HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 04/24/20001
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
3'S
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
April 24, 2000
City of Petaluma, California
Minutes of a Special
City Council Meeting
vol. 34, Page 421
Monday, April 24, 2000
Council Chambers
The Petaluma City Council met on this date at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Cader-Thompson, Hamilton, Healy, Keller,
Maguire; Mayor Thompson; Torliatt
ABSENT: None
Mayor Thompson asked Mr. Cartwright to lead the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMfIVT
Harvey Goldberg thanked the Council for letting him speak last week. He inquired if the
Council had any questions concerning his remarks last week.
Mayor Thompson answered in the negative.
Council Member Keller asked if Mr. Goldberg's property was entirely in the County's
jurisdiction or was any in the City's jurisdiction.
Mr. Goldberg responded that it was neither. He said he was in the jurisdiction of the
United States of America.
.David Glass pointed out something that came in the mail foday from the HARP. In the
current issue of Modern Maturity, with Paul Newman on the cover, there is a list of the
fifty best places to live in America. Sonoma County is listed under "Quirky." Under the
best of Sonoma County is the City of Petaluma. On page 79 of that article the author
writes, "I am astonished to find that Petaluma, one-time egg basket of the world, has
become cluck-free. Now, besides bedding down great numbers of commuters to the
Bay Area, Petaluma is a world ranking techno boomtown in telephone technology.
Good for Petaluma. Alas, no such reinvention into a glamorous new self applies to the
next most important municipality up 101, the County seat. I'm afraid old Santa Rosa
has lost its looks. Development brought on by community business growth and an
airport capable of handling commercial jet traffic hit the city like steroids. Housing
sprawl has a way of making even great big trees look homeless." Mr. Glass noted that
Vol. 34, Page 422
April 24, 2000
1 the job the Council has done 'in instifuti'ng an urban. growth boundary measure hasn't
2 gone unnoticed nationally.. Petaluma has its charm. It'is in that publication and as
3 Casey Stengle used to say, "You can look'it up.°' And those ~nrho subscribe to that
4 magazine know who Casey Stengle was.
5
6 Sandra Shand., 617 North Webster, appeared as a concerned homeowner tonight. She
7 noted that Petaluma Junior High has recently improved .the baseball diamond so that it
8 can be used by the youth in the community. 'She supports the recreational use of. that
9 land. Her one concern is about increased parking needs. The right=of-way to the field is
10 in a church parking lot. She was concerned that people might. park in the open field,
11 which is on the church property behind the homes on both V11t;stern and 1NebSter. That
12 particular field is one of the few remaining wildlife habitats left undeveloped within City
13 limits.. It is protected. from the traffic and is home to a aciety of wildlife. The neighbors
14 are concerned about cars parking. on the open field, or any unauthorized alterations to
15 that field.
16
17 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive,_ spoke about the flooding problem in .Petaluma. He
18 believes the. City should not be building in the floodplain, especially in Denman Flats,
19 the natural holding Spot. If development in the floodplair is ccmtinued, he questioned
20 how nice would it be to live in Petaluma.
21
22 Vice Mayor Torliatt informed. the Council. that she did speak tc~ neighbors of Ms. Shan
23 regarding Petaluma Junior High upgrades. The reason for the upgrades to the fields.
24 was to improve, the drainage. They also hope. to add ,portable restrooms 'in that. area; at
25 the request of the neighbors::She does not have any information regarding the parking
26 lot. She would. appreciafe it Council could -get some'information on that.
27
28 COUNCIL COMMENT
29
30 Council Member Maguire advised that several people wenf to a meeting today in. Merin
31 County. Merin Supervisors Cynthia Murray and Steve Kinsey,. and Mike Kerns, our
32 Supervisor, were there along with Mike DiGiorgo and Pat Ecklund from the Novato City
33 Council. There was a discussion about the Novato Narrows and there were
34 representatives from, CalTrans and Burton's and Woolsey's offices. It was agreed that.
35 any work on the .Narrows would) be limited in scope and clearly a piece of the larger
36 picture, which includes rail, bus, bike, etc. They agreed to form a Policy Aduisory
37 Committee. The supervisors from each County will decide the membership of'that
38 committee.. That body would interface with CalTrans. He suggested there be a wide
39 constituency to keep the process balanced.
40
41 i/ice Mayor Torliatt wanted. the .record clear that Council Members Ceder-Thompson,
42 Keller, Maguire and she attended.. that meeting. She got to the meeting late and.
43 because the meeting had not been noticed regarding Brown ref, she would refrain from
44 any discussion or decision-Making in that meeting.
45
April 24, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 423
1 Council Member Keller advised. that at that meeting, Diane Steinbrenner of CalTrans
2 explained that she had found a Policy Advisory Committee useful for identifying the
3 issues, the parameters of the program, looking at the alternatives, providing an outreach
4 to the community, look at funding, phasing, cost controls, how to speed up the process:,
5 how to deal with the relationship between public input and the project design, etc. The
6 Committee would be formed in advance of the scoping sessions for the EIR and EIS to
7 help shape the project or alternatives. Council can make recommendations in any way
8 they see fit. He would like it to be agendized quickly.
9
10 Council Member Cader-Thompson advised that the area discussed is north of the
11 Petaluma River Bridge -all the way to 116, so the bridge is part of this project. At the
12 referenced meeting, the importance of looking at the larger picture was discussed. She
13 thought it important for Council to discuss their thoughts on improvements on 101. If
14 both counties are on board together, there will be a better chance to have all needs met.
15 She would like. other Councils to be encouraged to get on board. She would also like to
16 get any information from meetings held with Marin and Sonoma County Supervisors.
17
18 Council Member Maguire got the sense that not much transpired at those meetings of
19 the supervisors. Perhaps the staff could write letters and ask for representatives from
20 other Councils to meet with the Petaluma Council.
21
22 Council Member Cader-Thompson advised it was important they have this discussion
23 so they are not waiting a. month to have questions answered. Her understanding was
24 that it was a process to start sooner rather than later.
25
26 Council Member Keller thought the second meeting in May, following the SETA
27 meeting, would be appropriate, perhaps start the meeting 2:30. There are four
28' jurisdictions involved, two counties and two cities; it may not be purely at the discretion
29 of the supervisors who gets appointed. CalTrans was very clear they wanted
30 stakeholders involved in this,.
31
32 Council Member Healy referred to copy of an April 17 on Fair Share Housing
33 methodology from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)., which, given the
34 barrage of criticism received, is rethinking the 10/90 split and some other issues..He
35 found it fascinating that the process, which generates numbers with 4-decimal-point
'36 accuracy, can. be':made to produce very different results. Now, in Petaluma, "the Fair
37 .Share Housing total that. was originally 597 over the next 6 years, can be reduced to
38 142 units or increased to 1.400 units, depending on "how the numbers are tweaked."
39 He would like ABAG. staff to show Council what 100% allocation and job creation would
40 look like. As May 18 gets closer, a recommendation should be presented.
41
42 Vice Mayor Torliatt indicated that there would be a regional ABAG planning committee
43 meeting on the first Wednesday of next month and she would be happy to raise that
44 issue.
45
Vol. 34, Page 424
April 24, 2000
1 COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGEMENT' REPORTS
2
3 City Manager Stouder discussed the information requested by Council regarding the
4 Empire Sports Complex.. Department of Parks and. Recreation Director Jim Carr,
5 Department of Com_munity~ Development Mike Moore and City Manager Stouder tried to
6 identify the questions from their notes; and what they thought it would take. to. answer
7 the questions. Some might be readily answered and some might require additional
8 feasibility sfudies and costs.
9
10 The application process has been submitted and when it is camplete Mr. Moore
11 estimates it will take approximately six months to process. It is a conditional use
12 application and, the Planning Commission's determination is riot something that: comes
13 back to Council unless it is appealed. The .issue then becomes the lease arrangement.
14 This might not be something the Council would have any future jurisdiction. over and as
15 Council Members pointed out' last week, it is a twofold issue -the lease and Jocaton..
16 He wanted to publicly provide Council with. what, staff ..heard as questions; what the
17 context of this is and when Council might see this again which could be six. months from
18 now or longer.
19
20 Council Member Healy asked for clarification of land use items.
21
22 Mr. Stouder's understanding from the Mr. Moore is that land base, question is a;
23 conditional use question _and does not-need to be heard again by the City Council.., He
24 suggested coming back with more details with what staff thinks it takes to answer
25 questions and a further definition of Council's jurisdiction, assuming it wasn't appealed
26 from gland-use -standpoint.
27
28 Mayor Thompson advised that Mr. Ronick's,letter of April 21 answers some of these
29 questions.
30
31 Mr. Stouder noted that a Planning Commission process estimate is six months.
32
33 Council Member Maguire explained that the major issue is the lease arrangements.. If
34 the application proceeds, Council should have an'opportunify to review it.
35
36 Mr. Stouder indicated that one of the .reasons this was brought- back is that th'e Planning
37 Commission process of a conditional use application might require six months.
38 However; as that is conditioned on a lease agreement; perhaps the lease: agreement
39 should be discussed first, which is what Council Member Maguire and others are
40 suggesting.
41
42 Mr. Stouder thought that Project Manager Jim Ryan could' answer some of the
43 questions, depending on the level of information needed.
44
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
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
April 24, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 425
Acting City Attorney Nicole Tutt advised had developed beyond a staff report and
suggested Council agendize the matter.
Mayor Thompson agreed.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Joint City Council/Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Workshop on
Regional Watershed and Basin Planning.
Mr: Stouder thanked Director of Sonoma County Water Agency Randy Poole and
staff for all their assistance on the U.S. Army Corps discussions in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Poole indicated. it is much easier to deal with Washington, D.C. than the
State of California.
Director of Water Resources and Conservation Tom Hargis asked that
discussion be focused on Amendment 11 and the impacted water supply MOU.
Amendment 11 is a proposed amendment to the existing water supply contract
that provides for additional transmission facilities as well as additional sources of
supply. Until facilities are built, the system can't deliver entitlements to all the
agencies.. All the water contracting, agencies must either agree how to share the
resources or the State Department of Health will allocate the resources.
Mr. Hargis provided posters, CD's, books and videos, for the water conservation
education program for grades K-9.
City Management believes an operating agreement among the water contractors
will need to be developed so that all are sharing equally in the resource and .none
are overpumping or overdrawing or taking away storage that is important to
another. It will integrate water conservation and recycling, and cover afive-to
ten-.year period. Mr. Hargis thought another workshop would be needed:because
ofi the amount of material to be reviewed. Petaluma is the only contractor hat .has
not signed the memorandum to allow processing of water transmission"facilities.
Council Member Maguire asked how many gallons were in an acre-foot.
Mr. Hargis explained that one acre-foot provides water for a family of four for a
year - 325,850 gallons. They try to stay consistent with units.
Council Member Maguire asked 'how many acre-feet or gallons are drawn
annually from the Russian River.
Mr. Poole answered that it is about 60 to 65 thousand acre-feet per year. The
amount for Healdsburg and Windsor needs to be added to that total. They are
Vol. 34, Page 426
April 24, 2000
1 part of Petaluma' allocation even though they are not coming off`the: water
2 transmission- system.
4 Council Member Maguire clarified that Amendment 11 indicates 101 thousand-
5 acre feet per year.
6
7 Mr. Poole confirmed that.
8
9 Vice Mayor Torliatt asked if an attorney had looked at Amendment 11 on the
10 City's behalf.
11
12 Mr. Hargis aid no.
13
14 Council Member Healy stated he had looked at it over the weekend and could
15 answer questions.
16
17 Vice-Mayor Torliatt asked: ,Mr. Poole what thee. voting. allocations meant.. Who had
18 what allocations? In order to get the 51 %, who had to vote together? She also
19 requested an update on the Basin study.
20
21 Mr. Poole answered that the allocation in the master Agreement under section 5
22 has two ways. to approve; a process for water contractors. One is based on
23 entitlement, the actual peak month 'in million gallons per day-of the supply. The
24 other pis actually the weighted average of each individual contractor needed as a
25 voting block.: In the case. of Santa Rosa; they get one vote as a group and they
26 also get a percentage of the entitlement,. which would tie 56 .out of" 148 million
27 gallons per day. Under one allocation method, they vote for a third ofi the.
28 allocation. Under the othertest method, they are one_eighth of the contractors.
29 Both are used.
30
31 Vice Mayor Torliatt requested. an. analysis for each city.
32
33 Mr. Poole advised that there have. been delays. on the. around water studies
34 because of lack of staff to do planning analysis. Hopefully, they will be current in
35 three months.
36
37 ErickaHcndricks-Phelps is the Environmental ,Resources Coordinator with the
38 Sonoma Counfy Water Agency.. She introduced Pare Jeane a Water Agency
39 Principal Engineer in the Resources Planning section of SCUUA. She discussed
40 three specific items:
41 • The Water:Supply and Transmission .System Project. This is the project Ghat
42 sets the stage. for the 11th .Amended Agreement.
43 • The details of the 11th Amendment .Agreement.
44 The Memorandum. of Understanding regarding Water Transmission System
45 Capacity Allocation During Temporary lmpairment.
46
April 24, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 427
1 Ms. Hendricks-Phelps began by sharing background on the Water Supply and
2 Transmission System. Project. In 1992, it was determined that the existing water
3 supply and transmission system would not, in the foreseeable future, be
4 adequate to serve the water contractors' future water supply needs. The water
5 contractors requested a new project. This project was to be called the Water
6 Supply and Transmission System Project and the SCWA board directed an EIR
7 be prepared. In September 1996, the draft ElR was .released and the final ELR
8 was certified and project was approved in late 1998. The objective of the project
9 is to provide a safe, economical and reliable water supply; to meet the defined
10 future needs within the Agency service area. This project is expected to meet
11 the demand levels that were current at the time the project was prepared.
12
13 The project includes three components:
14
15 Water Conservation
16 ® Increased use of water stored in Lake Sonoma (Russian River component)
17 s Expansion and revised operation of the water transmission system
18 (Transmission System Component).
19
20 The Water Conservation Component consists of implementing water
21 conservation measures that would result in the savings of approximately 6,600
22 acre-feet per year and the expansion of the water education program.
23
24 The Russian River Component consists of increasing the amount of water
25 released from storage in Lake Sonoma by 26,000 acre-feet per years That would
26 increase the total authorized amount of from 75,000 acre-feet to 101,000 acre-
27 feet per year.
28
29 The Transmission S~rstem Component :consists of increasing transmission
30 system capacity ;by 57 million gallons per day. That would increase the total
31 capacity from 92 million gallons, under the current agreement, to 149 million
32 gallons per day, with 20 million gallons per day of stand-by capacity..The
33 Transmission System Component would provide the physical facility necessary
34 fo reliably supply water for domestic and industrial use, for fire suppression and
35 for identified future growth. The facilities would be constructed in phases'as they
36 became necessary over approximately a 20-year period. The environmental
37 impact of the Transmission System Project was analyzed in the certified EIR. At
38 the time the Project was approved, the Board of Directed urged the manager to
39 take all steps necessary to implement the project, including finalization and
40 execution of the 11th Amended Agreement.
41
42 Ms. Jeane explained that the agreement for water supply and construction of the
43 Russian River and Cotati Infertide Project was entered into in 1974. The most
44 recent amendment. took place in November 1997 and is known as the 10th
45 Amended Agreement for Water Supply. The 10th Amended Agreement allows
46 for transmission system capacity of up to 92 million gallons per day, specific
Vol. 34, Page 428 April 24,:2000
1 delivery entitlements for the .eight signatory water contractors, establishment of
2 the Water Advisory Comrittee and other more specific items.
3
4 The proposed 11th Amended Agreement, copies in packets, would supersede
5 the 10th .Amended Agreement Nand would authorize the. Agency to constructor
6 acquire additions to-the transmission system to deliver increased entitled
7 amounts; construct additionaC Russian River production facilities,, construct
8 emergency wells as determined necessary by the Water Advisory Committee;
9 construct additional facilities.having 1:5 times the average day peak month
10 demand .available for storage purposes within the transmission system :and
11 replace and construct facilities to ensure th:e transmission ystem operates
12 reliably and efifciently and that the quality of water delivered meets all applicable
13 water quality standards.
14
15 The facilities authorized under the 11th Amended Agreement are needed today
16 to meet. demands on the transmission system: Petalurna's delivery entitlement
17 would: change from 17 million gallons to 21_.8 million gallons per day if the
18 proposed amendment were executed. An annual limit of 13,,400 acre-feet per
19 year is included for Petaluma.. The City of Petaluma's 1987 General Plan was. in
20 place at,the time the: project was being developed: Each water contracfor .has an
21 annual limit in the proposedll'th Amended Agreement based on their respective
22 adopted General Plans at'that-time. This is. a new feature to the agreement for
23 water supply.. Thee proposed amendment would become effective upori execution
24 by all parties to the agreement and. would remain in ;effect untilJune 2036 or until:'
25 any outstanding revenue bonds were paid in -full. Lastly, the 11th Amended
26 Agreement for Water Supply requires that-each water contractor implement or
27 use its best efforts to implement urban water consencation best management
28 practices. There is some oversight by the Water Advisory Committee provided to
29 ensure implementation of adequate. and. reasonable water conservation
30 measures.
31
32 On December 7; 1999; the Board of` Directors of the Agency adopted a resolution
33 declaring the reliable summertime water production .capacity of the transmission
34 system as temporarily impaired. and limited to an average monthly delivery
35 capacity of 84 million gallons per day. That resolution also directed the,,Agency,'s
36 general manager and eh_ief engineer to negotiate with the water contractors and
37 other water customers to develop a consensus regarding appropriate allocation
3.8 of the current water: capacity. Since December, asub-committee `has been
39 meeting tg negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding
40 Transmission System Capacity,Allocation During. Tem~~orary Impairment; Draft 5
41 of which was included in the packet. There: should be a Draft 7 within the next
42 few days. An outside consultant has been hired, to help with this. process... The
43 purpose is to set forth cooperative-actions to be taken by all parties to reduce
44 demands on the transmission system during critica'Isummer months. Significant
45 progress has been made. The; sub-committee is planning to. complete
46 negotiations so the all water contractors can approve the MOU by June 2b00.
April 24, 2000 vol. 34, Page 429
1
2 She advised the Council they would have before them, alone,- ~Nith the 11th
3 Amended Agreement, the MOU Regarding Temporary Impairment. In May, there
4 will be a water rate workshop provided by the Agency.
5
6 Council Member Keller had questions on the MOU Regarding Temporary
7 Impairment. He was concerned with language changes in Section 6 that made
8 proposed water conservation very voluntary., i.e., the language change from
9 "adopt"to "evaluate and present to the governing board for consideration..." and
10 from "implement" to "evaluate and present to the governing board for
11 consideration...':
12
13 Ms. Jeane answered that the changes were based on comments by some of the
14 water contractors and other customers during negotiation.
15
16 Council Member Keller asked if in Section 7, special efforts were mandatory.
17
18 Ms. Jeane answered, "yes."
19
20 Mr. Poole added that the first draft is the Agency's strong position of where they
21 want to be. The difficulty is that some of the contractors do not need to have all of
22 these items approved or implemented. Some have entitlements they will not
23 exceed. The Agency expects all the contractors to agree.
24
25 Council Member Keller advised he was in support but that he was disappointed
26 that some of the other water users do not even want to meet the conservation
27 requirements. By continuing to use more than the system capacity, the system is
28 forced to get larger, rather than taking the conservation approach. He referred to
29 page 3 of the executive summary in the 11th Amended Agreement, which read,
30 "The Water Contractors, and with. respect to other Agency customers, the
31 Agency, shall as a minimum implement or use their best efforts to secure the
32 implementation of urban water conservation best management practices...."and
33 continues, "Should the WaterAdvisory Committee determine and so do notify
34 any water contractor that its efforts to achieve compliance with the water
35 conservation practices required by this section are unsatisfactory..::." He asked
36 for the definition of `'unsatisfactory water conservation.practices." There is an
37 overall goal of 6600 acre-feet per year in conservation.
38
39 Mr..Poole replied that it is the current standard at the date when the process was
40 started.
41
42 Council Member Keller asked if that number increases each year.
43
44 Mr. Poole replied that, looking at a 20-year process, there would be several
45 hundred acre-feet per year in savings.
46
vol. 34, Page 430
April 24, 2000
1 Council Member Keller saw the same situation being faced:'in supplying this utility
2 as with all the rest of the utilities, such as 101.. Should the focus. be on "increase
3 in capacity"and "increase in use,:"or on reducing the demand? He would like to
4 see much heavier emphasis on measurable conservation.
5
6 Mr. Poole replied: that the environmental document addressed water
7 conservation for .each agency. They do intend to sfress the conservation
8 development. The Agency spends close to $2 million a year on water
9 conservation.
10
11 Council Member Hamilton wondered why the Water Agency has no leverage for
12 demanding conservation efforts. from contractors.
13
14 Mr. Poole replied that through. the Section Z consultation under the Endangered
15 Species Act, one of the elements would be the V1Fater Conservation Program.
16 Through the legislature, there will probably b:e a process that requires
17 conservation.
18
19 Council Member Cader-Thompson referred to specific requirements for cities.
20 -
21 Mr. Poole advised that Draft 6 indicates the requirement of metering for Rohnert
22 Park at 20% per year.
23
24 Council Member Maguire asked why the Agency would wait for legislation to
25 make conservation measures mandatory.
26
27 Mr. Poole indicated it would be helpful to make calls to the other cities to insist on
28 that being an issue..
29
30 Council Member Maguire asked Mr. Poole to provide a list of cities needing to be
31 contacted.
32
33 Mr. Poole answered that it would be helpful to confacf ony of the cities..
34
35 Council Member Cader-Thompson spoke about the diversion of the Eel River
36 and reduction in water supply and wondered why the City did not prepare for it
37 sooner and would like to force Rohnert Park to conserve water. She did not
38 understand why there was not a more aggressive wafor conservation policy.
39
40 Mr. Poole replied. that the Agency understands the need for conserving water and
41 has funded water conservation projects. Getting all of the cities to participate in
42 that program has taken. some work.
43
44 Council Member Cader-Thompson discussed. .the water in the Kastani'a holding
45 tank and the Gity's requirement to allot water to Marin. She was concerned that
46 there may be a time when Petaluma will not have. enough for itself:
April 24, 2000 Vol. 34, Page 431
2 Mr. Poole indicated that had happened a few weeks before. The Water Agency
3 has an obligation to Marin County and to serve water north to Santa Rosa and to
4 Petaluma. If the contracts don't all work together, it won't work. His board has
5 directed him not to turn off valves.
6
7 Council Member Cader-Thompson asked about rural areas; for example, a
8 mushroom farm with a deep well sucking up water from existing wells. She -
9 asked if the Agency had any jurisdiction over a situation of that type.
10
11 Mr. Poole replied that the Agency has no jurisdiction over the ground water
12 basins. Those are County functions.
13
14 Council Member Cader-Thompson emphasized. that this was part of a larger
15 picture and it affects everyone.
16
17 Council Member Healy asked about the relationship between the 11th Amended
18 - Amendment and the. MOU in regards to conservation obligations of the different
19 coritraetors. He read the 11th Amended Amendment as referring to and
20 committing each contractor to trying to implement the California Urban Water
21 Council Best Management practices. In the MOU, it refers to this also and he
22 asked if it was just a redundancy.
23
24 Mr. Poole advised that the Agency was doing everything in the BMP process.
25 They are assuming Rohnert Park will start a metering program. The City has
26 done everything except the tiered water rate issue and that is the next step. A
27 substantial amount has .,been. done.
28
29 Council Member Healy referred to the language change and voiced the opinion
30 that there should not. be documents incorporated by reference. There should be
31 everything in the same document so that in the future, when it is being reviewed,
32 it is important to have a clear, understandable document that is not subject to
33 ambiguity. He would like to have those things pulled into the MOU. Referring to
34 .the BMP, he thought it very confusing. The language should be more specific.
35 ..
36 Mr. Poole saw no problem with that and hoped the other water contractors would
37 agree.
38
39 Vice Mayor Torliatt spoke regarding the paragraph concerning water
40 conservation. She asked who had the power to enforce conservation measures.
41 Petaluma has been on the forefront of completing conservation measures and
42 the document. is not clear regarding conservation. She is concerned that other
43 cities might not have to do so much because Petaluma is doing such a great job..
44
45 Council Member Healy pointed out that if mandatory conservation comes down
46 the pike and all the water agencies have to cut 10%, the fact that Petaluma has
Vol: 34, Page 432
April 24, -2000
1 already cut a significant amount and the other cities .have not, taken conservation
2 measures would mean that Petaluma would have to do Harder work~that; is more
3 expensive to achieve. He thought it :grossly inequitable not to have the ame
4 rules across the board.
5
6 Mr. Poole responded thaf every city council is doing more than anybodyelse:. All
7 contractors have to work together: The point is;to make sure all are being very
8 aggressive in the next 2-3 years to complete all of the (asks. He expected That
9 Petaluma would do that.
10
11 Vice Mayor Torliatt. spoke about back up supplies and referred to Mr.. Poole's
12 statement that the Agency has no jurisdiction over groiand water, .but Amendment
13 11 requires cities to construct wells andlor rehabilitate.. Petaluma, Santa Rosa,
14 Rohnerf .Park, and Sonoma have to put in new wells as part of the MOtJ, ..but
15 when how long do they remain "back up"?
16
17 Mr. Poole advised the .Agency has asked the State Health Department:, for a
18 definition. of "emergency supply." .This agreement does not specify'that.it be a
19 long-term supply, but that it be available 'in case of em~:rgency during peak
20 demand periods. Inmany areas,. such as Santa Rosa,. there are existing wells.
21 Sonoma has put in a well in stand-by mode. Me did not know if Petaluma had
22 any wells.. It'is not: known what the ground water basin is in this ,region. That
23 should .be analyzed as part of this process.
24
25 Vice Mayor Torliatt advised that Rohnert Park is pumping a tremendous amount
26 of water out of the ground as opposed to using the County water allocations.
27 They may just. continue to do than.. and not have `to buy into this because it is
28 cheaper, but the: effects of the ground water pumping areunknown:
29
30 Council Member Maguire asked of the proposed 101_,000 acre-feet per year,
31 what percentage would. be coming from the EeI River.
32
33 Mr. Poole replied: that the 1,01,,000. acre=feet is really an increase;in supply from
34 Lake Sonoma. He thought something would come of it in the next six months,
35 although there may be litigation: The Agency anticipates there will be~ a
36 continuation of flow from the Eel to the Russian at a reduced amount
37
38 Council Member Maguire asked :about the authorization of the Water Agency to
39 buy the Potter Valley Dam Project.
40
41 Mr. Poole replied that Amendment 10 would authorize them to buy it if they
42 wanted fo do so.
43
44 Council Member Maguire said that since Petaluma is the last contractor to ign
45 Amendment 11; does that not give Petaluma I'everage, at least down stream?
46
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
April 24, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 433
Mr. Poole replied that all the contractors must work together to leverage against.
other cities and special districts for something important to one....it is a
cooperative process.
Council Member Maguire said that conservation benefits everyone. He
wondered if they have conserved every gallon possible before going back to the
River and building expensive new transmission facilities. He asked about the
maximum #or potential conservation.
Mr. Poole answered that the water supply EIR looked for at least 6600 acre-feet
per year.
Council Member Maguire asked what was the ideal amount to conserve, not just
what the EIR looked at.
Mr. Poole answered that the 6,600 :acre-feet per year is achievable. They are
finding that the amount of water saved in some of the conservation efforts was
not as much as anticipated in the water supply EIR. He is not prepared to give a
hard and fast number apart from the 6,600 acre-feet.
Council .Member Maguire suggested that, even in the best-case scenarios, there
is maybe 10,000 acre-feet in a year to be saved.
Mr. Poole was skeptical of a number past the 6,600 acre-feet.
Council Member Maguire found that frustrating because the Agency was not
setting an optimum target.
Mr. Poole asked Mr. Maguire how much the Agency should reduce Petaluma's
13.,400.
Council Member Maguire would like to reduce as .much as possible.
Mr. Poole agreed and asked for a number.
Council Member Maguire stated Mr. Poole was in a better position to say what
could be achieved through the program.
Mr, Poole thought. Petaluma was stuck with 13,400. If Petaluma can do better,
maybe that could be negotiated at a future date. That would be part of
Amendment 12.
Council Member Maguire saw that once-anew sewer plant is on-line and
recycling more water, they could be looking at a potentially impressive number.
He asked if the increased numbers were based on General Plans.
Vol. 34, Page 434
April24, 2000
1 Mr. Poole said that was correct.
2
3 Council Member ,Keller spoke .about the Section 7 consultation 'and: wondered if
4 that would be the taskmaster.
6 Mr. Poole explained that the Agency would. be looking closely'at the existing
7 facilities plus whatever might,be proposed for future supply. That will impact the
8 flow in the river, the potential changes in certain locations along the river, and the
9 costs will have to be determined.
10
11 Council Member Keller thought that. Mr. Poole was saying yes, that. could be the
12 controlling factor in getting some hard-nosed conservation into the County.. He
13 stated that the .polities are lined up to beat up on this, but both sides of the coin
14 cannot be played and come out with a good result. Qn one hand, the; federal
15 government: is being told there is awater-jeopardy situ~ti'on with .not enough to
16 meet- current- needs an, d the: need to increase. diversions.. It is giving one- clear
17 message: to the regulatory community, which is "don't touch us." It sends the
18 wrong message to the water contracfors_,'whi~h is "you guys are right`- you don't
19 have enough water..'." Section 7 consultations cannot: b2 relied upon to give
20 mandates: needed: There is a need for more coherence: The: Agency needs to
21 take more aggressive leadership and make specific policies to prepare for~the
22 future.
23
24 Mr. Poole replied that the Council needs to snake those decisions and policies.
25
26 Council Member Keller-appreciated that,. but pointed oat that Petaluma is also in
27 a cooperative venture with other water users... He is not seeing in the document
28 the message of mandating major guidelines. That is what concerns him.
29
30 Mr. Poole asked him to understand that this is a process. He described
31 Amendment 11 as taking ``baby teps." He thought it is obvious that Petaluma
32 would want, something more aggressive in Amendment 12. He asked Council to
33 ~ remember that Amendment 11 is a "living document" and that Amendment 10
34 was only two-years ago.
35
36 Council Member Cader=Thompson thought there must be: a way to work through
37 the Agency to give consistent policies and ordinances to all the cities.
38
39 Council Member Hamilton asked if this Amendment ways .good until 2036. She
40 explained that.. Petaluma was starting a new General ..Plan to be completed in
41 about three years. She asked how that would affect Petaluma.
42
43 Mr. Poole hoped Petaluma would not askfor more water in the new General
44 Plan.
45
April 24, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 435
1 Council Member Hamilton asked what would happen if Petaluma did not sign
2 Amendment 11.
3
4 Mr. Poole explained that the. Water~Agency would propose another agreement
5 with the other parties to sign. If the existing Petaluma aqueduct became too old,
6 Petaluma. would be on its own. If Petaluma is not a party to the agreement, it is
7 not the rest of the contractors' responsibility to help Petaluma out.
9 Council Member Hamilton .asked Mr. Hargis and Mr. Simmons what they would
10 like to see included in Amendment 11 that is not currently there.
11
12 Mr. Simmons would like to get the operational agreement done, saying, "It
13 doesn't matter what the numbers say if the tank goes dry." Amendment 11 will
14 go ahead without Petaluma. He did not agree that if pipe breaks, there will be
15 trouble,. because there is agreement to pay for replacement maintenance in
16 Amendment 10, so part of the new aqueduct would be redundancy and some
17 portion would have to be paid anyway.
18
19 Mr- Hargis indicated that the operating agreement just came up last week. They
20 see it as a critical thing in the near future. Regarding the MOU, if all agencies
21 work together, they are better off allocating the resources among themselves,
22 than having the state agencies mandate. He did not think Amendment 11 would
23 change. The question is whether the City should participate in it. There has
24 some thought that if the City does enough recycling, conservation, and
25 groundwater management, maybe it~doesn't need to be part of Amendment 11.
26 There are no guarantees with Amendment 11. There are. significant issues about
27 being able to divert .more water from the Russian River, about whether the water
28 would have to be treated. Mr. Poole used numbers like'/a to'h billion dollars for a
29 water treatment and delivery system from Warm Springs Dam.
30
31 Mr. Hargis expressed concern that if the City does not participate with
32 Amendment 11, the unknowns. of the future and delivery issues could: take a toll.
33 He explained that water runs through the pipeline at a high. velocity. The amount
34 of water coming through it is at the high end of the desirable extreme of the water
35 supply.: He did not think that would change much. He stated h_e was Leaning
36 towards encouraging Councif to approve Amendment 11. He and Mr. Simmons
37 had. studied this issue and learned a tremendous amount in the past few weeks.
38 Most of Rohnert Park's water comes around the back way and doesn't come off
39 I'etaluma's pipeline and Petaluma is more connected to North Marin and Marin
40 Municipal and to Rohnert Park. In the greater scheme of water conservation, he
41 thought Rohnert Park should put in meters in the next year, rather than stretch it
42 out over five years. There are some things in the MOU about the enforcement
43 mechanism. The Board of Directors had told the General Manager not to shut off
44 valves. The other mechanism is a surcharge penalty. Contractors will take the
45 water and pay the penalty.
46
Vol. 34, Page 436 April 24, 2000
1 Council Member Healy said: there: were a lot~of valuable th'ou'ghts about what
2 Amendments 12 and 13 will look like. He was wilding ~ take Mr. Poole's word.
3 that this is an evolving process and will deal with future issues when they come
4 up. He concurred. with. M'r. Hargis with regard to'increasing the reliability of the
5 in-place system. There is one;aqueduct that is 38 years old and is running at full
6 capacity and if there were a supply disruption on that pipeline, there would be
7 severe trouble. Adding redundancy would provide safety. With all of the
8 improvements, it would add about $35 per' acre-foot to the wholesale rate, which
9 is a little: over 10% increase..
10
11 Mr. Poole said it is about $17 per acre-foot, paying off some existing bonds at
12 $35. The net increase is about $35.
13
14 Council Member Healy said., he would like to encourage staff, the contractors and
15 the Agency to try to come to closure on the MOU with some of the points
16 discussed here tonight and bring this back.
17
18 Vice Mayor Torliatt thought that Council would start to hear public input when the
19 rates thatwere adopted bythe Agency Board come down to Petaluma. Petaluma
20 is dealing with the. problem of low or no reserves and will have to increase rates
21 even more:
22
23 Council Member Keller asked who was on the 1Nater Advisory Committee.
24
25 Mr. Poole answered that each city or.special district appoi"rated: one: p°erson to be
26 its representative. In most cases, Petaluma. had appoidted either Mr.. Hargis or
27 Mr, Simmons. Miles: Ferris represents the City of Santa Rosa and the..North,
28 Marin Water District is represented by its General Manager, Chris Gabriel. Mr.
29 Arboli is Valley of the. Moon's representative.
30
31 Council Member Keller asked_if a majority vote of that committee would be
32 required to notify a water contractor that they were not;n compliance with water
33 conservation practices.
34
35 Mr. Poole answered that the voting power is in Section. 5 of the master
36 Agreement. It is weighted based on entitlement plus majority vote:. Everyone
37 .has a minimum of one vote.
38
39 Council Member Keller asked if the Committee's. determination was mandatory to
40 the Water Agency or was it advisory to the Agency.
41
42 Mr. Poole replied they are advisory is most capacities. They do have some
43 powers to hire consultants and approve the water conservation program as well
44 as recycled water programs.
45
April 24, 2000
Vol. 34, Page 437
1 Council Member Keller asked if they could make a determination that becomes
2 an advice to the SCWA that is then an advisory to the Board of Supervisors
3 acting as a board of authority to the Water Agency and they can determine
4 whatever they please.
6 Mr. Poole replied that they actually have the powers to impose the water
7 conservation efforts. It is not in that agreement that they can be overridden.
8 They have final say on determination conservation efforts. There would be a
9 review and due process.
10
11 Council Member Caller-Thompson asked for clarification from Mr. Simmons
12 regarding the City managing their water and storage capability.
13
14 Mr. Simmons replied that the contractors would work together to manage what
15 they are taking in conjunction with the operators of the Water Agency. There is
16 the allocation table on the MOU to live up to. If a contractor takes more than it
17 should, then also the tank levels and the way the pumps are operated would
18 keep the supply from going dry. That is the last MOU, not written yet.
19
20 Mr. Hargis advised that on Ms. Jeane's list of future items, the voluntary water
21 reduction for the summer would be coming quickly. Each contractor
22 representative is bringing to boards trying to get a 15% reduction. Regarding
23 one of Petaluma's unique water conservation programs, which is a water
24 efficiency program, looking at industrial efficiency, the City's contractor is having
25 Mr. Hargis meet with the head of EPA Region 9 to discuss the program, trying to
26 get EPA support that may open some doors with some other agencies for
27 financial support.
28
29
30 PUBLIC .COMMENT
31
32 Diane Reilly Torres, 1657 Rainier Avenue, explained she was in Marin County
33 and she shared copies of a newspaper article in the Novato Business News
34 regarding Novato's water crisis. The article implied that Petaluma caused. many
35 of Novato's water woes. Ms. Torres went to the North Marin Water District with
36 her camcorder and spoke with Chris Gabriel. She questioned why Marin gets a
37 separate contract.
38
39 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, did a quick summary. The City had allocations
40 of 92 million gallons per day. They are now apparently impaired and at 86 million
41 gallons per day. It is proposed. with the new transmission that they will produce
42 149 million gallons per day. He did not know how that would be allocated. He
43 mentioned the questions of the Eel River. He asked if the City could do anything
44 about the operational MOU. He would suggest that the City stop building in the
45 floodplain.
46
vol. 34, Page 438
April 24, 2000
1 Frank. Egger, Mayor ofithe town. of ,Fairfax, provided_a status of'the litigation. It is
2 '.his understanding, that the trial is set for May 9, 10 and 11. The plaihtiffs are the
3 Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association! The California Sport
4 Fishing Protection Alliance; the 1Neote Tribe from Humbolt County., Coyote, a
5 Covelo Band, Friends of the Russian River,. Friends of the Eel River, M. arty
6 Griffin, a Sonoma County Vintner and Frank Egger, the Mayorof Fairfax.. The
7 two dams on the Eel River will come. down., The count was about twelve. for Eef
8 River Chinooks a couple of years ago,. from the tens of thousands historically and
9 three federal agencies, the Nafiorial .Marine Fisheries Service, .Department. of
10 Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency are asking the. federal Regulatory
11 Commission to study a dam alternative. The'issue of conservation is a major
12 source of their water:future. 6,600 acre-feet is about 1~% of'the usage. 25% to
13 30% is very°attainable. The construction. of the pipeline from Marin to Petaluma
14 will be discussed at the Marin Municipal Water District Board meeting in the next
15 couple:weeks and that.Board`is split 2/2 right now.. Joe Nation will be the swing
16 vote as to whether or not the pipeline. will be built.
17
18 Council ,Member Healy asked if anyone. in the City Council had any contact with
19 the Novato Chamber of Commerce other than a meeting. with the Novato City
20 Council.
21
22 There were no affirmative replies.
23
24 CLOSED SESSION
'25'
26 Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:10 p.m. for the following item:
2.7
28 CONFERENCE WITH LAEOR NEGOTIATOR Pursuant to Government Code
29 §54957..6, Unit 7, Fire. Agency Negotiator: Acorne.
30
31
32 ADJOURN
33
34 The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p:m.
35
36
37
38
39
40 ATTEST`.
41
42
43
y~4 Beverly J. I<Iine;~ City Cler
V 45
46 ******
. Clark Thompson, Mayor