2021 Survey Results
My concerns about the KCPP / Davidon RDEIR are:
88.3% = Wildfire in UWI (urban wildfire interface) (Chapter 4.15)
90.2% = Red legged frog destruction / relocation (Chapter 4.3)
90.6% = Traffic - significant & unavoidable (Chapter 4.13)
76.2% = Parking for park in neighborhoods (Chapter 4.13)
93.8% = Disruption of wildlife corridor (Chapter 4.3)
85.2% = Downstream flooding (Chapter 4.8)
I would like the city to: (check all that apply)
91.7% = Recommend parkland for the entire parcel
59.8% = Consider alternatives for the 28 homes. For example: less expensive homes with a smaller footprint, condos, little house community, low-income elderly housing, organic farm or winery, solar field, etc.
57.1% = Focus new development on affordable housing
63.4% = Create a cost / benefit analysis that considers ALL issues together
69.3% = Communicate to the public about the short- and long-term costs to the City of this development
58.3% = Create a RHNA (housing needs) dashboard that shows what our current obligation is, units approved with a drawdown on that total obligation, and how future projects would satisfy this state quota
62.6% = Explain how current VMT (vehicle miles traveled) traffic measures relate to previous traffic measures and if that matters in this project
Really concerned that once developed and the 44 acres are turned over to Sonoma County Parks it will be years before anything is developed. After several years they put the trailhead in by the circle on Windsor Drive with no parking or other amenities. No reason to think this won’t happen with this development. Traffic and parking in the surrounding neighborhood is horrible. People using the park refuse to pay for parking which supports the park.
Please do not build in that area. There are enough houses in that area already. We need parkland!
I’d like to see any housing development actually be affordable
I say it’s the right compromise
It should remain open park land and let the cows graze
Traffic is already an issue on D St. We live on Grossland Way and there are times we can not make a left turn out of our Street unto D. Even making a right turn off of Grossland is difficult when the traffic is backed up. Afternoon, between 3 and 4:30 seems to be the worst and if the bridge is up, the train is coming and kids are getting out of school, we are in gridlock.I want townspeople to have access to this beautiful park, but am concerned about escape routes in case of fire or floods.
I want our City to recommend parkland for the ENTIRE parcel. When H Putnam Park was established in 1985, the population of Petaluma was 35,000. It's now nearly 2x that, at 63,000 citizens, and the amount of parkland per citizen is significantly less. Putnam park is often very crowded. The park has been a critical refuge during COVID. Building on scenic ridges in the wild land interface is entirely the wrong focus for our beautiful Rivertown. Putting in paths and allowing dogs in close proximity to the Red Barn and creek will sound the final death knell for the red-legged frog, an endangered Special Status Species. We can do this! We CAN set the entire 58 acres aside for preservation as parkland. We don't need new single-family luxury homes where we are built out in excess of 820% of our luxury housing quota (RHNA) for this building cycle. With Measure M and in concert with monies raised by Petalumans for Responsible Development, we can acquire the entire 58 acres to be added to Helen Putnam Park. Thank you.
Environmental concerns, ongoing noise during and after construction in this echoing this valley, landslides, traffic, toxic emissions may cause many health issues for people living in this area
We do not need luxury homes in Petaluma. We need more parks for the people who live here. It is smarter to use the infrastructure we are already have in place for new construction and leave the hills for parks. Unless the City has a plan to build new park for all of the new homes??? Didn't think so.... thx!!
Helen Putnam is our most beautiful place to hike in Petaluma (we don't have many!). Having these 28 homes built there would destroy the natural beauty of the place. Please, let's keep it pristine.
I like option 2 (Consider alternatives...), but not at this site. We have plenty of vacant downtown property whose development would benefit low income and elder housing and would be within walking distance of stores and other amenities.
This project is beyond wasteful and environmentally ill balanced. As a resident of Petaluma for 40+ years the growth of this city has maxed out. It is time to be focusing on what is naturally And already in existence here and how we will manage these things. The red legged frog deserves a chance to exist and the people deserve your time to be spent on cleaning up so many things, but I’ll mention the house less community, which is affecting our water ways. When do you put your greed and dollar signs away for the sake of peace of all things and beings? Do the right thing Petaluma.
We are in a climate emergency and a bio-diversity crisis. We should be focused on enlarging our parks and preservation of our ecosystems, which are the most cost effective ways to stabilize our life styles while we put the longer term solutions in place.
This parcel is not suitable for any housing. It should have been included in the park a long time ago.
I live in Victoria and DO NOT WANT this project built up against Helen Putnam. There are too many homes as it is.
Thank you for doing this.
We need more park for the increased population of Petaluma
Cities have a right to not over develop. We need to stop approving too much way over RHNA #s.
Petaluma should acquire the ENTIRE 58 acres and not allow more luxury homes be built on our scenic ridges. When H Putnam Park was established in 1985, the population of Petaluma was 35,000. It's now approaching 2x that, at 63,000 citizens, and the ratio of parkland to citizen is significantly less. The park has been an important respite in COVID, and is a critical draw for folks interested in our town. We are currently built out to > 820% of our regional housing numbers (RHNA) for luxury homes. The last thing we need are more million-dollar homes on our scenic ridges and in our urban/wildland interface. So many species are already imperiled. The red-legged frog is an imperiled special status species. This is one of its 3 last habitats. With Measure M having passed and Petalumans for Responsible Planning having raised ~ $7 mil, the developer can be bought out!
We don't need a large development on the edge of town. We have stated that we are in a climate crisis, and we need to act like it. We should concentrate on infill development, as well as increasing parklands in the city and access to them.
The city council seems committed to destroying every remaining historic parcel they can. We absolutely do not need 28 large, ugly homes. The parcel as is adds more value - including tourism dollars - than new, ugly homes ever could. Please stop destroying our heritage and our environment.
All of above, in both sections, are important, but if I marked them all I would come across as totally unthinking. Thank you for your efforts and good luck!
We need more open space(s) for our growing population and less impingement on wildlife habitat.
This parcel represents the only opportunity for residents of Petaluma to extend open space/parkland that is walkable from the city center and protects vital watershed, wildlife corridors and species. Please protect our health, wellbeing and our unique 'small town' feel by reducing sprawl and opting for infill projects instead.
I support your efforts and don’t support the deal cut behind scenes by Kelly Creek with developers.
This is a difficult issue. This open space should be part of Helen Putnam Regional Park and I understand the owner needs to make some profit. Profit over environment. The best mitigation for climate change is preserving open space.
City must start getting tougher on developers and take ownership of current residents' best interests. This is only going to benefit a handful of new people to town at the cost of our open space, watershed protection, wildlife corridor, traffic and safety and pollution for the entire area. Short term thinking will not solve these issues.
Petaluma is losing its soul to fat-cat developers.
Petaluma needs more parkland. Helen Putman is a busy, well loved place and the residents of the city would love to see it expanded. The proposed development is in a lovely oak filled valley which would be a wonderful addition to the Park, and would help protect our endangered state amphibian. D street is already a very busy traffic corridor bringing in all the commuters from Marin. Adding even more traffic is a bad idea.
I have lived in Victoria for 2.5 years. During this time, the traffic has increased substantially. The parking in our neighborhood for Helen Putnam Park is ridiculous. I know there is ample parking for the park and people just don't want to pay the parking fee (to support a park that they are using), but the Victoria neighborhood is paying the price for this. The people that park along Windsor Drive are using our small neighborhood park, even though this is restricted to residents.
Windsor Drive NOW is a noisy and fast-paced highway at least 2x per day, beginning from 6 AM -10AM, then beginning again from 2 pm until 7 pm. This is unacceptable. Building more homes will bring MORE traffic, and our neighborhood cannot sustain the impact. Building out HPP is a fine idea, but parking for HPP cannot be allowed to spill over into adjacent neighborhood streets. Already Windsor Drive is over-run with cars parking to enter the un-paid entrance on Oxford, and at the new round-about entrance by Westgate.The park needs a parking lot for all of the bikers coming with trailers for their bikes, as the expansion of the bike trails has made HP enormously attractive to mountain bike enthusiasts. This is not objectionable, but the parking of random cars all throughout Windsor neighborhood IS.
It is very unclear to me why we are taking our beautiful and highly limited open space and selling it off to the highest bidder. This land is irreplaceable. Once it's developed it remains so. The city should focus and reward development within the current urban footprint and next to transportation hubs. This proposed development is the antithesis of all of that. Helen Putnam is the only "wild" feeling park that Petaluma has. It is a jewel. It should be expanded not surrounded by luxury homes. Open spaces are for everyone to enjoy, not just for the wealthy and well connected.
Please look over the impact on this development
This is not a simple project. It is complicated because of so many issues that need professional adjustments.
I am very opposed to this new construction.
I don’t know the details of this project and I don’t know if by turning down the 28 houses we will end up with something worse. But I am hoping for something better. I like the idea of a tiny house community or homes for seniors. Not so enthusiastic about winery or farm etc.
Petaluma stands for something, people like myself chose Petaluma to call home for a reason. Those reasons are that we love the slower pace, rolling hills, and friendly community that Petaluma offers. I didn't choose Marin County with its expensive homes and lifestyle. My dream and vision for Petaluma is to work toward enhancing these charms, not diluting them with modern housing developments. Petaluma has a valuable opportunity that should not be squandered. We've finally dredged our river. Now let's fix our streets and return it to the luster that it stands for rather than introducing suburban sprawl
This 'deal' for a park and 28 homes was developed by 2 people, NOT the entire community. And these 2 are not aware of, nor seem to care about Petaluma's Climate Action Framework. Does City Council care more about these out-of-town/out-of-touch developers and future occupants of the 28 homes, than they care about current residents?
Please consider all of these concerns.
Air Quality is a big concern about this project.
Biological concerns for this development on such a dangerous hill.
Gas Emissions are not going to be healthy for residents in Petaluma.
The small-town charm of Petaluma is in jeopardy. Don't let it disappear completely or be compromised by the greedy out-of-towners who have no vision or interest in the affect this visual assault, on one of nature's jewels, will have on this area. They can pack up and leave us in their dust!
These 28 expensive homes in the style of the dated suburban model is not what Petaluma needs and not what Petalumans can afford to buy. These homes would be car-dependent and add to the traffic problems and green house gas emissions. "
This development has no place on the west side of town where the rural beauty is slowly being encroached upon. This area should be preserved and incorporated into Helen Putnam Park, one of the very few public spaces available to us in Petaluma.
The detriment to our landscape and our safety (MORE TRAFFIC???) is not worth whatever financial gain (if any) the city would get.
NO on the luxury homes!!! Say NO to Davidon!!!
I do not support this development. Leave the land and nature alone.
Too much traffic already. Please keep as open space.
It is imperative that we don't develop this beautiful land in Petaluma and throughout California. The new houses will further stress natural resources and infrastructure. They will mar a pastoral landscape. I urge you not to approve this development.
Respect our wishes about the goals for Petaluma.
Fell in love with Petaluma in 1993. I moved here 13 years ago because it was perfect as it was. Now trying to move away as it's become just another disgusting money monger town.
Many concerns over the safety of residents of Petaluma. Need more reports that more current.
Helen Putnam is a Petaluma treasure and should be expanded, not reduced with more urban sprawl that is not even affordable housing. We have other sites to build that would not rob Petaluman of this beautiful open space for ever.
We need more affordable housing! Not unaffordable housing!
The high road is saving this natural treasure. I say we raise all the money needed to satisfy the gluttonous developer and be remembered for all time a community that saved the impossible. Will same thinking ever overrule making money?????
We feel quite strongly that we do not want Davidon to build homes up against Helen Putnam Park. There are enough homes there already. We need to keep the beautiful open land. Well the credit is deserved for all the people involved in KCPP, it’s not a solution that we want. In fact, we don’t want it at all. I feel quite strongly that this housing development should not go up at this location.
I support city goal for carbon neutral by 2030-this development does nothing to this end
How are we building more housing and no relief for our traffic concerns. And now the Council wants to close roads for electric bikes? What!!! But yet the people who are paying transportation costs, via registration and other taxes are actually paying for this and not the bicyclists? This City Council makes zero sense.
A really bad idea. Are we that short sighted
No, no, no, no, no
There are so many problems with this development I don't know where to begin.
To many large homes and not enough places for people to go. Should become part of park. Traffic is already horrible along there. Petaluma is losing its charm becoming anothe traffic ridden place, The roads cannot keep handling the load of more and more people. Infrastructure is in desperate need of help before more building. God help you getting to the hospital across town as its always gridlocked.
What if I support this development? Where is that on this survey? This is very one sided.
This city has been slowly siphoning off it's character in the interest of big money for many years. You can't build character with dollars - in fact, they are often mutually opposed. This community has plenty of money if it looks inward and multi-million dollar homes in exclusive neighborhoods is the exact opposite of Petaluma heritage of farming, unique-character of stores, entertainment and the people that live here. For what exactly?
PLEASE stop further housing development in Petaluma. This city is saturated as it is!! Find tax dollars from other sources and be fiscally responsible.
Petaluma must pursue in-fill development near easy public transit options.
This land should be preserved, it is a vital part of the essence of Petaluma that makes it so special and to sell it off to the highest bidder is the work of speculators and developers, not the citizens of Petaluma, custodians of our children's future, the people you are supposed to represent. Petaluma will not be enhanced by this development it will be diminished.
Stop this project.
Petaluma will be permanently and negatively impacted by the loss of this open space.
This is a wildlife corridor, without much knowledge about the area they cross at the same place all year, as well as up and over the hill near the water tower.
More congestion is not better for long term environmental health
Just because a developer buys land does not mean that the City guarantees approving the project. Davidon has been trying to make a profit on this environmentally sensitive land for decades.
The presentative to the Planning Commission was very slick and expensive. Makes an average person wonder how much this developer is willing to spend in order to convince the city council to approve this development.
Added responses to
My concerns about the KCPP / Davidon RDEIR are:
Keep this beautiful pristine parcel intact,
Project at UBG- no affordable housing on site
Kelly Creek overflow and change
Construction is one of the most greenhouse gas intensive industries.
Building on scenic ridges
Noise , toxic emissions , story poles needed
Urban Sprawl - Should be building In Fill in town first
We need affordable housing, not more luxury homes in land that has never been built on.
Erosion, excessive luxury housing development that is NOT WALKABLE
This is not the type of housing that Petaluma needs.
need for affortable multiple family planned unit developments
Ruin of a historic area
Unnecessary additional luxury housing IS A DEVELOPER'S BOONDOGGLE!
Increased noise, air and water pollution in this valley from traffic, visitors and residents dumping chemicals into this watershed.
VMTS and GHGs, poor growth pattern
Project at UBG- no affordable housing on site
Noise during construction. After as well. The valley has high sounds across.
flies in face of our climate emergency:
This type of development is inconsistent with our goal to be carbon neutral – it's not the type of housing we need and it will cause irreparable harm to our local environment.
Noise is a big concern.
Greenhouse gases have far-ranging environmental and health effects. They cause climate change by trapping heat, and they also contribute to respiratory disease from smog and air pollution. Extreme weather, food supply disruptions, and increased wildfires are other effects of climate change caused by greenhouse gases
Money does hideous things to beautiful places!
Update the reports. They seem to be out of date.
The reports in the DEIR are outdated. They need to be updated.
Toxic gas from this development could be dangerous for the people in the area.
Old reports are in the Davidon report. Need new ones.
If this project is unexpected approved, story poles would be needed.
Geology and soils concerns. Landslides in this area.
Endangered species should not be destroyed.
Loss of Habitat for birds and other wildlife. And poisons i.e., herbicides, rat poisons used by homeowners that can end up in the creek or be ingested by wildlife.
Protect all the Western Hillsides just as the General Plan stipulates
destruction of even more beautiful open space!!
Once the land is desecrated it will never be the same again, and for what? Short term profit.