HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/31/1995347
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING January 31, 1995
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Present:' Rahman (arrived at 7:10), Stompe, Thompson *, Torliatt,
vonRaesfeld, Wick
STAFF: Warren Salmons, Assistant City Manager
Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner
* Chairman
18
19 APPROVAL, OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 24, 1995 were deferred to next meeting.
20
21
22 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
23
24 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
25
26 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Wick wished all a Happy Chinese New
27 Year.
28
29 CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Terrence Garvey regarding wastewater facilities
30 project.
31
32 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
33
34 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
35
36 OLD BUSINESS:
37 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
38
39 II. WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT 0b).
40
41 Continued public hearing on the Draft EIR for replacement and expansion of the
42 City's Wastewater Management System and consideration of General Plan
43 consistency and site planning recommendations for new storage and irrigation
44 'facilities.
45
46 (Continued from the January 24, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.)
47
48 PUBLIC HEARING:
49 SPEAKERS:
50
51 Jennifer Barrett - responded to Commissioner's questions from last public hearing
52 regarding relationship of contract documents to the EIR; procurement documents include
1
��
1 the RFP, privatization agreement, ground lease and public works services agreement. The
2 contracts are the entitlement for use, similar to a conditional use permit. Privatization is
3 evaluated in the EIR with respect to the physical changes to the environment. Other issues
4 with regard to the potential for nonperformance or noncompliance are valid project issues
5 but would be the same regardless of who owns the facility because the City uses a private
6 contract operator; The only difference proposed is that the operator would fiance, build
7 and own the new facility. The contract documents include provisions for termination for
8 cause (i.e. nonperformance) or for convenience.
9
10 Ned Orrett 625 Second St„ Petaluma - professional Civil Engineer, 'Masters in Economics,
11 past member of Citizens Wastewater Committee (until conflict : working as subconsultant
12 to one of the vendors); EIR important tool; we are at point of confluence of EIR and
13 procurement process; EIR is generally consistent with General Plan; question is are
14 monitoring /mitigation measures sufficient - 3 important issues: shallow water discharge
15 standards are not clearly stated; mitigation of heavy metals, source control and extra
16 treatment needed; cities in southbay having major problems meeting heavy metals
17 standards; draft contract documents clouded by liability; draft privatization agreement
18 contains several provisions of relief from liability for problems with water quality of effluent
19 exceeds parameters; how can proposals be compared with standards if not called out; must
20 be addressed more realistically for improved water duality; must make finding that this
21 project. will improve reliability with waste water standards; needs evaluation of three types
22 of methods of treatment; energy area - 2 aquatic based methods use less energy versus
23 mechanical oxidation ponds will use more energy; extra carbon dioxide released into
24 atmosphere; long term atmospheric impacts at the electric plant; comparison of
25 technologies - energy efficiency is a concern that should be earned through the entire
26 process; draft RFP identifies oxidation ditch as accepted technology; appears to be a bias
27 toward mechanical plant; the EIR evaluates them more equally; on - going cost of operating
28 plant is most expensive p art of project; make sure bid package made consistent with EIR
29 especially defusing precise effluent standards; adjust bid package to assess all treatment
30 processes equally; stress importance of efficient use of resources; flow reduction - agrees
31 with assessment in EIR that conservation won't affect the plant but will provide long term
32 savings on operations costs and size of irrigation and storage; expand scope of`work to
33 include flow reduction processes.
34 Vasco Brazil - (to Warren Salmons) - When will appendices be ready for public to pick up?
35 Warren Salmons 54 appendices total - 24 can't be done until proposal, is done and vendor
36 is selected; 19 -20 should be available this week - 10 others should be done soon, attempting
37 to have them by 2/14.
38 Vasco Brazil - 4541 Lakeville Highway; dryland farm /dairy; part of dairy community for
39 over 41 years; ranch next to existing oxidation ponds; disagrees with current _approach City
40 is using for wastewater disposal; current agenda of approving a conceptual EIR is not fair
4.1 to rate payers; evaluate entire proposals including costs before adopting privatization
42 (environmentally and financially); first duty to residential rate payers not other interests;
43 issues - land use /siting - decommission of existing treatment plant; EOS /Wheelabrator
44 suggested building /operating /owning new pplant; this is still the current plan; 'individual
45 consultant should be hired - to evaluate WEOS proposal; existin site could be used` for
46 expansion; when biofilter dedicated in 1938, plant was 200 feet from Petaluma River -
47 expansion occurred in 1966; EIR says there is limited land available at Hopper Street site,
48 but there is over 100 acres of industrial land surrounding plant; plant is working at -over
49 capacity now; current ponds .being considered for pretreatment system; January 8 -9th,
50 Lakeville Highway flooded right in front. of oxidation ponds; referenced letters expressing
51 concerns .regarding flooding of Ellis Creek and pond seepage due to type of soil af. site; the
52 pond site used to be where flood waters go; pasture land problems caused by seepage; early
53 1980's,., oxidation 'ponds levees do not meet dam ;safety standards City had legislative.
54 exemption; there is no room for expansion at the ponds; suggest City use the existing site at
349
1 the oxidation ponds or the City's land at the airport area or look at Denman Flats; new
2 pond site for storage should be north or south of City; existing ponds hold 1600 acre feet of
3 water, not 800 as EIR states; does not agree with any of the reservoir sites; cost of diverted
4 rainwater expensive; erosion, siltation problems, at Wheat Creek site his domestic water
5 supply would cease to exist; livestock water will be degraded; part of the reservoir space
6 needed is from I/I will need to be disposed of with no discharge; peak wet weather flows
7 are different in the 1974 Public Notice from the Corps says 15 mgd, the EIR says 30 mad;
8 disagrees with comments on page 6.2 and 2.2 - Wastewater Commission ; there was no
9 balance on the Committee only one person represents residential sector, three represent
10 the industrial and commercial sector - should have been more residential representation
11 since ;they pay most of the rates; the public facilities are subject to bid, but the design,
12 construction management and oversight is going to be done by the vendor; State Revolving
13 Fund Money requirements need to be incorporated into document; current and future
14 irrigation - page 2.4 - not a true statement - there are not more takers for the water than
15 water available; users would back out if they had to pay to maintain equipment and erosion
16 control, all users like existing wastewater because it is free; 99% is subsidized by the users;
17 none of the farmers are doing in -farm labor- City pays $666k to RAM; sewer rate payers
18 should not have to pay for irrigated land; a freshwater marsh would be cheaper; City is not
19 interested in a freshwater marsh (it is only discussed in back of EIR);- self - monitoring of
20 irrigation - not perfect, they do not see or tell all; regarding condemnation - more
21 information needed about each family farm affected before condemnation; when will City
22 tell rate payers that City would make money on taxes if plant is privatized.
23 Jason Ball - a lot of growth and wildlife habitat has been destroyed by growth; build a
24 tertiary system; before more new growth, treatment plant needs to be completed.
25 John Ball - across Lakeville Highway ponds - expansion not a good idea; won't work; too
26 much water in the land; high water table; topo maps show slope - only enough room for
27 one pond - water will come up into ponds from ground; after listening to other arguments,
28 and Santa Rosa's problems, tertiary treatment should be done - at least included in options;
29 if tertiary treated there would be no excuse for not putting it in the river; design should be
30 out to 2025, 30 year contract.
31 Mr. Cardinoux - Ely Road tertiary treatment should be considered in EIR; would donate
32 his land for reservoir if tertiary plant was built, would enhance value of his land; if water
33 was clean, people would pay a little more for tertiary water. Pay $15 /acre for water now.
34 Jean Wood - 3608 Ely Road - lives next to Ellis Creek; has 3 wells on property - two deep
35 and one shallow; concerns with her property being surrounded by project; Ellis Creek
36 mitigation - creek will be widened, flooding will occur if dam breaks; if faults become
37 active, all would be washed into river; wastewater irrigation smells like detergent,
38 especially on warm days; rather deal with manure water than chemicals; Sola is one of
39 largest polluters in the United States, produces lots of polluted water; some rare wildlife in
40 area rely on food source in area; kennel owner, her use does not smell; build a tertiary
41 plant, with clean water; take the water south to the Bay, there are farms down there that
42 need the water; don't make this become "poop- aluma "; the shallow well has been polluted;
43 does not trust water anymore; acquifer is 6' below the creek; showed pictures of Ellis Creek
44 flooding.
45 Mr. Kullberg - think about tertiary water plant for higher and best use of water; make
46 available to more users, nursery, river, row crops, - emphasize expanded use of water.
47 Terrance Garvev - more opportunities are needed to speak because of document
48 omissions.
49 David Keller - appreciates informality and opportunities of allowing comments; are all
50 appendices in the EIR?
51 Jennifer Barrett - All appendices bound into EIR document.
52 Stevei Klausner - 2361 Warm Springs Road - (County) Sonoma County Tax Payers
53 Association - why is this before Planning Commission? When will it go before Public
54 Utilities Commission? proposed storage, reuse concerns; may increase pollution to
K
350
1 waterways; .many property owners may be affected; is water to be safe for food crops?
2 storage reservoirs are ugly, no habitat values because of fluctuating, water levels; lot of
3 drive to 100% reuse is because of fear for future ,requirements; valuable resource that
4 should not be wasted; does this water have any market value? this water will be very
5 expensive - most expensive in area; this water will have no real value; cost of storage and
6 delivery is expensive: reuse is an expensive subsidy; makes more sense to buy everybody a
7 new toilet; reuse proposals are not environmentally safe; rate structure that discourages
8 water use will be next (higher rates) why should ratepayers be ones to shoulder burden;
9 Petaluma River has very high nutrient load; nutrient loading from beef and diary ranches is
10 severe; how do the current users dairy waste programs hold up; consider loading of
11 pollutants from pasture, golf course, erosion and runoff; you'll find the lowest water duality
12 in several years from recent flood; options for reuse that are environmentally beneficial are
13 wetlands;, suggests opportunities for reuse - wetlands could be created to support .migratory
14 water fowl; similar to Sonoma Valley project sponsored by the Coastal Conservancy; lon r-
15 term disposal should be looked at separately from new plant; wants to see public utilities
16 commission formed. to make these decisions; supports private vendor in operation of plant
17 only; economic analysis should be included; invasive of property rights and unreasonable
18 burden on ratepayers.
19 Commissioner Wick - Why do you advocate wetlands as opposed to green belt?
20 Steve Klausner - they're cheaper.
21
22 Public hearing was closed.
23
24 Commission Discussion
25
26 Commissioner Stompe - issues that should be included - address impacts to the human
27 element;, discharge standards clarified secondary vs. , tertiary should be further discussed
28 along with costs; are end users willing to .pay a higher price for tertiary; cost to ratepayers
29 for in -farm labor and electricity; projected pumping costs for irrigation vs. discharge to the
30 river; projection of water standards for next 25 years; issues with no access to Wheat
31 Reservoir site, are additional studies needed; leakage characteristics of soil; groundwater
32 storage should be explored further; watershed activities explored; need for more
33 geotechnical data; more mitigation for heavy metals; issue of liability that Ned .Orrett
34 raised; 'flow reduction measures; precise effluent standards; using existing plant; creation of
35 wetlands; question regarding formation of PUC, timing for that.
36 . Chairman Thompson What about Commissioner Stompe's other questions of staff?
37 Jennifer'Barrett The questions and responses included in the last staff report can be
38 incorporated into the,Final EIR.
39 Commissioner Rahman - supports Commissioner Stompe; most important issues -
40 interested in tertiary treatment; provide information to consider tertiary•, is longg -term 30
41 year contract appropriate; inflow reduction may be costly but buitaing a faci_hty to
42 accommodate inflow doesn't seem wise; need all the appendices to the contract to review;
43 staff needs to respond in writing to all public comments; Commission is equally qualified as
44 the PUC to make decisions; ratepayers issues not the only problem - long term planning -
45 must take responsibility for handling waste locally (both wastewater and landfill), should be
46 willing to pay for it; consider burning waste to create energy to support our community;
47 have we talked to neighboring communities regarding sharing /partnering ?; more
48 information needed on wetlands; why was wetlands option discounted.
49 Commissioner Wick - Why is Planning Commission's review limited to General Plan
50 consistency and site Tans? Normally Commission has broader scope. This document
51 (EIR) was not clear in respect to program and project; according to recent court cases
52 project needs to be clarified in such a way to be stable, 'accurate, finite; Penngrove
53 component will it cost more to serve Penngrove; public ownership option needs reasonable
54 alternative; believes it is incumbent upon the City to look at public ownership alternative
2
3.5 - x ,
1 in the EIR; more study needed on whether both Petaluma's and Santa Rosa's South County
2 option can be accommodated. Santa Rosa may secure better agreements with the farmers;
3 conflicts with Santa Rosa should be anticipated; very strongly suggests tertiary treatment -
4 must be on par with Santa Rosa, wise over long term; in near future, tertiary treatment will
5 be required, should be done with 1995 dollars; displacement of agriculture in conflict with
6 General Plan; look at problems with Williamson Act, redesign to avoid properties with
7 Williamson Act Agreements; Thompson /Wick /Hargis toured current plant, ponds across
8 the highway would impact the operations across the street; avoidance is the best practice,
9 since we have other alternatives which do not impact farm land; very difficult document to
10 read -,Would appreciate a matrix to be able to compare impacts /
resource categories on
11 one -page chart to allow easy comparison; would like to give staff an opportunity to respond
12 to alle made without their knowledge - perception that one of the competitors
13 (current operator is being quoted in EIR) have staffers interview not consultants; WMX
14 Corporation is represented on the West Marin Landfill Project by same law firm as City is
15 using for some of the documents drawn by City on the West Marin Landfill project - this
16 needs to be investigated, any perception of conflict of interest must be clarified; since this
17 would be first privatization in country, vendor who gets this project would have enormous
18 economic opportunity; other vendors are heavy hitters, this process needs to be flawless.
19 Commissioner Torliatt - concerns with reservoir effect on groundwater; don't want
20 agriculture to be put out of business; put to bed the myth that this wastewater doesn't
21 smell; water received from Sonoma County Water Agency has a high copper content
22 already; concerns with heavy metals how are we -going to deal with it; look into future, be
23 proactive in decreasing flows; very important item left out of EIR - property owners who
24 will be affected; EIR biased for three types of treatment - tertiary treatment not fully
25 discussed in EIR; this project is designed to 2005 plus 25 capacity, probably won't be in
26 effect until 2000, with a 30 year lease there is a lot of time open that is not even studied;
27 privatization issue does not account for 25 years; recommends preparing responses to all
28 comments with public review - bring back to commission's review to make sure they have
29 sufficient answers.
30 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - two types of comments - EIR lacks comprehensive discussion
31 on economic factors; potential clouding of titles this project is decided is a problem;
32 difficult time looking at EIR in void of economic component; tertiary needs to be brought
33 up and looked at through cost /benefit analysis; potential for creating a public amenity; cost
34 benefit to agriculture, does it produce a better agricultural crop? more discussion with
35 tertiary re; wildlife/ environment; human impacts need to be discussed, EIR does not
36 discuss human impact - 4 or 5 points: effects on human habitation and health, discuss state
37 criteria; naive to say that there are no health risks with wastewater irrigation; effects on
38 land values, livelihood of residences, heritage of residences, effects of smell, flooding,
39 downstream protection; EIR is inadequate in seismicity; void of aesthetic discussion;
40 should be looked at by landscape /architectural professionals; needs to address
41 interrelationship with General Plan buildout, phasing and life of the facility; tertiary
42 component needs to be listed as an alternative and fully discussed; personal preference
43 toward an economic component of EIR; needs a valid environmental comparison of
44 options; look at large conceptual picture of this project - design- build procurement process,
45 Citizen's Advisory Committee discussion should be included (re: how they made decision
46 to recommend privatization); three options being discussed from environmental and
47 economic views difficult way to approach, economic component needs to be factored in;
48 uncomfortable with trusting decisions to staff who will be retired or deceased in 30 years;
49 presumption that private sector vendor will be convinced to take on this project; more
50 engineering numbers need to be involved - does not have an idea of budget after reading
51 this document; procurement /EIR process running in parallel, need flow charts to be able
52 to compare; PUC that will be created needs more thought; false reliance on problem
53 solvin in future; legal issue concerns with Williamson Act Lands, gray area that could land
352
us in some difficult situations; is the City indemnifying private operator from suits from
neighbors.
Commissioner Wick Social and economic impacts may not be included, in an EIR unless
cause and effect link can be made by lead agency; service to Per ngrove is an economic
cause that needs to be discussed in EIR; another example is that the corporate world is
unpredictable, labor shortage, or other problems could have a direct physical effect to the
river could result in an imminent. public health threat; this document is too complicated
and not easy to read; needs to be more citizen - friendly; revised EIR should'be recirculated.
Commissioner Torliatt - a lot of mitigations dumped on monitoring systems - what are
they? operational mitigations are most difficult to monitor and enforce; contractual
agreements are needed; monitoring needs to be clarified; re: seismicity who is responsible
for damage to surrounding lands if there is an earthquake? City or vendor,; competition
with Santa. Rosa since they will have tertiary water.
Commissioner Rahman - issue of imminent domain, low on list of possibilities:
Commissioner Thompson - oxidation. ponds aren't getting afair shake - site might be wrong
for oxidation P onds would like serious and very adequate response to these comments -
cannot be sent on to Council in the form it is now; much work to do at this point; put staff
on notice these responses must be adequately addressed now.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - questioning scope of EIR. - not complete enough yet - hopes
responses to I comments will be adequate.
Commissioner Rahman - understands time issue to do something about waste treatment,
but does not want to rush staff; City staff is spread thin, wants to give staff enough time to
respond reasonably and adequately. This project will receive nationwide attention - we
need to .do: a good fob now.
Warren Salmons - Commission has done a wonderful job in letting staff know of their
concerns; hope you all understand. that this will not be the solution forever; staff wants to
make best effort; but there must be a balance - allocated risk how much risk can we
expect a private corporation to take on; risk of a set, risk of failure, insurance, bonds etc.
can be translated into money —with acceptance of all risks, the cost factor goes up; amount
of risk w _ll be sent back to ratepayer; as thins stand today, we need more treatment
capacity - it has to happen; question of storage is an option, must have enough storage to
get to "GP buildout; buildout might occur in 2010 - 2015.; additional treated wastewater will
not be allowed into the river (per Regional Water Quality Board), river discharge cannot
be .increased; during dryer months of the year, Petaluma cannot put treated water into the
river; a certain amount of wastewater will need. to be disposed, of elsewhere.
Commissioner Rahman - can tertiary treated water be put into the river?
Warren Salmons - will get clarification from Regional Water Quality Board, will
investigate; address' questions from Con missioner Wick - question. of Petaluma PUC idea
from Citizens Advisory Board - California PUC does not have anything to say about sewer
rates now; PPUC would be an advisory body, recommendations on rate setting : Council
prerogative; Commissioner Rahman stated all appendices should be made available, of
total of 54. documents - 23 will be available after contractor is chosen; 19' documents will. be
available after this weekend; 11 are being worked on; many are forms - for vendors to fill in,
may not be important to see before acting; will provide list of appendices to Commission.
Commissioner Rahman wants to `be :sure Commission sees everything- they need to see.
Warren Salmons -_ ,Responses to comments are important to Commission - then we will
have double final EIR hearings at the Planning. Commission and Council staff hoped to
have comments from Planning Commission go to Council and then prepare responses for
public. hearings before the City Council, but now PC requires responses before - making a
recommendation; agreement with Penngrove is 15 -20 years old, Petaluma agreed to accept
sewage from Penngrove because of public health not an issue to expand, there is a,cap on
hook -ups; County Service District pays for infrastructure and residents pay connection fees
and monthly service fees; wastewater ponds were part of a regional system; procurement
on
353
1 process is wide - open; Jennifer Barrett can respond to allegations of a "preferred
2 alternative" in consultant contract prior to commercial EIR preparation process.
3 Jennifer Barrett - comments regarding preferred locations that appear in the scope of work
4 for the consultants refer to the original planning criteria that stated the preferred location
5 for new treatment facilities is at the oxidation pond site; we had received confirmation
6 from the Corps that the ponds are not jurisdictional waters and could be filled.
7 Warren Salmons - to Commissioner Wick - will examine quotations from current operator -
8 if they we statements of fact that is ok; if statements are opinions then it is agreed they
9 should ;be removed; re: conflict of interest questions -City asked law firm to research and
10 explain any potential conflict of interest prior to hiring will inquire about this particular
11 allegation - if concern is that this firm might be biased, it should be noted that they are in
12 advisory role, no decision - making ability; if there is a notion of bias, questions should be
13 raised now, if there is some bias, real or imagined, it should be reviewed during this
14 document review process; input and participation is a hallmark of this process; Planning
15 Commission needs to tell staff how much time should be spent; tell us when you are ready
16 to make decisions; response to Commissioner Torliatt's questions - sewage treatment
17 operations have been contracted for last 15 years; Santa Rosa competition - one of their
18 options is southcounty option Santa Rosa is cooperating with Petaluma; south county is
19 only one of five options; Petaluma can't wait for Santa Rosa to decide before we move
20 ahead; to Commissioner vonRaesfeld - performance based procurement - EIR is novel,
21 complicated, but satisfies environmental documentation for performance -based project;
22 cost is clearly an issue, Council is rate- setting body; generic cost information will be
23 presented; won't know actual treatment facility costs until quotes come in; most recent
24 timeline is available and will be distributed based on extended DEIR hearings it is (already
25 out of date).
1 26 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - are costs being worked on now?
27 Warren Salmons - Yes, being worked on, will be available in February.
28 Jennifer Barrett - Tertiary treatment is evaluated in the EIR at a program level, vendors
29 are required to provide tertiary treatment capability, must show on site plans. Tertiary
30 treatment is not a project alternative as opposed to secondary treatment, we need
31 secondary treatment at a minimum, tertiary treatment is a third level or additional facility
32 added onto the secondary plant.
33 Commissioner Thompson - need more information on tertiary water - users, etc.
34 Jennifer Barrett - the focus of this document is on new treatment and storage facilities, not
35 on disposal methods.
36 Commissioner Thompson - No, Planning Commission needs more information on disposal
37 methods also. Tertiary and disposal all goes together.
38 Warren Salmons - Commission has just changed this project.
39 Commissioner Thompson - is that bad?
40 Commissioner Salmons - Yes, because we are 3 years into this; are you saying that you
41 want information on tertiary treatment as a viable option?
42 Commissioner Rahman - needs information to look at all options including tertiary.
43 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - direct me to most pertinent areas in EIR regarding tertiary
44 treatment.
45 Jennifer Barrett - points out sections in Project Description page 2 -7 and Water Quality
46 Chapter - chapter 3B discussion regarding need for additional treatment to meet the
47 shallow water discharge standards, such as filtration which is a form of tertiary treatment;
48 the term advanced treatment is used to refer to tertiary treatment in the EIR; the adopted
49 planning criteria requires advanced treatment capability the project must be designed to
50 accommodate a range of advanced treatment options that may be required in the future or
51 to meet future beneficial reuse requirements; the discussion of advanced treatment could
52 be expanded and clarified; advanced treatment is addressed at a program level in the EIR
53 as a viable option.
7
35
1 Commissioner Thompson - if your (staff) responses to this .discussion are not adequate, we
2 will ask you to come back again. 1h advanced treatment the same as tertiary_ ?
3 Jennifer Barrett Yes. Pe hag our consultant could better explain the definition of
4 advanced or tertiary treatment for the Commission.
5 Bill Faisst Brown and Caldwell - project consultant tertiary treatment refers to a.whole
6 range of advanced treatments; not one - magical step ; - tertiary treatment can mean different
things for :different types- of beneficial uses;. can be defined in terms. of Title 22
8 .
q ments; for example, for discharge to the river nutrient removal may be required; for
9 use in. urban landscaping you would need to look at a hier level_ of treatment to remove
10 ppathogens because of public health concerns; for wetlands or other uses heavy metals may
11 be the .main concern; for discharge or injection into a water source you may be looking at
12 several types of tertiary treatment technologies; order of magnitude guidance can be
13 provided depending on definition.
14 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Mr. Faisst's statement is very, helpful should include a
15 discussion in the EIR.
16 Commissioner Torliatt - (to Warren) - How is the need for future expansion during the 30
17 year contract addressed?
18 Warren Salmons From original Manning criteria, criteria states that there must be
19 treatment capacity expansion that will get us to build -out; not giving us a price for a 25%
20 expansion, would be. City's option how to build, etc., but operator must agree to operate
21 expansion.
22
23 This meeting was continued to a future .meeting to be noticed when responses from
24 staff /consultants are ready.
25
26
27 ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 PM.
28
29
30 min0131 / jb26
I�
E