HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 04/16/2001 (4) s
i1
DRAFT ' DRAFT DRAFT
1 Draft Minutes of a
2? City of Petaluma; California
• 3,
City Council Meeting'
4 •
5: Special Meeting
6 Monday, April 24, 2000
7 Council Chambers •
8
9 The Petaluma City Council meton this date at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
10
11 ROLL CALL
12
13 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller,
14 Maguire; Mayor Thompson; Torliatt
15
16 ABSENT: None
17
18 Mayor Thompson asked Mr. Cartwright to lead the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21
22 Harvey Goldberg thanked the Council for letting him speak last week. He inquired if the
.3 Council had any questions concerning his remarks last week.
_4
25 Mayor Thompson answered ih the negative. •
26
27 Council Member Keller asked if Mr. Goldberg's property was entirely in the County's
28 jurisdiction or was any in the City's jurisdiction.
29
30 Mr. Goldberg responded that it was neither. He said he was in the jurisdiction of the.
31 United States of America. -
32
33 David Glass pointed out something that came in the mail'today from the HARP. In the
34 current issue•of Modern Maturity, with Paul Newman.on`fhe cover, there is a list of the
35 fifty best places to live in America.;Sonoma County is listed under "Quirky." Under the
36 best of Sonoma County is-the City of Petaluma. On page 79 of that article the author
37 writes, "l am astonished to find that Petaluma, one-time egg basket of the world, has ..
38 become cluck-free: Now, besides bedding down great numbers of commuters to the
39 Bay Area, Petaluma is a world•rankin"g techno boomtown in telephone technology.
40 Good for Petaluma. Alas, no such reinvention into a glamorous new self applies to the
41 next most important municipality.up 101, the County seat. I'm afraid old Santa Rosa .
42 has lost its looks.' Development brought on by community business growth and an
43 airport capable of handling commercial jettraffic hit the city like steroids. Housing
44 sprawl has a way of making.even great big trees look homeless." Mr. Glass noted that
0 the job the Council has done in instituting an urban growth boundary measure hasn't
Draft Minutes of'a
• City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 1
DRAFT '.DRAFT DRAFT
1 gone unnoticed nationally. Petaluma has its charm. It is in that-publication and as
2 Casey Stengle used to say, "You can look it up." And those who subscribe to that •.
3 magazine know who Casey Stengle was.
4
5 Sandra Shand, 61.7 North Webster, appeared as a:concerned homeowner tonight. She
6 noted that Petaluma Junior High has recently improved the baseball diamond so that it
7 can be used by the youth in the community. She supports the recreational use of that
8 land. Her one concern is about increased parking needs. The right-of-way to the field is
9 in a church parking lot: She was concerned that people might park in the open-field,
10 which is on the church property behind the homes on both Western and Webster. That
11 particular field is one of the few remaining wildlife habitats left undeveloped within City
- 12 limits. It is protected from the-traffic and is home to a variety of wildlife. The neighbors
13 are concerned about cars parking on°the open field or any unauthorized alterations-to
14 that field.
15
16 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke'aboutthe flooding problem in Petaluma. He
17 believes the City should not be building in the floodplain, especially in Denman;Flats,
18 the natural holding spot: If development in the floodplain is continued, he questioned
19 how nice would it be tb live in Petaluma.
20
21 Vice Mayor Torliatt informed the Council that she did speak to neighbors of Ms. Shan
22 regarding Petaluma Junior High upgrades. The reason for the upgrades to the fields
23 was to improve the drainage. They also hope to add portable restrooms in thatarea, at
24 the request of the neighbors. She does not have any information regarding the parking
25 lot. She would appreciate it Council could get some information on that.
26
27 COUNCIL COMMENT
28
29 Council Member Maguire advised that several people went to a meeting today in 'Marin
30 County. Marin Supervisors Cynthia;MurrayandSteve Kinsey, and Mike Kerns, our
31 Supervisor, were there along with Mike DiGiorgio and Pat Ecklund from the Novato:City
32 Council. There was a discussion about the Novato Narrows and there were --
33 representatives from CalTrans and Burton's and Woolsey's offices: It.was agreed that
34 any work on the Narrows would be limited in,scope and,clearly a piece'of the larger
35 picture, which includes rail, bus, bike, etc. They agreed to form a Policy Advisory
36 Committee. The supervisors from each County will decide the membership of that
37 committee:,That body would interface<.with°CalTrans. He suggested there be a wide
38 constituency to keep the process balanced.
39
40 • Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted the record clearthat Council Members Cader-Thompson,
41 Keller, Maguire and she attended thatmeeting: She got to the meeting late and
42 because the meeting had not been noticed regarding Brown Act, she,would refrain from
43 any discussion or decision-making in that meeting:
44
Draft Minutes ofa
City of Petaluma, California
City Council'_Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000,
Page 2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 Council Member-Keller advised,that at thatmeeting, Diane,Steinbrenner of CalTrans
�2 explained that she had found,a Policy Advisory Committee useful for identifying the
3 issues;the parameters of the program, looking at the alternatives, providing an outreach
4 to the community, look at funding, phasing, cost controls, how to speed up the process,
5 how to deal with the relationship between public inputiand the project design, etc. The
6 Committee would be formed in advance ofthe scoping;sessions for the EIR and EIS to
7 help shape the project or alternatives. Council can make recommendations in any way
8 they see fit. He would like:it,to•be agendized.quickly. •
9
10 Council Member Cader-Thompson advised that•-the area discussed is north of the
11 Petaluma River Bridge — allthe way to 116, so the bridge is part of this project. At the
12 referenced meeting, the importance of looking atthelarger picture•was discussed. She
13 thought it important for Council to discuss their thoughts on improvements on 101 . If
14 both counties are on board together; there will be a better chance to have-all needs met.
15 She would like other Councils`to.be'encouraged to get onboard. She would also like to
16 get any information-from meetings held with Mahn and Sonoma County Supervisors.
17
18 Council Member Maguire got the sense that not much transpired at those meetings of
19 the supervisors. Perhaps the Staff could write letters and ask for representatives from
20 other Councils to meet with the Petaluma Council.
21
22 Council Member Cader-Thompson advised it was important they have this discussion
A3 so they are not waiting a month to have questions answered. Her understanding was
4 that it was a process to start sooner rather than later.
25
26 Council Member Keller thoughtthe second meeting in May, following the SETA
27 meeting, would be appropriate, perhaps start the meeting 2:30. There are four
28 jurisdictions involved, two counties and two cities; it may not be purely at the discretion
29 of the supervisors who gets-appointed. •CalTrans=was very clear they wanted
30 stakeholders involved in this.
31 •
32 Council Member Healy referred to copy of.an April 17 on Fair Share Housing
33 methodology from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which, given the
34 barrage of criticism received, is rethinking"the 10/90 split and some-other issues. He
35 found it fascinating that the process, which,generates numbers with 4-decimal-point
36 accuracy, can be made to produce very different results. Now in Petaluma, the Fair
37 Share Housing°total'thatwas origipally 597 over the next 6 years, can be reduced to
38 142 units or increased to 1,400 units, depending on "how the numbers are tweaked."
39 He would like ABAG staff to show Council what 100% allocation,and job creation would
40 look like. As,May 18.gets closer, a recommendation should be presented.
41
42 Vice Mayor Torliattindicated that there would be a.regional,ABAG planning committee
43 meeting on the firstWednesday of next month and she would be happy to raise that
44 issue.
IIS Draft Minutes of,a
City of Petaluma, California
• City Council Meeting
Monday; April 24, 2000
Page 3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
2 •3 City Manager Stouder discussed the information requested by Council regarding the
4 Empire Sports•Complex. Department of Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr,
5 Department of Community Development Mike.Moore and City Manager Stouder tried to
6 identify the questions from theft notes, and what they thought it would take,to answer
7 the questions. Some might be readily answered and some might require additional
8 feasibility studies and costs.
9
10 The application process has been submitted and when it is complete Mr. Moore
11 estimates it will take;approximately:six months:to process. It is a conditional use
12 c Planning Commission's determination is.not something that comes
13 back,to unless.it is appealed. The issue then becomes the lease arrangement.
14 This might not be:something the Council would have any future jurisdiction over and as
15 Council Members pointed out last week; it is a twofold„issue — the lease and location.
16 He wanted to publicly provide Council with what staff.heard as questions, what the
17 context of this is and when Council might see this again which could be six months from
18 now or longer.
19
20 Council Member Healy asked for clarification of land use items.
21.
22 Mr. Stouder's understanding from'the,Mr. Moore is that land use question is a_
23 conditional use,question and does not need to be heard again by theiCity Council He •
24 suggested coming back with more details with what staff thinks,it takes to answer
25 questions and a further definition of Council's jurisdiction, assuming it wasn't appealed
26 from a land-use standpoint:
27 •
28 Mayor Thompson advised that Mr Ronick's letter of April 21 answers some of these,
29 . questions.
30
31 Mr. Stouder noted that a Planning Commission process estimate is six'months. •
32
33 Council Member Maguire explained that the major issue is the lease arrangements. If
34 the application proceeds, Council should have an opportunity'to'review,it.
35
36 Mr. Stouder indicated that one of the reasons this was brought back is that the Planning
37 Commission process ofa conditional use application might,require six months.
38 However, as that isrconditioned on a lease.agreement, perhaps the lease agreement
39 should be discussed first, which is what Council Member Maguire-and'others,are
40 suggesting.
41
42 Mr. Stouder thought that Project Manager Jim Ryan could answer some of the
43 questions, depending on the level of information needed.
44.
45
Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma California
City Council Meeting
Mondays April.24, 2000
Page 4
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Acting City.Attorney Nicole Tutt•advised had developed beyond a staff report and
112 suggested Council agendize the matter.
3
4 Mayor Thompson agreed..
5
6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7
8 1. Joint City Council/Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Workshop.on
9 Regional Watershed and Basin. Planning.
10
11 Mr. Stouder thanked Director of.Sonoma County Water Agency Randy Poole and
12 staff for all their assistance omthe U.S. Army Corps discussions in Washington, •
13 D.C.
14
15 . Mr. Poole indicated it is much easier to deal with'Washington, D.C. than the
16 State of California.
17
18 Director of Water Resources and Conservation Toni Hargis asked that
19 discussion befocused on Amendment 11 and the impacted water supply MOU.
20 Amendment 1.1 is a proposed amendment to the existing water supply contract
21 that provides for additional transmission facilities as well as additional sources of
22 supply. Until facilities are built, the system can't`deliver entitlements to all the
agencies. All the water contracting agencies must either agree how to share the
resources or the State Department of Health will allocate the resources.
25
26 Mr. Hargis provided posters, CD's, books and videos, for the water conservation
27 education program for grades K-9.
28
29 City Management believes an operating agreement among the water contractors
30 will need to be developed so that all are•sharing equally in the resource and none
31 are overpumping or overdrawing or taking away storage that is important to
32 another. It will integrate water conservation and recycling, and cover a five-to
33 ten-year period. Mr.;Hargisthought another workshop would be needed because
34 of the amount of material to be reviewed..Petaluma is the only contractor that has
35 not signed the memorandum to allow processing of watertransmission facilities.
36
37 Council Member Maguire asked how many gallons were in an acre-foot.
38
39 Mr. Hargis explained that one acre-foot provides water for a family of four for a
40 year— 325,850 gallons. They try to stay'consistent with units.
41
42 Council Member Maguire asked how many acre-feet or'gallons are drawn
43 annually from the Russian River.
44
• • Draft Minutes of
City of Petaluma, California •
•
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 5
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Mr. Poole answered that it is about 60 to 65 thousand acre-feet per year. The
2 amount for Healdsburg and Windsor needs to be added to that total. They are
3 part of Petaluma's allocation even though they are not coming-off the water
4 transmission system.
5
6 Council Member Maguire clarified that Amendment 11 indicates 101 thousand-
7 acre feet per year.
8
9 Mr. Poole confirmed that.
10
11 Vice,Mayor Torliatt asked if an attomey.had looked at Amendment 11 on the
12 City's behalf.
13
14 Mr. Hargis said no.
15
16 Council Member Healy stated he had looked at it over the weekend,and could
17 answer questions.
18
19 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Mr. Poole-what the-voting allocations.meant. Who had
20 what allocations? In order to get the 51%, Who had to vote together? Shealso
21 requested an update on the Basin study.
22
23 Mr. Pooletanswered that the allocation:in the master Agreement under section 5 •
24 has+two ways approve a process for water contractors. One is based on
25 entitlement, the actual peak month in million gallons per day'of the supply. The
26 other is actually the weighted average-of each individual contractor needed as a
27 voting block. In the case of Santa Rosa, they get one vote-as a group and they
28 also°get;a percentage of the"entitlement, which would be 56 out of 148°million
29 gallons per day. . Under one allocation method, they vote for a;third of the
30 allocation. Under the other test method, they are one eighth ofithe,contractors.
31 Both are used.
32
33 Vice Mayor Torliatt requested an analysis for each city.
34
35 Mr. Poole advised that there have been delays;on•the ground.water studies
36 because of lack of staff to do planning analysis. Hopefully, they will be current in
37 three months.
38
39 Ericka Hendricks-Phelps is the Environmental Resources Coordinator with the.
40 . Sonoma County Water Agency. 'She introduced Pam Jeane, a Water Agency
41 Principal Engineer in the Resources Planning section of SCWA. She discussed
42 three specific items:
43 • The Water Supply and Transmission System Project. This is the project that
44 sets the stage for the 11th Amended Agreement:
45 • The details of the 11th Amendment Agreement.
Draft Minutes of..a
City of Petaluma,;California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page:6
•
DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT
•
1 • The,Memorandum-of Understanding regarding Water Transmission System
2 Capacity'Allocation During Temporary Impairment.
3
4 Ms. Hendricks-Phelpa.began by sharing background on the Water Supply and
5 Transmission System' Project. In 1992, it was determined that the existing water
6 supply and transmission system would not in.thetforeseeable future, be
7 adequate to serve The watercontractors' future water supply needs. The water
8 contractors requested a new project: This project was to be called the Water
9 Supply and Transmission System Project and the SCWA board directed an EIR
10 be prepared. In September 1998; the draft EIR was released and the final EIR
11 was certified and project was approved in late 1998. The objective of the project
12 is to provide a safe, economical and reliable watersupply; to meet the defined
13 future needs within the Agency service area. This project is expected to meet
14 the demand levels that were current at the time the, project was prepared..
15
16 The project includes three components:
17
18 • Water Conservation
19 • Increased use of water stored in Lake Sonorna (Russian River component)
20 • Expansion and revised operation of the«.water transmission system
21 (Transmission System Component).
22
•3 The Water Conservation Component consists of implementing water
4 conservation measures that would result in'the savings of approximately 6,600
25 acre-feet per year,and the expansion of the water education program.
26
27 The Russian River Component consists of increasing'the amount of water
28 released from storage in Lake Sonoma by 26,000 acre-feet per year. That would
29 increase the total authorized amount of from 75,000,acre-feet to 101,000 acre-
30 .feet per year.
31
32 The Transmission System Component consists of:increasing transmission
33 system capacity by 57'million;gallons per day. That would increase the total
34 capacity from 92 million gallons, under the current agreement, to 149 million
35 gallons per day, with 20 million gallons per day of stand-by capacity. The
36 Transmission System Component would provide the physical facility necessary
37 to reliably'supplywater for domestic and industrial use,:for fire suppression and
38 for identified future growth. The facilities would be constructed in phases as they
39 became necessary over approximately a 20-year period. The environmental
40 impact of the Transmission System Projectiwas analyzed•in the certified EIR. At
41 the time the Project was approved, the Board of Directed urged the manager to
42 take all steps necessary to implement the project, including finalization and
43 execution of the 11th Amended Agreement.
44
• Draft Minutes of a.
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT ,
•
1 Ms. Jeane,explained that the agreement for water supply and construction of the
2 Russian River and Cotati Intertide Project was entered into in 1974. The most
3 recent amendment took place'in November 1997 and is known as°the 10th •
4 Amended Agreement for Water Supply: The 10th Amended Agreement allows
5
for transmission system capacity of up to 92 million gallons per clay, specific
6 delivery entitlements for the.eight signatory water contractors, establishment of
7 the Water Advisory Committee and other more specific items.
8
9 The proposed 11th Amended Agreement, copies in packets, would supersede
10 the 10th Amended Agreement and would authorize the Agency to construct or
11 acquire additions to the transmission,system to,deliver increased entitled
12 amounts, construct additional Russian.River production facilities,construct
13 emergency wells as determined necessary by the Water Advisory.Committee,
14 construct additional facilities having 1.5 times the average day peak month
15 demand available for storage purposes within the transmission'system and
16 replace and construct facilities to ensure the transmission system;operates
17 • reliablyand efficiently and that the quality of water delivered meets all applicable
• 18 water quality standards.
19
20 The facilities authorized under the 11th Amended Agreement are needed today
21 to meet demands on the transmission system. Petaluma's delivery entitlement
22 would change from 17 million=gallons to 21.8 million gallons per day if the
24 year is included for Petaluma.. The City of Petalma's 1987 acre lan was
23 proposed amendment were executed. An annual
Petaluma's 4987 General Plan was in
•
25 place at„the time the project was being developed. Each water'contractor has an
26 annual limit in the proposedllthAmended Agreement based on their respective
27 adopted General Plans at that time This is a new feature to the agreement for
28 water supply. The proposed amendment would become effective upon execution
29 byall`parties to the agreement and would remain in effect until.June 2036 or until
30 any outstanding revenue bonds were paid in full. Lastly, the 11th Amended
31 Agreement for Water Supply requires that each water contractor implement or
-- 32 use its best efforts to'implement urban water conservation best-management
33 practices''. There is somecoversight by the Water Advisory Committee provided to
34 ensure implementation of adequate and reasonable water conservation
• 35 measures.
36
37 On December 7, 1999, the Board of Directors of the Agency adopted,a resolution
38 declaring the reliable:summertime water production capacity of the transmission
39 system as temporarily impaired and limited to an average monthly delivery
40 capacity of 84 million gallons per day. That resolution also directed the Agency's
41 ;general manager and chief engineer to negotiate with the water contractors:and
42 other water customers to develop a consensus regarding appropriate allocation
43 of the current water capacity. Since December, a sub-committee has been
44 meeting to negotiate a Memorandum'of Understanding (MOO) Regarding
45 Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment, Draft 5
Draft Minutes of a -
City of-Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 8
• DRAFT • DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 of which was=;included in 4he-packet. There should' be a Draft 7 within the next
2'• few.days. Amoutside consultant has,been.hired to help with this process. The
�3.•
.purpose is to set forth cooperative Actions to be taken byall parties to reduce
4 demands on°,the'transmission system during critical summer months. Significant
5 progress.has been made. The sub-committee is planning to complete
6. negotiations soothe all water contractors can approve the MOU by June 2000.
7
8 She advised.the Council they would have before them,.along with the 11th
9 Amended Agreement, the MOU Regarding Temporary Impairment. In May, there
10 will be a water rate workshop provided by the Agency.
11
12 Council Member Keller had questions on the MOU Regarding Temporary
13 Impairment. He was concerned with language changes in Section 6 that made
14 proposed water conservation very voluntary, i.e., the language change from
15 "adopt"to "evaluate,and present to the governing board for consideration..." and
16 from "implement"to "evaluate and.present to the governing board for
17 consideration...".
18
19 Ms. Jeane answered that the changes were based on comments by some of the
20 water contractors and other customers;during negotiation.
21
22 Council Member Keller asked if Section 7, special efforts'were mandatory.
3
- 4 Ms. Jeane-answered, "yes."
25
26 Mr. Poole added that the first draft is the:Agency's strong position of where they
27 want to be. The difficulty`is that some of the contractors do not need to have all of
28 these items approved or implemented. Some have entitlements they will not
29 exceed. The Agency expects all the contractors to agree.
30
31 Council Member Keller advised he was in support but that he was disappointed
32 that some of the offer water users do not even want to meet the conservation
33 requirements. By continuing to use more.than^the systern capacity, the system is
34 forced to get larger, rather than taking the conservation approach. He referred to
35 page 3 of the executive summary in the 11th Amended Agreement, which read,
36 "The Water Contractors, and with respect to other Agency customers, the
37 Agency, shall as a minimum'implement or use their best efforts to secure the
38 implementation of urban water conservation best'management practices..."and
39 continues, "Should the WaterAdvisory Committee determine and so do notify
40 any water contractor that its efforts to achieve compliance with the water
41 conservation practices required by this section are unsatisfactory...." He asked
42 for the definition of "unsatisfactory water conservation practices." There is an
43 overall goal of 6600 acre-feet per year in conservation:
44
40 Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24,2000
Page 9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 Mr. Poole;replied that it is the-current standard at the date when the process was •
2 started. • •
3
4 Council Member Keller asked if that number increases each .year:
5
6 Mr. Poole replied that, looking at a 20-year process, there would be several
7 hundred acre-feet per year in savings.
8 '
9 Council Member Keller saw the same situation being faced,in supplying this utility
10 as with all the rest of the utilities, such as 1;01. Should the focus,be,on `increase
11 in capacity"and "increase in use,"or on reducing the demand? He would like to
12 see much heavier emphasis on measurable•conservation.
13
14 Mr. Poole replied that the environmental document addressed water .
15 conservation for each agency. They do intend to stress the conservation.
16 development. The Agency spends close to $2 million a year on water
17 'conservation.
18
19 Council Member Hamilton wondered why the Water Agency has no leverage for
20 - demanding conservation efforts from contractors.
21
22 Mr., Poole replied that through the Section 7 consultation under the Endangered
23 Species Act, one of the elements would be the Water Conservation Program: •
24 Through the legislature, there will probably be a process that requires
25 conservation.
26
27 Council Member Cader-Thompson referred to specific requirements for cities.
28
29 Mr. Poole advised that Draft 6 indicates the requirement of metering for R'ohnert
30 Park-at 20% per year.
31
32 Council Member Maguire asked why the Agency would wait for legislation-to
33 make conservation measures mandatory.
34
35 Mr: Poole indicated it would be helpful to make calls to the other cities to insist on
36 that being an issue.
37 ~
38 Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Poole to provide a list of cities needing to be
39 contacted.,
40
41 Mr..Poole answered that it would be helpful to contact any of the cities:
42
43 Council Member Cader-Thompson spoke about,the diversion of the Eel River
44 and reduction in water supply and wondered why the City did not prepare for it
Draft Minutes of.a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting •
Monday, April 24; 2000
Page 10
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 sooner and would like to'force Rohnert Park to conserve water. She did not
2 understand why there was not a'more aggressive^water conservation policy.
MI 3
4 Mr. Poole-replied that the Agency understands the need for conserving water and
5 has funded water conservation projects: Getting all of the cities to participate in
6 thatpregram has taken some work.
7
8 Council Member Cader=Thompson discussed the water'in the Kastania holding
9 tank and the City's requirement to allot water to Marin. She was concerned that
10 there may be a time-when`Petaluma will not have enough for itself.
11 • •
12 Mr. Poole indicated that had happened a few weeks before. The Water Agency
13 has an obligation to Marin'County and to serve water north to Santa Rosa and to
14 Petaluma. If the contracts don't:all work:together, it won't work. His board has
15 directed him not to turn off'valves.
16
17 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked about rural areas; for example, a
18 mushroom farm with'a deep well sucking up water from existing wells. She
19 asked if the Agency had any jurisdiction over a situation of That type.
20
21 Mr. Poole replied that the Agency has no jurisdiction over the ground water
22 basins. Those are County functions.
03
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson emphasized that this was part of a larger
25 picture and it affects everyone.
26
27 Council Member Healyasked about the relationship between the 11th Amended
28 Amendment and the MOU in regards to conservation obligations of the different
29 contractors. He read the 11th Amended Amendment as referring to and
30. committing each contractor trying to implement the,California Urban Water
31 Council Best Management practices. In the MOU, it refers to this also and he
32 asked if it was just a.redundancy.
33
34 Mr. Poole advised that the Agency was doing everything in the BMP process.
35 They are assuming Rohnert Park will start a metering program. The City has
36 done everything except the tiered water rate issue and that is the next step. A
37 . substantial amount has been done. '
38
39 Council Member Healy referred to the language change and voiced the opinion
• 40 that there should not be documents incorporated by reference. There should be
41 everything in the same document so that in'.the'future, when it is being reviewed,
42 it is important to have a clear;.understandable'docunient that'is not subject to
43 ambiguity. He would like tohave°those things pulled into the MOU. Referring to
44 the BMP, he thought it very confusing. The language should be more specific.
Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
• Page 11
•
•
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT •
1 Mr. Poole saw no problem with that and hoped the other water contractors would
2 agree.
3 •
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt.spoke regarding the paragraph concerning water
5 conservation She asked who had the power to enforce conservation measures.
6 Petaluma has been on the forefront of completing conservation measures•and
7 the document is not clear regarding conservation. She is concerned that other
8 cities might not have to do so much because Petaluma is doing such a great,job.,
9
10 Council Member Healy pointed out that if mandatory conservation comes down
11 the pike and all the water agencies have to cut 10%, the fact that Petaluma.has
12 already cut a significant amount and the other cities have not taken conservation
13 measures'would mean that Petaluma would have to do harder work that is more
14 expensive to achieve. He thought it grossly inequitable not to have the same
15 rules;across the board.
16
17 Mr Poole responded that every•city council is doing more than anybody else. All .
18 contractors have to work together. The point is to make sure allure being Nery
19 aggressive in the next 2-3 years.to complete all of the tasks. He expected that
20 Petaluma would do that.
21
22 Vice Mayor Torliatt spoke about back up supplies and referred to Mr. Poole's
23 statement that the Agency has no jurisdiction over ground water, but Amendment •
24 11 requires.cities to construct wells and/or rehabilitate. Petaluma, Santa Rosa,
25 Rohnert Park and Sonoma have to put in new wells as part,of the MOU, but
26 when how long do they remain "back up"?
27 •
28 Mr. Poole advised the Agency'has asked the State Health Department fora
29 definition of'lemergency supply." This agreement does not specify,that it be a
30 long-term supply, but that it be available in case of emergency during peak
31 demand periods. In many areas, such as Santa:Rosa, there are existing wells.
32 Sonoma has put in a well in stand-by mode. He.did not know if Petaluma had
33 any wells. If is not known what the ground water basin is in this region'. That
34 should be analyzed as part of.this process.
35
36 Vice Mayor Torliatt advised thatRohnert Park is pumping a tremendous amount
37 of water out of the ground as opposed to using the County water allocations.
38 They may just continue to do:that and not have'to buy into this because it is
39 cheaper, but the effects of the ground water pumping are unknown.
40
41 Council Member,Maguire asked of the proposed 101,000 acre-feet per year,
42 what percentage would be corning:from the Eel River.
43
44 Mr. Poole replied that the 1.01,000 acre-feet is really an increase in supply from
45 Lake Sonoma. He thought something would come of it in the next six months,
Draft Minutes of'a •
City-of.Petaiuma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24,;2000
Page 12
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT'.' DRAFT
1 although there may be litigation. The Agency anticipates there will be a
02 continuation of flow from the Eel to the Russian at a reduced amount.
3
4 Council Member Maguire asked about the authorization of the Water Agency to
buy the Potter Valley.Dam Project.
6
7 Mr. Poole replied that Amendment`10 would authorize them to buy it if they
8 wanted to do so.
9
10 Council Member Maguire said that since Petaluma is the last contractor to sign
11 Amendment 11, does that not give Petaluma leverage, at least down stream?
12
13 Mr. Poole replied that all the contractors must work together to leverage against
14 other cities and special,districts for something important to one....it is a
15 cooperative process.
16
47 Council Member Maguiresaid that conservation benefits everyone. He
18 wondered if they have conserved every gallon possible,before.;going back to the
19 River and building expensive new transmission facilities. He asked about the
20 maximum for potential conservation.
21
22 Mr. Poole answered that the water supply EIR looked for at least 6600 acre-feet
per year.
1034
25 Council Member Maguire-asked what was the ideal amount to conserve, not just
26 what the EIR looked at.
27 •
28 Mr. Poole answered that/the 6,600 acre-feet per year is achievable. They are
29 finding thatthe amount of water,saved in some of the conservation efforts was
30 not as much as anticipated in the water supply EIR. He is not prepared to give a
31 hard and fast number apart from the 6,600 acre-feet.
32
33 Council Member Maguire,suggested that, even:ih the best-case scenarios, there
34 is maybe 10,000 acre-feet in a year to be saved.
35
36 Mr. Poole was skeptical of a number past the 6,600 acre-feet.
37
38 Council Member Maguire found that frustrating because the Agency was not
39 setting an optimum target.
40
41 Mr. Poole asked Mr. Maguire how much the Agency should reduce Petaluma's
42 13,400.
43 ,
44 Council Member Maguire would like to reduce as much as possible.
Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 13
•
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Mr. Poole agreed and asked for number.
2
3 Council Member Maguire stated Mr. Poole was in a better position to say what
4 could be achieved through the program.
5
6 Mr. Poole thought Petaluma was stuck with 13,400. If Petaluma can do better,
7 maybe that could be negotiated at a future date. That would be`part of
8 Amendment 12.
9
10 Council Member Maguire saw that once a new sewer plant,is on-line and
11 recycling more water, they could be looking at a potentially impressive;-number.
12 He asked if the increased-numbers were based on General Plans.
13
14 Mr. Poole said that was correct.
15 •
16 Council Member Keller spoke about the Section 7 consultation and wondered if
17 that would be the taskmaster.
18
19 Mr.- Poole explained that the Agency would be looking closely:.attle existing
20 facilities plus whatever might be proposed for future supply. That will impact the
21 flow-in-the river, the potential changes in certain locations along the river, and the
22 costs`will have to be determined.
23 •24 Council Member Keller thought that Mr Poole was saying yes, that could be the
25 controlling factorin getting some hard,-nosed conservation into the County. He
26 stated tha •the politics are lined' up to beat up on this, but both sides of the'coin
27 cannot be-played and come out with a good result. On one hand, the federal
28 government is being told there is a water-jeopardy situation with not enough to .
29 meet current needs and the need to,increase diversions. It is giving one clear
30 message to the regulatory community, which is "don't touch us." It Sends the
31 wrong message to the water which is you guys are right— you don't
32 have.enough:water." ,Section 7 consultations cannot be relied upon to give.:
• 33 mandates needed. There is a need for more coherence. The Agency needs to
34 take:more aggressive leadership and make specific policies to prepare for-the
35 future.
36
37 •• Mr.-Poole replied that the Council needs to make those decisions and policies.
38
39 Council Member Keller appreciated'that, but pointed out that Petaluma is also in
40 . a cooperative venture with other water users. He is not seeing in the document
41 themessage.of mandating major guidelines. That is what concerns'hiin.
42
43 Mr. Poole asked him.to understand that this is a process. He described
44 Amendment 11 as taking "baby steps." He,thought it is obvious that Petaluma
45 Would want something more aggressive in Amendment 12. He asked Council to
Draft Minutes of a •
,City of Petaluma, California
City:Council,Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 14
•
DRAFT • DRAFT DRAFT
1 remember that Amendment 11 is a "living document" and that Amendment 10
02 was only two years,ago. •
3
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson thought there must be a way to work through
5 the Agency'to'give consistent policies and ordinances to'all the cities.
6
7 Council Member Hamilton asked if this Amendmentwas good until 2036. She
8 explained that Petaluma was starting a new General Plan to be completed in
9 about three years. She asked how that Would affect Petaluma.
10
11 Mr. Poole hoped Petaluma would not ask for more water in the new General
12 Plan.
13
14 Council Member Hamilton asked what would happen if Petaluma did not sign
15 Amendment 11.
16
17 Mr. Poole explained that the Water Agency would propose another agreement
18 with the other parties=to sign. If the:existing Petaluma aqueduct became too old,
19 Petaluma would be on its own. If Petaluma is not a party to the agreement, it is
20 not the rest of the contractors' responsibility to help Petaluma out.
2.1
22 Council Member Hamilton asked Mr. Hargis and Mr. Simmons what they would
like to see included in Amendment 11 that is not currently there.
4
25 Mr. Simmons would like to get the operational agreement done, saying, "It
26 doesn't matter what tthe numbers,say.if the tank goes dry." Amendment 11 will
27 go ahead without Petaluma. He did not agree that if pipe breaks, there will be
28 trouble, because there is agreement to pay for replacement maintenance in
29 Amendment 10,-so part of the new aqueduct would be redundancy and some
30 portion would have to be paid anyway.
31
32 Mr. Hargis indicated that the operating agreement just came up last week. They
33 see it as a critical thing in the near future. Regarding the MOU, if all agencies
34 work together;they are better off allocating the resources among themselves,
35 than having the state agencies mandate. He did notthink Amendment 11 would
36 change. The question is whether the City should participate in it There has
37 some thought that lithe City does enough recycling, conservation, and.
38 groundwater management, maybe it doesn't need to be part of Amendment 11.
39 There are no.guarantees with Amendment.11 . There are significant issues about
40 being able to divert more water from the Russian River, about whether the water
41 would have to be treated. Mr. Poole used numbers like '/ to 1/2 billion dollars for a
42 water treatment and delivery systerim from Warm Springs Dam.
43
44 Mr. Hargis expressed concern that if the City does not participate with
Amendment 11, the unknowns of the future and delivery issues could take a toll.
Draft Minutes of a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 15
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 • He explained that water runs through the pipeline at a high velocity. The amount
2 of water coming through it is at the high end of the desirable extreme of the water
3 supply. He did not think that-would change much. He stated he was leaning
4 towards encouraging Council to approve Amendment 11. He and.Mr. Simmons
5 had studied this issue and learned a tremendous amount in the past few weeks.
6 Most of Rohnert Park's water comes around the back way and doesn't;come off
7 Petaluma's.pipeline and Petaluma is more connected to North Mann and Mann
8 Municipal and to Rohnert Park. In the greater scheme of water conservation, he
9 thought Rohnert Park,should put in.;meters in the next year, ratherthan stretch it
10 out over five years: There are some things in the MOU about the enforcement
11 mechanism. The Board of Directors had told'the General Manager not to;shut off
12 valves. The Other mechanism is a surcharge penalty. Contractorstwilttake the
13 water and pay the penalty.
14
15 Council Member Healy said there were a lot of valuable thoughts about what
16 Amendments 12 and 13 will look like: He was willing to take Mr. Poole's word
17 that this is an evolving process and will deal with future issues.when`they come
18 up. He concurred with Mr. Hargis with regard'to increasing the reliability of the
19 in-place system. There is one aqueduct that is::38 years.old and is running at.full
20 capacity and if there were a supply disruption;on that pipeline, there would be
21 severe trouble. Adding redundancy would provide safety. With all of the
22 'improvements;,it would add about$35 per acre-foot to the_ wholesale rate, which
23 is a little over 10% increase.
24 •
25 Mr,,Poole said it is about $17 per acre-foot, paying off some existing bonds at
26 $35. The net increase is about $35.
27
28 Council Member Healy said he would like to encourage staff, the contractors and
29 theAgency to try to come to closure on the MOU with some of the points
30 discussed here tonight and bring this back.
31
32 Vice Mayor Torliatt.thoughtthat Council'would start to hear public input when the
33 rates that were adopted by the Agency Board come down to Petaluma:.Petaluma
34 is dealing with the problem of low or no reserves and will have to increase'rates
35 even more.
36
37 Council Member Keller asked who was on the Water Advisory CoMmittee,
38
39 Mr. Poole answered that each city or special district appointed one person to be
40 its representative. In most cases, Petaluma,had appointed either Mr: Hargis or
41 Mr. Simmons: Miles Ferris-represents the City..of Santa Rosa and the,North'
42 Mann Water District is represented by its,General Manager, Chris Gabriel. 'Mr.
43 Arboli is Valley of the Moon's representative.
44
Draft-Minutes of a •
City of Petaluma; California
City,Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 16
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
•
1 Council Member.Kellerasked if a.majority vote of that committee would be
.4t2 required.to notify a water contractor that they were not in,compliance with water
3 conservation practices.
4 • •
5 Mr. Poole answered that the voting;power is in Section 5 of the master
6 Agreement: It is weighted based on entitlement plus"majority vote. Everyone
7 has a minimum of one Vote.
8
9 Council Member.Keller asked if the Committee's determination was mandatory to
10 the Water Agency-or was it advisory to the Agency.
11
12 Mr. Poole replied they are advisory is,most capacities: They do have some
13 powers to hire consultants and approve the water conservation program as well
14 as recycled water'programs.
15
16 Council Member Keller asked if they could make a determination that becomes
17 an advice to the SCWA that is then an advisory to the Board of Supervisors
18 acting as a board of authority to the Water Agency and they can determine
19 whatever they please:
20
21 Mr. Poole replied that they actually have the powers to impose the water
22 conservation efforts. It is not'in that agreement.that they can be overridden.
3 They have final say on determination conservation efforts. There would be a
4 review and due process.
25
26 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked^for clarification from Mr. Simmons
27 regarding the City managing their water and storage capability.
28
29 Mr. Simmons replied that the contractors would work together to manage what
30 they are taking in c"o"njunction with the operators,ofthe Water Agency. There is
31 the allocation table on the MOU to live up to. If a contractor takes more than it
32 should, then also the tank levels and the way the pumps are operated would
33 keep the supply from going dry. That is the last MOU, not written yet.
34
35 Mr. Hargis advised that on Ms. Jeane's list of future items, the voluntary water
36 reduction for the summer would be coming quickly. Each contractor
37 representative is bringing to boards trying to get a 15°/9 reduction. Regarding
38 one of Petaluma's,unique water conservation programs, which is a water
39 efficiency program, looking at.industrial efficiency, the City's contractor is having
40 Mr. Hargis meet with the head of EPA Region no 'discuss the program, trying to
41 get EPA"support that may open some doors with some other agencies for
42 financial support.
43
• Draft.Minutes of a
City of'Petalurna, California
City Council Meeting
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 17
•
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1
2 PUBLIC COMMENT •
3 - •
4 • Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue, explained she was in Marin County
5 and she shared copies of a newspaper article,in the Novato Business.News
•
6 regarding Novato's water crisis: The article implied that Petaluma caused many
7 of Novato's:water woes. Ms. Torres went to.the•North Mahn Water District with
8 her camcorder and spoke with Chris Gabriel. She questioned why Mahn;gets a
9 separate contract.
10
11 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, did a quick summary: The City had allocations
12 of 92 million gallons per day. Tfeyare now apparently impaired and at 86:million
13 gallons per•day. It is proposed with the new:transmission that they-will produce
14 149 million gallons per day. He did not know how that would be allocated. He
15 mentioned;the questions of the Eel:River: He asked if the City could do anything
16 about the operational MOU: He would suggest that the City stop building in the
17 floodplain.
18
19 Frank Egger, Mayor of the town of Fairfax, provided a status of the litigation. It is
20 his understanding that the trial is set for May 9, 10 and 11. The plaintiffs are the
21 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, The California Sport
22 Fishing Protection Alliance, the Weote Tribe from Humbolt County, Coyote, a
23 Covelo Band, Friends of the Russian River, Friends of the Eel River, Marty
24 Griffin, a Sonoma County Vintner and Frank Egger, the Mayor of Fairfax. The
•
25 two dams on the Eel River will come down. The count was about twelve for Eel
26 River Chinooks;a couple of.years'ago,,from the tens of thousands historically and
27 three federal agencies•, the National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of
28 Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency are asking the federal Regulatory
29 Commission to study a dam alternative, The issue of conservation is a major
30 source of their water future. 6,600 acre-feet is about 10% of the usage: 25% to
31 30% is very attainable. The construction of the pipeline from Mahn to Petaluma
32 will.be discussed at the Mahn MunicipallWater District Board meeting in the next
33 couple weeks and that Board is split 2/2 right now Joe Nation will be the swing
34 voteas to whether or not the pipeline will be'built.
35
36 CouncilaMember Healy asked if anyone in the City Council had any contact with
37 •.the Novato Chamber of Commerce other than a meeting with the Novato City
38 Council.
39
40 There were, no affirmative replies.
41
42 CLOSED SESSION
43
44 Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:10 p.m. for the following item:
45
Draft Minutes of a •
City of Petaluina, California
City f Meeting
Cit Coun ci
Monday;April24, 2000
Page 18
• DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code
§54957.6, Unit 7, Fire. Agency Negotiator: Acorne.
3
4
5 ADJOURN
6
7 The meeting was adjourned at 1.0:15 p.m.
8
•
9
10
11
12 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
13
14
15
16 ATTEST:
17
18
19
20 Beverly J.,Kline, City Clerk
21 •
22
•
25
26
27
28
29
30 " * ` * . .
•
® Draft Minutes of'a
City of Petaluma, California
City Council Meeting •
Monday, April 24, 2000
Page 19
•o `
•
•