Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/11/19951 2 3 4 r 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 48 49 City Of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 1995 CITY COUNCIL, CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ROLL CALL: Present:, - 'Feibusch, Rahman *, Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld, Wick; Absent: Barlas STAFF: Pamela Tuft; Planning - Director Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner * ' Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMEND: Pete:Talbot from Montgomery Watson, a potential vendor for the Wastewater Project spoke for' a: few minutes; encouraged the Planning, Commission to move ahead with the approvals; feels this has been a most extensive and thorough process. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Sonoma County Permit Resource Management regarding Wastewater.DEIR/project. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was rioted on the agenda. CONTINUED. BUSINESS I. WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT AND LONG RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of Wednesday, October 10, 1995. i Al 2 Senior Planner Barrett 'gave opening statement, public . hearing, was closed 3 September 20th; written comment period was extended to, Oct. 4th, Commission 4 received alle written ' en comments in the packet, written comments reflect testimony 5 provided at the hearing; staff taff and consultants responded. to the substantive 6 environmental_ points at the hearing; responses will be further documented in the 7 Final EIR; three actions requested of the Commission: 1) adequacy of the 8 document; 2) project recommendations, - and 3) consistency with the General Plan. 9 Staff can respond to any questions the Commission may have. to 11 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 12 13 Chairman Rahm Asked Commission to focus On EIR first then discuss project 14 recommendations and General Plan consistency. 15 Commissioner Wick - regarding Trent Orr letter - could the points made in his letter be 16 addressed by staff? Is RF.P within scope of EIR or not? 17 Senior Planner Barrett - Contra - ct documents will be the final approval documents and the 18 last will become to be completed this process; EIR.and adopted mitigations, I ­ p h 19 part of'these draft contract documents;, the project and - - physical changes that these 20 documents would , enable is evaluated in the EM the language in the•contract, such as h - ow 21 the appendices are - labeled or whether a buy -back provision is included is not in scope of 22 EIR , not subject to, CEQ A only, physical. aspects; 'the project :report' °provides the . 23 connection between the EIR and theRFP documents - it is the detailed project description 24 for the ptoposals and the basis for evaluation in the EIR. With regard to the first point 25 raised in the lettet­- that there is not sufficient description of the project;, the project _p 26 description is thorough and complete as presented,in the Project Report and summarized 27 in thei EIR there is a broad range of alternatives evaluated, many components in a., 28 complex project; the second point regarding privatization ownership of treatment plant is 29 , not aftenvironmental issue; We,have,received four separate legal opinions on this issue; the g a publicly plant. 30 physicAl,chan es are evaluated regardless of ownership; even i 31 were an alternative evaluated, in the EIR the -analysis ,:would be the game With respect to - p tor in Any case. 32. the 'hysical changes and operations We use a priVate contract operator I 33 Commissioner Wic What about Orr's questions regarding adequacy of the, alternative 34 reservoir sites? 35 Senior Planner Barrett - both reservoir sites looked at equally at first-, more detail on 36 Higgins Creek' site was developed after it was ,determined to be recommended alternative; 37 conforms: with ,CEQA guidelines, not all alternatives need to. be. evaluated';at an equal level . 38 of detail sufficient detail is provided to determine that Higgins Creek site has - much less 39 prdblems; the more detail we gathered on Wheat : 'reek confirmed greater impacts at t his 40 location. 41 Commissioner Thompson - What. would happen if Higgins Creek site is determined to be 42 infeasible? 43 Senior Planner Barrett - site has been deternined be very feasible geotechnical reports, 44 etc.,, show feasibility, no doubt the site is feasible, but question of costs for under - lying d in 45 conditions- any addition`a'l,costs would be covered °under the 30% , contingenc y included 46 the cost estimates-. 47 Commissioner Wick - I believe the question is, what if it was infeasible and another site 48 neededto'be chosen, what would the procedure be? 'Senior gior Planner Barrett - In the possibility .49 e y that the site is infeasible, then the City 50 would be in a position , of revising the project: Wheat Creek site could be selected based 51 upon this!EIR; there may be .a possibility ofzjbirit project with Santa Rosa, or we may 52 look at other sites'. The procedure is ' clear in CtQA whenever there is a change to a 53 project, you re-evaluate the,EIR, and if:necessary provi de additional Information either in a 54 Supplemental EM,or Initial Study. - 1 Commissioner Wick - Is the Hopper Street site evaluated in the EIR? 2 Senior Planner Barrett There is not sufficient room at the' 9' acre Hopper Street site for a 3 new facility; additional land adjacent to the Hopper Street site is evaluated' in EIR as an 4 alternative site fot of the existing facility; Referring back to other comments in 5 the l'e'tter - discharge standards. cannot be determined before a detailed proposal is 6 submitted; we have provided anticipated discharge limits Wand evaluated these in the EIR, 7 Regional Board will establish limits only for constituents of primary concern; EIR 8 identifies these elements;- EIR will be document used by Water Quality Board for 9 determination of standards. 10 Commissioner Wick - Has Water. Quality Board indicated that EIR is adequate for their 11 purposes? 12 Senior Planner Barrett - verbally the Board has indicated that the discharge standards are 13 appropriate, starting point forthis evaluation, no other comments have been received from 14 the board on EIR, no comment generally indicates they find the document to be adequate. 15 Commissioner vonRaesfeld -'Why is mentioning of procurement process in Attachment A 16 for * Planning Commission approval? Should be a recommendation from Citizen's 17 Committee. 18 Senior Planner Barrett - the statement refers to a finding of consistency with the General 19 Plan' , on the performance criteria. It's worded this way because we don't have proposals 20 yet. Procurement . process refers to the performance criteria set forth in the Project 21 Report. Itmay bea poor choice of words that should be clarified. 22 Commissioner Feibusch all questions /concerns have been answered to my satisfaction. 23 Commissioner Thompson - UI (inflow and infiltration) should be looked at more 24 completely, how would a recommerndation/concern such as that be handled? 25 Senior Planner Barrett - Generally Commissioner comments are transmitted in the minutes 26 of the - meeting. We could also provide a separate list of recommendations. 27 Commissioner Torliatt - Will our concerns /recommendations be on a list to Council? Or 28 will there be additional studies that come back to us? 29 Assistant City Manager Salmons -, After issues raised by Commission are transmitted to 30 Council, they will indicate to staff any 'issues they wish to have more study done on; a 31 separate document from Commissioners should be addressed to Council; Council will 32 evaluate comments from Commission to determine if `they would like further analysis or 33 evaluation; hopes we have covered " "all ground Commission has requested in past. 34 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - what is review period/timeframe for Council on the RFP 35 documents and EIR? Will they be. considered at the same public hearing? Maybe too 36 much at once. 37 Assistant City Manager Salmons - We expect the contract documents and EIR to go to 38 Council in same time period, maybe4iot the same meeting, suggested a Special Meeting. 39 Chairman Rahman - Again direct Commissioners to identify any fundamental problems 40 with the EIR document? 41 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - a few minor EIR related items - aesthetic component of 42 reservoir needs to be expanded once final location of reservoir is determined; human 43 element is important need far better definition of acquisition strategy and process; would 44 feel 'comfortable if RFP documents were evaluated at same time; EIR is adequate as far as 45 the project has been defined. 46 Commissioner Thompson - sense that project can move forward, project is very confusing; 47 not convinced that, there is enough land to be irrigated; but recognize that you can't be 48 compl'ete'ly convinced on every aspect over the longterm of the project. 49 Chairman Rahman -;not sure what more can be done until some decisions are made; don't 50 know- else to ask; message to City Council don't take project lightly. 51 Commissioner Thompson - odd EIR, very confusing process, hope there won't be another 52 like it. 53 Assistant City Manager Salmons - Structure of this process was set by the community 54 through a series of public workshops that developed the Planning Criteria. Staff has I struggled. to bring EIR to. Commission/Council. that meets - the Planning Criteria to provide 2 for a performance based . procurement- in an open and competitive process and' meets 3 CEQA requirements. 4 Chairman: 'kahman ­ This is a very unusual/complex project; attended, the sewer 5 workshops and agree with Warren's comments, about the structure o . this process. The 6 community= wanted a performancebased process. 7 Commiss -. Why wouldM s , vendor come to City with,a project? 8 Assistant City Manager Salmons - good question, staff has struggled with this through the 9 process, need to define appropriate site and mitigation measures that would be required 10 for proposers. If we get, - vague proposals then each change required is 'very costly, 11 especially if ad difional environmental issuescome up. 12 C 0 m 'is§ioner Torliatt - How are.these environmentalIssues defined? 13 Assistant City Manager Salmons - earl City hel sc y in process, el opjng session with public 14 including vendors; defined project siting, parameters for "small bok?', "medium . box" land 15 "big box" alternatives accommodate 4 wide range of technologies; now at a point where 16 we would eliminate the big box- oxidation , pond, alternative because of environmental 17 impacts. EIR is a unique one, but provides a model for other EIR'.s on a performance 18 based procurement., 19 Commissioner Tor� , fiatt - Sounds like most vendors have,a good idea of how they are going 20 to proceed. 21 As - City Manager Salmons - Staff would be very happy if vendors would indicate 22 how they will , proced,d; g Throu hout the process vendors have opportunity to point out if , 23 we are restricting: their potential proposals No one has raised - any, objections over , the 24 proj ect , recommendations or siting analysi 25 Chairman Rahman - Do we feel EIR `is adequate for list of recommendations? 26 Commissioner�Thomvso - EIR .is adequate except - handling of prourement of property. 27 ' Commissioner vorgzesfeld - Property procurement strategy/human component is not 28 defined adequate - ly. 29 Commissioner Torliatt -.staff needs to go out and ;talk to property owners - can't take 30 away owned by families for generations without working but d,strategy. How much 31 land do: we.1need from each owner 32 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Won't be happy if condemnation proceedings taken place., 33 Senior Planner Barrett Much conversation has taken. place with property owners; City 34 staff has never recommend condemnation,, but rather. the wording says acquisition. EIR 35 identifies development . of a detailed relocation! program -to work with the property owners 36 as a mitigation n gation niegsure;, staff cannot approach owners about acquisition, must : hire a, right- 37 of-wa y an agent for that purpose; can't begin acquisition process until a decision is made 38 property takes each property owner and a range of capacity alternatives are identified .39 in EIR Table 3d and 4d. 40 Commissioner Torliatt - How many acres necessary f6r Patocchi site? 41 Senior Planner Barrett - Of the 310 acres; approximately 80 acres would- need to be 42 acquired forthe reservoir; there is a project recommendation, to consider acquisition of the 43 remAinder, property forpossible irrigation; s ation; two reasons for this; I first, some of the property 44 owners h desire to: sell 9 -aye expressed :ntire property rather than have it severed, secondly 45 City .needs' to expand irrigation program in the near term and could utilize same; pipeline 46 required for the reservoir. Again. the recommendation is to considdr:acquisition of the 47 entire ranch as an option. 48 Chairman Rahman, - kind of split into two issues human an _ d environmental; could you 49 restate t ?. atethe recommendation on the human.impact 50 Commissioner voriRaesfeld - recommend development of procedure and strategy for 5.1 acquisition of lands should be discussed may not be an EIR. issue but is an important issue. 52 Commissioner -Wick - Have some comments on the process and also on the EIR, CEQA is 53 supposeAo be structured go that citizens canunderstand the process; the process,of having 54 draft EIR reviewed at Commi'ssion and Final reviewed by Council does not serve the 1 public well not to change process in middle of a project, but should look at the City's 2 Guidelines; also .should have "stand=alone" EIRs that reflect all comments in one single 3 document; frustrated with process of having to refer back and forth to Final and Draft 4 documents. 5 6 Chairman Rahman requested that the EIR process be added to a future agenda for 7 discussion. 8 9 Commissioner Wick - two comments on. EIR structure (1) tables in back summarizing 10 impacts.very helpful to determine merits of different project alternatives however cross - 11 references to other tables is frustrating; recommend each. item should be filled out fully so 12 that .reader doesn't have to refer back and forth; (2). more clarification between 13 project/program level analysis; simply labeling each impact whether it's a project level or 14 program 'level analysis; Substance- of EIR Final should respond to: 1) Mr. Brazil's 15 comments presented earlier regarding sizing of capacity /population growth; 2) more 16 clearly state environmental costs/benefits of advanced treatment; 3;) need to better explain 17 why providing 100 % capacity in - reservoir and the. need for a marsh system; 4) if there is a 18 job action by a private vendor - (strike) then would have an effect on the plant and 19 physical effect environmental problems would occur; can't just find staff to run facility; 5) 20 agrees with Thompson - lands available for irrigation need to be pinned down; should be 21 addressed in a more finite way;. Santa Rosa has a more sophisticated process, secures 22 easements or agreements; 6) oxidation pond component should be put back into EIR and 23 not dismissed from document. 24 Chairman - Rahman Is rest of Commission in concurrence with Commissioner Wick's 25 statements? all concur. 26 Senior Planner Barrett - Oxidation pond alternative is still evaluated in Revised EIR - has 27 not been dropped out. The recommendation.is not to change the EIR, but rather based on 28 the findings in the EIR it :is recommended that the pond alternative be eliminated as a 29 possible site /technology choice for the proposers because of greater impacts. 30 Commissioner Torliatt problem with reservoir and storage sizing after treatment is 31 picked - wants reservoir as small as possible; look for other wetland sites to reduce size of 32 reservoir; wetlands storage not addressed: adequately; is freshwater marsh feasible in salt 33 marsh;area'by the river, can we, develop wetlands in other areas? 34 Senior Planner Barrett - yes, wetlands can be developed near the river in upland areas - 12 35 acres adjacent to ponds could be used for demonstration marsh or one of the ponds could 36 be converted to a marsh. wetlands need to be located in proximity of the oxidation ponds 37 and,the river in order to discharge through the wetland. Other sites along pipeline routes 38 could be looked at in the future. 39 Commissioner Torliatt needs more detail' on I/I problems, understand that it doesn't 40 affect the organic load, but is does affect storage; not clear how reservoir will be 41 constructed and not affect ground water; even with monitoring wells, what will be done if 42 there is a problem? cost not usually dealt with in CEQA, but makes recommendation very 43 difficult; questions regarding irrigation of farmlands with wastewater and sewer sludge to 44 same lands. 45 City Engineer Hargis - yes it is possible to irrigate with wastewater and add sewer sludge 46 to same land - on -going testing required for all reclamation before, during and after 47 application. EPA regulations& must be followed. 48 Commissioner Torliatt - concerns to look at down the line, not comfortable with Santa `­49 Rosa competing for irrigation of farmlands, they may have better quality water, better 5o sludge, or offer'better deal to farmers; don't know if property owners are in -line to receive 51 wastewater; need to look at sewer mitigation fee for new development; Dolan decision 52 may affect 'hook -up fees; more stringent source controls needed; shouldn't look at joint 53 venture with Santa Rosa- don't need to get wrapped up in that; avoid legal battle, take 54 steps to alleviate condemnation. 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24.. 25 26 27 2s 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Commissioner Thompson - recommends City Council appoint/hire a project manager, someone to oversee this,project through building, construction, permits. Commissioners. Felbusch/Toillatt - agrees. City Engineer Hargis City Council has ;already approved hiring a Utility - Registered Professional Engineer will have experience in treatment plants; will work primarily' on this project; staff to Board , of Public Utilities that will also be created.. Commissioner vonRaesfeld - provided revisions to, text of Attachments for, clarification before making motion. add statement `whereas" to end of Attachment A the Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR after a hearing on' the.. documents. Other minor changes/clarifications to text in Attachments B & C were noted by staff. Chairman'Rahman - Is 'staff clear on our direction? Senior Planner Barrett = some comments need responses in the Final EIB„ suggest other comments regarding recommendations be drafted by staff and. submitted for review by Commission before forwarding to Council. Motion was made by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and 'seconded by Commissioner. Thompson to direct staff to prepare a final EIR for certification by {City Council based on the facts and findings provided in Attachment A as amended. Commissioner Barlas: Absent Commissioner Feibusch:. Yes'_ . Commissioner Thompson: Yes Commissioner Torliatt: Yes Commissioner Wick: Yes Commissioner. vonRaesfeld: Yes Chairman Rahman: Yes - Motion was made. by Commissioner vonRaesfeld, and "seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend approval of the project recommendations a& presented in the staff report, and make: a determination of consistency with the City's General Plan based. on the findings provided in Attachments Band C as amended. Commissioner'Barlas: Absent Commissioner- Feibusch: Yes Commissioner Thompson: Yes Commissioner Torliatt: Yes Commissioner Wick: Yes Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes Chairman Rahman: Yes Adjournment; 9 :45 PM min1011 / plan63 1.