Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.A Document Received After Agenda Distribution 2 04/27/2015Brent Russell 202 Webster St. Petaluma, CA 94952 April 26, 2015 Honorable Mayor David Glass Honorable Vice Mayor Kathy Miller Councilwoman Teresa Barrett Councilman Chris Albertson Councilman Mike Healy Councilman Gabe Kearny Councilman Dave King John C. Brown, City Manager Dear Members of the Council and Mr. Brown, I wanted to follow up on my April 6`h letter to you regarding my criticism of the building moratorium idea since you will soon be discussing alternatives to issuing a moratorium as a way to meet the governor's water goals and also to address long-term conservation. Obviously there are some approaches that are necessary for short-term conservation and others for long-term water conservation. The important perspective to consider is that much of conservation involves changes of culture and behavior and achieving this type of change is most successful when it involves incentives rather than punishment (carrot vs. stick approach). The stick approach usually leads to resentment and circumvention of the rules, which ultimately defeats the purpose of the "rules". Since landscaping is a potentially significant water user, I think it makes sense to continue your current program to subsidize the removal of grass on private property and replace it with mulch and drought tolerant shrubs. I know this has only been partially successful and I believe it is because grass requires very little physical effort to keep neat. It just requires mowing and watering. Non -lawn type of landscaping is more susceptible to "ugly weeds" popping up whereas lawns tend to mask the errant weed that infiltrates the lawn. If property owners are provided resources regarding effective landscaping that is low maintenance but not water intensive, they will be more willing to take the City up on its offer to provide mulch supplies to replace lawns. There are a lot of industrial park properties that have lawns that if converted to drought tolerant shrubs or ground covers with drip system irrigation could help diminish the use of landscaping watering. Assisting the public in getting more information about roof run-off storage systems for landscape watering would give them an opportunity to keep rain run-off on-site for yard watering and put less stress on the storm drain system. The City should consider this approach for all its buildings beyond the existing system at City Hall. The City should also consider extending its wastewater piping irrigation system to as many City facilities as is practical. Installation of gray water systems at homes is a worthy option but making it cost effective for the public is challenging. Also, the City should consider what areas of its property can be changed from lawns to other less water consumptive landscaping. Finally, the City needs to consider seasonal water storage solutions like its former dam on Sonoma Mountain to store run-off for irrigation of City property. In order to pay for some of these incentives I suggest the following: 1. Public water conservation improvements should be paid for by fees collected by the City Building Department on new projects and any addition, remodel or commercial tenant improvement project that involves plumbing under the title of water conservation fee. This fee can probably be approved legally due to the governor's declaration of a drought emergency. The state water conservation bond money should be tapped as a resource as well. 2. For residential or private business water conservation incentives, the City should try and tap into the water bond funding that the state has recently approved for conservation projects. I don't' think that water conservation fees collected from one property owner should be used to help subsidize another. Providing practical educational resources through hand-outs and workshops about how to set up gray water and roof drainage water collections systems and low water landscaping can assist those motivated to make water use changes to adjust to these beneficial concepts. Also where possible providing resources such as mulch, lower water landscape plants, and gray water filtration systems to homeowner's at no cost or subsidized cost will encourage the public to make conservation changes. Sincerely, r Brent I. Russell, r tect