The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Bill 5.B 10/04/2010i i ~ ~~ u I ~ ,~ . i ~ It~~#5. (3 <S ~' L a~ a '~ r'ss$ DATE: October 4,.2010 TO: Honorable Mayor and. Members of `the City Council. through City Manager FROM: Scott Duiven, Senior Planner ~,~ SITBJECT: Discussion and Possible Direction to, Prepare a.Letter. to the Sonoma County Board. of Supervisors Relating to the Proposed Roblar Road Quarry Project. >~C®NI>VI~NIDATION ~~`~.' i It is~recommended thatahe City Council. discuss and provide staff with appropriate direction regarding preparation of a letter to the Sonoma. County Board of Supervisors relating to the proposed Roblar Road Quarry Project. ,,,~° ~ BACKG~RO~I~D On September 20, 20'10 the City Council requested that staff return to Council with information on issues surrounding the Roblar Rgad:;Quarry Project.. In particular Council :requested a copy of the letter submitted to County Counsel op behalf ofPetaluma,and other cities regarding the potential environmental impacts on the adjacent closed Roblar Landfill and information related to the use of land encumbered by=an Agriculture and.Open Space District conservation easement. The date for potential approval and certification of the EIR for the Roblar Road Quarry Project has been set for October 19 2010. I)ISCIJSSION The f rst issue is related to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed quarry .project on the adjacent closedRoblar Landfill. The Conditions of Approval forwarded to the Board. of Supervisors contain a provision to -hold the County' harmless with respect to any future ~~ ~" ; erivironrriental_costs ~relatedil to the Roblar.Landfill that- may arise-from the quarrying activities of the proposed Roblar Road Quarry. As noted in the attached letter, the Cities are seeking the same protection. Indications; are that the County supports the request, and will convey to the applicant the importance of'indemnifying the cities. ~ i~ , The second issue relates to the project applicant's request to allow the temporary use and isolation.. of:approxmately 3 acres of an approximately 700-acre property encumbered by an Agriculture and Open, Space District conservation easement for use as an access road in ~~`°° ' exchange for the ~~establishnient of a permanent Agriculture -and ~~~~ pen Space District conservation Agenda Review: ,~,, ~,4 ; . City Attorney Finance Director City Manager / easement: on the 198-.acre project site. The road easement appears to be necessary as an alternative: circulation option considered in the EIR that would roughly parallel Roblar Road and ' avoidimpacts to a creek that would occur with widening .Roblar Road to accommodate the proposed project. With respect to that°alternative, the applicant appears to propose that in exchange for the easement, he will complete dedication of 128 acres of the property imrriediately, and. dedication of the 70-acre quarry area. at the conclusion of the project in 20 years including reclamation of the 3-acre easement. used for the access road. In addition to the above mentioned exchange, the applicant is proposing to mitigate the Williamson Act contract cover-ing the 70-acre portion of the project site with a244-acre exchange site, located between Lakeville Highway .and the Petaluma River, for future .stewardship to an appropriate private land trust or government conservation agency. City staff has contacted both the project planner at PRMD and staff at the Open Space District in order to better understand the proposal and to ascertain their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Those discussions indicated that. Open Space District staff is still engaged in the evaluation of the Roblar Road Quarry project with respect to th'e~ proposed property exchange and have not yet concluded their analysis or made a recommendation. 1H 1'][iVANC)<AA1L gN>[PAC'1cS Staff Time in preparatonof this report and any follow-up as directed by City Council. AT~'AC>EIl~I~TTS 1. September 20, 2010 Letter to Sheryl Bratton, Chief Deputy County Counsel 55512th Street, Suite 1500 Kenton L. Alm Oakland, California,94607 Attorney at low te1310! 808..200.0,; kalm@ meyersnave.com fax 510:444.1108 www.meyersnave:com /j ~~~inA~ J e,ye ~s ' ~~we / '-'v! ~ ~'JsG ~ September 20, .2010 Sheryl Bratton Chief Deputy County Counsel County of Sonoma 575 Administration Drive, Suite 104A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Re: RoblarRoad Quarry Project Dear Ms. Britton: The Attorneys for the Cities of Windsor, Cloverdale, Healdsbutg, Petaluma; Sebastopol, Cotata, Sonoma,. Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park (ihe "Cities") Dave become'aware that the date for potential approval and certification of the. EIR by the Board of Supervisors ("Board") for the Roblar Road Quarxy Project ("Project") is October 19, 2010. This proposed project has drawn a substantial amount of public~,attention Based on policy issues regarding to the appropriateness of the Project and its- environmental' impacts: The purpose of this l'ette'r is not to weigh in on the broader policy issues which the :Board must consider, but rather it intends to address a specific issue regarding the liabilities of the Cities and County related`to the potential environmental impacts on the adjacent closed Roblar Landfill. As you are aware, the Canes and Countyhave recentlyspent substantial time discussing the.relative responsibilities°of°the various parties conceriung ]andfill clos sts, ure co and future potential.environmental liabilities from the Cernral and former landfalls, such as the Roblax Landfill. These discussions''have been held pursuant to confidentiality and tolling agreements concemang disputed .liability for the closure and post closure liabilityof the Cities for the Central Landfills and the former landfill. e ro se P 1~ 7 , App ~ y ~ this issue of liability and responsibilitywith,retard to future environmental cos related to.forrner landfills.. P _ h 40 g ~P. of the Conditions of Approval'forwarded to'the Board frorri.:the Planning Commission provides for the Applicant to hold the County harmless and assume all responsibility the County might incur with regard to any futum environmental cost increases related to the former Roblar Landfill, which might arise fromor be related in anywayto the quartyirig activities of the proposed Project: 'Unfortunately; there. is no similar provision to provide. protection to the Canes. The Cities stronglyoiiject to anyapproval of this Projectwithoutsimilar liability protection being provided foreach cityfrom the.Applicant.. Alterinativeiy, the Countycould agree to hold each of the Goes hairrnless with regard to any costs or liabilities related to the A PROFESSIONAL LAW,CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO Sheryl Bratton September 20, 2010 ~ i ~. Rage 2 ~ ~ y ~ ug t semis unlikely The Cities also strongly recommend any Pro'ect which ma anse, altho h tlla such protection should be backed by insurance; bonding orother suitable financial security. ' V~/e are informed that Countystaff has attempted.to obtain protection for the Cities similar to that provided for the Countyin,I?axagraph 40 of the Conditions of Approval. We appreciate your efforts to address this issue, but. we~nonetheless must insist that the County insure that the Cities will be protected in a manner equal to the County before ariy approval action is taken by the Board. To do otherwise would be wholl inconsistent with the bask rov>slons ty mp g ' Y . g" asth during o pre- which both ;the Cities. and the Coun atte ted .to ne otiate m ood f ~ on ;discussions relating to divestiture. C+ur,hope is that no legal action :need be taken to prevent the :County from proceedirig.in the absence. of proper liability protection for the Cities. Ve truly yours, Kenton L. Alm 'KLA:mv :1513374.1 A'•PROFESSIONAL LAW'.CORPORATION OAKLAND 'LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO $AN:FRANCISCO' .SANTA ROSA FRESNO