Laserfiche WebLink
223 <br /> <br />Mr. McKeehan clarified the following issues with respect to <br />the Preannexation Agreement: (1) The California Water Company <br />(Cal-Water) has indicated its willingness to provide water to Ruby <br />Hill, and the Agreement leaves the option to the City to have the <br />Project serviced by either Cal-Water or Pleasanton. (2) In the <br />same manner, the City has the option to have the Project build a <br />sewer treatment plant or connect to the City's sewer system. <br />(3) The developer would like to cooperate with Pleasanton rather <br />than take away the City's planning capabilities. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that all three water retailers in the <br />Valley get their supply from Zone 7 or a common underground basin, <br />so that any shortfall in water would affect all retailers. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan stated that while the entire Valley would be <br />impacted by the shortfall, Ruby Hill would not be taking any of <br />Pleasanton's water supply if the project is serviced by Cal-Water. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired how much usable water would be made <br />available with the use of the Reverse Osmosis facility. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan replied that it would produce about 240,000 <br />gallons a day at build-out. He indicated that the Project could <br />provide the capital to build the facility, which Staff indicated <br />would have the ability to process more than 300,000 gallons a day. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that he would like Pleasanton to meet <br />with Livermore before making any decision on the Preannexation <br />Agreement. He requested the Councilmembers to address any concerns <br />they may have with respect to the Agreement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr agreed with Mr. Mercer and suggested that he appoint <br />a Council subcommittee for the purpose. She indicated that she <br />would like Staff to identify clearly the shortcomings of the <br />Project that may be subject to any litigation, whether or not the <br />Preannexation Agreement addresses those issues, and which of those <br />issues would be resolved or remain unresolved by the Agreement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush commented that if the item is continued for a month <br />and the Notice of Determination is filed on June 6th, the 30-day <br />statute of limitation with respect to the challenge on the EIR <br />would run too close to that continued meeting. <br /> <br /> - 13 - <br /> 6-4-91 <br /> <br /> <br />