HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 05/13/2002May 13, 2002
~ ~' L U1Lr.
a , ~ City of Petaluma, California
Cit Council Meetiin
I85$
Vol. 37, Page 395
1-
2City Council Meeting Minutes
3 Monday, May 13, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.
4 Special Meeting
5
6 PRESENT: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien,
7 Mayor Thompson, Torliatt
8 ABSENT: None
9
10
11 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Doug Wing, Carollo Engineers.
12
13 PUBLIC COMMENT
14
15 Bill Donahue, Petaluma, Sandalwood Mobile Home Park, reported on results of
16 arbitration hearing held Thursday, May 9. Contentious, with park attorneys
17 immediately challenging the arbitrator. Several side meetings held during day in
18 attempt to mediate. Matter now in hands of arbitrator. Park owners would not
19 move away from signing of long-term leases. There were 100 people in
20 attendance. No loud speakers in hall -many could not hear testimony. Briefs
21 from both sides must be presented by May 23, 2002 -arbitrator makes his
22 decision within 14 days of receiving briefs,
23
24 Councilmember Torfiatt -Was meeting was videotaped?
25
26 Mr, Donahue - No, but testimony was recorded on audiotape, and there was a
27 court reporter.
28
29 Terence Garvey, Petaluma, local paper carried letter from Councilmember
30 critical of Council actions. Serves purpose -instead of angry outbursts at
31 meetings, requires dispassionate, carefully written position, right or wrong.
32 Requires thoughtful response. Public has opportunity to read the issues without
33 "emotional baggage. " Disagreements are often very beneficial. Controversy
34 enhances analysis of issues.
35
Vol. 37 Page 396 May 13, 2002
1 Geoff Cartwright, Petaluma, regarding revitalization of downtown: Many tools
2 can assist -traffic/parking study, River Enhancement Plan, Central Petaluma
3 Specific Plan, Redevelopment Agency and redevelopment funds. Hopes
4 business and property owners, and residents of downtown will "grab these tools
5 and funds" and use for purpose intended. If they do not, "there are boys out
6 there who would grab those redevelopment funds and take them upstream in
7 the floodplain to do development upstream in the floodplain.. ,and that would
8 be detrimental to downtown, and the Payran Reach. "
9
10 COUNCIL COMMENT
11
12 Councilmember Torliaft:
13
14 Participated with members of public on Saturday, May 11, discussion regarding
15 redevelopment of Water Street. They were able to look at five alternatives -
16 unfortunately by end of meeting only about 25 people Jeff. Alternatives B and E
17 rose to top. Alternative B had Water Street to through traffic from south of the
18 Golden Concourse to Western Avenue; Alternative E had traffic going through
19 to Petaluma Blvd at the intersection at Western Avenue. Looks Like there will
20 have to be decisions made about closure/non-closure. Depends on promises
21 about creating more parking .elsewhere in downtown area. Issue agendized for
22 Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) meeting, Thursday, May
23 1 b, 7;00 p.m., Community Center. Encouraged public to stay involved in
24 process.
25
26 Councilmember Cader-Thompson:
27
28 • Went on canoe tour of Petaluma River with the Bay Institute. Participants from
29 Ducks Unlimited, PG&E, Frank Jordon, former mayor of San Francisco,
30 representing a trust, and representative from Lynn Woolsey's office. Saw
31 different restoration projects in Petaluma and Marin areas. She did
32 presentation on Petaluma's project and funding needs. One step forward
33 getting Coastal Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited on board so project can be
34 funded, Encouraged other Councilmembers to contact David Yearsley,
35 Petaluma River Keeper, for tour.
36 • Car windows are being smashed at Shollenberger Park and purses, etc.
37 stolen. Recommended a warning sign in parking area.
38
39
40 PUBLIC HEARING
41 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY DRAFT EIR
42
43 Public Hearing on the Water Recycling Facility and River Access Improvements
44 Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
May 13, 2002 vol, 37, Page 397
1
2 Engineering Manager Michael Ban explained that purpose of this first of two
3 public hearings is to receive public input on the adequacy of the draff EIR.
4 Comments/questions may also be sent by mail to Michael Ban, City of
5 Petaluma, Department of Water Resources and Conservation, 1 1 English Street,
6 Petaluma, CA 94952. The deadline is May 29, 2002. The second public hearing
7 will be Monday, May 20, at 7:00 p.m. The final EIR will include written responses
8 to all testimony received tonight, next week, and by mail, as well as any revisions
9 deemed appropriate by the City. Council will then make a determination of the
10 adequacy of the final EIR. This is scheduled for August 2002.
11
12 Doug Wing, Carollo Engineers, Project Manager, recognized Patricia Johanson,
13 Sandy Reed, both active participants in development of the River Access Plan
14 and overall concept of the plant design. Mr. Wing described the overall project
15 and its components.
16
17 Pat Collins, Carollo Engineers, one of primary authors of draff EIR, spoke
18 regarding the reason for the EIR (identify significant effects of project on
19 environment and how these can be mitigated or avoided), and noticing for the
20 EIR. Impacts were divided into "Less than Significant, " "Less than Significant After
21 Mitigation, "and "Significant. "
22
23 The Significant Impacts;
24
25 • About 150 acres of farmland would be lost on Parcels A and B to complete
26 River Access Plan as configured.. The only mitigation would be to allow some
27 level of agriculture to be maintained on the property - a maximum to 70
28 acres.
29 • One drinking water well is located within '/a mile of the existing and proposed
30 facilities. The mitigation proposed is to monitor the well; if there are water
31 quality concerns, a new well could be drilled, well could be retrofitted, or a
32 treatment system could be installed at the well.
33 • Project discharge of some metals, nutrients, or organics could exceed
34 significance criteria. Mitigation to be Monitoring and Source Reduction
35 Programs,
36 • Biological Resources: Potential impacts to wetlands along Ellis Creek,
37 drainage, and River Access Improvements .near levy. Minor impacts to
38 riparian vegetation along creek; potential impacts to nesting birds in the
39 rookery in the eucalyptus trees and to aquatic habitat in Ellis Creek. A variety
40 of mitigation measures for these issues reduce them to a level below
41 significance criteria,
42 • Traffic and Circulation; Increased traffic. Mitigation: Both construction
43 employees and to the extent visitors to be routed along McDowell rather
44 than Lakeville.
Vol. 37 Page 398
May 13, 2002
1
2 Both the proposed project (Extended Aeration) and Alternative 4 (Hopper
3 Street) qualify as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Final EIR with
4 responses to comments/questions will be available mid-July; certification
5 hearings will take place in August.
6
7 Council Comment
8
9 Councilmember Moynihan -Regarding loss of 150 acres of farmland being
10 classified as "unavoidable impact" asked if agricultural use was not considered
11 "land use" in terms of the EIR.
12
13 Ms. Collins -Public facility uses proposed are not inconsistent with the. existing
14 County General Plan designation for property, No official "land use problem, "
15 Designation as impact reflects policies in agriculture section of City and County
16 General Plans,
17
18 Councilmember Moynihan - Additional three structures to be built not
19 considered an impact on land use?
20
21 Ms. Collins -Considered part of public facility.
22
23 Councilmember Maguire -Ellis Creek is being proposed to create meanders?
24
25 Ms. Collins -Yes.
26
27 Councilmember Maguire - Is construction of meanders considered impact?
28
29 Ms. Collins -Some restoration to Ellis Creek has been included as an impact -but
30 is self-mitigating. Counted as impact AND mitigation,
31
32 Councilmember Maguire - Re agricultural impact, is quality of farmland
33 considered, or just the quantity?
34
35 Ms. Collins -Just quantity. Neither County nor City Generai Plan distinguished
36 between good and poor agricultural area -blanket support for agricultural
37 area,
38
39 Councilmember Maguire -Appropriate to point out that the some of the
40 farmland under consideration is very poor?
41
42 Ms, Collins -Sure,
43
May 13, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 399
1 Councilmember Torliatt -Location of well within 1 /4 mile to be monitored?
2 Whose property?
3
4 Mr. Wing - Matteri property -just North of Lakeville Highway, adjacent to Ellis
5 Creek,
6
7 Councilmember Torliatt - Is this a "supplemental" or a "subsequent" EIR?
8
9 Ms, Collins -Subsequent -this means complete in itself -doesn't rely on previous
10 EIR in any way.
11
12 Councilmember Torliatt -Has City submitted letter to County during their
13 General Plan process (as was discussed at earlier meetings) about Petaluma's
14 intention to move forward with this project and asking them to identify potential
15 agricultural lands that may pick up this mitigation during their process? In
16 response to letter County sent City?
17
18 Mr. Ban -Have not had further communication with County. They are aware
19 that City is interested in moving forward with project.
20
21 Councilmember Torliatt -Would like to have Council give direction. Thought we
22 did last time...
23
24 Councilmember Maguire -Council did give direction., Still appropriate to tell
25 County this is City's intention so it's part of their General Plan update process.
26
27 Councilmember Torliatt -Also interested to know -looks like Parcel A project is
28 only accommodating 4 mgd water treated to tertiary quality level.
29
30 Mr. Wing -Polishing wetlands designed for 8 mgd.
31
32 Councilmember Torliatt - So EIR states 8 mgd polishing wetlands?
33
34 Mr. Wing -That's what design is based on. Not sure if it actually says that in
35 document,
36
37 Councilmember Torliatt -Want to make sure we're doing one EIR for entire
38 project and don't have to do a subsequent EIR for an additional 4 mgd.
~ 39
40 Mr. Wing -You're discussing tertiary treatment?
41
42 Councilmember Torliatt -Discussing the polishing wetlands component of this.
43
44 Mr, Wing -Polishing wetlands sized for 8 mgd. Tertiary treatment sized for 4 mgd.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Vol, 37 Page 400
May 13, 2002
Councilmember Torliaff -Future plan to treat 8 mgd to tertiary level?
Mr. Ban -Design of facility will make it easy to expand to 8 mgd tertiary Level.
Councilmember Torliatt -Will City have to do additional environmental work to
do expand to 8 mgd tertiary? How Fong does that process take?
Ms. Collins -Already space allotted within treatment plant -would require only
an addendum, which would take a couple of weeks.
Mr. Wing -Next to east tertiary facility there is room leff for expansion -filters, UV
disinfection, and support facilities (Pond 1).
Councilmember Torliaff - Are we talking about one project including
recreational amenities we have moved forward on? When I see. two different
projects -polishing wetlands, recreational facilities -how are we moving forward
with entire project?
Mr. Ban -Intent is to move forward as one project with different components.
They are at different stages. Have done quite a bit of design on Water Recycling
portion of the project. River Access Improvements will need some additional
consideration and direction from Council before we can initiate design effort
but anticipate being able to catch up,
Councilmember Torliatt -Are you asking Council for direction on that at this
time?
Mr. Ban -Want to develop components of project in more detail and develop
cost estimates and bring back to Council for direction on moving forward.
Councilmember Torliaff -Have we done environmental work for recreational
opportunities as one project?
Mr, Ban -Yes.
Councilmember Moynihan -Reading page 2-18 -River Access Improvements
"designed in concept. However, project level design has not yet occurred. "
Sounds like we're not yet evaluating that from the point of view of this EIR -yet
I'm hearing different here tonight. Are actual River Access Improvements part of
scope of this design?
May 13, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 401
1 Mr. Ban - On River Access Improvements part of project have described
2 components as broadly as we can. -overstated environmental impacts - so
3 when details are developed they will be more than covered in draff EIR.
4
5 Vice Mayor Healy -Will parcels A and B annexed into City or will they remain in
6 unincorporated area?
7
8 Mr, Ban -The EIR assumes annexation,
9
10 Councilmember O'Brien - Clarify that a larger-than-necessary EIR insures
11 everything covered ' just in case "?
12
13 Mr, Ban -Yes
14
15 Councilmember Moynihan - If City is not successful in acquiring parcels A and B
16 will this EIR still allow City to construct facility on City land?
17
18 Mr. Ban -Yes.
19
20 Councilmember Cader-Thompson asked for an update on acquisition efforts for
21 parcels A and B.
22
23 City Manager Fred Stouder -Appraisals are underway and will be in by June 30,
24 2002.
25
26 Councilmember Cader-Thompson -Traffic on Lakeville? Different types of turn
27 lanes? Has Caltrans reviewed this?
28
29 Mr. Wing -Have had regular meetings with Caltrans. Draff EIR submitted to
30 Caltrans, Will submit plans and specifications for encroachment permit to
31 Caltrans.
32
33 Public Hearing Opened
34
35 Terence Garvey, Petaluma, submitted a letter to Council noting there were
36 components to project on which Council had nofi been given estimates. EIR
37 does not present important alternative of sending wastewater to Napa Salt
38 Ponds, Substantial environmental and financial benefits, Would allow year-round
39 treatment. Does not preclude local wetlands where controlled experiments can
40 be conducted to improve operations and where flows and quality can be
41 closely monitored. How can cost of plant rise from $25 million to $80 million or
42 more and still result in increased effluent discharge to the Petaluma River? A
43 mass flow diagram is needed to determine if new plant will provide sufficient
44 recycled water without taking it from a less costly source (farmers) to a more
Vol, 37 Page 402
May 13, 2002
1 expensive disposal (urban reuse). Napa Ponds should be considered now, not
2 later. Hazards and costs of decommissioning Hopper Street plant should be
3 discussed, He pointed out a number of omissions and editorial errors.
4
5 Stan Gold, Petaluma, appreciated resolution of January 7, 2002 making project
6 possible. Concerned about dissemination of information. Lack of information
7 leads people to imagine all kinds of things. Recommends staff issue a monthly
8 progress report -status and plans for next 30 days. ''Will keep a lot of people
9 from conjuring up a lot of worries. "
10
11 Mark Levin, Cypress Northbay Partners I and II, Larkspur, owner of two parcels
12 near proposed plant -just built one office building, about to begin construction
13 on another. Concerned at potential odors from plant. Need to understand
14 potential impact of odors to many people who work in nearby offices and
15 proposed office. This is where most of growth in office space in Petaluma
16 happens.
17
18 Diane Reilly Torres, Petaluma, asked if well within '/a mile was the Sola well,
19
20 Councilmember Cader-Thompson - No.
21
22 Ms. Reilly Torres -Offered to film area for Petaluma Community Access (PCA) -
23 thinks average person would like to see what this is about. How will this affect
24 rates?
25
26 Council Comment
27
28 Councilmember Torliaff -Have soils at existing Hopper Street facility been
29 tested? What is process of decommissioning and developing property? Is that
30 part of this E1R?
31
32 Mr. Ban - No analysis of soils yet -will be one of mitigation measures during
33 decommissioning - affer 2006.
34
35 Councilmember Torliaff - Mr. Gold brought up good point -should have
36 stakeholders meeting once amonth -include Coastal Conservancy, .funding
37 sources, staff, anyone else wanting to attend, to ask questions, get feedback.
38 Would like staff to put that offer out there. Is City on agenda with the Open
39 Space District for acquisition of parcels A and B?
40
41 Mr. Stouder -Not yet. Project must be defined in terms of budget and funding
42 agencies.
43
May 13, 2002 Vol, 37, Page 403
1 Councilmember Torliatt -Agrees with need to deal with odor issue. Treatment
2 plant not the only source of odor. Thinks treatment process at existing facility
3 probably creates more odors than new facility would.
4
5 Mayor Thompson - A slough produces odors at low tide.
6
7 Mr. Ban - We will respond in written comments.
8
9 Councilmember Maguire -Liked the suggestion of periodic progress report to
10 keep public informed on project. Staff should determine if they have time for a
11 monthly stakeholders meeting - he knows Mr. Ban is very busy. Quarterly? Thinks
12 it's important that EIR note that quality of agricultural land taken out of
t3 production is poor,
14
15 Mayor Thompson -Would agree with some kind of monthly update to keep
16 Council and public advised and perhaps quarterly meeting. Let's maintain
17 forward momentum.
18
19 Mr. Stouder -There is already a stakeholders monthly meeting.
20
21 Councilmember Torliatt -Could we have a schedule?
22
23 Mr. Stouder -Yes.
24
25 Councilmember Cader-Thompson -Meetings open to public?
26
27 Mr. Stouder -The same information that would be provided at the working
28 session would be provided at the Wetlands Park meeting held the third Friday of
29 each month at the Community Center.
30
31 Councilmember Cader-Thompson - Would like Council to send letter to
32 Supervisor Kerns so when appraisal comes back he can help make this a priority
33 project with the Open Space District. Meets criteria of a first-class project.
34
35 Mayor Thompson - A call from each of the Councilmembers would be in order
36 as well.
37
38 Councilmember Torliatt -Keeps hearing from some Board of Supervisors -uses
39 for the City of Petaluma's wastewater. They would love to put City's wastewater
40 into Napa Salt Ponds. Petaluma needs to make it clear -City needs to keep
41 control of its wastewater.
42
Vol. 37 Page 404 May 13, 2002
1 Mayor Thompson -Wouldn't mind having meeting with Board of Supervisors,
2 May be some advantages we're missing. Calculate how much water City will
3 need in next 12-15 years, and maintain control of that.
4
5 Councilmember Moynihan -Went on "Sewer Tour" with Supervisor Kerns and
6 others. Basically was promotion for Napa Salt Ponds. There was discussion of
7 potential that federal funds available for extending pipeline, Regional effort to
8 resolve issue... Seems to be only opportunity for City to have zero discharge year
9 round. Clearly many people are interested in this process, May not require all of
10 our discharge.. Think balance can be struck -use certain amounts of water to
11 offset potable water supply demand -and still have enough to provide a
12 mitigation project with potential significant savings to ratepayers.
13
14 Mayor Thompson -Staff something with Board of Supervisors?
15
16 Councilmember Cader-Thompson -What would it cost citizens to pipe water to
17 Napa? Cost of land acquisition? Thinking of pipeline to Geysers -cost was about
18 double what was anticipated. Asked for clarification: Can polishing wetlands be
19 used for storage, and how much, and for how long?
20
21 Mr. Wing -Yes they can be used for storage -will give exact amount and
22 duration in written responses.
23
24 Vice Mayor Healy -Thinks can be used for storage but only if drained. Many
25 other decisions to be made down the road. Napa project has a lot of interesting
26 benefits; however, not to be made part of this process: there would be lots of
27 stakeholders, etc., with opinions about uses for Petaluma's tertiary water. Agrees
28 with Councilmember Torliatt need that City does need to maintain flexibility and
29 local control over this down the road.
30
31
32 PUBLIC COMMENT
33
34 Dave Yearsley, Petaluma River Keeper, Petaluma, forum of involved
35 environmental groups Petaluma area on behalf of community - to find out who
36 players are and what they advocate -attend meeting 9 to 11 a.m. community
37 center Friday May 17.
38
39 Lauren Williams, Petaluma, President, Petaluma Trolley, regarding "Petaluma
40 River Enhancement Project; Project Area One - Water Street," and his
41 disagreement with several of the findings. Does not want the tracks taken out.
42 Does not want to cost project its negative declaration, Expenses of taking up
43 and replacing tracks could be included in matching of funds if he gets the letter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
May 13, 2002
Vol. 37, Page 405
of intent to the appropriate agency as soon as possible. Also needs to produce
Business Plan -know cost and timeline,
ADJOURfV
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
Claire Cooper, Clerk Pro m
. Clark Thompson, Mayor
******