opposed to this concept although I understand it was identified to try and streamline the project application process and help move applications along 2 1 believe 2 -year appointments to SPARC and the Planning Commission, rather than 4 -year terms, would result in better alignment of decision making with the City Council Appointees could reapply for additional terms 3 Often, members of these bodies appear to be politically motivated or motivated to help building and developer friends at the expense of the community where proposals are being made. One example relates to the 2025 General Plan review by the Planning Commission. Approximately 2 months were consumed with numerous property owners coming before the Planning Commission, trying to increase developable density on their properties, despite surrounding property densities and the public process that had occurred over several years. Some commissioners on the current Planning Commission, for example, attempted to assist these property owners bypass the public process that had occurred and obtain approval for increased densities. While I surely appreciate the desire to make as much income from a piece of land one owns as possible, ignoring the context, the surrounding community, the reasons for established density through the public process over a period of years, simply seemed wrong Perhaps that is a norm in these types of situations. 4. 1 encourage the City Council to maintain the position of legislative and decision making body to act in the community's best Interest. Unless we have people like Jim Rose, former Dean at SRJC, return to serve on the Planning Commission, maintaining a standard of this type of analytical and intellectual thinking and encouraging vision among Planning Commission peers, the best service to the community will rest in the City Council's jurisdiction to act in the community's best Interest. 5. To assist Planning Commissioners in building experience and knowledge, requiring completion of land use coursework, particularly related to CEGA and environmental Impacts, to strengthen the ability to make decisions, is advisable. I would encourage the City Council to Institute requirements for Planning Commissioners to complete seminars and course during the first 3 months of their term as a Planning Commissioner In my opinion, this Is an area that has been lacking for several years and Commissioners rely on staff for responses rather than developing comprehensive knowledge and applying that to make sound decisions Also, the acceptance of low level and minimal environmental reviews by the staff could be questioned In many Instances by the Planning Commission, with recommendations for higher level environmental reviews resulting either in preservation of land based on sensitive environmental issues or an expanded level of awareness regarding environmental impacts and decisions based on what Is the best and highest land use, considering General Plan and Zoning possibilities I make these comments with awareness of the burdens currently experienced by the Community Development Department, but also without prejudice and without reservation Thank you for accepting my suggestions and comments Susan Kirks March 27, 2009 Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members: Last week a group of local architects met to discuss the current approval process and the recommendations of the Development Code Advisory Council (DCAC). We share a common interest in a fair approval process for sustainable and healthy development of Petaluma. As architects who have worked in Petaluma, we understand the current approval process and what is involved in creating a successful project. Although the Summary Recommendations for Major Development are unfinished, we support the improvements put forth by the DCAC. We had general consensus that the recommendations for major developments should also apply to smaller developments such as projects in mixed use zones and residential projects that are less than four homes. First, the mandatory neighborhood meeting prior to application submittal met full support of our group. We discussed the idea of a community representative being present for progress meetings. We also support an integrated staff/ applicant meeting as well as the suggested SPARC 'site only' meeting for major developments. Second, the outcome of the neighborhood meetings should not be specified in the development code nor require neighborhood consensus of approval. The purpose of the mandatory neighborhood meetings is for the community's voices to be heard and considered in the process. The applicant has the responsibility to mitigate valid concerns to the fullest extent feasible for the proposed project and present those responses for consideration at subsequent public hearings- (SPARC/Planning Commission). Third, we support changing the Planning Commission to a decision making body. Beyond the recommendations by DCAC for a mandatory neighborhood meeting, a 'site only' SPARC meeting, and an integrated staff meeting with the applicant, changing the Planning Commission from advisory to decision making will unload the back of the process. Currently, Petaluma's process automatically sends major developments (4 dwellings or more) to City Council requiring an applicant to prepare two identical presentations; once to Planning Commission and then to City Council. This process encumbers our City Council, which can always be involved if an applicant or opponent appeals the decision of the Planning Commission. For a mere $180, an appeal application can be filed. Fourth, we recommend that the City Council rely on their professional staff's reports, expertise in zoning law and knowledge of the process. We also recommend that SPARC and Planning Commission be supported by Council so that their committed volunteer time has meaning. The design professionals who have served on various citizen committees voiced frustrations with councils that have continuously overturned the committee's recommendations. This disregard has made us reluctant to serve again or to recruit qualified colleagues. Fifth, a specific zoning amendment must be made for non -conforming commercial structures. A non -conforming structure should not be required to be in physical conformance as long as the non-conformance isn't exacerbated. This is how it has historically been applied in Petaluma. On September 15, 2008, the City Attorney interpreted Section 22.030A of the IZO to require all non- conforming structures to be brought into conformance if any extension or enlargement is sought. For example, a 100 year old brick warehouse that could be adaptively reused may have to be partially demolished in order to be remodeled. The implications city-wide present a hardship on numerous commercial building owners in historic buildings. In summary, our group of design professionals sees the need to change the development code in the following areas: 1. Include more community input as outlined above with a mandatory neighborhood meeting pre -application. 2. Shift the Planning Commission to a decision making body. 3. Change Section 22.030A to apply to commercial non -conforming structures in the same way that residential non -conforming structures are considered. We speak for many in the community who see the role of Council to take a broader view, a longer view and one that holds the vision of a healthy developing town. We sincerely appreciate your time and efforts to improve the process. Sincerely, Mary Dooley George Beeler Chris Lynch Bill Wolpert Bill Rinehart Shawn Montoya Linda Kade Stephanie McAllister Pete Gang Wayne Miller Claudia Cleaver Steve LaFranchi Janet Gracyk Larry Reed