CCMIN112195 - Laserfiche WebLink

needs. The issue is he doesn't want DSRSD to use it for providing capacity beyond what was previous agreed upon. Ms. Michelotti commented that we need to stay focused on the agreement that Pleasanton bought into, the capacity to service the General Plan built out. Recycling should be used and encouraged. Mr. Pico felt there are more issues than sewage capacity that affect the General Plan. In respect to the traffic fee, he felt the request from Hayward was a fair and reasonable request to mitigate the impact and he thought the amount of that fee was still negotiable. The agreement still needs to address the issues and concerns of Hayward. In regard to the recycling issue and the influent flow control, recycling that does not provide for increased development but provides water for the existing and planned uses is appropriate. He is concerned about recycling which provides sewage capacity for more than the 32.4 million gallons per day level that was originally asked for. He saw that as recycling that would be providing for increased development. There is a compromise to be reached in order to get everyone satisfied with urban limit lines and the in~uent flow control issue. There is a question of whether we will accept a change to the unanimity rule on the influent flow after the year 2006. DSRSD is asking for a 2/3 vote instead of unanimity. Mayor Tarver said that DSRSD is not asking that but staff is recommending the compromise. Mr. Pico felt that he could agree to flexibility after the year 2006 with respect to what is required to determine whether or not additional capacity would flow through the plant in terms of in~uent requirements. If there was a condition that stated all of the jurisdictions that discharge at that point of time through the LAVWMA pipeline would have adopted urban growth boundaries by that date he felt that would resolve a number of the issues. It would not ask DSRSD as a sewer agency to agree to set any urban growth boundary limits but would condition any agreement which provides greater in~uent flow based on all jurisdictions that would be discharging sewage through the LAVWMA pipeline (San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore and any other entity), agreeing and adopting urban growth boundary limits. Ms. Michelotti heard at the EBDMLAVWMA meeting that Hayward was concerned with having urban limit lines in place but there was some discussion of urban limit lines being able to be changed in the future. Mr. Pico hoped the urban limit lines would be in place as soon as possible. As far as a compromise or a position that might be acceptable to Hayward, to DSRSD and to the people concerned with growth and wanting to see an urban growth boundary throughout the Tri-Valley area, this might be a mechanism to get that in place. Ms. Michelotti asked what year he would like to see the sunset clause. 11/21/95 -26-