Embedded Files
We sent a questionnaire to each of the 2018 mayoral and city council candidates. The questionnaire was very specific about the Scott Ranch/Davidon proposal and the future of the land at Windsor and D Street.
We sent a questionnaire to each of the 2018 mayoral and city council candidates. The questionnaire was very specific about the Scott Ranch/Davidon proposal and the future of the land at Windsor and D Street.
Petaluma City Council Candidate
Petaluma City Council Candidate
Dave King
Dave King
Response
Response
Thank you for including me. Here is my response. I have consolidated my answer regarding the Davidon property and related questions into one answer.
Thank you for including me. Here is my response. I have consolidated my answer regarding the Davidon property and related questions into one answer.
As most of you are aware, the City Council unanimously rejected the Draft Environmental Impact Report on Davidon's proposal to build approximately 65 homes on the property earlier in 2017. In the interim, the recent agreement by the Kelly Creek Protection Project to purchase part of the Davidon property has changed any potential proposal going forward. To be clear, there is no "deal" with City for Davidon to build 28 homes. The City was not a party to the transaction. It is a land sale deal between two private entities. I was supportive of the KCPP efforts to buy the property and dedicate it to park land (presumably a Putnam Park extension), but have not agreed in any manner to approve a development on the property, much less one that has not yet been proposed.
As most of you are aware, the City Council unanimously rejected the Draft Environmental Impact Report on Davidon's proposal to build approximately 65 homes on the property earlier in 2017. In the interim, the recent agreement by the Kelly Creek Protection Project to purchase part of the Davidon property has changed any potential proposal going forward. To be clear, there is no "deal" with City for Davidon to build 28 homes. The City was not a party to the transaction. It is a land sale deal between two private entities. I was supportive of the KCPP efforts to buy the property and dedicate it to park land (presumably a Putnam Park extension), but have not agreed in any manner to approve a development on the property, much less one that has not yet been proposed.
If Davidon or any other developer is going to try to develop on the remaining part of the property, Davidon will be required to file a plan with the City and go through the entire City process for any approval. This will require a new proposal, review by City staff, review by the Planning Commission and if an EIR is required, a new EIR reflecting the new proposal. The EIR will have to evaluate the new conditions of the proposal, updated traffic analysis, etc. The City Council would need to approve the Draft and Final EIRs. Any proposal would need to be environmentally sound (including endangered species protection) and meet the General Plan requirements.
If Davidon or any other developer is going to try to develop on the remaining part of the property, Davidon will be required to file a plan with the City and go through the entire City process for any approval. This will require a new proposal, review by City staff, review by the Planning Commission and if an EIR is required, a new EIR reflecting the new proposal. The EIR will have to evaluate the new conditions of the proposal, updated traffic analysis, etc. The City Council would need to approve the Draft and Final EIRs. Any proposal would need to be environmentally sound (including endangered species protection) and meet the General Plan requirements.
As to the City Council's role: Yes, it is the Council's role to analyze traffic circulation and neighborhood character. Both are considerations within the General Plan. The traffic issues on D Street (and I Street) are currently exacerbated by 101 widening construction and the Novato Narrows traffic flow blockage. I think some of the traffic on D would be reduced by completion of three lanes on 101. Accordingly, I urge you to vote no on Prop. 6 (attempt to repeal the gas tax). The section of 101 between Old Redwood Highway and Highway 116 (through the heart of Petaluma) has received $85 Million in funding from the new gas tax to complete the last part of the widening project. If the gas tax is repealed, that funding source goes away. Along with $1 million annually to the City for road repair and transit.
As to the City Council's role: Yes, it is the Council's role to analyze traffic circulation and neighborhood character. Both are considerations within the General Plan. The traffic issues on D Street (and I Street) are currently exacerbated by 101 widening construction and the Novato Narrows traffic flow blockage. I think some of the traffic on D would be reduced by completion of three lanes on 101. Accordingly, I urge you to vote no on Prop. 6 (attempt to repeal the gas tax). The section of 101 between Old Redwood Highway and Highway 116 (through the heart of Petaluma) has received $85 Million in funding from the new gas tax to complete the last part of the widening project. If the gas tax is repealed, that funding source goes away. Along with $1 million annually to the City for road repair and transit.
I don't have a hard opinion on the number of homes to be built on the property. 28 was suggested at the meeting as the lowest possible number in the General Plan for approval. The Council's job is to analyze the proposal before us to determine compliance with the General Plan and any other applicable zoning laws.
I don't have a hard opinion on the number of homes to be built on the property. 28 was suggested at the meeting as the lowest possible number in the General Plan for approval. The Council's job is to analyze the proposal before us to determine compliance with the General Plan and any other applicable zoning laws.
As to the shortage of police and fire: No development solves this problem. In the long run, development does not pay for itself. The impacts of the increased population over time out strip the costs paid by any development. The City's General Fund needs more revenue to cover the cost of public safety. The City Council has discussed the possibility of a Public Safety Tax Measure, but no action was taken. A future Council will have to address this issue since it is a reality and will impact Public Safety in the future. A Public Safety Ballot measure may be presented to the public in the next few years dependent upon Council decision.
As to the shortage of police and fire: No development solves this problem. In the long run, development does not pay for itself. The impacts of the increased population over time out strip the costs paid by any development. The City's General Fund needs more revenue to cover the cost of public safety. The City Council has discussed the possibility of a Public Safety Tax Measure, but no action was taken. A future Council will have to address this issue since it is a reality and will impact Public Safety in the future. A Public Safety Ballot measure may be presented to the public in the next few years dependent upon Council decision.
Please contact Dave King with any questions about these statements:
Please contact Dave King with any questions about these statements:
davekingpcc@gmail.com
davekingpcc@gmail.com
Google Sites
Report abuse