CCMIN033198 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico asked if staff could address the impact of the decision of the Council regarding the Dougherty Valley settlement and the language in the LAVWMA, EBDA, and DSRSD agreements. Mr. Roush said in 1994/95 the Council entered into a settlement agreement with Contra Costa County and the developers of the Dougherty Valley project to settle the litigation that challenged the Dougherty Valley project. As part of that settlement the Dougherty Valley developers agreed to pay $1.5 million to the City to mitigate the traffic impacts. However, if the City filed suit concerning aspects of the project, the City would lose the money. The City is allowed under the agreement to challenge if the basis was a CEQA challenge. Last summer the City entered into a supplemental agreement with DSRSD for waste water disposal services. That agreement was part of the principles of agreement that the City entered into with DSRSD to try and resolve the sewer issues that the City was facing last summer. As part of that, the City indicated that so long as the project that Zone 7 used to serve Dougherty Valley did not reduce the reliability or the quality of the water provided by Zone 7 to its customers, the City would not challenge the project. Therefore, if the City were to bring a CEQA challenge as to this project, it would be as to the reliability and quality of the water. Mr. Pico asked if the City of Livermore was also a participant to similar types of language with DSRSD on the sewer issues. Mr. Roush said the City of Livermore did not file suit on the Dougheny Valley project and therefore does not have a settlement agreement with a provision similar to what the City of Pleasanton has. The reality is that DSRSD needs the City of Livermore more than the City of Livermore needs DSRSD and therefore it did not work as well as it did for the City of Pleasanton. Mr. Pico asked staff to reiterate the impacts if the agreement between DSRSD and the City of Pleasanton was determined not to be valid. Mr. Roush said if there were a legal challenge to the supplemental agreement and that agreement was set aside, DSRSD has agreed to protect the City against fines and sanctions which could arise from wet weather overflows before the LAVWMA expansion project is operational. The City would have a right to use the clean water revival project should the Council decide it would want to participate in that project. Also if the agreement were set aside DSRSD would lose the City's share in the treatment plant. Mayor Tarver asked where the focus of the initiative would be? Mr. Roush said in order for the matter to qualify it requires 10% of the registered voters within the jurisdiction. The question is whether the number of voters is strictly within Zone 7 or if Alameda County becomes the jurisdiction. The Deputy Alameda County Counsel has advised that the relevant jurisdiction is all of Alameda County and the number of signatures Pleasanton City Council 2 03/31/98 Minutes