|
Further ~a;~.~ ,-~c cf the ~a~ntstanz Cc~ty ~Private Sewaide D~c.s.-si Policies
<br /> (Se____p t ic Tanks )
<br /> Mr. Crv~,p~12 p~es~nted ~he staff report regarding this rsatt~, sugSeatlng changes
<br /> to the dra~: resolution and reiterating ~he staff~s concern regarding a prcliferation
<br /> of septl~; tanks and the resulting potential hazards.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Bf!l Hirst, 478 Ewing Drive, representing the Chamber of Commerce, addressed
<br /> the Council regarding the use of septic tanks on an interim basis tc $~rvice com-
<br /> mercial and industrial uses. He referred to reports by Dr, Winneberger and others,
<br /> which have been provided to the staff, stating that septic tanks are feasible if
<br /> properly installed and maintained. Mr, Hirst stated that the Chamber feels very
<br /> strong]~ than the economic well being of this community is going to depend on the
<br /> ability of this City to attract desirable, non-polluting commercial and industrial
<br /> development, and this economic well being is as much a part of the health, safety
<br /> and welfare ~f the community as the Fire and Police Departments, because cf the tax
<br /> basel, He r=u~ther stated that the Chamber of Commerce would urge the Coun!c~ ro
<br /> consider the use of septic tanks under proper conditions for commercial and indus-
<br /> trail uses in order to encourage this type of development in the City which is so
<br /> necessary ;cot the tax base.
<br />
<br /> M~ Mark E.. Andersen, 1584 Foothill Road, expressed concern regarding incon-
<br /> sistencies ~n the staff reports of June 7th and July 19th, and urged further study
<br /> of this matter'~ He requested that his application for septic tank be considered
<br /> now for utilization of land as planned~
<br />
<br /> Mr~ T A, Lowe, 1102 Innsbruck, Livermore, representing himsalt and T. R.
<br /> Pritchetr~ stated he was unable tc fezone his land on Foothill Road because of
<br /> proposed septic tank policy which would not permit one septic tank on 40,000 sq~
<br /> it, of land, and the Environmental Impact Report requirement~ He requested the
<br /> City Council to establish a septic tank policy similar to that of Alameda County
<br /> and, specifically, to permit septic tanks on lots of 40,000 sq, it, or more, if
<br /> they meet established percolation tests and other sanitation requirements of the
<br /> County Health Department~
<br />
<br /> After d~scussion by the Council, the following changes were suggested to be
<br /> made in the draft resolution policy regarding the use of septic tanks:
<br />
<br /> l~!~lude a condition regarding pr'ocedure to be followed if septic tank fails
<br /> and responsibility of owner to ~epair~
<br /> 2. Js t~.. ztem 8, the Agreement should be recordable with the County~
<br /> 3. P~ohlbit]on against dumping ot industrial wastes not permitted ~n sewer
<br /> system should be included.
<br /> 4. item 9 changed from minimum 10 acre site to minimum 5 acre si, te~
<br /> 5. Item 9b added to state as of this date any lot that is recorded between
<br /> one and five acres may qualify for septic tank but lot cannot be spllt~
<br /> Item 9c ~dded to Permit City and City Council to look at specific appli-
<br /> cat tij!~ that do not fall into these guidelines.
<br /> As r& ~tem 3, (Ia~i£y that policy includes commercial and industllai
<br />
<br /> ~ :?:' i-:~.~rson declared this matter be continued to the meeting of August 6th,
<br /> or r!~=,i'?,,~c,-i · ~lcles regarding holding tanks and septic tanks in both residential
<br /> and ~:-i!r!r:'~e~, ',! ar.,d industrial developments.
<br />
<br /> recessed the meeting at 9:55 P,,M.
<br />
<br />.... bt~v,::', !:'~:~c,n ~ec:~nvened the meetLing at 10:05
<br />
<br /> SPEC iA{. '-<~., v+~:! '~ tCc, ntd,., )
<br /> _R~!i:._li:.!:,, !:+:= Ccnsulrant~ Re: ~,inancin~L~j P~ec.t 2
<br /> , , . ~.~ Zone 7, presented background information regard frog Pr~..,je~:.t 2
<br /> and e ~'.:~:~':-[~,l analysis prepared by Stone and Youngberg, Municipal
<br /> Consu[ran~.~, stating that because of the revised population growth estimates
<br /> revenue trum ~ale of water at existing rates would no~ be sufficient in ~tself
<br /> to make ~e%,enue bond financing of Project No. 2 feasible. Based on the most
<br /> currefit data available plus expectations of development trends in Zone 7 in the
<br /> i~ediate years ahead, the following alternatives might be considered:
<br />
<br /> 7~23/73
<br />
<br />
<br />
|