HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10/16/20011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36'
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
October 16, 2001
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, Ocfober 16, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 467
ROLL CALL: 6:00 P.M..
PRESENT: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien
l'orliatt, Mayor Thompson
ABSENT: None
CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Thompson announced that the Council would adjourn to Closed Session on
the following matter:
CONFERENCE WITH LEG'A'L COUNSEL - AntlClpated LitlgatlOn, Significant Exposure to
Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision 9(b) of Section 54956.9: (1 matter)
ROLL CALL: 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT;:.. Vice Mayor~Cader-Thompson,, Healy, Maguire., Moynihan, O'Brien
.._ Torliatt, Mayor Thomp_ "son
ABSENT: None
PLE®GE OF ALLEGIANCE
At the request.of Mayor Thompson; Eileen Morris of the Argus-Courier led the
Pledge of Allegiance. ;
MOMENT OF SILENCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Momenf of Silence was observed'.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Vince Landof, 1.2 Cordela Drive, asked Council to place on an upcoming agenda
the ongoing and.. unresolved matter of trash behind the Albertson's on Petaluma
Boulevard North. He- would like Council to apponf someone 'fo replace former
Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty to work with Albertson's to remedy the
situation.
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson explained that she spoke to~ the Police Department
about the problem and hopes that action will be taken soon.
Vol. 36, Page 468 October 16,.2001
1 PUBLIC COMMENT, continued
2
3 Terence Garvey,. 83 Maria Drive, spoke regarding the need for diplomacy..He
4 suggested Council form a citizen's group to work toward reducing the rancor
5 surrounding the Lafferty Ranch issue. He. thought Couneilmember Healy would be a
6 good choice to lead the group.
7
8 George Rousseau, .310 12th Street,, asked to give; an 'invocation. Mayor Thompson
9 and .City Attorney ,Rich Rudnansky explained that four or five years ago; Council
10 decided to observe a, moment of silence instead of having an invocation.
11
12' .COUNCIL COMMENT
13
14 Councilmember Moynihan referred to his recent.. letter' published in the: Argus-
15 Courier regarding the need for compromise in the .Lafferty Ranch issue. He thanked
16 all those who responded to the letter.
RESO.. 2001-1;86 N'.C.S.
.CERTIFY LAFFERTY:RAN.CH PARK PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP--ACT'REPORT'
Director of General.. Plan Administration Pamela. Tuft presented an overview of the
Lafferty Ranch :Park project. and explained the possible .:actions that 'Council could
take: Two resolutions were prepared for, possible approvaf:.the first would certify the
Environmental Im, pact Reporf with Supporting Findings, '.the second would approve
the Lafferty Ranch. Project and adopt CEQA .Findings'. and. Statement of .Overriding,
Considerations,. General Plan Text; and Land Use Map Amendments, Lafiferty
Ranch Park Management Plan, and. Miti"gation Monitoring Pro--gram. Council had the
option. to adopt one or both of the resolutions,.. or give direction to, City .management
to prepare revised resolution(s) and'! related doeumenfs, 'or take. other appropriate
action.
Ms. Tuft introduced Leonard Charles, the'primary author of the EIR; who-.described.
the written and oral comments thaf :were received. on the Final EIR: He explained
that :the comments did not, ,raise .any issues. or provide any new information that
would warrarif revision or recirculation of the EIR.
The three significanf impacts of the Laffert Ranch Park project included 'in the EIR
are:
(] ).Sediment-related. impacts on sfeelhead and foothill yellow; legged frogs', in Adobe
Creek.
44 Adoption of the project with the ``No-Grazing Alternati~,e" would .eliminate ;grazi;ng
45 on the site. and allow irnpaets to sfeelhead and .yellow-egged frogs to be fully
46 mitigated:
October 16, '2001
Vol. 36, Page 469
1 ;.RESO.2001-186 N.C.S.
2 CERTIFY LAFFERTY R-ANCN PARK PROJECT
3 ENVIRONMENTALiMPACT REPORT; continued
4
5 (2) Increased fire danger based on increased risk of ignition.
6
7 The "No-Grazing Alterriafive'' contains mea"sure fo reduce fire hazards,. including
8 prohibition on fires and srnoking, absence. of picnic and barbecue facilities,. and
9 closure of the park on high fire hazard :days., fire suppression measures. such, as
1D mowing a fuel break on the northern boundary of the property, and provision of
11 fire response by the Petaluma .Fire Department. -
12
13 (3) Exposure of additional people to road safety risks on: Sonoma Mountain Road.
14 - - .
15 •
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30~
3:1
32
'33
34
35
36 -
37
38
39
40
Sonoma Mountain Road does. not meet the standards .of the American Association
of State highway and Transportation. Officials ("AASHTO"). The road experiences
a ,higher than average collision rate. Howeve-r, a disproportionate number of the
collisions occur at night,. when the park would. be;ciosed. The EIR concluded, and
City Management concurs.,, -that reconstructing Sonoma Mountain Road to fully
mitigate traffic safety "mpacts is economically infeasible as a mitigation method for
this park. Additionally, Sonoma Mountain .Road is a County road over which the
City does .not have jurisdiction. City Management and the County have engaged in
dialogue regarding a strategy for near-term improvements for the road; the City
has indicated its interest in paying an appropriate share of the cost of .such.
improvements.,
Councilmember Maguire. asked Mr. Charles if an ELR of this magnitude is normally
done for proposed passive-use recreational areas..
Mr'. Charle"s agreed that:itwas not.
Couneilmember M"agure noted that, "a few people with selfish interests" have
cau-sed the Cify great expense.
Christy Taylor, of the'firrn of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, the City's legal counsel. on
this project, .explained in -more detail the possible actions the Council' could. take at
tonight' meeting. Legal counsel' recommends That Council approve; certification. of
the EIR. Noting that the City's budget does not contain adequate funds to
implement the project or pay for legal expenses from potential litigation, counsel
does `not recommend approval of the project at this time.
41
42 Couneilmember Torliatt asked for confirmation that counsel,. was: recommending that
43 Council approve: certification of the EIR, and that Council not approve
44 implernentafion of the: project at this time, due to the need to ,raise $'1.00;000
45 $500,000 to fund legal defense against possible: litigation.
46
Vol. 36, Page .470
October 16, 2001
1 R_ES.O'. 2001-1'86 N.C:S~.
'2 CERTIFY LAFFERTY RANCH P .ARK. PROJECT
3 ENVIROIVMENTAL,IMP-ACT REPORT, continued
4
5 Ms. Taylor agreed.
6
7 Mayor Thompson;,reiterated rules of behavior during the Public Gommenf portion of
8 the hearing:
PUBLIC HEARLfVG O'PEIVED
12 Vice Mayor Cadec-Thompson introduced ..Ann Trussle, who is the great-.great sgreat
13 grandda_ ughfer of Marshall and Elizabeth Lafferty, for whom the, property, is named...
14 She stated that. everyone. has,. a need for an, "open and quiet space,".and urged
15 Council to keep Lafferfy Ranefl for the citizens of ,Petaluma.
16
17 Bruce Hagen:,, 1,45` Gre~illia. D.rive;, Jane Hamilfon, 110 `.G' Street; Hank Zucker, 15
18 Lone Oak Court; Patricia `Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard South;. and Scott.
19 Hess;, 100 Union Street, repre'seriting :Friends. of 'Lafferfy Ranch_ Park; gave a
20 Powerpoint' presentation with pictures of'.Lafferty Ranch. Mr Hagen, noted that the
21 reason the -EIR process has taken sb 1ong~ and cost so much is, the: Sonoma
22 Mountain Conservancy (SMC). Ms. Hami tori spoke of the historical perspective of
23 the project; explaining that it has been part of City ..and County General Plahs for
24 ,man , ,ears "and has. strong popular support. She believes the reason Lafferty
YY
25 .Ranch is not' yet. open. as a park is the., "underlying,polifical structure Cour-tywide,
26 weakened by corruption:" She urged Council 'to insist on cooperation from ahe
27 County and to take a `"strongstand::" Mr. Zucker explained that he is an .expert on,
28 public opinion, and. that the S.MC conducted a `push poll;'" which "is a. method of
29 influencing public opinion, rather than recording it. He described it, as "unethical,;"
30. ~atlding That, "biased, misleading questions lead Ito biased; misleading answers.'" Ms.
31 Tuttle Brown, member of the l'etafuma Pedestrian. and Bicycle Advisory C,ornmittee
32 since 1993, stressed that Lafferty- Ranch will be .a "walking;park,,":and cited statistics
g .9
34 number of picturesWhe has taken of Laffert Ranch,y walking. Mr.. Hess displayed a
y describing 'it as a, "unique and
35 irreplaeeable~.p/ace."
Stan Gold,, 6;15 King .Road,, stated that `the only current 'impediment to opening
Lafferty Ranch as a park is, "a few wealthy landowners 'who have. foxced'the City tq
use thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend the public's right to use public
property.,,.
42 Linda High, 2960 Sonoma Mountain Road.; said she. is not a wealthy landowner.
43 She explained that. property owners on Sonoma Mountain Road have be"en the
44 victims of increased crime and `vandalism, She supp.orts.more parks for ;Petaluma ~-
45 but not~on Lafferty Ranch. "
October 16, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 471
2 RES0.2001-186 N.C.S.
3 CERTLFY LAFFERTY RANCH PARK PROJECT
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, continued
5
6 Joseph Durney, 622 Second Street, congratulated Council on reaching another
7 milestone in the`process.
8
9 Rick Pierce, Earthday Singers, 1549 Creekside Drive; urged Council to certify the
10 EIR and take whatever actions necessary to open Lafferty Ranch Park. Mr. Pierce
1.1 and Melaine Clegg, 550 Acadia, sang the song. Mountaintop Cathedral for the
12 Council.
13
14 Michael Car,uana; 525 Sonoma Mountain Road, stated that: if, "SMC created a `push
15 poll,' then this was a `push .Council Meeting. "' He added that Lafferty Ranch is not
16 the only place. in `Sonoma County with beautiful views and places to walk. He
17 displayed pictures of recent auto accidents on Sonoma Mountain Road, noting that
18 97% of accidents involve non-residents and no other vehicles. He believes the
19 project has taken as long as it'has because the problems are very difficult to solve.
20
21 George Ellman, Sonoma Mountain Preservation Group, 13285 Arnold Drive, Glen
22 Ellen, believes that people will work hard to preserve what they know and cherish.
23 He presented a letter to. Council from the SMPG urging opening of the park. He also
24 provided Council with. copies of the group's newsletter'.
25
26 Jerry Price., 411 `D' Street, #3, spoke .regarding the physical and mental benefits of
27 walking. He urged Council to vote unanimously to certify the EIR and approve the
28 project.
29
30 Vice Landof, 12 Gordelia Drive.; recalled a situation many years ago that was. similar..
31 to this one. Referring to his frequent remarks to Council during the course of. this ..
32 project, he noted he had, "Broken more Councils than you can shake a stick at."
33
34 .Robert Ramirez, 611 West Street, member of the. Lafferty Access Committee, read
35 a dictionary definition. of a hikes,: and contrasted it with one he felt described how
36 those opposing opening .Lafferty .Ranch view Petaluma's citizens.. This definition
37 suggested,.. ,he -said, that while walking, hikers routinely, "destroyed .property, used
38 illegal substances; started fires, harmed the natural habitat; violated posted hours,
39 and broke into property owners' homes." He pointed out that crime occurs on City
40 streets, but no one suggests that they be closed to everyone .but residents. He
41 warned Council that 'it would not be possible to, "negotiate with people with this
42 kind of] opinion of Petaluma's cifizens."
43
44 Lynn Schiele, 812 `I<ingfish Court, is a property owner with land just east of Lafferty
45 Ranch. She urged Council to open Lafferty.Ranch Park.
46
Vol, 36, Page. 472
October 16; 2001
1 RECESS: 9:00 P.M.
2 RESO. ;2001-186. N..C.S.
3 .CERTIFY LAFFERTY RANCIi PARK~PROJ'ECT
4 `ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT' REPORT; continued
5
6 RESUME: 9:10 P.M.
7
Paul Praetzel, 3820 Bod,ega Avenue, thought the property at Lafferty Ranch was
too fragile to be opened as a park.
11 Les Perry,; attorney for the Sonoma. MountainConservancy„ objected to the idea, of
'12 Council certifying the EI'R without committing to any mitigations. to the adverse
13 impact of the project on Sonoma Mountain Road: He compared this #o an extremely
14 .noisy manufacturing plant, which, citing that it would be economically infeasible. to
15 reduce the noise to insignificant levels.;. is allowed fo operate without. doing anyfhing
1"6 to reduce the noise level. He added that: the: City's reasons for not mitigating the
17 impacts are;,not factually or legally supported.
18
19 Councilmember Maguire asked. Mr. Perry if the SMC would initiate litigation if
20 Council approved implementation of the.. project. -
22 Mr: Perry replied'that;his clients: had not discussed the matter.
23
24 Councilmember Maguire asked Mr. Perry if' he would. support discussion .among
25 members of SMC; representatives from Sonoma County, and Council regarding the
26 "worst sections" of ,Sonoma Mountain Road:.
M'r. Perry stated that he would.
'30 Kim 'Nadeau,, 88 Davis Lane, Penngrove; spoke to the issue of compromise. She
31 thought that agreeing to 'proposed ``compromises"such as restricting visitors to the
32 park to docent=led tours equaled ,abandonment of the project. She urged Council to,
33 "not fold."
Geoff Cartwright, 55 Rocca Lane.,.. asked Council to remember. him as they made
their deliberations .on the issue,. as lie, "needed somewhere fo go when it floods,"
38 David Keller,; 1327 `I' ;Street;. former City .Councilrrmember; referred to a "surprise
39 letter" from the 'Sonoma County Board; of Supervisors received by the City today
40 regarding improvements to Sonoma Mountain Road. He displayed a map. of open,
41 space in the San Francisco Bay Area. +and explained t_fat Sonoma.. County has
42 considerably less open space available to the public than other parts of 'the Bay
43 Area. Stating that;.. "e~e_ryone, even couch "potatoes; needs a .place to reflect a_nd
44 .refresh," he asked .Council to certify the EIR -and .approve. ahe~amendments~ to the
45 General Plan. It is important, he "concluded, for Council to send a "strong message"
46 that they will take whafever actions are necessary to open the park.
October 16'; 2001'
Vol. 36, Page 473
2 RESO.2001-186 N.C.S.
3 CERTIFY LAFFERTY RANCH PARK;PROJECT
4 ENVIRONMENTAL:IMPACT .REPORT; continued
_..
5 ~..
6 Randall Smifh, 2720 Sonoma, Mountain Road, told Council tha# property owners'
7 issue is not with,, `the pro-Lafferty people,"but with a third category, the `jerks,"who
8 will be drawn to the park by, "a law as immutable as gravity." The `jerks" are those
9 who frespass, steal .and destroy; and start fires:.; His biggesf fear, he said, is wildfire.
10 He believes the City will incur a huge liability when such a fire, "inevitably happens."
11
12 Pat Cheda, 3272 Adobe Road, .urged Council not to spend any more time or money
13 on the project. She.has run frespassers off her property twice: Based on things she
14 had heard about docenfs in other area parks..,. she does not believe they would
15 respect private property; either.
16
17 Roy Elliott, 3150 Sonoma Mountain Road, and an owner of Sonoma Mountain
18 Ranch, distributed ;pictures of a~.fi-re simulation on the Lafferty Ranch property. He
19 described himself. as a strong believer in property rights. He urged Council not to
20 approve the EfR or the'project. ~ -
21 f - ..
22 'Richard Speel, _120 West Payran Street, thanked Council for bringing the project to
23 this point. He thought it valuable to hear .different opinions on the matter. He urged
24 Council to approve the. EfR aril then consider mitigations.
25
26 Larry Modell, 1705 Brompton,. Street, referred `to a nature preserve run by the
27 Audubon Society at 'the: end of Pine Flat. Road above Healdsburg. Residents of
28 neighboring properties, concerned: about; vandalism and other crimes, asked the
29 Audubon Society to _publicize the preserve; in order to attracf more hikers and
30 birdwatchers. `Th°ey did so, and the 'incidence of crime .dropped: He added that he
31 thought the City had a sfrong case for obtaining funds: from the Open Space District.
32
33 Larry King, 517 Oak Street, urged Council to certify the EIR. He suggested that they
34 delay approving implementation of the project for~60 days, durin:'g which time hey.
35 meet with the Open Space, District and the County to discuss -fundi`ng.and road.
36 improvements. As an attorney practicing in the area, lie noted that there are many
37 attorneys in the community who are `pro Lafferty,".and suggested that they could
38 provide pro bono assistance to'the City on litigation defense. M,r. King°s phone
39 .number is 769-979.1.
40
41 Connie Madden; 215 Water Street, urged, Council to vote unanimously to certify the
42 EIR and approve mplernentation.of the project. She thought objections raised could
43 be, `true of any park." There are, she :added, `jerks and fires everywhere." She
44 believes that hikers would be likely to, `Y~ake care of the land.'' "What is fair," she
45 concluded, "is to allow the public. to use public property." She told Council this was
46 an opportunity for-them to do, "something wonderful."
'VoL 36, Page 474
October 16, 2001
~1 RESO.2001-186 N.C.S.
.~ _ _
2' CERTIFY LAFFERTY RANCH PARK PROJECT
3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; continued'
4
5 Elaine Ramirez, '61:1 1Nest.Street, stated that for Council not to certify the EI'R would
6 be a; `'betrayal of .public trust." She urged -Council to do so, and to approve
7 implementation of the projecct,. as the City has been,. `jumping through ,hoops for
8 S1V/G for nine years." S.he cautioned Council not: to approve the project with the.
9 idea of. mediating with the SMC. Instead, she said, ;they should, "become leaders
10 and represent their constituents.," Regarding. the threat of litigation -from SMC if
11 project implementation: were: approved,, she said, "Let SMC file' suits.. Approve the
12 project -the' money will come:'"
Dale. Axelrod:;, 522 East"`D' Street, `fold Council that while talking with his daughter,
he mentioned that:Peta'luma had been:nacned as having the worst streets'in fheBay
Area. He "asked her whyshe thought that' was. She replied, "Could it be they ha:~e
more impor#ant things to do with their_money?"
1,9 AI'an Bush, address not given, said that he 'lives, `'at: "the fop of the rnQUntain:" He
210. SonomalMounta nu Roadtw II woakSas ~ari apcess road po gheasark saons nt ~hin_k;
p _.y g ~ ould
'22 become, "a tremendous parking lot.'' .
23
24 V11ill Stapp, address not. givens rerninded'Counci,l they/.have important issues to dea_
;25 with and. asked them to: snake the right decisions.
Steven Tuttle Volz, 513 Petaluma" Boulevard; .South,,.. asked if Council had
considered th_e appalling; condition of Petaluma. Boulevard North. Traffic was very
bad - he ~ thought it might be all the people: co.ming;' in, from :the rural areas.., He.
believed the 'road should closed' to all but residents: Citizens who ;live on Petaluma
Boulevard know how ~fo dn~e `safely on: `it -but it is just; toodangerous fo al,low
everyone to use. H~e also mentioned the~~trash blowing':' down the"" boulevard -
theorizing that it blew down from Sonoma Mountain Road.
35 Steve. I<irk~ address note given, moved here: from MarinCounty afew, months ago.
36 He is an .avid hiker -and was "shocked" at'how little open space was open to hikers<
37 i"n Sonoma Counfy. ~ .
38 '
3.9 PUBLIC ~HEARING'CLO:SED
40
41 Councilmember Maguire asked Aftorney Chrisfy Taylor to recap the risks of
_42 lifgati'on the City faced if' Council ap;proved imple.mentatipn of the project:
43 . .
,.
44 Ms. Taylor replied that. she believed litigation was.likely. ~ .
October 16, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 475
1 RESO',:2001-186 N.C.S.
2 CERTIFY LAFFERTY RAIVCFi PARK PROJECT
3 ENVIROfVMENTAL IMPACT FEPO'RT; continued
4
5 Councilmember Maguire described the ELR as, `phenomenally ironclad." Petaluma
6 'has gone to a tremendous. effort. to mitigate the property owners' concerns. He did
7 not believe it was possible to make them "comfortable." H"e would like to certify the
8 EIR tonight, andreset the project implementation question to a date certain (he
9 suggested. 60 days). Iri ,the interim, Council, °City Management, property owners,.
10 and the County should engage in `producti.ve discussion." If negotiations fail, the
11 City must begin raising money for legal expenses..
12
13 Mayor Thompson agreed that the EIR should. be certified. He would like to take
14 another look at the City's .finances in light of the negative financial news Council
15 received at the October 15 meeting. He supports continued attempts to negotiate
16 with the County and SMC. He will speak with legal counsel about tolling
17 agreements.
18
19 Councilmember Torliatt would like Council to xecei~e a status report on the
20 .application to the Open: Spaces District. She thinks fhe application should be in front
21 of OSD within two. months. -Once the City has a .better idea of the funding
22 possibilities, Council `can revisit- the question of project implementation. She pointed
23 out that crime and #rash and accidents can and do happen everywhere. Everyone in
24 the community needs to work together. She ,did not: want to, "run scared because
25 something bad might ,happen." "This project," she added,. ``is not about politics, but
26 about people -and fhe future of Petaluma and Sonoma County."
27
28 Councilmember Healy asked consultant; Charles Leonard to respond for the record
29 to the fire simulation submitted earlier in the~evening by Mr. Roy Elliott.
30
31 Mr. Leonard explained that the EIR assessed where a fire was most likely to start..
32 Looking at" the picture submitted by Mr. Elliott, he said he did not have enough
33 information to be able to'judge its validity.
35 Councilrriember Healy's goal is°for the Gity~to open and operate; Lafferty Ranch Park
36 as good neighbors to the property owners.. ~ He would have: preferred to have
37 incorporated grazing ~into~the project implementation. He described the letter about
38 Sonoma Mountain Road. improvements that was received from the Board. of
39 Supervisors on March . 20, 2001. as, "intentionally ambiguous." The City has
40 attempted to mealwith County -staff to clarify the meaning of the letter, but the
41 County has, "not been- forthcoming." He thought perhaps the meetings should be
42 open to the public and press. Regarding the letter on the same subject received
43 today-from the Board of 'Supervisors, he said it was not, "an accurate portrayal of
44 what hasbeen happening."
45
46
Vol. 36, Page 476 October 16, 2001
1 RESO.:20;01-1:86 N'C:S'.
2 CERTIFY LAFFERTY RANCH PARK PROJECT
3 ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT_ REPORT; confinued
4
5 He is disappointed in the amount of money spent on the project:to-date. Last night
6 Council received an update on the, City's finances... ';It was not .good news. 'He still.
7 hopes the Open Space District will support the project - .but does n.ot think fhe City
8 can count on that. He thanked atforn. ey Larry 'King for his suggestion- that, local
9 attorneys provide legal assistance to the City on a pro bono basis. He thanked the
1'0 members of the, public who support Lafferty for, "carrying the .torch :for all these
t1 .years," He believes the City .must look for a mediated settlement. He wou_Id like: to
12 certify the EfR,tonight; pursue fundraising. opportunities,. and revisit `implerentation
13 of the project in the near future.
14
15 Gounciamembe;r O'Brien thanked Ms. Tuft and all those who eontributed_ to the EIR
16 for their; "excellent and competent work:" He is in favor of certifying the ELR.
17 Regarding, implementation of the. project, he noted that as a leader„ "the tough
18 position is saying no:" He believes project implementation should be put`. on hold
19 until the next, budget,. cycle., because there are other,. more. pressing priorities
_20 needing attention at this time. He does not want the .project to die. .
~, .
22 Councilmember Moynihan stated that;,'"all the,good stuff [to say] is. taken already."
23 In thinking about. the project, he has weighed the. need #or recreational areas
24 against the City's financial issues: The. community's ;goals inclutle~ pubJ.c access; as
25 well. as environmertal_prot~cton.. From the 'City's perspective, he would like. to limit
26 expense and' liability risk. He.believes there is a.need for compromise on the: issue -
27 but what form that might take is, "up for debate." He noted that there are good
28 resources in Sonoma County .to help resolve the conflicts' on the project. He
29 believes Council should work with the County and the property owners:. He warned
30 that the County must be approached"in.a-respectful manner.
32 He has suggested. an alternative project,, called .the .Open. Space alternative, which
33 would involve deeding the property to `the_ Open Space: ,District The City- would,
34 retain an easement for limited size group access by a City .or State van... Access.
35 would. be by appointment only; in the company of a 'docent, and would be airnted',
36 during environmentally sensitive times.. Parking °woultl be on the shoulder of the
37 road at the entry gate .to the' easement. .
He owns property near. Lake: Berryessa and, has- :experienced trespassing and
vandalism and sympathizes with. the property owners on Sonoma Mountain Road.
42 Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson stated that Council°s; "hands ace`fied."'The `amount of
43 money that has been spent on the project is '"obscene," and ahe does not think it.
44 should have happened.
October 16, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 477
1 RESO. 2001-186 IV.C.S:
2 CERTIFY LAFFERTY RANCH PARK PROJECT
3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, continued
4
5 Councilmember .Maguire moved, seconded by Moynihan, to adopt .Resolution 2001-
6 186 N.C.S. certifying the Final Environmental Impacf Report -for Lafferty Ranch
7 Park.
8
9 AYES: Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien,
10 Torliatt, Mayor Thompson
11 NOES: None
12 ABSENT: None
1~3
14 Councilrnemb~er Torliatt reiterated her request for a status report on the application
15 to the Open Space District.
16
17 Councilmember 'Maguire stressed the need to engender real, formal cooperation
18 from the County. He suggested a subcommittee of the Council to work toward this
19 end.
20
21 Councilmember Moynihan volunteered to work on such. a subcommittee.
22
23 Mayor Thompson would like `to wait until the City receives a reply from OSD.
24
25 Councilmernber Maguire thought it important not to, "hang everything on the timing
26 of the OSD application."
27
28 Mayor Thompson thanked the audience for the cooperation and diplomacy during
29 the meeting.
30
31 ADJOURN
32
33 The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
34
35
36
37 €. Clark Thompson, Mayor
38
39 ATTEST:
40
41
42
43 Claire Cooper, Clerk Pro Te;
44
45
46
47 ******