CCMIN021892 - Laserfiche WebLink

88 Donald Miller read a statement from Nancy Storch of the Save Ruby Hill Committee. Included in this statement were a few of her concerns regarding environmental and financial issues. He stated that after time, City services to this project would be subsidized by the residents of Pleasanton. Ms. Storch believed that the fiscal impact and the project plan could not be analyzed without specification of the water supply and service and the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Miller concluded the traffic conditions should be reviewed and felt the utility locations were not clear. Geoff Etnire, 6140 Stoneridge Mall Road, represented RMC Lonestar. He presented a letter was given to the Council. He pointed out that the RMC owned parcel (#26 on the Exhibition map) was subject to a quarry permit and reclamation plan from the County of Alameda. He stated that RMC was not in a position to relinquish these vested rights. He requested that the resolution requesting annexation be amended to read as follows, "Annexation shall be specifically conditioned upon the designation of the County of Alameda as the lead agency pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975". He stated that he had spoken to the City staff and the City Attorney and did not perceive any problem with the request. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Mohr asked who would be responsible for the reverse osmosis facility operation and the distribution or use from it. She believed the water that would be reclaimed by a reverse osmosis facility would be equal to the consumption of the water by the project. Mr. McKeehan replied it would be the City of Livermore's responsibility. Livermore's plant offers 750,000 gallons per day. Livermore would be able to process and develop a larger reverse osmosis facility sooner and produce more water. Mr. Tarver asked if the peak demand of water was two million gallons per day for potable water and two and a half gallons for agricultural. Mr. McKeehan answered that potable and agricultural water would, combined, be two million gallons on the hottest day. Mr. Butler asked staff if there should be any amendments to the negative declaration because this was a different proposal. Mr. Swift stated that only the description of the project should be changed. He explained that staff was relying on the County EIR for the portion of the project that was approved by the County. The Kalthoff and Topham properties were not part of the EIR because they were designated as agricultural and did not have 2/18/92 6