HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes 11/20/2001 a
DRAFT. DRAFT DRAFT
.1 Draft'Minutes
2 of a •
3 City of Petaluma, California
4 Council Meeting
5
6
7
8 Regular Meeting
9 Council Chambers
10 Monday, November 20, 2000
11
12
13 The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
14
15 ROLL CALL
16
17 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Maguire; Mayor
18 Thompson
19
20 ABSENT: Council Member Keller; Vice MayorTorliatt
21
X22 PUBLIC COMMENTS
03
24 None
25
26 CLOSED SESSION'
27
28 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced the Council would adjourn to the City
29 Manager's Conference Room to address the following Closed Session items:
30 -
31 Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.
32 Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation.
33
34 Conference With,Le9al'Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to litigation
35 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code § 54956.9 (2 matters).
36
37 Conference With Labor Negotiators, City Designated Representative: City Attorney
3a Richard Rudnansky; Employee City Manager, Government Code § 54957.6.
39
40 Conference With Real Property Negotiator, Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8.
41 Property: 4104'Lakeville Highway (APN's 017-170-002 and 068-010-026), Formerly Known
42 as the Gray Property. Negotiating Party: Frederick.Stouder. Under Negotiation: Price,
•
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Terms of Payment, or Both. •
2
3 ADJOURN
4 •
5 The Council adjourned at.2:00 p.m.
6 -
7 * * it * * * * *
8
9 RECONVENE
10
11 The City Council reconvened its regular meeting°at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
15 PRESENT: Council Member Cader=Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire;
16 Mayor Thompson; Vice MaycrTorliatt •
17
is ABSENT: None
19
20
21 PUBLIC COMMENT
22
23 Geoff Cartwright, 56:Rocca Drive, spoke regardinga tour ofthe Corona Reach area he
24 took recently with Council Member Cader'-Thompson and several others, and
25 recommended that anyone,'interested,in Rainier should take a similar tour. Heals()toured
26 the sewer plant;and.from;there wasable to see a}lot.of.new commercial development in the.
27 floodplain. He stressed that development in the floodplain would result in flooding
28 disasters.
29 -
30 COUNCIL COMMENTS •
31
32 Council Member Maguire thought the format currently in use for the Council Meeting
3 3 Agenda had becomeunwieldy and contained too much "boilerplate small print." He wanted
34 City Management to simplify the design, perhaps placing most of the. "small print"
35 information at the back of the agenda.
36
37 Council concurred.
38
39 Council Member,Keller announced'that John Zentner of Zentner& Zentner Associates,
40 who is,the City's consultant on the,:Cross Creek project and who had,consulted for the City
41 on a number ofother projectsihas:.been convicted,and fined for violationtof the Federal
042 Endangered'Species•Act. He wanted;Councii;:to direct'City-,Management to terminate any
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma;California - �•
• city Council Meeting:
Monday,Nwiember 20,2000
Page.2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
contracts the City currently has with Mr. Zentner, and added'that he should.not'be hired for
W2 2 any City projects in the future.
3 •
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked City Management for a list of current and past
5 City projects (for the last two years) with which Zentner & Zentner had been involved.
6
7 APPOINTMENTS
•
8
9 Teen Council Appointments
10 .
11 Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr asked Council to appoint nine members to the
12 Teen Council, which will complement the Youth Comm ssion..He,noted that'Council would
13 soon be receiving the Teen Resource Guide, a comprehensive, listing of resources for
14 Petaluma's teens.
15
16 Council Member Maguire asked'if there were now nine applicants instead of eleven.
17
1a Mr. Carr confirmed that two applicants had stopped attending meetings and had not
19 responded to phone calls.
20
21 Council Member Maguire asked more members could be added to the Teen Council at a
22 later date if, for example, interest was shown from the continuation schools.
023
24 Mr. Carr replied, "yes."
25
26
27 CONSENT CALENDAR
28
29 Item 6, Resolution Approving Contract for City Manag_er,,was removed and scheduled for
30 December 4, 2000.
31
32 1. Resolution 00-194 N.C.S. Accepting Claims and Bills. (Thomas)
33
34 2. Resolution 00.195 N.C.S. Accepting Quarterly Treasurer's Report.
35 (Thomas/Cornyn)
36
37 3. Adopt Ordinance 2104 N.C.S. Adding a Chapter to the Petaluma Municipal Code
38 Establishing theDowntown Petaluma Business Improvement District. (Second
39 Reading) (Tuft)
40
41 5. Resolution - 00-196 N_ C.S. Authorizing Appropriation of $170,000 from
42 Information Services Reserves to Information Services Budget. (Beatty)
• Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 8. Resolution. 00.197 N.C.S. Accepting, The Completion of the Lakeville Street,
3 Widening Project Located on Lakeville Street from'East Washington to East "D"
4 Streets, Project'9862. (Skladzien/Lackie)'.
5
6 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt Consent
7 Calendar.items 1, -2, 3,=5 and 8.
8 -
9 MOTION
to PASSED: 7/0/0
11 -
12 4. Resolution 00-198 N.C.S. Establishing;Fee Schedule for the Petaluma Downtown
13 Business Improvement District Pursuant to.Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter
14 6:04. (Tuft)
15
16 Council Member Cader-Thompson.asked,that The following, language be added to the.
17 Resolution: "The City shall not be responsible for-collecting delinquent fees. Special fee
is arrangements must be made through the BID Committee:"
19
20 MOTION: Council Member Cader-Thompson,moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt
21 Resolution 00-198 N.C.S. Establishing Fee Schedule for the Petaluma
22 Downtown Business Improvement District Pursuant to Petaluma
23 Municipal Code Chapter 6.04., with the added language.
•
24
25 MOTION
26 PASSED:. 7/0/0
27
28 9. Introduction'of Ordinance 2105 N.C.S. ApproCting Antenna Site Lease Agreement
29 - with XM Satellite Radio,Inc., at Hayes"Lane Site (Beatty)
30
31 Vice Mayor Torliatt thought that due to the value of the property, the lease amount should
' 32 be at least $1,500 per month, with a minimum 3% increase per year based on the
33 Consumer Price Index:
34
35 Council Member Maguire asked if that was for a•5-year lease.
36
37 Vice Mayor Torliatt clarified that,those;figuces would be for three years of the 5=year lease.
38 The-remaining two years would be at market rate:
39
40 Council Member Keller agreed with Vice Mayor Torliatt'. He described this kind of property
41 as a "cash:cow' and added that the City should ask at least market rate'rent. •
42
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma„Califoinfa
•
City,Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 4
DRAFT - - DRAFT DRAFT
•1 Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty pointed out that thepoles pictured in the photograph
2 were already in place; the proposedantennawould be;attached to a pole.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt replied that she realized that, but felt the City had the opportunity to
5 improve the aesthetics of the site by requiring'paint and/or screening. She hoped the
6 aesthetic aspects were being considered.
7
8 Council,MemberCader-Thompson mentioned that painting the antenna to match the water
9 tank should be a condition of approval.
10
11 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to Introduce
12 Ordinance 2105 N.C.`S. Approving Antenna Site Lease Agreement with XM
13 Satellite°Radio, Inc., at Hayes Lane'Sitevith the above conditions:
14
15 MOTION
16 PASSED: 6/1/0 (Healy voting no)
17
18 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
19.
20 11. Resolution 00-199 N.C.S: Granting the City Manager the Authority to Sign the
21 Second Cooperative Agreement for Countywide Procurement of Computer Assisted
22 Dispatch/Records Management Systems and Mobile Data Communications
.3' (CAD/RMS/MDC). (Parks)
24
• 25 Police Chief Pat Parks described the development of the CAD/RMS/MDC Procurement
26 Agreement, and acknowledged the contributions to the three-year project of Project
27 Manager Leslie Aboudara, City Manager Fred Stouder,`Technology Consultant Ed Reed,
28 and Chief Mike Dunbaugh of'the'Santa Rosa Police.
29
30 Council Member Maguire asked how often the Council would receive progress reports
31 once the CAD/RMS/MDC systems.were in place.
32
33 Chief Parks replied that reports could be generated as often as Council liked.
3.4'
35 Council Member Maguire'suggested that quarterly reports be presented during the first
36 year of the systems' use'. These could be written reports, or a short presentation'at a
37 Council Meeting.
38 •
39 Chief Parks agreed.
40
41 Council Member Healy thanked Chief Parks for his efforts:andasked him if he felt that the
42 CAD/RMS/MDC procurement was.the'best.use of$1.3 million in law enforcement funds.
• Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,.November 20,2000
•
Page 5
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 •2 Chief Parks replied that he did, adding that'ifone life was saved because of the`systems'
3 capabilities, that was worth $1.3 million to him:
4
5 Council Member Torliatt noted that this was a long time coming and she would
6 be happy to,see it approved..
7
8 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked'Chief Parks, Ms. Aboudara, and City Manager
9 Stouder for their hard work.
10
11 MOTION: 'Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to adopt
12 Resolution 00-199 N.C:S. Granting the City Manager the Authority to Sign
13 - the Second .Cooperative Agreement for Countywide Procurement of
14 Computer Assisted Dispatch/Records Management Systems and Mobile
15 Data (CAD/RMS/MDC)
16
17 MOTION.
18 PASSED: 7/0/0
19
20 12, Report Regarding Status of Payran Project and Discussion and,Possible.Direction
21 Regarding Payran Flood 'Management Project Financing /and Budget.
22 (Hargis/Stouder)
23
24 Water Resourcesand Conservation Director Tom Hargis introduced the newArmy Corps
25 of Engineers ProjectPManager, York So, who provided an update on the.Payran Flood
26 Management Project. He explained that the construction was°on track and on schedule.
27 Recently completed work included erosion control installation, flood wall closure (with
28 exception of one section near Jess Avenue where'road repairs were being'completed), tide
29 gate connection in all storm drain outlets, and channel sprinkler system connections.
• 30
31 Work in progress included removal of unacceptable,materials.from„the;.Shollenbergersite
32 (estimated completed 11/30/00), the Vallejo Storm Drain Trench (estimated completed
33 11/30/00), and removal of surplus soil andfdebris (estimated completion 1/01).
34
35. Major work to be completed after the first of the year was listed as electrical testing;for the.
36 pump station,;generator building, landscaping and mitigation plantings, fencing, off-hauling •
37 of soil and debris, backyard and side yard fending, and the concrete cap for the flloodwall.
38
39 Mr. So indicated' on an Overhead diagram a fenced area where a six-foot fence was
40 planned. Homeowners in that area have requested that a four-foot fence be installed
- 41 instead.
42
43
Draft Minutes
City,of,Petaluma;.California •.
City Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 6
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
• l
2 Regarding the status of the WaterResources Development Act 2000, Mr. So explained
3 that it is currentlypending presidential•approval.
4
5 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented that she had enjoyed seeing walkers on the
6 Holly Lane pathway during the past.weekend.
7
8 Council Member Healy requested'the status of the Mainline.Bridge.
9
10 Mr. Hargis replied that the bridge was 80-85% complete, and shouldbe finished by the end
11 of December.
12
1.3 Council Member Keller reported that he had received complaints from residents of the
14 Payran area that puddles' of muddy water were resulting from vehicles leaving the
15 construction area and asked that#his be remedied.
16
17 Mr. Hargis and Mr. So agreed.
18
19 13. Ridgeview Heights Subdivision (Moore)
20
21 A. Discussion and Possible Action to Reconsider the May 15, 2000 Motion to
22 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Which Failed on a 3-3 Vote of the
3 City Council Members Present.
24 B. Discussion and Possible Action on a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated
25 Negative Declaration'forthe Ridgeview Heights:Subdivision
26 C. Discussion and Possible Action on a Resolution Approving the Tentative
27 Subdivision Map and PUD Development. Standards for the Ridgeview
28 Heights Subdivision.
29
30 Council Member Maguire asked'if°the applicant would like,to speak.
31
32 Iry Piotrkowski, attorney for Dr. Jerome Beatie, stated that he'and his client thought,the
33, item would be discussed in:Closed•Session only; Dr. Beatie was not present at tonight's
34 meeting. Mr. Piotrkowski asked that the item be rescheduled so that Dr. Beatie could
35 attend.
36
37 City Management recommended that the Council determine whether they wanted to act on
38 the project with or without the requirement for a pedestrian/bicycle path. If they did not
' 39 want to require a path, theyshould proceed to adopt the.resolutions`includedin the packet.
40 If they thought the path should be included, the item should be rescheduled for the
41 December 4 or December 11 meeting, and the resolutions, with appropriate findings,
42 would be revised to reflect the requirement.
43
•
• Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, November 20,2000
Page 7
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 •2 Council Member Maguire explained that,he had voted agaihst adoption of the negative
3 declaration at the May 15, 2000 meeting because it did not include a bicycle/pedestrian
4 path, which he thought was an important feature that would create a saferenvironment and
5 reduce residents"reliance on their cars. He added that the applicant wanted community
6 services, yet was reluctant to discuss ways the project could benefit the,community..
7
s He asked Mr. Moore if the negative declaration needed to be revised as well. •
9
.10 Mr. Moore replied that it would have to be revised if it did not initially include the
11 .pedestrian/bicyclepath.
12
13 Council Member Healy how long revision of the negative declaration;would require.
14 -
1s Mr.. Moore explained that 20 days notice was required if a revision to the Negative
16 Declaration determination was required.
17
18 Council Member Torliatt viewed a pedestrian/bicycle;path as a benefit to the development,
19 - and had seen numerous examples in Mann County where such ay path.was considered an
20 amenity;
21
22 Council Member Cader-Thompson also;stated;,that another path should run_between Lots 4
23 and 5 fora possible future connection to the'Maslinproperty. She continued that:the path •
24 across the.Beatierproperty should take effect only after the Beatie property was'sold.
25
26 Council Member :Healy thought a pedestrian/bike path on the Beatie site would be
• 27 inappropriate.
28
29 Council_Member Hamilton stated she favored requiring pedestrian/bicycle path'.in the
30 development to;reduce.automobile trips. Fewer automobile trips equaled improved quality
31 of.life:She,agreed that the easement should become active upon sale of theproperty. She
32 thought,requirement of a path was reasonable.
33
34 Council Member Cader-Thompson had received calls from citizens who used the path
35 before-the Ross family sold the property..
36
37 Council Member Keller agreed that a path wasneeded.;He rejected.claims by neighbors
38 that such a,path would be dangerous, and thought the value of City services Dr. Beatie
39 received were,greater than the of the easement.
4o
41 Council`Member Cader-Thompsoniiasked,if`construction of the path would be required
42 upon completion of the project or when the;Beatie property was sold.
43
Draft
City of Petaluma-California
California
city Councif,Meeting
Monday„November-20,2000
Page 8
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
a1 Council.Member Maguire:wanted the path to be required upon completion of the project.
2
3 Mr .Plotrkowski interjected that according to Dr. Beatie'sproperty'agent, installation of the
4 path would reduce the value of the property. by 1/3: He added that Dr. Beatie had been
5 contributing to City services through the Assessment District for r.years. He reiterated that
6 he wanted the item continued until Dr. Beatie could bepresent.
7
8 Council:MemberMaguirestated that Council had had many discussions with Dr. Beatie
9 with no resulting progress.
10
11 Mr. Piotrkowski again'asked'to°wait until Dr. Beatie could be present.
12
13 Council"Member Hamilton believed that Council had, in effect,taken a straw vote, and had
14 determined that the item would be continued. She poihte&outto Mr. Piotrkowski that his
15 request was being granted.
16
17 Council;Member Torliatt mentioned that she would like to see ther?property agent's expert
is opinion on a pedestrian/bicycle,path devaluing the property.
19
20 Mr. Piotrkowski replied that he could obtain the opinion in typewritten form.
21
22 Mayor Thompson was not ih favor pta bicycle path, which he thought would be dangerous.
3 He suggested asking the administration at McNear School for their thoughts on the matter.
W24
2'5 Council Member Maguire supported requiring a path from the easement along Dr. Beatie's
26 "property line between lots 5 and 6, to the edge of the property: He thought this should
27 come into effect if the Beatie property was sold.
28
29 Council Member Cader-Thompson was not sure if the path was supposed to run between
30 lots 4 and 5, or between lots 5 and 6. She had notes and a clearer map including the
31 Maslin property at home. She,favored a path connecting lots 4 and 5 if it lined up with the
32 Maslin property line.
33'
34 The item was continued to December 4, 2000 and would, if necessary, be continued to
35 December11, 2000, inthe:event Mr. 'Piotrkowsi,was not available on the 4th.
36
37 14. Status'Report:on Non.'.Profit Parks and Recreation Association. (Kates/Carr)
38
39 Parks and :Recreation Department Director Jim,Carr introduced:" Robert Kates of the
40 National Park.Service and the City.of Petaluma Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission
41. who has been:on special assignment with the City of Petalumasince August2000,working
42 toward establishment of Petaluma Park and Recreation Association. Mr. Kates presented
43 a report of his accomplishments, which included:
Draft Minutes
• City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, November 20,2000
Page 9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 • Raising the level of community awareness on the current condition of the City's parks, •
3 athletics, arts and recreation resources„and the benefits of developing a non-profit
4 corporation, 'Petaluma Packs, Athletics, Arts and Recreation,Association (PAAR), to
5 improve those resources.
6 • Developing a volunteer bank of interested;citizens(25 currently) to'participatein the
7 effort.
s • Drafting articles of incorporation and by-laws for the non-profit organization (thisieffort.
9 was put on hold on the advice of attorneys, pending resolution of the scope of the
to proposed organization).
11 • Drafting alone-year budget;foristart-up operations.
12 • Drafting a ithree7year business plan for start-up operations.
13 • Preliminary work on development of a public-private partnership to rehabilitate one
14 school field''as an initial project.
15 • Meeting with interested. aquatic groups and public/private pool Owners from the
16 community to discuss ways to improve Petaluma',s aquatic facilities'and programs.
17 • Secured office:space, through County Supervisor Mike Kerns, in the County'wing of
18 City Hall,
19 • Revamping,a PowerPoint presentation to synthesize the findings for City Council.
2o • Developing-a :questionnaire for interested citizens.
21
22 Mr. Kates stated that progress had been, made towards establishment of a non-profit
23 corporation,.and;noted that a full-time point person;should be hired as;soonas possible to
24 take over the assignment.
25
26 Council Member Maguire asked Mr: Kates what the next steps would be
27
28 Mr: Kates replied that the scope of the organization needed to be decided, articles of
29 incorporation should be drawn up, a Board-of Directors named, and fundraising°efforts
30 begun.
31
32 Council Member Maguire asked if there were 5-10 people willing to be on the Board' of
33 Directors, if there had been money.contributed, and if there were volunteers for an
34 Outreach effort
35 •
36 Mr. Kates answered, that there was lots of community interest, but not financial
37 contributions. He`added that they were very close to forming,a,Board of"Directors. He
38 asked if Council wanted to go forward and,fund the project for one year He pointed out
39 that it would not be reasonable to expect someone to direct a project of this.;scope on a
40 volunteer.basis.
41 •
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,:Califomia •,
'City Council Meeting .
Monday,;November 20;:2000
Page 10
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Council Member Torliatt thought that local, businesses:were being asked to seed the
2 organization. She,asked Mr. Kates if he had a list of these businesses.
3
4 Mr. Kates'Freplied that no business had stepped forward with a'financial contribution. This
5 effort could not go forward unless there were a full-time director in place and that position
6 was funded for at least one year. He reiterated that no one would take that job with a
7 commitment of only two,to three months.
8
9 • Council.Member Hamilton;agreed that the commitment should be for one year. Council
l o must determine how to fund the project. She noted that it difficult to get businesses to
it fund operating costs.
12 •
13 Council Member Keller asked Mr. Kates if he had developed a proposed action plan for the
14 next year, and for the next three years.
15
16 Mr. Kates stated that initial plans included formation Of a Board of Directors, development
17 of a fundraising action plan, and grant writing by volunteers.
18
19 Council Member Keller stressed:the importance of a business plan for the organization. He
20 explained that it would be difficult to-elicit contributions from other businesses without,this
21 plan in place. The plan should include the mission and goals of the organization, and a
22 target list of directors. He added that he did not think'it appropriate to include'performing
41023 arts, and it would be perceived es being in competition with local performing'arts groups.
24
2.5 Mr. Kates noted that the Board of Directors and volunteers°would want to take part in
26 forming the mission, goals, and business plan.
27
28 Council Member Keller wanted Mr. Kates to define what he saw as the organization's
29 mission.
30
31 Council Member Healy shared Council Member Keller's concerns. He thought the need for
3z the organization was obvious. He.was concerned about cannibalization of other non-profit
3 3 organizations, as most funding-sources for organizations of this type were already being,
34 tapped. He stressed the need to limit the:organization's focus. He added that he found it
35 difficult to commit$100,000 to this if the money could be used instead to;retain City
36 workers. He was interested in the idea of a challenge grant, with the City committing
37 $25,000 and private individuals;and organizations contributing the balance.
38
39 Council Member Torliatt thought the organization,needed to pick one project on which to
4 o focus and work towards creating a'funding source. She commented that Casa Grande was
41 a worthy project. If the organization were successful in raising funds for that project, it
42 would provide an example that would encourage other contributions.
43
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California
City Council
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 11 .
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 Council Member Cader-Thompson believed the project'should focus on parks, and should
2 considera Park Assessment Bond. •
3
4 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, applauded Mr.-Kates for his efforts, and wanted the City
5 to purchase flood-proneiproperties for parks; in order prevent theThroperties.from,being
6 otherwise developed. He added that the'Parks and Recreation Association would have to
7 start out project specific, but its mission statement should be broad.
8
9
10 Items 15, 17 and 18 were moved to the evening session. •
11
12 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
13
14 The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:05 p.m.
15
16 Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § '54957.
17 Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation. (Kline)
18
19
20
21
22
23 •
24 . * .. . . ..«
25
•
•
•
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma;;Calitornia •
City Council Meeting
Monday, November 20;.2000
Page 12
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
le 2 Regular Meeting
3 Council Chambers
4 Monday, November 20, 2000
5
6
7 RECONVENE
8
9 The City Council reconvened its regular meeting oh'this date at 7:00 p.m: in the Council
to Chambers.
11
12 REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
13
14 Mayor Thompson stated that there was nothing'to report.outof Closed Session
15
16 ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m.
17
18 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire; Mayor
19 Thompson; Vice MayorTorliatt
20
21 ABSENT: None
.2
z2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE •
24
25 At the request of Mayor Thompson, Dorothy Morris led the Pledge of Allegiance
26
27 :MOMENT OF SILENCE
•
28
29 At the request of Mayor Thompson; a Moment of Silence was observed.
30
31 PRESENTATION
32
33 HC2 Healthy Community Recognition Awards were:given;to the Cinnabar Arts;Corporation,
34 accepted, by Deborah Eubanks, and Vacation Bible School.2000-Market Place 29.AD
35 Program, accepted by Carolyn Maloney and Roberta Guierre.
36
37 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS'
38
39 After Public Comment, Council will hear item #20,.Law Enforcement Block Grant, #21,
40 Computer Aided Dispatch Records Management, items #19, Revised Special Parking
. 41 Fees, and #15, 1 t Amended Agreement for Impaired Water Supply.
42
Deft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting.
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 13
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 PUBLICCOMMENTS
3
4 Geoff Cartwright, 56:,Roccar.Drive, passed out brochures from the Sonoma County Water
5 Agency showing a:map of the water system. The wells at Marabell and Waller go 50 to 60
6 feet belowwthe river underneath the gravel. The gravel tied is the natural filtration system
7 • for our drinking,water. The.County Board of Supervisors•is permitting,gravel mining up
'8 stream :of these wells, The Sonoma;County Water Agency is going'to,propose 'a half
9 billion-dollar filtration plant, a cost that'would have been added to the open-ended 11`h
to Amended Water Agreement. This meant s we willbe charged:more for our drinking water.
11 Would it not:be wiser,to stop•these problems at:their source? Would it not be better to
12 stopiany depletion of Our natural gravelliltrationisystem? Would it not belbetter to_identify: •
13 pollutants and their source and stop permitting 'those industrial activities that are
14 destroying our drinking water system, rather than charging us for the cost of a:half billion-
15 dollar filtration system?
16
17 Phillip Williams, 824.Blossom.Court, commended Council:Members Torliatt^andHealy.
18
19 COUNCIL COMMENTS •
20
21 David Keller spoke regarding negotiations between the City of Healdsburg and,AT&T,
22 which refuses to meet.the:City's demands regarding cableaccess facilities.'
23 •24 He also gave an update on the Novato.Narrows,situation. The purpose and needs Will be
25` discussed and .prioritized at a meeting to be held at the Lucchesi Community Center,
26 Friday December 15, 9:30 a.m. The topics will include:
27
28 • Relieving-congestion.
29 • Encouraging NOV` use by relieving.HOV users' delay.
30 • Utilizing existing HOV facilities.
31 • Eliminating roadway operational deficiencies.
32 • Minimizing environmental impacts'and enhancing safety'throughout the corridor:.
33. • Integrating or enhancing other modes of transportation.
34 • Promotingeconofnic vitality, enhancing the sociall fabric of Marin and.Sonoma{Counties
35, and conforming and integrating with County plans to protect the green belt and
36 preserve the rural character:
37
38 . Suggested alternatives that will be considered in the EIR;are:
39
40 • No build..
•
41 • .,Convert to a six (6)-lanefreeway, with three interchanges and mixed flow lanes ,
42 • Convert:to six (6)-lane freeway, with.three•interchanges•and HON lanes.
Draft Minutes"
City of Petaluma,California- •
City Council Meeting
Monday„November 20,;2000.
Page 14
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 • Convert to six;(6)-lane freeway, with two interchanges and mixed flow lanes.
2 • Convert to six!(6)-lane freeway, with'two"interchanges and HOV'lanes.
3 • Reversible HOVlanes, HOT lanes asitoll lanes, dedicated 24-hour HOV lanes limited
4 to transit for buses, car pool, van pools that would not serve as mined flow lanes.
5 • Four (4)-lane freeway alternatives, bus service, rail service.
6
7 Council Member T,orliatt thought that adding another lane to Highway 101 was not the
a solution to the traffic congestion.
9
10 Council Member Maguire noted that $350 million dollars was the,cost of the Sonoma Mahn
11 Area Rail Transit Commissions project from San Rafael to Cloverdale for all capital costs
12 and operations fortwenty'years. '
13
14 Council Member Cader-Thom pson=attended the HC2 Celebration at Thanksgiving. The
15 focus was on sustainability She mentioned that the cups at Deaf Dog Coffee are
16 recyclable: She took another group'tto the Corona Reach area. She noted that the Monarch
17 Antique store at the corner of Washington and the Boulevard continually has 50% & 70%
1a liquidatio(signs posted in all their windows. She wanted to know the City policy for this
19 kind of signage.
20
21 City Manager Stouder recalled that it was a liquidation sale, as distinguished from a
22 closeout sale. Some restrictions'would apply if it were a closeout sale. He will investigate
•3 the manner further.
24
25 Council Member Keller thought there should be ways of restricting the "tacky signs that
26 now grace the historical building at°a key intersection in the City."
27
28 PUBLIC HEARINGS
29
30 20. Public Hearingfor Bureau of Justice Assistance,. Local Law'Enforcement Block
31 Grant Program for$54,600 to Partially Fund One Police Officer Position Assigned
3.2 to the Sonoma County Drug Task Force. (Parks/Dohs)
33
34 ChiefParks"spoke regarding the BlockGrant of$54,600.00. The City has used this money
35 in the past to fund.a police officer assigned to the Drug Task.Force. He recommended that
36 these funds continue to be used tofund that position.
37
38 Diane Reilly Torres reiterated what she had stated,at a prior Council meeting;that is, the
39 Police Department should,be given:any amount of money they need so they can do their
40 job right.
41
42 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
• Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,:November 20,2000
Page 15
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1
2 MOTION: Council Member Maguire movedr;secondedby Cader-Thompson, to approve
3 Resolution 00-200 NCS accepting the Local Law Enforcement Block
4 Grant'Program for,$54,600 to Partially Fund One Police Officer Position
5 Assigned,to the Sonoma County Drug Task Force
6
7 MOTION
s PASSED:: 7/0/0
9
10 21. Public Hearing and Resolution.Accepting,Allocation of State Block Grant.Funds of
11 $114,500 for Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Mobile'Data
12 ComputinTSystem Implementation'and Operation. (Parks/Aboudara)
13
14 Chief Parks stated that the City of Petaluma is eligible to receive the Local Law
15 Enforcement Block Grant from the,State of California Citizens Option for Public Safety. In
16 the past, these fundswere used to fund the computer aided:dispatch,.records management
17 and mobile data computing system. Chief Parks recommended'that this continue.
18
19 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Keller, to approve Resolution
20 00-201 N.C.S. Accepting.Allocation of State Block Grant Funds of$114,500
21 for Computer Aided Dispatch, Records,Management and Mobile Data
22 Computing System-Implementation and Operation.
23
24 MOTION
25 PASSED:? 7/0/0
26
27
28 19. Resolution 00 202 N.C.S. Establishing Revised Special Parking°Fees, Approving
29 Increases to the Reserved Parking Pe_rmit Fee and Residential Parking Permit Fee
30 including CPI,Adjustment.
31
32 Assistant City Manager GeneBeattypresented the staff report'regarding`permit parking.
33 The Petaluma Community Development Commission approved a budget for the
34 Redevelopment;Agency'that included a recommended,increase,in the reserved Parking
35 Permit Fees from$75-aspace per quarter to.$100 a space per quarter. These,fees are for
36 surface lots and a limited number of permit parking :in the Keller Street Garage. The
37 revenue from these increases wouldrsupplemenhmaintenance of both the parking lot and
38 the Keller Street Parking Garage. • •
39
40 Three residential parking°permit°areas were established:
41
Draft a Cal - •
City ot,Petaluma,California
City;Aouncil Meeting
Monday,November 20;2000 •
• Page 16
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
'1 • A large area in the neighborhood of Santa Rosa Junior College, at the request of the
'2 neighbors, who were concerned about the students overrunning their parking.
3 • Oxford Court near the rear entrance to Helen Putnam Regional Park, in an attempt to
4 keep non-residents out of therarea late at night.
5 • Resident parking permit program for those residents of the downtown area who do not
6 have off-street parking, and where there are timed parking zones. The majority of
7 those residents live at=the Petaluma Hotel. The majority of the roomsat the hotel are
8 designated single resident occupancy. The City's current program allows up to three
9 permits,per unit. This may be alegitimate'need in some.cases.
10
ii Mr. Beatty explained that City management recommended that the residential parking
1,2 permits for downtown be raised from $12 per year to $25 per year, and that those permits
13 be issued on a per vehicle basis. The dash placards would be replaced by window or
14 bumper stickers that could not be transferred between vehicles or sold to others. Also
is recommend was an increase from $75 a quarter.to $100 a quarter for the commercial
16 reserved parking.
17
18 The major cost to the City would be the:development, issuing,:rand tracking of the permits.
1.9 The cost to the City under,the current system is about$1,5-$25 per permit. The cost of the
2o current permit is approximately $15 to$25. Switching to window or bumper decals might
21 increase the cost, but not by a.significant amount.
22
*3 There have been some complaints from merchants and residents regarding the number of
24 permits issued to residents of the Petaluma Hotel. Residents in the area have complained
25 that they cannot park in front,of their own'homes because permit holders are parked there.
26 Not all permit holders have 8 to 5;jobs. Some work at night andare'parked all day during
27 business hours. The system in its current form had a negative impact on other residents
28 and some business:areas.
29
30 Council Member Keller thought that parking on Kentucky:Street and Petaluma Boulevard
31 should be posted as areas where permit parking does not apply. He added that permit
32 parking in the Keller Street Garage should not include the ground floor. He noted that
33 parking management in the down town area was an important'issue, as residential use
34 downtown is being encouraged. He wanted the issue to come back for consideration
35 during the next year When'discussing the downtown uses portion of the General'Plan, as
36 well as the Central Specific Plan.
3.7
38 AssistantCity Manager Beatty explained that permit parking in the garage was,formerly
39 restricted to'tht2nd floor and was•not successful.. At that, twenty(20) spaces were •
4'0 designated permit parking on the ground:floor. Those spaces currently have a waiting list.
41 He added that additional lighting and painting in the'garage were being pursued.
42
•
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
•
• Page 17
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Council Member Healy wanted the 'P-,etaluma Downtown Association's opinion on the
2 appropriate locationlor those spaces..
3
4 Several Council Members felt that permit parking should.be on the upper levels of the
5 parking garage that the City should look into some type of security. guard.
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
8
9 Jim Stern, 158 Keller Street; professional With an office downtown. He hasrparked in the
10 parking garage for years, usuallyon the second or third floor: He does not see the need to
11 increasethe'fee because of lack-of control. He noted-that the permit parking area was.not.
' 12 policed; if someone parked in a petmitholder§Space,. itwaedifficult to getia response
13 from the Police.
14
15 Assistant City Manager Beatty explained that Tow Away signs have been ordered but not
16 yet received. Once the signs are in place, the Police Department will have;illegally parked
17 cars towed.
18
19 Council:Member Hamilton wanted such cars ticketed as well astowed.
20
21 Jim McCabe, 210 Keller Street, has lived.at that address for ten:years:and has a parking
22 permit. He stated thatthe.downtown.area is toocongested.and the garage was not being
23 utilized as it should. He added that there are too;many parking permits in circulation. He
24 thought residents should be able to park in the-vicinityof their homes:
25
26 James Dracopoulos, 106 Washington:Street,thoughtthat,as a resident, he,should beable
27 to park in front of his residence without:,charge, and without receiving eticket. He added
28 that any proposed increase in parking permit fees,should be placed on.a ballot. Henoted
29 that parking is blocked off whenever there is an event downtown. He wanted the City to
3 o consider building a parking,garage,near the.river•, better utilizing space, addressing urban
31 sprawl, and,rerouting`public transportation for the Kentucky Street area
32
33 Linda. Giorgetti, 101 Liberty Street, stated that congestion near her residence is
34 unbearable. While she,didn't minda`feeincreaseAdid not guarantee her parking infront
35 of her home. There were,parking'.lots in the vicinity of her residence; but:businesses!have
36 been built intheirplace. She wanted the area in front of her home marked astesidential
37 parking only.
38
39 Mayor Thompsonadvised Ms. Giorgetti to take'thisbeforethe Traffic Committee.
40
41 Council Member Keller thought there should be, some overnight residential parking
•
42 designations: Only those holding overnight residential stickers could park.overnight in
43 those areas.:The type of permit required'and'the restrictions would be posted inrthe area.
Draft Minutes
City,of Petaluma;California •
City Council Meeting
Monday;:November;20,2000
Page 18
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 Jackie Phillips 210.Keller`Street, statedthat,P.etaluma is the.only.town in'the.United States
3 where people are penalized for parking in front..of'their residence. She thought people
4 should be allowed to park where they live.
5 •
6 Frank Stony, 106 Washington Street (Petaluma Hotel), stated that residents in the
7 downtowniarea are in competition'with commuters, and employees of the Bank of America
s for parking, adding that there are not enough parking•spaces in the area.
9
10 Stephen O'Melveny, 25 Western Avenue (new resident), said that when he purchased his
11 permit, he was surprised that it was only valid within 100' of his residence. He had been
12 parkingseveral'blocks away to leave spaces available for shoppers, but was told he would
13 be ticketed because of the 100' limitation. He felt the $25 fee increase per year was very
14 acceptable.
15
16 Jon Jernigan, 106 Washington Street (Petaluma Hotel), would like to see cars parking on
17 Washington, Kentucky and.`Mary Streets for long periods of time ticketed. The hotel people
18 have a lot more cars now:•than they did 4-5 years ago.
19 '
20 Jim Maestretti, 106 Washington Street (Petaluma Hotel), explained that there were 25 to
21 30 ten-hour parking spaces from Mary Street to the top of the hill, and commuters leave
22 their cars there all day. He would like the designation on these spaces changed to prevent
a3 this.
4
25 Diane Reilly, 1657 Rainier Avenue, mentioned that Petaluma Transit stops running at 6
26. p.m., and wondered if the'parking situation could be improved by extending bus service
27 later into the evening.
28
29 Linda Buffo, Petaluma Downtown Association, provided.forthe record recommendations
30 made in 1999 by theDowntown Association's Parking;Management Team and former City
31. Traffic:Engineer Allan Tilton.
32
3,3 Council.Member Hamilton thought a full time attendant was needed at the Keller Street
34 Garage. She wanted City'management to work with the residents and the Downtown
35 Association for the best,recommendations.
36
37 City Manager Stouder stated that City Management will be sure that the parking lot issue
38 and the permitting issue are included in the Parking Occupancy Study that is part of the
39 General.Plan process.
40
41 Council Member Keller asked that the Studyincludeparking issues for the redevelopment
42 area, higher density:occupancy, structural alternatives, as well as policy and permitting
43 questions.
• Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 19
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1
z, Council`..Member Torliatt would like to allow permit holders to park tneir'vehicles farther
3 from their residences than~1'00'. Bankof America has a parking attendant to'stop people
4 who are not using the bank from coming in and out of their lot. She wondered if Bank of
5 America requires their employees to park on site or off site
•
6
7 Council Member Cader-Thompson mentioned;that with;the cost of living;increasing, more
•8 people are living;downtown: She wanted to focus on the immediate problem of making the
9 garagtsafer.
10
it Mayor Thompson agreed that the garage needed to be made a safe place to park. He
12 would like tosee it Opened up so that the interior is not so dark andllunapproachable.
13 -
14 Council Member Healy thought there should be a Park and Ride lot to°accommodate the
15 number to the San Francisco.
16
17 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Healy, to adopt Resolution
18 00-202_..N.C.S. approving the increaselin permit,parking,feesfrom'$12ta$25
19 per-year foriresidential parking; from $75 to $100 per year for commercial
20 parking, and'expanding the area iri.which permits are valid beyond the°100'
21 from residence or place.of business.
22
23 MOTION
24 PASSED: 7/0/0
25
26 UNFINISHED.BUSINESS.
27
28
29 15: Continued Discussion and Possible Action on 11th Amended Agreement:for
3;0 Impaired Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water
31 Transmission System Capacity Allocatidn'During Temporary.Impairment and
32 Operating Procedurefor South Petaluma Aqueduct/OperationalMemorandum
3.3 of'Understanding
34
35 Tom Hargis, Director of Water Conservation and Resources', and 'Steve `Simmons;,
36 Superintendent, presented Council with a position paper based upon "some of the.most
37 recent activities'involving water supply! This''included'ethree part series'of suggestions
38 broken downfinto`the three agreements under discussion;
39
40 • For the Memorandum of Understanding,which applies to an impaired delivery system,
41 Mr. Hargis and Mr. Simmons suggested continued support.
42
• Draft Minutes
City.of,Petaluma,Califomia •
City.Counbil Meeting
Monday,•November;20,2000
• Page.20
•
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
w1 o Regarding the Operating Procedure for the South,Aqueduct;;they thought it important
' 2 to work with the;agencies;,tapping:onto'the pipelinetas well as with SCWA, in order to
3 have an-agreement on how that resource is shared.
4 • Amendment 11, which covers many issues, including the pipeline project.
5
6 Council Member Keller noted that at the October 30th Water Agency meeting,.Randy.Poole
7 of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) had stated in no uncertain terms that
8 Amendment 11 was "dead." He had been told by the SonomaCounty Board of Supervisors
9 and the SCWA Board of Directors that Amendment 11 no longer exists. When pressed by
i o several members of the committee about Petaluma's request for changes or modifications,
ii Mr. Poole again stated that Amendment 11 is-"dead and off the'table." Council Member
12 Keller wanted to proceed with a statement regarding remaining questions.
13
14 Council Member Healy'stated that he, Mayor Thompson;.and Mike`O'Brien went on a tour
15 with Randy Poole and some of his staff last week One of theplaces they toured was the
16 Cargill Salt.complex on San Pablo Bay. He encouraged other Council Members to do the
17 same. During the tour, he was told that SCWA is develo ping'a'more comprehensive, long-
18 term amendment, described as`"Amendments 11•, 12 and 13 rolled into one," which will
19 cover recycled water. There should be more information about this available shortly.
20
21 Council Member Keller preferred that it be a public-tour, noticed if necessary so that
22 everybodyreceived the same information.
02
24 Council Member Maguire did not want to get into'the Amendment 11 battle. He did not
25 think Amendments 11, 12 and 13, should "lumped into one." He wondered why the
26 Temporary Operating Procedure for the Aqueduct wasn't made a permanent Operating
27 Agreement.
28
29 Mr. Hargis agreed that it should evolve into something more permanent. He thought there
30 might be opportunities for future energy-efficient pumping.
31 •
32 Council Member Torliatt agreed that the MOU should be"discussed.first.
33 •
34 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, thought the. City should go forward with a new
35 agreement, and added that it should not be an "open-ended agreement like the .11th
36 Amended .Agreement." He noted that the agenda-for the Santa Rosa City Council's
37 November 21st meeting included response to a letter from the Sonoma County Water
38 Agency of September 15th`suggesting individual agreements with each entity. Santa Rosa
39 City managenlentrecommended Otherwise, 'for these reasons:
40
41 • The fiscal Impacts would be great;to the individual entities.
42 • There were physical and legal protections that would'not be granted within individual
43 contracts.
Draft Minutes
• City of Petaluma, California .
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
•
Page 21
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 • SCWAyould.bessetting individual rate&tor each entity.
2
3 They recommend a motion and a letter from the Mayor to SCWA that they decline the
4 individual contracts and they also recommend the development of a new method of
5 governance;related to:all watersupply issues.
6
7 Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier asked for answers to the following questions
s before Council voted on the matter:
9
10 • How would surplus customers;affect rate ?
11 Why.are there several different lists of surplus contracts?
12 -
13 She thought SCWA was attempting to deceive the City and the public regarding this
14 matter, and was adamant that Council not vote until they received clarification.
15
16 Scott Vouri, 1557''Mauro Pietro, congratulated;the winning Council candidates and thanked
17 everyone who -supported his campaign. 1He thought it encouraging that SCWA was
1s developing':a broader plan-for Amendments 11, 12 and 13. He said he had thought all
19 along that.Amendment 11 was very short.sighted and not forward thinking enough. Long-
20 term planning is needed for recycling plants,.rainwater catchments, and whatever else can
21 be done to ensure an adequate water:sUppiy in the years to come.
22
23 Mr Vouri supported signing the MOU, but noted that Section 4F on page:7'stated that the
24 City agreed the first priority'construction`,project wouldxbe building the aqueduct facility •
25 between the,Russian River and Cotati Intertie Aqueduct and the Ely;Booster Station. .He
26 recommended that the City Attorney:attach a memorandum to the signed MOU,,stating that
27 the,iaqueduct is not-the City's first priority, that storage isthe'immediate need.,The MOU
28 calls for Petaluma to be able to provide up to 40%0 of what it normally takes from the
29:- Russian River from its own wells.
30
31 Mr. Stouder understood that the-Santa,Rosa City Council's agenda item,was;the,same as
32 the item Petaluma's Council responded tout SCWA's in September 2000.
33
34 Council Member Torliatt referred to the`analysis of the adequacy:of the Petaluma aqueduct
35 water delivery capacity by Jim Pflugum and Robert F. Beach, dated March •1998. It
36 addressed the,issues of-water transmission system constraints and stated that with the
37 implementation of the 'Seven recommendations the,system is expected be icapable! of
38 delivering'water during the maximum months at an average rate of 92 million gallons;per
39 day,(mgd). The'actual average,rate of delivery`to all agency water transmission.system
40 customers in June 1.997 was 73:0 mgd. Accordingly, if the recommendations are fully
41 implemented,. including the construction of the final authorized collector, the water
42 production capacity of the transmission system°is not expected!to limit deliveries from the
43 Petaluma aqueduct fora number of'years'. She understood that .Collector Six was
Drag'Minutes
City of Petaluma,.California
'City Council.Meeting
M6ntlay,,N6vember 20,2000
•
• Page 22.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
supposed to be completed in 2003. She wondered why the City was being asked to sign a
2 five-year MOU for this project.
3
4 According to the MOU, ratepayers in the City of Petaluma are going,to allow a voluntary
5 reduction in the amount of water the City takes in She wanted to know where the surplus
6 water was going:was it being diverted elsewhere, or would iUstay in the river? She didn't
7 see what would;prevent-the water agency from selling the surplus water. The citizens of
8 Petaluma had been paying their pro-rata share of the capital'improvements for many years
9 to bring water to the City of Petaluma. She thought that if'econtractor used less.water,that
10 contractor should benefit by lower rates; those using more water should be paying for
11 more. The MOU should provide incentives for each of the contractors to use less water.
12
13 She reiterated her issue with. the. MOU and Amendment' 11 regarding conservation
14 policies. The MOU left each city on its own to create conservation policies, instead of
15 mandating regional water policy. The water agency was signing up each contractor
16 individually, and no one was responsible for a comprehensive conservation program. She
17 was also concerned that the two contracts did not assume that the City was managing its
is long-term water resource. The MOU was "just to get the City through until it can'add more
19 supply through Amendment 11 or'whatever additional agreements end up being here
2o for this county:" She was glad to hear that we're all going to`be,working together to create
21 a more comprehensive policy, but she feared by signing the MOU and limiting the City's
22 water supply, the ratepayers in,the City of Petalurria would be penalized. She believed that
3� storage was the City's biggest water supply issue.
X2'4
25 Council Member Keller noted that since the MOU was' designed to address system
26 impairment, he thought;it important"to,define"system impairment." Petaluma, Santa Rosa
27 and Sonoma need additional local storage. He understood that Santa Rosa had been
28 using system storage.formany years rather than building their own. As a consequence,
29 the ratepayers have been paying for a lot of Santa Rose's storage. Santa Rosa is woefully
30 short of storage for peak flows; for fireflows and now they're going to have to pay for it on
31 their own.
32
33 Petaluma was posited to be short of storage. However, Petaluma's tanks were drained a
34 couple Oftimes this past summer,;partly, because the system was not being filled because
35 one of the collector pumps was 'down. The system was not being filled to its-Normal
3 6 pumping capacity during that period'of time and as a consequence, water wasn't delivered
37 to the south end of the system and under normal operating procedure at the time, it got
38 sucked down. There was still plenty of water in the City's water system, in addition to
39 • water in the Kastania tank. He thought'the experience spoke tothe'issue of designing an
40 entire system around peak daily-use at the worst days of the summer. He then read a letter
41 from John ,Rosenblum to the SCWA commenting on the :expansion plan. He wanted a
42 detailed explanation of cost and usage allocations between:Petaluma, North Marin Water
43 and Marin Municipal`Water'before any commitment for building:additional storage was
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, November 20,2000
Page 23
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
i. made.
2
3 Council Member Maguire had no probleMs'With,the operating.proceddrefor the aqueduct,
4 and thought it should be a permanent:procedure to establish sound pumping practices
s regardless of conditions
6
7 Council Member Cader-Thompson wanted to deal with the stOrage issue first She wanted
8 alist-ofthe surplus,customers.,She thought that Amendment 11 focuseclOnlybn_grOwth; it. .
9 did not addresethe,current need for additional storage Pumping protedUreS:neededtd.be:
o established to prevent the tank from going dry. She wanted the alb/.tO'WOrk with Marin
11 regarding, another tank at Kastania or other appropriate place, She wondered how
12 revenue was obtained to implement a conservation program, while at the same time
13 reducing the rates to the ratepayers.
14
15 Council „Member Torliatt addressed the November-2, 2000 letter from SCWA, which
16 responded to the City's letter of April 17, apor SCWA is currently involved in Section 7
17 Consultation-under the Federal EndangerecilSpetieS Att. They expected the biological
18 assessments would be completed in the fait of 2001. Hopefully, the National Marine.
19 Fishery Service will expedite its process and issue its biological-opinion by Spring 2002.
20 To date, the Agency's total Section 7 costs, 'including, staff time and consultants, is
21. approximately$5,6 Million, over a,fiVelear period., This has beeniundeclthrough three
22 separate-agenty4fUndS, Water TransnlissionliSystem, O&M Fund„Russian River Projects
23 Fund and the Flood Control Zone 1A Funds.
24
25 As was discussed at the Water Advisory Committee meetings, completing the Endangered
26 Species Act Consultationcwastonlypart of the picture. She thought it safe to assume that
27 significant additional funds will be necessary to implement the recovery plan likely to result
28 from the consUltation. As of the date of the MOU, the Water Advisory Committee has
29 approved $15 million for implementing conservation measures over a! terityeer period
30 commencing with fiscal year 1997-98. She thought money should beSpent,ontestoring
31 our natural systemsand on best conservation prattices.
32
33 Council Member Healy wanted City management to addresethe.currentimpairment status
34 on the Petaluma aqueduct, even with Collector Six in place. He understood that'during
35 peak months; the aqueduct was being run at beyond'design capacity, so the City was
36 beyond capacity no' ; with or without Collector Six. •
37
38 Mr. Hargis believed that at,peak times the pipeline was pumping more water than it was
34 designed to pump, at.a higher,velocity than it wasidesigneditO pump, Collector Six added ,
40 water to be distributed among all. the various users.Of the system, but'a delivery issue
,
41 remained He noted that on Mr. Simmons' graph, all the,contractors:dn the system oLitSide
42 of North Mann wrote off some part of what was supplied by the water agency-If everyone's
43 water WaS delivered throUgha'piece,ofpipeline at pealctirmes, a very largepipe would be
'Oreft,Minutes
City of,Petaluma,California
Eity Council Meeting
Monday November 20,2000
Page 24
• DRAFT - DRAFT DRAFT
i needed. logic dictated storage placed,at Intervalsalong thesystetn. If everyone provided
i2 a portion of that local-storage, during peak tim_ es;,watercould be taken partly from the
3 storage, partly from the main pipeline_
4
5 Petaluma pumped up to 1.6 million a day outof'grdund water for four months last summer.
6 That's why the City brought need,to=look at'aquiferstorage:and.recovery as a
7 way of protecting its rights to ground water. city Management was concerned that
8 Amendment 11 might impair the City's ability to' store water at off-peak times, some
9 underground' and some above ground, which was one way of addressing the pipeline
to capacity problem. Mr. Hargis explained that storage tanks are sometimes controversial to
11 residents-of areas where they're'proposed and it's not always a speedy process to create
12 additional storage.
13
14 Council Member Healyasked'if City Management was still recommending approval of both
is MOU's and if they were also supporting the idea of additional local storage capacity in the
16 near mid-term.
17
18 Mr. Hargis,replied that City Management was recommending approval of the MOU, which
19 also committed the City to,additional on-site storage, which City Management believed was
2.o important.
21
22 Council Member Healy thoughtthat aside from Mahn Municipal, none of the surplus users
a 3 were important from Petaluma!s perspective.
4
25 Council Member Keller thought that Mr. Hargis and Mr. Simmons raised a very important
26 issue when they pointed outthat annual caps on flow would prevent Petaluma from using
27 the winter months to recharge groundwater storage, a significant component to the.City's
28 cushion during peak summertime flows. What such caps on flow would do was ensure that
29 the water agency had surplus water leffito sell. _ •
30
31 Council Member Keller then read from the "First Right of Refusal to Purchase the Potter
32 Valley Project," which came out of Closed Session by the Sonoma County Board of
33 Supervisors on August8, 2000, page e; item 4;paragraph 7, revision of paragraph 7: "In
34 terns of pursuant to this amendment shall be subject to negotiations by Pacific Gas&
35 Electric and its successor and district and shall include an express assumption by the water
36 agency's district:of all responsibility for decommissioning the Potter Valley Project and any
37 associated environmental restoration or remediation:" He explained that "associated
38 environmental.restoration or'remediation"meant all of,the damage to the Eel River. If this
39 contract were executed, Petaluma would'be liable for billions of'dollars worth of restoration
4o and repairs to the Eel River Fisheries, which have been decimated by this project.
41
42 There were no water rights extant for municipal consumption through the Potter Valley
43 Project. They were under application,to the State WaterResources Control Board, they
Draft Minutes
• City of Petaluma, California •
City,Council Meeting
• Monday;November 20,2000
Page 25
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 were:under'protest from,a series•ofgroups and tribal agencies:,It was notjust a National
2 Marine Fisheries Service;(NMFS) decision, or:a Federal Energy"Regulatory Commission.. 1111
3 (FERC) decision. To depend onithose water:rights would be to depend on paper water,
4 with a huge price. Amendment 10:already required Petaluma to help pay those costs.
5
6 Mr: Hargis explained that Petaluma, Santa Rosa,,and Forestville have surpluswater. The
7 City has,notbeen,using all ofthe water to which it is entitled. TheMOU called.for sharing
8 that water with some°of the other communitiesduring!impairment. According to the table
9 on page 6 of 15, Petaluma;had an,entitlement of 17.mgd, and was:now;using 141/2. This
io will slowly increase to 16 mgd over a five-year'period.. In five ,years, Petaluma will be
11 ,sharing•'1 mgd of its water with other agencies. The question that arose:in'negotiations was
12 this If the City produced 1.6 mgd from local capacity, how would that affect, the
13 entitlement?`If the,City were to drill more well's`and produce more water for local capacity,
14 wouldit be penalized?• CWA has declared the.systemimpaired temporarily for'5 years
15
16 Council Member Maguire:thought that if Council were to agree to ratify the:MOU,,;it was.
17 `imperative to stipulate that:local supplemental supply not count against impaired supply.
is He also agreedwith Council Member Torliattthatthere should be:mandatory conservation•
19 requirements for alt users.
•
20
21 Mr. Hargis thought'there were many things the City could do to inform and educate:the
22 public about'water•conservation. He!suggested the City could{work'toward its own water
23 conservation and efficiency;program, instead of'the water agency:retaining administrative
24 fees for such activities, •
25
26 Council Member Maguire wondered if the water agency gave grant funding for
27 conservation for which the•City might be eligible.,
28
29 Mr. Hargis did not know but thought it a possibility:
30
31 Council Member Healy explained that as part.of the;MOU, all the contracting cities and
32 water agencies would commit to meeting California,:Urban Water 'Conservation Best
33 Management Practices. He noted that Rohnert;Park had already agreed tothis, which was
34 a very difficult'political decision°for-them:because it.meant they had to agree to water
35 meters.
•
36
37 .Council Member Keller referred to a letter from the Department of Health Services to'the
38 water agency dated,August 24; 2000;which discussed the fact that due to'lack,of telemetry
39 and daily use records on ,individual, meter turnouts,to the various,.water users, the
40 maximum,day demands used.. in the)review were calculated by.multiplying average day
41 demand by.the maximum month of factor"1.,17: He thought it;:importantto include in•the
42 MOU Condition C, which spoke toi'mproved monitoring of actual system6demands. The.
43 water agency needed to either be,equipped;to turn recordsoutwith telemetry to provide •
Draft Minutes
city.ofPetaluma,-California
•
• -City Council Meeting•
Monday^November:20;,2000
• Page„26
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1• daily use data or read''the meters daily.
• 2 •
3 Council Member Maguire noted that if<the City were to revise the,MOU,'it would go back
4 through a second round for approval. It didn't'think that was unreasonable, in light of the
s need for additional information. Heithoughtthere was wide support for not':counting local
6 supply against impaired:allocations. He believed that storage should be a higher priority
7 for Petaluma than transmission or other system improvements.
s
9 Council Member Healy notedthat'City Manager'Stouder.had:beenlooking'into this issue of
io local production being counted,against or not counted against allocations. He asked Mr.
I1 Stouder why City management.was still recommending approval.
12
13 Mr. Stouder understood thatthe City of Santa Rosa had negotiated that previously after
14 some discussion, and that it would apply to all of the other contractors.
15
16 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Stouder to determine if the Santa Rosa's negotiations
17 resulted in any revisions.
18
19 Mr. Hargis noted that Santa Rosa had not signed the MOU. They weren't going to until
. 2o Petaluma acted on Amendment 11, and that may have been one of their conditions for
21 approval. Santa Rosa as well as other agencies was concerned that the MOU created a
22 disincentive to contribute to the system if local supply Was counted against impaired
a 3 supply.
W24
25 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, to approve the Memorandum of
26 Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity
27 Allocation During'Temporary Impairment with the stipulation that. local
28 supply not count against the City's impaired supply. He asked City Attorney
29 Rich Rudnansky to add appropriate language to that effect to Section 4,
30 Temporary Delivery and Capacity Allocation, andto note that storage is the
31 City's highest priority.
32
33 Vice Mayor Torliatt.wanted surplus water to remain in the river.
34
35 Council Member Healy thought City management was saying that the surplus issue was.
36 not significant for Petaluma.
37
3s Council Member Keller stated that it was a significant issue for the system as a whole,
39 because the system was predicated on selling as 'much water as possible. The City
40 encouraged citizens to reduce water usage. If the water agency then expanded the
41 allocations and increased the amount of water taken from. the Russian River, nothing
42 would be gained.
43
Draft Minutes
• • City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 27
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Council Member Maguire,noted that the Town of Windsorwas included in the chart.on
2 page 6.
3 •
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt explained thatthe;messa9e the City was attempting to convey was that
5 the environmental impact of taking more water from the river would cost the ratepayers
6 money.
7
8 Council Member Maguire reiterated that he had moved for approval of the MOU with three
9 changes:
10
11 1. Local supply not to be counted against the City's impaired:allotments
12 2. Storage:le the>City's first priority
13 3. Excess:unused water will remain'in the river
14
15 Council Member Healy asked for clarification regarding surplus customers: Were they
16 contractors serving existing homes and businesses using surplus water because:they
17 hadn't formalized contractual rights with the agency? He also asked for the Town of
18 Windsor and Marin Municipal Water's status as;,surplusicustomers.
19
20 Vice Mayor Torliatt explained that therewere;a number of surplus customers,in the new
21 development around the Sonoma County Airport, and there were also direct contractors
22 receiving surplus'water from the watenagency for expansion in thatarea.
23 _
24 Council Member Healy asked City management again for a response to his question.
25
•
26 Mr: Simmons replied that the surplus water users would be, for example;vineyard growers,
27 and Mahn Municipal :Water. He did,not think the vineyard growers used a.significant
28 amount of surplus water, but Marin Municipal Water did. Also on the list were the Town of
29 Windsor and Santa Rosa Junior College As in Amendment 10,they were limited to, 1.6
30 mgd, and were using approximately', mgd. He explained that he received a report of
31 surplus'water use and billing each.rnonth, and would provide Council with,a copy.
32
33 He pointed out that the more water the water agency sold, the less it cost customers.
34 However, if there wasn't any water available, that would be another story.
35
36 Mr. Stouder stated that regarding Council Member Healy's question about,the City of
37 Windsor, he understood`from the City Manager of Windsor that they depended on the
38 water agency,only for water for the industrial.park.
39
40 Council Member Keller agreed that the more water sold, the Dower the 'cost for any
41 particular user. However, if the currelitpractide of selling every drop of water possible out
42 of the Russian River Continued the externalized costs would continue to rise. Those costs
43 included one half 'billion dollars plus financing for a filtration plant, .as' well as all.
Draft Minutes
City,or Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting.
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 28
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
reparations costs and repair costs to the Eel River Fisheries. Those costs have never
•'2 been included in the calculations. Water should be left in the Russian and Eel Rivers so
3 that the externalized cost of the system could:'startto;be reduced.
4
5 Council Member Maguire asked for a second to his motion.
6
7 There was no second.
8
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to include in the MOU incentives for water conservation.
10
11 Council Member Keller suggested Council outline an MOU that would include water
12 storage, local storage credit for water conservation, and restrictions On surplus water
13 allocations and usage.
14
15 Council Member Maguire explained that he had just made a motion to that effect and it was
16 not seconded.
17
is Council Member Cader-Thompson said she would second the..motion.
19
20 Council Member Hamilton asked Council Member'Maguire if he wanted to write a new
21 MOU or make modifications to the existing MOU and approve it.
22
3 Council Member Maguire replied that he would like to modify the MOU, pass it, and see
24 what the response'was from other contractors and agencies.
25
26 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to include incentives foncontractors to conserve water.
27
28 Council Member Maguire supported that idea but wasn't sure it could be effectively
29 included in the current•MOU. He:noted that with participation of a Council`representative,
30 the Sonoma County Water Agency Technical Advisory Committee and Sonoma County
31 Mayors' and Council'Members' Association Water Task Force could be vehicles through
32 which that could be accomplished.
33
34 Mr. Stouder thought that some positive motion at this time from Council, however limited it
35 might be,'would serve'to keep discussion going with other entities and would benefit not
36 only this city, but the region. He had learned from discussions with other City Managers
37 and contractors That some of them have the same concerns as Petaluma. He thought
38 Petaluma had been unfairly"labeled." He:pointed out that Petaluma was the first city to
39 respondito thewater agency's Septeniber 15, 2000 deadline.
40
41 Council.Member Healy was comfortable with two of Council Member Maguire's language
42 changes. He did not,think he had enough information about surplus customers to be able
43 to agree with the'third change.
-
• Draft Minutes
City.of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 29
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
2 Councii:Member.Maguire wanted to vote'and see if the motion carried.
3
4 Vice:MayorTorliatt asked if it would be possible to add language'regarding incentives for
5 water conservation.
6
7 Council Member Keller thought that concept was included in the first stipulation: He
s thought'it should be discussed among the contractors and agencies.
9
10 Council;Member-Maguire did not want to snake any more changes ta.the`MOU than were
11 necessary.. He thought the freedom for contractors to accumulate as much local water,
12 supply as desired was ;implicit in the stipulation.that local supplemental;supply not be
13 counted against impaired allotments.
14
15 Vice Mayor Toriiatt wanted to include a requirement for contractors to set up a mechanism.
16 , to reward those using less water.
17 .
1a Council'Member Maguire wondered how such'a-reward system could be implemented in
19 light of language in Section 5B that states ,that,parties agree to achieve and maintain
2o standby local.peak month production at 40%. He thought would take some time to agree
21 on how the system should be structured and'what the quantifiable,goals should be.
22
23 Vice Mayor Torliatt did not,thinkca quantifiable,goal was necessary at this point. Instead,
24 she wanted to include,language that asked contractors to commit to developing a system
25 to reward conservation.
26
27 Council Member Healy, noting that'•theMOU was a short-term document, thought it more
28 appropriate to include specific,conservation goals, in:the next Amendment, but'was.not
29 opposed to adding general language such as Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested to this MOU.
30
31 Council Member Keller suggested another approach, reading.an excerpt from the 10th
32 Amended.Agreement regarding contractors' right of first refusal on deliveries of.surplus.
33 water. ".,.Surplus water maybe used only for the following purposes:irrigation of land use
34 for commercial production of food.orfiber, replenishmentd f surface w,atersupply, reservoir
35 or recreational lakes..." "The water contractor shall have the first right of refusal on
36 deliveries of surplus water" He wondered if the City could legally exercise that right by
37 .dedicating its surplus water to in-stream use
38
39 Council;Member Maguire noted that he hadn'tyet amended his motion. He explained that
40 while he supported the concepts suggested, he was not willing to amend the motion unless
41 it was with clear, and definitive language. •
42
43
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma„California. •
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20;-2000
• Page 30
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
a MOTION
2 AMENDED: iCounciliMerriber Maguire moved; seconded by Cader-Thompson, to adopt.
3 Resolution 00-203 N.C.S., Approving the'Memorandum of Understanding
4 Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During
s Temporary Impairment,'with the following modifications:
6
7 1. Section 4, Table 1: Local production capacity should not be counted
a against or'deducted from the allotment of the impaired supply. -
9 2. Section 4F,the priority order is changed"suchtat the highest priority is
10 storage..
11 3. Any excess water shall remain in the river and not be sold as surplus
12 water.
13
14 MOTION
15 PASSED: 7/0/0
16
17 MOTION: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt Resolution.
18 00-203A N.C.S., Approving the Operating Procedure forSouth'Petaluma
19 Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of Understanding.
20
21 MOTION
22 PASSED: 7/0/0
3
24 Council adjourned to a five (5) minute break.
25
26 22. Council Workshop on the Water Recycling Facility Project and the Draft Project
27 Report. (Ban)
28
29 Mike Ban presented Council with the staff report for the Water Recycling Facility Project.
30 and the Draft Project,Report He would like Council to provide comment and/or clarification
31 for incorporation into the final'report. City management asked Council to give direction as
32 to which alternative they prefer for development of the water recycling facility. Petaluma
33 has the opportunity to develop a new water recycling facility to clean the community's
34 wastewater and protect the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay. This facility will
35 also produce recycled water that can be used to irrigate-parks, schools, golf courses and
36 other specific landscaped areas that,currentlydepend.on potablewater, easing demands
37 on the potable watersystem. The,City;has the opportunity to develop a'facility that can be
38 a significant amenity and an educational resource for the community.
39
40 Mr. Ban met with members of'the Oakmead Northbay Business Association to discuss
41 alternatives with them., Then, each alternative was. evaluated with respect to cost,
42 construction,operation and maintenance. Neighborhood issues such as odors and noise
Draft Minutes
• City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
•
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 31
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 were considered. Relative liabilities of each' alternative were discussed. Each •
2 alternative's ability to meet permit requirements and flexibility for meeting future permit
3 requirements was analyzed. Mr. Ban ,explained that these were issues typically
4 considered when reviewing wastewater treatment facility :projects. Additionally, the
5 sustainability of each alternative was considered. Results of all the evaluations were
6 presented ate second public forum on November 8,2000.
7
8 Susan McDonald of Carollo. Engineers led Council through the project report. She
9 explained that the objective of the project was to develop an economical and ecologically
to sustainable water recycling;facility to treat the community's wastewater and produce Title
11 22 Water for'Recycled Use Currently ythe City;has two wastewater treatment plants, one
12 at Hopper Street, built in 1938; the other at Lakeville Highway adjacent the Oakmead.
13 North Bay Business Park.
14
15 The project engineers identified five alternatives:
16
17 Alternative 1A: Advanced Facultative Ponds.(utilizing wetlands for algae removal
18 or DAPS)
19 Alternative 1B: Advanced Facultative,Ponds (dissolved air floatation
20 thickeners of DAFS)
21 Alternative 2: Aerated Lagoons
22 Alternative.3. Primary Clarifies/Ponds
23 Alternative'4 Hopper Street (Activated Sludge)
•
24 Alternative 5: Extended Aeration
25
26 Special evaluation,criteria was developed suchras cost, neighborhood quality,wastewater
27 treatment, sustainability and environmental 'impacts and community arl enities: Each
28 alternative-was then evaluated againstthese criteria.
29 _
30 Vice Mayor Torliatt would like• the consultant to expand on the cost for each of the five
31 alternativ,es,,She also asked to have the cost/benefit co mparison expanded upon.
32
33 Ms. McDonald explained that Alternative 4, Hopper Street Upgrade alternative, did
34 have a higher O&M,cost than Alternative 5. Alternative,4.has an annual O&M cost of
35, about $3:2 million for-the wetlands and $3.8 million for:OAFS,;versus,Alternative 5, with
36 $3:1 million for wetlands and $3.6 million for DAFS. However, Alternative 5's O&M costs
37 are somewhat lower than=Alternative 4's.
38
39 Vice Mayor Torliatt clarified that she had been referring to removal of additional mercury
40 and chlorine, an advantage of new sewer`treatment facility.
41
42 Ms. McDonald replied that the new facility would,make,possible a number of,treatment
43 enhancements, 'including ammonia removal and reduction of metals content.. She noted
Draft Minutes
City,of Petaluma,California, •
City Council Meeting
Monday,:November 20,2000
•
Page 32
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 that many' Bay"Area agencies were having"difficulties meeting their,new interim metals
— 2 limits requirements: Since the EPA tends to require even lower metal limits, this would.
3 continue to!bea problem•forallireatmeht plants. The tityleoxidationponds would be used
4 to removeadditional-metal, and choosing the'wetlands options would result'ineven more
5 metal removal. The wetlands option would provide additional nutrient removal. Ammonia
6 would be removed in the first step, but with the wetlands alternative, de-nitrification or
7 conversion of nitrogen-to-nitrogen gas would become possible.
8 •
9 The alternatives included'plans:forconverting from chlorine-type disinfection to ultraviolet
to disinfection. The facility would-be upgraded to meet Title 22 Unrestricted Use Recycled
11 Water Requirements. The City would then have more options for recycled water use.
12 Currently, secondary effluent is sent to the adjacent farms:.
13 •
14 Council Member Maguire asked how the cost of the Calpine energy was calculated.
15
16 Ms. McDonald explained that the construction costs: and the operation costs were
17 projected forward to June 2004, which was the date for which mid-point of construction was
18 predicted. The figures were adjusted for inflation. Ten cents per kilowatt-hour was used for
19 energy costs. The current rate was 7 '/2 cents. Even when the energy costs were inflated
20 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, the ranking of the alternatives did not change.
21
22 Council Member Maguire noted that'the.City of Santa.Rosa was going to be pumping water
a3 up to the Geysers to augment Calpine Power. He wondered:how that would impact the
W24 footprint.
25
26 Ms. McDonald replied that Calpine Power was considered a "green energy source:"
27 Carollo Engineers used a 'conversion ,factor for that source' of energy, compared to a
28: standard California mix of power, which.was a much higher'ecological footprint. Not yet
29 included in the cost analysis was the cost of power far the City of Santa Rosa pumping
30 water up to the geysers to make more steam.
31
32 Council Member Cader-Thompson thought that the long-term cost was higher than the 10
33 cents per kilowatt-hour projected.
34
35 'Ms: McDonald explained that Carollo projected the:cost at 15 cents and 20 cents per
36 kilowatt-hour, and the ranking of the alternatives did not change. The costs of the
37 alternatives went:Upin proportion to the energy costs:
38 '
39 Vasco .Brazil, 4551 Lakeville Highway, felt the recommended project would cause
4o problems. He showed,Council photographs of standing water-at ground level on the north
41. side of the Lakeville Highway ponds levee as well as the north',side of'LakevilleHighway.
42 He thought this was'seepagefrom the ponds. He recommended that Council not accept
43 the Carollo Engineers Report until Carollo properly addressed the seepage from the
Draft Minutes
• City of Petaluma, California -
City Council Meeting
MondaylNovemberr20,2000
Page.33
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
a ponds. He thought putting wetlandson the former Gray propertywould.cause the same •
2 standing water situation'to occur at that site: That would in turn have a detrimental effect
3 on the vineyard,across the street from the Gray property.
4
5 Mr. Brazil asked what the;cost would be of dismantling both treatment plants at the Hopper
6 Street :site: He thought the-funding agency only required costing out the alternative to
7 upgrade operationsiand.maintenance+of the existing facility to improve effluent quality: He
8 thought thisshould be for a period of,20'.years.. He wanted to°see the treatment capacity ,
9 upgraded'2 to,4 mgd', He asked for the name of the VETOcoordinator who conducted the
10 workshop . -
11
12 He noted that the ,extended aeration alternative required 16 mg tanks for agricultural
13 irrigation; He wondered how recycling increases would affect that
14
15 Terrance Garvey, 83'Maria.Drive, did not think anyof the proposed alternatives stopped
16 the environmentally damaging discharges to the Petaluma,River. Hewanted Petaluma to
, 17 negotiate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Fish and Gamefor a,pipeline to the
18 Napa Salt Ponds, which, need.treated water to rejuvenate the marsh areas.for wildlife:
19 That would result in Petaluma no longer sending,undesirable nutrientsrand'heavy metals,to
2 o the river. The cost of$1 million'per year paidtto irrigate pasture•with recycled water might
21 be sufficient to'finance one half the cost of a;pipeline to the Napa Salt Ponds..
22
23 The salt ponds would be restored to fresh water marsh; these tens of thousands of acres of
24 marsh would be much snore capable of polishing wastewaters without re-treatment,
25 chlorine addition, and production of cancer-causing trihalomethanes, than the few hundred
26 acres proposedtby Carona. Tertiary treatment might not be needed,:and the marsh area
27 was.so extensive that Winter-treatment could`still,be:effective even at a slower biological
28 rate of activity. Irrigation over-spray, salts and heavy:metals, which damage soils,could be
29 eliminated with.a marsh disposal area::He thought;the Department of Fishand Wildlife and _
3 o the Department of Fish and Game mightbe interested,in:contributingfunds toward getting
31 fresh water for rejuvenation of the salt ponds; the State Revolving Fund might be more
32 obtainable for a pipeline for such?an 1environmentally beneficial project,
33
34 Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, supported City management's recommendation of
35 Alternative 5. He suggested the City'should Igo forward before the cost of the°project
36 increased.::He thoughtthe.new timeline and costestimates relativeto.Alternative 5;could
37 be developed comparing the DFAS and the wetlands options. He added that the work •
38 could be completed in phases, particularly the tertiary treatment,'as capacitywas required.
39
40 He thought- it possible in .Phase 2 to investigate the seepage of the existing Oxidation
41 Ponds and see what could be done to address that Mr: Garvey's. suggestions of
42 additional alternatives for the use.or- disposal of the treated wastewater could also-be •
43 considered further.
Draft'Minutes
City of Petaluma,Califomia
City Council Meeting• 411
Monday;November.20,2000
Page 34
•
DRAFT' DRAFT DRAFT
1 Council Member Keller=asked about the,prospectsifor capturing methane emissions with
•2 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
3
4 Ms. McDonald,replied that Carolloihad evaluated the cost to cover the pits at the bottom of
5 the AFP`ponds, aswell_as the potential reduction to'the•ecological footprint with capture of
6 methane gas. She displayed another chart of total annualized cost, with Alternative 1
7 revised. The cost increased from $9.8 million td $11.2 million: for covering the pits,
8 capturing the gas and installing co-generation facilities to utilize that gas.
9
10 Council Member Keller asked if that was simplest way of containing the methane for
11 capture.
12
13 Ms. McDonald said that it was, explaining that it was a'floating membrane.
14
15 Council Member Maguire°asked for confirmation that the energy savings would not cover
16 the cost of implementation.
17
18 Ms. McDonald replied that Council Member Maguire was correct.
19
2 o Council Member Keller asked how the alternatives would,affect the capacity of the pond
21 system to absorb,.) & I and'peakWet weather flows.
22
Ali 3 Ms. McDonald answered that the plant would be designed.to handle and,treat the peak wet
111,`4 weather flows. The average dry weather flow capacity was 6.7 mgd. The average annual
25 capacity would be 8 mgd, with a maximum month,of'12 mgd'and a peak hour flow of 36
26 mgd. The facility would.tie Sized to handle thosewet weather flows.
2.7
28 Council Member Keller asked if there was any difference•among the alternatives in the
29 capacity for storage and delivery for reuse..
30 • -
31 Ms. McDonald replied that the same amount of storage was built in to all the alternatives.
3'2
33 Council Member Keller asked if Ms. McDonald thought the wetlands alternative would
34 provide a more polished product, more likely to meet future regulations on TMDL's for
35 .metals and other elements.
36
37 Ms. McDonald agreed, explaining that the database:showed that wetlands alternatives
38 would benefit in polishing the metals.
39
4 o Ned Orrett, Pacific Technology, thought that the report followed the process that had been
41 established and was,growing. He-appreciated the;ecological-footprint information. As the
42 design moved forward it would be possible to capitalize on this work and reduce the
Draft Minutes
- City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,'2000
• Page 35
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1. ecological footprint for this"segment'ofthe"water resources program to probably less than •
2 a
3
4 If thewetlands alternative was selected, it was more biologically productiveand would be a
5 credit towards the footprint. The City was spending approximately$2 million dollars a.year
6 of homeowners' capital, heating water that ended up going to the sewage plant. Future
7 water conservation could reduce that.
8
9 Council Member Keller asked Mr. Orrett if he had recommendations about how Council
10 should proceed:
11
12 Mr. Orrett replied that he would concur with the=recommendation presented.tonight.
13
14 Council Member Keller noted that if the water that.Santa Rosa would be:sending,to the
15 Geysers came out of the Russian River/EelRRiver, that was a,veryysubstantial ecological
16 footprint in terms, of loss of fisheries and loss of resources in the Eel River, and he
17 wondered if that had been accounted for in the calculations.
18
19 Mr. Orrett answered that information of that'type was not included in the analysis. He
20 suggested:that"those kinds of things will work themselves,outiover decades. Perhaps'at
21 that point'if our society is to continue we'll then have made the decision'to investtin.more
22 wind power. We'll have other choices ten and twenty years from now."
23
24 Council Member Maguire was satisfied with City 'management's recommendation for
25 Alternative 5... He wanted City management to investigate independent freestanding
26 electrical systems to:augment power and "buffer us from the vagaries;ofthe future power
27 market." He added that 50% subsidy programs were available for such systems.
28
29 Mayor Thompson understood that the planting of the wetlands was a two to three,year
30 process. He.°asked Ms. McDonaldif thetcosts of the planting, maintenance and specialty
31 personnel were included in the calculations
32
33 Ms. McDonald confirmed'that they were
34
35 Mayor Thompson wondered whatit would cost to upgrade the existing'ponds and address
36 the seepage issue. He was interested in learning more'about the Napa Salt Ponds
37 concept, and what the advantages ofrthat"wouldbesto;theCity of Petaluma.
38
39 Vice Mayor-Torliatt.asked if there'was a difference in the storage capacity between the
40 wetlands'and the D`AFS alternatives'. She also would to.resolve the problem"with the
41 seepage from,the ponds. She was concerned with seismic stability,'andihad been told°by
42 City management that the issue would:be addressed. She also••understoodthat.the'existing
43 levees,would be reinforced. She supported Alternatives and the wetlands option. She
Draft Minutes
City.of:Petaluma,California,
C
•
ity Council Meeting
Monday;November-20,,2000 .
Page 36
DRAFT DRAFT . DRAFT
g p best way to treat the water environmentally. She
1
thought the wetlands o tion:was the
i2 envisioned working with Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State University and
3 other educational :agencies to provide opportunities for the public to learn about
. 4 environmental science, bird`watching, etc: She saw an opportunity to create more trail
5 space.
6
7 Ms. McDonald stated that there could be some storage capacity in the wetlands.
8
9 Council Member Keller wanted to move forward with,the`wetlands Alternatives 3 and 5. He
io recommended very strongly as policythe wetlands option as opposed to.the DAFS option,
11 not only for the polishing capability,; but also, as, mentioned, for the educational and
12 recreational possibilities. If theCitysent water downstream throughlpiping and pumping, it
13 would lose that resource locally. Water is extraordinarily valuable as.a commodity. He
1'4 thought it would be a great mistake,for whatever reason to pump that water out of this
15 locality and not have access to it`for reuse.
16
17 Council Member Healy supported Alternative 5. He,was willing to proceed on a parallel.
is track with the different'tertiary'.treatment options. He mentioned that at the water agency's
19 Forestville'and Airport Plants theywere pursuing a different tertiary treatment option called
2o micro filtration. He would like to know if that would be an appropriate alternative in addition
21 to DAFS and to treatment wetlands:
•
22
Mr3 He wondered if it would be possible to<add a tertiary treatment component to the existing
4 facilities and gain amore reusable water supply before the,entire plant is completed. He
25 also wanted to know what could be done to help this project be completed as quickly and
26 efficiently as possible: He would like,an analysis ofwhatidetours and dead ends there are
27 on the road ahead and what can beidone to,avoid them.
28
29 Council Member Cader-Thompson supported Alternative 5, and "strongly supported the
30 wetlands option. She stressed the need to look at the community's long-term needs. The
31 wetlands option would provide miles oftrails, and would extend Shollenberger Park, The
32 area would be good;for, all age groups because it could be used by hikers, bicyclists,
33 parents pushing strollers, and would be wheelchair accessible: She wanted to find a way
34 to.educatethe public on the;benefits of the wetlands and the park benefits. The property
35 was'outside.the'Urban Growth Boundary.
36
37 It was the consensus of the Council to carry'forward with the preferred Alternative 5A
38 and 5B as the backup; for the EIR:process and pre-design only.
39
40 The item was to come back December 11, 2000 to approve legislation.
41
42
43
• Draft Minutes
• City of Petaluma,California . -
City council Meeting,
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 37
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 NEW BUSINESS - •
2 ,
3 17.. Discussion and Possible ActionRegardingCityof.'Petaluma Designation of Elected
4 Official Representative(s)-to the:
5
6 A. Sonoma County Water AgencyTechnicai Advisory Committee
7 B. Sonoma County Mayors' end Council Members' Association Water Task
8 Force
9 C. North Bay Watershed Association
10
11 Council Member Healy noted.that under the City's,Council Rules and Procedures, liaison
12 assignments are to,be:made each .January; and asked` if Council would be making an
13 appointment for the remainder of 2000..
14
15 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked'that the Counditappoint hertotepresent the,City for a period;of
16 one_year, explaining that Council, at its discretion, can modify its normal policy:byaisimple
17 majority vote..
18 •
19 MOTION: Council Member Maguire;moved;.seconded by°Keller, to appoint Vic e Mayor
20 Torliatt as City representative to the Sonoma County Water Agency
21 Technical Advisory Committee,. Sonoma county ,Mayors' and Council
22 Members' Association Water "Task Force, and North Bay Watershed
23 Association;for a period of one year
24 •'
25 MOTION
26 PASSED;: 5/1/1 (Thompson "no," Hamilton absent)
27
28
29 Mayor Tho_ rnp son noted that he would like this item'to return for further discussion in
30 January.
31
32 18. • Discussion and:Possible Action Regarding City of Petaluma:Recommendation for
33 Appointment to Board of Directors`of the Golden,Gate: Bridge, Highway'&
34 Transportation District. Appointment is made by the Mayors' and Council
35 Members' Association, City Selection,Committee.
36
37 MOTION:: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved seconded:by Maguire, to recommend Marsha
38 Vas Dupre for appointment to Appointment to Board'of Directors of the
39 Golden.Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District.
40
41
•
42 MOTION
Draft Minutes
' city of Petaluma California
•
City,Counoil,Meeting
-.Monday;'NOVetber-20;2000
Page 38
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 MOTION
2 PASSED: 4/1/1/1 (Healy "no," Hamilton absent, Thompson abstaining)
3
4
5
6 ADJOURN
7
s The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
9
10
11
12 Clark Thompson, Mayor
13
14
15
16
17 ATTEST:
18
19
20
21 Claire Cooper, Administrative Secretary
22
3
4
25
26 Paulette Lyon, Deputy City Clerk
•
•
Draft Minutes
•
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday,November 20,2000
Page 39