HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes of December 6, 1999 03/19/2001 t •
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Draft;,Minutes of a
2!
City of Petaluma, California;
3 City Council Meeting
4
5
6 • Regular Meeting
7 Monday, December 6, 1999
8 Council Chambers
9 -
10
11 -
12
13 The Petaluma City Council met:on this-day at 3:00.p.m. in the Council Chambers.
14
15 ROLL,CALL
16
17 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Healy, Maguire, Torliatt; Mayor
18 Thompson, Vice Mayor Keller
19
20 ABSENT: Council Member Hamilton
21
• 22 PUBLIC COMMENTS
•23
24 Nadia Bledsoe, Business Manager of American Federation State, County and Municipal
25 Employees, 1301 Shoreway Road #322„Belmont CA 94402. Ms. Bledsoe represents
26 bargaining units in`the City,clerical and technical, maintenance and confidential
27 employees, Contracts are on consent agenda today and urgetheir adoption. She
28 acknowledged and thanked the bargaining team for efforts in getting the package
29 together. She thanked the City Manager and City management=for their efforts on the
30 salary increase proposals and their•understanding of the need for parity with
31 comparable municipal agencies. • '
32
33 Geoff Cartwright, 56,Rocca Drive, spoke about the weir at the top of the Corps of
34 Engineers iproject.
35 •
36 COUNCIL COMMENTS
37
38 Council Member•Cader`-Thompson commented on her concerns regarding-the
39 Personnel Board.
40
41 Vice Mayor Keller agreed,and advised that the needs have changed since the
42 Personnel Board was established.
43
44 Mayor Thompson met with several members of the Board of Directors of the Petaluma
•45 Area Chamber of Commerce, who expressed their desire to meet with Council
46 regarding a potential site for a railroad depot.
- Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,December 6, 1999
• Page 1
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 •
2 Council Member Torliattwas supportive`of a.discussion with the Chamber:
3
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented on Thom Knudson's editorial in the
5 Chamber of Commerce paper indicating'the'importance of"doing homework" before,
6 making decisions. She thought it ironic that the Chamber wanted to discuss the rail
7 depot while'supporting a 101-only initiative instead of'a multi-mode approach. .
8
9 Council Member Healy-would be pleased to meet the Chamber to discuss use of depot
10 buildings and asked City management for an update on the Golden Gate Bridge District
11 .allowance of,authoity to build bus depot.
12
13 Vice MayoLKeller thought it would fall into the discussion;.beginning next month, of.°th •
14 Downtown Specific Plan concerning land and transportation issues.
15,
16 MINUTES'
17
18 MOTION: Council,.;Member Torliatt moved,.seconded by Cader-Thompson'to adopt
19 thelminutesof July 12, and261, 1999.
20
21 MOTION.
22 PAS SED 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent). ,
23
24 CONSENT CALENDAR •
25
26 Agenda items 1, 2,;3 were removect from the,consent calendar for further discussion
27 and possible action. .
28
29 1A. Resolution 99-217,NCS Approving Memorandum of Understanding for Unit 1,,
30 Resolution 99-218 NCS Approving Memorandum .of.Understanding for,Unit 2,
31 and Resolution 99-219 NCS Approving Memorandumtof Understanding for
32 Unit 3.
33
34 1B. Resolution 99-220 NCS Approving Compensation Plan for Unit 8,.
35
36 MOTION: . Council Member Maguire:moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson to,adopt
37 • Resolution 99-217 NCS:Approving Memorandum of'Under`standing for
38 Unit 1 , Resolution 99-218 NCS Approving Memorandum of
39 Understanding for Unit 2,.and Resolution 99-219 NCS Approving,
40 Memorandum of Understanding for Unit'3, and Resolution,99-220'NOS
41 Approving Compensation Planfor Unit 8.
42
43 MOTION.
44 PASSED: 6/0/1.(Hamilton absent) -
45
46
!Draft Minutes
Cityiof.Petaluma,California.
City.Council,Meeting. •
Monday,.December.6, 1999 .
Page-2
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
• 2 1 . Resolution 99-221 NCS,Approving'Accepting Claims and Bills. (Cornyn) •
3
4 MOTION` Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson to adopt
5 Resolution 99-221 NCS Approving Accepting,Claims and.'Bills.
6
7 MOTION •
8 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
9
'10 2. Resolution 99-222'NCS Authorizing PG&E Easement Through Prince Park for
11 the Willow Glen subdivision. '(Carr)
12
13 Council Member Torliatt wasunclearwhy work was'not,underground.
14
15 Council Member Cader-Thompson inquired if Prince Park would ever be underground.
16
17 Director of Parks and Recreation Jim Carr advised that, because of high voltage, it
18 would be extremely expensive, so there are no irnmediateplans'to go underground.
19
20 Counci[Member Torliatt asked if it was going to overheads
21
22 Mr. Carr advised that it was going to The existing overheads,:with some underground
•'-23 going into the center of the subdivision.
24.
25 Mayor Thompson agreed'arid remembered that the undergroundingris in there. He
26 spoke to Marcel Feibusch regarding the high voltage problem.
27
28 Mr. Carr advised that all the power coming across Prince Park is overhead and this will •
29 drop it down to where they connect.
. 30
31 Council Member Healy agreed thatithe high voltage line runs above ground all the way
32 from the substation by Old Adobe through the Corona Road'substation to the Cotati
33 substation. The problem was addressed when the Corona Road issue came up about
34 one year ago. It is prohibitive to underground lines of this voltage.
35
36 Council Member Torliatt indicated that the Corona Road substation was also a
37 consideration; that was'notwhy'she was'raising the issue at this time.
38
39 Council Member Maguire thought the pole.at the corner of Corona and McDowell was
40 very unsightly.
41
42 Council Member Torliatt did not think PG&E had to go through the ER process even
43 though Council had requested that they do so.
44
•
Draft Minutes
City:of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, December 6,'1999
Page 3
DRAFT DRAFT ;DRAFT
1 Vice MayorKellerthought.PG&E shouldprovide compensation to theCity in the form of -
2 landscaping or‘other.beabtification,as.the easement served a private substation. He
3 wondered if there had beertlany discussion of that
•
4
5 Clerk's;Note.' Vice Mayor;Keller left the dais at this time
6
7 MR Carr advised that there was already an easement through the park, for overhead
, .,„
8 wiregbing;thrOugn Prince Park, Willow Glen, to Sonoma Mountain ParkWay,, He
9 pointed„out'lhatihiswas'the agencythaCitywaS asking to remove lights from McNear
10 Park: They were supportive-ofthe,'City during the hoolcup,work in Prince Park The City
11 ran that project through fast and PG&E wasmiththe City eyery'stepoftheAay:
12
13 Council Member Healy asked for high voltage line through
14 the park is not what was being disq-Ussed. That exists and will p0t;change. It is a
15 question,ofiristailing,a smaller pole tOk‘allaw.the pbWer tb be stepped doWri.frern the
16 high voltage line and into the subdiViSion.
17 •
18 Mr. Carragreed.
19
20 . Council Member Torliatt asked where pole would be located..
21
•22 Mr. Carr diStilayectamoVerhead Showitigthebdation Of the pole On• East WaShington
23 Street.
.24
25 Council Member Torliatt asked why the pole could not be placedin.the sObdivisiort.
216 •
27 Mr. Cart explained that the street is adjacent toitheproperty line.
28
29 MOTION )COtihcil-Member Maguire moved, seconded by Healy, to adopt Resolution
„ „.
30 -99222!NCSAuthOrizing PG&E Easement Throitglf Pririce Park for the .
31 • Willow,Glen subdivision .
32
33 MOTION
34 PASSED: 5/0/2 (Hamilton, keller'absent),
35
36 3: Resolution 99-223 ,NCS Awarding Contract for the Design of ,a Pavilion at
37. Lucchesi Park to Quadriga, Estimated, Cost $55:000. Staff Time 10 Hours.
38 (Carr)
39 •
40 Council 'Member Torliatt asked if the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission
41. recommended 01:lei:Inge be[thelandscape architectural firm"to,design the pavilion.
42
43 Mr. Carr affirmed that the Commission worked with Quadriga from the beginning.
44,
45 Council Member Torliatt asked if the_Commission-approved the staff report
46
Draftifylihutes
city of p:4111ir:i7Califoria
qitytouncil Meetin0
Monday;December,6, 1999.
Pade 4
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
'1 Mr. Carr affirmed.
2,
3 Council M_ erhber'Torliatt'asked-why'the item hadnot:gone out to bid.
4
5 Mr. Can explained that Quadriga had a history of developing conceptual plans. If the.
6 City brought in another architect/engineering firm, "we will have to back to square one."
7
8 Council Member Healy'found the,design of the pavilion structure uninspired. He asked
9 if Quadriga or another firm could produce some otherdesign concepts, perhaps with an
10. historical flavor.
,11
;12 Mr. Carr indicated that the ultimate approval is the Council's. Quadriga sought to blend
13 the design with the Community Center, with the arbor around it to provide an outdoor
14 flavor.
'15
16 Council Member Healy asked if Quadriga had 'the; expertise to address the design
17 issues of that type of structure.
18.
19 Mr. Carr replied that:;they,were receiving direction from the Recreation, Music and Parks
20 Commission. He offered to take it back to the Commission.
21
22 Council Member Healy offered to meet with Mr. Carr.
.23:
24 Mr. Carr agreed.
25
26 Council Member'Cader-Thompson commented that the park was becoming dense. It
27 would•be nice to keep it larger and green.
28
29 Mr. Carr responded that the ,original master included",a gymnasium and a performing
'30 theater, similar to'Rohnert Park's'design. The'original intent'wasto have-a heavily used
31 space with those amenities. Many other Commissioners had made the same comment
'32 regarding the park being`overbuilt.
33
:34 Council Member Torliatt asked Mr. Carr if the pavilion-was intended for small.weddings
35 or parties in the park:
'36
:37 Mr. Carr confirmed`that the goal wasrto host small activities, fundraising and community
38 events.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt+commented that small' guests:would want to be
41 able to stand all around the pavilion. She wasn't sure the design made that possible.
42
'43 Mr. Carr'advised thatthe pavilion itself had'a 32-foot'diameter.
44
1145 Vice Mayor Keller commented that a 32-foot diameter is less than the size of the
• 46 Council Chambers. He added he was looking forward tdthe addition tote park.
Draft.Minutes
City of.Petaluma, California
_ city Council Meeting
Monday, December 6, 1999
Page 5
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 •
2 ` MOTION: Vice MayorKellermoved, seconded by Torliatt toiadopt,Resolution 99-223
3 NCS Awarding Contract for the Design of a Pavilion at Lucchesi Park to
4 Quad'riga.
5 • MOTION
6 PASSED: 7/0
7
8 UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
9
10 4.. Verbal Report by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regarding:.Status of Payran
11 Reach Project i(Hargis)
12
13 Mr. Hargis advised'that he was unable to provide a verbal report, but provided!a"written
14 report with diagrams. The Payran pump station is under construction., The !backyard
15 drainage`is'not under construction'. A contractor has started construction of abutments.
16 of thetailroadTridge byLakeville.
17 •
18 Vice Mayor Keller asked the location of the release point when water rose above:"18.6
19 feet at the upper end of the project: Where should floodwaters 5.1..iSdriefOe? He was.
20 concerned; about,an unpredicted failure or an undesigned failure He wanted to pick a
. 21 target area for overtopping that would have'the least harmful ithidect. He did: not think it
22 should be left to.chance.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt read from`the summary and.asked for clarification of the:project
25 remaining'essentially'on track:"
26
27 Mr: Hargis replied that the:weekly meeting with the contractor indicated"that majoritems
28 were "essentially on scheduled' Behind schedule was removal of material from the
29 construction site to Schollenberger Park. Muddy conditions at.Schollenberger and the.
30 construction site had impeded progress. There were some problems, with utility
3'1 relocations; but there were close to .being back on schedule., Construction was
32 estimated to be.40`to 45%0 complete at this time The contractor was optimistic
33
34 Council Member Torliatt asked or a progress report on the railroad trestle..
35
36 Mr. Hargieiadvised that the railroad trestle was behind schedule. This was due, in pain,
37 to°the" permit process with the railroad. Completion of work within the channel wes:given
38 priority over work onthe abutments,;
39
40 Council Member Torliatt:'asked if The,railroad trestle would,be completed in°2000.
41
• 42 Mr. Hargis advised'that the main line bridge trestle, demolition and replacement of the
43 drill line,bridge would; be completed. Demolition of^the:existing main line bridge,may be
44 . delayed until June 2000.
45 •
Draft Minutes
City'of Petaluma California •
City Council Meeting
Monday„December 6, 1999
Page 61
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
• 1 Council Member Healy'noted that overtopping would apparently only be texpected in "a
2 250-year flood event: • He asked if the design• wad m ade with 100-year flood events in
• 3 mind.
• 4
5 Mr. Hargis agreed that it was, adding that it would 'take:a very rare, significant event to
6 overtop The wall. •
7 •
8 Council Member Healy was interested in information from the:Corps regarding design
9 standards; specifically, how the design would differ had it been designed to a 250-year
10 event.
11
12 Mr. Hargis advised thatrthe 1% standard was common. In a residential neighborhood,
13 there was an additional safety factor over the 1% standard. He agreed to•ask the Corps
14 for the information Council Member Healy requested.
1-5
16 Vice; Mayor Keller recounted a long conversation Me had with a senior staff member of
17 the National Flood Insurance Program: When the project was complete and FEMA
48 remapped the area, the land currently designated,as 'within.a 100-year floodway would
19 be removed from the FEMA flood hazard map. When that happens would there no
20 longer be federal require-ments for insurance? The staff member replied in the
21 affirmative.
22
.23 Vice Mayor Keller wondered if a local agency had any authority to impose flood
• 24 insurance requirements in:an area of prior flood plain that is protected by a project. If
25 there were no requirement for flood insurance, the City would bethe target agency if the
26 project failed. Even under federal rules, flood insurance was only required from
27 federally regulated funding agencies: Private loans were not required to have flood
28 insurance as part of contract of sale. He though the City-had .homework to do.
29
30 Council Member Maguire asked V.ice'Mayor Keller ifthere was a draft map the areas
31 that would be removed from-the'FEMA map.
32
33 Vice Mayor Keller replied that there was no draft map, but he thought it could be
34 assumed from Corps design intention that the entire lower end of the project would be
35 removed, from"the weirdown:to the lower end.
36
37 Mr. Hargis advised'he would relay questions to Lynn Galal.
38
39 PUBLIC COMMENT •
40
. 41 Geoff Cartwright, 56 ,Rocca Drive, addressed. the Corps shortage of funds. He read in
42 the Press Democrat that-the state has a surplus of funds, and thought that might be an
43 avenue as well He!'addressed insurance matters and urged citizens to-maintain flood
44 insurance. He also presented loose pages from the Corps EIR- advising that no
11045 construction in the 100-year flood plain should be perm_ itted.
46
Draft Minutes
City:of Petaluma,California
City Council.Meeting`
Monday, December 6,1999
Page 7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT' '
1 Diane Reilly-Torres, Rainier Avenue,„had some questions ;regarding the flood project •.
.2 and brought the EIR. She asked•who<initiated,updating of FEMA maps.
3
4 Mr. Hargis advised that the City hacl already requested' that the FEMA maps be
5 updated, andtheTwill do that when the project is completed:
6
7 Council Member Torliatt "asked how far up the :river because it will be at the City's ',cost-
,
8 to update"the=flood maps.
9
10 Mr. Hargis•did not know. His understanding `is that°the FEMA map update would, be;+on
11 the entire within the City limits.
12
13 Council Member Torliatt.asked if it would be•on• the entire w ater-Shed and Who; is"
14 responsible-to pay for the mapping„
15
16 Diane Reilly-Torres advised that citizens`could;request mapping..She;also talkedtothe
17 EPA about",the,contamination site., Phone numberto find out what owner Is,doing about'
18 cleaning up property;. Perhaps someone, from,:tha City could get a response, Read;
19 letter from'EPA regarding some adverse affects of various public works in Petaluma:
20 -
21 5. Discussion, Status Report and Direction Regarding Washington/McDowell
22 Interchange Improvement and Scoping Session. (Evert)
23
24 Mike Evert„ Engineering, Manager„ reviewed the alternatives for transportation
25 ;i'mprovements at Washington/McDowell and theadesign that;was chosen,: On November
26 23, 1999,a,,status report was sent to the ;City Manager. A Scoping Meeting with public
27 agencies will be held December 7, 1999:,A public meeting has been scheduled for
28 December 94,999 at•the Petaluma;Comniunit'y.Center at 6:30 p.m' There will bea field
29 walk (for Council; Bicycle ,Advisory Committee, and the general public) on'December
30 13,. 1999, meeting at the St. James'Church parking lot at 2:00 p.m. Possible locations;
31 on East Washington Street for placement of,a bike'path will be explored,
32
33 Council Member Cader Thompson understood that the right hand turn, lane to a
34 northbound on-ramp would. be considered.
35 • •
361 Council, Member:Maguire recalled:that they could not proceed in that panne'r because
37 of possible-changes°to the freeway in'the future.
38
39 Council; Mental' Torliatt asked Mr. Evert for an update from Cal-Frans. She wanted
40 •Council to work closely With'Ahem for designs.
41 •
42 Council•Member Healylnoted that.Council;came up with the best solution basedion:the
'43 information'they had. Perhaps they should go back and review the tape regarding the
44 bike lane!:options mentioned,by Mr.;Evert.
45 •
• Draft Minutes
'City,�of Fetaluma;�Calrfornia,;
City Council.Meeting
Monday, December 6„1999' -
'
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
• 1 Council Member Cader-Thompson, commented that the Ross would like to expand. If
2 that happened,:shei thought the City might loose the opportunity to geta right hand turn
3 lane going north.
4
5 Council Member Maguire believed CalTrans had a right of way that Ross cannot intrude
6 upon. What CalTrans decided to do there would not be determined fora number of
7 years.
8
9 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented that they City was losing a big
10 opportunity to eventually have a;right hand turn lane;:northbound.. CalTrans would look
11 to the City to have it designed and engineered.
12
13 Vice Mayor Keller remembered that unfunded Phase 2 would be the remodeling of the
14 interchange, including the right hand turn. The City was going to ask CalTrans to do a
15 • PSR on the interchange that would provide the"engineering and plan layouts with which
16 the City would have to coordinate: He thought;it.unnecessary,to have a scoping session
17 for environmental review on an unplanned and undesigned Phase 2; instead, the City
18 should move ahead with Phase;1 and then reiterate to^CalTrans the request fora PSR.
19
'20 Council Member Hamilton indicated Council was speculating on what CalTrans would or
,21 would not do, and it would better to contact them directly.
22
2-3 Mayor Thompson indicated the Council did decide that-and agreed with -Vice Mayor
24 Keller that it was part of Phase 2. •
.25
26 Mr. Evert agreed with Mayor Thompson.
;27
'28 Council Member Hamilton asked if speaking to CalTrans was part of Phase 2.
29
,30 Mr. Evert indicated it was part of Phase 2 and the City would request that CalTrans
31 design; fund and constructsthe.improvements, if possible.
32
33 Mr. Evert described the process. When the northbound on ramp was considered, there
34 was a different level of design and environmental procedures. The process would be to
,35 do transportation "improvements in the intersection in 2001 , and 'complete the bike lane
36 and sidewalk over The freewa y over the following year; It would be approximately-hree
37 years before plans were completed. That would affect the current goal of completing
38 intersection improvements in 2001. ,
39
40 Council Member Torliatt asked if the. City could move forward on the,3-year deal with
'41 CalTrans and, the PSR while completing its improvements to the intersection as a
42 separate project. -
43
44 Mr. Evert mentioned the next item on the agenda was the transportation proposals
145 being considered for the March 7, 2000 ballot, and how they might affect the 101
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma„california
City Council Meeting
Monday,December 6,1999
Page 9
DRAFT DRAFT 'DRAFT
2 does orth.the East Wasn•irnp n/101ents which would further complicate what the City •
1 corridor and intersectton iniproveme
ntersection.
3
4 Council Member Torliatt thought Council should parallel track the projects..
5
6 Council Member Maguire; mentioned that while the Council is enthusiastic, staff is
7 limited. In the last;discussion, a decision;was made to get things done;as quicklyas the
8 opportunity,and resources are available.
9
10 Council Member Torliatt Wanted •the.discussions,to Continue'with CalTranS :and asked
11 Mr. Evert. to call'them at least once a month.
12
13 Council Member Maguire said that would: be taking time away'from what Council was
14 trying to do., Priorities needed to be set:-
15 •
16 Council Member Torliatt,indicated priorities have been set and she would like toi,look„at
17 parallel;tracking•the improvements:
18
19 Mayor Thompson believed Council had a consensus to stay on the course chosen at
20 the previous•meetings. •
21
22 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented that by the times the improvements in
23 2001.were completed, there would still be problems with traffic because;of°the left hand
•
,24 turn lane. This could be paralleled and she did not want to wait another six ,Years for
25 this to be done.
26
27 Mr. Evert stated that a project study report' would cost approximately '$75,000; the
28 design, environmental and project study report for the northbound on ramp' would cost
29 about$450,000. If Council wanted to move forward with that;review, it would affect the
30 improvements at the intersection because they should'go together: He could not do the
31 intersection improvements,and focus!onahose?while going forwardtwith :tF e•project study
32 report•for the on ramp. If';the Council•was asking`to track CalTrans and:have CalTrans t '
33 do the project study report;thattwould:be feasible. •
34
35 Council Member 'T;orliatt asked if the improvements for East Washington/McDowell,
36 would.facilitatethe second phase of putting` 'ma northbound=on°ramp.
37,
38 Mr.. Evert replied that improvements would be ,made with anticipation of a• future
39 • northbound on ramp. If CalTrans went forward with the $4,000;000 northbound on
40 ramp, that^would 'change the bicycle lanes and the sidewalk along .East Washington
41 'Street.
42,
43 Council Member;fader-Thompson asked Mayor Thompson if it wasn't. necessary to
44 know what' CalTrans had planned before moving ahead with .,any improvements;.
45 Otherwise;the City spending:money on:a project that might'end up'be•torn upt
46
Draft'Minutes
City Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Montlay;Decemer.6i 1999
•
” Pagel 0
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
' • :1 Mayor Thompson indicated there•was•a consensus on the Council to move ahead with
2 projectas previously discussed:
3
' 4 Council, Member Cader-Thompson indicated she was unclear about the whole process
5 and had asked several times to have it placed again on the agenda. That should have
6 happened several months ago.
7
8 Mr., Even indicated it°was always the intent that the,northbound on ramp be a priority in
9 discussions with CalTrans on the current project, that the northbound on ramp would be
10 foremost in the discussions for the second phase'. CalTrans was aware of that. Once
11 the environmental scoping •meeting has been held, a special field review for the bicycle
12 lanes along East Washington would take place. Then City management will meet with
13- CalTrans to seriously discuss design issues.
14
`15 Council Member Healy's understanding is CalTraris will be want to be thinking about the
'16 northbound off ramp at•the'same time for design purposes. •
'17
18 Mr. Evert indicated it is a possibility that may fit into the formula:
19
20 Council Member Healy said that- would involve, the intersection west from where it
21 currently exists.
22
•23 Mr. Evert agreed. CalTrans will look'at the long-range big picture of the,intersection and
l24 our northbound on rampfits the East Washington' improvementswe:are doing, but isn't
25 necessarily the best improvements;for the interchange.
.26 •
27 Council Member Healy asked, if'the northbound off ramp 'is moved''west, would that.be
28 a more expensive project that the' northbound•on ramp just because of the property`
29 acquisition aspects? ,
30
31 Mr. Evert agreed. Property acquisition'may be an issue.
,32 •
33 Council Member Healy indicated that CalTrans would'be•looking at buying up property
34 from many homeowners along'that street.
•
35
36 Mr Evert ,indicated the preliminary study done. by ;CalTrans several years ago;
.37 concerning the northbound off ramp, would smooth out the turn as you come off the
38 freeway and that proposed to,take a number of homesin this particular quadrant. Also
39 on the opposite side freeway, we suspect the community would be opposed to the
40 number of homes being proposed, that were originally discussed several years, and that
41 a• milder, more reasonable approach' as how this, effects the community would be
.42 developed in the design, which may end up having+an off",ramp as shown on the screen
43 with less homes being affected down 'at the lower'corner. So, the northbound on ramp,
.44 as we show'it, may'not fit'into•the future-picture of a more reasonable interchange that
1045' would take less homes to soften•theclff,ramp curve to East Washington St.
46
Draft.Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday; December 6„1999
Page 11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Cduncil`Member.Healysaid that'this;gets into complex,design issues,;quickly:. •
2
3 Mr. Evert,'said •CalTrans'-i`s going to look at this-as ,a big picture and we!,may be in
4 preliminary'designaforsome time, until this;iis all worked out.
Si
6 Council Member Torliatt knew of a project study report for the widening of 10)1 between •
7 Lakeville and the Washington Street exist-and wants some of those improvements•into
8 that project;study'report.. Need to push the envelope•on:some of these improvementsaat
9 the' me,time as:the intersection improvements. What is it going to take to work.:with
10 GalTsarant.
11
12 Council Member Nlaguire'agreed as long as it doesn't:take improvements off track.
13
14 Mr. Evert said;he.knew what;the Council wants and would pursue it
15"
16 Council Member Caller-Thompson requested ongoing'status reports on this project. •
17
18 5A. Discussion, Status Report. and Direction Regarding U.S'. Highway 10,1
19 Improvement,Proposals. (Evert)
20
21 City Manager Fred Stouder noted they received the agenda, ifOr the December' 13
22 Sonoma County. Transportation Authority meeting' and the agenda item 7 which has
23 some Inforrnation,on;the,March 2000 ballot;measure,on this item. I have made copies. •
24 Mike'Evert and.severakof the Council•Members.may,have More infermatiorrthan City.
'25 -
26 M'r. Evert'summarized that Alan Tilton and he do not know much about the measures.
27 The Sonoma County Board of'Supervisors ,will,take action. on the top two proposals:
28 The Sam'Crump proposal .is,qualified for'the March 7.ballot.and;the Tim Smith proposal
,29 will .be considered by the Board of Supervisors as to whether it will be oh the:March
30 ballot. That is all he knows.
31
32 Vice Mayor Keller, as 'a representative to, SCTA; nobody is talking to the
3T transportationrauthority. ,Crump and'Gilotte did, not talk to the Authority. Tim' Smith did
34 not send anything to the SCTA. It is remarkable that the county has,a transportation
35 authority that:has--been working for with every city council to try to put together a
36 proposal that`.makes sense. from a 'professional stand point and nobody talks to'the
37 agency. We do not have copies of the Crump/Gilotte'bill: Asked Suzanne Wilford what
38 is the administration of the money: To her understanding„measure,indicates that
39 the money is collected by the County,.but the administration of the money and projects
40 is totally silent. There is no indication in that measure as to whom is going to prioritize
• 41 or oversee any particular collection,of projects'. Asked her to.have,county counsel;to add
42 that to his list of "items to be reviewed back to the SCIA, hopefully by next Monday.
43 Frustration of SCTA 'is ,that:the Crump/Gilotte bill blew in the'face everything that `the
44 Transportation Authority and all the cities. and county has been doing for the past.
several ear ffor'mi h isty. puttogetheran integrated;land-use package and have that as •
45 the objective
'Draft:Minutes
y;
Cit of Petaluma,California:
City Council Meeting-_
Monday; December6, 1999
Page 12
DRAFT' DRAFT DRAFT
� 1
2 Council Member Hamilton asked Keller if he put that on the agenda.
3
4 City Manager Stouder said he put it on the agenda because he was getting questions
5 on the 101 issue'and he,needed the discussion regarding the Council's position.
6
7 Council Member Hamilton asked ifdecision-makers want Council's opinion.
8
9 Vice Mayor Keller and Mayor Thompson thought not
10
11 Council Member Cader-Thompson had a conversation with City Manager Stouder about
12 the possibility of the Council sending a letter to Tim Smith about his proposal. This is
13 looking at a % cent sales tax. It is know throughout other counties that unless you have
14 a multi-mode approach, we are not going to reduce ;traffic. Widening 101 is just not
15 ,going to happen because we must have more than one approach.
16
17 Council Member Hamilton could support sending a letter.
18
19 Council Member Maguire agreed with a letter to Tim Smith. It is the only responsible
20 alternative. Sam Crump's initiative has already succeeded in the destruction of the
21 long-crafted coalition between business, environmental and local government interests.
1,22 The irony is-that, if the Citizens for 101. measure passes, the disruption in delays caused
23 by construction would mean we would not see any benefit in'years. The real problem is
24 that it has gone into a rail v: highway issue and any workable solution is unraveling. I
25 would say we say nothing or°send a letter asking for the combined projection be put on
26 the ballot.
27
28 Council Member Torliatt said the Council would send correspondence to the Board of
29 Supervisors regarding this and support for a balanced transportation tax. Should also
30 request Board to take an -official stance to oppose Highway 101 only IroprOvements
31 because all groups in county have been supporting a,balanced transportation measure.
32
33 Mayor Thompson,said, whatever Council wants to do was all right with him, but certainly
34 would want the majority-to agree with the letter, because he does not.
35
36 Council Member Healy was not in favor of sending a_letter. More focused on November
37 of next year as the opportunity to accomplish something and the March election is
38 something we will ,have to endure.
39
40 Mayor Thompson.said he would like to wrap this up.
41
42 Council Member Cader-Thompson thought it important to send message to Supervisor,
43 Smith that a 3/4 cent sales tax is not responsible. Putting an opposing measure on the
44 ballot just to have it on the ballot is not responsible.. We do have'a responsibility to 'let
W45 the public know about a 3A cent sales tax.
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting.
• Monday:December 6, 1999
Page 13
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 Mayor Thompson believed Council Members Ceder-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire and
3 Torliatt, and Vice Mayor Kellerare in favor of sending a letter.
4
. ,
5 Council Member Maguire would like to see consensus on'this body and think about the
6 most resp-OnSible response and that would be to go back to what was,passed"(Measure
7 [3) and at least encourage them to do the best thing. Rather than get into a competitive
8 situation, would like to ask Mayor Thompson and Mr: Healy's supp-ort that we just
9 suggest'that,,since that what was approved by the voters, here's your 'Chance, but now
10 there is the commitment to spend the money as Set out in the meastire'. It does two
11 things, it.gives peOplethe-opportUnity;td4et what they want and have it be binding and
12 it also does the tightthing-in addressing the unravelinglof the coalition.
13
14 Mayor Thompson is not going to change his mind. He does not even agree, with
15 sendirig.letters to theI,Supervisors.
16 •
17 Council ;Member Cader-Thompson said the Supervisor represents •50,000, people and
18 there is a strong tie..
19
20 Mayor Thompson said if he had a 'problem with the Supervisor, he would call'him up or
21 go to thetheeting tomorrow.
22 •
23 Vice Mayor Keller asked about The Mayor's Approath to the tax measures being
24 proposed.
95
26 Mayor Thompson had fibt-yet decided. •
Z7
28 Council Member Maguire agreed that sufficient importance would compel Council -logo •
29 to the meeting, but he would not top:able-to.make it He would rather call our sdP_ervisdr.
30 If Council 'could come to a consensus, we could ask City Manager brIViayor to speak
31 with our supervisor tonightiorlomorrow morning in a more face to face manner rather
• 32 than an'official letter, which hens fine-with.
33
34 Council Member Cader-Thompson made the point that at the last election all of them
35 signed on to Measures B and C and Council did support it unless pdople,have changed
36 minds since that time
37
38 Council Member Healy has a legal obligation to place the one measure, on the 'ballot.
39 That is a non-issue. The .only• measure that'is on the table is Mr. Stnithl!si.prdposal.
40 Those are the two things they are looking.at It would be a cleaner slateIv-the-Council
41 wants to look at these proposals after the Board does what it does tomorrow r as
42 opposed to sending a letter now
44 Council Member Maguire said if Council until after that, the Board may say, okay
45 we are putting both on in March, then parties are thrown- into the ring to battle it out ,40
46 This may be the one thing they are waiting to hear about. If we are going to fespand,
Draft Minlites
City of Petalurna,.,California
City Counal,Meebng
Monday, December 6, 1999
• Page 14
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
• 1. put the old Measure B back,on'and give people a,respOnsible'Choice. He would hate to
2 have the hard work of'coalition building be tornapart1 b we didn't'bother to speak
3 in a timely fashion to ourrepresentatives.
4
5 Mayor Thompson asked if this could be wrapped up?
• 6
7 Council Member Hamilton thought December 10 is the deadline.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt said it was the 7th.
10
11 Council Member Hamilton th"ought.it important for Council to voice opinions and not be
12 attached to how they are received.
13
14 Vice Mayor Keller would request direction for how Council wants his response at SCTA
15 next week.
16
17 Council Member Maguire asked Mayor Thompson for support for phone call from either
18 Mayor or City Manager..
19 •
20 Mayor Thompson said -he would call Mr. Kerns, either during the break or first thing
21 tomorrow morning, •and let hi'm know about their discussion. He will tell Mr. Kerns that
22 Council is concerned aboutMr.,Crump?s.
0123_ •
24 Vice Mayor Keller thought it needed=to be in writing.
25
•26 Council agreed to put it in writing.. •
27
. 28 Council Member Maguire recommended same thing go-to the SCTA. It"would be a
29 mistake to support'101 only..
•
30
31 Vice Mayor Keller would putout for°publics understanding is the 3% cent,sales tax which
X32 would put us at 8-3/4 cent sales tax,which is what'San Francisco is at now If retailers
33 are concerned about losing business'to Marin, Solano, Napa Counties and the Internet,
34 we need to wise up because that is'ourincome.
35 •
36 City Manager Stouder understands we •are putting something in writing, but not sure
37 what it is.
38 •
39 Vice Mayor Keller advised a balanced transportation sales tax measure, which mirrors
'40 Measure C from last year A:fundingi packet that would be mandatory so that it would
41 be a 2/3 vote•instead of separating the;issues:
42-
43 Council Member Healy read in newspapers the notion that people thing there is enough
44 new federal and state money available that the B and C package:can be done-with less
4045 than 20 years, and'there'is some disagreement as to what that period is.
46
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday„December 6 1999
Page 15
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Mayor Thompson said Council can write whatever in the-letter, but please do not say it
•
2 is a consensus. -
3 •
• 4 Council Member Torliatt suggested;draftingl.something and'putting on Council Members'
5 desks this°evening and we can re-address it atrthe end of the meeting. •
6
7 City Manager Stouder was not uncomfortable with representing,the spirit of the Council
8 or, if Council`wants'to bring 'something back-for this>evening's,discussion'so you are all
9 aware of whatwe are representing, we+will see whereWe are then.
10.
11 Council Member Torliatt was not sure which agenda items most folks are here .for.
12 Assuming it is the Sport s Complex issue; Maybe •Council should take that now and
13 other agenda items later.
14 •
15 NEW BUSINESS •
16
17 8. •Discussion and(Status; Report on,,Proposed Sports, Complex. (Carr)•:(at: the
18 suggestion of Council.Member Torliatt, Mayor ThoMpSort moved agenda :item:8
19 to be heard before items 6 and 7..)
20 -
21 Mr'Carr,advised that,Council,had asked for a"status4onthe-Sports Plex Complex,;which
22 ,is.out on'the .east side of the airport'. Realized;many Council Members were:not here
23 when project began' several years ago. On April 16, 1990, City Council approved an .D
24 option to lease=property just north of what is currently-now Prince, Park areas;that would,
'
25 be on :both sides of the Lynch Creek corridor for six-field softball complex With a
26 concession building, out buildings and sand volleyball playgrounds, picnlcy areas. On
27 June 21,,•1999,City Council approved a rleaseragrreement for this area for what was then.
28 called the,Redwood Empirea'Sperts Associates (RISA): •
29
30 As the project started moving forward and the Kings ;Mill subdivision; which „is to the
. 31 west of the proposed'complex, was coming close to build out, we started getting phone
32 calls and correspondence from residents of-the:subdivision• inquiring about the six-field
33 lighted complex, in some cases,would be within 1:00' ft of homes. This would be a
34 similar situation as with McNear Park. Back in 1989, which this was first approached
35 the City by!the.developer, Mr. Hronek, there was a real shortage of athletic tielcISI in the
36 community;and we were-encountering problems with McNear•Pa Park with noise:and.lights:.
37 City Coun cil had'the opportunity to develop:this complex, put all softball on one isight.
38 and possibly be:a revenue'producer-and bring people:in from;;outsider,community, much -
39 like Twin'Creeks in Sunnyvale which is a`ten-field, softball complex. The City received
40 complaints;from residents about; lights'and; had to content with Lynch Creek Corridor
41 environmental concerns and at this time,:the Cottonwood Golf Course, which is now
42 Rooster Run, had anew developer and starting°to move forward;,
43
44 Staff'made,a:recommendation to Council developer of RESA and developer of'the:golf
45 course that;there would not be much of:a chance of`the:softball complex to continue in
46 theipresenPlocation. Suggestion was`to:fliip`flop:itwas a portion of the golf course-which
DraftNinutes
City.of Petaluma''„California •
City,council Meeting
Mondayg,Decem ber6„1999
Page 16.
•
b12AFT DRAFT DRAFT
•, 1 off of the.eastern bp undary of the,airportfproperty. On any general plan; you will isee::33 •
2 acres annexed to City specifically for golf course project. The proposal was to move
3 softball co"mplexc'away from the Lynch Creek,Corridor, away froth Kings Mill subdivision,
4 move it 'out on the eastern boundary'of the City and use,this area for the golf course,
5 • which-the City Council did approve,on an amendment August 19, 1996.
6
7 At that time, Mr. Carr made ,a presentation to the Airport about the flip-flop and they
8 were comfortable with it That, meeting was in 1996 also,, .Since then, Mr. Hronek
9 started to move the project :forward. and his application was received by the Planning
10 Department on December 14, 1998. It received a preliminary review by SPARC and
11 was favorable at that time November 8, 1999, the project'was moved to Sonoma
'12 County Land Use Commissibn and received a favorable vote. Last Thursday, it went to
13 Petaluma Airport 'Commission. There was. some confusion about whether or not the
14 concession building was included °.in'the`project. (At one time an indoor soccer facility
'15 was included, but it is not now a part.of the.current project:) The-discussion about low
'16 flying aircraft; in 1996 Liberty Field' housed ultra light aircraft and since then, that field
17 has been closed, and Petaluma,Airport allows them to use their field. The flight pattern
18 used by ultra light and•helicopters is by Adobe road and Petaluma Airport, which would
'19 be directly over the area in question today. The? Airport Commission had concerns
20 about complaints from'participants ihat.would reflect on'the.Airport.. The safety factor of
21 the green belt being used for emergency landing is. a concern. There was a lengthy
22 discussion about night-light and potential impact glare could have on pilots and the
023' removing of open. space along the eastern boundary of the City. They voiced
24 disapproval of the project. That is the status.
25
26 Vice Mayor Keller asked for copies of the layouts Mr. Carr displayed.
27
28 Council Member Torliatt did not see a business plan or financial information regarding
29 lessee for RESA.
30
31 Mr. Carr said there was none. That was never a consideration of the City Council. At
32 that time,- it was •an 'opport'unity to lease property, have someone come in and
33 construction softball fields for the community and 'gets the City out of the softball
34 business. There was one agreement approved in 1994 that had a revenue stream that .
35 would slowly come back to the:City as part of the lease:,for'the property:
36
37 Council Member Torliatt thought information needed;.would include a business plan,
38 what is proposed for property and cost, revenue stream. Then Council. can calculate
39 revenues for City'in addition"to otherTbenefits of such a project.
40
41 Council Member Healy asked'about historical desire :to'-draw in tournament players to
42 City. At this time, is it primarily directed at,local players, out of area players, or a mix.
43
44 Mr. Carr said it would be a mix, but the majority is looking at outside the community.
1045 The model was the Sunnyvale complex-and they are pulling from the-entire Bay Area.
46
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, December 6, 1999
Page 17
•
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Council Member Healy asked where are we in:terms. of needs of local' players at this. •
2 time? •
3 • -
4 Mr. Carr answered that, with the Prince. Park project, and removing lights from Casa'
5. Grande and McNear, staff indicates, for local, two fields would take care of the needs
6 for adult softball players in the community;,.
7 •-
8. Mr. Marty Hronek answered question regarding local or outside, players. It is a big
9 enough project,to accommodate outside players,.but it is^directly for league players
k0 in City. The league players play:5 or`6?days a week: The tournament players come
11 only on the weekends. It is in the lease that City.players:have first priority. Twoafields;of
12 the six are dedicated IQ the Petaluma 'Girls ,Softball Association Thatiwas part of the
13 lease agreement. Those fields.will be=available'freetof`chargeito the:P,GSA during their
14 season; Mr: Hronek described his extensive attachment to Petaluma,asda resident and
15 efforts with Casa Grande Boosters and Little;'League. He had,provided a business plan •
16 to the City and that is how rents were decided. The City Council is what encouraged
17 Mr. Hronek to 'do this project. He asked for three:conditions wheni trade was made to .
18 present piece of property: (1,);he:wanted a new planner, (2) utilities&were to be included
19 (water,'sewer, gas, electricity to property line); (3) that the Airport Comrrlission was in,
20 . favor of building a sports complex., He was assured by the City Manager and owner of
21 Rooster Run that they had checked with the Airport,Commission and they liked, it It is
22 in their minutes of May 2, 1996 that,itwasr approved.
23 •
24 Council Member Torliatt asked if it was an Airport Commission meetingon May;2';1996,
25
26, Mr.:Hronek said yes.
27
28, Vice Mayor Keller asked there is written record? •
29
30 Mr. Hronek said yes: A woman 'in 'the City Manger's office, showed him a. written
31 paragraph. Her thought at 'one time_,that,an Indoor soccer facility would be,good for
32 Petaluma, ,but it was:'always going to be a secondary:phase if the community'thought it
33' would be a;good thing. As it stands now,it isnot4 good fit becau-se it would take up too
34, much land in the urbane separator. The amount of land using for the buildings is 1/2 of
35 1% of the'entire 28,acres. He did not think that unreasonable;
36
37 Council Member Healy asked'ifall six fields would be lighted.
38`
39 Mr. Hronek said yes:
40
41 Council Member Healy asked foran estimate of.how"many hours the lights'would be on
42
43 Mr. Hronek answered that 6:00 PM to 11 :00',PM: The lights would obviously bee.onl'ess
44 in the summer than in winter.. Would have- to ,shut down this time of year 'through
45 approximately February;and'use that time for maintenance work on fields"and.buildings, ak
46 After 50-60 years, this field reverts,back to the City. It becomes the City's property ler
Draft�Minutes
city,of Petaluma;Califomi_a:
city Council.Meeting
• Monday. Deceniber;64999
Page•18
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT .
• 1 again. City Council went:to Miller Star Regalia who wrote the lease and then he
2 accepted it.
3
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson ,asked if the parking lot had 295 spaces and has
5 there been a traffic study'done on the impact on Old Adobe Road and Washington
6 Corridor.
7
8 Mr. Hronek answered yes, there:are 295 spaces and a traffic study was included in the
9 Prince Park study.
10
1.1 Council Member Torliatt indicated that they did not receive a lot of that documentation,
12 could Mr. Hronek provide it.
13
14 Mr. Hronek said he has the"business plan, the proforma and the'traffic study.
15
16 Council Member Torliatt asked when that was done.
'17
18 Mr. Carr answered that it was :done in 4993. City did a complete .archeological study
19 and traffic study for the entire 100 acres all at the .same time Mabel Bialik of the
20 Planning Department indicates that,Mr. Tilden still sticks by the traffic study.
21
22 Vice Mayor Keller indicated that City needed more sports fields. The original lease
.23 agreement is not in the packet -
24'
25 Mr. Carr indicated the lease agreement was sent to Council three weeks ago.
26 •
27 Vice Mayor Keller-wanted t'o verify payments on that and also did-City supply water for
28 irrigation. .
29
30 Mr. Carr answered the agreement •calls for the City to "supply water and sewer to the
31 property line. -
32 -
:33 Vice Mayor Keller asked if there.was any-reimbursement for the pumping cost for the
34 water.
35 -
36 Mr. Carr said. at that time the City was looking at;coming off'zone 4 coming,down East
37 Washington St. and taking if to the property line and how the developer,handled it from
38 that point on was-at his cost.
39 •
40 Vice Mayor`Keller asked if this was new water as opposed to reclaimed water.
41
42 M . Cart said that atthe'tirhe it was drawn up, it was correct.
43
44 Vice Mayor Kelleriasked .if there was a proposal to turning this into a reclaimed water
•45 site.
46
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,December 6, 1999
Page 19
DRAFT DRAFT 'DRAFT
1 Mr.provide that along the e tee corridor.t ee is nbt but Mr Simmons' long-range :plan was to •
2
3
4 Vice Mayor Keller asked if in that change, would there be 'any°,reimbursement, for
5 pumping costs.
6
7 Mr: Carr answered' would be up to Council's direction to Park'and Rec.
8 •
9 Mr Hronek understood from his engineerthatthe City will require him to plit well water
10 on the property — dig some wells, :Still `need to talk about 'reclaimed Water. There are. •
11 some kind of hookups'right to the property line at this point: He does not know if it is
12 water, sewer, or. electricity:
13
14 Vice Mayor Keller would; like toj get from Parks Dept: a, complete run .through;of utility
15 provisions; costs, reimbursements of costs: If additional irrigation. wells out of the
16 aquifer, Council needs, and engineer ng report on management bfbithef aquifer. What'is •
17 its current draft, future capacity and, how it will be managed. Keller asked.rif Mr. Hronek
18 had seen the letter from"the Petaluma airpon'Commission.
19 .
20 Mr. Hronek: received it five, minutes 'before the meeting on the Petaluma Airport
21 Commission. (City Clerk'does not have a copy of the letter)
22
23 Vice Mayor Keller would appreciate it, if Mr Hronek could respond to each of. the •
24 concerns:-outlined in the letter.
25
26 Mr. Hronek•did bring his lighting,consultant;in and he actually made,a presentation to
27 Sonoma.County. They were skeptical of project until: it was presented, then they could
28 find no,faults with it it wasunanimously. Wealso made a..presentation=to the Petaluma
29 Airport Commission and they realized there; would not be a ,glare and extra light
30 problem. The, only thing that would be show'up :would be a;nide footprint of ball fields.
31 They also,brought out an important point that oh ,average, 'there are only'2 'to 3 night •
32. On Saturday 'and;Sunday, most of my use is:daytime and will be shutting down
33 at18 or 9,Saturday night and starting up again Sunday,morning.
34
35 Council Member Ceder-Thompson has a number of concerns about this friniject and
36 development around the airport. When.,a plane;goes'now, they.are not necessarily able
37 to look' and ;see,where; buildings''are. There have been many, many plane accidents.
38' Since;Rooster Run has been built„ she `is waiting for-the day when a plane goes into
39 Rooster Run She has concerns about'encroachment around the airport because the
40 airport is,'important to the community. At this point, there an urban separator on
41 Sonoma Mountain Parkway and it is being caged in by school ball fields, soithe public
42 can't really'use it If we continue developing in our urban separators, they will be
43 devel,oped 'and they will not be separators;and.she will make more comments later on
44 She:indicated theta good place for ball.°fields andiarea would be inthe:flood,planearea
r45' so:in the;three months would not be playing, the fields could flood: .
46
Diaft..Minutes
Citjtof Petaluma,,California.
City;Council.Meeting- ,..
Monday, December 6, 1999 .
Page 20
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT'
1 Mr. Hronek commented to CaderThompson,is°that he has been here.20 years:and has
2 heard of only one plane crash in'thie,community. There, is a possibility that something
3 like that happened., He was a firefighter/paramedic for 20 yearsand safety was his life:
4 He dealt. with plane crashes, and other,disasters, including the earthquake and the
5 collapse of a double decker bridge where he had to climb through a two-foot=space to
6 rescue:people. He has:been in disasters-and understands whatthey are and that there
7 are ways of mitigating:them so they do not become-complete disasters.
8
9 Tom McGaw, .Airport Commissioner, offered any questions or will address. issue
10 regarding lighting and can give a pilots perspective.
11
12 Council Member Hamilton asked Mr. McGaw to review points made in the Airport
13 Commission's letter.
14
15 Mr. McGaw, indicated Mr: Barry• Lawrence, .a certified flight instructor, was also in
16 attendance a_ nd available for information. The primary points made by the Airport
17 Commission was based on the presentation of the Plot'Plan, diagram and layout seen
18 at their October meeting. Discussed the project with ,other pilots and other
19 commissioners. There is no 'question regarding, Mr. Hronek's intent or .dedication to
20 safety or having a well-run facility. Commission considers it an excellent facility. The
21 Commission's concern is encroachment on the airport and what that entails. The last
22 line in the May 1996 meeting minutes was that the commissions felt the new layout
023 (location) would benefit all parties.• There was no motion or specific decision.
24
<25 From an airport operational standpoint, with ultralight aircraft: they fly 500 feet above
• 26• ground. Theyare much slbwerthan regular, full sized aircraft. They are closer into the
27 runway and lower so that higher speed aircraft, flying outside Adobe Road can look
28 down and see the slower airplanes as they are spotting the runway to understand the
.29 traffic pattern and to sequence themselves in safely. These ultralights, at their altitude
30 and speed do make a considerable noise, which is why their,field was closed, because
31 of complaints voiced by people in that neighborhood and those who reside at KOA. We
32 inherited 20 plus ultralights and the airport works with these pilots to ensure they
33 understand the proper procedures when meshing with full sized aircraft: . These
34 ultralights would be flying almost directlyover where spectators and participants would
35 be playing softball.. Now, the participants are probably concentrating on the game.
36 From a noise perspective, the spectators may:find the noise disturbing.-
37
38 The other concern, from a safety standpoint, if, in fact, an aircraft, does haver,a failure,
39 sometimes pilots have very little control over where it will go down, particularly on take
40 off, where open space is required: From an Airport Commission standpoint feel that is
41 part of our responsibility to ensure as much open`space dear zone as possible to
42 ensure safety Of:net,only pilots and they aircraft;; but.also property and people; on the
43 ground. You can imagine if an engine quits,and: an airplane is flying downwind to land -
44 and an engine quits, the plane,.starts'to.come down, there;is nothing to keep it up.- If the
0,45 aircraft is making no noise and people are concentrating on their game, they won't know
46 to look up and get out of the way. That's one of their'primary safety concerns. From a
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, December 6,•1999
Page 21
DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
1 night vision standpoint, while we-did see theTpresentation of the lighting and'the shrouds •
2 around the lighting,. those are excellent; fantastic. If he were landing at night, the
3 concern would be the location of tl is particular projects is such that, AS he was flying
4 downwind ' e land and spot;the runway, 'the reflection.: from the, ground makes a very
5 • bright print off the igiaind, which' could' distort night vision significantly. That ;is why
6 airports'are dark',so that pilots are,not•distracted by extraneous lights ,so they see .
7 runway clearly. Night vision has• to be ;clear on final approach, before touch down,.
8 because runway tends to blend into the ;background.. The concern is not about
9 shielding, :but about:.the,,lights'is the reflection looking down from above, perhaps•being
10 on the ground, looking in the direction of the Sonoma Mountains; which its where the
11 pilots are taxing towards as`they come outtfrom hangars. 'There is just enough residual
12 glow that there might be:a' negative impaction night vision.. The greenbelt separator
13 involves tl e aestheticsoof.the:area but also,leaving open area for'aircraft.
14
15 Vice ,Mayor, Keller mentioned the requested listing with an associated map of'where all
16 incidents., have been around Petaluma Airport, say for the past 15 or.I.20Y years, where
17 plane have.gone down eitherwith power, but not on the runway,or without,power and if
18 there have been any injuries or fatalities. •Such.a map would be helpful for Council?to'fry
19 to preserve`buffer around the airport. .
20
21 Mr. McGaw thought the Airport Manager had worked that up.
92 •
23 Vice Mayor Keller said they had a listing of incidents but no mapping:
24 -
25 Mr: McGaw said he could do that,
26
27 Council Member Cader=Thompson indicated that, this: was over 20 years'. ago, but a
28 plane was taking, off and the wheels of the plane touched the roof of a ,car on.
29 Washington Street: ,Incidents,:do happen:and'.she knows of many accidents and where
30 they were:
31'
32, Mr : McGaw indicated they'had not had a significantly large number on field ether than
33 what you might.call a landing gear collapse or sudden wind: 'The accidents have been
34 basically on approach.
35 •
36 Vice Mayor Keller asked formappingof buffer and where did it need to be used
37
38 Council Member Hamilton thought it was a wonderful project, but in the wrong,place:
39 •When it was over, behind Prince Park, it was an entirely,different project. From being
40 I on the Airports Commission, she has learned how important it is to keep it protected and
' 41 viable and allow it room to expand if we ever want it to It is an extremely. important.
42 ,asset4orthe City of have She does not want to see development encroaching around
43 it; even this kind Of development; :She would like the staff to workiand find a different.
44• place: Ultimately, wemeed both:,
45 • •
Draft'Minutes,
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday,December 6;199.9
Page'22'
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
• 1 PUBLIC'COMMENT
2
3 John Mills; 1315, 'D' Street, spoke as someone.who knows a great deal about adult
4 softball. He plays in several leagues and umpires between 3 and 5 nights a=week
5 during the heightaof the season`. He is on a'softball field virtually every day of the week
6 in Petaluma: He. umpires Petaluma Little League and Petaluma Girls Softball
7 Association. He also served on the. Recreation Commission for 4 years and this was
8 the subject of many of their discussions while.they worked with Mr. Hronek-when it was
9 moved'frorn the first location to'therlocation by the-airport.
10
11 His main points are that the City Council and Parks Commissions has made large
12 commitments to youth sports and, 'in some ways when you make a ;commitment to
13 youth, you are making commitments toward adult sports too because:youth fields are
14 often used for adult sports. When adult fields are up, it opens them.up for more.youth
15 participation. He ,described struggle to find additional fields in Petaluma, mentioning
16 Cross Creek and Kenilworth..
17
18 What Mr: Hronek proposes is to build six"lighted softball fields. What that means is, all
19 the adult use for softball would' betaken off municipal,fields' and put into privately held
20 fields. Which means he is essentially building, at his entire cost, sixnew.softball fields
21 for-the City, of'Petaluma youth to play on That is the net result when the adults leave
22 the playing fields for bothsoccer'and,softball. Those4six'field's alone, not counting land
•23 costs, just to build them', would: cost somewhere, between $7-20(;000 and $1,000,000.
24 That's just for the-turf and irrigation. That doesn't include, and these are Park and
25 Recreation estimates, $120 per, ball;field for just turf and irrigation. That doesn't include
26 lights. What he is proposing to build would cost the City $3 to $4 million and it's not
27 everyday that someone walks up and offers you $3 to $4 million to build ball fields in
28 your community and that reallyis'the net result for you.
29
30 Secondly; when we worked on the Commission, it was not Mr. Hronek's idea to move
31 the fields. The Parks Commission, when working with the golf course, made a decision
32 to ask Mr..Hronek to move the field. It was not the other way around. The golf course
33 came to the:Commission and said they thought they could make a better golf course by
34 using this property and could the Commission get the.RESA builder to move? There
35 were two benefits: (1) it made a better golf course'and (2) it got the lights away from,the
36 expensive housing in Kings Mill. It was a win-win situation.
37
38 The Parks:and Rec Commission specifically asked Mr-: Hronek"to move his project - to
39 spend the additional money for his designs he had already done for the initial site It
40 was essentially the City of Petaluma's ideatto move'this project. At that time the Parks
,41 Commission specifically asked-the Airport Commission and the:Airport Manager if there
42 was any opposition to moving those fields. At that itime,- there was no 'opposition lo
43 moving-the fields next.to the airport and, consequently, Mr: Hronek was asked to go on
44 with his plan. He had to completely, redesign everything he as building to move from
•45 one location to another. The state of softball fields'for adult players is horrible in the
46 City. Adults get the last pick of everything. The City still maintains adult fields, which
Draft Minutes
`City'off Petaluma,California
City.Council Meeting
Monday;.December 6, 1999
Page 23
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 are Prince Park numbers 1, 2 and 3 and McNear. Playing at McNear will cease when
•
2 the lights are removed and will be moving to'Casa Grande High School. McNear field
3 and Casa :Grande 'High School are the two`worst ;softball fields Mr.. •mills has every
4 played;on,and will continue to be so. The adult softball desperately needs these field`s
5 to be built to thatthey can •play:,on professionally maintained; high quality fields; The
6 Casa Grande field is absolutely horrible: It is virtually unplayable:,. The lights are
7 horrible, you can't see fly balls, half :the; time the lights don't work and ,games are
8 canceled. 'McNear is a little bit better, but not maintained properly because the City
9 does:nothave time to maintain those fields.for adults;
10
11 The other thing mentioned was the issue twith the ultralights. If the 'ultralights are the.
12 •issue,.why not dropthe"ultra lights Ultralights came into being!at:the.airport•a year-ago
13 and the softball complex"has'been worked on:for over 10'years, It vàs in 1996, which
14 would have beeni 3, almost 4, years, ago now that this softball complex was• proposed
15 where they are saying there is a problem with."ultra lights. They have,20 ultralights and.
16 on any given evening in the City of Petaluma, Monday through Friday, there are
17 between 180 :and '250 softball. players on a :lighted evening field, that's Casa '.Grande
1'8 and McNear. They play 3 games a night each, adds up'to about 200 people per night_
19 'That's 1 ,000 people per'week. In addition, there are another 500 tod600,softball ;players'
20 Sunday at',Prince Park. If it:came'down:to,whatethe public need i's, the public needs'
21 softball fields a lot'more:than the ultra lights: Or the City needs,to service'the 1„500
22 people who play softball more than 'it needs to fly ultra, lights. . In addition;,the ;safety
23 issue., IfRESA doesn''tgo as planned; and Mr. Hronek has to:back,.and design a'field;'in
24 the,flood plan or-where ever there will be another 3 to 5 :yeardelay. That's if Mr..
25 Hronek doesn't just drop_it alltogether, which is;:a strong possibility, .lt is much,esafer to
26 play at the proposed sight than to play at the current site,, which is under°the takeoff
27 zone of the airport..
28
29. Mayor Thompson regi]ested this item be,continued;
• 30
;31 Council Member Ceder-Thompson asked for clarification if the City;Manager and the
32 Airport Manager who made the decision.
33
34 Mr: Mills:answered that=the Airport?.Commission did:not have an objection. The:Airport
35 Manager did not have'an objection.
36
37 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if the change of property came:to the City •
38 Council. • •
39
40 Mr..Millsthoughtit did;in 1996,
41
42 Mr, Carr advised that the idea 'was his because he ;knew RESA was iin 'trouble in its
43 present location and he,approached the City Manager who approached Cottonwood at-
44 that time and it`did most definitely come to the City Council: That was part of She
45 p the lease. p rt pproved the at.
45 rocess, with the'air o firstand come to°the Council when it a amendment •
Draft.Minutes
City,of Petaluma;,California
• • • :city Council Meeting,_ _
Monday;:December6; 1999
Page24.
;DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
•
1 •
'2 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented that sports facilities are important, but
3 the safety and the assurance that our airport is not going to be encroached upon is
4 equally important.
5 '
6 Mr. Mills agreed and advised that'they'are less safe in their current location than in the
7 proposed one.
8
9 Council Member Healy commented about the need for more information before voting
10 on this issue. The applicant and staff are getting a list of issues. One issue is clarifying
11 with the RMI 90-day study if-this site is near or part of•one the areas identified as a
12 potential:retention/detention'basin:
13
14 Mr. Hargis provided a visual Showing a,portion of the proposed site.
15
,16 Council.Member Healy wanted`to know that if this project:were to go forward, what it
17 does for the feasibility for a detention/retention site• near there. The second issue is
18 about lights, not only relating to aircraft, but at possible impacts on residents on the
19 eastern edge of the city. Before this gets brought back next time, the residents on the
.20 east side should be notified and given an opportunity talk about proposal.
21 •
22 Council Member Torliatt asked Mr. McGaw to address two issues: (1) that Prince Park
•23 is a less safe place as opposed to the proposed fields and (2) the issue of prohibiting
24 ultra lights.
25
26 Mr. McGaw indicated that, since ultralights areconsidered viable aircraft by the FAA, we
27 cannot exclude them because the airport has accepted FAA and state grant funds from
28 development of airport facilities. In-terms of Prince Park, if taking off toward the north
29 end of town, Prince Park is off to the left. It is slightly, under the inner protection zone,
30 but it is off to the left. There is a clear area, an open grass field, passed the golf cart
31 barn, which is some concern that an airplane could overrun the runway. Beyond the
32 golf cart barn, is a big open.area, where some have played soccer, but was supposed to
33 stay open. The,reason is should an aircraft overrun, there is an area straight ahead to
.34 lay down on Prince Park is slightly off to the left. The edge of it would be underneath
35 the inner protection zone and there 'could be some potential °issue if landing from the
36 other direction at night with reflected glare. Prince Park is not the same degree of
37 hazard as'the lCurrent proposal.
38 •
39 Mr. Hronek clarified that the change was introduced on'May 6, 1996 byaCouncil Member
40 Hamilton and seconded by Council Member Maguire. On August 5, 1996 this exchange
41 was introduced by' Council Member Maguire and seconded •by Council Member
.42 Hamilton when it was passed. •
'43
44 Vice Mayor Keller indicated it was difficult to sort out two high priority competing
•45 interests. Is there some waywe can accommodate all of it. He requested from Mr. Carr
46 a current rough target availability ofotherplaying fields in the Petaluma area.
Draft Minutes
.City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, December 6, 1999
Page 25
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
•
1
2 Council Member Torliatt requested a business plan and "asked what was the length of
3 the lease`agreement and who runs the:facility in the"future.
4 .
5 Mr. Hronek answered it is a 60 .year lease and there are provisions in the lease
6 regarding running'the'facility.
7
8 Mayor Thompson indicated this was an 'approvable,project with the need of fine tuning
9 and clearing of some issues.
10 - •
11 C ouncil.MemberiCader-Thompson•iquestioned that this' an approvable project:.
12.
13 Mr. Mills; spoke on the 'issue, of airplanes taking off. He plays at Prince Park every
14 Sunday, and at least::a dozen airplanes fly directly over he head on the pitchers mound, ,
15 not even on the outfield. Whether they are in violation of the rules, he'does not know,
16 but they fly directly, over the park.. The softball players never feel unsafe on'that`field.
17 They 'have no problems playing; on those fields. .He does not want to pit' ultralights
18 against players. . .
19 ..
20 City Manager Stouder•suggested that;iitems,,5, 6;and 7 can be:dealt with a •a laater date.
21. Item 7 can be dealt„with.on'December 20 in the afternoon or this evening;.
22
23 Council;Member Torliatt requested proposals for item 6 from staff.
24 .
25 CLOSED SESSION
26 .
27 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced that Council would adjourn to Closed
28 Session`forthe following items:
29
30 Conference With ,Legal Counsel,, Existing 'Litigation, Pursuant to Government Code
31 §54956.9(a); Hunter vs:. City of ;Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case
32 Number 220351 . •
33
34 Conference,With Legal!Counsel, Existing_Litigation, Pursuant to Government Code
35 §54956.9(a), Allen vs: City'of Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case Number
36 222730.
37
38 Conference With Legal Counsel,,Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure To
39 Litigation, Pursuant`to Government Code §54956.9(b) (1 potential case);.
40
41 Conference 'With Legal Counsel, ,Anticipated Litigation, Initiation Of Litigation,
42 Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Governme_nt Code §54956.9 (1 potential case):.
43
44 .
45 •
46 •
'Draft Minutes
city of Petaluma,California
City CouncilMeet'ing,
Monday,December 6;1999
Page 26
•
•
;DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 ADJOURN
3 Council`adjourned to Closed Session at 6:10 p.m.
4
5 RECONVENE
6
7 The City•Council reconvened its regular meeting on this date at 7:00 PM' in_the•Council
8 Chambers.
9
10 Mayor Thompson announced that item #6, the dedication of the Payran Reach Bridge
11 and item #7, the resolution accepting 'performance audit report ,by the City of Petaluma
12 Transit were not heard at that afternoon's meeting. Item ,#11 the General Plan
13 discussion, on this evening's agenda has been canceled'. ,All.three items will be heard
. 14 at later meetings.
15
16 Council Member Torliatt announced that the General 'Plan would not be reviewed as
17 Pamela Tuft had suffered a back injury.and could not facilitate,the discussion.
18
19 ROLL CALL
20
21 PRESENT: CaderThompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller; ,Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
22
.3 ABSENT: None •
24
25' PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE •
26.
27 At the request of Mayor Thompson;.Ralph Sartori led the Pledge of Allegiance..
28
29 GOOD NEWS
30 •
31 Mayor Thompson announced that the Fire' Department participated on 8/26/99 in a
32 statewide mutual aid/ request:to Plumas County because of the state reimbursement
33 rates, the City will receive a check from the State Office of Emergency Services for
34 $25,875. This is $8,370 in excess of the overtime paid. The check is expected,this
35 month.
36
37 MOMENT`OF=SILENCE
38
39 At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence:was observed.
40 '
41 PUBLIC.COMMENT •
42
43 Terence^Garvey,, 83' Maria, Drive, spoke regarding' his request to the Council to pass a
44 resolution honoring the ,Maccabees during this holiday-of Chanukah: He reminded the
.5 general public that they fought for freedom over 2,000 years ago when the ruler of Syria
46 repressed their religion and laws. Many died like Americans have for freedom. They
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, December 6, 1999
Page 27
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 dedicated their lives, fortunes and honor forthe cause ofxfreedom. He suggested] we' •
2 show appreciation for the people'who did "much to give us the heritage we have.
3
4 Rick Savel, PO Box 227,. Penngrove, spoke: regarding traffic :circulation at the
5 intersection of Petaluma Hill.Road and Adobe 'Road in. Penngrove: Using'visual aids,
6 he .showed map indicating the diversion 'of traffic around Penngrove. Two things were
7 supposed to:happenuthat',didn't and oneitli'ng thatwas°not supposed to happen did.
8. One, thisassumed that.10'1 would have been 6 lanes by 1990. That by 1995,, one of •
9' 'these .alternatives,, 4;,5 or 6 to the 'Railroad ',intersection with 101, in coordination with
10 the; Hewlett'Packard plan .would have gone in. In.the interim, Adobe Road traffic is
11 instead of 4,700 ADT by year 2000,•they are :at :1(1,000 today:. There was:a proposed
12 roadway project earlier this year that was reviewed that indicated :since: 1985 traffic on
13 Adobe Road has been increasing by 600 vehicles. per day; per year Number 1,
14 (referring to visual) is the, existing lane configuration:, They were required to reach a
15 certain: lev,e1 of service,in that intersection by year 2005 in order to obtain the funding.
16 The second column.reflects/4-lanee, number2,andnumber3,4Ve were still at F by2005
17 and they could not;maintain;the level of service Number 4,we have increased',it to five
18 lanes east;on Adobe and a blowin out Of North.Main;Street 3 lanes that got them to D
_ g
19 that would have possibly gotten the: funding'. But, by that time: we were wiping out
20 houses on. Adobe; Road. They worked with staff•try'ing to ,compress 'it — it couldn't'be
21 •done;• and they could not get the funding •without removing houses which is
22 unacceptable to them. That's east/,west„ Now;:about northiebuthi. He showedRohnert
23 Park's new proposed General Plan: The proposal to 'blow out Petaluma Hill. Road to'•4
24 to 6 lanes and the map stops at Railroad. It didn't meet a great t-acceptance from
25 Penngrove (Another ylsual) This is:-.where they,are now To coincide'lwith Penngrove's
26 area plan circulation alternatives, the Broadway°extensionat,4 lanes'to connect to East
27 Railroad, Redwood Highway, which'`is ai 4 lane designation in the General :Plan or a
28 proposed new arterial which was talked 'about'in their Area Plan, which would extend a;
29 new roadway from:Railroad Avenue„south to;Redwood 'Highway;
30
31 John King, 1055,Adobe Road, referred to apiece of property that has been in his jarnily
32 for almost 100 years, on`which the'well went dry. Recently, he spoke'with other,people
33 and is concerned': 'aboutthe proposed annexation,land 'growth of Rohnert Park. He .
34 ;expressed' his concern'to;the City Engineer in Rohnert Park about the loss ofwater in
35 the Penngrove area It was the engineer's opinion that thewater was being drafted by
36 the Cityrofipetaluma. He disagreed with that.
37 • •
38 The Penngrove Ad Hoc Committee hand delivered 1,750 surveys to properties
39 surrounding Rohnert Park,. "Many people did,.not received ;surveys ;heft in newspaper
40 tubes. The surveys come back and used red pushpins to identify areas where people
41 have had to either lower their submersiblepumps in their wells or abandon the well•and:•
42 drill a new one He wanted_ to ;prove to the city of Rohnert Park that it was'not just
43 Penngrove, but was •a much larger area., There are:five green pushpins., These were
44 people who advised they had bacterial contamination problems. At sometime, they will
45 make a'.set of the survey available to the City Petaluma. :It is important to read the
46 comments of the people on fixed incomes who have lived here for 50 years arid don't •'
Draft:Minut'es,
City_of.Petaluma,,California
City CouncillMeeting
Monday;`December 6;;1999'
Page 28
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 have the money to do anything'to address this issue: He wants the Council to know
2 that just like Rohnert.•Park, what is 'done within the City limits has profound impact
3 beyond the reaches of defined area The most disturbing of all was that there were
4 people who •phoned, but chose not to fill out the survey because they were afraid of
5 being identified, they were.afraid of some kind of reprisal from County of Sonoma. This
is=a serious problem. .
7
8 Mr, King showed photographs of 1055 Adobe Road, (c) 1947/48. it showed the area
9 just outside of Penngrove.. Thesecond photograph.was taken'.50 years later. He asked
10 the Council to look and see that the problems with water:and traffic is not from..growth in
11 Penngrove. They need Council's help and acknowledgment-that there is a countywide
12 problem. He particularly thanked Council Member Hamilton for acknowledging, the
13 potential water issue with the Eel River changeover. The people 'in the unincorporated
• 14 area have to pay out,of their.own pockets for.water. Mr. King's.newwell cost $20,000.
15
16 Council Member Hamilton thanked Mr. King and encouraged him to go to the Board of
17 Supervisors and to the Sonoma'County Water Agency. The county needs`to hear from
18 county residents who are,aware,of their water table going down.
19
20 Council Member Caller-Thompson; was aware of the 'water problems in Penngrove.
21 There was something in theSupervisor's packet, which said.there-was a hearing and a
22 request to rezone 80 acresto the DA-B7 frozen lot district to ZCE98-0018 at it was at
•23 1775 Adobe Road, this is District 2. She asked Mr. King if he'knew of this..
24
25 Mr: King did not know the property. He thought it would be in the Lynch 'Road area.of
26 Adobe Road. It mightbesMr: Pfendler's property or somewhere in that area.
27
28 Council Member' Cader-Thompson asked' City Manager Stouder to find out what this
29 rezoning is about and Who ownstne property. •
30
31 Vice Mayor Keller noted that one of the considerations that they went through was the
32 potential for additional'drafting of the water table to 'irrigate:a sports complex proposed
33 to be near the airport: He has asked staff to provide the condition of that water table:.
• 4
35 Mr. King•'added that, for purposes of their survey, they were focusing on the area
36 surrounding, Park and.h
g' Y p pursue t9is when he was told it was
37 Petaluma draftin the,water. Safe to say are all`ih this together. All the incorporated
38' areas are big enough that when there is growth or changes, they are major.
39
40 Vice Mayor Keller indica ted the need for an overall groundwater management policy for
41 the.County, particdlarly this basin.
42. •
43 Mr. King agreed' and stated that although there is a lot.of water; it may not be fit for
44 human consumption.
•45
46 Council Member Healy asked if Rohnert Park city wells are at issue here.
Draft"Minutes
city of Petakima California.
City Council Meeting
Monday,December 6, 1999
Page 29
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1
2 Mr. King answered that everyone's wells are at issue: Rohnert has its,own wells,
3 but does not know`where they are within the city boundary: Those 'wells did supply
4 water to,the City of Petaluma during the drought, which is very generous.. But,.:in the
5 surveys,. people noted that during the drought, their, tables dropped in the :Penngrove•
6 area and*never•recovered. His,greatest concern is that there is such a,demand today, in
7 the valley'tlat we have already crossed the threshold. If they did not drill,another well
8 and notrangther person moved in here, the`water table will continue to declines If that;is,
9 the'ease,,,we have a `serious problem..
10
9 p up , _ where'
1 1 Counal Member Hamilton invited Mr: Kin to ut°-the board u so all could°see
12 the,pins,are.
13
14 Council'Member Cader-Thompson"commented that in the Decemberr5`Press Democrat
15 an articlerentitled "Growth Well Running Dry" and did not talk about;conservation ,at all
16
17 Council Member Torliatt asked Mr..King when the survey was done:,
18
19 Mr. King responded that they were handed out 3-1/Z weeks ago and they continue to
20 trickle in They had a lot of phone calls People want-to know who the"committee is and
21 whom they represent — for°or against growth: The committee is interested in :bringing
22 the facts forward so people can make intelligent decision, especially the voters of
23 Rohnert Park.
•
24
25 Vince Landeff,'12 Cordelia Drive, spoke;regarding the .naming of„the 'Pay"ran Reach
26 Bridge•and asked'if it could be scheduled for an evening session so it can be publicized.
27 The people of Petaluma who are workers should be able to see it on evening'televiion.
28 At'a Zone 2A SCWA meeting a month°ago, Mr. Landdff made.a,formal.request that all
29 moneys, every penny that ties been paid.into the r2orie 2A water agency, be accounted
30 for It Was promised by John. FitzGerald and Randy Poole that they would come back
31 with the figures.. Now Mr.'Landoff is told ,to get lost; it is not'the public's business. Mr.
32 Landoff made a ,formal request of Council to request those funding figures.;from ,the!.
33 Zone 2Awateragency. These funds are the people`s'money. The'•people,areowed an,
34 explanation of where their money went, especially those first, 10 years. Mr. !Landoff
35 brought up the Corps of Army'Engineers' report on the flood projectthaf has5been done
36, in the afternoons, just like today's session: He formally asked the Council:tocagendize.
37 these items.on the.evening sessions so the public can see what is transpiring.
38
p public
39 John Mills,. 1315 'D' Street; thanked the Council and. Police De artment•for the
40 meeting regarding,the 101 overpass'at Kenilworth. The majority of opinions Were to
41 not, under any circumstances, open The overpass;to the' public124 hours a •day. The
42 Bicycle Committee, has worked for,5 years to put together a great bicycler plan. It;is
43 fantastic. 99✓e is perfect, ,but•there,a few small peintsi. the levertroseing beingone of
44 them, that could give the plan a:black eye. Someverrspecificfthings`that are harmful to
45 the public need to be looked, at in the plan and rather than losing the entire plan, take
46 out.those things that would not be acceptable.: NIP
OraftMinutes
Cityfof Petaluma•California!
Council',Meeting
Monday;December6,i 1999.
Page 30'
DRAFT DRAFT' DRAFT
Si.. •
2 Geoff"Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, ;agreed that Mr. :Sobel,and Mr. King.should go to the
3 Board of Supervisors meeting. They"are on. Tuesdays; public comment is atz2i00 PM.
4 He spoke about a letter written by Bob Martin dated January 1"4,. 1999.to'the Petaluma
5 City 'Council and its attachment ,entitled "The Petaluma River Watershed Master
6 Drainage Plan Willow Brook." It show the flows for these areas, one being Willow
7 Brook, one ibeing Petaluma River, justabeforerthe conjunction, and .the flows just below
8 the conjunction. The flows above the conjunction, on Willow 'Brook, are 3,946. The
9 flows on the Petaluma River, just above conjunction are 3,434. This is cubic feet per
10 second. Total of 7,380. However,' on this map, it shows only 6,378 below these
11 conjunctions. There is a 1,002 cubic feet per second that is unaccounted for in this ,
12 document. He wonders ifthat is what he sees in his house.
13
14 COUNCIL COMMENTS
'15
.16 Council Member Maguire thanked Mr. Knudson' for the' :article in the last Chamber
'17 Business Journal.
i18
'19 Council Member Torliatt spoke about receiving excess money for overtime that the fire
20 services provided-and not long ago they were discussing the need for a new truck for
21 the Fire Marshall and thought that these funds could go toward that Wished Mayor
22 Thompson a Happy Birthday.
23
W24 Council Member Cader-Thompson attended:the 16 annual planning seminar at Sonoma
25 State and there was discussion about Certificates of'Compliance. What was said was
26 that Certificates of Compliance don't•mean that people can just,build., People still have
27 to follow the General Plan unlesskthe County has wording.thatsupersedes the General .
28 Plan and that was going lo be,investigated. She suggested they close the meeting in
29 memory'of Herald Mahoney who passed away last'week. She wished everyone a
30 Happy Hanukah. Thanked Mri Knudson again for the article in the Chamber
31 Newsletter.
32
33 Vice Mayor :Keller referred to an appeal of a.denial of a CUP for Baker Street who
34 implied he-was a representative.of a restaurant in San Rafael. One of the owners from
35 San Rafael .indicated, that person does, not represent the restaurant, is longer an
36 investor and did not have any authority to speak'forthe restaurant:and it is, in fact, not
37 one of thein'intereststat this point to look at the space,in the Petaluma Hotel. Mr. Keller
38 asked Council agree with the Planning Commission in denying the CUP and letting .
'39 them start from scratch.
40
41 PUBLIC HEARINGS'
42
43 9. Third Public Hearing and Possible Action on Proposal to Increase Wastewater
44 Rates- and Fees. ' It is Proposed that Residential User Rates increase from
W45 $15.75/Month to.-$20175/Month'in January 2000; to $25.75/Month in January 2001, and
46 to $30.75/Month. in January 2002.. Increased in Commercial and Industrial User Rates
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,'December6, 1999
Page 31
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1_ and Connection Fees are also; Proposed The Increases are Necessary toSupport •
2 Construction of Improvements"to the,WastewaterSystem, Including Developmentof the • .
3 newWastewater Treatment Facility: •(Ban/Stouder)
4
5 Mike Ban,gave'a presentation of last'two meetings: .
6
7 Council Member Healy advised Council has been given new packet of;slides and he
8 invites staff'to,lhighlight the ones'that are different.
9
10 Council,Member Torliatt would like;to :hear public comment instead of the presentation'
11 over again_
12
13 Mr. Ban advised this was,the third of three"public meetings scheduled tbT;keep the,public.
14 informed of proposed changes. 20;000 notices Issued' in September: ;October'13iand
15 20 edition of Argus Courier printed the proposed changes. • A telephone hotline has, .
16 received and responded to 14 telephone calls: They have conducted several',meetings
17 with local businesses discussing their sewer bills and 'also conducted a:meeting•with°the
18 executive Board of the Chamber of Commerce. They are requesting that action be •
19 taken on the resolution establishing rates and fees for the wastewater system. A
20 memorandum is in Council's packet addressing questions 'raised at last week's Council
21. meeting, We also provided a chronological'histoy of how Penngrove has become'part
22 ofthe3City's;wastewater system. In addition to himself; Sophia Stott? and Marv-Weiner
23 of Brown & Caldwell, the City's controller;and interim finance;director; Paula Cornyn
24 were 25 p epaared hefwa tew er stud " upon which
p answer any,questions. Sophia Scotta and Mary Weiner have
'' � which the proposed y p p posed rafes 'are based, •
26
27 Mary Weiner addressed the connection •fee ,questions. You do not have to have
28 connection;fees, but ,if you don't, lfghere if there are only two sources:of rncorne _ connection
29 fees or rates,,;growth will subsidized existing"ratepayers:: What is budgeted is. a
30 million clollars,d year:'in dorfnectiori fee receipts. If there areno,;connection fees, in the
31 first year, instead of $7,000;000-- $1,660i,000 from connectionfeesand,$6,000,000 from
32 rates,— you will get it all from rates,and will result,i;n a: 14% rate indrealee almost. 15%.
33 In the last year of their five-year study, the tOtat revenue "requirements;are about;$12.4
34 million if you miss a million 'dollars,. the rata' increase only 8% • If you don't have
35 connection fees, it will result in an incremental rate, increase; of 8%• to 15%, which
36 means existing rate payerswill subsidize growth',.,
37
38 Connection fees'alsor actas;a great conservation tool. Greater than.use based pricing.
39 Use based pricing gives a signal •every month or two, but relative 'small. When a
40, ,connection•is made to the system arid`that connection is based upon,the:expected'flow,
41 you are paying °for the entire capacity, someone who has a $60,000. or $100,000
42 connection fee and can reduce 'that.in' half will be very motivated to put in low 'flow°
43 fixtures and other devices that willcreduce flow..Another issue is, if you.have connection
44 fees, you have to>obey government•,code that'was modified as'a result of.AB.1600 and
45 more recently SB 1760 which'says there hest) be a,nexus between"the fee and its{use,
46 separate accounting for fees; including interest ieerned, re quires that the ,money be ill
• Draft Minutes-
City of Petaluma•,,California
City Council.Meeting,
Monday,:December 6:1999
`Page-32
•
• DRAFT .DRAFT DRAFT .
• 1 either spent or committed within 5, years or refunded, and requires a capitol
2 improvement;program thatlays out what money will be spent on.
3 •
4 The question of how equitable are thefees in deriving 'the capitol costs. Their analysis
5 shows that connection fee receipts should pay for approximately 25% of the capitol
6 costs. Ofthe $81 million capitol improvement program, much of which is financed by a
7 bond issue, some of which is funded"-directly from rates and charges on a pay as'yougo
8 basis, 25% over of the capacity should come from connection fees. Essentially,
9 you are developing a plaht,that has.6.7'mgd capacity, you only need 5.2.for existing rate
10 payers, meaning 1.5 of the flow.capacity is reserved for new applicants for service. A
11 similar analysis could be done for BOD in suspended solids. There is capacity for
12 18,000 pounds per day, BOO 17,000 per day of suspended solids. We know 6,000 in
13 both cases is reserved for new applicants for service. They have done the same thing
14 for the reclamation facilities and for the collection system:
15
16 The problem with connection fees is that.you can develop a fee that over the life of the
17 capacity can show that you 'can recover all costs allocable. . The problem is that
18 connection fee receipts im,anyone year are the product of not only the connection fee,
19 but also the, number of connections. The number of connections is a guess; When the
20 connection fee (which is accurately to the nearest dollar derived to recover the cost of
21 capacity available for new users) is multiplied, by the number of fees in any one year,
22 you might not,get the exact number of revenues that equal.25% in each and every year
•23 They looked at what most, likely will happen in the first five years, based upon
24 assumptions of 320 equivalent dwelling unit connections per year If that is correct,
25 then $1 million per year will: be collected and it'rises'to $1..2 million:in'the fifth year and
26 over that five-year period, the connection fee receipts will pay.approximately 20% of the
27 capitol costs, Only over the life of the capacity, will rexactlY 25% be recovered. It is not
'28 known in any one year whether exactly 25% or 22% or 20%. will be made. The
29 connection fees themselves. are derived so that, over the life of^the capacity, there will
30 be recovery exactly what new applieantsfor service "should pay.
31
32 Council Member asked what is currently collected on an annual basis for fees
33 based on approximately $450 less than what the,proposal is for least non residential
34 hook up. Are weson target as what the existing collection is
35
36 Ms. Cornyn provided figures for connection fees,for'thee past five years, For the year
37 ending.2/99, they took;in,$1,103,503 in connection,fees. Year ending 6/98,;$1,068,538.
38 Year ending 6/97, $972,832. Year ending 6/96, $882,097. Year ,ending, 6/95,
39 $1,493,597; These figures include amount from Penngrove and were listed in Mr. Ban's
40 report. .
41
42 Mr. San indicated:.it sounded like $1 million per year, except for 1996.
43
44 Mr..Weiner 'indicated that another reason why they used about $1 million going up to
gi 45 about $1.2 million is that connection fee receipts are generally not considered very
lor 46 stable in terms of the bond'underwriter. The discount the revenues from connection fee
Draft Minutes
City;of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,,December 6, 1999
Page 33
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 receipts. Council'will.have inthe bond covenants a requirement:that rates and.charges •
2 are,;going to be the primary source; so'it is no use',projection$1.5 million or$2 million. If
3 it is not received, it will have to come from•the:rates anyway.
4
5 'Question.'from last meeting was asked what 'If, the plant. costs more. 'or less than
6 assumed? $58 million has been Lassumed• for the plant and •various amounts: for
7 collection :system';and reclamation facility, totaling about]$81 "million. The bond issue'
:8 could be 'adjusted. He suggests 2 or'.3 years OT rates.,, Bonds are generally issued in
9 series, so`you would perhaps issue a-Series A and then,a Series B to.do:these projects:
10 If the loicis.br costs came in lowerbrihigher, adjustments could be+made lin subsequent
11 series and the rates for the last2-years could be adjusted so that everything comes out
12 even. There is,no potential of any inequitiessby adopting the first 23or 3 years of rates.
13
14 Question:What if business connections fall off because of high costs? There is nothing
15 that prevents the Cityfrom forgiving connection fees for particular connections. It is
16 done frequently: In;the case of:wastewater rates. — you are only required to recover
17 O&M and ;replacer-ient ,costs from users commiserate with their use Other capitol
18 costs, both the EPAr'and`State Water Resources Control:Board do_ not require recovery
19 in any manner whatsoever: The SWRCB:does require that, if,all capitol costs are net
20. recovered, 'you must:notify all customers. The SWRCB provides a typical notice to be
21 used in their guidelines. The Citycould°forgive commercial development from a portion•
22 oral!.of their connection fees, recognizing that itwould have-to come from some other
23 source.
24 •
25 Mayor Thompson posed.-the extreme situation of'extreme of°food processing $2,600,00
26 fora water'connection' What lia.suggested isthat, if theepersonywanting to establish the
27 business cannot come :up with the money, his water rates reflect the discharge even
28 though it wasn't°paid over a period ofitime.
29
30 Mrr.Weiner said no All other'rate payers`would,have to make thatup. .Any°connection
31 fee that is forgiven,:the moneys haveto come•,from'the rate payers and they may elect,
32 • to ;do that if a case: can be made ;Example would be1100 s of"jobs, brought to
33 ;,Community byhaving this;kind of arrangement with' a commercial •developer. There are
34 areas With elaborate programs for forgiving connection :fees: Such a program.,could;be
-35' developed.
36. •
37 Mayor`Thompson asked if'Mr:, Weiner has a framework for a program like that from
38 other cities he'could give Mr. Ban::
39 -
40 • Mr. Weiner brought report for the City of Fresno and will leave it with Mr."Ban..
41
42• Mayor ThOmpSeit asked again regarding connection fees.. For example, :food „service
43' goes up from 2,500 to 49;859., Even for someone.who•has a little shop,downtown'and
r,
44 wants'to serve,;sandwiches F,M
at:lunch,, in the other cities, hasr.'Weinerfound that'those
45 rates have been modified byseating or something. •,
46
Draft Minutes
City of talu
Pema,'califpmie
City:Council Meeting
Monday:December 6,1999:
Page 34
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Mr: Weiner answered, it is by expected flow. A, "very small sandwich' shop would
2 probably not pay a•high connection fee. A large McDonalds orkBurger• King might. That •
3 fee is not typical of a small restaurant — it would pay the "same as 'a single-family
4 restaurant or maybe double.
5 •
6 Council Member Torliatt clarified°that the connection feesrare not for existing buildings
7 but for new developmentor a redevelopment piece of property.
8
9 PUBLIC COMMENTS
10
11 Warren Thom Knudson, Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce, 799 Baywood, advised
12 that the rate increase plan was ;presented to the Chamber at their last meeting. Since
13 that time, their Economic:Development•Committee has reviewed the proposals and will
14 b'ring-it before the full board at next meeting, .December 13, 1999. The Chamber does.
15 support a reasonable increase that does not deter future economic development. The
16 proposal needs to be fair and equitable to residential and commercial users. It needs to
17 be equitable,to ensure opportunities for economic development and not create a barrier
18 for competition. When 'new connection fees are adopted',;, some method should be.
19 devised for reviewing the impact of those, fees on :economic development. This is
20 difficult. All funds collected from wastewater fees and charges should be used only for
21 wastewater related costs and the treatment facility design and evaluation process
22 should continue to explore treatmentalternatives to ensure optimum cost effectiveness
23 and the most environmentall •sound approach forthecommunity.
24
25 The Chamber of Commerce requests the Councils further discussion to clarify the
26 impact of rates and fees on businesses: They are 'particularly concerned about the
27 connection fees. The information given is in relation to-the'fees and financing of overall
28 treatment facility. The Council is not.being'told what the,market will bare. Council is not
29 being given any information on the outside market. The-,examples given in the proposal
30 are generic. Council would do-better if consultants took the formulas and gave Council
31 precise connection fee costs looking at a dozen or twenty existing Petaluma
32 businesses:_Tell the Chamber what it would cost•to set up these businesses today and
33 they will tell you if you would have the businesses today., It is easier to deal with
34 .specific examples than generic ones in proposal. He urged the Council to hold off on
35 'connection ,fees until specific information is available. Keep in mijnd that:there are many.
. 36 other issues affecting development in Petaluma, such asthe UGB and Council's desire
37 to•see•more redevelopment,and they will affect building'costs as,well. .This is part of a
38 large sphere of changes. .
39
40 The other point is thattne Chamber is not comfortable with'the punitive damages part of
41 the. proposal.: Damages should not be•automatically applied in the case of excessive
' 42 discharge or any offense by business: The system works better if-staff is empowered to
43 work with business and fix the problems. Damages should be applied only when no
44 progress or no cooperation occurs, not automatically'.- Looks forward to an ongoing
• 45 dialogue on this matter.
46
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,December'6j 1999
•
Page 35
DRAFT DRAFT - DRAFT
. 1 Vice Mayor Keller; asked if connection fees were to be reVised, would the difference
•
2 then come backioutof therates.
3
4 Mr. Knudson answered it was obvious that money would be collected from rates or fees,.
5 Chambers i;pOint i that there will bea diminishing return at softie point If rates are 00,
6 to a,tpointt!Whete newideVeto-Pitent stopped, ttiprewilt be no eass.: :rpboioloymation.is
7 hatcbming`frorn the consultantst,
8
, .
9 Vice, Mayor Keller stated that for both rates' and connection fees,. Council :must: look at
10: what the market will bear..
11 •
[12 Mr Knudson agreed..
14. Vice Mayor Keller stated if revenue is' from new cdonectiOn:fees, ithecapiftil
15 :expenses of providing the treatment capadity.. gets shifted to the existing users rather
• 16 than'thenew users-. There is an ineguity4guesfien fmthere as well.
17 •
• 18 Mr Knudson said the point is thatif wconnectiori fee is too high, no business,is built it
19 still falls back on the userst, There shoulcibe-feest.2butnot scheduled SO, high they are a
20 'deterrent:
21 •
22 ViceNlayorKeller reciLlete&speCific informationlegal-ding connectiorfffee .
23
Mr, Knudson said the original proposal showed only'5 or 6' generic examples. It Would
25 be easier if connection fees were calculated, looking, at specific business in Petaluma.
26 ThetdomparisOns in report were only Santa Rosa::: What about Rohnert Park or Marin?
27
28 Council Member Maguire asked if staff had responseto Mr. Knudson's points:
29
30 Mr: Hargis has had meetings with individual business and done rate comparisons based.
31 on their actual bills; but not what there.connectiomfees,would be if building now
32
33 Mr. 'Ban responded to the question 'about local buSinesses In the report, a few
34 businesses were looked at Although generic, they.werecompared,to business in town. •
35 He showed i slide. The first example is a 3;000 ft restaurant.ia ,Lyon's !type. The
36 connection fee was:a, tittle.oVeri00:200,00.:, A:3,000 fe: retail store would, be charged
37 the minimum of S3,040. Tffel.eervide station example with 12 fuel OuritS; a fairly large
38 gas station, had a connection fee of $5,660z A 40;000 ..ft2 professional office would
39 have ,a connection fee of ss9,13 . e grocerSt store, example, sithilartto the one
40 proposed off . Sonoma Mountain Parkway, .same 'square footage, would have a
41 connection fee Of justover $76,000. ,
42
43 City Manager SlciOder!:s understanding is-the.iassumption for fees are use based., This
44 is an:atterripto build in the use base.issue the Council has asked for pnd transferring
45 that tditheicornmerciel LiSetst. EteStautatitS;;haVenigbo,COls of treatment than
.46 family house, etc.
praftiMinutes
City„cfpetalyrna,•Califarnial
pityCitincii7Meeting,
,Monday,december6,•1999
• Ppge 36
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
.`,
•
1
2 Mr: Ban agreed.
3 •
4 Council Member Maguire clarified that.if they can demonstrate water conservation and
5 produce a lower flow; they will have a,lowerconnection fee. •
6
7 Mr. Ban agreed.
8
9 Mr. Hargis mentioned that Table 8 is on page 9 of the stafff,report of December 6. This
10 is trying to do the equity thing,.basing it upon discharge-and'fair share.
11
12 Vice Mayor Keller made the comparison of the grocery 'store of 60,000 sf; the total
13 connection fee is $76;000. That is less.than the broker's commission for the real estate
14 transaction.
15
16 Kevin Cunningham, Purchasing;;Manager, Tegal Corporation, 2201 So. McDowell Blvd.,
17 (707) 765-5637, fax (:707),7,65 9311; email kcunningham(a tecial.com; www.tegal.com
18 represented Tegal Corporation which has been in•the corrimunity. almost 12 years, one
19 of the first buildings in the Lakeville Business Park. They are a semiconductor
20 equipment manufacturer. One reason for location'away from Silicon' Valley was rural
21 atmosphere and low costs. While Petaluma is experience some good growth, Tegal,is
22 concerned about the "Siliconization" of the ratesof electricity, sewer, everything. Tegal
23 will pay only a few thousand dollars more a year, based on-rate charges, but over a 10-
W 24 year period, $20,000. When there is a doubling of-any fee or service, there needs clear
25 understanding. Is it something that could or should have been done-5 or 10 years ago?
26 Are we really behind? What assurance is there this does not have to happen again?
27
28 City Manager Stouder offered to provide Mr. Cunningham with background information,
29 which does go back'15 years atleast; and to meetwith him.
30
31 Mr. Cunninghamisaid he would:like'to meeting with City ManagerStouder:
• 32
33 Rick Savel, Penngrove Area Plan "Committee, PO 'Box 227, Penngrove, provided
34 Council with information from the Committee. There were three copies. John King,
35 George. Miles, and Harriet Boysen are also Committee;•members in attendance. The
36 JPA is,for 3,000 people'itwas factored for a single familydwelling for 3 people. Rule of
37 thumb that is 1;000 hookups, It doesn't work out like that when other factors are
38 involved, such as granny units. To date, there are 359 hook ups. The citizens of
39 Penngrove paid'the bond for the construction of thesewer collection system in CSA 19.
40 The residents of Petaluma or the County don't pay a cent. The citizens of Penngrove
41 pay for the maintenance of that sewer collection system. •
42
43 Council Member Torliatt asked who actually doesrthe maintenance.
44 -
• 45 Mr. Savel answered'that the Water Agency is responsible for it and the Vice Mayor had
46 some questions about budgeting at the other end. Penngrove citizens pay it all
Draft Minuses
City of.Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday, December 6, 1999.
Page 37
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT - •
1 Petaluma does not subsidize it As:per-the JPA agreement, the funds are;collected by
2 the Water Agency and distributed to the city on an annual,basis. Item 14 from the JFA •
3 states that the ;City is to.:be paid the equivalent amount of the city's rates and charges.
4 That is where the,hook up fees would come under — that is a charge. That is what was
5 agreed to The annual fees paid to: he:city are for thedreatment'of wastewater: There
6 appear to be other annual charges paid to<the city:. The Vice Mayor- may want to
7 reference that It may relate to costs associated with the force:feedsewer•line beyond
8 the service area oh "Corona Road and fees associated to a city. bond indebtedness.
9 About $080 more;is paid a month on average., He provided a breakdown of different
10 fees, the hook up'fees' paid to the city. and what they are for versus:what is paid-to the
11 Water Agency. Number. 6 shows the annual rate charges paid. In '9,7‘98'it was $437;,
12. ;98-99;if was.$459;'currently they are.:up.to:'$481,: He believed the annexation charges
13 to the.:district for people outside that may have had a failed system — in 1990 ,were;
'14 $3;000 an acre. Folks outside-of it had not paid on the bond all these years and they
15 should pay their fair share catchup the fees that go to the Water Agency:.
16
17 The next.area of interest is charges'from'hook:up fees, :annual rates:and annexations
18 ..the Water'.Agency°collects given to system maintenance;, services and supplies; capitol.
19 improvement reserves, manholes, pumps, line replacements other 'upgrades,
20 reconfiguring ,portions of the collection system lines to handle increased flow' to the
21 pump station. There may 'be'certain sections of that system that, may have shallow
22 sloped and some of those lines may need replacement<in future. Referring"to number 3
23 they are looking to 'establishing, afund for the CSA 19 new system JPA,capacityfor
24 existing Penngrove.users. That would, go towards their fair share paying,for,the plant •
25 perhaps, depending,what the capitol reserves are up there versus improvements in the
26 future to be:taken :into consideration. He included a list of recommendations including
27 the looking into the 'feasibility of establishing an annual usage based billing rate in
28 cooperation with the Penngrove Water Company. This would not result in less:revenue,
29 but rather reconfiguration of whdm is paying it at that end. The heavier, users would pay
30 more the people who use less would pay less. The bottom line`would :remain the
31- same. He;agreed:with the consultant regarding advanced notice, perhaps overvayear,
32 so they can see.what the flat rate,is; that they will be going to If it were feasible to do
33 that, it would require that the "County, renegotiate'the' JPA with the City to establish an
34 annual usage'base billing. They recommend that a meter be installed;upstream at the
35 pump „station to check for flow rates, volume and :system integrity: They _request
36 estimates for any necessary repairs or improvements ,In. the system.. They "request
37 granny' unit applications monitored 'to. insure and a, residual system capacity' is
38 maintained: They reason is (showing loVerhead map) the folks outside.iof the core
39 section sewer, district are still on :septic systems and there may need; to be a
40 requirement that some of them annex in Nobody has so far... Due to'a failed septic
41 system, the folks up Petaluma Hill Road that tried, it„requires being within 200 feet of
42 the district, so if five people in a row want to go and one breaks the chain, the !others
43 can't do it It came out to :about$60,000= '$70,000,:a home, and one person in the
44 middle,did not want to>do it at the time The intention: of bringing it there was that`73%
45 of the septic systems at that°time on the smaller lots inthe.dere were,already failing. A •
46 system reserve is neededto be maintained thefuture:
Drafti:Minutes
Petaluma,California
;City Council'Meeting.
Monday,.December.6, 1999
Page 38
•
DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
•
d
2 Council/Member Torliatt noted that Mr.:King's presentation regarding the aquifer and the
3 amount of water available it doesn't seem like getting hooked up to-the sewer system is
4 much ofa problem because if there is?no more water, there ieno waste. . '
5 •
6 Mr. Savel:said that most of the people in the core area and Petaluma Hill Road'are on
7 Petaluma.water system, not on wells:
8
9 Council;Member Torliatt asked if'a lot-of those folks are on wells. What is the ratio and
10 where would the growth bein Penngrove?
11
12 Mr. Savel noted'that (referring tothe map) in the outlying iarea.where it is,shows 2-1/2
13 acre and 5-1/2 acre, that's per dwelling. Hooking.a failed.iseptic system into thesewer
14 is net going to allow higher density. Higher density is not the reason:for hooking into the
15 sewer system.
16 •
17 Council Member Torliatt noted the interrelation of the amount of amount of water,
18 amount of growth and amount ofsewer discharge that would be received'if growth were
19 allowed.
20
21 Vice Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Savel for his research.
22
•
23 Mr. Savel hoped that:more information would be forthcoming regarding future costs. He
24 is hoping the City would support, maybe as a test case; 359 hookups aren't many fora
25 usage based and the rates'are going, it'will create a hardship.
26
27 Vice Mayor Keller noted that there:is.an iricreaseof charges°to the JPA, right now they
28 are doubling costs. He suggested Mr Savel research any increment the JPA has over
29 City fees are used as Penngrove wants+them to be used.
30
31 Terence, Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, reiterated issues related to the rate setting of the
32 proposed plant. First, the funds collected: should"be put in an untouchable account.
33 The public needs a written, public declaration of that so the.'water money won't get
34 whittled away somewhere else. The plan for a treatment;plant must have focus. What
35 are the scheduled plans for the total reuse,of water; which will eventually be needed.
36 The treated water must meet°all the requirements of beneficial reuse, not just the
37 minimum standards of some 'regulatory cagency. The_ estimated cost of master plan.
38 Years ago a ;sweetheart contract proposed to the City by what was really waste
39 management-that no one seemed:to trust — it was around $22,to $24 million. Early on
40 with the new system, engineer estimates were'$24 million. U,S. Filter came'up with a
41 design for approximately $72 million. The .County submitted -a plan for an estimated
42 cost for around $35' million a`plan'.which was not even seen by a large number of the
43 members of the City. This is hard`tobelieve and hope it is not true He asked if anyone •
44 there had seen the County plan.
045
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City:Council Meeting
Monday, December 6, 1999
Page 39
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 City Manager Stouder noted that Counbll Mernber.Healy distributed itto.all the Council
2 Members=at that time and It has been -made available for the.new'Council`Members.
3
4 Mr. Garvey th`e,MasterPlanstarted withaabout $51 :million. On another page it was; .
5 '$53 million: Last week, at the last Council,meeting, it•was=$58 million. That does ,not:
6 count $20",to $25 million'that would beneeded for high;ytech equipment:because:this is"a:
7 naturally passive plan, In order to make it. work, a lot of very fine technologically
8 complicated equipment is needed. Good operators are also needed. With $58'million,
9 adding $25'Milli*: it is a•$83 million plant:. When the'City had estimates; running,from
10 $22 to '$24:.million up to $30 million, this is astounding. He asked .what kind of
11 `reasoning was used Today, the.total cost°is. up to:almost $81 million without that $25
12 million 'otextra equipment. This may well ;hit$1;00;million. He is requesting Council to
13 'go back to look at earlier proposals. The Master Plan calls for an extensive EI_Rs
14 Probably redo everything that has been done. The scheduled time is:stretched out.5 or
15 6 years, while earlier.proposals were much•shorter. Time is money. Now it is like trying
16 tostay in front of'an avalanche. The savings for Rainier are•gone. :$30 millionlsaved for
17 Rainier:
1.8•
19 Council ,Member Healy mentioned' recent discussions of getting a side by side
20 comparison of the preferred alternative with;the'County Water,Agency plan 'Of f2 years;
21 ;ago and„getting Gordon Culp to take a'look et that Council will begetting information •
22 about that The rate hikes looking at now are not enough 'to get them to full
23 Implementation”ofthe preferred alternative plant 3 to'5 years down the road. This•is the
24 firststep. What is being "discussed tonight is separate,from plant selection. The points
25 raised by Mr. Garvey are very•valid, but not pertinentto tonight's discussion.
26
27 Mr::Garvey said,that this needed to be•capitol-costthis to.set=rates. He knows_rates can
28 beset, but'Council.„needs to be aware that a mch u lower cost plant is being by passed:
29
Something cheaper is.needed than the low tech plant: The capitol costs have much to
30 do,with what rates are being charged. • •
31 .
•• 32 City Manager 'Stouder indicated that Mr : Garvey.`'s and Council, Member Healys
33 comments'`are valid. The issue here, he is reminded oMhe 1987 Army:Corps estimate
34 for the flood project`which,was $8.2million :that is now-$34•.million. The;Army Corps $5
35- million:tor'that project:is still there, but million estimate,is”not there. Preliminary
36 estimates are'j'ust estimates' They are not;apples to apples: If Montgomery would have
37 guaranteed to build the ;plant at their cost, the Council may have had other
38; consideration: The president 'of the company told the Council a few- months ago and
39 said it wouldtake several hundred thousand:dollars more from-theCity to bring the cost
40 •estimates"current;. lithe Water Agency••would guarantee their cost of last year;.which •
41 was a' preliminary estimate', 'there would more consideration. He;was-not sure:it.would
42 be fair to anyone; 'including those with preliminary costs, to ,say- "those: are" cheaper,
43: numbers, they;are; in fact, not The real issue to the community is the- l5 year,costof
44 delay. The Army Corps project is an example. The cost, of delay is several million'
45 dollars a year. Regardless,of the u ltimate.design, which is Still Linder consideration, the •
46 cost of"delay must be co nsidered.
Draft'Minutes
City of Fetaluma;;.California•
• City Council;Meeting
Monday;December6,1999 •
Page 40
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
• 1
2 Mr. Garvey agreed but estimates don't normally. (go ups 200 to 300%. He also
3 commented that there have never been constant ;tests more than 1 ,000' feet above.
4 Council should ask people to take COD tests and TSS tests to make sure there:is no
5 sewage up into the City.
6
7 Ralph L. Sartori, 901 Palmetto 'Way, Wastewater Citizens Advisory Committee,
8 commented on the rate schedule, Regarding-the fining system;whoever goes over the
9 limits, would be fined on°the entire:amount.of water discharged for a month. What could
10 happen is that a business could have an hour's worth of discharge, get the fine and end
11 up paying for the whole month. His recommendation would be that, if the business
12 proved that by the end of the month, itwas back in compliance, it would pay the fine for
13 the entire month. Regarding sampling charges, there are three,different types (1) grapp
14 sampling; (2) sampling that 'Is based, on time; (3) proportional sampling. Some of the
15 businesses in town have their own.samplers certified by an outside agency. He thinks
16 there is a possibility that'they could get a break because they are maintaining their
17 samples, they are paying for-the calibration every year Comparing nearby cities, he
18 would like to see some comparable cities that have agricultural businesses as in
19 Petaluma. Petaluma is unique with dairy processing and poultry processing facilities —
20 compare with Tracy„ Lamore, Merced. Finally, regarding .conservation, looking at
21 industrial users, they have a .concentration factor. The concentration factor, in some
22 cases inhibits those businesses from deploying water conservation,,,.because it would
03 cost more for their discharge by conserving water than by. not conserving water. The
24 amount of pounds of BOD are:the same. He requests that something could be looked
25 at that if the total pounds of BOO did not change, if it didn't cause'!,a problem in the lines
26 down•to the sewer plan and if water could be conserved, the industrial users be given
27 the sarne opportunity to possibly reduce their rate as the other segments of the
28 community.
29
30 Vice Mayor Keller indicated the points were well,taken and asked for comments on the
31 concentration charges. Charges are based on loadings not specifically on the actual
32 fluid quantity. If the loadings go down, the rates go down. Incentives are there. The
33 work being done with Net Org;and Mishi.Apparel'are•around that point. It turns out,that
34, a change in the industrial. practice,is actually worth subsidizing to make the• change in
35 technology because it saves the user money, it saves the City as'well. He thought:there
36 was a program in the offing'for such an incentive program.
37 •
38 Council Member'Torliatf encouraged Mr. Sartori to discuss this with City staff. Council
39 stressed that they City staff to„meet with commercial industry.
40
• 41 John Mills, 1^315; 'D' Street, indicated the question about-connection fees,was two-part
42 (1) What was the amounti.of connection fees? (2) Were those fees set aside for the
43 building of the new 'plant? They did, get theainformation,that':$5.5 million' over the last
44 four years-was brought into the city coffers in connection fees. He thought it was over
•
45 10 years, and the idea was it was to-go-towards the new^plant. Assuming going back 8
46 years and double that-85.5 to $11 million. He inquired asito where was the $11 million
Draft Minutes .
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday;December 6, 1999
Page 41
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 and t down.t 'it fl
would d go a'long way'to either halting the current increase or•:at least:slowing
2 year projections'are-$7 million, the City supposedly already has that
3 $7'millionsetaside.
4
5 Council Member Maguire clarified that=there have been capitol projects over the years,
6 but they are awaiting`accounting on that
7
8 Mr. Mills would like to.know:that accounting before ratesiare increased.
9 •
10 Council Member'Torliatt indicated that the documentation talked ab dut approximately
it $5.5 millionfor capitol projects.
12
13 Mr. Mills stated that according to the California, Water Quality ,Act, it requires an
14 operative treatment facility to start planning ;a new plant or facility when capacity
15 reaches 70%. According to his information, City is:planning a plant,that;services 60;000,
16 population. City already.has 52;000 population, which is '86%. The new is
17 already outdated•;;according to the'Water Quality Act.
18
19 Council :Member.Maguire stated they were 'there to ,discuss the rates and Mr. ,Mills'
20 question would come up when the design ofthe plan is discussed. •
21
22 Mr. Mills' understand was :that, it-rates are raised, Council would; like,money to be-put •
• 23 into a separate account before any bonds,are issued or construction starts -He asked •
24 how that would be done:.
25' •
26 Council Member Torliatt clarified that?when`the rates were:structured for the new:sewer .
27 treatment facility and when looking at rates in the future, reserves are set aside to
28 replace''the sewer treatment facility. What has not been done in the past is those
29 amounts have not been set aside. What has,been happening; the connection fees have
30 been going°to subsidize the:lower,ratesfor the past_10 or 12'.years.in'the City; That is
31 why probably, Petaluma has the lower fate in the .North Bay. She would.•like to set'
32 aside funds to replace the sewer treatment`facility so the City will not be in`•this• same ,_
33 position in,the future..
34
35 Council Member Maguire clarified that the funding is dictated by law. ,
36 •
37 Mr. Mills:ask if'the.current increase in rates, the first 2,on3 rounds over the;next'several
38 years, is not going towards the new sewer facility; but only towards existing sewer
39. facility.
40 •
41 Council Member Maguire indicated it was enterprise fund.
• 42 .
41 Mr. Mills•askedwhat if a,newTplant is not built, rates have=been :raised, money has been
44` amassed towards'paying this debt.. •
45
46 Council Member Maguire'indicated they were not,-there to discuss that
Draft;Minutes -
City:of Petaluma;California.
Cit •Counai(Meeting.
Monday;�December 6,1999
Page 42
`.DRAFT ;DRAFT - • DRAFT
• 1
• g g yn could give recent information.
2 Mr. Hargis indicated:Actin Finance Director Paula Cornyn
on the connection fees, based u on research. 75% is his understanding. When a
P
4 community such as Petaluma reaches 75% of capacity of the existing plant, a regional
5 board has to be informed and the City has to start;planning:to either`replace or upgrade
• 6 the plant. That letter waswritten to the regional board. 10 or 12 ,years ago.
7 .
8 City Manager Stouder clarified there are two issues being discussed, which can create
9 confusion. There are questions regarding connection,fees and where they go. The
10 other issue is regarding reserves. The underwriting point is that every dollar paid in •
11 their sewer bill goes to their sewer fund. No where else. it pays for operation and
'12 maintenance and future investments:of the sewer plant. The City has•not had a large
13 reserve policy-that allows the City to contribute with reserves:to the construction of a
,14 new facility. The thing driving the rate increase is the need. to demonstrate to the
15 bonding agency, when the City issues bonds, that it has a revenue stream to pay for the
16 new plan, whether it is$30 million,or $70 million. This is:a 15-year issue and the City
i17 has been blessed with low rates. On the 'other hand, the City•is dangerously close to
18 having a plant that could create some great problems because it needs to be completely
19 rebuilt and'to'notsmeeting'regulatory requirements and,getting'into-a fine situation.
20
21 Mr. Mills' main concern is that accounting take place.and that sewer rates go toward
22 sewer maintenance of the existing facility and new facility.
•23
24 City Manager Stouder said the sewer fund is an enterprise fund and is well accounted
25 for. The financial report'is: ssued every.year:
26
27 Mr. Mills' main concern he hears on the street is that the City is raising rates without a
28 plan. He wants to be sure! that, if rates, are raised, it is known where that money is
29 going.
30
31 City Manager.Stouderresponded that rates are raised based :upon 7 years and $3
32 million of engineering studies and legal costs. He thought that was a plan. .
'33 -
34 Mr. Mills refereed to, example of connection fees using a 3,000 sf restaurant and
35 $60,000 in fees. That may not mean much for a corporate•;restaura nt, but a small
36 business, owner could not come into City of Petaluma and pay a $60,000 sewer
37 connection fee, Essentially setting up a 'situation for corporate restaurants and other
'38 corporate businesses to take over This is a big detriment to small businesses. He
39 suggested that some exceptions needed to be looked at. The last questions was
40 regarding any thought, on the conservation end, to looking into allowing people putting
41 in granny'units in or small houses into using composting toilets and gray water systems
42 in lieu of sewer connection fees. Mr. Mills is building a small house and has been
43 researching composting toilets and gray water systems and the cost of purchasing them
44 is less than connecting .to the sewer: In addition, that load is, not put on the sewer
045 system. A lot of plade •oh the west side are adding granny units and if there could be a •
Draft'Minutes
City of Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,December 6, 1999
Page 43
•
DRAFT • DRAFT DRAFT
1 proposal allowing ahem to .put in. composting toilets and gray water systems, that load •
2. could'beeeliminated.from the sewer.system.
3
4 Vice MayorlKellermentioned certain alternative waste treatment systems, some private,
5 individual, or neighborhood Now, the City does not allow any of thate, If one is in the •
6 City; connection is required.
7, •
8 Mr:; Mills asked if that could be looked :at in the:General Plan. The technology is,now
9 available. •
10 • -
11 Larry Kay commented that many of the; people in Petaluma are not involved, in the
12 Telcom`Valley and are blue-collar workers. He asked how is the use base measured for
13 a homeowner such as himself. He knows what he -uses:, How will drinking water be
14 measured versus,gray water,When'.it all goes down the same:pipe.
15
16 Council Member Maguire answered that has not been determined, ,but general thinking
17 is that duringiithe"raining season, there is less reed for irrigation.
18 •
19 Mr: Kayis•-still'ta-king•a,ehower with,a 5'gallon bucket.; If a businessswas;exempted from
20 connection fee, and the fee will be assed to rate a- ers, Will the rate go back" down .
p I? Y
21 aft erthat,particular"fee is paid off? Will it be built in°land continue.
22 •
23 Mayor Thompson answered it would probably be ongoing, if dity did that.
24 •
25 Mr. Kay thought'it would beia rate of $.30. W.ould.the;rate become $30+plus a user, fee?
26
27 Council'Merimber Maguire answered, that.a proposed'flat rate,increase would,coverthe
;28 necessary :stream ibeeded ito create. If :a use base, there would be more' variable.
29 Some would par-here; some less based On usage.
`30
31 MrsKaysaid it could be less than the If a home or business is,destroyed in fire--or
:32 earthquake, would the connection'fee be based on the new rate or begrandfathered in
33. atthe:old rate? Building codes change.
34 • •
35 Vice Mayor Keller clarified that-.the connection fee pays for having the.capacilytai.treati
36 your sewage at the plant! Basically; that share of the community has been bought.
37 ,
38 RECESS -
39
40 The•council recessed at 9:25 p.m: •
41 '
42 RECONVENE
43
44 The Council reconvened ati 9:4,0 p.m.
45 •
•
Draft[Minutes
City;of Petaluma;California
City Council,Meeting-
Monday;,December`6; 1999
Rage 44
•
•
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Dan Libaro, 1319 'l'Street, has a business%on 128 Liberty Street was a member of the
2 Wastewater Advisory Committee. He commented that the delays have caused the
3 planning to go back to square one and that the Council is again at that juncture. Not
4 much progress made in the.last 3 years. He is concerned with the treatment and asked
5 if there would be public hearings about that •
6
7 Council Member Maguire said yes..
8
9 Mr..Libaro asked how the new rates were based. Were the based on a-$50 million or a
10 $70 million plant?
11 •
12 Mr. Ban showed a slide from the wastewater rate study done by Brown & Caldwell from
13 Appendix B of the rate study,. Iteis,e table of the:capitol.improvement plans for the next
14 5 years and that is what formed the basis for the rate. The costs used for the new plant,
15 total cost from fiscal year '98-99 through fiscal year 2003-2004, the $56 million is
16 estimated cost of new plan.t from fiscal year 98=99 through 03-04. The number
17 underneath is estimated capitol cost for existing wastewater`treatment facility for same
18 time period is $1.3 million: The rtotel estimated capitol costs for new plant and existing
19 facility is a little over $58 million. To that total, they;added 'approximately $7 million for .
20 water recycle related projects.
21
22 City Manager Stouder said that $7 million includes $5.6 million in a Rooster Run recycle
a223 • water pipeline.
4
25 Mr. Ban stated that all the projects were brought for Council approval. The numbers
26 falling below.the $7 million +are the capitol expenditures for collection system related
27 projects. That totals $15.5 Million. The total of capitol improvements, the wastewater
28 plant, water recycling improvements and connection system is a little over $80 million.
29 This is a comprehensive capitol,improvement-plan for the entire wastewater utility. The
30 hew plant is one component of that entire utility:.
31
32 Mr. Libaro asked if those numbers came from a bidding process. •
33
34 City Manager Stouder responded,that estimates from the Brown & Caldwell studies for
35 the capitol improvement program for the wastewater facility system that was part of the
36 study authorized a year ago September by the Council and was under review with
37 public hearingst held in July. These are. estimates. They are not design build
38 documents. These are at a very preliminaryllevel. •
• 39
40 Mr. Libaro asked if they were-based on,any particulartype of treatment.
41
42 City Manager Stouderwere based upon:the recommended design approach by.Brown
43 & Caldwell in the capitol facility document from the summer'that'we call the low tech
44 design.
945 •
Draft Minutes
City of Petaluma, California.
City:Council Meeting
Monday, December 6,'1999
Page 45
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•1 Mr. Libaro asked if there.,was,anyway to say these numbers were good.. If'this project •
2 goes the'way it has gone,it will not be,built for,anotherfiveYears.
3 •
4 City Manager Stouder answered that'the City.was now in the process of selecting' an
5 engineer, to:design the plant. Part of that design process would betto`review-the capitol
6 facility' plant and the low-tech "option and `provide any modifications the engineer
7 recommend. The cost could change up or 'down, once that process ,starts. The
8 preferred way to doithis is in`future.capitol improvement plans,,askrwhatare"the`costs of
9 a facility upon completion. What would bethe,true cost is 2007 dollars. . •
1,0,
11 Mr. Libaro'asked'ifthere would be comparisons from outside water agencies,
12
13 City Manager Stouder answered that the engineer rselected, different from Brown
14 :Caldwell, would be -viewing' the capitol improvement plan and the. recommended
15 solution; critiquing that. There is another independent engineer working'on this,,Gordon
16 Culp. The onlyapples to apples comparison would berif you took two designs,;;put;them
17 out-to bid, built•theplants and then'looked at who was closest,to the call., • ,
18
19F Mr.. Lidero:indicated that over $1 million of"rate payers money has been Spent on these
20, studies.
21
22 'City Manager Stouder said that from 1992-1'999 $3 million has been', spent on
23 engineering and legal costs,trying to pursue these issues:
24
25 Mr. Libaro:asked if there was some way that they some'of tl ingsaalreadydone
26 and put forward towards the new process. The rate payers of jhe community are owed
27 Tat.
28
29 .City Manager Stouder clarified,that+the•City was"building on°the work doneito date„but,if
30 not careful, will gosideways 'Nothing has been discarded: Each of the issues builds on
31 studies,.estimates, or legal analysis.
32
33 Mr: Libaro's last comment was that he assumed the FIR certified and' done will have.to,
34 be recertified and?chef Will jaksjimer,and public hearings. •
35
36 City Manager Stouder,said that was a"good point. The issue of the EIR'from 1992-1999,
37 there wasn't a project. There.was a,proposal, but the design or 'imnplications. of that
38 design werefunknown,so it-was not a;full EIR. ' p
39
40 Council Member Tor_Ilatt:said' that most of the •Council: has:been following the:process
41 and graduated from "sewer school," and they have a great deal invested and want.>to,
42 see it through.
43 •
44 John King, 1055 Adobe Road, ;spoke regarding cost::of`plant,and fees associated with it
45 and that hehopes Council keeps;in mind the.issueof creating a financial vacuum: By
46 that, he meant' he hoped -the.i project would not require more developments — rmore
Draft Minute's
City of;Petaluma;California
City'.CounciLMeeting
Monday; December 6,-1999
• Page 46
•
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 homes and hook ups. It stili4ies back to'the waterissue. In regards to the Penngrove
• 2 water/sewage system of Penngrove, Harriet Boysen is here. and available to answer
3 specific questions. Thatsenice is not extensive.
4 •
5 Hal Valceshin, 6060 Old Redwood Highway, Penngrove, is the owner of the Penngrove
6 mobile home ,park. There are a number of tenants there already paying into a capitol
7 improvement fund. He had a letter from Mike Kerns and it is Mr. Valcheshini's
8 understanding Mr. Kerns will work,with Council to try to reduce the increase because it
9 may result in a raise over their current increase they have been paying into since 1995.
10 He is endorsing Mr. Kerns' position and would like the Council to;consider that residents
11 are already paying an average of $30 a month and if his numbers are correct, an
12 additional $22 a month. It is an opinion that the increa se`would be a hardship on his
13 tenants.
14
15 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
16
17 9. Final Staff Report,on'Y2K Preparation (Tupa)
18
19 Mary Tupa reviewed the written report.
20
21 10. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Selection Process for Professional
22 Contract Services for Preparation.and Completion of the Petaluma General Plan
24 2000-2020.. (Tuft) Moved to a date uncertain.
24
25 11. Status Report on DoWntownActivities Including Putnam Plaza.
26 (Parks/Stouder) Moved to a date uncertain.
27
28 David Burford, 40 4th Street, speaking on behalf of the homeless and the abandoned,
-29 noted that many homeless persons had their personal belongings stolen and the Police
30 only completed reports and did not pursue.
31
32
33 ADJOURN
34
35 The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
36
37
38
-
39 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
40
41
42 ATTEST:
43
44
a4S
#46 Beverly J. Kline,.City Clerk
Draft.Minutes:
City,of-Petaluma,California
City Council Meeting
Monday,December 6,.1999
Page 47
•
, r