Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Michelotti felt remarks regarding the San Francisco Water Department project were <br />premature because negotiations and procedures are continuing in an effort to annex the Bernal <br />property to Pleasanton. She hoped that Pleasanton could resolve this problem. She wants the <br />Castlewood system to be upgraded and not be a liability to the City of Pleasanton. She <br />expressed sympathy for the residents who consider Pleasanton their home and work and shop <br />here. She does not want to abandon them. She thought that if the San Francisco Water <br />Department property is annexed, there may be a chance to resolve the Castlewood question. She <br />urged Castlewood to use recycled water for the golf courses. She asked Mr. Lum to provide <br />more information on the timing of this proposal. With regard to the sewer system, if the <br />LAVWMA pipeline had adequate space, there would be no need for so many holding ponds. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated that Castlewood is only replacing 41% of its system. Castlewood <br />requested the city staff to bring this issue to Council earlier and staff felt the timing was not <br />good because of the pending discussions on the Bernal property. The RFP is a result of <br />Pleasanton's reluctance to commit to negotiations with Castlewood, so Castlewood is trying to <br />get proposals from others. Staff brought this to Council because of the RFP. The staff <br />recommendation was the result of the fact that there were agreements with Castlewood in the <br />past to maintain the system. It is easier from an operational standpoint if the City does not do <br />that. Pleasanton's water and sewer system is in much better condition than that of Castlewood <br />and staff would have to expend considerable effort. He did not feel that the revenue would be <br />adequate to offset the additional work. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver suggested combining the staff recommendations. He would be willing to <br />negotiate with Castlewood on the condition that the area annex to the City in the near future with <br />all appropriate annexation conditions. In addition, staff could respond that the City is not <br />interested in participating in the proposal process, but the City would enter into negotiations if <br />terms are developed that are beneficial to the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis agreed that Castlewood could not compensate the City adequately or, if the <br />residents agreed to spend that amount of money, they would have made their system conform <br />to city standards. That would have made all this a moot point; if their system were adequate, <br />they could annex to the City and we would provide services. There has been a conscious <br />decision not to annex to the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked who the City staff had been dealing with. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated there is a committee formed of Castlewood property owners. He did not <br />have specific names at this moment. Steve Cusenza has been attending the committee meetings. <br />Early on we suggested that they upgrade their system to City standards, particularly if they ever <br />wanted to pursue annexation. It was more expensive and the committee made the decision not <br />to upgrade to city standards. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to direct staff to send a letter <br />to the Castlewood property owners committee and Alameda County indicating that the CRy <br /> <br />07/16/96 -28- <br /> <br /> <br />