Laserfiche WebLink
° <br />3. <br />Who <br />will be responsible for <br />monitoring activities on this site once <br />the <br />facility is built? <br />4. <br />Will <br />drawing 40,000 gallons <br />of water per day from the aquifer below <br />the <br />site have a major impact <br />on the wells in adjacent neighborhoods? <br />5. <br />What <br />is the likelihood of this <br />facility contaminating the aquifer <br />serving the wells in adjacent <br />neighborhoods? <br />6. <br />Will <br />the chemicals proposed <br />to be used in this process accumulate in <br />your <br />body if consumed as a <br />result of wells being contaminated? <br />7. <br />How <br />many shifts will this company <br />be operating on week days and on <br />week <br />ends? <br />8. <br />How <br />many trucks per day are <br />anticipated to serve this site and what <br />route will these trucks be <br />taking? <br />9. <br />Will <br />train traffic to this <br />area be increased as a result of approving <br />this <br />type of facility? <br />10. <br />Is the fire protection for <br />this site adequate? <br />11. <br />Will <br />the City have to build <br />a new water tower to serve this facility? <br />Chairman Senkler then closed the hearing and brought this matter back to <br />the Planning Commission for their review and comment. Commissioner <br />Mezzano stated that he was somewhat concerned regarding the ownership of <br />this property, and the ability of the applicants to provide the assurances <br />and security to meet their commitment relating to this proposal. He also <br />felt that the City should look into hiring a consultant to give us an <br />unbiased assessment of the concerns regarding safety and possibility of <br />contaminating the City's water supply. Commissioner Oswald indicated his <br />concern regarding the impact of using 40,000 gallons of water a day on the <br />City's aquifer, and the life expectancy of the protective liner to be <br />installed underneath the treatment plant. Chairman Senkler then informed <br />the audience that it is the job of the Planning Commission to look at this <br />proposal from a land -use standpoint, and that their action, for or against <br />this proposal, will be in the form of a recommendation to the City <br />Council. He indicated that he is uncomfortable with voting on this issue <br />this evening because there are a lot of questions left unanswered, and <br />permits and approvals still not yet received from other governmental <br />agencies. He also concurred with Mr. Mezzano's feelings that the City <br />should secure independent review and recommendations regarding the <br />hazardous chemicals and processing issues. After a brief discussion, the <br />following motion was made: <br />Mezzano made motion, Senkler seconded, to table this matter until the July <br />25, 1990 regular Planning Commission meeting or until the following <br />information is provided: <br />1. The City receives an independent consultant's review of the issues <br />relating to hazardous materials and safety measures being taken with <br />this type CCA fixation plant. <br />2. The applicants secure the required permits and/or approvals by other <br />governmental agencies that will be involved in reviewing this <br />application. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />Senkler made motion, Mezzano seconded, to adjourn at 10:16 PM. <br />All aye. Motion Carried. <br />Mary Ann Creager, Acting Secretary <br />