HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11/14/20011
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
43
44
45
46
47
48
4'9
November 14, 2001
City ;of` Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Special
.City Council Meeting
Wednesday, November 1>4, 2001
PRESENT: Vice .Mayor Cader-Thompson, Healy,. Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien
7orliatt, `Mayor Thompson
ABSENT:. None
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no one wishing to speak.
.,
CLOSED SESSION
Vol. 36, Page 489
ROLL CALL: 6:15 p.m.
CONFERENGE''VI/ITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PUrSUant t0 GOY@rnment Code
54956._8. Property: 4140 .Lakeville Highway (APN's 017-170-002 and 068-010-
026), Formerly Known as the Gray Property. Negotiating Party: Frederick Stouder.
Under Negotiation: Price,. Terms or Payment, or Both.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ~- EXIStIng' LltlgatlOn, Subdivision (a) of
Government Code Section 54956.9, Lionsgate vs. City of Petaluma, Sonoma
County Superior., Court Case No. 220489.
CONFERENCE wiTH.:LEGaL COUNSEL -Existing Litigation. Pursuant fo Government Code
Section~.54956.9 (a); City of Petaluma vs. Moynihan; Sonoma County Superior Court
Case No. 228276.
PRESENT:
-:ABSENT:
RECONVENE 7`04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Vice Mayor Cader-Thompson, Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, O'Brien
Torliatt, Mayor Thompson
None
Mayor Thompson stated"that there was nothing to report out of Closed Session.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Mayor Clark Thompson
Vol. 36, Page 490 November 14, 2001
1 MOMENT OF SILENCE
2
3
4 PUBLIC COMMENT
5
6 Terence Gainey, $3 Mari"a Drive,, would .like fhe Council, to make peace with the
7 homeowners on So.norna Mountain in o"rder to have use of Lafferty Park. He would
8 like to e.e:docent led~"tours.
9
10 John Bertucci; 65'1 N: -Fair Street, Thanked Council` for the use of. the Council
11 Chambers for the last two years to show Friday Night Fifrns. There: have been over
12 2!0'00 people coming to see the films. Friday° Night Films has moved to a tern,porary
13 ~ site at 1'36 Kentucky Streef.. The last show in the Council Chambers was ofi Christo's
14 Running f=ence (Tom Golden and Gehe Mickleson:): He brought a poster of Christo's
15 Running Fence: for the Council, signed by Christo and Jeanne:Claude.
16 The F,r.iday Night f=ilms start at 7:00 p:m. and are free to the public.
Barry, Shapiro, Circle. Gallery; announced an Artists in Response to the September
11, 2001 tragedy event to be held on November 1'6 -December 8, "2001 at. 1,43
Petaluma Bled North and 1.36 ,1<entueky Street.:Sale of the art and all, donations "will
benefit: he New York Times 911 Neediest Fund.
23 Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue; stated that she was now on the Board of
24 Directors: of~ Petaluma Community Access. Tomorrow nighf there. is a pedal
25 meeting, at' 5_:00 p,m. with the SGTA at the Petaluma, Veterans Building,, ~Petalum~a
26 Boulevard South .and at 6:00 p.m. there will be a joint meeting between the °SCTA
27 -and the-Maria Congestion Management;Agency.
She didn't know how Council could vote on something as~ i'mportant as the:.Water
Recycling 1=acility when they don't have the information in front of there.
COUNCIL.. CO'MMENT'
Councilmember Healy confirmed the SCTA meetings for the" 1,6th of N'ovember.;
He also responded, to Ms: Torres, comments regarding Council ,i.nformation. Council:
:was g'%ven a copy of the presenfiation for this evening's meeting. There: will, be no
vote, as~ the agenda states. There are several more meetings before there will.. be a
resolution.
He requested the City .Clerk's Office :advertise for the vacancy .on. the Youth.
Commission due fo the resignation of Alan Anspach:
Councilme.mber Torliatt stated. that last Wednesday 'night, Economic Development.
Director Paul Maran,gella hosted a meeting with:. CSIN/Stuber.-Stroeh regarding the
retievelopment and implementation of the River Enhancem"eat Plan. along; Wafer
Street:
47
November 14;,2001
Vol. 36, Page-491
1 COUNC9L COMfVIENT, continued
2
3 She is excited about all of the ideas that were presented and hopes CSW/Stuber-
4 Stroeh takes some of ideas suggested and present a couple of different alternatives
5 that came up.
6
7 In addition to Councilmember Healy's comment regarding Ms. Torres comment.
8 This is the first time we have received some comprehensive information on the
9 Water Recycling Facility..She met with staff and Carollo engineers to get aone-on-
10 one update regarding this. She perceives the situation tonight to be a presentation
11 so we can. all get .:information regarding this..Educating the public is crucial and
12 important so that at the next, meeting we can do some studying.. She also believes
13 the materials that is being provided will be available on Friday so we all can read
14 what it is our alternatives are and I wanf people to be able to digest that information
15 and ask good :questions at the next meeting.
16
17 Councilmember Moynihan would like the agendas planned more in advance and
18 hold to the. agendas it :would be appreciated. The agenda packets have traditionally
19 and by Council's by laws are required to ,come out of the. City Clerk's office. and that
20 has been changed.,, He would like to agendize that. V11e need to abide by the City
21 Charter. The City Manager and City Treasurer have been kind enough to bring to
22 our attention. ~a large: declirie.of ;sales tax- dollars that. has hit this community to the
23 tune of approximately 17% less in the. first :quarter ofthis year. The Department
24 Directors are working- with the City Manager and Finance Director to come up with
25 budget alternatives reducing their budgets by 5% and, 10%. What this means in
26 short is that were operating in the red and w;e._ ha_ ve very slim reserves especially in
27 our General Fund. He would like this agendized. With the economy being what it is,
28 and most the information we received was it advance of the impact of September
29 11th, were looking; at the, necessity to take.. action and that will mean. lay-:offs with
30 staff at City Hull.. $20 .million dollars is what ~we have from what I can tell in Capital
31 Improvement .Funds to fix our streets and. that's in combination with Major Traffic
32 Mitigation Funds and Redevelopment Agency Funds.. V11e're_right now scheduled to
33 put out $350;,000 into street maintenance this ,year and another l think million and
34 half into a street_o,verlay program.. We would also IiKe ~to agend'_ze fh_is to ,engage
35 outside: contractors and develop a program that wil,l~take care.of'our infrastructure,
36 .
37 He would like `to work with the Mayor in setting the agenda's in the future and make
38 sure these `items come along.
39
40 Councilrnernber Caller-Thompson acknowledged three young. men from the
41 community who a"re in the service, Daniel Brazz,_ S,am Newman; both went. to
42 preschool with her'chldren and Phillip Straub who'is"in the Marines.
43
44 Mayor Thompson ,the Council Packet is.:agendized for the 19th along with City Clerk
45 recruitment.
46
Vol. 36, Page 492 November 1,4,.200'1
COUNCIL COMMENT, continued
3 In response. to. Diane Reilly Torres, these was never :.intended. to be information ent
4 out to the Council, tonight .for this item: This is a presentation only.. The, agenda
5 does state that there i"s anything to vote on.
ouncilmember Torliatt~asked,.for clarification regarding Councilmember Moynihan's
comment. regarding the $2Q :million dollars and 'ifi it was Redevelopment Funds?
10 Councilmember. Moynihan stafed about .$10 .million from Major Traffic Mitigation
11 Fee and the balance from Redevelopment. Funds.
12
13 Counclmember Torliatt :believes that, as far as Redevelopment Fund_ s goes it can't
14 use it for maintenance unless we are focusing on a project .in 'the Redevelopment
15 Area, which we are looking at and have programmed for implementation: of the
16 River Enhancement Plan: That is why we are starting this public input process on
17 the'Water Street improvements etc.
18
19 Councilmember Moynihan, the Capital Improvement. Funds for streets can. come out
20 of Redevelop .meat Agency Funds . and we are rescheduling.. the. 5-gear
21 lmplementati'on Plan 'for additional discussion:. I don't think there is anything set.n
22 stone as far as any Redevelopment- .Agency project. and if this Council of their
23 discretion vvants to invest, in our :infrastructure an~d~ our streets we have every right
24 and ability to do so: ._
Fred Stouder, City Manager', the City ;is .:not operating in the. red, The budget was
balanced; the budget. did not utilize reserves, We are engaging with 'the
g ~ ~: -
mana ~ ement team in a cost.. reduction process lust in case we have to go fhere,.,A
report is, forthcoming to the Council when we are sure the numbers are correct.-and
the reductions are possible that need to~'be rnade.,The report should be completed
in Decemberso come January we have a good sense of what needs to be done .
33 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT
34
35 Mike Ban, 1Nater Re"sources and Conservation, in December 'of ;last year° tfie
36 Council adopted `the Project Report;. ;which completed' Phase 1 of 'this project.. In
37 January of this year we began Phase.2 Project Development. 1Ne hake started the
38- permitting effort' meeting with :all fhe° regulatory agencies involved in this project.
39 The '.key agency fqr~ this p"roject is the Regional UVater Quality Control Board. ,1Ne
40 have also started the state- revolving; fund loan effort. We submitted a :report. to the
41 State in August. Significant progress has been made on the E~IR. The draft. Pre-.
42 Design Report has been completed and Doug. UV,ng wilt make a presentation on that
43 report. A Value Engneerin,g'Tea'm heade.d~by Gordon, Culp was: hired to look at tfe
44 Pre,-Design Report. ;Before Phase 2 can:- be completed, direction is needed from
45 Council'on some of'the'recommended approaches-:for the Recycled Water System.
46
November 14; 2001
Vol. 36; Page.493
1 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJ;ECT,. continued
2
3 The recommended approach for managing Bio=solids, the Disinfection System, the
4 Wetlands Park, the `preferred approach for Algae Removal., and access to the site.
5
6 Doug Wing went through, an overhead presentation with the Council, which included:.
7
8 1. Project schedule
9 2. ~ DEIR:scheduled for February 2002
10 3. City/Council Decisions on Phased ,Recycled Water System, Disinfection: UV or
11 Hypochlorite, Solids handling and treatment and Algae removal - Wetlands vs.
12 DAFS.
13 4. Final Design in 2002
14 5. Award bid in mid 2003 -Construction in 2006
1.5
16 For the new facility we're looking at 6.7 million .gallons daily average dry weather
17 flow. That corresponds to the. 1997 General Plan population of approximately
18 70;600 people. We're looking at a secondary effluenf quality plant 30/30 mg/L BOD
19 and TSS. Another. key element 'is the Recycled Water as currently produced at
20 about 4.5 mgd d'u_ring the river discharge: period of May to October. The final
21 element included. in the project is the existing Oxidation Ponds that provide storage
22 for the City and are. included- in the project: The EIR findings that we have made on
23 this initial view of the EIR have shown that there is one area of significant
24 unavoidable impact and that dealt with the original V1/etland alternative of
25 approximately- 75-acre. That Wetland .alfernatve had significant impact because of -.
26 the conversion from non-urban to urban land use and loss of farmland. The water
27 quality issues associated-with the E;IR are currently under review. Carollo is seeking
28 Council direction for the phased Recycled Water .System; Disinfection: UV or
29 Hypochlorite, .Solids handling and treatment and the. Algae Removal -Wetlands vs. „
30 DAFs.
31
32 The Flow Schematic for this W-titer Recycling Facility consists of 'five elements: 1)
33 Headwork's Element .includes screening and grit removal `to remove large material
34 from the raw sewage, Secondary Treatment Element which" will pro'dwce an efflue,n"t
35 that afaerDisinfection using the existing Hypochlorite Bisulfite System would -be
36 minirrial'for river discharge and agricultural ,reuse. An, additional element in parallel
37 with that are the Oxidation Ponds used for storage and the Algae Removal Facilities .
38 eitherWetlands or DAF's. The next element is the Tertiary Facilities that will .
39 produce recycled water for :unrestricted reuse/urban reuse.., consisting of Filtration
40 and Disinfection. The last ;element is a Sludge Handling Facility., which consists of ~_ _
41 thickeners 'to increase the solid content and reduce the. water, the digesters,
42 centrifuge dewaterng and then disposal. _
43 =
44 The first- area.. to review is the Recycled. W-titer System.. During the pre=design
45 studies we I'ooked~ at the. actual urban demand for unrestricted water use. That
46 demand 'on average is 2 million gallons a day to peak at 4 million gallons a day.
Vol. 36, Page 494
November 14, 2001
1 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2 .
3 The recommendation for the current phase of Urban Recycled.Wafer System is 4
4 rngd; continue existing agricultural' reuse 4 mgd. For the future, increase to 6 rngd
5 or 8 mgd; continue agriculture reuse at lower fPow rate, 2 mgd.
6
7 Once it became evident:'that'there was not that demand at the time and in the, near
8 term of the- plants- .operation, Carollo has made the proposal. in fhe: Pre-Design
9 Report to_ phase the; Recycled 1Nater Facilities to provide Urban. Recycled Wafer
1.0 System or Tertiary Systems of about 4 mgd .capacity and continue fhe existing
1`1 Agricultural Reuse System to balance: the need for a disposal of effluent.
12
13 Currently approximately .4 .m:gd average-and 8 mgd peak are disposed of using the
14 Recycled Water System;. In the future that system. could be expanded in
15 increments, as the--Urban Recycled Water demand increases and would continue to
16 provide agricultural reuse: water at' a ,lower rate..,, It would take .Secondary' Effluent; go
17 to Filtration; Disinfection .and :pumping; to. Urban. Reuse. It would ,then take:
18 secondary effluenf as sfored in Oxidation :Ponds to: Algae Removal, to Disinfection
19 0; agricultural reuse. There i's, a substantial .cost savings in phasing those systems..
20 UVhen we looked at ;the, cost of the complete. reuse at 8 mgd. as was originally
21 envisioned, -the construction. cost:' ofi those facilities was $1'6.5 million dollars. When
22 you fook at this ,phasing of 'the. Urfjan Reuse: System the initial phase was $10
23 million`. Over a $6 million dollar sa~ings'in capital costs. `
24
25 Carol o als.g looked at the. annualized construction costs and .operation: and
26 maintenance costs. Those costs for the complete. system vs. the initial 4 mgd
27 system. would be substantial so that the overall annual cost of the phasing of the..
2$ system has the potential to save over a half million dollars a year for the City:
A key component .of the Urban 1Nater Recycled System was the Disinfection
System.. There are two. different: types of Disinfection. Ultraviolet Light, .which is
represented in this,.UV System and consists of UV Lamps;, or a. Sodium Hypochlorite
System, a, Liquid. Chl9,rine system represented by these tanks. V1/e have looked at
these.-two alternatives and the cost for, the.4 mgd system. It would be a ~ ~ .y.
pproximatel
$2.9 to $3~ million dollars 'for .the construction 'costs of either system The
differentiating, factor between `these two systems, is the operation and. maintenance.
costs. ''The UV .System, i`s about twice the operationLmamtenance cost of the
Hypoclilorite~.'Systern.
40 Ln the-project= report we~ evaluated. the ecological.footprint ameasure of~the EIR of a.
4.1 project and we looked ,at several key components `that: made ;up that ,ecological
42 footprint. The construction materials mcludmg concrete, the chemicals', used. in that
43 facility,. the power used and. what we determined in evaluating th'e ecological
44 footprint- was that based on the standard California power used fhe ecoaogical
45 footprint for the two process were essentially identical. If there were: Green Power
46 available to run the UV System you would have a very much-.reduced ecological,.
November 14, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 495
WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2
3 footprint. Again because that is an order of magnitude less than the Hypochlorite
4 System there would: be a substantially lower ecological footprint. There are some
5 benefits for UV Disinfection especially for use in Urban Recycle Water. One of the
6 main reasons for use of ~UV Disinfection is the increased virus and pathogen
7 reduction. UV does.:a better job than Hypochlorite in treating certain constituents like
8 viruses. The. second reason is that it reduces chemical usage.. Not using the
9 Hypochlorite for Urban Recycled. Water Use cuts chemical usage during that period
TO by nearly half. ThefinaLreason to select 'UV Disinfection isfhe reduced chloride and
11 sodium levels introduced into. the recycled water. When you add Hypoclorite to
12 water you add sodium and chloride.
13
14 Both of these constituents are problematic in use of recycled water. This water
15 would primarily be used for irrigation. Those two constituents can be a problem and
16 they could reach problematic levels in the Urban Recycled Water from this facility.
17
18 In summary we have recommended UV Disinfection for the Urban Water Recycled
19 System for the Disinfection component. The third area we have been wrestling with
20 in the Pre-Design Facilities is the Sludge Treatment Facilities. These facilities
21 include a number of components., thickening to reduce the water content, three
22 stages of digestion fo stabilize the solids and reduce pathogens, dewatering to
23 make a sludge .cake that: is amenable to landfill disposal or .amenable to Bio-solids
24 reuse and this whole system was structured fo meet ourtreatment goal of providing
25 a Class B sludge. Class B sludge comes from Federal regulations for handling
26 Sludge Solids and would have a restricted use or could go to a landfill. We
27 recommend that -the Caass B Sludge is what:. is required here and the Class A
28 Sludge Facilities could be provided if and when they are required.
29
30 That covers the first three elements of -the areas in the Pre-Design Report. Phasing
31 of the Recycled Water .System., Disinfection for the Urban. Water Recycled System
32 and Solids handling.. 1Ne have also been looking closely . at information that is
33 allowing us to design the Algae, Removal Facilities and the' facilities associated with
34 the existing Oxidation Ponds. The Oxidation .Ponds are currently being used and in
35 the proposed facility to provide storage for non-discharge period and reuse.
36 Oxidation Ponds also provide metals reduction. During various. reviews we had
37 including the Value Engineering Team review that IVlike Ban spoke of, we have
38 been looking at new ;data from the existing process.. It has always been envisioned
39 that the ponds were required for metals removal. The :most .recent data on metals
40 removal shows that it also would be .able to take. place in the secondary process.
41 Based on that, ,the Value Engineering cam proposed. to minimize. the use of the
42 ponds. Carollo Engineers looked at that data and has recommended that we
43 continue to use-a blend of secondary effluent and pond effluent.
44
45 We believe that incorporating .maximum flexibility into :this system will allow you to
46 meet the current and future treatment needs of this facility especially when it comes
Vol; 36; Page 496
November 14; 20.01
1 WATER R€CYCLING FACILITY PROJECT,.. continued
2
3 to meeting current .and future discharge with .regards to metals. What that has
4 allowed us to do looking at that blended facility is fo reeomrnend a ..reduced Algae
5 Removal Facility capacity. Algae Removal Facilities were originally envisioned of a.
6 12 mgd size and their going to be .able #o be reduced to a 6 mgd size ;based on this
7 blending alternative. What that means, is that the DAF option would only require
8 one 50' diameter tank. Forthe'Wetlands option, it would allow us to reduce the size
9 of the Wetlands down to. the dense vegetation. Wet)ands in Ponds 9 °and 10 only.
10 The :original Wetlands layout on Lakeville to the north, treatment facilities in Fond 1,.
11 vegetated wetland in po"nds "9 & 10 ,and the Treatment wetlands on Parcel A. and B.
12 As we got this new information and' looked of blending these two effluents, we were
13 able to reduce :down, just to the 1N'etlands in ;Ponds. 9 and 10. Those 1Netlands in
14 Ponds 9 & 10 will. be fully vegetated; they will. remove the algae and' provide some
15 ,additional #eatuces ofi polishing effluent for metals and nutrients.
16
17 They won't ,provide wildlife. habitat and recreational opportunities. So what we've
18 developed in :addition to this reduced. size, Wetlands is the .potential for what we're-
19 calling enhancement o,r'recreational Wetlands.. If could be located adjacent to the
20 Water 'Reclamation Facility on the upper;parf. of what i's; known as Patcef B' adjacent
21 fo the_ Planf site and could include all the: facilities to view wildlife and recreational
22 trails.
23
24 UVhen we looked at these. reduced Wetlands for blended flow; the cost came down
25 dramatically for algae, removal. The construction, costs for the Wetlands in; Fonds 9
26 & 10 has been reduced from nearly $8, million.. dollars to approximately $27 million
27 dollars... Comparing that to the DAF alternative, which -has also been. ,reduced
,.
28 subsfantially down to $2:9 million dollars, including, the: .,project cost for those two
29 alternative facilities of $3.6 and $4 million. V1%e have looked at the operation and
30 maintenance costs for 'the Wetlands vs. the DAFS. What we found is what we.
3T originally reported' in the project. report; the '1N;etlands facility has substantial lower
32 operation and maintenance .costs, ,primar'ily due to power .and chemical use: The
33 Wetlands operation costs. are estimated at $70_,000'per year corripared to $1;'50,000
34 per year for the DAFS: option: 1Nith the .operation and, maintenance .costs: tallied with.
35 your annualized project cosf, ''th'e total .annual cost for the \Netlands alternative .is $.3
36 million vs. 'the DAF .of $.4 million. This is .a substantial. cost savings between those.
37 two alternatives and is less than previously projected in the project report.
39 Some of the ;advantages and. disadvantages between' thee. Wetlands and' DAP's are
4'0 that the Wetlands have lower O&M costs: Ponds 9 and 1.0 Wetlands will 'prouide
y p p ~,~• p g
42 adndlhavel a aower.: colog cal footp nt We areeapo lookingtatethe. ecological~folotpr nt
43 of the methane generation; and the CQ2 absorption in the Wetlands. The; DAFS
44 process. is a ~e .ry reliable: process though more complex. It does require more power
45 and chemicals to operate resulting in the 'higher O&Mcosts and therefore: has. the
46 higher ecological footpriht. What is `riot shown in either one of these is, they don't
November 14, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 497
WATER'`RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2
3 provide. a public. education recreational aspecf and those could be provided for
4 either project with an enhancement or Recreational. Wetlands.. Thee overall project
5 cost includes the current construction cost estimate, for the project. The project
6 costs have come down fro_mT previous estimates and the two alternatives .have
7 become very close, approximate y 45.8.5-$58.7 million dollars. Adding the project
8 cost to those 'of about: 35% additional costs resulting in overall total capital costs of
9 around $79 million dollars which has come down. from previous project report
10 estimates.
11
12 We have also ,looked. at the overall annual, cost. ofi the project. Annualizing the
13 construction total project cost, they are both. $6.2 million dollars. Annual operation
14 maintenance costs for the alternatives are. different. The Wetlands alternative $4.7
15 million annual O&M costs vs. 'the DAF alternative with. $5 million dollar O&M costs.
1.6 The total annualized', cost for the two alternatives while similar there is a slightly
17 higher cost for the DAF alternative.
18
19 The .Value Engineering Team looked at the last pump .station configuration and by
20 accepting their proposal was able to reduce the cost about $1.7 million dollars. By
21 phasing ~ the Tertiary Filters and the UV bisinfection System we reduced costs
22 approximately, $5 million dollars. Due to some.. internal reviews at Carollo we looked
23 at -the .Sludge Facilities and were: able to reduce some; .costs by deleting some
24 standby equjamert approximately $1.5 million dollars: Overall cost reductions by $8
25 million. dollars.. The real significant cost reductions have been in .reducing the Algae
26 Removal Facilities, .either~th~e Wetlands by $5.9 million or DAFS by $4.6 million.
27 _
28 Tom. H~argis,;Director of Water Resources and Conservation stated his five
`29 recommenda#ions:
30
31 Phase construction of the. treatment plant facilities to support providing
32 recycled water treated to both secondary and tertiary standards, knowing
33 that-;the expansion of treatment facilities can occur when a greater
34 ~ tertiary market develops.
35 - ~.
36 Utilize UV Disinfection for Disinfection of filtered effluent. Continue using
37 ~ the existng.,liquid Hypochlorite: and sodium, Bisulfite system for
38 Disirife.ction of'effluent that is not filtered.
39
40 Construct a solids handling system. that removes, dewaters, and
41 stabilzes:the Bio-solids present in the wastewater;
42 ~ '
43 ~® Use Wetlands on' P.'onds 9 & 1:0 for Algae removal. because of its cheaper
44 :. operations and maintenance cost.
45
46
Vol. 36, Page 498
November 14, 2Q0:1
1 WATER'RECYCLING F~AC--(CITY PROJECT, continued
2 .. -
3 Acqure the property between the existing City limits,and the'Oxidatien
4 Ponds, currently ,owned Eby Petaluma Poultry Processors. This createsa new
5 access road to the facility and serves a`s a buffer.
6
7 Patricia. Johanson would Like to see Parcel ,B constructed in a. way that; would
8 provide three different tours: The. first. tour being the type ofi educational. tour. for-
9 children that is cur,rentlydone afthe old plant and that would view the vegetation 'in
fi0 the 1lVetlands option, it would then cross Ellis Creek and pacallel'.a :restored :riparian
11 habitat,;: cr..oss an existing road. which is the railroad r-o-w along the border between
12 Parcels A and B, it; wou_Id go into a parking lof, 'which; is .buffered by trees and, then
13 the bus can 'go out through the busihess park: 'This' would be the 1Nast_e_ wafer
14 treatment tour.
15
16 The econd tour connects. to Shollenberger and doubles its size.. She would like; to
17 possibly span the existing levee with a bridge and stabilize it. This would bring you
18 to an existing road' and a. building, She would like to put a parapet around the top of
19 the building and use it as an overlook for, the Marsh and the mudflat and then use
20 the interior of the bui_Iding as a blind with. windows focused on restored habitat for
21 various species.
nn
23 The third tour relates to the V1/etlands; which 'is on a berm.. that: surrounds,.the
24 constructed Wetland using; recycled water. -Some; of the elements she #eels are
25 importanf are the° educational.. components th"at could be started 'with locale colleges.
26 Water quality-testing could be done and if could become a resource for the ,biology
27 department: Various. eorrimunity groups could get involved including., high schools.
28 and grade schools.
nn
There is an .enormous amount of contiguous habitat. going down to the Petaluma
Marsh, which is the most important Marsh in the United. States. This° becomes a
component of the Petaluma R'iyer Grail that connects; to the downtown,,: Marina Hotel,
Highway 101 Bridge anal becomes the gateway to the City. Next, would be the.
recreational component and' finally the environmental restoration where you could
target:. specific threatened species such as the black rail, salt ~rnarsh harvests mouse,
western pond turtle: and red-legged frog,, '
38 This kind of project, offers an opportunity to involve community :groups and could
39 possibly be: funded by grants. The chioken industry has been very" important to
40 ~ Petaluma .historically as is agr.cultural. The 'image of the chicken'being inhabited. by
41 Wetlands birds acid the idea 'that even the neandec loops that'. are beginning to
42 design themselves withinthe mudflats are very reminiscent of tfie forms of chickens
43 crest and' this is what. sh_e h`as tried to design ;as a trail system using; the existing
44 infrastructure: There are only two: things that. would' really ~ha~e to be built from.
45 scratch.:One would be: the. 'bridge crossing the breach::in 'the levee and the other
46 would be that small connection to Shollenberger and the parking lot and ~1Netlands.:
November`14, 2001 Vol. 36 Page 499
1 WATER RECI(CLING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2 COUNCFL COMMENT
3
4
5 Councilmember Caller-Thompson wanted to know what Bob Gearheart's opinion
6 was since he is known very well as a Wetlands expert and he was part of the Arcata
7 plant.
8
9 Mr. Wing stated that IVIr. Gearheart is currently reviewing .some data that was put
10 together. He will review the remainder of the information next week. This project
p : y elements similar to the Arcata project. In Arcata there is a
11 incor orates 'man
12 treatment system and treatment wetlands and then afaer the treatment wetlands
13 there's 'the. Marsh where `th'ere is public. access that would be similar to something
14 like the enhancement'wetlands.
15
16 Councilmember Torliatt asked if there was a regulatory agency that staff had not
17 talked with that- would:` need to be included in the discussions.
18
19 Mike Ban stated that staff had not had a formal discussion with the Air Quality
20 Management District.. We do work with them at .our existing plant so we are familiar
21 with their issues `regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant and we will be
22 interacting with them during'the next few months..
23
24 Councilmember Torliatt .advised staff "that as a Director on the Bay Area Air Quality
25 Management Disfrict she would be happy to sit in, on Phis discussion if need be.
26
27 Councilmember Torliatt asked if we w_ ould, be reducing the storage capacity in the
28 ponds and how much storage will we ,have when this,. project-is complete if we went
29 with the Wetlands component? ~ '_
30 ~ `
31 'Mr. Wing advised that there would be' reduced storage capacity- because of building
32 facilities in the pond 1 area, facilities. ~in :the :pond 10 area .,for 'the DAF option and
33 facilities in ponds 9 antl' 10'for-the Wetlands option. The storage capacity will meet
34 #fe minimum 900 acre-feet ir,:all alternatives.
35 ~ ..
36 Councilmember Torliatt wanted to know the status of the Urban Reuse Demand
37 :Study.
38
39 Mike Ban stated the long-term demand we are evaluating as part of the General
40 Plan effort. In the short term we have been working rion a recycled water pipeline
41 out to .Rooster .Run Golf Course and booking at potential customers ..along that
._.
42 pipeline route and beyond, it. We will be presenting that report to the Council at the
43 January 7th Council meeting.
44
45
46
Vol. 36, Page 500
.November 14, 2001
1 WATER. RECYCLING' FACILITY PROJECT, icon#inued
2 .
3 Councilmember Torliaft would. like tb see as much information as possible on the
4 Urban Reuse Demand Study which includes infrastructure that's in place and
5 infrastructure that is planned, and I know' I have received a copy of. the; table of
6 potential Urban 'Reuse projects.,, but I think that. is a policy decision that this Council
7 needs to snake on how much money we are going to put. into Urban Reuse; and
8 when.. She believes that's driving a lot of the way we are dealing with this facility
9 only ,looking at the 4 mg to be tertiary treated..
11 On the UrbanReuse cost comparison that was shown as one of the slides, between
12 the 8 mgd acid .4 mgd does not facfor in any income that we may receive from
13 selling the water. Can vice. look at "what the actual cost is going to be for this.,. not in.
14 terms of how much it's going #o cost, but: we're going to `receive i,ncorne ,off of. this,
15 so it's .not going to cosf the ratepayer all of the money I believe that'is being shown
16 on the slide.. Have we .looked at what our potential income. is to offset those
17 expenses for .Urban Reuse?
19 Mike Ban, I think we recognize hat issue: l think the challenge is, what will we. sell
20 the water for? That is going. to be a Council. policy decision. Will the cost. for the
'21 water change for the type of customer?
22 ~~
23 Tom Hargis, one of the things"we havetalked~,about within the office staff is how'you
24 would tie cost for :reclaimed water:to potable water. Some agencies will, char_,ge 5.0%
25 o'r 75% of the cost of potablewater for reclaimed water. Some agencies are going
26 to mandatory provisions'in nevv deve_lopment,for reuse of water, which those are the
27' .agencies that already, have the water available. I see Petaluma moving., in that
28 direction, but„right now, we are pretty much in-house how~we mighf tag something..
29 And there are so.rne issues too, if we're offsetting public water;irrigating one of o.ur
30 parks vs. a school. Are we going to. charge•'the school', something different or area we
31 going to create-'some kind of, urban use set; of standards. Right .now we haven't
32 evolved our thinking to_bring forward'to ahe. Council. .
33
34 Councilmernber Torliatt 'it see.
35 cost. could be used to" ex ~ and s to me that additional income, maybe•gff-setting the
p 'the reu"se. syste_m', if~ ttaat' is what we chose. to do with
36 that additional income. Does the algae ~;remo~al, cost blend-flow include. the capital
:37 cost for~two or three~year life cycles of the DAF? ~ '
°3_.9 Doug Wing, yes:, equipment replacement:is in those O&M costs.
4.0
41 Councilmei~nber.Torliatt were talkin ~ about the sewer treatment facili
g ty, what w. ,e
42 really need. to be looking at, and what has come, to me oyes the years in dealing" with
43 infrastructure issues as it relafed to water is that it is one' system. 1=rep'resenf the
44 Council on the Water Advisory Committee, which deals with' the supply' end of the
45 water. 1Ne also deal here at the ~Councif with the education component "of reducing,
46 the demand within the City and then wee have to: deal with water at the end 'of the
November 14; 2001 Vol. 36, Page 501'
1 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2
3 process of the sewer. 1Ne need to Kook at the one economic picture for the entire
4 system. We can't..continue to compartmentalize how.we think about water. I think
5 it's .really something the Council needs. to think about because we're being asked to
6 spend money on conservation programs at :the beginning of the process where
7 maybe we could use it: for reuse. benefit at the end of the process or vice versa.
8 Where do we go and where do we put our capital 'investment in our water system?
9 This is not just a $79 million dollar project, this: is probably $'180-$200 million dollar
10 project because were real)y looking at the entire system..
11
12 She would like Mr. Haggis's recommendations in writing. She has been trying to
13 push for acquisition of the property Mr. Hargis has made the recommendation to
14 purchase. The Council has been looking at this for some time as Mr. Hargis stated
15 it's been in the General Plan for acquisition for a buffer and she supports that. She
16 also wanted to raise:the issue. of the. cost associated with an additional recreational
17 component with this facility. There are other agencies that are providing dollars to
18 implement those types of recreational projects including the U.S. Environmental
19 Protection Agency; California Coastal Conservancy and I would. hope: other districts
20 like the Water Agency could provide some funding because of habitat restoration.
21 She supports loo:ki.ng ~to that for the future of our tertiary treatment option and for an
22 amenity for the community.
23
24 Councilmember Maguire, you mentioned on the ELR findings originally that the
25 Wetlands alternative had a significant unavoidable impact of conversion of~ non-
26 urban land to urban use/lost to farmland. Were you `referring to the smaller
27 footprint?
28
29 Mr. Wing, again when we went from. the original eoricepts, 75 acre 1Netland to the
30 Pond 9 & 10 Wetlands obviously that went aw_ ay. There is still an impact. with
31 .Enhancement Wetlands. -While it's reduced that is some farmland that would. come
32 out of service. ~ _
33
34 Councilrnember Maguire stated that the Vitners Inn. is possibly looking .to concert
35 some' agricultural land to cornmerca usage. That, is something we may want ,to
36 look into and I believe there is probably sufficient examples at the County level `th`at
37 they're. original letter from the Permit and Resource. Management Departme,nf.may
38 in actuality'not. be as much ofi a significant impact even. with.. the enhanced wetlands..
39 '
40 On the ecological. footprint comparing Hypoehlorite vs. UV one of-the: charts under
41 the UV in counting the ecological footprint there was a question: mark., on the number
42 of acres per year for the lamps. Can you explain that t'o the public? .
43
44 'Mr. Wing, one ofi the difficulties in calculating ecological footprint is having ,
45 information on `the resources required and the lamp manufacturers weren't wlling-to
46 provide that information. They believe its proprietary. At this point we didn't have
47 .any information to develop that parameter.
48
Vol. 36, Page 502 November 14,; 2001
1 COUNCIL COMMENT, continued
2
3 Councilmembe,r Maguire,. basically;gou would be looking at the metals and minerals
4 going into the construction. of the UV ,lights?
5
6 Mr.lNing, any energy and any materials: to produce that.
7
8 Gouncilmember Maguire is in favor of splitting the treatment into tertiary and
9 secondary. He favors secondary treatment portion because that would be waters
10' that you could potentially apply to the growth. of redwood or other trees. This could
11 be a benefit. to the City because of fhe potenfi'al for .revenue generation using a less
12 costly treated. effluent.-
13
14 With regard to the ;algae. removal costs in the. blended :flow; the- construction costs.,.
15 did that include the, enhanced Wetlands and do we have a #igure `for that
16
.
17 Mr. 1Ning, no it;did not:: 1Ne haven't de~eloped'the figure at yet.
Gouncilmember Moynihan -the Value Engineering team. has questioned a lot ofi
assumptions and witli success and obviously we; are demonstrating some.. cost
savings., We are also looking of some' base assumptions .like, the market -for the:
tertiary wastewater. He would like clarified the capital costs that:are being outlined
does_not include-any land acquisition and Enhanced `W,etland's?
,. ~.
'Mr 1Ning, easements, land, acquisition,.. demolition of` Hopper Street', wetlands or
park use. are riot "included.
Councilmembe,r Moynihan, what we'.re focusing on here is the Cify owned piece of
property and: we're looking at; two alternatives relative to, algae removal with the
DAF's and 1Netlands~ m what is now Ponds 9 & 10.. We°re: not looking- at a project
any larger than that and should not giver people the impression that we're going to
have trail's as part of this project. What we're' really focusing "in on is what it takes: to
treat our wastewater.
36 Mr. 1N~ing, the costs we've outlined ,are for the'wastewater treatment facility.
,37 Gouncilmember Moynihan, would it be .possible to give us an 'indiea ion :iri today's
38 volumes on flow many .million ,gallons daily are going to agriculfu;"ral reuse and how
39 .many million gallons daily ;are, going. ~of secondary treated wastewater are being
40 used for urban reuse: on the golf courses and the like?
41
42 Mr. B,an, all the recycled; water thaf we reuse: right now is secondary, Annually we
43 reuse between 2.100 and °24;00 acre-feet.. Approximately $00 acres: of agrieulfural
44 land. is~ irrigated and. we're sending ,of, than total probably 2000' 210Q to 'the
45 ~ agricu,ltural lands; ;the remaining amount goes to.Adobe Creek Golf Course:
46
November 14, 2001 Vol. 36, Page 503
1 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2
3 Rooster Run will be about 1 million. Adobe Creek is probably ~h to 3/a because we
4 irrigate only half the golf course.
5
6 Councilmember Moynihan when we're identifying future locations for reuse of
7 treated wastewater, are we breaking that out by secondary and tertiary treated
8 facilities?
9
10 Mr. Ban, in the urban system everybody uses tertiary recycled water. The urban
11 system is all tertiary.
12
13 Councilmember Moynihan, so when your looking at that .your saying, what we can
14 now irrigate with secondary treated wastewater, regardless we're going to upgrade
15 that to tertiary treated wastewater and use it for the same irrigation purposes.
16
17 Mr. Ban, no, actually what we're presenting is a phased approach. We would
18 continue a secondary recycled .water .system for our agricultural customers. The
19 recycled water coming. into town would be fertiary. n the interim, until the new plant
20 is built it will be secondary. Once we gef the new plant that would go over to tertiary
21 recycled wafer.
22
23 Councilmember Moynihan I think we should investigate the ability to use the
24 existing distribution„system of secondary treated wastewater and. to have an off-site
25 tertiary treatment facility for the limited uses that we're going to have for waters that
26 we need to have tertiary treated for examples the schools or parks. Do we need
27 double the `infrasfrueture and I don't know that the. volumes there and I'm curious
28 from a Value Engineering team review when they start taking a look at that if the
29 incremental costs to treat something: to a tertiary" level. and create a distribution
30 system. 'for that, if it 'indeed makes sense or if we can just treat it to a secondary
31 level and find alternative uses for that water.
32
33 Mr. Ban, The existing, secondary system. goes out into the hills and the pasture on
34 the east side ,of town.: There is no pipeline going into town right now. It's just; a T=off
35 that goes over right now to Adobe. It's an 8" pipeline that is sufficient to serve
36 Adobe Creek Golf Coarse but not any additional users. We are putting in a 20''
37 pipeline at '.Rooster Run that will carry secondary treated wastewater.
38
39 Mr. Ban, when we build the wafer recycling facility and are producing tertiary
40 recycled water, Rooster Run will get tertiary as well as; all the parks along the
41 pipeline route. We have 'id'entified about 30 potential customers in sites along that
42 pipeline route.
43
44 Councilmember Moynih"an, we should be evaluating this. as part of the Urban Reuse
45 Study. The benefit of converting tertiary treated wastewater for Rooster Run when
46
VoL 36, Page 504
November 14, 2001
1 WATER: RECYCLING FACILITY.P,ROJECT, continued
2
3 we can use -- econdary treated wastewater there and I want to look. at "the
4 incremental costs of doing that:
5
6 Mike Ban of leaving Rooster Run as a secondary. system? and then doin'g' tertiary
7 treatment out: in th;e City, out by the other'30 users.
8
9 Couneilme.mber Moynihan, Potentially. Or maybe the need foc tertiary created
10 wastewater is. over estimated at this ,point.; He~ would .like to get a handle on what
11 that is and what 'the ineremerital costs are... I think we have a good opportunity, for
12 increasing S.hollenberger Park and I think that would be a goal for 'the community
13 and I don't know though that we need: to tie it with this process in doing. the
14 wastewater treatment plant.. I'm really concerned) because we had been budgeting
15 about $105' million 'in bonds and based on: the currenf prevailing~.bonding ratewe're
16 cooking at about $4.00 per year per customer spread over the 18;:000 customers. on
17 the average. A lot of people can't afford to pay $400 a year just for the: treatment
18 facility and :collection. facilities and I think we need to try to ,get the cost down: where
19 we can. Passing through the cost .of a park to the ratepayers, I don't know if that is
20 fair.. We have other funds. like Open :Space that we can definitely uses He would.
21 also like to know more about the -energycost associated with the UV Disinfection..
22
23 Last November the Council selected this: approach. with two potential algae removal
24 altern"atives of DAF vs. UVetfands and hat was based on an ecological footprint and
25 that was awell-publicized.. ecological footprint. His .readings. of the materials
26 indicated that the; key 'issue that really, defined .how .large an ecological foofprint., a
27 project or alternative project had, was the creation of :methane gas and the methane
28 gas creation "was in this: model,. indicated it was approximately equal. going with a
29 DAF approach vs: a 1N'etl'ands approach. In March of ;this year we~found out-thaf no
'30 one `took into consideration the methane ,gas cr;.eation of the: actual Wetlands and ,we
31 do gec. into .mowing grasses and things like that to 'avoid .methane gas creation and
32 or curtail it., We would like an updated ecological footprint `including methane gas
33 creation for the potential wetlands. I, think that,.everything I'm reading, and what. I'm
34 seeing "it appears that it's environmentally an i_nfe.rior alternative to the DAFs and L.
T35 would.. Like us 'to ga.back and retest that "same assumption. just like the VE'team has.
36 gone back and questioned other base assumptions.. I think that would :make a lot
37 more sense that we do that and approach'it correctly.
39 What are the reliability of .DAPS vs. Wetlands and the existing uses of them? We
40 have DAPS facilities that are con"sidered .conventional by today's tandards that .are
41 in operation tried andtrue and we're proposing a wetlands. approach ongmally on a
42 larger caliber than anything, that's been done °and the reliability and.. 'the potential,
43 outcomes of that afire huge. I certainly think when, we're putting this much money into
44 a project we ..need to have a certain eel of confidence what -we're going to end up
45 with. f am looking, for a,'lot more: discussion on the reliability: He would .also .like to
46 hear abouf-the other experiences and there are somecertain downsides and other
November 14,:2001 Vol. 36 Page 505
WATER'RECYCLIIVG FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2
3 issues. Update fhe ecological footprint, and much more thorough discussion as far
4 as reliability and conventional aspects of it.
5
6 Councilmember Gager-Thompson asked if vineyards. ,can use secondary treated
7 water or do they have to use tertiary water?
8
9 Mr. Hargis, typically :the vineyards have problems with some of 'the constituents in
1.0 our secondary water and would prefer Tertiary aril the ..idea of package plants to
11 treat to that so far hasn't been economically viable either for golf courses in the past
12 that have looked at using, the water or for the vineyards.
13
14 Mr. Ban, vineyards: can use secondary recycled wafer, they prefer tertiary, but we
15 are in discussions with `two vineyards that are interested in the secondary water.
16
17 Councilmemtier Cader-Thompson stated that. there seems to be more vineyards in
18 the Sonoma Mountain and all around the airport. It seems as though we have the
19 capability of recycling more water than we're going to be. storing and. I'm concerned
20 that we don't have enough storage for even the; secondary water and it seems as
21 though that's where the Enhanced 1Netlands would come in for more storage. I
22 keep hearing that the plant is being built for The General .Plan build out. When is the
23 General Plan build out?
24
_,
25 Mr: Ban,; it is based: on the maximum. population identified. in the 1987 General Plan
26 which is~67,644 plus three 3';000 in Penngrove.
27 "
28 Councilmember Gager=Thompson, I am questioning if the plant we're building if it's
'29 f_or this existing„general l'lah~build out by the time its built in 2006 completed are we
30 building a plant 'that we're going to have to add on to the first day its up and
31 running? .
32 ~ "
33 Mr. Hargis advised' that the 1987 General Pfan has a projected life of 2005 and in
34 that time window `it was projected that the sewer service would grow to 70;000
35 .population. We're `designing,a treatment ,plant that meets; The current General Plan
36 with ~tle Urban Growth~'Boundary that's .been established fo.r the City.. Part of our
37 wrestling. is whether we'll ever get to 70,000 population or if it might be a less
38 population. One of the `things that the engineers have done. is looked at ways to be
39 able to expand the plant in the future by adding; certain processes in order to do the
40 expansion. That's-one of the reasons for my recommendation fo buy the Petaluma
41 Poultry Processors property. That gives us ifi we need to expand and the
42 technology 2Q or 30 years takes more land to do it it gives us the opportunity while
43 providing a buffer for encroachment from that time period.
44
45 W'hen' we first started our reclamation project in the mid 1~980's the I<ullberg
46 property was included in the original permit. That's where the vineyards are off of
Vol. 36, Page 506
2
4
5
6
8
12
13
14
15
16
November 14, 2001
WATER:. RECYCLING ;FACILITY PROJECT, continued
Stage, Gulch Road. The vineyards :have been planted, but, there have b`een_; a couple
of constituents in there that have .kept them .from wanting to use our water. They
were one of; the; original permitees.
Co~uncilmember' .Caller-Thompson thought one of the goals for.. this plant; was: to
have zero .discharge- into the. ,river.
Mr: Hargis, this 'was ore of the suggested criteria. at the sewer school, but because:
of the issues involved and significant costs it was .determined that it; wasn',t feasible
to go fo zero discharge. It was decided that upgrading, to tertiary was a .good step. It
improved the water quality that is discharged and. improved the opportunities. for
reuse.:; but not .add that significant c_ ost and dealing 'with all those issues to go to
zero discharge.
17 Counclmember Caller-Thompson 'with regard: fo the sludge. treatment between. A
18 and B are we looking at doing B, but its ossible that we're om to h
19 upgrade to an A and when would that u rade be what' 9, . 9' ave to
pg s the cntena for deciding
20 that and what; is tfe cost going to be? - - "
21 ~ '
22 Doug 1Ning, 'the, issue I was 'raising with A, ;and B designations is: that. the ,goal
23 originally stated was `to pr."oduce a class, B sludge so it would be° reus.ed for Bio-
24 Solids reuse or if could go to landfill disposal.. It had. been.. proposed ,potentially to
25 upgrade to Q; ,but that is not requi-red. at this point. He just. identified that that as an
.26 upgrade: that has been discussed,, but we're recommending only a B .classification
>27 for`this facility. The cost to upgrade to "A" has not been looked at.
29 Councilmember ,C'ader=Thompson would like to have a,~world-class .area to educafe
30 the community on water conservation from grammar school ageA up: She does not
31 feel that the recreationaUeducational issue has been looked at extensively. ,Thee
32 Council and. public. should look at the existing footprint of the plant and they°_should
33 also tour Parcels A and B. She would ,also like Bob. Gear"heart to be present: so
34 Council can -ask h'i'm questions. ~ "
35
36' Mike Ban, :Value.~Engine"eying: #eam captain Gordon Culp will be available on ahe 28in
3T of ;November a_nd we will contact Bob Gearheart .also.
38
39 Councilmernber 'Maguire., L mentioned in our' discussions looking; into photovoltaic
40 panels to access sunlight energy, are we checking that out as an aid to th-e ,powered'
41 consumption? ~ ~ - _ .~
42
43 Mr.`1Ning we are looking at photovoltaic for roofs of buildings: -
44
4.5 Councilmernber Maguirre,, I think it has been very helpful 'for Council to have~,an
46 opportunity to meet with Carollo previou"sly and then go over this again: It~was a
November 14, 2001
Vol. 36, Page 507
WATER ~RECYC.LING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2
3 Council policy all along to pursue, tertiary treafinent so that we would have broader
4 use potential of that water and have a greatermarketabilty in that.
5
6 You already looked: at the ecological footprint of the Wetlands. I thought that was
7 why you said you had reduced some of the dense vegetation and created more
8 open water spaces.
9
10 Mr. Wing, the ecological footprint that we looked af, the original assumption was
11 that the methane generation and CO2 absorption .balanced out. We are going to
1'2 look at that further. It is something that the experts don't have a good handle on,
13 but were going to try and address that.
14
15 Councilmember Gader-Thompson there was a forum at Harvard University on
16 Wetlands and she would like Bob Gearheart to speak on what he learned at this
17 forum and how they work with sewer facilities.
18
19
PUBLIC COMMENT
20
21 David Yearsly, he is actively involved in caring for the Petaluma River and Marsh.
22 He would like to urge the Council-\to take the,acfion necessary to acquire the .land
23 that will institute the enhanced Wetlands visionahat Ms. Johanson presented. It will
24 provide a personal `1Netland experience to the community and to the greater public
25 by attracting people from :outside the area and enhance. revenue. This vision can
26 come to realization through community involvement. The National Audubon Society
27 is studying sites around the bay area to place education centers. It would be a great
28 legacy for this council to leave this. community. .
29
30 Bob Dyer, volunteer docent at Shollenberger Park. -There will be a trail from
31 Shollenberger Park fo the Marina by next Jure. He would like to see an expanded
32 Wetlands on Parcel A or Parcel B, which would create a combination of Marshes
33 and different ,habitats. He ,w.,,ould like to see:_:an agreement. reached between
34 Petaluma Poultry Processors .and the City fo.r access to a large piece- of that
35 property potentially without any cost at all as far~as acquisition of land. He provided
36 Cou_ ncil'with some 'material. on 1Neflands.
37
38 Barry Shapiro feels the. expanded Wetlands" would have a great financial benefit to
39 the City. Having a trail connect to Shollenberger Park.. and. the Hotel would add
40 untold amounts of dollars that would ~cbme .into this town in such a variety of ways
41 not to .,mention. the fact that. ,it's-fiery clear Petaluma would become famous. for
42 having such. a Wetlands: available to this community. and visitors to the City. He
43 would encourage you to ;give thought`to the. financial benefit aside from all of all
44 other things.
45
46
Vol. 36, Page 508
November 14, ,20.01.
1 WATER RECYCLING FACILITY' PROJECT, :continued
3 Andrea. Linton believes ,Petaluma has a :unique :opportunity because. of its history to
4 take what is a necessary procedure-.:and furn' it into a fiery expanded vision .ofi what
5 we could offer to the community and citizens of the United States. The: benefits that
6 creating~this extended wetland.system would bring to Petaluma are enormous..
7
8 Tom Bockman farmer ,on Lakeville:, There are a number of farmers. and there is
9 Steve Page at Sears ..Point. Racetrack who believes that tertiary water is a .resource
10 for Petaluma. V1/e understand that it=would be a'.revenue enhancer'for the City and.
11 help the ratepayers. Mr. Buckman along with farmer Dick Frederick :and Sarn
12 Jocokmo vineyards wants'`the water. Tertiary agricultural water is in .demand..
13
14 He will present a list of agricu)tural user that would. like to 'have tertiary water..
1,5
1.6 . Councilmember Torliatt 'one, of the thin s we have toiled over m 'the ~ ears is dea
17 with where is the price point for this tertia= and or seconda treated water:. It ling
ry ry would
18 be very interesting to know what the property owners would. be willing to pay and I
19 would Jike to continue that dialogue, with staff as to capital costs, electrical. costs as
20 is attributed to pumping and the actual value of~the water that is being applied.
22 Tom Buckman `advised: Council that he :has 'had discussion regarding this with
23 Jennifer Barrett,; Planning Department and e's'tablished a point that we wanted to
24 pay as little as possible: and she wanted as much as stie could ,:get: The :question
25 becomes donation of :rights of way by the farmers, pipe construction', pos~s_ible
26 storage 'on property; all of those are components in the ,distribution of th`e water.
28 Stan Gold, King Road", incremental cost of` going from secondary to tertiary water is
29 not a cost but an inuestrnent. One` that would .give you returns many times over
30 because water is becoming scarcer. If you could .get tertiary water in volume people:
31 are going pay you well #or 'it. He was in Arcata. and was very much taken: by the
32 number ofi people using this a's a recreation area.
33 ..
34 David Keller, it is just over 10 years, exactly from. the Public lJtilities 'Commission
35 .decision rejecting 'the privatization effort: He would Like to request that the entire
36 mailing list for wa'sfewater interested ,pasties be `mailed. He received no notice. All
37 of the documents should, be on line: Ratepayers:shou°Id not have to pay to review
38 these documents. He agrees that the.specialis_ts who we hired to review this should.
39 be here to present to his refleetions-on how this is going. He flee s it is :important to
40 look at zero discharge to the river., ` Preciselq because of `the: uncertam~ties ,M~r.
41 Hargis referred- to. The only predictable thing about discharge limits is that they -are.
42 going to be ratcheted down.. That is w;hy Dr. T, of sewer school ,made ;it very clear
43 that the only way to safely play that-game is to target getting out of river discharge.
44 If that was part. of the plan I woultl feel a lot~safe.r~about how .your dealing with the
45 design and 'some of your assumptions about land,-acquisition, storage, treatment
46
November 14', 2001
Vol. 36, Page 509
WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT, continued
2 .
3 levels etc. If you have thaf as' part of your`long term plan then you know where your
4 going, the agencies know.where your going arid you'll get"there.
5
6 Given the likely changes in TMDL limits. and the .likelihood that we will not be
7 allowed to discharge to: the river in the volume or length of time that is currently
8 assumed in 'this proposal the gray property is very important. The rumors than I
9 have. heard about an offer from .Petaluma Poultry in being able to use the upper
10 portion with an offer to the. Cify is a very important option at essentially no cost to
11 the City to acquire: the most usable portion of that property. I think the opportunity
12 for doubling the size of Shollenberger, for doubling the trails and providing us has
13 been extraordinarily~eloquently stated the opportunityfrom visitors around the world
14 to see Petaluma as a base for this'k`nd of observation, recreation, economic activity
15 is a wonderful opportunity that should not be lost, ,nor at the same time should we
16 Igse the opporturiit'y to make sure that vve keep 'agricultural infrastructure property in
17 place in the City. Me is looking forward to seeing copies. of what. was presented to
18 you, fu'fure docurnentati'on inits entirely as soon as possible so the public at large
19 can be fully up to speed with the options and policy choices in front of you.
20
21 Councilmember Moynihan. would like more information. on was the Value
22 Engineering Team concept of the metals .dropping. out during the secondary;
23 clarification process. Vllhaf level of confidence we can have that we are going, to
24 meet the future MPDS discharge standards. He would like to see a breakdown on
25 the capital costs ,for land. acquisition, acquisition of easements, development of
26 roads, bridge to access these existing facilities should we, go that alternative. 'The
27 cost of demonstration or Enhancement Wetlands., development, trails development;
28 bridge construction estimate, cost of, educational/recreational facilities, public
29 parking lots, restroorns etc., to serve so when' we: start; looking at capital :costs again
30 we have,. $79~ million for one alternative and. `if we're going to have, an enhanced
31 alternative whether or' not that is going, to be pure discharge, l think we're trying to
32 compare the two, of .them we should have a capital `cost estimate so we can
33 compare the. two'. Again I was hoping for the tertiary treated wastewater in
34 incremental. cost benefit ,analysis: .Also I would like ,to maybe see if we could
35 address at' feast. the other':alternatives we considered including secondary treated'
36 wastewater being discharged to the Napa wetlands or other alternatives that we do
37 have.
38:
39 Councilrriember Healy, the good news is that the Value Engineering team in
4.0 addition have managed reduce the capital costs by something between $1,2 and
41 $14 million dollars. Not touched on tonight was the idea ofi building. a new sewer
42 treatment plant while you have an existing sewer treatment plant that is operating
43 on the same site. This has to do with constructibility and the critical. path ~of the
44 different construction assumptions, and I'm going to be: looking at the robustness. o f
4`5 the assumptions as to the actual constructibility of these different alternatives in the
46
Vol. 36, Page 510
November 14, 2001
1 WATER RECY-CLING FACILITY PROJ;ECT,. continued
2
3 time frames envisione:d given the need to continue to operate our .current
4 wastewater facility: ~ ~ .
5
6 Council received a letter from the County of Sonoma Planning Department staff
7 talking abouf pot_ertial use of any )and .other than our currently owned City-land. and
8 raising; same possible. issues: 'around that 'to the extent that we're looking .at land
9 outsitle the ootpeirit of the existing City property: He has asked for information on
10 the electric; usage profile for the plant: He upports the desire to look .into
11 alternative
._
'12 energy system: and if you look at the operating cost of this electricity is going o be~ a
13 very major component of 'the eosf going forward and it :might be a wise .investment.
14 to try fo get: our arms around that .issue. He would like to see staff and .Caroll'o's
15 best estimate on the ecological footprint issues.. He believes there are opportunities
16 for the ;lower portion, of the Gray property for habitat restoration, for .potentially
17 breaking the levee down further ..and having additional'- floodplain storage and
1.8 creating ari.amenity for the future for the_communitywhether or not that. ultimately is
19 part of this sewer treatment plant. or is a separate project that we pursue on another
20 path.:
- .
C`ouricilrnember~ Tor"liatt ..asked Councilmember' Healy fo clarify what it is, 'that: he
wants as additional information from' the county regarding I_arid' use regulations.: I'm
assuming your talking about replacement of agricultural .land.
C:ouneilmember Healy.answered that .he was asking staff arid our team to respond
to the issues in that memo.
Councilmember 'Torliatt would. like to, :add to that; the issues. in that memo, talked
about reduction of agricultural land ,potentially if we were to use a pgrtion of that
property~and one of the things I: would like to see City'staff pursue is sending a letter
to the county asking that we "look at that.~parcel or let the county know That we are
looking at that parcel for the potential of expariding 'the wetland area. It's out there
as an option because `the.. county is actually' going through their ,general Plan
process at this time where they cane evaluate loss of` agricultural .land and potential.
areas.in which to mitigate. loss of agricultural Jand in .:another area.. She would' like to
see City staff' to respond to the letter i'n that fashion Ito hopefully alleviate "some of
.the, :potential: cost issues 'th'at we may-incur if 'we were having to go' to the county
-and make some amendments.
Councilmember Caller-Thompson, what is the state. _r"e'gulation as far' as thee-contour
line where wetlan"ds cou_Id actually be built: at a sewer facility,.
November 14, 2001
1
2
3 The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 ATTEST:
13
14
15
16 Paulette Lyon, Interim Cit. leek
17
18
Vol': 36, Page 511
ADJOURN
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor