HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 08/29/2000August 29, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 155
1
2 City of Petaluma, California
3 Minutes of a: Special
4 City Council Meeting
5
6
7 Tuesday, August 29, 200.0
g Council Chambers
9
' 10 The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 PRESENT: Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
15
16 ABSENT: None
17
18 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
19
2 o At the request of Mayor Thompson,. Jake Mackenzie Jed the Pledge of Allegiance.
21
22 MOMENT OF SILENCE
23
2 4 At the request of Mayor Thompson; a Moment of Silence was observed.
25
26 PUBLIC COMMENT
27
28 Bruce Hagan, 143 Grevillia, spoke regarding open meetings, and open and honest
29 government,. with .respect to the formation of a group of concerned citizens who had a
3 0 mutual desire to focus their volunteer campaign efforts,.. in this election, as was done in the
31 1998 election, for the successful election of three Council Members: He did not .believe
3 2 there was anything, illegal or unethical in doing so. He drew a correlation between what he
33 viewed as an inaccurate-perception and exploitation: of "wrong-doing" as reported in the
34 media about this group to the Council's. recent request to delay the signing of the 11th
3+5 Amended Agreement with the Sonoma County Water Agency (S.C:W.A.).
36
37 Vince Landoff, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke regarding. the flood project and the increase in its
3 8 cost since 1986 and asked City Management to provide a detailed accounting of the
3 9 project as he disagreed with the figures the City reported to the press as the cost overrides
40 on the project were dramatically exaggerated.
41
42 COUNCIL COMMENTS
43
44 Council Member Gader-Thompson understood that there was consideration of changing
45 Zone 2-A and including it with RCD. She requested Water Resources
Vol. 35, Page 156 August 29, 2000
1 and Conservation Director Tom Hargis contact Dennis DeWitt and Bill :Bennett, and provide
2 a report to the Council. She didn't• understand how monies collected for Zone 2-A could be
. 3 moved without the Zone 2-A Committee participation.
4
5 She referred to a letter she had addressed to Council as a fallow-up of the recent joint
6 Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce and City Council. meeting that requested
7 transportation issues within the community be on Council's agendafor. their September 18
8 meeting. She had a .List of :items she wanted to have addressed. She asked that Public
9 Facilities and Services Director Rick Skladzien be available to provide information to the
1 o Council for.discussion. on prioritizing projects for preparation of a2002.ballot measure that
11 would support the Council not being forced info 'projects that did not benefitthis
12 community.
13
14 Regarding recent. reports of Brown Act {Act) violations by members of this Council, Council
15 Member Caller-Thompson thought fhe;re was;a misunderstanding of what was.considered
16 'a violation of the Act. She stated she had the right as a cifizen of this community to know
17 who the candidates were. It was not a secret meeting. There were twenty people at the
18 meeting: Democrats, Republicans,-Independents, #hree candidates, and' people she did not
19 know. the event was taken out of context and she was sorry the perception was negative..
20
21 She looked forward to theupeoming election and noted themajor issues as water, growth,.
22 -and transportation. She wanted a discussion scheduled for the Councif about the Rural
23 Heritage Initiative (RHI) and whether or not the Council supported if.
24
2 5 She requested that Water Resources and Conservation ..Director Tom Hargis bring to the
2 6 Council a proposal that addressed a moratorium on development in floodplain upstream of
27 the Payran area, all the way up Industrial Drive to Old Redwood Highway. She wanted. it on
2.8 an agenda for the Council to discuss and. take. action on. She wanted to find out where'the
29 Council Members stood on development in the floodplain.
30 •
31 Council Member Keller supported Council Member Caller-Thompson's request for a
32 discussion and possible action regarding a moratorium on development in fhe floodplain.
33 He urged that it come to the Council as an action item for implementation of a temporary
3 4 moratorium on development in the floodplain~and upstream development in the floodplain.
35 •
3 6 Council Member Healy recalled that there had been a straw vote regarding. a building
37 moratorium and at thaftime, there were three;Council, Members who stated theywo.uld•not
38 support a moratorium based on current evidence.. He did not object if Councilwanted to
3~9 repeat that exercise. He• asked that Cify Management, at fhe, carne time ;as a discussion
40 regarding a moratorium came to Council, bring forward
41 the proposed expansion of the zero net fill area that was promi red in June and had not yet
42 materialized.
43
44 Council Member Keller agreed.
45
August 29,.2000 Vol. 35, Page 157
1 Council Member Hamilton expressed her shock at reading a recent published editorial in
2 the Press Democrat and the Argus Courierthat, to her, read as a "political hit piece.:" She
3 then read a statement she had prepared, summarized as follows:
4
5 Council Members did not initiate, organize or run meetings; they participated with two-
6 dozen community activists,: who had come together over the past several years, and who
7 shared values of an economically and ecologically sustainable community. They worked
8 together, an assorted group of individuals who were the most unlikely allies, for real
9 solutions to the complex problems facing the City for the last decade. The agenda for the
10 meeting was simple: the objective was to learn enough about the candidates.,to determine
11 who might best implement these community values that they believed were held by a large
12 majority of Petaluma community.
13
14 Nearly all of the attendees expressed a lack of support for two candidates. There was.;no
15 vote on any issue, or candidate. However, many attendees believed it was only #air,
16 responsible, and. respectful to let two candidates know that they did not have solid backing
17 for their campaign from this group of individuals. Most participants supported ;the idea of
18 Matt Maguire asking the two. candidates to consider withdrawing, since he tiad originally
19 asked them to consider running. There was no attempt to "force out" these candidate- s.
2 0 There was agreementthat there was an obligation to let these candidates; with whom,they
21 had worked on other political issues, know what they could expect, before. the filing
22 deadline, so they could go forward with complete awareness.
23
24 She did not believe that the meeting, or Council.. Members' attendance at the meeting, was
25 a violation of the Brown Act; that is, one where a Council majority makes a decision. in
2 6 private .about City business,... A, discussion abouf which Council candidates to support was
27 not City business. .It was important to remember that individual Council, Members had
2 8 rights as citizens to support Council .campaigns.. She wondered why they would meet-as a
29 group and then try to influence who ran for office.
30 _
31 It was common knowledge that campaigns were often won by money, and money too.often
32 came from people with a narrow financial interest. To be.successful in working for the
33 rights of present and future generations to enjoy a healthy and sustainable.rcommunity,~f
3 4 was important to be "politically smart." It was .naive to think that winning eleetioris' and
35 advancing a cause that was not fueled by big money could be done without any sense of
3 6 strategy. In a Council election, there was no primary to narrow fihe race; if there were three
3 7 seats open; people with
3 s .similar values had the best chance .for success if there were only three "like-minded"
39 candidates. In 1.99.6,, a coalition did this and gained the Council majority. They tried legally
40 and ethically to avoid splitting the vote aganthis year and they were genuinely sorry that
41 one of the candidates .involved found it upsetting.
42
4 3 Their actions did not warrant the words ofithe two. editorials nor of the articles published in
44 the Press Democratand the Argus Courier. The editorials compared the group's campaign
45 effort to the "backroom politics" they fought in.1996, which Council Member Hamilton
4 6 stated was absolutely absurd. At that time, she clarified, a Council majority secretly agreed
Vol. 35, Page 158 August 29, 2000
1 on a plan to postpone the Lafferty decision until. after the election, as they believed they
2 could proceed more safelythen to give away the. mountaintop gem.. This followed the 1993
3 "swap deal," which a few Council Members made entirely without public knowledge..
4
5 She summarized that she believed the worst that- had been done in this recent incident was
6 that :this .group exposed themselves to baseless attacks by political opponents; it was
7 disappointing that the Argus Courier and the Press Democrat gave fuel to this smear
8 campaign and, in fact, took the lead. She had., the experien.r.:e of .not b°eing articulated
9 clearly or .appropriately in the press, regardless of what she said. She wanted to set the
10 record straight, noting that she was completely open and above board. If~anyone wantedto
11 question her about anything that occurred or did_n't occur, she believed~thatshe, or anyone
12 who atfended those meetings, was prepared to talk about it.
14 Council Member Maguire thought it was galling that. his integrity and that of his peers on
1.5 the +Council be so maliciously maligned. He thought ~ he should apologize for the
16~ .appearance of some impropriety. 'He thought. that. may have risen due to naivefe on their
17 part ,and the _innocence of clear conscience knowing the distinction between what. City
18 business'was:and was not. Fie noted that the meeting was mainly a "mini" candidates'
19 forum.. He found himself in the position, as it got closer to the time for-filing candidacies..,. of
2 o seeing no one he considered a fairly progressive, enlightened .environmentally-sensitive
21 mdiVidual ready or willing to run for City Council. He took it upon himself to make some
22 calls, and he believed Council Member Hamilfori did the same. Guy Guillion and Jim
23 ,Mobley were two good people with good values he had asked to .run. At that time; he
2 4 raised the possibility with them. of there being; more candidates of like values than there
2 5 ~were-seafs;-fhat is, more~than three~people competing for three seats. He asked them if, in
2 6 that case; they would be willing to have the discussion about who were the most viable,,,
2 7 most electable ;candidates with those common values; both Guy and Jim readily agreed at
2 8 that time. He thought he Thad been upfront with there: He f..ollewed through with what he
29 said~he was going to do, and had no problem with his actions being ethical, honest..and.
3 0 upfront.
31
32 The irony was that this Council: had a proven track reco`rd~of bringing "sunshine" info the
33 operations of local .government being smeared as the opposite.. The other unfortunate
34 -:outcome of this kind of publicity was that.it drove, people awayfrorn participating in`the local
3 5 government. process.. The "fanning of the flames" was the :reason he made calls to
36 prospective candidates; it was distressing and saddening.. One :gf the final ironies of the
3 ~ Press Democrateditorial was that Mr. Gols, who he believed to be the author, claimed that
3 8 this was the Council. that tried to "conceal a biologist report on .Lafferty Ranch." That was.a
3 9 biologist report that had been released prematurely by the biologist, a highly unprofessional
4 0 act: There was no action on the part of anyone on the- Council to lift a finger to conceal
41 that report and, in fact, when the issue was addressed, in Closed Session, they agreed to
42 err on the side of giving up as much information as they could as long, as it did not
43 jeopardize the City's legal position. The City had been under the threat of a lawsuit on that
44 issue for manyyears. Given that, he. reassured the public,that there was no. violation of the
45 Brown Act, no collusion, no plotting, no planning, rio brow beating, no arm twisting. He
46 also assured the. public thatit was worthwhile to participate in local governmentat this level
August 29, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 159
1 and, speaking fo the public, asked that they not be discouraged by this current situation
2 because.
4 Council Member Keller referred to the claim in the Press Democratabout information in the
5 .Lafferty biologist Ceport~being withheld was investigated by the Grand Jury and rejected as
6 a claim. Apparently Mr. Golis, or the editorial board of the Press Democrat had forgotten
7 what the Grand Jury had ruled.
8
9 COUNCIL AND CITY_ MANAGEMENT REPORTS.
10
11 None
12
13 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
14
15 None
16
17 UNFIiVISHED BUSINESS
18
19 1. Continued Discussion and Possible Action on 11t" Amended Agreement for
2.0 Impaired Water Supply and Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water
2.1 Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and
22 Operating Procedure-for South Petaluma Aqueduct/Operational Memorandum of
23 Understanding. (.Hargis/Simmons)
24
2 5 Mayor Thompson introduced the agenda item and noted that discussions about
2 6 '_ water issues could get very .emotional.. He asked that this meeting be a model of
2 ~ 'civility and asked everyone to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. The
.2 8 Council was there to accomplish one thing; and one thing only; that was to arrange
2 9 for the best deal, with regard to water, for the citizens of Petaluma. He asked for
3 0 public comment first and rioted that.. he would strictly enforce the three-minute rule;
3 i anyone continuing to speak beyond three minutes would be stopped. He asked that
3 2 .those, who had spoken to this issue previously not speak unless they had something
3 3 new to add:
34
'35 PUBLIC~COMMENT
36
37 Marc Greene, Executive Director of the Sonoma County Conservation Action, 540
38 Pacific Avenue, Santa Rosa, on behalf oftwo thousand member households in the
3 9City of Petaluma, spoke in support of the Council asking the "hard" questions about
40` , ,Amendment 11 and in opposition to the actions of the S.C.W.A. to, he believed,
41 "bully" various jurisdictions into doing its will to expand its desire to be a water
42 empire.
4 3'
44 Vince Landof, 12 Cordelia Drive, spoke in support of the Council asking questions
45 about Amendment 11 and recognized Vice Mayor Torliatt for looking out for the best
4 6 interests of the citizens of Petaluma. He spoke in opposition to the Sonoma County
Vol. 35, Page 160
Augusf 29, 2000
1 Board of Supervisors' position not to support the City of f'efaluma's written request
2 at the S.C.W.A. August 22 meeting.
3
4 Larry Robinson, Sebastopol City Council Member, 460.Eleanor, Sebastopol,,spoke
5 in support of the Council's position. on Amendment 11, explaining that even hough
6 his City was not a member of the water agreement, they had a, sfake in the
7 outcome.
8
9 Terence Garvey,'83 Maria Drive, spoke opposition to the S.C.W.A. reducing water
1o supply'in half. There was a need for'reuseof'the watersupply and when the water
11 requested was cut in half, so was the. recy,.cled water that could be produced from
12 that source. He believed conservation measures were contained in the E.I. R. and
13 were .not addressed by showerheads and toilet`s. He believed it was the City's
14 responsibility to impose conservation measures: He did not support the Council's
15 position:. regarding Amendment 11. .
16
17 Jake Mackenzie, Rohnert Park City Council Member, 1~5~6~Gladstone:UVay; Rohnert
18 Park, announced his intention of bringing forward to the Rohnert Park City Council
19 at its. September 12 meeting, the. Petaluma CityCounci9's request for aninety-d_ay
2 0 extension and forum, and his support of the same. He then referred to a list of
21 questions, .published by the. -Press Democrat.. He noted that he did not believe that
22 anyone in the County knew if there were,adequate water resources and that a forum
2 3 to explain, debate and decide did not exist in the County, The Board of Supervisors,
24 acting as the Water Agency, did not ;represent everyone. The Water .Agency
2 5 believed it had ally the authority it needed to take water from the [Russi'an] River: It ;
2 6 wanted to put in place its distribution mechanism. He supported discussions on .all
2 7 aspects ofi water, :including aquifer re-charge, ag_ ricultural reuse of tertiary treated
28 wastewater,, needs during. the summer months, and the ability to protect~cities to .
29 make sure there would always be an adequate water supply,. _ ..
30
31 Council. Member Healy thanked Mr. Mackenzie for voting "yes" on water meters. He
32 knew that was a difficult decision: He recalled that Mr, Mackenzie voted''-yes" on .
33 Amendment 11 when it came before the Rohnert Park City Council last .year. He
34 asked if he was correct in understanding that, since Rohnert Park's allocation~under
3 5 Amendment 11 increased substantially in eornparison to.'Petafurna's; the. purpose.
3 6 was to get Rohnert Park off well water, and not to fuel rampant growth.
37
38 Mr.. Mackenzie replied that the City .Manager of Rohnert Park believed the City's
39 population of some 40;000 could be supplied by the City's aquifer that,aupplied .
40 thirty wells from which the City drew its water.. In the 1970's and 1:9.80's, the. City , .
41 extracted and obta_ fined most of its water supply from these well's_.~ Ferhapsfhe City
42 Manager believed a m..,illion gallons would be nice to have in reserve but:clearly the
43 anticipation was that the aquifer would be adequate. Nature was not recflarging,the
44 aquifer and as a. matter of fact, the water table was dropping each year.
45
August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 161
1 It was the desire of the City of Rohnert Park to stop. drawing down the. aquifer and to
2 make itself more reliant on the aqueduct. The requesfof the fifteen million gallons
3 per year was an historic request ,from the City Engineer and represented what they
4 believed was needed .ir- the case of. Total reliance on the. aqueduct during peak
5 times. He did. not believe that Rohnert Park, under its..current general_~plan, which
6 proposed a one percent growth;.rate over the n.ext,twerity years, was looking to rely
7 less and less as a percentage on groundwater. He believed that by`going to full
8 metering of -the City they would 'demonstrate their adherence to conservation
9 practices. Secondly, they they used recycled treated wastewater in all, of their City
1o parks and open spaces and they encouraged continued~conservation,practices and
11 the adoption of the other conservation practices:recommended `by S.C.W.A.
12
13 Vice Mayor Torliaft noted that she reviewed the minutes.of the Rohnert Park Council
14 when they adopted Amendment 11, and their Council `raised some of the same
15 questions this Council has raised. As far as she knew, those questions had not
16 been answered.
17 ~ ~ ~ {`
18 Frank Egger, Mayor of Fairfax, 13 Meadow Way, Fairfax, spoke against
19 Amendment 11. He noted that the Fairfax Town Council, by a three to two vote,-was
2 o the first of twenty Marin and Sonoma cities to take a stand against the proposed
21 Marin Pipeline to Kastania and Sonoma's Russian River Water Transmission
22 Project, based on a number of issues which included:
23
24 o The Federal Endangered Species Act that listed the Russian River Steelhead
2 5 and Coho in the Eel River.
2 6 o Chinook Salmon.
27 o The dumping of treated sewer water into the Russian River by four cities of the
2 s S.C.W.A. collectors.
29 o The dramatic depletion of the Russian River's aquifer because of gravel mining
3 0 (ending the mining nowwould allow the gravel. beds to replenish themselves and
31 could restore enough groundwater storage to replace the Eel. River water supply
32 when the diversions end)..
3 3 s Projected growth by the Association of Bay Area Governments. in the North Bay
34 of a total of 140;000 people.
35
36 Mayor Egger spoke in opposition to the S.C.W.A. practices. He referred to
37 testimony given, by an attorney representing S.C.W.A. in a recent court case. The
38 attorney stated that the S.G.W.A. had no authority, ownership, decision-making or
3 9 control whatsoever over the Potter Valley Project and its increasing diversions of Eel
4o River water to the Russian River when, in fact, the Sonoma County Board of
41 Supervisors, acting as the S.C.W.A., recently held a secref meeting; in violation of
42 the Brown Act, and signed a contract with Pacific Gas and .Electric for the .eventual
43 purchase of the Potter Valley Project. By doing this, they guaranteed themselves
44 maximum authority and control over the diversions. During the trial, he listened to
45 the S;C:W.A. tell the judge that the reason they had to double their~current Russian
Vol. 35, Page 162
August 29, 2000
1 River diversion was because their eight contractors asked for the additional water
2 for'#heir~projeeted;growth:
3
4 He was of thin. meeting ,representing the majority of the Fairfax Town Council- #o
5 support.the Petaluma City Council in its effort to stand up to what he. viewed as
6 blackmail by the"" S'.C.W.A. and.. to support the Council's rational. attempt to
7 determine Sonoma. and Marin's destiny. -The Council's calf for real discussions of
8 the issues, including sustainatility and~;revisiting the twenty-year projections of the
9 Marin and Sonoma cities' general; plans, was absolutely necessary before final
10 signoff on Amendment 11 and the S.C.W,A.'s proposals: He thanked the Council
11 for their courage. .
12
13 Council Member Keller thanked Mayor Egger and stated that he appreciated the
14 message from the-;Fairfax" Town Council. He asked for a copy of the Fairfax
15 statement, letter, or ~Cesolution, that was passed on the matters he referenced.
16 f
17 Mayor Egger agreed and :indicated that he would forward a copy to the S.C.W.A. as
18 well
..
19
2 0 Council Member Keller also~asked Mayor Egger to provide a copy ofi his remarks to
21 the Council as well.
22
2 3 Mayor Egger agreed.
24
2 5 Pia Jensen, City of Cotati Council Member, 8156 Qlaf, Cotati, noted that she was
2 6 not representing the. City Council, as they had a three to two vote accepting the 11th
27 Amendment, although they had. not yet accepted the conservation plan. She
2 8 recalled. that a few years ago., during the wast_ewater~ hearings, there were a lot of
2 9 good ideas brought up about what to do with treated wastewater. She thought it was
3 0 a shame that the S:C.1N.A. was going to send the water to the Geysers, and that
31 they didn't have the vision for any other options. Some of the options that were
32 brought up included. agricu'Itural reuse, and some of the ideas she presented
3 3 included reuse of the water for Laundromats and other heavy water-use businesses.
34 She believed that if the 11,7 million gallons per~day that was going to be sent to the
3 5 Geysers was returned to the County, the County would not be faced with the
3 6 problem 'it was now confronting.
37
3 8 She continued that, with regard to the 11th Amendment contract, one of the
39 questions she asked S.C.1N.A.'s Randy Roole atthe Cotati Council Meeting was in
4 o regard to the legality of some of -the issues.. Accor""ding to the contract, the
41 aggregafe am.ounf of money received by the S.C.W.A: would be used solely for the
42 delivery of the water. That was how the contract read, :but she believed that
43 everyone knew that the S:C.W.A. would add in the cst of the lawsuits brought
44 against them:for (heir difficulties with their E.I.R. (which-she. believed Judge gntollini
45 found totally in the wrong) and thaf rate payers needed to know that they`would be
46 paying°for~that: The Potter. Valley Project, it was stated, shall be acquired without
August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 163
1 the prior approval of the Water Advisory Committee.. There would be no sense of
2 public trust if the S.C.IIV.A. could move forward without full public disclosure of the
3 costs and the opportunities.
4
5 Council Member Jensen also asked who the "surplus water contractors" were. After
6 repeated requests to Mr. Poole, she received a list of large vineyards that would be
7 getting the surplus water. She noted that, if she wasn't incorrect, Judge Antollini
8 commented during the.hearing (about'the Eet River) that surplus water contracting
9 of the water for ratepayers and regular contractors was not actually legal. The City
10 of Cotati' had an ordinance stating that they would .not sell surplus water and she
11 ~ recommended that all other cities in Sonoma County establish a similar ordinance.
12 If in fact it' is illegal, the S.C.1N.A. should not. be forcing it on cities; they should deal
13 with, it themselves.
14
15 .Some of the obvious uses of the water should be for ground water recharge. On
16 -' hearing the-Eimer, she summarized'that it had. been a three to two vote by the Cotati
17 °' Council. A.number of the issues brought up by Petaluma's Vice Mayor Torliatt were
18 the same issues that were brought up during .discussions at the City of Cotati. She
19 noted that'those issues were not being answered. She believed it was foolhardyfor
2 0 anycity to accept the~11 th Amendment and she was sorry that the City of Cotati had
21 done so.
22
23 -Council Member Keller thanked Cotati Council Member Pia Jensen for coming to
24 the meetirg_and addressing Councilarad asked for copies of the minutes and/or
25.. other summaries of. the questions that were asked of the S.C.W.A. that had not
2 6 been answered to her satisfaction.
27 ~ ._.
2 8 Council Memkier Jensen agreed.
29 _
3 0 Council Member Keller~added that. the same was requested of Rohnert Park.
31
32 Council Member Hamilton requested that Cotati Council Member Jensen provide a
3 3 list of all the' contractors.
34 -
3'5 .Cotati Council Member Jensen replied that Petalurna's Vice Mayor Torliatt had the
3 6 list.
37
38 Council Member Keller asked Vice Mayor Torliatt if she had the list.
39
4 o Vice Mayor Torliatt indicated she did.
41
42 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, spoke in opposition to the City Council signing
43 Amendment 11 with the belief thaf concerns about where, why, what, when,and how
44 much it would cost the rate payers and the community over and above the financial
45 concerns would be addressed in future agreements.
46
Vol. 35, Page 164
August'29, 2000
1 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Geoff .Cartwright for his efforts in
2 attending. and .addressing the. S.C..1N.A. on behalf of the City of Petaluma.
3
4 Rob Rowson, P. O. Box t57, Sebastopol, representing ForestvilleCitizens for
5 Sensible Growth, spoke in opposition to Amendment 11, noting that it was not
6 merely about support or opposition to growth or needs for water supplies. In an
~ importantway, it was about upporfing or. opposing demacratic principles and open
8 public discussion about the impacts and options confronting the entire region with
9 ~ regard to water.: He expressed his gratitude to the Council for standing up to~what
1o he deemed "fascism" in the form_ of the S.C.W.A.'s Baard of Directors (i.e., the
11 Board of Supervisors) who seemed; to him, fo be intent upon the bidding. ofap.ecial .
12 interest growth machine.
13 - ,.
14 J.T. Wick, Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce, 799 Baywood Drive; -spoke in
15 support: of Council adopting Amendment 11 and.the.Mern~orandum of Understanding
16 ~ (MOU). The Chamber understood that there were legitimate concerns-Jregarding
17 conservation but belie.~ed that if they were not a_ part of process,to affect regional.
18 water policy, they would not be able to affect its outcome:.,' He believed the Chamber
19 needed to be part of the water contractors in .order to.bring about.some of the water
20 conservation changes that'had been discussed during°-the last several meetings.
21
22 Mr. Wick supported the City looking at its track record in comparison with some~.of .
23 the other water contractors, some. of which were. present. He believed that in
24 comparison to Santa Rosa. and: the North Mariri UUater,,District, the City '.had note _
2 5 done "as good a job." He continued that. he believed, if would'be better if the City's
2 6 new wastewater treatment plant was online, as the Cy would have asource of ., .
27 reclaimed water to supply irrigation to many acres of institutional and commercial
28 land within. the.City. The current development review process spent little time
2 9 looking of water conservation. Before the City told other people what they needed
3 0 to do, the. City needed to look at what it had. ;and had not. done and make
31 improvements.
32 .~
3 3 The Petaluma Area. Chamber of Commerce was also very~concerned about the cost
34 implications of not opting in on Amendment 11. Rate increases,, as the Council
3 5 was acutely aware, were inevitable to ratepayers in, the City because of the prior
36 rate structure that did not keep up with the needs of infrastructure in the City. In
3 ~ addition to that, the C_ ity needed to include the cost of replacing its own viaduct; now
3 s twelve years from obsolescence,. and. the prospect of paying for its own ,storage
3 9 facilities were daunting #or a community of this size; and 'would have huge economic
4 o implications. He asked that Council consider these issues before deciding to opt out
41 of Amendment 11.
42
43 Dayle. Lipman, speaking on behalf of the: Citizems of the City of Petaluma, spoke
44 regarding democracy. She noted that, in her opinion, there were four City Council
45 Members representing'twenty to:twenty-four people in the City, and she believed,
4 6 this was not representative of all of the City. It was true that small meetings could be
August 29, 2000 Vol: 35, Page 165
1 arranged and discussions take place but contended that when four people of the
2 Council were involved, it looked a little funny. She had' two questions''for Council
3 Members Cader-Thompson, Torliatt, Maguire and Hamilton. She asked that they
4 stand up.
Mayor Thompson asked if'what she was asking was related to water issues.
7
Ms. Lipman replied no.
10 Mayor Thompson advised that the Council was taking public comment about water
11 issues.
12
13 Ms. Lipman asked that the four Council Members she named resign from the City
14 Council,,. add_.ing that, in her opinion, they had put their personal issues above the
15 good of the democracyand were no longer serving the good of the community. She
16 added that Council was drinking a lot of water.
17
18 Laurel Hagen., Bruce.Hagen, and Hagan family members, 145 Grevillia Drive, spoke
19 in support of the Council not signing Amendment 11 and presented a skit that
2 o reflected their opinion about the pos"sible impacts of the S.C.W.A. implementation of
21 Amendment 11. In summary, their skit suggested flawed conservation ,practices
22 and asked, if not us, who, and if not now, when?
23
24 David Glass, 41 Oxford Court, noted that he learned, while working with the media,
2 5 that there were no "bad questions:" There were bad answers, there was a IacK of
2 6 answers, there were bad reactions. He supported the Council bringing the, issue
27 into the light; they.had provided the public a service. It was no longer letters#o the
2 8 editor, it was:no longer buried in the Petaluma section of the newspaper, it was not
29 buried in the Empire news, it was on the front page of the Press Democrat, the
3 o Argus Courier, the San• Francisco Chronicle. It was. America's issue.
31
32 Kurt Erickson, member ofthe Western Sonoma County Rural Alliance acid the Town
3 3 Hall Coalition,.; Occidental, California, spoke in support of the Council having the
34 courage to bring this matter to the public with their questions,` 'Resid'e,nts of, the
3 5 unincorporated area of Sonoma County relied on the Council's work to bring these
3 6 .issues into fhe open. Their only representative was a member of the Board of the'
37 S.C.W.A. Of importance to him was that. the ;groundwater study had ~nofi been
3 8 initiated. The pilot draft of three pilot areas had not been'started. The last one was
3 9 done in 1974: Much had happened since then. The water issues in Sonoma County
4 o affected. everyone equally. Growft issues would #ollow water. He applauded
41 Petaluma for sending a strong message that the S.C.W.A. must act as a function of
42 and by the community, .not as a private operator focused on increasing its own
43 fiefdom. The co-modification of water was becoming a .growing concern globally.
44
45 Guy Gullion, 9 Eddie Court, announced that he was not a candidate f.or the City
46 Council, and added that he never filed nomination papers. He applauded Vice
Vol. 35, Page 166
August 29, 2000
1 ~ Mayor Torliatt for her bravery and. courage in standing up to what he deemed,
2 "brow-beating, bullies," who were.trying to make.the valle_ y.anothernon-sustainable,.
3 ~ urban wasteland'.
4
5 Don 1Neisenfluh, 1.092 Wren Drive, spoke in response to critics of'the Council's
6 concern :over the; Board .o.f Supervisors "wate.r#or development agreement." He did
~ not believe the critics were interesfed in facts orwhatwas good for Sonoma-County;
8 especially: when it con. flicted with what he believed was their agenda, growth and
9 profits at the expense of the inhabitants. Water was the key resource and without it
1 o development stopped: Nature imposed this absolute limit on .Sonoma:and Marin, not
'11 the Petaluma City .Council. Sonoma and Marin reached that limit some time ago.
12 The Petaluma City Council was the messenger publicly recognizing what he
13 believed all, knew ,to be true. all along: there was no water to spare.
14
15 The. Federal government had provided millions of dollars to help mitigate the
16' disastrous effects of overuse and. gravel mining, on the Russian River's fisheries:
17 The Eel River was also in a predicament in this regard despite recent legal
18 setbacks. As for E.I.R.'s, mitigation was "empty lip_service." Neither Sonoma nor
19 Marin could continue to grow with their unrealistic general plans. The Supervisors
2 0 and other critics refused to recognize these, facts. He asked 'if .they were
21 incompetent and stated that if so, they should 6e recalled. If not,. he wondered what
22 '~. ~ possible justification they could.offer asthey obstinately and belligerently persisted.
2 3 in jeopardizing' the well being of Sonoma County. Despite conservation efforts,
24 ,Sonoma was, hemorrhaging a finite resource due.to imprudent development. The
2 5 ~ premise was that as long as there was some water left in the River, it was up for
2 6 _ grabs. This was indicative of total disregard for the community: This was a regional
2 ~ issue that had now caught the attention of the State. Sonomans needed to contact
2 s '.- .their supervisors, town councils, and newspapers, and get behind Petaluma's lead.
29 Don'~`t kill the messenger. Lack of vision would~result'in suffering:
30
31 _ He then addressed comments rnada by South County Supervisor, Michael Kerns
32 that this was "politicizing the issue." He believed no politician would open up a "can
3 3 ~ of worms" during, an election year and put himself or her:~elf at risk unless he or she
3 4 ~ cared deeply for the community as a whole. It took. someone with courage. Ne
3 5 = _ thanked Vice Mayor Torliatt and the Council. majority:
36
3 ~ Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue, stated she agreed with Randy Poole that
3:8 .you could not make other contractors pay for infrastructure unless they~were going
-3 9 ~ to benefit. When she'. looked at who was paying for`wha.t, as a taxpayer, voter, and
40 resident ofPetaluma, she .did not find., any way that she would benefit from the
41 . S:C.W.A. installing a pipeline. She believed the beneficiaries of the South
42 r 'Transmission Projectwould.be the Marin Municipal.Water District (MMWD), North
.43 Matrin Municipal Water District (NMMWD), and Rohnert Park. She believed that
44~ was why Gotati had not signed-the MOU.
45
August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 167
1 She continued that she also agreed with what the Board of Supervisors had stated
2 on this issue. She quoted portions of the minutes. from meeting of the Board of
_ 3 Supervisors where they approved the E.I.R., reading comments with which she
4 ~ agreed, including Supervisor Tim Kelly saying that, "I think that too often the little
5 guy gets run over~and I think we should have.some options that could protect the
6 little guy." She continued that Supervisor Kelly said, "I would assure that that would
~ `save costs of staying on the same side of the river as other collectors. Some of the
8 ~ reduced impact of power lines going over the River but I also think from what I could
9 read, there-would be potential impact to flooding." She said he then mentioned,
10 "There was a mention, I think was Impact 5.3-14 which was the monitoring of the
11 wells. I think there is a mention that the monitoring for impact is for one year. We
12 may want fo do'it for longer, maybe even three years." She continued that he also
13 stated, "We do supply the water to lot of the users and we also are the agency for
14 the management of flood control on the River and it should be that way."
15
16 Ms. Torres then referred to Supervisor Carpenter, who she noted was on the Board
17 of Supervisors at the'time the E:I.R. was approved. She quoted him as saying,
18
19 In listening to the testimony about this issue, it's quite clear that public
2 0 confidence has been lost in this process and 1 don't know whether it's
21 the subject matter or whether it's them, ethodology or perhaps even a
2 2 jaded public. If there is not some way to restore confidence in what
2 3 the mission of the S. C. W.A. is with respect to water supply that being
2 4 clearly, stated for the public or whether there has not been a, l guess,
2 5 whether there's been a full disclosure of what this is all about in terms
2 6 of needing the water, in terms of some of the competitive aspects of
2 ~ others trying to take water out of region.
28
2 9 If we do nothing at all but I do not believe that this process to this
3 o point and this E.I.R. will bring about a public confidence in the mission
31 of the S:C.V1/.A. and 1 don't know exactly what to do about that, Mr.
3 2 Chairman, with respect to this E.1. R., except to say 1 think it needs
3 3 more detailed work around many of the issues that we've heard here
3 4 and better methodology coming forth to explain to the public what's at
3 5 stake here... And 1 wou/d.suggest, Mr. Chairman, that either the Board
3 6 move immediately to put together an advisory committee for the
3 ~ S: C. W.A, that would report to this Board or in fact to appoint an ad
38 hoc committee, specifically for this ,project, of citizens to help the
3 9 S. C. W.A. in their .mission of relating to the public, which to me, is
4 o equally as important as procuring the water supply.
41
42 Council Member Cader-Thompson thanked Ms. Torres for her hard work in the
43 community and acknowledged Ms. Torres for the show she produces for Petaluma
44 Community Access, the City Watch Dog.
45
Vol. 35, Page 168
August 29, 2000
1 Council Member Hamilton asked Ms. Torres for the name of the Supervisor whom
2 she had quoted.
3
4 Ms. Torres replied. that'it was Carpenter and .added that Tim Smith also had som_ e
5 comments. She had previously forwarded the document to the Council.
6
7 John Rosenblum, 900 Dorthel Street,. Sebastopol,, noted that he was present to
8 encourage the Council's-pursuit of evaluating how the~S.C.W.A. created, their plan
9 and reevaluating how this plan met the vision for the next twenty years, rather than
10 looking only at the complex. pattern of constraints at which they had .looked so far.
11 For example, no one had looked at what would happen should we continue withthis
12 trajectory of using more and more water. What would happen in fifty years or one
13 hundred years? That wasn't in the scope of work for the planners: -~
14
15 Another question was how would .the fisheries be restored in the Eel River and. the
16 Russian River? When the planners were asked, they replied that it was not in their
17 scope of work. There were Endangered Species Act hearings, and. maybe, in the
18 future,, perhaps ten years from now, it would be addressed. It was the role of the
19 Council as policymakers to look beyond.. the constraints that the staffs of the various
2 0 agencies had to deal with.
21
22 Another favorite constraint of Mr: Rosenblum was the flow restrictions., or the
23 minimum flows in summer at Hacienda Bridge. Those flows were very high,. they
2 4 were much larger than the natural flows in the Russian River and they were initially
2 5 set so that the S:C.W.A. pumps .in Forestville could actually take water out of the
2 6 aquifer during the summer.
27
28 Yet another issue was whether there was a crisis during the summer, the peak
29 demand crisis. According to the S.C.W.A.'s own ,reports, it was due to a fine
3 0 material that was clogging. the wells and preventing water from being .extracted fast
31 enough. He mentioned P. G. and E., which curtailed power to the pumps during
32 very hot days. When that happened on consecutive days, they could not make up
33 the water in the storage tanks.
34 -
3 5 Mr. Rosenblum added that it .bothered him that it was never really specified where
3 6 there were boftlenecKs: He thoughf that the crisis that the S.C.VII.A. wanted. the
3 7 public to focus on could be averted in a very short amount of time. There was;time,
3 8 not just ninety days btit maybe- an entire .year to reevaluate ahe vision. He
3 9 concluded that in the long term, there were efficiency and recycling measures that
40 would. reduce the cost and reduce the demand and there would be a huge role for
41 the S:C.W.A. in collaboration with all of the elected officials to achieve that.
42
43 Council Member Keller asked Mr. Rosenb'Ium to submit some of his notes ih writing
44 to the Council
45
46 Mr. Rosenblum agreed to do so.
August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 169
1 Larry Minkes, 230 Coleman Drive, San Rafael, announced that he was a candidate
2 for the MM1ND Board. He expressed his. interest in the current events and how the
3 S.C:W.A. approached the Council about this issue. He drew a correlation to the
4 issues the Board in .Marin would face during the candidates' race. He did not want
5 MMWD, S.C.W.A., and City of Petaluma, all doing different things not knowing what
6 the other~was doing; he looked forward to much better communication in the future.
7
8 Marilyn Goode, 2303 Grove Street, Sonoma Valley spoke in opposition to
9 Amendment 11 :and announced that a number of citizens would approach the Valley
10 of the Moon District to support the City's. ninety-day extension and were upset the
11 Board of Supervisors had not done a complete groundwater study for the entire
12 county.
13
14 Reuven 1Nalder, VVoodacre, San Geronimo Valley, Marin County, spoke in
15 opposition to Amendment 11 and thanked Vice Mayor Torliatt for her efforts and all
16 who asked .some ,hard .questions. These. questions had been asked before and he
17 asked the Council to make sure before making a decision that all of the answers to
18 those questions had.. come to them and. to let the public know what those answers
19 were. He did not think the Council should-make a decision without hearing the
2 0 public's reaction to those answers.
21
22 Mr. Walder added that he had heard about a proposed sewage treatment plant to
2 3 be consttueted upstream of Jenner and asked. if anyone knew anything about it. He
24 had brought it up as it was one more impact to the Russian River's ecosystem and
25 he wanted'the Council to take that into consideration.
26
27 Scott Vouri, 1557 Mauro Pietro, stated that if was clear that Amendment 11 in its
2 8 current form lacked the vision or' strategy for creating a permanent, sustainable
2 9 water system for Sonoma County. Amendment 11 did serve as a clarion call for a
3 o formal regional water resource. management plan. It served as a starting point for
31 such discussions and forums. In the interest of moving beyond the rhetoric, and
32 towards a compromise that served all parties, he offered the following language
33 modifications to Amendment 11 submitted in writing to the Council:
34
3 5 e Section two of Amendment 11 addressed the authorization. of
36 construction and th`e proposed amount of water to be taken. In Section
37 2.2, subsection 2, it authorized the construction of additional Russian
3 8 River water production facilities up to a total capacity of 168.9 million
3 9 gallons.This was in comparison. to the. existing design capacity, which. he
4 0 believed was 99 million gallons per day. He proposed a modification to
41 140 million gallons per day. Constructing a system that was capable of
42 drawing 178;000 acre feet. per year from 'the Russian River would, over
43 time, predispose the S:C.W.A. and its customers to increase their usage
44 above the currently contemplated 86.,000 acre feet per year. With a
45 minimum of due consideration; that was 168.9 million gallons a day.
46 While 140 million gallons per day was still 148,000 acre feet per year in
Vol. 35, Page 170
August 29, 2000
1 capacity, it seemed to ~be a: reasonable compromise, given the proposed
2 daily maximums being contemplated. for the. contractors and the desire to
3 have. a certain amount of excess capacity for unforeseen situations..
4
5 • The next change he proposed was to Section 2:3, and was called Further
6 Modifications 'to ,the Transmission; System. It appeared to .give the
7 S,C.W.A. the leeway to construct,any additional systems it pleased; .and
8 take .any ;additional amounts. of water from the:: ,Russian River, above
9 those contemplated by Amendment 11, provided they didn't raise rates or
10 affect. delivery to customers. He did not support that and suggested the
11 entire paragraph be stricken after the words "Transmission System" in the
12 first sentence.
1.3
14 • In section 2.4, the Potter Valley Project, which Amendment 11 proposed
15 to reauthorize that the S.C.W.A. purchase with only the Water Advisory
16 _. Committee approval. He wanted the last sentence stricken and read it
1~ aloud, "The agency shall not be ..liable to. any of its customers for any
-.
18 damage resulting from, any agency decision. regarding the acquisition or
19 non-acquisition of any, part or all of the Potter Valley Project." He stated
20 that they could~not decide to buy it on their own and make the customers
21_. responsible.
22
2 3 • He concluded that he wanted. to add a riew ;;eetion, 2.7; The Regional
2 4 ~ Integrated Resource Management Plan," and read;. "The agency;. in
2~5. cooperation with its; customers will create- an Integrated Resource
2 6 Management Plan which encompasses the geographic regions of its
2 ~ .customers and. all the wafersheds from which the S:C. VV.A. water
2 8 resources flow. The Plan shall forecast water resource availability and
2 9 _ usage.for the years 2000 through 2075. Based upon that data, the Plan
3: o shall outline a ph, ased ,water resour,,ce:managementsystem~ as opposed
31 to a W. S. G. S: P. design,. for meeting the usage forecast through the
3.2 year2075 with. no impact on the environment and with supply a minimum
3`3 of thirty percenf of the forecast through water reuse and water recycle."
34
35 Steve Block; 19 UVarrich- Court, .spoke- regarding the Board of Supervisors,
3 6 expressing that the Petaluma City Council:was irresponsible due to increased risk of
3 7 fire danger if Amendment 11 was not approved. He believed there was no:basis for
3 8 the comments and fated that if `the ,Board of° Supervisors wanted to help prevent
39 fire danger, why not discuss the clearing of .defensible spaces around homes,
40 residential. sprinklers, banning or outlawing or passing an :ordinance #hat barred
41 shake or shingle roofs. He wanted o know what-other city or organization had been
42 given. the ultimatum. that had .been given to Petaluma; that is, "take it or leave it."
43 .Further, the sentiment within the communityof Petaluma and the entire region was
44 one that there was something very`wrong going on here; these people were elected
45 to serve and the Board of Supervisors did not listen to. their constituents. He
August 29, 2000
Vol. 35, Page T71
1 concluded by thanking the Council for a wonderful job and encouraged them to
2 continue the good work.
3
4 Mayor Thompson closed the public comment portion of the meeting and proposed Council
5 take a break.
6
7 Council concurred.
8
9 RECESS: 8.20 p.m.
10
11 RECOIVVEIVE: 8:55 p.m.
12
13 Mayor Clark Thompson noted that he and Mr. Stouder had met on Monday with
14 ~ Supervisor Mike Kerns in the hopes of resolving this issue and how to best
15 incorporate conservation measures that had been raised by a number of Council
16 Members and citizens. As far as he was concerned, there were conservation
17 measures that needed to be addressed as soon as possible. He did not believe that
18 anyone had ever disagreed with that.
19
2 o The water issue in Sonoma County was critical and he wanted to avoid spending an
21 excessive amount of time on the subject without resolution. He sensed that the
22 Board of Supervisors would listen, and he thanked the Council and the various
23 citizens who had come forward with their opinions and input on this issue. There
24 was no way to continue on the course they were on, in his opinion. Conservation
25 was a primary issue in the water situation in the County. He asked for input from
2 6 the Council on how best to move forward. He wanted to get Supervisors Reilly and
2 7 Cale, and perhaps a subcommittee of the Council to meet and address these issues
28 and move towards a countywide forum.
29
3 o Council Member Hamilton wanted to talk to the elected board members of the
31 contractors prior to discussions with the SC:W.A. directors. She liked the idea of a
32 subcommittee but wanted the subcommittee expanded to include others besides
3 3 the Council. The elected board members of the contractors had never actually had
34 a conversation about the unarticulated countywide water policy that was embodied
3~5 in Amendment 11.
'3 6
37 Mayor Thompson wanted to address the Council's issue and have the Board of
38 Supervisors and theS.C.W.A. address countywide issues. ,The Council's primary
3 9 mission and responsibility was to represent the citizens of Petaluma, to resolve
4o concerns for this community. He agreed with the idea of the forum for the county
41 with the subcommittee.
42
43 Council Member Hamilton stated that the City's issues were .integrally connected to
44 all the other agencies, it was not really separate. She agreed that the Council was
45 responsible to' their constituents and added that she wanted to talk with other
46 elected officials who were responsible to their constituents.
Vol. 35, Page 172 .August 29, 2000
1
2 Mayor Thompson expressed that those .individuals eoul'd approach 'the County
3 themselves and reiterated. that he would insist. on a countywide forum. He noted
4 that Pam Gibson in Sonoma had asked for a countywide forum;. it was under
5 discussion. He added. that Council Member Torliatt had pursued that as well. His
6 focus was to achieve resolution for this community.
7
8 Council Member Hamilton .agreed that she wanted to see a,move towards resolution
9 and she believed that resolution .needed to eomefrom communication with the other
10 contractors. They would need to approve what this Council wanted to see in
11 Amendment 11. The unarticulated water policy in Arnendrnent '11 would be
12 articulated if everyone agreed that.was what they wanted and Petaluma would then
13 bethe "odd person out:" `She did not believe that would be the case when the policy
14 was verbalized.
15
16 Council Member Caller-Thompson noted that hisforically there was° a lack of
17 working together with the County. She thought transportation issues were another
18 example of this, -and this was a regional. issue just like i:cansportation. The Council
19 continued to fail.in dealing with transportation issues because the stakeholders had
2 o not gotten together; it had always been decided`for them. She expressed that is-how
21 she thought this would end unless the City readied out to the others who were a
22 part of the agreement. and/or affected by `its outcome. She had. not had any
23 discussion with any other Councils regarding the water issue. They had. never
2 4 gotten together and .had a clear .discussion regarding transportation; .now was the
2 5 time. Water was a statewide concern.
26
27 Council Mernber.l<elleragrced. there needed to be regional; discussion before the
28 Council signed ofif on Amendment 11. If the Council had signed off with conditions
29 or in consideration. of addressing issues in Amendment 1'2, he. believed it would. be
3 0 another generation, another twenty years before the County, water`users, and those
31 subjected to water extractions (meaning Sonoma County, Mendocino County, and
32 Humboldt County) ever had aforum to address these issues:comp"reherisively -not
3 3 , by court,, not by agency decree, but`. as elected officials; this was the time, No one
3 4 wanted to address it. That was why the Board of Supervisors did not want to
3 5 address it. That was why most agencies did not want to address it. 1Nater was
3 6 always a compaex subject; it was;,inordinately:encumberedwith side issues but there
3 7 was no escaping it, it was up to them. He wanted to make it very clear to thee: public,
3 8 with the letter from the State of'California Department o1` Health Services and some.
39 other contentions that would appear in the newspaper, that these issues would
4 o continue to be extremely hot. They had not seen the last. of these issues for come
41 time.
42
43 There was no threat to fire safety in the community now, or inthe future. There was
44 an emergency water supply in case of earthquake as Fire Chief Terry I<rout!had
4.5 pointed out The City would not run out of water. With those concerns removed
46 from the.discussion; he stated that what the Council was doing was asking to ge.t a
August;29; 2000 Vol. 35, Page 1'73
1 handle on the bigger picture, the long:-term picture; as well as the immediate
2 question of the project's cost. He believed .the project was an open checkbook for
3 decisions made.behind closed doors by engineers, watercontractors, and ultimately
4 by the Board .of Supervisors, to spend money, and bond for indebtedness 'for the
5 next twenty to twenty-five years, and that the community would have given up any
6 control of fiscal responsibilities by signing Amendment 11.
8 In-conclusion, in a discussion Council Member Keller had that afternoon with Chris
9 DeGabrielle, Manager of the North Marin Municipal Water District, Mr. DeGabrielle
10 had provided a copy of an April 17,.2000 letter in which General Managers of North
11 Marin, Valley of`the Moon, Marin Municipal, Cities of Sonoma, Cotati and Petaluma
12 requested Randy Poole of the S.C.1N.A. to provide a full financial accounting of the
13 project as proposed. He then read from the letter the specific items requested. The
14 S.C.W.A. had not provided the information requested. This was not acceptable.
15
16 Fire Chief Terry Krout, at the request of Council Member Cader-Thompson, stated
17 that at this time there was no risk of fire danger and elaborated that the City was
18 doing the right things. There were discussions about defensible space of homes,
19 and fire resistant exteriors. The City system had the infrastructure to deliver fire flow
2 o when necessary. He acknowledged the efforts of the City's Engineering
21 Department and Water Resources and Conservation Director Tom Hargis to make
22 sure the systems were operational. It did not address future concerns, but that was
23 not the discussion.
24
25 He reiterated that currently there was not a fire flow problem in this town. There
2 6 were areas of concern. due to the age and condition of some waterlines, but as the
27 infrastructure was improved, fire flow would be established. He recalled a
28 monumental step in fire protection the Council took last year when they adopted a
29 zero square foot sprinkler ordinance in all new residential and commercial
3 o structures. That was an example of the steps necessary for good fire prevention in
31 the future.
32
33 Council Member Hamilton asked Chief Krout to quantify future threats to safety.
34
3:5 Chief Krout replied that he was not able to quantify the threat of future: fires and
3 6 what would be required. He believed the existing infrastructure was adequate fior at
3 ~ least five to ten years. He could not quantify the unknown conflagrations that the
3 8 City may face nor could he say that the City would be any better prepared than, for
39 example Oakland and Berkeley, should the City suffer a fate such as the major
4o conflagration that occurred there.
41
42 Council Member Hamilton noted that the Water Transmission Project would not be
43 built, minimally, for seven years. She asked for assurance that the City was safe for
44 at least seven years.
45
Vol. 35, Page 174
August 29, 2000
1 Chief Krout replied thatthere currently was adequate fire~protection structure and
2 storage in place that met the City's fire flow.
3
4 Mayor Thompson noted that two months ago the Kastania 1N`ater Supply Tank had
5 dried up or was empty and asked Chief Krout if that was a:concern.,.-
7 Chief Krout replied: that. he.had no knowledge that Kastania was down to that.level.
8 However, the aqueduct was in place, the C:otati tanks. were filled .and. the City's
9 reservoirs and infernal ,storage capacity of the Retalu_ma system'was at-near full
10 capacity during that time. Even if there. had been a major fiire, supplies would have
11 been shunted from the different zones .towards that. Again, three hundred, four
12 hundred thousand gallons- of water"would be required for a fire that 'burned for
13 several hours and that level. of .risk' he categorized as catastrophic.
14
15 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Chief' Krout if there was fire in Novato or in an area where
16 North Marih .Municipal Wa#er District and Marin Municipal 1Nater District needed
17 water.; would the City of Petaluma and other contractors direct"their water resources
18 to those areas at risk.
19
2 o Chief Krout replied that the pipes were made to deliver water from Point A to Point
21 B. If the water ,was not needed at Point A and was significantly needed at. Point B,
22 that is where 'it would go.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT
25
2 6 Chris De Gabrielle, .Manager, North.. Marin Municip~~l' 1Nater District,. clarified
2 7 comments Coun. cil Member Keller made regarding a letter he provided him' dated
2 8 April 2000.. Information had been received on some of the items requested in that
2 9 letter. The financial plans,and schedules had not been received and he believed the
3 0 S.C.W.A. was working orr that and had committed to ;having that b:y the end of the
31 year. He noted that it was not a small task and that the information should be as
32 accurate and complete as possible.
33
3 4 Vice Mayor Torliatt.supported the appointment of a subcommittee with the Board of
3 5 Supervisors and the. Mayor or a;minority of the, Council, the objective. being'focused
3 6 on a discussion that would allow S.C.W.A. 'to give the contractors., or the City of
37 Petaluma, ninety days in order to come to a decision on. Amendment 11: The
3 8 Council had. been having public hearings in an effort to determine what the next step
3 9 should be, what the support was, and how to get answers to questions. Her
4 0 concern was that not. all contractors and elected officials in the region had had the
41 opportunity to engage in a discussion about water: The City of Petaluma had taken
42 a stand. not to sign Amendment 11 at this time in order to have the opportunity to
43 have a regional discussion about the issues.
44
45 MayorThompson clarified his intention of getting a subcommittee to move forward
46 was to resolve the issue whatever shape that took. The Supervisors had stated
August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 175
1 there was,a September 15 deadline. He wanted to talkto there. about that deadline.
2 He did not want to make it incumbent upon the other contractors as they had all
3 ready made their decision. The City was holding up the process. In his opinion, if
4 the other contractors were so distressed about it, he questioned why they had not
5 come forward and done something -about it at this time. He had many questions
6 about that.
7
8 Vice Mayor Torliatt responded that she had conversations with various Council
9 Members, some of whom were contractors and others who were not, such as
1o elected officials throughout the County. Public testimony given at this meeting from
11 Councils such as the City of Sebastopol, who, though not a contractor, had voted
12 three to one in favor of supporting the Petaluma City Council's position on this
13 matter. She attended the Rohnert ParkCity Council meeting the previousTuesday
14 evening with Council Member Hamilton to speak to the Council during public
15 comment to let them know where the City of Petaluma was headed regarding the.
16 water issue. They scheduled the topic for discussion and possible action at their
17 next Council meeting. She had a discussion with the Mayor of Sonoma, who
18 authorized her to state that he supported the Petaluma City Council's request for a
19 ninety-day extension in order to have a water forum.
20
21 Mayor Thompson inquired whether he made that statement as an individual or on
22 behalf of a majority of the Council; he wanted clarification.
23
2 4 Vice Mayor Torliatt continued her comments that she had been authorized to share
2 5 with the Council that should the Petaluma City Council move forward looking at the
2 6 ninety-day extension,.the Mayor of Sonoma would schedule the topic for discussion
2 7 and possible action at their next Council meeting. There was an agenda item on the
2 8 docket for Sonoma's next meeting, so they could discuss Amendment 11, but what
2 9 they hoped to do'was to create a water forum. AI Masa, the Vice Mayor of the City
3 0 of Sonoma, brought up the issue of regional water policy at the last Mayors and
31 Council Members meeting.
32
33 Mayor Thompson contended that Nlr. Masa did not say not to sign Amendment 11.
34
3 5 Council Member Keller asked Mayor Thompson if the discussiorrwas now~a debate.
36
37 Mayor Thompson replied that it was not and apologized to Vice Mayor Torliatt.
38
39 Vice .Mayor Torliatt~.continued that what she wanted the Council to authorize as a
4 o result of this discussion, was for City Management to work with the City of Sonoma
41 as a co-sponsor and/or some of the other contractors., if they were interested, to
42 plan a forum, possibly in mid-October, to get State and County elected officials and
43 ~ contractors together `to discuss the water policy. There was an obvious interest;
44 there were people that spoke to the issue who had concerns about the future of the
45 ~ comm.unity in the County.
46
Vol. 35, Page 176
August 29, 2000
1 Council Member Healy referred to an article that appeared in the morning edition of
2 the Press Democrat written. by Tobias Young. The article stated that, "...the most
3 water the City of Petaluma had ever°used was 14.8 million gallons of~w.ater per day
4 during. a hot .spell." He continued that the. article stated,; "The current contractual
5 entitlement under Amendment 10 was 1'7 million gallons pe'r day,,`' and noted that
6 the City was, "quite comfortably below that:" He had a conference call earlier that
~ day with the City Manager and Public Works Superintendent Steve Simmons,
8 during which Mr. Simmons confirmed; the City's actual peak usage this year was
9 19.2 million gallons; considerably'abovetpe Amendment 10 allotment. There was a
10 need for an increased allotment and increased capacity in the ..system for the
11 existing population. V1Fith respect to the procedural aspects; 'that is,, how they
12 collectively tried to..get themselves "out of this box" .:and .move forward.,. he was
13 willing to support the Mayor's suggestion for a subcorrm_mitfee of, t_he Council. The
14 Mayor could appoint this committee:; or Council Members could volunteer. He
15 suspected they~would deal primarily with the Board of Supervisors., but:co.ufd,go to
16 other cities 'and agencies. as welt. At this. time, however, the Cify was operating
17 under a deadline of the fifteenth of. September: Me acknowledged thatthe-Council
18 had asked the Board of Supervisors., the S:C.W.A. Board of Directors, fora ninety-
19 day- extension and noted. that they did not agree to that. He believed it would be
2 0 irresponsible for the community, for`this Council, not to at least have an assurance
21 that thee. City would have a vote on Amendment 11 before that time expired.. He was
22 willing to support the Mayor's proposal and not have an "up"' or "down"'vote tonight
23 as long as he had assurance that it would come back as an action item before the
24 fifteenth of September. He continued that should the committee be able: to get an
25 extension from the Board of Supervisors, that w.oulct be fine. At this time, he
2 6 believed. it was necessary to have a commitment to have an ``up" or "down' vote
27 before the deadline expired.
28
29 Council Member Maguir;.e fated that he thought the, Supervisors' ultimatum #o the
3 0 community, to the Council, was unenforceable. It would take the: County Council
31 forty-five to sixty days to write a new'.contract. With the> levels of discomfort that. he
3 2 had heard coming from members of every other involved. City Council in the County,
3 3 he could not envision the discussion taking place and a consensus being ;reached
34 on a new amendmentwithin ninety days. He also raisedthe issue. of how much the
3 5 allotment had been stressed.: He believed the ":danger" had been the simultaneous
3 6 use by Petaluma and pumping by North Marin Municipal Water District. That. was
37 what the MOU was supposed to: address and he thought th'eMOU was one of the
3 8 significantly positive aspects of Amendment; 1 1.Obviously, Amendment 1 1 was a
3 9 catchall of issues. F1e did. not see an imposed deadline. The State made some
40 rumblings, the: Supervisors had stated their preference, there was an argument to
41 be made`for~redundancy in piping and additional storage. These. discussions could
42 go onforever: At thistime, the Council could have a meltdown if'that waswhat they
4 3 wanted to do. He thought there was great righteous support for cor~senration; issues
44 and for attacking Amendment 11 for 'its shortcomings. 1-1e wasn'f sure that~was the
45 most- effective ;process 'in order to get the Council where they wanted to go. He
4 6 wanted to get commitment from all of'the-other water users, consensus., to practice
August 29; 2000 Vol. 35, Page 177
1 conservation first,. before going to greater extraction. He supported Vice Mayor
2 Torliatt's suggestion about acknowledging .that the resource was finite, and
3 assessing the impacts.that Amendment 11, if#ulfilled, would have. Corrective action
4 was necessary as the. resource was being stressed and it would fail at some point.
5 He had contacted Mike Kerns and Mike Cale after the Council's meeting the
6 previous week, and he thought. Mr..Ke.rns was receptive to what the Council. was
~ trying to achieve. Mr Kerns had stated'that conservation measures were needed
8 right away, and he had no problem with that. Mike Cale was conciliatory. He
9 acknowledged the.need and the validity of the questions the Council raised and the
10 need for conservation. In fact, he pressed Mike Kerns by offering an exchange of
11 the "olive branch." Was there a way to work through these issues? He asked the
12 Supervisors to revisit the ninety-day extension. Mr. Kerns was open to the
13 suggestion.butdid not commit one: way or the other. Mr. Kerns acknowledged that it
14 was a good idea:that the elected representatives for the different users get together
15 and discuss this, as did Mike Cale. Mike Cale, however, was not open to a ninety-
16 day extension. He believed that after reading from the minutes of the meeting of
17 August 22, Mike-Reilly would be fairly receptive to the extension. He then read from
18 an e-mail he had received from Mike Cale:
19
20 "Dear Matt, Pursuant to our conversation, I am forwarding to you a position I will
21 support and one that I will promote with my colleagues on the Board to adopt. 1.
22 The City of Petaluma agrees to sign Amendment 11."
23
2 4 Council Member Maguire noted. that Supervisor Cale did not say when. He
25 continued reading; "2. The County of Sonoma agrees to immediately convene a
2 6 panel representing all water contractors to discuss the significant issues raised by
27 the City of Petaluma."
28
2 9 Council Member Maguire pointed out that Supervisor Cale did not say who comprise
30 that panel; that is if it would be all the bodies or appointed by Councils, or other.
31
32 "3. Additional or modified policies developed by the panel shall be incorporated into
33 Amendment 11 to avoid additional delays pending the preparation of Amendment
34 12.
38
3 6 Matt, I sincerely appreciate your interest in attempting to resolve this issue. I have a
3 ~ great deal of respect for you as an elected official and I appreciate having you as
38 a .'~~ "I hope this provides some middle ground that becomes awin-win for your
3 9 Council and my Board."
40
41 Council Member Maguire thought there was a significant appreciation on the part of
42 the Supervisors for what this City Council was doing. He supported a subcommittee
43 of the Council to go the Supervisors and say, "Okay, let's put together this forum
44 and let's get going on it right away." He had. expressed to members of the Council,
4 5 members of the Chamber of Commerce and radical environmentalists that once the
46 discussion had started and there was evident commitment from the other water
Vol. 35, Page 178
August 29, 2000
1 users, we will have. effectively begun Arnendment~ 1.2, We would: have a
2 commitment by action and public statements by electe~~ bodies that put us well on
3 the way to having mandatory conservation and using conservation prior~to greater
4 extraction of the resource.
5
6 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Public Works Superintendent,Steve Simmons to,adtlress
7 the 19 million gallon per dayneed within the city,; asking him how'often that much
8 water was used, and what the average water consumption was.
10 Mayor Thompson interrupted and stated that he wanted to ,get the issue of the
11 subcommittee resolved.
12
13 Council Member Hamilton stated she thought. the information. requested from Mr.
14 Simmons was relevant as:it had come up earlier in the discussion and had gone
15 unanswered.
16
17 Mayor Thompson. contended that he did not. think it was important in .getting the
18 issue of the subcommittee resolved.
19
2 o A majority of the Council disagreed.
21
22 Vice Mayor Torliatt, continued to ask Mr. Simmons what the demand :was on the
2 3 system, how the demand was met,. whether there was a need for snore storage to
24 meet the demand as opposed to having a biggerpipe to supply water immediately,
2 5 and whaf reserves the City had if there was a problem.
26
27 Mr. Simmons stated that` the current average day water use in;the contract is an
2 8 average day for the maximum month, which was 17 million gallons per day.. The
2 9 19.2- rrrillion gallons was the highest day of the year. Right now; the City was
3 o probably running about 15 - 15-1/2 million gallons average for a maximum month.
31 The City was still two million gallons below that and that was. total,. If you deducted
32 for pumping a million gallons.a day out of the City's wells, that amount could be
3 3 deducted from what the City was taking off the aqueduct.
34
3 5 Council Member Keller asked if of the total average dayper month. in a peak month,
3 6 1 million of that 15 million gallons was from. the City's own well production.
37
3 8 Mr..Simmons. replied that currently, the Citywas pumping about 1-1/2 million gallons
3 9 per day from City wells.
40
41 Council Member Keller asked if that was within the 15 million total.
42
43 Mr. Simmons replied that. it depended upon the weather.. Theprevious year the:City
44 used 15-1/2 during an average day peak month. This year it would probably be
45 lower due to the weather.
46
August'29; 2000 Vol. 35, Page 179
1 Vice ,Mayor Torliatt noted that. the Press Democrat had used the figure of 14.8
2 million gallons.
3
4 Mr. Simmons explained that the figure was probably what the City bought from the
5 S. G. IIV. A. for the City's average day max month. He believed that was the number
6 from the previous year.
7
8 Council Member Healy followed upon those comments by providing a directquote
9 from the newspaper, "The most the City has ever used is 14.8 million gallons per
10 day during a hot spell." He stated that was clearly inaccurate; it was off by 4.4
11 million gallons.
12
13 Mr. Simmons explained that the paper used the wrong number. The writer of the
14 article should have used the average day peak month.
15
16 Council Member Healy replied that average peak month was one thing but you do
17 want enough capacity on the peak days. Especially because the fact of the matter
18 is, the City's peak was driven by weather. It is a hot weather phenomenon. When it
19 was hot here, it was hot in Rohnert Park, it was hot in Cotati, it was hot in Santa
2 0 Rosa and it was hot in Novato, so there were simultaneous peaks. Peak demands
21 cannot be disregarded.
22
2 3 Council Member Hamilton explained that the peaks were driven by weather because
24 there were no firm conservation guidelines.
25
2 6 Mayor Thompson replied that no one debated that issue.
27
2 8 Council Member Hamilton stated she pointed that out because it did not have to be
2 9 that way.
30
31 Vice Mayor Torliatt wanted to address these issues as the Council had received
32 letters stating that the.City'swater source would run out if the Council took the time
33 to come to an agreement with Amendment 11. She wanted., regardless of
3 4 Amendment 11, to focus on peak demands and asked if it was prudent for the City
35 of Petaluma to build additional storage.
36
37 Mr. Simmons replied storage was always good, the more storage the better. He
3 8 stated that. he liked storage; storage was good.
39
4o Vice Mayor Torliatt asked how much storage would cost to accommodate peak
41 flows. Those peak days of 19.2 million gallons could be addressed in many ways,
42 such as conservation, telephone calls to the school districts and to the Parks and
43 Recreation Department, and the golf course, to ask that lawns not be watered to
44 reduce the demand for water. That was something the City could, should and does
45 do now to try to accommodate high peak periods. When a figure of 19.2 million
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
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
Vol. 35, Page 180
August 29, 2000
gallons was referenced.. and the City's allocation was 1 ~ million gallons:, if gave the
perception that there was not enough water. She did nat believe that was the case.
Council Member Keller stated'her point was well taken. All sorts of comments were
being ..made about the Council for asking these quesfiions and asking for time to get
answers from the Board of Supervisors. People were criticizing the Council as
irresponsible: 'They were being. accused of jeopardizing the afety of the City, as
well as other remarks made at°this meeting, received by letter; and by.leftersto the
media. He then referred to a Letter from.. the DePartm~ent of Health. Services that
stated that the.S.C.,W.A. did. not do a "source capacity.evaluation of individual water
systems:" Another letter stated. the S.C.1N.A. did not have the required source
capacity to satisfy peak day demands and yet the question asked of him by others,
was that if that was true, why had the S.C:W.A. not demanded restrictions on new
connections to the water system or demanded mandatory conservation on the part
of all water users. He quesfiioned why the system was potentially in jeopardy if it
was not se"rious enough for the Board of Supervisors to take any further action.
The Department of Health Services letter also that stated that,. "If low pressure or
lack of adequate water supplies continue to [appear] in the. areas: served by the
Sonoma antl Petaluma-aqueducts, connection moratoriums may be place on the
community served thereby." He asked what that meant. D.id the State have the
authority to demand a moratorium? He asked if i:he system was .accurate.
Apparently, the Department of .Health Services :did, the assessment, delivered its.
report to the water .contractors: a week and a half ago, and had not waited for
responses or corrections from the water contractors before issuing the letter. (n fact,
the way he read t_he memo, it justified the types of discussions that. the Council
wanted to have. If the system was in a condition of dire need', then it was urgent for
all the water contractors to be talking about long-term and current supplies, and
management of the current supplies.
This was not a comment. on Petaluma's malfeasance or inadequate action, or the
fact that the City should sign Amendment 11, because. had the City signed
Amendment 11 yesterday; it was still going to be 6-8 years before a system
enlargement would 6e completed for the south-end of tf:e aqueduct; Again, Randy
Poole stated that his timeline for this project was 7-8 years for'the Kastania Tank
#2, 7-8'years for an additional aqueduct.; a parallel aqueduct, and additional storage
facilities along the Petaluma aqueduct. Someone poinfed out that the S:C.W,:A. had
not done~an EIR on this. yet and all of the rest of the processing that~still~ had to be
done. Therefore, when the Chamber ofiCommeree or other people say, "Yo.u, guys
got to sign on because you're going negatively impact the water supply in this Gity,"
what did that mean for the next... 6-8 years? Was the `City in' dire need' now? If so,
then the Board of Supervisors' ..and the S.C:W.A.'s response was entirely
inadequate and they had .have not informed the public. If they.wanted Petaluma to
move: along quickly and they were not willing ao give the City time to work with the
other water contractors to .modify the Amerdment or request new information; and
have discussions with the public; then why°were theywilling to take 10-12 rnon#hs to
August _29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 181
1 try and work out individual contracts with other cities .but. not let Petaluma talk with
2 them? It was important to cut the nonsense, as the City tried to move forward to
3 come to a process and agreements. It was time to be clear about what the issues
4 were, and to set up a procedure and a series of forums to address those issues..
5
6
~ Council Member Healy stated that he thought one of the credibility problems the
8 City had with peer cities, agencies, and with the County, was that this City Council
9 had a representative sitting at the table the entire time Amendment 11 was drafted.
10 For the~Council now,, over a year after negotiations had concluded, to say they were
11 shocked to learn that Amendment 11 says what it says did not sound right to some
12 of our colleagues. He wanted the Council to move more aggressively on
13 conservation issues; under the circumstances, he thought the Council did not have
14 the credibility to hold up the process in the way it has been suggested to get there.
15 As Chamber President J.T. Wick pointed out, many of the other major agencies
16 were further ahead of us on water conservation at the present time. Council
17 Member Healy was. in favor of more water conservation and stated that his record
18 on this Council indicated he supported aggressive water conservation efforts. He
19 had been pushing for tiered rates. Eventually the City would get there. It was a long
2 0 and tedious process. He was concerned about the risk of being shoved "outside the
21 tent." He thought that was what the September 15 deadline represented. He heard
22 some people trying to convince the Council that it was not a real deadline, that the
23 S.C.W.A. was not serious and did not really mean it; and, if the Council could get
24 them to change their minds between now and September 15 and have a process
2 5 that assured that Petaluma would not get "kicked outside of the tent,".then that was
2 6 great.
2~
2 8 He mentioned an unrelated issued, because it reflected the notion that this City
2 9 Council, including himself, did not have a particularly good track record of evaluating
3 o its bargaining position, vis a vis another party, and making a timely decision to get
3.1 the best possible outcome given the relative strengths of the bargaining position.
32 He referred to a recent episode the City had with A.T.& T. When A.T.& T. came
33 before the Council and objected to the $2.00 per month rise in fees,, instead of
3,4 evaluating the relative strength of the situation and accepting a deal that would have
3:5~ p.ut P,C:A. on a sound financial footing, the Council vilified A:T.&T., spent a great
3 5 deal of time mocking David Kerr as the villain from central casting, and as a result of
3 ~ that, the Council did not strike the deal, did not do what it could have done_ He did
38 not want to see the same type of dynamic here and that was why he was very
39 mindful of the September 15 deadline. He had stated previously that he was willing
4o to support-the Mayor's proposal for a committee as long as the decision regarding
41 Amendment 11 came back to the Council before the deadline, whether is was by
42 September 15, or later if an extension was possible.
43
44 Council Member Maguire stated the he thought A.T.&T. wanted to "keep the Council
45 under their thumbs" and that there was no way we could have made a deal with
46 them that would have been at all satisfactory to P.C.A. Nevertheless, he agreed
Vol. 35, Page 182
August 29, 2000
1 with Council Member Healy's assessment of how the Council ;operated in terms of
2 assessing its negotiating position and proceeding. He was concerned that this
3 Council "threw a lot of brickbats" itself. The Council: h~td plenty of great questions
4 and great arguments, and all the proper intentions to come to resoaution, :yet he
5 thought the Gouneil .needed to look. at how they were going about accomplishing
6 that. The Council may have grave~disagreements with how'the Board, of Supervisors
7 conducted their business; but he thought it-::was impori:ant at this lime to keep the.
8 process as impersonal as possible:. He had read into the record evidence that,Mike
9 Cale said to him that he would push for the Board. to adopt "additional modified
10 policiesin.Amendment 11" based:on the sort of things i:he Council had addressed...
11 He guaranteed the Council that if the Council .continued. to engage. in, hostile
12 confrontation,, the Board would not be supportive of what 'the Council wanted.
13
14 Council Member Hamilton asked if That had happened during the meeting..
15
16 Council Member Maguire replied., "yes,;" that he heard "a tone and tenor."
17
18 Mayor Th~ornpson noted that. what: he was trying to avoid was having a discussion
19 with. members of the Board of Supervisors that was based on demands. He thought
2 0 they would not be receptive. He wanted. the Couincil to move forward with
21 discussions with the commitment- to work through the issues. -
22
2 3 Vice Mayor Torliatt contended that she did not thinkthe.entire Council .reflected the
24 tone and tenor to which Councif Member Maguire referred.
25
2 6 Council Member Maguire replied that maybe it was not the entire Council,. but in
27 discussions he had with two Supervisors,, their sense, their interpretation„ their
28 perception of certain members of the Council, was. ~rery negative. The. Council
29 needed. to go to a regional approach and he noted that he had heard from: two of
3 o the Supervisors thaf they were supportive of that approach. He thought there was
31 an opportunity to achieve what the Council majority had stated: they wanted to
32 achieve. He did not want the Council. to loose the opportunity due to an attitude of
3 3 righteousness: He wanted to focus on discussing'what could be accomplished in the
34 discussions with the other electives. If the.Council could obtain co_ mmitment and
3 5 agreement that people would commit to practicing conservation prior to further
3 6 extraction., that was the place to start. There were q~aesti'ons that needed to be
37 answered, but a process needed to be developed o accomplish.a resultfirst, and'it
3 8 was essential for the Council to be careful about how that was done.. .
39
40 Council Member Caller-Thompson stated that based on the information that:was
41 presented,. the City should consider a moratorium on all connections .(all
42 development) between the signing of Amendment 11 and the completion of the
43 project. She believedthe Council was not really addressing the issue. She wanted
44 to know what the other Council Members thought about that.
45
August 29, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 183
1 Mayor Thompson interjected that he wanted to get to the discussion of whether or
2 not the Council wanted a subcommittee... Did the Council want to work towards a
3 resolution. or not? He asked that the discussion stay focused on that issue.
4
7
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 Keller agreed that a process needed to be established from which
they could proceed... He was willing to have a subcommittee with the Board of
Supervisors and at the same time have meetings with the other water contractors.
He disagreed with the Mayor that this issue was one that could be resolved, or a.
series of issues that could be resolved, by the Council and the .Board of
Supervisors. The issues that had been raised, aside from the local serving
improvements to the .system, he believed everyone on the Council agreed should.
happen. These included additional storage and a parallel aqueduct to the South
County. He did not.belieVe that there was any question, in the long or short term (5-
8 years) that was important to Petaluma's end of the system. The discussion
needed to be about the larger questions that affect all the users and it was not up to
the Council to try and resolve it, nor could they, between the Council and the Board
of Supervisors. He listed issues. including costs, not to exceed costs, adequate
conservation, getting off of the Eel River, protecting and restoring the aquifer for the
Russian River, that he thought this Council needed to bring to a subcommittee
meeting with the Board of Supervisors, but with the caveatthat at the same time the
Council.. would pursue a joint meeting with the other contractors and water users in
both counties. Rethought that they could not move forward without that and that to
do so was presumptuous on their part.
Mayor Thompson noted that he believed Supervisor Cale made that same point.
Council Member Keller was not sure. He did not know what process Supervisor
Cale wanted implement.
Mayor Thompson :suggested the Council find out.
Council Member Maguire replied that was a good topic for the subcommittee.
Council Member Keller thought. it important that the process was not set up and.
controlled by the Board of Supervisors.
Mayor Thompson agreed and added that no one had suggested that.
Council Member Hamilton favored a subcommittee. She did not want. to work up to
the September 15 deadline because it was an arbitrary "line in the sand," one that
was not naturally constrained by the project, and there was no real reason for it
except that the Supervisors wanted to force the Council to make a decision quickly
and move on. She ±hought jt was good to have a subcommittee meet with the
Supervisors to~discuss the tinning and she agreed with Council Member Keller that
this Council should discuss where they would like to have the forum, whether it
would be facilitated, what was to be on the agenda, who was invited, when/how a
Vol. 35, Page 184
August 29, 2000
1 date would be established, and move ahead: It appeared that the majority was in
2 favor of that and if it was, she wanted. to move ahead and do that while at the same
3 time having a discussion with the Supervisors. Regarding the.. September 15
4 deadline, there was no impending danger; everyone had said that,; the Supervisors
5 wanted to have an answer. Thee Council may not bE able to come up with an
6 answer. Every tune Amendment 11: had come before the Council, she had asked
7 about. water conservation and had stated.. she wanted to see;. it included in the
8 Amendment. The S.C.1N.:A:'s response, each time over the years; had been, "Well
9 then, you can just raise your rates if'you want to fund more water conservation
1o measures,. programs, than. what'you've got." From the beginning, the Council has
11 never been able to affector add anything to Amendment 11; it was n'of "just coming
12 up all of a~sudden."She noted Mr. Healy's comments about the Council's cre`d_ib;ility
13 and reiterated. that this issue was the resul of a Icing term. relationship with
14 Amendment 11 where the City had never had any ability to have input into it, affect
15 it or change it: From the beginning it was a case of, "This is it and this is what you
16 are-going to get." It had been. designed by engineers fora water distribution system
17 and it .did not take into effect the water policy it is enacting.
18
19 Council Member Hamilton did not want to simplify things by saying that if the City
2 0 agreed it°would not pump more water until conservation was implemented; then that
21 would be enough. The Council needed. to quantify what that. conservation would be.
22 Every community would say that they were doing conservation .and now they
2 3 needed more: water. How that conservation would be stepped up each year, b_y
24 what percentage, that needed. to quantified and she did not want to agree to sign.
25 Amendment 11 and work out the details later. It would .be the same. as: closing
2 6 escrow on a house and doing the termite report later. She wanted the information
27 and decisions .made ahead of time because, as Council Member Healy had
2 8 previously stated, this was th:e biggest decision this Council was ever going to be
2 9 asked to make; she was ,not going fo make a bad decision.
30
31 Mayor Thompson mentioned:as.aaide note that at the same meeting that the Board
32 of Supervisors did not grant the ninety-day extension, they did, on a Consent
3 3 Calendar item earlier, authorize $389;000 to the City of Petaluma for conservation
34 efforts. There were some positive things coming to Pei:aluma.
35
3 6 Council Member Hamilton agreed ,and ,added that the City of Petaluma was paying
3 7 for that; thatAwas on track.. The City had. asked for moro and could not get it. It was
3 8 a great beginning; .but it was not a present.
39
4o Mayor Thompson suggested. that the subcommittee be comprised of .himself,
41 Council Member Keller and Vice Mayor Torliatt.
42
43 Council Member Keller asked the Mayor to identifywhatthe,agenda for that~meeting
44 would be for the subcommittee.. -
45
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
August 29, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 1.85
Mayor Thompson replied the first item on the agenda was to discuss the possibility
of an extension.
Council Member Healy cautioned again the risk of the City of Petaluma being "cast
outside the tent" on September 16.
Mayor Thompson agreed.
Council Member Healy had asked for some sort of an assurance. He agreed that
the subcommittee, in the first instance, try to get the Board to modify its position on
the extension and he thought Mr. Cale's a-mail to Council Member Maguire was a
positive step in that direction. Nevertheless, he was compelled in his capacity as a
city official for the City of Petaluma to not put the City at risk of being "pushed
outside the tent." He wanted assurance that the matter would be brought back to
the Council for discussion and possible action before that deadline, the fifteenth, if it
did not move, or later if it did move. If he did not have that agreement, he would
make the motion at this meeting; he preferred not to do that as he did think that
would be productive given the discussion that had transpired.
Mayor Thompson replied that it was his intention before that date with some
indication from the Board of Supervisors.
Council Member Healy asked if it would come back for discussion and possible
action.
Mayor Thompson nodded in the affirmative.
Council Member Healy stated with that assurance he supported the proposal..
Council Member Keller wanted to make it very clear because of all of the inferences
Randy Poole had made about the City being "kicked out of the tent."
Mayor Thompson replied that the Council already knew that.
Council Member Keller replied that the comment by Mr. Poole was a threat,'it was in
the newspapers, it had just been repeated by a Council Member that the City could
be "thrown out of the tent."
Mayor Thompson contended that Council Member Keller's statements were an
example of the Council's tone and demeanor that resulted in poor relationships.
Council Member Keller repeated that it had just been stated by a Council Member
that Petaluma could be "thrown out of the tent."
Council Member Hamilton asked that the Council be allowed to examine the issue.
Vol. 35, Page 186
August 29, 2000
1 Council Member Keller continued that 1.6 in Amendment 10, which ,is the existing
2 legislation that provides Petaluma with. its water, that the Council had signed and
3 were the current operating regulatonsfor the S.C.1N:.A, states, "Except as hereafter
4 provided, this; agreement may be amended only with the consent of the; all the
5 parties hereto:" The exception had to do with reduction in revenues in which case
6 the fiscal agent, the bondholders, were involved.. That was not the case. The
7 S.C.W.A. could not kick the City of Petaluma out. There was no "kick out clause" in
8 the existing contract.. He was not. violating rules of confidentiality by .saying that
9 legal counsel had confirmed that. The City could not be kicked out, they could not
10 reduce the City's water, its by contract until the year 2036, they cannot kick the City
11 out of any Amendment 10, which is the current contract law.
12
13 Council Member Healy noted that was partially accurate.
14
15 Council Member Keller continued that there was another provision in the:agreement,
16 that stated exp icitly that if there were impacts by any other water use to any other
17 users or any other users rights that it.could only be done by amendment: Petaluma.
18 was a contracting agency of the S.C.VV:A: and could not be thrown oat,
19 dispossessediof water. It was nonsense, it was fear.
20
21 Council Member Healy disagreed. It was true that. Amendment 1'0 could not be
22 amended: into!anAmendment 11 without the~consent of all the parties., but that was
23 a distinction without a difference because: what they mere certainly entitled to do
24 (the other contractors and. the S.C.W.A.) was to create a separate agreement fo
2 5 build newfacilities that simply excluded Petaluma. That was what theywere talking
2 6 about doing. He acknowledged that Council M'ernber Keller was' correct that the
2 7 City's existing Frights under Am. endment 10 would continue in effect. The Gity would
2 8 continue to have its :rights to the :forty-year old aqueduct., continue to have rights to
2 9 17 million gallons per days, but the City would .not have any rights to utilize: any new
3 o infrastructure that the other contractors may choose to: build around th'e Cify. That
31 was the risk:
32 '
3 3 Council Member Keller disagreed.
34
35 Council Member Maguire agreed. that the City was in a position of strength. He
3 6 agreed. that in looking at what: the City's legal opinion was that it would be very
3 7 difficult to effeetivelythrowthc City "out of the tent." The City was far too intertwined
3 8 contractually and th"rough purmpng practices and interrelationships for that to
3 9 happen. Even% if they were: successful in creating a new contract that went around
4 0 the City; Petaluma was still on the landscape and would have an impact.1f the City
41 was in a position. of strength, why not. exercise some magnanimity and not be shrill.
42 The City should use its position to achieve what;could be accomplished: He thought
43 it was about relationships.. Yes, the City could force it an them; eyes;, the City could
44 . be the porcupine or the `fly in the ointment but at thee. same time that would .not.
45~~ ~ engender cooperation. He thoughtthe City had,a position of strength. He thought
46 ° ~~~ the Citycouldget the consensus of all the other users and all the other bodies. As
.August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 187
1 long as the Council kept harping on the issue, there would be a stalemate. Direct
2 the, subcommittee with a short list of three or four major topics and try to have a
3 productive discussion with the Board of Supervisors.
4
5 Council. Member Cader-Thompson. announced that Vice Mayor Torliatt and she
6 were going to Washington D.C. and returning on September 13 and 14.
7
8 Mayor. Thompson announced that a Council meeting was scheduled for September
9 5 and if they could meet with the Supervisors within the week, he could provide an
10 update at the meeting.
11
12 Council Member Cader-Thompson did not want the Council to look at the
13 September 15 deadline but work around the deadline. She did not believe they
14 would kick Petaluma "out of the tent"; there was a relationship built upon mutual
15 need.
16
17 Mayor Thompson did not agree.
18
19 Council Member Cader-Thompson continued that the cost to the other agencies
2 0 would go so high that they all needed each other. She thought the City could work
21 around the September 15 deadline.
22
23 Mayer Thompson expressed that if he had the sense that the Council would meet
24 ~ ~nrith the intent to resolve the issue, he would personally call all the Supervisors
2 5 tomorrow and the next day: He did not believe that was going to happen.
26
2 ~ Council Member Cader-Thompson believed it would happen.
28
2 9 Mayor Thompson replied that he had a real fear of meeting with the Supervisors
3 0 and having the Council behave with a demanding demeanor. He would walk out if
31 the Council behaved in an authoritative manner because they did not want to have
32 this resolved, they were still looking for fights. He was tired of it. The Council
3 3 needed to resolve the issue and they needed to be conciliatory in some situations
3.4 and work with the County. Otherwise, nothing would happen and Petalura was
3.5 going to be outside. Nothing would be achieved unless-they worked as a-whole
36 community together.-.that included the rest of the contractors. To gef there,, the ; ~"
3 ~ Council needed to work with the County. He was fearful that the committee would '' ~~
3 8 meet with the Supervisors, pound on the table, make demands and they would be
3 9 sent back home.
40
41 City Manager Stouder noted the workshop/meeting that was to take place fhe ~~
42 following day. An agenda was to be distributed the next morning regarding a Closed.
43 Session on potential litigation that was scheduled for Thursday. He knew thafthe ~
44 Council generally liked to end discussions that had major ramifications by.10~~0U
45 p.m. and he sensed as their manager they had direction to meet with the'Cour?t~~
46 Board of~Supervisors to bring backinformation to the Council. He requested th=~.~
Vol. 35, Page 188
August 29, 2000
1 they proceed with that if'in fact;thatwas the direction the C-ouncil. had.agreed upon;
2 that is, that there was a subcommittee of the G.ouncil to meef with representatives of
3 the County. There was time for the Council to provide the subcommittee the agenda
4 items before they would meet.
5
6 Vice Mayor'Torliatt stated that she had no intention of approaching the County and
7 pounding her fists, making .demands, being: ;irate, and asking for anything
8 unreasonable. She had a list of seventeen items he thought the City of"Petaluma
9 wanted. to address., number six of which was, "The City of Petaluma believes thaf
1 o we, as the water agency's contractor, must make eveiy effort to Continue to work
11 together and not exclude any contractor's sincere concerns about.Arnendrnent 11."
12 She had been asking for this from the beginning;. she had asked fo have. the
13 dialogue. and that was what she wanted to do. The agenda needed to be worked out
14 but she thought the Council.should. give the City Manager direction to find a.date in
15 mid-October in order to have some ort of a water forum with all of the contractors,
16 all of the elected officials in the county, that is, local, State and County. She was
17 happy to be part of a subcommittee but she was not going to be on a subcommittee
18 that negotiated Amendment, 11, because it needed to be negotiated. and talked
19 about in public'.
ZO
21 Mayor Thompson wanted to give the Board of Supervisors the courtesy of talking
22 with them before the September 15 deadline.
23
24 Council Member Hamilton noted that was what Vice Mayor Torliatt-.:had just s"tated.
2 5 She summarized where she thought tfie conversation IE~ad to, that is, who was to be
2 6 on the subcommittee; when they would meet..."
27
2 8 Mayor Thompson stated he did not believe they could ~~etermine when they would
2 9 meet.
30
31 Council Member Hamilton continued that whey needed to identify a date. for the
32 water forum that Petaluma wanted to host and suggested that- perhaps the
3 3 subcommittee wanted to work on'that as well.
34
3 5 Mayor Thompson restated that he had suggested a subcomrnftee of Vice Mayor
3 6 Torliatt, Council Member Keller, and himselfi:
37
3 8 Council Member Maguire was concerned about Retal~ama hosting a water forum.
39 The City had misgivings about the County being the. host. Part of the reason this
o had taken so long was: that City Management: worked at the rate of 158% on a
typical day and he was not sure that it was the best-use of staff resources.
Council Member Hamilton asked what staff. would be doing.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked the City Manager if it was pc-ssible to do this.
August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 189
1 Council Member Keller wanted to know the agenda and what role the City of
2 Petaluma had. He sawthe role as-one of facilitation, in which case he thought they
3 should contract help.
4
5 Council Member Hamilton agreed.
6
7 Council Member Kehler believed the assistance needed could be provided by a
8 contractor like Concur; there were several other outfits that were skilled enough to
9 work on this complex of an issue. He did not see staff having to put in time, other
1 o than some mechanical time of arranging the meetings, trying to be a host or a co-
11 hosting.
12
13 Council Member Maguire asked where the forum would be located.
14
15 Council Members Hamilton and Keller replied at Lucchesi.
16
17 Council Member Keller continued that. if another city felt strongly about hosting the
18 forum he was agreeable to co-hosting the event. He did not see the necessity of
19 any staff time, other than mechanical arrangement, devoted to this forum. If there
2 o was information that came out as a result of that meeting, and he suspected there
21 would be, then that would be distributed accordingly at that meeting as to who was
22 to provide what kind of information.
23
24 Council Member Hamilton asked if the Council was satisfied with the group the
2 5 Mayor had selected to serve on the subcommittee.
26
27 Council Member Healy stated he had~no problem with the Mayor's proposal for the
2 8 subcommittee, but he heard the proposal morphing into a couple of different forms.
2 9 He thought the Mayor's original proposal was to have a subcommittee go to the
30 Board of Supervisors to see what could be done in the short term. First of all see if
31 there could be an extension for further discussion, but see if there was something
32 that could be done along the lines of what Supervisor Cale outlined in his message
33 to Council Member Maguire. Now he heard it morphing into a need for a countywide
34 forum or atwo-county forum in October and that they did not care about the
3 5' September 15 deadline. He was comfortable with the first proposal and would be
3 6 comfortable with the second proposal if the September 15 deadline went away. He
3? reiterated that he was not willing to let September 15 come and go.
38
3 9 Mayor Thompson wanted the subcommittee to talk. with the Board of Supervisors
40 and decide what form the forum should take. He believed that was the best ~~
41 approach.
42
43 Council Member Cader-Thompson noted that on September 14 there was a Mayor .
44 and Council Members meeting and that the forum could be announced. at that time. '
45
Vol. 35, Page 190
August 29, 2000
1 Council Member Maguire was still concerned that the perception was that: the City
2 was going off on its own and although the-City would go off on its. own to the other
3 users, the Supervisors were a force to be dealt. with. In his conversation with
4 Supervisor Mike Kerns, the Supervisor stated,. somewhat ruefully,, that the City had
5 done a great job of focusing the attention on these issues, that the City had, put the
6 big spotlight on this, stuff'and that spotlight was not going to go away.
7
8 According fo Cale, in his a-mail, he had indicated his willingness to push forward a
9 countywide forum. That being the case, he had a hard 'time believing that. there
10 would be real chicanery going on there with this group of watchdogs and the public
11 eye that the .City brought to this issue. He was concerned. about relationships; if the.
12 Council could. do this in harmony, he thought it was better than in-disharmony.
13 ~`
14 Mayor Thompson thought the County would' accept. responsibility f,o_r the'forum. Ln
15 his opinion, that was where it.should be; he wanted the County to coordinate it.
16
17 Council Member Hamilton wanted Petaluma to host the water forum.
18
19 Mayor Thompson offered that the. ubcommiftee ;talk to the ,Board of Supervisors,
2 0 that should theyagree with some kind of'forum, then offer Petaluma as the location
21 for the event.
22
2 3 Council ,Member Hamilton repfied, "no."
24
25 Mayor Thompson expressed that it was important that the Council work together
2 6 with the Supervisors.
27
2 8 Council Member Hamilton stated that the Council would work with them.
29
3 0 Mayor Thompson disagreed, stating that the Council was planning their own
31 session.
32
33 Council Member Hamilton assured Mayor Thompson. ghat the S.C:W.A./Board of
3 4 Supervisors.. would be.,.invited to attend the forum. The subcommittee was to meet
3 5 with the Supervisors about this discussion, the deadline, and .the water forum. She
3 6 wanted Petaluma to host the water forum, she wanted'the City to have.a,facilitator,
37 .and she wanted the City to work out the agenda witfa other agencies and their
3 8 boards: She; did not want it set up by the S.C.1N.A.; she would like the S.C,UV.A to
39 come and participate: The:purpose was forthe Boards 1:o have a discussion, which
40 they had never been able to have. It was not to usurp anything; it was not to insult
41 anyone, 'it was for the people who are actually the eontr~~ctors -and the beneficiaries
42 of the service that the S:C.W.A. provides to this county. Those people needed to
43 have a.conversation with one another as equal players. That was all; it did not need
44 to be insulting.
45
August 29, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 191
1 Mayor Thompson agreed to have the subcommittee run it by the Board of
2 Supervisors and get a reaction from them.
3
4 Council Member Hamilton believed that had accomplished what they needed to do
5 at this meeting.
6
7 Council Member Maguire asked if he could serve as an alternate on the
8 subcommittee if Council did not object.
9
1o Mayor Thompson agreed.
11
12 Council Member Healy suggested that the Mayor invite any Council Member who
13 wanted to participate and invite the press.
14
15 Council Member Cader-Thompson thought that was a better idea.
16
17 Council Member Keller said that was fine with him.
18
19 Council Member Hamilton said that it would need to be noticed.
20
21 City Manager Stouder asked if the meeting had been adjourned.
22
2 3 Mayor Thompson said, "no," that the Council now wanted to have a public meeting
2 4 with the Board of Supervisors.
25
2 6 Council Member Maguire appreciated the Mayor's frustration. He stated that he
27 pretty much agreed with comments made by' Vice Mayor Torliatt and Council
2 8 Member Keller. He pointed out that the Council had gotten strident and he thought
2 9 ,that the Council needed to think about how the Supervisors would respond to that, it
3 o would not be responsive or positive. That was a legitimate concern.
31
3 2 Vice Mayor Torliatt replied that if members of the Council wanted to determine what
33 the outcome of the meeting would be before there was an outcome, she did not
34 understand what the problem was.
35
3 6 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked that they start with the subcommittee and
37 then move forward and talk to people at the Mayors and Council Members meeting
3 8 on September 14.
39
4 0 Council Member Maguire asked that Council think about how the Supervisors would
41 respond to the concept of the forum, and told them based on a discussion with two
42 of Supervisors that they were very sensitive to how this Council spoke about them
43 and treated them. He did not necessarily agree with Supervisors position, he
44 agreed with the majority position of the Council but he entreated the Council to
45 consider that element which he did not think that they had given due consideration.
46
Vol. 35, Page 192 August 29, 2000
1 ADJOURN
2
3 The meeting adjourned at 10:20 P.M.
4
5
6
7 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
8
9 ATTEST:
10.
11
12
Beverly J. Kline, City CI
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 ******