CCMIN072198 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti felt that was exactly what she wanted. People are confused when you start talking about wet weather/dry weather, etc. She did like the wording that said "to serve only the amount of new development allowed by the approved general plan." Mayor Tarver preferred that Pleasanton use the same wording as Livermore. It is easier to campaign for the same thing. There was discussion about what options were to be included in the ballot. Mr. Pico felt it was important that the text have some reference to the fact that our participation does have limits on future capacity and service area. Those are the really important reasons for voting in support of these measures. This is far more than limited additional capacity for Pleasanton; it is the ability to place significant limits on the future expansion of growth in the Tri-Valley. He would prefer to have one item on the ballot which is a combination of Pleasanton's item 1 and a follow-on that includes the text of the second issue, which says that we would participate and retain the right to approve future changes. He felt that was a much stronger measure. He could see the possibility of the voters approving the first measure and not the second, which provides the protection. He wanted to see the two items linked, not bifurcated. Ms. Michelotti asked if wording could be added that said any additional capacity must be submitted back to a vote of the people. Mr. Lum clarified that under the JPA, the limitations on service area, influent, and peak wet weather flow apply whether the participation is approved by the voters or not. The questions of participation is really a separate question. Mayor Tarver felt the JPA could be amended by a unanimous vote of the JPA members. If this Council does not have a voter requirement to set their position, the JPA can be amended by a majority vote of the Council and not a vote of the people. He understood what Mr. Pico was trying to do and why, but wanted to have two separate measures. He would campaign for both measures and would urge people to vote for both. Council has fought hard for what it felt the voters want and he did not think they would not approve both measures. Ms. Dennis agreed with using similar language to that of Livermore. She was content to explain the measures in the arguments. Ms. Michelotti felt this is a difficult issue to understand. We need to keep the first measure clear and. concise and go into detail in the second question. We .can then campaign for both. Pleasanton City Council 7 07/21/98 Minutes