Citizens begin online petition opposing Callahan waterfront plan:

How about a nice poke

in the eye?

Planning Commission considers diluting city view ordinance

8/22/12

By Hatfield McCoy

If you buy a house and pay bigger money for it because of the view, it is a sure bet you want to protect those views. That is what the people of Bay Terrace, Vallejo Heights and surrounding neighborhoods believe. At the August 20^th Planning Commission meeting once again those views came into question. The prime issue of the meeting surrounded potential revisions to the View District Ordinance.

The Residential View District Ordinance was established in 1990. It was established to keep density in check throughout neighborhoods in order that newcomers would no longer be able to block views with such things as hot tubs, decks, newly planted trees, garages or sheds.

The issue at hand is a proposal to change the following amendments to the Residential District Ordinance, chapter 16.36 of the Vallejo Municipal Code: 1.) Remove the requirement that an applicant must submit a site development application and fee when proposed home construction has been determined (by the planning department) to not have a view impact, but the determination is challenged by a neighbor; 2.) Expand the public notification radius from 100’ to 200’ and 3.) Extend the public notification period from 15 days to 15 working days. Staff recommends that this be passed by the planning commission and be sent to City Council for final ratification, recommending that the council adopt Code Text Amendment (CTA) #12-0001.

Planner Marcus Adams stated that this proposal’s opposition would center around eight neighborhood subdivisions which encompass one view district called the “Vallejo Heights View District” which includes smaller neighborhood sections or district areas surrounded by Highway 37, Farragut St., Rogers St. and Sacramento St. Within that district lies a little neighborhood known as ‘Bay Terrace’ which includes streets such as Benson, B Street, C Street, etc. Adams further stated that the Vallejo Heights View District is the only view district within the city of Vallejo currently active within the City.

After Marcus Adams’ detailed explanation as to what encompasses the Vallejo Heights View Ordinance, Planning Commissioner Eschenburg asked: “If there are eight districts, why don’t the other seven districts have issues with views?” Planning staffer Adams had to explain to Eschenburg: “With all due respect Commissioner, these eight areas are like smaller neighborhoods represented within the Vallejo Heights View Association. Shortly after the public hearing Eschenburg recused himself stating: “I wish to recuse myself because of my personal bias for view restrictions.” After his comment, Eschenburg awkwardly toddled out the FRONT DOOR, and didn’t even stay for the entire balance of the meeting! (Dah, Mr. Eschenburg, two questions: Did you not read the packet so that you could recuse yourself before this hearing and not waste everybody’s time? Or did you just want to make a showing of attendance in order to receive the lousy $40.00 the city pays out for just showing up at roll call on the Planning Commission?)

Passionate neighbors, and surprisingly gifted speakers from the Bay Terrace neighborhood offered valid concerns during the public forum. Several well written, well thought out letters were submitted as attachments to be read by commissioners prior to the meeting. The Vallejo Heights Neighborhood Association president claimed that they simply did not receive enough notice as to language changes in this proposal.“We received this latest revision of this proposal, with its new language just four days ago. Many of our members have not read it, nor have they had sufficient chance to absorb it,” she said. Vallejo Heights Neighborhood Association members Erika Rzomp and Wanda Madeiros submitted a passionate letter stating: “This ordinance change essentially says that if City Staff determines that a proposed change to a structure does not impact views, it is the neighbor/neighbors who believe their views are impacted who have to appeal to the Planning Commission and then pay the fees. These fees starting at $231 and, depending on how the appeal is handled by the Planning Commission, can climb to almost $5,000 (actual fee:$4900). Currently (and rightfully so) it is the project applicant who must pay these fees….As property owners, if we cannot pay, our voices will not be heard.”

Bay Terrace resident, Kim Geddes, gave an excellent historical synopsis of her neighborhood. “This subdivision was built in the early 1900’s as one of the first on the West Coast. It was built by the U.S. Housing Corporation. It was later sold to private ownership in 1922. It is a state Historic District. The homes were designed by famous architect George Kelham who designed the Palace hotel in S.F. The historic trees were brought around the Horn, and Frederick Law Olmsted was influential in the landscape design. Olmsted was also the landscape architect who created Central Park in New York City. All of the homes were designed and built with hillside access so that residents may view the Napa River, San Pablo Bay with Mt. Tamalpias in the middle view with the Golden Gate bridge in the distance,” Geddes writes, “Many people come to our neighborhood because it is so pleasant there.”

Other speakers included residents with such comments as “None of these changes were mentioned with this language in past public hearings,” “I think we need more time to assess this proposed ordinance change.” Bay Terrace resident Monica Tipton said it best when she reiterated parts of a letter she had earlier submitted. “While I respect the concerns of this city to promote growth, that growth should in no way impinge upon the only really valuable asset of our city; its fabulous panoramic views…By allowing development that slowly chips away at this asset, whether through major projects such as the proposed waterfront construction this commission recently approved, or through the allowing of “minor” view infringement such as that allowed by the view district proposal, is detrimental to our long-term fortune of this city,” Tipton wrote. Residents Steve and Nancy Jackson had this to say: “We understand the desperation of this city with its financial strains, but we think that the City will be failing its citizens, its voters, by approving the proposed (revision) of this plan (Residential View District Ordinance). This proposed ordinance change shifts the burden of the cost of appeal to the neighbor (who objects to a building proposal), freeing the project applicant from responsibility of dealing with the people, or paying fees.” Geddes commented: “It seems to me that an arbitrary decision from a planning department as to whether or not a view would be impacted would be very subjective. We must have some quality guidelines in place,” she stated.

After many residents came forward stating that they needed more time to assess the proposed ordinance changes, the Planning Commission (following Vice Commissioner Graden’s initiative) agreed to table this issue until September 17^th. If you would like to join this discussion, the email address of the Vallejo Heights Neighborhood Association is: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it We caught up with Vallejo City Councilmember Robert McConnell after the meeting. “I watched the Planning Commission meeting (on Channel 28) with respect to the view ordinance proposed changes. I firmly believe that there are several legitimate concerns raised by neighborhood interests. These concerns justify extensive review and serious questions,” McConnell said.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

comeback kid   |August.28.2012 1)Giving the Planning Dept the sole authority to evaluate a structure's impact on views virtually guarantees that we will lose our views. More often than not, the Planning Dept gets it wrong, really wrong -- and it is ONLY through the View application process and neighborhood input that views are protected. The application and review process is a critical element in View Zoning -- otherwise, the city and builder can circumvent public input and get a project rolling before the neighborhood even knows it's in the works. 2) Making the neighbor pay the application fee for a View review would mean that residents needs to pay in order to protect their rights. This is wrong; City Council should vote NO on this. The fee needs to be paid by the builder, they are the ones originating the change. 3) I don't understand why View Zoning is not applied City-wide. Although I live in Vallejo Heights and treasure our water views, there are also great views in the St Vincent's Hill area, the Vista, and even in East Vallejo. One thing the City could do to protect and enhance cratered property values in Vallejo would be to preserve the residential Views and open spaces we have. Personal experience: In a house I owned on C St., a neighbor was going to build right into our views of the Napa River, San Pablo Bay, the bridge, and the wetlands. The Planning Dept approved the project, saying that because we could still see the houses *across the street*, Planning didn't think the new structure restricted our water views. Ultimately, neighbors got together to successfully fight that structure -- only to lose when what we now call the "C St Tower" was built (also approved by Planning). The Planning Dept has a long history of being blind when it comes to Views. The neighborhood input process must be retained for View Zoning to be effective.

wharf rat   |August.25.2012 A wake up call to all Vallejo neibourhoods with views . Somewhere along the way the view ordinance was modified and became very inclusive , not just for areas formerly declared a view district , if you read the ordinance very carefully it defines views and provides examples of existing view corridors , nowhere in the ordinance does it exempt areas from the ability to benefit and embrace the intention of the ordinance . This seems to be a major screw up by our developer owned staff , now that they see their mistake they are scrambling to fix it "OMG did we actually codify an ordinance that benefits the Citizens over the developers" The implications of this ordinance are broad and City wide . All areas of Vallejo with views need to start the process to formerly declare themselves as a view district . Before the ordinance an apartment building or other structure could be built in front of your view with no recourse you lost your view and the property value associated with "a view home" first things first contact your Council members and demand that the View ordinance is not messed with . the flimsy reasons for the modification presented by staff are an attempt at a wholesale ripoff of all of us shrouded in a cloak "of streamlining the apeal process for view infringements" when in fact it is a vehicle to prevent people from insisting on their rights by charging them up to $ 4,900 per EACH infringement by another party and who rakes in all this money , yes it is the planning department the very over paid planning dept who work for US . the Employee who penned this CRAP needs a pink slip .

Anonymous   |August.24.2012 This is right out of Sun Su...the Art of War. Start many fires to divert attention and keep the opponents off balance dashing about so you can quietly and quickly slip in to nab the gold.

Anon II   |August.23.2012 Dear Mr. Clarke Johnson, Follow this in September at the Vallejo Planning Commission level. It is astounding what the lame Planning Dept. and the even more lame planning commission is capable of doing and implementing. At least 4 out of 7 of them should either be institutionalized or sent home for good.That is why it is imperative that we all do due diligence and be actively involved. We can no longer 'let George do it,' because George is clearly out to lunch, far, far away!

wharf rat   |August.23.2012 That old saying "timing is everything" has merit consider the waterfront proposed modifications, the attack on the long standing view ordinance and now Al DaSilva is back in town , these are not random events a pattern is emerging what will be next ? .

Anonymous   |August.23.2012 @GW re: "The question was: How can Mr. daSilva represent Vallejo if he does not live here. It appears he was appointed as the county rep to oversee if Vallejo is toeing the line, imo." All the more reason why Vallejo residents must attend all redevelopment oversight board meetings from now on to see what they are up to. It seems everything is connected, and a possible conspiracy is at play here.

GW   |August.23.2012 I saw the initial solicitation request and the contentious meeting article where the supervisors suggested their pick for each city, after that I could not find other news paper articles dealing with any meetings, maybe there were none. From your post I see that Ms. Lauchner has been replaced with Ms. Brown. The question was: How can Mr. daSilva represent Vallejo if he does not live here. It appears he was appointed as the county rep to oversee if Vallejo is toeing the line, imo. Thank you for the info you provided.

know vallejo   |August.23.2012 not only did linda appoint al dasilva to the board, she stole her position as chair from barbara kondylis. linda knows ittle about redevelopment and even less about vallejo.

know vallejo   |August.23.2012 Vallejo Independent Bulletin - Offline   Vallejo Independent Bulletin This site is temporarily unavailable. Could not connect to the database server

Anonymous   |August.23.2012 @GW re: "The public was solicitated to submit applications to these board appointments in February 2012 and articles associated with it are not that easy to find." Solano County Board Of Supervisors (Feb 28, 2012) List of Applicants for Oversight Boards http://solano.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=1873096&GUID=8111B8A1-F3FE-4F30-9CA2-A6A67F8BA986

Anonymous   |August.23.2012 @GW Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting (Aug 16, 2012) http://vallejo.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=953 CHAIR Linda Seifert BOARDMEMBERS: Annette Taylor, Vice-Chair Marti Brown Melvin Jordan LaGuan Lea Shane McAffee Alvaro da Silva

wharf rat   |August.23.2012 @ St Vincents Hill if you scroll down a bit Goat Hill posted part of the view ordinance , it is on the COV web site ,the current ordinance is inclusive of the many areas in Vallejo that have views . A neibourhood petition and aproval of the neibourhood assoc membership would be a good start . I would try to go direct to council and bypass the planing commission if possible take photos of your views to present and request council to check out your views before voting . Remember back in the 80's a marine view added ten to fifteen grand to a property value if you lost your views you would be damaged . the view district designation is what you need .

GW   |August.23.2012 The below link is for the COV Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Vallejo Redevelopment Agency meeting of May 11, 2012. Should the info to the article not print, I found the following. Mr. daSilva seems to be the Solano County Board of Supervisors Public Member Appointee (Seifert nominated) The Vallejo Board includes: Chair Seifert (County), Vice Chair Taylor(City of Vallejo),McAffee (GVRD), da Silva, Jordan(VCUSD), Lauchner(COV mayor appointee), Lea (Chancell. Cal. Comm. College appointee) The public was solicitated to submit applications to these board appointments in February 2012 and articles associated with it are not that easy to find. http://www.ci.vallejo.ca.us/uploads/253/051612%20OB%20Special%20Meeting%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf

St. Vincents Hill   |August.23.2012 I am a resident here, what does it take to become a view district?

wharf rat   |August.23.2012 @ Mousy I have heard it costs $ 700.00 + to permit the install of a water heater a job that can be done in less than 2 hours by one person , permit costs in Vallejo are obscene , this planning dept proposed ripoff is no surprise just buisnes as usual .

Mousy   |August.23.2012 This little mouse thought fees had to be based on the city's cost to do the work. That by state law fees for permits and the like cannot be a money maker to a city. If it costs the city $200 to send an inspector out and do some paperwork, then that should be the fee. Not ten time as much or more. More research here is needed.

rocketman   |August.23.2012 It is certainly the case that the judgement of the Planning Department can not and should not be trusted. This fee structure is truly absurd--over-the-top, another indication that Planning needs to be overhauled.

Anonymous   |August.22.2012 Yep, Al DaSilva is back. That means you better go down to every Vallejo Redevelopment Oversight Board meeting, whenever they are held. How did DaSilva, who doesn't live in Vallejo, get appointed to be the "local" citizen representative? Ask Linda Seifert, who appointed DaSilva, and she herself doesn't even live in Vallejo. There has to be a conspiracy somewhere in this.

****ed off taxpayer   |August.22.2012 The hell you say Da Silva is back how the hell did this happen? did Callahan drag him back "who is he working for"? or on ? he has his fingerprints all over some of the most bankrupt and lousy transactions ever imaginable in Vallejo "hasent he cost us enough already"? must have smelled the measure B money he is way to close to developers to be trusted .

Wow   |August.22.2012 First, great reporting! Second, what the hell city staff??? You really make me shake my head in disbelief when pulling stuff like this. I'll be there on the 17th and I will have studied this issues and how other communities handle view districts and I will kick some staff backside.

Anonymous   |August.22.2012 I note that Al DeSilva is back and has his hands all dirty again manipulating the economic development and planning departments. I thought he retired to Elba to count his loot. This scuzzy below the radar garbage and the waterfront slamdunk attempt all show his expert handiwork. Is our new City Manager that stupid????

Goat Hill   |August.22.2012 16.36.010 - Title and purpose.permanent link to this piece of content The purpose of Sections 16.36.010 through 16.36.060, inclusive, is to create regulations for residential view districts which recognize that many of the city residential neighborhoods are located on hills, thus affording residents panoramic views of the surrounding natural and manmade environment. These visual resources are significant neighborhood amenities and include views of San Pablo Bay, Mare Island Channel, the waterfront, Sulphur Springs Mountain, the Vaca Mountains, White Slough, the Napa River Wetlands, Sky Valley and the city itself. The existing development pattern of one-story and two-story structures, which predominates in these neighborhoods, has preserved these visual resources. Thus, it is the intent of this district to perpetuate this development pattern to the maximum extent practicable. Our views as defined in the CURRENT view ordinance note how the redrawn boundries have been reduced if this was done on the hush hush then it is illegal and those responsible should be punished changing an ordinance without required public notice and a hearing to benefit a developer is corruption at its best if this proves true we need to petition the Grand Jury to investigate and make an example of those responsible . All residents of view areas need to see the City view ordinance (current) lobby for its preservation and consider adopting your area as a view district St Vincents the heritage district and many others qualify under the current ordinance wich does a pretty good job of protecting property rights and values .

Birds Eye   |August.22.2012 Here we go again another attempt to chip away at a well established protection of our property rights and quality of life , all who have purchased property with views considered this valuable attribute when we decided to purchase and in fact probably paid a higher price for the view . Before the view ordinance was in-acted a structure could be built totally blocking ones view "the one you paid for and love" this happened quite often leaving little recourse for the one who lost their view thereby suffering a loss of property value and an attribute that weighed heavily on their decision to purchase in the first place . This proposed ordinance change is a scam , say five people are impacted by a project and each must pay $ 4900 for a hearing the Planning dept now nets $ 24,500 this looks like a disincentive to enforce and or mitigate the impact rather it smells like Piratical Planning policy a double dip and potentially screwing the property owner of $ 4900 cash and their view or a net rip-off of $ 24,000 and five views , ill begotten gains imo and completely unacceptable . The fact that we pay our planning dept good money to foist this crap off on us is just another prime example of our worthless and counterproductive city depts and a strong argument for re-inventing the whole organisation one that works for the people who fund them and respects their rights to quality of life , safe/vital neibourhoods and a functional City Government . Back in the 80's members of the Vallejo Heights Neibourhood assoc were shocked to find out Vallejo had no view ordinance , staff had no clue. VHNA members obtained ordinances from other Cities that were known to be effective and fair these were presented to staff to assist in an ordinance creation once codified and voted for it existed for years , some modifications were made over time and finally the "view" was defined and resides in the current ordinance . The original boundaries included River Park and much of the waterfront this appears to have been removed probably to facilitate development of "Mariners landing" it is possible this was done without public hearing or legal noticing ! not surprising considering that site was illegally filled costing COV a violation and hefty fine ( I believe in excess of $ 800,000 to mitigate wetlands off hwy 37) it is vital we retain the original ordinance this proposed modification is a take and a scam and would set a crapy precedent for all the view areas of Vallejo many who should adopt the original ordinance and declare themselves "view districts" to protect their property values and quality of life ....

Clarke Johnston   |August.22.2012 How could appealing a City Planning ruling necessitate such high fees? For either side? Perhaps someone here can explain attaching such a potentially high cost to this? What: Lawyers or architects? New blueprints? What? Any approximation or breakdown (rough will do) would help. My initial feeling is that "paying" to be heard doesn't feel at all good.

Write comment
Name:
Email:
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.23

3.23 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."