CCMIN040296 - Laserfiche WebLink

exercise some level of control ourselves, by throwing this back to DSRSD in an unacceptable manner, and then having DSRSD litigate and we get carried along, she would rather see the compromise necessary from each of us to make this something we believe DSRSD will accept. Ms. Michelotti had concerns about paragraph 8b. Most importantly, all these things we have negotiated: city-centered growth, not servicing urtincorporated areas, is not part of any of that. Ms. Mohr felt that if you want to throw all that in the trash and let DSRSD take care of our sewer needs by virtue of its litigation, then leave in all these things that you know they will not accept. Then we don't have to worry about it. Someone will take care of it and it will costs us a lot more. Mr. Pico was not certain DSRSD will oppose the proposal. We have been negotiating for a long time and there has been a lot of compromise. If we accept this agreement as it is written, we are being asked to compromise key controls in the agreement. He would not compromise those points. It was moved by Mr. Pico that we direct the LAVWMA representatives to support the EBDA agreement subject to the ratification of the MOU working draft with the following changes: Item 7 - add Dublin to f'wst line; second paragraph should say aH "four" jurisdictions; delete the last sentence in paragraph 3 of Item 7. Add to Item 7, the third paragraph of Item 9 regarding Govt. Code Section 65350, et seq. Delete the remaining paragraphs of Item 9. As an alternative to the "poison pill", add another section to Item 8 that provides if enabling legislation is enacted and enforced that the poison pill provisions will be eliminated, The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Mr. Pico, to reiterate Mr. Pico's motion except that the restriction on development in unincorporated areas could only be removed by agreement of all parties and the "poison pill" could only be removed by agreement of aH parties or by state legislation. In the future, 25 years from now, if there is an exception everyone wants to make that would be approved by the voters. Mr. Roush wanted to clarify that the motion meant in order for Pleasanton to agree to terminate the restrictions and the "poison pill" restriction, that it would have to go to a vote of the Pleasanton residents in 20200 There was discussion about what restrictions could be placed on future Councils and what would require a vote of the people. 04102196 -23-