CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

clause. There would be the potential to reach an agreement. However, because that does not accomplish the limit in pipe size, so people of today can limit the potential of people twenty years from now of diebring their own right to grow or not grow as they see fit, we have broken government. Ms. Michelotti felt one of the important points in the discussion of the LAVWMA/EBDA agreement and in the capacity that was asked for, was the key part that this was to accommodate our present General Plan and the capacity necessary. It was up to the individual jurisdictions to see that happens. She felt that was Couneil's responsibility. She was also frustrated that one entity has excess capacity and another entity needs capacity; that those entities could not get together and resolve the situation. She was willing to compromise in order to get resolution to the issue of getting the capacity Pleasanton needs to build out its General Plan. Ms. Mohr asked if that included capacity for wet weather flow, so we don't need 100 acres of ponds. Ms. Michelotti felt a key point was that restricting the size of the pipeline was it would cause a storage problem and it seems there are logical deductions that can come out of this. Mr. Pico felt it was possible to restrict growth with the sewer pipe. Today's dilemma is because the sewer pipe built twenty years ago has prematurely failed. The City of Pleasanton is close to having the capacity needed to build out its General Plan. He did not think we had to accept being part of a sewer expansion project that creates the potential for unlimited growth in the Tri-Valley area. That is what the 36" pipe does without any influent limit. There are a number of options beyond the expansion of the pipe that are available to the City of Pleasanton in order to meet its sewer requirements. He did not feel Council had begun to explore those options. He believed Pleasanton's buildout could be served without this expansion project. If the neighboring entities want Pleasanton's cooperation, they have to be reasonable and address some of our concerns. He believed that if we want to control the destiny of this valley, we have to use every means available to do that and he feels this is one of them. We are myopic if we only consider the increased costs. An 18% increase is only a couple of dollars a month on an individual sewer bill. That is a small price to pay compared to the increased congestion, air quality deterioration and impacts on our quality of life if we allow unlimited growth in the Tri- Valley area. We are asking for reasonableness and for a pipe to meet the capacity required for all the builtout projects in the Valley. We are willing to accommodate that, however one member of LAVWMA, namely DSRSD, doesn't want that. It wants unlimited growth capacity and the ability to serve Contra Cosha County and other unincorporated areas eurren~y outside their service area. That was not acceptable to him. He wanted limits on growth not only within the City of Pleasanton, but also in neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Tarver felt there were a couple of incorrect statements. This does not dictate the right of future governments to make decisions. Before the ink is dry on this contract, an additional agreement or contract can be negotiated. He felt it was not valid to say this Council is casting the fate of future Councils. He agreed it was broken government and felt DSRSD 07/09/96 -6-