CCMIN091791 - Laserfiche WebLink

40 Mr. McKeehan responded that it is a difficult provision to live with, especially in obtaining financing, because it is a condition that could stop the project. However, the applicants realize that if the intent was to stop the project by a moratorium, that could be done anyway Mr. Robert Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, quoted from an article in the August 1991 issue of "Civil Engineer" regarding a demonstration plant in Denver. He expressed concern about the uses for reclaimed water and cautioned against using a reverse osmoses plant for this project. He was also concerned about water availability. Mayor Mercer indicated that the City has not yet chosen the method of treatment and at this time the Council is only dealing with the pre-annexation agreement. Mr. Robert Cordtz, 262 W. Angela, expressed his concern over the construction of the project's water system and sewer system. He feels that the City standards were not set for a project of this size so that outside engineering might be required. He feels that cost could be considerable and should be paid for by the developer of the project and not the taxpayers of Pleasanton. He commented further on the availability of sufficient water for a project of this magnitude. Since 25% voluntary rationing barely became a political reality after 5 years of drought, how can it be expected that 50% mandatory rationing will ever be politically attainable in this community? He feels the 50% Mandatory should be dropped from the paragraph in Section 4F, page 8 of the draft document dated 8/1/91. Mr. Cordtz also pointed out the typographical error in Section 5B page 8 of the Preannexation Agreement where it indicates that the new treatment plant would not exceed a capacity of 300 MGD, with reverse osmosis capacity. This figure should more accurately be 0.30 MGD for a development of this size. Mr. Cordtz continued to comment on the DSRSD determining whether the maintenance and operations cost for the plant shall be borne solely by the users of the plant or by all users of DSRSD facilities. He feels that since the level of treatment (Reverse Osmosis) would be much greater than that of the present facility serving Pleasanton residents, it can be assumed that the cost per gallon of treated sewage will be much greater than costs per gallon at the present DSRSD facility. He points out that there is no direct provision for an assessment action in this document; instead it leaves the door open for DSRSD to pro-rate its entire operating' costs of both plants to all of its customers. 9-17-91 10