CCMIN041696 - Laserfiche WebLink

studies necessary to get the information necessary to go before the voters in November. That is becoming a real problem if there is not agreement soon. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, was representing the Lins, who own property in Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore. He felt the Livermore proposal is a substantial improvement over where negotiations stood on April 2. With reasonable modifications, he felt the needs of all three agencies could be met. If you try to have a deal with only Pleasanton and Livermore, the F~ Bay Dischargers Authority will veto the deal and we will be back where we started. He felt there were only two major issues to address: the size of the pipeline and the limitation of in~uent. He liked the Livermore proposal of 32.42 MGD ADWF plus whatever wet weather flow is necessary. Given all the discussions so far, DSRSD must have concerns about what the size of the line will be. He felt the discussions should focus on the size of the line, not the gallons per day. Mayor Tarver opposed a 42' line; perhaps a 36" line would work and would prevent servicing other areas of concern like Dougherty Valley after 2020. The last issue is in fluent limitation. He felt this was very unwise. It would put Pleasanton in a position where its future is controlled by five agencies who do not have Pleasanton's best interests at heart. We know that Hayward has given up on the in~uent limitation request. If the people in this valley don't insist on in~uent limitation, then we have a deal. He felt there shonld be a good faith effort to work with all three agencies and you will have something to take to the voters in November. Mr. Tarvet referred to the differences between a super sewer and a regular sewer and the differences between in~uent limitation and effluent Limitation and why it is in the agreement. R is not going to be a 71 MGD pipeline. The determination on the size of the pipeLine (32'/36"/42') will be made after there is an agreement. What you are suggesting is to go to DSRSD and compromise to get a size of pipe before we have an agreement and data necessary to determine how big the pipe should be. We are saying get a deal, get the engineering data, the financial data, and decide on the size of the pipe. DSRSD can participate in that decision. DSRSD is saying now it will do its own project with 71 MGD, no in~uent Limit or anything. Mr. Tarver could not support that and felt that EBDA would veto that project as well. Mr. MacDonald did not feel Mr. Tarver had accurately stated the position of DSRSD. DSRSD was prepared to agree with a number of provisions giving Pleasanton control of Dublin development and areas of annexation. All those concessions were premised on 71 MGD and a 42" pipeLine. You came to the meeting and said you changed your mind and did not want that anymore. Mr. MacDonald is saying to give that agreement a chance and see what can be accomplished by making a few changes. Mr. Tarver indicated that when we did that, we lost Livermore. In addition, DSRSD would not agree to growth controls. We could debate this all night. Mr. MacDonald felt it was a mistake to cut DSRSD out of the agreement and a huge mistake to have an in~uent limit. You are saying the Pleasanton Council in the year 2020 04/16/96 -19-