Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/29/1996April 29, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 411 i MINUTES 2 OF A REG~JI,AIt MEETING 3 PETALUMA CITY CO~JNCII, a MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1996 s ROLL CALI, 7:00 p.m. 6 Preserit: Haniilton, Stompe, Maguire, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Barlas, Mayor 7 Hilligoss s Absenr. None 9 P]LEDGE OF ALI.EGIANCE ~o New Eagle Scouts William Brody and Cory Squires led the Pledge of Allegiance to the i~ flag. ia DOG OF T~iE DAY ~3 Representatives of the Humane Society were present to introduce a Featured Dog that ia was found on the freeway a month ago. If anyone is looking for a pet, the invitation is was extended for that person to come down to the Animal Shelter to see the good i6 selection of available pets that are there. i~ MOMENT OF SILENCE is After the Moment of Silence, Mayor Hilligoss noted that the City Council has heard i9 the people who spoke at the April 15 meeting and asked that those people who wished zo to speak this evening to address only new items on the Lafferty and Moon Ranch z~ issues. Speakers were asked to limit their microphone time to three minutes each 22 because the Council would also like to have some time to discuss the situation this Zs evening. Za P~JBLYC CONIIVIEN'~ u Brian Hayes, 5 Morning Sun Drive - Petaluma Citizens for Responsive Government - ab yes, there has been polarization on this issue, but he feels that is a good thing, because 2~ this is a sign of democracy. You need to fight and struggle for power. You just don't Zs get what you want all the ti-ne; there are different points of view. The Council does a z9 good job. The present City Manager has announced his retirement. He does represent 3o power. We would like at this time to possibly look at the City Charter and bring the 3i City Manager's office under more control and limitation. sa - We would like to change the word "Indefinite" to "Definite" 3s - We would like see the Council talk about changing the super majority of the City 34 Council vote for City Manager from "tive to two" to "four to three" 3s - We would like to set an annual evaluation of the City Manager for accountability of 36 goals s~ - We would like open, public debate and no "closed doors" 3s - He thinks the Council and Mayor are working hard. Page 412, Vol. 29 April 29, 1996 i Janice Cader Thompson, 732 Carlsbad Court - she supports the previous speaker's z comments. Petalumans are not polarized on the issues before you tonight. This issue s has brought attention to a lack of leadership and respect of citizens of Petaluma. We a deserve respect. You know there is overwhelming support for keeping this in our s hands - keep Lafferty. Let's start working together. 6 COUNCII, COMNIENT ~ Nancy Read - the Butter and Eggs Day Parade was wonderful; it started on time; it s ended on time. Today is the signing of the 3oint Powers Agreement for the North 9 Coast Rail Authority. The JPA now has control of the railroad tracks between Ignacio io and alrnost the Oregon border. The future of transportation as it goes through ii Petaluma is very encouraging. The specific plan for the railroad depot area in i2 Petaluma needs to happen soon. i3 Lori Shea - regarding the debate, after we make our decision on the Moon and ~Lafferty ia Ranches, we have an opportunity to get back to work as a positive force for the ~s community. We have an opportunity to get things done for our City. What has ib happened during the reeent Council meetings is nothing to be proud of. She apologized i~ for losing her temper at times and pledged to spend the time necessary to resolve the i8 issues. She hopes the Council can move forward and spend their energies to vitalize i9 the local economy, focus on the needs of the youth, and become a respected City zo Council. She hopes the members of the Council join with her in making the pledge to Zi run the City in a more harmonious and polite manner. z2 RESO. 96-105 NCS Zs REVIEW PERIOD FOR MOON/LAFFERTY aa Resolution 96-105 NCS establishing a 15 month review period for the Moon Ranch. u Bruce Hagen, 145 Grevillia - those who value Moon need to tell Peter Pfendler to give z6 us the Moon. It makes us prove we can tind a better deal. Mr. Hagen doesn't trust 2~ what the 1997 Council may do. Take Lafferty otf the block, repeal the 1994 motion, zs require a public vote to see Lafferty. If Peter Pfendler gets that land there will be no 29 public access. He doesn't want the issue on the November ballot. so Ron Walters, 325 Post Street - he "shot" a video of Lafferty Ranch. It is a treasure. 3~ Keep Lafferty. 32 Tod Manning, 325 Post Street - put a hold on the trade tonight. s3 Marypat Moore, 310 Cortez Drive - she hopes the Council rescinds the proposal and 34 keeps Lafferty. We need to come to a decision. 3s Noorillah Karr, 321 Cortez Drive - restore our souls, keep Lafferty. Regional parks 36 are a place to get together, and that is very important. But I don't think we need a 3~ regional park enough to replace a wilderness park - Lafferty. We need both, a place 3s for souls and a place to have fun. April 29, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 413 1 REVIEVV PERIOI) FOR MOON/LAF~RTY cont'd z Douglas Daily, 320 Pleasant Street - respect...the way to get my respect is to listen to 3 me and validate my position. People have spent their money and have come before a you on this issue. The legal questions of General Plan, water, watershed, and special s assessments need to be acknowledged and answered. Peter Pfendler's lawyer said there 6 was a question about access. You had our respect, we voted for you. Now the ~ perception is we are not being listened to. s Elizabeth Meredith, 104 Sth Street - someone called her and told her to go back where 9 she came from. We have free speech. It is your responsibility to listen and to io acknowledge the speakers. This is about public trust. i~ Council discussion on the agenda item ~2 Mary Stompe - We have until January 25, 1998, which is the date by which the is agreement between the Open Space District and Mr. Pfendler has to be resolved. Some ia of the issues that s}~ould be dealt with are access to Lafferty, securing funding, is financing and operations ofi one or both parks. Her meeting with Citizens for Lafferty rs was canceled because some of their members could not guarantee that a civil meeting ~7 could occur and she was advised by Mr. Stapp that the group could not agree on the ~s agenda. ~9 She suggested setting up a ba(anced, facilitated committee (with a mission statement). Zo and Supervisor Harberson, to address the issue, look at the possibility of alternative zi sites and other issues. The balanced membership could be made up of 2 22 Councilmembers, one on each side of the issue, one neighbor near the property ~ appointed by the Sonoma Mountain Homeowners, 4 citizens (2 opposed and 2 aa supporters) and Supervisor Jim Harberson. If the committee were unable to find and u fund an alternative regional park and tind solutions to the various other issues by July a6 25, 1997, we would stil] have 6 months to review the current opportunity. The 2~ committee's tirst report back to the Council could be scheduled for August 1, 1996, aa and then report to the Council every 3 months thereafter. This suggestion is not meant 29 to be a freeze, rather it is meant as a time for a balanced committee to identify and 3o solidify any other opportunities available. Restated by another Councilmember it si would be to explore development oti an access plan for Lafferty, explore ways to obtain 3a a regional park, look at alternative funding for a regional park with Supervisor Jim 33 Harberson, solidify the tinancing of both a wild park and a regional park, and see what sa comes out of that process that would benefit everybody. 3s Jane Hamilton - could support the suggestion, and a great many others in the 36 community could also sunport that suggestion if the trade of Lafferty were taken out of 3~ the picture. There may not even be a need for a committee. This would put the 3s citizens who have worked so hard for Lafferty at a disadvantage because oti postponing 39 the issue for a number of months. There are a great many things that she looked into ao that convinced her that trading Lafferty was something that the City should not do. ai There are those who would be happy to volunteer their labor in an effort to make a2 Lafferty a wilderness park. She reviewed her change of thinking about the issue from 43 how she supported the trade to how she now supports keeping Lafferty in public 44 ownership. as Carole Barlas - She was in favor of Moon originally. At the first public hearing, she ab began to see things from a different frame and also did a switch. We've been talking a~ about people moving towards a middle ground of some kind, and it's just not working. a8 She said when she got up this morning, she realized that it is because there's one thing a9 that isn't negotiable in tl~is particular process. 'Fp~M-.~ .a . , . . : . ~ . ~ .. . . . ~,~y::.~. . ... Page 414, Vol. 29 April 29, 1996 i REVIEW PERIOD FOR MOON/LAFFERTY cont'd. 2 What is not negotiable is giving Lafferty up into private hands. She said she knows 3 that she is drawing the line, and you're not supposed to do that in conflict resolution, a but there are times when it's appropriate to say what is negotiable in a situation and s what is not. However, she will negotiate around a lot of things, around searching for 6 another Moon Ranch or acc~uiring Moon Ranch. She will negotiate around aecess and ~ accessibility to Lafferty, that is working with the property owners on Sonoma Mountain s and with the public to come up with a fair deal. She will negotiate all day long and all s night long on that, but not on giving Lafferty up. io Lori Shea - In 1993, from looking at the different properties and from looking at all of ii the information that was presented to l~er, she supported the trade. When she heard her i2 fellow colleagues asking to step back from the issue and put it to a vote of the people, is she changed her thinking and went along with that. In the beginning, the public was ia saying to put it to a vote of the people. When the Council talked about putting it to a is vote of the people, there was objection to that. After Su~ervisor Harberson stated that i6 there were other possibilities to acquire a regional park, she again changed her i~ thinking, because she wanted to give him an opportunity to look at the options that may is be available. However, taking Lafferty out of the equation probably will result in less i9 effort being put into acquiring a regional park. zo She thinks that the committee eould look at where there are other options so Lafferty zi could remain in public hands. That should not come from the Council. She feels that's z2 what the committee should be charged to do. A survey is a survey. A vote of the z~ public is different than a survey. And now, the compromise line has been moved za again. If the City can keep Lafferty and have a regional park, that would be great. Zs Everyone would win. She is willing to give it some time and to really work towards 26 doing that. z~ Nancy Read - This is a point where the Council needs to go to the step of agreeing to as disagree. Once, we get to that agreeing to disagree, t~~ien the coercion and thought 29 process that has occurred over the last 4'/a years will probably come to a vote. She is so not willing to remove Lafferty, if the Council votes to view other properties. 3i When it was stated that land is now being purchased fee simple by the Open Space sa District, this is quite a change from what we were told 4~/a years ago, which was, 33 "There was no other way to have a regional park except to go .through this funding 34 mechanism." We were going to discuss the issue of allowing Supervisor Harberson to 3s do what he said he would do. This was never finished by the Council. We should not 36 have Lafferty removed from the debate. 3~ The Supervisor stated he would do some things: Talk to the landowner to ask if he is 3a willing to sell the fee portion of Moon Ranch, to make Moon available to us without 39 Lafferty exchange, find out if there are other agencies from which the City could ao obtain funding for a regional park for south county, to look for properties, and that he ai would attempt to save Moon. If we could at least agree on that, maybe we could set a2 the tone for the discussion and the continuation. April 29, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 415 ~ REVIEW PERIOD FOR MOON/I.A~'ERTY cont'd. 2 Matt Maguire - this is a very sad and disturbing state of affairs that we have come to. 3 He thanked the public for being very civil in their deportment. He hasn't heard any a real recognition of what this public has been crying out for over and over again, not s just tonight but for the last couple ofi years. Take Lafferty off the table, take it off 6 now, commit to leaving it otiti, and just be done with it. ~ We cannot develop respect in this process when we have a proposed committee that is s completely imbalanced: you take two Councilmembers (one on each side of the issue), 9 one neighbor from Sonoma Mountain, four citizens (two on either side of the issue), io and Supervisor Harberson, you end up with tive people on a committee that support the i~ swap and three who are opposed to it. To put it to a committee really is to sidestep the ~2 issue. is With all due respect to Councilwoman Ston~pe, she makes mention that the meeting ~a with the Citizens for Lafferty didn't happen. We were enheartened when she made the is offer. As he understands it, it was not that there couldn't be a guarantee that the ~6 meeting would be civil. He has never seen this group act in a way that would suggest i~ otherwise. That can be considered be a subtle dig against the Citizens for Lafferty. is We have a problem not with polarity, we have a problem with trust, not with trust i9 amongst ourselves, because he think everybody recognizes we are all trying to do the zo best thing as we s~e it. He thinks we owe it to the public to acknowledge their position Zi as being valid. 22 Take Lafferty off the table, then a committee is easily. He doesn't see hundreds of Zs Moon swap supporters flooding °these meetings, but everyone of these people here and Za everyone watching at home is a potential Moon supporter. We have a piece of u property that's tl~e most fantastic piece of property around, and it would make an z.6 exquisite environme~ltal preserve. People would come from all around to see it. What a~ we really want to do is buy Moon fee simple. It's preposterous, it's absolutely absurd as and it's completely fiscally irresponsible to think that we're ever going to get any kind 29 of deal on Moon Ranch or even acquire it whatsoever as long as Lafferty is out there 3o for Peter Pfendler to snatch. s~ The folks want to keep Lafferty with some access to it. They also want Moon Ranch. 3~ Stop threatening them with the loss of Lafferty, and let's harness this good energy. We 33 have created something good through our disagreement. And that's the beauty of this 34 process you can synthesize something that is greater than the sum of the parts. ss The Open Space District has been working on deals just like this on other scales. 36 According to the Supervisor, it's going to take time, because there's a backup at the s~ Open Space District and the tiunding isn't all necessarily there. Those are the political 3s realities which we recognize. 39 The citizens in their good efforts and their good hearts are going to go out to get a ao bunch of signatures; and they are going to put this on the ballot in November. And this a~ town is not going to hear the last of this stupid argument until we take Lafferty off the aa table. 43 He thinks this body should decide how much access there should be at Lafferty after 44 having public hearings on that issue. Every interested party can come down here and as give us their story. Let's see what we can do to take their concerns into consideration 46 and then take care of those concerns. Take Lafferty off the table, set up that a~ committee, we'll start talking about how much use we can get, and we'll start talking 48 about what park ~ve can buy. Watch this town shine. Page 416, Vol. 29 ~;, ~, w'~ i - • . . ~ April 29, 1996~ ~ REVI~W PERIOD FOR MOON/LAFFERTY cont'd. '~` r ~ : P ~''~- 2 Mayor Hilligoss - She would like to see the City get Moon and keep Lafferty. She s thinks that a committee is the way to go. They can look for another one, .bat we can a try to get the Open Space District to buy the rest of Moon for us: That would be a s win-win situation. She cannot let Lafferty go against her vote last year. 6 There was the question of continuing some dialogue on the offer of Supervisor ~ Harberson, although it was not listed on the agenda. On this date, a letter had been s received by the City Council from the Supervisor. In response to Council query about 9 discussing the letter, the City Attorney said that if the Council feels that a need has io arisen after an agenda has gone out, the Council can take a vote to see if a majority of ii the Council believes that a need arose after the agenda went out. After that affirmative i2 vote, then it can be placed on the agenda for a vote. City Manager Scharer said the ~s Harberson letter of this date is merely a status report of the issues discussed on April ~a 15. His recommendation was that the letter cannot be added to the agenda under the is rules. A Councilmember felt that adding the Harberson subject as an emecgency issue i6 would be a de facto pursuit of either a freeze or a committee type of approach, and it i~ doesn't address the signiticant issue that is before the Council, which he said is to take is Lafferty off the table. ~9 There was a straw vote (Councilman Maguire said this is a clever ploy to try to break Zo things up and is not an honest way to proceed) to ask Supervisor Harberson to do the Zi things he offered to do on April 15, and legislation will be brought back to the Council n delineating the request. ~ 24 Zs 26 It was moved by Mary Stompe, seconded by Lori Shea to adopt Resolution 96-105 NCS establishing a review period to July 25, 1997, and halting the processing of the September 19, 1994, proposal to exchange the Lafferty Ranch for Moon Ranch. ~ 2~ There were members of the public who wished to speak. za Will Stapp, 1625 Spring Hill Road - part of the reason we didn't meet last Wednesday 29 is because we wanted to talk to Councilwoman Stompe about their opinion of a Brown so Act violation and their feeling that a serial meeting had occurred, which had been si referred to at the last meeting when he spoke to the Council. This is where they felt a 3z. whole new policy came from. He told Councilwoman Stompe they wanted to ask 33 about that issue, and she declined to meet. Councilwoman Stompe said she has a 34 different story. Mr. Stapp said no one has answered them on that issue. Mayor 3s Hilligoss said she hasn't answered, because she feels she has nothing to say in relation 36 to the charges which she feels are false. She said she was not there and no one told her s~ about it. Her prepared statement at the beginning of the meeting was because sfie was 38 angry with Supervisor Harberson for not telling the Council about the change in his 39 thinking. .,_Lori Shea said this meeting wasn't any difterent than any other meeting she ao has:'had when less than a quorum of Councilmembers has met with members of the a~ public on a variety of issues. There continued to be a questions about a prepared az statement by the Mayor on the evening of April 15. 43 Jerry Price, 775 Baywood Drive -#101 - he is appalled there was no action at the April 44 15 meeting. About 200 people came here that evening. This transaction came out not as in the ;public domain but in private hands. This brings things back into back room 46 politics again. ~ April 29, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 417 REVIEW PERIOD FOIZ 1VIOON/I.AFFEEItTY cont'd. ~a 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 Zo 21 22 ~ 24 u 26 2~ a Bruce Hagen, 145 Grevillia Drive - he withdraws his name from the committee as 3 proposed. ~ a Tod Manning, 325 Post Street - he is dismayed about the amendment to the resolution s adding a committee. It is valid to bring that up at a future meeting. To make it a part 6 of this is disingenuous. ~ Dr. Gillion, 9 Eddie Court - he would gladly serve on the committee as he is a trained s facilitator. 9 Jim Dombroski, P. O. Box 751027, Petaluma Ca 94975 - You should address io Ordinance 1948 NCS betiore you waste any more time. You will be perpetrating a ii fraud on the voters in Petaluma. The vote was called on Resolution 96-105 NCS establishing a~, review period to July 25, 1997, and halting the processing of the ~ September 19, 1994, proposal to exchange the Laftierty Ranch for Moon Ranch.: Ayes: Stompe, Read, Shea, Mayor Hilligoss Noes: Maguire, Hatniltoi~, Vice Mayor Barlas Absent: None Before the vote, there were inquiries as to the legality of amending a motion prior to action. City Attorney Rudnansky noted that cities amend resolutions at the time they are considered, al( the time. If the Council wished to amend the resolution, it is up to them. Non-substantive changes were made to the wording about the Sonoma County Open Space District, pursuant to their request; the review period date was changed to July 25, 1997; and there was added a reference that a committee be established, the make-up and mission of that committee shall be determined at a later date. ItESO. 96-106 NCS ItESCINDING 9/19/1994 ACTION (defeated) zs Resolution 96-106 NCS rescinding the City Council action of September 19, 1994 - z,9 proposal to exchange the Lafferty Ranch for Moon Ranch. so Hank Zucker, 15 Lone Oak Court - he can't understand why we won't take Lafferty off si the table. The poll said public opinion was for it. There are signs in town about this. 32 You have a clear statement of public sentiment. Is it your inability to change? Is a 33 rich millionaire's privacy IllOf~ II11pOCiallt~ If you don't take Lafferty off the table, 3a Peter Pfendler won't negotiate. Why is important to sell Lafferty? 35 Beverly Alexander, 341 Liberty Street - she requested that a motion or resolution be 36 read before the Council act~d on it so the public could know what they are talking s~ about. Rescind the resolution that put us in jeopardy. The City will be exposed to a s8 lawsuit. Act ethically and lawfully. Your tirst duty is to tl~e City. Any of you who 39 continue to risk city funds don't deserve to be on the City Council, and she would be ao for removal of those individuals. ai Leigh Walters, 325 Post Street - in favor of keeping Lafferty Ranch. The place is a az, local treasure and is magical. Let's not ]ose it like we have lost some of the beautiful a3 old mansions in town like old Sorenson's. ~ ; .~, ~ „_ ~~ , ; ~ ° _ "a x':~;~# :` . ~ Page 418, Vol. 29 April 29, 1996 ~~~ ~; .~ri{ , Y . i RESCIlVIDING 9/19/1994 ACTION LAFF~RTY/MOON cont'~1. 2 David Keller, 1327 I Street - Mr. Pfendler disconnected the two. items. So the CEQA 3 process which would have been instigated at the start of a search, and by convenient a slight of hand, that didn't happen. Whose book are we on, this seems like an article of s convenience for the sake of money and CEQA. 6 They are not connected. For ttie majority of the Council's desire to push this through ~ regardless of the law, they are connected. The resolution is not legitimate; it represents s an illegal stance; it represents a sta~~ce that has not been held up by the Open Space 9 District. You haven't addressed all the issues - compete CEQA analysis, io consequences, amending General Plan, changing the water system properties, rate ~i holder obligations of the City. Unless you address the legal obligations, all of this is a i2 sham. There are a number of ra~achers who would beg on their knees that you give is them an ounce of this kind of consideration wheri you talk about condemning their land ~a for reservoir sites. The contrast is appalling. ~s Fred Starke, 5 Larch Drive - he is the couch potato that the Vice Mayor referred to. ib He heard Mr. Sobel say something about a committee on the front porch of the Open i~ Space District. ~a Mary Brown, 48 Jess Avenue - she is a marriage counsElor. She is concerned about i9 the process. The questions and coi»ments of the public are not being addressed. zo Please respond to them. Why won't the Council let Lafferty off the table? You know, Zi that Lafferty is a soul Yiliing, spiritual. experience for the public. There is a breech of 22 respect between the Council and the people who have come week after week, and who a~ have not been responded to. Za Hank Flum, 1721 Stonehenge Way - he is interested that 60% of the community is for zs Lafferty. He lives in the Corona Ely area. Everybody in his area is for keeping 26 Lafferty. He feels appalled that the Council is not hearing what the citizens are telling 2~ them. He doesn't want his taxes spent willy-nilly. Why are we paying him to take a as piece of property. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Council discussion on the resolution rescinding Council action of September 19, 1994, regarding the proposal to exchange Lafferty Ranch for Moon Ranch. It was moved by Carole Barlas, and seconded by Matt Maguire. Mayor Hilligoss read the resolutiori. Ayes: Magiiire, Hamilton, Vice Mayor Barlas Noes: Stouipe, Read, Sl~ea, Mayor Hilligoss Abseut: Noue 3~ ACTION TO ~YIVITIATE LEGISLATION ss TO PLAC~ Y.A~ERTY-MOON ON NOVEMBER BALLO'~ 39 Dr. Gillian - to Mary S.tompe and her idea of a com,nittee, it would have been better to ao put that action on the next agenda. He thanked everyone for their civility and respect. ai There _~will be :an item on the November ballot. He has given $200 to Citizens for az Lafferty Ranch. There will be a referendum unless ownership is retained. He has 43 zero tolerance for giving away what we own. April 29, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 419 1 LAFFERTY-MOON ON NOVEIIVIBEIZ ~AI.I.OT? 2 Greg Yarwood, 1704 Annetta Drive - it is obvious that people want to keep Lafferty. s You owe it to explain why you are going against the whole town. a Council discussion - s- The only way he would put the item on the ballot was if the wording was supplied 6 by the Citizens for Lafferty. ~- Against putting the issue on the ballot. Some of these issues could have been s explored already. She would support it only if language were extremely clear and v simple. We don't need a committee; we are the committee. io - Not in favor of this. If this Council initiates something to go on the ballot, there is ~t the fear that it would be done in a way that would slant it so much that the majority ~z will be trying to move their agenda on this issue. ~3 - Would like to see the committee answer some of the questions relating to access, ia financial obligations and improvements. There is an opportunity to step back and ~s work together to look at having both. At this point, does not favor legislation for i6 the ballot. i~ 18 19 zo a~ 22 23 24 25 26 2~ zs It was moved by Matt Maguire and seconded by Jane Hamilton, that we put the Moon-Lafferty exchange on the November, 1996, ballot given that the wording meet the approval of the steering conu»ittee for the Citizens for Access to Latferty and a regional park, too. Ayes: Maguire, Haniiltau, Vice Mayor Barlas Noes: Stompe, Read, Shea, Mayor Hilligoss Absent: Noue (De fented) RESCIND SAI.E Y,AWI.ER I2~SERVOgIt ANI) PAI2CELS FOIZ FII..1'EI~ PI.ANT ORD. 1948 NCS 29 On March 7, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1948 NCS authorizing the sale so of surplus properties on Manor Lane and a 13.94 acre parcel upon Sonoma Mountain 3i commonly known as Lawler Reservoir. The Council considered rescinding that action. sz Scott Hess, 100 Union Street - the Citizens for Lafferty request that you rescind: the 33 ordinance to preserve the water rights and bring the action into compliance with the 34 General Plan. 3s David Keller, 1327 I Street - if Petaluma was a corporation, it would be on the road to s6 bankruptcy; you would have lost your customers, because you are not responsive; you s~ would have lost you major executives, because we have a process that is not coherent, 3s that is not reasonable, that is not pursing the goals of the corporation. If you look at it, s9 you would know that this enterprise needs to be shaken up and be redone. He is ao embarrassed. There is no response at this paint regarding the legalities of 1948, of the ai sale of portions of the publicly owned water system compliance with CEQA, az compliance with the General Plan, compliance with the public's desire to know how its 43 business is being done. It is sad, and he is sorry to see the Council proceed on this aa path. ri. -.F~,:' Jy(q,~ ' ' ~ . . . ~ ~ Page 420, Vol. 29 April 29, 1996 :'~~~F ^,~~~~„ ~~~~ . ... i LAWI,EIt RESERVOIR & WATER TREATMENT PLAN'~ a 1~SCIND SALE - ORD. 1948 NCS cout'd. 3 Hank Zucker - a little: while ago he asked each of the members of the Council majority a to explain, in their terms, that we the citizens of Petaluma can hear and understand, the s reasons for refusing to take Lafferty off the table. Another gentleman asked the same 6 thing: He still wants to know. He repeated his questions presented earlier in the ~ meeting. s Council comments - - 9 There was a request for veritication regarding the April 23 letter that was submitted by io Bob Brunsell. ii City Manager Scharer - For the rnembers of the public who don't have an agenda in i2 front of them, this item is introduction of an ordinance to repeal Ordinance 1948 NCS, i3 adopted on March 7, 1994, which authorized the surplusing of properties on Manor ia Lane, that is where our filter plant was located, and a 13.94 acre parcel, which is is comrnonly referred to as Lawler Reservoir. Since that ordinance was adopted, the City i6 Council authorized the disposition of the property on Manor Lane and the 'removal of ~~ the filter plant. This has been done. The diversion structure in Adobe Creek, which is caused substantial problems with the fish migration up Adobe Creek and restoration of i9 the fish to Adobe Creek, and under the permit of the Department of Fish and Game Zo that structure was removed. zi The Lawler Reservoir status is the Council authorized us to dispose of that to the 22 surrounding property owner, who owns all the property around this particular parcel. ~ That property does not have any form of access, other than same very limited access za granted to the Water Department by the old Cal Water Service Company. The papers zs have been drawn up, the contracts are ready to be sigrted. The City Manager has 26 refused to sign them until there is some resolution to this whole Lafferty issue. That a~ ordinance also referred to the portions the Manor Lane relating to the filter plant. At Zs the March 18 meeting, staff explained the economics and the reasons that structure was z9 removed and the direction to go as well as explaining the different sources of water, so other than surface water from the Lawler Reservoir and the water from the Adobe 3i Creek. 3z We thought we were benet~ting the environment by allowing the water run free in the 33 creek and to assist in the restoration of Adobe Creek towards its natural state. I think sa the efforts of the United Anglers to restore the fish to Adobe Creek and restore it back 3s to its natural environment, and the efforts of all the people have helped clean up Adobe 36 Creek, the efforts of the City Council to restore the creek have borne the fruits that 3~ were expected. We are seeing a return to the natural to life of that creek. 38 Mr. Scharer went on to say, the action before you is to repeal that ordinance that 39 surplussed the treatment plant and Lawler Reservoir. There has been a question about ao application of Government Code Section 50550 et seq that has been raised by the ad ai hoc committee of lawyers for the Petaluma taxpayers. We have taken their concerns aa seriously. ~ April 29, 19~6 Vol. 29, Page 421 1 LAWL~R RESERVOIR AND WATER ~'REATI~ENT PI.AN"~ 2 RESCINNI~ SALE - ORD. 1948 NCS cont'd. s We have referreci to it to our counsel for special assessment districts, Mr. Robert a Brunsell. He responded. Mr. Dombroski raised questions about his response. We s forwarded those responses to Mr. Brunsell to see if they affected his professional 6 opinion as to the applicability of that particular Government Code section. And his ~ response is back to you saying that Mr. Brunsell's opinion has not changed, and that he s does not believe what the citizens or the ad hoc attorneys are bringing up as appropriate 9 cases or points of law are applicable. And he did not recommend an expenditure of io City funds to bring a declaratory relief action as suggested by Mr. Dombroski. ii Mr. Scharer said he would assume what Mr. Dombroski is providing us this evening, i2 which Councilman Maguire just passed out, tal:es exception to some of Mr. Brunsell's is opinion again. I will certainly forward this on to Mr. Brunsell. What may be helpful is ia to have Mr. Dombroski speak to Mr. Brunsell and maybe they could figure out what is exactly their positions are and help us to bring a resolution to that. That is where we ib are today on Ordinance 1948 NCS. ~~ The reason why it was asked to be put on the agenda is because it's been pointed out to ~s us by staff that the adoption of Ordinance 1948 NCS is inconsistent with the General i9 Plan and that is an illegal situation. No body that has any beef with freeing up the Zo water of Adobe Creek for the habitat. We've not been given any cogent reason why 2~ we should not rescind Ordinance 1948 NCS. The City Attorney was asked should we zz be sitting here with this kind of liability being out of conformance with the general ~ plan? ~_ ~cx~ `~ ~ 5 ' cTV~.. za The City Attorney said that it should be in conformance with the General Plan. His u recollection is that Planning had indicated, with respect to the treatment Program 27, 26 clearly needed to be deleted regarding the Manor Lane property. Regarding the Lawler 2~ Reservoir, he is not certain whether staff took any position one way or another on Zs whether it was consistent or inconsistent. However, that's certainly something that the 29 City Council should consider. From a practical point of view, if we rescind Ordinance so 1948 NCS, with respect to the treatment plant, he doesn't think that we're going to be si able to require the purchasers of that to return it to the City. With respect to Lawler 32 Reservoir, since ~ve haven't consummated the deal, then we wouldn't be required to 33 go forward with t1~at. 34 Council comment. If the property is sold there should be a permanent easement so that ss it can be perennial open space. Councilman Maguire moved, with the modification that 36 we take out the treatment plant, to rescind Ordinance 1948 NCS. Councilwoman 3~ Hamilton seconded that motion. 38 The City Manager was asked that if he's not consummating any of these contracts, until 39 there is resolutioil on Lafferty, given the legislation that was adopted (Resolution 96- ao 105 NCS) and the date until which the processing of the proposal to exchange Lafferty ai Ranch. for Moon Rancll extends to July 25, 1997, you're saying that at least until that a2 time nothing is going to happen. 43 The City 1Vlanager responded that he can make that personal commitment only to 44 January 3, 1997. Perhaps you could amend the ordinance which gave him the authority as to dispose of the ~roperty and replace it with some language that takes the ability away a6 from the City Manager to dispose of the property until some point in time. He does a~ not think we need to sell Lawler Reservoir tomorrow. Page 422, Vol. 29 , ; ~, . . _ ~. ~~;, . r April 29, 1996 i I.AWg.EIZ ItESERVOIR AND WATER TREATMENT PI,ANT 2 RESCIND SALE - ORD. 1948 NCS cont'd. ~' :;- •, :. ;~;:. 3 The City is being pressured by the State Division of I)am Safety to make the dam a seismically safe. Even though we have dra~vn the water down to very low level ~n that s reservoir, the Dam Division of Dam Safety still won't recognize that; they say we need 6 to do these improvements. That is an argument that the City Engineer has been having ~ with them. This would leave the Chedas waiting for a decision which could be made s when the City knows better as to what is happening around that whole issue. 9 The Mayor explained that the ordinance before the Council would surplus the io properties on Manor Lane and not address Lawler Reservoir. Lawler Reservoir would ii then go back through the process again at the Council level. iz The City Manager went on to say that this would take the issue back to 1992 and the is analysis of whether or not the you keep the reservoir, and you would need to determine ia whether or not the City should spend an amount of money which could range from the ~s $600,000 to $800,000 to make the reservoir seismically safe. Then the Ciry would go ib through the decision process again and detennine what action to take in relation to i~ General Plan Program 27. The fact that issue of Program 27 was not addressed was is not by design but by accident, because we did recommerid early on that that Program i9 27 be rernoved during the last General Plan update, and it got dropped out zo inadvertently. It was j'ust a mistake. No one has convinced the Planning staff that a Zi General Plan amendment is needed for the Lawler Reservoir. There is an opinion by zz the ad hoc committee of attorney that that is the case. ~ , ~ Council comment - The fact is, it's not just the same as where we were in 1992. The Za difference is that there are issues regarding the appropriative rights of the water and, if zs we want the water to run free in Adobe Creek, we have to look at the abandonment of 26 the water system in that light so we don't lose certain rights. a~ The City Manager said that he is hoping that Mr. Roos-Collins can meet with us and as discuss ways to address those as well as other water issues such as taking water through z9 Lawler Reservoir, because we all agree that we don't want to continue taking water out 30 of Adobe Creek. He thinks there . are other ways that we can protect those 3i appropriative rights. The City would have to start the general plan process. He isn't 3a sure it needs a general plan amendm~nt. That's something the planning staff will have 33 to look at. 34 Planning Director Pamela Tuft said Program 27 reads, "Reconstruct the Lawler 3s treatment plant to increase its capaciry and water quality." It's a difficult action, when 36 no treatment plant exists any longer. The Planning Commission has declined to rule on 3~ the consistency of'the General Plan regarding the Lawler Reservoir abandoriment, ss because they wish to consider Lafferty and Lawler simultaneously. We are awaiting 39 the actions tonight for scheduling Lafferty and Lawler on tfie Planning Commission ao agenda. We did receive the open space easement documents tinally from the Open ai Space district approximately two weeks ago. Subsequent to this meeting we will az, schedule consideration of the general plan amendment and consistency findings with the a3 Planning Commission this summer. But it is staff's opinion at this point in time that aa the Lawler Reservoir is not addressed within an adopted Policy, Program, Goal or as Objective, and, therefore, its abandonment is not inconsistent with the General Plan.. ~ R April 29, 19~56 2 3 4 5 6 ~ s 9 io ~i ia 13 14 15 16 17 18 Vol. 29, Page 423 I,AWLEI~ RESERVOIIt AND TItEA7~EN"~ PI,ANT RESCINID SALE - ORD. 1948 NCS cont'd. Councilman Maguire, said as the maker of the motion, he would like to modify the motion, since he believes the City is out of compliance with the General Plan, to say we Ordinance 1948 NCS, in order to come back to square one, look at the legal implications of the all the actions we have taken, consider it in that ligl~t, and work our way through the treatment plant resolution to dispatch that quickly. That's the cleanest simplest way to do that. Jane Hamilton said her second is still there; rescinding implies t}~at we begin the process again. The City Clerk asked if the vote on the ordinance does not take out the treatment plant reference. Councilman Maguire said that is correct. Ayes: Maguire, Hamilton> Vice Mayor Barlas Noes: Stompe, Read, Shea, Mayor Hilligoss Absent: None (Defe.ated) ~ 19 ao At 10:20 p.m. the meeting was adjourne~ 21 22 z~ ATTEST: 24 u Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk An.T(DgTRN