PC 051309 - Laserfiche WebLink

because techniques change. He stated that he believed that down the road, this should be thought of in terms of water issues. Commissioner Blank stated that it does not exclude reverse osmosis and that what it is saying is not to utilize water reclamation techniques which could adversely affect the drink water quality. He added that reverse osmosis is a water reclamation technique, and if this does not adversely affect and does not have negative impacts on drinking water, then it would be all right to utilize it. Commissioner Narum agreed and noted that the key point to water reclamation techniques under Program 3.1 is if it potentially has negative impacts on the drinking water quality. She added that, on the other hand, Program 4.5, water reclamation could be utilized with parks or other things. She indicated that she did not support changing the programs. Commissioner Pentin then referred to Chapter 10, Energy Element, Program 16.1, regarding synchronizing traffic lights and smooth traffic flow to prevent gas wastage. He inquired whether this has a timeline for a specific implementation date. Ms. Stern replied that generally, the City Council will set its own priorities. Commissioner Pentin referred to Chapter 11, Noise Element, Program 2.1 on page 11-25, regarding Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding for sound walls. He noted that this is included under reducing outdoor noise levels in residential areas. He inquired whether or not the reference was to City-owned sound walls as well as privately owned ones. Ms. Stern replied that Program 2.1 is general and not specific. Commissioner Blank inquired whether it should say “City-owned sound walls” for clarification purposes because a sound wall for a homeowners association would be the association’s responsibility. Mr. Roush stated that the City typically gets money for CIP projects even for sound walls that may not be technically City-owned. He added that wooden or masonry fences historically owned by the individual or by a homeowner’s group begin to deteriorate over time and that from time to time, the City is requested to fund its repair, which has been done. He indicated that he would be reluctant to change the language such that it was only City deteriorating sound walls that would be eligible for funding under this Program. He noted that the general language considers it and provides for Council flexibility. Commissioner Pentin referred to Chapter 12, Community Character Element, Program 7.4 on page 12-18, regarding high-priority visual improvement for the Hopyard/I-580 area. He inquired why one gateway into the City is identified. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 13, 2009 Page 9 of 13