From: Laurie alderman
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 12:56 PM
To: Kevin Patterson <[email protected]>; Laura Sparks <[email protected]>; John Bakker <[email protected]>; Damien O'Bid <[email protected]>; Noah Housh <[email protected]>; Chris Simmons <[email protected]>; Susan Harvey <[email protected]>; Kay Rivers <[email protected]>; Ben Ford <[email protected]>; Sylvia Lemus <[email protected]>; Angela Courter <[email protected]>; Craig Scott <[email protected]>; Jon-Paul Harries <[email protected]>; Eli Arreola <[email protected]>; Robert Smith <[email protected]>; David Rabbitt <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Ceremello Ceremello ; Carleton L. Briggs
Attorney at Law <[email protected]>; George Barich ; Adina Flores
Subject: Citizens Comment for 10/22
CAUTION:EXTERNAL SENDER
If suspicious, do not click on links, open attachments, or provide credentials and report it by using the "Phish Alert Report" button.
Hi Kevin,
Sorry for the late submission. This is my written comment for the city council meeting tonight, Thanks, Laurie
It took a bit of time to get around the neighborhood "grapevine", but today I learned that our neighbors on Gilman Ranch Rd. applying for a limited term permit to allow human habitation of a vehicle. The code is:
❺¡00¡686.Use.of.vehicles.or.campers.for.human.habitation.prohibited¡ It.is.unlawful.for.any.person.to.occupy.or.permit.the.use.or.occupancy.of.any.vehicle.or. camper.for.human.habitation?.including.but.not.limited.to.sleeping?.eating?.camping.or. resting?.either.singly.or.in.groups?.within.the.city?.on.public.or.private.property?.except.in. campgrounds?.trailer.parks.or.mobilehome.parks.maintained.pursuant.to.valid.and. subsisting.authority.granted.by.the.city¡.(Ord¡.❶❷8.° .7(part)?.7❺❺7)¡ The neighbors are very upset that they will have to pay for the cost of the hearing because George Barich and I protested their limited use permit application. This is contrary to what happened 10 years ago (under Damien O'Bid as city manager in 2015), when my next door neighbors didn't pay a cent for 2 public hearings. When was it enacted that public Public Comment
hearings are at the cost of the applicant? This would discourage anybody from protesting an limited term use permit, knowing that the applicant, possibly a close neighbor, would be paying $$$$$ for hearing on their protesting. This sets up a whole neighborhood against each other with how fast the grapevine works. It is set up to cause neighborhood dysfunction and pits one neighbor against another. We citizens of Cotati pay mega-bucks in taxes towards Community Development services to begin with to cover the occasional needed public hearing and it is unconscionable that an applicant would have to pay the costs of a hearing. Plus, additionally once again, it looks like a retaliation set-up against George Barich and me.
The issue is human habitation of a vehicle and application of the codes fairly, which is why George Barich and I protested the hearing. Not once, did I hear about the Gilman Ranch neighbors having to pay for the cost of the public hearing because of our objections until today. Of course, the neighborhood grapevine finally made over a few streets telling us the applicants are furious at George Barich and me because of having to pay thousands of dollars because of our "interference" and supposed ill will we possess towards all our neighbors.
We protested because the City of Cotati has a history of unevenly applying the municipal codes. I separately have concerns about monitoring of the safety of the site, as the City of Cotati 10 years ago, allowed my next door neighbors to do demolition for 4 months while living there on fire damaged property when the demolition was happening and utilities were on, to allow habituation. This was against multiple state building codes, fire codes, etc. Damien O'Bid, as public works director/ city manager then and now, provided no monitoring of the site. Not once was the neighbors cited for violations in 16 months and the CA state fire marshal office was even involved that the city's contention that it issued a temporary occupancy permit for living in the fire ruins. The CA Fire Marshal's office told the City of Cotati that no temporary occupancy of a fire damaged building is allowed, yet the neighbors were allowed to live there with the City's approval for 16 months. This is relevant to the safety of the human habitation of the RV in the current circumstances.
This stinks of retaliation against especially George and me. As with anywhere really, the grapevine is fast and furious around here that George and I were costing the applicant $$$$$$ for the hearing. The neighbors were already used on West Cotati Oaks Court with George Barich, where the City entered in 46 videos of George's RV and bedroom doors and windows taken illegally by the neighbors over their fence. The situation is horrible on that court and many of us avoid the whole situation because of the neighbors and City of Cotati illegally providing videos to the City. Is Noah Housh once again pitting one neighbor against another as he did 6/28/23? That's what it stinks of.
Let's also not forget that this situation of using the neighbors and the grapevine for the City's benefit, comes during the election season with George being the incumbents only challenger, the roundabout ban repeal, KPIX story, etc. Coincidence? I think not.
Please intervene in this situation for the benefit of the applicant, who I have never met. Please do as in the past and is the precedent to not charge the applicant for the public hearing costs because of the objections made.
Sincerely,
Laurie Alderman
Under the Public Records Act (California Government Code §7920.000-7931.000), e-mail messages of local agencies are public records which are subject to disclosure to the public or may be subpoenaed.