The North Marin Water District board has voted to keep a controversial site in the mix of options for a new water pump station.
Several board members said it was premature to remove the site, a city-owned parcel on a greenway that runs along Arroyo San Jose Creek near Ignacio Boulevard and Palmer Drive in Novato.
“To just pull one off without having some confidence that we got something better — we’re not at that point yet,” said Jack Baker, the board president.
The board, which met on Tuesday, also directed the district staff to seek more possible locations for the project, which aims to replace the nearly 60-year-old pump station near Lynwood Elementary School. Customers can still comment on the project’s environmental and engineering documents until May 6.
The controversial location is known as “Site 2.” A 1,188-square-foot pump station could be built there and 3,750 linear feet of new piping could be installed to connect the station.
The project site would first need to be approved by the utility’s board, and then the Novato City Council must agree to sell it or grant an easement.
One alternative that does not involve Site 2 is a new station at the Sunset Parkway median between Cambridge Street and Monte Maria Drive.
The district staff held a public meeting on the project on March 6, and more than 110 people attended. Opponents say the pump station will be an eyesore at Site 2 and cause traffic jams on Ignacio Boulevard during the construction.
The district board heard from Leonard Shaw, a 54-year resident of Fairway Drive who lives near Site 2. He urged the board to remove the site from the project plans as soon as possible.
“I just think that putting a pump station of this size on an open space that we strived so hard to protect just doesn’t make sense from the get-go,” Shaw said.
Joe Davidor, another longtime resident who lives near Site 2, noted the traffic on Ignacio Boulevard.
“What we’re all concerned about in our neighborhood is two to three years of construction in our neighborhood,” he said. “Ignacio Boulevard is a freeway and to clog that up for two to three years is going to do a lot to our property values.”
Resident Mike Arnold told the board that the district never notified him about the March 6 meeting on the project. He instead heard from neighbors.
Arnold encouraged the board to avoid a political fight.
“Oh, there are plenty of them in this county and this city,” he said. “We don’t need a political fight over this particular location because there is so much agreement that it’s just not an appropriate location.”
Tony Williams, the general manager of the water district, emphasized the need to replace the aging Lynwood station. He said the station is struggling to fill key storage tanks.
Eric Miller, the assistant general manager, advised the board keep Site 2 in the project plans.
“From an engineering staff perspective, we are absolutely, unequivocally not recommending that you remove Site 2 at this time,” he said. “It is far too premature. We’re not even sure there is another site south of that hill that satisfies all of the project objectives.”
Board members Rick Fraites and Stephen Petterle expressed reservations about Site 2. Petterle noted his background as a landscape architect and said the pump station must be “aesthetically appropriate” for the site.
“I want to know all of the facts so that I can make the decision that’s best for the community,” he said.
Fraites recalled visiting Site 2 and he said he could not see a pump station being there. He said the district must look harder for other sites.
“I agree with Steve that architecture is very important, but I don’t know if we can architect ourselves out of a structure there at this point,” Fraites said.
Board member Michael Joly said he has faith in the district staff and said it’s too early to remove Site 2 from the project plans.
“If you trust the staff and you trust us, you will go away feeling not exactly relieved, but accommodated,” he told the meeting attendees.
After the board hearing, Shaw said the directors were cordial, but he expressed his disappointment.
“Delaying the decision to withdraw this site just keeps the people concerned sitting on the edge and wondering when the ax is going to drop,” he said. “That means we’re going to stay involved with this and hopefully achieve the result we think is appropriate.”
