CCMIN031094 - Laserfiche WebLink

~, DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED COUNCIL INITIATED MEASURE TO PLACE A SEWAGE CAPACITY PROJECT fNOT TO EXCEED 12.7 MILLION GALLONS PER --. DAY) ON THE JUNE 1994 BALLOT It was moved by Ms. Scribner, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, to put nothing on the June ballot related to this proposed project. Sharrell Michelotfi, 7873 Olive Court, agreed that if something is going to go on the ballot, the voters should have the right to see the entirety of that agreement. She did not understand how Council could ask the public to make an intelligent decision and be an intelligent voter if they don't have all of the facts. She added that all of the information needed to be included in the pamphlet. Robert Cordtz, 262 W. Angela, spoke about the failure of the present pipeline. He pointed out that it could not be repaired because of the lack of holding capacity. He asked what recourse does the City have with the engineers who designed and oversaw the construction of this pipeline. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, was concerned that Council was rushing into a decision that was going to be a bad one. He was also concerned with the possible violation of the Brown Act. He explained that this matter was not agendized as a public discussion; it was listed as a closed session. Mr. MacDonald pointed out that everybody wants a good agreement to be reached, but there is absolutely no way to do that at this time. He then explained the Pleasanton Ridgelands Initiative process. He also spoke about other possible alternatives, for example, reverse osmosis. He felt that Council needed to look at its obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act. There is a legally required action by Pleasanton before there can be a LAVWMA project and that is that Pleasanton must have an election, which means that it is a responsible agency. He concluded that there has been no opportunity for the public to meaningfully respond to what the environmental effects are, how this project is going to effect the General Plan, and how it will effect the ability to do a reverse osmosis project. Shelby Martin, Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, 777 Peters Avenue, believed that without adequate public review of the terms and conditions, the Chamber could not support placing this measure on the ballot. She requested that the details of the sewer expansion projects be subject to public hearings and review. The Chamber supports the acquisition of additional sewer capacity. Marty Inderbitzen, 5000 Hopyard Road, asked if this meeting was televised as all other Council meetings are. Mr. Bocian answered no. He explained that Council's arrangement with both Channel 30 and with Viacom is that they will allow the air space for regularly scheduled Council meetings. 03/10/94 4