HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/12/1996February 12, 1996 Vol. 29 Page 341
1 ~~~.~
2 ~~ E~ ~~i~E~ E~J~~~~ ~E~~~r
3 ~~~E~li~E~ ~~~ ~~UN~~i
a 1VgONDAY, ~'EBIt~JA~tY 12, fl996
s ~
6
~ ROI.I.. CALI. 7:00 p.m.
s Present: Hamilton, Stompe, Maguire, Read, Shea, Vice Mayor Barlas,
9 Mayor Hilligoss
io Absent: None
1 i PI,~I)GE OF ALI.EGIANCE
i2 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Nancy Read
is IVIOMENN'~ OF SII.ENCE
ia &'II..I~IING
rs Gene ~eatty, Assistant City Manager, gave a brief overview of the problems that filming
~6 in Petaluma has brought i.e., closing of stores, streets and tying up traffic. Mr. Beatty
i~ feels that it is imperative that a policy be drawn up so there are some strict guidelines that
is will have to be followed. The Petaluma Downtown Association has been working with
i9 merchants to try to resolve some of these issues.
Zo Jeff ~iarriman, McNears - Mr. Harriman has been working with merchants to establish
2~ some requirements and guidelines that movie companies will have to adhere to. He has
aa also been gathering information from other communities to see how they handle the
a~ situation of filming in their cities. There will be a meeting tomorrow night at 6:30 p.m.
~a at McNears to begin to develop these guidelines for the Ciry of Petaluma.
u Sheree Green, Director of Sonoma County Film Liaison Department - Part of her job is
w to bring filming into Sonoma County. She is willing to work with the merchants to help
2~ create guidelines and restrictions.
Zs ~ob Graf, Location 1Vlanager for `Inventing the Abbotts' - would like to see some sort of
29 consensus among the council that they can proceed with their project and work out a set of
so guidelines between his company and the merchants or the city. He has drawn up his own
si version of guidelines which would include notifying those who would be directly impacted
sa by the filming, having a site manager present to control traffic conditions, compensate the
33 merchants a minimum of $200 each if they keep their business open and try to do as much
3a business as possible or a flat $350 if they choose to close for the day. Mr. Graf proposes
35 that a percentage of the permit fee that is collected by the city be placed in a fund and
36 used specifically for downtown projects.
s~ Linda Kalb Iianun, Early Work Parent Teacher Store - is committed to her business and
ss therefore, it is important that her store is open and accessible 7 days a week 363 days a
39 year. She does not want filming in the downtown area and is not comfortable being
ao compensated any amount of money for the inconvenience.
Page 342, Vo9. 29 February 121996
i Geaae ~Iaaaam, he has worked with film companies and feels Petaluma is caught up in the
z fantasy of I~ollywood. The City of Petaluma should se~ the scripts and storyboard to
s know what there in for before signing any contract. 'These are not big film companies and
a he is concerned that if something ha~pened the film com~any would be dissolve and there
s would be no one to go after.
6 ~ill ~ea~liner, Old Chicago Pizza - Y.olita is the fourth movie to close downtown since his
~ business opened and yet this is the first time he has been compensated . He feels that the
s $10,000 permit fee the city requires is inadequate. The faet that the Petaluma Downtown
9 Association might do the negotiating for all of the business~s is not acceptable to him.
o I~en ~racflley: stated that his business is worth more thar~ $300 per day in compensation.
a He lost $850 in sales for one day of filming and only received $500 corr~pensation. The
2 financial impact is to great compared to the eompensation he gets.
s It was (:ouncil consensus that after the downtown association meeting a subcommittee
~ needs to be formed consisting of 1 or 2 members of the City Council, a member of the
s Chamber of Commerce, Petaluma Downtown Association representative, Non-members of
6 the Association, Sheere Green, and members of the community to create an ongoing
-r policy for the Ciry of Petaluma that inaludes the bullets from Gene Beatty's report,
~ documents from Santa Monica, Bob Caraf's request plus the associations request.
9 vVASTEWA~It FACIL~IES PI~OJECT
.
o Jennafer ~arrett, Project I'lanner presented her staff repo~rt to Council focusing on three
i sets of documents consisting of, i~ the fnal Project Report which contains the
z recommendations for siting of new facilities and water quality criteria; 2~ The final EIR
s provides a summary of th~ issues that were raised during the Planning Cornmission's
a meeting and responses to those issues; and, s> Request for Proposals and Draft Contract
s Documents
6 The Citizens i~Vastewater Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission unanimously
~ approved projeet recommendations for incorporation into the Final Project Report. 'The
s Planning Commission has also recommended preparation of a Final EIR for certification
9 by the City Council
o ~'his process began in 1992 with conceptual planning, and a series of public workshops.
i 'Phe outcome from that process was the planning criteria which the Council adopted,
z reviewed statements of qualifications and the selection of five vendor teams to participate
3 in this process. Council also looked at and defined Phase Out Criteria and determined to
a pursue a privatization approach. We then entered a facility planning phase in 1993/94
s v-rhere flow projections were developed, and site requirements were determined. A site
6 analysis was also completed with constraints report and defined range of alternatives for
~ further evaluation in the EIR. A preliminary draft Request For Proposals was developed
s and additional public hearings held as well as consultatio~ns with other agencies. Frorti
9 there we went into a public review phase. The committee developed the evaluation
o methodology and extensive public hearings were held before the Planning Commission.
i During that time we also completed interagency review.
2 \Ne are now entering a decision making phase which requires tYie Council to selecg
s appropriate sites for new facilities and define water quality (level of treatment desired).
a Actions requested of the Council are to Certify the EIItq approve Project Report, and
s authorize Request for Proposals.
x-
2
Febniary 12, 1996 Vol. 29 Page 343
1 Project recommendations are intended to provide a framework for the proposal process. These
2 recommendations are developed based on extensive public input and consultation with other
3 agencies as well as the evaluation that was presented in the EIR and the ~cost estimates that were
4 provided in the Project Report.
5 VVith regard to the collection system it is recommended that we expand our water conservation
6 program. The Council has funded this program in the Water Capital Improvement Program. It is
7 recommended that we continue to focus on the source control program revised pretreatment
8 requirements will be considered by Council next week. It is also recommended that we continue
9 our infiltration and inflow control program. With regard to the treatment system it is
10 recommended that we site the new treatment facilities at the Oxidation Ponds. This reduces the
11 need for land acquisition for the treatment component and it also provides for a wide range of
12 technology options for our competitive design process. One of the most important
13 recommendations that came from this process is for advanced treatment. During the public
14 hearings and the Planning Commissions discussion, the message from the community was loud
15 and clear that water is our most precious resource. Studies have shown that advanced treatment
16 is necessary to meet discharge requirements: Without advanced treatment the options will be
17 limited to an expensive expansion of the irrigation program. This will have significant impact on
18 rates. Advanced treatment will expand our options for reuse to include urban irrigation of
19 landscaping, parks, hiDher value crops, and for marsh enhancement. With these expanded options
20 for reuse we can begin to manage this water as a valuable resource. These options will require
21 lower operating costs, which translates into lower rates over the longer term. We have to invest
22 more in the treatment facility in order to save on the long term operating costs. These options
23 also address a primary concern of the Planning Commission to provide a more permanent long
24 term method for the reclamation program.
25 Studies have shown that added storage is necessary to avoid the summer discharge prohibition.
26 This requires land acquisition which cannot be avoided. We will work with the property owners
27 to develop a workable solution that is mutually beneficial.
28 The Higgins Creek Reservoir is the recommended site. Studies have shown that there are fewer
29 environmental impacts and much lower costs. With regard to the disposal system it is
30 recommended that we continue discharge to the Petaiuma River during wet weather with a higher
31 level of treatment. The EIR studies have shown that there will be a beneficial impact on water
32 quality with this higher level of treatment and that it is also the most cost effective for the rate
33 payers with substantial savings in costs in both the capital and operating. We are also
34 recommending that we expand the irrigation system in the immediate ~future to maintain the
35 reliability of our system while constructing the new facilities
36 It is recommended that further evaluation be done on two possible lacations for expansion of the
37 irrigation program. It is also recommended that we develop a demonstration marsh not only
38 because it provides for polishing treatment, but it also gives us the ability to create a larger marsh
39 component in the future. The recommendation would not be to discharge to a salt marsh
40 environment but to create a fresh water marsh system.
41 The purpose of an EIR is informational to identify impacts and mitigation measures. The Planning
42 Commission found that the revised draft EIR adequately addressed the potential impacts with
43 some additional clarification. They recommended preparation of a Final EIR with responses to
44 comments for certification by the City Council.
Page 344, Vol. 29 Febniary l2 1996
1 The EIR concludes that there are only three impacts that could not be avoided or fully mitigated.
2 i~ Temporary air quality impacts from dust during construction. These can be partially mitigated
3 by dust control measures. 2~ Conversion of agricultural land to public use. The EIR found we
4 could minimize the amount of land required for treatment by eliminating some of the alternatives.
5 There is no way to avoid a change in land use when siting new storage facilities, however this can
6 be minimized by using a reservoir. s~ Disruption of farm operations, primarily involves open land
'7 and this can be partially mitigated through a relocation assistance ~-rogram.
8 D~vid Spilman, Finance Director, presented a summary of the costs and anticipated rates. He
9 s~ated that the capital costs are fixed and cannot be chan~ed ~nor can we avoid these costs.
0 Operating costs are a significant portion of rate that can provide savings. Rates and connection
1 fees will double with continued discharge and could triple if discharge is phased out. Operating
2 cost savings are possible with marsh enhancement or urban irriJation.
3 Pat Gallagher, Engineering firm of Camp, Dresser & McKee provided an overview of the
4 Request for Proposals.
5 Geoff Y~rema -Law firm of Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliot provided an overview of the
6 draft contract documents.
7 Public hearing wzs opened
8
9 Trent Orr, 96 Manchester St. San Francisco - Representin~ groups called Sewage Treatment
0 and Impact On Rates (STIR), Petaluma River Council and others. He is a speciality lawyer in
1 regards to the California Environmental Quality Act. He was t}~e lead attorney in the law suit
2 against the City of Santa Rosa's wastewater EIR. As a CEQA Lawyer he feels the City of
3 Petaluma has serious problems with the adec~uacy of the EIR. Some of the problems he touched
4 on were the privatization of the plant, selecting a reservoir site based on inadequate information
5 on the environmental consequences of picking a specific site, and the confusion in regards to the
6 EIR in relation to a project EIR and program EIR. Mr. Orr alsc~ hinted that there are problems
7 with the RFP documents.
8 The public hearing was continued to M~rcli 25.
9
0 City Manager John Scharer advised counc~l tl~at Supervisor I~arberson's letter regarding the
1 Indian gaming at Highway 37 and Lakeville Highway would be on the agenda for discussion
2 February 20.
3 / "
4 The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. .,
5 "
6 ~
7 M. Patricia Hilliboss, Mayor
8 AT ES :
9
0 Paulette Lyon, Deputy y Clerk