News

Parkside residents push back on plan to build recycled water fill station in neighborhood

Proposed location at corner of Hopyard will return to Pleasanton City Council for reconsideration

The parking lot at the 5997 Parkside Drive location is under consideration to be used as a recycled water fill station if city council approves an agreement on Aug. 16. (Photo by Christian Trujano)

With Pleasanton and the rest of the Tri-Valley heading into what is looking like another long drought season, many residents are once again seeing mandatory limitations on outdoor irrigation.

Pleasanton is currently under a local drought emergency and Stage 2 water shortage plan, with a 15% water use reduction. That means if you have grass, plants or trees in your yard, you can only water them three times per week, which goes for Livermore and Dublin as well.

In order to help residents with household irrigation, the city of Pleasanton, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Zone 7 Water Agency and the city of Livermore proposed to construct a recycled water fill station near the corner of Parkside Drive and Hopyard Road in Pleasanton where the former Zone 7 district headquarters is located.

Those using the proposed recycled water fill station would enter from Hopyard Road via Parkside Drive or via Arthur Drive. (Photo courtesy City of Pleasanton)

But a growing number of Parkside neighborhood residents said they are not happy with the 5997 Parkside Drive location and that it will congest their streets with unnecessary traffic.

"This would be a line of cars right next to our windows," Parkside resident Rick Schussel said during the July 19 Pleasanton City Council meeting. "Parkside is a residential street. We'd be living right next to a truck line."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Schussel was one of many Parkside residents who spoke during the open to the public section that night to voice their concerns about a lack of transparency with residents not knowing about the project and overall traffic safety issues.

Several of those residents said they were also never informed about the project and did not have a chance to address their concerns.

"There has not been enough transparency or visibility given to all the residents of Parkside, not just those in the immediate vicinity of (the Zone 7 building)," Parkside resident Laura Charteris said. "I would like to ask for more discussion and consultation, and I'm very much opposed to the site in a quiet residential area."

According to a frequently asked questions page on the Pleasanton Operation Services website, the city sent a notification out on June 21 and notice postcards were issued to neighbors within 1,000 feet.

Apart from the transparency issue, Charteris and others said they are worried about the long line of cars the station could cause and how that would affect those living in the area and children coming home from school.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

"Another safety concern also for the site would be its operation during school times with children commuting home from school on bikes," she said.

According to the city website, if approved and constructed the fill station operational hours are proposed for Mondays through Fridays from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

To address traffic, the website states it will use a traffic control system involving cones and signage. The system will separate fill station users from other traffic using queuing areas and lane closures during fill station operating hours.

A couple of days after the meeting, Charteris started a petition on Change.org to ask the council not move forward with the project, which as of publication date has almost 300 signatures.

Now the council must once again decide during its Aug. 16 meeting, whether or not it should approve the multi-agency agreement to construct the fill station -- the council has discussed this item four times and had originally approved the agreement on June 21.

City Manager Gerry Beaudin told the Weekly that city staff will bring the item back for reconsideration and if the council decides to rescind from the agreement, the next question will be if the council wants to continue pursuing a new location or not.

"I know that all of the cities that have been involved in the discussion so far are interested in providing recycled water filled stations in the Tri-Valley, and so whether we can get it done this year remains to be seen," Beaudin said. "It is something that as the drought continues, I think there will be interest in finding a viable site."

But the Parkside location was not the original site that was proposed to be used for the fill station.

Dan McIntyre, DSRSD's general manager, told the Weekly that the previous plan was to use a property owned by the district in Dublin on Gleason Drive.

It is a large parcel of undeveloped land near a recycled water pipeline, which is what feeds the pumps at a fill station -- the reason the Parkside location was viable is because of the recycled water line across the street that supplies the Ken Mercer Sports Park.

Construction at that site was first projected to cost about $970,000, but as the district began the bidding process, it saw numbers between $1.46 million and $1.74 million, causing Pleasanton to back out from the agreement.

According to the FAQ webpage, the Tri-Valley agencies did consider other locations before choosing Parkside including the Livermore and DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Livermore Wastewater Treatment Plant and other city-owned properties.

These sites were not deemed viable based on a variety of factors, including the high cost of construction to install a fill station, according to the website.

McIntyre said that in the interest of wanting to provide that amenity to residents, the Parkside location seemed like the most convenient choice. Construction was, for the most part, ready to go with the contractor already lined up.

But because the city of Pleasanton had not issued a temporary use permit and now with residents speaking out, the project has been stalled until Pleasanton decides to continue with the project.

"If not passed then it's probably real late in the year for another site, so we probably would not have a fill station this summer," McIntyre said.

Pleasanton City Councilmember Jack Balch, who originally had issues with the cost of the project, told the Weekly that there are several nuances to the fill station such as how the 17 proposed filling stalls will compare to the 40 spots at the DSRSD Water Recycling plant that closed in 2017.

He said that so far, the $160,000 that Pleasanton would share in operation and construction costs would be covered by the $100 per customer that the fill station would charge as a season pass.

But that's contingent on seeing the same numbers as the old fill station at the plant, which were as high as 3,600 in 2015, according to a June 21 staff report.

He also said that he understands it's not an optimal location and thinks residents do bring up good points about traffic issues as well as ideas to help mitigate traffic congestion such as an appointment system so people don't wait in line for hours just to find out there's no more water left -- which is why he said it's important to bring in the residents to be a part of the discussion.

"If we're going to ask this neighborhood to carry the load of this for our community, we need to understand that it's the appropriate location for that and that the community is asking the Parkside neighborhood to do that," Balch said.

Balch said that with the drought only getting worse, the council needs to work with residents to get the fill station project done right so people can continue taking care of their yards.

"I think it will be important that the residents get to add their feedback to the record and we make sure we ask further and more detailed questions," Balch said. "I'm not sure where the council will go ... I think that we should be trying to still see if there's a possibility for this year because I don't think our drought will be abating on Oct. 31."

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Looking for more Livermore stories? The Livermore Vine will be your new source of vital news and information. Sign up to be among the first to get our daily local news headlines sent to your inbox for free.

Christian Trujano
 
Christian Trujano, a Bay Area native and San Jose State alum, joined Embarcadero Media in May 2022 following his graduation. He is an award-winning student journalist who has covered stories in San Jose ranging from crime to higher education. Read more >>

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Parkside residents push back on plan to build recycled water fill station in neighborhood

Proposed location at corner of Hopyard will return to Pleasanton City Council for reconsideration

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Aug 2, 2022, 10:29 pm

With Pleasanton and the rest of the Tri-Valley heading into what is looking like another long drought season, many residents are once again seeing mandatory limitations on outdoor irrigation.

Pleasanton is currently under a local drought emergency and Stage 2 water shortage plan, with a 15% water use reduction. That means if you have grass, plants or trees in your yard, you can only water them three times per week, which goes for Livermore and Dublin as well.

In order to help residents with household irrigation, the city of Pleasanton, Dublin San Ramon Services District, Zone 7 Water Agency and the city of Livermore proposed to construct a recycled water fill station near the corner of Parkside Drive and Hopyard Road in Pleasanton where the former Zone 7 district headquarters is located.

But a growing number of Parkside neighborhood residents said they are not happy with the 5997 Parkside Drive location and that it will congest their streets with unnecessary traffic.

"This would be a line of cars right next to our windows," Parkside resident Rick Schussel said during the July 19 Pleasanton City Council meeting. "Parkside is a residential street. We'd be living right next to a truck line."

Schussel was one of many Parkside residents who spoke during the open to the public section that night to voice their concerns about a lack of transparency with residents not knowing about the project and overall traffic safety issues.

Several of those residents said they were also never informed about the project and did not have a chance to address their concerns.

"There has not been enough transparency or visibility given to all the residents of Parkside, not just those in the immediate vicinity of (the Zone 7 building)," Parkside resident Laura Charteris said. "I would like to ask for more discussion and consultation, and I'm very much opposed to the site in a quiet residential area."

According to a frequently asked questions page on the Pleasanton Operation Services website, the city sent a notification out on June 21 and notice postcards were issued to neighbors within 1,000 feet.

Apart from the transparency issue, Charteris and others said they are worried about the long line of cars the station could cause and how that would affect those living in the area and children coming home from school.

"Another safety concern also for the site would be its operation during school times with children commuting home from school on bikes," she said.

According to the city website, if approved and constructed the fill station operational hours are proposed for Mondays through Fridays from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

To address traffic, the website states it will use a traffic control system involving cones and signage. The system will separate fill station users from other traffic using queuing areas and lane closures during fill station operating hours.

A couple of days after the meeting, Charteris started a petition on Change.org to ask the council not move forward with the project, which as of publication date has almost 300 signatures.

Now the council must once again decide during its Aug. 16 meeting, whether or not it should approve the multi-agency agreement to construct the fill station -- the council has discussed this item four times and had originally approved the agreement on June 21.

City Manager Gerry Beaudin told the Weekly that city staff will bring the item back for reconsideration and if the council decides to rescind from the agreement, the next question will be if the council wants to continue pursuing a new location or not.

"I know that all of the cities that have been involved in the discussion so far are interested in providing recycled water filled stations in the Tri-Valley, and so whether we can get it done this year remains to be seen," Beaudin said. "It is something that as the drought continues, I think there will be interest in finding a viable site."

But the Parkside location was not the original site that was proposed to be used for the fill station.

Dan McIntyre, DSRSD's general manager, told the Weekly that the previous plan was to use a property owned by the district in Dublin on Gleason Drive.

It is a large parcel of undeveloped land near a recycled water pipeline, which is what feeds the pumps at a fill station -- the reason the Parkside location was viable is because of the recycled water line across the street that supplies the Ken Mercer Sports Park.

Construction at that site was first projected to cost about $970,000, but as the district began the bidding process, it saw numbers between $1.46 million and $1.74 million, causing Pleasanton to back out from the agreement.

According to the FAQ webpage, the Tri-Valley agencies did consider other locations before choosing Parkside including the Livermore and DSRSD Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Livermore Wastewater Treatment Plant and other city-owned properties.

These sites were not deemed viable based on a variety of factors, including the high cost of construction to install a fill station, according to the website.

McIntyre said that in the interest of wanting to provide that amenity to residents, the Parkside location seemed like the most convenient choice. Construction was, for the most part, ready to go with the contractor already lined up.

But because the city of Pleasanton had not issued a temporary use permit and now with residents speaking out, the project has been stalled until Pleasanton decides to continue with the project.

"If not passed then it's probably real late in the year for another site, so we probably would not have a fill station this summer," McIntyre said.

Pleasanton City Councilmember Jack Balch, who originally had issues with the cost of the project, told the Weekly that there are several nuances to the fill station such as how the 17 proposed filling stalls will compare to the 40 spots at the DSRSD Water Recycling plant that closed in 2017.

He said that so far, the $160,000 that Pleasanton would share in operation and construction costs would be covered by the $100 per customer that the fill station would charge as a season pass.

But that's contingent on seeing the same numbers as the old fill station at the plant, which were as high as 3,600 in 2015, according to a June 21 staff report.

He also said that he understands it's not an optimal location and thinks residents do bring up good points about traffic issues as well as ideas to help mitigate traffic congestion such as an appointment system so people don't wait in line for hours just to find out there's no more water left -- which is why he said it's important to bring in the residents to be a part of the discussion.

"If we're going to ask this neighborhood to carry the load of this for our community, we need to understand that it's the appropriate location for that and that the community is asking the Parkside neighborhood to do that," Balch said.

Balch said that with the drought only getting worse, the council needs to work with residents to get the fill station project done right so people can continue taking care of their yards.

"I think it will be important that the residents get to add their feedback to the record and we make sure we ask further and more detailed questions," Balch said. "I'm not sure where the council will go ... I think that we should be trying to still see if there's a possibility for this year because I don't think our drought will be abating on Oct. 31."

Comments

Frustrated Voter
Registered user
Parkside
on Aug 3, 2022 at 9:43 am
Frustrated Voter, Parkside
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2022 at 9:43 am

This is a good project idea situated in the wrong location. You just don’t put an operation like this in a residential neighborhood, regardless of the hours of access, where there are only two entrances to the site, neither of which was built for this kind of traffic. I don’t understand why the former site off Stoneridge cannot be reopened.


Ornithology
Registered user
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 3, 2022 at 10:11 am
Ornithology, Another Pleasanton neighborhood
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2022 at 10:11 am

A Correction to the Story above, regarding this statement:

“According to a frequently asked question page on the Pleasanton Operation Services website, the city sent a notification out on June 21 and notice postcards were issued to neighbors within 1,000 feet.“


The Council met on June 21 and approved the project. 9 days later, a postcard dated June 30th was created, and mailed out just before July 4.

This ‘ notice’ was sent to only 25 percent of Parkside residents. AND was received almost 2 weeks AFTER the council had voted.

I appreciate the council’s decision to re-notice all Parkside residents and to hear our concerns, and work to find another location.

Also, While the Dublin site did cost more, it seems to me the cost would be worth it, realizing the site would be a Permanent location and could serve residents from many cities for years and years to come.

Build it once, in the right location. A location that can handle all the traffic and operate more hours for those wishing to use recycled water. And doesn’t impact a residential neighborhood and sports park.

The additional one time construction costs for a permanent Dublin location would be money well spent.



Ornithology
Registered user
Parkside
on Aug 3, 2022 at 10:14 am
Ornithology, Parkside
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2022 at 10:14 am

Posting again to update my Log On community location as Parkside. Thank you


Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Aug 3, 2022 at 10:36 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2022 at 10:36 am

REGARDING WATER USE

The important starting point for recycled water is noteworthy, that valley residents are not objecting to clean recycled water in concept.

WHAT IF FANTISCY WATER LEVELS?

My rough calculations for clean water systems based on 102 gallons of water per person per day, then build in 20 year margin for error and push consumption up to 450 gallons per person per day. Is there any way to reach this level? That's 5.4-million acre feet per year non-ag water.

Are regional agencies even looking into such planning as a 20 year master water plan for non-ag use? The answer of course is no.

FULL DISCLOSURE - WHY NOT?

We may first need to flush out all preconceived notions that shape our collective ignorance. Web Link Our weather is manufactured. What if we discovered Lockheed Martin was controlling our weather under the guise of National Security? Would congress do anything about it? No - Congress is captured by global corporations.

PLOW AHEAD

So just plow ahead and plan our own alternative solutions.

LET'S CONSIDER EVERYTHING - JUST FOR FUN

(1) Atomic Power recycling: Web Link
(2) Earth and wetlands contributions: Web Link
(3) Turning deserts into green zones: Web Link
(4) Full disclosure.









Patriots
Registered user
Birdland
on Aug 3, 2022 at 2:22 pm
Patriots, Birdland
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2022 at 2:22 pm

Typical NIMBYism. Recycled water would help all of Pleasanton!


Ornithology
Registered user
Parkside
on Aug 3, 2022 at 4:03 pm
Ornithology, Parkside
Registered user
on Aug 3, 2022 at 4:03 pm

Patriots,

Having access to recycled water is a good thing. Doesn’t sound like you have studied the issues about the Zone 7 location. Trucks will line up 10-15 feet from our windows. Idling engines, or engines start/stop as users creep forward.

This would be an issue in ANY residential area. Even in Birdland. I’d be the first to support you or any neighbor that would have a station being built on your/their street.

There are many factors and reasons. Hope you learn about the impacts and decide to join us in finding an appropriate, non- residential site for the future.


Jeff Durban
Registered user
Del Prado
on Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06 am
Jeff Durban, Del Prado
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06 am

I didn't see in the article or subsequent discussions why the original recycled water station off of Stoneridge is not an option? The facility had 20+ filling stations and could handle trucks with trailers plus other vehicles. There was rarely a line to fill-up your containers. Cars did not need to line up in a residential neighborhood waiting to fill up.

And the best part....the recycled water does not need to be pumped across town, it comes from the waste water plant RIGHT THERE!


DublinMike
Registered user
Dublin
on Aug 4, 2022 at 9:25 am
DublinMike, Dublin
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 9:25 am

I am sympathetic to the concern about additional traffic and resulting noise on a residential street.

As a side note, even if Dublin offered recycled water I will not participate. The water is full of high levels of sodium and minerals. I discarded all the hose fixtures due to mineral build up from two years of collecting recycled water.


MELANIE HENRY
Registered user
Parkside
on Aug 4, 2022 at 2:14 pm
MELANIE HENRY, Parkside
Registered user
on Aug 4, 2022 at 2:14 pm

As a local Driving School Instructor, this proposed location is totally unsuitable as many new students are learning to drive and are being tested by the DMV around this neighborhood and greater area. Talk about additional unnecessary stress for our teen population trying to navigate around trucks! This needs to be located in an industrial area, not local neighborhoods.


Ornithology
Registered user
Parkside
on Aug 5, 2022 at 1:44 pm
Ornithology, Parkside
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2022 at 1:44 pm

Jeff

The DSRSD location is the right location. However, the leadership of DSRSD doesn’t want to open it. Spigots and hoses are still there. Open the gate and it’s ready to go.

They don’t want to be bothered. One excuse was that they get deliveries of chemicals. Of course they do. They always have… and it wasn’t an issue in the past.

The city has met with DSRSD and they just don’t want to open.

The infrastructure is there. The space is there for a ton of vehicles, the water and hoses are there.

Their denial of use is silly, and hurts the community they reside in.

Pleasanton, Dublin snd Livermore will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to construct a Zone 7 station.

Money that should be spent on other city projects like fixing the roads ( example West Las Positas).

I hope the cities and DSRSD can come to an agreement and do what’s best for their citizens.

I suggest people contact the General Manager at DSRSD and tell him to
Open the ready-to-go, EXISTING 40 spigot station off Stoneridge. And copy your message to the Board of Directors:

Daniel McIntyre, PE
General Manager
[email protected]  925-875-2200

Email the entire Board of Directors at [email protected]





Joe V
Registered user
Birdland
on Aug 5, 2022 at 6:34 pm
Joe V, Birdland
Registered user
on Aug 5, 2022 at 6:34 pm

In order to help residents........
The City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton
DSRSD and Zone 7
are proposing this project in the middle of a neighborhood, next to the wonderful sports park.
City of Pleasanton needs to stop endorsing this location for this purpose, they should instead be proposing the reopening of the previous location.


Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Aug 6, 2022 at 10:26 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2022 at 10:26 am

PART 2
Subject: Vintner Alert 17: How To Increase Crop Yield And Nutrition

Vintner Alert 17 - GROW MORE FOOD (even with less water)

My friend is a preeminent mainstream plasma physicist. I love sharing insights on the subject of plasma energy with him. He always listens. This video explains how to energize seeds and plants to use their natural intelligence to increase crop yields and nutrition. Penny is the scientist in the video and Patty is the film maker.

Web Link

Plant changes: (Not GMO modified)

* Vines naturally become more tolerant to temperature ranges
* Vine root systems naturally become healthier with less water
* Leaves resist molds naturally.
* Taste can be transmitted based on personal experience and preferences of the wine maker communicating with vines. What? !!!
* Vines can be asked to carry specific healing benefits to consumers by your winemaker. ... are you now getting the picture?

Vintners have a lot of political clout. You may want to sponsor studies at UC Davis on positive uses of plasma energy on grape vine development. Use your intuition. Get past fear. The science is real and has been suppressed.

Namaste


Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Aug 6, 2022 at 10:28 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Aug 6, 2022 at 10:28 am

Typo: Leafs not Leaves


Pleasanton Reader
Registered user
Amador Valley High School
on Aug 7, 2022 at 10:03 am
Pleasanton Reader, Amador Valley High School
Registered user
on Aug 7, 2022 at 10:03 am

Reading about this, one has to wonder whether due diligence was performed. A $1-2M unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money for a seemingly inappropriate location. Were all the impacts understood by the cities and DSRSD? Were other options explored including using the currently closed existing site? How does such a proposal fit with the immediate and longer term water plans? Who stands to gain from such an expenditure? Almost anyone familiar with the Parkside location and the experience of the depot operations could understand the operation wouldn't be appropriate there. It's possible these questions may have been addressed by the proposers, but not mentioned in this article.


Pleasanton Reader
Registered user
Amador Valley High School
on Aug 7, 2022 at 10:14 am
Pleasanton Reader, Amador Valley High School
Registered user
on Aug 7, 2022 at 10:14 am

Change.org petition title is; "STOP INSTALLATION OF RECYCLED WATER DISTRIBUTION SITE ON PARKSIDE DRIVE"


Ornithology
Registered user
Parkside
on Aug 8, 2022 at 4:12 pm
Ornithology, Parkside
Registered user
on Aug 8, 2022 at 4:12 pm
Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Aug 9, 2022 at 8:32 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Aug 9, 2022 at 8:32 am

PARKSIDE DRIVE AND MEASURE D NEXUS

MEASURE D IS A FRAUD AND A TAXPAYER TRAP - VOTE NO

Livermore Vintners plan to flush BILLIONS of gallons of water down our sewer lines and bill Livermore’s Taxpayers to clean up it. There are alternatives.

Measure D is a BAD DEAL for Livermore. Measure D is sneaky! It passes all future winery clean up costs onto Livermore Taxpayers. These costs will be huge.

Livermore is in a “SEVERE DROUGHT.” Zone 7 has declared a "DROUGHT EMERGENCY" and has instructed voters to cut back drastically while they supply billions of gallons of fresh water to selected vineyards and golf courses.

Just looking at one large Livermore Vintner, Zone 7 has contracted to supply nearly 1-billion gallons of fresh water... and that's just one large vintner.

A CHANGE OF RELATIONSHIP MUST START NOW

The relationship between the needs of urbanization-population and agriculture must shift. Measure D is not neutral, it encourages wasteful water use by the ag-community. There are alternatives. *”They should learn to do as Napa does and process their sewer in place and preserve their ground water.” They are not as modernized as you may think. Once these vineyards tap into our sewer system the clean up costs transfer to you and me.

MEASURE D LOCKS-IN MORE WASTE, NOT LESS

* “ Livermore's sewer costs are foolishly OUT OF CONTROL. Sewer fees used to be steady - $465.00 a year per single family home until 2007, then $489 through 2014. But starting in 2015 under previous mayor John Marchand, our sewer fees EXPLODED, going up EVERY YEAR.”

*Data supplied by 3rd party sources.

A CALL FOR NEW MORAL COURAGE TO SAY NO TO MEASURE D


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.