CCMIN060491 - Laserfiche WebLink

222 Del Valle Water Treatment Plant has been inoperative and why ' residents pay the same amount for treated, as well as untreated, water. Mr. Elliott replied that all three wells are pumping and that the water level has dropped. He added that the City is presently looking at modifying its agreement with Zone 7 with respect to the cost of treated and untreated water. Mr. Cordtz requested that Council postpone the decision on the Preannexation Agreement until more information is available regarding Pleasanton's water situation. Mr. Gary Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, indicated that he was neither in favor of or opposed to the Project. He requested Council to seriously consider the water situation, particularly since any malfunction of the sewer or Reverse Osmosis plant would be paid for by the City residents. He pointed out that the construction of the fire station and the school is not a one-time cost, since there would be Staff and operating expenses to consider in the years ahead. Mr. John Stein, Vice-Mayor of Livemore, read a statement from the City Council of Livemore regarding the Preannexation Agreement with the Ruby Hill Project. The statement indicated that the Livemore City Council has opposed the proposed Ruby Hill development for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons. Major concerns were expressed regarding the adequacy of the EIR and the environmental review process, its consistency with the County General Plan, its growth-inducing impact, and other cumulative impacts such as water use. The statement continued that Livemore has consistently held that the Ruby Hill development is premature and should wait for the completion of the South Livemore Valley Plan to ensure that the Project is consistent with the Plan's goals and objectives for the Livermore Valley. Because of its commitment to the South Livermore Valley Plan, Livermore has not made any attempt to annex the area, and urged the City of Pleasanton to do the same. Since the Project is only partially within Livermore's sphere-of-influence, Pleasanton would have to expand its sphere-of- influence to incorporate the Project's boundaries, which expansion may impact present or future land use, traffic circulation, and service issues. Finally, the Livemore Council proposed that representatives from both Pleasanton and Livemore meet to address and analyze in detail the issues involved to protect the needs of the South Livermore Valley as well as the best interests and the long-term amenities of the Livermore-Amador Valley residents. - 12 - 6-4-91