Laserfiche WebLink
170 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if he would be able to appeal this project ' <br /> if Council approved it as a minor modification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said yes. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, to <br /> direct the Zoning Administrator to process a change to eliminate <br /> Condition of Approval No. 25 of PUD-87-4, Canyon Meadows, as a <br /> minor modification. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Item 12b(1) <br /> Technical Report on Water Resources and Availability (IR 91:26) <br /> <br /> Item ~2bf2) <br /> Moratorium on New Water Hookups (IR 91:22) <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver left the meeting at 8:58 p.m. for another meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Lois Lutz, 4545 Entrada Court, a Pleasanton resident for <br /> 30 years, stated that the entire planning process should be <br /> reconsidered if Pleasanton residents are required to conserve water <br /> and new developments are still being built. She requested Council <br /> to recognize that Pleasanton and the State of California have an <br /> ongoing water crisis and to issue no building permits while water <br /> conservation, whether voluntary or mandatory, is in effect. <br /> <br /> Ms. Emily Carson, 2574 Skimmer Court, expressed concern <br /> regarding water availability in the City. She indicated that as an <br /> elected body, the Council should take every possible means to <br /> protect the City's water supply and its distribution to the current <br /> residents of Pleasanton. She pointed out that any development on <br /> Pleasanton Ridge would further threaten Pleasanton's water supply <br /> and urged the Council to declare a building moratorium in <br /> Pleasanton at this time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gary Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, stated that the <br /> future needs of Pleasanton residents should be protected to provide <br /> a reasonable quality of life in the community. He noted that a <br /> past City Council decided against that protection by not pursuing <br /> the SAVE Initiative, but that today's Council is morally <br /> responsible to set prudent standards that would stop or slow down <br /> development to guarantee that protection. <br /> <br /> - 18 - <br /> 5-7-91 <br /> <br /> <br />