CCMIN060491 - Laserfiche WebLink

221 added that the County should not be involved in the development business and that Pleasanton should sue the County instead of annexing the Project. She questioned how the Council could consider a Preannexation Agreement for the Project and relinquish the City's normal processes of public review and comment when it cannot even guarantee services to its current residents. Ms. Sue Yallum, 1127 Florence Road in Livermore, representing Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, indicated that she spoke in opposition to this Project before the County hearings. She stated that the Project would sacrifice unincorporated open space and contiguous land for a massive housing development that does not meet the present housing needs for most of the residents in the Valley. Mr. Robert Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, commented that working three years on a project of this magnitude in not a long time and that public hearings in the County are not a substitute for the City's planning process. In response to Mr. Sweeney's statements, he pointed out that Mr. Joe Callahan has mentioned many times in the past that Hacienda Business Park would only furnish jobs for people already living in Pleasanton and would not be residentially growth-inducing. He indicated that a lawsuit in the 1970's stemming from the City's inability to provide facilities promised in annexation agreements resulted in the building community putting pressure on the City with respect to the planning process. He stated that it would be irresponsible for the Council to approve the Preannexation Agreement because it would guarantee Ruby Hill the water it needs, even for its golf course, at a time when the drought could require a 50% water rationing. Mr. Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, indicated that he was neither in favor of or opposed to the project. He inquired if a breach of contract between the City and the developer with respect to water would have serious consequences. Mr. Mercer referred the question to Staff. Mr. Roush replied that if the Preannexation Agreement were approved in its current form, and the Council subsequently adopted a General Plan or zoning designation that would prevent the development from going forward, the developer would have an argument that the City had breached the Preannexation Agreement. Mr. Cordtz commented that according to Zone 7, during the five-year period from 1984 to 1988, the water demand exceeded supply, and no recharge was done to the groundwater basin. He with continuous water pumping. He further inquired how long the - 11 - 6-4-91