My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN021670
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1970
>
CCMIN021670
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:47:07 AM
Creation date
11/19/1999 11:21:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3. Pleasanton is an unfinished community with several neighborhoods existing <br /> without school facilities (Fairlands, Upper Valley Avenue, Del Prado - Mackay <br /> Homes, Mission Park). The building of higher density areas (apartments, town- <br /> houses, multiplexes) can generate square footage under the state formulas <br /> sufficient to spied up the building of permanent school facilities to house <br /> children in their own neighborhoods. <br />4. Improved local financing of schools can only come through broadening the in- <br /> dustrial base. Research and light industry are needed in the valley to supple- <br /> ment our start (Kaiser Aluminum, Harper-Row, Scholastics, Volkswagen, Foremost <br /> Dairy, etc.). The valley needs to provide living quarters for a variety of <br /> men and women - young and old - that will work in our planned industrial parks <br /> (San Francisco Property - Volk-McLain). <br /> <br /> Mayor Gerton thanked Dr. Haskell for his report. <br /> <br /> Dr. Haskell then answered a number of questions presented by members of the <br /> audience. <br /> <br /> Mayor Gerton declared a recess at 10:05 P.M. <br /> <br /> Mayor Ger~on reconvened the meeting at 10:15 P.M. <br /> <br /> Mayor Getton stated that the portion of the petition regarding the sewer sys- <br /> tem approaching its design limits, will now be discussed. <br /> Mr. Campbell. displayed maps and reviewed his report dated February 11, 1970, <br />on the history, progress and the current status of the City's Sewage Treatment <br />Plant and Sewerage Systems, in which he made the following summary and conclusions: <br />l. Planning for the future regarding sewerage service for the City of Pleasanton <br /> and indeed the entire Valley has been comprehensive and continuous since at <br /> least 1956. The City has taken part in this planning and is well advanced in <br /> the implementation of the plans. Agreement with Valley Community Services <br /> District has been reached which will allow the ultimate removal of the City's <br /> Sewage Treatment Plant. Large areas of the City are now connected to the <br /> Valley Community Services District Treatment Plant. Trunk lines are installed <br /> which will permit the diversion to the Valley Community Services District Plant <br /> of areas now sewered to the City plant. <br />2. The capacity of the City Treatment Plant is somewhat variable. It can be in- <br /> creased by a small amount, or significantly, as necessary. With only a limited <br /> area remaining to be developed that is tributary to the City Plant and with <br /> other areas to be diverted away from the City Plant it is not anticipated that <br /> the load on the City Plant will increase significantly; certainly not beyond <br /> the ability of the Plant to handle it with minor additions and improvements. <br />3. Based on the various factors outlined in this report it is my opinion that <br /> sewerage service, including treatment and disposal, is not a factor that need <br /> be considered in any consideration of growth regulation. It has been ade- <br /> quately planned and will be properly affected regardless of the rate of growth <br /> of the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fales explained sewer connection charges for both the City and also for <br />those residents that are served from the VCSD Plant. Mr. Fales also explained <br />that it is much better from a public policy standpoint, in terms of both economic, <br />operating efficiency, and water pollution control standards, to have fewer but <br />larger sewage treatment plants in a given area. Mr. Fales stated that there is <br />now a program the City is embarking upon, which allows a 10% increase in the <br />amount of the Federal Grant the City is eligible for, if the City is involved in <br />a program eliminating a sewage treatment facility in favor of a centralized one. <br /> Several members of the audience asked Mr. Campbell what can be done about the <br />odor from the VCSD Plant. Mr. Campbell explained that the odor, with the installa- <br />tion of additional equipment, and with the plant operating at a higher capacity, <br />should be considerably less. <br /> Mr. Campbell also explained the phase-out program of the City's plant and of <br />the costs involved in this program. <br /> Mr. Fa].es explained how the money collected from sewer connection charges are <br />used and how money for the final phase-out payment will have to be raised. Mr. <br />Fales also explained the adverse effect upon reserve funds, VCSD caused the City <br />by increasing the sewer connection fees for the homes connected to their plant. <br /> Mr. Campbell, in answer to a question from a member of the audience, stated <br />that normally there was less sewage from a townhouse or apartment than from a <br />single family residence, but that is because normally, less people live in a <br />townhouse unit than in a single family residence. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.