HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 06/18/2001 (7) •
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes,of a Special
3 City Council Meeting
4
5
Thursday,;December 21, 2000
7 - Council Chambers
•
8
9
to The,Petaluma City..Council met on this day at5;30 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
ri
12 ROLL CALL
• i3
14 PRESENT Council Members Ceder-Thompson, Hamilton, .Keller, Maguire; Mayor
15 Thompson
16
I7' ABSENT Council=Member°Healy; Vice Mayor Torliatt
1g
19
20• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
21
At the request of Mayor Thompson, Dave Libchitz led the Pledge of Allegiance.
-24= MOMENT OF SILENCE
25
26'. At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was:observed.
27
28 PUBLIC.COMMENT
29
30 Dave Libchitz 210 Ed ith Street thanked retiring Council Members Hamilton and Keller
31 for their contributions and wished them well..
32
33 PeterTscherneff, 50 Center, spoke regarding the homeless situation in Petaluma and
34' triage.
35
36 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding flooding problems in Petaluma.
37
38 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke in opposition to development in the floodplain:
39
ao COUNCIL.COMMENT_ •
41
42 Council Member Keller Noted this as his last meeting, and extended the following
43 comments:
• i 44.
City of Petaluma, California
Draft,Minutes of:a.Special
City Council Meeting •
Thursday, December 21, 2000
Page 1
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Thirteen years ago, when he ,arrived, in Petaluma; he?got involved with the VVestridge,
2 Knolls project, which was just being scoped at the tjrne., As he paid attention and got -
3 involved, primarily with the Creek. 'issues„ he found that the creeks —Were related to
a development, which was related to downstream flows, which was related to sewage
5 system capacity, and the fact that the City had a major Ill (inflow and infiltration)
6 problem, He watched the funding stream from development ihterests at the time and
7 how decisions were made, over-crowding in local schools, increased traffic on City
s streets, all the things,that were heard atthe.dais day afterdayafter day.
9
td He discovered that when he followed!neighborhood issues, they were connected to
it rest of the web of the Citjr. That's how he ,got involved in issues of the .water supply,
12 flood management, the wastewater treatment plant (ultimately fighting against the
13 privatization'of that treatment plant), rate-payer protection, financial ofthe.City,
14 thabattle ta keep Lafferty within the reach of public hands; the effort.toturn around the
15 •foolhardy deciSion on the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector.
16
17 His intereqin civic matters and cividinvolvernent dated backytothis days in high school
18 in New C?ork. He remembered reading Jane, 401a' book, Death and Life of Great
19 American Cities, published around 195b.— 1960, a wonderful first shot at what made
zo cities work, the fine texture of neighborhoods, and what'made the neighborhoods and
21 the vitality of those cities stay aliVe. Watching the campaign. and tenure as mayor of
22 New York ,City,. John Lindsay, a Liberal 'Republican,'who died .December 20, 2000,, . he
23 reCognized,Mayor Lindsay as someone who had brought afresh perspective, a spirit of
24 cOMMuhityiniblverfient, and the willingness tortryttO recreate New York from &declining' .
25 metropolis He watched him fail and succeed on .a number of endeavors and lhe was
26 inspired to become in local politica,
27
28 Council Member Keller's grandfather; a. revOlutionary. Democratic Socialist, was also
29 one his heroes; he .brought vision, dedication, what it took in hardworkldget.things
30 aCcbritliabed at the local level, and 'a healthydose of skepticism of what was possible
31 and how*human natijracan,:sometimes corrupt the best interitiOns,Another hero was,:his
32 wife, Allison, present with his children, Sara and Josh; she was ,a `herb to him for
33 exploring daily life with his family. He had a.number ofiheroes.
34
35 His experiences in Petaluma taught ,him that governing was a process that involved
36 significant waiting,.patience, and perseverance forthere:Were many Mirid&.and hearts to
37 gather together to act properly Success Cannot baruSlied, it Can't be bought, it can't be •
38 pushed, it can't be coerced; itWas,'achieved only through thesaanckthaeffortS?.0f,many,
39 through the perseverance and gifts of all He found . that governing required
ao uncompromising truth with himself, no illusions, no deceptions. For it wasconly/knowing
41 what was in his ,heart that gave him the space, the compassion, and strength to carry,
42 forward Visions.
43 . .
44 He was leaving the •Council four years older, quite a bit more experienced, 'parhapsi a
„
45 little4iSer,.,and definitely more patientWith the procesS. HerfOund that:there were-times gift
cit9 of,Petalicalifor.r0
Di.aft4;41putes
. . odytouriciaeetiiig •
Thuisday;,Decernber:21:2000
• Page'2
'DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
to learn, 'to act, to:reflect, to' retreat, to express love anger, to recognize mistakes,
VW particularlyJhisiown;;to show forgiveness, and to give•thanks and to celebrate.
. 3;
4 To his .colleagues, he bequeathed a "panic button," to the City Manager, an "eject
5 button."` W,henever the Council Members felt the need to reach for the "panic button,"
6 he asked them to take it;as a signal'for them'to remember to take the time to breathe, to
7 be quiet, to reflect in their hearts, and to ,give thanks,for the chance to serve, for the
8 grace of being given the opportunity by the voters. It was;really only loaned to them by
:9 the voters; the people who voted theni'to the office.
10 .
ii He thanked all whose paths he He acknowledged and thanked his'family for their love
12 and support. It was a great pleasure and honorto work'with City staff, with citizens of •
<13' the community, and with his colleagues He appreciated the work they accomplished
;r4 together, both in agreement and in disagreement: He concluded by saying though
,15 retiring, he certainty was 'not shy and he would be back. He wished his colleagues all
rb the best:
17
is Council Member Maguire: Addressed the Impending energy crisis, caused by
19 deregulation of the.energy market in California. The Governor and the Public Utilities
20 Commission.were currently looking at terminating' the ,last remaining price controls; he
21 wanted to get concurrence from the Council to send a letter to the Public Utilities
22 Commission (PUC);and"the•Governor- asking that they not remove price caps; in fact, it
was time to re-regulate the industry. He offered to work with City Management to
compose the letter.
25
26 A majority of the Council. Members voiced their agreements
27
28 Council.Member Cader-Thompson Noted her appreciation',for retiring Council Members
29 "Hamilton and Keller. She asked City Management to ;schedule the Fair Political
30' 'Practices Commission (FPPC) to address Council in January, and encouraged Council
31 Members to submitrtheir questions,before then to make,sure they got answers. She
• 32, offered_to walk the,area .where the Rainier Cross-Town Connector'was considered with
• 33 anyone who wanted`to..
34, _
35 *Mayor Thompson: Thanked retiring Council Members Hamilton and Keller for their
36 many hours of servicete the"community.
37
38,, SPECIAL ORDERS OFTHE DAY
39
40 Appointments •
41
_ 42 A. Planning Commission, unexpired four-year term of Marcel Feibusch ending June .
43 30, 2002.
44
4.
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, December 21,2000
Page 3
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ' • •
1 pplicant John Mills, Developer, thanked retiring:Council: Members,Hamilton:and N
1 • Applicant
Keller for their service to the community. He then withdrew his name as an
3 applicant.for appointment to the'P-lanning Commission and provided reasons for '
4 doi:ng'so.
5
6 Council Member Keller expressed regret for Mr Mills-withdrawing his application.
7
8 'Applicant Carl Taber, Attorney At Law, provided backgrou nd information and
9 training that he believed: qualified him for consideration 'as "a' Planning'
10 Commissioner,
11 •
12 Council Member Cader-Thompson ,asked if he had any conflict of interest that
13 would interfere with his appointment to the.commission;
14
15 Mr: Taber replied no; professionally,, his law practice was in the Worker's
16 Compensation field.
17
18 Applicant,'Scott Vouri, Business Consultant, provided background information
19 and training tat he believed qualified him for •consideration: as a! Planning
20 ,Commissioner.
21
22 Applicant Bruce Wilson, provided background information and training that he
23 • believed qualified him for considerationnas a Planning'Commissioner noting that imp
24 he wanted to'give something back,to the community.
25
26 Council Vote:. Scott Vouri appointed:(Resolution 00-218, N.C.S.)
27
28. B. Site•',Plan and Architectural Review.lCommittee (S PA.R.C:), unexpired'two-
29 year term'oVLouise Leff ending June 30, 2002.
30
31 Applicant Chris Lynch, Licensed Architect, 320 Walnut Street, •expressed his•
32 desire. to se-rite! the CornMunity f provided, r.
33 ttra ning, that he bel eved q alifi d h morr conideration as a S P A R C tmember.,
34.
35 Applicant Hank;Zucker, 15 Lone Oak Court, expressed his desire to ;serve the
36 community and provided background information'and training, that he believed
37 qualified him for°consideration as a S:P:A.R.C,:member.
38 •
39, Council Vote: Chris Lynch appointed`(Resolution~00-219 N.C;S,),
40
41 G. Golden Gate Bridge District Board (Re-Recommendation to Mayors' &
42 Councilmembers' Association:to FillOne Vacancy)"
43
44 Council'Member Maguire supported newly"elected Council Member Mike O'Brien
45 for this appointment.
City ofjpetaluma„California
D`raft`Mi nutesofa'Special
CityrCouncil Meeting •
Thursday„December21,!2000
Page 4
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
Mayor Thompson wanted the appointment to take place at the•January 2, 2001
3. reorganization.
. 4 •
5' Council Members Hamilton and Keller supported Vice Mayor Torliatt for the
6' appointment.
s+ Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that she believed Vice Mayor Torliatt
9 - was interested in serving on Local,Agency Formation Commission.(LAFCO) and
io had asked Council's support in recommending her to the Mayors' and •
It Councilmembers' Association for the appointment, not the Golden Gate Bridge
12 District Board.
13; .
14 Council Member Keller wanted to makeithe: recommendation now; he supported
15 the appointment of Vice Mayor Torliatt due to her experience and knowledge
16: about the Board: .
17.
18 MO TION: Council Member Hamilton moved, seconded'by Keller, to nominate
19 Vice Mayor Torliatt as Petaluma's vote at'the Mayors' and Council
20, Members' meeting for the Golden Gate Bridge Transportation
21 District Board of`Directors.
lipMayor Thompson stated he would abstain, as he was certain that Vice Mayor
Torliatt had expressed 'interest. in the LAFCO appointment and not the Golden
25 Gate, Bridge District: Board. He added that he did not think the Council should
26 take this action as it was an appointment f
pp t in absentia; no one was sure that she
27 really wanted`to benominated to serve on this board.
28
29 Council Member Maguire stated that he would not support the nomination. He
'`30 added that he recalled Vice Mayor Torliatt did express interest at the time
31 Council discussed the timing of putting-the item on an agenda. He>agreed with
32 Council Member Keller,°that;Vice Mayor Torllattwas very capable but he wanted
33 to make a goodwill gesture towards the.new'Council
,34
35 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked for clarification of whether Vice Mayor
36 Torliatt had expressed interest in this;:nomination:
37 .
38 . Council Members Hamilton, Keller, and Maguire replied that she did.
39
40 MOTION .
at PASSED: 4/1/2 (Mayor Thompson abstention counted as a "Yes" vote;
(12 Council Member Maguire •voting, "No" Council Member Healy and
43 Vice-Mayor Torliatt absent)
44
Ile i
city of'Petaluma,California '
DraftiMinutes ofa Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, December 21,2000
Page 5
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2
3 1. Ridgeview Heights Subdivision (Moore)
4
5 A. Discussion and Possible Action on a .Resolution Adopting sa Mitigated
6 Negative Declaration for the'Ridgeview Heights Subdivision'.
7
s B. Discussion and. Possible Action on a Resolution' Approving the Tentative
9 iSubdiVision Map; and PUD Development Standards for the Ridgeview
10 Heights Subdivision. .
11 .
12 Community Development Director Mike-Moore introduced the item and provided
13 a brief• background leading to the item :being heard. City 'Management
14 recommended the Council'adopt two'',resolutions: .
15
16 1.. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, for the Ridgeview
17 Heights-Subdivision; and
is 2. Resolution Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD Development
19 ,Standards;for the Ridgeview Heights Subdivision.
20
21 The issue.atshand was the requirement for''a bike path and Council'was provided
22 with the findings and conditions' relative to providing thebike path connection
23 between .Sunny Hill:Driveand Sunnyslope Road through the subdivision and the
24 remaining, lands 1pf. Beatie. He added. that 'since the last meeting, the City' -
25 Attorney identified an additional General Plan policy that applied to the project; h7
26 and;the language of the policy would be inserted into Finding Ton page 2 of the
27 Tentative Map Resolution, the second ,resolution being recommended. Policy,
28 14:2 of the :Community Character element required: 'that "new development
29 include,pedestrian and bicycle circulation within and through the'site to 'connect
30 existing.and/or planned'citywide pedestrian and/or bicycle•networks." Based on
' 31 - the action taken by Council; City Management would incorporate:•that.language
32 into the Tentative Map,resolutioh.
33
34 Mayor Thompson asked if and when'the attorney for the:appellants'(Beatie),. Mr.
35 Piotrkowski; was advised:ofthe findings.
36
37 Mr;Moore replied ti-at:Mr Piotrkowski'was provided a copy of the language from
38 the General Plan moments ago.. His discussion with the City Attorney about the .
39. findings had.occurred only that afternoon.
40
41 Council :Member Maguire thought the word, 'potential" was superfluous as
42 referred to on 'page 2.of the Mitigated ;Negative 'Declaration, Resolution, item .8',
43 line 22, ".::development will have. potential traffic; .traffic safety,; and airquality
44 impacts;"
45
•
• City of.Petaluma',,California
•
DraftMinutes of,a Speciah.
citytouncihMeeting •
. Thursday,December•21,„2000
. Page:6
;DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
'S+ Mr."Moore'acknowledged that Council Member Maguire', at a previous meeting,
pointed,out that it should be deleted,hehadthat note but no changes were made
3 to the resolution since"the last,meeting;
4
5 Council Member Maguire wanted`to,make sure that change-was incorporated.
5; .
7 PUBLIC COMMENT:. • .
s:' '
9'
Iry Piotrkowski 35 .Fifth,Street,Counsel for Dr. Beatie; stated.for the record the
lo; due process issue With regard to the new finding that was just announced. He . `
11 thought due process was an important item in this°type of case as all probably
12- knew where it was going to. end up if the Council proceeded pursuant to the
13 recommendation of CityManagement: In that regard, he stated that prior to the
14 meeting of November 20, it was the recommendation both of the Planning '
15. Commission and City Management=that the path'not',be'included in the proposal.
16
17 The item was brought;back at the meeting of November 20 to City Management .
is for the first time with direction to City Management that they create findings and a
19 new'finding had just been created lhe;;noted his;.objection to that and asked that it
20 be registered. It•was no secret that,both, he and Dr Beatie strongly opposed the
21, condition. They believed, it was inappropriate, and further' believed that it was
unlawful and 'proceeded to outline the reasons. They did not believe the.
, . s."' proposed findings,justified an exception to the prohibition:of the Fifth Amendment
24 of the Constitution of the United States, 'which;prohibited,the taking of private
25 property for public benefit :without just compensation Certainly there were
26 exceptions 'to'that, but tie 'respectfully:suggested that those exce ptions did not
27 apply,to this situation. '
28 '
29. He then referred to "a number of documents that he;-Wanted' included in the
30 record,.hei had copies,and provided them to the Council., The points he wanted
31 included°in the record and for•Council's careful consideration.follow:
32
33 First,, the bulk of'what was proposed, as the path did not pass through the
34 • subdivision, it passed through the,remainder parcel. Government:.Code § 66434
35 gave an applicant the opportunity to designate a'remainder and provided that the
36 remainder parcel was not:a part of'the°subdivision. There was a 1977'Attorney
37 General's Opinion the citation, for which he'was 'willing to provide to the City
38 Attorney which specifically"stated that;theremainder parcel was not a part of the
39 SUbdivisio rL
40 .
41 Second was'the:;issue of valuation.an'd thefeffectthe proposed path would have
42 on the valuation. With Council's permission, he read a letter into the record from
43 Steve Buckley regarding that issue. He noted thatthe letterwas directed to him
.4.4' and with the permission of the Council read as follows:
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes of'a:Special
City Council"Meeting
Th i sday,:Decem5er 21,2000
Page 7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 By way of badkground, I became a licensed reel eStatkperson in
2 1975 andra licensed real estate broker in 1978. Since 1982, much
3 of my practice has been evaluating the feasibility .df residential
4 developments in the Petaluma area In this evaluation,process I
5 must typically assess the market Value of residential lots, ,both.
...
6 improved and unimproved, and the eventual sales price of homes
•
7 . to be :constructed. At your request, I have evaluated thaeconoinid,
8 impact of the proposed bike pedestrian path through the Ridge view
9 Heights Subdivision /2 aSed iipOnmy'khOiviedga,c;Nifei value of lots
lo and fully developed fesidentialpOrde/SAin west Petaluina.
11 .
12 ' My professional opinionIs.thet.the proposed path causes significant
. 13 devaluation of Dr,E3eatie,isproperty;in particular„thaproposed,,path
14 would gravely impact the value of lot number.5, ,,which is the prime
15 lot in the project; The path is proposed to stater a small entrance
16 to the lot, which is designated for vehicular driVeway and would
17 proceed throUgh,tholbt adjacent toms planned sWitnrriingpoolisite. .1
is believe the prdposed lOt Would, suffer &diminution of 25% of its
19 market'Valueasia direct result of the proposadpath. :In my opinion,,
20 the proposed path would likewise;reduce:tha.fair market valuaof kit
21 5 by 20% asa result-ot the lbss of privacy to the,liome to be ,
22 -constructed:on the lOt.
23 a. . . the 24 The most significant impact would bath the tWo homes located on
.. .__ _ ,,=_,
25 tha parcel upon which the Beatles have resided for many years.,
26 The propOsed path is within''several'yards: 0f:117a:entrance to Jhe
27 'small residence and passes through a relatively small side and
28 front yardsofthe rnatrhhouse. In my opinion, the loss of fair market. .
29 value to the Beatie's home iproperty is a third of its fair market .
30 . value 1 The cumulative diminution in value baused,by the proposed
31 path may mdkatherproposethsubdiirisien uneconomical and may
32 cause Dr Beatie to reconsider proceeding with the project Please,
33 do not hesitate to call me if there are any questions regarding the
34 !fOregfoing.
35.
36 Third, regarding Council Member 'Maguire's gbestion. regarding why it was . - •
37 'necessary for them i to look at the Environmental Impact :Report ,(EIR), he
38 suggested that theproposed findings were direct conflict to portions of the
39 For example, 'paragraph a of the resolution before CounCil, read, '"Or/ the
40 evidence and the record presented during the course of the public hearings
41 before the City Council, the City Council had 1 Ueteirhitlect that the proposed
42 development would have potential traffic." He acknowledged that he understood
43 they had removed the words !potential,safety.and air quality.impacts resulting
local . ,
44 from antiCipated vehicle trips on the:local road,system and has determined theta
S
city ofPetaiiirnatpcaiifOrnia
DraftMinutes of.a.SPecial
. City4Co0ricil Meeting •
Thursc14, bjecembet 21:2000,
.
Ppge.8
•
•
.DRAFT DRAFT - DRAFT
. bicycle path; between Sunnyslope and Sunny Hill Drive will mitigate'the impacts
` to; a level of less thansignificant" -
3
4 He asked that:Council focus their attention on the issue of air quality. Two of the
5 . ' documents he handed to the Council dealt' directly'with that issue. In,Appendix
6, 1, part of the application prepared,;by, the City and provided to the County of
7 Sonoma in its process to apply for the assessment district, the specific '
's ' questioned is asked, "Will the proposal result in substantial 'emissions or
9 deterioration of ambient,air quality?" The answer provided by the City was "No,"
t0 Furthermore, at paragraph 25`of the final EIR, thePheading,under air quality read, , ..
rr and he quoted from the Citys own EIR that directly contradicted part of finding;
,12 number 8, "No,significant carbon;monoxide impacts are, expected to 'occur as a,
;13 result of the project related to^the traffic increases." He submitted that the City
14 was bound by the findings 'in the EIR. He believed the contradiction that was
15 evident was substantialrevidence of the fact that City.Management'was put in an
•
16 untenablelposition oft .tying to justify the unjustifiable:
17
. ra He continued,thatlfhe staff;report further`stated that the project would generate,
• 19 "ninety potential trips per day for the proposed nine-lot subdivision:" He.
20 suggested, respectfully, that the generation of'-ninety trips per day was a small
21 impact incomparison to the diminution in'value'ofDr: Beatie's property.
4. He referred to a,letter sent on behalf his'clients; dated October 5, a copy of
which was provided to the City Attorney Richard Rudnansky, which referred to
25 the.Dolan vs: The City,of Tigard case,which he believed was directly on point: In
26 that case, the.,applicants sought to expand significantly a commercial use of
27 commercial property 'The traffic`studies,,presented in that case found, found that
•
28 there would be 435 additional trips per`day generated by the expanded project. In
29, fact, the City of Tigard;madss finding, which was almost`eeriiysimilarto that was '
30 proposed in this project, and it.read as follows, "The expanded use of this site is
• 31 anticipated to generate additional vehicular traffic, thereby increasing congestion
32 on nearby collector and arterial streets. Creation of,a convenient, safe,
33 pedestrian, bicycle pathway system as an alternative means of transportation '
34' could offset"some of the traffic demands on the nearby streets and lessen the
35' increaselin.'traffic congestion."
36
37 The United States Supreme Court,working with that finding;.that is, working with
38 the finding of 435 additional trips, concluded as follows in an Opinion written by
39 Chief Justice Renquist. He knew some might not .find Mr. Renquist'to be their
ao favorite person, he was the Chief Justice of the United .States Supreme Court,
41 and,las Mr. Gore found out, that word was,final,. much'to,his chagrin and others,
42 but so be it The Court found in that case that:based ,upon those findings, and
43 the particular situation that was presented in the Tigard case, that it was
as "insufficient to overcome the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of
SID private property for public benefit."
City of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes,ofa a,Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday;,Decemberi21,.2000
Page 9
DRAFT , DRAFT DRAFT
•
1
2 He "respectfully suggested that Dr. Beatie's case was.even:more compelling than
3 the Tigard case. Dr. Beatie ..had for many years been paying•on assessments in
4 the Sunnyslope Subdivision. One of the.statements made in the ElRnwas that the
5 assessments' were based on the development potential of the property: Dr_
, 6 Be.atie's assessment was just under :$45;000, and he had been ,paying that
7 assessment for ten years with minimal benefit from the assessment district. He
8 wanted the 'Council to consider that; what was happening now, was-not only
9 illegal but also unfair:., Dr. Beatie had paid on an assessment based, upon the
10 developments of his property and what he believed the'"City, was saying to him
11 was that,he.could go:ahead and develop his' property:but it°would' be done, in.a
12 way that would diminish'the value of that:,property to-a point where allthe;money
13 that was paid on the assessment district may be rendered useless because now,
14 based on,'Mr. Buckley's finding and opinion, it may become ran uneconomical
15 subdivision: He truly thought the subdivision :would not proceed if the City Out
16 additional requirements on the subdiVision;i, he thought it 'was .inappropriate,
17 unfair, and illegal for this to bec.exacted under these circumstances. .
18
19 He:pointed ouPwhat he thought was'another inconsistency,;and;thabwasthata .
20 number of 'Council. Members had taken, the position that they would put the
21 requirement :on Dr: Beatie's property but not make it effective:,until he and his
22 heirs left the property. One Council Member, in his review of the tapes said, '1.!...in
23 consideration of your privacy:" He respectfully suggested that if the Council,a
24 found 'the requirements to be. a violation of Drs Beatie's privacy, it would violate
25 the pnvacy'obanyone who lived there in the future. •He thought,that was plainly
26 inconsistent. He thought the 'acknowledgement by virtue of postponing the
27 effective.datewas not going to make:,itanyless of a problemforrsomeone else:
28
29 The proposed findings also seemed:to Suggest; without any evidence in the
30 record, that'the requirements would somehow enhance safety He "suggested
,31 • that children riding down the proposed path on .bicycles'would, in 'fact; create a
32 dangerous:':condition. ,
33
34 Finally;,he urged.the Council to approve the e subdivision"without=the bike path..
35 There were a number of reasons, which he cited both in his letter, 'and.that'.he
36 hopefully made clear now, and could certainly respond to further. This posture "
37 would put the City in a legal, position which he believed was.untenable, it-was
38 going to be expensive forall concerned. 'Dr. Beatie felt so strongly on this issue
39 that hewould,do what'he believed he had to do,to protect his rights
40
41 He°respectfully.,stated ,that the oath theCo`uncil. Members took''to,uphold the law
42 and to uphold the Constitution when taking office,required that' they do what the
43 imp required.; In tlik case;
ath, wh ch would ha epa serious effect subdivision
on Dr. Beatie's 44 imposition, of the bike 's '
45 property. a
City;of Petaluma, California
Draft Minutes,offa:Special
City Council',Meeting;
Thursday, Decem ber21;•2000
Page 10
DRAFT. DRAFT DRAFT
. :He Thanked, the Council for their consideration and offered to answer any •
questions theyT'had.
3
4 Council Member Keller,asked if the second home On Dr. Beatie's property was.
°s legal, had a.permit.been,issued.
6
7 Mr. Piotrkowski replied that he thought- it was as it had been there for many
8 • 'years.
9 . . -
'to Community Development Department Director Mike Moore replied that he had
it not investigated that'issue:.
12
13 Council Member Keller asked City Management to determine if the second
'14 building had received a permit from the City; that is;. it was legally built as a
15 second residence. He stated the benefits that Dr. Beatie had received through
16 what he paid to the assessment district included the annexation to the City and
17' all the City improvements that came with that, and the obligations of a City
1s resident as opposed to those of being a County resident;
19
20 When the County had jurisdiction for the area" there were no road repairs, sewer,
21 sidewalks, street lighting, it was very unsafe'ar d,difficult to travel, which is why
22 the residents voted to`become annexed to the City. The price they paid was the
11. assessment district. The assessment district then bought them into the City's
General Plan, which was in effect at the time the assessment district was
' 25 established'. When Dr. and Mrs. Beatie voted to'approve the assessment district,
26 they were fully aware of the General Plan of the City and of the responsibilities
2z that being a City residentand City property'owner would entail. He believed Dr:
28 `Beatie had received'.tremendous benefit from the'assessment district, witness the
29 subdivision;; had he not been part of the City, the :subdivision and all the
30 improvements necessary to support it would not have been present.
31
32 He questioned the loss of privacy to the remainder parcel because of a trail,
33 versus the loss of Privacy from building ninekhomes on the balance of the
_ Y' 9
34 property. Heithought if-there was a;:case madethatthe City was indeed 'taking"
35 the'property, then it was incumbent upon the City to go through a process of
36 determining the value of easement and, should the. City find it worthwhile to
'37 proceed With such a purchase;,pursuant'to Mr:,Piotrkowski's theory, it should be
38 presented to the Council;:Mr. Buckley's letter of evaluation was unsubstantiated
39 by any corliparables,,research or materials.
40
41 Mr. Piotrkowski stated that regarding the benefit received through the
42 assessment district, Dr: Beatie paid hissfair share for the improvements; it "wasn't
43 llikvhe:got something for nothing:" Regarding the "taking" issue, he did not want
44 to leave the impression that his,clients would be, happy to have the property in
question be condemned for a trail; he believed. he previously stated that at the
City of.Petaluma,California
Draft Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
December 21, 2000
Page 11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 November-20 meeting. He cwas heti:suggesting, that!Iwhat hi S clients,Wanted. was a
2 the Council to buy the trail;his clients did not want that Ho WeYer, it certainly was ,
3 the legal right of the City to do so if they chose; that was something that Should.
4 come:from the Cityand not Dr. Beatie.
5
. ._
6 Council Me Mber 'Maguire found Mr Buckley's letter somewhat ridiculous, he
7 types of devaluations, having liad L. experience. as a :real estate: agent, though it • .
8 was years ago, would need substantiation and comparable figures :before he
9 would accept, those assertienS. Questions regarding the path going through to
to the remainder parcel, and consistency with the EIR; he wanted the City Attorney 1 -
11 0 address.
12
13 Regerding'fairness, there were benefits to the.Beatie&through theassessments
14 paickaht„VokiNat the potential for profit making that would occur iethe project
15 moved forWard,,Keh with the path, deSpite what Mr. Buckley stated in his letter,
16 he believed there-WaS ,stilettahlial profit, increase in .potential profit. because of
17 the assessmentsthatWere paid.
18 ,
19 He believed'it was unfair for a person,to take advantage of the infrastructure of
. ,
20 the City Development, like, most other typical developments; :of the type
„
21 proposed, would not pay ferits,owni'costs over the years, the community at large
22 would be burdened with the cost of doing that One waytoaddressdheiissue,Was
23 through some of the mitigation of the traffic impacts by providing, an alternative. '
24 He knew Dr: Beatie did not think,that4Was fair and he"boarripletelydieagreed with
25 him, stating that Dr: Beatie's actions were thete of.a person Whet tr,lily; irthis '
26 estimation, did not have the community's well-being at hearty primarily he was
27 looking out for himself: ,
28 . ' . .
29 - He also'did, not agree with the violation Of.ptivacy.: 'He had visited,'the: property •
30 and believed there was ,ampie,room and ability to screen the path past the
31 sabentlbUilding; He added that he, toe, wanted to know if the secOnd. building
32 was ia legal teaidenee. The City had apartments' and houses in town where
33 sidewalks were even closer than what was proposed. He believed the problem
34 was one of perception and that that, "ilvegetliyiittoquit cgtouthere.,/'don't
35 Want:any:intrusion even though I am going tocMakabeaucoupa'biickS 013,01,y(ding
36 .my property; therefore, it seems like an intrusion to me." He said he could
37 understand that, but nobody,gotto:have everything their way. That`waswhy the
..
38 Council thought that the easement should not effect until the departure of
39 the•Beaties. • .
40 . • . '
41 'Regardinm,safety, as a.child'he rode his bike on hills Mach;steeper thamthe,one
42 located' on Beetle property and he thought the biggest risk was With the local .
43 ' residents and their caution when driving:,For the reasons heatated, he supported
44 and would 'continue toaupport the proposed resolution as worded.
45
imp- .•
•.
City.ofiPetalUma, Californiw •
• Draft;Minutea61.a Special'
. - ity"Council'Meetiag •
Thursday, December 21,2000
page 12
•
•
'DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
-C
,
0 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded Keller to adopt
. Resolution 00-220 N.C.S. Adopting .a Mitigated Negative
3 Declaration.for.the Ridgeview Heights Subdivision.
4 .
5 PUBLIC COMMENT' -
6
7 . John Mills, 131'5 'D' Street, stated he had lived in the neighborhood for eighteen
s years and he had children who attended 'McNear School, which was at the base
9 of Sunny Hill on Sunnyslope.. Hisdid not think there would be significant benefit
io to the community in having a bike path' at the proposed location.
11
12 His reasons, were (1) to go up an over the hill wasn't really any easier, and
13 perhaps it was even'more; difficult, than going around the hill; and (2) there was
14 no real significance in time savings going from point A. to point B, Mc Near
15 School or McNear Park. He thought there were problems with a bike path at that
16 location and he was concerned about the safety of'school children. He spoke
17 with the principal at McNear School,•who had expressed concerns"about safety
is issues.
19
20 He continued;that when the City builtsa bike or pedestrian path, essentially it was
21 inviting use-of the same and therefore the City was inviting children to use the
•path to get to McNear School, For those who were-not familiar with McNear
School, they prohibited people dropping students off at school on the north side
'24' of Sunnyslope; instead, parents have t'o turn left on 'G' 'Street, go around the
25 block to 'I' Street, and come.west'on Sunnyslopeandreither drop the students off
26 et the 'G''Street'parking lot location or on the north side of•Sunnyslope; that is, on
27 the school side of 'Sunnyslope: They prohibited parents from traveling in the
28 opposite direction on Sunnyslope, parking, and dropping off students so they
29 would have to cross:Sunnyslope. It was a'school policy. By placing a bike path
30 that invited students on to that side of the street,. the City was asking them to
31 violate a school policy not to cross` Sunnyslope. If there were significant benefit
32 and the danger was reduced, maybe then it was a good idea to put the path in;
• 33 he did notsee that.
34
35 Mr. Piotrkowski'stated that he knew of a lot of developers who had gone broke
36. and there was no guarantee anytime you develop property that you are going to
37 make money. There was nothing immoral or illegal about" making money, but
38 there was'noguarantee. He 'thoughtlthat Council Member Maguire's•comments
39 that Dr. Beatie was acting:as someone who did not have the community's interest
40 at heart were not accurate. Dr. Beatie had provided a lifetime of service to the
41 community in ways that were quiet and no one would •ever know about in his
42 decades as a surgeon in the community; if there was anyone who had concern
43 about the-community, it was Dr. Beatie.
44
City of Petaluma, California
Draft,Minutes ofraSpecial
City-Council Meeting •
Thursday, December 21, 2000
Page 13
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Council Member Maguire replied that he did not know and that Mr Pietrkowski
2 may be right; his earlier remarks were;about the issue at hand. :.Oneof'the things
3 that people expect from the Council was assurance that?the risk they take in a
4 capitalistic venture be supported, subsidized, or protected in many'ways by the
5 local ordinances. He thought if there was going'to be;a free market, it should be
6 a free market:and'people needed to take their own risks. ,
- -
s Council Member Hamilton asked the Mayor to have Council''Member ;Maguire
9 and Mr. Piotrkowski continue their discussion away from the, dais so Council
10 could complete the business;at hand.
11
•12 Council Member Cader-Thompson looked at'the pathway as a walking trait and
1•3 'that 'it would benefit the people in the neighborhood, :the: residents of the nine
14 homes°to be built. Previously it seemed ,reasonable.to the;Beaties, when it was.
15 suggested to`them:that the trail be dedicated to the City at,a timewle'nthey
16 chose to vacate the property,,, rsell it, whatever they chose to do, any Beatie
17 member, the trail would be in place; she was going to support that- She
18 supported development of the property, but'thought it was'a fait offer to allow It to
19 happen, five, :ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty'years now, this would just leave
20 the opportunity open. She'was not.proud of'a lot.of things that werejdone in"the.
21 community, prior to or since 1988;' maybe that was how the EIR went, but she
22 was not proud about how the City ,conducted 'business :or how the, community
23 was'developed:, M
24
25 Council Member Hamilton :supported the trail) being effective:at a time-`in the
26 'future. when it would not impact the present occupants. She thought the:City
27 needed to'take this type of action,:every time there was development, in,order to
28 createea'network of paths._so!people'could;get around without using Citystreets;
29 Shesupportedthe motion. .
-30
31 Council Member Keller agreed. This kind of a;policy:needed to put in,place:and
32 exercised in future projects;, otherwise: it was empty rhetoric, a',plan that sits:on,
33 the shelf gathering_dust. He-:disagreed with Mr Mills' comments,about;as_tudents,
:34 crossing the street that would mean that no students'living on the western:side
35 • of Sunnyslope Avenue would ever be a ble to attend McNear School, Students
36 would`. need to cross 'I' Street to get to .Grant or they would) need' to 'cross':
37 Sunnyslope; he was, sure there would: be residences with students,, adults,
38 teenagers, older folks:who -wanted 'to;be able to walk., He was ready to, move
. 39 forward.
40
41 CounciP Member Cader-Thompson added that this type Of-an agreement was not
42 unusual in othercommunities:
43 • .
.O
City'of Petaluma,california
DraftMinutes of'aSpecial
city,council'Meeting
Thursday, December 21; 2000 •
Page 14'
' DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Council Member Hamilton agreed, stating that the community where she was .
raised had;a network of paths an in::an area such as the type under consideration
3 with theBeaties, where stairs with a railing were constructed.
4
5 MOTION.
6 PASSED: 5/0/2 (Council Member Healy and Vice Mayor Torliatt absent)
7
s MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Keller, to adopt
9 Resolution 00-221 N.C.S. Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map
10 and PUD Development Standards for the Ridgeview Heights
it Subdivision.
12
13 MOTION
14 PASSED: . 5/0/2 (Council Member Healy and Vice Mayor Torliatt absent)
15
16 ADJOURN
17
is Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 P.M.
19
20
21
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
2a ATTEST:
25
26
27
28 Beverly J. Kline, City Clerk
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
•
a
City of,Petaluma, California
DrafeMinutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Thursday, December21,2000
Page 15
•
N
N