CCMIN101700 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico asked staff to outline some of the unresolved issnes in the negotiations, because he believed there are signi~eam issues yet to be resolved. Mr. Lttm said a number of permits were still required, including the permit with Alameda County. Action has been filed in Alameda Superior Court to resolve the County issnes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's approval is an issue. It is the understanding of staff that the Serviee's representatives have learned of LAVWMA's potential shortening of the pipeline and have disagreed that LAVWMA can walk away from the permits. He does not know how this is going to get resolved. LAVWMA representatives will hear further in their closed session at the next meeting. Right of way agreements are still open, as is the financing for the project. It was moved by Mayor Tarver, seconded by Mr. Pico, to direct the LAVWMA representatives to indicate that unless Pleasanton gets an agreement with DSRSD not to inject recycled water into the groundwater basin, Pleasanton will not participate in the LAVWMA expansion program. Mayor Tarver said that the cooperative process is not extended by other agencies to Pleasanton. Pleasanton has been working a long thne to get a joint agreement on the LAVWMA expansion. Them were people who were working in a direction incoosistent with the point of view of the community. He believed that in partnering, the wishes of the corranunity should be respected. Ms. Ayaia said that she has been working diligently to make sure that RO water is not injected into the groundwater basin. A resolution was created that falls short of what Pleasanton representatives were asking. The current election for the DSRSD Board reflects this issue and the injection of RO water. She stated that representation on the LAVWMA Board reflects DSRSD having two members, Livermore having two members, Pleasanton having two members. When we go into closed session, we cannot have staff present. This presents problems for her a representative. She requested direction from Council that it ha requested that a staff member be present in closed session. If there are lawsuits discussed, she is not immediately able to go back to staff to discuss the issues. Mr. Pico indicated that he has strong feelings that pleasanton has been unable to get any kind of meaningful concession from DSRSD on the RO issue. He is troubled by the fact that there am two conflicting votes of the people. The advisory vote on RO (Measure J) indicated that citizens do not want sewer water into the Foundwater basin. Prior to that there was a vote on the sewer expansion project that Pleasanton residents passed, saying they wanted to participate in a sewer expansion project. He would llke Council to put on a future agenda whether or not there should be another vote from the Pleasanton residents next year to give Council further direction as to whether or not to continue with the expansion project if Pleasanton does not get guarantees on the RO issue. Pleasanton City Council 7 10/17/00 Minutes