CCMIN033198 - Laserfiche WebLink

and an initiative that "any service of water outside Zone 7 district boundaries would be subject to voter action". Or Council could choose to join litigation by citizens for balanced growth, which seeks to clarify in court whether Zone 7 can serve water outside its district boundaries. Tom Ford, 7262 Tina Place, Dublin, opposed servicing water to the Dougherty Valley. He said the people in Zone 7 should be allowed to vote on this issue. He felt the situation needed to be looked at long term. The population in California will probably increase by 50 % in the next twenty years. This increase will put an enormous drain on the water supply. He believed the Dougherty Valley study was under estimated in its demand for water. He felt the City of Pleasanton or Dublin was not getting anything in return for the development in Dougherty Valley. He said for Zone 7 to assume a long term commitment to supply an increasing scarce asset is not a good deal. He asked what happened to the south Livermore plan? He also did not agree with the reverse osmosis injection because of health and safety reasons. He reiterated again that the people who are affected should be allowed to vote. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via De Los Milagros, has been a member of the Zone 7 Groundwater Advisory Committee for over two years. She was discouraged over the lack of public interest in the Zone 7 meetings. She is concerned about the way Zone 7 is listening to developers rather than the residents. She said Zone 7 should bring the issue to the public and let them vote. She opposed the reverse osmosis injection into the ground. She encouraged Council to join the litigation against Zone 7. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard, could not understand why Zone 7 would compromise the water supply. She said the groundwater is a very valuable resource. Zone 7 argues that the water bills might be reduced and that Dougherty Valley will be an economical value. She did not see the benefit. She did not want to compromise the water supply. She supported joining the legal battle but understood there might be legal reasons to prevent the City from participating. She felt an initiative would be wonderful. She said the City Council needed to protect the quality of life for Pleasanton rather than any other new building sites. Paulette Salisbury, 6170 Corte Trancas, said one of the reasons she moved to Pleasanton was for the fine quality of living. She supported the other speakers in taking this issue to the voters of the District of Zone 7 and urged Council to support the initiatives and litigation. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone Drive, applauded the Mayor and the Mayor of Livermore for bringing this issue forward. He felt if Zone 7 was responsive to its constituents it would have put this issue to the vote of the people. He opposed the memorandum of understanding. He urged Council to support the initiative and enter into the potential lawsuit. On another note he opposed the injection of treated sewage water into the drinking water. He submitted a report from the National Resource Council that raised concerns about the potential health effects of injecting treated sewage into drinking water. To his knowledge this has not been addressed by Dublin San Ramon Services District Board, who is promoting this as a way to facilitate large scale development. Pleasanton City Council 4 03/31/98 Minutes