HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.C 02/24/2020 Attachment 12Attachment 12
Public Comments Received After January 27, 2020
From: b.barnacle.gsw@gmai!.com <b.barnacle.gsw@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:32 PM
To: Barrett,Teresa <tbarrett@cityofpetal uma.org>; Flynn, Peggy <PFlvnn@citvofpetaluma.org>; Healy, Mike
<mhealy@citvofpetaluma.org>; King, Dave <dking@cityofpetaluma.orp,>; 'D'Lynda Fischer' <df@dlyndafischer.com>;
McDonnell, Kevin <kmcdonnell@citvofpetalumaoorg,>; Kearney, Gabe <gkearnev@citvofpetaluma.org>; Miller, Kathy
<kmiller@citvofpetal urnaaorg>; 'David Rabbitt' <David. Ra bbitt@sonoma-countv.org>
Cc: -- City Clerk<CitvC!erk@citvofpetal uma.or,g>; rnatt.b:-own@arguscourier.com
Subject: Corona Station and the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program
---Warning: Use caution before clicking any attachments. THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OUR EMAIL SYSTEM.
Good evening Mayor Barrett, City Council Members, Supervisor Rabbit, and City Manager Flynn,
I hope you are well.
As you know, I do not support the proposal from Lomas at Corona, or the proposal from Hines to put luxury apartments
at our DT station while pushing low-income residents out to our City's edge where services are scarce. I and others
within our community would much rather be supporting good projects rather than "fighting" against bad ones like
these, but we'll continue to stand up in solidarity for Ota afuma!
This email is not about what is wrong with the current proposal. It is about how we can take a step back and do this
"right". By right, I mean (1) prioritizing housing affordability near the train stations and (2) implementing TOD best
practices.
Today I had a good conversation with Ryan Silber from the Strategic Growth Council about the Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. AHSC is a competitive grant that offers up to $30M per project and $60M per
developer for projects that include affordable housing near transit. The next round of funding ($400M) will be released
in Oct 2020. If the City wants to target a few opportunities, NOW is the time to get started.
Eligible AHSC costs include: real estate acquisition, housing design and construction, transit and/or active transportation
infrastructure (up to $10M for sidewalks, bike lanes, transit stations, etc.), and "programs" (up to $500K for bike shares,
car shares, active transportation education, urban ecology education, etc.). What an awesome package!
Let's apply this to the Corona Station — we get $30M to build 100+ of affordable housing units, sidewalks and bike lanes
to Lagunitas, and a EV ride share to mitigate traffic and emissions and help low-income residents access services
throughout the town. That sounds a lot more like climate and housing leadership than the existing proposal... not to
mention a more walkable and safer community, with less traffic impacts, more opportunities for local businesses, and a
"healthy and active lifestyle" for the neighboring residents.
Question: Do you have the courage to say no to Lomas' bad project so we can get a better project for our community?
Maybe you do not have the courage to uphold our General Plan for Corona, but we should absolutely not let Hines pay
in lieu fees on the DT parcel. We need a mixed income TOD project that serves the low-income and working class
people of Petaluma way more than the luxury homes that Hines (and Lomas) propose. We can build a mixed -income
TOD community using the AHSC program — we just need to have courage, clarify our priorities and be proactive.
I understand that we are resource constrained and these grants require hard work. You are right; they do. But we are in
luck!
The SGC offers a free Technical Assistance (TA) program where the City can get support from the leading TA provider in
the state, Enterprise Community Partners. Fill out this survev to qualifv! We could be getting free technical assistance to
build affordable housing and active transportation infrastructure near our train stations — so cool!!! As the Mayor said
on Jan 3`d, "we just need to get it done".
Moreover, Ryan said that SGC would be happy to present at our CC meeting about the AHSC program (and other state
programs you have interest in). WOW — what a great way to get educated! Perhaps before you approve more auto -
oriented and non -affordable development at these key parcels, you could educate yourself about programs to assist
with affordable housing and TOD... ?
Can we add a presentation from SGC to the Feb 24 g" meeting? This way you all, Hines, Lomas, and the community can
see the tremendous opportunity before us, ask questions, and determine if we should (1) prioritize going after AHSC
funds or (2) just greenlight another suburb and luxury apartments that are geared for out-of-towners, and push those
most in need away from essential services. Seems reasonable to at least get educated, right?
Ryan made clear that local governments usually initiate the AHSC projects, and they forge partnerships with housing
developers and transit agencies. This means that the collaboration between the City, SMART and developers must
improve — the dysfunction is costing us millions of dollars and resulting in bad development and bad will. SMART has
been MIA throughout the City's process and in lawsuits with Lomas... Members of our City Council have been telling
Lomas to disregarded the community's input and build SF homes at our train station. Is it possible for you all to work
together?
I am happy to coordinate the presentation with SGC. Let me know how I can help.
Finally, last night our Climate Commissioners expressed concern that the Corona station project is a stark violation of the
emergency climate resolution. They understand that at times it makes sense to deviate from our General Plan, but those
cases should accomplish something better than our GP allows for. That is not what is happening at Corona Station.
Lomas, the M Group, and yes, members of our own CC are trying to change our GP to benefit an out of town developer
(and likely their reelection campaigns) — all at the community's expense.
Please, listen to your Planning Commission, your Climate Action Commission, and the community you serve. We can do
better — we just need to have courage, clarify our priorities and be proactive. As I said in my email after the devastating
Sid Commons decision, "We want you to succeed..." Please don't let Petaluma down.
Warm regards,
Brian Barnacle
Petaluma Native and Current Resident
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
2020 W. EI Camino Avenue, Suite 670, 95833
P. O. Box 952054
Sacramento, CA 94252-2054
(916) 263-2771 / (FAX) 263-2763
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 1, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Potential Applicants
FROM: Jennifer Seeger, Acting Deputy Director
Division of Financial Assistance
SUBJECT: Notice of Funding Availability ('
Affordable Housing and Sustainabl
Communities Program
The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) are pleased to announce the availability of
approximately $550 million in funding for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) program. The purpose of the AHSC program is to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions through projects implementing land -use, housing, transportation, and
agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and compact development, and
support related and coordinated public policy objectives. Funding for the AHSC program is
provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to
receive Cap -and -Trade auction proceeds.
The AHSC program furthers the purposes of AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statues of 2006) and
SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008). AHSC is part of the California Climate Investments,
a statewide program funded through the GGRF that puts billions of Cap -and -Trade dollars to
work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and
the environment — particularly in disadvantaged communities.
The AHSC NOFA, Guidelines, workshop details, and related program information
are available at httr):Hsgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/ or http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-
fundinq/active-funding/ahsc.shtml. Application materials will be posted to
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-fundinq/active-fundinq/ahsc.shtmi prior to NOFA workshops.
To receive information on workshops and other updates, please visit HCD and SGC.
Questions may be directed to the AHSC program at ahsc(d)hcd.ca.gov and
ahsc(a-)sgc.ca.gov.
Attachment
I A 3
Notice of Funding Availability
Round
November 1, 2019
CALIFOHNIA STRAT EGI
GROWTH COUNCIL
N�
Gavin Newsom, Governor
State of California
Alexis Podesta, Secretary
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Louise Bedsworth, PhD, Director
California Strategic Growth Council
Douglas R. McCauley, Acting Director
California Department of Housing and Community Development
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500, Sacramento, CA 95833
Website: http://www.hcd.ca.qov/qrants-fundinq/active-fundinq/ahsc.shtml
Phone: (916) 263-2771 Email: ahscCa)hcd.ca.aov
Table of Contents
1.
Overview..............................................................................................................................1
A.
Notice of Funding Availability.......................................................................................................1
B.
Timeline...........................................................................................................................................1
C.
What's new in this NOFA..............................................................................................................1
D.
Authorizing Legislation..................................................................................................................1
11.
Program Requirements...................................................................................................... 2
A.
Eligible Applicants..........................................................................................................................2
B.
Eligible Projects..............................................................................................................................2
C.
Eligible Costs..................................................................................................................................2
D.
Program Threshold Requirements..............................................................................................2
E.
Program Funding Amounts and Terms......................................................................................2
F.
Application Scoring........................................................................................................................3
III.
Application, Review, Workshops, and Appeals............................................................... 3
A.
Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST) Application Components .........3
B.
Hardcopy Document Submittal....................................................................................................4
C.
Application Review........................................................................................................................4
D.
Appeals............................................................................................................................................5
E.
Disclosure of Application..............................................................................................................6
F.
Application Workshops.................................................................................................................6
IV.
Award Announcements and Contracts............................................................................. 6
A.
Award Announcements.................................................................................................................6
B.
Contracts.........................................................................................................................................6
V.
Other State Requirements.................................................................................................. 6
A.
Article XXXIV..................................................................................................................................7
B.
Pet Friendly Housing Act of 2017................................................................................................7
C.
State Prevailing Wages................................................................................................................7
VI.
Other Terms and Conditions............................................................................................. 7
A.
Right to Modify or Suspend..........................................................................................................7
B.
Conflicts...........................................................................................................................................7
I. Overview
A. Notice of Funding Availability
The Strategic Growth Council (SGC) and the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (Department) hereby announce the availability of
approximately $550 million in funding for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) program. The AHSC program is administered by SGC and
implemented by the Department. The California Air Resources Board (GARB)
provides the quantification methodology for determining the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions reductions for the AHSC program.
These AHSC program funds will be used for loans or grants, or a combination
thereof, to projects that will achieve GHG emissions reductions to benefit all
California communities, particularly through increasing accessibility to affordable
housing and key destinations via low -carbon transportation, resulting in fewer
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through shortened or reduced trip length or mode shift
from Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) use to transit, bicycling or walking.
B. Timeline
NOFA Release
Application Due Date
Award Announcements
C. What's New
November 1, 2019
February 11, 2020
Summer 2020
1) The maximum individual award amount has increased to $30 million.
2) The maximum amount to be awarded to any single Developer has been
increased to $60 million.
3) Department will no longer require a hardcopy submittal of the Application
Workbooks. Only documents with wet signatures must be submitted in hard copy
to the Department by the application due date listed in Section III.B. of this
NOFA. Additionally, application materials must be submitted electronically
pursuant to Section III. A. of this NOFA.
D. Authorizing Legislation
The AHSC program furthers the purposes of AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006)
and SB 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008). Available funds are subject to the
AHSC program Guidelines issued by SGC dated October 31, 2019, or as amended
(Guidelines). The Guidelines include detailed information on eligibility requirements,
application selection criteria, established terms, conditions, and procedures for funds
awarded under AHSC. The Guidelines are available at
http://www.sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/resources/.
Department of Housing and Community Development 4- AHSC Round 5 NOFA
Applicants are responsible for complying with the AHSC program requirements set
forth in the Guidelines. Applicants are urged to carefully review the Guidelines and
information contained in this NOFA before submitting applications.
11. Program Requirements
The following is provided as a summary and is not to be considered a complete
representation of the entirety of the eligibility, threshold, or other requirements or terms
and conditions of the AHSC program. Please note that capitalized words may be
defined terms and can be found in the program Guidelines. Please refer to the
Guidelines for complete information.
A. Eligible Applicants
Applicants must be eligible pursuant to the Guidelines, Section 105, Eligible
Applicants.
Please note: A special purpose entity, which is formed and controlled by the
Developer, and which will serve as the ultimate borrower of AHSC loan funds, is not
an Eligible Applicant, but may be named in the portion of the application that
requests the name of the ultimate borrower.
B. Eligible Projects
Proposed projects must be eligible pursuant to the Guidelines, Section 102, Eligible
Projects. Eligible projects must fall into one of the following three eligible Project
Area types:
• Transit Oriented Development Project Area type (TOD)
• Integrated Connectivity Project Area type (ICP), or
• Rural Innovation Project Area type (RIPA).
C. Eligible Costs
The AHSC program funds Capital Projects and eligible Program Costs within TOD,
ICP and RIPA Project Areas. For a detailed list of all eligible costs, please refer to
the Guidelines, Section 103, Eligible Cost.
D. Program Threshold Requirements
In addition to meeting the requirements of the Guidelines as described in paragraphs
A, B, and C above, applicants and projects are also required to meet the program
threshold requirements found in Section 106 of the Guidelines.
E. Program Funding Amounts and Terms
1. AHSC Program Funding Award Maximum: The maximum AHSC program loan
or grant award, or combination thereof, is $30 million, with a minimum award of
at least $1 million.
Department of Housing and Community Development -2- AHSC Round 5 NOFA
2. AHSC Program Funding Developer Maximum: A single Developer may
receive no more than $60 million per NOFA funding cycle. This limitation may be
waived by SGC, if necessary, to meet requirements referenced in the Guidelines,
Section 108(d)(7).
3. Terms of Assistance: Assistance terms and limits are set forth in the
Guidelines, Section 104, Assistance Terms and Limits. Loans for Affordable
Rental Housing Developments are subject to requirements set forth in the
Guidelines, Section 104(b). Grants are subject to the terms and requirements set
forth in the Guidelines, Section 104(c).
F. Application Scoring
Applications will be scored according to the Guidelines, Section 107, Scoring
Criteria. AHSC program funds will be allocated through a competitive processset
forth in Guidelines, Section 108.
111. Application, Review, Workshops, and Appeals
Applications must meet eligibility requirements upon submission. Modification of the
application forms by the applicant is prohibited. It is the applicant's responsibility to
ensure the application is clear, complete, and accurate. After the application deadline,
Department staff may request clarifying information, provided such information does not
affect the competitive rating of the application. No information, whether written or oral, will
be solicited or accepted if this information would result in a competitive advantage to an
applicant or a disadvantage to other applicants. No applicant may appeal the evaluation
of another applicant's application.
The AHSC NOFA, Guidelines, workshop details, and related program information
are available at http://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/resources/ or http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-
fundinq/active-funding/ahsc.shtml. Application materials will be posted to
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-fundinq/active-fundinq/ahsc.shtmi prior to NOFA workshops.
A. Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST) Application
Components
Complete applications must include the following components:
1. AHSC Application Workbook
All applicants must complete and submit the AHSC Application Workbook.
2. AHSC Benefits Calculator Tool
All applicants must complete and submit the AHSC Benefits Calculator Tool to meet
requirements referenced in Guidelines Section 106(a)(1).
Department of Housing and Community Development -3- AHSC Round 5 NOFA
3. Universal Application Workbook (UA)
The UA must be completed and submitted for projects seeking funds for
Affordable Housing Development (AHD) or Housing Related Infrastructure (HRI).
4. Electronic FAAST Submission
Application materials must be submitted electronically via the FAAST system.
Requirements for uploading the Application Workbook, UA Workbook, and
required supporting documentation, including naming conventions, are described
in the application instructions available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-
fundinq/active-fundinq/ahsc.shtml. Applicants must upload all application
materials to the FAAST system no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific Standard Time
on February 11, 2020.
B. Hardcopy Document Submittal
Applicants must submit hardcopies of documents requiring wet signatures as
identified in the Application Workbooks through a mail carrier service such as
U.S. Postal Service, UPS, FedEx or other carrier services that provide date stamp
verification confirming delivery. These documents must be received by the
Department no later than 5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time on February 13, 2020
to the address below:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
Division of Financial Assistance, NOFA Section
California Department of Housing and Community Development
2020 W. EI Camino Avenue, Suite 650
Sacramento, CA 95833
Personal deliveries will not be accepted. No late applications, incomplete
applications, facsimiles, walk-ins or application revisions will be accepted. The
hardcopy documents must match documents submitted via the FAAST system.
In the event of discrepancies between hardcopies and electronically submitted
workbooks, the electronic FAAST submission will prevail.
C. Application Review
1. Phase One
Application completeness and satisfaction of threshold criteria described in the
Guidelines will be confirmed. Please note, the threshold review for financial
feasibility criteria in this phase consists of only verification of documentation
completeness, not an evaluation of the material facts. That review will take place
in Phase Three. Phase One is a pass/fail stage, and applicants will receive
notification of their status upon completion of threshold reviews, with a five-day
opportunity to appeal the findings of the reviews.
Department of Housing and Community Development -4- AHSC Round 5 NOFA
2. Phase Two
Quantitative policy criteria and greenhouse gas reductions score (GHG QM) will
be evaluated for proposals that have met the requirements of Phase One. An
initial score letter will be provided to applicants with a five-day opportunity to
appeal the findings of the reviews. AHSC staff will review appeal responses and
revise scores where appropriate. Applicants who score less than 50 percent of
the total quantitative policy criteria and GHG QM points will not be eligible to
move forward. The final score letter will include notification of application status.
3. Phase Three
An interagency team will review the narrative section of applications which have
scored 50 percent or higher in Phase Two. During Phase Three, an in-depth
evaluation of the project's financial feasibility will be performed.
D. Appeals
1. Basis of Appeals
(a) Upon receipt of the Department's notice that an application has been
determined to be incomplete, ineligible, fail threshold, or have a reduction
to the initial point score, applicants under this NOFA may appeal such
decision(s) to the Department pursuant to this section.
(b) No applicant shall have the right to appeal a decision of the Department
relating to another applicant's eligibility, point score, award, denial of award,
or any other matter related thereto.
(c) The appeal process provided herein applies solely to decisions of the
Department made in this program NOFA and does not apply to any
decisions made with respect to any previously issued NOFAs or decisions
to be made pursuant to future program NOFAs.
2. Appeal Process and Deadlines
(a) To lodge an appeal, applicants must submit to the Department, by the
deadline set forth in subsection (b) below, a written appeal which states all
relevant facts, arguments, and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
Furthermore, the applicant must provide a detailed reference to the area or
areas of the application that provide clarification and substantiation for the
basis of the appeal. No new or additional information will be considered if
this information would result in a competitive advantage to an applicant.
Once the written appeal is submitted to the Department, no further
information or materials will be accepted or considered thereafter.
Appeals are to be submitted to the Department at ahschcd.ca.gov
according to the deadline set forth in Department review letters.
Department of Housing and Community Development -5- AHSC Round 5 NOFA
(b) Appeals must be received by the Department no later than five business
days from the date of the Department's threshold review or initial score
letters representing the Department's decision made in response to the
application.
3. Decision
Any request to amend the Department's decision shall be reviewed for
compliance with the Guidelines and this NOFA. All decisions rendered shall be
final, binding, and conclusive, and shall constitute the final action of the
Department.
E. Disclosure of Application
Information provided in the application will become a public record available for
review by the public, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 1473,
Statutes of 1968). As such, any materials provided will be disclosable to any person
making a request under this Act. The Department cautions applicants to use
discretion in providing information not specifically requested, including, but not
limited to, bank account numbers, personal phone numbers and home addresses.
By providing this information to the Department, the applicant is waiving any claim of
confidentiality and consents to the disclosure of submitted material upon request.
F. Application Workshops
The Department, SGC and CARB will conduct application workshops and
pre -application consultations for the Round 5 application submission. AHSC
workshop details and related program information will be posted on the SGC
website. Appointments are required for pre -application consultations. Workshop
questions should be directed to ahsc(d�sgc.ca.gov.
IV. Award Announcements and Contracts
A. Award Announcements
Awards will be announced in summer 2020. Award recommendations will be posted
with meeting materials at http://s(ic.ca.ciov/meetings/, ten days prior to the SGC
public meeting.
B. Contracts
Successful Applicants (Awardee(s)) will enter into a Standard Agreement with the
Department. The Standard Agreement contains all the relevant state and federal
requirements, as well as specific information about the award and the work to be
performed.
V. Other State Requirements
Department of Housing and Community Development -6- AHSC Round 5 NOFA
A. Article XXXIV
All projects shall comply with Article XXXIV, Section 1 of the California Constitution
as clarified by the Public Housing Election Implementation Law (Health and Safety
Code § 37000 - 37002). Article XXXIV documentation for loans underwritten by the
Department shall be subject to review and approval by the Department prior to the
announcement of award recommendations.
B. Pet Friendly Housing Act of 2017
Housing funded through the AHSC program is subject to the Pet Friendly Housing
Act of 2017 (Health and Safety Code Section 50466). Each Awardee is required to
submit a signed and dated certification that residents of the AHSC funded housing
development will be authorized to own or otherwise maintain one or more common
household pets.
C. State Prevailing Wages
AHSC program funds awarded under this NOFA are subject to state prevailing wage
law, as set forth in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., and require the payment of
prevailing wages unless the project meets one of the exceptions of Labor
Code Section 1720 (c), as determined by the Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR). The DIR can be contacted via its website at
https://www.dir.ca.qov/opri/DPreWaqeDetermination.htm. Applicants are urged to
seek professional advice as to how to comply with state prevailing wage law.
V11. Other Terms and Conditions
A. Right to Modify or Suspend
The Department reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to suspend, amend, or
modify the provisions of this NOFA at any time, including without limitation, the
amount of funds available hereunder. If such an action occurs, the Department will
notify all interested parties and will post the revisions to the Department's website.
Subscriptions to the Department's email list are available at:
http://www.hcd.ca.qov/HCD SSI/subscribe-form.htmi.
B. Conflicts
In the event of any conflict between the terms of this NOFA and either applicable
state or federal law or regulation, the terms of the applicable state or federal law or
regulation shall control. Applicants are deemed to have fully read and understand all
applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and guidelines pertaining to the AHSC
program, and understand and agree that the Department shall not be responsible for
any errors or omissions in the preparation of this NOFA.
Department of Housing and Community Development -7- AHSC Round 5 NOFA
Cooper, Claire
From: Nancy <nmosk@sonic.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 11:00 AM
To: Barrett,Teresa; Fischer, D'Lynda; Healy, Mike; Kearney, Gabe; King, Dave; Miller, Kathy; McDonnell,
Kevin
Cc: Cooper, Claire; Hines, Heather; b.barnacle.gsw@gmail.com; teddyherzog@yahoo.com;
matt.brown@arguscourier.com; pvollmer45@icloud.com; Davis; Nancy Mosk
Subject: Corona Station Residential Project: Reject Zoning Text Amendment
---Warning: Use caution before clicking any attachments. THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OUR EMAIL SYSTEM. ---
To the City Council:
As the Corona Station Residential development is proposed, Todd Kurtin of Lomas Properties asks for a Zoning Text
Amendment to allow only single family housing. This is a direct deviation from the Multi Use land designation in our
General Plan 2025, a designation that will allow commercial opportunities at the Corona/North McDowell hub... where
residents can avoid getting in their cars to walk over for a cup of coffee, a sandwich, and maybe a loaf of bread at a mini-
market. But if the development is defined as strictly single family homes, the possibility to make the area a true
neighborhood will be lost.
Most importantly, as the City embarks on a new update to the General Plan, this is not the time to allow such a
significant change. Our General Plan must look to the future.
Please reject the Zoning amendment requested by Lomas Properties.
Thank you,
Nancy Mosk
Cooper, Claire
From: Eric Leland <eric@fivepaths.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:27 AM
To: McDonnell, Kevin; Fischer, D'Lynda; Healy, Mike; Kearney, Gabe; King, Dave; Miller, Kathy;
Barrett,Teresa
Cc: -- City Clerk; Matt.Brown@arguscourier.com
Subject: Corona Station Residential Project: Stop the Rush, Start to Lead.
---Warning: Use caution before clicking any attachments. THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OUR EMAIL SYSTEM. ---
Dear Council Members,
Thank you for your work on behalf of Petaluma.
I am disappointed in your decisions to date regarding the Corona Station Residential project. The council has twice now
voted to support a seriously deficient project.
Most recently, the Council voted to support the zoning text amendment to allow single family housing counter to the
master plan. Also shocking to me, your vote of support occurred after you accommodated the owner's request to deliver
what turned out to be one of the most ill prepared and unprofessional presentations I have seen in my 30 years of
experience viewing these. Upside down and blurry slides, missing information, garbled half sentences - is this level of
unprofessionalism really acceptable to the City Council in a presentation, or in a project?
This is not the best project we can hope for, as clearly a project installing single family homes near transit is quite far
from ideal. Density is decreased, vehicle traffic increases, cost of living is increased, negative climate effects increase,
and livability at the project itself is decreased. Clearly, this is the wrong direction.
At a recent City Council meeting on this topic, another option was presented to solve the problems with the currently
substandard Corona project. This option is well informed by many Petalumans who are working very hard and
collaboratively to build a much stronger development project at this site. Isn't it great to see so much pragmatic,
solution oriented engagement from Petalumans?
Please flex your strength as leaders - support the effort to work with Kurtin to make this project a success for everyone.
Please do not buy into the artificial rush to get this through - the project itself and now even a basic presentation of the
project is seriously deficient. A great compromise is possible if you, our leaders, demand it. There is absolutely no reason
for you to accept anything less than the required 61 affordable housing units next to at least one of our train stations.
Corona Station does not have to be another suburban wasteland of zero community, single family housing and cars. The
future Petaluma deserves a train station with high density.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Eric
Eric Leland (he/him/his)
Principal, FivePaths LLC
51U-375-2396(office +mobile)
http://vvvvvv.fivepathszom
Cooper, Claire
From: Ashley Baker <ashleygbaker@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Hines, Heather
Subject: Corona Station Residential
---Warning: Use caution before clicking any attachments. THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OUR EMAIL SYSTEM. ---
Hi Heather,
My family and I are very interested in moving to Petaluma, specifically to the proposed Corona Station Residential area
that is in the planning process. In your experience with this type of thing, are you able to guesstimate when something
like this will actually be built and on the market for sale? Thanks so much for any insight.
Best,
Ashley Ward
Cooper, Claire
From: Terry, Suzanne
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:25 AM
To: -- City Clerk; Hines, Heather; -- City Attorney
Subject: FW: Corona Development - On the road to fiscal disaster
From: rekb@aol.com <rekb@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:16 AM
To: -- City Council <--CityCouncil@cityofpetaluma.org>
Subject: Corona Development - On the road to fiscal disaster
I realized I had not signed the earlier email. This one has my name. Sorry.
Dear Council Members and City Manager.
Subject: Corona Development - On the road to fiscal disaster.
The community of Petaluma has a combined unfunded liability of around $250 million. That number is arrived at using the
unfunded road repairs of around $125 million and the CalPERS levy for unfunded promises to present and former
employees of around $125 million. Of our 390 miles of roadway, nearly all the neighborhood roads were "contributed" as a
"freebie" to the city as part of the development. On each of the subsequent developments since I arrived in 1994, this
pattern has held true. However, the City has not been able to generate the funds from this development to maintain those
very same roads. Westridge Knolls is my front door example. City Council has never, ever held staff accountable for cost
benefit analysis of development. Of note is the police who have never indicated a development required extra police and
the fire department only noted that their resources were becoming stretched. The only way to stop City Council digging
the fiscal hole for the community has been through environmental laws.
Again, the City Council is embarking on digging the community still deeper into a fiscal hole by allowing development of
the Corona area. Of course, the Real Estate Associations (Realtor) will tout how the development will provide additional
tax revenues from selling increasingly valuable land (never mind the self interest in their fees). The lending organizations,
the developers, etc., who each have a very personal vested interest in development will tout the positive to the city and
poo -poo the increased costs as "irrelevant". The Argus Courier editorial this past week was, I believe, an example of this
kind of conspiracy to defraud the community. And who but City Council is going to safeguard the funds needed to
maintain revenues equal to expenses. The community fiscally unfunded "liabilities" have been a result of just letting this
happen.
I recall the development near Victoria in which I urged the City Council to address the real costs to the city of increased
traffic and wear and tear on the roads vs. the revenues the development would produce. I was saying what everyone on
City Council knew: residential development does not provide for a positive flow of tax revenues vs. services the city has to
provide. In part this is a result of state and county laws that created this problem.
As for the SMART Rail, the sales tax increase was sold as a complete financing package. What happened was that the
responsible oversight was not done.
And like in communist countries, personal relationships and hierarchy within the political system precluded local
municipalities from complaining about the mess being created by California Tax laws. And so today, everything is a
stopgap waiting for some imagined glorious morning where we will rise and all our fiscal problems will be solved for us,
but not by us. The business of City Council cannot continue as usual. Digging the community, the tax base, deeper into a
fiscal hole cannot result in anything but calamity. That glorious morning of hope will not arise because in lieu of help from
the Supreme Being, we were given brains to solve our own problems. Not a single one of the great religions states that
the Supreme Being will step in with money to solve our problems. It is up to you folks, as City Council, to stop this fiscal
destruction of out city. As for the staff, please note 1 term the CalPERS levy as "overpromised benefits" not unfunded
liabilities. I do this because the combined political powers (executive, legislative, and judiciary) always ultimately agree
that essential government services have priority over past political promises. So, staff needs to get on board as well.
Richard Brawn
141 Grevillia Drive
Petaluma, CA 94952
Cooper, Claire
From: Pascoe, Samantha
Sant: Tuesday, February 18'20J0916AK4
To: — City Council
Cc: Hines, Heather; Bendix, Brittany
Subject: FW: Corona Road SMART Development project is a BAD IDEA
Samantha Pascoe, CIVIC
Deputy City Clerk — City ufPetaluma
Direct 707.778.4575 Office 707.778.4360
City Hall hours: Qam-5pnnM'Th,Closed Fridays
vvvvw.dtyofpeta|urna.net
From: Rachel Kaplan <naohe|kap@fuUcupjnfo>
Sent: Monday, February 17 20208:58PM
Cc: — City Clerk <CityC|erk@dtyofpeta|umu.or0x; noattbrovvn@ar8usoouher.uom
--- Warning: Use caution before clicking any attachments. THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OUR EMAIL SYSTEM. ---
We support the 350Petaluma petition, urging you to reject the current Corona Road SMART Developme
project and replace it with a project that addresses Petaluma's future needs. i
2. Include much more affordable housing, not the mostly 110 single-family units in the current proposal that
start at $600,000. One alternative proposal could do this by replacing 50 of these single-family units with an
apartment building containing some ground -floor retail and parking that would provide 150-200 lower-cost
apartments. "We have a woeful record in creating affordable housing.... Five percent is embarrassing.", City
Councilman Kevin McDonnell said. (See front page article in 2-13 Argus Courier)
3. Include provisions for mitigating traffic congestion and improving pedestrian safety with more crosswalks,
sidewalks, and ADA accessibility, as population continues to grow all over the region.
4. Tap into the $1 billion available in state funding for TOD projects. With few large developable parcels left
in Petaluma, this parcel must be a model for sustainable development and reducing traffic on the already
crowded N. McDowell Boulevard.
If the Council approves this auto -oriented, unaiTordable-to-many project, it will further inflict environmental and
dconomic damage on Petaluma, forcing working class people to commute from cheaper housing elsewhere,
2nd make a mockery of the recent Climate Emergency Resolution.
Please vote to reject the current Corona Road Development project and insist the developers, Lomas Partners,
redesign the project to meet the true needs of Petaluma.
M=
Rachel Kaplan, MFT
415-269-2721
www.RachelKaplanMFT.net
www.urban-homesteadinq.ora
Respect existence or expect resistance
Cooper, Claire
From: Pascoe, Samantha
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 9:08 AM
To: Hines, Heather; Ellis, Evelyn
Cc: Cooper, Claire
Subject: FW: slowly making East Petaluma more pedestrian friendly
For the packet today.
Samantha Pascoe, CMC
Deputy City Clerk — City of Petaluma
Direct 707.778.4575 Office 707.778.4360
City Hall hours: Sam — 5pm M -Th, Closed Fridays
www.cityofpetaluma.net
From: teddyherzog@yahoo.com <teddyherzog@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 7:34 AM
To: -- City Clerk <CityClerk@cityofpetaluma.org>
Subject: Fw: slowly making East Petaluma more pedestrian friendly
---Warning: Use caution before clicking any attachments. THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OUR EMAIL SYSTEM. ---
Corona Train Station - Feb. 10th
Forwarded Message
• s • -- • - r-•` •
on
The future of east Petaluma may include a lot more cars but it will
Rlso include a lot more pedestrians and bicycles too. Let -s build for
the future.
"Walking, • • and transit are
r way cities r 6-
communities e Peter
r awe
orincioles forbuildinq better cities I Peter Calthome
1
jack pierce <288togo@gmai1.coin>
Sun 2/9/2020 1:27 PM
To:
• Dave King <davekingpcc@gniail.com>;
• ccooper@dpetalumaxams;
• eclanly@dpetahnnaxams;
• mthealy@sbcglobal.net;
• cityclerk@dpetalumaxams;
® Councilmember Gabe Kearney <councilniemberkearney@nie.com>;
0 Kathleen Miller <kathleencmilleroffice@giiiail.com>;
0 sbrodjun@d.petaluma,ca.us;
® Teresa Barrett <teresa4petalunia@coiiicast.iiet>;
• Heather Hines
El
CITY COUNCIL:
project. It is not mixed use, you are • to sell us ALTERNATIVE FACTS.
Lip r-Amm
• 9J #1 V-4 1 for.1 1 tip Wirmi I I a 11MMUM"111".
I I 1 #1 Isle.] 0 000 1*0101 HaNH #11 =If
The environmental document for the project is inadequate. It fails to explain the inconsistency
with the ADOPTED General Plan, Climate Action • and • Area Master Plan. This site is
designated as an OPPORTUNITY SITE, but the • • is LOST. Furthermore, it is my
• that you plan to trade away inclusionary • requirements for the
• Station as part of this process. The Station Plan specifically states that this should
• be allowed.
--)FF0JecL, YVI 1141, *Illy al'C 1",lat,111,; CT17F tIFT1 114MI T7S71flal, FCq1IFC
11,1114771 jlu allyl-TTFLIHS7 Ly -
that all potential •. be •- and mitigated, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, you r• -
•
-2j"V'#J t
This is not the Petaluma that supports a healthy community, but the greed of an out of town
developer and a lazy City Council.