Sonora, CA — The Sonora City Council meeting addressed several items with several members of the public attending the public hearing.
The City administered the oath of office to Liz Peterson as the new Director of Administrative Services. Peterson recently joined the city after previously serving as a Deputy CAO in Tuolumne County.
Immediately afterward, Visit Tuolumne County presented on its scope of marketing services through June 30, 2027. Visit Tuolumne will write about the City of Sonora, highlighting the holiday season and holiday shopping for the Visit California Newsletter. The email newsletter will be sent to over 200,000 subscribers on October 13th. Annual costs for various marketing items were detailed in this slide presentation. Annual Co-op funding with KHM, the marketing agency that manages digital media and creative services, was detailed as $49,000; the cost of the office space $10,000 and payroll $40,000. Visit Tuolumne plans to spend $5,000 over the fiscal year on Familiarization Tours, or Fam Tours, where they host trade and media people, including influencers and journalists, at local places for a curated positive experience. There are tours at six locations for film producers that hope to attract filming to the area.
A public hearing about the city vacating a right-of-way to an open space at the intersection of Old Wards Ferry Road and Sanguinetti Road attracted several public comments. The area was acquired as part of a lawsuit settlement with Citizens for Responsible Growth related to the Sonora Lowe’s project and swapped for another property as part of the road realignment in 2009.
The proposal is to divide and transfer the property to the adjacent landowner, California Gold Development, who also owns the Applebee’s and Lowe’s properties, as well as the two-story building where Starbucks is. They will be under contract to maintain 5,868 square feet at the northern corner, with the 13,418 square feet south of the Sierra Railroad train tracks zoned for possible commercial use.
No specific plans have been proposed for the location. Scot Patterson, CEO of California Gold Development Corporation, spoke on the property expansion. He stated, in combination with their adjacent parking area, a pad for a 3-4,000 square feet building could be built. He detailed that nothing is nailed down, “We are talking to the likes of Chipotle, Popeyes, Mountain Mike’s, Jersey Mike’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, things like that.” He noted it would not have a major impact as it would be infill development and clarified in a second comment there would not be a new encroachment. He shared his hope that a new business in the area will spur interest for other vacancies like the former Regal Movie theater space. He was in support of Gold Development maintaining the area; there is also a provision allowing for signage.
Letters and three comments were made in opposition, and one public comment was made in favor. Longtime City Engineer Jerry Fuccillo was one of the letters and comments in opposition. His concern focused on how the property was originally acquired and that documentation had not been done correctly. Sharon Marovich with the Tuolumne Heritage Committee and another citizen had similar concerns and about the land’s value. Marovich requested the area not become commercialized and remain open space that the city maintains.
In board discussion, Andy Merrill pointed out specific wording that details a fountain, statue, monument, public art installation, landscaping feature, or other artistic or beautification improvement selected by the City will be allowed at the corner. Councilmembers Bess Levine, Stephen Opie, Mark Plummer and Mayor Ann Segerstrom also agreed the intent is to honor the original agreement as well as support economic development.
An attorney for the city stated the property was declared as surplus several months ago with no response from anyone interested in it. He addressed other exemptions from specific concerns Fuccillo talked about. A proposed motion was specifically worded to give time for the city staff and the attorney to review the documents. The motion was to “Approve, providing that implementation of the approved actions shall be deferred until the applicable period of judicial challenge has expired; if a timely challenge is filed, implementation shall not occur until resolution of the action or further action by the City Council.” It was clarified that the timeline to challenge the decision is 90-days after this second reading. The City Council approved the motion 5-0.
