CCMIN071696 - Laserfiche WebLink

take on the project. He indicated staff would respond to the RFP conceptually and then enter into negotiations as to terms and conditions similar to what the City does for professional services contracts. If the County/Castlewood does not agree with our terms, they would simply go to the next firm that responded. Mr. Tarver had no interest in providing sewer and water service to Castlewood. It is in a County Services Area and the development was approved in the County. If the area wants to annex to Pleasanton, he would be glad to provide services. He referred to the San Francisco Water Department property and the proposal for the County to provide services to that area. Mr. Tarver did not feel that was possible economically and ultimately the area would become a burden to the City of Pleasanton in the same way as Castlewood and Sycamore Valley are. The City has to provide services and yet has no control over the area. The residents curren~y living there had no control over the current predicament of a falling sewer system. He did not think the City of Pleasanton should be obligated to help the County. Mr. Pico referred to discussions at the LAVWMA meeting regarding expansion of the sewer pipe. One of the reasons for the need of expansion was the inflow during wet weather. In order to accomplish one of the objectives of limiting the size of the pipe or have a dual pipe system, the City may have to incur over $300 million in costs to build storage facilities for the extra inflow. To hear that almost 25 % of the I and I in the Pleasanton sewer is created by 1.4 % .... of the average dry weather flow is mindboggling. It is also mindboggling that Castlewood refuses to build the sewer system to city standards or to fix the whole problem. The ratepayers of Pleasanton are substantially supporting the people in Castlewood by having to create additional capacity for the extra I and I. If we did not have that system connected to the sewer line and had to export the extra water, there would be substantially different costs for storage in the future. San Francisco and Alameda County are looking at a county service area and if that goes through, then San Francisco can tie in with the Castlewood sewer system and get them out of the DSRSD/Pleasanton/LAVWMA systems. There are serious issues of costs, liability, and the unwillingness of the County of Alameda to cooperate with the City of Pleasanton. The other issue that bothers him is the water supply to Castlewood which comes from Pleasanton's allocation. He felt the San Francisco Water Department had the responsibility to provide water to Castlewood. There is no provision in this agreement that relates to a change in that or compensation. The timing is ridiculous. He felt badly for the residents of Castlewood, but he would not support this proposal. Mr. Lum indicated there is a proposal to have the greens at Castlewood watered by Pleasanton because of the better water quality. Ms. Mohr indicated the proposal to annex Castlewood has come up from time to time and the response has always been that Pleasanton would accept them if they bring their sewer and water system up to city standards. There was some level of interest during the drought because Castlewood has water from San Francisco which would have been of benefit to Pleasanton. The I and I would be reduced sufficiently with the upgrades proposed. She concurs with Mr. Tarver that there is no advantage to the City of Pleasanton to get involved in this. 07/16/96 -27-