My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 1-3
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2021
>
020221
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 1-3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2021 1:49:04 PM
Creation date
1/27/2021 1:48:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/2/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
11
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2021\020221
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mayor Thorne commented on the importance of making sure the community is aware of what the <br /> City is doing. He spoke positively about the TMP and about the importance of public input. <br /> Mayor Thorne called for a break at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:55 p.m. with all <br /> Members present. <br /> 19. Presentation on the Joint Tri-Valley Potable Reuse Technical Feasibility Study <br /> Director of Operations and Water Utilities Kathleen Yurchak introduced new Utilities Planning <br /> Manager Todd Yamello and provided a brief overview of the project to date. She displayed a <br /> PowerPoint Presentation addressing Background including Tri-Valley Actions. formation of the <br /> Liaison Committee and its support of a potable reuse study: Tri-Valley Collaboration, City Council <br /> 2017/2018 Work Plan Priority and results of the March 2018 Liaison Committee Meeting. She <br /> deferred to Carollo Engineers for further presentations. <br /> Lydia Holmes, Carollo Engineers presented details of the Joint Tri-Valley Potable Reuse <br /> Technical Feasibility Study addressing its Primary Goals and the Status of Regulations for <br /> "Potable Reuse" in California, noting Potable reuse uses multiple barriers for reliable purification <br /> to assure protection of public health. She added an engineered storage buffer will allow time to <br /> monitor water quality. In response to Councilmember Pentin's question regarding the time allowed <br /> to monitor water quality. Ms. Holmes reported the regulations are currently under development on <br /> different projects, her company has proposed different amounts. and for this project, the cost <br /> estimate was generated at two hours. She added there is online monitoring that would cause an <br /> automatic stop if any problems show up. <br /> Councilmember Brown reported people have reported hormones getting through the system and <br /> asked at what point hormones would be blocked through the process. Ms. Holmes reported <br /> hormones fall under the Contaminants of Emerging Concern and noted the processes to address <br /> those items. <br /> Ms. Holmes addressed alternatives analysis used to develop the shortlist/bookends and sources <br /> evaluated to consider potential lowest and highest purified water supply yields. In response to <br /> Councilmember Brown's question regarding storage of water, Ms. Holmes reported because there <br /> is flow available when there is no irrigation demand, the water could be stored for use during the <br /> summer months, but there are no places to build storage facilities and it is expensive. Instead, <br /> they are building facilities that will only be run during winter months. <br /> Councilmember Olson asked whether this reduces the amount of fluid LAVWMA needs to pump <br /> over the hill and Ms. Holmes responded affirmatively. <br /> Ms. Holmes continued with the presentation, noting alternatives use different combinations of <br /> sources, sites and end uses and detailing each. She addressed details of the six short-listed <br /> alternatives resulting from the alternatives analysis including locations. end uses. yields, project <br /> costs and unit costs, and a Qualitative Comparison of Alternatives. She addressed a Summary of <br /> Study Findings and reported they did not conduct a rate study, however there was a quick <br /> analysis that considered a potential $10 - $15 increase in monthly water bills. <br /> Ms. Holmes presented Technical Next Steps and stated there needs to be an update in the water <br /> supply planning document to consider the different options. Additionally, there is a need to take a <br /> better look at demands in the valley. and there are additional technical evaluations that could be <br /> conducted to narrow the project by type of end use. She recommended the City implement an <br /> independent advisory panel. which validates the process for the public. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 8 of 11 May 15, 2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.