REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 26, 2002
7:00 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER – 7:02 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Diane Howard, Council Member

4. INVOCATION - Todd Miner, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - Redwood City Employee Appreciation Month
Proclamation

Mayor Claire read the proclamation that was presented to Human Resources Director Rivera-Peña and stated that September is Employee Appreciation Month in Redwood City.

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Robert Baldwin thanked Council for their ongoing work and requested assistance with writing an amendment to the General Plan and a ballot initiative asking the voters to participate in larger redevelopment projects. Mr. Baldwin suggested that the Council agenda might be published in the local newspaper.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.

M/S Hartnett/Howard to waive reading of the Consent Calendar except the ordinances by title, adopt the resolutions and the ordinances, and approve other items. Items 7.1B and 7.1C were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Item 7.1D was continued for discussion at a later date. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote.

7.1 Section – Motions

A. Motion to approve the Minutes of the meetings of July 22, July 29 and August 5, 2002;
MINUTE ORDER 02-238

E. Motion to accept the following Pacific Shores Development improvements:
• Lot 11 located at 1600 Seaport Boulevard (Fitness Center);
• Lots A-H, which are the common landscape areas;
• Pacific Shores Center Subdivision, which includes a circular roadway portion of Seaport Boulevard, water, sewer, and storm drain systems;
• Construction of Seaport Boulevard North of Seaport Court (including Frontage Road) up to the entrance of Pacific Shores;
and release the Bonds following the submission of a Maintenance Bond for each of the lots and improvements, as shown on the table in the staff report (10% of the Payment and Performance Bond);
MINUTE ORDER 02-240

F. Motion to execute the Agreement between the County of San Mateo, the City of Redwood City, and the Redwood City Elementary School District for support of the Redwood City Family Centers for fiscal year 2002/2003;
MINUTE ORDER 02-241

G. Motion to award the bid to the Redwood City Tribune/Independent (The Independent) for annual legal publishing services in the amount of $10.00 per column inch for the remainder of calendar year 2002 (award of bid for annual legal advertising for Redwood City);
MINUTE ORDER 02-242

7.2 Section – Resolutions

A. RESOLUTION 14463 APPROVING THE BIKE PATH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT MASTER AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; AND DESIGNATING THE CITY MANAGER AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CITY TO EXECUTE ALL AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT 001-M FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. 04-5029;

B. RESOLUTION 14464 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH CITY ATTORNEY STAN T. YAMAMOTO;

7.3 Section – Claims/Warrants

A. Motion to reject the claim of Lawrence Kramer, claim no. 1985; the claim of Mrs. B. Korach, claim no. 2036; the claim of David Sandage/Carol Lou Young-Holt claim no. 2043; the claim of Aldo or Valia Calloni, claim no. 2044 as submitted;
MINUTE ORDER 02-243

B. Approve warrants dated through August 26, 2002 and usual and necessary payments through September 9, 2002;
MINUTE ORDER 02-244

7.4 Section – Ordinances (2nd Reading) and Adoption

A. ORDINANCE 2232 OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2002 - JUNE 30, 2003; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE OF ALL SUMS SET FORTH IN SAID BUDGET; PROVIDING FOR EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES, TRANSFERS, ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS, CANCELLATIONS AND REAPPROPRIATIONS OF EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS; ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1-64 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2002 - JUNE 30, 2003; MAKING PROVISION FOR INTERIM EXPENDITURES AS OF JULY 1, 2002; AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2215, AND ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH (first reading on August 5, 2002);

B. ORDINANCE 2233 RENUMBERING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 25.1.17 OF THE REDWOOD CITY MUNICIPAL CODE; AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 25.1.17 SKATEBOARD FACILITIES OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE CITY (first reading on August 12, 2002);

7.1 Section – Motions

B. M/S Ruskin/Howard to execute the Agreement with Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center for community mediation services for fiscal year 2002/2003;

Council Member Ruskin requested that when approval of continuing a contract is to be considered, that outcomes from the previous year be included for reference.

The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
MINUTE ORDER 02-245

C. M/S Ira/Ruskin to accept the El Camino Real Medians Landscaping project, and authorize the release of bonds;

Council Member Jordan requested clarification on the amount of trees added in the project. Council Member Ruskin confirmed that it is total of 122 trees and thanked staff for all the work involved. He further commented that the City joined with Palo Alto and Menlo Park with the help of Senator Sher to request of Caltrans that the requirement of space be lowered for bigger trees and that more trees be planted from which Redwood City would benefit.

The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
MINUTE ORDER 02-239

D. Motion to approve the Contract Documents and award the contract for the Arterial Traffic Signal Interconnect Project (RTSOPII), to the lowest responsible bidder, S. G. Barber Construction, Inc. of Belmont, Ca. for their low bid of $278,440.00 (S.G. Barber);

Council Member Jordan stated that the original plan called for radio signal that proved too expensive, was then changed to telephone lines, and the question is what was given up in exchange.

This item was removed for consideration at a later date.
MINUTE ORDER 02-250

8. STAFF REPORTS

A. Water Recycling Feasibility Study;

Public Works Services Director Ingram stated that the report addresses the feasibility, alternatives and options. He further stated that over a period of approximately one year, staff would come before Council on a variety of water supply and water demand initiatives. If Council chooses to proceed with the project, the next step would be the design phase, construction, then ultimately to operate and maintain the system.

Craig Whitcomb of Kennedy/Jenks stated that the City is 100% reliant on the Hetch Hetchy supply and currently 1,000 acre feet per year over the level in the contract with Hetch Hetchy. The City has several water supply options available at this time and of those, water conservation and recycled water are under the City’s direct control. Water recycling has several benefits and some added value benefits that the other supplies do not. The first is that it represents a new supply for many users, and secondly, it is drought proof. Hetch Hetchy, like most surface water supplies in California, is subject to drought cycles. He stated that the final report defines the technical feasibility and costs for an expanded recycled water system in the City.

Public Comment:
Mr. Lee spoke in Chinese and Christina Lai translated his statements as follows: Mr. Lee stated that every night he passes by red capped areas that are labeled “do not drink – recycled water”, in areas where recycled water is being used. The bothersome point is that the sprinkler comes on at 10:00 p.m. and a bad odor emits that is similar to the odor from the treatment plant at SBSA. The other issue is that when the recycled water dries it forms a layer of some sort of residue. He asked Council to consider his thoughts and thanked Council for listening to him.

Peter Lin stated that he understood the cost for one acre foot of water is from $18,000.00-$20,000.00. He further stated that he investigated and found in Southern California that the cost is $300.00-$500.00 to buy water. His question is really where is the money going to come from? Will there be an assessment or a higher water bill? He also asked if there are better alternatives for using the $35M to recycle water.

Maureen Smith stated that she would like to see other methods of conservation used and education of the community before asking residents to use recycled water.

Greg Greenway, from Seaport Industrial Association, spoke in support of the project. He stated that the companies represented are generally in support of infrastructure development and they have a particular interest in what goes on east of 101 and the greater Bayfront area. He further stated that infrastructure is essential and water is one, if not the most crucial, resources that we possess. It is an investment and an effort by the City to commit resources now to take care of future needs that are apparent, but not necessarily critical at this point.

Rich Hegeman asked what other cities have experienced with residential uses, how much it costs to have recycled water in those areas, and how many acre feet SBSA discharges into the bay every year.

Ray Wang stated that he thought it bizarre to approve a feasibility study without checking to see how the residents feel about it. He stated he supports conserving water but wants to be sure the residents’ concerns are known.

Robert Schmidt stated he does not believe that reclaimed water is drought proof. He questioned the statement, “the residents met with acceptance”. Looking at suggestion D to spend $35M to put water in Redwood Shore and Seaport seems rather expensive and might be managed with conservation. He asked that the speaker representing businesses not make statements on behalf of the residents and stated that recycled water is not going to help drinking water in a drought situation. He asked if there is a project that is reliant on the recycled water project and stated that as a citizen, he is more concerned with safety and the health of the citizens rather than running a water enterprise.

8:15-8:30 p.m. – Recess

Staff responded to various concerns and questions as follows:

1. Regarding odors while walking at night.
   PWS Director Ingram stated this was the first time hearing about that issue and will be checked.
2. The common areas maintained by homeowner associations would be eligible for use of the recycled water, but no private residences would ever be using the recycled water.
3. Cost of water in the range of between $18, 000.-$20,000. per acre foot per year compared to $300-$500 per acre foot per year in Southern California. PWS Director Ingram stated that the lower cost is only for purchasing water, not for infrastructure.
4. Where are the funds to pay for the project going to come from? This will take a combination of loans, grants and/or bonded indebtedness. Economic analysis is being conducted, that information will go back to the Utilities Committee and Council will see that in October. It is clear that there will be an impact on rates, but the complete analysis will clarify the
5. Are there better alternatives for $35M? Mr. Whitcomb stated that the cost of the project for approximately 2,000 acre feet is less costly per unit than the South Bay Water Recycling programs current costs for their Phase I, Phase II system but the drivers are different. Redwood City is building a water supply here, and they are paying whatever costs they have to in order to avoid wastewater discharges to the bay. It is very difficult to compare projects.
6. A question about the South Bay cities involvement and wanting to know more about their experiences with residential uses. Several people have been invited to the September 16 session that have been directly involved or somehow connected with residential projects from various prospectives.
7. How many acre feet of water are going to the San Francisco Bay? SBSA Manager Bewley responded that the project on the average day of the driest and hottest month 3.7M gallons of irrigation water on that day. On that day, in wastewater treatment, there will be 18-20M gallons a day. So, with the project they will use about ¼ of the water coming through the plant on the peak day of irrigation which coincides with the lowest flow days in the plant.
8. The difficulty in understanding Council being asked to approve a report without public input. PWS Director Ingram stated that the only action by Council tonight would be acceptance of a work product that was commissioned to be done as Council gathers information. The approval process would come later in the process.
9. Who is paying for the retrofit on the Homeowners Associations? The retrofits are completely paid out of the project and the budget assumes that the City would be proactive in doing the retrofit work, paying for change outs of equipment and any other requirements.
10. If there is use of a more unlimited source, such as recycled water, might some of the restrictions regarding landscaping be reviewed? City Manager Everett stated that it would be a legitimate consideration.
11. Comment regarding cutbacks during a drought. If during a drought a 30% cutback citywide must be made to be sure there is enough water for essential needs, it seems that an ordinance would be proposed that states there are no watering lawns in the city until the drought is over.
12. A question about any future project reliant on this study for future adoption. This question will be answered in the next item on the agenda.
13. A comment regarding “met with acceptance”. Mr. Whitcomb stated that there have not been any customer complaints such as stinky water, stains on concrete or other factors that lead customers to discontinue the recycled water.
14. Will I pay more or less to irrigate my lawn with recycled water than with potable water? The price of recycled water has not been determined as yet, but this is an issue that will be discussed with the Utilities Committee and brought before Council in October.

Council comments included direction to check into both the various programs in Southern California and other areas along with the public information process utilized. Any special issues regarding the geology and soil in Redwood Shores should be addressed. Council requested an accounting of the difference between potable and recycled water, including the accepted aspects of recycled water and how they are mitigated.

City Manager Everett stated that the big picture is we are using more water than we are allowed to use. We are using it because other cities do not need it now. We will need it in the future and we won’t have it so we need to get more water. We think the likelihood of getting it from another city is close to zero, so we will have aggressive conservation, and if Council chooses an aggressive recycling program. If we don’t do those, than we will have to cease growing and face a shortage in 2009, when our existing contract comes due and we are over our allotment.

M/S Ira/Ruskin to review and accept the final report – Water Recycling Feasibility Study for Redwood City prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants; and direct staff to begin public awareness program for proposed project. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
MINUTE ORDER 02-246

D. Selection of Landscapes Suitable for Irrigation with Recycled Water –
Presentation by Nelda Matheny, President, HortScience, Inc.;

Nelda Matheny stated that she was asked to speak on this issue tonight because she is unable to attend the meeting on September 16. She stated that recycled water for landscapes has been used for decades and California there are hundreds of communities that use recycled water. She stated that there are significant issues to be concerned with when changing from a potable water source to a recycled water source on existing landscape. The four issues are water quality, plant tolerances and requirements, the type of irrigation present, and the site conditions (primarily soil).

Water Quality: The quality of the water coming out of the recycled units depends upon the potable water coming out of the tap. The water then acquires some components, which is called wastewater; the wastewater then goes into a serious of treatments with the quality of water coming out dependent upon what the treatments consist of. Based on the proposed project, the recycled water will have advanced treatments and actually meets the requirements for consumption, although consumption is not planned.

Plant Tolerances and Requirements: The salts accumulate in the soil after each watering. Plant requirements are different than those for human consumption and different criteria must be used for interpreting the analysis. The quality of the water cannot be based solely on human tolerance, but from a plant tolerance aspect. Tap contains salts and recycled water contains more salt and chloride ions. The analysis shows in regards to the total salts, the level of 1,500 is a potentially moderate problem. The chloride if sprayed on foliage is more of an issue than if applied to the soil and the same applies for the sodium. Boron will not be an issue faced with this recycled water. Plants vary dramatically in their tolerance to salts so in order to evaluate them, it must be determined which species are present.

Irrigation: If irrigation occurs primarily by sprinkler the concern would be the amount of chloride and sodium that will be absorbed through the foliage. Another issue is how frequently water is applied because every time water is received, more salts are absorbed.

Soil: There are three elements to consider: texture, whether sandy or clay; chemical characteristics, such as a lot of salt already present; and the drainage. Over time as water with salts is applied, the salts accumulate in the upper levels of the soil and we rely on rainfall to push those salts below the roots in wintertime. If there is something prohibiting the water from going downward, the leeching effect does not occur. It is extremely important that there be adequate drainage in the soil being irrigated with recycled water.

There are some possible adverse affects to this water. One of the first symptoms is burning of the foliage along the edges of the leaves. Foliar spotting can occur if there are bicarbonates in the water. Another effect can be a decrease of water movement in clay soil. The pH level will rise over time as the water is used and can cause iron deficiency symptoms in sensitive plants. A higher level of salts can cause a physiological stress in plants and can make it more sensitive to insect and disease problems.

The key points to be considered are the quality of the water, what plants exist there, what type of irrigation delivery systems will be used, and the site conditions.

The sites well suited for recycled water are turf areas because as the turf grows from the bottom, the salts rise and get mowed off. Established trees and shrubs that do not need frequent irrigation are a good use. Species that are not sensitive to salt are well suited as well.

Salt sensitive plants and a situation where prime plants exist may not be suitable for recycled water use. Poorly drained areas, high clay or high level pH or salt soils would not be suitable. There are some continuing management concerns to be addressed. Irrigation should be heavier, gypsum or sulphur compounds can be added to counteract as the sodium level increases. The fertilizer program can be decreased by 25% and irrigation frequency can be increased so that the salts do not become more concentrated as the soil dries out. Monitoring of the salt concentration and pH content in the soil affects the plants. She closed with encouraging consideration of the horticulture aspects in the feasibility study and stated that planning the design appropriately should avoid problems in the future.

C. Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Marina Shores Village Project;

Public Works Services Director Ingram summarized the findings of the Water Supply Assessment (WSA). He stated that the law is specifically tied to the environmental review process and as such, the WSA document is very early in the process. He stated that the Council action is to simply approve the WSA and that Council is not acting on the project in any way. Mr. Ingram summarized the analysis as the City of Redwood City does not currently have sufficient water supply to meet the projected water demands of the proposed Marina Shores Village Project together with those of its existing customers as well as the demands of other planned development. He further stated that if the City implements tentative plans for additional supplies in the near future, there should be sufficient water supply to meet projected future demands. The City’s supply reliability now and into the future is a key factor in this determination. The WSA is required by law and paid by through the Enterprise Fund with developers bearing the cost.

Public Comment:
Christina Lai stated her concerns about the homeowners’ lack of understanding regarding the technicalities of the water project. She asked if it is possible to wait to approve the WSA until after the September 16 meeting.

Peter Lin asked how large the project is and made a comment on the fee for the WSA report. He stated that if developers are going to build projects, they should pay for the report. He further asked what would happen if the Council does not approve the WSA.

Mayor Claire responded that if not approved it will be sent back to staff, the project goes through an EIR, and there are many public hearings to be held. PWS Director Ingram responded that the developer’s estimate is 407 acre feet per year.

Robert Baldwin asked what percentage of the project is affordable or low income housing. He stated it is a very big project and one that might be put before the voters.

Mayor Claire stated that a property owner has the right to propose a project.

Robert Schmidt asked if the City gains liability if recycling does not go forward and the developer has committed funds. His second clarification request pertained to the recycled water being drinkable.

City Attorney Yamamoto stated that the City does not incur liability at this time because the City is not making a determination as to whether the project is going to happen. There will be other aspects of the specific project that will be subject to public hearing and review, not only water. Vice Mayor Ira clarified that the quality of the recycled water is the same quality as that of another city’s drinking water.

M/S Jordan/Ruskin to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.

M/S Hartnett/Ruskin to approve the Water Supply Shores Assessment for the proposed Marina Shores Village Project pursuant to State of California Water Code § 10910 (g) (1).

The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
MINUTE ORDER 02-247

B. Negotiation of scope of professional engineering services for the design of the distribution system of the proposed Recycled Water Project;

PWS Director Ingram stated that staff is preserving choice for the Council on how to choose to implement whatever project chosen. This would authorize staff to negotiate a scope of services and be ready to move forward with the project.

Public Comment:
Christina Lai asked why the decisions can’t be made after September 16.

Ray Wang asked that if there is anything that needs to be set up in terms of securing grant funding opportunities, is there a way that residents can back out of any of the proposals once they are in place.

PWS Director Ingram stated this activity allows staff to preserve time for maximum choice, without making any commitments.

M/S Ruskin/Hartnett to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.

M/S Hartnett/Pierce authorizing staff to negotiate a scope of professional engineering services for the design of the distribution system of the proposed Recycled Water Project with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants;

The motion passed by a majority voice vote with Council Member Jordan voting no.
MINUTE ORDER 02-248

9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None

10. PUBLIC HEARING – None

11. BOARDS, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS –

A. Appointments to the Housing and Human Concerns Committee
(five four-year terms, expiring May 31, 2006)

City Clerk Howe conducted a roll call vote with each Council Member casting a vote for up to five applicants as follows:

• Kevin Bondonno (Hartnett, Howard, Pierce, Ruskin, Ira, Claire)
• Janet Borgens (Hartnett, Howard, Ruskin, Claire) – tie vote
• Judy Buchan (Jordan, Claire)
• Charlet Nalbach Burcin
• Lora Ceccato
• Juan Garcia (Hartnett, Jordan, Pierce, Ruskin, Ira)
• Jaime Hunt
• Terry Johnston (Jordan
• Denise Lewis (Hartnett, Howard, Pierce, Ruskin, Ira, Claire)
• Sergio Maldonado
• Bonnie Miller (Hartnett, Howard, Jordan, Pierce, Ruskin, Ira, Claire)
• Juan Ochoa
• John Rosenberg
• Eulalio Segovia
• Paula Beth Turk
• Ray Wang (Howard, Jordan, Pierce, Ira) – tie vote

The first four successful applicants for the Housing and Humans Concerns Committee were Kevin Bondonno, Juan Garcia, Denise Lewis and Bonnie Miller. A tie vote resulted between Janet Borgens and Ray Wang requiring a second vote on those two applicants as follows:

• Janet Borgens (Hartnett, Howard, Ruskin, Claire)
• Ray Wang (Jordan, Pierce, Ira)

The successful applicant in the second vote was Janet Borgens.

M/S Ruskin/Howard to extend the meeting to 11:35 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.

B. Appointments to the Library Board
(two three-year terms, expiring June 30, 2005)

City Clerk Howe conducted a roll call vote with each Council Member casting a vote for up to two applicants as follows:

• Linda Anvid
• Marc Beban
• Ursula Ferguson (Hartnett, Howard, Ruskin, Ira, Claire)
• Virginia “Ginger” Harris (Pierce)
• Patricia Hughes
• Billy James (Hartnett, Jordan, Ruskin, Ira, Claire)
• Mark Maxwell (Howard, Jordan, Pierce)
• Janet Ramusack
• Betsy Schmitt

The successful applicants for the Library Board were Ursula Ferguson and Billy James.
MINUTE ORDER 02-249

12. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST

12. A. Legislation (information only) - This sub-section involves possible discussion of City Position on Proposed Legislation Described in the League of California Cities Priority Focus Bulletin No. 30-2002 and Bulletin No. 31-2002. Council may direct staff to act on positions taken by Council. (Copies of League of California Cities Priority Focus available in City Clerk’s Department).

13. CLOSED SESSION – No action to report.

14. ADJOURNMENT – 11:30 P.M.

M/S Ruskin/Pierce to adjourn until the next meeting of September 9, 2002 into the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Council Member Ruskin requested adjournment in the memory of Margaret (Midge) Bean, who passed away on August 15, 2002 at the age of 84. She lived in Redwood City most of her life and prior to retirement was employed by the Port of Redwood City for 30 years and was an avid prize winning quilter.

Council Member Pierce requested adjournment in the memory of Eddie Mae Spiller, who for many years, along with her husband, ran a food and clothes closet out of her home. She was born in Mississippi and moved to Redwood City when she was 25, joined a church and began her work. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
(SEE SEPARATE MINUTES)

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia S. Howe, CMC
City Clerk