HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/20/19951
2
3
4
5
6
7 City Of Petaluma
8
9 Planning Commission Minutes
10
11 SPECIAL NEE77NG WEDNESDAY, SEPTF.MER 20, 1995
12 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
13 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
14
15 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
16
17 ROLL CALL: Feibusch, Rahman*, Barlas (absent), Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld,
18 Wick
19
20 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning, Director
21 Jennifer Barrett, SeniorPlanner
22
23 * Chairman
24
25
26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of September 12, 1.995 were approved with
27 corrections to page 10.
28
29
30 PUBLIC 'COMMENT: None.
31
32 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Kurt Yeiter to leave City of Petaluma - October 13; Pamela
33 Tuft will take over River Plan Project - other projects will be redistributed.
34
35 COMMISSIONER':S REPORT: Commissioners Thompson and Rahman questioned
36 grading work at Victoria Subdivision, - Asst. City Manager Salmons explained grading
37 problems at Victoria - 9 acres of grading into Sonoma County parklands; Oct. 1 is erosion
38 control Ordinance deadline; City of Petaluma will allow contractor to do some work on
39 their property pply to prevent erosion, Commissioner.Feibusch how are inspections done?
40 Assistant City Manager Salmons - no inspections were called for; Commissioner Thompson
41 - cpts' in hillside will stay? Commissioner Rahman - is City concerned that County Board of
42 Supervisors cannot resolve this problem in a .timely •manner? Commissioner vonRaesfeld -
43 NPDES permits are required also. Commissioner Wick invites public /Commission to
44 Downtown Tree Planting weekends - November 4 ,and November 18 - need several full-
45 sized pick -up trucks to haul mulch - should be fun!
46
47 CORRESPONDENCE; ;Letter from, California. Department of Transportation September
48 12, 1995 regarding wastewater project; letter /memo from Warren: Salmons in response to
49 Terence Garvey's questions regarding revised Draft EIR for wastewater project.
50
51 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
1
LEGAL RECOURSE , STATEMENT: Was noted' on agenda.
4
5 CONTINUED BUSINESS
6 PUBLIC HEARING -
7
8 L WASTEWATER, FACILITIES PROJECT AND L(
9 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
10
11 Consideration of Revised Draft. EIR and staff recommendations
12 September 12, 1995).
13
14 Senior Planner Barrett introduced project as continued item, suggested 1
15 after. public testimony is concluded. Three actions to be considered 'by'
16 adequacy of the EIR; (2) project recommendations; (3) General Plan consi
17
18. Chairman Rahman - would like to finish public input at this meeting -: writt(
19 be submitted throu October 4..
20 Terence Garvey 83 Maria presented sample water balance. on oyel
21 various uses /storage; marshes might be most economic system 'Of storage
22 documents - citizens need to get best dollar -value and best project; many c
23 in these documents might be very expensive later; these documents
24 loopholes; too much money at stake; presented overhead of major7issues, tl
25. 1), public vs: private'' ownership, 2) marsh and other alternatives, 3
26 conservation, 4) I & I repairs, 5) energy conservation (may be 'covered.a(
27 6) geotechnical work at reservoirs, ponds, and works (leakage, aquifers, gn
28 7) complete NPDES requirements in writing, 8) monitoring methods, sche
29 assurance; RFP - 1) whether whole RFP or just pieces are included, in the
30 unique . in calling for private ownership, 3) many vague conditions that coi
31 tens of millions of dollars; 4) errors noted. in January and February not ;
32 changed, 5j dozens of appendices to be completed later and not subject
33 of building codes and other specifications needed for proper approval` and
34 City supervision of construction in that the City could 'become owner for
35 advantage or after 30 years. Note 1 - -Proof of savings seems to be
36 construction O&M It is difficult °to determine.howtprivate ownership pros
37 Chairman Rahman Wants it to be very clear what our charge in regard
38 RFP -is; requests clarification on comments from staff.
39
40 Senior-Planner Barrett - All comments on environmental issues in the; Fij
41 written comments, will be addressed; staff is ,prepared to respond after 1
42 comments made this evening; contract documents are preliminary' draft do(
43: finalized until a proposer is selected, there's quite a lead time: Comm
44 documents are being addressed by the Committee:and will go'the City Cou
45 Commissioner _Torliatt - will there be.a public forum to respond' to, the RH
46 Assistant City 'Manager 'Salmons Wastewater Committee has been m(
47 years developing documents, evaluating options, there have been' at` least
48 there are still changes being made = not massive changes;. Wastewater Cc
49 open public forum; documents will be' subject, to public hearings bef
50 documents going to vendors will probably be 7th version.
51 Commissioner Torliatt questions regarding public hearing processes.
G RANGE
ontinued from
staff respond
nmi'ssion: (1)
icy.,
continents can
lead; : cornpares
`EM and, RFP
)llar "traps" are
have too many
;se° include: 'EIR
serious water
;quately hiter ?),
undwater, etc.),
ules and quality
EIR, 2) PXP is
Id cost the City
-t confirmed as
-view,, 6) listing.
onstruction, 7)
ause, ecohoniic'
'or, engineering,
.s savings.
o contracts land
EIR including
lic hearing, to
ge nts, won't be
s on the RFP
ting ...for several
versions so far,
mittee meets in
-e the Council;
2
1 Assistant City Manager Salmons : describes process, public hearing forum, etc.; on last set
2 of directions from `Wastewater Committee,, very open process; Commission has "ultimate"
3 version of`EIR; expanded upon public .heari ng process; there will be' a minimum 6 - week
4 'public review period before Council will hold hearings' on RFP and contract documents;
5 City will respond to -all comments,
6 Commissioner Thompson Explain differences, in ,responses to Commission comments and
7 Council comments how are responses to: EIR going to be handled at Council level?
8 Assistant City Manager Warren Salmons - Council may direct staff to respond to any
9 comments in writing.
10 Commissioner Wick - Relationship between EIR and RFP?
11 Senior Planner Jennifer Barrett - Usually these contracts are not prepared until later in a
12 project, but this is an unusual ;project EIR will be incorporated. into RFP and mitigations
13 into contract documents and will become a binding part of these, agreements; focus of EIR
14 is to provide a site to propose on.
15 Commissioner Wick - Getting more confused; are contract documents in EIR - the contract
16 document is not a component of the project, they are referenced for informational purposes
17 and are not to be construed as adequate until the Council acts on them, even if EIR is
18 deemed adequate.
19 Senior Planner Barrett Yes; that -is correct.
20 Assistant City Manager. Salmons - 'Responses to comments on revised Draft EIR will be in
21 writing; any substantive comments.on, the. Final EIR will be responded to in writing.
22 Chairman Rahman - will written comments that could be received after tonight's meeting be
23 responded to in writing ?'
24 Assistant City Manager Salmoris - Yes; City wants environmental record to be complete.
25 David`Ke11er 1327 T Street - staff, vendors, public want to get on with this project, a lot of
26 - pressure to move this ;project on very .confusing to all involved; Mr. Garvey's comments
27 regarding being very cautious are very important; some problems with process - believes
28 RFP and bid documents should be considered' a part of the EIR;, under environmental law,
29 the actual ' documents should ' be., in .review under CEQA; the RFP Appendices available in
30 Library AB and C are dated Juary, not the most current documents a number of items
31 are inadequate = geotechnical investigations have not been done'equally; that is inadequate;
32 geotechnical review for .dam' sites' not - required until after a contract has been let - that is
33 crazy, open checkbook to contractor; Petaluma is repeating some of the worst .aspects of
34 SantaRosa's problems;: Appendix E is referenced that Appendix does not exist, responses
35 do not exist, at least not iri that: document; some environmental requirements are more
36 stringent with private ownership .- public operation is not discussed as an option; monitoring
37 procedures are different with privatization; no protection for "whistle- blowers" if
38 privatization is adopted; consequences for rate payer very large; irrigation - looking at
39 increase in acreage no assessment of environmental impacts to increased acreage..-
40 problems with erosion, salt build -up, cost effectiveness, energy costs, no monitoring
41 programs;, soils need to remain _alive; will existing ponds be lined? explicit water
42 conservation 'programs are missing from EIR; questions ; regarding :sizing, of plant; Brown
43 and Caldwell 985) did a study, but there is still no reduction in sizing; inflows plant is
44 sized to deal with shock loads from processing. plants in area source control should be
45 discussed; Regional Board wants ao see pilot plant; :EPA will' be requiring new standards at
46 end of 1995 (tables now use 1992. standards); toxicity studies toxicity testing is assigned
47 to vendor now,, this is totally inappropriate should be a third party (City or other testing
48 lab)-- land acquisition method current preferred. method is condemnation - this is very
49 inappropriate; outrageous aquifer storage is being dismissed; appreciates having extended
50 time for submittal of written comments; a local PUC should be established for rate -payer
51 protection now.
52 Steve Klau"sner - Sonoma County Tax Payer's Association - (submitted written comments)
53 fundamental decisions need to be made; _pursuing advanced treatment with Santa Rosa is
54 very expensive all. disposal alternative need to be explored; maintain maximum flexibility
i �
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45'
46
47
4.8
49
50
51
52
53
' ' � g p 'al olio for wetlands SW water
for river discharge; no ustifiable .reason to re uire advanced treatment. if no shallow
discharge is anticipated;. wetlands' cannot, sta nate - s eci' p y ,. 7 years
for pilot, project;, reclamation, is. costly element. in this plan, land -based disposal project-
aurvival of local dairy ;industry already in question; costly to bring dairies into water
quality compliance; airport area is, good area for ,expansion - City- owned' land; p
rivatization
is management decision for City to make; 'regulatory concerns,; support treatment facility
capable of advanced treatment only if.resulis'are put to good use..
Brian, Hayes - 5 :Morning Sun Drive - talked to rate payers first, most ignorant of public
meetings, public not getting the message ;. average person in 'Petaluma -is not rich, ,poor
community, understands business persons mentality,, but not convinced that economics will
work; need: to talk about economics -more in EM member of 'Petaluma Citizens for
Responsive Government - if public can pay for this through bonds, his,groug will'be for this
project; focus on money problems; do not. close out public, take lots of time; what ;is
way of doing this environmentally.
Terence .
cheapest Garvey - submitted memo to Planning Director Tuft - copy went to City Council;
actual capacity 4 million gallons per day (correction t NLnutes, of last meeting); urges
more hearings on RFP - only place to go to discuss more points in RFP
Commissioner Rahman - City Council will not mirimize this important project because 'they
are busy; believes. City Council will do a good job.
Terence Garvey - staff. has responded; inadequately °to his comments..
Vasco Brazil - At a. - previous Planning. Commission. meeting (previous Chairman)
Commissioners indicated that EIR would be sent back to staff, if inadequate i f)lease
consider thus; wetlands siting concerns; 333 acres would be lost if porids built on his
property; whole process of privatization is a very expensive process - vendors -should 'be
'expending their money on this exploration as a cost of doing business; City should' require
proposals, from vendors; analyze�proposals all at very nvnimal cost to City; all costs would
be known; rate payers costs should be known before approval, by City Council;, actual', plant
costs, :not estimates should be known; there is no vendor -and no. designed project no
modular- expansion of present plant site is explored more geotechnical work must be done,
Tolay Lake site idea with'Santa Rosa . should not be considered;, read ,letter sent previously
to John' Scharer '(July 12) -regarding Wheat Creek survey; does RAM'represent the City. or
themselves?; andowner survey should be from the City, not a vendor;of the City.
Dave Heaney - X502 Ely Road - _ Patocchi Ranch owner - will the same City staff' be
monitoring this project as those who monitored the recent illegal grading at. Putnam lurk ?;.
need rate information; history moved ranch 'to Browns Lane ,one7hundred .years ago;
Vasco Brazil said that staff stated at last meeting that City was.going buy, Patocchi Ranch
land.
S tie _Miller 2115 Adobe Road has not been told by° the_ City even ",though her property is
.being considered for purchase.
Chairman Rahman asked for staff responses to comments received.
Senior Planner.. Barrett .- responded to. questions - clarified RFP docurr
project's physical-changes and operating characteristics are covered in the
changes to the environment would be essentially the. same, for a publicly 61
owned facility; the City currently has a private contract. operator a
documents are based upon the existing operating agreement;, the contrac
an EIR issue but, will be dealt with by the Committee :and City, .Council;
need to, be designated first for proposals; discharg&requirements'areprovi
report, subject to change premature° to get a written set of standards frc
now, like a developer asking for conditions of approval prior to submittir
plan;, regarding previous comments suggesting lack of standards for
nitrogen, it should be noted that. these are nutrients that are non, toxic
effluent limits for these .elements;, 'nutrients can cause algae blooms in
ents -again 'the
HIR,; the physical
med or privately
nd the contract
language is not
appropriate sites
led in the project
m Water ('duality
g a development
phosphorus and
id so "there is no
the river during
4.
I certain times of the year and are measured in terms of algae growth; there are limits
2 established for the receiving waters for nutrients,' these' limits are stated in the EIR and also
3 described in the Project Report; dairy waste management programs is also related to
4 nutrient loading: and is addressed in. EK- these impacts are identified as the responsibility of
5 Regional Water Quality Board, City supports those programs through the irrigation
6 program; regarding expanding the existing plant, the City Council (in '1989) decided a new
7 plant was needed instead of expansion of existing plant; 'geotechnical work was extensive;
8 several reports on file which are summarized in the EIR; originally evaluated 13 reservoir
9 sites, including the Tolay site; these sites were screened to two that were recommended. for
10 further- evaluation in the EIR; in response to Commissioner's comments additional
11 geotechnical studies were completed on. the recommended reservoir site and oxidation
12 ponds; the studies show that sites are feasible for reservoir and treatment plant construction;
13 design measures are specified to address any soil problems; additional ;soil borings will be
14 completed for design.
15 Commissioner Thompson - questions regarding new water quality standards.
16 City Engineer T. Hargis -explained Water Quality Standards are determined on a case -by-
17 case basis. by Regional', Board., We have a. renewal' permit application pending now - goes
I& for 5 years. Standards are.generally tightened at each renewal.
19 Matt' -Gerhardt - Brown and' Caldwell - Harding Lawson geotechnical report shows that
20 Higgins Creek site would 'be a good reservoir -site, close to irrigation areas; other sites
21 including- -.the Tolay site have fault lines through them making reservoir construction, more
22 difficult and expensive.
23 Commissioner Wick - Does not remember mention of underlying faults at other sites in
24 EIR; was same level of geotechnicalstudies done for all sites?
25 Senior Planner Barrett '!EIR identifies Tolay fault going through the Wheat Creek site.
26 Geology of ,both sites: and several others were , originally evaluated in a 1980 geotechnical
27 study upon which �ihe original screening analysis was based. City updated the geotechnical
28 report for the recommended reservoir site to look again at potential for groundwater
29 infiltration, inundation :and current seismic -standards.'
30
31 With regard to contact with property owners, it should, be clarified that ,staff has talked to
32 every property owner potentially affected by. this project; all owner contact has gone
33 through, City staff; has made a great effort to make sure all owners have been informed;
34 letters sent at the outset to each property owner of record'notifying;them that their property
35 was being evaluated by the City for possible wastewater :facilities, including maps showing
36 the layout and an estimate of the acreage all reports and notices have been sent to
37 all. property , owners - affected, at each stage of the process.; for each and every site visit I have
38 personally contacted each landowner and requested access to the sites; these owners have
39 attended numerous public meetings; 'held individual meetings with staff; owners have been
40 made awarethat staff is available -if they have any questions.
41
42 The reference to Appendix E is a typographical error in EIR - Appendix E was deleted and
43 presented as a summary of key issues in the staff xeport at last public meeting - has been
44 made available to the public. Can. be put in Final EIR if desired.
45
46 Chairman'Rahman - Are documents. at library `the most current documents?
47 - Assistant City_ Manager Salmons Base documents at library are dated January, Appendices
48 have been, added as available; revised documents available in City offices; there has been no
49 effort to Tun this project through quickly. All Committee meetings are open to the public,
50 there will be hearings before the City Council on these documents.
51
I Senior Planner Barrett regarding reference to other alternatives Aquifer storage. was
2 i discussed �in, Project Report and the findings are summarized in the EIR;I .Aquifer- storage
3 -was determined not to tie: a feasible option for Petaluma.
4 David Keller - What .is: the Project Report it in, the library.?
5 Senior Planner Barrett - Project Report is °in library and available at City Hall; There are a
6 few more issues to respond to refer, to consultant Harlan +Glines from Jones and Stokes
7
8 Harlan Glines consultant Jones & Stokes - issues relating to reclamation, and sludge disposal
9 are evaluated as a program in 'Chapter. 6 of EIR, summarizes existing onditions, describes
10 setting; discusses potential- reuse of sludge under is variety of methods, irrigation program,
11 potential. impacts.and• mitigation measures are listed.
12 Commissioner Torliatt -Where are monitoring wells located?
13 Senior Planner Barrett 17 different wells currently monitored (shown in Figures in the
14 Project Report) and EIR recommends additional. wells be. monitored along Higgins and Ellis
15 Creek refer to figures in the EIR., The project, report identifies over 1;Q00 'acres for possible
16 irrigation; The EIR evaluates at a program level meaning that as new sites are
17 recommended for additional site specific studies of soils, slopes and biology need be completed. We are recommending two areas for further study. Need 300 to 500
19 acres' for irrigation within the •next 3 to 5 years: Asked Tom Hargis to discuss I and I study
20 City 'Engineer Har several projects from the 1985. study have' been completed, and
21 several are, included in the City's '5 -year Sewer Capital Improvement `Pr updated'I & I
22 study :is' being done now to identify the most cost- effective projects,
23 Senior Planner Barrett Infiltration control Was' also 'evaluated' .in the Project Report;
24 :showed graphic illustrating storage requirements for various treatment alternatives; water
25 conservation provides significant savings `of approximately 500 ac -ft infiltration does not
26 affect storage if there is continued discharge - peak flows are discharged to the riyer; if
27 we phaseout the winter discharge infiltration is' a. very small component oil the total storage
28 volume required,. approximately- 60 ,ac =ft; this - is because peak flows occur- only
29 occasionally; a water conservation program is recommendedin accordance with 'the; So. Co.
30 Water Agency study currently underway- I &' I control does provides savings in the
31 collection and pumping systems.
32 Commissioner Thompson Water Conservation Program should be in place prior to project
33 being defined.
34 Senior Planner Barrett That could be added to - the recommendations;~ we have
35 considerable lead time, several years before these. facilities will''be on -line.
36 Commissioner Rahman -'Is Project _Report part, of EIR. or RFP?
37 Senior .Planner Barrett - The Project Report provides a detailed description of the project
38 and long -range rnanagement program;, it has been 'incorporated by reference ,into the EIR in
39 its entirety and 'is summarized in .Chapter 2 of the EIR. Project Report provides link
40 between, the EIR, and UP documents.
41 David Keller - Confusion is because of confusing labeling of different documents- general
42 public does. not understand what is and 'is not being ,reviewed under'CEQA.
43 Assistant City Manager Salmons - EIR is part of RFP (Appendix D2) and project report is
44• part of RFP (Appendix D`1); much of this ,confusion, might: be because there is' just so much
45 information provided.
46 Chairman Rahman - RFP is not part.. of the Commission's review:
47 Senior Planner Barrett- Site needs to be defined through. EIR process for the RFP.
48 Vendors need to know what sites_ are feasible and what mitigations are required before they
49 submit detailed proposals.
50 : Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Both of these documents (the EIR and' RFP) - are being kept
51 'open- ended. There:are too many options.
52 Bill `White member of the Wastewater Committee - City has to start focusing, like Dr.
53 Tchab�onaglous has stated before - EIR allows us to focus on a solution that still leaves a
1
6
I whole lot of options open; staff has been working very, hard for several'_ years; comments are
2 out of place, staff shouldn't be considered wrong just because someone challenges them.
3 Terence Garvey If Project Report is .part of EIR, put it into the Table, of Contents;
4 .disagrees with Steve vonRaesfeld - there are not enough options; practically all streambeds
5 are on faults; Tolay Lake should be considered it .is downhill, heads toward northbay; site
6 at Lakeville Highway and Highway 37 might be a good marsh site.
7 Vasco-Brazil All members of Wastewater Committee-represent commercial businesses in
8 Petaluma - there is not enough residential rate -payer members represented; 3 of 4 members
9 of Committee were in favor of privatization from beginning of meetings; all members are
to hard - working.
11 David Keller - Were owners asked if they would voluntarily sell their property to City for
12 reservoir site?
13 Assistant City Manager Salmons - That would be a policy issue for City Council.
14
15 Public Hearing closed (at '11:OOPM).
16
17 Discussion regarding next. meeting date.
18
19 Dennis McQuade commented on notice procedure for continuance.
20
21 Continued to Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 1995.
22
23
24 ADJOURNMENT 11.20 PM.
25
26
27 Meeting date was subsequently changed for the wastewater facilities project and renoticed
28 to entire wastewater mailing list for a special meeting at 7:00 PM on October 11, 1995.
29
30 mino92o'/ plan63
31
7