01 - Laserfiche WebLink

for diversification was the obvious choice to ensure Zone 7 looked at other supplies of safe drinking water. She cited the 72.3% support for Measure J as evidence the residents were heavily against potable reuse. She stated science also brought PFAS, so it is not always wonderful. She expressed her support for Zone 7 looking into the Delta Conveyance to bring snowmelt into the Tri-Valley. Mayor Brown questioned why neighboring communities have higher quality water than Pleasanton. She stated the City's water supplier should fight for a diversified water supply which was the point of the Roundtable. She stated she would not want to feed a newborn baby potable reused water. She believes the residents want better water quality and they deserve it. She listed a series of ways $300,000 could better serve residents and noted her surprise anyone would say anything other than focusing on PFAS and cleaning the City's wells. City Attorney Sodergren advised voting on the substitute motion first. Councilmember Balch agreed with Mayor Brown's quest for better drinking water and expressed his appreciation for her passion towards that goal. He added the $300,000 is to improve the overall water reliability, quality, and management including PFAS-related issues. He commented they are working towards the same goal which is improved water reliability and will be voting for the item. Mayor Brown advised the $300,000 request was done in 2018 before the City knew about the PFAS issues. Councilmember Balch stated the 2018 staff report mentions PFAS and his goal is to eliminate drinking water issues. Councilmember Arkin expressed her continued opposition to potable reuse due to costs and health concerns which are acknowledged by science. She noted her interpretation of the General Plan as forbidding potable reuse. She added the main concern right now is PFAS and stated this money should be put towards PFAS. She commended Zone 7 for looking at other options such as desalinization but stated potable reuse is different. She cited pandemic recovery for businesses as a better and more urgent use for the money. She stated the study is unnecessary because other options exist which are worth studying. Vice Mayor Testa noted her surprise that Councilmembers would suggest $300,000 should be spent unnecessarily. She stated this action would express support for potable reuse when she has no support for it and thus views this expenditure as unjustifiable. Councilmember Narum expressed her desire for good quality drinking water and reiterated it is a priority to her and Councilmember Balch. She stated regarding the 2000 Measure J vote, both she and Mayor Brown are on the record in 2018 saying they would want to go to the ballot again for an advisory vote if potable reuse were ever revisited. She noted the money is from the Water Enterprise Fund and expressed her belief it cannot be spent on other matters previously expressed in the discussion such as pandemic relief. She stated $300,000 is a drop in the bucket relative to the $25-40 million anticipated PFAS expenses and is a small price to pay if the study finds benefits. She reiterated her support for the study and honoring the City's commitment to its regional partners. She stated she would be disappointed if the City does not honor its commitment. Mayor Brown stated PFAS changes commitments. MOTION: It was m/s by Balch/Narum to continue to participate with regional agencies on studies of water supply alternatives including potable reuse. Motion failed by the following vote: City Council Minutes Page 8 of 12 February 2, 2021