Laserfiche WebLink
I}; THE CITY CObl~CIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> COLr~{TY OF ALAi~EDA, STATE OP CALIFOi~{I~ <br /> <br /> Resolution No. 3005 <br /> <br />Concerning the Waste Discharge Proposal of the Volk-McLain Company <br />WHEREAS~ by letter to the Water Pollution Coatrol Board dated }'~rch 22, <br />1960 the City Council did recon~mend to said board action on the ¥olk-~,lcLain <br />Waste Discharge Proposal} and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council }~s further considered the proposal and feels <br />that the orderly growth and developnent of the City of Pleasanton requires a <br />I~urt he r recon~nendation 3 <br /> <br /> NOW THERF~'ORE '£~{E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI'~.~Z OF PLEASA~{TON DOES HER?.BY <br />RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br /> 1. T~e City of Pleasanton is unalterably opposed to the use of oxida- <br />tion ponds either for interim treatment or in conjunction with the operation <br />of the proposed treatment plant facilities. <br /> <br /> 2. The City of Pleasanton lies only one and one-half (~) miles south- <br />east of the proposed oxidation ponds and residents of the City would be sub- <br />ject to obnoxious odors from the oxidation ponds which would be carried from <br />the oxidation ponds by the prevailing winds which subsequently pass over the <br />City of Pleesanton. <br /> <br /> 3. The Mosquito, gnat and fly breeding potential of the proposed ox- <br />idation ponds is dertimental to the health~ safety and welfare of the residents <br />of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> 4. That copies of this resolution be forwarded to t he Water Pollution <br />Control Board~ Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Alameda% County Planning <br />Co~ission and other interested parties. <br /> <br /> DATED: April !g~, 1960 <br /> <br />Mayor of the City of Pleasanton <br /> <br />ATTEST: <br /> <br />~rgaret L. Conner, City Clerk <br /> <br />BY: <br /> Deputy City Clerk <br /> <br /> <br />