HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11/13/20001
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
November 13, 2000
Minutes of a City of Petaluma, California
Council Meeting
and a
Joint Meeting of the
Petaluma City Council, Planning Commission,
and Parks and Recreation Commission
Vol. 35, Page 283
Special Meeting
Monday, November 13, 2000
Council Chambers
The Council met on this date at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller,
Maguire, Mayor Thompson, Vice Mayor Torliatt
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Rich Rudnansky announced that Council would adjourn to Closed Session
for the following item:
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957. Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation. (Kline)
nn.in~ iRN
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:05 p. m.
********
~6
Vol. 35, Page 284 November 13, 2000
1
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
Joint City Council, Planning Commission, and
Recreation, Music and Parks Commission Meeting
Special Meeting
Council Chambers
Monday, November 13, 2000
The Council, Planning Commission, and Recreation, Music and Parks Commission met
on this date at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
City Council (7:30 p.m.):
PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton,. Healy, Keller and
Maguire; Mayor Thompson; Vice Mayor Torliatt
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, Ron Walters led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding the flooding problem in Petaluma.
The Payran Reach flood project is nearing completion and will offer some level of
protection to those living in that area. There is no protection for the Corona Reach
upstream. He cautioned against future development in that area.
Andrew Levis, 12 Park Lane, spoke regarding the issue of unleashed dogs in Oak Hill
Park. The Resolution regarding this states that dogs may run free in the park between
6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Mr. Lewis thought the time should be consistent with other
parks; i.e., from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. This will be brought back to the Recreation
Commission.
Nancy Tavares, Animal Services Manager, reported that the "Evening for the Animals"
was very successful and raised about $9,000. She thanked the Mayor, Council Member
!J
1
~6
November 13, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 285
1
2 Elect Mike O'Brien and Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty. The Mayor won the
"chicken" at the auction.
3
4 COUNCIL COMMENT
5
6 Council Member Torliatt reported that Mayor Thompson, Council Member Cader-
7 Thompson and she attended the Veterans Day Parade. It was awell-attended event.
8 She thanked her family and the community for their support in her re-election.
9
10 Council Member Hamilton would like the City Attorney and Council to look into
11 structuring an ordinance on Campaign Contribution Limits.
12
13 Council Member Cader-Thompson talked about a double fine zone for Sonoma
14 Mountain Parkway. She described the traffic as very fast and becoming more
15 congested, and added that there is a blind spot near Turtle Creek with an overgrowth of
16 bushes. Council should determine if those bushes should be cut. At the Rocky Dog
17 Park there is an area where mud and water accumulates. She would like to see gravel
18 put there to eliminate the problem.
19
20 She announced that she has been taking members of the public on tours of the Corona
21 Reach area. She will meet some people at 10:00 a.m. on Sunday at the Old Lucky's on
22 Petaluma Boulevard and they will walk up the railroad tracks. She would like to invite
23 the Planning Commission and Recreation, Music and Parks Commission to go along to
24 see this part of the river. She asked those interested to call her at 762-7279 or call the
25 City Manager. She will do this every Sunday until she educates the public on Rainier
26 and the Corona Reach area and ways to protect this community from flooding and a
27 project that is ill conceived.
28
29 She also went to the opening of the Richard A. Penry Military Museum. Mr. Penry
30 earned the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Viet Nam War. She would like to
31 agendize this for discussion of possibly honoring Mr. Penry with a plaque. During the
32 Veterans Day event, she had the privilege of naming some 415 people from Sonoma.
33 County who served in World Wars I, and II, and the Viet Nam and the Gulf Wars.
34
35 Council Member Healy congratulated the Council Elect and thanked the five
36 unsuccessful candidates. He looks forward to working with all six members of the
37 Council in the coming years.
38
39 MINUTES
40
41 November 22, 1999
42 February 7, 2000
43 October 23, 2000
44
45 October 28, 2000
(9
Vol. 35, Page 286 November 13, 2000
1
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
The minutes of November 22, 1999, October 23, 2000 and October 28, 2000 were
approved as submitted.
The minutes of February 7, 2000 were approved with the corrections: _ --
Page 2, Line 19, should read, "...Hagstrom grocery store being converted to school
district office." Page 8, Line 17, change "NAPA" to "NEPA."
ROLL CALL
Planning Commission (8:00 p.m.):
PRESENT: Commissioners Barrett, Glass and Cader-Thompson; Chairman
Broad
ABSENT: Commissioners Monteschio and Vieler
Recreation, Music and Parks Commission (8:00 p.m.):
PRESENT: Commissioners Arago, Kates, McCoy, Mobley and Mount;
Chairman Hagen
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Lafferty Ranch Park -Revised Draft EIR and Management Plan
Discussion and Possible Action on the Adequacy of the Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Report; Direction to City Management for Changes, Clarifications or Additional
Information, for Incorporation into the Final EIR; and Direction to City Management to
Initiate and Supervise Preparation of a Final EIR Which Incorporates These Revision
and Responds to all Significant Environmental Points Raised During the Public Review
Period (Tuft/Carr)
Pamela Tuft, General Plan Administrator, presented the revised DEIR for the proposed
Lafferty Ranch Park to the Council and Commission Members.
Leonard Charles, author of the DEIR, presented the contents to the DEIR, a draft
management plan for a park on the 270 acres known as Lafferty Ranch. The plan calls
for minimal improvements, including a small parking lot of 15 spaces, a driveway, a trail
system of about 3.6 miles, tanks next to the parking lot for fire and drinking water
storage, fencing of sensitive wetlands, and signs explaining what is allowed and not
allowed in the park. No other improvements would be made. r
~6
November 13, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 287
1 Mr. Charles explained that the DEIR also' included grazing management, fire hazard
2 and biodiversity plans. One area of the DEIR that had changed substantively involved
3 additional work that was done due to concern about possible impacts of the park on
4 steelhead, because they are a federally listed species, even though the Department of
5 Fish and Game and the original EIR determined that this park would not have an impact
6 on steelhead. Extensive mapping and field surveys were done to calculate how much
7 sediment would be generated by park use and delivered to Adobe Creek.
8
9 After many months of study, it was determined that trail construction and people walking
10 on and off trails would generate approximately 7.5 cubic yards of sediment to the creek
11 per year. The hydrologist and geologist identified a gully system in the park that will be
12 restored that would generate 12.5 cubic yards of sediment a year. Therefore, there
13 would be a net decrease in sediment to the creek with human use of the park.
14
15 Conversely, grazing, even though it would be very limited under the Draft Management.
16 Plan, would generate approximately ten times as much sediment as human use, or
17 about 75 cubic yards per year, .and there was no feasible way of reducing that impact to
18 zero without making it an incredibly expensive and potentially environmentally
19 damaging project. The revised DEIR finds that the impact on steelhead as well as
20 yellow-legged frogs, which inhabit Adobe Creek, would be significant if the park
21 included grazing. There were more mitigations added for a variety of species, including
22 the two hawk species inhabiting the site, the Western Pond Turtle, and Grasshopper
23 Sparrow (which wasn't in the park when the project started and moved in since the
24 DEIR was originally prepared). With regard to the Golden Eagle, a plan was developed
25 that satisfied the Department of Fish and Game. If by some chance park use did
26 displace eagle fledglings, which use the cliffs on the north end of the property, trail
27 restrictions, and if necessary, temporary closure of that section of trail would be put into
28 place during the time the eagles are learning to fly..
29
30 The original EIR found that the traffic safety issue on Sonoma Mountain Road was a
31 significant impact; the revised EIR finds the same. Additional analysis was done of other
32 parks in the county and the roads that lead to those parks. Most of the roads that lead
33 to existing parks don't met ASHTO standards. Even though this park will only generate
34 36 to 86 trips a day it's still found to be a significant traffic safety impact. In order to
35 alleviate that, the entire road would have to be brought to up ASHTO standards, which
36 would cost. over $5 million.
37
38 Additional fire modeling was done and the results were essentially unchanged from the
39 original EIR. There is very little risk of a fire starting on the property, but if a fire did start
40 under just the right conditions, it is possible that a fire could spread off the property.
41 Additional mitigations have been added to put a firebreak along the western boundary
42 between the park and Mr. Pfendler's property. Because the California Department of
43 Forestry, which is responsible for providing fire protection to that property, continues to
44 believe that there is a significant hazard, their perspective should be respected.
45 Additionally, it is possible that a fire could start somewhere on the property other than
46 near the parking lot from which the fires were modeled. Based on these concerns, the
06
Vol. 35, Page 288 November 13, 2000
1
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
EIR team has decided that fire hazard should be considered a significant impact for the
park.
The only other impact is the potential increase in police response to the park. The
Police Department feels because this is such a controversial park they are likely to get a
number of calls. A police office would be hired to patrol Lafferty Ranch Park and the
other parks in the City.
The DEIR found the same three cumulative impacts that were originally identified as
significant for the project itself: traffic safety, fire hazard and impact on steelhead and
yellow-leg frogs. Finally, the DEIR looked at project alternatives, as did the original EIR.
Two additions were made. The first EIR considered the Moon Ranch and While Oak
Estates properties as alternate sites. This DEIR added the Morrelli property as a third
alternative.
Because of the significant impact on steelhead, we added a no grazing alternative,
which if added to any of the other alternatives, would make it environmentally superior,
although it doesn't stand by itself. The revised DEIR concludes, as the original did, that
the mosf environmentally superior alternative is a "no project" alternative, with the site
left as a nature preserve with essentially no public use.
CEQA requires, when the no project alternative is the environmentally superior
alternative, that a second superior alternative be identified. This remains the same as in
the original EIR. It is a reduced use alternative, which allows public use under the
guidance of a docent or somebody who is trained to lead groups onto the site. This
would be limited to one group on a weekday and two groups on the weekend. Other
restrictions would be included as well.
Council Member Maguire mentioned that some people had claimed that. there were
trees on the property infected with Sudden Oak Death Syndrome.
Mr. Charles replied that it is spreading through most of this area and has .been found on
the other side of Sonoma Mountain.
Regarding the fire issue, Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if the prevailing
winds were from the south, were they talking about protecting Peter Pfendler's house,
which is to the north.
Mr. Charles answered that according to the models, under certain wind conditions, fire
certainly could spread toward Mr. Pfendler's house.
Council Member Maguire asked if fire modeling to the edge of the property was
standard procedure.
~~
November 13, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 289
- 1 Mr. Charles explained that incomplete date for the area past the property line made it
2 difficult to accurately model that area. He added that the fire scientists recommended a
3 firebreak along the property line, to reduce the risk that fire would spread past that point.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
6
7 Kim Nadeau, 88 Davis Lane, Penngrove, explained that she had spent more than five
8 years actively working to open Lafferty Park to the public and has served on the Lafferty
9 Access Committee. She became interested in the issue because she had had to travel
10 to Marin County to hike due to the lack of locally accessible parkland. She asked the
11 present and future City Council, Planning Commission, and Recreation, Music, and
12 Parks Commission to consider these key points.
13
14 ~ The Lafferty Access Committee was clear in its desire to see Lafferty Park opened
15 with unmonitored access. Restricting use to docent led tours is inconsistent with a
16 major objective of the park project and is not in keeping with our country's long
17 history of allowing park visitors the freedom to explore and observe nature at their
18 own pace and in solitude, should they so chose.
19
20 There is little objection to the park itself except from the Sonoma Mountain
21 Conservancy. There is much agreement that this park would be of tremendous value
22 to the public, offering the only public access to the west side of Sonoma Mountain
23 and providing desperately needed park space in southern Sonoma County. The
24 citizens of Petaluma raise objections to the cost of the project, not the merit of the
25 project. Many of these costs are a result of responding to objections raised by the
26 Sonoma Mountain Conservancy. A good and viable project should not be halted due
27 to the ability of a small minority to out-spend the majority.
28
29 There is nothing unusual or unreasonable about the Lafferty project as proposed. If
30 anything, the project is so small in scope as to generate fewer impacts than most
31 projects. Every development project from a shopping center to a library creates
32 some negative environmental impact. These projects are implemented because
33 public officials deem that the public benefit outweighs the negative impact. There is
34 an overriding public benefit delivered by this project. Lafferty Park will provide
35 opportunity for present and future generations to enjoy nature, find spiritual renewal,
36 gain prospective on their physical location in the community and consider the
37 historical context of their community. These experiences cannot be quantified, nor
38 can a dollar value be placed upon them.
39
40 She asked that Council and the Planning Commission carefully consider their duty and
41 obligation to make decisions that best serve the public. She noted that. the cost sadly
42 exceeded what reason would dictate, but it could also be viewed as the cost of
43 democracy, and she thought it was a price worth paying, a small price to pay for a
44 benefit to generations to come. She pointed out that the City and its residents had
45 invested more than $600,000 on this park, and asked Council and the Planning
46 Commission to move forward with certifying the EIR and issuing a statement of
Vol. 35, Page 290 November 13, 2000
1 overriding consideration. She concluded by reminding those present how fortunate the
2 community was to have this incredible asset, and added that she anxiously awaited the
3 day when she could share this treasure with her children.
4
5 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard South, announced that she was
6 submitting aseventeen-page letter for the record, along with eighty-eight pages of
7 attachments, including newspaper clippings and documentation regarding Lafferty from
8 1992-1996. She hoped that the information would be useful to a judge, should the EIR
9 go to court. She praised Mayor Thompson for his actions regarding Lafferty while on the
10 Planning Commission. She also noted that Council Member Maguire was very
11 supportive of opening Lafferty Ranch as a park. She wanted the project to move
12 forward. She was offended by the recent article in the Press Democrat entitled "Lame
13 Duck Council Rushing to Open Lafferty." She didn't think Council was rushing to do
14 anything.
15
16 Beth Meredith, 104 5th Street, responded to comments in the Argus Courier regarding
17 the Sudden Oak Death syndrome. She described a web site,
18 httg://www.suddenoakdeath.org, which listed all the parks in this area in which there has
19 been incidence of Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. Those parks included Jack London
20 State Park, Sugar Loaf, Fairfield Osborne, China Camp, and Marin Municipal Water
21 District. She contacted those parks and. asked if their public access policy had changed
22 in light of these incidences and received responses from Jack London. and China Camp.
23 In both cases they had not changed the public access policy in any way.
24
25 In addition, she spoke to Bruce Hagen, with the California Department of Forestry (not
26 to be confused with Bruce Hagen of the Recreation, Music, ar~d Parks Commission) and
27 he did not anticipate that the park policy would change in light of Sudden Oak Death
28 Syndrome, given what is known now. They discussed the idea of hikers and vehicles
29 spreading the disease, and he did mention that there had been some discussion about
30 industries such as forestry taking precautions around diseased areas, but that such
31 precautions were generally thought to be unnecessary and impractical with regard to
32 hikers. He pointed out that there were many kinds of wildlife that roam the parks and
33 could not be reasonably controlled. She sensed from all those to whom she spoke that
34 the disease was so wide spread that it seemed improbable that hikers and vehicles
35 were primarily responsible for that spread. She also commented that if Sudden Oak
36 Death Syndrome had been detected at Lafferty Ranch, that information should be given
37 to those responsible for the web site.
38
39 Jerry Price, 775 Baywood Drive, thanked the Council, Commissions, and City
40 Management for their time and effort on the Lafferty Ranch Park environmental review
41 process. He wanted to make some comments for the record on his own behalf and on
42 behalf of the many citizens of Petaluma who had worked long and hard to provide a
43 "public hiking trail at publicly owned Lafferty Ranch." He explained that the purpose of
44 his comments was to attempt to put into proper perspective the history, challenges and
45 needs of the project. From the historical perspective he noted the following:
46
1
~1
L8
November 13, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 291
- 1
2 Lafferty Ranch is a wild and quite natural 270-acre parcel of land on the west slope
of the most prominent mountain in the area. The property extends from an elevation
3 of about 1,100 feet to nearly 2,300 feet at the top of Sonoma Mountain. The property
4 includes the headwaters of Adobe Creek and has been a source of water for
5 Petaluma for over 150 years. The property has been owned by the City of Petaluma
6 since 1959.
7
8 ^ It was unlikely that the City would be going through this process were it not for the
9 fact that in 1989 a neighboring land owner contiguous to the northwest boundary of
10 Lafferty Ranch made an attempt to purchase the property from the City. He nearly
11 succeeded, but public outcry prevented the property from being surplused to a
12 private interest.
13
14 Not to be frustrated in his quest for this beautiful natural treasure, the neighbor
15 conceived a plan to trade a large property further down Sonoma Mountain for
16 Lafferty Ranch plus $1.4 million of public tax money. This attempt failed as well, Mr.
17 Price explained, partly because of faulty valuations, a failure to place any value on
18 the historic water rights and a huge amount of public protest. He also noted that
19 attendant to this effort were two valid initiatives in the service of the neighbor which
20 produced voter fraud convictions of five Sonoma County citizens. He added that the
21 $1.4 .million was still paid to the neighbor "under great protest from the public and a
22 legal challenge to the payment."
23
24 ^ Finally, the City of Petaluma put in motion the process to create public access to
25 Lafferty Ranch under a plan to be based upon "best management practices for wild
26 open space lands in the Bay Area." The plan was immediately challenged by a
27 group of neighbors and that, Mr. Price explained, is why we are here today for the
28 environmental review. He thought this ERI had been more detailed and more costly
29 than any other "effort to create a trail." For perspective on that, he pointed out that in
30 Marin County, more than twenty projects of this nature have been completed with
31 virtually no EIR, with unlimited public access 24 hours a day. He emphasized the
32 need to keep all of the features of the review in proper perspective.
33
34 ^ Regarding migratory fish, he provided these facts: The distance from the tidal waters
35 of the Petaluma River to Lafferty Ranch is approximately six miles. Within the
36 confines of Lafferty Ranch there is a little over 100 yards of navigable water, of
37 which only about 40 to 50% has gravel beds sufficient for steelhead to spawn in.
38 Until 1998, it was impossible for migratory fish to travel beyond Adobe Road (still
39 more than three miles from Lafferty Ranch) because of a box culvert with a 12' drop.
40 Partly with the help of United Anglers at Casa Grande High School, a step pond
41 system now allows the fish to continue up Adobe Creek to Lafferty. Recently, one
42 rancher on Adobe Creek agreed to fence off his cattle from the creek. This makes a
43 huge difference in the water quality for the year round habitat of these beautiful fish.
44 These were examples of some of the mitigations to problems. which were absolutely
45 devastating to the steelhead population. Any concerns for degradation of the habitat
46 at Lafferty as a result of humans hiking on the property must be kept in proper
9~
1
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
Vol. 35, Page 292
November 13, 2000
perspective to the huge problems that exist in the six miles down to the Petaluma
River.
^ He described Lafferty Ranch as a "magical place," where visitors should be able to
go on the spur of the moment to get away from the pressures of everyday life, a
place with grand views, and a place to commune with nature in solitude. He thought
there would be an ever-increasing need for such a place for the people of the
community. He concluded by saying that the proper perspective on the project
should always favor the needs of our citizens over the passions of a limited number
of landowners.
Council Member Torliatt wanted to clarity that the $1.4 million was not paid by the City
to Mr. Pfendler; it was paid by the Open Space District.
Connie Madden, 215 Water Street, explained that she moved to Petaluma a little over a
year ago from San Francisco and thought she was moving to the country. When she
was commuting to the city and started feeling "closed in" she imagined being able to go
up to Lafferty Ranch and see baby Golden Eagles or look through the pink and purple
fog to what's below. She thought about it being a place that `doesn't belong to you and
it doesn't belong to me, it's just ours." She mentioned that when she lived in Berkeley,
knowing that Tilden Park was there even if she didn't visit it on a daily basis, or even a
weekly basis, greatly affected the way she felt about where she lived. She thought that
keeping and preserving Lafferty Ranch as a park would strengthen everybody in the
community.
Pat Cheda, 3272 Adobe Road, explained that her husband's family has lived on
Sonoma Mountain for 100 years. She asked Council and City Management to put
themselves "in the landowners' place" to understand their concern that if Lafferty Ranch
was opened as a park, it would set a precedent for many more changes on Sonoma
Mountain, not all of which would be positive changes. She commented that the
landowners would be resentful if the City were able to make changes to Lafferty that
they were not able to make to their properties because they couldn't afford to make
whatever improvements the County required.
Terrance Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, asked if redwood trees could be planted to replace
any oaks that died from Sudden Oak Death Syndrome. He wondered if they would grow
on that property. He mentioned that he had walked in the area with local landowners
many times when his children were growing up and he hoped that the problems
Standing in the way of opening Lafferty as a park could be overcome., and that the
community would enjoy the area and respect the land and the neighbors.
Robert Ramirez, 611 West Street, referred to the Sonoma Mountain Conservancy
calling Sonoma Mountain Road "the most dangerous road in the world." He pointed out
that the landowners on the mountain, their employees, and their guests were able to
navigate the road. He thought it ridiculous to imply, therefore, that citizens driving up to
~~
~,
1
November 13, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 293
1
2 Lafferty would be unable to do so safely. He did not think it reasonable to expect that
the road be brought up to national standards.
3
4 Mr. Ramirez did not like the idea of docent tours, or access to the park restricted to
5 certain days or hours. He thought that might lead to a sort of "rush hour" on the road to
6 the park. If that happened, the neighbors would have a valid reason to complain.
7
8 He had heard that the City had spent $610,000 on the project so far, and yet the park
9 wasn't open. He added that if it cost another $1 million, it would still be a good deal.
10 Unlike an urban park with baseball or soccer fields, a wilderness park does not require a
11 lot of maintenance. He urged Council and the Planning commission to remember that
12 Lafferty Ranch Park would benefit the community for many generations to come.
13
14 Mr. Ramirez did not believe it would be necessary to hire another patrol officer just to
15 patrol Lafferty Ranch, as the incidence of police calls from that area compared to similar
16 areas is extremely low. He thought citizens could control their behavior while going for
17 a nature walk. He agreed that there would be incidents, as they were in any other park
18 in the city, but he encouraged the Council Members and Commissioners to focus on the
19 big picture and the benefits of the park.
20
21 He thought it interesting that various wildlife that had either not been seen in the area
22 for years, or had never been seen, had "magically appeared" after the first EIR.
23
24 In regard to fire risks, he pointed out that although there certainly was risk of fire in the
25 area, the risk was greater in the City where the residences are much closer together.
26 He thought it impossible to plan for every possible risk, but reasonable precautions and
27 planning should be carried out both by the City and the neighboring landowners.
28
29 He concluded by reminding the audience that the word "open" in "open space" means
30 accessible. It doesn't mean "open to viewing only." He urges Council and the Planning
31 commission to continue to work toward opening Lafferty Ranch Park.
32
33 Will Stapp, 20 Queens Lane, commented that the community had gone through a very
34 long process for a very important goal. Since the process began, he had become the
35 father of two children, the oldest now 3-1/2. He wanted to install love and respect for
36 the land in his children, and he thanked Council, the commissions and City
37 Management for working long and hard and jumping through hoops that no other city or
38 open space district or park district had ever had to for a park of this nature. He thought
39 Lafferty Ranch was worth it and he looked forward to being able to take his children to
40 the community's park on the mountaintop. He thought they'd never have another
41 experience in this area like the top of Sonoma Mountain and Lafferty Ranch. He
42 encouraged Council and the Planning Commission to continue moving forward.
43
44
45 Ron Walters, 325 Post Street, was the morning DJ at KTOB in Petaluma for thirty years.
He spoke regarding Clint Beebe, a rancher on Sonoma Mountain who ran a Boy Scout
46 Ranch on his property. Many Boy Scouts,.as well as members of the Casa Grande
~7
Vol. 35, Page 294 November 13, 2000
1 High School cross-country team, visited Beebe Ranch for many years, and he didn't
2 think there had ever been a fire or an accident. He added that there were Golden
3 Eagles at Beebe Ranch, and there was never any discussion of closing the ranch out of
4 fear for the fledglings.
5
6 Steve Jones, 279 College View, hoped that Lafferty Ranch would be opened as a park
7 with full public access. He mentioned Crane Park and Moon Ranch as lovely, but
8 ordinary parks, but described Lafferty Ranch as "spectacular." He added that the road
9 to Crane Park is very winding and narrow, yet visitors are able to drive up and down it
10 without incident. He encouraged opening Lafferty has a park available to,the whole
11 community.
12
13 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
14
15 RECREATION, MUSIC, AND PARKS.COMMISSION COMMENTS
16
17 Commissioner. Mobley stated that he was on the Lafferty Access Committee and felt the
18 committee made a good effort to develop a workable plan. In reviewing the EIR, he
19 noted that there were as many problems with alternate sites a.s with Lafferty. He
20 pointed out~that the incidence of traffic accidents on Sonoma Mountain Road was low
21 compared to in town and on the freeway. He thought the level of traffic predicted in the
22 EIR was slightly high. He concluded that Mr. Charles had done a good job with the EIR
23 and that the project should ,move forward as quickly as possible.
24
25 Commissioner Mount was relieved by the conclusions reached in the EIR and the topics
26 it covered. He had done some research on his own about Sudden Oak Death
27 Syndrome. He noted that there were many places in the county where eagles nested
28 very close to people and lots of commotion, without incident. He thought the number of
29 vehicles going up to Lafferty would initially be lower than estimated. He described
30 Lafferty as a "gem of a park, an inspirational park" and said it should not. be let go.
31
32 Commissioner McCoy explained that he had only been on the commission for three
33 months, but could see that a thorough job had been done both by everyone involved in
34 the project and on the EIR. He had camped at Beebe Ranch as a Boy Scout and had
35 visited the Fairfield Osborne Preserve with his children, and had learned a lot about
36 nature and geology. He hoped Lafferty Ranch Park would be made available for his
37 children and for future generations.
38
39 Commissioner Arago had been able to hike up at Lafferty. He thought it was the City
40 Council's and Commission's duty to provide for the future generations of the community,
41 and that it would be a great disservice to the community if Lafferty "were allowed to get
42 away." He had been disturbed by the number of letters from the Sonoma Mountain
43 Conservancy, but thought a lot of those arguments were specious. He wanted to move
44 forward as soon as possible with the opening of Lafferty.
45 ,~
~i
November y 3, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 295
1
2 Chairman Hagen submitted written comments with attachments for the record. He saw
one flaw in the EIR: there wasn't enough emphasis on Ordinance 2022 N.C.S., which
3 concerned the "Keep Lafferty" Initiative. He was part of the group that wrote the
4 initiative. When the initiative failed due to a technicality, the City Council adopted the
5 ordinance unanimously. The group attempted to work the initiative to insure
b unsupervised, unregistered access. Unfortunately, the park objectives were very
7 general, and didn't make reference to the importance of this unrestricted, unregistered
8 access.
9
10 The consultant found that Alternative Two, the restricted use alternative, was the "next
11 best choice" after the no-project alternative. Commissioner Hagen thought it imperative
12 that park visitors were able to spontaneously decide to go up to Lafferty,. take a walk,
13 see the city and enjoy the peace and quiet. He added that if people had to sign up in
14 advance, and go with a group, many would not go. He had not had that experience
15 anywhere else in the country: even in museums, visitors were allowed to wander. He
16 thought docents were a good idea, but the restricted use option was not an option at all,
17 and was not comparable to the objectives sought when the initiative was put on the
18 ballot.
19
20 Commissioner Hagen stated that opponents of Lafferty Ranch Park had "outdone
21 themselves" in what he described as an "exquisite effort to bury this thing in red tape."
22 He noted that in reading through the responses submitted by opponents to the park, he
23 had noted a lot of duplicate comments, and .many he said were "specious" or "out and
24 out falsehoods." He thought this was done for two reasons: 1. To demoralize those
25 working to open Lafferty Ranch with what appears to be a huge volume of negative
26 comments, and 2., to tie up City Management, and a lot of taxpayer money, in
27 responding to these comments. He added that money would be better-spent protecting
28 fisheries on the Russian and Eel Rivers where a lot more environmental damage was
29 occurring.
30
31 He noted that when people spend time in the outdoors, in a peaceful, quiet place, they
32 are often made more environmentally aware, and that the EIR didn't address that
33 indirect positive environmental impact. He reminded those present that many years ago,
34 a group called the Earth Day Singers sang a song called "Mountain Top Cathedral."
35 Tapes of that song are .being produced by Rick Pierce, and will soon be available as a
36 fundraiser for Lafferty Park, to offset some of the taxpayer costs of opening the park.
37 Commissioner Hagen then showed a video of the park made by Ron Walters.
38
39 Mayor Thompson asked Mr. Rudnansky if a motion was needed to direct City
40 Management to prepare the final EIR. Mr. Rudnansky replied that it was not.
41
42 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked the people in the audience who were
43 representing Mr. Pfendler to reflect in their hearts on what they were really doing. She
~1 44
45 described it as "shameful."
O
Vol. 35, Page 296 November 13, 2000
1
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
Mr. Rudnansky stated that the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission and Planning
Commission should take a formal vote on a motion recommending that the City Council
direct the completion of the EIR.
Mayor Thompson asked Commissioner Hagen to ask for a motion and a second and
vote.
Commission Member Hagen asked for a motion to recommend that the City Council
certify the EIR.
Mr. Rudnansky noted that the motion should be to complete the EIR and certify it.
Commission Member Hagen asked for a motion to complete and certify the EIR and
added that he recommended opening the park as soon as possible.
Mayor Thompson asked Ms. Tuft for clarification of what direction was needed.
Ms. Tuft replied that the commissions should recommend that Council give direction to
City Management to undertake preparation of the final EIR. She added that the
Planning Commission would join Council for review of the final EIR, because it also
covered the text amendments to the General Plan and the Planning Commission was
the hearing body on that aspect of the project. The final EIR would not typically be
brought back to the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission.
Commissioner Hagen asked for a motion to direct City Management to proceed with
preparation of the final EIR.
MOTION: Commissioner Steve Arago moved, seconded by Mount, to direct City
Management to proceed with preparation of the final EIR.
Commissioner Hagen asked all in favor to say "aye," all opposed to say, "no."
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Thompson asked Gary Broad, Chairman of Planning Commission, for the
commissioners' comments.
Commissioner Theresa Barrett asked how specific her comments should be. Was she
to simply state whether or not she accepted the plan as it was presented, or was she to
comment on the various alternate plans and other details?
Ms. Tuft replied that any and all comments were welcome from commissioners, either in
written form, or verbally.
Mayor Thompson assured Commissioner Barrett that any questions she had could be
answered at the meeting.
November 13, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 297
2 Commissioner Barrett stated that she was in favor of the entire project and wanted it to
3 go ahead as quickly as possible, but there were some details that needed to be worked
4 out, such as whether grazing would be allowed, what kind of surface should be used, in
5 the parking lot, et. She asked if she should voice those preferences at the meeting.
6
7 Ms. Tuft replied that she should.
8
9 Commissioner Barrett explained that she would favor limited grazing, and added that
10 any protection that could be given to the headwaters for Adobe Creek should be given,
11 due to the possibility of the Sudden Oak Death Syndrome being passed by animals
12 walking through the water. Regarding the parking area, she did not feel it should be
13 asphalt, and favored hard-packed dirt. She did not object to a $2.00 fee for parking, but
14 did not see an explanation of how that would be deposited at the kiosk. She thought it
15 was reasonable to close the park on extremely high fire danger days, but did not think
16 that should be a condition of accepting the EIR. She commended those who prepared
17 the EIR, saying it was a "fabulous job."
18
19 Commissioner Glass concurred with Commissioner Barrett's concerns. He felt requiring
20 the City to assign a firefighter and a police officer to the park was coercive, expensive,
21 and went "above and beyond common sense." He complimented Ron Walters on his
22 video, which he felt would diffuse some of the "false objections" to the park from the
23 community. He described the park as "not just another piece of real estate," but "270
24 special acres," and added that there was a need for a park of this kind in the
25 community. He was in favor of moving the project along as quickly as possible, and
26 wanted to see the park open to the public, since it was, in fact, public property. He
27 quoted from a letter included in the packet from Frances Brigman, who wrote that "the
28 true intent of the EIR is not to stop projects, but to detail their impact, so that the public
29 and public-decision makers can make intelligent and informed decision about them."
30 He felt the enough information had been. gathered to make a very intelligent decision
31 possible.
32
33 Commissioner Broad explained that he had hiked in Lafferty Park, which he said was a
34 wonderful site, and would be a wonderful park. He did not see any areas in the draft
35 EIR that he thought required additional discussion. He noted that the intent of the EIR
36 process was to serve as an information process, to make decision-makers aware of the
37 environmental impacts of a project, and also lead to better environmental decisions. He
38 thought it unfortunate when the EIR process was used by opponents of a project to
39 delay it by submitting a multitude of comments to which the decision-makers must
40 respond. He added that while this can slow down the process, it should not prevent a
41 worthy project from ultimately being approved.
42
43 Council Member Cader-Thompson, as Council representative on the Planning
44 Commission, thought that the old fencing should remain in place, even if new fencing
45 was added, due to historical and habitat value. She did not favor controlled burn on the
46 property. She preferred to prohibit grazing, or at the most, allow very minimal grazing.
1
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
Vol. 35, Page 298
November 13, 2000
She believed the park would be of great benefit to the community, especially to young
people. She thought an asphalt surface in the parking area was not necessary; she
preferred a gravel surface, when she thought was more fire-resistant than asphalt.
MOTION: Commissioner Glass moved, seconded by Barrett, to direct City
Management to prepare the final Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Hagen asked all those in favor to say, "aye" all those opposed to say,
"no".
MOTION PASSED: 4/0 -Planning Commission
Mayor Thompson then asked the Council Members for their comments.
Council Member Healy stated that his goal had been, and remained, to open Lafferty
Ranch as a public park, and to be a good neighbor to fellow landowners on Sonoma
Mountain. He explained that the City had received 874 pages of written comments from
neighbors, attorneys, scientists, the last 410 pages of which had just been given to
Council at the meeting. Some pages contained multiple comments, and City
Management and the consultant team must prepare written responses to each of those
comments, making it an enormous task. Careful and objective consideration of these
comments and the responses to them was a responsibility he and the other Council
Members took very seriously. Only when this had been accomplished could a final
decision be made. He asked for everyone's patience, and added that he thought "the
end [was] in sight."
Council Member Cader-Thompson displayed a sign from the "No on Measure I"
campaign and explained that the .Farm Bureau had been very supportive of this
campaign, which advocated "saving our parks and saving our farms." Conversely,
comments had been received from the Farm Bureau and farmers in opposition to
opening Lafferty Ranch Park. She thought this made it clear that had Measure I
passed; opening the park would have become a much easier process.
Regarding ASHTO standards, she pointed out that approximately ten 20-acre lots on
Hardin Lane had recently been sold, and she did not believe that the developer had
been required to bring Hardin Lane up to ASHTO standards. She thought there was a
similar situation in Penngrove. She had also visited the Sonoma County Water Agency
on Llano Road in Santa Rosa, and that. road was not up to ASHTO standards. She
stated it was irresponsible of the County to attempt to require these standards on
Sonoma Mountain Road.
She concluded by saying that the park should be open to the public as soon as
possible, so that it could benefit the community now, and also be available for future
generations. She described Lafferty Ranch Park as an "incredible value." She thanked
Ron Walters for his video, and thanked all those who came to the meeting.
November 13, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 299
1 Council Member Keller displayed a map from the Bay Area Open Space Council of all
2 the open space and parkland in the Bay Area. He pointed out. that Sonoma County had
3 a much lower percentage of open space than the south Bay, East Bay, and Marin
4 County. Those areas have a tremendous amount of land designated as park and open
5 space, a great deal of which is accessible to the public. Much of that was done with
6 negative declaration EIR's. He thought that was the reason Lafferty Ranch was so
7 important for Southern Sonoma County. Not only is it a jewel of a property, he added,
8 but it also begins to make up a small piece of the shortfall identified in the County open
9 space plans and parks plans.
10
11 In regard to significant impacts identified in the draft EIR, he described them as "very
12 conservation [measures] to protect resources and mitigate impacts in the face of a very
13 likely, very well-financed lawsuit." He noted that these measures went far beyond those
14 mandated by best management practices in the Bay Area, and added that if the same
15 types of mitigations and limitations to public access were in place in other parts of the
16 Bay Area, most of what was not open space in those areas would never be accessible
17 to the public.
18
19 Concerning questions of fire danger, Council Member Keller shared photographs he
20 had taken along Sonoma Mountain Road. He pointed out that the shoulder areas on
21 Sonoma Mountain Road were not mowed, and there was a great deal of roadside
22 vegetation. Near the gate to the Pfendler property, there was a grassfire on the
23 shoulder. The owner, the county, and CDF (California Division of Forestry) had not
24 found it necessary to require mowing. The fire resulted in a burned patch, with tall grass
25 on either side. If fire danger were such an imminent threat to Sonoma Mountain.,
26 practices that had been in place for years would have been changed. Most other parks
27 did not have anywhere near the level of controls for fire access or fire protection that
28 were contained in the draft EIR. He submitted the photographs for inclusion in the
29 record.
30
31 Council Member Keller displayed a 1997 Master Plan for the East Bay Regional Park
32 District, which was adopted with a negative declaration. He explained that this was the
33 practice for all of the East Bay Regional Park lands.
34
35 He noted that since Lafferty Ranch Park was supposed to be opened under best
36 management practices of the Bay Area, he wanted to be sure that the City ordinance
37 initiating the process was part. of the public record. He also wanted the 1962 General
38 Plan included as part of the public record, as it called for a full service park on the
39 Lafferty site. Noting the need for parklands in 1962, the General Plan called for Lafferty
40 to include camping, horseback riding, educational activities, hiking, etc.
41
42 Speaking to the issue of impacts to fisheries on Adobe Creek, he explained that there
43 was a significant elevation gain past the diversion dam to the headwaters on Lafferty
44 Ranch, which would prevent any migration. The National Marine Fisheries Services had
45 been explicit about studies and protections needed to prevent sedimentation of the
46 creek, protect spawning grounds, control erosion, and prevent poaching, so that access
~~{
Vol. 35, Page 300 November 13, 2000
1
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
to large portions of the creek would be closed under this proposal during spawning
season, for fear of disturbing the migrating salmon. He showed pictures of the rest of
Adobe Creek, Adobe Creek Golf Course, Twin Creeks Subdivision; .Adobe Creek
subdivision, and Petaluma Adobe State. Historic Park, and noted that the NMFS had
imposed no restrictions to creek access in any of those areas.
One picture was of the high-water bypass parallel to Casa Grande Road. This
overflowed two years ago, capturing the stream flow and capturing spawning steelhead,
resulting in at least one nest in the high-water bypass. NMFS had imposed no controls
on the use of that bypass. Another photo was of cattle grazing at Adobe Creek just
upstream of Petaluma Adobe State Historic Park. Cattle have full access to the creek
there. There was missing fencing in one area where the bank had eroded, resulting in
sediment pouring into the creek, again with no controls from any agency at this point.
There were also agricultural practices of dumping gravel, sand, silt, and sediment along
the banks of the creek.
Council Member Keller explained that there was a substantial amount of landfill on the
golf course, and fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides were in use there. NMFS had not
imposed any controls. Every road crossing downstream of Lafferty had no runoff control
from any of the streets or sidewalks. All the way down to the South McDowell extension
and the new industrial parks, the creek was totally accessible. In fact, he said, the only
controls in place were informational signs that the Casa Grande United Anglers had
placed to educate the public about proper treatment of the creek. He commended them,
saying the signs were very nicely done.
The point, Council Member Keller stated, was that spawning salmon could be interfered
with in any number of ways. There was absolutely no reason to have the kind. of
restrictions proposed on access to upper Adobe Creek in this EIR. In fact, in Samuel
Taylor Park in Marin County, there was a spawning stream that was fully accessible.
The trail ran along the entire bank of the stream, and there was a horse camp right
along the banks. People visited regularly during spawning season to watch the fish.
This was in line with best management practices, not just in the Bay Area, but
elsewhere as well, and Petaluma should not do any more than that.
He referred to documents form Mr. Pfendler and the Sonoma Mountain Conservancy
regarding eagle and Western Pond Turtle habitats at Lafferty. He stated that although
he admired Mr. Pfendler for his desire to observe wildlife - a popular recreational
activity throughout the country - it appeared that Mr. Pfendler felt that only he and his
guests should have that privilege of Lafferty Ranch. He agreed that the parking area
should not be paved, in order to make it possible to control runoff of oil and chemicals
from the area.
Regarding required road improvements, he noted that there were several applications in
the records of the Sonoma County Department of Public Works for construction,
including a 15,000-gallon winery at 6611 Sonoma Mountain Road, for which the
L,'
November 13, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 301
1
2 Department of Public Works did not require any road improvements. There were
complaints and petitions dating back to 1971 about dangerous road conditions, bridges,
3 pavement, shoulders, grade, site lines, accidents, signs and guardrails. All these letters
4 and petitions to Sonoma County Public Works were met with a "we don't have the
5 money, don't worry about it" response. Occasionally. there was some repaving and
6 installation of guardrails. He stated that if safety has been such a problem regarding
7 Sonoma Mountain Road, Sonoma County has never seen fit to address it.
8
9 The amount of traffic noted in the EIR that would be generated by visitors to Lafferty
10 would be approximately equivalent to that generated by four households. New houses
11 have been built on Sonoma Mountain Road and the Sonoma County Department of
12 public Works has never required any changes to Sonoma Mountain Road. He explained
13 that ASHTO standards are designed to address a mix of driving speed, site lines and
14 traffic volume based on federal standards. It has been recognized that ASHTO
15 standards are not the best standards to apply for rural, historic and scenic roads
16 because they are so destructive. This is a rural area, and constructing an ASHTO-
17 standard road there would bring complaints from residents on Sonoma Mountain Road
18 and everybody in the City, because not only would there be a massive road up the
19 mountain, but there would be a huge scar.
20
21 Council Member Keller explained that ASHTO is focused on serving automobiles,
22 whereas the Intramodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) recognized the
23 importance of serving communities. Reducing the speed limit on a road through a
24 historic area can be just as effective in reducing accidents as widening the shoulder 10
25 feet. In order to recognize the common sense vision of ISTEA, the Federal Highway
26 Administration and State Department of Transportation must break with their traditional
27 practice of resolving conflicts between environmental and preservation values and the
28 ASHTO standards in favor of the comfort and convenience of motorists.
29
30 He thought the City had an extraordinary opportunity to open up a small piece of
31 Sonoma Mountain land that has been publicly owned since 1959. It had been a water
32 service for 100 years before that. He wanted to make certain that the appropriate water
33 rights were dedicated from Lafferty to in stream habitat to the public trust, and that the
34 dedication was made part of the public record. He thought it demonstrated the
35 extraordinary dedication of the City to preserving the habitat on that stream and on that
36 property. Instead of being the first municipality in California to have voluntarily
37 relinquished its water rights, it was turned into an in stream habitat support. He believed
38 the mitigations proposed in the EIR were way out of line with best management
39 practices in the Bay Area. This would be a huge burden on the public sector, it would
40 not be required anywhere else, and the City was being forced into this corner by owners
41 of property adjacent to Lafferty who were jealous of their privacy and had the money to
42 force the issue. He expected the issue to go to court, and hoped that the courts could
43 understand very clearly what the broader perspective was.
44
45 Council Member Torliatt thought it was sad that the City had to go through this process
46 to open Lafferty Ranch. She had visited Lafferty with some of the other City Council
~~
Vol. 35, Page 302 November 13, 2000
1
2
3
4
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
candidates in September. This is the only publicly owned property on Sonoma
Mountain, and she thought it imperative that the project move forward as quickly as
possible. She absolutely opposed any recommendation limiting access to docent-led
tours, and believed it important to also have unsupervised and unregistered access to
the property. She also believed that if motorists followed the law and the legal speed
limit on Sonoma Mountain Road, the road would not be a problem.
She thought the improvements to the property would far outweigh any negative
environmental impacts. Thee are so many people looking forward to visiting Lafferty,
and an alternative is needed to heavily-used Helen Putnam Park. She added that it was
extremely unfortunate that the County of Sonoma has not been more supportive of the
project. Leadership and support was needed at the county level to help open this park.
She hoped to approve this DEIR, in her next four-year term if not before and open up a
long deserved park for Petaluma and the South County. There was a forum held on
November 2 regarding the economic value of parks. The sponsors of the forum included
the East Bay Regional Park District, Association of Bay Area Governments, Economic
Development Alliance for Business, Bay Area Council., Contra Costa Council, Contra
Costa Economic Partnership, Tri Valley Business Council and the Regional Parks
Foundation. The study focused on the impacts and benefits of regional parks on quality
of life, property values, environmental preservation, health, education and benefits to
the local economy from Park and District investments and visitor spending. It is intended
as a tool for assessing the role of regional parks and balancing the East Bay's economic
growth with open space and agricultural preservation, housing, transportation and
educational needs.
Council Member Maguire did not think the latest version of the DEIR had added
anything substantial to the record. In reading the DEIR, he believed environmental
impacts would be minimal, particularly with the modesty of this project. He had asked
Supervisor Mike Kerns to visit the Morally property, and he recognized that it could be a
possible alternative regional park. He would prefer not to have a paved parking lot. He
encouraged City Management to put together the FEIR with an emphasis on goals and
objectives, i.e., the unsupervised access for the public restricted only by the size of the
parking lot. He asked that in Council's motion, they ask City Management for findings
for a Statement of Overriding Public Benefit. He thought it unfortunate that there had
been an abuse of CEQA, primarily by Peter Pfendler and the Sonoma Mountain
Conservancy, because it set a precedent that was a threat to public access all over the
state and that was a terrible legacy for anyone to have imposed on the public..
Council Member Hamilton stated that opening Lafferty was critical, and she hoped no
one on the council stopped until the public had access. There is no public land on this
side of Sonoma Mountain and Petaluma deserved it and needed it. The DEIR is clean
and thorough and adequate.
Mayor Thompson noted that everyone involved in the project had a lot invested
emotionally and financially, and he wanted to move forward to open Lafferty to the
public as soon as possible. He had reservations about allowing grazing. He thought
~~
November 13, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 303
1 "pavers" might be used in the parking lot. He wondered if the General Plan would have
2 to be amended, would findings have to be made, and if so, in what form.
3
4 MOl'IOIV: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Hamilton, to prepare a final
5 EIR so that findings could be made for a Statement of Overriding Public Benefit.
6
7 MOTION PASSED: 7-0-0
8
9 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Council Members Keller and Hamilton for
10 their support while on the Council. She hoped that they would continue to stay involved
11 in the community.
12
13 ADJOURN
14
15 The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. in memory of Dominic J. Ercolini, who passed
16 away November 4, 2000.
17
18
19
20
21
22 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
23 ATTEST:
24
25
26
27 Paulette Lyon, Deputy City erk
28
29
30 ******
~~