Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/25/1995September 25, 1995 Vol. 29, Page 215 I ~ MINUTES ~ ~. a OF A REG~TTI.AR 1VIEETINCy ~ 3 PETAI~~JMA CITY COiTNCIL 7i3 ~~ a 1VIONDAY, SEPT'EMBER 25, 1995 A~. ~ P~ ~~,~~. s I~OLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 6 Present: Hamilton, Maguire, Read, Barlas, Vice Mayor Shea, Mayor Hilligoss ~ ~G Absent: Stompe s PL~DGE OF' AI,LEGIAIVCE 9 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Supervisor Jim Harberson. io j MOMENT OF SILENCE i i ~ PUBI.IC COMIVIENT ia Jim Han'sen, 235 White Oak Circle - walked through the fence at Lafferty Ranch last ~3 week an~d walked for six hours. After seeing Lafferty, the rest doesn't hold a candle to ia it. It is within ten minutes of his house. i is Robert Ramirez, 611 West Street - at the relay last week, a lot of people came up to i6 him saying they want to see Lafferty Ranch. He feels like it is his. There will be more i~ "Moons". is Brian Sobel, 913 Wood Lane - is an advocate of the swap. We talked about this four ~9 years ago. Mr. Pfendler looked at properties and asked the City if any of those zo properties would be appropriate. The people who are here now weren't here when I ai was on the Council. He noted the money comes from the Open Space District, not out 22 of the City's coffers. To imply anything else is misleading. There is no seller financing z3 on the Pfendler purchase of Moon Ranch. The whole idea is to preserve Lafferty and 2a the development ~of a recreational facility. A person came to the Council's last meeting 2s and said! he was an appraiser. He cannot find him. The local appraisers do not know z6 him. Regarding the Hardin Lane property mentioned at last meeting; it has been listed z~ under Remax where Mr. Ramirez works. We looked at that four years ago. Zs Yigal Toister, 1263 Ponderosa Drive - the first time he heard about this was last year. z9 There are seven properties on the market comparable to the Moon Ranch. He referred 3o to a purehase of open space in the Healdsburg area. He sits on the Budget Committee. 3i If we want to sell Lafferty, we should see what we can get for it. You should at least 32 retain the water rights to that property. 33 Jon Musser, 1796 Northstar Drive - is opposed to the trade of Lafferty and Moon 3a Ranches~ because it will set a precedent. Then some lawyer could sell off Yosemite. 3s We have more than adequate parks here, Helen Putnam Park which has picnic tables 36 and a little lake. Moon is totally flat. Why should we spend $2 or $3 million on this? 3~ He is alarmed about stopping the tours to Lafferty Ranch. Petaluma should be 3s outraged at Council members who voted against tours. i 39 Tom Williams, 617 Fifth Street - a lot of people don't want to lose Lafferty Ranch. ao Give it to the voters. Page 216, Vol. 29 September 25, 1995 ~`~ candidates at th~e last election. The majority of the past two City Couneils support the a trade. Pay atterition to the experts such as the professional appraisers. Use your staff. s This has been going on for four years. a ~ Michael Davis, ~1648 Northstar Drive - regarding Ely ~31vd. and Washington Street. s The iraffic backs up as far as Maria Drive. Please do so~r-ething about it. ~ COUNCII. COMMEN~' . ~ ~ Vice Mayor Lori Shea - Mary Stompe's team came in second place at the 24-hour s relay. ; ~ Carole Barlas - I want the people of our fair city of Pet~luma to know that I am your io elected official and I honor and respect all of you expertise. I don't think I have as a i i leader any more expertise, any more power of decision than you do. I am sorry if there ~2 are some people who have held political office who feel that they are more capable and i3 more expert than the rest of you. In my idea of what democracy is about is that a4 leadership <is there to involve the expertise of the populace and that leader through a ~ s collaborative effort of decision making with the popu~ace that's your participatory i~ democracy, then that leader shows leadership by carrying out fhe wishes of the i~ populace. I want you to know that you've got one politic;al leader here. is Jane Hamilton !- the idea that a few Councilmembers and a few staff looking at ~9 properties that constitutes a legitimate search for a South County regional park is zo ludicrous. Had ;we undertaken a real search for comp~rable properties to see 'if we 2~ could get a better value rather than jump at the first deal we had, we would have at zz least contacted the Board of Realtors and asked them to l.~elp us in the search and made z3 a very public issue out of it. The idea that Open Space funds are something that is a 2a completely different issue even though it is our t~ monies and, it's not money that we 2s need to be concerned about, she takes exception to. No matter who is spending the 2~ money, it is our~ money. I feel the entire transaction needs to be scrutinized to see if it 2~ is a legitimate decision. ~ zs PRESENTAB'IONS i 29 Mayor Hilligoss and City Manager John Scharer presented Warren Salmons with his 15 so year's of employment pm. ~ si I.AFFERTY AND MOON RANCR APP1tAISALS 3z Recreation Director Jim Carr noted the appraisers and some officials of the Open Space s3 District are presient tonight. 34 Jim Harberson, ~County Supervisor 2nd Distriet - thank you for the time you spend for ss the City and thank everybody for participating in the 24-hour Relay last week. 3~ He chaired the Open Space Legislation Committee that they took to the Bill Filante and 3~ the State. We asked for authority to collect $0.0025; sales tax for open space. One of 3s the reasons he work on this is he has always wanted to save open space on Sonoma 3s Mountain. The Open Space District was always intended to save open space as its ao primary goal, but also to be used to help out in some recreation land. September 25, 1995 Vol. 29, Page 217 i Regarding Fitch Mountain in Healdsburg, the Open Space District bought an easement z on Fitch~ Mountain. There is a remainder of the money that has to be provided by the s local gouernment to complete the purchase and then money to operate it as a park. a That has not yet happened. There has been no park land bought totally with Open s Space dollars. It all requires some sort of local match. 6 The Board of Supervisors purchased a seventy year old power plant, the Potter Valley ~ Power Plant, not because we want to be saddled with that but because the 159,000 s acre feet of water that flows from the Eel River through the diversion into the Russian 9 River is ~ery important to all of us. io Lafferty-Moon has been a very contentious issue. As you know the majority of the i ~ Council ~supports the trade of Lafferty, the placement of an easement over it to save it i2 for perpetuity and the purchase of Moon Ranch for a regional park. Moon Ranch ~s provides the best regional park opporturuty in the south county. Lafferty is beautiful; ia however, there is a very substandard road, the fire agencies who have the responsibility is for fighting the fires are totally opposed to further development there. He personally ~6 opposes any further development along Sonoma Mountain Road, because the County i~ doesn't have the capability of maintaining the road as it is. Adobe Creek is very is environmentally sensitive and it needs to be protected. Moon Ranch doesn't have these ~9 problems. He hopes, when this is all decided, that we'll all be able to work together. zo He hoped all would be able to agree that we need more open space and more regional Zi parks in; the area. Helen Putnam Park is a beautiful park, but he doesn't think Helen z2 Putnam IPark is adequate for future needs for parks. We have two appraisers here z3 tonight to answer your questions. 2a David Hansen, General Manager Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open 2s Space D;istrict - the intent in the November, 1990, ballot measure was to acquire rights 26 in land for the preservation of agriculture and for natural resource lands through the z~ acquisition of conservation easements. The district has acquired appro~mately 9,000 Zs acres ofiland, mostly conservation easements, to protect agriculture and open space in z9 the county. The entirety of Sonoma Mountain is listed as a Category Two Preservation 3o in our acquisition plan. We had a meeting in the City of Petaluma for public input into si that preservation plan. They hope to see the entirety of Sonoma Mountain preserved as 3z open space. That 1990 ballot measure does say that we may acquire rights and land for 33 fee title for recreation. 34 We have entered into an agreement with the regional parks department and the county 3s water agency to determine how we can assist in the acquisition of parklands. The only 36 other way we can do it is through the matching grant program. Petaluma has three 3~ projects!in that matching grant program. No other city has more than one. 3a The district has made a deliberate attempt to use the independent appraisers. The 39 appraisals are full narrative appraisals. About three years ago the City Council asked if ao the District was interested in helping to preserve Lafferty Ranch through a conservation ai easemen't. At that same time we were also negotiating with Doyle Moon for a az conservation easement on the Moon Ranch. At that time, it was listed at $2.95 Million 43 by Scott Stevens. Then we were then asked by the City Council, as part of the aa September, 1994, action, to carry out this trade. We were also asked by your Council as to look into the appraisal and value of a conservation easement over the Moon Ranch. a6 The Open Space Authority has voted unanimously to approve the $1.4 million for the a~ conservation easement for the acquisition of development rights subdivision rights over as the Moon Ranch. Page 218, Vol. 29 September 25, 1995 ~ Mr. Hansen said that the Open Space District is interested in buying the development a rights of Moon ~whether or not it's part of this transaction. He also said the District is 3 interested in an easement over Lafferty Ranch which Mx. Pfendler has indicated he is a interested in ~ivin~ the District at no cost. s Holly Swan - Land Acquisition Specialist with the Open Space District -.She described ~ the appraisal process utilized by the Open Space District. First the appraiser ~ determmes the value of the property on the open market in its cunent condition. He s does that by looking at the property, reviewing comparable sales in fhe area. Second, 9 he looks at that the value of the property would be wvith .restrictions on it, like a ~o Conservation.Easement. Because that Conservation Ease~nent is less restrictive, there is ~ ~ generally less value associated with it. There is another restrictive easement, called a i2 Forever Wild easement. The Foreyer Wild Easement, you are basically taking away 13 any developmerit opportunity and leave it in its natural state. So the appraiser will look ia at the permitted and prohibited uses within the easement to learn what would be ~s allowed what wouldn't be allowed and what kind of rights are being acquired. It is the ~~ Open Space District's policy to require the land owner to keep one development right~ i~ so that the restricted fee owner continues to have a'financial inter.est in the property ~ , ~a that keeps it viable for them. Also, it s very expensiv~ to enter into the process of ~9 buying a bare piece of land and assuming all of the risk of development. Those and 20 other factors are taken into considecation in the appraisal; i.e. place a value on how z~ much would it cost to put a road in, can the property be subdivided into the ma~mum z2 allowable in a zoning district; will the soils allow percolation for a septic system; is z3 there water for~ the site; how much would it cost you to bring out electricity and z4 utilities. All those things haye to be factored into an appraisal, because somebody is 2s going to bear th~at cost. z~ Moon Ranch 1~ z~ Conservation a zs broken up into 29 acquiring 5 dev 3o the e~sting~ resi 3 i District, the Cit 32 facility, on wl 33 development ri~ 34 the property un 3s asked the appr~ 36 under a Foreve 3~ constructed, a] 3s rev~ew. s been proposed as a combination of the two types of easements, 3 Forever Wild. The property by. zoning could be allowed to be i legal parcels for Moon Ranch; the Gpen Space District would be lopment rights, and one. development right would remain - that being ence and structure. So the appraiser worked with the input from the and Regional Parks and learned that site is to be operated as a public ch we may need to construct bathrooms, or campsites. This it easement at the Moon Ranch would have to be on the north side of erneath.the Ag easement. For the Moon Ranch appraisal, the District sers ,to look at completely restricting the south side of the property Wild Easement, It does allow any kind of park facilities could be iough they would have to come the District for placement and design 39 I,afferty Raneh would also have one development right. 'That property has the potential ao under zoning to be split into four pareels. That's why y~u see four development rights ai vvith three development rights being, eith'er donated or ac~~uired bythe Distnct. 4z Regarding percl ntages, the Conservation Easement is usually 60% or 80% of the 43 value; however,' rt really depends on tlie- property. Each year the District goes out to aa anonitor our easements to make sure that they are maint~ined with the same intent and 45 purpose of the easement under which land is being upheld. If they aren't, the District 46 has the ability to remedy that situation, Hopefully, it can be worked out amicably with a~ the land owner. ; September 25, 1995 Vol. 29, Page 219 ~ There are three different approaches in appraisals: sales comparison is only one way to 2 come up with the valuation of a property. s Determine Value of Easement - So the appraiser (1) Takes the value of the property a before any easements or restrictions are placed on it, (2) Takes the value of the s property after the easement is in place, and (3) Subtract the property value of the 6 easement from the property value without the easement and that figure ~s the value of ~ the easement. s With each appraisal, she looks at the comparable sales and verifies the process the 9 appraiser used. No property is exactly the same as another. So the appraisers will io make adjustments, such as, this property is a little higher up on the hill and it has a i i better v'iew, but it's going to take you longer to get to the freeway, and it's going to i2 cost you x-amount more to put in a road. All of those factors also go into the i3 appraisals. There are standards and guidelines the district ~uses to insure that the ia appra~ser evaluated every step. The District had to ascertain that both appraisers is would appraising Moon Ranch under the same conditions. And when that happened, i6 you sawj that the valuation became very close. i~ One of the other ty~es of a~praisals is the income a~proach, where if it's a dairy, many is times the appraiser will look at what is the income stream. What is the amount of i9 revenue Ithat can be generated from a warehouse or similar operation. The other type Zo of appraisal is the cost ~nroach which is looking at what would be your cost of Zi developing that property to whatever extent or business purpose. 22 Lee Parker, Chairman of our Open Space Advisory Committee to the Sonoma County 23 Ag Preservation and Open Space District - He noted he is one of the founders of the 2a district. I They worked on it for eight years. He is a mortgage banker and an appraiser. 2s The committee is made up of 17 representatives including representatives of hiking, 26 bicycling, agriculture, environment, business and real estate, with one from each a~ supervisorial district, and five from the Sonoma County Mayors and Counciimen's Za Association. This is a well balanced and impartial committee. Most of the Committee 29 visited this site at least one time. The appraisals have been rechecked. The public was 3o given every opportunity to provide input. There has been no other transaction that has 3i undergone such rigorous and prolonged scrutiny. We look forward to you taking the 32 necessary actions to complete this most worthy transaction for the permanent . 3s protection of the critical habitat that e~sts on the Lafferty property. For generations to 34 come families will thank you and the creatures of Lafferty who, if they could be here ss tonight, ~would thank you also. 36 He added that he as the leading advocate on the Open Space Advisory Committee for 3~ public trails would not support a conservation easement on Lafferty if it permitted 3s public access. The property is wrong for public access. If we were to protect Lafferty, 39 it would~ be to protect it for its scenic and wild life use. ao Bill Hefner, Santa Rosa - appraiser for both Lafferty and Moon Ranches - he noted he ~ ai has been in this field for 1/3 of a century. Lafferty has a 1,000 foot rise, with 30 acres az that are ~fairly level on the bottom. The zoning is 60 acre parcels. With 270 acres on 43 that parcel, and with the allowance of 4 developable lots, he figured the result would be aa 3 lots atI20 acres and 1 tot at 210 acres. He was asked about the possibility of building as an Americans with Disabilities Act trail up to the top of the hill and that could 46 accommodate emergency vehicles, as had been shown to the Council at an earlier date. Page 220, Vol. 29 September 25, 1995 ~ ~ He suggested that a road up there could be very~ disappointing. There would be 2 provisions made for a large amount of cutting and filling and added this is a slide prone 3 and geologically sensitive area. An expensive study would have to be undertaken. He a was .asked what the value •of the creek is. His response was the appraisal is based on s the highest and Ibest use. He appraised the land on the zoning and did not receive any ~ instruction on how to divide the land. There was much discussion about development ~ of a somewhat level p'iece of Lafferty about half way up an the north westerly side. He s noted the land is very steep and constructing a road within the property to that site 9 would be difficult. ~o Gary Vice, appraiser of Moon Ranch addressed thf; Council and , reviewed his i i procedures - there were no question's of:him: ~ ~z Keith Gurney, appraiser - worked for Mr. Pfendler for 6 months and since continued in ~s this study on a~ pro bono basis since then. He described his appraisal process and ~a showed slides of Moon Ranch. He agreed with Mr. I~efner that the only place to is cluster houses on Lafferty Ranch was on the lower level spot, but he noted that is ~~ where the Rogers Fault passes through the parcel and that is where there is a large ~~ vernal pool. A vernal pool indicates that percolation is not very easy there: He did a is slope analysis on the parcels; well over 50% of Lafferty is over 30% slope. There is ~9 some slope to Moon Ranch, but not to the same extent as Lafferty. 2o Bruce Hagen, 145 Grevillia Drive - the highest and. best use of Lafferty is, it is a public 2i treasure to be cared for by the public. He wants more tours. 2z Jeanette Loew, 601 Cleveland Lane - she is new to Petaluma. She finished the 24 hour 2s relay. This is for strenuous recreation. aa Karen Gerbosi, Box 4645, Petaluma - and her brother own a ranch that is a neighbor of 2s Moon. She is opposed to this. She,,.can't understand h~w the v.alue of Moon Ranch 2~ could change so much. She said it jumped ~30~ o since 1989. The real estate market is z~ flat. ~ ~ za Jerry Price, 775' Baywood Drive - described in detail his hike on the mountain. Keep 2s Lafferty. ~o Cliff Asbell, 216 Sunnyslope Avenue - doesn't think anyone could make a claim against si the City if they got hurt on City property such as Lafferty. He enjoyed hiking the hill. ~ sz Will Stapp, 162~5 Springhill Road - he is a public access oriented person. We want to s3 save our finest lands. If we are going to sell it to somebody, it should be another public sa agency. ~It should be .,somebody who demonstrates the value of public access. He 35 turned toward the audience and told Mr. Pfendler that he (Mr. Stapp) doesn't want him 3~ (Mr. Pfendler) to own Lafferty. ~ ' 3~ Theo Kemos, 820 Crinella Drive - has lived inPetaluma 17 years, was not aware of the 3s possibility of taking Boy Scouts up to Lafferty. There is too much private land on 39 5onoma Mountains. ~ i .. . , . ao Yigal Toister, 1~263 Ponderosa - realtor - talked about his `appraisal" of the value of a~ Lafferty, the po~wer lines, he would~be very scared putting a deal like this together, he a2 talked about aceessibilTty saying. everything has a price. September 25, 1995 Vol. 29, Page 221 i Robert Ramirez, 611 West Street - read sections of the appraisals to the Council. The 2 evaluation summary on Lafferty and on Moon. He questioned whether or not the s appraise'r had visited the parcels. Regarding the steepness of the hillside, he asked what a the average incline is for a stairway. He has never seen an appraiser draw property s lines and topo maps. This peculiar lot design yields the lowest value possible on the 6 property,. Because the City Council and the Mr. Pfendler was encouraged to buy a ~ piece of~ property, because it was to be a trade, he thought there might be something s illegal about that. It doesn't sound clean to him. 9 Council,~ appraiser, and District discussion: io Mr. Hefner said the appraisal is the current market value given the property's potential. ii In answ'er to scenic overlay on a property; that would involve site plan reviews; all iz interested County departments would rev~ew a project plan; it would be difficult to ~s construct a road above the lower. flat level of Lafferty; when you get near a creek then ia you get iinto riparian setbacks. The value of all of the buildings on Moon Ranch was ~s established at $100,000. A Councilmember said let the people be the appraisers. i6 It was rioted that Mr. Pfendler has indicated to the District he is willing to grant a i~ conservation easement on Lafferty Ranch to the district at no cost. The District is indicated that the Vice appraisal was the one they used for Moon Ranch. 19 SONOIVIA COUNTY TRANSIT AiTT~ORITY Zo The Council discussed the proposal by the Sonoma County Transportation Authority to Zi retain the services of the Calthorpe planning firm to work with both Marin and Sonoma z2 Counties on the future transit picture. The Council was evenly divided in support of zs this and ~in opposition to this. Those in opposition felt the $400,000 grant would not be za sufficient money to accomplish ali of the studies as set forth in the planning criteria for 2s this grant. It was also felt that because of .a potential shortfall of funding, the project z6 would take longer while more funding sources were sought by the various cities and 2~ counties~. The City's representative at the Transit Authority will convey those feelings 2s on October 2. 29 3o At 11:00 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. I 31 ~ 32 ~ 33 ' 34 35 36 ATTEST: i 37 i 38 39 ~ ~~/~,./~ AI)~OURN ao Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk