CC MIN 01-07 to 12-15-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

284 City Manager Fales then made a presentation on the total capacity in Redwood City using a large wall map with colored areas indicating ownership of sewage capacity by the agencies involved. Mr. Fales advised that agencies with undeveloped land were encouraged to buy additional non-grant fundable capacity for use in the event their lands were to be developed, since they cannot expect to use the limited capacity available to the City on the "urban in-fill" theory. Mr. Fales observed that invitations to buy the sewer capacity they might be expected to need in the future were declined by the State for the State College site, by Menlo Country Club and by Horgan Ranch property owners. The Port, Mobil , Parkwood 101, Diamond Shamrock Co. , Emerald Lake Sewer Maintenance District and Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District purchased the additional sewer capacity. Lengthy discussion followed and Mr. Fales, Mr. Addiego, City Attorney Schricker and Planning Director Schroeter commented and replied to questions relating to the relative ease of evaluating capacity re- quirements for commercial and industrial developments; the difficulty of estimating residential use; the expectation that by 1985 the ex- panded project will be complete; the changes in attitudes toward development density by the federal government in view of need to conserve fuel and the housing demand here; the fact that possible use of capacity belonging to other agencies should not be considered by the City; the fact that reports and monitoring are now possible for all approved developments and those being explored which provide guidelines; the possibility of a policy option with regard to sale or lease of capacity during construction of the expansion; the fact that if a heavy user ,such as the S&W Cannery leaves the City the capacity would return to the City; the fact that the City must meet effluent standards and reports monthly on a daily basis; the de- sirability of pretreatment of sewage and attempts to locate those who plook do not do so; and whether or not it would be practical to use the present plant for pretreatment. , (Council recessed from 9:45 to 9:55 p.m. ) General discussion continued with regard to land use planning and con- sideration of availability of sewer capacity; the fact that it is not now critical to take capacity into consideration beyond that provided in the usual environmental impact report (EIR) ; the desire of Council for quality development; definitions of "quality"; the greater latitude of a city council in making planning decisions than that allowed a planning commission; the fact that Council has often returned matters to the Commission when appellants attempted to pro- vide different or additional information in their appeals; and the changes in approach to density by government at various levels recently. Discussion of Planning Commission Procedures It was reported that there has been some criticism of the Planning Commission for meeting only once a month, and Council members urged them to meet regularly twice a month even if meetings are brief in order to provide predictability of meeting dates and improve work simq flow for staff. It was acknowledged that the Commission has agreed to make themselves available, if necessary, to meet more often and have done so, but that a regular schedule is more helpful to those requiring Planning Commission consideration. Chairman Smith advised he will bring up the matter of meeting twice a month at the next Commission meeting. , Joint Meeting Council/Ping. 6/30/80 Page 2