CCMIN072577 - Laserfiche WebLink

There being no further public testimony, }~yor Philcox stated that no one in the audience could add input regarding the matter from this point on. Mayor Philcox stated he could not condone any delay of the project because of possible law suits, planned phase out of the Sunol Plant, and other related matters, and would vote to deny the Referendum Petition. He agreed with the City Attorney that the decisions of the City Council regarding this project occurred at an earlier date and were not now subject to the referendum process. The petitions before the Council involved an administrative - not legislative - decision. Councilmember LeClaire stated she felt the Petition was not representative of the citizens of Pleasanton and that those who signed it did not fully under- stand the ramifications of placing the issue back on the Ballot. She stated this could cause loss of funding for this project that the State had mandated the City to implament. Councilmember LeClaire stated she was not willing to subject the residents of Pleasanton to suffer the entire costs of the project because some did not understand the issue, and would vote for rejection of the Petition. Councilmember LeClaire indicated that if CARD desired to litigate the issue whether the Council's May 23rd action was subject to the referendum process that was their choice, however, she believed the Council's action to be administrative. Councilmember Herlihy stated he would deny the Referendum because he felt it was not in the best interests of the 33,000 people he represented. He stated he was originally opposed to the project because of the disposal re- structions placed by the Regional Board and wanted to challenge those regula- tions. However, now he felt the project was the most feasible solution to the Valley's sewer problems. He stated that CARD has not presented any feasible alternatives to the LAVWMA project. Councilmember Herlihy didn't believe that signers of the Petition understood the issue involved or possible ramifications of their action. Councilmember Mercer stated that although this was a difficult decision for him, Pleasanton could not afford to lose the grant money for this project. He added that the City needs the capacity for development now, therefore, any action causing delay should not be allowed. Councilmember Mercer agreed with ~. Herlihy that citizens signing the Petition were not aware of what the Petition was all about. Councilmember Brandes stated he originally favored submitting the project funding to the voters but after review of the City Attorney's confidential memorandum and information received at hearings he felt that the Referendum Petition must be denied. It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Herlihy, that Resolution No. 77-199, rejecting the LAVWMA Referendum Petition submitted by CARD on the basis that City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 77-156 was an administrative act and not a legislative act subject to the referendum pro- cess, be adopted.' The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Herlihy, LeClaire, Mercer, and Mayor Philcox NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. 7/25/77