Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/26/1974A G E N D A ?` VTALUMA C � � Y PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY. 2 1974 SPECIAL MEETING 7 :30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL; CHAMBERS, CITY HALL- PETALUMA: CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Balsl aw Bellovich Hilligoss Mattei `Popp Waters Bond STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director.of Community Development CITY OF PETALUMA WATER Public Hea.rz.ng to hear comments why a Negative POLLUTION CONTROL Declaration as determined by the Director of FACILITIES 1972 - Community Development should not be.filed for ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: the,,City. Pollution Control Facilities - 1912.. ADJOURNMENT .tax. M I N 'U T E S P ,, ETAL`UMA C:I:TY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 26, 1974 s • SPECIAL - MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,.CITY'.HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: -Comm. Bellovich, Bond, Hilligoss, Matter Waters ABSENT: Comm. Bals'haw', Popp STAFF: Frank B. Grit'; ; Di.rector'of Community Development CITY OF•PETALUMA The,Planning Commission.was advised that in 1971 WATER POLLUTION a report issued to the City on the Water CONTROL - FACILITIES Pollution Control Facilities - 1972, which in- 1972 - 'ENVIRONMENTAL cl:uded•an Environmental _ Impact Statement approved REVIEW: by the Council, the State Water Resources Board, and the State Clearinghouse. Subsequent-communi- cations followed regarding the grant funds which were awarded,, and the whole discretionary action took place:on the project. The project was not actually begun until 1974. One portion of the project required that the outfall pipe from the project extend out to the Petaluma River, and this P ipe had to go across lands of the State Lands Commission. They in- ' formed our engineer for the project that before they would issue a permit for the pipe to cross State lands, it would have to have an environmental ..elea-rance as called out in the 1974 guidelines for the 'implementation of the.Environmental Quality Act.. The material relating to the project was reviewed and a determination made by the Director of Community Development that the project could not have a s effect on the en- virohment and,.therefore, a Negative Declaration should be filed. In accordance with State law this determination was published to enable the public to make comments on why a 'Negative ,D.ecla- raton.should not be made. •Dis�cuss,ion regarding the proposed future pumping` of . 'wa.te r f into the bay or to -a reclamation reservoir to be utilized irri- gation •water or similar uses. The.Public Hearing was opened and the audience was asked for comments. Mr. Vasco Brazil, 4,551 Lakeville. Highway, addressed ;. the Commission and them that, although . he realized the meeting was only regarding the land�the putfall pipe would cross, he wanted to T Petaluma °City- Planning Commission Minute's, February 26, 1974 argue about the whole plan. He ,asked why public hearings had.not been held at the onset of the proect, and was advised that a :s'eries of public .., hearings were held in 1971 and property owners were notified. Mr,.' Brazil contended that these meetings did not deal with the negative aspects of the ;project. Mr .Brazil questione'd' this particular piece of property had been picked and Mr. Gray explained how the geographic and,physical make up of the sewer system dictated the choice of the site. Comm. Ma:ttei added that the North Marin and Southern Sonoma County Corps of Engineers had chosen the site-and the project had been a direct mandate of the'Bay Area Sewage Service Association and the Regional.Wate.r Quality Control Agency. A great deal of . d° ,scus ion followed regarding 'Mr: Brazil's objection to the site which, he stated, was subject to flooding. He also felt that odors would eminate from the site, Mr. Gray explained the mechanics of the facilities and the physical structure:of the levees and ponds. Fie ..also read sin excerpt from the EIR that told how - the odor factor would be eliminated. Mr. Brazil did not agree that the project would mot.have a detrimental effect, and Mr. Gray ad- vised him that it was felt that the benefits derived from the project were far superior to it detriments, Mr. Brazil read a portion of a Corps of Engineers letter relating to property liabi.l.ty, and asked what legal recourse he would have'if he had problems with his cattle caused by the facility. ,Comm. Mattei replied that if a -city or agency does something that causes harm to. else, an avenue of legal recourse is open -for the injured party. It was further ex- plained to.Mr. Brazil „ the oxidation ponds were only. the fi_rst step in developing a regional wastewater s'ys.tem,:. It was anticipated that within 10 to 12 years the.water would -be piped to a reclamation reservoir and th_e oxidation ponds would.*no longer be used. Mr. Brazil stated that he wished to go on record as ; ha:vang complained, and he was advised that his comments would.be included as input into the Environmental Impact Report that the City has on f i le.. -2- r�. Petaluma City'Planning Commissi-on 'Minutes, February 26, 1974 Mr. Ernie Altenreuther from the Lakeville area addressed the Commission and asked about the quality of water going through the pipes to the ponds. Mr. Gray adv sed,that it would be secondary effluent and of the exact quality of that being discharged presently by the water• pollution control He added,that the eventual tertiary - treatment project would have a quality of water the same° as .drink_ng °water. Mr. Altenreuther asked the of Fish & Game were present , and - al•so - asked if the Division of Highways had - been not.fi,edo No one was present with regard ito fish and game; however, Mr. Altenreuther was advised had been obtained from that agency as well as from the Division of Highways and other state agencies for the initial EIR. Mr,. Altenreuther felt; that adequate public notice had not:been given and was a lso concerned about odors from the project.. He was informed that a public.notice had been placed in the Argus Courier on February 16,, 197 +4, and was also informed that according to the EIR for the facility there would be no odors resulting from this.project. Further discuss on - followed regarding the treatment of sewage. Mr. Raymond 4104 Lakeville Highway, said he concurred with Mr. Brazil regarding the flooding aspect. He also was concerned about the future .2 m llion.gallons of untreated sewage going through the.pipe.as, mentioned in -the Corps of Engineer's letter requesting comments on the pro- ject. He was advised to contact the City Engineer for`.clarifi.cation of that statement. Mr. Caporgno referred to the future City park on the site mentioned the report. He stated he had - already . given an easement for a pipeline but knew nothing about a walkway or city park on the site and felt he .should have been informed. Comm. Mattei in- formed him that these . paeans ' were no definite, and he would be contacted about any future plans. Mr. Walter Silacc:i,, 4347 Lakeville Highway, asked who °he would see if raw sewage would act ually come through the pipes to the ponds. Mr. Gray .. .advised him to pose that question to the City Attorney in writing at this time before any such situation actually developed. A' question was raised from the audience as to whether or not the Corps of Engineers would have a hearing, and Mr. Gray replied that they did not have meetings as such but requested {comments regarding the project by letter. -3- t� .Pe City ;Planning. Commission Minutes; February 26 ® 1974 The public hearing was closed. Comm. Waters made a motion to concur with the determination of the Director of Community Development to file a Negative Declaration on -- this project and Comm. Mattei seconded the motion. AYES 5' . NOES 0- ABSENT 2 OTHER BUSINESS: .—Discu°ssioh followed regarding.the notification .of property owners on; projects that might be of interest to 'It was determined that notices would-b.e sent - to property" owners in the future with regard to public hearings and projects of public interest, but the decision as to which projects were sufficient impact to require such, notification would be left.to the discretion of the Director of Community Development. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further.b,us ness the meeting adjourned at 8: pmm. Ch °airman .�� I Attest: M, 0