|
164
<br /> facility �s built, there w�ll be pressure to go to the Env��ronmental
<br /> Protection Agency (EPA) and request expansion.� •�� `� �
<br /> v �. � -
<br /> _ ,
<br /> D�SCUSSion followed concerning the intent of various agencles of the
<br /> federal government, the posit}on of the Associated�Bay�Area Governments
<br /> (ABAG), and the fact that unused sewage capacity wh�ch has'been��pur-
<br /> chased can be resold. � . �, ,
<br /> . .� , „ . � �
<br /> In response to questions related to making use of the existing sewage
<br /> facility, Director of Public Works Pusich advised that�it �s believed
<br /> that fac�lity'could be used for pretreatment of sewage but the discharge
<br /> flow would be the same, except that the sewage would be cleaner: Mr: �
<br /> PusYch��stated that`the old facility could not meet the mim mum standards '
<br /> for quality`"of d�scharge, but that the cap�tal equipment could be"� '`�
<br /> salvaged and used. Mr. Pusich also commented concerning the operation
<br /> of the new facility. � � - . ,, � , „ .
<br /> It was pointed out that Council desires to make some determ�nation with
<br /> regard to how to the prepaid reserve of 480,'000 gallons`per day
<br /> between�residential and non-residential uses; how to handle populatiori
<br /> density with r'egard to zoning,°and how to stage allocations of
<br /> ' = - ° ' �, . -�,
<br /> Planning D�rector Schroeter adv�sed that the Plam m �g Cormm ssion would
<br /> like Council�to provide guidelines regarding use of sewage capacity `-
<br /> and noted that'many�applications `are pending for backyard� houses which
<br /> w�ll have to'be dealt with on an application by application bas�s unless
<br /> gu�del�nes are provided. Mr. Schroeter advised that the P1ann�ng De- "
<br /> partment survey shows`that ther'e are'295 vacant lots in tFie'City, 183,
<br /> zoned for resident�al uses and 112 for non-residential uses.
<br /> , , , , - , _ , .�
<br /> Discussion followed and Mr. Schroeter, Mr. Pusich and Mr. Fales com-
<br /> mented and replied `to questions` concermng the poss�tiil�ty'of, allo= '
<br /> cating sewage capaci`ty to development of 'vacant'1'ots rather=than �to
<br /> those already developed, whether'a preference migtit�be given to non-
<br /> res�dential°�u�sers,'the�need for decision'as to�what is desired for, the
<br /> City w�th°regard to future deJelopment, the improvement'of water -�``
<br /> quality in ttie over the past several years, whether air quality has
<br /> deteriorated same period,'the likelihood of property owners ',`
<br /> creating�vacant lots in order`to obtain sewage'capacnty'for a'new'
<br /> deGelopment,•tFie preferences with regard'to`development of vacent lots;
<br /> and�the`need for Council members to make their ph�ilosoph�e`s with re ard
<br /> ` ,9
<br /> to'development�known.`� � ` - � �= i -� ,.a°s~,�• . , � ,
<br /> . F1 Y . :il 4)y''� �
<br /> It was suggested and later determ�ned to be the consensus of Council to
<br /> � ask staff to look�at`capacity and staging relating,to senitary sewage
<br /> capac� ty wi th regard to - - - .a �..A yx� >,.} ,..
<br /> aM(�� e 1
<br /> a. the possib�lity of rezoning parceis which,qual for PF
<br /> (Public'Facility) zomng, " �
<br /> , �.� ,
<br /> b. residential areas and the probable impact of, down-zon�ng
<br /> ' by,�one (i.e'., R-5 to R-4, R-3�to R-2) °� �'°�� •'
<br /> kT�
<br /> � °� "s ? . , }, 1 �r � rn '
<br /> c. non-residential lots - the kinds of developments competing
<br /> for those'1'ots and whether a demand exists•`for`the uses, f
<br /> anticipated, and �'� i '�' � �-"'� � � ' �� , ° � .
<br /> ,�, �
<br /> r,t s ��� � � �
<br /> -4-
<br /> Ad�.Mtg.
<br /> 2/28/77
<br />
|