Letters to the editor for Dec. 17
Give the garage a chance
EDITOR: As a registered civil engineer for four decades and a frequent participant in Petaluma land-use actions, I have a few insights on the 26 6th St. controversy that may be useful.
Historic Accuracy: Like many, my preference would be for the house to move as close as possible to the original Brainerd Jones design. But I know that our community doesn’t have the resources to acquire and restore every historic building. Instead, we must entice private owners to undertake the preservation. Often, that enticement means getting less than we might have liked. When we insist on historic perfection, we sometimes get demolition by neglect, such as the French Laundry on Bodega Avenue.
Soil Stability: The homeowner, remodel team and city will require a shoring plan and a permanent structural system to support the home. I can’t conceive how adjoining properties would be at risk if the primary home is stable.
Groundwater Impact: Groundwater moves slowly through west Petaluma toward the river in a flow miles wide and up to 50-feet deep. To suggest that a large basement could impact groundwater movement is akin to arguing that a shallow draft boat can impede the Amazon River.
Looking into Backyards: My wife and I live in a three-story home in a neighborhood of mostly one-story homes. We sometimes fear that our neighbors worry we peer into their backyards. But after 15 years, we know we never look. Not only can we see only small portions of their backyards, but our neighbors aren’t that interesting. (Neither are we.)
In a perfect world, I’d prefer a different project on 6th Street but there are no apparent grounds to deny the homeowners what they ask, especially given the other municipal priorities from housing to climate action to the upcoming General Plan.
Dave Alden
Petaluma
No to cell tower
EDITOR: The Verizon Major Wireless Facility now being proposed to be installed on top of the historic Petaluma Creamery is a disaster in the making.
To even consider placing well known fire hazard wireless transmitters on the roof of that wobbly, chronically vibrating corrugated metal tower where it will sit directly over a huge spinning cooler with tanks of toxic ammonia is insane. We already know the Creamery is not a stable property, it has too many health, fire and environmental violations to count. Most recent was a fire just a couple of weeks ago.
Put that wireless facility which violates our ordinance up on a hill where it belongs. The power they are planning for it is 50,000 times more watts than our ordinance allows for near homes. Not a good idea. Put it above town on a hill.
But Verizon and the Creamery don't care. Because it's cheaper for Verizon than installing it up on a hill. They are willing to install 50,000 times more watts smack dab in the middle of downtown next door to our children's bedrooms, schools and where they play in the City Hall Park just one block away. Make no mistake, this project is about greed for money rather than caring for Petalumans' quality of life.
Even the International Association of Firefighters have come out against placing wireless facilities on their own firehouses. They know, and Petaluma needs to wake up before Verizon robs us of our ordinance with this project, opening the door for many more to go the cheap route rather than hauling the equipment up to a hill top. Look at all the fancy nonstop ads on TV. It's not like they're hurting for money. This is greed and recklessness.
Tony Lee
Petaluma
City not following its own rules?
EDITOR: I am writing regarding the huge renovation/ground excavation planned at 26 6th St. in the A Street Historic District that was approved by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee (HCPC). The public should know the project was approved to move forward without adherence as required in City Resolution 2018-107 N.C.S. This resolution requires project applicants to perform outreach to neighbors within a 1,000-square-foot radius, if the project is major enough to require a public hearing.
Applicants must provide neighbors an opportunity to learn about project plans and details such as timelines and impacts and have their consultants available to answer questions — all of this ahead of even the scheduling of a public meeting. The applicant's architect voted for passage of this resolution when serving on the Planning Commission so he should be aware of its requirements. Every applicable project since the resolution passed has been required to comply including another project presented at the very same HCPC meeting. Every single one. This project was heard by the HCPC in July without compliance to this resolution. And now the project is scheduled for hearing by City Council on Dec. 21, again, without compliance. Why does the City’s Planning Department not require this applicant to follow the rules?
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: