HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/12/1995j
1
2
3
4
5 City Of Petaluma
6
7 Planning Commission Minutes
8
9 REGULAR MEETING September 12, 1995
10 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
11 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
12
13 PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE.
14
15 ROLL CALL: Present:'Barlas (left at 9:25PM), Feibusch, Rahman *, Thompson, Torliatt,
16 vonRaesfeld, Wick
17 '
18 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
19 Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner
20
21 * Chairman
22
23
24 APPROVAL OYMINUTES: Minutes of August 22, 1995 were approved as printed.
5
6
PUBLIC,COMMENT: None.
8
29 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
30
31 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
32
33 CORRESPONDENCE: Draft River Plan; 2 memos from Wayne Vieler regarding Kodiak
34 Jack's.
35
36 APPEAL; STATEMENT: Was read.
37
38 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
39
40
41 CONTINUED BUSINESS
42 PUBLIC HEARING
43
44 I. WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT AND LONG RANGE MANAGEMENT
45 PROGRAM.
46
47 Consideration of Revised Draft EIR and staff recommendations (Continued from
8 January 3`1, 1995).
9
0 Public Hearing
1
1
Commissioner. Political Practices Board about possible conflict of interest with in-law
and
California Fair with i
vonRaesfeld disclosed that he had spoken with the City.
family owned dairy that would be impacted by the southern. reservoir alternative - both
indicated there was no conflict.
Presentation by Senior Planner Jennifer Barrett
City published Draft EIR and held hearings last January before the Planning�Commission
Comments received not only about environmenta. l findings, but: also .raised many questions
about the range of alternatives, long range facility plan and the planning process:
Planning. Commission asked for more information about the project .including;
evaluation of other design,, and siting alternatives; water quality standards and to
reevaluate the findings. in the EIR, for the lan& use, geology, hydrology and.. water
quality; In response, City produced Project. Report released in June for public
review an presented at June 14th :Public Information Meeting.
Project Report includes, Background' Information on the, existing m system and
Establishment of Need' for the project; sets forth water quality standards and
objectives for the project as performance-criteria; identifies; the facility needs and
sizing for a range of design options and site alternatives; Provides overview of the
operations and management requirements and presents Preliminary Project Costs;
.Project Report provides a detailed project description for the EIR_ and, h important
link which connects the EIR and Contract.Documents.
Contract Documents - have been, completed and made available for public review, -
and provided to the. Planning Commission - document includes: Request for
Proposals (RFP); Draft Waste water. Privatization Service Agreement; Draft Ground
Lease - City' will provide the site for the new privately owned facility; DiaftPublic
Works Services Agreement - covers -the publicly owned components, of wastewater
management system.
The EIR has been revised and -recirculated `for public review and comment
includes analysis of new alternatives identified in the Project Report; and expanded
discussion of the key topic areas; Project repp ort,. Draft Contract Documents and
Revised Draft EIR have been made available for public review.
The statutory public review period extends through September 20th, after testimony this
evening, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the hearing and
Planning Commission's discussion to a Special Meeting next Wednesday September 20th.
Written comments can also be submitted to the Planning Commission through September
20th.
After the public hearing; is concluded, the Planningg Commission will be asked to make a
recommendation to City Council on the adequacy of the EIR and project recommendations
and General Plan consistency.
City will prepare a Final OR that responds to comments received on the 'Revised Draft
EIR.
Another set of hearings will be scheduled before the City Council before a final decision on
the Project'.
2
1
Commission. discussed date for special meeting (decided to keep meeting scheduled for the
Wednesday, September 20th date).
5 Harlan Glines - Consultant, Jones and Stokes w reviewed major changes to the EIR.
6 (Changes to'the document are underlined except for the Water Quality Chapter): A lot of
7 new information was added to. the Water Quality section so the chapter was rewritten.
8 Major changes involve: new Alternatives suggested for further evaluation and key topic
9 areas of Water Quality, Hydrology, and land Use
10
11 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
12
13 Acquisition of land in vicinity of existing Hopper Street site: Not .included in original EIR
14 because the adopted Planning; Criteria specified Oxidation ponds as preferred; .In response
15 to Planning Commission direction, the .existing site was re- evaluated; Not sufficient room
16 within the site, but additional land could be acquired - in the vicinity; Feasible for only for
17 the small conventional system oxidation ditch or equivalent Determined the site could
18 meet objectives so it is evaluated as an alternative site option ;in the EIR; EIR found few
19 environmental constraints at this location that could not be mitigated; Requires acquisition
20 of vacant "industrial land and would be less energy efficient.
21
22 Wetlands as a storage and reclamation is an option evaluated in the Revised EIR: Two
23 sites adjacent to the existing oxidation ponds have been evaluated in the EIR totalling 450
24 acres; EIR identifies impacts and mitigation measures; Potential for disease vectors
25 related to mosquitos and botulism is impact; EIR recommends best management practices
to control vectors; Bioaccumulation of toxic substances in sediments and vegetation is an
identified impact; EIR recommends, monitoring sediments and removal of sediments if
reach .threshold levels; Sites are existing farmed wetlands; fill of existing wetlands /loss of
9 habitat is identified impact; avoid sensitive areas in design and create replacement
30 wetlands Displacement: of housing and Disruption of farm operations is significant land
31 use impact: EIR recommends avoid.in design or provide relocation assistance; Risk of
32 Upset Wetlands are shallow waters,, Extremely 'sensitive natural systems over which we
33 have less control, essentially no. summer dilution, wetlands are more susceptible to
34 environmental influences and minor fluctuations in flow and water quality, for these
35 reasons EIR concludes Wetlands as only added storage increases risks of discharge
36 violation's; EIR recommends that City diversify storage system to ensure reliability, use
37 wetlands: for reclamation with benefit of added storage.
38
39 Pipeline and Reclamation. Areas Survey of farmers has been completed; Potential
40 Irrigation areas and additional pipeline route added along Adobe Road southeast of Frates
41 Road.
42
43 WATER QUALITY
44
45 Water Quality Standards: Standards are set forth as performance criteria in the Project
46 Report; Regional Board will establish actual limas for system using these standards
47 as a basis; EIR evaluates systems ability to meet standards; Identifies potential for
48 exceedances with six elements - (copper, lead, cyanide, cadmium, mercury and nickel);
49 Mitigation measures identified include:
1 - Source control to continue a diligent pretreatment program,
Algae removal facilities which removes some of these elements,
Advanced treatment processes are identified as mitigation measures for
54 continued discharge to the river, wetlands or streams
3
Based :on available data, the EIR indicates that the discharge standards can be met
with advanced treatment; site plans evaluated in 'the EIR include siting of, advanced
treatment systems.
Water Quality in the. Petaluma :River: more data on existing water, quality and monitoring-
is included in the RDEIR; analysis shows effluent discharged would be - substantially
improved over current effluent; improved capability and reliability of new treatment .
system; no: mcrease.m discharge is proposed; adequate. - storage capacity to limit - discharge;
impact on water quality is beneficial.
Hydrology:
Flooding impacts along 'Lakeville:; Highway in. front of oxidation ponds: existing flooding
conditions are related to 'sedimentation and vegetation within the sites' drainage;
incorporating channel maintenance into the groundlease to :maintain adequate .drainage
and eliminate flooding conditions.
Potential, impacts .from reservoir. dam failure: inundation analysis was' conducted;
s flooding assuming catastrophic failure of the dam; flooding, would : occur up to
Fra_ tes Road and, down to the Oxidation ponds; measures to routinely inspect dam .as, part
of the services agreement; incorporate evacuation- procedures into the CityVemergency. -
response: plans; require vendor assistance in emergency response.
Groundwater quality:: Two concerns; were raised regarding the potential for contamination.
of groundwater from the ;City's irrigation ' program and infiltration from the ,reservoir;
Additional geologic surveys have been completed at the reservoir site and oxidation pond
locations; study lu feasible construction of the facilities and
that there islimit d otent altfo e nfiltrat on into roue
p _ - g. dwater; City as monitored wells .
and groundwater in the irrigation area, :over the' past 10 years; Analysis of. the monitoring
reports indicates that there has been no-impad groundwater from irrigation or storage in
the ponds; EIR recommends expanded nionitonng of wells and groundwater, near the
reservoir and. ' Ellis Creek and expanded irrigation *area; 'Contingency measures ' are
specified to remedy any problems that may occur.
Land Use: Impacts to landowners, residents and farm operations -
were reevaluated for the both the treatment and storage components.
Oxidation pond site alternative to construct additional ponds: on the northeast, of
Lakeville: displacement of 3 houses Silacci. and Ball's property and disruption of farm
operations; EIR recommends Relocation Assistance conversion of agricultural lands to,
public use - irreversible and unavoidable, no mitigation measures:
Even with mitigation these impacts are, considered significant and unavoidable.
Reservoir Sites: Disruption of farm operations; Develop Relocation Assistance -Program
including; public participation; identify relocation needs and comparable locations make
relocation assistance payme m nts to cover costs; Conversion of Ag, Land to Public Use is
significant and unavoidable no mitigation 'easures available; Aesthetic Effects' visual
impact to adjacent property owners and residents; design„ grading: and landscaping
plans should be subject-to design review; incorporate participation of affected 'landowners
and residents; install trees and vegetation to screen offensive views.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4
1
TREATMENT,
1. Eliminate the oxidation pond alternative from further consideration: Significant
5 environmental impacts .could -not be avoided or mitigated; Displacement of
6 housing; disruption of farm operations and conversion of farmland could be avoided
7 with other design /siting options:
8
9 2. Eliminate expansion of the existing facilities from `further consideration: Consol
10 id'ating facilities provides opportunities for improved reliability and operational
11 efficiency; Avoids °the need to acquire additional land for treatment facility; Retain
12 s Lands available 'for heavy industrial and river oriented uses; Moves treatment
13 facilities away from urban area
14
15 3. Retain options for the oxidation ditch /equivalent system and deep facultative pond
16 alternatives which can be accommodated within the oxidation pond site: Consistent
17 with the adopted Planning Criteria; Provides for competitive selection
18 process; Avoids land acquisition for treatment facility; Maximizes operational
19 efficiency with opportunity for improved reliability.
20
21 4. Specify advanced treatment capability in the RFP to include filtration, nitrification
22: and chemical addition.processes to meet discharge standards as well as, provide for
23 unrestricted agricultural and urban irrigation: Continued discharge is envisioned
24 in the near -term; Ensures. that anticipated discharge limits will be met; Provid
25 es a level playing field for -evaluation of the proposals; Provides for option to
displace potable water supplies
STORAGE
29
30 1. Include development of a pilot demonstration marsh in� the UP: Pilot studies
31 are to determine `optimum land area and management techniques for a
32 larger wetland system; Provide for further consultation with agencies to determine
33 permit requirements; Two siting: alternatives available for demonstration marsh:
34
35 12 -acres of City -owned land situated north of Ellis Creek; and,
36 . � 2 One of the existing oxidation ponds could be converted to a
37 marsh
38
39 2. Eliminate wetlands as the only storage option. Wetlands can be used to reduce
40 storage and irrigation requirements as part of reclamation program: Pilot studies
41 are required by :the Regional Board; Timing required for. wetland studies (to
42 provide for all storage needs) would eliminate option for Deep Facultative Pond
43 Alternative because storage would need to be built in advance of 'treatment system;
44 Wetlands as the only added storage component may require increase in discharge;
45 Wetlands have management limitations on water levels. for - use with irrigation;
46 Wetlands alone provide less flexibility in system and greater risk of violations
47
48 3. Approve the Higgins Creek Reservoir Site for expanded storage: Reservoir
storage is needed to avoid discharge violations; EIR identifies Higgins Creek as
environmentally superior alternative; Provides .flexibility in the proposals for
treatment design (i.e. Deep Facultative Ponds require immediate construction of
storage); Enables project completion with less risk of delay; Provides
flexibility and safeguard in the system to limit discharge; Functions as backup system
54 for any wetland component
5
4.. Acquire the lands for the maximum capacity of the site: Ensures long -term
.expansion capability.at this location; Provides City control to preserve
watershed area; Preserves longer-terml options for beneficial reuse
5. Defer determination of sizing of the reservoir dam until consideration of treatment
proposals: Proposers must provide a water balance on thel wastewater treatment
System defining minimum storage requirements to, limit discharge to current levels;
With advanced treatment continued discharge may be acceptable and substantially
reduce reclamation program costs,
6. Continue to monitor- Santa Rosa's progress on their facility plans and evaluate the
potential for a. joint- venture project: May provide. the largest capacity and lowest cost
alternative for:expanded storage; Minimizes cumulative Impacts of two storage
sites in the South County; Timeframe for initiation of design overlaps with Santa
Rosa's decision
DISCHARGE
1. Continue winter discharge at present `levels with advanced treatment: Improved
treatment l imP ac tto watery quality lov er continued ty of. effluent;, EIR indicates
,
d discharge; Substantially reduces
capital and ongoing operating costs
2. Develop pilot demonstration, marsh to evaluate feasibility of a larger marsh storage
and, discharge component-'A wetland, system N ould provide nutrient° removal and
improved water quality for continued discharge to the Petaluma ' River; An
expanded wetland system may eliminate: the need for ,a second phased : expansion of
the irrigation system with continued discharge to the river;. Lower operating costs
for mars_ h may offset increased capital costs overlong term; Marsh system may
provide additional opportunities for public education, recreation and, open space
preservation
RECLAMATION
1. Continue current irrigation program (approximately 800 acres): Continued
irrigation is needed to prevent discharge during summer
2. Proceed immediately w /first phase expansion. of the irrigation system: Irrigati
on expansion is needed in -near term, Existing system is operating at capacity;
Expansion of reclamation is needed to .offset flow mereases. and maintain current
discharge levels; Marsh reclamation alternatives not immediately available
because pilot studies are needed'
3. Two options are recommended for further evaluation: Lakeville ^.Highway to the south
of the oxidation; Consider acquisition of the remainder portion of the P. atoech'
Ranch for expansion of =irri'gaton utilizing the pipeline required for delivery .to the
reservoir .
These options provide the most cost - effective Arid imiriediately available options for
expanded reclamation.
WATER CONSERVATION
0
1. Implement water conservation program as recommended, from Sonoma County
Water Agency Study currently underway: Water conservation may reduce storage
requirements by up to_ 500 .acre -feet; Water conservation may reduce irrigation .
requirements. by up to 300 acres; Water conservation will reduce energy demand of
5 wastewater management system
6
7 Commissioner Torliatt - question, regarding decision on sizing of reservoir - will this return
8 to Plannuig Commission for review ?; are costs in today's dollars?
9 Senior Planner Barrett - Sizing must be deferred until proposals are :reviewed because size
10 depends on type of treatment. Planning Commission will review plans for Conditional Use
11 Permit.
12 Terence _Garvev - 83 Maria 'Drive - has lived in Petaluma for 28 years; engineer in
13 contracting business' for .45 years read letter of August 21 regarding four environmental
14 points;, more inform ation.needed I in following areas: EIR lists 2 possible reservoir sites -
15 Higgins Creek is ,recommended site,. but not enough research has been done; concerns with
16 permeability; another (third) site that has not been considered - Tolay Lake should be
17 considered; written discharge .requirements from Water Quality, Control Board are not yet
18 available, City, should require - written standards for budgetary purposes; discharge
19 requirements m EIR need more review (nitrates, phosphate removal); 5.2 million gallons
20 per day is design,-standard'- 4 million gallons per day is current actual flow; suggests 5 year
21 chart/table should be. in document with flows based on average daily flows;, water
22 conservation statements misleading; reservoir siting alternatives; no detailed geotechnical
23 studies, need .borings and ,soils reports to see if site is good for reservoir; EIR complicated;
24 .. costs are necessary for Council and public -what is lowest cost alternative environmentally
25 acceptable - shouldn't be locked into an expensive alternative; treatment plant is essential,
but costs, to be known; additional taxes could be as high as $1,200 per household per
year; regarding RFP - RFP' has some very generous escape clauses, making it difficult for
determination of costs; recommends a committee be formed to analyze appendices of RFP
29 before a -contract goes out; documents not included need to be indicated as such; many
30 conflicts :in document; page 5, line 3.9 - should be described in more detail; City should
31 have a defined buy -back clause - not left in a. vacuum for courts.
32 Chairman Rahman - have -Mr. G'arvey's comments from_. his letters been answered?
33 Senior Planner Barrett - They are being worked on.
34 Terrace Gamey - have not been given any written answers, .does not feel his questions have
35 been answered, nothing has been done, more than 6 months; have a feeling his comments
36 have been ignored.
37 Senior Planner Barrett - documents have not been revised because they are still out for
38 public review, there will be revisions after Committee finishes review.
39 Terrace Garvev - Not here to harass staff;- 4 different documents have the same appendices
40 - needs to: be clarified; pg. 5, line 35, standards not described in detail; page 6, lines 11 and
41 12 - this is a mistake, this wastewater detail needs to be corrected; proposal must include a
42 water balance; irrigation is probably. only way of getting 'rid of this water; page 29, line 6 -
43 public agreement - title of document not consistent (again); updated drawings. should
44 be at no cost `to City - put it in the contract; average dry weather flow inconsistent; EPA has
45 not adjusted their figures to Northern California .yearly rainflows .City should„ supply 10
46 year statistical inform ation 'to contractors for design purposes; page 28, line 15 -
47 government approval's required should be defined ; electrical,: plumbing, etc. codes
48 should be specified; page 28, line 19 - Appendix is not available; City time -frame should
be clarified (minimum /maximum); page 39 - duality assurance standards should be
clarified;, City Inspector should be on site at all times; State approvals on a timely basis
should be clarified, project critical path should be noted under Schedule E of contract; if
pumping' -is to be 4 separate cost, that should be specified and required in contract -
minimum °pump efficiency should be specified; page 65, City should be held harmless on
54 insurance; monthly cost reports and commitments should be required; Appendix B -
7
1 confusion exists; Appendix C - not, in Library Copy m missing; Ap endix: - title is
91 a "; 2 misleading ; " - - Ll"; definitidnpf existing, facilities is different in
. should be. permits and - - i
3 different areas; too many Appendices are still unavailable; Appendix Ols not
.1. listed in
4 Table Contents; 'age 36 - who will d needs to be speciffed2- Draft, Project
p pay� a. e t
5 Re l
�poTt, - contract documents. should De separated from -EIR; City could 'be required to
6 make a.:substantial capital buy-out - should, be, better defined.
7 Chairman Rahman,!- Thanks Mr. Garvey for thorough comments.
8 Commissioner Thompson - Indicated' he would appreciate it if Mr. Garvey isin attendance
9 at Special Meeting -Of September 20th.
10 Frank Sandell 203 Mexican Flag 'Way, Sonoma - water fowl , (politically
11 correct, term for duck 'hunter); marshes Very beneficial - benefit mallard, Canadian. goose,
12 others, populations.
13 VictorCheckan6ver w 2301 Marylyn Circle - - concerns with wetlands and irrigation; keep
14 open mind on use Of marshes current agricultural land being -irrigated will expand;, doesn't
15 understand why hasn't more agricultural, land been obtained? costs of additional pipeline,
.16 pumping; needs- to be discussed; if we don'lt have water available, Why expand. irrigation?
17 Chairman Rahman - respond to agricultural land expansion.
18 Tom Hargis --; Director of Engineering 700 acres, has been gradually built -up; through
19 drought yeats'. there hasnv been :extra water; weather dependent with storage.; need, is, not
20 as sudden, change of weather patterns is reason, -going into it6 wet weather more. flow.
-�
21 Victor Checkanover costs,are'higher listed -P e 114 raft Project Report- - Irrigation e on Mana ment, Costs;
Page
22 nows
23 Tom at
o. - if more land is available f or reclamion less labor ,time y ems , can be
24 us talizatio n costs need to be: looked' at over a longer period as part of
25 re= program..
M V asco Bra - 4551 Lakeville, Highway project 'was undersized from the beginning; need
27 more, than 55,0 acres. for 5.2 mgd in, letter from Regional Board; there afd,not really true
28- irrigated pastures; has not finished -reading revised EIR; is a "wetlands advocate - Mr.
29 Garve i * ati6n advocate - otherwise agrees with Mr. Garvey would like. to have
y is an, irrig
30 more ifine than next week to:comment /read - this .revlise,d,"docum,eiit-..
31 Chairman.Rahman - describes'45- day review'period.
R Vasco Brazil.' - Planning staff. had 6 - .- Would like another; week or two to allow
33 adequate review.
34 Senior Planner. Barrett - described public review period; public - information meetings held
35 in June and August; review should focus on changes, summaries are available., and changes
36 are 'underlined.
37 Vasco Brazil - public versus private L ownership hip issue ; , existi ng iv pr ivately, owned plants
pT, a.
38 no proof of rate =payer saving million. gallons more per day, treatment plant; expansion
n
u i
39 of existing plant should be studied, expansion. at existing plant could. save rate paydvmoney�,
40 oxidation, pond alternative I I shoul .l - not be_eliminated; grounds for many legal challenges;
41 rules should b equal to vendors -and, landowners, unfair manipulation by City; read
42 statements , from.., - July .12 '19.95 letter to City, Manager (will supply copy to PI anming
43 Connnl�ssi , on) - HAtberson/Scharer initiated, Open District acqtiisitioft of'Salachi,(sp),
Ranch; land s n
44 , i' e' torage; needed immediately fory _ repeats. more _ time me - is needed to � read , EIR.
i
45
46 Commission discussion regarding necessity of allowing, more time for,:EIRreview.
47 Commissioner Torliait - will not vote l on anything. until, responses in writing, have been,
48 made.
49 Consensus 1- stay on-track with review. time frame unless many objections -are heard.
50
51 Bill, Kortum - 180 Ely Road - compliments Commission, staff, _Otc. :for changed
52 recommendation of tertiary ; provides that partnership between Santa Ro - sa and,
53 Petaluma for storage might be. possible; Santa Rosa will pay for/ p
1 ID for /look this p ibility;
'.E
1- South County is better place for.. irrigation project; spectrum of crops can expand with
wastewater' irrigation. -
Dan Carlson - City of Santa- Rosa Capital 'Projects Coordinator and Manager for long-
term wastewater project has reviewed report, staff recommendations are good; Petaluma
5 would not have to do additional environmental work for a joint project scope of our studies
6 broad enough to cover joint :project; agrees that combined projects at one reservoir site
7 would have less environmental impacts; Santa Rosa Utility Board asked for a
8 determination of costs fora study of -point venture proposal did not authorize spending
9 money on a study;, comments staff on recommendation of ,cooperation.
10 Nita Miller - 585 Casa .Grande Road - Miller Ronshimer property - one of owners of
11 property, being considered for Higgins -Creek reservoir site owners against this plan;
12 Revised EIR has many inconsistencies why wasn't Wheat Creek Reservoir site studied to
13 same ,extent as other sites; figures imply demand for irrigation, of lands that may not even
14 be there; "just -compensation" is not discussed in Revised EIR;, relocation assistance
15 program!- this needs a great deal more research; any relocation will be totally disruptive
17 . Commissioner Torliatt encourages ave your questiolnshearng for longer time period
unaccept
been adequately answered since the last
18 public meeting?
19 Nita Miller - Don't know, specific responses have not been provided.
20 Senior Planner Barrett -Reason specific questions have not :been. answered, revised EIR is
21 a different type - of document. Not a ,final with responses to each comment. Revised and
22 recirculated for public review because, of scope of the changes.
23 David Keller - I Street - comments on extension of time for public comments; has not
24 had timei to read all new documents; requests time for written responses an additional two
25 weeks; several very large projects under review now - need more time; precedent for
Country = not just Petaluma or California - extra time should be taken for more in -depth
review.
Steve Klausner - 2361 Warm Springs Road_ Glen Ellen - rather :satisfied with changes in
29 revised EIR - one question not ,answered - dairies in Sonoma County are being sited for
30 water quality control problems; cost benefit analysis should be done ;, concerns with marsh -
3`1 demonstration project in 12 acres is asking a lot; 800 acres of managed wetlands within 40
32 miles of Petaluma - this area is critical to fowl; encourages joint venture with Fish and
33 Game, etc. for wetlands /marsh project; should be a public health issue; hasn't reviewed
34 RFP yet.
35 Bill White - Wastewater Citizen's Advisory Committee - major task for several years has
36 been review of documents for this project ;. reviewed EIR, but not main task; addressed Mr.
37 Garvey's, comments - documents have changed so many times and there are still many
38 inconsistencies, but they will be addressed; have listened to everyone who wished to speak.
39 Assistant City' Manager Warren Salmons - contract documents and RFP; Mr. Garvey will
40 receive a written response to all of his questions/ comments; RFP and other documents will
41 go before City Council as a public hearing; thanks Jennifer Barrett for focusing project
42 recommendations; keeps City on environmental track; very unique 'process, seeking best
43 advise available team effort; 5 vendor groups have been participating since beginning of
44 project -have been encouraged to discuss any concerns throughout project; Draft:EIR was
45 rewritten to better answer questions /comments; went back to "square one" and created a
46 new document;, every new comment was not identified: as such; Wastewater Citizens
47 Committee helped create contract documents to allow City to solicit RFP; all comments of
48 Mr. Garvey (including the bulk of comments which do not fall under EIR perusal) will be
responded' to in writing because of promise to Mr. Garvey;. EIR comments will be
responded to in writing in;Final EIR.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - do you have any opinions on. extending time for comments?
Assistant City Manager Salmons - does not want this project to be rushed, but this has been
four years; balance needs to be reached - Planning Commission needs to make their own
54 decision.
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26,
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
36
Commissioner Rahman - requested clarification on timeframe. -
Senior Planner Barrett - stated that late comments can be responded to in RidlEIR and.
brought to Council for further hearings:
. earings: *
Commissioner Wick - written comments could be allowed for an additional two weeks -
discussed process; should give additional two weeks for written comments to October 4th,
Planning. Commission can make recommendation next week unless new issues are .raised.
Public hearing ihg was continued. to a'Special Planning Commission, meeting of September 20,
1995.
II. MAGNOLIA TERRACE SUBDIVISION PUD AMENDMENTI"IRANK RIO RDAN;
431 - MAGNOLIA AVENUE. AND 860 CHERRY STREET; AP NO'S .006-012-015,
020 AND 006-402-008 (tp).
Continued consideration of a. request to amend the PjJP Development Plan and
Zoning Stand ds'fof the Magnolia Terrace Subdivision, to change the de,si
9 1 11
from custom home lot development to production housing.
This item was continued to the October 10, 19.95 Planning; Conunission meeting.
III. PROJECT' STATUS:
1. NESSCO.LANDSCAPING - Continued meeting with applicAnt; will meet
with- applicant at project; site. - (he is now advertising).
2. TRAILBLAZER SIGNS - approved by City. Council.
Bicycle,Committee Meeting tomorrow night 6PM.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 PM - Adjourn 'to a Sp_ ecial Planning Commission. Meeting of
September 20,1995-
min912 / , pjan6l;
I