CCMIN060491 - Laserfiche WebLink

220 details of the development to City Staff and the developers. Ms. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, property owner between the City limits and the Project, raised questions about the land use and the role of the community in the review of the Project. Ms. Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle, expressed concern about the exemption of the Project from the Growth Management Program and from further public review under CEQA or modification by the Planning Commission and City Council in the future. With respect to the water issue, she pointed out that the.demand for groundwater has exceeded the supply over the last five years and that groundwater use by Ruby Hill to supplement the golf course irrigation could exacerbate the groundwater deficit. She continued that the Preannexation Agreement exposes the City to significant liability and would cost the City millions of dollars, should the City be unable to deliver water and sewer. She added that Ruby Hill is not in the City's General Plan and that Pleasanton cannot afford the basic resources to accommodate the Project. She questioned why the Council has not elected to sue the County to stop the development and concluded that the lack of benefit for Pleasanton residents makes the Project a low priority, especially for Growth Management exemption. Ms. Maragaret Tracy, a resident of Livermore, indicated three important factors to consider in addition to Ms. Dennis' comments: (1) Zone 7 has received only 20% of its State water contract this year; (2) this is the eighth consecutive year that the Valley's groundwater basin is being over-drafted; and (3) all Valley residents are being asked to conserve 25% of their water usage this year. She pointed out that the State has cut agricultural deliveries this year by 100% and that urban and agricultural users will share equally whatever water supply is available next year. She added that the Growth Management plan does not indicate a need for high-income housing but for very low-income housing. She emphasized the importance of allocating the available water in terms of what is important for the Valley and suggested that no new water connections be made until the State can guarantee full water contract delivery. Ms. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, commented that since she first attended a Council meeting on a possible 50% water rationing, Council has waived EIRs on development projects, canceled agricultural preserve contracts prematurely, extended the City's sphere-of-influence to areas that the City cannot properly service, and removed the Planning Commission condition on water from the Moller and Bonde projects. She commented that the Ruby County with no participation from Pleasanton and its citizens. She - 10 - 6-4-91