CCMIN040296 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico also offered special thanks to the Human Services Commission and felt a Counc~ commendation to the commission was appropriate. Ms. Michelotti appreciated the grant to the Valley Community Health Center. Item 6c Status Report on LAVWMA/EBDA Negotiations - Consideration of the revised EBDA proposal dated 1/25/96 and LAVWMA Draft MOU dated 2/6/96. Randall Lum presented the status report. Ms. Dennis had concerns regarding the urban limit line. She asked if the Dublin "Sphere of Influence" line is subject to a referendum? How does that relate to DSRSD's agreement not to service the unincorporated areas? Counc~ wanted to be sum there was a growth boundary of some kind that was referendable and she was concerned that if Dublin decided to expand its Sphere of Influence line to accommodate development outside what it has defined today, that the issue would be referendable. How is that different from what is offered in the present proposal? Mr. Roush indicated any act the Dublin City Council would take to mend its General Plan would be subject to a referendum. This language says Dublin will establish designations in its General Plan identifying the extent of planned urban growth in the City. The designations will be shown on the General Plan map and will identify the mount of land use and types at build out. If the lines are moved, it would take an act of Council to mend its General Plan. David Stiebel (who has been hired to mediate conflicts between Pleasanton, Dublin and DSRSD) indicated that while moving the line may be referendable, what the line means may be quite different. The MOIl states the line is where Dublin intends growth to occur for the next twenty years. The impact of the language in paragraph 9 is the same as prior proposed language on urban growth boundaries. Ms. Dennis asked how the Dublin language relates to the LAFCO description of "sphere of influence". Would the designations be set in time for the voters of Pleasanton to review? Mr. Roush indicated the LAFCO language is general. The idea here is to show what Dublin intends for the various land uses. He felt the voters would have a chance to review the matter, but that is not specifically set forth in the agreement. Ms. Michelotti reviewed the Tri-Valley planning maps and studies and asked what happens to the areas that are not designated for a specific use? Mr. Stiebel indicated the land would be designated "future study area". 04/02/96 -18-