We really appreciate the City Council for hearing us out and allowing time for everyone to speak, even though it set back the agenda quite a bit. It shows how important this matter is. It was a “respectable” crowd, not just by size but by sincerity and truth and strength of character. I’m proud to be part of such an important and positive movement. We have very good reasons to consider our points and reasonable expectations.I am glad that Mr. Dahl requested that something be done about the storage issue and that the rest joined in unanimously. Getting La Pata completed was also an area we had consensus on. I’d be interested to know how they each felt about the other objectives, especially DECOMMISSIONING! What is the point of removing the fuel if they are just going to continue making more at the rate of 500 pounds a day?

 
It would be great to know more about what each specific council member thinks. What I can’t understand is why they would not be readily willing to endorse all of our goals when there is so much to lose for only 7.5 % of California’s energy. What do they have to gain from holding back support for the entire resolution? There’s nothing to lose as far as I can tell.
 

We are sitting here unprotected in the event of a big quake, and don’t have much time to mitigate this situation. The time it will take to actually accomplish our goals is a matter of years and the big one is actually over due.

See the entire presentation and public input (chapter #3)

http://san-clemente.org/Videos/VideoList.aspx?Type=CC