At last week’s city council meeting the public comment section opened with Julia Baumhoefer’s question about noise. Why is it, she asked, even though the council passed a noise ordinance last year, when she recently called police to report a morning spoiled by an ear-blasting chain saw, the police could do nothing because they haven’t the proper decibel measuring instruments. Mayor Joanne Sanders said she would look into it, and informed the Sun later that the instruments are indeed in the budget; it will take some research to choose the proper ones and to train officers in their use and maintenance.
Laurie Gallian wondered how the mayor could have expressed her wish for the annexation of the Springs at a recent Chamber of Commerce breakfast, without prior public discussion. Sanders said in reply, “I make no apologies for saying that. All I said is that I want to have a discussion about it.”
After honoring landscape designer Robert Behrens for his contribution to the city (see story page 4), and honoring the high school basketball team for saving a life, the council moved on to business: What to do about the old fire station, or more recently, the old police station?
Patten St. Police/Fire Station
Linda Kelly reported that the property has appraised for $3.1 million. The appraisal assumed that the highest and most profitable use was for multi-tenant office and commercial space with no residential component. Kelly listed three issues that needed consideration.
First: environmental remediation. The station has been found to have soil contamination due to a leaking storage tank, so they will need a bid package for the clean up, which will cost approximately $300,000.
Second: rezoning. The question is whether or not to initiate a rezoning process to commercial in order to removing the housing requirements from the project.
Third: sale vs. lease. This generated lengthy discussion of how to use the property; what the neighborhood needs; whether the city should sell or lease the property; whether “landlord” is a proper role; whether a sale is advisable in the present market; and whether, given the dire straits of the state finances, any profit made on the sale would be safe from the state’s “borrowing.” One intriguing idea was to turn the place into a “boutique hotel,” with a restaurant, and maybe nightclub. This generated some favorable nods. Council member Ken Brown said, “It’s always been my position that folks want somewhere to go. And there’s no active nightlife now that the city council ends its meetings at 9 o’clock.”
Everyone laughed, but council member Steve Barbose concluded, in a serious vein, “I’m still concerned about our ability to use this money, given the state’s budget crisis. And I’m concerned that as a body we’re not experienced in managing rental properties. On the other hand, this property is only going up in value. It’s a gateway property. Look at how close it is to the Plaza. At the moment, I’m more in favor of being in a holding pattern, to see what’s going on in the market. I’d like to see an RFQ.” The council agreed to proceed with the environmental cleanup, and to wait regarding the re-zoning and whether to sell or lease.
Growth Management
Then the council moved on to the thorny question of growth. “If you think having a growth management program is hard on people’s property values,” said Mayor Joanne Sanders when it came her turn to offer an opinion on legislation to lower the growth rate, “try telling them we don’t have any water.”
The issue was whether to lower the rate of growth from 88 units per year to 65 units per year. Two members of the public expressed opinions, both contrary. Sam Digiacomo said, “I’d like to see [the legislation] be thrown out altogether. If you claim to be an affordable housing advocate, you can’t vote for this legislation.” Bill Willers said, “I believe the growth management ordinance has its place, but it’s the wrong device to control the development that you want to bring forward in this community. It’s like taking a sledge hammer to open an egg. All it does is further restrict and further delay the inevitable.”
Council member Stanley Cohen agreed. “I can’t support it in any way. It doesn’t make any sense.” But the overall discussion favored limiting growth in the interests of a sustainable water supply. Council member August Sebastiani said, “The ultimate solution for the problem we’re discussion is the issue of zoning.” He encouraged the council to look at zoning densities. “If the City continues to deplete the groundwater, what happens to the people who use that groundwater for their homes?”
Barbose said, “There are some legitimate issues, certainly in the next 10 or 15 years, concerning the water supply. All this water we’re having won’t help when it comes in April. Lake Mendocino is going to be down again, unless we get late rains. It’s going to be at least 2015 until we have the pipeline. We have a groundwater management plan that acknowledges the problem of groundwater. We don’t have the infrastructure to begin bringing up recycled wastewater from the sewage treatment plant. So for my way of thinking, this is prudent resource management. I think if we’re going to ask people to cut down water usage, they’re going to ask us why haven’t we done something to slow down development.”
Mayor Sanders concluded, “We cannot allow growth to occur without being able to guarantee we’re going to be able to deliver the water.” The vote carried, with only council member Cohen opposed.
