HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11/20/2000November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 305
1
2 City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Regular
3 City Council Meeting
4
5
6
7 Monday, November 20, 2000
8 Council Chambers
9
10
11 The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
12
13 ROLL CALL
14
15 PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Maguire; Mayor
16 Thompson
17
18 ABSENT: Council Member Keller; Vice MayorTorliatt
19
2 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS
21
22 None
23
24 CLOSED SESSION
25
2 6 City Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced the Council would adjourn to the City
27 Manager's Conference Room to address the following Closed Session items:
28
29 Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.
3 o Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation.
31
3 2 Conference With Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to litigation
33 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code § 54956.9 (2 matters).
34
35 Conference With Labor Negotiators, City Designated Representative: City Attorney
3 6 Richard Rudnansky; Employee City Manager, Government Code § 54957.6.
37
38 Conference With Real Property Negotiator, Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8.
39 Property: 4104 Lakeville Highway (APN's 017-170-002 and 068-010-026), Formerly Known
40 as the Gray Property. Negotiating Party: Frederick Stouder. Under Negotiation: Price,
41 Terms of Payment, or Both.
42
43 ADJOURN
44
45 The Council adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
~~
Vol. 35, Page 306 November 20, 2000
1 RECONVENE
2
3 The City Council reconvened its regular meeting at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
4
5 ROLL CALL
6
7 PRESENT: Council Member Cader-Thompson, Hamilton., Healy, Keller, Maguire;
8 Mayor Thompson; Vice MayorTorliatt
9
10 ABSENT: None
11
12
13 PUBLIC COMMENT
14
15 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke regarding a tour of the Corona Reach area he
16 took recently with Council Member Cader-Thompson and several others, and
17 recommended that anyone interested in Rainier should take a similar tour. He also toured
18 the sewer plant and from there was able to see a lot of new commercial development in the
19 floodplain. He stressed that. development in the floodplain would result in flooding
2 o disasters.
21
22 COUNCIL COMMENTS
23
24 Council Member Maguire thought the format currently in use for the Council Meeting
2 5 Agenda had become unwieldy and contained too much "boilerplate small print." He wanted
2 6 City Management to simplify the design, perhaps placing most of the "small print"
2 7 information at the back of the agenda.
28
29 Council concurred.
30
31 Council Member Keller announced that John Zentner of Zentner &Zentner Associates,
3 2 who is the City's consultant on the Cross Creek project and who had consulted for the City
33 on a number of other projects has been convicted and fined for violations of the Federal
34 Endangered Species Act. He wanted Council to direct City Management to terminate any
3 5 contracts the City currently has with Mr. Zentner, and added that he should not be hired for
3 6 any City projects in the future.
37
3 8 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked City Management for a list of current and past
3 9 City projects (for the last two years) with which Zentner &Zentner had been involved.
40
41 APPOINTMENTS
42
43 Teen Council Appointments
44
45
Parks and Recreation Director Jim Carr asked Council to appoint nine members to the
46 Teen Council, which will complement the Youth Commission. He noted that Council would
47 soon be receiving the Teen Resource Guide, a comprehensive listing of resources for
~~
November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 307
1
2 Petaluma's teens.
3 Council Member Maguire asked if there were now nine applicants instead of eleven.
4
5 Mr. Carr confirmed that two applicants had stopped attending meetings and had not
6 responded to phone calls.
7
8 Council Member Maguire asked if more members could be added to the Teen Council at a
9 later date it, for example, interest was shown from the continuation schools.
10
11 Mr. Carr replied, "yes."
12
13 CONSENT CALENDAR
14
15 Item 6, Resolution Approving Contract for City Manager, was removed and scheduled for
16 December 4, 2000.
17
18 1. Resolution 00-194 N.C.S. Accepting Claims and Bills. (Thomas)
19
2 0 2. Resolution 00-195 N.C.S. Accepting Quarterly Treasurer's Report.
21 (Thomas/Cornyn)
22
23 3. Adopt Ordinance 2104 N.C.S. Adding a Chapter to the Petaluma Municipal Code
24 Establishing the Downtown Petaluma Business Improvement District. (Second
25 Reading) (Tuft)
26
27 5. Resolution 00-196 N.C.S. Authorizing Appropriation of $170,000 from
2 8 Information Services Reserves to Information Services Budget. (Beatty)
29
30 8. Resolution 00-197 N.C.S. Accepting the Completion of the Lakeville Street
31 Widening Project Located on .Lakeville Street from East Washington to East "D"
32 Streets, Project 9862. (Skladzien/Lackie)
33
34 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt Consent
3 5 Calendar items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8.
36
3 7 MOTION
3 8 PASSED: 7/0/0
39
4 0 4. Resolution 00-198 N.C.S. Establishing Fee Schedule for the Petaluma Downtown
41 Business Improvement District Pursuant to .Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter
42 6.04. (Tuft)
43
44 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked that the following language be added to the
45 .Resolution: "The City shall not be responsible for collecting delinquent fees. Special fee
46 arrangements must be made through the BID Committee."
OL
Vol. 35, Page 308
November 20, 2000
1
2
MOTION: Council Member Cader-Thompson moved, seconded by Torliatt, to adopt
3 Resolution 00-198 N.C.S. Establishing Fee Schedule for the Petaluma
4 Downtown Business Improvement District Pursuant to Petaluma
5 Municipal Code Chapter 6.04., with the added language.
6
7 MOTION
8 PASSED: 7/0/0
9
10 9. Introduction of Ordinance 2105 N.C.S. Approving Antenna Site Lease Agreement
11 with XM Satellite Radio, Inc., at Hayes Lane Site. (Beatty)
12
13 Vice Mayor Torliatt thought that due~to the value of the property, the lease amount should
14 be at least $1,500 per month, with a minimum 3% increase per year based on the
15 Consumer Price Index.
16
17 Council Member Maguire asked if that was fora 5-year lease.
18
19 Vice Mayor Torliatt clarified that those figures would be for three years of the 5-year lease.
2 o The remaining two years would be at market rate.
21
22 Council Member Keller agreed with Vice Mayor Torliatt. He described this kind of property
23 as a "cash cow" and added that the City should ask at least market rate rent.
24
2 5 Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty pointed out that the poles pictured in the photograph
2 6 were already in place; the proposed antenna would be attached to a pole.
27
2 8 Vice Mayor Torliatt replied that she realized that, but felt the City had the opportunity to
29 improve the aesthetics of the site by requiring paint and/or screening. She hoped the
3 o aesthetic aspects were being considered.
31
3 2 Council Member Cader-Thompson mentioned that painting the antenna to match the water
3 3 tank should be a condition of approval.
34
35 MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to Introduce
3 6 Ordinance 2105 N.C.S. Approving Antenna Site (Lease Agreement with XM
37 Satellite Radio, Inc., at Hayes Lane Site with the above conditions.
38
3 9 MOTION
40 PASSED: 6/1/0 (Healy voting no)
41
42 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
43
44 11. Resolution 00-199 N.C.S. Granting the City Manager the Authority to Sign the
4 5 Second Cooperative Agreement for Countywide Procurement of Computer Assisted
~~
November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 309
1 Dispatch/Records Management Systems and Mobile Data Communications
2 (CAD/RMS/MDC). (Parks)
3
4 Police Chief Pat. Parks described the development of the CAD/RMS/MDC Procurement
5 Agreement, and acknowledged the contributions to the three-year project of Project
6 Manager Leslie Aboudara, City Manager Fred Stouder, Technology Consultant Ed Reed,
7 and Chief Mike Dunbaugh of the Santa Rosa Police.
8
9 Council Member Maguire asked how often the Council would receive progress reports once
10 the CAD/RMS/MDC systems were in place.
11
12 Chief Parks replied that reports could be generated as often as Council liked.
13
14 Council Member Maguire suggested that quarterly reports be presented during the first
15 year of the systems' use. These could be written reports, or a short presentation at a
16 Council Meeting.
17
18 Chief Parks agreed.
19
2 0 Council Member Healy thanked Chief Parks for his efforts and asked him if he felt that the
21 CAD/RMS/MDC procurement was the best use of $1.3 .million in law enforcement funds.
22
23 Chief Parks replied that he did, adding that if one life was saved because of the systems'
24 capabilities, that was worth $1.3 million to him.
25
2 6 Council Member Torliatt noted that this agreement was a long time coming and she would
2 7 be happy to see it approved.
28
29 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Chief Parks, Ms. Aboudara, and City Manager
30 Stouder for their hard work.
31
32 MOTION: Council Member Keller moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to adopt
33 Resolution 00-199 N.C.S. Granting the City Manager the Authority to Sign
34 the Second Cooperative Agreement for Countywide Procurement of
3 5 Computer Assisted Dispatch/Records Management Systems and Mobile
36 Data Communications (CAD/RMS/MDC)
37
3 8 MOTION
3 9 PASSED: 7/0/0
40
41 12. Report Regarding Status of Payran Project and Discussion and Possible Direction
42 Regarding Payran Flood Management Project Financing and Budget.
43 (Hargis/Stouder)
44
45 Water Resources and Conservation Director Tom Hargis introduced the new Army Corps
46 of Engineers Project Manager, York So, who provided an update on the Payran Flood
~~
Vol. 35, Page 310 November 20, 2000
1 Management Project. He explained that the construction was on track and on schedule.
2 Recently completed work included erosion control installation, flood wall closure (with
3 exception of one section near Jess Avenue where road repairs were being completed), tide
4 gate connection in all storm drain outlets, and channel sprinkler system connections.
5
6 Work in progress included removal of unacceptable materials from the Shollenberger site
7 (estimated completed 11/30/00), the Vallejo Storm Drain Trench (estimated completed
8 11/30/00), and removal of surplus soil and debris (estimated completion 1/01).
9
10 Major work to be completed after the first of the year was listed as electrical testing for the
11 pump station, generator building, landscaping and mitigation plantings, fencing, off-hauling
12 of soil and debris, backyard and side yard fending, and the concrete cap for the floodwall.
13
14 Mr. So indicated on an overhead diagram a fenced area where asix-foot fence was
15 planned. Homeowners in that area have requested that afour-foot fence be installed
16 instead.
17
18 Regarding the status of the Water Resources Development Act 2000, Mr. So explained
19 that it is currently pending presidential approval.
20
21 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented that she had enjoyed seeing walkers on the
22 Holly Lane pathway during the past weekend.
23
24 Council Member Healy requested the status of the Mainline Bridge.
25
2 6 Mr. Hargis replied that the bridge was 80-85% complete, and should be finished by the end
2 7 of December.
28
29 Council Member Keller reported that he had received. complaints from residents of the
3 o Payran area that puddles of muddy water were resulting from vehicles leaving the
31 construction area and asked that this be remedied.
32
33 Mr. Hargis and Mr. So agreed.
34
3 5 13. Ridgeview Heights Subdivision (Moore)
36
37 A. Discussion and Possible Action to Reconsider the May 15, 2000 Motion to
38 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Which Failed on a 3-3 Vote of the
3 9 City Council Members Present.
40 B. Discussion and Possible Action on a Resolution Adopting a Mitigated
41 Negative Declaration for the Ridgeview Heights Subdivision
42 C. Discussion and Possible Action on a Resolution Approving the Tentative
43 Subdivision Map and PUD Development Standards for the Ridgeview
44
45 Heights Subdivision.
46 Council Member Maguire asked if the applicant would like to speak.
~~
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 311
1 Irv Piotrkowski, attorney for Dr. Jerome Beatie, stated that he and his client thought the
2 item would be discussed in Closed Session only; Dr. Beatie was not present at tonight's
3 meeting. Mr. Piotrkowski asked that the item be rescheduled so that Dr. Beatie could
4 attend.
5
6 City Management recommended that the Council determine whether they wanted to act on
~ the project with or without the requirement for apedestrian/bicycle path. If they did not want
8 to require a path, they should proceed to adopt the resolutions included in the packet. If
9 they thought the path should be included, the item should be rescheduled for the
10 December 4 or December 11 meeting, and the resolutions, with appropriate findings, would
11 be revised to reflect the requirement.
12
13 Council Member Maguire explained that he had voted against adoption of the negative
14 declaration at the May 15, 2000 meeting because it did .not include abicycle/pedestrian
15 path, which he thought was an important feature that would create a safer environment and
16 reduce residents' reliance on their cars. He added that the applicant wanted community
17 services, yet was reluctant to discuss ways the project could benefit the community.
18
19 He asked Mr. Moore if the negative declaration needed to be revised as well.
20
21 Mr. Moore replied that it would have to be revised if it did not initially include the
22 pedestrian/bicycle path.
23
2 4 Council Member Healy asked how long revision of the negative declaration would require.
25
26 Mr. Moore explained that 20 days notice was required if a revision to the Negative
27 Declaration determination was required.
28
2 9 Council Member Torliattviewed apedestrian/bicycle path as a benefit to the development,
3 0 and had seen numerous examples in Marin County where such a path was considered an
31 amenity.
32
3 3 Council Member Cader-Thompson also stated that another path should run between Lots 4
34 and 5 for a possible future connection to the Maslin property. She continued that the path
35 across the Beatie property should take effect only after the Beatie property was sold.
36
37 Council Member Healy thought apedestrian/bike path on the Beatie site would be
3 8 inappropriate.
39
40 Council Member Hamilton stated she favored requiring pedestrian/bicycle path in the
41 development to reduce automobile trips. Fewer automobile trips equaled improved quality
42 of life. She agreed that the easement should become active upon sale of the property. She
43 thought requirement of a path was reasonable.
44
45 Council Member Cader-Thompson had received calls from citizens who used the path
4 6 before the Ross family sold the property.
Vol. 35, Page 312 November 20, 2000
1 Council Member Keller agreed that a path was needed. He rejected claims by neighbors
2 that such a path would be dangerous, and thought the value of City services Dr. Beatie
3 received were greater than the value of the easement.
4
5 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if construction of the path would be required
6 upon completion of the project or when the Beatie property was sold.
7
8 Council Member Maguire wanted the path to be required upon completion of the project.
9
10 Mr. Piotrkowski interjected that according to Dr. Beatie's property agent, installation of the
11 path would reduce the value of the property by 1/3. He added that Dr. Beatie had been
12 contributing to City services through the Assessment District for years. He reiterated that
13 he wanted the item continued until Dr. Beatie could be present.
14
15 Council Member Maguire stated that Council had had many discussions with Dr. Beatie
16 with no resulting progress.
17
18 Mr. Piotrkowski again asked~to wait until Dr. Beatie could be present.
19
2 o Council Member Hamilton believed that Council had, in effect, taken a straw vote, and had
21 determined that the item would be continued. She pointed out to Mr. Piotrkowski that his
22 request was being granted.
23
24 Council Member Torliatt mentioned that she would like to see the property agent's expert
25 opinion on a pedestrian/bicycle path devaluing the property.
26
27 Mr. Piotrkowski replied that he could obtain the opinion in typewritten form.
28
2 9 Mayor Thompson was not in favor of a bicycle path, which he thought would be dangerous.
3 o He suggested asking the administration at McNear School for their thoughts on the matter.
31
32 Council Member Maguire supported requiring a path from the easement along Dr. Beatie's
33 property line between lots 5 and 6, to the edge of the property. He thought this should
3 4 come into effect if the Beatie property was sold.
35
3 6 Council Member Cader-Thompson was not. sure if the path was supposed to run between
37 lots 4 and 5, or between lots 5 and 6. She had notes and a clearer map .including the
3 8 Maslin property at home. She favored a path connecting lots 4 and 5 if it lined up with the
3 9 Maslin property line.
40
41 The item was continued to December 4, 2000 and would, if necessary, be continued to .
42 December 11, 2000, in the event Mr. Piotrkowsi was not available on the 4th.
43
44
45 14. Status Report on IVon-Profit Parks and Recreation Association. (Kates/Carry
~~
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 313
1 Parks and Recreation Department Director Jim Carr introduced Robert Kates of the
2 National Park Service and the City of Petaluma Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission
3 who has been on special assignment with the City of Petaluma since August 2000., working
4 toward establishment of a Petaluma Park and Recreation Association. Mr. Kates presented
5 a report of his accomplishments, which included:
6
~ ® Raising the level of community awareness on the current condition of the City's parks,
8 athletics, arts and recreation resources and the benefits of developing anon-profit
9 corporation, Petaluma Parks, Athletics, Arts and Recreation Association (PAAR), to
1o improve those resources.
11 ® Developing a volunteer bank of interested citizens (25 currently) to participate in the
12 effort.
13 ® Drafting articles of incorporation and by-laws for the non-profit organization (this effort
14 was put on hold on the advice of attorneys, pending resolution of the scope of the
15 proposed organization).
16 ® Drafting aone-year budget for start-up operations.
17 ® Drafting athree-year business plan for start-up operations.
18 ® Preliminary work on development of apublic-private partnership to rehabilitate one
19 school field as an initial project.
2 0 Meeting with interested aquatic groups and public/private pool owners from the
21 community to discuss ways to improve Petaluma's aquatic facilities and programs.
22 ® Secured office space, through County Supervisor Mike Kerns, in the County wing of
2 3 City Hall.
24 ® Revamping a PowerPoint presentation to synthesize the findings for City Council.
25 ® Developing a questionnaire for interested citizens.
26
27 Mr. Kates stated that progress had been made towards establishment of anon-profit
2 8 corporation, and noted that afull-time point person should be hired as soon as possible to
29 take over the assignment.
30
31 Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Kates what the next steps would be.
32
33 Mr. Kates replied that the scope of the organization needed to be decided, articles of
34 incorporation should be drawn up, a Board of Directors named, and fundraising efforts
35 begun.
36
37 Council Member Maguire asked if there were 5-10 people willing to be on the Board of
38 Directors, if there had been money contributed, and if there were volunteers for an
3 9 outreach effort.
40
41 Mr. Kates answered that there was lots of community interest, but not financial
42 contributions. He added that they were very close to forming a Board of Directors. He
43 asked if Council wanted to go forward and fund the project for one year. He pointed out
44 that it would not be reasonable to expect someone to direct a project of this scope on a
45 volunteer basis.
46
Vol. 35, Page 314 November 20, 2000
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
43
44
45
46
Council Member Torliatt thought that local businesses were being asked to seed the
organization. She asked Mr. Kates if he had a list of these businesses.
Mr. Kates replied that no business had stepped forward with a financial contribution. This
effort could not go forward unless there were afull-time director in place and that position
was funded for at least one year. He reiterated that no one would take that job with a
commitment of only two to three months.
Council Member Hamilton agreed that the commitment should be for one year. Council
must determine how to fund the project. She noted that it was difficult to get businesses to
fund operating costs.
Council Member Keller asked Mr. Kates if he had developed a proposed action plan for the
next year, and for the next three years.
Mr. Kates stated that initial plans included formation of a Board of Directors, development
of a fundraising action plan, and grant writing by volunteers.
Council Member Keller stressed the importance of a business plan for the organization. He
explained that it would be difficult to elicit contributions from other businesses without this
plan in place. The plan should include the mission and goals of the organization, and a
target list of directors. He added that he did not think it appropriate to include performing
arts, and it would be perceived as being in competition with local performing arts groups.
Mr. Kates noted that the Board of Directors and volunteers would want to take part in
forming the mission, goals, and business plan.
Council Member Keller wanted Mr. Kates to define what he saw as the organization's
mission.
Council Member Healy shared Council Member Keller's concerns. He thought the need for
the organization was obvious. He was concerned about cannibalization of othernon-profit
organizations, as most funding sources for organizations of this type were already being
tapped. He stressed the need to limit the organization's focus. He added that he found it
difficult to commit $100,000 to this project if the money could be used instead to .retain City
workers. He was interested in the idea of a challenge grant, with the City committing
$25,000 and private individuals and organizations contributing the balance.
Council Member Torliatt thought the organization needed to pick one project on which to
focus and work towards creating a funding source. She commented that Casa Grande was
a worthy project. If the organization were successful in raising funds for that project, it
would provide an example that would encourage other contributions.
Council Member Cader-Thompson believed the project should focus on parks, and should
consider a Park Assessment Bond.
1
E~
~i
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
43
44
45
46
November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 315
Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive,. applauded Mr. Kates for his efforts, and wanted the City
to purchase flood-prone properties for parks, in order to prevent the properties from being
otherwise developed. He added that the Parks and Recreation Association would have to
start out project specific, but its mission statement. should be broad.
Items 15, 17 and 18 were moved to the evening session.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:05 p.m.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation, Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.
Discussion of City Clerk Evaluation. (Kline)
********
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
Monday, November 20, 2000
RECONVENE
The City Council reconvened its regular meeting on this date at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Thompson stated that there was nothing to report out of Closed Session
ROLL CALL 7:00 p. m.
PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire; Mayor
Thompson; Vice MayorTorliatt
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, Dorothy Morris led the Pledge of Allegiance
MOMENT OF SILENCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silence was observed.
~~
Vol, 35, Page 316
November 20, 2000
1 PRESENTATION
2
3 HC2 Healthy Community Recognition Awards were given to the Cinnabar Arts Corporation,
4 accepted by Deborah Eubanks, and Vacation Bible School 2000-Market Place 29 AD
5 Program, accepted by Carolyn Maloney and Roberta Guierre.
6
7 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
8
9 After Public Comment, Council will hear item #20, Law Enforcement Block Grant, #21,
1o Computer Aided Dispatch Records Management, items #19, Revised Special Parking
11 Fees, and #15, 11th Amended Agreement for Impaired Water Supply.
12
13 PUBLIC COMMENTS
14
15 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, passed out brochures from the Sonoma County Water
16 Agency showing a map of the water system. The wells at Marabell and Waller go 50 to 60
17 feet below the river underneath the gravel. The gravel bed is the natural filtration system
18 for our drinking water. The County Board of Supervisors is permitting gravel mining up
19 stream of these wells. The Sonoma County Water Agency is going to propose a half
2 o billion-dollar filtration plant, a cost that would have been added to the open-ended 11 cn
21 Amended Water Agreement. This means we will be charged more for our drinking water.
2 2 Would it not be wiser to stop these problems at their source? Would it not be better to stop
23 any depletion of our natural gravel filtration system? Would it not be better to identify
24 pollutants and their source and stop permitting those industrial activities that are destroying
2 5 our drinking water system, rather than charging us for the cost of a half billion-dollar - -
2 6 filtration system?
27
28 Phillip Williams, 824 Blossom Court, commended Council Members Torliatt and Healy.
29
3 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS
31
32 David Keller spoke regarding negotiations between the. City of Healdsburg and AT&T,
33 which refuses to meet the City's demands regarding cable access facilities.
34
3 5 He also gave an update on the Novato Narrows situation. The purpose and needs will be
3 6 discussed and prioritized at a meeting to be held at the Lucchesi Community Center,
37 Friday December 15, 9:30 a.m. The topics will include:
38
3 9 • Relieving congestion.
40 • Encouraging HOV use by relieving HOV users' delay.
41 ® Utilizing existing HOV facilities.
42 • Eliminating roadway operational deficiencies.
43 • Minimizing environmental impacts and enhancing safety throughout the corridor.
44 • Integrating or enhancing other modes of transportation. a
l~
November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 317
1 Promoting economic vitality, enhancing the social fabricof Marin and Sonoma Counties
2 and conforming and integrating with County plans to protect the green belt and
3 preserve the rural character.
4
5 Suggested alternatives that will be considered in the EIR are:
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
® No build.
® Convert to a six (6)-lane freeway, with three interchanges and mixed flow lanes.
® Convert to six (6)-lane freeway, with three interchanges and HOV lanes.
® Convert to six (6)-lane freeway, with two interchanges and mixed flow lanes.
® Convert to six (6)-lane freeway, with two interchanges and HOV lanes.
® Reversible HOV lanes, HOT lanes as toll lanes, dedicated 24-hour HOV lanes limited to
transit for buses, car pool, van pools that would not serve as mixed flow lanes.
® Four (4)-lane freeway alternatives, bus service, rail service.
Council Member Torliatt thought that adding another lane to Highway 101 was not the
solution to the traffic congestion.
Council Member Maguire noted that $350 million dollars was the cost of the Sonoma Marin
Area Rail Transit Commissions project from San Rafael to Cloverdale for all capital costs
and operations for twenty years.
Council Member Cader-Thompson attended the HC2 Celebration at Thanksgiving. The
focus was on sustainability. She mentioned that the cups at Deaf Dog Coffee are
recyclable. She took another group to the Corona Reach area. She noted that the Monarch
Antique store at the corner of Washington and the Boulevard continually has 50% & 70%
liquidation signs posted in all their windows. She wanted to know the City policy for this
kind of signage.
City Manager Stouder recalled that it was a liquidation sale, as distinguished from a
closeout sale. Some restrictions would apply if it were a closeout sale. He will investigate
the manner further.
Council Member Keller thought there should be ways of restricting the "tacky signs that
now grace the historical building at a key intersection in the City."
PUBLIC HEARINGS
20. Public Hearing for Bureau of Justice Assistance, Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant Program for $54,600 to Partially Fund One Police Officer Position Assigned
to the Sonoma County Drug Task Force. (Parks/Dohn)
Chief Parks spoke regarding the Block Grant of $54,600.00. The City has used this money
in the past to fund a police officer assigned to the Drug Task Force. He recommended that
these funds continue to be used to fund that position.
~~
Vol. 35, Page 318
November 20, 2000
1 Diane Reilly Torres reiterated what she had stated at a prior Council meeting; that is, the
2 Police Department should be given any amount of money they need so they can do their
3 job right.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
6
7 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Cader-Thompson, to approve
8 Resolution 00-200 NCS accepting the Local Law Enforcement Block
9 Grant Program for $54,600 to Partially Fund One Police Officer Position
10 Assigned to the Sonoma County Drug Task Force
11
12 MOTION
13 PASSED: 7/0/0
14
15 21. Public Hearing and Resolution Accepting Allocation of State Block Grant Funds of
16 $114,500 for Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Mobile. Data
17 Computing System Implementation and Operation. (Parks/Aboudara)
18
19 Chief Parks stated that the City of Petaluma is eligible to receive the Local Law
2 o Enforcement Block Grant from the State of California Citizens Option for Public Safety. In
21 the past, these funds were used to fund the computer aided dispatch, records
22 management and mobile data computing system. Chief Parks recommended that this
2 3 continue.
24
2 5 MOTION: Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded by K~Iler, to approve Resolution
2 6 00-201 N.C.S. Accepting Allocation of State Block Grant Funds of $114,500
27 for Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Mobile Data
28 Computing System Implementation and Operation.
29
3 0 MOTION
31 PASSED: 7/0/0
32
33
34 19. Resolution 00-202 N.C.S. Establishing Revised Special Parking Fees, Approving
35 Increases to the Reserved Parking Permit Fee and Residential Parking Permit Fee
3 6 including CPI Adjustment.
37
3 8 Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty presented the staff report regarding permit parking.
3 9 The Petaluma Community Development Commission approved a budget for the
40 Redevelopment Agency that included a recommended increase in the reserved Parking
41 Permit Fees from $75 a space per quarter to $100 a space per quarter. These fees are for
42 surface lots and a limited number of permit parking in the Keller Street Garage. The
43 revenue from these increases would supplement maintenance of .both the parking lot and
44 the Keller Street Parking Garage.
45
46
~:1
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 319
1 Three residential parking permit areas were established:
2
3 A large area in the neighborhood of Santa Rosa Junior College, at the request of the
4 neighbors, who were concerned about the students overrunning their parking.
5 Oxford Court near the rear entrance to Helen Putnam Regional Park, in an attempt to
6 keep non-residents out of the area late at night.
~ Resident parking permit program for those residents of the downtown area who do not
8 have off-street parking, and where there are timed parking zones. The majority of
9 those residents live at the Petaluma Hotel. The majority of the rooms at the hotel are
10 designated single resident occupancy. The City's current program allows up to three
11 permits per unit. This may be a legitimate need in some cases.
12
13 Mr. Beatty explained that City management recommended that the residential parking
14 permits for downtown be raised from $12 per year to $25 per year, and that those permits
15 be issued on a per vehicle basis. The dash placards would be replaced by window or
16 bumper stickers that could not be transferred between vehicles or -sold to others. Also
17 recommend was an increase from $75 a quarter to $100 a quarter for the commercial
18 reserved parking.
19
2 o The major cost to the City would be the development, issuing, and tracking of the permits.
21 The cost to the City under the current system is about $15-$25 per permit. The cost of the
22 current permit is approximately $15 to $25. Switching to window or bumper decals might
23 increase the cost, but not by a significant amount.
24
2 5 There have been some complaints from merchants and residents regarding the number of
2 6 permits issued to residents of the Petaluma Hotel. Residents in the area have complained
2 ~ that they cannot park in front of their own homes because permit holders are parked there.
28 Not all permit holders have 8 to 5 jobs. Some work at night and are parked all day during
29 business hours. The system in its current form had a negative impact on other residents
3 o and some business areas.
31
32 Council Member Keller thought that parking on Kentucky Street and Petaluma Boulevard
33 should be posted as areas where permit parking does not apply. He added that permit
34 parking in the Keller Street Garage should not include the ground floor. He noted that
3 5 parking management in the downtown area was an important issue, as residential use
3 6 downtown is being encouraged. He wanted the issue to come back for consideration
37 during the next year when discussing the downtown uses portion of the General Plan, as
3 8 well as the Central Specific Plan.
39
4 o Assistant City Manager Beatty explained that permit parking in the garage was formerly
41 restricted to the 2"d floor and was not successful. At that point, twenty (20) spaces were
42 designated permit parking on the ground floor. Those spaces currently have a waiting list.
43 He added that additional lighting and painting in the garage were being pursued.
44
45 Council Member Healy wanted the Petaluma Downtown .Association's opinion on the
4 6 appropriate location for those spaces.
~~
Vol. 35, Page 320
November 20, 2000
1
2 Several Council Members felt that permit parking should be on the upper levels of the
3 parking garage and that the City should look into some type of security guard.
4
5 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
6
~ Jim Stern, 158 Keller Street, professional with an office downtown. He has parked in the
8 parking garage for years, usually on the second or third floor. He does not see the need to
9 increase the fee because of lack of control. He noted that the permit parking area was not
10 policed; if someone parked in a permit holder's space, it was difficult to get a response
11 from the Police.
12
13 Assistant City Manager Beatty explained that Tow Away signs have been ordered but not
14 yet received. Once the signs are in place, the Police Department will have illegally parked
15 cars towed.
16
17 Council Member Hamilton wanted such cars ticketed as well as towed.
18
19 Jim McCabe, 210 Keller Street, has lived at that address for ten years and has a parking
2 0 permit. He stated that the downtown area is too congested and the garage was not being
21 utilized as it should. He added that there are too many parking permits in circulation. He
22 thought residents should be able to park in the vicinity of their homes.
23
24 James Dracopoulos, 106 Washington Street, thought that as a resident, he should be able
2 5 to park in front of his residence without charge, and without receiving a ticket. He added
2 6 that any proposed increase in parking permit fees should be placed on a ballot. He noted
27 that parking is blocked off whenever there is an event downtown. He wanted the City to
2 8 consider building a parking garage near the river, better utilizing space, addressing urban
2 9 sprawl, and rerouting public transportation for the Kentucky Street area.
30
31 Linda Giorgetti, 101 Liberty Street, stated that congestion near her residence is
32 unbearable. While she didn't mind a fee increase, it did not guarantee her parking in front
3 3 of her home. There were parking lots in the vicinity of her residence, but businesses have
34 been built in their place. She wanted the area in front of her home marked as residential
3 5 parking only.
36
37 Mayor Thompson advised Ms. Giorgetti to take this before the Traffic Committee.
38
39 Council Member Keller thought there should be some overnight residential parking
4 0 designations. Only those holding overnight residential stickers could park overnight in those
41 areas. The type of permit required and the .restrictions would be posted in the area.
42
43 Jackie Phillips, 210 Keller Street, stated that Petaluma is the only town in the United States
44 where people are penalized for parking in front of their residence. She thought people
45 should be allowed to park where they live.
46
0
~~
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 321
1 Frank Stony, 106 Washington Street (Petaluma Hotel), stated that residents in the
2 downtown area are in competition with commuters, and employees of the Bank of America
3 for parking, adding that there are not enough parking spaces in the area.
4
5 Stephen O'Melveny, 25 Western Avenue (new resident), said that when he purchased his
6 permit, he was surprised that it was only valid within 100' of his residence. He had been
7 parking several blocks away to leave spaces available for shoppers, but was told he would
8 be ticketed because of the 100' limitation. He felt the. $25 fee increase per year was very
9 acceptable.
10
11 Jon Jernigan, 106 Washington Street (Petaluma Hotel), would like to see cars parking on
12 Washington, Kentucky and Mary Streets for long. periods of time ticketed. The hotel people
13 have a lot more cars now than they did 4-5 years ago.
14
15 Jim Maestretti, 106 Washington Street (Petaluma Hotel), explained that there were 25 to
16 30 ten-hour parking spaces from Mary Street to the top of the hill, and commuters leave
17 their cars there all day. He would like the designation on these spaces changed to prevent
18 this.
19
2 o Diane Reilly, 1657 Rainier Avenue, mentioned that Petaluma Transit stops running at 6
21 p.m., and wondered if the parking situation could be improved by extending bus service
22 later into the evening.
23
2 4 Linda Buffo, Petaluma Downtown Association, provided for the record recommendations
2 5 made in 1999 by the Downtown Association's Parking Management Team and former City
2 6 Traffic Engineer Allan Tilton.
27
2 8 Council Member Hamilton thought a full time attendant was needed at the Keller Street
2 9 Garage. She wanted City management to work with the residents and the Downtown
3 o Association for the best recommendations.
31
32 City Manager Stouder stated that City Management will be sure that the parking lot issue
33 and the permitting issue are included in the Parking Occupancy Study that is part of the
34 General Plan process.
35
3 6 Council Member Keller asked that the study include parking issues for the redevelopment
37 area, higher density occupancy, structural alternatives, as well as policy and permitting
3 8 questions.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt would like to allow permit holders to park their vehicles farther
41 from their residences than 100'. Bank of America has a parking attendant to stop people
42 who are not using the bank from coming in and out of their lot. She wondered if Bank of
43 America requires their employees to park on site or off site.
.~ 4 4
~~
Vol. 35, Page 322 November 20, 2000
1 Council Member Cader-Thompson mentioned that with the cost of living increasing, more
2 people are living downtown. She wanted to focus on the immediate problem of making the
3 garage safer.
4
5 Mayor Thompson agreed that the garage needed to be made a safe place to park. He
6 would like to see it opened up so that the interior is not so dark and unapproachable.
7
8 Council Member Healy thought there should be a Park and Ride lot to accommodate the
9 number 74 bus to the San Francisco.
10
11 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Healy,. to adopt Resolution
12 00-202 N.C.S. approving the increase in permit parking fees from $12 to $25
13 per year for residential parking; from $75 to $100 per year for commercial
14 parking, and expanding the area in which permits are valid beyond the 100'
15 from residence or place of business.
16
17 MOTION
18 PASSED: 7/0/0
19
20 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
21
22
2 315. Continued Discussion and Possible Action on 11th Amended Agreement for
2 4 Impaired Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding. Water
2 5 Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and
2 6 Operating Procedure for South Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum
2 7 of Understanding
28
29 Tom Hargis, Director of Water Conservation and Resources, and Steve Simmons,
3 o Superintendent, presented Council with a position paper based upon some of the most
31 recent activities involving water supply. This included a three part series of suggestions
32 broken down into the three agreements under discussion:
33
3 4 ® For the Memorandum of Understanding, which applies to an impaired delivery system,
35 Mr. Hargis and Mr. Simmons suggested continued support.
36
3 7 a Regarding the Operating Procedure for the South Aqueduct, they thought it important to
3 8 work with the agencies tapping onto the pipeline as well as with SCWA, in order to have
39 an agreement on how that resource is shared.
40 • Amendment 11, which covers many issues, including the pipeline project.
41
42 Council Member Keller noted that at the October 30th Water Agency meeting, Randy Poole
43 of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) had stated in no uncertain terms that
44 Amendment 11 was "dead." He had been told by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
45 and the SCWA Board of Directors that Amendment 11 no longer exists. When pressed by
4 6 several members of the committee about Petaluma's request for changes or modifications,
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 323
- 1
2 Mr. Poole again stated that Amendment 11 is "dead and off the table." Council Member
Keller wanted to proceed with a statement regarding remaining questions.
3 ,
4 Council Member Healy stated that he, Mayor Thompson, and Mike O'Brien went on a tour
5 with Randy Poole and some of his staff last week. One of the places they toured was the
6 Cargill Salt complex on San Pablo Bay. He encouraged other Council Members to do the
~ same. During the tour, he was told that SCWA is developing a more comprehensive, long-
8 term amendment, described as "Amendments 11, 12 and 13 rolled into one," which will
9 cover recycled water. There should be more information about this available shortly.
10
11 Council Member Keller preferred that it be a public tour, noticed if necessary so that
12 everybody received the same information.
13
14 Council Member Maguire did not want to get into the Amendment 11 battle. He did not
15 think Amendments 11, 12 and 13 should "lumped into one." He wondered why the
16 Temporary Operating Procedure for the Aqueduct wasn't made a permanent Operating
17 Agreement.
18
19 Mr. Hargis agreed that it should evolve into something more permanent. He thought there
2 o might be opportunities for future energy-efficient pumping.
21
22 Council Member Torliatt agreed that the MOU should be discussed first.
23
24 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, thought the City should go forward with a new
25 agreement, and added that it should not be an "open-ended agreement like the 11tH
26 Amended Agreement." He noted that the agenda for the Santa Rosa City Council's
27 November 21st meeting included response to a letter from the Sonoma County Water
2 8 Agency of September 15tH suggesting individual agreements with each entity. Santa Rosa
2 9 City management recommended otherwise, for these reasons:
30
31 ® The fiscal impacts would be great to the individual entities.
32 ® There were physical and legal protections that would not be granted within individual
3 3 contracts.
34 SCWA would be setting individual rates for each entity.
35
3 6 They recommend a motion and a letter from the Mayor to SCWA that they decline the
37 individual contracts and they also recommend the development of a new method of
3 s governance related to all water supply issues.
39
4 o Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue, asked for answers to the following questions
41 before Council voted on the matter:
42
43 ® How would surplus customers affect rates?
44 ® Why are there several different lists of surplus contracts?
45
46 She thought SCWA was attempting to deceive the City and the public regarding this
~~
Vol. 35, Page 324
November 20, 2000
1 matter, and was adamant that Council not vote until they received clarification.
2
3 Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro, congratulated the winning Council candidates and thanked
4 everyone who supported his campaign. He thought it encouraging that SCWA was
5 developing a broader plan for Amendments 11, 12 and 13. He said he had thought all
6 along that Amendment 11 was very-short sighted and not forward thinking enough. Long-
? term planning is needed for recycling plants, rainwater catchments, and whatever else can
8 be done to ensure an adequate water supply in the years to come.
9
10 Mr. Vouri supported signing the MOU, but noted that Section 4F on page 7 stated that the
11 City agreed the first priority construction project would be building the aqueduct facility
12 between the Russian River and Cotati Intertie Aqueduct and the Ely Booster Station.. He
13 recommended that the City Attorney attach a memorandum to the signed MOU, stating
14 that the aqueduct is not the City's first priority, that storage is the immediate need. The
15 MOU calls for Petaluma to be able to provide up to 40% of what it normally takes from the
16 Russian River from its own wells.
17
18 Mr. Stouder understood that the Santa Rosa City Council's agenda item was the same as
19 the item Petaluma's Council responded to at SCWA's in September 2000.
20
21 Council Member Torliatt referred to the analysis of the adequacy of the Petaluma aqueduct
22 water delivery capacity by Jim Pflugum and Robert F. Beach, dated March 1998. It
23 addressed the issues of water transmission system constraints and stated that with the
24 implementation of the seven recommendations the system is expected be capable of
2 5 delivering water during the maximum months at an average rate of 92 million gallons per
2 6 day (mgd). The actual average rate of delivery to all agency water transmission system
27 customers in June 1997 was 73.0 mgd. Accordingly, if the recommendations are fully
2 8 implemented, including the construction of the final authorized collector, the water
29 production capacity of the transmission system is not expected to limit deliveries from the
3 o Petaluma aqueduct for a number of years. She understood that Collector Six was
31 supposed to be completed in 2003. She wondered why the City was being asked to sign a
32 five-year MOU for this project.
33
34 According to the MOU, ratepayers in the City of Petaluma are going to allow a voluntary
3 5 reduction in the amount of water the City takes in. She wanted to know where the surplus
3 6 water was going: was it being diverted elsewhere, or would it stay in the river? She didn't
37 see what would prevent the water agency from selling the surplus water. The citizens of
3 8 Petaluma had been paying their pro-rata share of the capital improvements for many years
3 9 to bring water to the City of Petaluma. She thought that if a contractor used less water, that
4 o contractor should benefit by lower rates; those using more water should be paying for
41 more. The MOU should provide incentives for each of the contractors to use less water.
42
43 She reiterated her issue with the MOU and Amendment 1'1 regarding conservation policies.
44 The MOU left each city on its own to create conservation policies, instead of mandating
45 regional water policy. The water agency was signing up each cantractor individually, and no
4 6 one was responsible for a comprehensive conservation program. She was also concerned
~1
1
~~
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 325
1 that the two contracts did not assume that the City was managing its long-term water
2 resource. The MOU was "just to get the City through until it can add more supply through
3 Amendment 11 or whatever the additional agreements end up being here for this county."
4 She was glad to hear that we're all going to be working together to create a more
5 comprehensive policy, but she feared by signing the MOU and limiting the City's water
6 supply, the ratepayers in the City of Petaluma would be penalized. She believed that
~ storage was the City's biggest water supply issue.
8
9 Council Member Keller noted that since the MOU was designed to address system
1 o impairment, he thought it important to define "system impairment." Petaluma, Santa Rosa
11 and Sonoma need additional local storage. He understood that. Santa Rosa had been
12 using system storage for many years rather than building their own.. As a consequence,
13 the ratepayers have been paying for a lot of Santa Rosa's storage. Santa Rosa is woefully
14 short of storage for peak flows, for fire flows and now they're going to have to pay for it on
15 their own.
16
17 Petaluma was posited to be short of storage. However, Petaluma's tanks were drained a
18 couple of times this past summer, partly because the system was not. being filled because
19 one of the collector pumps was down. The system was not being filled to its normal
2 0 pumping capacity during that period of time and as a consequence, water wasn't delivered
21 to the south end of the system and under normal operating procedure at the time, it got
2 2 sucked down. There was still plenty of water in the City's water system, in addition to water
2 3 in the Kastania tank. He thought the experience spoke to the .issue of designing an entire
2 4 system around peak daily use at the worst days of the summer. He then read a letter from
25 John Rosenblum to the SCWA commenting on the expansion plan. He wanted a detailed
2 6 explanation of cost and usage allocations between Petaluma, North Marin Water and Marin
27 Municipal Water before any commitment for building additional storage was made.
28
2 9 Council Member Maguire had no problems with the operating procedure for the aqueduct,
3 o and thought it should be a permanent procedure to establish sound pumping practices
31 regardless of conditions.
32
33 Council Member Cader-Thompson wanted to deal with the storage issue first. She wanted
3 4 a list of the surplus customers. She thought that Amendment 11 focused only on growth; it
3 5 did not address the current need for additional storage. Pumping procedures needed to be
3 6 established to prevent the tank from going dry. She wanted the City to work with Marin
3 ~ regarding another tank at Kastania or other appropriate place. She wondered how revenue
38 was obtained to implement a conservation program, while at the same time reducing the
39 rates to the ratepayers.
40
41 Council Member Torliatt addressed the November 2, 2000 letter from SCWA, which
42 responded to the City's letter of April 17, 2000. SCWA is currently involved in Section 7
43 Consultation under the Federal Endangered Species Act. They expected the biological
44 assessments would be completed in the fall of 2001. Hopefully, the National Marine
45 Fishery Service will expedite its process and issue its biological opinion by Spring 2002.
46 To date, the Agency's total Section 7 costs, including staff time and consultants, is
:~, .
Vol. 35, Page 326 November 20, 2000
1 approximately $5.6 million, over afive-year period. This has been funded through three
2 separate agency funds, Water Transmission System, O&M Fund, Russian .River Projects
3 Fund and the Flood Control Zone 1A Funds.
4
5 As was discussed at the Water Advisory Committee meetings, completing the Endangered
6 Species Act Consultation was only part of the picture. She thought it safe to assume that
7 significant additional funds will be necessary to implement the recovery plan likely to result
8 from the consultation. As of the date of the MOU, the Water Advisory Committee has
9 approved $15 million for implementing conservation measures over aten-year period
1 o commencing with fiscal year 1997-98. She thought money should be spent on restoring
11 our natural systems and on best conservation practices.
12
13 Council Member Healy wanted City management to address the current impairment status
14 on the Petaluma aqueduct, even with Collector Six in place. He understood that during
15 peak months, the aqueduct was being run at beyond design capacity, so the City was
16 beyond capacity now, with or without Collector Six.
17
18 Mr. Hargis believed that at peak times the pipeline was pumping more water than it was
19 designed to pump, at a higher velocity than it was designed to pump. Collector Six added
2 o water to be distributed among all the various users of the system, but a delivery issue
21 remained. He noted that on Mr. Simmons' graph, all the contractors on the system outside
22 of North Marin wrote off some part of what was supplied by the water agency. If everyone's
2 3 water was delivered through a piece of pipeline at peak times, a very large pipe would be
24 needed. Logic dictated storage placed at intervals along the system. If everyone provided a
25 portion of that local storage, during peak times, water could be taken partly from the
26 storage, partly from the main pipeline.
27
2 8 Petaluma pumped up to 1.6 million a day out of ground water for four months last summer.
2 9 That's why the City brought forward the need to look at aquifer storage and recovery as a
3 o way of protecting its rights to ground water. City Management was concerned that
31 Amendment 11 might impair the City's ability to store water at off-peak times, some
32 underground and some above ground, which was one way of addressing the pipeline
3 3 capacity problem. Mr. Hargis explained that storage tanks are sometimes controversial to
3 4 residents of areas where they're proposed and it's not always a speedy process to create
3 5 additional storage.
36
3 7 Council Member Healy asked if City Management was still recommending approval of both
3 8 MOU's and if they were also supporting the idea of additional local storage capacity in the
3 9 near mid-term.
40
41 Mr. Hargis replied that City Management was recommending approval of the MOU, which
42 also committed the City to additional on-site storage, which City Management believed was
43 important.
44
45 Council Member Healy thought that aside from Marin Municipal, none of the surplus users
46 were important from Petaluma's perspective.
1
_:. ~.,
~~
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 327
- 1 Council Member Keller thought that Mr. Hargis and Mr. Simmons raised a very important
2 issue when they pointed out that annual caps on flow would prevent Petaluma from using
3 the winter months to recharge ground water storage, a significant component to the City's
4 cushion during peak summertime flows. What such caps on flow would do was ensure that
5 the water agency had surplus water left to sell.
6
~ Council Member Keller then read from the "First Right of Refusal to Purchase the .Potter
8 Valley Project," which came out of Closed Session by the Sonoma County Board of
9 Supervisors on August 8, 2000, page 5, item 4, paragraph 7, revision of paragraph 7: "In
1 o terms of sale pursuant to this amendment shall be subject to negotiations by Pacific Gas &
11 .Electric and its successor .and district and shall include an express assumption by the
12 water agency's district of all responsibility for decommissioning the Potter Valley Project
13 and any associated environmental restoration or remediation." He explained that
14 "associated environmental restoration or remediation"meant all of the damage to the Eel
15 River. If this contract were executed, Petaluma would be liable for billions of dollars worth
16 of restoration and repairs to the Eel River Fisheries, which have been decimated by this
17 project.
18
19 There were no water rights extant for municipal consumption through the Potter Valley
20 Project. They were under application to the State Water Resources Control Board, they
21 were under protest from a series of groups and tribal agencies. It was not just a National
22 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) decision, or a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
23 (FERC) decision. To depend on those water rights would be to depend on paper water,
24 with a .huge price. Amendment 10 already required Petaluma to help pay those costs.
25
26 Mr. Hargis explained that Petaluma,. Santa Rosa, and Forestville have surplus water. The
2 7 City has .not been using all of the water to which it is entitled. The MOU called for sharing
2 8 that water with some of the other communities during impairment. According to the table
29 on page 6 of 15, Petaluma had an entitlement of 17 mgd, and was now using 14 Y2. This
30 will slowly increase to 16 mgd over afive-year period. In five years, Petaluma will be
31 sharing 1 mgd of its water with other agencies. The question that arose in negotiations was
32 this: If the City produced 1.6 mgd from local capacity, how would that affect the
3 3 entitlement? If the City were to drill more wells and produce more water for local capacity,
34 would it be penalized? SCWA has declared the system impaired temporarily for 5 years
35
3 6 Council Member Maguire thought that if Council were to agree to ratify the MOU, it was
37 imperative to stipulate that local supplemental supply not count against impaired supply.
3 8 He also agreed with Council Member Torliatt that there should be mandatory conservation
39 requirements for all users.
40
41 Mr. Hargis thought there were many things the City could do to inform and educate the
42 public about water conservation. He suggested the City could work toward its own water
43 conservation and efficiency program., instead of the water agency retaining administrative
44 fees for such activities.
45
46 Council Member Maguire wondered if the water agency gave grant funding for
~~
Vol. 35, Page 328
November 20, 2000
1 conservation for which the City might be eligible.
2
3 Mr. Hargis did not know but thought it a possibility.
4
5 Council Member Healy explained that as part of the MOU, all the contracting cities and
6 water agencies would commit to meeting California Urban Water Conservation Best
~ Management Practices. He noted that Rohnert Park had already agreed to this, which was
8 a very difficult political decision for them because it meant they had to agree to water
9 meters.
10
11 Council Member Keller referred to a letter from the Department of Health Services to the
12 water agency dated August 24, 2000 which discussed the fact that due to lack of telemetry
13 and daily use records on individual meter turnouts to the various water users, the maximum
14 day demands used in the review were calculated by multiplying average day demand by
15 the maximum month of factor 1.17. He thought it important to include in the MOU Condition
16 C, which spoke to improved monitoring of actual system demands. The water agency
1 ~ needed to either be equipped to turn records out with telemetry to provide daily use data or
18 read the meters daily.
19
2 o Council Member Maguire noted that if the City were to revise the MOU, it would go back
21 through a second round for approval. It didn't think that was unreasonable, in light of the
22 need for additional information. He thought there was wide support for not counting local
2 3 supply against impaired allocations. He believed that storage should be a higher priority for
24 Petaluma than transmission or other system improvements.
25
2 6 Council Member Healy noted that City Manager Stouder had been looking into this issue of
27 local production being counted against or not counted against allocations. He asked Mr.
2 8 Stouder why City management was still recommending approval.
29
3 o Mr. Stouder understood that the City of Santa Rosa had negotiated that previously after
31 some discussion, and that it would apply to all of the other contractors.
32
33 Council Member Healy asked Mr. Stouder to determine if the Santa Rosa's negotiations
34 resulted in any revisions.
35
3 6 Mr. Hargis noted that Santa Rosa had not signed the MOU. They weren't going to until
3 ~ Petaluma acted on Amendment 11, and that may have been one of their conditions for
3 8 approval. Santa Rosa as well as other agencies was concerned that the MOU created a
3 9 disincentive to contribute to the system if local supply was counted against impaired
4 o supply.
41
42 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, to approve the Memorandum of
43 Understanding Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity
44 Allocation During Temporary Impairment with the stipulation that local
4 5 supply not count against the City's impaired supply. He asked City Attorney
46 Rich Rudnansky to add appropriate language to that effect to Section 4,
E~
6
November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 329
1 Temporary Delivery and Capacity Allocation, and to note that storage is the
2 City's highest priority.
3
4 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted surplus water to remain in the river.
5
6 Council Member Healy thought City management was saying that the surplus issue was
7 not significant for Petaluma.
8
9 Council Member Keller stated that it was a significant issue for the system as a whole,
1o because the system was predicated on selling as much water as possible. The City
11 encouraged citizens to reduce water usage. If the water agency then expanded the
12 allocations and increased the amount of water taken from the Russian River, nothing would
13 be gained.
14
15 Council Member Maguire noted that the Town of Windsor was included in the chart on
16 page 6.
17
18 Vice Mayor Torliatt explained that the message the City was attempting to convey was that
19 the environmental impact of taking more water from the river would cost the ratepayers
2 0 money.
21
22 Council Member Maguire reiterated that he had moved for approval of the MOU with three
23 changes:
24
25 1. Local supply not to be counted against the City's impaired allotments
26 2. Storage is the City's first priority
27 3. Excess unused water will remain in the river
28
29 Council Member Healy asked for clarification regarding surplus customers. Were they
3 o contractors serving existing homes and businesses using surplus water because they
31 hadn't formalized contractual rights with the agency? He also asked for the Town of
32 Windsor and Marin Municipal Water's status as surplus customers.
33
34 Vice Mayor Torliatt explained that there were a number of surplus customers in the new
35 development around the Sonoma County Airport, and there were also direct contractors
36 receiving surplus water from the water agency for expansion in that area.
37
3 8 Council Member Healy asked City management again for a response to his question.
39
40 Mr. Simmons replied that the surplus water users would be, for example, vineyard growers,
41 and Marin Municipal Water. He did not think the vineyard growers used a significant
42 amount of surplus water, but Marin Municipal Water did. Also on the list were the Town of
43 Windsor and Santa Rosa Junior College. As in Amendment 10, they were limited to 1.6
44 mgd, and were using approximately 3 mgd. He explained that he received a report of
45 surplus water use and billing each month, and would provide Council with a copy.
46
Vol. 35, Page 330 November 20, 2000
1 He pointed out that the more water the water agency sold, the less it cost customers.
2 However, if there wasn't any water available, that would be another story.
3
4 Mr. Stouder stated that regarding Council Member Healy's question about the City of
5 Windsor, he understood from the City Manager of Windsor that they depended on the
6 water agency only for water for the industrial park.
7
8 Council Member Keller agreed that the more water sold, the lower the cost for any
9 particular user. However, if the current practice of selling every drop of water possible out
10 of the Russian River continued, the externalized costs would continue to rise. Those costs
11 included one half billion dollars plus financing for a filtration plant, as well as all reparations
12 costs and repair costs to the Eel River Fisheries. Those costs have never been included in
13 the calculations. Water should be left in the Russian and Eel Rivers so that the
14 externalized cost of the. system could start to be reduced.
15
16 Council Member Maguire asked for a second to his motion.
17
18 There was no second.
19
2 0 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to include in the MOU .incentives for water conservation.
21
22 Council Member Keller suggested Council outline an MOU that would include water
23 storage, local storage credit for water conservation, and restrictions on surplus water
24 allocations and usage.
25
2 6 Council Member Maguire explained that he had just made a motion to that effect and it was
2 7 not seconded.
28
29 Council Member Cader-Thompson said she would second the motion.
30
31 Council Member Hamilton asked Council Member Maguire if he wanted to write a new
32 MOU or make modifications to the existing MOU and approve it.
33
34 Council Member Maguire replied that he would like to modify the MOU, pass it, and see
3 5 what the response was from other contractors and agencies.
36
37 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to include incentives for contractors to conserve water.
38
39 Council Member Maguire supported that idea but wasn't sure it could be effectively
40 included in the current MOU. He noted that with participation of a Council representative,
41 the Sonoma County Water Agency Technical Advisory Committee and Sonoma County
42 Mayors' and Council Members' Association Water Task Force could be vehicles through
43 which that could be accomplished.
44
45 Mr. Stouder thought that some positive motion at this time from Council, however limited it
46 might be, would serve to keep discussion going with other entities and would benefit not
J
L~V
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 331
- 1 only this city, but the region. He had learned from discussions with other City Managers
2 and contractors that some of them have the same concerns as Petaluma. He thought
3 Petaluma had been unfairly "labeled." He pointed out that Petaluma was the first city to
4 respond to the water agency's September 15, 2000 deadline.
5
6 Council Member Healy was comfortable with two of Council Member Maguire's language
7 changes. He did not think he had enough information about surplus customers to be able
8 to agree with the third change.
9
1o Council Member Maguire wanted to vote and see if the motion carried.
11
12 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if it would be possible to add language regarding incentives for
13 water conservation.
14
15 Council Member Keller thought that concept was included in the first stipulation. He thought
16 it should be discussed among the contractors and agencies.
17
18 Council Member Maguire did not want to make any more changes to the MOU than were
19 necessary. He thought the freedom for contractors to accumulate as much local water
2 o supply as desired was implicit in the stipulation that local supplemental supply not be
21 counted against impaired allotments.
22
2 3 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to include a requirement for contractors to set up a mechanism
2 4 to reward those using less water.
25
2 6 Council Member Maguire wondered how such a reward system could be implemented in
27 light of language in Section 5B that states that parties agree to achieve and maintain
2 8 standby local peak month production at 40%. He thought it would take some time to agree
29 on how the system should be structured and what the quantifiable goals should be.
30
31 Vice Mayor Torliatt did not think a quantifiable goal was necessary at this point. Instead,
32 she wanted to include language that asked contractors to commit to developing a system
3 3 to reward conservation.
34
3 5 Council Member Healy, noting that the MOU was ashort-term document, thought it more
3 6 appropriate to include specific conservation goals in the next Amendment, but was not
37 opposed to adding general language such as Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested to this MOU.
38
39
Council Member Keller suggested another approach, reading an excerpt from the 10`"
40 Amended Agreement regarding contractors' right of first refusal on deliveries of surplus
41 water. "...Surplus water maybe used only for the following purposes: irrigation of land use
4 2 for commercial production of food or fiber, replenishment of sun`ace water supply, reservoir
43 or recreational lakes..." "The water contractor shall have the first right of refusal on
- 44
45 deliveries of surplus water." He wondered if the City could legally exercise that right by
dedicating its surplus water to in-stream use.
46
~~
Vol. 35, Page 332 November 20, 2000
1 Council Member Maguire noted that he hadn't yet amended his motion. He explained that
2 while he supported the concepts suggested,. he was not willing to amend the motion unless
3 it was with clear and definitive language.
4
5
6 MOTION
~ AMENDED: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Coder-Thompson, to adopt
8 Resolution 00-203 N.C.S., Approving the Memorandum of Understanding
9 Regarding Water Transmission System Capacity Allocation During
10 Temporary Impairment, with the following modifications:
11
12 1. Section 4, Table 1: Local production capacity should not be counted
13 against or deducted from the allotment of the impaired supply.
14 2. Section 4F, the priority order is changed such that the highest priority is
15 storage.
16 3. Any excess water shall remain in the river and not be sold as surplus
1 ~ water.
18
19 MOTION
2 0 PASSED: 7/0/0
21
22 MOTION: Council Member Healy moved, seconded by Maguire, to adopt Resolution
2 3 00-203A N.C.S., Approving the Operating Procedure for South Petaluma
24 Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of Understanding.
25
2 6 MOTION
2 7 PASSED: 7/0/0
28
29 Council adjourned to a five (5) minute break.
30
31 22. Council Workshop on the Water Recycling Facility Project and the Draft Project
3 2 Report. (Ban)
33
34 Mike Ban presented Council with the staff report for the Water Recycling Facility Project
3 5 and the Draft Project Report. He would like Council to provide comment and/or clarification
3 6 for incorporation into the final report.. City management asked Council to give direction as
3 ~ to which alternative they prefer for development of the water recycling facility. Petaluma
38 has the opportunity to develop a new water recycling facility to clean the community's
3 9 wastewater and protect the Petaluma River and the San Francisco Bay. This facility will
4o also produce recycled water that can be used to irrigate parks, schools, golf courses and
41 other specific landscaped areas that currently depend on potable water, easing demands
42 on the potable water system. The City has the opportunity to develop a facility that can be
43 a significant amenity and an educational resource for the community.
44
45 Mr. Ban met with members of the Oakmead Northbay Business Association to discuss
46 alternatives with them. Then, each alternative was evaluated. with respect to cost,
~~
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 333
- 1 construction, operation and maintenance. Neighborhood issues such as odors and noise
2 were considered. Relative liabilities of each alternative were discussed. Each alternative's
3 ability to meet permit requirements and flexibility for meeting future permit requirements
4 was analyzed. Mr. Ban explained that these were issues typically considered when
5 reviewing wastewater treatment facility projects. Additionally, the sustainability of each
6 alternative was considered. Results of all the evaluations were presented at a second
7 public forum on November 8, 2000.
8
9 Susan McDonald of Carollo Engineers led Council through the project report. She
10 explained that the objective of the project was to develop an economical and ecologically
11 sustainable water recycling facility to treat the community's wastewater and produce Title
12 22 Water for Recycled Use. Currently the City has two wastewater treatment plants, one at
13 Hopper Street, built in 1938; the other at Lakeville Highway adjacent to the Oakmead North
14 Bay Business Park.
15
16 The project engineers identified five alternatives:
17
18 Alternative 1 A: Advanced Facultative Ponds (utilizing wetlands for algae removal
19 or DAFS)
2 o Alternative 1 B: Advanced Facultative Ponds (dissolved air floatation
21 thickeners or DAFS)
22 Alternative 2: Aerated Lagoons
23 Alternative 3: Primary Clarifies/Ponds
2 4 Alternative 4: Hopper Street (Activated Sludge)
2 5 Alternative 5: Extended Aeration
26
2 7 Special evaluation criteria was developed such as cost, neighborhood quality, wastewater
2 8 treatment, sustainability and environmental impacts and community amenities. Each
29 alternative was then evaluated against these criteria.
30
31 Vice Mayor Torliatt would like the consultant to expand on the cost for each of the five
32 alternatives. She also asked to have the cost/benefit comparison expanded upon.
33
34 Ms. McDonald explained that Alternative 4, the Hopper Street Upgrade alternative, did
3 5 have a higher O&M cost than Alternative 5. Alternative 4 has an annual O&M cost of about
3 6 $3.2 million for the wetlands and $3.8 million for DAFS, versus Alternative 5, with $3.1
37 million for wetlands and $3.6 million for DAFS. However, Alternative 5's O&M costs are
3 8 somewhat lower than Alternative 4's.
39
4 o Vice Mayor Torliatt clarified that she had been referring to removal of additional mercury
41 and chlorine, an advantage of a new sewer treatment facility.
42
43 Ms. McDonald replied that the new facility would make possible a number of treatment
44
45 enhancements, including ammonia removal and reduction of metals content. She .noted
that many Bay Area agencies were having difficulties meeting their new interim metals
46 limits requirements. Since the EPA tends to require even lower metal limits, this would
~~~
Vol. 35, Page 334 November 20, 2000
1 continue to be a problem for all treatment plants. The City's oxidation ponds would be used
2 to remove additional metal, and choosing the wetlands options would result in even more
3 metal removal. The wetlands option would provide additional nutrient removal. Ammonia
4 would be removed in the first step, but with the wetlands alternative, de-nitrification or
5 conversion of nitrogen-to-nitrogen gas would become possible.
6
~ The alternatives included plans for converting from chlorine-type disinfection to ultraviolet
8 disinfection. The facility would be upgraded to meet Title 22 Unrestricted Use Recycled
9 Water Requirements. The City would then have more options for recycled water use..
1o Currently, secondary effluent is sent to the adjacent farms.
11
12 Council Member Maguire asked how the cost of the Calpine energy was calculated.
13
14 Ms. McDonald explained that the construction costs and the operation costs were projected
15 forward to June 2004, which was the date for which mid-point of construction was
16 predicted. The figures were adjusted for inflation. Ten cents per kilowatt-hour was used for
17 energy costs. The current rate was 71/2 cents. Even when the energy costs were inflated
18 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, the ranking of the alternatives did not change.
19
2 o Council Member Maguire noted that the City of Santa Rosa was going to be pumping water
21 up to the Geysers to augment Calpine Power. He wondered how that would impact the
22 footprint.
23
24 Ms. McDonald replied that Calpine Power was considered a "green energy source."
2 5 Carollo Engineers used a conversion factor for that source of energy, compared to a
2 6 standard California mix of power, which was a much higher ecological footprint. Not yet
27 included in the cost analysis was the cost of power for the City of Santa Rosa pumping
2 8 water up to the geysers to make more steam.
29
3 o Council Member Cader-Thompson thought that the long-term cost was higher than the 10
31 cents per kilowatt-hour projected.
32
3 3 Ms. McDonald explained that Carollo projected the cost at 15 cents and 20 cents per
34 kilowatt-hour, and the ranking of the alternatives did not change. The costs of the
3 5 alternatives went up in proportion to the energy costs.
36
37 Vasco Brazil, 4551 Lakeville Highway, felt the recommended project would cause
3 8 problems. He showed Council photographs of standing water at ground level on the north
39 side of the Lakeville Highway ponds levee as well as the north. side of Lakeville Highway.
4 0 He thought this was seepage from the ponds. He recommended that Council not accept
41 the Carollo Engineers Report until Carollo properly addressed the seepage from the ponds.
42 He thought putting wetlands on the former Gray property would cause the same standing
43 water situation to occur at that site. That would in turn have a detrimental effect on the
44 vineyard across the street from the Gray property.
45
~V
November 20, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 335
- 1 Mr. Brazil asked what the cost would be of dismantling both treatment plants at the Hopper
2 Street site. He thought the funding agency only required costing out the alternative to
3 upgrade operations and maintenance of the existing facility to improve effluentquality. He
4 thought this should be for a period of 20 years. He wanted to see the treatment capacity
5 upgraded 2 to 4 mgd. He asked for the name of the VETC coordinator who conducted the
6 workshops.
8 He noted that the extended aeration alternative required 16 mg tanks for agricultural
9 irrigation. He wondered how recycling increases would affect that.
10
11 Terrance Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, did not think any of the proposed alternatives stopped
12 the environmentally damaging discharges to the Petaluma River. He wanted Petaluma to
13 negotiate with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Fish and Game for a pipeline to the
14 Napa Salt Ponds, which need treated water to rejuvenate the marsh areas for wildlife. That
15 would result in Petaluma no longer sending undesirable nutrients and heavy metals to the
16 river. The cost of $1 million per year paid to irrigate pasture with recycled water might be
17 sufficient to finance one half the cost of a pipeline to the Napa Salt Ponds.
18
19 The salt ponds would be restored to fresh water marsh; these tens of thousands of acres of
2 0 marsh would be much more capable of polishing wastewaters without re-treatment,
21 chlorine addition, and production of cancer-causing trihalomethanes, than the few hundred
22 acres proposed by Carollo. Tertiary treatment might not be needed, and the marsh area
23 was so extensive that Winter treatment could still be effective even at a slower biological
24 rate of activity. Irrigation over-spray, salts and heavy metals, which damage soils, could be
2 5 eliminated with a marsh disposal area. He thoughtthe Department of Fish and Wildlife and
2 6 the Department of Fish and Game might be interested in contributing funds toward getting
27 fresh water for rejuvenation of the salt ponds; the State Revolving Fund might be more
28 obtainable for a pipeline for such an environmentally beneficial project.
29
3 o Bryant Moynihan, 102 Dawn Place, supported City .management's recommendation of
31 Alternative 5. He suggested the City should go forward before the cost of the project
32 increased. He thought the new timeline and cost estimates relative to Alternative 5 could
33 be developed comparing the DFAS and the wetlands options. He added that the work
34 could be completed in phases, particularly the tertiary treatment, as capacity was required.
35
36 He thought it possible in Phase 2 to investigate the seepage of the existing Oxidation
3 ~ Ponds and see what could be done to address that. Mr. Garvey's suggestions of additional
3 8 alternatives for the use or disposal of the treated wastewater could also be considered
39 further.
4o Council Member Keller asked about the prospects for capturing methane emissions with
41 Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
42
43 Ms. McDonald replied that Carollo had evaluated the cost to cover the pits at the bottom of
44 the AFP ponds, as well as the potential reduction to the ecological footprint with capture of
45 methane gas. She displayed another chart of total annualized cost, with Alternative 1
~~
Vol. 35, Page 336 November 20, 2000
1 revised. The cost increased from $9.8 million to $11.2 million for covering the pits,
2 capturing the gas and installing co-generation facilities to utilize that gas.
3
4 Council Member Keller asked if that was simplest way of containing the methane for
5 capture.
6
7 Ms. McDonald said that it was, explaining that it was a floating membrane.
8
9 Council Member Maguire asked for confirmation that the energy savings would not cover
1 o the cost of implementation.
11
12 Ms. McDonald replied that Council Member Maguire was correct.
13
14 Council Member Keller asked how the alternatives would affect the capacity of the pond
15 system to absorb I & I and peak wet weather flows.
16
17 Ms. McDonald answered that the plant would be designed to handle and treat the peak wet
18 weather flows. The average dry weather flow capacity was 6.7 mgd. The average annual
19 capacity would be 8 mgd, with a maximum month of 12 mgd and a peak hour flow of 36
2 o mgd. The facility would be sized to handle those wet weather flows.
21
22 Council Member Keller asked if there was any difference among the alternatives in the
23 capacity for storage and delivery for reuse.
24
25 Ms. McDonald replied that the same amount of storage was built in to all the alternatives.
26
27 Council Member Keller asked if Ms. McDonald thought the wetlands alternative would
28 provide a more polished product, more likely to meet future regulations on TMDL's for
2 9 metals and other elements.
30
31 Ms. McDonald agreed, explaining that the database showed that wetlands alternatives
32 would benefit in polishing the metals.
33
3 4 Ned Orrett, Pacific Technology, thought that the report followed the process that had been
3 5 established and was growing. He appreciated the ecological footprint information. As the
3 6 design moved forward it would be possible to capitalize on this work and reduce the
3 7 ecological footprint for this segment of the water resources program to probably less than
38 0.
39
4 o If the wetlands alternative was selected, it was more biologically productive and would be a
41 credit towards the footprint. The City was spending approximately $2 million dollars a year
42 of homeowners' capital., heating water that ended up going to the sewage plant. Future
43 water conservation could reduce that.
44
45 Council Member Keller asked Mr. Orrett if he had recommendations about how Council
46 should proceed.
1
~~
~.~
November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 337
- 1
2 Mr. Orrett replied that he would concur with the recommendation presented tonight.
3
4 Council Member Keller noted that if the water that Santa Rosa would be sending to the
5 Geysers came out of the Russian River/Eel. River, that was a very substantial ecological
6 footprint in terms of loss of fisheries and loss of resources in the Eel River, and he
'7 wondered if that had been accounted for in the calculations.
8
9 Mr. Orrett answered that information of that type was not included in the analysis. He
10 suggested that "those kinds of things will work themselves out over decades. Perhaps at
11 that point if our society is to continue we'll then have made the decision to invest in .more
12 wind power. We'll have other choices ten and twenty years from now."
13
14 Council Member Maguire was satisfied with City management's recommendation for
15 Alternative 5. He wanted City management to investigate independent freestanding
16 electrical systems to augment power and "buffer us from the vagaries of the future power
17 market." He added that 50% subsidy programs were available for such systems.
18
19 Mayor Thompson understood that the planting of the wetlands was a two to three-year
2 0 process. He asked Ms. McDonald if the costs of the planting, maintenance and specialty
21 personnel were included in the calculations
22
23 Ms. McDonald confirmed that they were.
24
2 5 Mayor Thompson wondered what it would cost to upgrade the existing ponds and address
2 6 the seepage issue. He was interested in learning more about the Napa Salt Ponds
27 concept, and what the advantages of that would be to the City of Petaluma.
28
29 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if there was a difference in the storage capacity between the
3 0 wetlands and the DAFS alternatives. She also would like to resolve the problem with the
31 seepage from the ponds. She was concerned with seismic stability, and ..had been told by
3 2 City management that the issue would be addressed. She also understood that the existing
33 levees would be reinforced. She supported Alternative 5 and the wetlands option. She
34 thought the wetlands option was the best way to treat the water environmentally. She
35 envisioned working with Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State University and
36 other educational agencies to provide opportunities for the public to learn about
3 ~ environmental science, bird watching, etc. She saw an opportunity to create more trail
3 8 space.
39
40 Ms. McDonald stated that there could be some storage capacity in the wetlands.
41
42 Council Member Keller wanted to move forward with the wetlands Alternatives 3 and 5. He
43 recommended very strongly as policy the wetlands option as opposed to the DAFS option,
44 not only for the polishing capability, but also, as mentioned, for the educational and
45 recreational possibilities. If the City sent water downstream through piping and pumping, it
46 would lose that resource locally. Water is extraordinarily valuable as a commodity. He
~~
Vol. 35, Page 338
November 20, 2000
1 thought it would be a great mistake for whatever reason to pump that water out of this
2 locality and not have access to it for reuse.
3
4 Council Member Healy supported Alternative 5. He was willing to proceed on a parallel
5 track with the different tertiary treatment options. He mentioned that at the water agency's
6 Forestville and Airport Plants they were pursuing a different tertiary treatment option called
7 micro filtration. He would like to know if that would be an appropriate alternative in addition
8 to DAFS and to treatment wetlands.
9
1 o He wondered if it would be possible to add a tertiary treatment component to the existing
11 facilities and gain a more reusable water supply before the entire plant is completed. He
12 also wanted to know what could be done to help .this project be completed as quickly and
13 efficiently as possible. He would like an analysis of what detours and dead ends there are
14 on the road ahead and what can be done to avoid them.
15
16 Council Member Cader-Thompson supported Alternative 5, and strongly supported the
17 wetlands option. She stressed the need to look at the community's long-term needs. The
18 wetlands option would provide miles of trails, and would extend Shollenberger Park. The
19 area would be good for all age groups because it could be used by hikers, bicyclists,
2 o parents pushing strollers, and would be wheelchair accessible. She wanted to find a way
21 to educate the public on the benefits of the wetlands and the park benefits. The property
22 was outside the Urban Growth Boundary..
23
24 It was the consensus of the Council to carry forward with the preferred Alternative 5A
25 and 5B as the backup, for the EIR process and pre-design only.
26
27 The item was to come back December 11, 2000 to approve legislation.
28
29 NEW BUSINESS
30
31 17. Discussion 'and Possible Action Regarding City of Petaluma Designation of Elected
3 2 Official Representative(s) to the:
33
34 A. Sonoma County Water Agency Technical Advisory Committee
3 5 B. Sonoma County Mayors' and Council Members' Association Water Task
3 6 Force
37 C. North Bay Watershed Association
38
39 Council Member Healy noted that under the City's Council Rules and Procedures,. liaison
4 o assignments are to be made each January, and asked if Council would be making an
41 appointment for the remainder of 2000.
42
43 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked that the Council appoint her to represent the City for a period of
44 one year, explaining that Council, at its discretion, can modify its normal policy by a simple
4 5 majority vote.
46
1
1
~v
November 20, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 339
1 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved, seconded by Keller, to appoint Vice Mayor
2 Torliatt as City representative to the Sonoma County Water Agency
3 Technical Advisory Committee, Sonoma county Mayors' and Council
4 Members' Association Water Task Force, and North Bay Watershed
5 Association fora period of one year.
6
7 MOTION
8 PASSED: 5/1/1 (Thompson "no," Hamilton absent)
9
10 Mayor Thompson noted that he would like this item to return for further discussion in
11 January.
12
1
t
13 18.
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
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding City of Petaluma Recommendation for
Appointment to Board of Directors of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway &
Transportation District. Appointment is made by the Mayors' and Council
Members' Association, City Selection. Committee.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Torliatt moved, seconded by Maguire, to recommend Marsha
Vas Dupre for appointment to Appointment to Board of Directors of the
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District.
MOTION
PASSED: 4/1/1/1 (Healy "no," Hamilton absent, Thompson abstaining)
nn.iniaRN
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
. Clark Thompson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Claire Cooper, Clerk Pro
Paulette Lyon, Deputy City rk
******
~~