CCMIN040296 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Stiebel indicated that no one is 100% satisfied and everyone would request changes if asked. At this stage, changes to the document would be tantamount to a rejection of the proposal. He urged Council to evaluate what we have compared to the best options. People on all sides are feeling pushed to the breaking point and if this Council presents a counterproposal, DSRSD's response will be to proceed to eminent domain. Mr. Pico was adamant that he wanted an "urban growth boundary". If it means the same thing as "Development Potential and Sphere of Influence line", then why should Dublin use different language than other cities? He can take the risk of having this big sewer pipe with its development potential, but only if his changes are included. He had a problem with allowing service by DSRSD in the unincorporated areas after the year 2020. Ms. Michelotti was very concerned about the "poison pill" provisions. Them is a provision for having a validation lawsuit. If a third patty brings a lawsuit and is successful, then the entire agreement, pipeline, and money spent, just goes away. If that happens after we have used 90% of the pipeline and Dublin has used 80%, there is no problem. But if it happens early on when we have used only 10% or 15%, then we have 85% of the capacity that we have paid for but can't use. Mr. Tarver agreed that was a problem. We are putting this enormous pipe in the ground with no guarantees. He was certain that once the pipe is in the ground and DSRSD denies the County its use, he was certain Alameda County would ~e an eminent domain lawsuit. He believed there was no way to guarantee control other than having a pipeline that will not take any more capacity. Ms. Dennis did not feel the voters would support the agreement without a guarantee of some control. She did not want the Council to make the decision for them. She felt we should proceed with this so the voters get the opportunity to decide. Mr. Tarver felt he already knew what the voters wanted and we do not need to put this proposal on the ballot. He preferred getting a proposal he can support and telling the community it services the General Plan, it makes growth pay its way, there is a Tri-Valley planning process, we are taking care of the next 25 years and we wffi let the 25 years after that take care of itself. The negotiations on the size of the pipe has gone from 32.43 mgd dry weather flow to 71 mgd wet weather flow, which is enormous. It is a super sewer without controls. He wanted to give the community alternatives, rather than presenting them with something to vote on with no options. I-Ie supported a 32.43 mgd dry weather flow pipeline with storage behind it to accommodate growth. That was the original proposal and is in the agreement with LAVWMA. Ms. Dennis felt people are getting an alternative. You are saying keep the pipe the same size, downsize the General Plan. 04102196 -21-