CCMIN090898 - Laserfiche WebLink

testing of the membranes. The magazine also said that a considerable amount of research is needed in this field to achieve optimal performance, efficiency, and affordability. She said there is a clause in the approval of developments that says if there is not enough sewer and water capacity the City has the right to deny the project. Therefore if there is not enough capacity then future development should not be approved. She said this project needs to be stopped. She strongly believed the project needs more research and FDA approval. Cynthia Patton, 808 McGlinchey Drive, Livermore, said the Tri-Valley Group of the Sierra Club opposes the injection of RO treated wastewater into an enclosed groundwater basin which provides a significant portion of the drinking water supply. The Clean Water Revival proposal is expensive, proposes a risk to the community, uses a considerable amount of energy and is not needed. She agreed there needed to be other sources of drinking water identified but the RO project only provides two percent more water. Why risk the quality of the groundwater basin for such a trivial return? She said the Tri-Valley needs a sustainable plan for growth. The RO project is simply a way to resolve the developers' short term sewage problems. She believed them were other uses for the RO water. She did not want to be known for the Valley that drinks its own sewage. She said it is unknown what is in the sewage as the technology is still too new. In conclusion she said keep the RO water out of the groundwater basin and the chain of lakes and in the interim require substantial testing and monitoring. Mayor Tarver recapped the issues/concerns: the growth issues, the groundwater being a contained system, the safety concerns, other uses, past mistakes of experts/decision makers. He asked if the speakers concurred with previous speakers to so state and not repeat the issues or concerns. He said he would like time to discuss this issue before the early hours of the morning. Chris Bourg, 4512 Second Street, said she was the Vice Chair of the Steering Committee of the General Plan. After three years and hundreds of hours of impact the committee completed the plan in 1996. The General Plan is the official document used by City decision- makers and citizens to guide the long-range development of land and the conservation of resources in Pleasanton. She said the RO project is out of compliance with the General Plan. The public facilities element, policy three states "approve only those sewage collection treatment and export expansion alternatives which are cost and energy efficient and do not create a health hazard." In element seven, Conservation and Open Space, goal three, policy nine states "protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater in the planning area. Do not utilize water reclamation techniques, which could adversely affect or have negative impacts on drinking water quality, surface water or groundwater resources. Investigate cost effective sewage treatment methods, which utilize reclaimed wastewater for productive use, which protects the quality of the groundwater supply." David Preiss, 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor, Oakland, an attorney representing CalMat and Pleasanton Gravel Company, pointed out the potential impact of the RO project on groundwater levels that may impact the quarry pond levels have not yet been addressed. He indicated on a Pleasanton City Council 11 09/08/98 Minutes