Council Approves Next Step in Davidon Development

The Petaluma City Council voted 4-2 Monday to proceed with a final environmental impact report for the Davidon development on the city's western edge even as many members expressed concerns about flooding, traffic and other impacts of the proposed subdivision.

More than 100 people packed into council chambers and 20 spoke against the development at D Street and Windsor Drive, arguing that building on one of the city’s last green belts would not only lessen Petaluma’s rural charm, but have serious implications on the quality of life for all residents.

During an emotionally charged meeting that lasted five hours, residents recalled night walks spent listening to frogs in Kelly Creek, while artists spoke of painting the historic red barn on the Scott Ranch.

“The land is sensitive biologically and historically and has tremendous potential to nourish Petaluma residents unless the bulldozers come first,” said Greg Colvin, one of the leaders of Petalumans for Responsible Planning, a community group opposed to the project. “Thousands of people have a daily spiritual connection to this property…to them it’s holy ground.”

On Monday, Jeff Thayer, vice president of land acquisitions for Davidon Homes, said the company was willing to scale back the development to 66 homes, down from the 93 initially proposed.

He added that Davidon would also preserve the historic red barn, an early dairy, by moving it 200 feet away across Kelly Creek and paying for its rehabilitation.

“We’ve trying to be very consistent and have applied a lot of mitigations to end up with an alternative we think is fair,” Thayer said.

Colvin suggested his group could purchase the parcel and said that it already had $1 million in an account, following a donation in 2006 to help preserve the parcel and expand Helen Putnam Park.

He added that the group could raise more if needed to save the open space. But asked about a possible sale, Thayer suggested that the sum was not significant enough to merit pulling the project, adding that the company has been planning the development on Petaluma’s western edge for a decade.

As an alternate, Petalumans for Responsible Planning suggested a scaled down version of the project, with just 20 homes, no development in Kelly Creek, and plenty of open space that would connect to Helen Putnam Park.

A major concern raised by both residents and council members is flooding, since there is already significant storm water runoff from homes in the Victoria subdivision into Kelly Creek.

According to the draft impact report, detention facilities would be built on the property to handle additional runoff, but council members Michael Healy, Chris Albertson and Teresa Barrett all questioned the validity of the findings, saying more would have to be done to address significant flood risk.

Healy suggested Petaluma’s underfunded stormwater maintenance fund could get a boost from Davidon in exchange for green lighting the project.

“I want to treat this project as an opportunity to improve the impacts of flooding,” he said, adding that he had numerous problems with the report.

Healy also questioned the impacts of the subdivision on traffic on D Street. The project is estimated to contribute around 900 daily car trips and have an entrance on D Street, which many said would impede traffic.

But if any consensus on the project were to be found among residents, it was that the new subdivision would forever alter the bucolic setting of the area, replacing the green hills were cattle now roam with rows and rows of housing.

“We have this incredible rural gift where we can see all this beauty at the entrance to Petaluma," said Nancy Chien-Eriksen, a Petaluma resident and artist. "…and to cover it with more houses, more concrete, it reminds me what I’ve seen in Northern Los Angeles where they took hills and covered them with McMansions.” 

Councilman Gabe Kearney criticized the DEIR for not using the 66-unit project alternative as a baseline and said doing so would have reduced expected greenhouse gas emission levels, car trips and estimated flood impacts. He also called for a new impact report, even as he cautioned Victoria residents against engaging in NIMBYism.

“Many of the same arguments were made about the houses where you know live,” Kearney said. “We can’t say, ‘I built my house, with my great view, and no more new houses can be built.'”

Despite the criticism, council voted 4-2 to move ahead with a Final Environmental Impact Report, with Kearney and Barrett dissenting. The Planning Department will incorporate comments from residents and council members and prepare a final environmental document over the next several months. The document will be circulated and discussed again before a final vote takes place.

If approved, the project would take about three years to be completely built.

What do you think about the project? Did the council address your concerns?