Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/13/1989APProV~, at5 Su,bm~~cd Iz~) S g Page 294, Vol. 24 February 13, 1989 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING PETAI:UIVIA .CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, ,FEBRUARY 13,1989 ROLL CALL: 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Cavanagh,, Tencer, Sobel, Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss ABSENT: Balshaw, Vice Mayor Davis PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ~ The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Greg Gustafson. PUBLIC COlVIMENT C. Treversan, 939 Pepper Lane. -spoke in opposition to outright banning of semi- autornatic guns and would support a reasonable waiting period for purchase of rifles and automatic guns. Vince Landof, Cordelia Drive -commented on the traffic problems he encounters in Petaluma. Daryl Penry -doesn't feel the Council should be involved in the gun issue; rather, they should be involved. in issues within. the community. Gun control should be dealt with on a State and Federal level. Bob Martin, 171 Payran Street -spoke as resident of ,the Payran. Area and a new member of the Sonoma. County Water Agency Flood Control. Zone 2A Committee - he has reviewed. the .Reconnaissance Report and feels that channelization of the Payran reach of the Petaluma River is the most sound project and will help the City to conform to its General Plan on flooding. hazards. This project can only improve the recreational value of what we now have; and, he suggested. that a River Walk Trail be included as part the final project. Greg Gustafson, 15 Wallace Court - He asked if the gun ban goes through, will he become a criminal; and, further, will gun .registration keep criminals from having guns? He suggested the criminal justice system be changed to keep tfie.criminals behind bars. Herb Williams - opposed, a ban, on assault rifles, which he feels would not be legal `' because, it is the jurisdiction bf :the state. He referred to the Second Amendment to the Constitution and' said he feels. the militia should be proficient in the event of the need to mobilize. l Earl Mullins, 859 Garden Court -opposes any action to ,ban automatic weapons ., . because this is ~a State .and ~Federal~ jurisdiction. This would punish :good. and honest citizens.:whocompete and' use guns on a sane basis. Pass a resolution demanding the State to do something about crime and about plea bargaining. His local voter's opinion is Petaluma 'has enough. legal problems than to deal with Federal and State jurisdictional issues. ,, 6 February 13, 1989 Vol. 24, Page 295 CITY COUNCIL, COMMENTS -There were none. 1VIINJTES -'The January 23, 1989, minutes were approved and the spelling of Duane Bellinger (correct spelling) was questioned. n. _ ._ _i CONSEiWT CALEIVI)AR The following items were approved by the adoption of a single motion which was -introduced by Jack Cavanagh, seconded by Larry Tencer. AYES: Cavanagh, Tencer, Sobel, Woolsey, Mayor Hilligoss NOES:, None. ABSENT:~ Balshaw, Vice Mayor Davis ICES®. 89-38 NCS COlVIPLETION - AI1tPORT PRASE '07' WORD Resolution 89-38 NCS accepting completion .of the Petaluma Municipal Airport AIP-07 which was awarded to Ghilotti Bros. in 1987. RESO.89-39 NCS BITUMINOUS ADI-IESTVE APPLICATOR Resolution ~ 89-39 NCS awarding contract to purchase Bituminous Adhesive Application. equipment to Seal-All Marketing, Inc. for $6,370. Director of Public Works Pat. Miller advised they sent requests for bid to three companies; one company submitted a bid. * * * * * End of Consent Calendar * * * * GUN CONTROL CONSII)E12EID After a brief discussion, the City Council directed staff to schedule a discussion of proposed State legislation regarding gun control on February 21. 'The Police Chief and City Attorney°were asked to bring back copies of the recently adopted legislation in Stockton,. Los Angeles, Compton and what has been proposed for adoption in San Diego in addition to what recommendations the Chief may have from within the State law enforcement ranks regarding a ban on assault weapons and at that time open the subject up for debate and public hearing. RECESS TO STUDY SESSION At 7:45 the Council recessed to a Study Session to hear the U. S. Army Corps (Corps) of Engineers report on the Reconnaissance Report. Lt. Col. Tim Coffey, Deputy Commander San Francisco :Engineer District of the Army Corps of Engineers and Bill' .Brick, Hydraulic Engineer, reviewed the Reconnaissance Report. Also present were William Angeloni, Chief of Plan Engineering; Harris Radkins, Assistant Chief of Plan Engineering; Bill Brick, Chief of Hydrology and Hydraulics; and_Don Hancock, the Study Manager. Page 296, Vol. 24 February 13, 1989 The history of events began in 1972. when the Corps formed a large flood control study project within the Petaluma> area. Followng° the 1982 flood, at the request of the City, the Army Corps of Engineers 'relooked' at` the study project; ~agairi._ detailing- flood control improvements looking at a 100 year and ,less improvement plan. After the 1986 flood; the Corp"s was again, asked by, 'the City to look at their requirements. They looked at possible flood mitigation :again. with a reduced scope of.improvements. They initiated what they .called their:. 'Initial .Assessment Report' in 1986 witfi .the recommendation they., would complete a Reconnaissance Report, which is the presentation today: The Corpse has a four .stage process where they utilize -a -'four level' iteration's beginning with the Reconnaissance Study to look at the flood" control project sand, attempt to identify a .series of alternatives to addess the issue. If ~" the Reconnaissance Report is favorable by Federal interests, they move to the .next phase, which is the Feasibility Study, wherein, they reduce the number of alternatives to the most favorable alternative.. If that is acceptable and approved, they then ,go into planning,, engineering and design, 'and; finally, into construction. The unique things about the phases. is that. the Reconnaissance Report is 100%Federally funded while the Feasibility Report is on a cost shared. basis. Mr. Brick summarized the Reconnaissance Study which, began in. March, 1987. In May,., .1987; a public workshop: was held in the Council Chambers ao present. the study process and to seek input :from, the. public. 'The alternatives considered. during .the study ranged -from a no-action ;plan; .Denman Flat .Dam;. Willowbrook Diversion and, downstream channel' improvement plan (as recommended by: the Sonoma County Water Agency); tide barrier to be located near the U: S. Highway 10.1 Bridge south of town;. non-structural.. or' flood-proofing alternative (raising or relocating homes in the flood plain);. and channel improvements. Corps. Conclusion :from. Reconnaissance- Study The Corps: has conel`uded that looking only gat the ~ Charuiel Improvement plan between. Payran and Lakeville was economically justified and warranted further study. Iinprovements_and Channel Improvement Plan AIl :of the plans which. the Corps has studied. which will provide either a 25~, 50, or 100-year event level of protection include: - Removing and'replacing the Payran Street:Bridge - Removing and replacing the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Bridge - Removing and replacing the Iakeville Avenue Bridge - Removing; the: :Petaluma and Santa Rosa -Railroad Bridge: and. reactivating, a spur to facilitate serving those areas that would `be cut off by removal ;of the bridge - Raising 'th'e, sanitaryaewer line and.adding~ a lift station (The: telephone conduit that: crosses the River at that same location would be kept where it is today). :February 13, 1989 Vol. 24, Page 297. In addition to the foregoing, to lower the water surface even more fora 100-year event,- the projectshould include excavating a channel in the vicinity of the ..Washington Street.Bridge and putting in a-steel, sheet=piling wall. to.preserve the river bank., Downstream from Lakeville Avenue,. the. channel improvements would be only on the eft side of he `River looking downstream. Upstream of Lakeville to Lynch Creek, the bank would be widened on both. sides of the channel. -. . Mr; Bridge showed Petaluma maps with the ,existing 100-year event Flood Plain perimeter line shown.: Then he showed ~ transparent overlays on the map indicating. residual Flood. Plains, for different levels of channel improvements in the River. -The 100-year event project would eliminate the Flood Plain in the Payran area, but would not.. eliminate the Flood Plain the southerly end of -town which the studywas not intended to address. River Channel Base Width The projects. they are looking at for 25-, 50- and 100- year frequency event protection-would essentially be the same with the exception of the width of the channel. The Coxes project .fora 25-year event protection would. have a base width of 50 feet, for a SU-year ..storm. protection the base would be.70 feet and. fora 100-year storm protection the base of the channel would be 90 feet. Costs The estimated costs, respectively, are estimated to be $5.2 Millions for 25- year storm protection, $6,2 Millions fora 50-year storm protection, and $8.2 Mllions:for a 100-year storm protection. Cost Sharin~The-cost sharing of the project is based on the following: The .City is responsible for providing lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations: Under the cost sharing provisions, the City has to pay a minimum of 25:% ..and. maximum of 5.0%. Included in that must be 5 °,~c cash. The.. City must: provide for 5% contribution in cash plus provide for the lands, easements, et cetera. If that total percentage is greater than 50% the maximum the-City has to pay is 50%.. If that would be less than . 25%.cash ~wquld have to be added to bring that minimum contribution up to 25%. Ln this case, with the number of bridges that are being replaced it will basically be above 50% for all levels of protection and will thus he limited to 50%. .Benefit Cost Ratios .Benefit Cost ratios for the three levels of protection range from 25-year storm = 1.17, 50-year storm = 1.06, and 100-year storm = 0.89. The Corps can, contribute only to the .plan., which. produces the Net Economic Development (NE1D) Plan, that provides -the 'most bang for the buck'. In t h i s case, the work done so far indicates that. the 25-year plan would be the N E D .Plan. The .cost sharing would be $2.6 Millions Federal and $2.6 Millions for the City or 50:50. Page-298,, Vo1.24 February 13, 1989 If the City were interested, in having 100-year protection (est. total .cost at $82 1Vlllions)"yet the' 25=year plan turned out to be the NED plan and the resultant .total {cost ;figure from which .the Corps .ratio is :based; i.e:, the most. the Corps coufid contribute; then fhe ~Cdrps would pay $2:6 Millions (50% of the NED Plan cost). of the $8:2 Millions; .leave about $5:6 Millions as the local cost (difference between the total cost and 50% of the NED Plan Cost). . If the =50-year plan were the .NED Plan,,.~the estimated total cost of '$62 Millions would be plit 50;.50. The contribution by the government is contingent upon what.is ultimatelyproven to be the NED Plan. The`' `Reconnaissance Report has included the provision. that as the Corps proceeds with the Feasibility Study, a more detailed channel improvement plans shall be developed. Next :Steps .The 'Reconnaissance Report,. which has been submitted to the Corps Division Office' .for review, is nearing completion of that review: The Corps Division Office comments are 'in the works. When the comments; on that report are .received from the Corpse Division Office; it may be necessary to make some changes to ,that Report. The. Corps anticipates that those changes would'. be made, the report would be approved, and then~the Corps would be ready to start the Feasibility~Study in April of this year. The. Corps estimates working time of fourteen months on the :Feasibility Study. At the end of that time; they would have a draft report prepared (June; of 1990): T'h'e .period., from.. June, T990; until Novembers 1990; is basically a, review ;perio'd by the Corps Division Office, by the. public -and time for the public meeting.,, At the -end of that process, the Report is. revised to reflect all. those. comments and a .Final Report is prepared. That is scheduled for November 15,.1'99.0. About.. a '.month and a half after November, 1990, he Corps would. have the Report approved; :and they would be :given permission and .funding; to initiate the plans and specifications stage. Plans and specifications would cake the bulk of a year. The Corps estimates construction. would begin in April of 1992., (with. atwo-year construction season primarily`for time it will take to design.. and construct replacement of th'e bridges) with construction- completion at the end of the 1993 construction season. `. The critical.. steps now are getting the Reconnaissance ',Report :approved; and, before the Corps can: go any farther than that;..having a cosh sharing agreement signed by the City~and the Corps. . i ~,. ~ , February 13, 1989 Vol. 24, Page 299 The $720,000 cost is partially broken down into $64,000 hydrology and .hydraulics, advanced engineering and the design of the. bridges and the like require about $297,000, $45;000 to study the: hazardous materials at the junk yard at the intersection of the River :and Lakeville Avenue, environmental costs a:re estimated. at $138;000, economic studies for the project at $60,000, public involvement programs $.15,000, project management $8.1,000, report preparation $19,000. Looking, at the $720,000 cost and the possible 50:50 provisions of cost sharing, $360,000 would be .funded by the Federal government and $360,000 must be provided by the City, Of that $360,000 half of that or $180,000 can be provided in the.form of services provided by -the City.. The remaining $180,000 would be provided in cash during the course of the Feasibility Study. During recent months the Corps and: City staff ,have. developed a negotiated cost- sharing agreement which delineates the study and the services that would be provided by the City. Cost Sharng_Process Described The Corps ,has:. yet to officially receive their Division comments on the Reconnaissance Report. After receipt of the comments, the .Report and Cost-Sharing Agreement will both be amended to reflect those comments... The Corps will. renegotiate the negotiated Cost-Sharing Agreement, ,finalize that agreement, send the agreement to Washington for cert~cation, after which it is signed by the City and by the Corps. After the Agreement has been signed, the Corps will be funded for the study. The Corps will need money. from the City at that time to 'get the ball rolling' on the Feasibility Study. After the discussion this evening, it is the Corps' hope that ., _ the Council. has enough .information to authorize execution of the Cost-Sharing Agreement after it is finalized. Annual Cost The annual cost represents the annualized first costs of the project :,-and includes maintenance costs. The maintenance cost is assumed to be from 1% to 3% the first; cost of the project (nteres't) and the annual cost is the cost of repaying~.t)lat project plus the.cost requiredfor maintenance. The Corps looks~at the total cost and the total benefits to a_ mve at the Cost Benefit Ratio. The amount of ,years. ther:.annual cost is spread over is 100 years. < . . ., ... Timing Public Works Pro. jests .for Eligibility . To become. part of the entire project and be eligible for funding -there must. be a completed, approved .feasibility study; or, the City could start .taking action now while the study is in process and subtract those costs out'of the project Dollars to start with. In response to the question, "Will the Corps be willing at any time to approve the design and specifications so the City can . ,proceed with construction of .replacement bridge?", Mr. Bridge advised that. the Corps will not approve such an item until the Feasibility Report is approved (estimated date -November, 1990). Page 300, Vol. 24 February 13, 1989 Mr, Bridge went on to say the. Feasibility Report will include new hydrology, project condition; hydrology, and new hydraulic studies -which will determine the final size requirement. of the channel. That information' is needed to determine the size and placement of the bridge.. He estimated, that within' a year; by April 1990, the Corps should have -a,good idea what- the design and dimensions of the bridge. (Payran~Street) will`be. It was repeated several times, that the design of any improvements must be tied to the Corps' .findings. during the.. Feasibility Study, rather than being tied to the estimates of channel width, et cetera that are being discussed at this time: There :may be some things that may .be done. now, such as the Petaluma Santa Rosa. Railroad bridge removal and construction of spur line ,(upon. concurrence with `the railroad) since pit is not going to be replaced >y anything. 'But, wlule'~the Corps is wor--king. on "the final design, Mr. Brick advised it would be premature to have the City come up with plans and. specifications for construction on a bridge that may not accommodate the final. project. `How to Compress the Time Frame Mr. Brick advised the City is currently doing 'the most it' can to' compress the time frame in this project. The-City .is providing cost' sharing. and °services =through t$e Engineering Department: -Some of the environmental study requirements are currently in .process by the City: .From this effort,. there will be some monetary credit towards. the total cost.: Public Involvement .The Corps will _haye a formal public meeting. during. the ~ ` final review process; plus, there will .be ~a public workshop at the $eginning• of the. Feasibility Study process (May to June, 1989.). Throughout the. entire study process; there will 'be an Executive Committee and a Study .Management Team composed by designees of the City and the Corps. ;, . a State Department. of Water -Resources Assistance Jim 1V1cDariiel, ?Department of Water 'Resources, State of 'California, aid the State's •position is spelled out in SB-5U2 adopted, during the last session of the'Legislature :-The `~State° -;wih ,.pay 7U% of the cost of lands,, easements; rights-of-way, 70% of ,tle~ 5% cash, 70% of the non-Federal share of the Recreation; .:Fish and Wildlife monies. And;-there•,is a provision, whereby the 'State .can credit zany money that the: City has_spent five years before the Corps. project ~is approved. It appears the lands,, easements, and rights=of-way costs. more than half: of the project. Assuming the 50-year protection is, the NED project, the State would be financially involved. at. the level of 70% of the $3-.147 Millions local share {if the Legislature appropriates funds for that). Mr. 'Brick added the caveat that: the. Corps participation assumes Federal funding. . r ~. . (},LLv.. '4 February 13, 1989 Vol. 24, Page 301 Tidal Barrier Mr. Brick advised that the Payran reach water level is affected more by storm water runoff than from tidal action, so a tidal barrier would not solve the flooding problem in the Payran reach. Zone 2A City Engineer Hargis said the other possibility that is being explored is the Sonoma County Water Agency Zone 2A funds. In the last budget considerations the Zone 2A Committee recommended to the Board of Supervisors that up to $200,000 be reserved out of Zone 2A funds for the 'Big Fix' on the Petaluma River; of that amount $167,000 was reserved. At the most recent Zone 2A meeting, they discussed an annual appropriation of Zone 2A funds. for flooding on he Petaluma. River. The Benefit Assessment adopted by the voters in Zone- 2A generates about $400,000 per year. He reminded the audience that the County Master Drainage Plan includes $25 Millions of local flood problems 'outside of the Petaluma River. The Zone 2A Committee will be asking the City Council to recommend that the Board of Supervisors set aside some arnount of funds each year from the District's budget for the Petaluma River project. It was suggested that the Council consider recommending the use of a portion of the Zone 2A funds for annual maintenance of the Petaluma River project. The City Manager noted this will be scheduled on the February 27 agenda. Projects that May Be Done Prior to Reconnaissance Report City Manager Scharer suggested two items the Ciry could. be working on. now to reduce the time frame for the entire project. One is the removal of the Petaluma Santa Rosa Railroad Bridge and. related spur to service their customers; and two, raise the City sewer line and install a lift station ($2S4Ob0). Leisure .Lake A third item, not discussed earlier in the meeting, is a levee around Leisure Lake. ~ The Corpse did look.. at ~it and rejected it as ;part of their participation because it's: privately owned. Utilizing dredging materials to raise that levee_is something that could'be ;included. in the project. This. may not be a total solution, but may give the Leisure Lake residents some added protection during the winter months. .Petaluma Santa Rosa. Railroad There will still be a spur that crosses- East Washington Street, but it will not be necessary to cross the River. The Corps will make the initial contact with the Railroad, and the City and the Railroad to reach an understanding on the proposed bridge removal and spur modification. Annual Maintenance The Corps estimates annual maintenance to be from $22,000 to $46,000. These figures are based on the Corps' 'First Cost of Construction'. The Corps Division Office will be furnishing the San Francisco District with comments on the report. These comment may- require additional studies to be considered. This will affect the total amount of the, cost.sharing agreement. Page 302, Vol. 24 February 13, 1989 TRANSPO1tTATION'I~SSUES Discussion of"Transportation Issues. -Because of the. absence of two members of the Council due to illness, this matter was continued to a' date 'when the entire Council will be present. AD:TOiJitiy ATTEST: atncia ernar , rty" er atncia igoss, ay r