HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/06/1999December 6, 1999
vol. 34, Page 111
1 City of'Petaluma, California
2 Minutes of a ,Regular
3 City Council Meeting
4
5
6
7 Monday, December 6,,1999
g Council Chambers
9
10
11
12
13 The Petaluma City Council met on this day `at 3:00 pm. in the Council Chambers.
14
15 ROLL CALL
16
17 PRESENT: Council Members Cader Thompson, Healy, Maguire, Torliaft; Mayor
18 Thompson; Vice Mayor Keller'
19
20 ABSENT: Council Member Hamilton
21
22 PI~BLIC COMMENTS
23
24 Nadia Bledsoe, Business Manager of American Federation State, County and Municipal
25 Employees, 1301 Shoreway Road #322,; Belmont GQ 94402. Ms. Bledsoe represents
26 bargaining units in the City, clerical and technical, maintenance and confidential
27 employees. Contracts are on consent agenda today and urge- their adoption. She
28 acknowledged and thanked the: bargaining team for efforts in getting. the package
29 together. She thanked the City Manager and City management #,or their efforts on the
30 salary increase proposals and their understanding of.'the need for parity with
31 comparable municipal agencies.
32
33 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca. Drive; spoke: ,about the weir at the top of the Corps of
34 Engineers project.
35
36 COUNCIL "COMMENTS
37
38 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented .on her concerns regarding the
39 Rersonnel Board..
40
41 Vice Mayor Keller agreed and advised that the needs have changed since the
42 Personnel Board was established.
43
44 Mayor Thompson met with several members of the Board of Directors of the Petaluma
45 Area Chamber of Commerce, w:ho expressed their desire to meet with Council
46 regarding a potential site for a railroad depot.
Vol. 34, Page 112 .December 6, 1999
1
2 Council Member Torliatt was supportive of a discussion with the Chamber.
3
4 Council Member Caller-Thompson commented on Thom Knudson's editorial in the
5 Chamber of Commerce paper indicating ~~lie importance of "doing homework" before
6 .making decisions. Shoe, thought it ironic that the Chamber wanted to discuss fhe: rai(
7 depot while supporting a 101-only initiative instead of a mulfi-mode approach.
8
9 Council Member Healy would be pleased to'meet the Chamber to discuss use of';depot
10 buildings and asked City .management, for an update on the Golden Gate Bridge, District'
11 allowance of authority to 'build bus depot.
i2
13 Vice. Mayor Keller-thought it would. fall into tfie discussion, beginning nex, tmonth of the
14 Downtown Specific Plan concerning land and transportation issues.
15
16 MINUTES
17
18 MOTION: ~ Council Member Torliatt ~rnoved!,. seconded by.Cad'er-Thompson..to ~adopt~
19 the. minutes Hof July 12, and' 26, 199'9.
20
21 MOTION
22 PASSED: '6/0/1 (.Hamilton absent)
23
24 CONSENT CALENDAR
25`
2:6 .Agenda ferns 1, 2, 3 were removed from the consent calendar for further discussion
27 ~ and p,ossibae action. _~
28 ,
29 1 A. Resolution 99 217 NCS Appro~ring~ Memorandum of Understanding for Unit 1,
30 Resolution 99-218 NCS Approving Memorandum of 'Und'erstan'ding fo`r'Unit 2',
31 and Resolution 99-2'19 NCS Approving, Memorandum of Understanding for
32 Unit 3:
33
34 1 B. Resolution 99=220 NCS Approving Compensation Plan for Unit 8.
35
36 MOTION:: Council Member Maguire moved,, seconded by~ Caller-Thompson to adopt
37 Resolution 99-217,NCS App:roVing Memorandum of 'Understanding~for
38 Unit 1, Resolution 99'-21..8 NCS Approving ~Mer~orandum of
3.9 Understanding ;for Unit 2, and Resolution 99-219. NCS Approving
40 Memorandum of Understanding for Unit 3, and Resolution 99.=220 :NCS
41 Approving Compensation Plan for Unit 8.
42
43 MOTION
44 PASSED: 6/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
45 -
46
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 113
1 1. Resolution 99-221 NCS Approving Accepting Claims and Bills.. (Cornyn)
2
3
4. MOTION: ~ Council Member Torliatt moved, seconded. byCader-Thompson to ad_ opt
5 ~ Resolution 99-221 NCS Approving Accepting Claims and Bills.
6 ~;~.
7 °MOTION ~_
8 PASSED: ~ ~ 6_/0/1 (Hamilton absent)
9 .
10 2. Resolution: 99-.222 NCS Authorizing `PG&E Easement Through Prince Park for
11 the:WillowGlen subdivision. (Carr)
12
13, Council Member Torliatt was unclear wh,y work was not underground.
14
1~5 Council Member Cader-Thompson inquired if Prince'Park would. ever be underground.
16
17 -Director of Parks acid Recreation Jim Carr advised that, because of high voltage, it
18 would be extremely experisive, so there are no immediate plans to go underground.
19
20 Council Member Torliatt asked if it was going to overheads.
21
22 Mr. Carr advised that it was going to the existing overheads., with some underground
23 going into the center of the subdivision.
24
25 Mayor Thompson agreed and remembered that'the undergrounding is in there. He
26 spoke to Marcel Feibusch regarding the high voltage. problem.
27
28 Mr. Carr advised that all the power corning across Prince-Park is overhead and. this will
29 drop it down to where they connect.
30
31 Council Member Healy agreed that the high voltage line ;runs above. ground all the way
32 from the substation by Old Adobe through the Corona Road substation to the Cotati
33 substation. The problem, was addressed`-when the..Corona Road issue came up about.
34 one year ago. It is prohibitive to underground- lines of this voltage.
35
36 Council MemberTorliatt indicated that placing the Corona. Road substation was also a
37 consideration; that' was not why she was raising the issue at this time.
38
39 Council. Member Maguire thought the pole at the corner of Corona and McDowell was
40 very unsightly.
41
42 Council Member Torliatt did not think PG&E had to go through the EIR process even,
43 though Council had requested that they do so.
44
Vol. 34, Page 11.4 December 6, 1999
1 Vice Mayor Keller thought PG&E should provide cornpensafion to the City.in~the.-form. of`'
2 landscaping ~or other beautification as the easement served a private substation..: He ~ . -_
3 wondered if there 'had been any discussion of that.
4
5 Clerk's Nate: Vice Mayor Keller.left the da-s at this tune: - . ~ '
6
7 Mr. Carr advised that there was already-an easement through the park, for t_he overhead
_.
8 wires going through Prince ,Park, Vl/illow Glen; to Sonoma Mountain Parkway.- ~He
9 pointed o.ut thaf this was the agency the City was asking ~to remove lights from McN'ear _
10 Park. They we`re supportive of`the City during the hookup work in Prince Park.. The City'
11 ran that project through fast and PG&E'.was with the City every sfep ofttie way:
12 - -
13 Council ,Member Healy .asked for clarification. that the existing, high voltage. line,,through
14 'the park is not what was being .discussed. That exists; and will not change:' It is.a ~~
15 ,question, of installing a smaller pole fo,allow the-powerto be stepped; down from the
16 high voltage line and into the subdivision.
17
18 Mr. Carr agreed. -- -
19
20 Council Member Torliatt asked: where pole would be located.
21
22 Mr. Carr displayed an overhead showing the location. of ;the pole on East-UVashington
23 Street.
24
25 Gou_neil Member Torliatt asked why the pole could not be placed in the subdivision.
26
27 Mr. Carr explained that the street is adjacent to the property line.
28
29 MOTION: Council Member Maguire moved,, seconded by .Healy,, to adopt' Resolution
30 99-222 NCS_ Authorizing PG&E Easement Thr®ugh Prince Park for the
31 V1/illow.Glen subdivision
32
33 MOTION
34 PASSED: 5/0/2 (Hamilton, Keller absent).
35 -
36 3. Resolution. 99-223 NCS Awarding Contract for the Design of a Pavilion at
37 Lucchesi Park to Quadriga. .Estimated Cost; $55;Q00. Staff Time: 10 Hours.
38 .(Carr)
39
40 Council Member Torliatt asked. if' the Recreation'., Music- and Parks. Com-mission
41 recommended Quadriga be the landscape architectural firm to design the pavilion..
42 -
43 Mr. Carr affirmed that. the Commission worked with Quadriga from the beginning.: ~~~
44
45 Council Member Torliatt .asked if the -Commission. approved the staff report:
46
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 115
1 Mr. Carr affirmed.
2
3 Council .Member Torliatt asked why the item had not gone out to bid.
4
5 Mr. Carr explained that Quadriga .had a history of developing conceptual plans.. If the
6 City brought in another architect/engineering firm, "we will have to back to square one."
7
8 Council Member Healy found. the design. of the ,pavilion structure uninspired. He .asked
9 if Quadriga or another firm could produce some other design concepts, perhaps with an
10 historical flavor.
11
12 Mr. Carr indicated that the ultimate approval is the Council's. Quadriga sought to blend
13 the design with the Community Center, with. the arbor around it to provide an outdoor
14 flavor.
15
16 Council Member Healy asked if Quadriga had the expertise to address the design
17 issues of that type of structure.
18
19 Mr. Carr replied that they were. receiving direction from the Recreation, Music and ,Parks
20 Commission. He offered to.take 'it back.to the Commission.
21
22 Council Member Healy offered to meet with Mr. Carr.
23
24 Mr. Carr agreed.
25
26 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented. that the park was becoming dense. It
27 would be nice to keep it larger and green.
28
29 Mr. Carr responded that. the. original master included. a gymnasium., and a :performing..
30 theater, similar to Rohnert Park's design, The original intent was to have. a heavily used
31 space with those amenities. Many other Commissioners `had made the same comment
32 regarding the park being overbuilt.
33 .
34 Council 'Member Torlatt asked Mr. Carr if the pavilion was intended for small weddings
35 or ,parties in the park.
36
37 Mr. Carr confirmed that the goal was to host small activities, fundraising and community
38 events.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt commented that for small weddings,. guests would want to .be
41 able to stand all around the pavilion. She wasn't sure the design made -that possible.
42
43 Mr. Carr advised that the pavilion itself had a 32-foot diameter.
44
45 Vice Mayor Keller commented that a 32-foot diameter is less than the size of the:
46 Council Chambers. He added he was looking forward to the addition to the park.
vol. 34, Page 116 December 6, 1999
1
2 MOTION: Vice Mayor Keller moved, seconded by T,orliattto adopt Resolution 99-223
3 NGS Awarding Contract for'the Design o,f'a Pavilion at Lucchesi Park to
4 Q:uadriga.
5 MOTION
6 PASSED: 7/0'
7
8 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9
10 4. Verbal Report by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regarding Status .of Payran
1.1 Reach Project. (Hargis:)
12
13 Mr. Hargis advised that he was unable. to provide a verbal. report, but provided a written
14 report with diagrams. The Payran pump station is under construction. The backyard
15 drainage is not".under= construction. A contractor has started construction of abutments
16 of the railroad bridge by Lakeville.
17
18 Vice Mayor Keller asked tne'loeation of the release point when water rose above: 78,6
19 feet, at the upper end, of the project: 1Nhere hould floodwaters discharge? He was
20 concerned about an unpredicted failure or an undesigned failure. He wanted' to pick: a
21 target. area for :overtopping that would have the least harmful 'impact. ~He did not think it
22 should be left to chance.
`24 Councif ,Member Torliatt read"from the summary and asked for clarification of the project.
25 remaining ``essentially on track."
26
27 Mr. Hargis. replied that the weekly meeting with the cont"ractor indicated that"major items
28 were "essentially on schedule," Behind schedule was removal of material from. -the
29 construction ite to ,Schollenberger Park. Muddy :conditions at .Scholleriberger and the
30 construction site. had impeded progress. There were. some problems with utility
31 relocations, but" there were close to being. back on" schedule. Construction was
32 estimated to be 4'0 to 45% complete at "this time. The contractor was optimistic.
33
34 Council Member Torliattasked for a progress. report on the railroad- trestle..
3S "
36 Mr. Hargis .advised that the railroad trestle was behind schedule: This was 'due.,.. in part,
37 to the permit`process with the ..railroad. Completion of work within the chan_nel~ was .given
38 priority" over work on the. abutments.
39
40 Council Member Torliatt asked if the railroad trestle would b'e completed in 2Q00.
42 Mr. Hargis advised that the main line bridge trestle, demolition :and replacement of'the
43 drill dine bridge would be completed. Demolition "of'the existing main line bridge may be
44 delayed until June'2000.
45
December'' 6,...1999 ~ Vol. 34, Page 117
1 Council Member Healy noted that overtopping would apparently only be expected in a
2 250-year flood event.: He asked if the desig'ri wad made with 100-year flood events in
3 mind.
4
5 Mr. Hargis agreed that it was, adding that it would. take a very rare, significant event fo
6 overtop,.the wall:
7
8 Council ,Member Healy was interested in information from the Corps regarding design
9 standards; specifically, how the design would differ had it been designed to a 250-year
l0 event.
11
12 Mr. Hargis advised that the 1% standard was common... In a residential neighborhood,
13 there was an additional. safetyfactor over the 1% standard. He agreed to ask the Corps
14 for the information Council Member Healy requested.
15
16 Vice Mayor Keller recounted a long conversation:' he had with a senior staff member of
17 the National Flood Insurance Program: 1Nhen the .project was complete and FEMA
18 remapped the area,., the land currently designated as within a 100-year floodway would
19 be removed from. the FEMA flood hazard map. When that happens would, there no
20 longer, be federal requirements for insurance? The staff member replied in the
21 affirmative.
22 - .
23 Vice Mayor,. Keller wondered if a local agency had any authority to impose flood.
24 insurance requirements `in an area. of prior flood: plain that is protected by a project. If
25 there were no ,requirement for flood insurance,,, the_City would be the target. agency if the
26 project failed. Even under federal rules, ,flood insurance was only required from
27 federally regulated funding agencies. Private loans were not required to have flood
28 insurance as part ofi contract of sale: He though~;tfe City had. homework_to do.
29
30 Council Member Maguire: asked Vice Mayor Keller if there.-was adraft- map the areas
31 that would be removed from the FEMA map. '~
32
33 Vice Mayor Keller replied. that there wa"s no draft reap; but he thought it: could be
34 assumed from Corps design :intention' that the entire lower end of the°.project~ would be
35 removed, from the weir down to the Iower'~end.
36
37 Mr. Hargis advised he-would relay questions to Lynn Galal;. ~ ~ ~.
38 ~ .
39 PUBLIC COMMENT ~ ' ~~~
40 '
41 Geoff Cartwright,. 56 .Rocca ..Drive, addressed the Corps shortage of funds. He read, in
42 the Press Democrat that the state has a surplus of funds., and thought that rnighf be an:
43 avenue as well.. He addressed insurance matfers• and, urged citizens to maintain flood:
44 insurance. He also presented loose pages from the Corps EIR advising that no
45 construction in the 100-year flood plain should be permitted.
46 -
Vol. 34, Page 118 December 6, 1999
1 Diane Reilly-Torres;, Rainier Avenue, had~~some questions regarding the flood project
2 and brought the: EIR.; :She asked who_in~itiafed updating of F,EMA maps.
3
4 Mr. Hargis advised that 'the: Cify had already requested. that the FEMA maps be
5 updated, .:and tley'"vuilf do that:when the project is completed.
6 .
7 Council Member Tocliatt asked how far up the river because it will. be at the City's .cost
8 to update.the flood maps.. ~~
9
10 Mr. Hargis did not .know. His• understanding is that 'the FEMA map update would. be on .
11 the entire. watershed within. the City limits.
12
13 Council Member. Tocliatt asked if it would be on the entire watershed and who . is
14 responsible to pay fo'r'the snapping.
15
1;6 Diane Reilly-Torres advised, that'. citizens could .request mapping. She also talked to the
__ _
T7 EPA: about the, contarninatiop site. Phone number to find. out what owner is doing about
18 cleaning up property. Perhaps someone from the City could :get a response: F3ead
19 letter from'EPA regarding some adverse affects of various .public works in Petaluma.
20
21 5. Discussion., Status Report and Direction Regarding Washington/Mc®owell
22 Interchange Improvement and' Scoping Session. (Evert)
23
24 Mike Evert, Engineering Man. ager,~ . reviewed the alternatives for transportation
25 improvements, at 1Nashmgton/McDowell and; the design that was chosen-., .On November
26 23, 199:9 a,~status ,report.-was entto the City- Manager::A Scoping ,Meeting with public
27 agencies will be held D.ecernker 7,, 19:9.9. A public .meeting 'has, :been scheduled for
p.m, There wilt be a field
28 December 9, 1`999 at the Petaluma Community Center at 6:,30
29 walk (for Council,• Bicycle Adui`sory Committee, .and the general public) on December
30 13, 1999, meeting, at the St. James'Church parking lot at 2:00 p.rn. Possible locations
31 on East Washington°Street for placement of a`bike;path will be explored.
32 ~ -
33 Council .Member "Caller=Thompson understood= that the right hand turn lane to a
34 northbound, on-r_amp would ,be considered. - `
35 ,
,. _ . , f
36 Council Member Maguire recalled that,. they could` not proceed 'in that manner because
37 of possible changes to the freeway in the future.
38 - ;
39 Council Member, Tocliatt asked. Mr.: Evert for an update. from Ca_ITrans., She wanted
4.0 Council to work closely with them for designs.
41
42 Cou-Heil, Member Healy noted that Council came up with the ,best solution based .on the
43 information they had. Perhaps they should go back and review the tape regarding• the
44 bike .lane options mentioned'by Mr., Evert:
45 4
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 11,9
1
2
3
4
5
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
Council Member Caller-Thompson commented that the ;Ross would -like to expand. If
that happened, she thought the City might loose the opportunity to get a right handturn
lane going north.
Council Member Maguire believed CalTrans had a right of way That Ross cannot intrude
upon. What CaITCans decided to do there would not be determined for a number of
years.
Council Member .Cadet-Thompson commented that the .City was losing a big
opportunity to eventually have a right hand. turn lane,, northbound. CalTrans would look
to the City to have it designed and engineered:
Vice Mayor Keller remembered that unfunded Phase 2 would be the remodeling. of the
interchange, including the right hand turn. The Cify was going to ask-CalTrans to do a
PSR on the interchange .that would provide the engineering and plan layouts with which
the City would have: #o coordinate. He thought it unnecessary to have: a= scoping' session
for environmental review on an unplanned -.and undesigned Phase 2; °instead, the'~City
should move ahead with Phase l and then reiterate to CalTrans the request for a PSR.
Council Member Hamilton indicated Council was speculating on what~CalTrans would or
would not do, and it would better to contact...them directly.
Mayor Thompson indicated th.e Council' did decide that and agreed with Vice Mayor
Keller that it was part of Phase 2.
Mr. Evert agreed with Mayor Thompson.
Council Member Hamilton asked if speaking to CalTrans was part ofi Phase 2.
Mr.. Evert indicated it was part of Phase- 2 and the City would request that CalTraris
design, fund. and construct the imp.rbvements, if possible.
Mr. Evert described the process. When the northbound on ramp was. considered, there
was a different level. of design and environmental procedures. The process would be to
do transportation improvements in 'th'e .intersection in 2001., and complete the bike: lane
and sidewalk over the freeway over the following year. It-would be approximately three
years before plans were completed. That would affect the current goal of completing
intersection improvements in 2001. '
Council. Member Torliatt asked if the City could move forward on the" 3-year deal with
CalTrans and the PSR while completing its improvements to the. intersection as ;a
separate project.
Mr. Evert mentioned the. next item on the agenda, was the transportation proposals
being considered for the .March 7; 2000 ballot and how they might affect'~the 101
Vol. 34, Page 120. ~ December, 6, 1:999
1 corridor and intersection improvements; which would further complicate what the City
2~ does with the East,Washington/101 intersection.
3
4 Counci} Mernb~er Torli'att thought Council should parallel track the projects.
5
6 Council:: Member Maguir..e;>rnentioned that. while the Council, is enthusiastic,. staff' is
7 limited. In the: fast; discussion, ~a decis'ion was made to get things done as quickly as the
8 opportunity'and "resources are available.
9
10 Council:. Member Torliatt wanted. the discussions to continue, with Ca-ITrans and. asked
1,1 Mr. Evert to call them at feast once a month. .
12
13 Council Member Maguire. said that. would be taking time away from what Council was
14 trying to~-do Priorities needed' to be set.
. ,.
15
~.
1'6 Council. Member Torlatt indicated priorities have been set. and she would like to. look at
17 parallel fracking the improvements..
18 -
19 Mayor Thompson believed Council had a consensus to stay on the course chosen. at~.
20 the previous meeting.. .
21
22 Council Member Caller-Thompson commented that by the time the improvements in
23~ 2001 were completed, there would still be problems with _traffiie because of the left hand
24 turn lane. This could be paralleled acid she did not want to wait another six years for
25 this to be done:
26
27 Mr. Evert stated, that a project study report would cost approximately $75;,000.; the
28 design, environmental and proiect study report for the :northbound on ramp; would. cost,
29 about $450,000.:. If Council wanted tomove forwar"d with That review,, it would affect..°the
30 improvements at the intersection because they should.;go ,together:. He could not do °the
31 intersection 'improvements and focus on those while going forward with the project study
32 report for the on ramp. If the Council was asking to track CalTrans and have CalTrans
33 do the project study report, that'-would be feasible.
34
35 Council Member Torliatt as-ked if. the improvements for East- Wastiirgton/McQowell,,
36 would.facltate the second phase of putting in a northbound' on ramp.
37
38 Mr. :Evert: replied that improvements would, be made with anticipation of a future
39 northbound on ramp. If CalTrans went forward 'with the $4,00.0;000 northbound on
40 ramp, that would: change. the bicycle lanes and the dewalk along, East Washingto_ n
41 Street.
42
43 Council Member Caller-Thompson asked :Mayor Thompson if 'it wasn't necessary to
44 ,,know what; ~CalTcans ,had planned before moving ahead: with any improvements:
45 Otherwise; .the City would be spending money on a project that might end up'be torn up.
46 -.
December 6, 1999 Uol. 34, Page 121
1 Mayor Thompson indicated there was a consensus on the Council to move ahead with
2 project as previously discussed:
3
4 Council Member Cader-Thompson indicated she was unclear about the whole process
5 and had asked several. times to have it placed again on the agenda. That should have
6 happened several months ago.
7
8 Mr: Evert indicated" it was always the. intent that the northbound on ramp be a priority in
9 discussions with CalTrans on the current project, that "the .northbound on ramp would be
10 foremost in the discussions for the second phase. CalTrans was aware of that: Once
11 the environmental scoping meeting has :been held, a special field review for the bicycle
12 lanes along East Vlkashin.gton would'~take place: Then City management will meet with
13 CalTrans to seriously discuss design :issues.
..3
14
15 Council Member Healy's understanding'is.CalTrans:will be want to be thinking about the
16 northbound off ramp at the same time"for design purposes.
17 "
18 Mr. Evert indicated it is a possibility that~may fit' into the formula.
19 ~ ..
20 Council Member Healy said. that would ;involve the intersection- west from where it
21 currently exists. ~ ~ : ~ ;
22 ~ `
23 Mr. Evert agreed.:CalTrans~wll look at the long-range big picture of the intersection aril
24 our northbound on ramp fits the East: Washington- improvements we are doing, but isn't
25 necessarily the be"st improvements for the interchange.
26 ~ ` .
27 Council Member Healy asked,, if the`northbourd off ramp is.moved west, would that be
28 a more .expensive project that the northbound on rampjust because of the property
29 acquisition aspects?
30
31 Mr. Evert :agreed: Property acquisition may bean issue.
32 ~~.;
33 Council Member Healy indicated that GalTraris would be looking at buying up property
34 from many homeowners along that street.`"
35 .:
36 Mr. Evert indicated the. preliminary ,study done. by CalTrans several years .ago,
37 concerning the northbound off ramp., would smooth out the turn as you come off the
38 freeway and that proposed to~take a number of :homes in this particular quadrant. Also,
39 on the opposite side of freeway, we suspect 'the community would be opposed to the
40 number. of homes"being proposed,. that were originally discussed several years, and that.
41 a milder, more .reasonable. approach as how this. effects the community. would. be
42 developed in the design, which may end up having an off ramp as shown on the screen
43 with less homes being affected down at the lower corner. So, the northbound on ramp;
44 as we show it, may not fit into the future picture of a more reasonable interchange thaf
45 would take less homes to soften the off ramp curve to East Washington St:
46
Vol. 34, Page 122
December 6;,1.999
1 Council Member Healy-said that~this:gets into :complex design issues. quickly.
2
3 Mr. Evert: said CalTrans is going to look' at this as a big picture and we may be in
4 preliminary design for some time, until this. is all worked, out.
6 Council Member Torliatt knew of a project study report forthe widening of 101 between
7 Lakeville and the Washington Street exist and wants some of those improvements, into
8 that project study report. Need to push the envelope; on some. of theseimprovement"s at
9 the same time as the intersection improvements. What is it going to take to work with
LO CalTrans.
.. ;.
11 ~ . .
12 Council Member ,Maguire agreed as long a's it doesn't take improvements off track.
13
14 Mr. Evert said he knew what the Gouncil.wants and would pursue it.
15 .~ °`
16 Council Member Caller-Thompson requested ongoing status reports on thi"s project.::
17
18 5A. Discussion, Sta`t'us:. Report .and Direction Regarding U:S. highway 101
19 Improvement Proposals. (Evert) ~~
20 ~ _
21 City Manager Fred Stou,der noted -they received tfle agenda 'for the December 13 ,
22 Sonoma County Transportation Authority meeting and the agenda item 7 ~whieh` `.has'
23 some information on the~,March 2000. ballot measure on this item.. I have, made copies.
24 Mike Evert and, everal of the~Council Mernbe*rs may have more-information than City.
26 Mr. Evert summarized that -Alan Tilton and he do ,not know -much about the :measures.
27 The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors will, take ~ action on the top two p_:roposals.
28 The Sam Crump proposal is.,gualified, fbr the. March 7 ballot and the -Tim Smith proposal
29 will be considered by the Board of Supervisors as to whether it will be on the March
30 ballot. That is all he knows. .
31 ~ "
32 Vice Mayor Keller,. as a represen#ative to th'e SCTA, nobody is talking ~to the
33 transportation authority. Crump and Gil'otte~tlid:°:not talk to the,Authority. Tim Smith did
34 not send anything to the ..SCTA.. ~ 'It` is. remarkable, that 'the county has a transportation
.:
35 authority that has been working for years. with every city council to try to' put together a
36 proposal.. that makes sense from a professional atarid point and nobody -talks; to the:
37 agency. UVe do :not have copies: of the-Crump/Gilotte bill. Asked Suzanne Wilford ,what
38 is the administration ,of~the money. To; her' best anderstanding; measure indicates. that
3:9 the. money is collected by the County, but the administration of the money and, pr..ojects'
40 is totally silent:. There is no indication in that measure. as to whom is going to prioritize
41 or oversee any particular collection, of protects. Asked her to have countycounsel, to add
42 that to his list of items fo be reviewed back' to the SCTA,, hopefully by next Monday:
43 Frustration of SCTA is that the Crump/Gilotte bill, blew 'in the face everything that- the
44 Transportation :Authority and all the cities and county has .been :doing for the. past
45 several years,,. which is to put together an.'integrated land:-use package and have that as
46 the objective for' mobility...
December 6, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 123
1
2 Council Member Hamilton asked Keller if he put that on the agenda.
3
4 City Manager Stouder said he put it on the agenda. because he was .getting .questions
5 on the 101 issue and he needed the discussion regarding the Council's position.
6
7 Council Member Hamilton asked if decision-makers want Council's opinion.
8
9 Vice Mayor Keller and Mayor Thompson thought not.
10
11 Council Member Cader-Thompson had, a conversation with City Manager Stouder abouf
12 the possibility of the Council sending a letter to Tirn Smith. about his proposal. This is
13 looking at a 3/a cent sales tax. It is know throughout- other counties that unless you have
14 a multi-mode approach,, we are not going to reduce traffiic. Widening 101 is just note
15 going to happen because we must have more than one approach.
16
17 Council Member Hamilton could support sending a letter.
18
19 Council Member Maguire agreed with a letter to Tim Smith. It is the only responsible:
20 alternative. Sam Crump's initiative fias already succeeded in the destruction of the
21 long-crafted. coalition between, business, environmental and local government interests:
22 The irony is that, if the Citizens for 101 measure passes, the disruption. in delays caused
_ . 23 by construction would mean. we would not see any benefit in years. The real problem is
_ 24 that it has gone into a rail. v. highway issue and any workable solution is .unraveling. I
25 would say we say nothing or send a letter asking for the combined projection be put on
- 26 the ballot.
27
28 Council Member Torliatt. said the Council would send: correspondence to the Board. of
29 Supervisors regarding this and support~for a balanced transportation tax. Should also
30 request Board to take an official stance to oppose Highway 101 only improvements
3;1 because all groups in county have been supporting a balanced transportation measure.
32 -
- 33 Mayor Thompson said whatever .Council wants to do was all right with: him, but certainly
3'4 would want the majority to agree with the letter, because he .does not.
35
36 -Council 'Member. Healy was not'in favor of sending a letter. More focused on November
37 of •next year as ahe opportunity to accomplish something and the March election is
- 3'8 something we wilt have'to endure.
39
40 Mayor Thompson said he would like: to wrap this up.
- 41
42 Council Member Caller-Thompson-thought it important to send message to Super-visor'
43 Smith that a 3/a cent sales tax is not responsible. Putting an opposing measure on the
44 ballot just to have it on the ballot is not responsible. We do have a responsibility to let
45 the public know about a 3/a cent sales tax.
46
Vol. 34, Page 124 December 6, fi999
1 Mayor Thompson believed .Council Members Caller-Thompson., Hamilton, Maguire and
2 Torliatt, and'Vice Mayor Keller are in'favor of sending a letter.
3
4 Council Member Maguire would like to see consensus `on this body and think about the
5 most responsible response and that would-be fo go back to what,was passed (Measure
6 B) and at least encourage -them to do the .best thing. Rather than get into a ,competitive
7 situation, would'. like to-ask Mayor Thompson and Mr: Healy's support that: we just
8 suggest that, since.: that what was approved by the voters; here's your chance, 'b:ut' now
9 there is the cornmtrnent to spend the..money as set out in the measure. ~ It does two
10 things, it gives people the opportunity to get~what they want and have. it be binding and
11; it also does the right thing in addressing the unraveling of the coalition.
12=
13 Mayor Thompson 'is not going to change his mind. He does not even :agree with
14 sending letters to the Supe'ruisors.
15
16 Council Member Caller-Thompson said the Supervisor represents 50,OO,Q. people -and
17 there is a strong tie:
18 .
19 Mayor Thompson said if, he had a problem with the Supervisor, he would call him up or
20 go to the meeting tomorrow.
21
22 Vice .Mayor Keller asked. abouf the Mayor's approach to the tax measures being
23 proposed..
24
25 Mayor Thompson-had not yet 'de.cided.
26
27 Council .Member Maguire agreed thaf sufficient importance wound compel Council fo~_go
28 to the meeting;: but he. would not be able to .make it. He. would rather call our~supervisor.
29 If' Council could come to a consensus, we could ask City Manager or Mayor to"Nspeak~
30 with our supervisor tonight or tomorrow rnornin~g in a more face to face manner rafher-
31 than an official letter, which he is-fine with.
32
33 Council Member Caller-Thompson made t'he point that. at the last- election all of them
34 signed on to Measures B and C and Council did support it unless people hare: changed.
35 minds since that time: ~ .
36
37 Council IVI'emberHealy has a legal :obligation to place the .one measure on they ballot. fi
38 That is anon-issue. The„only measure that is~ on the ;table is Mr. Smith's proposal„~•
3;9 Those are the two things they are looking at: It would be a cleaner slate if the Cowncil`~-~
40 wants to look at these proposals after the Board~~ does what it does tomorrow as
41 opposed to.sending a_letter now.
42
43 Council Member Maguire .said 'if Council ,waits until after that; the Board may say, ,okay
44 we are putting both bn 'in March, then parties are thrown .into the: ring to battle it out.
45 This may be the one thing they are waiting to .hear about... If. we are going to respond,,
46 put the old Measure'B~.back on and give people a:r..esponsible choice... He would.,hate to
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 125
1 have the hard work of .coalition building be torn apart because we didn't bother to speak
2~ in a timelyfashion to our-representatives.
3
4 Mayor Thompson, asked ~f this could be wrapped up?
5
6 Council Member Hamilton. thought December 10 is the deadline.
7
8 Councif Member Torliatt said it was the 7th.
9
10 Council Member .Hamilton thought it important. for Council fo voice opinions and not be
11 attached to how they are~:received.
12 -
13 Vice Mayor.Keller would request direction for how Council wants his response at SCTA.
14 next week.
15
16 Council Member Maguire asked Mayor Thompson for support for phone call from either
17 Mayor or City Manager.
18
19 Mayor Thompson said fie would call Mr.. Kerns, either during the break or first thing
20 tomorrow morning, and let him know :about their discussion. He will tell Mr. Kerns that
2.1 Council is concerned about Mr. Crump's.
22
23 Vice Mayor Keller thought it needed to be in writing.
24
25 Council agreed to put,it in writing.
26
27 Council Member Maguire recommended same thing go to the SCTA. It would be a
28 mistake to support 10'1 only.
29
30 Vice Mayor Keller would put out for public's, understanding is the 3/a cent sales tax which
31 would put us at 8-3/4 cent sales tax,~which is what 'San Francisco is of now. If refailers
32 are concerned about..losng business to Marin, Solano, Napa Counties and the Internet;
33 we need to wise up because that. is our income.
34
35 City Manager Stouder understands we are putting something in writing,. 'but not ure
' 36 what it is.
37
38 _ Vice Mayor Keller advised a ';balanced transportation ales tax .measure, which mirrors
39 . Measure C from last year. A funding packet that would be mandatory so that it would
40 be a 2/3 vote instead of separating the issues..
41
42 Council Member Healy read in newspapers the notion that people thing there is enough
43 new federal and state money available that the B and C package can be done with, less
44 than. 20 years; and there is some disagreement as to what that period is.
45
Vol. 34, Page;126
December 6, 1999
1 .Mayor Thompson said. Council can write whatever in the letter; but-please. do not` say it°
2 is a consensus. _~
3
4 Council Member Torliatt suggested drafting something and putting on Council Members'
5 desks this evening and we can re-address'it at the end of the meeting.
6
7 City .Manager Stouder was not uncomfortable with representing lie spirit of 'the.~Co,uncil
8 or, if Council wants to bring. something back for this evening°s discussion so~ you are all
9 aware of what we are representing, we will see where we are then.,
10
11 Council .Member Torliatt was not sure which agenda.. items most folks 'are here for..
12 Assuming it is the Sports Complex issue.. Maybe Council should take` that now, and
13 other agenda items later. _, ~'
14 t,
15 NEW BUSINESS
16 : , ~ - -
17 8. Discussion and Status Report on Proposed Sports- Complex. (Carr) (at :the
18 suggestion of Council Member Torliatt, Mayor Thompson moved agenda.'item :8
19 to be heard before items 6 and 7.) .
20 . - ~ ~,
21 Mr. Carr advised that Council had, asked for a status on the Sports Plex Complex, which
22 is out on the east side of the airport. Realized many Council Members °were '..not here
23 when project began several years ago, On April _16, 1990; City Council approved 'an
24 option to lease property just; north of'what is currently now Prince Park, areas that would
25 be on both sides of the Lynch: Creek corridor for asx-field softball complex with: a
26 concession building, out ,buildings and sand volleyball playgrounds; picnic areas. On
27 June 2:1,,1999,. City Council approved a lease agreement for this area for what.was then
28 called the Redwood Empire Sports Associates (RfSA).
29
30 As the. project started. moving forward and the .Kings: Mill. subdivision,, which is to' the
31 west of the proposed complex; was corning close to build out; we started .getting ph`one'
32 calls and. correspondence frorrt residents of the ubdivison inquiring about she six=fi_e_Id
33 lighted complex, in some cases would be within 100 ff~ of homes. This would be a
34 similar situation as with McNear Park.. Back in 1989; which, this was first approached
3:5 the: City by the developer; Mr. Hronek;. there, was a resl shortage of'athletic fields. in the
36 community and we were encountering problems with McNear Park with noise and lights'.
37 City Council had the opportunity `to develop this comp ex, put all softball on one sight
38 and ;poss,ibly be a reven,ue'prod~ucer and bring people in from outside community, much
39 Iike'Twin Creeks. in;.Sunnyvale which is a t'en-field softball complex. The; City. received
40 corn'plaints from .residents. about lights aril ..had' to content with. Lynch CreeR Corridor
41 environmental concerns and at` this ti_rn`e; t_he Cottonwood Golf Course, which ~s now
42 Rooster Rung had a new developer and starting to move forward,
43
44 Staff made a recommendation to Councif, d'evelo,per of RESA and developer of the .golf
45 course. that there would not be much of a chance of the softball complex to continue: in
46 the presentl'ocation: Suggestion was to flip flop it~was a portion of'~the..golf'course which
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 127
1 doff of the eastern boundary of the airport property. On any general plan, you will see 33
2 `acres annexed to Gity specifically for golf course project. The proposal was to move
3softball complex away from the Lynch Creek Corridor, away from. Kings Mill subdivision,
4 -move it ,out on the eastern boundary of the City and use. this area for the. golf course,
5 which theCity Council di'd approve on an amendment August 19, 1996.
6~
7 At that. time, Mr,, Carr made a presentation to the Airport about the flip-flop and they
8 ~ were comfortable with it. That meeting was in 1996..also. Since then, Mr. Hroriek
- 9 started to move the .project :forward and his application was received by the Planning
10 Department on December 14, 1'998. It received a preliminary .review by SPARC and
11 was favorable. of that time. November .8, 1999,, the project was moved to Sonoma
12 County~;Land Use Comrission and received a favorable vote. Last. Thursday, it went to
13 Petaluma .Airport Commission. There was some confusion about whether or not the
14' concession building was. ncl_uded 'in the project:.. (At one time an indoor soccer facilify
15 was included., but ~it is not now a part of the current., project.) The discussion about ,low
16 flying aircraft,. in 19.9.6 Liberty Field .housed ultra light aircraft, and since then, that field
17 has been closed, and Petaluma. Airport allows them to use their field. The flight :pattern
18 used by ultra light and Helicopters ,is by Adobe. road and Petaluma Airport, which would.
19 be directly over the area in question today. The Airport Commission .had concerns
20 about complaints from participants that~would reflect on the Airport. The safety :factor of
21 the green belt being used for emergency landing is a concern: There was a lengthy
22 discussion about night-.light and potential impact glare could have on pilots and the
23 removing of open space along the eastern boundary of the City. They voiced
24 disapproval of'the project. That is the status.
25
26 Vice Mayor Keller asked for copies of the layouts Nlr. Carr displayed.
27
28 Council Member Torliatt did not see a business plan or financial information regarding
29 lessee for RESA.
30
31 Mr. Carr said there was none. That was. never a consideration of the City Council. .At.
32 that time, ;it was ar opportunity to lease property; have someone come in anal
33 construction softball fields for the community and get the City out of the .softball
34 business.. There was one agreement approved in 1994 °that had a revenue stream that
35 would slowly come back. to the City as part of the lease for the property.
36
37 Council Member Torliatt thought information needed would include a business plan,
38 what is proposed for property and cost, revenue stream. Then Council can calculate:
39 revenues for City in addition to other benefits of such a project.
40
41 Council Member Healy asked .about historical desire to draw in tournament players to
42 ,:City. At this time, is it primarily directed at local players, out of area players, or a mix:
43 -
44 Mr. Carr said it would. be a ,mix,, but the majority is looking at outside the community.
45 The model was the Sunnyvale complex and they -are pulling from the entire Bay Area.
46
Vol. 34, Page. 1.28 December 6, 1999
1 Council .Member .Healy asked: where are we in terms of ,needs of local players at thi's .
2 time? - ~ , J ~~
3 - -
4 Mr. Carr answered that, with tfe Prince Park project', and removing lights from ,Casa.,.
5 Grande and McNear, staff indicates, for local, two fields would- take care of, fhe needs
6 for adult softball players "in the,~community. . `
7
8 Mr. Marty- Hronek answered question regarding I:ocal~ or outside players,: It is~. a big
9 enough project to accommodate outside players.,; but 'it is. directly for the league" players
10 in City: The .league players play 5 or 6 days a week:. The tournament players come.
11 only on the weekends. It is in the lease That City players have first priority: Two;fields; of
12 the, six are dedicated to the Petaluma.- Girls; Softball Association. That was part: of the
13 lease agreement, Those fields.will be available free of charge, to the PGSA during their
14 season. Mr. Hronek described his extensive attachment "to I'etalurna, as a reai'dent and
15 efforts with Casa :Grande Boosters and Little League. He "had ,provided a business plan
16 to °the City and that is how' rents were decided. The Cify Council is what encouraged- .
17 Mr;, Hronek .to do thisproject. He asked for three conditions when Trade was made. t_o ,
18 present piece of ,property:" {1;} he wanfed a new planner; (2) utilities wereao be included
,.
1.9 (water, sewer, gas, electricity to property line),; (3) fhaf the Airport. Commission was 'in
20 favor of building a sport's complex:. He was assured by 'the City Manager Nand, owner of
21 Rooster Run that, they had checked wifh the Airport Commission and they liked, it. It' is_
22 in their minutes of'May, 2, 1:9,.96 that if was approved'.
23
24 Council Member'Torlatt asked if it was arr Airport Commission meeting on .May 2„ 199"6`.
25
26 Mr. Hronek said yes:
27
28 Vice Mayor Keller asked. there is written record?
29
30 Mr. Hronek said. yes. A woman in th'e City Manger's office .showed him a; written
31 paragraph. He thoughf .a't one time that an indoor soccer facility would be good for
32 Petaluma, but it wasalways going to :be a secondary phase if the .community thought it
33 would be a good thin'g'. As it stands now,; it is not a;good fit because it would take up :too
34 much land in the urban separator,.. 'The amount of ..land using for the buildings is :1/2 of
35 1 % of the entire 28 acres. He did not think that was. unreasonable. '
36
37 Council Member .Healy asked if all: six fields would be lighted:
38
39 Mr. Hronek said yes.
40
41 Council Member Healy asked for an estimate of how many hours the lights would be on.
42
43 Mr. Hronek answered that' 6::00 PM to 11:00. PM. The lights would ob"viou ly be on less
44 in the summer thane in winter. Would have: to shut down this time of .year through
45 approximately February. and ;use that time for .maintenance work on fields :and buildings.
46 After 50-60 years; this field reverts back to the City. It becomes 'the City's` property
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 129
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
again. City Council went to Miller Star Regalia w,ho wrote the lease and then he
accepted it.
Council Member Cader-Thompson asked if the parking lot had 295 spaces and has
there been a traffic study done on the impact on Old Adobe Road and Washington
Corridor.
Mr. Hronek answered yes, there -are 295 spaces and a traffic study was included in the.
Prince Park study..
Council Member Torliatt indicated that they did not receive a lot of,'that documentation,
could Mr. Hronek provide: it.
Mr. Hronek said he has the business plan, the proforrna and the traffic study.
Council Member Torlatt asked when that was done..
Mr. Carr answered that it was done in 1993. City did a complete archeological. study
and traffic tudy for the entire 1.00 acres all at the same time. Mabel Balik of th,e
Planning Department indicates that.. Mr. Tilden still 'sticks by fhe `traffic study. ...
Vice Mayor .Keller indicated that City needed more sports fields. The original lease
agreement is not'~n the packet. _
Mr. Carr indicated the lease agreement was senf to Council three weeks ago.
Vice Mayor Keller wanted to verify payments on that and also did City.supply water for
irrigation.
Mr. Carr answered the agreement calls for the. City to supply water .and sewer' to h'e
property line. ~ .
Vice Mayor Keller asked if there was any .reimbursement for the pumping cost for the.
water.
Mr. Carr said at that. time the City was looking at coming off zone 4 coming. down East
Washington 'St. and taking it to the property line and "how the developer handled it from
that point on wasat'.his cost:
Vice .Mayor Keller asked if this was new'water as .opposed to reclaimed water.
Mr. Carr said that. at the time it was drawn up, it was correct.
Vice Mayor Keller asked if there was a proposal to turning this into a reclaimed water
site.
Vol. 34, Page 130
December 6, 1:,999
1 Mr. Carr said in the agreement there ,is not, but Mr. Simmons' long-:range plan was .to
2 provide that along the entire-corridor.
3
4 Vice Mayor Keller asked if, in that change, would there be any reimbursement for
5 pumping costs..
6
7 Mr. Carr answered it would be up to Council's direction to Park and Rec.
8
9 Mr. Hronek understood-from his engineer. that the City wilt require him to put well water
'10 on the property -dig ome wells. Still need to talk about reclaimed wat'e"r. There are
911 some kind of hookups right to the property line at his point. He does not know, if it is
12 water, sewer, or' electricity.
13
14 Vice Mayor Keller would .like to get from Parks Dept. a complete .run through of utility
15 provisions,. costs, "reimbursements of costs... If additional irrigation wells out of the
lb aquifer, Council; needs and engineering. report on management of the aquifer:- What is
17 its current draft; future capacity and how it will be managed. Keller asked 'if M'r. Hronek
18 had seen'the letter from the Petaluma. airport Commission..
19
20 ~~Mr. Hronek received it five minutes _ before: the meeting on the: Petaluma Airport
21 Commission. (City C-leak does no`f have- a copy of the letter.)
22
-.
23 Viee .Mayor Keller would appreciate it iY Mr. Hronek could. respond 'to each of the'.
24 concerns outlined``~in the letter.
25 _._ _.
_ 26 Mr. Hronek did `bring his 'lighting. consultant in and he actually made a ,presentation to
27Sonoma Counfy. ,They were skeptica_I of project until it was presented, then they- could.
28 find no faults with it: It was. unanimously. V1le also .made a presentation to the Petaluma
29 Airport Commission and they realized there would not be a glare and extra Light
30 'problem. The `only"thing that would be show up would: be a.'nice footprint of ball fields.
_ .._
31 They also brought~out' an '.important point that on average, there are only 2 to 3 night
32 flights. On Saturday `and Sunday, mosf of my use is daytime and will be shufti'ng: down,
33 at 8 or 9 $aturdaynight and tarti_ng up again Sunday morning:
34 - _
35 Council Member, Cader-Thompson has: a number of concerns about this. project and
36 development around the. airport: 1Nhen a plane goes, now, they,' are not .necessarily able
37 to look and see> where buildings are: There have- been. many, many plane accidents.
38 Since Rooster Run has been built, she. is waiting for the day when a .plane ,goes into
39 Rooster Run. She has concerns about encroachment around the airport :because 'the
40 airport is important to the community, At this point,. there is an .urban separator on
41_ Sonoma Mountain Parkway and it is -being caged. in by school ball' fields; s.o, the public;
42 can't really use 'it. If, we continue developing in our urban separators, they will be
43 developed .and 'th'ey wilt not be separators and she will imake more comments .later on.
44 She indicated: that a good place for bal 'fields and area would be in the flood plane area.
45 so in the three months would not be playing, the fields: could flood:
46
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 1'31
1 Mr. Hronek commented~to Cader-Thompson is that he has been .here 20 years and has
2 heard of only one. plane crash in this community. There is a possibilify that something
3 like that happened. We was a fire fighter/,paramedic'for 20 years and safety was his life.
4 He dealt with plane crashes,. and other disasters, ihcluding the earthquake and the.
5 collapse of a double decker bridge where he had to climb through atwo-foot space fo-
b rescue people..He lias been in disasters and understands what they are and that there
7 are ways of mitigating them so they do not become complete disasters.
9 Tom McCaw, Airport Commissioner, offered any questions or will address issue
10 regarding lighting and can give a pilot's perspective.
11
12 Council Member Hamilton asked Mr. McCaw to review points made in the Airport
13 Commission's letter.
14
15 Mr. McCaw, indicated Mr. Barry Lawrence,. ;a .certified. flight instructor, was. also in
16 attendance and available 'for information. The primary points made by the Airport
17 Commission was :based on the presentation of the.Plot Plan, diagram and layout seen
18 at their October meeting. Discussed the project with other pilots and other
19 commissioners. There is no question regarding Mr. Hronek''s intent or .dedication to
20 safety or having awell-run facility. Commission considers it an exec lent facility. The'
21 Commission's concern "is encroachment on the airport and what that entails. 'The last
22 line in the May 1996 meeting minutes: was that the commissions felt the new layout
23 (location) would benefit' all parties. There was no motion or specific decision.
24
25 From an airport operational standpoint; with ultralight aircraft, they fly 500 feet above
26 ground. -They are. much slower than regular, full sized: aircraft. They are closer into the
27 runway and lower ao that higher speed. aircraft, flying, outside Adobe Road can, look
28 down and see."the slower airpaanes as they are: spotting, the runway to understand the
29 traffic pattern and to sequence themselves in safely: These u tralights, at their altitude
30 and speed do make ~a considerable noise; which is why their field was closed, because
31 of complaints: voiced'by people in .that neighborhood and .those who reside at KOA. We,
32 inherited 20 plus ultralights and the airport works with these pilots. to ensure They
33 understand the proper procedures when meshing with full sized aircraft.. These
34 ultralights would be flying almost directly over where spectators and participants-would
35 be playing softball. Npw,. the ,participants are probably concentrating on the game,
36 From a noise perspective, the spectators may find the .noise disturbing.
37
38 The. other concern, from a,safety standpoint, if, in facf, an aircraft, does have. a failure;
39 sometimes pilots have very little control over where it wilt go down, particularly on take
40 off, where open space is "required. From an Airport Commission standpoint #eel that ~:is
41 part of our responsibility to ensure as much open space clear zone as possible to
42 ensure safety of not only pilots and they aircraft, btif also property and people on the
43 ground. You can imagine if an engine quits and an airplane is flying downwind fo land
44 and an engine quits; the plane starts to come down, there is nothing to keep it up. If the
45 aircraft is making no noise and people are concentrating on their game, they won't know
46 to look up and .get out of the way. That is one of their primary safety concerns. Frorn a
Vol. 34, Page 132 .December 6, 1999
1 nighf vis:iorr standpoint„ while we did see: the presentation of ahe lighting and the. shrouds
2 ar.,ound trie lighting, those are excellent, fantastic: ,If he .w.ere landing at night, the
3 concern, :would be the location of this.'partieular project is such that, asp he was flying,
4 downwind to land and•spot the runway, th-e reflection from. the ground makes a. very
5 bright print off the. ground, which. could distort night-.vision significantly: 'That 'is why
6 airports are dark so -that pilots are not. distracted :by extraneous lights sothey can; see
7 runway clearly: :Night vision has fo ;be clear on :final approach before touch down;
8 because runway tends to ~61end into the background: The. concern is not about
9 shielding, but about the- lights is ,the reflection ,looking down from. above,. perhaps being
10 on the ground; looking in the di'eection of the- Sonoma Mountains, which. `is where the •
11 pilots are taxing towards as they come out from hangars,There is just enough .residual
1`2 . glow that there might be a negative impact on night .vision:. The •greenbelf separator
13 involves the aesthetics of the area but also leaving open area for aircraft.
14
15 Vice: Mayor Keller mentioned the requ;este.d listing with. arr associated map of where all
16 'incidents. have been around Pefaluma Airport; say for the past 15 or 20 ,years; where.
1'7 plane, have :gone down either with power, .but not on the runway, :or withoutpower and if
18 'there have !been any injuries or fatalities: Such a map would be helpful fo;r Council to try
19 to preserve buffer around the. ai-rport.
20
21 Mr. McCaw thought ;the Airport Manager had worked.. that up.
22
23 Vice Mayor Keller said they had ,a listing of 'ineid`erits but. no mapping:
24
25 .Mr. McGaw~sa'd he,could do that. ,
26 -
27 Councit Member Caller-Thompson indicated that, this: was; over 20 years. ago;, but a
28 plane was taking: off and. the wheels of the plane touched the roof of a car on
29 Washington :Street. Incidents do happen. and she-knows of` many accidents and where
30 they were.
31
32 Mr. McCaw indicated they had riot h_ad a significantly large number on field other than
33 what you might call a landing gear collapse or sudden wind. -The` accidents have been
34 ;basically on approach. •
35
36 Vice'M'ayo.r Keller asked for.mapping of°buffer and'where did it :need fo be used..
37
38 .Council Member Hamilton thought it was a wonderful project,, but. in the. wrong place..
39 When it was over;; behind Prince Park; it was an entirely different projecf. From being
40 on the.Airport Commission.,-she. has learned.. h'ow important _it is to keep if:protecfed aril
41 viable and allow it room fo expand if: we ever want it to, It is an extremely.,important
42 asset for the City of have. :She does not want to see development encroaching around
43 it, even this kind: of .development.. Sher°would like.fhe staff to work and: find a different
44 place. Ultimately, we` need bofh.
45
December 6, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 133
..
1 PUBLIC COIVIfUIEIVT
2
3 John Mills, 1315 `D' Street, s oke as someone who knows a'great deal about adult
p
4 softball'. He plays in several leagues and umpires. between'3 and 5 ;nights a week
5 during the height, of the season... He is on a softball field virtually every day of the week
6 in Petaluma. He umpires Petaluma Little League and" Petaluma GirlsSoftball
7 Association. He also served on the Recreation Commis"sign for 4 years 'and. this` was
8 the subject of many of their discussions while they worke.d'with, Mr. Hronek when f.was
9 moved from the first location to the location by the airport. ~ - -~
10
11 His main points are that the City Council and Parks Commissions has made large`
L2 commitments to youth sports and., in some ways when you make a commitment to
13 youth, you are making commitments toward adult sports- too because youth fields are
14 often used for adult sports. When. adult fields are up, it opens them up for more youth.
15 participation. He described struggle to find .additional fields in Petaluma, rrientionirig
16 Cross 'Creek and Kenilworth.
17 .. -
18 What Mr. Hronek proposes is to build six lighted softball fields. 1Nf1at,.that means is, all
19 the adult use for softball would be taken off munici'pal' fields and put into privately held,
20 fields. Which means he 'is essentially building; at his entire cost, six new softballfields,
21 for the City of. Petaluma.. youth to play on. That is the net. result when the adults. leave
22 the playing. fields for both soccer and softball. Those six fields alone., not counting land.
23 costs,. just to build them, would cost somewhere between $720.,000 and $1;0.00;000...
24 That's just for the turf .and irrigation. That doesn't include, and these are Park and
25 Recreation estimates,. $120 per baN field fo.r just turf- and irrigation. That doesn't include
26 lights. V11hat he is proposing. to build would cost the City $3 to $4 million and it's not
27 everyday that someone. walks. up and offers you $3 to $4 million. to build ball fields in
28 your community and that really is the net result for you.
29
30 Secondly;. when we worked on the Commission-, it was not Mr. Hronek's. idea to move
31 the fields. The Parks Commission, when working with the .golf course, made a decision
32 to ask Mr. Hronek to move the field. It was not the other way around. The golf. course
33 came: to the Commission and said they thought they could make a .:better golf course 6y
34 using thi's property and could the Commission get the RESA builder to move? There
35 were two. benefits: (1') it made a better golf course and (2) it got the lights away from the
36 expensive housing in Kings Mill. It was a w,in-win situation.
37
38 The Parks and Rec Commission specifically asked Mr. Hronek to move his project - to
39 spend the. additona_I ,money for his designs he had already done for the initial site. It
40 was essentially the City of Petaluma's idea to move this project. At that time the. Parks
41 Commission specifically asked the Airport Commission and the. Airport Manager. if-there
42 was any opposition to moving those fields. At that time., there was no opposition to
43 moving the fields next to the airport and, consequently, Mr. Hronek was °asked tq go on
44 with his plan. He had. to completely redesign everything he was building' to move 'from
45 one location to another. The state of softball fields for adult player's.;is hornble'.n the
46 City. Adults get the last pick of everything. The City stilt maintains .adult fields, which
Vol.. 34; .P..age 1.34
December 6; 1999.
1 are Prince Park numbers 1, :2 and 3 and McNear: Playing at McNear'will cease when
2 :the lights. are ,removed and. will be mooing to Casa Grande High School.. !McNear field
3 and Casa Grande High School are the two worst. softball fields Mr. Mills. has evexy
4 played, on and will-continue,3to be so: The adult softball desperately needs these fields
5.'to be built so that they can;play .on professionally .maintained, high, quality fields. The
6 Casa Grande field is absolutely horrible:, It is ~i'rtually unplayable. The lights are
7 horrible, yqu can't see-fly balls,-half the. time the ,lights don't work ;and games are
8 ,canceled. McNear. i's; a _little bit better; but not maintained. properly because .t_he City`
9 does not havetime to maintain,'those fields for,adults.
1,0 -
11 The., other thing„mentioned' was the issue with the ultralights:: If the ultralights; are fhe
12' issue,. wiry not drop the ultra. lights. Ulfralights came into being at the airport a year ago
1:3 and the softball,~complex has been worked. on for over 1 Q years.. It was in 1996; which
14 wouad Piave: been 3, almost.. 4, .years ago now that this softball complex.. was, propo ed
15 where they are saying .there is a, problem with ultraJights. They ,have 20 ultralights and
16 on any ~g:ven ~e~ening 'in the City of :Petaluma, Monday through 1=r,iday, there dare
17 between~180,and ,250 softball. players on a lighted evening field, that's Casa :Grand'e
18 ,and McNear. They play 3..:games a night each, adds u.p to.about 200 people„per night.
19 That's 1;.000 .people, per week, ~I`n addition, there are another 500 t_o 60Q softball players
20 Sunday at; Prince: Park. Ifi if came d`ow,n to what the public need is, the public° needs
21 softball fields a lot more than the ultra lighfs. ~ Or the City ..needs to- service the 1,500
23 ssuele If RESA doesnbtgo asrplannedt and Mrt Hronekrhalights. In addition, the safety
s to back'. and..design' a field in
24; `the flood plan or where: ever else, 'there will be another ~3 to ;5 year delay. Th:at''s if Mr.
. g
25 Hronek doesn't just.drop it all to ether, which` is, a. sfrong possibility. It is much safer'to
26 play at .the proposed' sight: than fo play at the current site, which 'is under the takeoff
27 zone of the ai.rporf.
28
29 Mayor Thompson requested this item be continued.
30
31 Council Member Caller Thompson asked.. for clarification if the City Manager and 'the
32 Airport Manager who made the decision:
33
34 Mr. Mills; answered that the. Airport Commission did not have an objection. Th'e Airport
35 Manager did .not. have an objection. .
36
37 Council Member Caller=Thompson asked ~f the change of property Carrie to the City
38 Council.
39 .
40 'Mr. Mills thought it tlid in 1996.
41 .
-_
42 Mr. Carr ad~i'sedthat the: idea was his because he knew RESA was in trouble in its
43 present location' and h-e approached; the City Manager` who approached Cottonwood at
44 that '-time and; it did most definitely come. to the .City Council. That: was part bf ,the.
45 process,; with tthe ;airport first and come to the Council when it approved the amendment
46 to the. lease. -
..
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 135
2 Council Member Cader-Thompson commented that sports facilities are important, but
3 the safety and the assurance that our airport is not going to be encroached upon is
4 equally important.
5
6 Mr. Mills agreed and advised that they are less safe in their current location than in the
7 proposed one.
9 Council Member Healy commented about the need-for .more. information before voting
10 on this issue.. The applicant and staff are getting a list of issues. One issue is clarifying
1l with the RM1 90-day study if this site is near or part of one the areas identified as a
12 potential retention/detention basin.
13~~~
14 Mr. .Hargis` provided a visual showing a portion of the proposed site.
15 _ . ~.,
16 Council Member Healy- wanted to know that if' this project were to go forward, what it
17 ~-does for the' feasibility for adetention/retention site near there. The second issue is
18 about lights,-not only relating to aircraft, brut at possible impacts. on residents on the
19 eastern edge: of the city,:, ~ Before. this gets brought back next time, the residents. on .the.
'20~ east side should be notified and given an opportunity to talk about proposal.
21 _
' ~ 22 Council Member Torliatt asked Mr. McCaw to address two issues: (1) that Prince Park
23 is a less safe place as opposed to the proposed fields and (2) the issue of prohibiting
24 ultra lights.
25
:26 Mr. McCaw indicated that, since ultralights are considered viable aircraft by the FAA, we
27 cannot excl"ude them because the airport has accepted FAA and state grant funds from
28 development of airport `facilities. In terms of Prince Park, if taking off toward the north
29 .end.~of town, Prince .Park is off to the left; It is slig,htay under the inner protection. zone,
30 `-but it is off ~to °t'he left. -There is a clear area, an open grass field', .passed the golf cart
3L~~barn, which is some concern that an airplane could overrun the runway. Beyond tfie
32 golf cart barn; :is a big, open area, where some have played soccer, but was supposed to
33 stay open._,,Th'e reason is, should an aircraft overrun, there. is an area straight ahead to
34~ lay~down on. Prince Park is slightly off fo the left. The edge: of it wou'Id be.underneath
35 the'.inner- protection zone and there could be some potential issue if landing from the
36 ,other direction at night with reflected glare. Prince Park is not the same degree of
37 hazard as the current proposal.
38
39 Mr. Hronek clarified. that the change was introduced on May 6, 1996 by Council Member
40 Hamilton and seconded by Council Member Maguire.. On August 5, 1996 this exchange
41 was introduced by Council Member Maguire _ and seconded by Council Member
42 Hamilton when it was passed.
43
44 Vice Mayor Keller indicated it was difficult to sort out two high priority competing
45 interests. Is there some way we can accommodate all of it. He requested from Mr. Carr
46 a current rough target-availability of other playing fields in the Petaluma area.
Vol. 34, Page 136 December 6, 1999
1
2.
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.6
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
C:ouneil Member Torliatt requested a business plan and' asked what was the length of
the lease. agreement and, who runs the: facility in the future.
Mr. Hronek answered it is a 60 year lease and there are provisions in the ease
regarding running the facility.
Mayor Thompson indicated this was :an approvable project with the need of. fine tuning
and. clearing, of some issues..
Council Member Gader-Thompson .questioned that this was an approvagie ,project;
Mr: Mills spoke on the issue: of airplanes taking off:. We plays at Prince Park e~e;ry
Sunday, and at least a dozen airplanes flydireetly over he head on the pifcher'smound;
not even on the outfield. V1/hether they are 'in violation of the. rules, he does note know;
but they fly, directly over the park. The softball players. never feel unsafe on that field.
They have no problems playing on those fields. He does not want` to pit. ultralights,
against players. ~ - -
<_ :.
City Manager Stouder uggested that .items 5, 6 and 7 can be: dealt with;,af a. later ,date:
Item 7 can be dealt with on December 20 in the afternoon or this evening.
Council Member Torliatt requested proposals for item 6 from staff.
CLOSED SfSSIOIV '
City :Attorney Richard Rudnansky announced that Council would, adjourn to Closed
Session for the following items: ~ . ;
Conference With .Legal Counsel, Existing Litigation.,, Pursuant to Government Code
§54956.9(a), Hunter vs. City 'of Petaluma,. Sonoma County Superior Court Case .
Number 220351.
Conference With `Legal Counsel, ~zisting Litigation, Pursuant fo Government Code
§'54956.9(x), Allen vs_:; City of Petaluma; Sonoma County Superior C'ourf Case; Number
222730...-
Conference With Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, Significant .Exposure To
Litigation,. Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b) (1 .potential case).
Conference "With ,Legal Counsel;, Anticipated titi,gafio;n, Initiation Of Litigation,
Pursuant to subdivision (e) of Government Code §5'4956.9 (1 potential ease,);.
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
December ,6; 1999
ADJOURN
Vol. ~34, .Page 137
,r
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:10 p.m.
RECONVENE
The City Council reconvened'`its regular meeting on this date at 7:00 PM in the Gouricil.
Chambers.
Mayor, Thompson announced that item #6; the dedication. of 'the Payran Reach Bridge
and item #7, the resolution accepting performance audit report by the City of Petaluma
Transit were not. heard at that afternoon's meeting. Item #11, -the General Plan
discussion, on this evening's agenda has .been canceled. All three items will be heard
at later meetings.
Council Member Torliatt announced that the General Plan would not be reviewed as
Pamela Tuft had. suffered a back injury aril could not facilitate the discussion.
Rni i cai i
PRESENT: Cader-Thompson, Hamilfon.;; Healy, Keller, Maguire, Thompson, Torliatt
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At the request of Mayor Thompson, Ralph Sartori led the P edge of Allegiance.
GOOD NEWS
Mayor Thompson announced that. ,the .Fire Department participated on 8/26199: in a
statewide mutual aid request to'.Plumas' County because of the: "state reimbursement
rates, the City will receive a check; from the State. Office of Emergency Services for
$25,875... This is .$8,370 in~excess of the overtime paid. The ,check.. is expected this
.month.
MOMENT OFSILENCE - .
At the request of Mayor Thompson, a Moment of Silerice~ was obseived.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Terence Garvey,. 83 Maria Drive, spoke :regarding :.his request to the Council to pass a
resolution honoring the Maccabees during ,this holiday of Chanukah. He reminded the
general public that they fought for freedom over 2,000 years ago when. the ruler of, Syria
repressed their religion and laws. Many died, like Americans have for freedom. They
Vol. 34, Page 138
~Decernber- 6, 1999
1 dedicated their lives, fortunes and honor for ~fhe cause of freedom: He suggested we
2 show appreciation for the people who did ,much to give us the heritage we_:have. -
3
4 Rick. Savel, PO Box 227,. Penngrove, spoke regarding traffic circulafi:on at the
5 intersection of Petaluma Hill Road and Adobe Road in. Penngrove. Using visual aids,,
6 he showed. map indicating the diversion of traffic around, Penngrove. Two things were
7 supposed to happen that didn't and one thing thaf was not supposed to happen that did:
8 One, this assumed that 101 would have been 6 lanes by 1990. That by 1995, one of
9 these alternatives, 4,; 5 or 6 to the Railroad intersection with 101, in coordination with
L0 the Hewlett, Packard plan would have gone in. In the .interim, Adobe Road; traffic is;.
11 instead of 4,700` ADT':by year 20.00, they are at 1:4,000' :today.. There was a proposed..
12 roadway project earfi'er this year that was reviewed that. indicated since 1:9,85 traffic on
13 Adobe Road_ has -been increasing .by 60:0 vehicles per .day, pe"r year.. Number 1
14 (referring to vi"sual) is the existing. lane.. configuration.. They were. required to reach, a
15 certain level of service in that intersection by year 20.05. in order to obtain. the funding:.
16 The second column~.reflects~ 4 lanes, number 2 and number 3, we were .still,~at F by X2005
17 and They could :not maintain, the level of'~service.. Number 4; we have increased it to fide:
18 lanes east on, Adobe and a blowi'n,g out of North Main 'Street 3 lanesthat gotthem to. D
19 that. would have possibly ;gotten the funding... But, by thaf time we were wiping out
20 houses on Adobe Road.. They- worked with' staff trying to compress it - it couldn't ''be
21 done and. they could not ge"f the funding without removing houses, which is
22 unacceptab.le'to ,them, That's eastiwest'. Now, about north/south. He showed Roh_nert.
23 Park's new proposed. General Plan. The proposal to blow out Petaluma Hill Road to 4.
24 to 6; lanes and the map -stops at Railroad. ~ It didn't meet a .great .acceptance: from
25 Penngrove.. (Another'visual). This is.where~~they are now. To coincide with P.enngro~e's
26 area plan- circulation alternati~es:;~the Broadway extension at 4 lanes to .connect to East:
27 Railroad; Redwood, Highway, whief is a. 4 lane designation in the General` Plan or a
28 proposed. new arterial which was falked about in their Area Plan; which would extend a
29 new road way from :Railroad Avenue., south to Redwood Highway.
30 ~ '
31 John King, 1'055 Adobe Road; ~ referred to a ~piece~ of 'p:roperty thaf ,has been in h's family
32 for almost 100 years,~:on which the well, went,:dry:` Recently, he spoke with other people
33 and is concerned .about. "the proposed annexation and growth of Rohnert Park. He
34 expressed his concer..n .to-the Cify~ Engineer in Rofanert Pack about the loss of water 'in
35 the Penngrove-area,; °It was. the engineer's opinion;'fh'af thewater was being drafted' by
36 the City of .Petaluma: He disagreed with that: .
37 _ _
38 The Penngrove Ad' `Hoe: Committee hand delivered 1,750 surveys to. properties
39 surrounding Rohnert}'Park. Many people did- not received surveys Leff in newspaper
40 tubes. The surveys .come back and used red pushpins to identify areas where people
41 have had to either lower ~their~submersible pumps in their wells. or abandon the ~well.~and
42 drill a new one; He wanted. fo prove to the .city of Rohnert ,Park that it~was riot just
43 Penngrove; but was:a much" larger area..~~There; are: five green pushpins, These were.
44 peop a who advised they had bacferial contamination prob'lerps: At some time,, they will
45 .make, a set of the survey available to the City of Petaluma. It is Jimporfant to read the
46 commenfs of the people on fixed' incomes'.who have lived 'here for50 years and don'#
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 1`39
1, have the money.to° do anything to address this issue. He wants the Council to know
2 that; just-like Rofn.erf .Park, what is done within the City limits has profound impact
3 'beyond th'e reaches of 'def'ihed area. The most disturbing of all was that there were
4 people who .phoned; but. chose not. to fill out the survey because they were afraid of
5 being identified, they were afraid of some kind of reprisal firom County of Sonoma. This
6 is aserious-problem,., ~ "
7
8 Mr.. King showed photo"graphs of 1055 Adobe Road,, (e) 1947/48, It showed th"e area:
9 just outside .of Penngrove. The second photograph was taken 50 years later. He-asked
"` 10 the Council. to' look and.see that. the. problems with water and traffic is not from growth in
11 Penngrove. They need_'CounciPs help and acknowledgment that there is a countywide
12 problem. He particularly thanked Council Member Hamilton for acknowledging the
13 ,-potential .water i"ssue with the .Eel River changeover. The people in the unincorporated
14 area have to pay out of their own pockets for water: Mr:; King's new well cost $20,000.
15
16 Council Member Hamilton thanked Mr. King and encouraged him to go to the Board of
17 Supervisors and to the S.orioma County Wafer Agency.. The county needs to hear from
18 county residents who are aware. ofi their water table going down.
19
20 Council Member Caller-Thompson was aware of the. water problems in Penngrove.
21 There was some'th'ing in the Supervisor' packet, which said there was a hearing, and a
22 request to rezone 80 acres to the DA-B7 frozer lot district to ZCE98-0018 at "it was at
23 1775 Adobe Road.,. `this is District 2. She asked Mr. King if he knew of this.
24
25 Mr. King did not~know the ,property: He thought, it would be in the Lynch Road area of
26 Adobe Road. If might be Mr. Pfendler's property or somewhere in that area.
27
28 Council Member Caller-Thompson asked. City Manager. Stouder to find out what. this
29 rezoning is about and who owns the property.
30
31 Vice Mayor, Keller noted that one of the consi'derati'ons:. that they went through was the
32 potential for additional drafting of the, water table to irrigate a sports complex proposed
33 to be near the airport. He has asked ataff .fo provide the condition of'that wafer table.
34
35' Mr. King added that, for purposes.. of their survey, they were focussing on the area
36 surrounding, Rohnert Park and he was prompted to pursue this. when he was told, it was
37 Petaluma drafting" the water. Safe to say we are alf in this together. All the incorporated
38, areas are big enough that when there is growth or changes, they are major.
39'
40 Vice Mayor Keller indicated the need for an overalf ground water management policy #or
41 the County,.particularlq this basin.
42
43. Mr: ,King agreed and stated. that although there is a lot of water; it may not be fit -for
44 hurnan consumption.
45
46. Council Member Healy asked if Rohnert Park city wells are at issue here.
VoL 34, .Page 140 December 6; 1999 =,
1 ..
2 Mr..King answered that everyo,ne's wells are ;at issue.. Rohnert Lack has its own wells,
3 but does not know where they are within the city boundary.:,.. Tho a wells did supply
4 water to the City of Petaluma during the droughf, which: is very generous: B.ut; in they
5 surveys,,. people noted that during, the drought, their tables dr.:opped. in the I'enngrove '
6 area and ,never recovered. Hisgreatest concern is that there is such a demand today'in
7 the valley that we have, already crossed the, threshold. ,If they did 'not drill another well
8 and not another person moped in here; the water table will contnuefi to de_cli~ne: if that is
9 the case, we have a serious problem. ,
10 ~ _ ~.
11 Council Member Hamilton invited Mr. King to put 'the board up so all could .see where. .
12 the pins are: _ ~ -- .
13 ,.
14. Council.M_ember' Cader`-Thompson commented that 'in the December 5 Press'4Democrat
15 an article entitled "Growth 1NeIC Running Dry" and'did not'talk about conservation at all.
16 ~ " _ ..
. ~ _~ .
17 Council Member`Torliatt asked Mr. King when the survey was done. '_ ,"., ~ -
18 _ .. .
19 Mr. King responded that. they were handed out 3-1/2 weeks ago and "they continue to `
20 trickle in. They had a lot of phone calls. I'eop a want to .know who the.comrnittee is and ,~~
21 whom they represerif -for or against growth. The committee is .interested :in bringing
22 the facts forward so people can make intelligent deci"sign,, especially the voters of
23 Rohnert Park.
24.
:25 Vince Landoff, 12 Cordelia Drive; spoke .regarding: the Warning of the, Payran Reach
26 Bridge and asked if it could' be scheduled for an evening`session so it can be publicized-.,
'27 The ,people. of Petaluma who- are workers should be able. to see it on evening television.
28 At a Zone 2A SC.V1/A meeting a month ago, Mr. Landoff made- a formal. request .that .all
29 moneys,, every penny that has been paid into the Zone 2A water ~ageney; be aceourited
30 for. It was, promised by John FitzGerald and Randy Poole that they- wou d, come back
31 with the figures; Now Mr. Landoff' is told to get lost,,, it is not-. the public's :business. Mr:
32 Landoff made. a formal request of Council to request. those. funding figures from the _
33 Zone 2A water agency.. These funds are the ;people's money. The people are -owed an
34 .explanation of where: their money went, especially those :first 10 years': Mr: Landoff
35 brought up the Corp"s of Army Engineers' report on ;the, flood project that has been done
36 in the afternoons, just like. today's: session: He formally asked the Council to agendize
37 these items on the evening essions so the public eaW see what is transpiring.-
38
3;9 Johan ,Mills, 1"315 `D' "Street; thanked the Council and Police Department for the `pu'b,lic '
~_
40 meeting regarding the 101 .overpass .at Kenilworth. The majority .of opinions were: to- `
41 not, under .any circumstances, open, the overpass to the public 24 hours a. day. , "The, _"
42 Bicycle Committee has worked #or 5 years to put; together a ,great bicycle plan. ' It is :~
43 fantastic. 99% is perfect, but there. a few small, points, the overcrossing' being .one :of :,
44 them., that could give. the plan a black eye.:Some very specific things th"at ;are harmful to '
45 the .public need to be cooked at; in "the plan, and rather than losing the entire. plan,: take.
46 out those things that would, not be acceptable:. ~ .
December 6, 1999 Vol.'34, .Page 141
2 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive, agreed that Mr. Sobel and Mr. King should go to the
3 Board of Supervisors meeting. They are on Tuesdays; public comment is at 2:00 PM.
4 He spoke about a letter written by Bob Martin dated January 14, 1999 to the Petaluma
5 City Council and its attachment entitled "The Petaluma River Watershed Master
6 Drainage Plan Willow Brook." It show the flows. for these areas, one being 1Nillow
7 Brook, one being Petaluma River, just before the conjunction., and the flows just below
8 the conjunction. The flows .above the conjunction, on 1Nillow Brook, are 3,946. The
9 flows on the Petaluma, River, just above. conjunction are 3,434. This is cubic feet per
10 second. Total of 7,380. However, on this map.,... it 'shows only 6,378 below these
11 conjunctions. There is a 1,002 cubic feet per second that. is unaccounted for iri this
12 document. He wonders if,that~is what he sees in his house.
13
14 COUNCIL COMMENTS ~ ..
15
16 Council Member Maguire thanked Mr. Knudson for the article in the last Chamber
17 Business Journal.
18
19 Council Member Torliatt spoke .about receiving excess money for overtime that th'e fire
20 services provided and not long ago they were discussing the need for a new truck for
21 the Fire Marshall. ;and thought, that These funds could go toward that. 1Nished Mayor
22 Thompson a Happy Birthday:
23
24 Council Member Cader-Thompson aftended the 16 annual p arming seminar af~Sonoma
25 State and there was discussion about Certificates of Compliance. What was said was
26 that Certificates of Compliance don't mean that-people .can just. build. People still have
27 to follow the General Plan unless the County has wording that supersedes the General
28 Plan and thaf_ was going to be investigated. She suggested they close the ,meefing.in
29 memory of Herald Mahoney who passed away last. week. She wished everyo.rie a
30 Happy Hanukah. Thanked Mr. Knudson again for the article in the Chamber
31 Newsletter.
32 "
33 Vice Mayor Keller referred to an :appeal of a denial of a CUP for Baker Street :who
34 implied. he was a representative of a restaurant in San Rafael, One of the owners from
35 San Rafael indicated that person does not represent the restaurant', is longer 'an
36 investor and did not .have any authority to speak for the restaurant and it is, in fact, -not
37 one of their interests at this point to look at the space in the Petaluma Hotel. Mr. Keller
38 asked Council agree with the Planning Commission in denying the CUP and letting
39 them start from scratch.
40
41 PUBLIC .HEARINGS'
42
43 9. Third Public Hearing and Possible Action on. Proposal to Increase Wastewater
44 Rates and Fees. It is Proposed that Residential. User Rates increase from.
45 $15..75/Month to $20.75/Month. in January 2000;.to $25.75/Month in January 2001; and
46 to $30.75/Month in January 2002. Increased in Commercial and Industrial User Rates
Vol. 34, Page 1.42 Decernber 6; 1;999
1 and Connection Fees are also Proposed. The Lncreases are. Necessary to 'Support
2 Construction of Imprgvernents to the Wastewater System.;. Including Development of the
3 new 1Nastewater Treatment Facility: (Ban/Stouder)
4
5 Mike Ban .gave a .presentation o`f last two meetings.
6
7 Council, Member Healy advised. ,C.o.uncil has ..been given ne:w packet of slides and he
8 invites staff. to highlight the ones that are different.
9
10 Council Member Torlatt would .like to hear public comment instead of `the prese.ntatign
1,1 over again.
12
13. Mr., Ban advised this was the: thi_rd:.of three public meetings cheduled fo keep the .public
14 informed of proposed .changes. 20;000 notices issued in September. October 13 and
15 ,20 ;edition. of Argus Courier. printed the proposed changes.. A telephone hotline has
16 received and,,responded to 14 telephone calls-. They have; conducted several meetings
17 ;with ocal businesses discussing~tlieirsewer-bills and also conducted a meeting with the
18 executive Board of the Chamber of G.ommerce:, They are requesting Ghat action be
19 taken on the .resolution establishing rates .and fees for the wastewater system. ,A
20 memorandum. is in C.ouncil's packet= addressing questions raised at Cast wee:k's Council
21 meeting. ~We_also provided a chronological ,history. of how Penngrove h'as become part
22 ~of the City's' wastewater system: In addition to himself, Sophia Sco'tfa acid Marv' Weiner
23 of Brown &.Caldwell, the City's`. controller and interim finance director, Paula C.ornyn
24 .w.ere a part of, the- team to answer.any uestions. Sophia Scotta and Marv Weiner have
q
25` npre:pared~the wastewater.study upon which the proposed rates. are based.
26
27Marv Weiner addressed the connection fee questions.. You do .not have. to have.
28 connection fees; but ''if you. don't, if there are only two sources of income -connection
29 ;fees or rates., growth 'will subsidized by existing ratepayers. What is budgeted is a
30 million dollars a .ye,ar in connection fee receipts. If there. are.no connection fees; in the
31 first year, instead. of $7;000;00.0 - $1,000;000' from connection fees. Arid $6;000,000 from
32 rates -you will get. it` all from rates and will result in a 14°/a .rate increase,., almost 15%.
33 Irr the last year of their five-year study, the; total revenue requirements are. about $12.4
34 ;mill_ion if you miss a million dollars, the rate increase only 8%a;: If you don't have
35 .connection fees; it will resu`It in an incremental -rate increase ofi 8% to 15%; 'which
36 -means existing .;cafe payers. will subsidize growth.
37
38 Connection fees also act as a ;.great conservation 'fool. Greater than use based, pricing:.
39 lJse based pricing .gives a signal every month or .two; but. relative. small. 'When a
40 connection is made to the system and that connection is:based upon. the :expected, flow,
41 you .are paying for, the entire capacity, someone who' has a $60,000 o,r $1!.00,00,0
42 connection fee and can reduce that.. in half will be~ very motivated to put in low flow
43 fixtures and other devices that will reduce flow. Another issue is, if you have connection
44 fees, you have to obey gov..ernment code thaf was, modified as a result of AB 1600 and
45 more:_recently SB 1760 which says there has to be a nexus between the fee and its use,
46 separate accounting for fees, including, ihterest earned; it requi're's that the .money' be
December 6, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 143
1 either spent or committed within 5 years or refunded, and requires a capitol
2 improvement program that lays out what money will be spent on.
3
4 The question of how equitab,l'e are the fees in deriving the capitol costs. Their analysis
_.
5 shows than. connection fee receipts should pay for approximately 25% of the capitol.
6 costs. Of the $81 'million capitol improvement program, .much. of which is financed by .a,
7 bond issue, some of which is funded d.ireetly from rates and charges on a pay as ,you go
8 basis, 25% over the life of the. capacity should come from connection fees. Essentially,
9 you are developing a plant that has 6:7 mgd capacity, you only need ~5.2 for existing rate
10 payers,. meaning 1:5 of the flow capacity is reserved for new applicants for service. A
11 similar analysis could be done for BOD in uspended solids. There is capacity for
- 12 18,000 pounds per- day, BOD 17,D0.0 per day of suspended solids. G1/e know 6,.000 in
13 both cases is reserved for new applicants for service. They have done the ame thing
14 for the reclamation facilities and for the collection system.
15
16 The problem with connection fees is that, you. can develop a fee that over the life of the.
17 capacity can.' show tha_# you .canrecover all costs allocable.. The problem is that
18 connection fe.e receipts in any one year are 'the. product of not' only the connection fee,.
19 but also the number of .connections. The number ofi connections is a guess. When the
20 connection fee (which is accurately to the nearest, dollar derived to recover the cost ,ofi
21 capacity available for new users.) is :multiplied, by the number of fees in any one' yeas,:
22 you might not get the, exact number of revenues that equal 25% in each and every year.
23 They looked at what most ikely will. happen in the first five years, based upon,
24 assumptions of, 320 equivalent dwelling .unit connections per year. If that is correct,
25 then $1 million per year will be collected and if rises to $1.2 .million in the fifth year and
26 over that five-year period,, the connection fee receipts will pay approximately 20% of the
. 27 capitol costs. Only over the life of the capacity,. will exactly 25% be recovered. It is not
-, , 28 known in any one year whether exactly 25% or 22% or 20% will be made. The
29 connection fees themselves are derived so-that, over the life of the capacity, there will
- 30 tie recovery exactly what new applicants for service should pay.
31 ~.
32 . Council Member Torliatt asked what is currently, collected on an annual basis for fees
..
_ 33 :based on, approximately $450 less than what the proposal is for at least non residential
34 :hook up. Are we on target as what the existing collection is?
35
36 Ms. Cornyn provided figures for connection fees for the. past five years. For the year
. , 37 `ending 2/99, they took in $1,103,503 in connection fees: ,Year ending 6/98, $1;068;53$.
38 -'Year ending 6/9.7, $972,832. Year ending 6/96, $882,097. Year ending 6/95,
39 $1,493;597. These figures include amount from Penngrove and were listed in Mr. Ban's
:40__ report.
41
- 42 Mr. Ban indicated it sounded like $1 million. per year, except for 1996..
43
44 Mr. Weiner indicated that another reason why they used about $1 million, going up to
45 about $1.2 million is that connection fee receipts are generally not considered very
46 stable in terms of the bond underwriter. The discount the revenues from connection fee
Vol. 34, Page 144 December 6, 1;999
1 receipts. Council will ,have in the bond covenants a requirement that rates and charges
2 are going. to be `the primary source, so it is no use projection ,$1.5 million or'$2 million. If
3 it is not received,. it will- have to come from the rates anyway.
5 Question from last meeting was asked what if` th,e plant cosfs more, nor less. fhan
6 assumed? $58 million has been assumed for the plant and' various amounts' fo,r
7 collection system and reclamation facilify,: totaling.. about $81 million. The .bond issue
8 could be adjusted. He suggests~.2 or 3 years of` rates. Bonds are generally issued "in
9 series, so you would perhaps issue a Ser`,ies A arid: then a ,Series B to do these. projects.
10 If the bids or costs came in lower or higher; adjustments. could .be .made in subsequent
11 series and the rates for the last 2 years could be adjusted so that everything comes o:ut
12 even. There.'is na. potential of any inequities by adopting the first 2' or:3 years of rates.
13
14 Question: What if business connections fall off'because of high .costs? There is nothing.
15 that, prevents, the City from forgiving connection -fees for particular connections, It is
16. done, frequently: In :the case of wastewater rates - you are only required "to recover
17 O&M and replacement costs from users cornmse.rate: with their use: Other capitol
18 costs, both `the EI?A and Slate V1/ater, Resources Control Board do not require :recovery
19 in any manner whatsoever. The SINRCB: does .require ,that, if; all,: capitol, costs.. are not
20 recovered; you :.must notify aIC customers. The SWRCB :provides a typical; notice to be
21 used in their guitlelines. The City could forgive commercial development~frorn a porfion
22 or .all of their connection :fees, recognizing that it would have; to come from some other
;23 source.
25 Mayor Thompson posed the extreme situation of extrerrie of food processing $2,60Q;,00
26 'for a water connection.: 1lVhat i"s suggested is that,. if the person wanting to esfabli's_h the
27 :business cannot come up with the ..money; hi`s water rates reflect the discharge even
28 though it wasn't`"paid over a period of time..-
29
30 Mr. Weiner said, no. All other rate payers would have to. make thatup. Any connection:
31 fee that is forgiven, the moneys have to come from.'the: rate payers and they may elect
32 to do that if a case can be made.. Example would be 100's of ,jobs brought to
33 community by having :this kind of~ arrangement with a commercial developer. There are.
`34 areas with elaborate programs- for forgiving connection fees. Such a program could be_ .
35 developed.
36 ~ .
37 Mayor Thompson asked ifi Mr: Weiner has a framework 'for a program like that from -
38 other cities that he could give. Mr. Ban.
3:9 .. _"•
40 Mr. Weiner brough"t a report for the City of Fresno and will leave it with Mr. Ban. .~~
41 "
42 Mayor Thompson asked 'again regarding connection fees. For example.;: food service
43 ..goes up from 2,5.00 to 49,859. Even. for someone. who has a little: shop downtown and
44 wants to erve,sandwiches at lunch,. in the other cities.,... has Mr. Weiner found that those
45 rates have been ,modified by seating" or something.
46
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 145
1 Mr. Weiner answered'. it is' by expected flow. Avery small sandwich shop „would
2 probably not pay a high connection fee. A large McDonalds or Burger King might; That
3 fee is not typical of _ a small restaurant - it would pay the same as asingle-family
4 restaurant or maybe double.
5 _.
6 Council Member Torliatt clarified that the connection fees. are not for existing buildings
7 but for new development or a redevelopment piece of property. ' `
8
9PUBLIC COMIVIEIVTS
10
11 Warren Thom Knudson, Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce:, 799 Baywood, advised
12 that the rate increase plan was presented to the Chamber :at their- last meeting. Since
13 that time, their Economic Development Committee has reviewed the proposals and will
14 bring it before the :full board at next meeting, December 13, 1999. The Chamber does:
15 support a reasonable increase that does: not, deter future economic development. The
16 proposal needs fo be fair aril equitable to residential and commercial users. It needs to
17 be equitable to ensure opportunities .for economic developmenf and not create a barrier
18 for competition.. When new connection fees are adopted, some mefhod should. be
19 devised for reviewing the impact of those fees on economic d.eveloprnerit. This. is;
20 difficult. All funds collected from wastewater fees and charges should be used only for
21 wastewater related costs and the treatmenf facility design and evaluation process:
22 should continue to explore-treatment alternatives to ensure optimum cost effectiveness
23 and the most environmentally sound approach for the community.
24
25 The Chamber of Commerce requests the Co.unciPs further discussion to clarify the
26 impact of rates and fees on businesses. They are particularly concerned about the
27 connection fees. The information,gi~en is in relation to the fees and financing of overall
28 treatment facility. The Council' is not being told. what'the market~wilf bare. Council is not
29 being given any information on the outside market.. The examples given in the proposal
30 are generic. Council would do better if consultants took the form- alas and -gave Council
31 precise connection fee costs looking at a dozen or .twenty existing. Petaluma
32 businesses. -Tell the Chamber what.. it would cost to set up these businesses today and
33 they wil_I tell ;you if you would have the businesses today. It„ is easier to deaf with
34 specific examples than generic ones in 'Proposal. He urged the: Council to~ hold. -off on
35 connection fees until specific information is.available. Keep in mind fhat~there are many
36 other issues affecting, developmenf in Petaluma, such as the UGB and Council's desire
37 to see ,more redeye opment and they will .affect building costs as well. This is part of a,
38 large' sphere' of ;changes..
39 .
40 The other point is that the Chamber is not comfortable with the „punitive damages part of
41 the proposal. Damages should. not be autom'afica_Ily applied in .the case of excessive
42 discharge or any offense'.by business. The. system -works better if staff 'is empowered to
43 work with basiness and fix. the. problems. Damages should be applied only wh.en~ ~no
44 progress or no .cooperation occurs, not automatically. Looks forward to an ongoing.
45 dialogue on this matter.
46
Vol:'34, Page 146 December 6; 1:.999
1 Vice Mayor Keller .asked if' connection fees 'were fo be revised, would the difference
2 ;then come back out of the rates.
4 Mr.'. Knudson answered it was obvious that money would be collected from rates or fees.
5 Chambe,r's point is that there wilt be a diminishing return at some point: If rates are. up
6 to a pointwfiere new development is. stopped; there will b:e no ra#es. That'inforrnation is
7 not coming: from;,the :consultants..
9 Vice Mayor Keller stated that for both rates and connection fees, Council must ;look. at
10 what.the:marketwilfbear.
11 .
12 M_;rti: Knudson agreed:
13~
r,,
14 Vice :Mayor Keller ~sfated if revenue 'is shifted from new connection fees,, the capitol
15 expenses of providing the treatment capacity .gets; shifted to 'th'e existing users rather
16 than the new users. There is an inequity question.'in there as well.
17
18 : Mr: Knudson said the point is that if a connection fee is :tqo: high, no business 'is built, it°
19 stilCfalls back on the users., There should be fees, but not scheduled so high they are a.
20 `.tleter"rent.
21 ,:
22 Vice Mayor Keller requested specific information regarding connection fees.
23
.24 Mr. Knudson said'the original proposaC showed' only 5 or 6 generic examples:,. It would
2'S be easier if connection fees were calculated look. ing at specific business 'in Petaluma.
26 The: comparisons ih report were. only Santa Rosa: What about Rohnert Park or'Marin?
27 -
28 Council Mernber'Maguire asked if'staff had a response to Mr. Knudson's point's:
29 .
30 Mr. Hargis has h'ad meetings with individual business and`done rate comparisons based
31 on their actual bills, but not-what there connection fees would be if building now.
32 .
33 Mr. Bran responded to the. question about local businesses, in the report, a few
34 ,businesses were looked at. Although generic, fhey'were compared; to business ~in town.
35 He showed a `slide. The first example; is a 3,000 ft2 restaurant; a Lyon's type: The
36 connection,.fee was a;.little over $:60,000..OQ, A 3,`000 ft2 retail. store would be charged
37 the minimum of $3,046. 'The service station example with 12 fuel pumps.., a fairly large
2 _,
38 gas station.., had a connection fee,. of $5,600. A 10,Og0 ft professional office would
39 have~;a connection fee of $9,1,32. The :groce.ry' ,store example, similar to the, one
40, .proposed off Sonoma: Mountain Parkway; same: square footage, would have: a
41 connection #ee of just o~e.r $76,000.
42 ~'
43 'City Manager Stouder's understanding is the assumption, for'fees are use 'based. This
44 ris.an.;attempt to build in the use base issue-the Council las asked for and transferring
45 -that. to the commercial users. Restaurants have higher costs of treatment than asingle-
46 family house., etc.
December 6, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 147
2 Mr. Ban agreed..
3
4 Councif Member Maguire clarified that if they can demonstrate water conservation .and
5 produce a lower flow; they will have a lower connection fee.
6
7 Mr. Ban agreed.
9 Mr. Hargis mentioned that Table 8 is on page 9 of the., staff report of .December 6. Thin
10 is trying to do the.equity thing, basing it upon discharge and fair share.
11
12 Vice Mayor Keller .made the comparison of the grocery store of 60,000 sf; the total
13 connection fee is $76;000. That is less than the broker's commission for the real estate
14 transaction.
15
16 Kevin. Cunningham; Purchasing Manager, ,Tegaf Corporation, 2201 So. McDowell. Blvd.,
17 (707) 765-5637,, fax (70,7) 765-9311;. email kcunningharnCtegal.com; www.tegal.com
18 represented Tegal Corporation which has 'been in the cornmunify almost 12 years, one
19 of the .first buildings in the Lakeyi_Ile Business ,Park. They are a semiconductor
20 equipment manufacturer:. Qne reason ;for location away from Silicon. Valley was rural
21 atmosphere and''low costs'. ~1Nhile .Petaluma is experience some ..good .growth, Tegal' is
22 concerned: about the "Sliconization" of fhe rates of electricity, sewer, everything.. Tegal
23 will. pay only a few thousand dollars more a year, .based on rate charges, but over a 10-
24 year period, $20;O:Q0,. When there is a,doubling of any fee or service, there needs, clear
25 understanding. Is~t=sorriethingtithaf could or should have been done 5 or 10 years ago?
26 Are we :really behind? What assurance is there this does not have to happen again?
27 . ~ k
28 City Manager Stoutler offered :fo provide' Mr. Cunningham with background information,
29 which does go~back.l5 years at least, and to meet with h'im.
30
31 Mr. Cunningham aid he would like to .meeting with City Manager Stouder.
32 .. ~_
33 Rick Savel; Penngrove Area Plan. Committee, PQ Box 227., Penngrove, , provided
34 'Council with information from the Comm,iftee. There were three copies. John. King;
35 George Mile~s,~ and .Harriet Boysen .are also Committee members in attendance. The
. _
36 JPA is for3,000,people .it was` factored for a single family dwelling for 3 people: Rule. of
37 thumb that is 1;000 hookups. It doesn't work out like that when other factors are
38 :involved, such as granny .units. To date, there. are 359 hook ups.:. The citizens. of
39 Penngrove paid the bond` for the construction of the sewer collection system in CSA 19.
40 The residents of Petaluma or the County don't pay :a cent. The citizens of Penngrove
41 pay for the maintenance of that sewer collection system.
42
43 Council Member Torliatt :asked who actually does. the maintenance.
44
45 Mr. Savel answered that. the Water Agency is responsible for it and the Vice Mayor had
46 some questions about budgeting at the other end. Penngrove citizens pay it all.
Vol. 34, Page 148 December 6, 1999
1 Petaluma does not subsidize it. As per- the JPA agreement; the funds ::are' collected :by
2 the Vl/ater Agency and distributed to the city on an annual basis. Item 14frorn the JPA
3 states that the city is to be paid. the equivalent amount 'of thee, city's rates and charges.,
4 That is where the hook up fees would come under -that is a charge. That is what was
5 agreed to. 'The annual fees paid to the city are for the treafinent of wastewater: There
6 appear to be other annual charges .paid` ~to the city. The Vice Mayor may want to
7 reference that. It may relate fo costs associated with the force feed. -sewer line .beyond
8 the service area- on Corona Road. and fees associated to a city bond indebtedness:
9 About $0:8.0 more is; paid: a. month, on average, He provided a. breakdown of different
10 fees,. the hook" up fees paid to the city and what they are for versus what is paid to the
11 Water Agency, -Num. ber'"6. shows the annual rate: charges paid. In ;97-98 it was $437.;
12 98-99 it was $459; currently they are up: to $48t. He believed; the. annexation charges
13 to the district for people outside that may have had. a failed system - in 1990 were.
14 $3,000 an acre. Folks outside of it had not paid on the bond aIL these_years and they
15 should. pay their -fair share to catch up the fees that go to the'Water Agency.
lb
17 The nexf area of~ interest is charges from hook up fees, -.annual rates and annexations.
18 the Water Agency collects given ao system mainfenance; services and aupplies, capifol
19 improvement reserves, manholes, pumps:, .line replacements other upgrades,
20 reconfiguring portions of the collection system lines to ha~n,d_ le increased flow to the
21 pump station: There may ~ be certain sections of .that system that .may have. 'shallow
22 sloped and some of those lines m_ ay' need replacement in' future:. .Referring,°fo~number 3
23 they are looking, to establishing a fund for the C:SA 19:~;new system JPA capacity for
24 existing Penngrove users. That would go towards ~thei_r' fair.ishare paying for'the plant
25 perhaps; depending what the capitol reserves are:'up there versus~imp,rouements in' the
26 future to be taken into consideration;; He included ;a list of recommendations., including
27 the looking into -the feasibility of establishing an annual' usage based billing' 'rate in
28 cooperation with the Renngrove Water. Company.. This wo_ uld Ynot result, in less revenue;
29 but rather reconfiguration of whom is payingit,at;that end. The. heavier°users~would pay
30 more, the people who u"se less would. pay less:"'-The bottom .line would remain the'
31 same. He agreed with the consultant. regarding advanced notice.,. perhaps-.over a year,
32 so they can see what the flat rate is, that they will be going, to. If ''if were feasible to do
33 that, it would require that the County renegotiate the JPA with the'.:City fo establish an
...
3:4_ annual usage base billing. They recommend that a meter bey installed upstream at the
p P Y 9 Y~ Y, q
36 est matestfor any Here saryl repaas or imp ovements~ ne hems stem: The re nest
Y. Y q t
37 .granny unit applications monitored to insure: and a residual `syst'em cap. acity is
38 maintained, `They reason. is (showing overhead map:) 'the folks outside of the. core
39 section sewer district :are still' on septic systems sand t_liere may need to be .a
40 requirement that: some of~ them annex .in. ,Nobody has so far. ,Due to 'a :failed septic
41 system,, the folks. up Petaluma Hill Roatl that tried,; it requires being within 200 feet: of
42 the district., so if five people in a row want. to go. and one breaks the chain, the others
43 can't. do it. It came out to about $60;Q00 - $70,;000, a home; and one person in the
44 middle did not want to do it; at the time... The. intention of bringing it there; was th_af 73%
-_
45 of the septic systems at that time: on, the smaller lofs in the core "were already failing. A
46 system reserve. is needed to be maintained for the' future.
December 6, 1999 ~ Vof:':34, Page 149
1 , ,- ...
2 Council Member Torliatt noted that Mr. King's presentation regarding the aquifer and the
3 amount of water available,, it doesn't seem like getting hooked up to the sewer system is
4 much of a problem because if (here is nomore water, there is no waste.
5
6 Mr. Savel said that most of the people in the core area and Petaluma Hill Road are on
7 Petaluma water system, not on wells.
8
9 Council Member Torliatt asked if a lot of those folks are on wells. What is the ratio and
10 where would the growth be in Penngrove?
11
12 Mr: Savef noted-that (referring to the ..map) in the outl_,ying area. where it is shown 2-1/2
13 ,acre and 5-1/2 acre, 'that's per dwelling. Hooking a failed septic system into the sewer
14 is not going to allgw higher density. Higher density is not the reason for hooking into"the
15 sewer system.
16
17 Council Member Torliatt noted the interrelation of the ,amount of amount of water,
18 amount of growth and amount of .sewer discharge that would be received if growth were
19 allowed.
20
21 Vice Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Savel for his research.
22 '
23 Mr. Savel .hoped that more information would be forthcoming regarding future costs: He
24 is hoping the City would., support, maybe. as a test case, 359 hookups aren't many for a
25 usage based and the rates are going, it will create a hardship.
26
27 Vice Mayor Keller noted that there is an increase of charges `to the JPA, right .now they
g gg Y . ~ _ , .. ver
28 are doublin costs. He su ested Mr. Savel kesearch am increment the JPA _has o
29 City fees are used as Penngrove wants there to be used.
30
31 Terence Garyey, 83 Maria Drive., reiterated issues,: related .to the ..rate setting of .the
32 proposed plant. First,. the funds collected shoultl.~be puf in an untouchable account.,
33 The public needs ;a written, public declaration o"f'that; so the water money won't 'get
34 whittled away somewhere. else. The plan fora #reatment plant must have focus:- 1Nhat
35 'are the scheduled plans for the total reuse of water; which will.. eventually 'be needed:
36 The treated water must meet all the requirements 'of beneficial reuse:.,. not just: the
37 minimum standards of some regulatory agency. The estimated cosf of~ master` plan.
38 Years- ago a sweetheart .contract proposed to the City' ~6y 'what was really waste
39 management that no one seemed to~trust - it was around $22 to $24 million. Early on
40 with the new system, engineer estimates were $~24 million. U:S. Filter came up with a
41 design for approximately $72 million. The County submitted'a plan for an estimated
42 cost for around $35 million - a plan which was not even seen by a large ;number of the
43 members of the City. This is hard to believe and' hope it is riot 'true. He asked if anyone
44 there had seen the County plan.
45
Vol. 34, Page 150
December 6, 1;999
1 City Manager Stouder noted that- Cou .Heil Member Healy distributed it to all they Council
2 fVlem:bers at that time and"~it has been made available for he new Council Members.
3
4 Mr. Garvey said the MasterPlan started with about, $51 miNion. On another-page it was
5 $53 million. Last week, at the last Council meeting, if was $58 milliorn. That does not
6 count $20 to: $25 million that would be needed for:high tech :equipment because" this is a
7 naturally";passive plan. In order to make it work, a ~,fot of very fine .technologically
8 complicated equipment is needed. Good ope.rators~are also needed:. 1Nith $58 million,
9 adding $_25 million, it is a $83 million plant. 1Nhen the City had estimates running from
10 $22 to $24 million up to $30 miNion, this is astoundrrg; He. asked what kind, of
11 reasoning was used. Today, the total cost- is up to almost.$81 million without that $25
12 million, of extra equipment. This may well: hif. $1 OO million, He is requesting Council to
13 go back to: look at earlier proposals. The Master Plan "calls for an extensive .EI'R~:
14 Probably redo everything that has been. done:: The scheduled time is stretched. out 5 :o.r
15 6 years, while earlier proposals'were much. shorter. Time is money. Now'it i.'s like trying
16 to stay in front of an avalanche., The savings for Rainier are gone. $30 million saved for
17 Rainier.
18
19 Council Member 'Healy mention"ed recent discussions of getting. a side. by side
20 comparison. of the preferred alternative with the County 1Nater Agency plan of "2 years
21 ago and. getting Gordon Culp to fake, a to"ok. at that.. Council will be getting. information
22 about. that.. The rate hikes looking of now are. not enough to: ,get them to full
23 implementation of the preferred' alternative plant 3 "to 5 .years down the road.. This is the
24, first, step. 1Nhat is being discussed ton.ighf is separate from plant selection. The" points
25 raised by M,r. "G`arvey are very valid, but not pertinent to tonight's discussion.
27 Mr. Garvey said: that this, needed to be capitol-cost this to set, rates.. He knows rates can
28 be set, .but Council_ needs. to. be aware that. a much. lower cost plant is being 'bypassed.
29 Something cheaper is need'e_d than the low tech- plant. The capitol costs have much to
30 do with what rates are being charged.
31 -
32 City Manager Stouder .,indicated` that Mr. Ganey's and Council Member Healy's
--
33 cornrnents are valid. The issue.< here,; he is reminded of the 1987 Army.C_orps estimate
34 for the flood project which ,was ~$8.2 mill-ion that is now $34 million: The .Army :Corps $5.
35 million; for that project is still 'there, but their $8 million :estimate is not there.:: Pre irninary
36 estimates are just estimates::. They are :not apples fo apples.: If Montgomery would have
37 guaranteed ;to _build the plant: at. their cost,, the Council may have had other.
38 cons_ide"ration.:The president of the company told`the Council a few months ago and
3,9 said it wound take.: several hundred;,thousand dollars more from the City to bring the :cost
40 estimates current: If the Water Agency would guarar"tee. fhei"r cgst"of last year, wfieh
~,. _
41 wa's a preliminary,estimate,. there would. more, consideration, .He was_ not sure it would
42 be fair to anyone, includm~g, those .with preliminary costs, to say those are cheaper
43 numbers, they pare, in fact,-"not: The real issue to 'the community is the_ 15 year cost of
44 delay: The Army -Corps .project is an° :example.., The. cost of` delay is several million
45 dollars a year: _ Regardless of the ultimate design,, which is still under consideration, "the
46 cost of delay must be considered.
December 6, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 151
2 Mr. Garrey' agreed .'b'ut estimates don't normally go up 200 to 300%. He also
3 commented that there `have never been constant tests more than 1,000 feet above.
4 Council. should ask people to take COD tests and TSS tests to make sure there is no
5 sewage: up into the City.
6
7 Ralph L. Sartori, . 901 Palmetto: 1Nay, Wastewater Citizens Advisory Committee,
8 commented on the rate schedule.'Regarding the fining system, whoever goes over the
9 limits; would be fined on •the~ entire amount of water- discharged for a month. What could
10 happen is that a business could Have an .hour's worth of discharge,. get the fine and end
11 up paying for- the whole° month. His recommendation would be that, if the business
12 proved that ~by the end of the month, it was back in compliance; it would pay the fine for
13 the entire mohth'. ~ Regarding, sampling charges, there: are three different types (1) grapp
14 sampling; (2)" sampling that's based on time; (3) proportional sampling. Some of the
15 busines_ ses in town have their own samplers certified by an outside agency. He thinks
16 there is a possibility that they could get a break ,because they are maintaining.their
17 samples, they are paying. for the calibration every year. Comparing nearby cities, he
18 would like to -see some comparable cities that have agricultural businesses as in
19 Petaluma. Petaluma is unique with dairy processing and poultry processing: facilities --
20 compare with Tracy, Lamore, Merced. Finally, regarding. conservation,. looking at
21 industrial users., they have a .concentration factor.. The concentration factor, in some
22 cases inhibits 'those businesses from deploying water conservation, because. it would
23 cost more for 'their discharge by conserving wafer than by not conserving water. The
24 amount of pounds of BOD are the same. He requests that something could be looked
25 at, that if the total pounds of BOD did not change, if it didn't cause a problem in the lines
26 down to the sewer plan. and if water could be conserved, the industrial users. be given
27 the same opportunity to possibly reduce their rate as 'the other segments of the
28 community.
29
30 Vice Mayor Keller indicated the points were well faker and asked for comments ~on the:
31 concentration charges. Charges are based on loadings not specifically on the. actual
32 fluid quantity. If the loadings go down, the rates go down. Incentives are there.. The
33 work being done with Net Org and Mishi Apparel are around that point. 1t turns out that
34 a, change in the industrial practice is ,actually worth subsidizing to make the change ;in
35 Technology because it saves th'e user money, it saves the City as well. He thought:there
36 was a program in the offing for such an incentive program.
37
38 Council Member Torliatt encouraged Mr. Sartori to discuss. this with City staff. Council
39 stressed that thejr wanted City staff to meet with commercial industry.
40
41 John Mills, 1315 `D' Street, indicated the question about connection fees was two-part
42 (1) What was the amount._of connection fees? (2) Were those fees set aside for the
43 building of the new plant? They did get the information. that $5.5 million over the .last
44 four years was brought into the city coffers in connection fees. He thought it was over
45 10 years and the idea~wasit was ao.go towards the new plant. Assuming going .back 8
46 years and double that $5:5 to $1'1 million. He inquired as to where was the $11 million
VoL 34, Page 152 December 6, 1999
1 and that it would go a long way to either halting~~the current increase or-at least slowing
2 it down. The first year projections: ace. $7. million, the City supposedly already .has that
3 $7 million set aside.
4
5 Council Member` Maguire clarified that there have ,been capitol projects over the years.,
6 but they are awaiting accounting on than.
7
8 Mr. Mills would like to know that accounting before~:rates are,'increased. ~ : ~ _ ::.. .
9 n .. ,
10 Council Member Torliatt. indicated that the .documentation talked. about`, approximately
11 $5.5 million for capitol projects. ` '
12 - - .
13 Mr. M-ills stated that according, to the California'`W:ater Quality Act,. it~ requires an
14 operative. treatment facility to start. planning a new plant .or..facility when capacity
15 reaches 70%. According to' his information, City isplanning a plant that; services 60',000
Y .' -
16 population.; City alread: has 52.;000 population,,, which is 86%. The ~riew design is
_17 already outdated, according to the Water Quality Act.
18 '_ .
,:
19 Council Member Maguire" stated whey were "there to discuss the. rates yard Mr, Mills'
20 question would come up when,-the. design of the plan is discussed. ~ . ~"
21
22 Mr. Mills' understand was that, if rates are raised, Council would like money fo be put
23 into a separate account before any bonds are issued. or construction starts. He asked
24 how that would be done.
25 - _ .
26 Council Member Torliatt clarified that when the rates were structured; for the new sewer
27 treatment facility and when looking at rates in the future;, reserves. are set, asi'tle to
28 'replace the sewer treatment facility. What,. has not been done in 'the pasf is. those
29 amounts have not been set. aside. What has been happening, the connection~fees hake
30 been .going to subsidize, the, lower cafes `for the past 10 o;r. 12 years in the: City. That is
31 why, probably; Petaluma has 'the lower rate, in the North Bay. She would. like to set.
32 aside funds to 'replace the sewer treatment facility so the Cify will riot; be in this same
33 position in the future..
34
35 Council Member Maguire clarified that the funding pis dictafed by law.
36
37 Mr. Mills. ask if the current increase in rates, the first 2 or 3 rounds over°the next seueraf
38 years, is- not" going, towards "the.. new sewer facility, but only towards existing; sewer
39 facility. ~ `'
40
4.1 Council Member Maguire indicated it was enterprise fund.
42
. .,
43 Mc. Mills asked what if .,a new plant is not built,., rates have been rai"sed~, money has been
44 amassed Towards ,paying this debt. ~ "
45
46Council Member Maguire'indicated they were not'there-;to discuss that issue.
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
December 6, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 1.53
Mr. Hargis indicated Acting Finance Director Paula Cornyn could give recent information
on the connection fees, based upon research. 75%0 is his understanding. When a
community 'such as Petaluma :reaches 75% of capacity of"the existing plant, a regional
board has to be informed and the City has to start planning to either replace or upgrade
the plant. That letter was written to the regional board 10 or 12 years ago.
City Manager Stouder clarified- there are two .issues being discussed, which can create
confusion. There are questions. regarding connection fees and .where they go. The
other issue .is regarding reserves. The underwriting point is that. every dollar paid in
their sewer bill goes .to their sewer fund. No where else. It pays for operation and
maintenance and future 'investments of the sewer p ant; Thee City has not .had a large
reserve policy that' allows the City to contribute with reserves to the construction of a.
new facility. The thing. driving the rate increase is the .need to demonstrate to the
bonding agency, when the City issues bonds, that it has, a revenue stream to pay for the
new plan, whether it is $30 million or $70 million, This is a 15-year issue and the City
has been blessed with low rates. On the other hand, the City is dangerously close to
having a plant that could create some great. problems because it needs to be completely
rebuilt and to not meeting regulatory requirements .and getting into a fine situation.
Mr. Mills' main concern is that accounting take place and that sewer rates go toward .,,
sewer maintenance. of the existing facility and new facility.
City Manager Stouder .said the. ewer fund :is an enterprise fund and is well accounted; ,
for. The financial report is issued .every year.
Mr. Mills' main concern he hears on the; street: is that the City is raising rates without a
plan. He wants to be sure that, if rates are raised, it is known where that money is
going.
City Manager Stquder responded that rates are raised based upon 7 years and $3
million of engineering studies and legal costs. He thought that was a plan.
Mr. Mills refereed to example. of connection, fees using a 3.,000 sf restaurant and
$60,000 in .fees. That may not mean much to a corporate restaurant,, but a small
business owner could not come into City of Petaluma and pay a $60,000 sewer
connection fee. Essentially setting up a situation for corporate restaurants and other
corporate businesses to take over. This. is a big detriment to small businesses.. He
suggested that some exceptions needed to be looked at. The last questions was
regarding any thought, on the conservation end, to looking into allowing people putting
in granny units in or small houses into using composting toilets and gray water systems
in lieu of sewer connection fees. Mr. Mills is building a small house and has been
researching composting toilets. and gray water systems and the cost of purchasing them
is less than connecting to the sewer. In addition, that load is not put on the sewer
system. A lot of places on the west side are adding granny units and if there could be a
Vol. 34, Page 154 December 6~, 1999
1 proposal allowing them to put in composting toilets and. gray water systems,,. that .load
2 could: be eliminated from the sewer system.
3
4 Vice Mayor Keller mentioned certain alternative waste treatment systems, some. private,
5 individual, or' neighborhood. Now,. the :City does. not allow any of that: ~If one 'is in~ the
6 City, connection''is required.
7
8 Mr. Mills asked if that could be .looked... at in. the General Pfan. The technology is .now
9 available.
10
11 Larry Kay commented that :many of the: people 'in Petaluma are not .invol~e'd in the
Y2 Telcom Valley and are blue-collar, workers. He asked how is the use base measured for
13 a .homeowner such' as himself:. He knows what he uses.. How will drinking wafer be
14 measured ~~ersus gray water; when it all ;goes down,the same pipe.
15
16 Council ;Member Maguire answered that has not been determined,. but :general thinking
..
17 'is that during the raining -season', there is less need for irrigation.
18
19 Mr. Kay is still taking a shower with a 5 gallon bucket: if a business was exempted frgm
20 connection fee, and the fee will' be passed to rate. payers, will the rate go back down
21 after that particular fee'is .paid. off? 1Nill it be built in :and continue.
22~
'23 M_ ayor Thompson answered ~it would probably be ongoing, if City did .that:
24;
25~'Mr. 'Kay thought it would~be a rate of $30. 1Nould the rate: become. $30' plus a user fee?
26.
`27 Council Member Maguire answered that a, proposed flat rate increase- would ,cover the
28 necessary stream needed to create. Ifi a use. base,. there would be more variable:
29 Some would pay more, "some less, based on usage.
30
31 Mr. Kay said it could be less than the $30. If a home or ..business is destroyed. in fire or
32 earthquake:, wound. the connection fee be based on 'the new rate :or be grandfathered in
33 at the old rate? .Building codes change.
34
35 Vice Mayor Keller clarified that the connection fee pays for having the. capacity fo treat
36 your sewage af'the plant. Basically, that share of tfie commuriityhas been bought.
37
38 RECESS
39
4.0 The Council recessed at 9.:25 p.m.
41
42 RECONVENE
43
44 The Council reconvened at 9:40"p.m.
45
December 6, 1999
Vol. 34, Page 155
1 Dan Libaro, 131'9 `I' Street, ,.has a business on 128 Liberty'° Street was a member of the
2 Wastewater Advisory Committee. ~ He commented. that the delays have caused the
3 planning to go back to square one and that the Council is again at that juncture. Not
4 much progress made i~n the last 3 years. He is concerned with the treatment and asked
5 if there would be public hearings about that.
6
7 Council Member Maguire said yes.
8
9 Mr. Libaro asked how the new rates were based. 1Nere the based on a $50 million. or a
10 $70 million plant?
11
12 Mr. Ban showed a slide from the wastewater rate study done by Brown & Caldwell from
13 Appendix 'B of the' rate study. It is a'table of the capitol improvement plans for the next
14 5 years and that'is what formed the basis for the rate. The costs used for the new plant,
15 total cost from fiscal year 9$-99 through. fiscal year 2003-2004, the $56 million is
16 estimated. cost of new plant firom fiscal year 98-99 through 03-04. The number
17 underneath is estimated capitol cost for existing wastewater treatment facility for same
18 time period is $1:3 mi.llidn. The total estimated capitol costs .for new plant and existing
19 facility is a .little over $58 million. To that total, they added approximately $7' million for
20 water recycle related projects.
21
22 City Manager Stouder.said that..$7 million includes $5.6 million in a Rooster Run recycle
23 water pipeline.
24
25 Mrs Ban stated th"at all,. ,th,e projects were. brought for Council approval. The numbers
26 falling below the $7 million are. the capitol expenditures for collection system related
27 projects. That totals $15.5 million. The total of capitol improvements, the wastewater
28 ,,plant, water, recycling improvements and connection! system is a little over $80 million.
29 This is a comprehensive capitol improvement plan for the entire wastewater utility. The
30 'new plant is one component of that entire utility.
31
32 Mr. Libaro asked if those numbers came from: a bidding process.
33'
34 City~Manager Stouder responded ;that estimates from the Brown & Caldwell studies for
35 the. eapitol;irnprovement program for the wastewater facility system. that was part of the
36 study authorized a year ago ~ S:eptember by the Council and was under review with
37 public hearings held in July. These are estimates. They are not design build
38 documents. ° These are at a very preliminary level.
39
40 Mr. Libaro asked if they were based on any particular type of treatment.
~: _
41.~
42 City Manager Stouder were based upon the recommended design approach by Brown
43 & Caldwell in the capitol: facility document from. the. summer that we call the .low tech
44 design.
45
Vol. 34, Page 156
December 6, 1999.
1 Mr. Libaro asked if there was anyway to say these, numbers were good... If this project
2 goesthe way it has gone, it will not be built for another fine years.
3
4 City .Manager Sfouder answered that the City was now in the process ofi selecting :an
5 engineer fo d'esign :the ,plant. :Part ~of tflat design. process wound be to review the capitol..
6 facility plant.: and the low-tech, :opti`on 'and provide any modifications the engineer
7 recommend. The cost could. change up or down once that. process starts. The
8 preferred way to do this is in future capitol. improvement plans,, ask :what are the: costs of
9 a facility upon completion. What would be the. true cost is 2007 dollars.
10
l t Mr: Libaro asked if there. would be comparisons. from outside'water agencies.
12 .
13 City ,Manager .Sfouder answered that 'fhe~ engineer selected, different from Brown & .
14 Caldwell;. would be viewing the capitol irnprouement ,plan and the recommended
15 solution, critiquing thaf. There is another .independent engineer worleing on this; Gordon
16 Culp. The, only ;apples to .apples comp.
arison would 6e if you took two designs; put them
17 out to bid., built'the plants and then looked at`who was closest to the call:
18 - -
19 Mr. Libaro indicated that over $1' million of rate payers money has been spent on these
20 studies.
21
22 City Manager Stoude.r aid. that from 1,992-1999 $3 million has .been spent on
23' engineering and legal costs, trying to pGrsue these issues. .
'24.
2S Mr. Libaro, asked if'there was some way that they can take some of things already done
26 and put forwartl. ;towards the new process... The cafe payers of the community ar"e owed
27 -that. '
28 ~ _
29 City Manager. Stouder~clarified'that the City was building; on the work dgne to date, but,`if.
_..
30 not careful; will go sideways. Nothing has been discarded. Eaoh of'the:issues builds on
31 studies, estimates, or legal analysis.
32 _ ~ .,
33 Mr. Libaro's last comment was that he assumed the E1R certified .and done will have to
~.
34 be recertified and that will take time and public hearings, _ ,_ .,
35
36 City Manager Sfouder said thatwas a good point.- The: issue of the: E'LR from'1992-1999,'
37 there wasn't ;a project. There was a proposal; but the: design or' implications of ~tbat
38 design were unknown., so it was not a full EIR. _
39
40 Council Member Torliatt said. that. most of the, Council has ,been fallowing ahe process
4.1 and graduated from "sewer school;" and they have. a great deal invested and want ~to
42 see it through.
43
44 John King; 1055 Adobe Road; spoke regarding cosf of; plant and fees associated wifh, it
45 and that he hopes Council keeps in mind the issue: of creating a financial vacuurri: By
46 that, he meant he hoped the project would not require more developments - 'more
December 6, 1999 Vol. 34, Page 157
1 homes and hook ups. It still ties back to the water issue. In regards to the Penngrove
2 water/sewage system of Penngrove, Harriet Boysen is here and available to answer
3 specific questions. That service is not extensive.
4
5 Hal Valceshin, 6060 Old Redwood Highway, Penngrove, is the owner of the Penngrove
6 mobile home park.. There are a number of tenants there already paying into a capitol'
7 improvement fund. He had a letter from Mike Kerns and. it is Mr. Valcheshiri's
8 understanding Mr. Kerns will work with Council to try to reduce the increase because it.
9 may result in a raise over their current increase they have been paying into since 1995.:
10 He is endorsing Mr. Kerns' position and would like the Council to consider that residents
11 are already paying an average of $30 a month and if his numbers are correct, an
12 additional $22 a month. It is an opinion that the increase. would be a hardship on his
13 tenants.
14
15 UNFINISHED. BUSINESS
16
17 9. Final Staff Report on Y2K Preparation (Tupa)
18
19 Mary Tupa reviewed the written report.
20
21 10. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Selection Process for Professional;
22 Contract Services for Preparation and Completion of the Petaluma General P-Ian
23 2000-2020. (Tuft) Moved to a dafe uncertain.
24
25 11. Status .Report on Downtown Activities Including Putnam Plaza.
26 (Parks/Stouder) Moved to a date uncertain.
27
28 David Burford, 40 4th Street, speaking on behalf of the homeless and the abandoned,
29 noted that many homeless persons had their personal belongings stolen and the Police
30 only completed', reports and did not pursue.
31
32
33 ADJOURN •
. 34
35 The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
36
37
38
39 E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
40
41
42 ATTEST:
43
44 _
45
6 Beverly J. Kline, City Cler