Laserfiche WebLink
174 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that he felt at a disadvantage because he <br /> did not hear the public testimony. He added that he had initially <br /> asked Staff for details on the water supply, potential water <br /> sources and alternatives, which were not included in the Staff <br /> Report. He requested Staff to address issues such as the City's <br /> current and future water situation, the State's double commitment <br /> of its water contract, how much water Zone 7 can provide if the <br /> State is unable to provide its contract, and how much water the <br /> City needs to provide to augment Zone 7's supply. He pointed out <br /> that in the past years, Council has approved projects with lots as <br /> large as eight acres and extensive landscaping, and now the City is <br /> requesting their owners to cut back its water usage by 25%. He <br /> stated that the issue at hand is the City's capability to supply <br /> water in the long run with additional growth while continuing to <br /> provide water in the short term as well. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that Mr. Tarver and Mr. Butler could listen <br /> to the tapes on the public testimony on the water issue. He then <br /> continued the matter to the next Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Item 12c <br /> Status of Alameda County General Plan and Consideration of <br /> Recommended Policy Revision (SR 91:187) <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver agreed with Staff's recommendation that a letter be <br /> sent to Alameda County requesting that the County General Plan <br /> include the policy that urban development be allowed only within <br /> city spheres-of-influence and be serviced by existing cities <br /> according to city General Plan policies. He also expressed concern <br /> about the County's plan to reduce minimum lot sizes from 100 acres <br /> to 40 acres County-wise, and requested Staff to prepare a report on <br /> the matter. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr suggested that the City respond to the urban <br /> development issue as soon as possible since it affects the City and <br /> address the lot size reduction when the Staff Report comes before <br /> the Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta commented that the Planning Commission will <br /> consider the lot size reduction issue at its May 15th meeting, and <br /> its recommendations may not be available for the Council meeting on <br /> May 21st. However, there would be sufficient time to get the <br /> Council's comments to the County Board of Supervisors. <br /> <br /> - 22 - <br /> 5-7-91 <br /> <br /> <br />