HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/29/1999March 29, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 485
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
MINUTES
OFA REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
PETALUMA C_ITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1999
ROLL CALL 3:00 p.m.
Present: Healy, Torliatt, Caller-Thompson, Hamilton, Maguire, Vice Mayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Don Weisenflu led the Pledge of Allegiance
MOMENT OF SILENCE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Diane Reilly Torres, Rainier Avenue met with Mike Kerns as a follow-up on the
transportation forum at Lucchesi Park. Because they wanted to hear from people that voted
against measures B and C and I don't know if all of you are aware, but I'm the only person
in the county that ran for an elective office or held an elected office that opposed Measures B
and C. And Supervisor Kerns he was interested as to why and I remained undecided for a
long time. Because you know I had been calling Mr. Averson for a long time and addressing
the City Council to try and get services down here, which is one of the things but he
Supervisor Kerns he did say that he was working on getting a court down here. Full-blown
court is how he put it. And the first thing he said to me was, we're going to get that TRO
clinic for you. About transportation and really, the bottom line is for me to support any tax
like that is. And this is what I said at the meeting at Lucchesi. Is the City and the City, the
County and the State need to make the distance shorter. Than I and other people in the
southern end of the county have to travel to get services or go to County meetings that's the
bottom line how I feel about it and he agreed. So I just wanted to let you know.
Guy Gullion, I live here in Petaluma and what I wanted to comment about was that on
Saturday a lot of the neighbors that live next to 1120 Magnolia, which used to the
eucalyptus forest next to the cemeteries off of Magnolia. We met with Steve Arago and a'
couple of other people on the Parks and Recreation Commission and someone representing
the developer whose name I forget at this moment. A developer that was going to request
housing allocations it turned out it was 40 for the 17 acre parcel and there was an
additional 20 houses that was, going to be requested on the site of what is now a chicken
ranch. Just a little bit of history, this was a eucalyptus grove of mature trees it was in the
General Plan of Petaluma to be a park. It was encouraged: that the City Council purchase
that at some point. and that. never occurred. The trees were clear-cut and then the question
was what happens next. I wasn't aware, none of the neighbors were aware that there was
actually .going to be a developer representative there. If we had known that we would of
had a lot of other people there. I think we just miscommunicated with Steve Arago about
this. But basically we didn't have a critical mass of neighbors that I would really be able to
give any current comment on this but I can stated based on Kim seeing the neighborhood in
the past the
Key to abbreviations: MN-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 485
PT-Councibneniber Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-!/ice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Caller-Thompson
Vo132, Page 486
March 29, 1999
1 general. thought was unfortunately because its not really my thought. was that it was ,going to
2 be more than 25 houses that rather than just leave it in~ the county and. the entire idea of
3 having, the housing allocation also applied to this chicken ranch which fronts on "Gossage
4 involves a whole. other bunch of neighbors and concerns. that we are not. in any position to
5 comment on right now. So I just.wanted to let you all know about that: "
6 ~.
7 Don Wesenflu , M'ine's on SB 15 so I guess I'll wait for that.
9 Council Comment
10 DK. I have~in this piles of papers here somewhere a revised plan for the block around the
11 transit station. I:had spoken with Onita Pellegrini last week. About the, their application to
12 the MTC. And I. asked-her to please make it.commensurate with the current..
13 recommendations from. the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and forward that change and- also
14 change on what is listed as a roster' of an advisory committee, which she defined. as who they
15 hoped would be on a committee, to coordinate things as opposed to .being, on an .existing
16 body of people who Piave met or been consulted on their project and she sent that with a
17 letter to Susan Wilford~at the SCTA for attachment°to the package. I'll get a copy to
18 everybody so you can see what it is.
19
20 MANDATORY DETENTION PONDS
21 Tom Hargis; Director of Engineering, this is a continuation of discussions that we :had in
22 February and November. And. the emphasis actually goes back further to previous input that
23 we have received from the City Council. and.the public. Suggesting changes and things to
24 consider with what we do for surface-water drainage be a part of a General .Plan effort be it
25 part of a water shed comprehensive look at what we do with water in our community. _ There
26 has been an emphasis. on looking at some riearer'term alternatives that the community could
27 address as well as continuing to discuss some of the longer-term things. I'd like to start with
28 a couple of errata's, and apologies. I have apologized to a couple of people in the audience
29 already; the Council will get their copies on Friday and the rest of us got our copies on
30 Monday so we didn't get. copies out to the public there are two available in the: binders at the
31 back. We do have. a fist of people that we will be giving the: report too that have asked for
32 continuation and it has been pointed out that on the last attachment which .goes back to the.
33 original November report, that the flood way and flood plain .districts from the City'Z"oning
34 Ordinance some copies, only the odd numbers ,got copied. So in .front of you tonight you
35 have even and odd numbered pages of`that. .I've also included some,~maps, `there.bourid to
36 look like this their various depiction of what flood ways. and, :flood plains look like in
37 Petaluma. I extracted them .from General Plan; from some handouts that: the City Planning
38 Department has some maps show justflood ways some show just flood plain some show
39 them combined. Those are also up in the -back corner by' Joly~ Cheney. Those are `thesame
4.0 maps that you :have: The large-scale map is the 'one that's but of your .report, the colored.
41 report that shows the Petaluma Watershed and '.Drainage ~B'asin. I have copy I can put;'up
42 however, it's pretty hard to read that and I think if you work oi:f the ones that.are in front of
43 you. So I think that covers my errata just to make sure everybody has everything; and these
. .,
44 were more for'.your use not necessarily during the.meeting;but differerif.ways of being able to
45
486
March 29, .1999... ~ vol'. 32; Page ~ 487
1' obtain information.. As far as the focus oftonighf's meeting I hope to not monopolize it and .
2 spent. a lot of time up front but'be able.to help you: and a discussion: We have liege tonight
3 resources, 1Vlanagement International Inc:, -which is the firm that has been working for the
4 city for some time period. Especially on the upper watershed areas. Don Wagonette who is
5 with RMI if you would and Tom Burke who is asub-consultant from Phillip Williams
6 Associate. We decided not to do a presentation: but we thought we'd have a better dialog
7 and discussion if these gentlemen were here to answer your questions and participate in a
8 dialog. and a discussion and not. us just stand up here and through a lot of information at you.
9 After the February meeting there was an interest expressed by the City Council on some kind
10 of a shorter term policy or directive the city might be able to -implement as it pursues much
11 longer terms Surface Water Drainage Plan or a Watershed element of the General Plan. I
12 have included the minutes and you see where several of you had remarked on the viability of
13 us doing something in a shorter time period .and that's where we focused the Resource
14 Management International I'm going to call them RMI from riow on, efforts into in a fairly
15 short time they think they could do some further study and help provide the city witk some
16 policy direction. I think there is a general consensus that detention, which is short term
17 holding of water for a crest on a river to go by and then releasing that water or retention,
18 which has a broader concept of getting into water quality. Possible ground water recharge
19 aspects and there's even controlled releases rather than a.natural kind of release where. you
20 can specifically allow discharges to take place when they are a regulated kind of control.
21 That has a part in the .General Watershed strategy for the city. ~ There's been a concern
22 expressed and the consultants addressed that that you have to be careful where you put
23 detention or retention and if your going into a greater watershed strategy that what you do,
24 goes in concert with that rather than conflicts with this. So there strategy is taking the
25 hydrology models that they have developed for the city possibly enhancing those with an
26 emphasis on a look at where appropriate- places for detention could.be situated in the city.
27 With concepts of onsite; off-site, possible detention banking where either the city or some
28 other agency or developer creates detention and then sells participation in that so that you
29 put your detention in the correct place. As part of the broader prospective I wanted to
30 mention that we had talked in out last meeting about potential moratoriums on development,
31 moratoriums that could- allow for creation of an, interim policy. Creation of a surface water
32 drainage plan, creation of a watershed element of a General Plan. Moratoriums could be
33 placed• on various types of structuring of types of development, residential, commercial,
34 geographic sightings, could be quantities of run off. Things certain ways through the
35 development process, you know there's a certain point in time where~you have commitment
36 from the body to be able to precede but there's rezoning's and annexations and various
37 different ways that something like this could be addressed. I don't want to spend a.lot of
38 time talking about the watershed elements. But I did notice or note on the staff report that
39 this item is one of the things that fits with the Councils priorities adopted in January and an
40 interim detention policy if that would be the direction of the Council would certainly be a
41 component of a greater strategy. So with that the consultants are here to answer questions.
42 I'm here to answer questions. We are seeking some direction from the Council whether you
43 want us to proceed with a portion or all of the proposed work, that's what we brought back
44 to you as a result ofthe last meeting. And would like to hear your input and you provide us
45 the direction you'd like us to go in.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 487
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councibnerviber Janice Caller-Thompson
Vo132, Page 488
1
March 29, 1999
2 MH, Thank you I just had one question Tom and,: that had to do with your, I was a little
3 confused as to the recommendation on funding.. This, 90-day study is, it staffs
4 recommendation to umrn .fund .this entirely out of Storm Drain Litigation Fees and then defer
5 or phase out sorneother project? .
6 ~ .
7 Tom. Hargis; Yes sir: The scope of services is up to $91,.000. I had given you some
8 recommendations on doing. ,some parts 'of the proposal: .Not all ,of the :aspects not that they
9 don't have merit, not that I don't think they should be done, but. because it looks lke.we
10 would have.. to steal funds from some other project or possibly delay a proj ect.. I' e ~ also ,
11 suggested that and this comes from the consultants rather than continuing with, the direction
12 of the study they thought their efforts would better be directed Tinto this scope of services ,and
13 there's thirty some odd thousand dollars. that wouldn't be spent that could go to this. effort.
14 As a minimum I see your request of $32;000 probably from delaying some other storm.dran
15 project.
16
17 PT, to follow up on that: question, Tom you don't need to answer right now,, but after we
18 receive the public comment if you could; get~`back to us T just was wondering, `how many
,.
19 dollars .are actually in the Storm Drain 1VIitigati'on Account? Or if there's zero :or if we have
20 a balance existing because that wasn't shown lie~e in .the repork so ifyou could get back. to us
21 on that.
22
23 Tom Hargis, .Let me ~ try and ans wer that now since Mr.. Spilman isn't here. NIy
24 understanding that the storm drain mitigation fees.are at:~,allocated between the~corps project,
.x
25 these kinds of storm drain projects, these study efforts.. ~ e i would be necessary to, either
26 redirect storm .drain .mitigation fees from .some project to. a'r~~ther project or look to some
27 other outside source and I don't know if the other thing-I had mentioned if PCDC funds are
28 really the appropriate place: to.be going to.
29
30 PT, That didn't answer my question, but I understand.
31
32 Tom Hargis, Let me...
33
34 PT, No I understand what your saying,. I was, just. wondering how much money we actually
35 have at this point in the storm mitigation account and. that was'~Nhat my quesfion:was.
36
37 Tom Hargis, I really don't know that, but I would ask Mr. Spilman for that.
38
39 CT, One quick question to Mr. Hargis, on'your' alternatives, if .alternative B is to conduct a
40 watershed study involving the entire watershed o_ n and on. If we were to do that,, are you
41 saying that the $91,500,00 would include. that?
42
43 Tom Hargis, No sir. A'truly comprehensive watershed study is someplace up or down from
44 half a million dollars. I've Talked to quite a few consultants,. I have some meetings
45 scheduled next week with some: I have some here that .are interested in hearing our
488
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
March 29; 1999 Vol. 32, Page
presentation and you can. go up to a million dollars, you can get down in the quarter hundred
thousand.. dollars. It's how comprehensive you want to be and how specific to your
watershed ,but these are very comprehensive studies when you get into them.
CT, Right in realizing and looking at all the maps and of course some of our watersheds, Is
that something we would have a joint, I'm sure that's up to a supervisor, but is it something
we would look into for funding from the county on something like this?
Tom Hargis, I think there are several opportunities .the county through its zone 2A Flood
Control District, certainly is a logical place to be looking for funds. I'm always wrong when
I quote numbers off the top of my head but. Petaluma has 12 or 13 square miles and 130
square miles. drain .into our 13 before it goes down stream so certainly there's a county
contribution that's significant.
CT, By my quick calculations we are only responsible for 9% of the funding then.
DK, Also 95% of the development and probably 99% of those properties at risk.
Tom Hargis, There's also the Resource Conservation District it used to be called the Soil
Conservation Service. They're starting in on a watershed element. I've been involved in a
North San Pablo Bay watershed group that's trying to get formed. One of the things might
be a clearinghouse for funds for these kinds of studies or for components of these kinds of
studies. RMI mailed me a brochure about state water resources funding opportunities for
watershed studies that I'm gonna look into. Our City Manager Mr. Stouder talks about how
much work we have going on and how much time we have to allocate to new endeavors.
But this is one of the Councils priorities so were taking this seriously as one of the efforts
that we need to be looking at. Sources of funding and developing scopes to pursue.
DK, Continuing on funding sources, I don't know if there was anything that panned out
from that. The former project manager for the Corps project indicated when we were talking
about storm water management A. he wanted us to go negative and. reduce the run off and B.
he said the Corps was extremely supportive of that and had funding sources available.
Tom Hargis, I've been in contact with one person with the Corps of Engineers that belongs.
to this North San Pablo Bay group and we have discussed that there are other Corps monies
available for watershed elements and that we would like to talk. I would like to talk to that
person once I get a little further with the Council and get some direction from them. My
enthusiasm may not be fantastic for another study involving the Corps of Engineers, but...
It's something we should look at.
DK, We'd be looking at a different branch of the Corps.
Tom; Good.
CT, Thank you. Anymore more questions of Mr. Hargis? Thank you sir.
Key to abbreviations: iYIH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
489
489
Vo132, Page 490
March 29, 1:999
2 Tom, Okay do you want the consultants up here? Do_-you have any "particular questions
3 with them?
4
5 ~CT, Iwas actually ~going~to ask 'for~thepublic input and then we'll go from there.
6
7 Tom, Thank you.
8
9 Jeff Cartwright, Good evening Mr: Mayor; Council my name :is Jeff Cartwright, 56 Rocca.
10 Dr. ~ And I do have concerns about detention ,ponds. The: odes that I've seen ;iri the flood
11 plain when 'it floods and the whole .flood. plain floods it's the equivalent of trying to put. a
12 watermelon. into a banana peal. And of course. there are concerns about these peak flows and
13 how much water these things are gonna hold and when they're going to hold -it.. You know T
14 don't I'm concerned that that oh a year from now we may be standing here watching a
15 developer standing. Here saying by'the way of this. ordinance I'm in compliance.. And he goes
16 forth with his development and then we end up with this floodwater in our bedrooms, in our
17 kitchens.and were gettrig~a little-tired ofthat. 'Thank you.. .
18
19 Diane Reilly Torres, Thank you. Regarding. the finances on what. Pamela Torliatt; asked
20 about. On the last redevelopment budget' we transfer, transfen-ed I think its transferred about
21 one million dollars from PCDC into a storm drainage litigation fees: And said that it was a
22 separate, I mean we transferred I think two million almost three million dollars into the
23 storm drainage .into the Payran part okay: But then we also did another seven million, into a
24 new fund. And I :guess everybody knows that up here: I assume, I mean I didn't.. snake it to
25 that meeting because it's. a three o'clock meeting, but I was concerned about that. Because I
26 know that the fees. are paid by developers, .and my concern was that. you know I felt it was
27 kind of like co-mingling funds. I .mean and that if you look later on to see how much money
28 we had in there you would think that it was paid for by developers. and not from the
29 redevelopment money, That was a concern. of mine. So I :just I did. talk to Mr. Spilman
30 about it sand he answered my questions. Qf you know he answered my questions that,. I stil-l
31 have. I'm still kind of concerned about .it because if you do -make Mandatory Detention
32 Ponds, if that. means that there's not going; to be any fees because I believe that moneys not
33 just for flood. projects it sort of the drainage and everything. I mean that's how I read it.
34 And. also, last .November, .December I came here ,and :I :.had a its from FEMA and 'its flood
35 plain. It's a Flood Plain ~M~~anagement. And I -gave. it to Mr: S~~touder and I: said ~tliat w;e could
36 use redevelopment money for that; And. that it's really good something that Mr. Healy°was
37 talking about having workshops with the public: and.. you know developers. And, you know
38 everybody together you know .it maybe would'bring people together a little. bit more and its
39 very good. That's..just. a suggestion because you can get mo~iey'tlat way too.: Arid Iguess
40 Zone 2A money could be used for that also, but they have to, they don't have a whole lot of
41 money. But one thing I did do is, I've been really concerned-.about the detention ponds..
42 Because I couldn't understand whywe were doing them when it says.'you ,know I'we .already
43 said this before that it says in the General Plan that we should use a Retention .Ponds and it
44 says in the Central Specific Plan that were ngt to use Detention Ponds as mitigation. And so
45 I you know I was confused. And so I talked to the .Fish and Game. I think it was Bill and I
46 talked to him for quite awhile and I just asked him his opinion. And he was saying that they
490
March 29, 1.999 vol. 32, Page 491
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
need to clarify the definition of detention and retention. And then L told him that I had got
on the phone with the City of Napa and they. have faxed me their new ordinance that they
have and I made a copy of it for you. These Retention Ponds they don't us Detention but
also they just updated they revised it in October of 98. Their policy and procedures for
development flood plain, flood way, flood. evacuation area and along the water courses. and
they have some really good things that their doing and it might save us some money if we
took a look at what Napa's doing.. One thing they do have the Public Works Director is the
one that okays 'the project. 'But they have retention ponds and then what they also do is the
developer they review the development or developer has to make things better not just make
it the same and I didn't have time to make, copies of it. I do have a copy of the ordinance
and the first page and maybe Mr. Stouder or somebody can I guess I can leave the whole
thing here. I didn't really have chance to read the whole thing myself because I just got it
but_ it looks really good. I don't think that we should have any kind of moratorium, not
building. I think that would be really bad for our economy. You know the developers, they
hire all the construction workers, plumbers, electricians. I mean we would put a lot of
people out of work. But I just feel that we need to if were, going to be consistent I mean it
just really confusing when were doing one thing and then one plan says not to do it, its
confusing. To an average person and I think I'm a little; I mean I've read a lot of this and I
don't think I'm stupid. And so I mean I think its very confusing when it says in one
document not. to do it and then another document it says to do it. So I think my opinion is if
you want a short fix the first thing is to look into the other funding. Please especially with
FEMA. And I also feel that any projects that comes before the Planning Commission or the
City Council should have attached anything from any comments or reviews by any agency.
Whether it be the railroad and especially Sonoma County Water Agency. Because it's the
Planning Department they kind of summarize it and their really overworked so I just think
that the City Council and the Planning Commissioner should have all the information in
front of them and thank you very much.
John Cheney 55 Rocca Dr. I want to start out with saying thank you its appreciated to see
this problem now come before this Council and their willing to .sit down and take a look at
it. It's something that should have been done a long time ago. Its been overlooked I think
pushed around and let go with the Corps of Engineers or whatever but I want to thank you
for looking at it right now. I think the idea of retention ponds is a temporary solution,
sounds good there's a lot of questions about whether it will do any good or won't do any
good. I don't know, I know we gotta do something but beyond that. I think its time Petaluma
that we take an honest look at that river and realize its our resource. That we can't keep on
abusing it the way we have. Its time now to take a full study, start at the top of that flood
plain up there and go all the way down. It passes right on down to San Pablo Bay down
there. Its time we take a look at that whole river decide. how we can make it more useful to
bring money into this city but we can't keep selling it to developers. If there's areas along
that river that can be developed because they're in the flood plain lets leave them alone. Its
time to really take a look at that river and have some people that come in that look at it and
do the studies who have no prior debts to anybody else. I guess that's the best way to say it.
Where they don't owe this man or that man something. That's what their looking at and
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-.Councilmember Hamilton 491
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
Vo132, Page 492 March 29, 1999
1 what's going to be good fifty years from now. Not now; so trunk you and please do the best
2 you can.
3
4 Matt Connelly, Thank you. ~I don't want. to I guess ditto to,Dane I think she had some really
5 good comments that were brought. up and. as we look at what: were. trying to~ do here. and I
6 know that this is something we've been tudying for quite a some time: I think it definitely
7 needs to be looked at as `the watershed and not an ,emergency detention ordinances or
8 whatever that. is. It definitely is a fix ,but and the City of Petaluma can't do it themselves..
9 And I think the other communities are' good:. examples. of way. they've done 'with it and
10 they've; dealt with it as the'watershed. And. I think the tension or `retention :are all. issues. Its
11 also runoff and so you'"ve got the farmers and you've ;goti a lot of other people that are apart
12 of the necessarily the problem., Because if you .get runoff and silt. runoff that's filling up all
13 the things that were trying to fix,. ;the detention ponds and all l:hat stuff S'o and I don't know
14 what we can •do to pull all this stuff together. So that. it' can occur but I think that their very
15 important. issues that obviously hopefully we can address you know Chelsea is a property
16 owner in the community we probably have one of the largest reaches with along the river.
17 We in support of all the fixes that we can help generate: through our properties and within ahe
18 community to make sure that the flooding is dealt with. We don't support a moratorium in
19 the community. We don't think thafs a good way to address it. And we think'that it' a
20 great opportunity to deal with .sourcing Federal and State Grants and Funds through the
21 Corps and ,politicking our congress people to go out :and really work within the. community..
22 To do that and I don't know if it's a cask. force that we get all. the different.. groups together in
23 a concerted' effort. to get: it done.. And I' think that's what. we need to do and hopefully it can
24 get done .in a hort period of time so that the community can. continue to benefit. and grow
25 and" so timing: is a big issue and what can we do to push it along. ,`I look. forward. to working
26 with you and keep going. Thank you.
28 Maurice Matheson, 23 Woodworth Way. We may kick around these detention ponds .for
29 years. And when I first started messing around with this a few years .ago; Ihad ason-in-.law
30 that was working down ,in San Francisco. He was working far Leant remember'the name of
31 the outfit but- this the: property was on T.anferan in Seramon"te. Well there both.. built on a
32 swamp and they had a lot. of runoff before they .started building but they wanted to build
33 there. So they said okay fine, we' 11 take and build there bufiwe have to build all the buildings
34 on like on stilts or pilings. Then we take and put in a concrete shelf in other words a
35 flooring in there and leave the bottom of it :open for drainage you know for water to drain
36 into. Okay that .went on, they built "that: there the way I understand that they did and: so far
37 nobodies. complained about water in the parking. lots. And, another thing about that is that
38 the water,. when. it comes in it don't runoff it goes down. It has a place to drain:in.because
39 underneath .the'building all that stuff in there• is regular ground. Its not covered "by concrete
4:0 its regular ground you got..and the concrete is raised up° gn the pilings, So you have the
41 runoff that goes down,and what's left I guess:runs off somewhere but 'it doesn't show up so I
42 thought that would be a pretty good idea to kick around. Okay thank you. "
43
44 CT, thank you .Maurice: and when. you came up with. this earlier you said we had been
45 kicking it around. for years and the face of Edward Sartori came right in front of me and I
492
March 29, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 493
1 know he is probably .looking :down at us right now with a smile on his face. thinking were
2 finally getting to this issue.
3•
4 Maurice Matheson, Yea, I talked with the old guy.
5
6 CT, Yea I know you did, thank you.
7
8 John Morgan, Thank you Mr. Mayor, I'm John Morgan and I live at 308 10`h St. and of
9 course .I also represent Burbank housing. I have to agree with John Cheney, thank you very
10 much for the direction that you're going on this study. I was able to read what RMI had
11 provided in their proposal what they called the Interim and Feasibility Study. And I was
12 impressed at the way they are trying to balance the need to solve to figure out how best ~o
13 proceed but to do it in a careful and watershed whole watershed conscious way I think that
14 they what they have laid out looks very impressive to me. I have said before to the Planning
15 Commission that although I'm very anxious to try to build the affordable housing project,
16 which I hope to bring to you in the near future. I don't want to do it by and cause flood
17 waters to come into John or Jeff's or anyone else house in the middle of the night, or at least
18 to .increase that possibility. And I'm reassured that the consultants seem to believe that in a
19 relatively short time. They can figure out where we should detain and where we should
20 drain within our sub watersheds: And I think that there's a way then we can have a win win
21 for those who what to make development happen at appropriate places and appropriate ways
22 and those who are mightily concerned that we not increase flooding. So I congratulate you
23 on the direction that you have got rolling.
24 Oh and the last point; of course, is that because were trying to do this affordable housing,
25 and because we all know that there's a current need for housing, that the urgency is there and
26 I just. have to echo for you in my role as a housing advocate that the urgency is there so that's
27 one of the wonderful aspects of the direction were heading that there's a way to quickly
28 respond.
29
30 CT, Thank you sir. Please come forward. All we require is your name and address please
31 sir.
32
33 My name is Mark Johnson, we own the Oak Creek Apartments. I'm not even sure what the
34 physical address is but its off of Graylawn. I didn't come prepared to talk but I thought.. I
35 would :get up for a minute. And because we do have a project that we feel is very successful
36 it was built in 1982. and it does have we spent at that year about a quarter of a million dollars
37 actually doing :detention ponds and we have found them to work very effectively. We're
38 convinced that we don't add. any runoff to the Payran situation as a matter of fact we believe
39 that we detain water that's not only on our exact property but property that surrounds it as
40 well. Actually I had lunch with Matt not to long ago and he expressed some interest in
41 possibly getting a group and coming out and looking at the project. And I'd be more than
42 willing to get a group together and conduct a tour of the project just to show you how it
43
44 works and how it functions: Out there today the main gate valve that controls the flow into
45 the river has been shut all winter long: And while we still can't do mowing because
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Kealy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 493
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councibnember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor'David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
Vo132, Page 494
March 29, 1999
1 the lawns are so wet~and~ saturated, that's-evidence that this thing is functioning well. And
2 so I would be more than happy to conduct; a tour and bring whoever is interested by in
3 addition to their functionality they are: also esthetically pleasing. There's; detention ponds are
4 we feel add a lot to theproject as well esthetically: Of course: as 'its been mentioned before
5 we are .against, a moratorium we feel that is not' needed we feel there are enough studies and
6 information that prof ects can .be built and retain. water :from their site and in this manner and
7 I would be certainly an advocate for that. Lthank you for-your time.
8
9 CT, Anyone else like to come forward ,and' speak to this. item? Mr. Fluor. Even. though
10 your names not on here I' 11 let you come up.
11
12 Hank Fluor, I live at 1721 Storiehenge~ , as I sit and li"sten to the discussion. a ~tlought.
13 occurred to me about -the o°ld adage an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.. And
14 that were .discussing whether we have funds or where: we can find .money to do a
15 comprehensive study well Pd ke to encourage you to think about. the consequences .if you
16 don't look at the bigger picture.: I don't have the numbers. accurate but ~I think. the last :flood
17 caused damages in the over a million or two million or three million :besides -the.
18 physiological damage it .has done to the community. So I would encourage this community
19 to think in the bigger term of how important it is to .really examine the whole issue of the
20 watershed the whole area. Some other thoughts that come to mind in terms of Petaluma and
21 the surrounding county, we have what we call the open space funding to acqu-ire property:.
22 Well maybe. we can use of'ths funding to acquire. property with the idea that we build up hill
23 some retention or detention ponds that prevent some of the water 'from :rushing. down :into
24 Petaluma. Let us use the entire watershed. which encourages us to look at the bigger picture.
25 I look at my little area. where I live, I live across the street .from the Corona- Creek, and I
26 think` I've :mentioned this before the, creek itself is filling up. And I question whether or not
27 the bridges will have enough clearance to hold to. pass 'all the water, But on the other hand: if
28 the bridges start 'holding water back it would be far better than shooting it down into the
29 river. So that 'one mile by let us say 300' we can calculate the volume but we have kind of
30 opportunities to get detention and retention resources within the whole community: I was
31 also very interested in the I gotta :find a new name I call it Heritage. Homes what's it called
32 its got a new name. At any rate T went' to see the detention pond in that development and I
33 was quite surprised that the detention panel didn't .exist among the home or the developer but
3'4 rather was off-site. It was somewhere up the hill. I guess in the Bigger picture you say you
35 can hold water up the hill to do the' equivalent for'that -run off, which would have: gone: down
36 the hill. Then we should look at the whole watershed and hmw we, can begin to .hold water
37 before it gets to Petaluma.River. Or make it stay up there for ten or fifteen mnutes~or an
38 hour whatever it is this gentleman explained about the; apartments holding water and letting
39 it out at more amenable rates could be a way to do it. But T encourage the community to
40 really study the bigger•pcture. Thank you.
41
42 Don Weisenflu; Wren Dr. Petaluma. I'm supporting, the pond business simply because. I
43 look at the old cross-creek situation. For years 'the owner of that farm. Marv used to come
44 knocking on everybody's door along:, the fence line complaining they left their sprinklers,'on
45 or they have a broken spr-nkler line. Turning his field into a, quagmire. But. the truth is that
46 there were several swals going through there and the FENIA maps acid the Sonoma County
494
March 29, 1'999 Vol. 32, Page
1 Water maps .all showed this. And I look over there on this map and if that's the FEMA
2 designation of a flood plain for Adobe Creek I think they- now have to call it a flood. path.
3 Because since February 98 it floods so we've had a holding pond now. There are nothing but
4 houses there and I know you saw the video of the 1998 February fly over with the helicopter
5 and saw the damage that was done and how extensive it was and so that's just common
6 sense to make this doesn't happen. again. Thank you.
7
8 CT, Anyone else. Thank you. Apparently not. Would the Council like to start asking
9 some questions or would they like a quick. little presentation from the consultants. I would
10 prefer the consultants actually. You can flip a coin. Or whoever is a Duke fan can come
11 first.
12
13 Tom Hargis, Let me reintroduce them Don Wagonette from RMI and Tom Burke.
14
15 Don Wagonette; RMI, Tom and I came onto the study in January of 98 RMI, we viewed the
16 video of the February 16 meeting you had and made sure that on the second version of the
17 report we did put the date on it for you. I want to make sure you got that one in. But more
18 importantly we came into this study in January of 98 and it was at that time the upper
19 reaches EIR. The study was originally contracted to Westco in 1987 the relationship there is
20 that Westco was acquired by RMI early in the 90's and the contract. came with us.
21 Throughout the history of the project flood management along the Petaluma River has been
22 characterized by different sets of people working on different reaches. There was the Payran
23 Project there was our upper reaches project and to some extent there was a kind of a mixed
24 emotion on what to do about the Corona reach. What we have since come forward with after
25 discussing this with Tom and others is that at a December 17th meeting last year and I'm not
26 gonna dwell on the past because I think we all know no one can manage anything but from
27 this point forward. We came in a meeting with Tom and .some of his staff and said why are
28 we looking at just the upper reaches. We really ought be looking at a watershed type of a
29 focus but Tom has a need now that he expressed to us with some type of a policy that helps
30 with the respect to flooding that can be achieved rather quickly, specifically within 90-days.
31 We came up with this graphic to try and give you an idea of how what we are looking at
32 doing its within a broad watershed picture and I Tom could you pass these out to the
33 Council. You've got, in a broad watershed study you've got a bunch of different things your
34 looking at, ground water management, water quality, environmental conservation, habitat
35 preservation and conservation really, growth management and water supply and flood
36 management. Now with flood management there's a whole lot of different strategies you
37 can go .with detention and retention are two of a lot of different strategies that people are
38 going with. That is what our interim detention feasibility study is about. What can detention
39 and retention do on the short term? Where would you site it? How big would it be and how
40 most importantly do we make sure that if you do detention and retention and we recommend
41 it from this study that its
42
43 fully compatible hydrological with the long term solution you do. That was one of the
44 points that we were in unanimity about with Tom. We have to make sure that this study
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
495
495
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
Vo132, Page 496
March 29, 1999
is structured such that anything, that we do physically ~ or~ fecommend:, that you
recommend physically as policy doesn't conflict with the long.-term solution.
MM, Excuse me Don would. you. take a .quick. minute to since we are broadcasting to the
public talk about the difference between ;detention, and retention ponds.
Don Waggonette,. I'm gonna let Tome Burke whose the hydrologist, I've promised him he'll
handle the hydrology's. Tom will address. that point.
Tom Burke, 1VIr. Mayor, City Counciltnembers my name is Torn .Burke ,.and I'm. with
Hydrologic Systems. I was with- PWA when we first started working on this project and
subsequently has changed. 'To address the issue of retention verses detention. In retention
you've designed a basin or facility that withholds the water and retains ~it and does riot let-
that water out at all. It will keep that water in, that facility or in that pond for the duration of
the storm until it infiltrates' into ground or is pumped out through some; other mechanism or
used for a different purpose. In a detention pond what you do with. the storm. water .that.
flows into that pond is you detain it for a period of time and it subsequently released at a
further time down the road hopefully when the storm event has started to subside a little `bit
and the channels and the streams down stream are better capable of absorbing the flow from
that particular pond. Does that make sense.
CT, That makes perfect sense. Thank you.
CT; I-have one .quick. question on that. 'not all areas are affected. by the tide, would you tend
to use more detention- thanretenton. in those. situations?
Tom Burke, More detention in the areas that are being affected by the tide?
CT, Right. Assuming that the: tide goes out and. then. you can release.
Tom Burke, It doesn't. necessarily have to be more .effective ao use detention in that type of
scenario.
MM, Actually one more question Tom. Do you find ilzat retention ponds. are there
constraints where there's adobe soil prevalent?
Tom Burke; If you .have problems with the soil in that your °not getting infiltration into the
system then a retention pond wild not work effectively. Matter of fact even when you have
good oils that allow infiltration into the ground below the pond. these soils over a period of
time will tend to get clogged up by debris and silt. That is #lowing into the pond so when
you have a retention pond. you need to_liave periodic maintenance of that facility to insure
that the soils 1. Retain the permeability and 2. If any contaminates are filtered into that soil
that those contaminants are disposed of properly.
MM, Mayor I've got some general questions from one of the staff reports but. actually one
would probably be a question for. Don I think. Don you had lets see this is based on the
496
March 29, 1999` Vol. 32, Page
1 March 18 R1VII letter orr the list of tasks.. On task two you say that you would verify and
2 update the cities existing flood. hydrology model so that detention can be evaluated at a local
3 and watershed, scale. But on task 6 you know and then task 3 you would you would choose
4 some potential .sites task 6 you would hydrologically model the watershed to determine the
5 suitability of the potentially feasible detention/retention site that were chosen in task 3. To
6 me its. sounds like task 2 you would be doing the hydrological modeling, I mean task 2
7 sounds like your doing the bulk ofyou know the review of the watershed and the modeling?
8 Is that not correct?
9
10 Don Wagonette, That's not correct. The, it's a sequential look as we go through the tasks
11 f?-om one through seven. And the early identification of potential detention and retention
12 sites is all possible sites. So 'it would be all possible. expanses of land that are open where
13 you could physically flood it •and you wouldn't be flooding someone's commercial property.
14 Its open expanses grassy areas, ball parks, ball fields and other things where you could you
15 know physically flood them and leave water there without any apparent problem. And in
16 subsequent test what we do is we meet with the city and with- whom Tom designates and we
17 would get together and say okay now that we have identified all those sites, which ones for
18 political, for.economic, for other reasons would have constraints. So lets narrow these down
19 to the ones that would be most politically palatable and still would achieve hydrology and
20 then at the end after we've narrowed that group only then do we spend the money to do the
21 hydrologic model.
22
23 MM, And that part I understood, but in your task 2 your saying verify and update the cities
24 existing flood hydrology model. So I mean isn't that the bulk of doing the research on the
25 watershed as it were?
26
27 Don Waggonette, I think I'll let Tom Burke do that because he is doing most of the
28 modeling work.
29
30 Tom Burke, In task 2 what we want to do is make sure that the model that we presently have
31 ,developed for the watershed accurately reflects the existing drainage structure and system
32 that is in place at this time. It is not necessarily looking at future options for detention or
33 retention through the basin, but insuring that we have a base model that is correctly
34 portraying the flow within the basin. And the correct timing of those flows that come
35 through each. of the different tributaries as well as the mainstream of the river.
36
37 MM, Okay but as I understand it wouldn't that then go pretty much where you're potential
38 detention retention sites are? Once you understand that model?
39
40 Tom Burke, Once you understand that model then you have a tool that can be used to
41 evaluate sites. So at first you need to be able to create that tool that you have a level of
42 confidence in and that will truly tell you the difference in timing of the tension that's placed
43 in
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
497
497
Vo132, Page 498
March 29, 1999
1 different locations throughout. the basin; So the product. of task 2 will. be to have that tool in
2 our hands that we can then use ''in -the subsequent task to evaluate each of the different
3 detention and retention alternative that we' 11 want to look ;at. :
4
5 PT: When was the last time the model was updated?
6
7 Tom Burke, When we were looking. at the upper reaches proj`eet in early, -19-98 we went.
8 ahead and we acquired some data that was part of the cities alert flood warning system. We
9 used that :data to calibrate the existing Willowbrook' branch and the main. stem of the
10 Petaluma River to determine whether or not the tension on Willowbrook. was adversely
11 affecting. the Payran reach. So w.e've calibrated the model. up to the. Payran reach iri order'to
12 evaluate: just those flows that we were looking at within the ~1Vi~11"owbrook area: Now if we
13 want to evaluate the tension within other tribut'aries' then' we need to verify that the. flow
14 network .leading through the model for those tributaries is accurate and hasn't changed since
15 the model was originally developed back in the mid 19.80's.
16
17 PT, Mid 1980' is when all of the other tributaries were last look at?
18
19 Tom Burke, That's correct.
20 -
21 MM, Okay then one oast question for either Tom or Don.. You state in your letter of March
22 1.8 that you intend to give us the best available information from the city ,for updating
23 development patterns .for the GIS, Have you done a preliminary look to see that that is a
24 sufficient. level of information. that exists? I presume you have and that you've based. your
25 consultantcy pricing on that, is that correct?
26
27 Tom Burke; Yea,, we've. talked. to Tom Hargis as well as Vin :imith to .find out what
28 information;is available on the existing storm drains system that's in place now,. as well as
29 topographic inforrnafion that: the city has acquired and built up over the years.
30
31 MM, Okay so you won't need to come back and say gee. its only 50% of whatwe-need you.
32 have to go out: and get more?
33
34 Tom Burke, No. From our initial evaluation we think that adequate'information is
35 - available for us to do that "task. - .
36 '
37 DK; Thanks; I'm really glad to see this progressing forward and appreciate the presentation
38 that. you have given us in what the, work-plan could be. I had.a discussion earlier. today with
39 Don Wagonette and I'll raise this as well. for the Councils. consideration.. We need to work
40 off of model that has reasonable validity. That has a good assurance of its predictability~that
4'1 can be validated. And it seems basically in this interim phase our planning based on a
42 tremendous amount of incomplete information. And I think you point to that correctly on
43 task 5 for the Councils review obtain flow measurements to verify stage discharge
44 relationship_no accurate information presently exists ~on the flow in the Petaluma River or
45 major tributaries of Liberty Creek and Willowbrook Creek. Gauging stations are needed to
498
March 29, 1999 Vol. 32, Page
1 get that information. So I think I need make clear to the Counsel and the public that what
2~ were working with is incomplete information. Its woefully incomplete and the best we can
3 do is based on what we have at this moment, which is part guess work, in part modeling and
4 in part you know your experience and hopes and prayer go with that as well. And I think
5 that the Council no I mean the public should be under any illusion that were gonna have a
6 complete model this year, next year or in that case five or ten years because the data is so
7 scarce relative to storms in the Petaluma basin. Its gonna take five, ten, fifteen, twenty,
8 thirty years to calibrate a model that will give good predictability and until that time were
9 working on guess work and were working with what will hopefully be a more conservative
10 approach by conservative I mean willing to take less risk. In the absence of hard information
11 and the absence of a validated and calibrated model and so I think we as council members
12 that's our policy decision. What level of risk are we willing to assume. And I think we need
13 to be very up front with the public about what kind of risk were willing to take at this point
14 and what that means as we go backwards. Then into saying what level of protection are we
15 going to afford, and how are we going to get there in the interim and in the long run. Cause
16 its still going to involve a tremendous amount of guess work until that data is put together,
17 until that modeling is put together and it's a discussion that I'd like us to have. For instance
18 or I mean one of the things that again is very important is that were dealing with several
19 structural changes that can be done or structural works that can be done engineering works
20 as it were to provide a lowered risk of flooding. We've got one already in progress the
21 major one from the Corps and as well as all the additional channel work and that's
22 increasing channel capacity. There's also then how can we hold back and provide temporary
23 or longer-term flood storage of surface waters. And then the additional component to that is
24 going to be how to improve, maintain or improve infiltration, the permeability of any
25 particular site so there more water that gets absorbed for evaporation for on the ground
26 storage or for runoff and subsurface flows. But the other component that we need to though
27 into that is a nonstructural component and that's the planning component. And it's a hard
28 nut to crack I think prior City Councils have not been willing to deal with that very
29 effectively I think its time that we recognize there is no big fix even with thirty years of data.
30 There is no big fix and unless we protect those areas that are most vulnerable, and that's a
31 planning decision were deluding ourselves, future councils and residents and businesses that
32 try to occupy those lands. And I'll leave it from there.
33
34 PT, Mr. Mayor just to add onto that I think one of our goals is to prolong the life as much as
35 possible for the millions of dollars that were investing in this flood control project in the
36 Payran reach. And that comes back to the planning decisions that we make up stream of the
37 area and that is a huge investment that we have up there.
38
39 MH, Tom I wanted to, I'll agree with the other counsel members who are all supportive of
40 moving forward with this and I wanted to briefly discuss with you what hopefully you can
41 give us a bit more of a preview of what we might expect in 90-days and to my mind the most
42 interesting part of this material we receive for tonight was on page Roman Numeral 3 of the
43 attachment here March 18 letter and I will just read the one sentence that caught my eye. It
44 says based on the watershed hydrology it is anticipated that the analysis will indicate that
45 there will be an up stream location on each sub-basin above which detention will be
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmerraber Hamilton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councibnember Janice Cader-Thompson
499
499
Vo132, Page 500 March 29, 1999
recommended and below which detention will not be recommended. So I guess I wanted to
touch on that with you briefly, your anticipation that it is going to be the detention is going
to
be focused on the parts of the watersheds. furthest away from Payran reach and not
focused on the areas closest to the Payran reach.
Tom Burke, We'll actually be focusing on all areas throughout the basin but the reason why
we had put in the phrase that more than likely we will be looking at detention that is located
further on up in the basin is dealing with the physics of the Iii-ocess. That generally as you
move down further in the basin your water runs off rather quickly. When it starts to rain if
your only a half a mile away from the river your water is going to make it there in few
minutes. But the water that's further on up in the basin takes quite a long time to get down
to that location so what happens is you generally want water lower in the basin to run off
quickly you kind of moving it out of the way before the larger peak of the river come
through. So detention in some areas will not be beneficial and can actually aggravate a
situation.
MH, So just let me give you a hypothetical and this is really important because it's a very
different way of looking at this situation and I think I certainly have been looking at it and I
think most folks have been looking at it in the past. One and lets talk in terms of a particular
project and I'm not gonna try to pin you down as to a result but maybe you can give us your
preview of what you think the result might be. We've had one project, John Morgan has
spoken about it previously tonight its located with actually partially within the current flood
plan. and within a 100 or 200 yards of the flooding area where the residences are right by the
Payran reach. Would it be your anticipation that detention ponds on development on an
undeveloped site there would be a good thing, a bad thing, indifferent?
Tom Burke, Its hard to say without actually analyzing situation but my gut reaction would
be something that's that close to the river would probably not be an effective detention pond.
We found in our earlier examination of detention on the Willowbrook system that detention
even that high up was having adverse effects for the down... .
MH, So if you had something at Willowbrook or at the Old Elm project site would it be the
best policy and again I'm not going to hold you to this but is it you gut feeling that you
would want to get the water from that site to the river as fast: as possible verses other areas
further out where you want to hold it back?
Tom Burke, From. a purely flood management scenario you want to move it out as quickly
as possible. Although there are other factors that you want to look at in moving that water
quickly to the river in terms of the water quality impacts on the systems, and the tide that
maybe occurring at that time.
MH, Oh I'm not done. We have a couple of other projects that are coming forward in the
next few weeks and before your 90-day period will have run. And I know flooding has been
a concern at least some concern with both of these and I'd just like to get the benefit of your
gut feeling with respect to both of these cause there both important projects and have a lot of
500
March 29, 1999 Vol. 32, Page
1 attention. One is the .shopping center- on the Gatti property and that was allowed to
2 previously it's on the East Side and there. is a large detention. I believe it is detention basin
3 for the parcel, which it is a part or was a part that's maybe a quarter of a mile or half of a
4 mile distant. Do you have any sense and supposedly that pond was sized sufficiently for the
5 entire formal parcel, do you have sense of whether that will be problematic for us?
6
7 Tom Burke, And that's about a half a mile from the river?
8
9 MH, No, could we show him could we get a map that would.
10
11 CT, And it is Adobe soil right there too.
12
13 Tom Burke, Oh okay, I guess it would be a good point to make at this time that there are
14 two different ways or two different ways that you need to look at detention. And one is from
15 a local prospective and one is from a watershed prospective. And Don alluded to that a little
16 bit earlier in that detention even though its lower down in the basin will have a good effect
17 upon the particular tributary that that. detention is fixed on or that detention is immediately
18 draining to. Its only when you combine that with other tributaries which will usually occur
19 when you get to the main stem of the river that the timing problem then becomes
20 problematic and you may actually aggravate the situation down stream. On the particular
21 tributary that detention occurs in it will almost always have a beneficial effect. When you
22 look at the down stream effects of all the tributaries combined that's when you start running
23 into problems where the timing of that particular tributaries peak and the overall flood wave
24 moving down the basin that needs to be analyzed together. And you need to look at whether
25 or not. the benefits that you have on the tributary that individual isolated tributary has worth
26 the adverse effects that you may have down stream.
27
28 MM, Mike, could I follow up on that? So Tom is it gonna have much impact on that
29 scenario. An incoming weather front, the rain falling you know the rain crosses the valley as
30 it begins to fall. Is that kind of scenario gonna affect the impact on the watershed
31 significantly or do you find that once its raining its raining in a broad enough area with a
32 sufficiently distributed rainfall that you can determine these patterns.
33
34 Tom Burke, We don't have a lot of data to look at for the basin but we were able to acquire
35 the precipitation data for the basin for the February 9th 1998 storm events, which were some
36 significant storms. That we had in the watershed there's eight different precipitation gauges
37 that are part of the alert system and they are uniformly distributed around the basin. We
38 looked at those the precipitation at those gauges at fifteen-minute increments for the first
39 fifty hours of the storm event. To see whether or not there were topographic changes in
40 precipitation as well as timing changes as storms front either moved up the basin, down the
41 basin or east to west across the basin. And generally we did not find a significant change in
42 the amount of precipitation occurring at any one time by elevation or location of the basin
43 for those particular storms of that one-month. Now a longer period of record may reveal
44 other types of patterns that could develop but for that one-month we could not see it.
45
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
501
501
Vo132, Page 502
March 29, 1999
MM, And presumably you've looked at other watersheds and other storm events. Do you
have some sense for this part of the state if that's going to lie a fairly consistent, unheard
of...?
Tom Burke, Generally you find a difference in the timing of the precipitation as the storm
front moves across the basin but that would be generally more apparent in larger basins then
we have here for the Petaluma watershed that we're looking at,
MH, I'm sorry did you, were you able to come up with a gu.t conclusion as to whether we
should be worried about that project from a flooding prospective at that point?
Tom Burke, What I brought up at that point was a local perspective as well as the watershed
prospective. Locally the detention at that location will have a beneficial effect on that
tributary, when that tributary combines with the main stem of the Petaluma it may cause
problems. But this when we talk about delineating the zone at which we don't think the
tension will be effective in the basin its not gonna be a hard and fast line and above this line
its effective and below this line its not. A lot has to do with the sizing of the detention that
you use. So in our analysis we need to look at typical sizes that could be applied for
detention for different sizes for developments that may occur.
MH, When you look at proposing possible sites for detention facilities or on the different
watersheds, will you be able to give us maybe not in 90-days but at some point an .action
plan. For which ones we might develop first as opposed to trying to build ten of the all at
once. Would that be feasible?
Tom Burke, In terms of the detention that we sites that we find?
MH, Exactly.
Tom Burke, Yea we could prioritize those sites which are the most effective for you in the
short term so you might try to build one or two in any particular period and then expand that
program as time and money allows.
MH, Good, one question well actually two more questions and then I'll stop. In our basin
most of the focus has been on creeks and storm drain systems that come into the river above
the Payran Street. Bridge or above the turning basin. And. yet and those are important
distinctions even there but there are also creeks and storm systems that come into the river
below there. Will you be able to look at the relative importance of controlling those
different issues and if we have an interim ordinance at some point based on your work
should it include the areas that flow downstream from the tul-ning basin or from the Payran
bridge?
Tom Burke, I think that it should include those areas downstream and the model has a
capability of analyzing those areas. The problem that we run into in that .zone or that area of
the basin below the Payran St. Bridge is that we have no flow data for which we can
502
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
March 29, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 503
calibrate those- particular sub-basins to. So you can have a calibrated model from the Payran
St. bridge
and above but for those drainage's below we won't be able to calibrate the model but we
will be able to use typical co-efficient for a storm water runoff for those zones. We'll be
able to look at the infrastructure in place to determine how the waters flowing from those
particular sub-basins and then the model will tell if we can develop the base model without a
detention and then we can show the model with detention. So what that shows us is the
relative change. We won't be able to accurately predict absolute magnitude of flow for the
no detention and with detention scenarios. We will show you the change whether that
change is beneficial or whether it has an adverse effect to the system.
MH, And then one last question and then I'll stop Mr. Mayor. I'm sure your familiar with
our Zero Net Fill policy and one question that we've been faced with repeatedly is whether
the geographic portion of the flood plain in town is covered by the zero net policy is the
appropriate portion of it. Is you study going to be give us any input on whether we should be
expanding that area and if so how far?
Tom Burke, We weren't going to look into that in this particular study but my feeling is
that should be expanded as far as you can reasonably apply it within the city. Because
what's occurring there and if you do not have a zero net fill policy, as people fill in some
sections of the flood plain which FEMA allows as long as you don't fill in any further than
the flood way, which is the regulatory lines drawn across the basin. You can go ahead and
fill in those section. What that does is it removes storage from the basin and it has the same
effect as if you had a detention pond in place and then you suddenly removed it. Now you
peaks are going to increase through your basin and your going to effect people downstream.
You won't effect anybody upstream from that location but you will start increasing the timed
peak and the magnitude of peak that will occur downstream of that location where fill has
been place.
MH, Will the proposed 90-days that your probably going to be embarking on shortly give
us any additional insights into the zero net fill issue or is that something that has to be
addressed in your longer term work? Or could it be added in?
Tom Burke, It could be added in. Are you looking in terms of how much of fill could be
allocated to the flood plain and the relative change in flows that would occur if that were
allowed?
MH, I wasn't even thinking of it that technically I was just wondering if we had the right
areas covered by the policy.
Tom Burke, I think you have the most important areas covered by the policy but that would
not be a bad policy to implement further on in the basin. There would be no adverse effects
to expanding that.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JK-Councilnember Kmnilton
PT-Councihnember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
503
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
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
Vo132, Page 504
March 29, 1999
MH, And Mr. Mayor just on that point I think we just got some great free advice when he
said expanded as far as reasonably can be done.
DK, On the use of the detention or retention basins you've talked about in your
proposal about possible banking scenario. Do you have or are you aware of any
scenarios? Where the use of those banked facilities is coordinated so that we don't run
into the timing change issues at somebody else's"convenience. A project convenience
were a project in XYZ watershed starts to use a detention for banking capabilities within
a detention facility and that may change timing and peaks on that particular watershed if
there privately owned. If there privately controlled are yo~z aware of scenarios that
where there is an agency to control who gets to put how much water into one of those
facilities at any particular period.
Tom Burke, I never encountered a situation where detention banking has been put in place
by an .agency and used to deter the effects of development within a location. On a
development by development scenario I have seen agencies that have installed detention. just
as a service to the growth of the community but didn't require development occurring to buy
into that detention facility. They anticipated the detention that would occur within the basin
and provided a community service to provide that detention and then funded that through
some type of tax base or something like that.
DK, I know there. has been some proposals around here for essentially a private systems of
banking. Perhaps up in the north end of town where there is some proposals for acquiring
either easements or access to land for that purpose. For specific developments and I think
the issue that comes up for me is how to coordinate that and make sure it is coordinated
making any changes in peaks or timing.
Tom Burke, Yea I think it would be very important to coordinate that with the other
activities that are going on in the basin, which leads back again to the full watershed study.
So this is part of the whole planning process and they buy into that and so action that the
City Counsel take or the City takes in implementing detention in other locations will .be
coordinated with that and you know what the benefits are going to be. If people are
providing detention in the basin that is not coordinated with the modeling effort and with the
facilities that your providing then you don't know if the two actions are actually going to
come to logger heads and may cancel each other out. It really needs to be looked at in a
unified fashion.
DK, So what in terms of the kind of your gut feeling for how large a detention basin, how
many acres are we looking at. Kind of the word floating around is, well we'd be looking at
perhaps getting easement, acquiring easements on county land outside the city limits or
maybe within the urban separator and outside the city limits as location for setting up ponds
or storage. Is that the kind of magnitude that you would expect necessary or is this stuff that
can be done on three acres here or five acres there within the urban separator?
Tom B, I think that a little of both probably would be necessary. I think that there are some
benefits to be had by having a small amount detention if possible within each development
504
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
March 29, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 505
that occurs.- Primarily to do the water quality benefits that provides as well as the local
benefits due to the flood mitigation that will occur on the immediate tributary that's adjacent
to where the detention is located. But from out initial view and this is just a gut view of
what's available for a detention within the city. And my gut feelings of what the city is
trying
to achieve; how much flood management do they want to achieve with the detention scenario
you'll probably need a larger area which will more than likely be outside the city
jurisdictional boundaries.
DK, In those kinds of scenarios where there based say on a creek flow rather than on an
overland flow, surface flow, are those detention facilities eventually capturing high water
flows off of a creek.
Tom Burke, They can be. You can design them in several different ways. They can be in-
line storage which captures all of the flow within the creek and then provide some detention
or they can be off-line facilities that only take the peak flows that come through the system.
DK, Couple of issues come up for that with me. And it maybe less of an issue in some of
the other creeks until we get up to the far north end of town. And. that was some of the
occurrence in the high water bypass that failed on Adobe Creek where during the high water
of course there's fish migration and those fish in the high flows wound up getting stranded in
the bypass. Obviously we .have to design whatever facility is if were going to take in stream
flows and run them into a detention basin that wildlife is prevented from getting into those
detention basins and stranding in there. So that has to be part of the elements of the design
and then the other thing is under similar circumstance. While there's an advantage of
removing sediment from the streams just to keep sediments out of the main stem of the river
by having cleaner water. If you take out enough sediments that's more aggressive for
erosion in what's left of the stream between the detention facility and the and the main stem
of the river. So there might be need for having additional bank protection. Is that an issue
that's come up before?
Tom Burke, Yea that can be an issue that needs to be looked at when the wider scope of
study is looked at in the watershed analysis and that if you design a facility that removes the
sediment from the water it settles out in your detention pond. Your then dumping sediments
starved water back into the stream it will then acquire that sediment that it want to carry in
its load from either the banks or the bottom of the channel. Ways that you can help to
elevate some of that erosion that occurs is insuring that you've got a good right strong and a
healthy riparian strip along your channel. That will stabilize your banks and the you've
provided this with a variability of flows that would come down the stream by not capturing
all of the high flows that come through this system. You only want to capture those flows
that are causing floods downstream. You still want the stream to maintain its variability
because that is what will facilitate the growth of riparian vegetation and will also facilitate
that habitat that this riparian vegetation provides for not only the fish but the wildlife that
may exist within the system.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 505
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vrce Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
Vo132, Page 506
March 29, 1999
DK, It seems also to me that in the City I think we've made tremendous headway in
designing the creek corridors to allow for this. But there's certainly other corridors where
there is no room left for •meandering. So that means you got to start armoring the banks to
keep it in a relatively straight line and of course if we have sediment starved streams looking
to meander looking to pick up sediments that becomes even more hazardous for
development close in.
Tom Burke, Yea that will provide a problem if you've got such a narrow corridor that you
cannot establish a stable stream system then your gonna be faced with a constant problem of
erosion that would occur along your banks. And you can enhance that with riparian
vegetation but your never gonna be able to totally eliminate l:hat problem because your still
gonna have your channel bottoms available to erode.
DK, Moving quickly to water quality optional task A collecting water quality samples on
page 11 of the proposal. I think it's very important to be done particularly given that we
have water quality mandates from the regional board. Petaluma Rivers as we are all to
painful aware the worst water quality coming into the San Francisco Bay. I would add a
couple more, three other components to the list one is nutrients particularly nitrates, heavy
metals, key heavy metals which is a second component in the pollution.in the river and then
e-coli or other coli forms. It'd be very useful to find out what level of contamination's we
have within the areas within our control or in areas that are not under control but at least we
can identify them and get the county or RCD or somebody else help participate in that. And
I would add an additional sampling site somewhere below McNear canal somewhere around
the marina or the railroad bridge at the south end of town. The Corps has done sediments
samples. They've pulled some hot material out of McNear canal, and I think it would help
complete the picture for what's going past. Right now you only have it, as far down,
sampling as far down as Payran bridge and I think it would be very important to bring that
further south.
Tom Burke, Yea, I agree that would probably be very good to add those three components to
the sampling that's being done as well as expand it to that other location. Particularly if the
Corps has been able to find hot sediments at that spot. When we develop this task we
weren't in any way trying to be comprehensive in our ability to sample the contaminants that
may exist in the system. But just go far enough to establish the need and document the need
for maintaining a water quality component in the retention. or detention. Opposition that you
may want to implement as City policy after this 90-day period but with the assumption that
more detailed and in-depth water quality studies will continue on into the more elaborate
study that will occur in the future.
DK, At which brings me perfectly to the next question for actually for Fred. Fred how do
you see this work holding into the larger work for the general plan and having that work
being put out to bid? I assume RMI would be bidding on that. Where is the separation point
between this work and the larger picture?
506
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
March 29; 1999 Vol. 32, Page
Fred Stouder, My assumption would be the same as yours. To start with and follow-up on
his comments that this work and whatever policies the counsel adopts in the interim have to
be integrated into the larger program so he clearly stated that as an objective and a necessity
which I think he would want it to be. So I would view this as initial research phases and
initial data that would be essential to and would have to be done anyway with a master
watershed plan. And then secondly when on RFP goes out for all the components of the
general plan those would be received and evaluated by the Counsel and us at that time and
those decisions would' be made as part of that larger process.
CT, And it would be my suggestion if we do go ahead with the 90-day period to finalize this
interim. report that during that 90-days we begin to identify and start locking at sourcing
.funds forthe larger study and I'm sure everybody else will agree with that.''Ms. Torliatt.
PT, Thank you Mr. Mayor.
CT: I had.to.fight him off for you.
PT, I appreciate that. ~ As was stated before that there was no accurate information presently
existing on the flow of the Petaluma River. The major tributaries of Liberty Creek and
Willowbrook Creek I'm assuming, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that a lot of that
data really isn't data that would be collected in the county. And is it the county that hasn't
collected that data or why are we really having a lack of that data and how are you gonna
work with the county in order to put all of this information together and come together with
a comprehensive plan?
Tom Burke, Well for the first what we wanted to ~io is for the 90-days study that we
proposed here is establish a way of further utilizing the data that the City is already
collecting and the City has an alert system that's in place right now. That alerts system has
five-stream recording gauges. on the .Petaluma River and Willowbrook Creek. These gauges
collect stage data in the river but they do not accurately are able to predict the flow that is
concurrent with
that stage. What we propose to do is go ahead and develop stage discharge relationships,
which shows the discharge that-would correspond to a particular stage. So that we can use
the long-term record that is available from these stage discharge stage of a quarters sand turn
that into. a discharge timed series. So we can. determine what the discharge was in the river
over the last year or so that you have data for.
DK, Tom excuse me Tom, for the convenience of the audience could you define stage and
discharge so that there's a little clarity in that? Okay thanks.
Tom Burke, Yea, stage is the elevation of the water in the stream itself. And this shows the
depth of water from the bottom of the channel or the depth of.water in relationship to a
particular datum which is used which is a standard elevation ~:~hat is compared to the
elevation of the water.. Now were able to collect this stage data. ~ And the City has been
collecting this for quite awhile, but what we want to da is determine what the discharge is.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Mealy JH-Councilmember Ham%Iton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Counubnember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor ('lark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
507
507
Vo132, Page 508 March 29, 1999
And the discharge is how much flow is going through the .river and so for any particular
stage in a
normal river system you have a corresponding flow that exists at that stage-. And what we
want to be able to do is to determine what that relationship is between of depth of flow in the
river and the amount of flow that's coming through that, river system.
PT, So at what stage pare we going to working with the county and going :farther up the
streams as opposed to you know what were doing here or the stage gauges that: we have
far enough upstream for you to gather that information?
Tom Burke, We would like to have additional information on some" gf the tributaries that
are outside the Cities jurisdiction. We hadn't proposed Ghat. in this plan because we just
wanted to be able to maximize the data the City has been able to co"llect. Bu't to truly what.
the flow is in some of these .other major tributaries. that are outside the Cities boundaries, we
do need to start coordinating our efforts. with the Sonoma County Water Agency or the
county in some aspect. So that either a stage recorder can be placed at some .of these other
locations or that the county will periodically monitor =the flow. But communication is not
existed so far between ourselves and the county'to determine whether or not or where that
will occur.
PT, Because I really think we need to start now aaking with the county about this and
opening you know Pandora's box and maybe. it could be called because we've all identified.
the fact that this is a joint problem and what Happens in the county affects us in the city.
And so I'm .not sure how we coordinate that but I would like to see some phone calls made:
I'd like. to see who our designated representative from the county is going to be and how we
can work through this problem together. And I don't "want to wait at the end after this 90-
dayperiod and say well this is what we've done in the city:......,..
Don Wagonette, Strategically the way we've put this together we wanted to number 1
respond to the urgency and we watched the City Counsel meeting, said 9.0-days 'we would
like to have an answer. We have in this .proposal tasks to .start coordinating with the county
but we thought it best that whenever your doing a study like this the moment you start
depending on another entity, is a moment you .start. having'to be a victim to .some degree to
their schedules rather than your own. We felt that
Don Wagonette, Yea, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
PT, Sixteen years later.
Don Waggonette, So we would like to bring the county in as soon as possible but in a
controlled. way and planned so that they recognize the urgency and d'on't upset Ghat 90-day
window which we think is tantamount to success here. So that it's in there. There:'s other
agencies we would -like to coordinate with but as I discussed. with Mr. Keller today on the
phone if the City is taking a lead. on this then the City Has a certain amount of control. on the
schedule. Definitely the City consultant and the City should be the ones making the calls,
508
March 29, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 509
1 setting up the meetings and saying were doing so on a urgency platform. And that by the
2 way worked for about-the first three years of CALFED everything was urgent, everything
3 was an emergency and that's the importance that kept the schedule on track .and it's a very
4 effective strategy that I've only begun to realize. But you keep it within your own confines
5 as much as you can. Were not going to get much better technical data between now and 90-
6 days from now but Tom whose been working on some litigation as well feels that the data
7 we do have is extremely defensible in any type of litigation situation, so lets move forward
8 and get everything we can and bring the county in as we see fit.
9
10 PT, I'm not saying loose control and through it up to the county and have them you know
11 start running this train. What I'm saying is if we don't start now with the phone calls and
12 making sure we know who the point person is that were sending information to on a
13 consistent basis that it is just going to be more advantageous to us I believe.
14
15 Tom Burke, Yea, we can work that into the proposal if that's something that should be
16 started right now. The one thing that were not going to get in this time frame is any kind of
17 meaningful data as Don had mentioned. But what would be good is we can start that ball
18 rolling so that we could have gauges install perhaps near late summer so that we can begin to
19 .get next water year information.
20
21 PT, And Mr. Mayor my last item is, what I want to see out of this watershed management
22 policy is that the tax payers aren't continuing to have to put money into flood control
23 projects that are maybe created by additional impacts that are upstream. And that we're
24 continually trying to pay for the problems that we've caused. Maybe we can be a little bit
25 more proactive in trying to insure we don't create problems for the taxpayers. And I can't
26 emphasize that enough because there's only so much money out there and I'd rather study it
27 and do the right thing first as opposed to trying to clean it up afterward.
28
29 JCT, I agree with Parn. Did you want to go? I think it's really important that we have a
30 flood project that's in progress right- now. And the development upstream makes the flood
31 project less likely to succeed for the future. And I you know here were talking about what
32 were going to do for the next 90-days. I really want to talk about what were going to do as
33 far as like development projects that come to the City in the interim, and in you know the
34 .future until we can decide what we are going to do. How were going to manage our
35 watershed? Because we have continued to allow development and we continue to flood.
36 And so I realize that were looking at an interim plan and then were going to look at the
37 larger picture but part of the larger picture is I think we really need to talk about do we want
38 to have a temporary moratorium on development? Do we want to have a moratorium in
39 specific areas on development? You know what do we really want to do? Because that's an
40 important part of what were talking about tonight.
41
42 DK, I agree and I think that that's exactly-the next thing that we need to talk about and that
43 is again the risks that this Counsel wants to acknowledge what's acceptable for us in the
44 interim and in the long run. Without development this valley flooded, regularly, with
45 development the development floods with it. It's going to continue to flood nothing
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councibnember Hamilton 509
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
Vo132, Page 510 March 29, 1.999
1 surprising about that. The Corps project will .give some benefit to some: areas for some time
2 and the some benefit and the sometime is up to us. And I think.. Counselmember Cader-
3 Thompson is absolutely right. We need .to look at what are we gong~to do in our policies to
4 help lesson that risk. And I'd like as part of our discussion to look at,, perhaps ,just for
5 discussion purposes, how about a moratorium on new construction in the flood plain.
6 Anywhere in the City above say Lakeville. Anything that. essentially would feed into the
7 Corps project, and looking at .all other development.in the City. That in the interim, which
8 might be for two or three years 'that they figure out a way of'ha;vng zero increment and stone
9 water runoff, .off of their sites. And if that means we get propelled towards .some sort of
10 cooperative or basin wide retention or detention facilities or improvements, to
11 permeability or clustering of developments to maximize permeability: Whatever other
12 policies we can come up with.. to help that along it seems to irne it would giver us a start
13 not know what the model is going to come. up with probably with any realistic certainly'
14 for a couple of years. Until we have alonger-term picture in place for managing.; the
15 basin, maybe we ought'to consider. And I'il put it out on the table that I think that the
16 idea of a moratorium of construction,. new construction. in the flood plain upstream of
17 Lakeville would be my starting point. And the second would be runoff controls on all
18 other sites.
19
20 CT, Okay I do agree that we need to have that discussion at some point in time but what
21 were talking. about now is tryingto get a 90-day mandatory detention pond ordinance.
22
23 DK, Where that comes in is alternate C on page 2. So it's there. I think we~could probably
24 agree very easily on alternate A, 1 through 8 B is a 1'onger term study and then C is what do
25 we do about it while the paper is getting pushed around. So I'm proposing -that. lets discuss
26 C.
27
28 MM,: Mr. Mayor I think that needs to be discussed and I think actually Mike Healy brought
29 up a bunch of the specifics if your saying upstream of .Lakeville your talking about in that
30 case you are looking at Old Elm Village project, Ithnk- you probably you have a strong......
31 you have a strong argument, that you're looking at the Gatti property because that would lets
32 see where would the Gatti comes in above:
33
34 DK, If I. could clarify no., New development in 'identified flood plains .and that even
35 assumes that the REMA flood plain designations-which are twelve years old at this point are
36 even somewhere close to current reality. But that's what we-got.
37
38 MM, So'what else are we effecting then if.....
39
40 DK, Then if you look at the flood plain the yellow area on khat General.Plan Map:. Over
41 there so its everything up to in the elongated triangle.. where the .railroad tracks cross, the river
42 on the east. side. of tfie freeway you probably gof between the railroad and 101 you've
43 probably got maybe 80 or 80% 'of the. land is in designated flood plain. East of the. freeway
44 north. of Redwood Highway~you're looking to the city limit. 'West of the freeway these are,
45 thanks Tom, so west of the freeway you'd be looking again city limit from -Denman Flats
510
March 29, L999
Vol. 32, Page 511
1 going down virtually to the Boulevard. Almost everyhliing down to Corona. And then south
2 of Corona you've got back to the railroad bridge you've got probably oh I'm gonna guess
3 maybe 60 to 70% of that land in the Corona reach, tapering to a narrower band as you get
4 down to the railroad tracks down towards the Johnson property. Then of course expanding
5 in flood plain and flood way into the Payran neighborhood. The flood plain there expands in
6 the Payran neighborhood all the ways to the Boulevard certainly to the railroad tracks is the
7 bulk of it there's some stretches that expand to the Boulevard back along the tracks and then
8 on the east side of the river as it were... There's a lot of land that is on that area.
9
10 MM, So basically your saying on the Flood Plan Map that staff gave us on the dais today
11 your saying 'from the Lakeville crossing in the flood plain all the rest of the shaded. area?
12 Okay.
13
14 CT, I'd like. to ask a quick quesfion of the Planning Department? Are you aware of any
15 projects we've got coming 'in the next 90-days that would be affected, hat are in this area in
16 the flood plain? Off the top of your head.
17
18 Vin Smith: Not coming before SPARC, Planning Commission or City Council for hearing
19 items, but in the pipeline or could be in the pipeline.
20
21 CT, Okay I would like to wait- for at least this 90-day plan to come forward before I, I'm
22 sorry...
23
24 .Vin Smith; I'm sorry, John Morgan is raising his hand I think Old Elm Village has already
25 been identified as the one project that's waiting for a Council hearing.
26
27 CT, Yea I would be unwilling to go forward on any kind of moratorium at least until we
28 have the benefit of this study.
29
30 PT, But your saying have a moratorium for the 90-day period.
31
32 CT, No. I'm saying I would like to wait for the study before. We're really not
33 overwhelmed with anything- coming in projects coming into this area so I'd be willing to
34 wait the 90-days until the study is completed and then see what that has to say before I snake
35 a decision on this. That would be my feeling on this.
36
37 MH, Mr. Mayor I would concur with that particularly in light of the fact that the report we
38 have tonight and the give and take with Tom has indicated that in all likelihood the
39 development in areas closest to the Payran reach were the least problematical. And as the
40 stuff farther out of the periphery is the Victoria Phase III's of the v~~orld that are causing the
41 problems.
42
43 DK, If I might respond to that. My issue is not so much although secondarily the issue is
44 water generated off of those sites. It's not so much that. it's putting more construction in
45 jeopardy. Anything in the flood plain in my mind is a crazy place to build period. The fact
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councibnensber ~'rlike Healy JH-Councibnember Hamilton 511
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-vice Mayor David Ke/ler CT-Mayor G'lark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
Vo132, Page 512
March 29, 1999
1 that there still is significant amount of open land in the flood plain means that. those lands
2 right now are safe. There. is no property; no human lives in jeopardy on those properties, and
3 I would prefer to keep it that way. And.. that's really -the .issue. Its not so much.. the water
4 generated on this areas close to the river as much as what's in jeopardy..
6 MH, But we also .have. a .policy requiring construction in those: areas to `be elevated with
7 base floors one or two feet above.
9 DK, We also know that the Outlet. Mall flooded so.. .
10
11 MH, That was a local drainage. problem. It wasn't an overall: We1L .:1Vlatts' here and he
12 can talk to us about that.
13
14 JCT, I mean I just think we have to .look at the reality,. End 'the reality is is ;Petaluma
15 floods. It has always flooded and that. area is a bath tube where water, a lot of tributaries go
16 down.into that particular area which is the Corona reach: And. we can't pretend that:it hasn't
17 been flooding there for you know generations. And what happens if we don't put a
18 moratorium on development and in 90-days can somebody cc-me forward with the plan. and.
19 submit. it to the City. And then are we gonna be stuck with. Having to you -know go through
20 the whole process. I mean you know I don't know if somebody has. a plan to go through. I
21 mean I don't think it's unzeasonable, fore 90-days .to have a moratorium. on ~fhe upper reaches.
22 I mean -were talking three months and yet `the people in the Payran area have been flooding
23 out for seventeen years.. And we're sitting here bickering over three months of lets not have
24 a moratorium and I just, I'm not really sure: why were arguing over a, three month, period,
25 And I do want to ask staff I mean if somebody has: a proposal and brings: t'to the City you
26 know what's the-process that their gonna start. Imean in the lets scythe Corona "reach area
27 or just in any area in the flood plain where we would consider a moratorium.. Somebody
28 brings a proposal to the City.. .
29
30 Vin Smith, Today, without a moratorium in place.
31
32 JCT: Yes.
33
34 Vin Smith,. The proposal will be processed as our ordinances and codes require it to be
35 processed. There's a lot of suggestion .about detep.tion and retention and flood,, mitigation
36 and obviously that would be part of the ;analysis process so~ ghat the environmental, analysis.
37 could conclude that there would. be no impact: associated. with the project. -But short of a
38 moratorium on applications were bound by state law`to process that application.
39
40 JCT, I just think that it's our responsibility for the health and. welfare for the citizens in this
41 community to protect them from future ..flooding. And I mean that's our responsibility and
42 its our responsibility also to look at the' 23 million dollars that were paying -into the flood
43 project 'to make sure that that flood project oasts. a lifetime and .not a shorter period because
44 of upstream development. So T'd like. to look at a:moratorium.
45
512
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
March 29; 1999 'Vol. 32, Page
MM, Thank you. The issue, the focal point for me on this whote issue is the Old Elm
Village and I'd like to hear from staff what if we do adopt a 90-day moratorium what will be
the impacts on that particular project?
Vin Smith, I think it depends on the wording of the moratorium and whatever exception
that you select to include in that moratorium. If the application is deemed complete the
Planning Commission .has heard that item and made a recommendation to the City Council.
And that hearing is pending the outcome of this discussion.
MM, What was the recommendation from the Planning Commission?
Vin Smith, The recommendation was for approval of the project with the mitigation's that
were being suggested by the developer. Which included onsite detention and additional
beyond their generation runoff rate detaining water and other locations.
MM, Thank you Vin. Actually I think as Mike Healy mentioned the point that was of most
interest here tonight and kind of an eye opener is that maybe the detention ponds at Old Elm
Village would be counter productive. But John is not kidding when he says there's an urgent
need for housing in this town. For affordable housing and that's you know, none of us wants
to build it if we know its gonna have the impact on the flooding. You know its know were at
the front door of April here I don't know that were gonna see anymore flooding the rest of
this year. Is a 90-day moratorium gonna make any significant difference? Maybe if we
don't do we have a right to do a I mean we can 'always" adopt an urgency ordinance if
something comes along and we feel that there are findings that it would be something that
would
contribute to significant flooding. What exactly then are the benefits that we get with a 90-
day moratorium?
CT, I've got a quick question for the City Attorney. What if we were to suggest to the
applicant of Old Elm Village that we understand that they want to get their permit processed,
their map finalized so on and so forth but as a City Counsel we prefer to wait the 90-days
until we have some more information. Are we within our rights to tell the applicant that?
Rich Rudnansky, City Attorney, One question I would have with respect to Old Elm, is
there any .legislative changes? There are. So the permit-streamlining act would not kick in.
Okay. That could drive a project, the permit streamlining act but since there's a General
Plan Amendment or some type of legislative change the permit streamlining act would not
drive it so you wouldn't have that pressure. With respect to asking the applicant to wait I
don't see that there's any issue there if there's no permit streamlining act problem. And of
course it would be up to them if they would want to accept that offer.
MH, Can we see if John Morgan would like to address that?
CT, Oh I didn't realize he was here. He's quiet. I knew he was here.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councibmember Mike Healy JH-Counctlmember Hamilton
PT-Cour:cilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councibnember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councibnember Janice Cader-Thompson
513
513
Vo132, Page 514
March 29, 1999
1 John Morgan, I was quaking in my hoes. I'm John 1Vlorgan How-to begin. We have always
2 been very much a partner of the City and there's certainly Rio way that were going to go
3 against the City Council's wishes. If the City Council wants us to wait for 90-days before
4 and have. this moratorium before we come before them with this project we wild certainly do
5 that. We bought the hand with the Cities money. We've spent the moneywth the architect
6 and the consultants. It's been the Cities .money: Were doing; this. because the City and we
7 agreed that this is an important thing to do. Build this affordable housing.. There is' one.
8 thing that I would ask. you to. consider however, the major financing that we will seek. to use
9 for this housing is tax .credit. financing and the tax credits .are allocated twice a year by the
10 state. This year because of a new' administration in~ Sacramento the allocation has been
11 delayed until about June. We are not eligible to apply for the. tax credits and in this case we
12 have about an 11 million-dollar project. The tax credits could be worth about 7 million
13 dollars of that 11
14 million-dollar project. Were not eligible to apply .for them unless our site is properly zoned
15 for our project. That's the actions that were seeking a rezoning. We would be delighted. if
16 the Counsel saw fit to rezone the project- with a condition that said that we can't have a
17 building permit. until :the Counsel or until the. City has in place a program for form water
18 management and flood mitigation, and that we in turn. have a series of measures on and off
19 site perhaps -that meet those requirements so that were: not causing. a flooding;.. but there is a
20 timing. critical for it would 'be significantly ben. of cial to us fo be able to get the: rezoning' in
21 order to apply for the tax erediYs. .But. we and we have` already, for' your .information,
22 decided not to attempt to build in~the 99=building.season. We've already decided to delay it
23 until the 2000-building season which would mean that: in any case our project wouldn't be
24 affecting the river until the expected improvements by the Army Corps are complete.
25
26 CT, Mr. Rudnansky, if we were to go ahead 'and rezone this :area and then several months
27 later we decided notto approve the'projectwhat would happen then?
28
29 Rich Rudnansky, Well. just because your rezoning you. don't necessarily have to approve the
30 tentative map. There is a-tentative map involved? No.
31
32 John Morgan, No it's a rezone to a PUD.
33
34 Rich .Rudnansky, Well if there was a building permit and money spent- you might have a
35 vested right problem. That would be the issue.
36
37 PT, Mr. Mayor.
38
39 John Morgan, You certainly wouldn't have a developer who~~would be suing the City: I
40 mean it's the Cities moneythat was spent. I think the judge would laugh us out of court.
41
42 Rich Rudnansky, I've .seen. stranger things.
43
44 CT, Thank you John.
45
514
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
March 29, 1999 VoT. 32, .Page
John Morgan, Last thing to point out for David. Do you remember that Burbank
volunteered that there would be no net fill there. So the development wouldn't be affecting
that question.
DK, No I'm actually looking for a way to proceed with the project and yet also look at a
system wide response that makes sense. You .know that we always work into the legislation.
if we need you know exemptions for you know for high priorities. We did it with the UGB's
we can do it for any kind of moratorium on building. And certainly low-income housing is
an extremely high priority with the City and with the Counsel. You know there's one route,
if there's a cleaner way to do it without having to build exemptions or exceptions I'd like to
see if there's some way of doing it. But overall it kind of pits two extremely important
issues or at this point appears to pit two extremely important issues against each other. I
think when
we get to your actual design I have a great deal of confidence in that you in fact will address
the issues that are .raised relative to elevations, relative to flood storage, runoff, etc. etc. etc.
And I have a great deal. of confidence that that will get done. So in some ways I kind of
assuming to myself that this project: is gonna go ahead. But not withstanding that I want to
look at the bigger picture of the flood issues and how can we deal with that. You know the
Corps report from the Mississippi Floods made it very clear. Get that property, get those
improvements out of the .flood. plain that are at risk of being damaged. Protect those that
can't be moved and no more development in the flood plain. Very clear, very succinct I
think you know the Corps spent fifty years screwing around trying to be the big fix for
everybody and finally recognized after spending billions of dollars they can't do it. We can't
do it either, with the Corps or without the Corps. And I think to assume and to even go
through the motions of saying that we can continue to figure out way of building in the flood
plain is a delusion. That's gonna lead to future problems that we just hand off to other
residents, other
owners, and future counsels and future lawyers defending lawsuits its gonna be there. I
don't want to set anymore traps for this agency. And with that you know I'm really feeling
the time is right to you know to figure out how can we restrict or prohibit future
development in the flood plains.
PT, Mr. Mayor. I don't think that we should be deciding site specific projects when were
dealing with whether were gonna do this or not. You know with our reasons expected John I
appreciate his project and I appreciate that they are going to be building hopefully when the
flood control project and the Payran area is completed. Which was one of the reasons that I
voted no on that project at the Planning Commission level. But the problem I think we have
.here is, if I'm counting the votes we need to have five votes in order to put a moratorium in
place. Is that correct City Attorney?
Rich Rudnansky, If your talking about the interim ordinance authorized by Government
Code 6585A it calls for afour-fifths vote. So you would need six.
PT, So we need six votes out of seven.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
515
S LS
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
Vo132, Page 516
March 29, 1999
Rich Rudnansky, And by the way that would, the initial period fir that moratorium.. would
only be 45 days not 90 but you could. extend it.
CT, Right we could extend it out T20, there's other extensions in there.
Rich Rudnansky, Right up to two years.
MM, 1VIr. Mayor if I could..Just a quick question.. John before we put. him to sleep. You
know he gets fallen arches: So John if so if I understand. you, you. say if you get the rezoning,
you'll then qualify for the tax.....
John Morgan, I'll qualify to apply. The getting of them is not a.certainty even.if'you're
totally eligible. There's usually in recent years there been so many eligible projects
competing for them that there's essentially a lottery:
MM, Okay,.. but if it took us more than you know this 90-day interim period.. to" come up
with a finalized you know runoff policy here. Is that going to affect your application or. your
likelihood of getting?
John Morgan, No they wouldn't be concerned with .that., They would just. look to see
whether there was a letter from the City saying that the site: was zoned properly for the
proposed .......
MM, Zoning:is... so that. is -.you current'hurdle in your process. Okay good. Thanks John.
John Morgan, One last point. Does it make any mitigation that our site isslated'by"the time
the river is repaired that it`will not be part of the flood plain. Imean that's a consideration.
DK, If I might just for-clarification for again for discussion purposes: I'm talking about
implementing. a moratorium at the time .that this interim report. comes back. If that ;is a fact
of one policy that we, can u"se in addition to ari interim detention or whatever policies we
have. So it would just be another tool. that would come back to us with an evaluation for us
to decide in 90=days or when the report "comes back.
MM, So your not proposing a 90-day with the adoption of the 90-.day interim study.
PT, Okay my question is what if an application comes in the next 90-days before we have
this information back: What ,happens to an application if we cnd up putting a moratorium in
place after'the 90-day period, what happens to the application in process?
Rich. Rudnansky, A lot of it will depend on the type of application. What type of
entitlements. their seeking? Whether it be a subdivision, whether it be some type other
entitlement that would ma_ ke: the difference. If for example,.. and again I would need to. check
this but just: off the top. Tf'there's a subdivision that comes in and submits an application
there is a statue or state code that talks about applying. only those regulation in effect at the
516
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
March 29, 1999
Vol. 32, Page 517
time that the application is deemed complete.. And what the effect would be of a subsequent
moratorium is not certain. I had to deal with this issue fairly recently with another city that
did not go with the moratorium, and one of the concerns -was that when an application came
in and the bottom line was they were posed to move as soon as one did. So you would have
at least sometime between the time the application. came in and the time that it was deemed
complete if there is any gray area in that regard.
CT, Thank you. Are we going to direct Ms. Torliatt?
PT, I will make the motion to direct staff to commence on the first part of the surface water
management study:
MM, Which is Alternative A?
PT, Which is Alternative A...
CT, Right and there were also some additional to that and I'm sure Tom would you. I saw
you trying to write them down. There were suggestions from the various Counsel Members.
Please.
Tom Hargis, Yes Mr. Mayor you talked about giving direction to management for
employing RMI, I did want to point out they have said they can do the study in 90-days we
still have to get a signed contract notice to proceed so...91 days.
CT, all right 91 days.
Tom, I had suggested for economy sakes that we eliminate task 5 and 7 which had to do
with flow monitoring and water quality monitoring. So you need to provide direction to us
on that issue.
MM, So Tom if we adopted all of alternative A and the full what is it 7 tasks as proposed by
RMI 8 tasks where are we likely to be stealing the money from what other projects?
Tom Hargis, We would be stealing from one of the storm drain projects.
MM, And what was can you describe the dollar amount on that.
PT, $394,000.00 I believe it was.
CT, It would be sufficient to cover the whole RML Because I know David. was asking for
additional monitoring flow and...
Tom Hargis, One of the projects we had looked at has about $372,000.00 proposed for it.
This is storm drainage in Mackenzie/Cortez. It's important because were using FEMA funds
to repair Cortez. That part of the storm drain improvements be installed with that project.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 517
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-1/ice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
Vo132, Page 518 March 29, 1999
But we could delay a portion of the improvements in Coronado Dr., which adds up to about
a hundred thousand dollars, which would free up some money. Also Mike Evert is
attempting to .get FEM"A to .fund a portion of the storm drain improvements: that go with the
street repairers under that disaster claim and if he is successful we might free up some .other
storm drain mitigation fee money that. was cgmmtted to that. The total cope .for all aspects
was $91,500.00. If the Counsel wished to direct that we do all the tasks~:and agree with my
recommendation. that we terminate any of the other work on the existing contracts for RMI
and redirect that $30;OOQ.00 then were looking. at coming up with additional sixty some odd
thousand dollars. Certainly supportive of both of those (asks but looking at if we gotta steal
from someplace that's why I gave you an economical recommendation.
MM, So the motion again was for Alternative E and what portion of'the tasks?
PT, Alternative A.
MM, Well A is the; yea, but A is not R1VII. E is RMI, I was confused there fora .second. On
page 3 of the staff report. Enter into .a contract with RML . .
PT, Fora 90-day work effort that would result in an alternative for an interim storm drain
detention policy.
MM, Okay so all the tasks of the RMI proposal?
PT, Yes.
Tom Hargis, Then if I may Mr. Mayor.
CT, Yes sir.
Tom Hargis, You shad also talked about adding .some water quality sampling. which is not in
the existing contract and not...
CT, That was Mr. Keller. He's not willing to pay for it so we'll pay for it. I'll give you my
credit card.
DK, I'll give you' my Counsel pay. What I was thinkingthat'the water quality testing-would
come if I understand. correctly that would come at 'the. next phase beyond what your gonna
provide in the 90-day report to us. Is that correct?
Tom Burke, Yea, the water quality monitoring withiri'this..... (Can't hear he; is':not at the
microphone)
CT, Then you expanded the order.
DK Then I think that -those three additional constituents in that one location would be very
important addition to complete this picture.
518
March 29, 1999 Vol. 32,, Page 519
1
2 M1VI, And. I'm willing to have that as part of the scope. Was there a second to the motion?
3
4 CT, Mr. Healy is waiting to second isn't he?
5
6 MH, I'll be pleased to second it and then I wanted to...........
7
8 PT, Amend it?
9
10 MH, I have a boring .lawyer question. ,Rich we've heard tonight that part of the analysis is
11 going to play off of the detailed hydrologic data from the February 98 storms, which also
12 forms the basis for the litigation .by the Payran some of the Payran neighbors and I'm
13 wondering. And you don't have to answer this now but would you like to have the option of
14 .having this analysis and study done under the auspices of your office. So that in the first
15 instance it can be given work product protection if necessary.
16
17 Rich Rudnansky, I would like to have that option to consider, but obviously I would defer
18 to the Counsel.
19
20 MH, I would like Mr. Rudnansky to have that option and that just as a general comment
21 and this is directed at the plaintiff's in that ease: I am concerned that the litigation is going
22 to prove to be counterproductive. Moving forward its going to inhibit our ability and I think
23 what your seeing here is a great, interest on the part of the Counsel to do the right thing. And
24 I'd like the neighbors to think about what their appropriate litigation posture is in the next
25 90-days as we get closer to the possibility of implementing this.
26
27 DK, Yes thank you. I would not be willing to have the work product fal~ into attorney/client
28 relationship. I think that's counter to what this. City needs to do. There's such a miserable
29 history in this City on flood protection, flood control, property protection that even though
30 there is a lawsuit that has been filed at this point I think in the long run the public interest is
31 to have that information public. I don't want to have anybody suspecting that that
32 ~ information has been manipulated. There's been too much instances in the past were those
33 suspicions have been rightly or wrongly part of the public perception of what's going on.
34 That there's been too much back door conversations about how the designs of the Corps
3'S proj'ect or the Willowbrook reach product were done or how Adobe Creek or one creek or
36 another have been done. I don't want to set foot in that territory. For me its time to cut with
37 that past and if there is jeopardy to our lawsuit because this information is public I think in
38 the long run the public gains by having access to this information and not having it filtered
39 through lawyers. I will not be party to that and I really very, very vigorously disagree with
40 that.
41
42 MM, I have to agree with both of you guys on that but that means you know all the more.
43 John maybe you can talk to the neighbors because seriously it is a problem for us to be you
44 know having a lawsuit hanging over our heads. You know it really kind of ties our hands as
Key to abbreviations.• MH-Councilmember Mike Kealy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 519
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK- vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Jmzice Cader-Thompson
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
47
Vo132, Page 520
March 29, 1999
what we can do. You know because then there's always the possibility,. well you. know does
it look like of admission of guilt. Is that gonna end up costing the City a whole bunch.of
money, which then you know is money we don't have to spend on fixes. That's the .kind of
thing, I don't know maybe'ts time for a mediation.session or something, .Just to reiterate on
what Mike said...
PT, Mr. Mayor; and its not the Cities money; its our. money. Its everyone's money so you
know your only end up taxing yourself I tliirik and using your tax dollars to pay for litigation.
So it's not our money,.or your money, it's all of our money.
MH, We-don't necessarily need to make that decision tonight. That' something that can be
deferred till down the road.
CT, And I would like to discuss it with. the City Attorney. Only ao. protect the; on one hand
were trying to protect the tax payers and on the one hand were trying. to protect the flood
people so it's a, that would be an interesting dilemma for us. I have a first and a second.
Tom Hargis, if I ..may before you: vote. You had :given me direction that we would be
employing RMI adding. tasks 5 and 7 we would add. those water~quality issues that, were
discussed. They tell me they think that. can be done for less then $2,000.00. So if we
make the not to exceed contract $93,'500. You had also discussed adding a coordination
element with the county as -part of their work task.
CT, I believe they were going to do that.
MM, Well Mr. Mayor I'd actually suggest for Counsel discussion. I really think that's
a job for staff to start making°the connections and discussing, with the other agencies the
county and the zone ..280. I don't think it's appropriate .for our consultants: I think that'`s
you know misuse of effecfive• use of the money.
PT, I agree and I think that we need to be working together. Its not just: you, know
sending RMI off to do their job, I mean staff I'm assuming and I hope I'm assuming
correctly, that staffs going, to be working with RIVIT through this whole process. .And I
think staff contacting the county is integral in making this thing work.
CT, Right and. that's my sense that that would be part of the- investigation for looking
formoney anyway:
PT, And maybe Mr. Mayor maybe its not. just staff'it is Councilrrieinbers: Its you know
taking it up to that next level of .hey, we need to work together on this .and some of it
comes from top down.
CT, Can we vote on this?
Introduced by Pamela Torliatt, seconded by Mike Healy,
AYES: Healy, Torliatt, Cader=Thompson Maguire, Vice 1vlayor Keller, Mayor Thompson
NOES: None
520
March 29, 1999
Vol. 32, Page S21
1 ABSENT: Hamilton
2
3 MM, Okay well.I'd like to move on alternative A that we act on items A 2, 3 and 8 as well
4 on page 2 of the staff report which goes a little, bit to what Pam was saying.
5
6 DK, I second that motion, I would second that motion and ask to make a motion and direct
7 staff.
8
9 CT, It's. really not a motion it's a direction.
10
11 DK, I would like to ask that staff report back to us at the time that this report is complete
12 from RMI on the mechanics. and policy questions that would come up and legal questions
13 that would come up on a interim moratorium. And so we can continue discussion for where
14 that could be in place if at all. And what the benefits or drawbacks are.
15
16 SB 15 (HANDGUNS)
17 CT, I'd like to .reconvene and get this meeting moving again. On the second item Senate
18 Bill 15, letter to the State Legislatures and others supporting SB 15 which would make it a
19 misdemeanor to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state for sale,
20 keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give or lend any unsafe hand goods.
21
22 Matt, :Hand guns.
23
24 CT, Handguns, thank you Matt, I'm sorry what did I say?
25
26 Matt, Goods.
27
28 Fred Stouder, City Manager, On this meeting there's been some question that this be a
29 resolution. If you so direct us to send this letter or some modification or resolution
30 reflecting that, we can do that or send the letter and bring a resolution back at the next
31 meeting for consent or any other possibility you would ask for.
32
33 CT, Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this item?
34
35 Right Mr. Weisenflu's names on this. Well he can talk.
36
37 Peter Patrakis, 590 Fano Lane, Sonoma, Ladies and gentlemen of the Counsel, Mr. Mayor I
38 thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you this evening. I'm President of the
39 NRA, ILA, Sonoma County Membership Counsel and it's a newly formed organization to
40 help public officials make an informed decision regarding gun control. It is anon-partisan
41 one-issue organization namely you guess it gun control. I urge you not to adopt the
42 resolution supporting the resolution supporting SB 15 the law does nothing to curb crime. I
43 am sure that everybody in this room know that criminals will always be able to obtain guns.
44 I think that outlawing guns will only hurt the average working poor. They need all the help
45 they can get without having. their government make it harder to defend themselves. I should
46 say make it impossible for them to defend themselves. If Senate Bill 15 pass they will not be
Key to abbreviations: MH=Councilmember Mike Kealy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 521
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
Vo132, Page 522 March 29, 1999
able to purchase used guns. As Senate Bill 15 with all its requirements will.. outlaw the sale
of most hand guns by requiring they undergo laboratory .safety :and. size requirement testing
before they are legal for-sale. This law if passed' will have the unintended. consequence of
actually encourage the illegal transfer of handguns... Please ask the Legislature not to pass
Senate Bill 15. Right now as most of you know, before a gun is transferred the person
selling the gun has to go to a dealer -and 'the dealer has to'transfer it to the buyer. And they
all everybody knows where that gun is and he has to give his Life history as to whether he's a
felon or not.. If he's a felon lie's certainly not gonna buy it. A criminal is never- going to go
into a shop .and. purchase a weapon, unless he's crazy and some of them are... But to .go and
purchase a gun. at a gun shop and then, use it on a crime: you can find who it is, who used it.
So this here law will make it almost impossible for a person to sell a gun., You can't .sell it
to a pawnshop; you won't ~be able to sell it to a gun. dealer 'and ~they'li just sell ~it on the
market.
Whoever wants it, I don't think that's what we want. We want people, responsible people to
have. guns, not criminals, or irresponsible people, felons, we don't. like that. We don't want
them to .have. any kind of a gun. S'o we urge you to please support the working. poor' by
urging the Legislature to not pass Senate Bill 1.5. Wealthy people can buy,guns. They don't
have problems. They can buy guns anytime they want. If they have- the money they can get
it. Poor people are the ones that are -gonna really suffer with these gun .laws. Thank you
very much.
MH, Mr. Patrakis if I could ask you a question or two? The SB 15 is that. the same
legislation that was passed by the Legislature last year and then vetoed ly Governor Wilson
or is it different?
Peter Patrakis, Probably'has been add a lot of things to it..
MH, Have you compared the two bills?
Peter Patrakis, No,.I haven''t.
MH, Because -the letter we received from the author says it's the same bill that was passed
by the Legislature last year and vetoed by Governor Wilson.
Peter Patrakis, I can not honestly tell you it's the same bill sir.
MH, Okay.
Peter Patrakis,., Oh one other thing- this NRA ILA it stands the ILA stands for Institute for
Legislative Action. It's the political arm ofthe NRA. Thank you.
CT, Thank you. Don Wesenllu please.
522
March 29, 1999 Vol. 32, Page
1 Don Weisenflu, Wren Dr., First I'd like to ask everybody up there if they had the
2 opportunity in their busy .schedules to check. their city E-mail before they got to this
3 meeting? I sent E-mail this morning to you isn't that something.
4
5 PT, Checked mine.
6
7 MM, Mine is probably sitting in my mailbox.
8
9 PT, The City E-mail?
10
11 Don Weisenflu, Right the one that I called up on the links there it said Chamber of
12 Commerce put. the page together and it gave all your nice.
13
14 PT, There's a lag of a couple of days on the E-mail from people.
15
16 Don Weisenflu, That's to bad. Here I was trying to enter that high tech arena.
17
18 CT, You should try the US mail actually no I'm just kidding.
19
20 DK, Call for an appointment.
21
22 Don Weisenflu, Yea, like calling you I'm gonna get anywhere. I gotta drive over and
23 beat the door down. Or he is in Aruba for the weekend I don't know. Well its
24 unfortunate that you didn't get it because I spoke my piece urging you not to support
25 SB 15 and I gave reasons.
26
27 DK, Are you gonna repeat those now?
28
29 Don Weisenflu, No, I'm not going to repeat those now. But I am gonna give you some
30 excerpts from ACLU briefing paper number 9. Now a little comedic there funny for a
31 person like me to support the ACLU when it suits my purpose. But it suits everybody's
32 purpose. It starts off with a Bill of Rights this is a quote from Thomas Jefferson Bill. of
33 Bights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or
3'4 particular and what no just government should refuse. The Constitution was remarkable,
3'S' this -is what they .speak of deeply flawed he did not include a bill of individual rights. It's
36 specific what the government could do but did not say it could not do. Now this is the
37 ACLU speaking. The absences of a Bill of Rights turned out to be an obstacle to the
38 Constitutions ratification by the States. In the end popular sentiment was decisive. The
39 American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon
40 their newly won .freedoms. So the Constitutions framers heeded Thomas Jefferson's points
41 which. I just laid out to you. I'll read again Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to
42 against every government on earth, general or particular and what no just government should
43 refuse or rest on inference. And in 1791 the Constitutions first ten amendments became the
44 law of the land. Early American mistrust of government power came from the colonial
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
523
523
Vo132, Page 524
March 29, 1999
1 experience itself. From these experiences came a uniquely American view of power and
2 liberty as natural enemies: I used
3 to see that in the previous City Counsel. The nations .founders declared anew- purpose for
4 ~ government. The protection of individual rights. Now don't be flippant Mr. Dade: Don't
5 be flippant. It was still expected to protect the community against. foreign and domestic.
6 threats. It was not however the governments job to tell people how to live their lives: The
7 idea of individual rights is the oldest; and most traditional of American values. Democracy
8 and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but the are not. Even in a democracy the
9 individuals have rights that no majority hould be able to take away. The rights that. the
10 Constitutional framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to as
11 unalienable rights. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect. rights the original
12 citizens believed were naturally theirs. And those -are the ten amendments: Bill of Rights
13 the second one is the one that I'm referring to specifically.. Now I understand that, you. -did
14 take an oath of office did you. not'. Okay to defend. the Constitution of the LJriited States: No
15 I was not. And against all in me so far- and drastic so help me god you also swore to uphold
16 the California Constitution against all enemies :domestic so helps you god.; 'So if you decide
17 to write a letter on City letterhead in you official. capacity supporting SB1S you are flying in
18 the face of the Bill of Rights which
19
20 you have sworn an oath to uphold. .And -you are abusing; you position and this :isn't
21 something to snicker at. You know where I stand I think. you ought to understand that's how
22 I feel. Now I don't care what. any attorney is going to say about this.; This is what the folks
23 out there who are watching you on TV believe. just. as I do. I don't need someone to rit pick
24 this to death, but you are not supposed to be.messing around v~~th the B~11 of Rights. That.is
25 supposed to be done at a Constitutional Convention: As private individuals you go right
26 ahead and.make your opinions welLknown to your~Legislative critter. And you tell him you
27 want to petition for a Constitutional Convention if you wish to. There are the old Bill of
28 Rights to hell and gone, but I don't think you should do this. Your gonna lose a .lot: of
29 creditability with a lot of supporters and your business is not with the Constitution. Your
30 business is with City business; Petaluma business: As private individuals' you go right .ahead
31 but I'm just asking you, to think real .hard .about using official City letterhead in you: official
32 capacities to support something that flies against. the Bill of Rights. I am very adamant.
33
34 MM, This has come back as a spin off from our earlier vote, .where we didn't adopt
35 comparable legislation on the local level.. And 1 would just; `like to' point ~out~ a~ couple of
36 realities. You know people. have raised the issue of the right to bare, arms. They've, raised
37 the issue of the Constitution. Of course we all now -that the Constitution and all the
3$ amendments they're of are subject to interpretation .and' certainly people are allowed. to
39 disagree. Don subject to interpretation and that is a topic of a lot of°dscussion and argument
40 in this realm. Be that as `it rnay, we as responsible legislatures must:. ask ourselves f`there
41 was a car that blew up after the fiftieth time you turned on the key, would you support
42 legislation to outlaw that kind of car. And would outlawing that kind of car represent taking
43 away peoples rights to drive or have a car. I personally don't think' so. I think when you
44 have a dangerous car or in this .ease a dangerous :gun. That t'`s got. almost. nothing.. to do with
45 right to bare arms. That this is far more a safety issue. We've hear :people raise the issue
46 that we need to bare arms -any and all arms in the .eventuality that our government tries. to
524
March 29, 1999 Vol. 32, Page 525
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
repress us through force of arms. Frankly no amount of Saturday night specials will prevent
the government from doing that if the government ever chose to do so. God forbid that it
should, I would be out they're ,fighting it along with you Don and everybody else. But a
Saturday night special is not gonna make any difference in a case like that. We've heard that
this is the poor persons gun and yet I don't see -the hall of our City Hall filled with poor
people saying. I cant. afford .any other gun. I've heard the issue of race brought up and yet I
see nobody from the NAACP or the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in here saying we need
to preserve Saturday night specials. The fact is that there is an essentially and illegal black
market and its far easy to :get, too easy to get guns that are dangerous. Not only to the users
but to the police that try to enforce safety on the streets. And our Chief told us and you'll
hear from pretty much any police Chief acid officer on the .street, it's a reality. And then
there's the aspect that guns you know~their primary desigri is to kill and maim. I mean you
know there are those who like to target practice but you know they are weapons of
destruction. So you know when you got people who feel emotionally about issues and you
put a gun in your hand you increase the likelihood of catastrophe and personal disaster. For
those reasons I think that it's appropriate that we send a letter in support of SB15 and be
clear and quick about it. So I just support that and would direct staff to do so if the Counsel
concurs.
PT, Is that a motion?
MM, I can certainly make it a motion.
CT, Any discussion?
MH, Before we go there I'm, I prepared an alternative approach. I read the letter that staff
prepared and again this is kind of a narrow quibble but it says that the Petaluma City
Counsel by action taken, at an official counsel meeting which I believer refers to our
previous meeting and of course the only action we took at that meeting was okay it could be
that.
Fred Stouder, City Manager, It would have had to be this meeting if you and if you approve
it or amend it however you want to do that. So that was meant to be at the time you might
take an action.
MH, Well let me float this out. I actually drafted cuz at the last meeting I said I thought a
resolution was the more appropriate approach and so when this came through I actually took
the liberty of drafting a resolution. Just happen to have one.
DK, You know we don't read anything that is distributed at the dais.
MH, I can put it up on the overhead if people would like to.
DK, Yea, actually could you do that? I mean. for the public.
Key to abbreviations: MH-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 525
PT-Councibnetnber Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-Councilmember Janice Cader-Thompson
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
Z9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Vo132, Page 526
March 29, 1999
MH, Does anyone here know how to. I can read it to if that would'... And 'tlie point. of this.
was that given the controversy over "what the track record of the Cburisel has been on this in
the last few weeks it would be cleaner to have an .actual formal resolution.
MM, This looks good. .
MH, Should I go ahead'and read it?
MM, Would you.
MH, Resolution of the City Counsel of the City of Petaluma insupport of Senate Bill 15
whereas; a small and or poorly manufacturedhandguns known. as Saturday night specials are
used disproportionately in violent crime in California and whereas State Senator Richard
Polonko has introduced a bill in the California Legislature; Senate Bill 15 that would ban the
sale and manufacture of'S`aturday, night- special, in California as well as there importation. for
sale into California and whereas larger safer more reliable" handguns. "can_ satisfy the
legitimate self-.defense and sporting needs for handguns in what Senate Bill 1.5 would not.
outlaw the
possession of any guns by individuals who own them for ther_own use in whereas. Senate
Bill 15 is an appropriate response to a serious public safety problem and whereas on March
15, 1999 the Petaluma City Counsel declined to adopt the ordinance banning the sale of
Saturday night specials in the City of Petaluma and whereas one of the reasons the Petaluma
City Counsel declined to adopt a local ban, on the sale, of Saturday night specials was that a
statewide ban would be both more effective: and more. appropriate and whereas the Petaluma
City Counsel does not wish its March 15, 1999 vote against adoption. against. a local.
ordinance to be construed as opposition to a statewide ban on the sale :and manufacture or
importation of'..Saturday night special . Therefore be it resolved that the City Counsel,of the
City of Petaluma endorses the passage of SB15 and .requests the Legislature and the
Governor to enact it into law.
CT, Thank you would you. like to withdraw yo.u motion and the. second?
MM, Yea; I would. like to ..amend my emotion, motion.
CT, That should be a title to a song.
MM, . I would like to move that we adopt the-resolution drafted by Councilman:Heaiy.
CT, Okay, so the motion on the floor is to send this rather than the letter.
MM, Thee. motion is to adopt this as a resolution and writ it to the Legislature; seconded by
Councilman Healy.
CT, All right would everyone vote please.
AYES: Healy, Maguire; /ice Mayor Keller
NOES: Torlatt, Gader-Thompson, Mayor Thompson
526
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
4.1
42
43
44
45
46
March 29, 1999
ABSENT: Hamilton
Vol. 32, Page 527
DK, For the clarity of the public it was too bad there was no discussion from those who
voted in opposition to it.
PT, Well we talked about it at the last meeting and I didn't think that there was any other
reason to discuss it. We feel the way we feel.
CT, I agree with you.
DK, So I just want to be clear because it would seem to me that when Councilmember
Healy brought this up as a letter and we discussed it as a letter. That there was a distinction
being drawn between a local action on the legislation that was in front of us at the last
meeting verses state legislation. And I thought that there was a distinction to be drawn by
that. So I'm disappointed that that .items wasn't discussed by the members here.
PT, Well I think the state can take it up. And they are gonna take it up.
LIAISON REPORTS
CT, Okay the next item is Liaison Reports.
MM, As you know I met with Mike Kerns on Thursday to discuss you know the counties
position and what the county could do to help rectify the contention over Lafferty Ranch.
These are the county's right of way on a road and where it ends and begins. And the Aston
standards the Permit and Resource Department and put out as something they thought should
be accomplished. Should the project go ahead. He responded back basically and he did talk
with PRMD and the Rose Department and said that the fence to fence right of way does not
always apply. But nonetheless its kind of like a bit of bureaucracies where the people in the
action road department weren't will. to put themselves on record one way or another. I
reiterated to him that if the PRMD wanted to try to impose Astons standards that that really
represented a policy move that would have far reaching impacts on the county at any future
attempts to develop a recreational facilities and I noted that that is a something that is more
appropriate for the Supervisors to determine rather than staff members. And he understood
that point. and was going to go back and give it further consideration. Have further
discussions. In essence there was no new change. But he did say that the PRMD would be
willing to talk to -City staff regarding what to do to make the roads safe. I said we'd love to
talk to them as long as that's how they treat everybody else. That we do not want to be
treated like you know differently from any other applicant. So that was kind of the upshot of
it but he's listening, he's thinking about it. You know I think he's getting the point we just
need to continue repeating the message.
CT, Thank you Matt. Okay were gonna adjourn to Closed Session.
Rich Rudnansky, Yes the Counsel will be adjourning into a closed session. Conference with
legal counsel, existing litigation under the Brown Act. The case is Aigner vs City of
Petaluma, Sonoma County Superior Court Case Number 220938.
Key to abbreviations: MN-Councilmember Mike Healy JH-Councilmember Hamilton 527
PT-Councilmember Pamela Torliatt MM-Councilmember Matt Maguire
DK-Vice Mayor David Keller CT-Mayor Clark Thompson
JCT-CouncilmemberJarzice Cader-Thompson
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Vo132, Page 528
March 29, 1999
CT, 10:00 p.m. the Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
Mayor .Clark Thompson
ATTEST:
..
Paulette Lyon, Deputy C' lerk
528