HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/30/19981
2
3 CITY OF PETAL UMA
4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
5
6 JOINT MEETING WITH RECREATION, MUSIC AND PARS COMMISSION
7
8 JUNE 30, 1998 - 7.•00 PM
9 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10 CITY HALL -100 ENGLISH STREET, PETAL UMA, CA
11
12 Planning Commissioners Present: Bennett, Broad, Feibusch *, Healy, Torliatt,
13 Thompson, Vieler
14 Recreation, Music and Parks Commission Present: Arago, Hagen, Mobley, Mills,
15 Mount; Absent: Fitzgerald, Keller
16
17 Staff Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
18 Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreation
19
20 ' Chairperson
21
22 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
25
26 DIRECTORS' REPORT: Letter from Commissioner Fitzgerald indicating that he would
27 abstain from discussion as a member of the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission.
28
29 COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None.
30
31 CORRESPONDENCE: None.
32
33 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was read.
34
35
36 NEW BUSINESS
37 PUBLIC HEARING
38
39 I. LAFFERTY RANCH PARK DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN, DRAFT
40 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND RELATED GENERAL
41 PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS.
42
43 Receive public testimony and consider Draft Environmental Impact Report, Draft
44 Park Management Plan, and related General Plan Tent Amendments.
45
46 Pamela Tuft, Planning Director summarized the process to date.
47
48 DISCUSSION
49
I Presentation on history of DEIR by Leonard Charles. Overview of time frame,
2 integrated process to prepare an EIR and Management Plan; site analysis constraints,
3 geology, prepared Summer of 1997 - most mitigations were incorporated into the
4 management plan. Management Plan includes Use and Access Programs, shows trails
5 covering 4 miles, Signs, Grazing Management Program (March - June), Fire Management
6 Program, Bio- Diversity, complete Hazards Management plan, and Monitoring Program,
7 list of priorities.
8
9 7:28 PM
10 PUBLIC HEARING
11
12 David Rampton - 1020 "B" Street — Offered an alternate use to the project — City
13 wells could depend, Russian River could be threatened and Eel River litigation and the
14 City may need Lafferty Ranch as an alternative water source. Suggested reverting Lafferty
15 Ranch to water district lands with restricted access. Lafferty Ranch could be an alternative
16 water source.
17 Jerry Price - 411 "D" Street — Thanked Planning and Recreation Commissions for their
18 review of the document. Has personally contributed over 3,000 hours to this project and is
19 one of many. Involved and interested because this is publicly owned land and they feel
20 public entitlement to access; "need" for access; not politically or financially motivated.
21 Commends Lafferty Ranch Access Committee for their work on this project. 1966
22 Ordinance kept public ownership in perpetuity; and goal was to create a plan of public
23 access close to the best practices for operation in other similar projects(example - Marin
24 County has 20 equivalent properties - no EIR's, no lawsuits, open access, no docents).
25 There is a compelling need for this type of park space with open access to trails in open
26 space lands; magnificent views of San Francisco, ocean, bay, Petaluma. Sonoma County
27 recareation and Parks Department conducted surveys on recreation needs of the public in
28 outdoor recreation- the result is that people want public access to trails on wild lands.
29 Leonard Charles - Detailed purpose of tonight's meeting - public input regarding
30 adequacy of DEIR.
31 Pat Cheda - 3272 Adobe Road - Page 30 of DEIR regarding trespass signs - signs are
32 not useful if not read by the public; who will monitor ?; monitors may trespass - a good
33 cyclone fence is the only good solution; Lafferty has already caused trespassing problems
34 on her property; Lafferty Committee member has trespassed on her property; Marin
35 County has major trespass problems; people who don't obey rules is the problem; dogs are
36 a problem; cyclone fence is the only solution, criminals have more than one access - this
37 has occurred in the past; how will Police be aware of the problem and patrol at night ?;
38 fences cannot keep criminals out; City officials and volunteers as well as tour guides have
39 already trespassed; regarding traffic accidents - teenagers have rolled vans - neighbors
40 aren't involved in accidents; this road is no place for sightseers; earthquake is a real
41 concern and should be addressed; where does the fault lie in relation to Lafferty Ranch ?;
42 fires and earthquakes should be addressed (access); (page 135) - neighbors will be looking
43 at a large water tank and porta potties - these should be screened; Sonoma Mountain Plan
44 - field trips and educational endeavors - this would not have the same impact as a regular
45 park; some Lafferty Ranch Committee Members have talked about overnight camping and
46 other more intense uses; Page 144 (3rd paragraph) if constant problems there will be
47 significant impacts (insurance liability); Page 146 (last sentence) "as far as is feasible" -
48 unclear as to who pays; fire danger will be a significant impact - the neighbors will be the
49 losers; Page 151, Recommendation 10 - will recreation opportunities be increased over
50 time? this should be addressed; public services for increased activities should be addressed
51 now, Agricultural Element of Sonoma County General Plan (AR4C) - protect this as a
52 "buffer between agricultural uses; just wants protection from trespassers and road and
53 fire safety.
I Vince Landof - 12 Cordelia - Everyone should move off of Sonoma Mountain to protect
2 the mountain from fire; neighbors will have better fire protection with this project; much
3 quicker response time; better security and better response (better Police services); Golden
4 Eagle that has been reported nests on the other side of the ridge; curb the "gangster scare
5 tactics" of residents; who presently uses Lafferty Ranch ?; who has direct access to
6 Lafferty Ranch? who gives anyone the right to trespass on the property? who gives
7 citizens power to dictate police actions?
8 Robert Ramirez - 611 West Street - No tours on Lafferty Ranch; there is a web site for
9 Lafferty - www.laffertyranch.org; Lafferty Committee has developed the least impactful
10 public park - not serving citizens; (he) would have allowed dogs and environmental
11 campsites, but went along with other committee members; County has no standards for
12 the 'road - why should a National Standard be used on this road? if road needs
13 improvement, why is it being used? should be repaired by the County; teenagers will
14 continue to have accidents; don't let the road hold the project back, it doesn't relate to the
15 park; trespassing will most likely not increase because of park; keep traffic restricted and
16 slow for fewer problems.
17 Kay Russo - 837 Rancho Way - Consider fiscal impact on City budget; representing
18 Sonoma County Taxpayer Association - grim news on City tax income; need more funding
19 for public safety; Lafferty is being funded through the General Fund - there are much
20 better uses for this money; big question is how it will be paid for - money could pay for
21 domestic violence; supports one of the two no project alternatives.
22 Randall Smith - 2970 Sonoma Mountain Road - The City owns this property and the
23 City, wants a park - that doesn't mean that the two match; so many problems with open
24 access and heavily used park; if Lafferty Ranch is to remain wilderness, it can't support
25 public use - if it becomes a public use, it can't remain wilderness; the road is in terrible
26 repair (has been hit twice); terrain is so steep, likelihood of improving it is nil (look at slide
27 area); how could the road be made safe without changing the character of the area and
28 costing way too much money; not a wise use of public dollars; EIR seeks to address issues
29 - signs (trespass and fire danger) don't solve the problems; remember Oakland Hills, Mt.
30 Tamalpais (70 years ago); fires happen - park will increase likelihoo& of a fire by the
31 number of people using it; docent led would work better, if enforced; partying, beer
32 parties, smoking, etc. happens now; a fire last year was fought by residents (response took
33 too long by Fire Department - longer than they estimate); does not want responsibility for
34 trespassers, fire, traffic impacts; trespassers are very worrisome - don't feel safe; common
35 sense has prevailed in the past when considering this as a park - Council voted in the past
36 that an alternative area (Moon Ranch) would be a better park site; only drawback is Moon
37 Ranch lacks steep slopes and height; Lafferty Ranch will be an elitist park; complimented
38 Leonard Charles on DEIR - the no usage or docent lead usage are best choices.
39 Kim Nadeau - 54 Grant Ave. - Just want opportunity to hike without driving to another
40 county or Mt. Hood; Putnam Park is not large or high, Lafferty Ranch is incredible and
41 unique; read entire EIR - road is only significant impact; road is identified because County
42 called the standard ( ASHTO Standard) only a handful of roads can meet those standards
43 (County doesn't even apply the ASHTO Standards); Page 41 - all impacts can be mitigated
44 with one "possible" exception; Page 119 - ASHTO Standard 10 road 2' shoulders -
45 consideration for bicycles; Page 119 and 120 - pedestrian safety - benefits far outweigh
46 level of risk - this is not a park that will generate a lot of volume; Page 162 - conclusion -
47 alternative would not require improvements to Sonoma Mountain Road with 4 houses; ask
48 Commission to accept EIR - recommend certification and approval.
49 Janice Cader- Thompson - 732 Carlsbad Court - Provisions for special events -
50 astrological events, etc.; Lafferty Ranch has been used for decades; should not have to go
51 outside county for this type of park; stop living in fear - times have changed; City with
52 population of 50,000 needs a place to just go and walk; not all people need the same
53 recreation program; Petaluma could have both sites as parks - minority group could use
54 Lafferty Ranch while majority could use Moon Ranch.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Keith Gurnee - 3701 S. Higuera St, San Luis Obispo - Sonoma Mountain Consortium
- 10,000 acres of 80+ homeowners; written comments will be submitted; Lafferty
Committee has done admirable work but serious deficiencies; road is clearly the most
significant environmental impact - analysis is deficient (grade not detailed - 16% average),
3 segments with +/- 25 % grade, no shoulders; 23 sections too narrow; additional right -of-
way needed; sight distance problems at 18 locations; bicycles are dangerous - major
accidents; one of most dangerous roads in Sonoma County; this is about lives - not
standards; EIR needs to : address ways to minimize impacts, must budget for some
improvements; safety and, welfare issues are critical; Management Plan - trail design is
deficient - some trails too steep, do not meet State. Standards; Trail 4 crossing Adobe
creek in area where geology should preclude all human intrusion; Lafferty Ranch is not
going to be a. park (inconsistent with Sonoma County General Plan); hidden costs of
mitigations and improvements; Moon Ranch alternative meets many objectives - can
handle the use; offers wilderness experience, provides more trails than Lafferty Ranch;
Moon Ranch offers views of skyline of San Francisco; new alternative - place conservation
easement over Lafferty Ranch with limited access, acquire Moon Ranch as regional park;
work with Sonoma County and Calvin family to acquire part of Calvin (Triangle G Ranch)
to expand Moon Ranch (650 -700 acres); buy Moon Ranch with Sonoma County
Agricultural Preservation and Open Space money and improve and maintain.
Committee Member Keller - Questions regarding noticing.
Michael Caruana - 525 Sonoma Mountain Road - Concerns with road conditions;
increased accidents will occur if more recreational use occurs; consider cost of improving
road for a 250 acre park - there are better uses for City funds; trash on road will increase
with more traffic.
Leonard Charles - DE1R looks at criteria dictated by CEQA.
Hank Zucker - 15 Lone Oak Court - Similar hiking areas in Marin County open space
land do not generate a lot of problems; trespassing may be reduced if this area is a legal
place to hike; steepness of trails - not a major problem - some people will hike to top -
others will not; EIR overstates traffic impacts; level of impacts from 4 homes is
comparable; strongly urge Commissions to support Statement of Overriding Consideration
- need of public; Moon Ranch would make an excellent park Sonoma County
Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District should pursue; public deserves both
parks; DEIR states no project is preferred alternative, but so is eliminating all houses on
Sonoma Mountain.
Hank Flum - 1721 Stonehenge Way - The word "park" denotes a larger use of Lafferty
Ranch - it should be called "Ranch" not "Park "; road has been there for a long time - large
homes have used road for construction purposes (cement, lumber trucks, etc.); residents
use road (pickups and stock trailers); tourists drive more cautiously than people familiar
with the road; road commands respect, signage (curving road/caution) should help;
improving the road will do opposite of intent - encourage faster traffic, more opportunity
for trouble; control speed with signage - should not use funds to improve the road, leave it
as is; any street has trespassing/trash problems.
Jeff Pettegrew - Pettegrew Associates - 3485 Monroe Ave., Lafayette - Public risk tied
with intensification of use; DER - Page 112 - road will never meet ASHO Standards -
there have been more deaths and accidents than other northern California mountain roads
(referenced Caltrans and California Highway Patrol document); making improvements
means the City assumes responsibility; almost guarantee legal liability by City; what is
value to taxpayer if injury is more likely to occur? Police patrol (CHP) - City liability,
taxpayer will pay, could be mitigated but there is serious risk; admits Lafferty Ranch is a
rare jewel - suggests closing Sonoma Mountain Road to all but residents and then open
only to bikers and hikers.
Will Stapp - 1264 Mountain View - Congratulations to City on progress - envisioned
since 1961; Lafferty Ranch mentioned in 1961 General Plan; this is not a regional park, it
is a local wilderness park; sub - standard road is not news.
I Tod Manning - 333 Purrington Road - Lafferty Access Committee member - numerous
2 public meetings held on issues of concern (interested groups and residents of area);
3 Committee kept working on solutions; remember, Citizens as owners of Lafferty Ranch
4 have equal rights to all Sonoma Mountain property owners; improvements to road
5 recommended by County do not make sense - citizens shouldn't be made to improve the
6 road; setting a precedent for other rural property owners; liability to City would not be
7 there unless the City makes the improvements.
8 John Mills - Does the City require mitigation to private property owners at time of
9 intensification of adjacent property use?
10
11 Public Hearing was closed (10:00 PM).
12
13 Commissioner Torliatt - City Council will hold a public hearing allowing more public
14 input.
15
16 Recreation, Music and Parks Commission Comments:
17
18 Commissioner Keller - Thanks to all for effort; History of Sonoma Mountain Road - in
19 1984 a winery was allowed at 6611 Sonoma Mountain road - no improvements to road
20 were required; in 1979 there was a petition from residents requesting signs, etc.; have
21 traffic impact fees for road repair been collected to date? if so, where is the money being
22 spent ?; road standards what standards are used for other parks; linkage to other parks
23 and trails; Moon Ranch - no estimate of value and cost; questions regarding quality and
24 quantity of water, septic system adequacy.
25 Commissioner Mills - Significant traffic impact - conclusion based on ASHTO, look. at
26 road on its own terms; trespassing, fire and safety - when public, problem lessens; DEIR
27 has some flaws, but not enough to reject; prefer natural park with docent lead tours.
28 Commissioner Hagen - DEIR is very well done; Best Management Practices - beneficial
29 impacts should be included; Outdoor Recreation Plan should be highest priority; include
30 1970 .Sonoma County report; Page 32 - habitat preserve - this is not what Lafferty Ranch
31 is - wilderness park; Page 176 - Moon Ranch - regional park, impact to agricultural use ?;
32 criteria on Page 8 - hikers are not required to be registered or led by docent (free access
33 for hikers).
34 Commissioner Mobley - Member of Lafferty Access Committee - worked to mitigate the
35 issues; points raised by neighbors are all issues relative to any neighborhood - should be
36 less of a problem; reduced number of people will reduce potential for problems; good EIR,
37 proud to support it.
38 Commissioner Mount - Grazing Management Plan - removal of cows during calving
39 (and removal of ill cows) concern with health and welfare of fish and stream; look at
40 continued source of water potential, maintain water rights.
41 Commissioner Arago — Agrees that City should pay their fair share of road
42 improvements. Minor issue — drainage impacts — increase in runoff from parking lot,
43 how significant would this additional runoff be — how would it leave the site? Agrees
44 that some of the concerns would occur anywhere, not just this project.
45
46 Planning Commission Comments:
47
48 Commissioner Bennett — Excellent job on EIR. Fire danger concerns — there was
49 opposition in the past from the fire agencies involved. Biggest concern was on traffic
50 issue — tends to agree with mitigations in DEIR, needs documentation, plan in place to
51 determine safety.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Thompson — Traffic concerns. Would like to see something in writing
stating this is most dangerous road in County. Would like definition of habitat preserve.
Would like to see fire response information (is it San Antonio ?). Response time by Sheriff
Department. Further address trespassing issue.
Pamela Tuft — Responses can answer questions regarding water rights.
Commissioner Broad — Compliments consultant on DEIR — very well done. Specific
areas — Roadway and roadway safety. Difficulty on accepting County recommendations
on road standards. Mr. Charles has indicated that the traffic engineer would be bound by
standards — would like traffic engineer to look at other standards that could be applied.
Look at safety issues from existing condition. What elements make roadway unsafe?
Look at trespass issue in more detail. Accidental trespass seems to be most prevalent.
Look at fencing, what does it consist of? Mitigation measures to deal with trespassing —
more solidly resolve this situation. More information on liability issue — would City
Attorney give an opinion?
Commissioner Vieler — Traveled road this weekend, minor resurfacing is necessary.
Use other similar roads in County as standard. Discussed fire safety with CDF. Please
address fire safety more fully. Water storage tank needs to be preserved for fire fighting
use only. Access from Mitzzui property would be advantageous for fire safety. Questions
about timing for a controlled burn. Would like to see dogs (leashed) allowed during non -
grazing periods.
Commissioner Healy — Excellent job on DEIR. Regarding condition of roadway —
County is suggesting that sub - standard roadway should be improved to make roadway as
safe as it now is after adding additional traffic. Page 114 — traffic generation table —
maximum trips on peak day — 41 trips up and down the mountain — How was parking
space requirement reached? Sign should be provided at Sonoma Mountain Road and
Adobe stating that park is closed on days it is closed.
Commissioner Torliatt — Very well done DEIR, easy to understand. Mr. Gurney's
comment regarding Moon Ranch as another site, should pursue both sites as regional
parks.
Chairman Feibusch — Consensus — DEIR is pretty precise. More precise information
needed regarding roadway. Comments "should" be patrolled, should be changed to "will"
be patrolled. Emergency medical response time looked at. Would like one more
discussion at Commission before moving this along.
Pamela Tuft — Suggested continuation to Planning Commission meeting of July 28
Commissioner Keller — Questions regarding distribution of Management Plan.
Commissioner Torliatt — Are copies available at the Library? (Answer yes, also at the
Planning Department).
Pamela Tuft — Will consolidate tonight's comments on July 28.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 pm
S: / /pc/minutes/min0630.doc