HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 12/21/2000~~~
December 21, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 387
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a Special
3 City Council Meeting
. _. 4
5
6 Thursday, December 21, 2000
7 Council Chambers
s
9
to The Petaluma City Council met on this day at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Keller, Maguire; Mayor
is Thompson
16
17 ABSENT: Council Member Healy; Vice Mayor Torliatt
is
19
20 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
21
22 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Dave Libchitz led the Pledge of Allegiance.
23
24 MOMENT OF SILENCE
- 25
26 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed.
27
2s PUBLIC COMMENT
29
3o Dave Libchitz 210 Edith Street thanked retiring Council Members Hamilton and Keller
31 for their contributions and wished them well.
32
33 Peter Tscherneff, 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
3s Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke in opposition to development in the floodplain.
39
4o COUNCIL COMMENT
41
42 Council Member Keller: Noted this as his last meeting, and extended the following
43 comments:
44
4s Thirteen years ago, when he arrived in Petaluma, he got involved with the Westridge
46 Knolls project, which was just being scoped at the time. As he paid attention and got
19~
Vol. 35, Page 388 December 21, 2000
1 involved, primarily with the creek issues, he found that the creeks were related to
2 development, which was related to downstream flows, which was related to sewage
3 system capacity, and the fact that the City had a major I/I (inflow and infiltration)
4 problem, He watched the funding stream from development interests at the fume and
s how decisions were made, over-crowding in local schools, increased traffic on City
6 streets, all the things that were heard at the dais day after day after day.
g He discovered that when he followed neighborhood issues, they were connected to the
9 rest of the web of the City. That's how he got involved in issues of the water supply,
io flood management, the wastewater treatment plant (ultimately fighting against the
i i privatization of that treatment plant), rate-payer protection, financial stability of the City,
i2 the battle to keep Lafferty within the reach of public hands, the effort to turn around the
13 fool-hardy decision on the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector.
14
is His interest in civic matters and civic involvement dated back to his days in high school
16 in New York. He remembered reading Jane Jacobs' book, Death and Life of Great
i~ American Cities, published around 1959 - 1960, a wonderful first shot at what made
is cities work, the fine texture of neighborhoods, and what made the neighborhoods and
i9 the vitality of those cities stay alive. Watching the campaign and tenure as mayor of
20 New York City, John Lindsay, a Liberal Republican, who died December 20, 2000, he
21 recognized Mayor Lindsay as someone who had brought a fresh perspective, a spirit of
22 community involvement, and the willingness to try to recreate New York from a declining
23 metropolis. He watched him fail and succeed on a number of endeavors and he was
24 inspired to become involved in local politics.
2s
26 Council Member Keller's grandfather, a revolutionary Democratic Socialist, was also
27 one of his heroes; he brought vision, dedication, what it took in hard work to get things
2s accomplished at the local level, and a healthy dose of skepticism of what was possible
29 and how human nature can sometimes corrupt the best intentions. Another hero was his
3o wife, Allison, present with his children, Sara and Josh; she was a hero to him for
3t exploring daily life with his family. He had a number of heroes.
32
33 His experiences in Petaluma taught him that governing was a process that involved
34 significant waiting, patience, and perseverance for there were many minds and hearts to
3s gather together to act properly. Success cannot be rushed, it can't be bought, it can't be
36 pushed, it can't be coerced; it was achieved only through these and the efforts of many,
37 through the perseverance and gifts of all. He found that governing required
3s uncompromising truth with himself, no illusions, no deceptions. For it was only knowing
39 what was in his heart that gave him the space, the compassion, and strength to carry
4o forward visions.
41
42 He was leaving the Council four years older, quite a bit more experienced, perhaps a
43 little wiser, and definitely more patient with the process. He found that there were times
44 to learn, to act, to reflect, to retreat, to express love, anger, to recognize mistakes,
4s particularly his own, to show forgiveness, and to give thanks and to celebrate.
46
December 21, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 389
1 To his colleagues, he bequeathed a "panic button," to the City Manager, an "eject
2 button." Whenever the Council Members felt the need to reach for the "panic button,"
3 he asked them to take it as a signal for them to remember to take the time to breathe, to
4 be quiet, to reflect in their hearts, and to give thanks for the chance to serve, for the
s grace of being given the opportunity by the voters. It was really only loaned to them by
6 the voters, the people who voted them to the office.
s He thanked all whose paths he. He acknowledged and thanked his family for their love
9 and support. It was a great pleasure and honor to work with City staff, with citizens of
to the community, and with his colleagues. He appreciated the work they accomplished
11 together, both in agreement and in disagreement. He concluded by saying though
12 retiring, he certainly was not shy and he would be back. He wished his colleagues all
13 the best.
14
is Council Member Maguire: Addressed the impending energy crisis caused by
16 deregulation of the energy market in California. The Governor and the Public Utilities
1~ Commission were currently looking at terminating the last remaining price controls; he
is wanted to get concurrence from the Council to send a letter to the Public Utilities
19 Commission (PUC) and the Governor asking that they not remove price caps; in fact, it
zo was time to re-regulate the industry. He offered to work with City Management to
21 compose the letter.
22
23 A majority of the Council Members voiced their agreement.
24
2s Council Member Cader-Thompson: Noted her appreciation for retiring Council Members
26 Hamilton and Keller. She asked City Management to schedule the Fair Political
27 Practices Commission (FPPC) to address Council in January and encouraged Council
2s Members to submit their questions before then to make sure they got answers. She
29 offered to walk the area where the Rainier Cross-Town Connector was considered with
3o anyone who wanted to.
31
32 Mayor Thompson: Thanked retiring Council Members Hamilton and Keller for their
33 many hours of service to the community.
34
3s SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
36
37 Appointments
38
39 A. Planning Commission, unexpired four-year term of Marcel Feibusch ending June
40 30, 2002.
41
42 Applicant John Mills, Developer, thanked retiring Council Members Hamilton and
43 Keller for their service to the community. He then withdrew his name as an
44 applicant for appointment to the Planning Commission and provided reasons for
4s doing so.
46
~+0~
Vol. 35, Page 390
December 21, 2000
1 Council Member Keller expressed regret for Mr. Mills withdrawing his application.
2
3 Applicant Carl Taber, Attorney At Law, provided background information and
4 training that he believed qualified him for consideration as a Planning
s Commissioner.
6
~ Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if he had any conflict. of interest that
s would interfere with his appointment to the commission.
9
to Mr. Taber replied no, professionally, his law practice was in the Worker's
11 Compensation field.
12
13 Applicant Scott Vouri, Business Consultant, provided background information
14 and training that he believed qualified him for consideration as a Planning
is Commissioner.
16
1~ Applicant Bruce Wilson, provided background information and training that he
18 believed qualified him for consideration as a Planning Commissioner noting that
19 he wanted to give something back to the community.
20
21 Council Vote: Scott Vouri appointed (Resolution 00-218 N.C.S.)
22
23 B. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (S.P.A.R.C.), unexpired two-
24 year term of Louise Leff ending June 30, 2002.
2s
26 Applicant Chris Lynch, Licensed Architect, 320 Walnut Street, expressed his
27 desire to serve the community and provided background information, and
28 training, that he believed qualified him for consideration as a S.P.A.R.C. member.
29
3o Applicant Hank Zucker, 15 Lone Oak Court, expressed his desire to serve the
31 community and provided background information and training that he believed
32 qualified him for consideration as a S.P.A.R.C. member.
33
34 Council Vote: Chris Lynch appointed (Resolution 00-219 N.C.S.)
35
36 C. Golden Gate Bridge District Board (Re-Recommendation to Mayors' &
37 Councilmembers' Association to Fill One Vacancy)
38
39 Council Member Maguire supported newly elected Council Member Mike O'Brien
4o for this appointment.
41
42 Mayor Thompson wanted the appointment to take place at the January 2, 2001
43 reorganization.
44
45 Council Members Hamilton and Keller supported Vice Mayor Torliatt for the
46 appointment.
2Q~
December 21, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 391
1
2 Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that she believed Vice Mayor Torliatt
3 was interested in serving on Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and
4 had asked Council's support in recommending .her to the Mayors' and
s Councilmembers' Association for the appointment, not the Golden Gate Bridge
6 District Board.
8 Council Member Keller wanted to make the recommendation now; he supported
9 the appointment of Vice Mayor Torliatt due to her experience and knowledge
to about the Board.
11
12 MOTION: Council Member Hamilton moved, seconded by Keller, to nominate
13 Vice Mayor Torliatt as Petaluma's vote at the Mayors' and Council
14 Members' meeting for the Golden Gate Bridge Transportation
is District Board of Directors.
16
17 Mayor Thompson stated he would abstain, as he was certain that Vice Mayor
18 Torliatt had expressed interest in the LAFCO appointment and not the Golden
19 Gate Bridge District Board. He added that he did not think the Council should
20 take this action, as it was an appointment in absentia; no one was sure that she
21 really wanted to be nominated to serve on this board.
22
23 Council Member Maguire stated that he would not support the nomination. He
24 added that he recalled Vice Mayor Torliatt did express interest at the time
2s Council discussed the timing of putting the item on an agenda. He agreed with
26 Council Member Keller that Vice Mayor Torliatt was very capable but he wanted
27 to make a goodwill gesture towards the new Council.
28
29 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked for clarification of whether Vice Mayor
3o Torliatt had expressed interest in this nomination.
31
32 Council Members Hamilton, Keller, and Maguire replied that she did.
33
34 MOTION
3s PASSED: 4/1/2 (Mayor Thompson abstention counted as a "Yes" vote;
36 Council Member Maguire voting "No"; Council Member Healy and
37 Vice Mayor Torliatt absent)
38
39 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
40
41 1. Ridgeview Heights Subdivision (Moore)
42
43 A. Discussion and Possible Action on a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated
44 Negative Declaration for the Ridgeview Heights Subdivision.
45
~a
Vol. 35, Page 392
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
z8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
December 21, 2000
B. Discussion and Possible Action on a Resolution Approving the Tentative
Subdivision Map and PUD Development Standards for the Ridgeview
Heights Subdivision.
Community Development Director Mike Moore introduced the item and provided
a brief background leading to the item being heard. City Management
recommended the Council adopt two resolutions:
1. Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ridgeview
Heights Subdivision; and
2. Resolution Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD Development
Standards for the Ridgeview Heights Subdivision.
The issue at hand was the requirement for a bike path and Council was provided
with the findings and conditions relative to providing the bike path connection
between Sunny Hill Drive and Sunnyslope Road through the subdivision and the
remaining lands of Beatie. He added that since the last meeting., the City
Attorney identified an additional General Plan policy that applied to the project
and the language of the policy would be inserted into Finding 7 on page 2 of the
Tentative Map Resolution, the second resolution being recommended. Policy
14.2 of the Community Character element required that "new development
include pedestrian and bicycle circulation within and through the site to connect
existing and/or planned citywide pedestrian and/or bicycle networks. " Based on
the action taken by Council, City Management would incorporate that language
into the Tentative Map resolution.
Mayor Thompson asked if and when the attorney for the appellants (Beatie), Mr.
Piotrkowski, was advised of the findings.
Mr. Moore replied that Mr. Piotrkowski was provided a. copy of the language from
the General Plan moments ago. His discussion with the City Attorney about the
findings had occurred only that afternoon.
Council Member Maguire thought the word, "potential" was superfluous as
referred to on page 2 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Resolution, item 8,
line 22, "...development will have potential traffic, traffic safety, and air quality
impacts. "
Mr. Moore acknowledged that Council Member Maguire, at a previous meeting,
pointed out that it should be deleted; he had that note but no changes were made
to the resolution since the last meeting.
Council Member Maguire wanted to make sure that change was incorporated.
1
~~
December 21, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 393
2 PUBLIC COMMENT
3
4 Irv Piotrkowski, 35 Fifth Street, Counsel for Dr. Beatie, stated for the record the
s due process issue with regard to the new finding that was just announced. He
6 thought due process was an important item in this type of case as all probably
~ knew where it was going to end up if the Council proceeded pursuant to the
s recommendation of City Management. In that regard, he stated that prior to the
9 meeting of November 20, it was the recommendation both of the Planning
io Commission and City Management that the path not be included in the proposal.
ii
12 The item was brought back at the meeting of November 20 to City Management
13 for the first time with direction to City Management that they create findings and a
14 new finding had just been created; he noted his objection to that and asked that it
is be registered. It was no secret that both he and Dr. Beatie strongly opposed the
16 condition. They believed it was inappropriate and further believed that it was
1~ unlawful and proceeded to outline the reasons. They did not believe the
is proposed findings justified an exception to the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment
19 of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibited the taking of private
zo property for public benefit without just compensation. Certainly there were
21 exceptions to that, but he respectfully suggested that those exceptions did not
22 apply to this situation.
23
24 He then referred to a number of documents that he wanted included in the
2s record; he had copies and provided them to the Council. The points he wanted
26 included in the record and for Council's careful consideration follow:
27
2s First, the bulk of what was proposed, as the path did not pass through the
z9 subdivision, it passed through the remainder parcel. Government Code § 66434
3o gave an applicant the opportunity to designate a remainder and provided that the
31 remainder parcel was not a part of the subdivision. There was a 1977 Attorney
32 General's Opinion, the citation for which he was willing to provide to the City
33 Attorney, which specifically stated that the remainder parcel was not a part. of the
34 subdivision.
35
36 Second was the issue of valuation and the effect the proposed path would have
37 on the valuation. With Council's permission, he read a letter into the record from
3a Steve Buckley regarding that issue. He noted that the letter was directed to him
39 and with the permission of the Council read as follows:
40
41 By way of background, 1 became a licensed real estate person in
42 1975 and a licensed real estate broker in 1978. Since 1982, much
43 of my practice has been evaluating the feasibility of residential
44 developments in the Petaluma area. In this evaluation process 1
4s must typically assess the market value of residential lots, both
46 improved and unimproved, and the eventual sales price of homes
~~:
Vol. 35, Page 394
December 21, 2000
1 to be constructed. At your request, 1 have evaluated the economic
2 ~ impact of the proposed bike pedestrian path through the Ridgeview
3 Heights Subdivision based upon my knowledge of the value of lots
4 and fully developed residential parcels in west Petaluma.
s
6 My professional opinion is that the proposed path causes significant
~ devaluation of Dr. Beatie's property; in particular, the proposed path
s would gravely impact the value of lot number fi, which is the prime
9 lot in the project. The path is proposed to start at a small entrance
to to the lot, which is designated for vehicular driveway and would
11 proceed through the lot adjacent to a planned swimming pool site. 1
12 believe the proposed lot would suffer a diminution of 25 % of its
13 market value as a direct result of the proposed path. In my opinion,
14 the proposed path would likewise reduce the fair market value of lot
is 5 by 20% as a result of the loss of privacy to the home to be
16 constructed on the lot.
1~
is The most significant impact would be to the two homes located on
19 the parcel upon which the Beatles have resided for many years.
20 The proposed path is within several yards of the entrance to the
21 small residence and passes through a relatively small side and
22 front yards of the main house. In my opinion, the loss of fair market
23
24 value to the Beatie's home property is a third of its fair market
value. The cumulative diminution in value caused by the proposed
2s path may make the proposed subdivision uneconomical and may
26 cause Dr. Beatie to reconsider proceeding with the project. Please
27 do not hesitate to call me if there are any questions regarding the
2a foregoing.
29
3o Third, regarding Council Member Maguire's question regarding why it was
31 necessary for them to look at the Environmental Impact. Report (EIR), he
32 suggested that the proposed findings were in direct conflict to portions of the EIR.
33 For example, paragraph 8 of the resolution before Council read, "On the
34 evidence and the record presented during the course of the public hearings
3s before the City Council, the City Council had determined that the proposed
36 development would have potential traffic." He acknowledged that he understood
3~ they had removed the words "potential safety and air quality impacts resulting
3s from anticipated vehicle trips on the local road system and has determined that a
39 bicycle path between Sunnyslope and Sunny Hill Drive will mitigate the impacts
4o to a level of less than significant. "
41
42 He asked that Council focus their attention on the issue of air quality. Two of the
43 documents he handed to the Council dealt directly with that issue. In Appendix
44 1, part of the application prepared by the City and provided to the County of
4s Sonoma in its process to apply for the assessment district, the specific
46 questioned is asked, "Will the proposal result in substantial emissions or
~~
December 21, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 395
1 deterioration of ambient air quality?"The answer provided by the City was "No."
2 Furthermore, at paragraph 25 of the final EIR, the heading under air quality read,
3 and he quoted from the City's own EIR that directly contradicted part of finding
4 number 8, "No significant carbon monoxide impacts are expected to occur as a
s result of the project related to the traffic increases." He submitted that the City
6 was bound by the findings in the EIR. He believed the contradiction that was
~ evident was substantial evidence of the fact that City Management was put in an
8 untenable position of trying to justify the unjustifiable.
9
to He continued that the staff report further stated that the project would generate,
11 "ninety potential trips per day for the proposed nine-lot subdivision." He
12 suggested, respectfully, that the generation of ninety trips per day was a small
13 impact in comparison to the diminution in value of Dr. Beatie's property.
14
is He referred to a letter sent on behalf of his clients, dated October 5, a copy of
16 which was provided to the City Attorney Richard Rudnansky, which referred to
17 the Dolan vs. The City of Tigard case, which he believed was directly on point. In
18 that case, the applicants sought to expand significantly a commercial use of
19 commercial property. The traffic studies, presented in that case found, found that
20 there would be 435 additional trips per day generated by the expanded project. In
21 fact, the City of Tigard made a finding, which was almost eerily similar to that was
22 proposed in this project, and it read as follows, "The expanded use of this site is
23 anticipated to generate additional vehicular traffic, thereby increasing congestion
24 on nearby collector and arterial streets. Creation of a convenient, safe,
2s pedestrian, bicycle pathway system as an alternative means of transportation
26 could offset some of the traffic demands on the nearby streets and lessen the
2~ increase in traffic congestion. "
2s
29 The United States Supreme Court, working with that finding; that is, working with
3o the finding of 435 additional trips, concluded as follows in an Opinion written by
31 Chief Justice Renquist. He knew some might not find Mr. Renquist to be their
32 favorite person, he was the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court,
33 and, as Mr. Gore found out, that word was final, much to his chagrin and others,
34 but so be it. The Court found in that case that based upon those findings, and
3s the particular situation that was presented in the Tigard case, that it was
36 "insufficient to overcome the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of
37 private property for public benefit. "
38
39 He respectfully suggested that Dr. Beatie's case was even more compelling than
4o the Tigard case. Dr. Beatie had for many years been paying on assessments in
41 the Sunnyslope Subdivision. One of the statements made in the EIR was that the
42 assessments were based on the development potential of the property. Dr.
43 Beatie's assessment was just under $45,000 and he had been paying that
44 assessment for ten years with minimal benefit from the assessment district. He
4s wanted the Council to consider that what was happening now, was not only
46 illegal but also unfair. Dr. Beatie had paid on an assessment based upon the
2Q6
Vol. 35, Page 396
December 21, 2000
1 development of his property and what he believed the City was saying to him
2 was that he could go ahead and develop his property but it would be done in a
3 way that would diminish the value of that property to a point where all the money
4 that was paid on the assessment district may be rendered useless because now,
s based on Mr. Buckley's finding and opinion, it may become an uneconomical
6 subdivision. He truly thought the subdivision would not proceed if the City put
~ additional requirements on the subdivision; he thought it was inappropriate,
s unfair, and illegal for this to be exacted under these circumstances.
9
to He pointed out what he thought was another inconsistency, and that was that a
11 number of Council Members had taken the position that they would put the
12 requirement on Dr. Beatie's property .but not make it effective until he and his
13 heirs left the property. One Council Member, in his review of the tapes said, "...in
14 consideration of your privacy." He respectfully suggested that if the Council
is found the requirements to be a violation of Dr. Beatie's privacy, it would violate
16 the privacy of anyone who lived there in the future. He thought that was plainly
1~ inconsistent. He thought the acknowledgement by virtue of postponing the
1g effective date was not going to make it any less of a problem for someone else.
19
20 The proposed findings also seemed to suggest, without any evidence in the
21 record, that the requirements would somehow enhance safety. He suggested
22 that children riding down the proposed path on bicycles would, in~ fact, create a
23 dangerous condition.
24
2s Finally, he urged the Council to approve the subdivision without the bike path.
26 There were a number of reasons, which he cited both in his letter, and that he
27 hopefully made clear now, and could certainly respond to further. This posture
2s would put the City in a legal position, which he believed was untenable; it was
29 going to be expensive for all concerned. Dr. Beatie felt so strongly on this issue
3o that he would do what he believed he had to do to protect his rights.
31
32 He respectfully stated that the oath the Council Members took to uphold the law
33 and to uphold the Constitution when taking office required that they do what the
34 law required. In this case, that was to approve the subdivision without the
35 imposition of the bike path, which would have a serious effect on Dr. Beatie's
36 property.
37 He thanked the Council for their consideration and offered to answer any
3s questions they had.
39
4o Council Member Keller asked if the second home on Dr. Beatie's property was
41 legal, had a permit been issued.
42
43 Mr. Piotrkowski replied that he thought it was as it had been there for many
44 years.
45
1
1
~~7
December 21, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 397
1 Community Development Department Director Mike Moore replied that he had
2 not investigated that issue.
3
a Council Member Keller asked City Management to determine if the second
s building had received a permit from the City; that is, if it was legally built as a
~ second residence. He stated the benefits that Dr. Beatie had received through
~ what he paid to the assessment district included the annexation to the City and
s all the City improvements that came with that, and the obligations of a City
9 resident as opposed to those of being a County resident.
io
ii When the County had jurisdiction for the area, there were no road repairs, sewer,
i2 sidewalks, street lighting, it was very unsafe and difficult to travel, which is why
13 the residents voted to become annexed to the City. The price they paid was the
i4 assessment district. The assessment district then bought them into the City's
is General Plan, which was in effect at the time the assessment district was
i6 established. When Dr. and Mrs. Beatie voted to approve the assessment district,
i~ they were fully aware of the General Plan of the City and of the responsibilities
is that being a City resident and City property owner would entail. He believed Dr.
19 Beatie had received tremendous benefit from the assessment district, witness the
20 subdivision; had he not been part of the City, the subdivision and all the
ai improvements necessary to support it would not have been present.
22
23 He questioned the loss of privacy to the remainder parcel because of a trail,
24 versus the loss of privacy from building nine homes on the balance of the
as property. He thought if there was a case made that the City was indeed "taking"
26 -the property,. then it was incumbent upon the City to go through a process of
2~ determining the value of easement and, should the City find it worthwhile to
2s proceed with such a purchase, pursuant to Mr. Piotrkowski's theory,. it should be
29 presented to the Council; Mr. Buckley's letter of evaluation was unsubstantiated
3o by any comparables, research or materials.
31
32 Mr. Piotrkowski stated that regarding the benefit received through the
33 assessment district, Dr. Beatie paid his fair share for the improvements; it "wasn't
34 like he got something for nothing." Regarding the "taking" issue, he did not want
3s to leave the impression that his clients would be happy to have the property in
36 question be condemned for a trail; he believed he previously stated that at the
37 November 20 meeting. He was not suggesting that what his clients wanted was
3s the Council to buy the trail; his clients did not want that. However, it certainly was
39 the legal right of the City to do so if they chose; that was something that should
4o come from the City and not Dr. Beatie.
41
42 Council Member Maguire found Mr. Buckley's letter somewhat ridiculous; the
43 types of devaluations, having had experience as a real estate agent, though it
44 was years ago, would need substantiation and comparable figures before he
as would accept those assertions. Questions regarding the path going through to
2Og
Vol. 35, Page 398
December 21, 2000
1 the remainder parcel, and consistency with the EIR, he wanted the City Attorney
2 to address.
3
4 Regarding fairness, there were benefits to the Beatles through the assessments
s paid and, looking at the potential for profit making that would occur if the project
6 moved forward, even with the path, despite what Mr. Buckley stated in his letter,
~ he believed there was substantial profit, increase in potential profit, because of
8 the assessments that were paid.
9
to He believed it was unfair for a person to take advantage of the infrastructure of
11 the City. Development, like most other typical developments of the type
12 proposed, would not pay for its own costs over the years; the community at large
13 would be burdened with the cost of doing that. One way to address the issue was
14 through some of the mitigation of the traffic impacts by providing an alternative.
is He knew Dr. Beatie did not think that was fair and he completely disagreed with
16 him, stating that Dr. Beatie's actions were those of a person who truly, in his
1~ estimation, did not have the community's well-being at heart; primarily he was
18 looking out for himself.
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3s
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
4s
46
He also did not agree with the violation of privacy. He had visited the property
and believed there was ample room and ability to screen the path past the
second building. He added that he, too, wanted to know if the second building
was a legal residence. The City had apartments and houses in town where
sidewalks were even closer than what was proposed. He believed the problem
was one of perception and that was that, "1've got my little turf cut out here. 1 don't
want any intrusion even though 1 am going to make beaucoups bucks subdividing
my property; therefore, it seems like an intrusion to me." He said he could
understand that, but nobody got to have everything their way. That was why the
Council thought that the easement should not take effect until the departure of
the Beaties.
Regarding safety, as a child he rode his bike on hills much steeper than the one
located on Beatie property and he thought the biggest risk was with the local
residents and their caution when driving. For the reasons he stated, he supported
and would continue to support the proposed resolution as worded.
MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded Keller to adopt
Resolution 00-220 N.C.S. Adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Ridgeview Heights Subdivision.
PUBLIC COMMENT
John Mills, 1315 'D' Street,. stated he had lived in the neighborhood for eighteen
years and he had children who attended McNear School, which was at the base
of Sunny Hill on Sunnyslope. His did not think there would be significant benefit
to the community in having a bike path at the proposed location.
1
fJ
1
1
~U~
December 21, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 399
J
1
1
2 His reasons were (1) to go up an over the hill wasn't really any easier, and
3 perhaps it was even more difficult, than going around the hill; and (2) there was
4 no real significance in time savings going from point A to point B, Mc Near
s School or McNear Park. He thought there were problems with a bike path at that
6 location and he was concerned about the safety of school children. He spoke
~ with the principal at McNear School, who had expressed concerns about safety
s issues.
9
to He continued that when the City built a bike or pedestrian path, essentially it was
11 inviting use of the same and therefore the City was inviting children to use the
la path to get to McNear School. For those who were not familiar with McNear
13 School, they prohibited people dropping students off at school on the north side
14 of Sunnyslope; instead, parents have to turn left on 'G' Street, go around the
is block to 'I' Street, and come west on Sunnyslope and either drop the students off
16 at the 'G' Street parking lot location or on the north side of Sunnyslope; that is, on
17 the school side of Sunnyslope. They prohibited parents from traveling in the
is opposite direction on Sunnyslope, parking, and dropping off students so they
19 would have to cross Sunnyslope. It was a school policy.. By placing a bike path
20 that invited students on to that side of the street, the City was asking them to
21 violate a school policy not to cross Sunnyslope. If there were significant benefit
22 and the danger was reduced, maybe then it was a good idea to put the path in;
23 he did not see that.
24
as Mr. Piotrkowski stated that he knew of a lot of developers who had gone broke
26 and there was no guarantee anytime you develop property that you are going to
2~ make money. There was nothing immoral or illegal about making money, but
2s there was no guarantee. He thought that Council Member Maguire's comments
z9 that Dr. Beatie was acting as someone who did not have the community's interest
3o at heart were not accurate. Dr. Beatie had provided a lifetime of service to the
31 community in ways that were quiet and no one would ever know about in his
32 decades as a surgeon in the community; if there was anyone who had concern
33 about the community, it was Dr. Beatie.
34
3s Council Member Maguire replied that. he did not know and that Mr. Piotrkowski
36 may be right; his earlier remarks were about the issue at hand. One of the things
37 that people expect from the Council was assurance that the risk they take in a
3s capitalistic venture be supported, subsidized, or protected in many ways by the
39 local ordinances. He thought if there was going to be a free market, it should be
4o a free market and people needed to take their own risks.
41
42 Council Member Hamilton asked the Mayor to have Council Member Maguire
43 and Mr. Piotrkowski continue their discussion away from the dais so Council
44 could complete the business at hand.
45
2?~
Vol. 35, Page 400
December 21, 2000
i Council Member Cader-Thompson looked at the pathway as a walking trail and
2 that it would benefit the people in the neighborhood, the residents of the nine
3 homes to be built. Previously it seemed reasonable to the Beatles, when it was
4 suggested to them that the trail be dedicated to the City and at a time when they
s chose to vacate the property, sell it, whatever they chose to do, any Beatie
6 member, the trail would be ~ in place; she was going to "support that. She
7 supported development of the property, but thought it was a fair offer to allow it to
a happen, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty years from now, this would jusf leave
9 the opportunity open. She was not proud of a lot of things that were done in the
io community prior to or since 1988; maybe that was how the EIR went, but. she
ti was not proud about how the City conducted business or how the community
i2 was developed.
13
i4 Council Member Hamilton supported the trail being effective at a time in the
is future when it would not impact the present occupants. She thought the City
16 needed to take this type of action every time there was development, in order to
17 create a network of paths so people could get around without using City streets.
ig She supported the motion.
19
20 Council Member Keller agreed. This kind of a policy needed to put in place and
21 exercised in future projects; otherwise it was empty rhetoric, a plan that sits on
22 the shelf gathering dust. He disagreed with Mr. Mills' comments about students
23 crossing the street; that would mean that no students living on the western side
24 of Sunnyslope Avenue would ever be able to attend McNear School. Students
2s would need to cross 'I' Street to get to Grant or they would need to cross
26 Sunnyslope; he was sure there would be residences with students, adults,
27 teenagers, older folks who wanted to be able to walk. He was ready to move
2s forward.
29
3o Council Member Cader-Thompson added that this type of an agreement was not
31 unusual in other communities.
32
33 Council Member Hamilton agreed, stating that the community where she was
34 raised had a network of paths an in an area such as the type under consideration
3s with the Beaties, where stairs with a railing were constructed.
36
37 MOTION
38 PASSED: 5/0/2 (Council Member Healy and Vice Mayor Torliatt absent)
39
4o MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Keller, to adopt
41 Resolution 00-221 N.C.S. Approving the Tentative Subdivision Map
42 and PUD Development Standards for the Ridgeview Heights
43 Subdivision.
44
4s MOTION
46 PASSED: 5/0/2 (Council Member Healy and Vice Mayor Torliatt absent)
~~~
December 21, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 401
1
2 ADJOURN
3
4 Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 P.M.
s
6
7
8 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
9
to ATTEST:
11
12
13
Beverly J. Kline, City Clerk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 ******
L