Sonoma flood control project sinks under vets’ protests

A $3.8 million flood control project was withdrawn because Vets groups refused to back plan|

A $3.8 million flood-control project planned for First Street West, intended to manage seasonal overflow of Fryer Creek, has been withdrawn by the Sonoma County Water Agency due to continued opposition from a group of veterans associated with the Sonoma Valley Veterans Memorial Building.

'I'm sad that even with all of our discussions, negotiations and agreement to fund improvements to the Sonoma Veterans Building,' wrote 1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin to a long list of project stakeholders on Friday, 'we could not come to some agreement on the scope and scale of a project that would have benefitted the City of Sonoma, Sonoma Valley and Sonoma Veterans Building and grounds.'

Gorin confirmed that she and Sonoma County Water Agency general manager Grant Davis made the decision to abort the project on Friday, May 13. As a Supervisor, Gorin is a member of the board of the Water Agency.

But Bob Piazza, of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1943 of Sonoma, demurred, saying that the state Water Resources Board had offered a six-month extension to explore an alternate site, one that would not prevent the veterans from any potential long-range use of the property servicing the Sonoma Valley Veterans Memorial Building.

'Supervisor Gorin is either not well informed or somewhat misleading in blaming the veterans for the cancelling of the Fryer Creek flood control project,' said Piazza.

The differences between the two parties have been brewing for months, but the sum effect on the City of Sonoma is the loss of a $3.8 million flood control project designed to eliminate winter flooding along First Street West and at the northwest corner of the Plaza. The project would have ostensibly mitigated storm overflow that results in, what water officials refer to as, a 25-year flood incident.

The project was approved by the Sonoma City Council in December 2015, one of three options the council heard based on extensive research the Water Agency undertook to access a $1.8 million state grant, with the Water Agency picking up the difference. The other two proposals were more comprehensive, and would have required city funds to complete; the Council decided to approve the least-expensive, most basic flood control project.

All of the three proposals, including the one approved, involved building a subterranean water storage chamber below a currently unpaved portion of a parking lot serving the Veterans Building. The 3-acre-foot underground storage area would absorb high-water runoff from Fryer Creek and hold it for controlled distribution to an improved drainage ditch and pipe system along First Street West, from approximately Depot Park to the Plaza.

The breakdown in the planning of the project came to public attention in February when the Water Agency held a special meeting with veterans who, despite the storage area's location on county-owned land near the Veterans Building, felt they should have been included in the discussion and planning of the project.

The underground storage system would have required digging up a half-unpaved parking lot used for overflow traffic at big events, installing the tank, and then repaving and stripping the lot. The installation would take about three months, to be scheduled during the drier and less event-heavy late summer.

Terry Leen, of the American Legion Post #489, in his role as Veterans Service Organizations representative to the County Veterans Building Committee, and Piazza contended that, under the California Military and Veterans Code, veterans needed to at least be informed of the project, if not be an active part of the decision.

Piazza said that, although he was not initially against the flood control project, younger members of the post were, saying that putting in underground storage would prevent the vets from using the property to serve them going forward – despite county officials insisting that wasn't the case.

The Water Agency, while apologizing for the oversight in diplomacy by not including the vets in discussions, believed that since the county owned the Veterans Building property, they were within their rights to make plans that involved the parking lot.

The Water Agency sought the advice of Sonoma County Counsel David McFadden, who reviewed the veterans' appeal, responded with a letter to the veterans. In the letter, McFadden held that the county was within its legal right to include the parking lot in non-veterans plans, as the County of Sonoma owned the property, and there was precedent* for doing so.

'If a contemplated non-veteran related use does not unduly interfere with the reasonable uses by the various veterans groups, the County may authorize such use of the buildings, including the parking lots,' wrote McFadden. 'This management policy has been utilized for many years,' he said, and continued to list uses of veterans' parking lots for farmers markets – from overflow County Fair parking to Sebastopol's arts council to 'a myriad of other uses of all of the buildings by non-veterans groups in order to serve the community and to provide much-needed revenue.'

But the veterans dug in their heels, seeking some legal advice of their own – including a retired California county legal counsel, a retired California city legal counsel, a local business attorney and a retired General Staff Army JAG officer. Piazza said these attorneys supported their belief that the planned water storage would be in violation of the Military and Veterans Code, though this could not be confirmed.

That code outlines approved uses of a Veterans Memorial District, though neither water storage nor parking facilities are directly addressed in the code. It is usually held to apply to veterans buildings and their use.

But what loomed as an extended legal battle proved too much for the County Water Agency, which faced a deadline on use of the state funds for water control. Despite a last-minute suggestion to delay a final decision by six months and explore alternative sites, the agency decided to look for another project that could access the $1.8 million within the grant's existing timeline.

'In Sonoma, we gave consideration to multiple project alternatives and have put forth those options that appeared most promising for funding eligibility,' said Kent Gylfe, principal engineer of the Sonoma County Water Agency. 'The additional alternative sites that Mr. Piazza has suggested we evaluate further do not appear any more feasible than alternatives that have been previously considered. As such, a Petaluma Valley project appears more attractive to pursue at this time.'

As far as the City of Sonoma's future plans for flood control on Fryer Creek and First Street West, Sonoma City Manager Carol Giovanatto could only say that the news was 'disappointing' and that she and Public Works Director Dan Takasugi had yet to meet to formulate other plans.

'But you can be sure it will be at the top of our list,' she said.

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.