HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 03/26/2001 (2) —
V.
CITIPOF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
I
,AGENDA BILL
• Agenda Title: Meeting Date:
Lafferty , Ranch Park — Conduct PUblie. Hearing on Final,
Environmental Impact. Report and related General Plan Text and
Map Amendments;'Direct City Management:to prepare the Final
Lafferty Ranch Park ManagemerePlan and Mitigation Monifbring 26 March 2001
Plan, a Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact:
Report with Preparation of Appropriate Findings, a Resolution for
Adoption of General Plan Text and Land Use Map Amendments as
revised; Resolution: Adopting ;Specific CEQA Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Resolution
Approving the Park Management Plan; Adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring Plan and Approving the LaffertyRaiidh Park Project.
Departments: Director ' ' Contact Perso Phone Number:
General Plan Admin. L Pamela Tub, A., P Pame,Ja
Office of the City:iMgr: Di/victor of (707) 778-4345
Parks & Recreation Jim C.7%. a- 411-General:Plan
Administration
Cost of Proposal: Total spent, t. date, for this fiscal year is Account Number:
$314,849, Mich, includes $179;825 for the completion of the -001-400-996
Revised DEIR, Final EIR and Management Plan; and $135,024 for •
er A k legal serViceS Total spent on the Lafferty Park project, to date, i§ Name of hind:
IF ;$789,662 ($333,789 for EIR; $430,101 for legal services, and,
$25.',772 (survey, mowing, etc). Lafferty Ranch Park (Capital',
Improvement Budget)
,Amount Budgeted: This fiscal year S476,000 ($150,000 for EIR,
$60;000 for legal services and 8266,000.for'eapital improvementS). I
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item
. ,
2-J, Letters received regarding Final Environmental Impact RePOtt,(4 letters)
H. Planning Commission February 0h meeting draft,transcript:H-ndt certified
ifi Planning Commission:StaffReport(neeting of 2-27-01)
IV. Errata One andiErrataTwo for'Lafferty Park Final Elk
Y. Resolution adopted by the Petaluma Recreation, Music and Parks ICommission on February 21 with
letter from Friends of Lafferty Park(dated February le, 2001)
Final Environmental Irnpact,Report for Lafferty-Ranch Park,(preViOusly distributed to City Council)
•
City of Petaluma, California 26 March 2001
Agenda Bill:: Lafferty Ranch Park paze'2
'Summary Statement: •,
•
•At the direction of the City Council, to City Management on 13 November 2000,as Final Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared to present responses to comments submitted=on the Revised•?Draff,EIR
■(distributed' in September 2000): The Final. Environmental Impact Report; has been made iayailable for
review to the public and to agencies that provided comments on the Revised Draft .EIR. Per the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines, the
Lead Agency (the City of Petaluma) "may provide 'an opportunity for review of;the final EIR by the.
'public or by commenting agencies before approving the project. The review of a"final EIR should focus
on the responses to comments on the draft,Em" Prior to City Council approval of the Lafferty Ranch
Park project; specific findings must'be made. Following the review of the,Final EIR by the City Council,.
and at the direction of the:City Council, City management and the contract service'firms of the EIR
•documents will complete preparation of the final Lafferty Ranch Park Management Plan and the
Mitigation. Monitoring Plan; a 'Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report with
Preparation of Appropriate Findings; a Resolution for Adoption of General Plan Text and Land Use Map
Amendments,. as revised; a Resolution Adopting Specific CEQA Findings.and Statement:.of'Ovelriding
Considerations; and a Resolution Approving the Park Management Plan, Adopting',a Mitigation
Monitoring Plan and Approving the Lafferty Ranch Park Project for consideration and action by the=City
Council: •
'Council Priority: THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF,.OR NECESSARY TO, ONE OR
MORE OF THE 1999-2000 P OOR rrIES ESTABLISHED By THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 30,1999
AND MARCH 18, 2000.
Priority(s): Not.Applicable
Recommended City Council Action/SugEested,Motibn::
Receive testimony on the adequacy of the Final EIR;' provide comment `and/or direction `to City
Management on changes and/or clarifications, if any, for incorporation into the Final EIR. Direct City
Management to Prepare the Final Lafferty Ranch'Park Management ;Plan and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan; a Resolution, Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report with Preparation of Appropriate
Findings; a Resolution for Adoption of General,Plan Text and Land'Use'Map Amendments, as:revised; a
Resolution Adopting Specific CEQA Findings,.and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and a
Resolution Approving the Park Management Plan, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Plan and
Approving the.Lafferty Ranch Park Project for consideration and action by the City Council
Reviewed byrFinance,Director: `Reviewed by`.City Attorney: A' 'roved b Ci Minaier:
Date:. Date: /,„ Date:
Today's Date: Revision #'and Date Revised: File Code:
14 March 2001' #
c&h:pULafferty/Reports\CC FEIR'032601
i
•
• CITY OF PETALUMA,: CALIFORNIA
26lVIARCH4200t
AGENDA REPORT
• FOR
`LAFFERTY RANCH,PARK
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'REPORT (FEIR)
AND`RELATED ACTIONS
•
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: •
•
At the direction,of the;City Council,'to City Management on'13'November 2000, a,Final
Environmental Impact,Report; has been prepared to 'present responses to, comments
submitted on the Revised Draft EIR di
stributed in September 2 000
Environmental Impact Report has been made available for ): The Final
review to the public and to
agencies that provided comments on the Revised,.Draft FIR: Per the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines;
the Lead Agency', (the City of Petaluma) "may;provide an opportunity for review of the
final EIR by the ittiblic or'by :commenting agencies before approving the project. The
• review of a;final EIR.should.focus 'on the responses to ,comments on the draft EIR."
Prior;to City CounciF'approval of the Lafferty Rancli,Park project, specific findings must
be,made. Following the;review'of the Final EIR.by the City Council,'and atthe direction
of the City Council, 'City- management- and the {contract service firms of the EIR
documents will prepare a Resolution Certifying the:Final'Environmental Impact, Report
with Preparation of Appropriate,Findings; a Resolution for Adoption of General Plan
Text and Land Use Map:Amendments; a Resolution Adopting Specific CEQA Findings
• and Statement of'Overriding Considerations; and 'a Resolution Approving the Park
Management Plan; Adopting a:Mitigation.Monitoring Plan and Approving the•Laffe_rty
Ranch Park Project forcorisideration.and:action by fifth/laity Council.
The Petaluma Planning Commission held•a'public•hearing on the adequacy of;the Final
Environmental:ImpactsReport on:February 27 .2001. At the Commission hearing, eight
citizens spoke ml favor of the certification of;the Final EIR and/or.approval of the project
and one attorney`and,onexcitizen(on:b'ehalf of the,Sonoma Mountain Conservancy) spoke
in opposition: The.Planning .Commission unanimously passed a motion to forward the
Final Environmental Impact `Report to the City Council with a recommendation for
approval of.the following actions:
1. The Planning:Commission forwards,•to the City Council, a recommendation to certify
the Final Environmental linpactiR'eport.
•
2. Planning Commission recommends approval of the General Plan amendments (Land
• Use•-map and text),related:to the future use of the,Lafferty•Ranch site as a public park
City of Pettiltinia„California 26 March 200[
Agenda Bill: Lafferh-Ranch Park page 4_
per the goals, objectives, policies and actions recommended in the. Lafferty Ranch
•
Draft Management Plan. [Note: The,Commission recommended that the use of
the term "Habitat Preserve” within the recommended, General Plan text
• amendments be changed to provide for the definition '�of` Lafferty Ranch as an.
".Open Space Park":] This change in terminology does:not have any substantive
effect:
•
The project,proposedfor.adoption&is the"no_grazing alternative" (Alternative No 6as set
forth in the• Final .Environmental Impact Report). Discussion of the support for the
selection of the `no grazing' alternative is addressed in several locations within the Final
EIR. The FEIR provides analysis;and documentation supporting,the conclusion that with
• adoption of the recommended feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant
impacts of the project will,be mitigated,to levels that are less than significant, with the
exception of-the,project's impacts on fire danger and traffic safety which are,concluded
to be-significant and unavoidable:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
•The, project is the establishment of Lafferty Ranch Park. Council. actions to approve
Lafferty Park,consist of adoption,of a Management Plan for.Lafferty Ranch Park and
related General Plan amendments The proposed Management Plan establishes
recommended management goals,,objectives, and actions required,to allow public use of
the Lafferty Ranch property as a.passive use public park The Lafferty Ranch property •
consists of approximately.270 acres located on`Sonoma:Mountain, northeast of:the City
of Petaluma. The property is unimproved and rectangular in shape. The southwestern
corner of the site has relatively :flat to rolling terrain containing approximately, 15-20
acres.(wheelchair accessibility will be provided within this area of the proposed park).
Most-of-the=remaining.portions.of�the,site,contain relatively`steep slopes, with elevation's
ranging from 1,240 feet near the southwest-corner to about 2,165 feet at the northeast.
property line. The site contains;the headwaters of Adobe Creek, The creek has incised-a.
deep ravine through the middle of the;,property and flows to the southwest to the
Petaluma River, the topography, variety•of habitats; and views of the Petaluma
Valley toward the.Bay'and west to the coast;:the,property has-a high recreational value.
The City is both the owner of the property-'and the project sponsor. Thei project is
described in detail in Section' 1.5 (page 9)' of-the,Revised Draft Environmental Impact•
Report distributed to the City Council and the public in September 2000.
The proposed General Plan.amendments include,thefollowing:
1. The table on page 57 of the General Plan will be amended to include a 'third
category titled "Habitat Preserve". Under this category will be listed Lafferty
Ranch with its location and size
2; The text that follows Goals 4 on,page:_57 will be amended to include a reference
to.Lafferty Ranch. • ;
City of Petaluma, California 26 March 2001
A¢enda'Bill:: Laffertv'Ranch Park page S
•, 3. Parks and Recreation Element Policy 6 willbe amended to include a reference to
•
Lafferty Ranch:
•4. A program shall be added under thesection titled Park Standards, adding.Program
• (9). The program shall .call for the• preparation,and adoption of a management
plan for the Lafferty'Ranch.Habitat Preserve:
5. Parks and Recreation Element Policy 13 shall be.amended with regard to park
selection criteria.
6. The Land Use Map Will he amended to designate Lafferty Ranch as Park.or Open
Space.
Note: As referenced earlier'-within this report and on the:attached Planning Commission
draft transcript, the Commission recommends that Amendments #1 and.#4, listed above,
be modified to provide for the title,of"Open Space'Park:Y rather than Habitat Preserve.
EIR Process and FEIR-Format
A Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (Revised DE1R') was prepared for the
project and submitted for public 'and agency review on September 29, 2000. The Final
EIR, now under consideration by the City Council, includes all written comments ,
submitted on:the Revised DEIR.'during the 45-day public review period (review period
closed November 13, 2000) and •responses_ to those: comments. It also includes verbal
comments made at the Public Hearing held on the RevisechDEIR and responses to those
comments. Changes to the text ofthe Revised DEIR-imtiated';by staff or in response to
public comments are also :included. These comients, responses; and revisions, together
with`the September.2000 Revised DEIR,'(incorpot rated.he&ein''byc•reference).constitute the'
Final,EIR for the proposed project. The Final EIR is reviewed by the City of Petaluma
Planning Commission and thei.Petalunia City •Council and certified as being legally
adequate;(per CEQA) by the,Petaluma,City Council prior to the City Council approving
the project.
The EIR preparers andCity,management;believe that this document along with the earlier
Constraints and Opportunities Report, the Draft Management Plan, and the Revised
Draft Ell? provide a thorough discussion'of the major impacts and issues related to the
project. Areas in which commenters,expressed disagreement with the conclusions of the
Revised DE-Mare clearly set forth^'in this document:to allow,the City decision makers to
make an informed;decision:
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Although this Final EIR contains nearly 2,000 pages of submittals and responses, only 351
different individuals and agencies submitted written comments on the Revised DER.'
The submittals.include.8 letters-from 7 public agencies and 40 letters from 28 individuals
or organizations (several' individuals:,or,groups submitted multiple letters). Of those 40
letters, 19 letters are' from The Sonoma Mountain Conservancy or attorneys and
individuals representing The..Senoma Mountain Conservancy„ 2 letters are from Sonoma
City ofPetaluind,California 26 March 2001
Agenda BI!!: La fertv Ranch Park page'6
•
Mountain Road residents (in addition to the previous letters listed unden the Sonoma •
Mountain Conservancy), 12 letters are from Petaluma 'residents who do not live on
Sonoma Mountain Road, 3 letters are from individuals who live outside the county,,and 4
letters are from environmental or citizen groups. A number of:comments:received relate
to the merits of the project rather than on the adequacy of the environmental analysis.
These comments dofnot raise CEQA issues requiring a responsein the Final'•EIR, but will
be considered`by the City Councilin making a decision on the project;
MASTER RESPONSES
A number of comments raise questions relating to the recently identified phenomenon
known as Sudden Oak,Death •Syndrome (SODS) and its possible spread onto Lafferty
Ranch.. Specifically, commenters have asked about how opening the ,site''to. public use •
could spread this disease and how the disease could affect fire hazard on the site
Additional;analysis has determined that SODS is°present on Lafferty Ranch, and that its
presence would not result in any new significant project-related impacts or substantial
increases in the severity of identified significant impacts. Additional mitigation is
recommended to ensure that the spread of SODS is monitored and that, if necessary,
additional fuel management actions are undertaken to ensure fire,hazard remains at levels
analyzed in the Revised DEIR. The analysis of SODS does not substantially affect the
conclusions or recommendations of the,Revised DEIR.
CHANGES TO THE REVISED DEIR • •
Several,new or amended mitigation,measures'are recommended as a.result of comments
received: In addition, several minor changes to the text regarding the project description
and impact discussions will be made to ,clarify the existing discussions. These new or
amended mitigations are summarized ,below. Other than these new or additional
mitigations and these minor text changes, no changes to the conclusions or
recommendations of.the Revised DEW are required.
The conclusions of this Final EIR are the same as reached in the Revised,DEW, namely
that with the recommended mitigation, all potentially significant effects are reduced,to a
level that is less than significant'except for the traffic safety impact on Sonoma Mountain
Road (unless the entire road is improved to meet Minimum. AASHTO standards), the
impact of grazing-caused erosion on steelhead and yellow-legged frogs, and fire hazard,
and that environmentally superior alternative (other than the"No Project" alternative)
is "Alternative 2 - Restricted Use Among the alternatives, which fully ,meet all
project objectives, "Alternative 6 -- No Grazing" is the environmentally superior
alternative.
New or Amended Mitigation. Measures are set forth in the Final -EIR (Volume 1) on
pages 18 - 21. These revisions clarify and amplify recommended mitigation measures
in response to comments received. - •
City of Petaluma, California 26 March 2001
Agenda Bill: Lafferty Ranch Park pace 7
• Minor changes to the text of the Revised Draft. EIR are defined on pages 21-23 of the
Final EIR(Volume 1).
2. BACKGROUND:
The Lafferty Ranch site has,, in the past, been used, as watershed for domestic water
production for the City. It.presently contains no improved roads or buildings. Existing.
physical- improvements are limited to perimeter fences/gates, sections of old cross
fencing, a spring box, abandoned water diversion facility on Adobe Creek and various
pipes that were previously used,for water collection and diversion.
The property is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the existing City limits..,
Access to Lafferty is provided by Sonoma Mountain Road, via Adobe Road, both are
County maintained: Adobe Road intersects Frates, Casa Grande, East Washington and
Corona, all of which are arterial streets serving Petaluma.
In 1997 the City Council appointed an Advisory Committee to develop a means to open
Lafferty Ranch'to the public as.a park. City management prepared a Framework for the
Lafferty Ranch Planning,and EIR:Process report,'which was reviewed 'and approved by
the Advisory Committee. The City hired a•professional services firm, Leonard Charles
• and Associates, to prepare a management plan for the park and an Environmental Impact
Report on that-proposed.plan. The first document was a Constraints and Opportunities
Report' to identify potential constraints to "park development and opportunities that
deserved inclusion in the Draft Management'Plan. Subsequent to public review of that
document, Leonard •Charles, and Associates commenced preparation of a Draft
Management Plan.and.Environmental Impact Report and worked with the City to identify
appropriate General Plan text amendments to work more closely with the intent of the
Lafferty Ranch Park Management Plan.
The City is the Lead Agency with regard to the CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act) process for the project. Concurrent with the CEQA process, the City is responsible
for adopting an Access and'Managenient Plan'for the'park.
In June 1997 a Notice of Preparation was prepared and distributed, and a public scoping
meeting was held. A,secondScoping Meeting was heldt in December 1997 to present the
recommendations of the Draft Management Plan and to invite comments from the public.
The Draft EIR was made available' to the public, distributed to. the State of California
Clearinghouse, and applicable regulatory and review agencies on June 2, 1998. A second
notice was mailed on June 25th, again 'informing the public of the joint Planning
Commission/Parks and.Recreation Commission hearing to be on June 30`s.
The two Commissions. received:, .public testimony on the Draft EIR, the Draft
Management Plan and the proposed General Plan text amendments. Subsequently, at
• separate meetings, the Parks and Recreation Commission (on July 15, 1998) and the
City of Petaluma, California .26
Agenda Bill: Lafferty Ranch Park page 8
Planning. Commission (on July 23'h) concluded theirr review with recommendations for
the Council to hear testimony and take action to prepare any and all final documents
necessary to approve the project. The City Council held a public hearing on the Draft
EIR on August 24'h, 1998 and directed staff to.prepare Responses to Comments: Staff
returned to the City Council on September 1s`, 1998 and received.authorization to,amend
the contract with.Leonard Charles & Associates for additional work needed to complete
the Responses to Comments and Final FIR.
During the preparation of Responses to Comments City Management and the
professional services team preparing the EIR recommended distribution of a Revised
Draft EIR_ On December7; 1998 he City Council adopted a Resolution directing•staff to
prepare a Revised Draft FIR for the Lafferty Ranch Park project and Management Plan,
and authorized additional expenditures for work by the environmental and,legal contract
service firms.
A Notice of Completion was prepared and the Revised Draft EIR document was made
available to the public, distributed to the State Clearinghouse and various regulatory and
advisory.agencies on September 20, 2000. A Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of
• Availability was prepared; published and distributed to all interested citizens. This
Noticexinformed the public that the Revised DEW was available for purchase, review or
loan from the .Petaluma Public Library, the Community Development Department, the
Petaluma Community Centerr and/of the City Manager's Office. September 29`11
commenced the required forty-five (45) day review period, which concluded on,Monday, 4•
November 13'h with the joint public hearing held by the City Council; ;Planning
Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. Direction was given to prepare a
Final FIR. The FUR was distributed-and made available to the public in February 2001.
The Planning Commission held a public,hearing on.February 27`h and forwards the Final
FIR to the City Council with a recommendation to certify the FIR, adopt the General
Plan amendments as recommended, with the change of the designation from Habitat
Preserve to Open Space Park. A draft transcript (not certified) of the Planning
Commission meeting is attached (Exhibit H).
APPLICABLE CEQA REGULATIONS
The preparation ofa Final EIR is governed by CEQA, specific direction as to theLcontents
of a Final EIR are contained in Section 15132, as follows:
"The final EIR shall consist of.
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either
verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting
on the Draft E1R.
(d) , The responses of the Lead Agency to significant 'environmental
points raised.in the review and consultation process. •
City of Petaluma, California 26 March 2001
Agenda Bill: Lafferty Ranch Park page 9
• (e) Any other information added by the lead agency."
The standards for"determining the,adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report are set
forth in.Government Code Section 15151 (CEQA)
LIR should be prepared with,a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision makers with information which,enables them to make a decision
which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An
evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be
exhaustive, but-the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of
what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make
an LIR inadequate, but, the EIR should summarize the main points of
disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness; and a good faith effort at full
' disclosure."
3. ALTERNATIVES:
I. Receive public comments; offer comments to City;Management on the adequacy of
the Final EIR. Direct 'City.Management to prepare Resolution Certifying the Final
• Environmental Impact Report with Preparation of Appropriate Findings; a Resolution
for Adoption of General Plan Text and Land [Ise'Map, Amendments; Resolution
Adopting Specific CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
a Resolution Approving; the Park Management Plan, Adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring Plan and Approving the Lafferty.Ranch Park Project.
2. Receive public comments; provide direction to City Management for preparation of
additional responses to comments on the Revised Draft MR; continue certification
action until date specific.
3. -Take no action.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Total spent for this fiscal year (2000-01) is $314,849, which includes;$179,825 for the
completion of the Revised DEIR, Final EIR and.Management Plan; and $135,024 for
legal services. Approved budget for this fiscal year is $476,000 ($150,000 for EIR„
$60,000 for legal services and, $266,000 for capital improvements). The budgeted
amounts by line item have been;exceeded for the EIR and the legal services by $29,825
and $75,024 respectively' Overall remaining Lafferty budget for this fiscal year is
$161,151. It is anticipated that the remaining budget will be spent. Additional funds
UP needed, subsequent to the approval actions, will depend on whether a legal challenge is
presented to the approvaLprocess for the project.
City of Petaluma, California 26 March 2001
Agenda Bill: Lafferty Ranch Park page 10
•
•
Total spent on the Lafferty Park project, since 1997, is $789,662 ($333,789 for EIR;
$430;101 for legal services; and,.$25,772.(survey, mowing, etc.). Appropriations to date,
through Resolutions authorizing :contracts and expenditures and/or yearly budget
allocations,,for the EIR total $370;232.
5. CONCLUSION:.
City management and the professional services firms responsible for the preparation of
the Revised Draft,EIR feel the process of public review of the significant environmental
impacts associated with the creation and operation of the Lafferty Ranch Park, as
proposed, has.been exceptionally served by the four years of review, assessment and
scrutiny by a.team of professionals and the.public. At the direction of the City Council,
City management and the professional service firms prepared Responses to Comments
and the FinalElR.for public review and Council consideration.
Upon receiving direction from.the City Council, City management and the professional
services firms will complete the preparation of documentation;_including resolutions and
findings of fact, to the City Council to allow approval of the Lafferty Ranch Park project.
City management will also prepare a Timeline for Actions Necessary to open Lafferty
Ranch Park'including budget implications for all suggested improvements and mitigation
measures. •
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION:
•
Project approval, completion of Priority 1 improvements, and commencement of passive
public use of the Lafferty Ranch Park.
7. RECOMMENDATION:
Receive testiinony,on the adequacy of the Final EIR; provide comment and/or,direction to
City Management on changes and/or clarifications, if any, for incorporation.into the Final
EIR. Direct City ,Management to prepare the Final Lafferty Ranch Park Management
Plan and Mitigation, Monitoring Plan, a Resolution. Certifying the Final .Environmental
Impact Report 'with Preparation of.Appropriate Findings; a Resolution for Adoption of
General Plan Text and Land Use Map Amendments, as revised; Resolution Adopting
Specific CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and a Resolution
Approving the Park ;Management; Plan, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Plan and
Approving the Lafferty Ranch Park-Project.
S .
City of Petaluma, California 2614arch 2001
Agenda Bill: Lafferty Ranch Park page 11
-
Attachments:
I. Letters received,regarding Final;Environmental:Impact Report.(4 letters)
H. Planning Commission February 27th meeting draft transcript —not certified
III. Planning Commission Staff Report,(meeting of 2-27-01)
IV. Errata One and Errata Two for Lafferty Ranch Park;Final EIR
V. Resolution adopted by the Petaluma Recreation, Music and.Parks Commission on February
21'1 with letter from Friends of Lafferty Park (dated February 16`h, 2001)
Final Environmental Impact Report for Lafferty Ranch Park (previously distributed to City.
Council)
A Notice of Hearing for the Final EIR was distributed to all interested citizens (approximately
375 addresses) informing them of the opportunity to appear and address the City Council to the
items contained within this Agenda Bill.
•
•
c&hpt/aaertyireporrs\CC FE1R 032601
•
•
S
Comments received on Final Environmental Impact Report
(4 Letters)
•
. 1 •
it
;4
•LEONAR,D CHARLES & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Analysis & Planning
�.�, 60
N LMO CF
S 7 ROBLE COURT
A ANSE , ALIORNIA 949
• 1 PHONE(41 );454 4575- FAX(415)4$7265 _ RE El C
•
MAR 1 - ir,,,i!i
•
February 26, 2001
Pamela Tuft
City of Petaluma City Manager's Office
PO Box61
Petaluina, CA 94953
Dear Pamela,
Over the past few days, two important developments- regarding Sudden Oak Death
Syndrome have been reported in the Francisco Chronicle. Each of these developments
is addressed below. It is important'to note that the situation regarding SODS is changing
rapidly given the current research;being done on the disease., It is entirely likely that
additional information on methods of spread.and methods of control will befannounced in
the not too distant future.
Duman Iinpact_on.Shredding SODS,
• On Marcfi7, it Was announced in the San Francisco Chronicle that a U.C. Davis researcher
has isolated the Phytophtliora fungus-in soil and'water,beneath;a SODS-infected tree. This
is the first time that the fungus has actually been isolated in the soil: This discovery has led
to some people warning that the fungus can be spread on the soles of shoes worn by people
w_alking"t thugh infected areas.
This issue was addressed in the Final EIR. In.that report, it was stated that there was no
evidence to'date that the fungus was `spread through soil contact. It was further stated that
even if it Were found that this;was w Made.of disease transmission, it would be a moot point
for Lafferty Ranch since thee disease was already widespread on the property'and would-be
spread throughout the property by wildlife movement; regardless of whether the public was
allowed to use the park:
On March 7,2001, theERR preparers contacted.Ray:Moritz who wrote the report on SODS
that is included in the-Final•EIR to discuss this new'discovery. Mr. Moritz confirmed the
discovey of the fungus in soil and.water that was reported in'the newspaper. He stated that
this was,the first time the fungus had actually been found in.the soil. ;However, he noted
that,there was still no evidence that the disease was spread through,soil contact. It has yet to
be identified in the root system of affected trees. On the:other'hand, it has been found on
the tree:trunk, usually up to.10 feet aboveground surface, but-in many cases as high as 50
feet above the ground (and 70'feet"in some cases): Mr. Montt noted there was evidence of
the disease's spread via rain and wind.
•
Mr.:Moritzreiterated the factthat even if the fungus were spread through soil contact that it
WOuld•nOtaffect•the,proposed park project, Because,SODS is widespread on the proposed
110
Park; it;Wilibe.effiCientlyindquickly'spread by wild pigs and Other wildlife walking or
foraging in diSeaSed.'areaSindthen traveling to Other portions of the•park He noted that he
had spoken with Dr. Thizo.of U C Davis regarding the proposed park and the conclusions
that human use of the site would not.affect SODS spread (which are the same conclusions
herteporietlin tbe:FinOfEIR).; Dr. Rip() stated that he agreed With'these cbimItisioriS:and
that,public us of the Site w6uId not reSidtin any spread of the diseaSe,;that WoldC .noilcieeiir
thithigh'iWildlifenStandtraVet This is the,same conclusion Dr Rizzo reported Itokhe:EIR
preparers; hen they contacted'Min while preparing.the Final EIR(as is deScribed on page 3
of the Final ;"
1/4.
• --ThUSiwhile,theredhokeVidenee that the;fungus-:thieS occur in the'soil, this 0(30 not alter
tkdOnClipoiiSItittlie;Firial FIR Pnblie•use..bf'Lafferty Ranch,Park will not result in any
greater spread of SODS on the site than would occur of the park were not opened to the
public: ;
' • .•
c.,
•
Fife Hazard Reiultinu front 'SODS
The Final EIR contains an analysis of-the increased fire hazard on Lafferty-Ranch Park
restirting from the potential future spread of'sops on the site The Final EIR determined
that even if all susceptible trees were affected by SODS, the resulting fire hazard would not
be Significautggyekr&Ornmended treatment of fuels at the transition between grassland and
woodland in the:Sbudiwestern 4uadiarn of the part
. ,
On March .9, 2001, the Sao.Francisco ,chronicle reported that experiments conducted in
Sonotha County indicate potential cure for SODS The use t of phospliOnate has been
shown.th reduce SODS-caused leSithis to 'virtually. nothing," fiiithef•research is being
. . •
conducted to refine. the treatment and to develop methods for administering the chemical
(i.e„ through injection, sprays, and/or soil drenching); While researchers do, not believe
this discovei-y will necessarily.-Stoprthe, spread of the disease, due to the fact that massive
aerialsPraying.:WoUldlikeffribt be politically acceptable; individual trees or groups of trees
could be SM:ref,.",
This discovery is important as regards Lafferty Ranch Park because it may be possible to
treat susceptible oaks diva-rein the transition zone between the grasslands and woodlands
to prevent them from dying from SODS allow existing oaks injlie transition
zone to remain alive and reduce the chance of torching of trees in this area While treatment
of underStbry'faelS in the transition zone will still be required, as recommended in the Final
WIZ,there could be a-significant reduction in the amount of material wOuld'need:th"be
treated (since there would be fewer dead trees needing freatment). Treatment of
along edge would reduce the.thance,of Mere being connected gaps eidending?
froth the grasSland inCd diolthithigh the woodland belt.
While further research must be completed to deteritnne,the method of application and.to
,•. . .
prove its success, future use Of this chemical (or other chemicals discovered in subsequent
research)eould;Sad many trees and reduce the amount of understory fuels that would need
to be treated. The cost of the application is as yet unknown, but it is likelS, that it would be
considerably less expensive than the cost of mechanical removal of dead material and
burning that material. , It is certainly possible that additional methods of control Will be
• 110
identified.by researchers searching for a cureor method of suppressing the spread of this
• disease;
l''hope this information is useful to you and City decisionmakers. Please call if you have
any question's.
Sincerely,
Leonard Charles
Y _
1'
•
•
•
,,ter,�k -'§
a
' i : -, ` Pamela Tuft.
r ``` RECEIVED
•r'e'tft .
" so- MA „y City Manager's Office.
11 English Street, •* ''`':' Petaluma, CA 94952 r.AR 05 2001
-
, ' PAMELA TUFT
'0, > fit' ,,. February 22, 2001
SON:O NI, ,.,: ;S
�' of " 0.`+„a
> e-yt5;�,u r;'yrk�y\ ` °.a, Re: Lafferty Ranch Park Revised Final Environmental Impact Report (Feb 2001)
�It £ GIotv, yIt
" ,t * ' --- 4 &Y"� Dear Pamela:
}•
• P4A*RFKixS e
ate, I would liketo draw your attention,to the response R95 on page 632 as not being
r 4,e, �� it t entirely accurate. The response is to a question/statement from Mr. Stephen
fir .
✓ JIMR''IANCELO` t' Butler. Mr. Butler accurately reflects the,Board's direction on the Outdoor
� � � y
ll/RECroay" {"� '
� a"� � � Recreation Plan (ORP) given in 1999.
j
44.4 s *; i<, .; In the response to Mr. Butler's comment, Leonard Charles makes two statements
" "} �7 y a regarding a telephone conversation:with me on January 4. He states that the
r� a ',: t' "summary of Board direction to staff prepared by SCRP, the Board direction did
• ' "`<v �.� It li not include removing language regarding Lafferty Ranch from the plan.".
yr�;°g , cta' e2, `,' Furthermore the response goes on to state:that "the reference to Lafferty Ranch
t" , Park that was included in the original version of the Plan remains in the revised
version".
. A .1 I believe that I made it clear to Mr. Charles at the time of our conversation that
t 1 C-s '' li although there still;a reference to Lafferty in the ORP it.is merely as,a reference
kigt r r ` in inventorying projects being implemented by agencies other than the County in•
s , ns F the unincorporated areas.
":;7"-±d'''v 'a ,1 The Board's direction was that projects being implemented by agencies other than
0 Islc, t� a x the County in the'unincorporated areas should notinclude any references that
s� would indicate support for a particular projects over which the Board had not
* F . ', taken any position. Therefore in the 2000 version of the ORP the following
, �,` reference to Lafferty deleted:
*F# • n. a." t
s�4-'ar"� i ^a "4. Encourage the City of Petaluma to develop a-preserve atLaffertyRanch with
r trails. (P4)" (p 99-of the 1999 Draft ORP).
i.su,"41,4
2300 '4,(4 4
I '�' x kir xi ,
•
`' ` , The Board's,direction was
'County CenterSDrtvee_r'.•
1 .r id14 °
•
,° Suite 120A� Ct n
r l B.7. Remove references in the Draft Plan to partnering with specific agencies on
si to Rasa +.' �`' projects.
a�S', my > s ` '
,,�T"1 07 'S6�.i.20e41 t...41
r.,r,�.,CS-Wig„
r Far -701 579 8247=
I "
vi w soppnuyyma county org
1 ] . t.1
ml 5+'� wr c'*, fit isia.rict• itr' f
•
•
References in the May 27, 1999 Draft Plan to partnering with specific agencies on •
projects has;been revised. The words "encourage"and "support have=:been
deleted as this language was deemed to indicate a level of support from the Board
of Supervisors to specific projects which the Board had not taken any position on
The following language has been added to the section under"Other Lands": This
language was added to inventory projects within the unincorporated areas being
proposed by federal, state, other government and non-profit organizations. The
revised language states:
"The following projects are assumed to.be implemented by other state, federal and
local agencies. They are included in the plan as referencedbecause:theyare
intended to protect habitat and/or contribute to public recreation in Sonoma
County". (p.viii of the Executive Summary of the ORP)
Thus in the revised ORP (p119) the issue of Lafferty is reflected as such:
"The following projects_ate assumed to be,implemented'by other state, federal and
local agencies. They are included in the plan as referenced because they are
intended to protect habitat and/or contribute to public recreation-in,Sonoma
County,
21. The City of Petaluma's proposed development of a public access'trail and
preserve on Laffe y Ranch. (P121
The City of Petaluma has proposed to develop an existing publicly owned
property on Sonoma Mountain as a wilderness preserve and`hiking•trail area."
(The full text of the Board's direction highlighting the difference is posted on a
website www.http\sonomatrails:org by the Coalition for the Outdoor Recreation
Plan).
Please could you communicate this to the City Planning Commission and City
Council.
inc- ely,,
Park Planning & Design Administrator
•
r •
Michael Caruana
525 Sonoma Mtn Rd
'Petaluma Ca 94954
• E=Mail mvc @iscweb.com
Pamela Tuft
City Manager's Office
City of Petaluma RECEIVED
Po Box 61
Petaluma Ca 94953 5 March 2001 MAR 00 UM
Ref: Response to my letter of 4 Oct.2000 PAMELA TUFT
Subj: Lafferty Ranch
Dear Pamela.
-
Thank your for the response noted FEi, regarding my concern to.the Lafferty Ranch Park
project. In noting my concern `'for the record", you site EIR pages 153 to 265. This
report is replete'with documentation of the inadequacyof the road to carry additional
traffic and meet the "minimal" safety requirements. 'Yet you seem to be satisfied that the
Safety problems,are noted without any apparent concern that the corrections must be
made to the road:so that it is safe. The mere acknowledgement that it is unsafe is not in
itself a cure. Further you',site"that to repair the road tominimal safety standards is
"economically infeasible". In the real world if you can not afford something you do not
buy it. Not repairing the road.because.the city cannot afford it, is not an answer to the
• issue at hand. Peoples lives are literally at risk, yet the attitude borders on Cavalier as to
the danger to life and limb.
The final comment on this FF1 is that "Liability is not an environmental issue" So then
when:the inevitable first fatality or serious injury takes place as a result of the
substandard road, your defehse is that "injury to the park visitor is not an issue". Please
tell me you will not put this park in at "any cost of lives" because they are not an
"environmental issue". I-know'of no court that will long listen to this argument.
There is one other glaring item in the EIR pages 153 to 265 and that is the analogy the
increased traffic will amounuto°the same,as a 3 or horneisubdivision. This is an
analogy the limps very badly.. A3 or'4 home subdivision would be home to the same
people who eventually leam=to-diive.the road,and avoid accidents. The park visitors
would be new drivers each time and never have the opportunity to "learn" the dangers of
this road and therefore the risk:issignificantly greater then a "3 or 4 home subdivision"
Sincerely yours •
rua4s
•
I.
•
CALIFORNIA ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATEO., Northwest Information Center
HISTORICAL ` ' CONTRA COSTA MENTERIEY SANTA CRUZ Sonoma State University
RESOURCES ' LAKE NAPA SOLANO 801 East Cotati venue
"*
SAN BENITO SONOMA Rohnert Park California 94928-3609
INFORMATION SAN FRANCISCO YOCO Tel 707.6642494`• Fax 707.664.3947
SYSTEM E-mail:nwic @sonoma.edu
Pt
go
28 February, 2001 File # 01- EEIVE®
•
MAR 0 2 2001
Ms. Pamela Tuft AICP PAMELA TUFT
Director'of GenerafPlan Administration
City Manager's Office
R.O. Box 61
Petaluma,Ca. 94953
re: Laffety Ranch Park: Public.Hearing for General Plan text and:Land Use map amendments
and related Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Tuft;
Thank you for the opportunity to review tile above referenced document. Our office has no
additional comments at this time.
•
• We appreciate your continued concern fdr protecting our historical heritage.
Sincerely,
K./Thorne, for •
. Leigh Jordan; M.A.
Coordinator
•
S
Ui 1�F JIr�,T L
te i •, r MI
c`
Planning Commission February 27, 2001, Meeting
Draft Transcript'- Not Certified
•
IP
Ip
•
„cp:LU
a, , City of Petaluma, CA
wu4
••ei '
... r 11 English Street
• Petaluma, CA 94952
1858 8
9 Planning Commission Meeting
to Lafferty Ranch Park •
11 Draft Transcript Not• Certified
12 II
13 February 27, 2001
14 7:00 PM
15 City Council Chambers.
16
17
18 Present: Barrett, Broad, Glass, Monteschio, O'Brien, Vieler,Vouri
19
20 Staff Pamela A Tuft, AICP, Director.of General Plan Administration
21 i
22 Consultants: Leonard Charles, of Leonard Charles and Associates; Bill White, Attorney at Shute,
23 Mihaly and Weinberger .
24
25 .
•
2
27 Pamela Tuft: Gave presentation of the project (intruduetion ofproject not taped).
28
29 Introduced Leonard Charles, of Leonard Charles and Associates.
30 ,
3'1 Leonard Charles: Thank you. Good evening. On the Draft EIR we received 40 letters from 35
32 different individuals; 8 of which were public agencies; the other 27 were individuals or groups. As you
33 see, there is all lot of comments there. There is actually probably another 500 pages of stuff that was.
34 turned in.that is on file that were reports and stuff that were'already public record so they are not included
35 in there. There's about 2,000 pages of•matefial that were submitted. 1
36
37 Probably the primary thing that changed in there, you'll' notice, is that since'the time the Draft EIR was
38, put out, Sudden Oak Death Syndrome was found on.Lafferty Ranch. We had one of the State's experts go
39 out and map the presence of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome in there and its in your map there and Master
40 Response. One,'itis widespread. There were some comments that.Lafferty shouldn't be open to public use
41 because there is some indications that foot traffic might spread Sudden Oak Death Syndrome and, in fact,
42 that's not the case and in particular, since it is already on this site,,it will spread;to whatever trees that are
43 susceptible, whether there are humans there or not since there is wildlife running all over the site
44
45' Theasecond,issue that was brought up about this Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, is that perhaps it caused a
46 more significant fire hazard and was looked a in the Draft EIR. Again, we had two experts who are
t both
47 on the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. State Task.Force look at that including our Fire Ecologist and that
4 effect is,not that significant„though we have amended one of the mitigation measures. One of the aspects
49 of the Draft Management Plan to call for some additional prescribed burning at the woodland edge and/or
•
City of Petaluma, California February 27, 2001 •
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page.2
1 mechanical treatment, if prescribed burning is going to happen in the near future and I won't go into the •
2 whole discussion, unless,you ask me a specific question, but basically, the end result of that was is that it
3 wouldn't substantially increase the fire hazard on the "site and that there are methods of dealing with it.
4 And in any case, the impact of increased fire risk on the site has already been identified as,a significant
5 impact in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, although I would note that it's still not expected, even
6, if afire does start on.Lafferty Ranch-and escapes the property, they would become a major.fire.
7
8. There.were also•a.number of comments about virtually every other issue on the Draft EIR by some people
9 who thought that the.impact hadn't been.addressed adequately, to make it as significant as the commenter
10 might:of'thought and those have all been responded to. On the other hand, though there were people who
11 thought that it overemphasized the impact, and again,:those have all been responded to So basically, the
12 Final EIR does have some additional, revised and amended mitigations in the front. I believe there is 13,
13 most of which are fairly minor. The conclusions of the Final EIR are the same as they as they were in the
14 Draft. That there are three:significant impacts: increased fire risk, impacts from grazing on,Steelhead and
15 Yellow-Legged Frogs and traffic safety impact on.Sonoma Mountain Road. And the conclusions remain
16 the same, as does the environmentally superior alternative, which is the reduced use if it's not a no project
17 alternative.
18
19 So with that,.I should have:questions right now open to:public hearing.
20
.21 Chairman Broad: Any Commission questions for Mr. Charles at this point in time?
23 Pamela A Tuft: We ask for the record anyone testifying on this to clearly state their name and address •
24 for the record. If you wouldn't mind so that we can keep accurate information to forward onto the
25 Council. Thank you.
26
27 Chairman Broad: Thank you I will go ahead and open up the public hearing and anyone wishing to
28 speak on this item, please come forward. State your name and address clearly, please.
29
30 PUBLIC. HEARING'OPEN
31
'32 Les `.Perry/703 2nd Street 'Santa Rosa, CA 94952: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the
33 Commission, I am the attorney for the Sonoma Mountain Conservancy. The Conservancy is a group of
34 landowners and residents in the area of Sonoma Mountain. It is an organization That has been dedicated to
35 the preservation of rural and agricultural quality of the Sonoma Mountain area It is obviously not news
36 that this organization has been involved with the Lafferty Ranch project for a long time from the
37 beginning and we•will.continue to beso. ' •
38
39 There is not.enough time I think allotted in this evening, to discuss all of the critical environmental issues
40 that have been raised in this matter..Hope that they have all been addressed by us in the comments to the
41 Draft Environmental Impact Report.Hope that you have had an opportunity to appreciate some of those
42 issuesthat have been raised. Some of which, actually, have been resolved as a result of the discussion in
43 the environmental review. There are, however, two that my clients asked the to address specifically
44 tonight that are of critical importance to them; one you have already heard aboutto 'some extent.
•
45,
City of Petaluma, California • February 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 3
aThat first issue is the discovery of Sudden Oak Death'Syndrome on the Lafferty property after publication
of circulatibn''bf the Draft:Enviromnental Immpact Report. h:is our position that, that presents significant
3 new information, raises issues of mitigation measures that are required--all of which lead to the need to
4 recirculate an environmental document, at least on that issue, at least a (could not understand tape)
5 environmental review on that document on that issue. There;is, in fact, a body of evidence contrary to
6 what is found in the Final Environmental Impact Report in the Master Response. There is a body of
7 credible evidence, some of which,is cited here-that the death.rate from.Sudden Oak Death Syndrome.far
8 exceeds'the 5%or 10% mentioned in the Final EIR--as much as 80%. There is again substantial evidence
9 in the recta that this virus is spread by hikers. It has been found most prevalent in areas that are most
10 heavily accessed by the public. There is substantial evidence again cited by us in comments that we made
11 to both of those issues, all•of which require the airing of that issue in a formal environmental document,
12 which this has not. The EIR chooses to ignore this issue. It-does so at the peril of Lafferty Ranch. It
13 certainly does so at the peril of the:adequacy of the environmental review.
14
15 The other critical issue that we have monitored from the beginning that requires a frank and open
16 discussion here, as other places, is that.of road safety. The manner in which road safety has been handled
17 is inadequate from the perspective of adequate environmental review; and perhaps more importantly„it is
18 inadequate from a public,policy perspective. By further introduction, I fear that.anything I say or my
19 group says is going to be viewed with skepticism or simply dismissed, and as tempting as that might be, it
20 would be a mistake to treat this issue in that manner as itrelates to road safety. It is an issue that has been
21 with.this project from the very beginning and I would liketo, in order:to emphasize that and emphasize
22 the objectivity of this, take you back to 1992 when the issue of Lafferty.Ranch was first raised. Your own
2ilkCity staff; when asked to look'at the prospects of having Lafferty Ranch•as a public assess facility, wrote
2W a staff-report steering the City away from;that conclusion and one ofthe main basis for doing that, and I
25 quote is, "access to Lafferty Ranch is via Sonoma Mountain Road,the:road is narrow with blind sections
26 of.roadway and extremely steep grades, due to the severe elevation change:” At the same time, way back
27 in1992, the County Public Works Department stead on the same issue, and again this is a time before this
28 became a political hot button when opinions could be readily dismissed, based upon political affiliation.
29 The County Public Works Department said for safety and monetary reasons the Sonoma County Public
30 Works Department is concerned about-this proposal which-will encourage increased vehicular traffic. The
31 County Public Works Department does not recommend the opening of this parcel of land to public access,
32 unless the°impact on or to the roadway is remediated by'bringing it up to current standards, with grade
33 drainage facilities and alignment.
34
35 Now the point is that they're just as attractive as this project may be. There are just some places where a
36 project is inappropriate. At least. inappropriate without undertaking the necessary and recommended
37 infrastructure improvements. It's like most things in life. There are lots of things out there that I would
38 like to have but can't afford, but I don t,havedhe right or the ability to just go out and take it when I can't
39 pay for it and that's the path this project is proceeding down now Wanting something, having it clear that
40 there is a cost to that and not being prepared to pay that cost. That is the infrastructure improvements:
41 Again, these are not cited objective opinions that date way back on this issue•and it's real on the road.
42 There is a reality here that generates these concerns. They are not make weight arguments.. When the
43 original Draft EIR came out about road safety, my clients were convinced that the-number of
44 accidents' and the severity of accidents were being dramatically underreported. So ,they took it upon
45althemselves,t6 monitor for approxiniately a.year and take pictures to the extent they could of accidents that
4were occurring on the Sonoma.Mountain Road and we submitted the results of that over a thirteen-month
47 period. They are in the Final EIR and I believe that there are something like 17 accidents over a thirteen-
City of Petaluma, California February 27,2001 .
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 4
1 month period. That is an extraordinary number of accidents on a very short stretch.of road..Many of those •
2 pictures-reveal very, very serious life threatening accidents. That evidencejs dismissed in the.Final EIR as
3 saying well if it is underreported here, it is probably underreported on all roads; therefore, it,istall equal. It
4 is nothing of the sort. What is demonstrates is you are, and we are, faced with a truly special, unique
5 situation on Sonoma Mountain Road. There are no other roads like it anywhere in the County and there
6 are reasons for all this. There is a combination of grade,.inadequate site distances, narrow widths, no
7 shoulders and very, very restricted site distances that all, converge to.make this a truly unique and
8 extraordinarily dangerous situation. And it is more so, I think, because of the deceptive nature of the road.
9 I am.sure most of you have been up there. I have been'up there many times. It's deceptive how steep it is.
10 It is deceptive how short the cite distances are and that explains, I believe, we believe, why you see so
11 many accidents and why its not fair to simply dismiss,that by saying well there are other roads.in County
12 that don't meet " ASHTO Standards"; therefore, we don't have to fuss with Sonoma Mountain Road.
13 That I submit, is an unfair and short-sided public policy perspective. It is, .I believe, inappropriate to
14 approve a public project,in the face of that kind of evidence without making the necessary repairs and
15 certainly inappropriate to make,a statement of overriding consideration when you are facing this kind of
16 very real, dangerous situation. I submit that the decision the City is faced with is the same decision the
17 City of Santa Rosa, in:the Santa Rosa School District made a couple of years ago when-theyapproved and
18 opened.Elsie Allen High.Schoohin the face of much.of the same evidence that you have in front of you--
19 unsafe roads without spending the money necessary to.accommodate that issue and the young man was
20 killed as a result. These are-very real issues. To say there simply going to be dealt with later is not sound
21 public policy, Fortunately, I'believe lessons are learned. Just in the paper, acouple of days ago, there is an
22 article about Piner-Olivet School.District in Santa Rosa where they were unable to open until somebody
23 stepped up and came up with the money to create walkways around there school and they were committed
24 not to open until that-money was found, either by the School District or by the City.
25
26 That brings me finally to two specific points on the inadequacy of the environmental review as it relates to
27 this issue and that 'is.that it is incorrect legally to attempt to advocate responsibility for this road by
28 suggesting,.as the EIR does, that as a County road and is the County responsibility we don't know what
29 the County would want; therefore, we can't address the.mitigation. This is simply not true. There is a
30 specific government code section that grants to this City the right to control, maintain, improve and
31 condemn, frankly, land between boundaries and parks that wants to have outside jurisdiction. That is the
32 statute upon which the City will rely to get access to the property across Dr. Bettman.property and Mr.
33 Pfendler's property. That same statute that allows the City to do that, gives the City clear authority to
34 undertake these mitigations measures so it is not adequate to say it is in somebody else's jurisdiction, and,
35 in fact, is in your jurisdiction, should you choose to open up a park.
36
37 The second technical flaw in the environmental review, as it relates to this issue, is this notion that
38 because allegedly we can't afford, it's infeasible to mitigate this impact down to a level of insignificance.
39 We can't do all of that--it is just too expensive so we're not going to do any of it and that.is the posture
40 that it.istin. Where there is the EIR as presented, as saying because we can't do it all, were Mot going to do
• 41 any of it We are ready to open up this park without a firm commitment to adopt feasible mitigation
42 measures. This is certainly not-possible. All the road improvements are infeasible, but that is the posture
43 this is in and 'I submit to you that I've never seen any jurisdiction attempt-to make that-kind of an end run
44 around CEQA's obligations--CEQA's instruction to you that.all feasible mitigation measures have to be
45 adopted before you can approve a project and I submit to you that, that does not pass legal muster. So •
46 based upon that, I respectfully request that you not certify the EIR as presented, and you certainly not
.City of Petaluma, California February 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch. . Page 5
recommend approval of the project without specifically addressing, especially the road safety issues. I
appreciate,the opportunity to meevyou"all face-to-face and-comment on these issues. Thank you.
3
4 Chairman Broad: Thank you Mr: Perry. Anyone else wishing-to speak'on.thisitem?
5
6 Larry Mode1l/1705 Brompton Street Petaluma, CA 94954: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am a
7 strong supporter of this park. I have'been for many years. It`is'long overdue and I think it will provide a
8 greattbenefit to all the people in this town and in this valley for many years-to come.
9
10 The specific comment that I had tonight is not on the EIR but on the General Plan Amendment that 's
11 proposed and•specifically, it appears:that.a new category of parks is being created to hold this Lafferty
12 Park because nothing else;apparently,fits currently, and this new category is to be called Habitat Preserve.
13 My question is why choose a--name which to many people-might a lower level of public access
14 than'is being proposed for Lafferty. It seems,like that opens up another area of vulnerability unnecessarily
15 and I would suggest.an alternative category name--something like Open Space Park. That's the name that
16 they used in the County's Draft Outdoor Recreation Plan for parks that are similar to Lafferty that are
17 minimally developed, allow full public access but very little development otherwise, just trails and
18 trailhdad facilities. So, what I'm asking for I suppose, is if we could get some clarification from staff as is
19 there-some compelling reason to call this Habitat Preserve and, if not, perhaps it could be changed to
20 something like Open Space Park. Thank you.
21
2;sk Chairman Broad: Thank you Mr. Modell. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Mr. Hagen.
5
24 Bruce'. Hagen/145 Grevillia Drive; Petaluma; CA 94952: Good evening Commissioners, I am
25 currently Chairman of the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, which last Wednesday adopted a
.26 Resolution supporting the efforts of a local group to proceed and raise funds for this park and also
27 recommends to the City Council! approve-the EIR and the project. I think a copy of that is in the record. I
28 don't have copies to pass out tonight: What L_have,here is my draft, but wanted to call attention to that.
29 The group unanimously supports this park and the support of the EIR the first time it came around.
30 Supports it even more the second time and wants-to see us go ahead with that.
31
32 I wanted to also draw your attention here to some photographs that I was fortunate enough to be able to
33 takea couple of days ago and I think maybe (could not understand tape) has enough pictures of them and
34 I will pass them' up to you. Those pictures were taken during the six,,inches of snow that we had up there
35 about a week ago. I do agree-with:Larry; the Open Space Park=is abetter designation.,This is probably the
36 fourth time I've had to bring this up at the Park and Rec. Commission meetings and Lafferty Access
37 Committee.that Habitat Preserve speaks of something that is privately owned, that is off limits to general
38 publi`c:availability and doesn't-fit withfhe City's plan for this park:
39: •
40 I also wanted to talk a little about the context of this because I think that, first of all, I wanted to thank
41 Pamela and Leonard and his organization again for the fine job and all the work-they have done on this
42 Hereare the=first..two volumes here. Not to long ago I was on Lafferty with Fran Brigmann, who is the
43 General Manager of the Marin Open Space District. You probably heard this before, Robert has brought it
=' up a couple of times, and she-confirmed itwith me that Maria has probably 10 to 20 times the acreage!that
4 Petaluma or that Sonoma County has, certainly the acreage of this project. All of that has been set into
46 public access without an EIR of any kind--quite,a.bit'of it I have an article that's''part of the record,here
•
City of Petaluma, California • February 27, 2001 .
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 6
•
1 that talks about variety of endangered species, narrow roads. All the issues that have been raised by the •
2 Conservancy were in effect down there. They are insignificant issues by any measure. Probably don't
3 have to.tell,you, but I want to say it again for the re• ord'because it is starting to really bother me, that the
4 level of scrutiny the City is having to put into this, is part of a strategy to kill a project flat out=.and simple.
5 You've heard it before, it needs to be said, it needs to be understood. When we develop this.kind of EIR
6 and it is accepted by all the three major agencies; Parks and Rec., Planning Commission and City Council
7 and we get continents on that•EIR that generate another couple of inches of stuff. I have to tell you.that
8 when I first got;involved with this back in 1995, I looked at the first brief that was sent by a law firm
9 called Pedit"(sp) and Martin hired by somebody on Sonoma Mountain. It was about 16 pages long and I
10 looked at it and I 'thought, oh my gosh, it is really a mistake to have a park on Lafferty with all these
11 problems and it was kind of scary and it set;me back and as I.read these things and studied it more and
12 dug into it, I found out that:most of these were bogus and, in fact, if they weren't bogus, they were a
13 matter of degree, like the road--how dangerous is the road? Well, it's very dangerous--keep off the
14 mountain. But that's'what they've been doing all along is trying to inundate the City to seare''the people
15 away. You read this,stuff and you-think this place-is truly is different than all these places inMarin, in the
16 East Bay, in Santa Clara County where they have developed parks and open space like this have opened
17 them up•year round to the public without registration, without supervision. But you look at this stuff, and
18 you look at the attorneys that come in here and talk to us, and you think, by God, they must have
19 something on•the ball--look:at all the stuff they produced. Well its just a lot of paper to'getin the way, of
20 what the people need and what the people want and what we aught to be doing here. I want to quote a
21 couple examples and I: hope you bear with me here because this is probably the last chance that I am
22 going to get to do this.,A fellow named Granger Hunt, I believe, he's been a wildlife advisor biologist
23 hired by Mr. Pfendler-and perhaps the Conservancy and claiming that there is sensitive-eagle habitat on •
24 Lafferty. The illusion was made in the beginning that there are actually eagle nests on Lafferty--you can't
25 take tours up there..We found out, subsequently, there were no eagle nests. The eagles could someday
26 build nests there...People can co-occupy the land with eagles but he writes in this latest,comment, page
27 116 of this volume "why not consider preserving Lafferty Ranch as a wildlife sanctuary, rather than a
28 thoroughfare,of human foot traffic." So, to this person and perhaps a lot of others, Lafferty Ranch does
29 not represent the opportunities to go up and walk in the:snow or be with nature. It's simply a thoroughfare
30 of human foot traffic and if that's the assessment that they make of this, it is no wonder they don't think
31 there should be a statement of overriding public benefit for a thoroughfare of human foot traffic. That's
32 not the experienc• ,that I, noranybody else, who's been up has had.
33
34 Another comment and ..let's see. I,had these marked and it slipped out. Here we go. John's name and one
35 of the neighbors up there. By the way, I'should tell you this story to that the you wonder what is it that
36 the,,Sonoma Mountain Conservancy wants? Well there is a lot of people who signed on the Sonoma
37 Mountain Conservancy and,they want to be,safe, they'want all the things that we have provided for in this
38 EIR and the many mitigations that are in there--the water tank, rerouting the trails so thatthey don't come
39 . close to the neighbor's property, all the efforts that we've made to mend fences literally and figuratively
40 are in the plan. There is a few people, they want something different, and what it is is this--I was at the
41 County Outdoor Recreation Plan hearings in Santa Rosa about two years ago and had the opportunity to
42 talk with John Saemann and Al Beaman, Dr. Bettman, out in front of facility and'said.you know we're
43 going,to bring law-abiding people up in there just like Oak Hill Park, if you followed that issue. You get
44 people who are good with their dogs, they look out, they clean up and they-help enforce the rules, they
45 help keep people law abiding. We're going.to be bringing these people up there and were going to be •
46 watching out for law breakers:and titterers and fire starters and all that--why wouldn't you want that? And
47 he said well I agree with that, they told me, that's just fine, what-we want is, we want a gate at the bottom
•
.City of Petaluma.'California February 27, 2001
Planning Commission:Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 7
of Sonoma Mountain Road and we want to have limited access to the people who live there and people
Tw who have permission from the people who live there. So, I think its got to be really clear that what they
3 are looking for'is not preservation of the wildlife'up there andnon of these other things, it's to put a gate
4 at the bottom'.and have a private estate. Now that's fine, I think, that is something a lot of people would
5 like. I don't think they deserve it. I don't think they we should:give up on this long effort to give them
6 that, but that indeed is there goal.
7
8 Another thing to draw into question all this stuff, and I.think Leonard-Charles and the staff have done a
9 really great job of addressing these criticisms, point, by point 'by point. It's a'bewildering read to have to
10 go through all of this stuff but you can see that it is all a lot of smoke. If they were that concerned about
11 theseissues, why for instance, would one of the neighbors build an eight-foot high cyclone fence around
12 the entire border? When I was up there,.with./vs. Brigmann, she pointed out this would be considered a
13 hazard to.wildlife. If the concern was about wildlife, why was'that fence built? If the concern was about
14 eagles, when I was up there recently, and inrfact, got a letter from the Sonoma Mountain Conservancy
15 threatening to take action against'the City because we were causing a risk to the fragile eco-structure of
16 Lafferty. One of the risks was that we would be disturbing the eagles,.I had people go up, we got to the
17 top, we were quiet, we broke into small groups, all the mitigations that are:called for in the plan. We were
18 coming up over a rise and all of a sudden heard a rifle shot and whoa,I wonder if it is deer season so
19 another rifle shot and, Matt Maguire=will attest to this, as will the'seven or eight other people that were up
20 there--then all of a sudden it sounded like Vietnam. There were semi-automatic rifle fire that went on for
21 about20 rounds.We-came up over the rise.and it just turned out to.be'one of the neighbors target practice
22 or something: We said hi.and they•asked us what we-were doing. We told them what, they said fine and
24111 that was it. This is at a time-•when the eagles were supposedly nesting. A week later we get a letter from
2 • their attorney:saying that we were posing a threat to the eagles nesting. So another great example of BS.
25 That is what this stuff is.
• 27 Another example to is;the cows. Now we re comparing the environmental impact with a no cow situation
28 and infact cows were grazing on this'•property for:a long time There is plenty of evidence that the damage
29 that cattle have done up there and I am not'against cattle grazing. I'think cattle grazing is fine: I drink milk
30 and all that sort of stuff but to claim that the hikers up are going to cause all this damage and their so
3.1 concerned about that damage, yet for.years'they had no problem with the rifle shooting and the cows
32 walking around the creek and walking on the stream banks and causing it to cave in Again, the whole
33 purpose drill this stuff is to put agate in at"thebottom. That's:the whole purpose of it and to here these
34 complaints and charges,that this thing'is.so;grossly inadequate is just part of the strategy.
35
36 One other.note, that I think that I will say,.before I go, the 1992,.1 went back and looked at_the.record of
33 information in 1992 and saw the letters that Were written by the City and the;County staff.and it brings to
38 mind days on Capital.'Hill._I used to work for Senator Bob Packwood, before he became infamous,
39 and it was quite common for influential members of congress, if they happened to be chairs of certain
40 committees, to have influence over agencies and get members to write letters that would support a
41 piece of legislation that they-wanted to have passed for political reasons, I was involved in even writing
42 some of;those letters for those agencies'to the Department of Agriculture for a service, and it was true
43 enough they would bend in a certain direction. They weren't actually lying or jeopardizing their job, but
4 4' they would really make it look like what Mr. Packwood or any other member of congress would wadi'it to
4alook like,and that's precisely what happened back then. There-was no•support politically for Lafferty at
4Wthat point, Lafferty was unknown. People,were starting to find out about it The opponents of this park
47 came out soon and strong and they made a very strong effort.to keep'people from seeing Lafferty. At the
City of Petaluma, California February 27, 2001 -
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 8
1 same time, influence was placed through County;government, elected and appointed officials to paint a •
2 very grim picture of this park and that's been going on all the this time right to the'point'where we have
3 all of these comments here. That's where that stuff came from and if you go back and if you get a
4 • different set ofpeople',to look at that stuff, they wilt give you a different answer, as we've collie up with.
5 So, I think the:bottom;line here is this is an extraordinary piece of work..It's extraordinary because it's
6 way more thorough-than it needed to be It's more than adequate and it's about a piece of property that the
7 people of this community,, not just Petaluma, but South County and Northern Marin need to have As
8 others have pointed out, we're about half of what of the accessible open space that we're supposed to
9 :have for the.County General Plan and that',s about half or a quarter compared to our neighbors in the
10 South (Marin, East Bay, Peninsula and so on). I urge you, this isn't something that we can just kind of
11 glide on. This isn't something we say yea thisisok and we're going to put it out there. If we want•to have
12 Laffert •as a place where we can hike whenever we want, whenever its safe; not come.down to City Hall
13 and sign up, not be supervised by somebody from whomever, but as so many people found out when the
14 air is clear, when I.need a break from work F want to get into my car, I want to drive up there and walkup
15 to•the top. That's•the kind of experience we need to have here and we need to push for this. We need to
16 push it, in this Committee, we need to push' it at the City Council, we need to get support from the
17 Community, all across the Community to show that this is a project. It's beyond the case of politics. I
18 think that Mike would agree and some of the people in the past, this,used to be an issue of trying of to
19 capture the City,Council majority and it's'no longer that. It is now simply a matterof do we need this park
20 for the people of Petaluma.;and„are we going to let a few people stop us? I would.like you all to support
21 this tonight and not just vote for it but lobby for it speak out in public for it, talk to your friends and
22 members of the Community and make this-thing happen. Thank you.
23 �.
24 .Chairman Broad: Thank you Mr. Hagen. Mr..Ramirez. •
25
26 ,Robert Ramirez/611 West,Street Petaluma, 94952: 1 first got started with Lafferty-Ranch,in 1971 and
27 so some of you have heard this story and someyou haven't so I will be brief. I•was-a junior at Petaluma
28 High School.and'that was our Ecology project in,a class called Ecology. Mr. Eisrich was.a teacher and I
29 think he still at Petaluma High. Did he retire'? (audience about 2 years ago). I,see him once in a while at
30 the 24 hour relay, but that's too bad. I'm going'to'have to look him up. I might need him now But me and
31 that class, which was about 20-30 kids, did the'first Environmental Impact Report'. It is on public record.
32 It's'in the Environmental Impact Report and we built a trail. The trail is still there. We-actually designed a
33 master plan for subsequent trails. The plan was to have the next year's class continue on where we left
34 off. Course, being in High School you'have a very short-term attention span so that is what we did that
35 .semester and then?I went on to the rest of my life I don't know when the ball was dropped but it never got
36 continued. I do know that, up until somewhere in the late 80's, they were still doing field trips up there
37 because I had a nephew that had gone up there. It wasn't until in the toursfthat were promoted, I believe
38 1995, it was when Matt Maguire was first on the Council and some other people—Jane Hamilton and
39 they finallygot a City tour up there. That's-when they got back up-there and have been hearing about this
40 thing and couldn't figure out what all the noise was about. What is this? When I got up there I basically
41' remembered a park and it all came back to me. I didn't know why but later,more.information came. I got
42 to look at.my Environmental Impact Report and read it and there it was, my name, and I'realized oh yea,
43 that is what Joe and I did. We were up there just having a good time trying to meet girls, really, but at the
44 same time we were out in the outdoors learning about it. Because we didn't know, you know. It was great.
45 'We'learned a lot about the outdoors and built a trail and put something in document. At that point we had •
46 Sonoma State University as an advisor. Park Rangers'from the Point Reyes National Seashore worked on
.City of Petaluma,California February 27, 2001
Plannine Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 9
•
'.the project, as well as a local historian here, Mr.;Walker, who was very active and was one:of the school :
2 principals that died many years ago that encouraged kids to getout in the outdoors and learn about nature
3 So that brings me to here. So here I am. Five years?later I.thought this was going to be easy. I was out here
4 to build,a park. You know a park. Thatbesimple right Just gonna go up there and hike but unfortunately,
5 we had some people up there that decided that.they wanted the-park:for themselves and that's what this is
6 about and will truly hopethat you wilt see this. This,group, the Conservancy, who we don't really know
7 who they really are because they will not•say who they-are. But there's a group out there and we know
8 there is-•a few of them seem to come forward, say they are trying,to preserve a piece of land. However,.
9 what they are really trying to-do is preserve their neighborhood. They've decided that we are not worthy
10 to be in their neighborhood--the people in Petaluma. Who is worthy to be up there are people that are their
11 friends, their relatives, people they hire to clean their homes, people'they hire to work on their gardens,
12 people they hire to work on their farms. But for some "reason everybody else, especially a hiker because
13 those hikers are just horrible people--they;shouldn't be up there. I
14
15 They talk about the traffic, ok and'Councilmember O'Brien this'is a California drivers license and I've
16 looked on this thing a million times now and no where on this thing says that I am-restricted, that Ii am
17 'allowed to drive every road in California.except,Sonoma Mountain Road. Now this is the most dangerous
18 road in the world, we've heard--they've put itinletters. But for some reason California has not found1that
19 fit to point that out, but if I live on Sonoma Mountain Road I'somehow understand how to navigateSthat
20 road, but nobody else can All of a sudden, if anybody drives:up'there, especially a hiker, we don't know
21 how to drive. Ok, so let's just close the park because everyone's gonna die on there way up to hike or on
22 the-Way down—whatever it.might be. Tlis is some of the ridiculous stuff they talk about. They talk about
2a1 improving the road, ok.'They want to make it to ASHTO Standards. We don't have any roads to ASHTO
2441r Standards in the County for parks: We barely have roads,to ASHTO Standards that are non-park roads,
25 ok. But they want to do this Ok, let's just say we do it I have no problem with that, frankly. Let''s all.
26, ,share the road. We've got about, I think about 40 feet of frontage--that's usually how you.do it based on
27 your frontage. Let's improve the whole road. They don't want to improve the road. They could do it
28 through road assessment district if they're so concerned about the danger in people's live--they're not. It's
29 just something else to throw out there. We didn't need to do that.If you even go along=with the idea of it,
30 your basically damming every other future park in this County to this type of thing. Fortunately, our
31 esteemed Planning Department, under:the supervision of Pamela Tuft, has,done an awesome job of trying
32 to respond to these reams of,well you saw them, Bruce had them It is unbelievable. Mr. Perry would like
33 you to believe that he's here for your benefit. That he's hereto look out for;us and that he's just doing the
34, right thing. Mr. Perry is the enemy, everybody. He is the enemy. He is hired by the Conservancy to do.a
35 job It's only to bad that we didn't have the money to be on our side, because if he was on our side,he
36 would have the reverse comments. That's what he is supposed to do--he's an'.attorney. He was paid to say
37 you are to block this situation--figure ifout. I don't care haw you do it. Be an obstacle, try to make a.fool
38 out of the City, try to make a.fool out of our engineer, Mr: Charles. Take every argument that he has, twist
39 it around, turn it upside down; confuse•it,delay-it and that's what they've.done, ok. Fortunately, we have
40 comeback and figured out a way to say look, you know, we've figured it out, ok: We've basically put
41 down all mitigation measures that.is reasonable and sometimes more than reasonable, frankly, and,we're
42 .going to ihandle this We can't prevent a fire on Lafferty. I can't prevent fully a fire happening in my
43 house, nor my neighbor's house. I just have to believe my neighbors gonna do some safe practice in his
44 life and that he's not going to burn his house down and he's gonna cast mine on fire It's just how die real
4111.'world-works, ok. Not to mention, if 1 were going to be:in a fire, I'd love todive inPeter Pfendler's house.
4 I feel pretty darn safe. He's got a 1,000 acres around him. The chances of that fire hitting his house is
47' probably pretty remote--like me hitting thedottery. The Cheda property (could not.understand tape), there
•
•
•
City of Petaluma, California • February 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 10
1 is no risk there..Were actually putting.in a 20,000 gallon holding tank. That is more water than anybody •
2 has on a hill on any property. I guess if I.felt-that they were sincere about this,than I would-say why don't
3 you do this on your own properties? Why is it that you guys ride motorcycles, ,dirt bikes, (could not
4 understand tape), horses, cattle grazing, erosion problems: drainage issues? You do all this on your
5 property_-we don't go there and say,hey stop that. ok. We don't worry about the golden.:eagles that are
6 flying over their property. We don't go over and tell them about that, because they are If by Peter
7 Pfendler's-own admission, it's in his notes, that him and Connie have a little journal when;they:watch the
8 birds on the.hill. Get;:a chance to read-it--it's pretty entertaining. They have a little journal showing where
9 they watch the bird. They go out and they're planting their flowers one day and they see the bird and they
10 happen to have their watch and it's 10:15--saw the bird fly over, oh it's 10:12 he stopped from his flight
11 and waved at us. You know and then we saw him on the perch. It's funny.because this bird still flies over
12 Saemann's and Cheda,, everybody else's property, but never seems to land on their properties, except
13 there a few times he'lands on a pole near Saemann's property. He lands on a`fence sort of near Cheda's.
1'4 He sorta flew over the barn.of`Peter's house but they never seem to stop except at Lafferty. Interesting
15 how that-works, you know, but-that's there little journal, ok.
16
1.7 I think the name of a Habitat is. a trap. I think people much wiser than I have brought that to you. This
18 preserve is a trap-=it's,a park. It's not going to be really any different than Mt. Tamalpais: Well-it will be
19 different It will be the most heavily restricted;park ever in the history, of,parks. I was on the,Access
20 Committee. I.fought all the time with my members because we didn't,get to do anything. We don't get to
21 have horseback riding. We don't get to have mountain bikes. We don't get to have dogs, ok. We have to
22 ' hike this little path and we almost have like a little markers where to hold onto or something, you know,
23 because we're supposed to go here. I mean it's what we've created is for the public benefit of the •
24 neighbors, this very. limited use, restricted, hiking park. I am asking you not to endorse it. It's the best
25 we've ,got. Where you guys are at this point is trying to think about, that you are;not only making a
26 decisions for'this,park for yourselves, but your making a choice of this park for.future, future generations
27 and I'm serious about that There is no land.in this area available for another park,ok. Without giving up
28 huge compromise:to.housing-=this is it This is the only piece.of land left on Sonoma;Mountain Road that
29 we're going probably have with this type of potential. Last year, this month closed escrow on a piece of
30 property up the street from Lafferty, across from Peter Pferidler 80 acres for $1,050,000--80 acres, we
31 have 277 acres: They can build one house there and they have no water and they have a spring-fed pond.
32 That's the market value. We almost sold it four years ago for $675,000. There is no other land up-there. If
33 you let this go and even think about quitting because when you approve it tonight, which I'm praying you
34 will, like'Bruce said, you guys have to continue to fight'with.us because they're going to be throwing
35 things (could not understand tape) at you We've spent S600,000 of whatever it might be To me that's
36 pennies'. It's sad that we:did it because all we did,is put money basically in their pockets. Had they taken
37 the same money, we would have been up,there already with'our trails built, our water storage system in
38 our parking lot done. It would have been done. If we spent $1,000,000 up there,it will be a good
39 deal. It'll still be one of the cheapest parks we'll,ever own. The Parks and Recreation Committee can tell
40 you that. Find out what a park, Kenilworth•Park, Walnut Park what they own to maintain--what do they
41 cost to build. How could you put a price on it right,now if you said we're going to sell it, you know. What
42 price would you put on that--you couldn't it's priceless. That's how parks are..This is one-of those also.
43
44 The (could not understand"tape) have been mitigated fire--we can only do so much to afire. They've
45 made all the requested;Mitigation factors--it could happen,:ok, it could happen. A child can fall off of a
46 swing in a.park and break its arm. That's the risk we take for that child having to have fun,in a park. We
47 don't close all,the parks. We don't say a kids,going to slip in the sandbox or something. We still have the
•
:City of Petaluma, California - February 27, 2001
Planning Commission,Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page.11
*park':It's just a risk that goes along withit. The overriding public benefit is worth the risk,and that's what •
2 we have to take"here.
3
4 Mr. Perry brought up something that.I'thought was pretty, pretty tacky. He talked about the child killed up
' 5 in Santa.Rosa, Elsie Allen High,School, because the School District neglected to build a proper road and
6 so maybe that will happen to us. I don't know: I guess;'it is possible. I guess anything is possible. I might
7 drive,home tonight and get killed on a perfectly ASHTO approved road with ASHTO approved lighting
8 and I might get side-swiped by a drunk driver,or I might just lose control and die; ok. Some people in this
9 town may rejoice for all I know. It may happen to you. My point is•there is-risk in everything and that's
10 just life and I want this park to be open, not for me: I'm not making it just for me. I'm willing to share the
11 park with the neighbors up,there. They just,don't seem to want to share it with me. I have no problem
12 with them coming to the park. I'll hike right them. If Peter wants'to.go for a hike;,fine--go for a hike.
13 For some reason he doesn't'wantto hike with me. There is something inherently wrong with that--can.you
14 get that? Me and everybody in the City. You guys are the only things standing between that happening.
15 You're the beginning of it right:here and I really hope you guys will hang-in there for all the years that all
16 the people have fought this war, if you want to compare it to something, because you know it's in your
17 hands. ,We're not going to give up but you guys are going to have to be the next push on to the City
18 Council, on to the Budget.Committees and•whatever might be next.
19
20 Thank-.you very much'and:appreciate.all your hard work as being Commissioners. I no this is a tough job.
21 A lot,of late hours. I wouldn't do it. Thank you very much.
22
2 Chairman Broad: Thank you Mr. Ramirez. Patricia Tuttle Brown
25 Patricia Tuttle Brown/513 Petaluma Boulevard South: What :I wanted to say, first of all my
26 daughter was'going'to speak but='it is 9:00',and we-put her to bed and she,wanted me to tell you:about.how
27 wonderful. Mr. O'Brien already heard this, but at theCouncil meeting during public comment, but how
28 amazing it was to go up on February 12th and see the snow, and:for me, as a parent, my parents took me ■
29 up, once in my life to see the snow on Sonoma Mountain and I was determined to.take.my daughter up to
30 see the snow and she may never see it again in her life and it snowed on Lafferty..I first got involved with
31 Lafferty in 1992 because I had this feeling that-it was a beautiful, incredible, wonderful place, once I saw
32 it. Now that snow•has been added'to the fact that it is a place where we can experience the elements, it
33 makes it even more precious in my mind. What I wanted to say, after Mr: Perry got finished to you was,
34 first of all he left. He's a hired 'gun so your dealing with hired gunsws. people who are here in this late
35 hour because we really feel we want to speak from the heart about something we want to give you the
36 courage to do, which is to certify the EIR. He's wrong. Lafferty Ranch was a "hot potato" in. 1992 and
37 when this EIR was just coming up and when we were all asked if we wanted to give comments, I
38 submitted a letter with 88 attachments to it because I've been keeping a document, a journal from the
39 newspapers and other stuff that's about 14 volumes lone of•all the articles that have 'come out since
40 Lafferty emerged on (tape was cut off) stuff,like that. So if you go back to 1992 and he said oh Well we
41 we're listened to in 1992 and it wasn't a "hot potato" wasn't true. 1992 the headlines from 11/15%1992,
42 were.Lafferty neighbors seek rezone of Lafferty Ranch and it is quoted out of the paper, Petaluma's hopes
43 for public access to Lafferty Ranch have hit a snag because neighboring residents on Sonoma Mountain
44 have asked County officials to rezone the City-owned property to block most types of visits. This was
4 unknown:.to the City Council at that time, that the County newly formed Sonoma Mountain Conservancy
46 had gone behind the City's back•to rezone the property and that's a very important fact because, as other
1
City of Petaluma, California February 27; 2001 .
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 12
1 people have pointed out,•those.kind of tricks have been going on since the very beginning, and indeed the •
2 very next document I have in this set of attachments that I sent, they succeeded and their recommendation
3 was to change-Sonoma Mountain Specific Plan text describing the regional parks side at Lafferty Ranch
4 to limit use to supervised field trips or'other educational endeavors. This is just one example of what we
5 are up against. And so, what I would like-to say is, I.,just want to give you the courage, because you are
6 important, this)body right.here is important next step to-pass this on. To have the courage to not be scared
7 about Sudden Oak Death or road safety. Road safety, in my opinion, is ridiculous. This road does not
8 need to up to ASHTO Standards. The day that it snowed the City of Petaluma could have, if all of
9 these people weren't fighting desperately to keep us off there. We could have had busses that went up
10 there and took people. We could have prevented traffic jams by having City busses go up to our park,
11 which is what I hope we can do in the next 10 years, if it snows again. So, I'm here to give you courage
12 because-it's a long battle-and it's been going on for many years and you are just the next step in it and I
13 thank you for doing tlfat.
14
15 Chairman-Broad: Thank you. Is there anyone else.wishing to speak on this item?
16
17 Patricia. Cheda/3272 Adobe Road: I was a member of the Lafferty Committee and I am a direct land
18 owner next to Lafferty..You just heard it said that all the City has planned for with.this park. Well, if you
19 think that what you have in your EIR is what these people want, there sits Mr. Leonard that threw his
20 hands up, at one of our meetings, when he :said:I was hired to do probably what is done. These'people
21 wanted tents,for overnight. I was with one of the members of the Committee up there on a subcommittee
22 meeting..You could have your tent here and you could have your tent here. These are just all things that,
23 after Mr. Leonard settled down.and the Committee settled down, he will admit that he has,once already. •
24 before the Planning Commission. He said he did it: That they wanted so much; he says that I was hired to
25 do this I wasn't hired,to plan for BBQ's, overnight stays, stargazing. This is in all their future plans and
26 they're planning and if I'm understood right, or remember right, that he said that you could do this in
27 future EIR's or-whatever it takes to do it I don't know, this is all new to me. But this is all in the future
28 and this is what is scary as far as I am concerned. We have had a neighbor already with a trespasser and
29 had a knife drawn on him. This is`already.without any park.,I'm not saying the park is good-or bad. I'm
30 just:telling you things that we?have.had'up there already. So they do have a lot of plans for the future and
31 the if the City of Petaluma can take care of all of this and I think maybe that's where some of the traffic
32 comes in. I don't know all of this, this is not-mine. I am just telling you what these people have in mind
33 for the future. It is only the beginning. The door is just opening. This is for you to make up your mind
34 how far you want to go with this. Thank you.
35 •
36 Chairman Broad: Thank you.
37 •
38 Gabe.Kearney: My name is Gabe Kearney..I don't talk much in public at these kind of meetings so I
39 will try to make it quick, in respect to the time I just want to address a couple of issues: One that was
40 addressed by Mr. Perry earlier in the-evening, the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. I just-wanted to state that
4.1 it has not been found''to have an increase rate of spreading, when human contact is involved. I am more
42 than willing to get,all that documentation for you and show it to you, but what he's saying is false, it's not
43 true, don't believe it.
44
•
.City of Petaluma, California February 27,2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 13
•
di Another thing, cows
the rest etthe ill cause e more impact on,the creek'than those cows on the ranches
Another thing, cows on Lafferty will cause no
g think you'll agree with me I'm just reiterating these facts
3 just cause they were.brought up earlier.
4
5 I just wanted to share with you my plans for the future because I am one of the younger generations that
6 would like to access this park in the future. I, at one point, would like to'take my nephews and my niece
7 up,there to show them this beautiful gem on top of the mountain. I would like the'High School students,
8 ' the Junior High students, the Elementary School.students to be able'to .go up there to see the ecological
9 systems that Mr. Ramirez has stated that heidid when he was a student. I,think that everyone should have
10 that.opportunity. Everyone.in Petaluma,should.have that opportunity. I think that what this comes down
11 to, in its basic,form, is "not in my backyard " The people on Sonoma Mountain don't.want this in their
12 backyard but I don't think that the small amount of people opposed have the right to keep 50 some odd
13 thousand people in Petaluma"from seeing this park at one time in their life. I don't think we're going to
14 have thismad rush,as they would put Thin their letters apposing, I think that having access to is not going
15 to create the stampede of foot traffic that would,.warrant the precautions that they're asking for And with
16 that I draw to a close. Thanks.
17
I8 C hairman Broad: Thank you. Is thereianyone else wishing,to speak on this"item? Mr. Mobley.
19
20 Mr., Mobley/143 Acorn Drive, Petaluma, CA_94952: Good morning, I'm glad I made it in time. I'was
21 at another meeting so excuse my lateness. I'm also on the:Parks and Rec. Commission. I was also co-chair
22 to Lafferty Access Committee and I believe that we have done a great service to this Community and
All effort, that we went forth in getting this plan together. I believe that Leonard Charles was the right
24 consultant. I think that he addressed all the issues and II think it's really reprehensible that we've had to
25 spend over $600,000 on this plan when we should have been able to build this park a lot sooner. I think to
26 put it off and to make mitigations to this would only serve the interest of.a few. I think we need to stay to
27 course. I dobelieve•it is an excellent t;plan. I do believe some of the assumptions are just assumptions and
28 just that. I do believe if they're.not requiring ASHTO Standards.to all the other.roads in all the other parks
29 in Sonoma County, why should we have to adhere to those standards on this road. I think accidents are
30 caused by people dong.stupid things. You could have an;accidentanywhere and I think we really need.to
31 realize that just because you approve the plan, doesn't mean that we're going to develop this park in a
32 year It's going to take--we're going to have to phase it in, we're going:to have to find the,.mone •_for it .
33 and I do believe that this is the right course and we need to stay to course. I,think if`you vote against.this
34 or vote for mitigations, I think all we're asking for is a withdrawn, protracted battle that's just going to
35 exacerbate everybody's patience and I think we really need to look at how we serve the community. I
36 'think'this park is needed. I think we have done a disservice by the Open Space District and the money
37 they spent for trying to open up Moon Park. I think we ended up being the losers and I think we need to
38 be the winners now and I think I would:really like to see it stay to course. I think it is really important. I
39 think the money we spent has been well spent and I think we deserve a chance to visit Lafferty without
40 anv restrictions. Thank you:
42 Chairman Broad: Thank you Mr. Mobley. Mr. Kortum.
43
4^ Mr. Kdrtum/540 Pacific Avenue, Santa Rosa. 95404: I think you all know the politics of this issue that
4�`has beeniaround:a.long, long time The.County'politics, the road politics. etc. That the original document
46 was probably,quite adequate, but now that,it's twice as'thick, I think, you're very safe in approving it and
•
City of Petaluma, California February 27, 2001 •
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 14
1 it should be approved. Pass it on to the City'Council'. It is a very thorough document. I'think that the
2 attorney sitting here probably is charging 13250.00 an hoar is symbolic of the whole Lafferty affair. If he
3 such an expert on 'roads, he called Sudden Oak Death a virus,'it's not, it's•a fungus. Doesn't sound very
4 thorough to me. And`th •fact that.he is still harking on the roads is very interesting. He didn't go into
5 other'aspects of+this thing and to•call that the worst road in'Sonoma County is just not true and there are a
6 lot of:people'outside this City that`use Lafferty, including myself and it's a County responsibility. It is
7 because politics got in-the way of the County taking responsibility is no,reason for Petaluma not to go
8 ahead with this project, put continuous pressure on the County, which is in the• road business and
9 responsible for that road so please pass this andllet's carry on. Thank you.
10
11 Chairman Broad: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on,this item? •
12
13 Janice -fader-Thompson2732 Carlsbad Court, 94954 (Councilmember speaking as a citizen of
14 Petaluma): Thank you I actually wasn't.going to speak because I'll be making my comments in'I assume
15 30 days but I just wanted to bring some institutional knowledge that Lafferty Ranch had been used in the
16 past by City Officials, City employees and by residents of this Community, as a hunting area and I just
17 want this Commission to know it has never been the preserve that people never used and it's just
18 important to know that information. Thank you.
19
20 Chairman Broad: Thank You. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? I will go ahead
21 and close the public hearing and would anyone on the Commission like to ask any questions of either staff
22 or our consultant before we discuss this item? Commissioner Vouri.
• 23. ••
24 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
25
26 Commissioner Vouri: (To Pamela Tuft)'Pamela, could you address the issue of naming the land use
. 27 as Habitat Preserve vs. other:suggested designations such;as Open Space Park or Passive Use Park?
28
29 Pamela Tuft: Let me start out by-saying I apologize`for.my flippant answer: I made it up.
30 •
31 Commissioner Vouth I appreciate your honesty.
32
33 Pamela Tuft: When you look at the General Plan, we don't have a whole lot of classifications--we
34 have neighborhood parks, we have community parks. I didn't want to call it a Regional Park,even though
35 it will.serve as:a Regional Park because that's not the business that Petaluma's typically in There was a
36 great deal of issue, very early on about the habitat, the quality of the habitat, the quality of the plant life
37 and the wild life. The intent, of both the citizens group and the City, has always been to preserve the
38 quality of the site To me as a planner, with an environmental background, it made•sense to me. It's not
39 something I own, or has to be, if the Planning Commission would like to recommend it to be an Opens
40 Space.Park, that's fine. It's whatever works. We just wanted to differentiate it from a very active type of
41 use. That this is a beautiful site to observe habitat, the views and the wildlife. Does that make sense? Okt
42 Thank you.
43 W,iis
44 Chairman Broad: I have another question.for-you while you're still there.,Can you respond to the
45 issue regarding how the park will be used?
•
"City of.Petaluma; California February 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 15
• Pamela Tuft: The park usage, as proposed, is very passive in>my opinion. Leonard can get into the
3 more details but I know I won't be,able to take my dog, certainly can't take my horse so if one chooses to
4 go up there, one will hike around. I guess you could probably jog up the hills; if you were in good enough
5 shape.
6 •
7 Someone in the Audience:'Wheelchairs?
•
8
9 Pamela Tuft: There is wheelchair accessin the lower portion of it.
10
11 Chairman Broad: Specifically,.I guess.I am asking about the suggestion that this is opening the,door
12 to an onslaught of much more intensive uses.
13
14 Pamela Tuft: If you thought activating and reviewing the,environmental review for passive park was
15 intense, I can't imagine what it is going to be like if we try amend the project to greatly enhance.or
16 expand the intensification of use. I wasn't project planner for the EIR, back when the Lafferty Access
17 Committee was meeting so I can't give you any historical perspective on the discussions about campfires .
18 and,tents. I'm just not:
19
20 Chairman Broad::I'munot looking for that but process wise, therefore, to change the use from what is
21sk being,specifically proposed.
2
23 Pamela' Tuft: We'd be back right where we are now. It would require additional environmental
24 review because those would be changed conditions of operations and it would require substantial change
25 of the mitigation measures that are presented as part of this project,so we;would be back with additional
26 environmental review. To what scope or scale, I can't tell you until we define whatever was going to be
27 proposed at some future date, but that's not been discussed during the two years I've been managing the
28 EIR.
29
30 Chairman Broad:'Any other questions for Ms. Tuft? Yes, Commissioner Vieler.
31
32
Commissioner.Vieler: When.Les Perry was talking earlier and he'spoke'of the joumaling that the
33 neighbors had done, with regards to-something like 17 accidents. I think he said, within a little over a year
34 period of time, was any effort to determine the nature, the age groups, you know, any kind of
35 demographics with regards to who were'involved in those accidents—was-anything of that nature done?
36 .
37 Pamela Tuft: Yes, we did. The Traffic Engineer did a great deal analysis on cause of accidents, and I
38 don't know if Leonard can quote them.off the top of his head. I'm not a traffic engineer, but a lot of it was
39 due to lateness of hour, alcohol Use and I believe, by far, the greater percentage of them were operator
40 error.
41
42 Commissioner Vieler: The reason I ask. I'd like collaboration on this, is that I know that I've read
40 several newspaper articles, with regards to traffic accidents that.have occurred•on Sonoma Mountain'Road
44 and involving teenagers, fatalities, drinking, hot rodding, things like that and-I just wondered if the 17
City of Petaluma. California February 27, 2001 .
Planning•Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 16
1 accidents had perhaps looked at.the profiles with regards to a person going to hike:as opposed to a person •
2 drinking at 11 PM or 1 AM in the morning and racing down the read?
4 Pamela Tuft: We did study that and certainly the park will be closed at 11:00 at night so park use
5 won't have an impact to those types of activities, but I can relate a particular incident--I've only been up
6 to Lafferty,a half,a.dozen.times,.but on one of those fimes, as we drove up to the site we passed a carload
7 of teenage boys with alcohol. We were very official looking, being in a City car, and the trip was very,
8 very quick. We were not hiking it I just had to go up and do something. On the way back they were
9 packing up their stuff and leaving and so.we had kind of'ruined their party. One could take the position
10 that an increased surveillance increases presence of an adult; orjust usage; will discourage the--clustering
11 and informal partying, parking, and drinking that could go,on It is common knowledge that is a site for
12 high school kids to go after school with a six-pack. I have teenage children.
13
14 Chairman Broad: Anv other questions? Thank you.
15
16 Pamela Tuft: Thank you.
17
18 Chairman Broad: Any questions for Mr. Charles or Mr. White, the attorney on the review? I have a
19 question for Mr. White. Unfortunately, Mr. Perry, as has already been mentioned, has already left so he
20 won't get to hear your response to this but I wanted to ask you about a couple of points he made. He
21 questioned the adequacy of the EIR in two areas. One related to the way Sudden Oak Death was treated
22 and the why the EIR was circulated and secondly related to the roadway and the mitigation or lack, as he
23 termed it the lack of mitigation measures for the roadway or partial mitigation measures. Could you
24 comment in those areas in terms of the adequacy of the document?
25 •
26 Bill White: Sure. We've reviewed the.document. We find that it is more than adequate than what is
27 required under CEQA. 'With respect to the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome, the standard for recirculation
28 after a Draft EIR has been released to the public; is whether or not there's substantial new information
29 that deprives the public from commenting on a new, significant impact or on an impact, a significant
30 impact that's already been identified but which the new information indicates it's severity will be
31 substantially increased. The information on sods is new information. It's not something that was in the
32 EIR, prior to the time it was circulated. However, we analyzed the information; we had someone look at
33 sods on the site, we had experts look at both the fire,impacts and the impacts of possible-spread and in
34 both cases we found that the new information doesn't indicate there would be a new significant impact or
35 that the severity of the significant.impacts, for example, fire has already been identified as a significant
36 impact: The severity of that impact would not be substantially increased by the new information, so for
37 that reason, it was concluded that recirculation was unnecessary. In addition; there were additional or
38 revised mitigation;measures that would further insure that these;issues raised by sods would be addressed.
39 For example, additional fire fuel treatments were recommended just to ensure that if it does become a
40 unforeseen problem, there will be measures in place that will address the increase fire hazard.
41
42 Chairman Broad: And with respect to his concerns on the roadway?
43
44 Bill White: On the-roadway improvements, again, road safety was already identified as a.significant
45 impact so he had several concerns with respect to`the roadway and I won't go through.all of them.
:City of Petaluma, California February 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 17
2 Chairman Broad: Specifically, as far as his question about the Tack; as he termed it, partial
3 mitigations.:
4
-5 'Bill White: The EIR actually identifies measures that could mitigate die road safety impacts. It
6 concludes that those measures can't,be relied upon by the City to mitigate the impacts to a less than
7 significant level. The reason is that the City really has no control over a road improvement program on a
8 County road. So even if the City was infavor.of doing,all the road improvements, which may or may not
9 be in favor of, it cannot rely on that fact to conclude that this impact is less,than significant; therefore, the
10 EIR was forced to conclude that, that inipact would remain significant:.Non the less, those mitigations
11 measures have been identified in the EIR. The EIR spells out what is necessary to bring the road up to
12 ASHTO Standards. In fact, it has a very detailed analysis of the segment-by-segment. There is something
13 like;76 segments between Adobe Road and the entrance to the park and it indicates exactly what would
14 need to be done to improve the road and gives an actual prioritization of each one of those segments.
15 There is a full disclosure of information in the EIR with respect to what has to happen to improve the road
16 but again, because it is a County road there is nothing the City can do about it The City can choose to
17 work with the County and the EIR recommends that the'City does work with the County. That's about all
18 the City commit to.
19
20 I guess I will get into one other issue that was raised by Mr. Perry, which is this issue of condemnation:
21 He suggested that.the City does have the power to'basically condemn Sonoma Mountain Road, make it a
2. City road and then can go ahead and do these improvements and maintain it themselves. Well, that is just
2 not the case. The City does have the power under State Statute to condemn the road in order to obtain
24 access to it's park and if it does need to do that it will do that for that small segment between Sonoma
25 Mountain Road and the entrance to the park. It's not clear, at this point, whether that will actually be
26 necessary, but that is an available tool in that case. The comments on the:EIR stated essentially, you
27 know, Mr. Perry's interpretation of the law is that the City automatically obtains jurisdiction over all the
28 County roads between City limits and the park and that is simply not the case. If the City was to condemn
29 a road because it needed access and then it-was to become a City road for that purpose, then yes, it would
30 have jurisdiction to maintain and repair, etc., but there is no indication that.it has the power to condemn
31 pieces of a County road and then assume Maintenance jurisdiction over those pieces or to make repairs for
32 mitigation purposes fora City project.
33
34 Chairman Broad: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. White? Thank:you. If there are no other
35 questions, then let's go ahead and get comm ents from individual Commissioners on the Final EIR and the
36 project itself. Commissioner Barrett.
37
38 Commissioner Barrett: I'm amazed, at how much paper was generated by the Final EIR. I
39 remember our meeting with the Park and. Recreation Committee and the Planning and the City Council
40 when we went over the DraftEIR and I was pretty convinced, at that time, that a very through'job had
41 'been done•and again, I want to thank Pamela Tuft and Mr. Leonard and all the people who did all the
42 work to get;it to where its been over this very long,haul. So I just I don't have any comments otherlithan I
43 wish we•would just,go ahead and approve it..
a,,
4� Chairman Broad: Thank you,.Commissioner Vieler.
46
•
City of Petaluma, California February 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch . Page 18
1. Commissioner'Vieler: I also support this EIR. I'd like to see it move forward to the City Council. •
2 It's been a long time coming and I really don't have anything else to say.
3
4 Chairman: Broad:'Commissioner Vouri.
5 .
6 Commissioner 'Vouri: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was going to be pretty happy sitting up here •
7 tonight, haven't participated officially in the Lafferty process before this Final EIR. I welcome this
8 opportunity to help push.it on its way but I'm actually overcome with sadness. Lafferty is a very deep and
9 old wound`in our City, in our Community body and I'm pained to see this dragged.on through the civil
10 ;process.,Wecneed to heal. This wound is one of our arms and we've got to heal this old would so that we
11 can move on to healing the larger rift that is in this community and begin to work,together as a
12 community. I don't have any comments on the Draft EIR itself and I will be voting for it
13
14 Chairman B road:+Thank you. Commissioner Glass.
15
16 Commissioner Glass: First of all, Mr. Modell expressed a wish that it be called an Open Space
17 Park. I want to make sure that we do that. I don't want any wiggle room here or any misconfusion in any
18 way. The burden here,it's:invariant to know, right in the very beginning, is this EIR process. I've got it
19 highlighted;so you see about where it is on the page there. It says that the Planning Commission and the
20 City Council certified as being legally adequate. That is the charge. Are we legally adequate? If this isn't
21 legally adequate then I don't know what is because this is an embarrassment. If the people on Sonoma
22 Mountain want to go through an EIR every time that they, buy an automobile. I think that's where we're •,
23 headed. If we:just use common sense here and logic.'I'm happy that the lady, I didn't catch her name,
24 came down tofrthis process tonight and she can find out her greatest fear is not gonna happen. That it
25 would it take another complete process before this .park changed in any way, shape or form. I'm
26 wondering about that habitat for the eagle and_how helicopters landing affects,eagles because what's good
27 for the goose'is good for the gander. You just can't have it both ways. So I'm ready to Vote for it It's
28 legally adequate: I have no problem making that determination. I'm only embarrassed that it took this
29 level, this length of time, this amount of paperwork and I understand why it did and I'm sorry for it
30
31 Chairman Broad: Commissioner Monteschio.
32 •
33 Commissioner Monteschio: I'm also ready to vote for it. and I really don't have any other
34 comments.
35
36 Chairman.Broad: Commissioner O'Brien.
37
38 Commissioner O'Brien: Thank you Mr. Chairman. First off, Ms. Tuft, I would like to complement
39 you on the scope and volume of work and the long hours that you put in to get this process. You know, as
40 Commissioner Glass said, we have to make sure that this is legally adequate and I think it more than
41 supercedes adequate. I am ready to vote for it.
42
43 Chairman Broad;, Thank you. I also want to compliment staff and all the consultants that were
44 involved with this including many of the consultants who did work on this as part of the EIR but who are
.CityofPetaluma, California February 27, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting-Lafferty Ranch Page 19
0 .
not here. Tonight 1 think it is clearly in an exhaustive document and something that can sit on the shelves
among probably the most thoroughly reviewed projects in something; I don't know quite know what.
3 Biotechnology pilot plants involving toxic materials on Freeway 80 that have had EIR's that aren't nearly
4 to the size of this one, so as, my fellow commission members said, the,scope of this and the amount of
5 effort that went into it, is pretty much mind boggling for establishing a park and having said that I'm
6 ready to vote to move this ahead. Both for the Final EIR and for the General Plan Amendment and the
7 project.
8
9 Commissioner Glass: Mr. Chairman,,could We ask if we have consensus on that Lafferty be
10 referred"to as an Open Space Park?
11
12 Chairman Broad: That's fine as long as staff didn't have any problem with that change.
13
14 Commissioner O'Brien:Unless Ms. Tuft can make up a better,name.
15
16 Chairman Broad: Would someone like to make a motion?
17
18 Commissioner Barrett: I move that we accept the Final EIR for Lafferty Ranch Park Open Space
19 Parkas presented.
20
21 Commissioner Monteschio: I will second it.
23 Chairman Broad: And just to, clarify that `includes both item #1 and #2 in the staff report
24 recommendations. Ok, we have a motion and asecond. Are we hooked up for voting? Ok lets have a vote.
95
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Barrett and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio to approve the
27 Final'Environmental Impact Report for LaffertyRanc h Open Space Park as presented and to include both
28 items 1 and 2 in the staff report.
'29
30 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
31 Commissioner Broad: Yes
32 Commissioner Glass: Yes
33 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes •
34 Coinniissioner.O'Brien: Yes
35 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
36 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
37
38 Chairman Broad: And thank you also to all the members of the community who have worked so
39 hard towards this end as,well.
40
41
42 S:tuftllaffertv/022701 PCLafl'ertyminutes '
•
i.
14.
ExhIbit
Planning Commission Staff:Report
(meeting of February 27, 2001 )
•
{
LU -
4
A 9 CITY OF PETALUMA CALIFORNIA
toci, MEMORANDUM
•
1858
City Manager's Office/General.Plan Administration, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4345 Fax(707) 778-4419 E-mail:geaeralplan(aci:petalaina.ca.us
DATE: 9 February 2001
[Meeting Date: 27 February-2001]
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Pamela A Tuft, MCP; Director of General Plan Adniinistrati \
SUBJECT: Lafferty Ranch.Park: Public Hearing for General Plan text and Land Use
map amendments and the related Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR)
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. City Management recommends that the,Planning Commission recommend approval of
the General Plan amendments (Land Use map and text) related to the future use of the
Lafferty Ranch site as a public park per the goals, objectives, policies and actions
• recommended in the Lafferty Ranch Draft.Management Plan;
2. City Management recommends that the Planning Commission forward, to the City
Council, a recommendation to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.
PROJECT SUMMARY 1
Project Description: The proposed Lafferty Ranch Park project includes adoption of a
Management Plan and approval of amendments to the City's General Plan.
The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the
• Draft Management Plan on July 28, 1998. At this hearing, the
Commission will consider recommending approval of the proposed Land
Use Map amendment to designate the Lafferty Ranch property as a
proposed.park;,approval of the proposed amendments to the General Plan
text relating'to Lafferty Ranch; and.certification of a Final Environmental
Impact Report for the project. The Lafferty Ranch property consists of
approximately 270 acres located on Sonoma Mountain, northeast of the
City of Petaluma. The City is both the .owner of the property and the •
project sponsor. The project 'is described in detail in Section 1.5 of the
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report. .
Project-Managers: Pamela A Tuft. AICP, Director of General Plan Administration (EIR)
IP Jim. Can, Director of Parks and Recreation (Park development and
operation)
•
• EIR author: Leonard•Charles•&:Associates' •
Planning Commission—Public Hearing February 2001
Re: Lafferty Ranch Park Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION I •
The project, the future use of Lafferty Ranch as a passive use park, consists of adoption of a
Management Plan for Lafferty Ranch Park and approval of related General Planrtext and Land
Use map amendments. The following actions would be required prior to project approval: .
certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: adoption of project specific findings,
statement of overriding considerations and a':Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
The City is both the owner of the property and,the project,sponsor. The project is described in
detail in Section 1.5 (page 9) of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, previously
distributed;to the-Planning Commission in September 2000.
SETTING
The Lafferty Ranch property consists of approximately 270 acres located on Sonoma,Mountain,
northeast of the City of Petaluma. The property is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of
the,existing City limits. Access to Lafferty is provided'by Sonoma Mountain Road; via Adobe
Road, both are County'maintained. Adobe Road intersects Frates Road, Casa Grande Road, East
Washington; Street and Corona Road, all of which are arterial streets serying'Petaluma. The
project site, including locale and setting exhibits, are provided in the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report, beginning on page 8.
•
BACKGROUND
The Lafferty Ranch site has, in the past, been used as watershed for domestic'water production
for the City. It presently contains no improved. roads or buildings. Existing physical
improvements are limited to perimeter fences/gates, sections of old cross fencing, a spring box,
abandoned water diversion facility on Adobe Creek and various pipes that were previously used .
for water collection and diversion. -
In 1997 the City Council appointed an Advisory•Committee to develop ameans to open Lafferty
Ranch to the public as a park. City management prepared'a Framework for the Lafferty Ranch
Planning and EIR Process' report, which was reviewed and approved by the Advisory
Committee. The City hired a professional services firm, Leonard Charles and Associates, to
prepare a management plan for the park and an Environmental Impact Report on that proposed
plan. The first document was a Constraints and Opportunities Report to identify potential
constraints to park development and opportunities, that deserved inclusion in the Draft
Management Plan. Subsequent to public review of that document, Leonard Charles and
Associates commenced preparation of a Draft Management Plan and Environmental Impact
Report and worked with the City to identify appropriate General,Plan text amendments.to work
more closely with the intent of the Lafferty Ranch Park Management Plan.
The City is the Lead Agency-with regard to the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) •
process for the.project. The.City is responsible for adopting an Access and Management Plan for
the park. The proposed Draft Management Plan establishes recommended management goals,
- Planning Commission—`Public Hearing • February 2001
Re: Lafferty Ranch Park - Page 3
objectives, and actions.required to allow public use of the,Lafferty Ranch property as a public I
park.
• In June 1997 a Notice of Preparation was°prepared,and distributed, anda public scoping'meeting
was held A second Scoping Meeting was held in December 1997 to present the
recommendations of the Draft-Management Plan and to invite comments from the public- The
Draft-EIR.was made available to'the public, distributed to the=State of California Clearinghouse,
and applicable regulatory and review agencies on June 2, 1998. -A second notice was mailed on
June 25th, again informing the public of The joint Planning Commiasion/Parks and Recreation
Commission hearing to be held on June 30111.
The two Commissions received public testimony on•the Draft EIR, the Draft Management Plan :I
and;the proposed General Plan text amendments. Subsequently, at separate meetings, the Parks
and Recreation Commission (on July 15, 1998) and the Planning Commission (on July 28th)
concluded their review with recommendations for the Council to hear testimony and take action P
to prepare any and all final documents necessary to approve the project The City Council held a
public hearing on the Draft Elton August 24th, 1998 and directed staff to prepare Responses to
Comments. Staff returned to'the City Council on September 1s; 1998 and received authorization
to amend the contract with Leonard Charles & Associates for additional work needed to I
complete the Responses to Comments and Final EIR.,
•
During the preparation of Responses to .Comments City Management and the professional,;
services team preparing the EIR"recommended that the Draft EIR be revised and recirculated.l
On December 7, 1998-the City Council adopted a Resolution directing staff to prepare a Revised
• .Draft EIR for the Lafferty Ranch Park project and Management Plan, and authorized additional'
expenditures for work by the environmental,and legal contract service firms. Subsequently, the
• 2000-2001 approved budget allocated funds for the completion of a Final EIR.
A Notice of Completion was prepared and the Revised Draft EIR document was,made available
to-the publid, distributed to the State+Clearinghouse and various regulatory and advisory agencies
on September 29t, 2000. A Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability was prepared,.
published and distributed to all interested citizens.. This Notice informed the public that the
Revised DEIR was available for purchase, review or loan from the Petaluma,Public.Library, the
Community Development Department, the Petaluma Community Center and/or the City
Manager's Office- September 29th commenced the required forty-five(45) day review period,
which concluded on Monday, 'November 13`h with the'joint public hearing held by the City
Council, Planning Commission'and-Parks an&Recreation Commission: At the end of public
hearing; the two Commissions recommended that the City Council direct'Citymanagethent to
arrange for the preparation'of a Final EIR.
Pursuant to direction from the Council received at the conclusion of that hearing, the EIR
contract firm has prepared the Final EIR document now before the Commission- A Notice of
Public Hearing for the consideration of the proposed General Plan text and Land Use map
amendments and the related Final.•EIR'was,published and distributed to interested parties. The
Final EIR document was made available to the public'and was provided to the referral agencies
that;;provided comments on the project and environmental documents in the past and was
adistributed to the State Clearinghouse. d
' .i
Planning Commission—Public Hearing February 2001
Re: Lafferty Ranch Park Page 4
. STAFF ANALYSIS
Proposed Petaluma General Plan Amendments: •
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City's General Plan in order to .identify
Lafferty Ranch as:a park site available for public use The proposed General;Plan amendments
include the following: •
•
1. The table on page 57 of the General Plan that shows the types of park facilities will be •
amended to include a third category titled "Habitat Preserve". Under this category will
be listed Lafferty Ranch with its location and size.
•
2. The text that follows Goals 4 on page 57 will be amended to include the following:
"Lafferty Ranch its a City-owned property that is located approximately 3.5 miles from
_ the City Limits. Because the property provides unique'views of the Petaluma Valley-and
surrounding areas; includes a diversity of habitat types, and provides opportunities for
hiking and other non-organized recreational use the City wishes to develop this property
as a Habitat Preserve. Upon adoption 'of. a Management Plan. for the •property,
recreational uses of this property will be allowed consistent with minimizing adverse
effects on property biotic communities and habitat types."
3. Parks and Recreation Element Policy 6 will be amended to state, "The-City shall,locate
recreation uses (e.g., golf courses, trails, athletic fields, picnic areas, etc:) in the urban
separator-on both the East and.West sides, taking into account terrain,-accessibility, links •
to'other parts of the city and related factors in determining whether or not a particular use
is appropriate. In addition, the City shall allow recreational use of the City-owned
Lafferty Ranch property upon adoption of a Management Plan for that property."
4.. A program shall be added under the section titled Park Standards, adding Program (9) to
page 59, as follows: "Complete-and adopt a Management Plan for.the,Lafferty Ranch
Habitat Preserve_ Uses of that Preserve shall be consistent with the provisions described
in that Plan."
5; Parks and Recreation Element Policy 13 on page 60 shall be amended to state: "In
considering the location of parks, the City shall select sites based on maximum
accessibility, proper topography, and visibility (for the safety of park users). These
selection criteria may be found,by the City Council, to be not applicable where
• amenities or habitat afford opportunities for recreational uses not typically found,in an
urban park setting. Management Plans shall be utilized to address the specific uses,
needs, and preservation,criteria for these;non-urban parks."
6. The Land Use Map will be amended to designate Lafferty Ranch•as Park or-Open Space.
When the)1987-2005 General Plan was adopted.in 1987 it not include a reference to Lafferty
Ranch as a public park. The Draft Management Plan, the recommended .General Plan
amendments and the-project are consistent with the intent and purpose of the 1987-2005 General
Plan. Their adoption and approval of the project does not present or create any internal
•
inconsistencies.
•
•
Planning Commission—Public Hearing • February 2001
Re: Lafferty Ranch Park Page 5
Final Environmental Impact Report
• Summary of Public Comments: Although this Final EIR contains nearly 2,000 pages of
submittals and responses, only`35'different individual si and agencies submitted written comments
on the.Revised DEIR. The submittals include 8 letters from 7 public agencies and 40 letters
from 28 individuals or organizations (several individuals or groups submitted multiple letters). .
Of those 40 letters, 19 letters are from The Sonoma Mountain Conservancy or attorneys-andi.
individuals representing The Sonoma Mountain Conservancy, 2 letters are from Sonoma'
Mountain Road residents (in addition.to the previous letters;listed under the Sonoma Mountain
Conservancy), 12 letters are from Petaluma residents who do not live on Sonoma Mountain's
Road, 3 ,letters are from individuals who live outside the county, and 4 letters are from
environmental or citizen groups. A number of comments received relate to the merits of the,
project rather than on the adequacy of the environmental analysis. These comments do not raise
CEQA issues requiring a response in the Final EIR, but will be considered by the City Council in
making a decision on the project.
Master Responses: A number of comments raise questions.relating.to the recently identified
phenomenon known as Sudden Oak Death Syndrome (SODS) and its possible spread onto,
Lafferty Ranch. Specifically„ people commenting on the'Draft EIR have asked how opening the'
site to public use could spread this disease and how the disease could affect fire hazard on the
site. Additional analysis has determined that SODS is present on Lafferty Ranch, and that its
presence would not result in any new significant project-related impacts or substantially increase
the'severity of identified significant impacts. Additional mitigation is recommended to ensure
that the spread of SODS is monitored and that, if necessary,,additional fuel management actions
are undertaken to ensure fire hazard remains at levels analyzed in the Revised DEIR. The
analysis of SODS does not substantially affect the conclusions or recommendations of the
Revised DEIR.
An errata sheet was prepared, subsequent to the printing of the FEIR, in order to correct an error
and is part of the Final EIR.
Chances to the Revised DraftEIR: In response to comments received on the Revised Draft
EIR several of the mitigation measures in the RDEIR are modified in the FEIR. Several new
mitigations are recommended. In addition, several minor changes to the text regarding the
project description and impact discussions are made to clarify the discussions of impacts in the
RDEIR. Other than these new or modified mitigations and minor text changes, no changes to the
conclusions or recommendations of the Revised DEIR are required.
The conclusions of this Final EIR are the,same as reached in the Revised DEIR, namely that all
potentially significant effects are reduced to a level that is less than significant except for the
traffic safety impact on Sonoma Mountain Road.(unless the entire road is improved to meet '
minimum AASHTO standards), the impact.of grazing-caused erosion on steelhead and foothill
yellow=l'egged'.frogs, and risk of wildfire, andthat the environmentally superior alternative (other
than the "No Project' alternative) is "Alternative'2 - Restricted Use." Among the alternatives,
which fully meet all project objectives, "Alternative 6 -- No Grazing" is the environmentally
superior alternative.
•
•
Planning Commission.—Public Hearing February 2001
Re: Lafferty Ranch Park Page 6
City management has reviewed the Final EIR and has found it to have been 'prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that it fully and adequately
responds to comments submitted on the Revised Draft EIR to allow decisions to be made on the •
project.
Applicable CEQA,regulations
The preparation of a Final EIR is governed by CEQA, specific direction as to the contents of a
Final EIR are contained in Section 15132, as follows:
"The finalEIR shall consist of:.
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received n the Draft EIR
either verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies
commenting on the Draft EIR: •
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant
environmental points raised in the review and consultation
process..
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency."
The standards:for determining the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report-are set forth in
Government Code Section 15151 (CEQA) as follows:
"An E1R should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to •
provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a
decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.
An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not
be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light
of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among, experts does not.
• make an E1R inadequate, but the EIR should summarizethe main points of
disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked hot for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full
disclosure."'
Decision Process/Timeline
The City Council, upon receiving the Commission recommendation regarding-;the General Plan
amendments and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, will conduct a public
hearing on the General Plan text and map amendments prior to niake a decision regarding the
Lafferty Ranch Park project. The Council consideration of this project and-related actions is
• tentatively scheduled for Monday, March 26, 2001.
•
c: Interested parties list
•
Lafferty Ranch Park project work file
PT/rf I-l:pt/LatTertv/reports\PC GP amend FEIR 022701
? Diu ' r ri;.,
l.: I,
I �
{
Errata One and Errata Two for
Lafferty Ranch Park Final EIR
I '
f
{
{
CITY OF PETALUMA,;CALIFORNIA
S
Erratum # 1
Lafferty Ranch Park Final Environmental Impact Report
The sentence on page 805 of the FEIR(Response W1.80)which reads The Revised DEIR does not'
state that the park would,increase the accident rate by one accident every two years" is incorrect)
While;the statement providing this estimate does not appear in the traffic safety section of the
RevisedDEIR„it does appear:in the Police and Emergency Response.section on page 178. It was
"provided in that section as a rough order of magnitude estimate inresponse to the concern expressed
by certain Sonoma Mountain Road residents that the project would substantially increase the
inconvenience involved in residents having to deal with additional accidents. The traffic safety
section discusses the potential for increased accidents on page 161 of Revised DEIR. The EIR's
conclusion that traffic safety impacts are significant does not depend on a prediction of the precise
• number of future accidents, but is based,on;the overall increasein the number of people exposed to
substandard conditions on Sonoma Mountain Road.
• H:PT/Lafferty\WJW errata
• CITY OF PETALUMA,,CALIFORNIA
Erratum # 2
Lafferty Ranch Park:Final Environmental Impact Report i
The Title pages on both Volume land Volume 1I are corrected to remove-the bvord'"Revised".
•
•
•
H:PT/Latrerty/noteskrrata 2
•
. I
•
,:Resolution adopted by Petaluma Recreation, Music and
Parks Commission (February 21, 2001) with letter from
Friends of Lafferty Park dated February 16, 2001
l I
1
4
5 RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA RECREATION, MUSIC, AND PARKS COMMISSION
6. • IN SUPPORT FOR FRIENDS OF LAFFERTY PARK'S FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN
7
8
9
10
11 WHEREAS, the Petaluma's Lafferty Ranch property on Sonoma Mountain was designated as a future
12 City park site in.1961, and the City has since 1992 been moving to=develop and open the park for
13 „public enjoyment; and
14
15 WHEREAS, Lafferty Park will provide residents of Petaluma and southern,Sonoma County with
16 unparalleled opportunities for nature-based outdoor•recreation; and
17
18 WHEREAS, southern Sonoma County falls far short of the per capita goals of accessible open spade •
19 set in the County General Plan, and is even shorter still in comparison with other Bay Area Counties;
20 and
21
22 WHEREAS, City-centered growth and especially the growth of the fast-paced technology industries is
23 accelerating the need for nature-based outdoor recreation, as a source of relief and rejuvenation; and
• WHEREAS, the City's fund for park,development are declining, and funds for Lafferty Park to date
26 have been diverted to protect the Park project from lawsuits by its opponents; and
27
28 WHEREAS, Friends of Lafferty Park, a citizens organization, intends to help the City develop the
29 lower part of Lafferty Park,,including the parking;area and a half-mile handicapped accessible trail to
30, scenic:Petaluma Valley overlook, using only:donated'cash, materials, and labor; and
31
32 WHEREAS, Friends of Lafferty Park has just begun=its contribution campaign and in a few weeks has
33 raised over sixthousand dollars, roughly one-third of the project.'s,estimated cost; and
34
35 WHEREAS, this Commission has in the recent past unanimously-supported efforts toward opening
36 Lafferty Park for year-round unsupervised; unregistered access; and.
37
38 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Petaluma Recreation, Music and Parks Commission
39.. wholeheartedly endorses the Friends of Lafferty Park's campaign`to raise contributions of cash,
40 materials, and labor for the development of lower Lafferty.Park;;and encourages contributions to that
41 campaign by businesses, individuals; and.foundations;,mid
42
43
44
45
1
4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Commission recommends to the Petaluma City Council
5 that they.adopt,this resolution; and
6
7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Commission recommends to the Petaluma City Council
8 that they certify the final EIR and move forward with this important project.
9
10
•
•
111
100 Union Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
r� �yy3, > ' �'� �F6,/� : "'. ` ' 'u • Iaffertypark @mail.corn
'' ' -'A' _ "" y; r ' •;', -`� ` www.laffertypark.org
707-793-2244
Jim Carr, Director
City.of Petaluma Parks and Recreation Department
320.:North McDowell Blvd.
Petaluma, CA 94954
February 16, 2001
Jimand Commissioners:
Attached is Friends of Lafferty Park's proposed resolution for the February 21 meeting of the
Recreation, Music and Parks Commission.
Friends of Lafferty Park (FLP) is,a Petaluma-based volunteer organization supporting the City of
Petaluma's plans for a wilderness park at the old Lafferty Ranch atop Sonoma.Mountain. Our
mission is "to develop, maintain, and improve Petaluma's Lafferty Park and,enhance the
experience of park visitors through volunteerism, fund-raising, and education." It includes many
of the people who have volunteeredisupport for Lafferty in the past,and many new volunteers as
i` well.
We are preparing for City Council approval a"turnkey" project for development and use of the
lower part of the park. We expect the project to include the following:
• Labor, equipment, and materials for the parking area and associated improvements, the
half-mile ADA-rated trail from the lot to the lower overlook, and associated amenities
(signs, benches, portable sanitation facilities,etc:)
• An initial ecology and good neighbor educationtprogram, which could include literature
and curricula
5teve:Arago and I have reviewed with you our preliminary plan for the lot and trail. FLP's goal,
which we fully expect to achieve, is to carry out this work at no expense to the City. Though our
fund raising effort has barely begun,:we'have already raised enough to cover a considerable share
' of the project costs.
•
The resolution gives a brief overview of the need for Lafferty Park and the efforts to open it,
and proclaims support for FLP's contribution campaign:We believe that a vote of support from
the Commission will help make the development and opening of.Lafferty Park a dream come true.
Thank you for your cooperation.