CCMIN050791 - Laserfiche WebLink

173 Ms. Mohr stated that one of the issues with respect to water availability is not that there is not enough water but that there is not enough cheap water available. She indicated that a moratorium is not the rational way of addressing the City's concerns or of managing the City's resources, particularly since the City has the capability of building a facility for reverse osmosis or other methods of water reclamation. She added that comments have been made that Council favors developers by approving houses. She pointed out that a moratorium will not stop people from existing; it only means banning them from coming into the State or the City. She further indicated that a moratorium could prevent the construction of a hospital that is about to be built in Pleasanton or the implementation of an $80 Million school bond to expand school facilities. She concluded that it would not be unreasonable to draw from the City's seven-year groundwater supply for two or three years while the City develops its own system to provide water to the community. She indicated that she is not in favor of declaring a moratorium at this time. Ms. Scribner agreed with Ms. Mohr that the City cannot stop people from coming into the community and that the water problem needs to be addressed in another way. She requested Staff to look into the "offset" or "retrofit" program being implemented in other areas, including requirements for low-flow toilets and double piping. Mr. Mercer stated that the 1972 City Council's decision regarding the SAVE Initiative should be seen in the light of the 1969 $55 Million lawsuit that the City lost to developers over the sewage capacity that the City Council had given away in the mid- 1960's. He indicated that if the 560 building permits were not taken out in the past few years, the City would still be requesting a 22%, than rather 25%, voluntary water conservation. He added that the City's growth is slowing down and that declaring a moratorium at this time is not practical because it would cause a major financial upheaval to the community. He stated that the City is currently looking at reverse osmosis as a possible solution to the water situation and that he is not in a position to support a moratorium at this point. Mr. Tarver returned at 9:40 p.m. and rejoined the Council in session. An identified person in the audience commented that the water issue is very important and that two Councilmembers were not present to hear the public testimony on the matter. - 21 - 5-7-91