HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 07/31/2000July 31, 2000
Vol. 35, Page 123
1 City of Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a Special
3 City Council Meeting
4
5
6 Monday, July 31, 2000
7 ~ Council Chambers
8
9 The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
10
11 ROLL CALL
12
13 Present: Hamilton, Healy, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
14 Absent: Cader-Thompson, Keller
15
16 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA(VCE
17
18 At the request of .Mayor Clark Thompson, Ned Orrett led the pledge of allegiance.
19
20 MOMENT OF SILENCE
21
22 At the request of Mayor Clark Thompson, a moment of silence was observed.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENTS
25
26 Geoff Cartwright; 56 Rocca Drive, asked Mayor Thompson to reopen public comment
27 regarding Amendment 11.
28
29 Mayor Thompson replied that he would with the caveat that only people who had not
3 0 spoken previously would speak and limited to two minutes per speaker.
31
32 Terence Garvey, 83 Maria Drive, stated that the public's lack of reaction fo hate crimes '
33 encouraged more of the same, and asked that City Management post signs at City Hall
34 that offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those
3'5 responsible for the vandalism that occurred at the Fishman Supply Company.
36
3 7 Kelly Schultz, 1521 East Madison Street,.. expressed concerns. about speeding problems on -
3 8 her street, which has no posted speed limit. signs. She stated that some of the biggest
39 offenders were parents leaving the Boys and Girls Glub. She also asked why the Rainier
40 Cross-town Conrectorwas not built. Her husband, Mike Schultz, also voiced his concerns.
41 Several children from their neighborhood accompanied. them.
42
43 Lauren Williams of Petaluma Trolley, 12 North Napa Drive, asked the Council to consider
44 acquisition of an historic 100-year old single-track standard gauge railroad bridge the
45 County would surplus to cross the Petaluma River near the Cinnabar Theater. The bridge,
46 one of the few remaining that was constructed by the Phoenix Ironworks in Pennsylvania,
47 initially served the North Western Pacific Railroad at the Bohemia Crossing of the Russian
Vol. 35, Page 124
July 31, 2000
1 River from 1.9.09 - 1935. The County wanted a road over Big Sulphur Creek at Geysers
2 ,Road and the bridge was relocated and has remained there since 1939.
3
4 COUNCIL COMMENTS
5
6 Council Member Hamilton, responding to Ms. Schultz' inquiry regarding the Rainier Cross-
7 town Connector, explained that the City of Petaluma had less thari fifty percent of the
8 money that; would be needed to complete that. project. Such a project would require a tax
9 measure, and currently there appeared to be little support for such measures.
10
11 Vice Mayor Torliatt suggested that City Managementcontact the Boys and Girls Club and
12 ask that they place., signs at the Club reminding parents to observe the residential speed
13 limit of 25 miles per hour to ensure the safety of neighborhood children.
14
15 Council Member Healy thought that traffic concerns would continue to rise~as the City's
16 population grew and that across-town connector would have alleviated some concerns. He
17 added that scheduled on Council's agenda for next week was another traffic enforcement
18 topic, the Tow Service Agreement.
19
2 o Council Member Maguire said. he had observed that stop signs were not.. necessarily
21 effective. He noted that Council was moving ahead with a project ~to relieve traffic at the
22 Washington and McDowell intersection that should be much more effective than the
2 3 Rainier Cross-town connector would have been.
24
2 5 Mayor Thompson expressed his hope for across-town connector someday.
26
27 'COUNCIL,AND CITY MANAGEMENT REPORTS
28
29 None
30
31 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
32
33 None
"3 4
3 5 MINUTES
36
37 May 17-19 Washington D.C. (not addressed; return on August 7, 2000)
3'8 ~ .
39 PUBLIC HEARING (continued from July 1.7 and 24.)
40
41 1. ,Discussion and ..Possible Action on.llth Amended. Agreement. for Impaired
42 Water Supply and Memorandum of` Understanding Regarding Water
43 Transmission System Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and
44 Operating Procedure for South Petaluma AqueducU~perational Memorandum
45 of Understanding. (Continued. from Council Meeting of April 24, 20.00): Begin
46 Discussions ~of Possible Acquisition by Sonoma Courify. Water Agency (SCWA) .of
47 Potter Valley Project and Presentation by the SCWA Regarding 6.6% Water Rate
July 31, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 125
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
Increase to City and Diseussiori of an 18% City Rate Increase for Water. (Hargis)
Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis presented a
-memorandum ~to Councilxthat-addressed requesfs received by him from the Council
,° for information on, this item. The report included:
T) A message from_Dana Roxon, IVlarin Municipal Water District, that stated
that Amendment 1'1 did not provide Marin with additional water;
2) A list of the best management practices that all agencies approving the
Mern`orandum `of":Understanding (MOU) would have to agree to undertake
as a `part of water conservationefforts;
3) An excerpt from Amendment 11 regarding water conservation practices
'that. all contractors would have to agree to in order to approve
Amendrri'ent 11; and
4) A spreadsheet from a November 1998 meeting of the SCWA that
°o,utlined water deliveries:, water demand population projections, and
- expected`water savings from conservation.
Cou-Heil Member Maguire expressed that he was confused about the water
allotment to Marin County. He had heard conflicting comments about a "more firm
commitment"'and. "less #irm commitment."
Mr. Hargis responded' that Amendment 11 did not provide Marin County with
additional water.
Council Member Maguire asked if the amendment changed Marin County's
contractual legal entitlement.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Council Member Maguire for clarification that he
questioned whether there was a "use it or lose it" provision attached to Marin
County's allotment.
Council Member Maguire replied yes.
Sonoma County Water Agency Director Randy Poole replied that the contractual
relationship would not change, and exp aired that the intent of the language in
the agreement with Marin County was to en"sure that: Marin did not demand their
full -allotment during. a drought, but kept their-reservoir high. He confirmed the
allotment was based on prior use.
Council. Member Maguire asked. what., Marin County was paying to SC1NA and
how :that affected .:City of Petaluma rates.
Mr. Poole explainedthatthe North Marin Municipal Water District (NMMWD) had
already paid their capita-I: costs and were paying only for output and management
COStS.
Vol. 35, Page 126 July 31, 20Q0
Council Member Maguire asked if that rate was the same for~all water.contracfors.
Mr: Poole rep ied fhat.what NMMV1/D paid was equitable to what.Sonoma~Gounty
paid. ..
Council,. Member .Maguire asked: if' contractors_in Sanoma .County, would'. be
contributing to the pipeline Marin County wanted to build from Kastania.
Vice Mayor Torlatf asked if the NMMWD was proposing to pay all costs of fhe:
pipeline from Kastania. ~ ,' - ..
. ~.
Mr: Poole replied `yes. ~ _
.J
PUBLIC C.OIViMENT
,~
-..
Mayor Thompson remnded.speakers to',limit;their presen~tat'ions to two minutes;.and
asked for :comments only from those who had' not addressed this issue af'fhe two
earlier meetings.
Scott Hess,, 1OQ'~Union Street, stated.ffat he was proud of Council..fo'r pausing'to
ask questions regarding Amendment 11, .and asked them to look at th.e whole
system, including both the Eel and '.Russian: Rivers, when considering water
conservation and efficiency.
Vince Landof,, 1:2 Cordelia Drive.,: spoke against the City of Petaluma signing ,the
agreem, ent with SC1NA. .
Geoff Cartwright; 5:6 Rocca Drive; spoke. against the City of Petaluma signing the
agreement. with SCV1/'A. '
Richard Brawn, 1.4'1. Grevillia.Drive, spoke: against'the City of Petaluma signing the.
agreeme.nt;with SC1NA.:
Patricia Tuttle'Brown~ 5:1"3 Petaluma Boulevard South, was proud of Council'staking
a stand against ,signing 'the agreement without adding mandated conservation
language with. "teeth."
Sam. Salmon, a Council Member from the Town.of 1Nindyor, came to.thsank Council
for asking questions about water transmission to ,Marin County.
Eric Storm, Sebastopol, stated that.. building, the :;infrastructure ;for future;
development was. irresponsible and .provided Couneil~wit`h a,written statement.
Bill Kortum; 1'80 Ely'.Boulevard stated that h`e was glad C:ouneil was discussing this
issue adding that peak summertime flow -waswhat he.~ considered 'the' biggest
July 31, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 1:27
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
problem.. He suggested that City Management. explore using recycled wastewater
for outdoor irrigation, and added that he knew of a vendor that had a program
available for delivery of treated wastewater for outdoor irrigation at 2.6 cents per
gallon.
Nancy Henry,; 708 H Streef, anew-resident of Petaluma, was pleased to live in a
City that lived within its: means and questioned why the Council would. consider
paying to bring more water into the City when she thought it was currently living
within its means.
PUBLIC COMIVIENT'CLOSE®
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked City Management to answer Mrs. Henry's question.
Mr. Hargis explained that Petaluma was entitled to a certain amount of water off'the
aqueduct. system.. The City's. General Plan supported a certain amount of growth,
and would eventually require more water than currently used. In addition:, the. current.
delivery system could not handle the amount. of water to which the City was
currently entitled and added that it must be rep aced.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if the General Plan outlined methods for water
conservation.
Mr. Hargis replied that the General Plan contained a1000 acre feet/year savings,
target, .based. on SCWA water/wastewater efficiency studies and best management
practices, and that water recycling was included as a poteritial conservation method:
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked. if there was a difference per capita among different cities..
Mr. Hargis did not know.
Former General Manager of the; NWMMD and Chairman of the Water Contractors
Committee John Nelson explained that per capita allocations varied because of
outside irrigation requiremenfs, with hotter areas and areas not metered higher.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if there was documentation to support that data.
Mr. Nelson replied that a SCWA study contained a detailed analysis breaking down
water use.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked for clarification. if wafer use would depend on the type of
residential development the City encouraged.
Mr. Nelson replied yes.
Vol. 35, Page 128 July 31, 2000
Council Mernber'Maguire asked if'the:;cost,per gallon to users was consistent with
other agenci'es.:
Mr. Hargis believed that each agency set costs.
Council Member Maguire asked 'if the _unit costs to~contractors were eguifable
Mr. Nelson responded Ghat contractors ,paid based on their fake from the system,
and onlyfor water they withdrew:
Council Member Maguireasked. Mr. Hargis about the timing involved with respectao~
State health agencie"s' intervention should the City not come to agreement on
Amendment 11,.
Mr. Hargis replied. that all contracting agencies, :except ..Petaluma .had :approved
Amendment i i .last :year. 'Regarding the MO.U, a little more than half of the agencies
had agr,,eed to the allocation. He thoughf the State would be more,lenient regarding
the MOU than the Amendment:
Council Member Hamilton stated .that Mr.. Nelson's comments demonstrated the
importance of all contractors haun.g consistentpolicies, eonsistent`goals, and a very
serious program of conservation mandates applied e~eijiwhere, ratherthan,ju_st;an
incentive program. She asked if people using groundwater now would be able to tie
into system `later.
Mr. .Poole replied that SCUVA -hoped to have Rohnert Park diminish.. their
groundwater use.
Council Member Hamilton asked if that-included rural re~sidenfs.
Mr. Poole replied that they were not considered.parf of system.
Mr. Hamilton asked if rural residents would be able to join in the future.
Mr. Poole replied thaf it would up to the indvidua City.
Council Member Maguireasked Mr. `Po:ole to confirm that the Agency's ElRuwaS not
completed with respect, to water transmission.
Mr. Poole confirmed.
Council Member Maguire asked if it would be completed once they had agreement
on Amendment 11 and if the City of Retalurima was holding him up.
July 31, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 129
1 ~ Mr. Poole replied that they could :not proceed much further because they could not
2 determine how the pipeline. would be aligned until they knew whether Petaluma was
3 going to sign the Amendment.
4
5 Council Member Maguire asked if the Amendment contained a structure to .
6 encourage water conservation.
8 Mr. Poole replied. no and added that a part of the MOU encouraged cities to develop
9 tiered water rates.
10
11 Council Member Maguire asked. how the Eel River lawsuit would affect rates.
12
13 Mr. Poole .replied that SCWA had already planned for possibilities in their rate
14 structure.
15
16 Council.. Member Maguire asked if ..money was set aside to study environmental,
17 impacts, but note to pay for mitigations.
18
19 Mr. Poole confirmed that this was correct.
20
21 Council Member Maguire, asked:if`wells drilled would be counted. as part of the City's
2 2 allocation.
23
24 Mr. Poole replied that they would not. -
25 .
2 6 Council. Member Healy asked what~~the fimeframe for Amendment 1`2 would~be; and
27 what scope of issues it would address.
28 ~ - ..
2 9 Mr. Poole explained, that' completion;-was expected within the next 18-24 months;
3 o and added liat there were <forty to sixty issues t'o`be a°ddressed for the Amendment.
- - t
31
32 Vice Mayor Torliatt`'asked' what required the ;completion of Amendment 12 if
33 Amendment 11 was passed.
34 - ~ ~ .
35 Mr. Poole. responded";thatthere,~were sufficient°issues and interest to warrant the
3 6 12th Amendment. ~ , ~ ~' . ,
,_ , . .. ,
37 =
3 8 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Mr: Poole: whySCV1/_A: needed a decision. from Petaluma
39 regarding Amendment 11~ before the EfR could~be ,completed as: the EfR would
40 .need to explore alignment,alternatives,regardless.:of.Petal_uma's decision.
41
42 Mr. Poole agreed and added. that Petaluma might want to have the pipeline .located
43 close to certain facilities.. f Petaluma were to decline to sign the amendment, SCWA
44 might align the pipeline in ways beneficial to other cities.
45
Vol. 35, Page 130 .July 31;,.,2000
c~
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if Petaluma would ~be: asked where they wanted the
pipeline. ~'
Mr. Poole- confirmed this:
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked who made the final decision crn the pipeline alignment..,
Mr. Poole replied that SC1NA's board of directors made. the final d'ecision..
Mr. Hargis noted that .discussions including Council had taken place about
alignment .of pipeline. .
Mr., Bogle: continued. that knowing Petaluma'.s decision would limit. the number of
alternatives they needed to consider.
Vice Mayor Torliaff wondered why the MOU was not included as partof Amendment
11 or~ 12'.
Mr. Poolesaid'that the, MOU'allocates existingsupplies in an;equitable process, and
it was easier tq do as,aseparate'document. We added thet"there were~two areas not
incluvded in tfae Master Agreement that were included in the MOU.
Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if consideration was given to denying voting' privileges for
those two areas.
~- _ . ,
Mr. Poole responded that all the.°players wanted to have the same say and same
authority.
Vice Mayor Torliatt stated ~ that :P:etaluma's_decision on Amendment 11 had
ramifications for not Drily Petaluman's'but tothe entire: county as a whole:. Petaluma
was the. 'last contraeto'r to consider approval: of 'the. amendment, and as the last'
contractor, these was a tremendous~amount;of political pressureapplied:to not ask
questions and to approve it`'for fear. of the threat of being left out of a future water
source for the community..
. , . ,. ..
This was the time political leadership needed to tepVfo:rward,; ask the _guestions,
and receive answers fo the arger consequences of actions taken,
Since the issue had come to fight::in the ..public's, eyes, she have received a
tremendous amount of email and phone.calls encouraging this.City`Gouncil to really
take. the time to think through the long term impacts of the,decision before~th'em and
how they could make'it a better decision.
She stated Council: must recognize{certain realities:
1. The water supply infinite. The community was dealing with a limited resource.
July 31, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 131
1 Just because it was convenient°to take waterout of the Russian and Eef Rivers
2 did not mean. it was right. Just because the Section 7 analysis may say it is okay
3 to put out 101,000,000 gallons per day did'not mean it was the right thing to~do.
4
5 2. Communities that make a large capital investment to bring in more water without
6 firstimplementing aggressive conservation measures may find themselves.
7 unable to turn back. Prolonging the inevitable put future generations'at risk by
s depleting water resources and deferring the,long-term cost of providing water to~
9 citizens: If the, proposal goes. forward,_it would change the economics of future
10 decisions.
11
12 3. The City must look at other options. No alternatives were provided to the
13 Council before asking for a vote;: this was making public policy in a vacuum. The
14 citizens deserved better, and the Council was capable of much better so they
15 must set their goals higher and not be complacent. There was a need to pursue
16 including language in Amendment 11 that mandafed looking at the analysis of
17 the cost/benefit ratio for restoration of resources, not depletion. There also
18 needed to be an analysis of a model that based water allotment per capita and
19 provided significant financial incentives for cities to use their water more
2 0 efficiently and financial penalties to those. who did not. Other factors, such as
21 industry'use/needs and. climate conditions, would also need to be factored into
2 2 the. analysis:
23
24 4. The Board of `Supervisors as the Board for SCWA should be 'taking an
2 5 aggressive leadership role in conservation and water efficiency.
26
27 5. Growth inducing, ground water studies, storage, reliability of water source and
2 8 safety -fire protection were additional issues she wanted to discuss.
29
3 0 She thought C:ouncil's leadership in acknowfedgment of the fact that water was a
31 valuable resource sfio.uld not be taken for granted. She wanted to find a way to
32 better address the issue.
33
34 Council Member Hamilton pointed out that Amendment. 11 took nine: years; .to
35 comp etc, and. said. she was not confidenf about.Amendment 12 being cornplete'd
3 6 any time.so.on. She thought it was possible to make changesto Amendment 1.1 and
37 reroute it through the othercontractors in, a fairly timely manner. She added that
38 Amendment 11 should contain the following:
39
40 1. Water Ethic:: As consumers the community had the obligation to ensure that
41 this resource ,remained. available.
42 2. Charter of Stewardship: SCWA should act as steward of this resource, rather
43 than as a utility.
44 3. Water Conservation Plan: Mandated conservation. with percentages that
45 increased over the next ten years.
46
Vol. 35, Page 132
July 31; ...2000
1 Mayor Thompson agreed with Council :IVlember Hamilton°s ideas; and-added that.he
2 thought't_hey should be included in Amendment 12. He ~nianted'the Cityto agree to
3 Ame.ndrnent 11. He was..concerned that it would fake years for.all the.contractors to
•4 agree if changes were made to: Amendment l l .
5 _
6 - : ~ Vice. Mayor Torlatt worried Ghat Amendment 11 did not. mandate responsible water
~ ~ use. -
8
9 Council Member Healy thought that; what, ,Council Member Hamilton proposed.
1-0 sounded like a preamble not mandated conservation.
11
12 Council Member Hamilton pointed out hat the water conservation component did.
13 contain specific conservation manda_ tes.., '
14
15 Vice-Mayor l'orliatt thought the City needed to give SCWA the mandate, with other
16 contractors agreeing, ~to look at how to use water as a restoration of resources, not
17 depletion.. She stated 'the need to start earlier rather than later with` a new
18 philosophy:
19
2 0 Council Member Healy described.. the water issues as multifaceted; with' tots .of
21 information to synthesze;'t'was th,e most irnportanf~ote~ he faced in his time on this
22 Council. He added thatit was'importantto remember the existing pipeline could not
23 handle Petafuma's :current water entitlement, .and the City needed additional
24 capacity just; to -serve its existing population. He noted that in a treaty.,, each party
2 5 gets what is most important to it. For Petaluma, this was..: reliability enhancement
2 6 and redundancy of the~existing pipeline. He st'ate'd that even if'Amendment 1'1 went
27 forward,, it would probably be seven ,years before a, paralfel aqueduct: was
28 completed. He worried that if Petaluma did not participate in Amendment 11, the
29 news ueduct would b ass Petaluma, and the City would not have the,opportunity
q yP
3 0 to access it later. He pointed out that ;the: City only had two days uppJy of
31 emergency water. He added:thatAmendment 1 l andfhe M;OU obligated Petaluma.
3 2 to implement best management practices. Ne eoncedE:d that Phis reflected slow
33 progress, but. progress nonetheless and 'noted that the City would soon be
3 4 conducting a rate study that would move it closer to tiered water rates. He reminded
3 5 fellow Council me,mb.ers ;that they all supported ~" smart;,growth" -more infill, higher
3 6 density, jobs/housing balance; transit .development -but not. `'no growf.h." He was'in
3 7 favor of the Council approving Amendment 11 and the McJU, and beginning work on
3:8 Amendment 12:
39
4 o Council Member Maguire agreed; that this, was, a very complex issue and required
41 time to understand. He was, in agreement with all the °other :Council Members'
42 comments. He thought Petaluma got a "bum: rap"`for stalling, acid foot dragging,and
43 added that Councif -had been proceeding as forthrightly as possible. He .was
44 .. concerned with committing to an open-ended'. agreerr~ent., He w. orried because
45 conservation measures were not mandated in AmendmE;nf'11. He wanted fo wait a
46 month and poll other City Councils about their willingness to agree to such
July 31, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 133
1 mandates, should Petaluma add them. He noted that if the Citysigned Amendment
2 11 atthis time, it was doing sounder duress. If Petaluma agreed to Amendment 11,
3 it would need Randy Poole's agreement that work begin immediately on
4 Amendment 12, that Amendment 12 include mandated conservation measures.,
5 development of decentralized alternatives, grid that Amendment 12 receive: ongoing
6 input-.from City Councils during. its development. He wondered if it would be possible
7 to include the option for "rethinking" the decision to sign Amendment 11, should, the.
8 financial impacts of the Ee River lawsuit or Section 7 consultation exceed five
9 percent of existing or proposed rates in mandated mitigations.
10
11 Mayor Thompson replied that he had a conversation with Supervisor Mike Kerns
12 who indicated Amendment 12 was already being developed.. Regarding polling other
13 City Councils, he fhought it would require" six to seven months to receive their
14 responses, as the matter would have to be established on each Councils' agenda.
15
16 Council Member Healy asked what SC1NA wouldY do if mitigation costs of the :Eel
17 River Lawsuit ox Section 7 consultation costs were higher than. anticipated:
18
19 Mr. Poole .replied that SCWA would comeback fo the contractors. He discounted
2 o the idea that Petaluma would be "signing to blank check" by approving Amendment
21 11.
22
2 3 City'Attorney Rich Rudnansky"pointed out that it would not be possible to reconsid.'er.
24 Amendment 11 once it had been signed., The'option w.ould~be:to:authorize the City
2 5 Manager to sign.. Amendment° 11 .conditio'ned on certain things occurring,. or when
2 6 Council was confidenf that sufficient progress had 'been made in that direction.
27
2 8 Mayor Thompson noted that if the mitigation costs were very high, theywould affect
29 the City even'if'Petaluma did not sign`the Amendment.
30
31 Council Member Hamilton had .serious reservations- about. going ahead with
32 Amendment 11, because there was nd languagetthat~m~andated a reduction or ha_It
3 3 to .sending water from., the Eel River to Mar_n. She also thought it would "solidify"
34 Marin's right to the water.
3S
3 6 Mayor Thompson voiced concern that. if Petaluma did not.agree to Amendment 11,
37 the aqueduct would bypass the City and~carry water to Marin anyway.
38
39 Vice Mayor Torliatt mentioned that he had spoken with eo;uncl members: from
4:0 other cities,, and they had expressed definite support to consider these issues: She.
41 wanted a larger discussion with political leaders. on the amendment's impact on Eel'
42 and Russian Rivers.
43
44 Mayor Thompson expressed that changes could not be made to Amendment 11. He
4 5 stressed the need for the parallel aqueduct. He noted that the tank on Kastania had
Vol. 35, Page 134 July;31, 2000
already gone dry onone occasion this summer and added that the City .was moving
backwards by not signing Amendment 11.
Council Member Hamilton, read a Letter from Council 1Vlember Keller enumerating his
concerns :anal detailing conditions under which he would be willing fo ,approve
s ecn smeotecton com onendts. The letteew water conservation and endangered,
p ~ p p as~given to i:he City.Clerk for entry into
the record.
Vice Mayo"r Torliatt wondered if elected officials were ever asked what they wanted.
to see in Amendment 11. ~.
Mr. Hargis_replied'tpat they. had.,not specifically been consulted; the amendrne.nt
was brought to the. Council as a~paekage.
Vice Mayor Torliatt.. noted that Council wanted a number of..guestions answe_ red,. but.
the only opporfuriity.they had been provided was to endorse or oppose the
amendrn~ent. ~~
Council Member Hamilton statedahat in her eight:years on this Cou~ei~, there had
been no discussion~~ofi-this type regarding'water.
Council Member Healy pointed out that:it was hard to say if`that was 'SCVIL~A's fault
or Council's.:fault. _ -
Council Member Ma~`guire saw-tw.o possibilities: Draft a letter to all .City Councils
asking, if they ,would: support another look at Amendment 11 with respect to
mandated'' .conservation, .or sign the, amendment... tonight. if .Randy Poole could.
guarantee°that;the,issues~aboutwhich Council was concerned would be:addressed.
nilr. Poole replied that he intended to take those.concerns and. the concerns of the
other contractors and .have an -active discussion about them with the Board.
Council Member Maguire asked'Mr. Poole ifi there could be a commitment by
SCWA,that Amendment' 1'2 would innelude mandated conservation.
.., .. _
Mr. Poole .responded that he. could gain commitment to "look at mandated
conservation" .but could.. not guarantee -that Amendment 12 would. contain such
mandates.
Council Member Hamilton stated that~she, had.,a problem with voting'on'this without
a full. Council.
Mayor Thompson wanted to sign the .amendment tonight.
July 31, 2000 Vol. 35, Page 135
1 Council Member Hamilton added. that waiting for all the. Council Members to be
2 present. would give Mr. Poole time. to find out what he could do.
3
4 Mayor Thompson pointed out that Petaluma could not impose its values on other
5 cities.
6
7 Council Mem. ber Hamilton .repeated that she did not want to vote tonight.
8
9 Council Member Healy stated that he felt Petaluma was "past the 13th hour" on this
10 matter. He noted that other agencies signed off on Amendment l l over a year ago. ,
11 He again compared the amendment to a treaty, and said there was a danger in
12 wanting, to have perfect information before making a decision. If the City waited for
13 issues o 6e resolved, by that time, there would be other issues. The Council could
14 not continue to drag ifs feet.
15
16 MOTION: Council Member.Healy moved, seconded by Thompson to authorize the
17 Mayor to sign the 11th Amended Agreement for Impaired Water Supply without
1s conditions, .but with a request that the SC1NA move forward aggressively with
19 mandated conservation measures'in Amendment 12.
20
21 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked Mr. Rudnansky about rules regulating a request :for
2 2 reconsideration.
23
2 4 Mr. Rudnansky replied that after a,decision by Council, any member who noted with
2 5 the majority could move for reconsideration of the issue at the next City Council,
2 6 meeting, not less than one week later.
27
_ .. 2 8 Council Member IVlaguire expressed that Council .had been "painted into a corner"
29 on the issue and that he would not vote to approve signing of the amendment.
30
31 Couneif Member Hamilton stated that she would vote against signing the
32 amendment, as the Council. had only had six hours to discuss the issue with all
33 members present.
34
. 35 MOTION PASSED:.. 3-2-2 .(Healy, Torliatt, Thompson Ayes) (Hamilton, Maguire
3 6 Noes) (fader-Thompson and Keller Absent) .
- 37
38 Vice Mayor Torliatt announced that she would move for reconsideration of this
3 9 action in two weeks.
40
41 Mayor Thompson asked Council Member Healy if his motion included approving the .
42 MOU.
43
44 Council Member Healy replied that it did not.
45
Vol. 35, Page 136
,July 31,.2000
1 Council Member Maguire inquired what could be done differently if the issue was.
2 brought back for reconsideration: He': asked whether Cite Management.could send.
3 letters to .other City Councils polling them on. their willingness to consider~addng
4 language to Amendment 11, with a request, for response within one month.
5 -
6 Council. Member Hamilton thought-that was premature because the Council; had not
~ decided what to .ask.
8 - _
9 Mayor Thompson. believed such an action would take many months..
10 _
11 Council ,Membe:r Hamilton disagreed. -
12
13 MOTION:. Council Merriber Healy rnov_ ed, seconded by Maguire:,, to authorize Mayor
14 Clark Thompson ~to sign the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Water
15 Transmission S,ystern Capacity Allocation During Temporary Impairment and
16 Operating P,roce:dure for South Petaluma Aqueduet/Operational Memorandum of
17 Understanding. _
18
19 MOTION .PASSED: 5-0 2 ,(fader-Thompson and Keller absent)
2;0
21 .ADJOURN
22
2 3 The meeting was adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
24
25
26
27
2'8
2 9 ~ :. Clark Thompson,, Mayor
30
31
32
33 ATTEST:
34
35
36 -
37 Claire Cooper, Clerk Pro Tem
38
39 ******