My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN041895
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN041895
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:10:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
If some jurisdictions do not agree to this approach, it must be optional because a city should not <br />be penalized for building major arterials. <br /> <br /> A motion was made by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to forward the clarifying <br />language in Exhibit A and subsequently review additional action. <br /> <br />The r011 call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers o Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6i <br />Request from Council Representatives to the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management <br />Agency (LAVWMA) for Direction to provide a counter-proposal to the East Bay <br />Dischargers Authority {EBDA). (SR 95: 127) <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing open and invited Mr. Craig Lawson, General <br />Manager, LAVWMA, to provide his comments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lawson feels LAVWMA is very close to an agreement with the East Bay <br />Dischargers Authority (EBDA). LAVWMA is seeking to develop firm figures and terms before <br />initiating the project. Mr. Lawson is asking for the City Council's support for LAVWMA to <br />continue this endeavor. He advised that major disposal planning has been going on for the last <br />twelve years, and, fortunately, they have had no crisis in that time. He reiterated that they will <br />never implement a project without having firm agreements. Mr. Lawson addressed the <br />following issues: <br /> <br /> (1) One alternative is to do nothing. <br /> (2) Another alternative is to research reverse osmosis. <br /> (3) There are risks, costs and benefits with any project, and there are risks and costs <br />associated with doing nothing as well as with the reverse osmosis. He knows of no benefits to <br />these two alternatives. <br /> (4) It is his belief that if it were not for the drought and recession, we would already <br />have had serious problems. All levels are historically very low. <br /> (5) The pipe is deteriorating very rapidly. <br /> (6) The system ran at capacity during January and March. The system operated as <br />intended, but it must be remembered that the dry weather flows are only at 11.5 million gallons <br />per day. We pump at 21 million gallons in the winter. We cannot continue this without <br />expecting stream discharge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lawson feels it is common sense to construct a bigger pipeline instead of fixing a <br />pipeline that has been known for years to be too small. Fixing the pipe would have a useful life <br /> <br />04/18/95 -15- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.