CCMIN060491 - Laserfiche WebLink

225 General Plan goals. (13) How can residential growth be managed in an efficient, logical, and orderly fashion while cooperating with the County and other cities and agencies and addressing the affordable housing problems in the community, as discussed in the housing element, and the chances that the City will be able to provide such affordable housing if allocations are constantly being made for upper-scale housing. (14) How does the Project meet specified housing needs and why is Ruby Hill not included in the General Plan's list of vacant lands. (15) How is the withdrawal of groundwater being discouraged; have additional pipelines on Vineyard Avenue been built, as called for by the General Plan and which should have been completed in 1988; what is being done about implementing that portion of the water program regarding working with Zone 7 to find alternate water supplies other than the State Water Project. (16) How will the Project protect the vineyards in Ruby Hill from conversion to residential development and prohibit the construction of houses on 25% slope areas. (16) Identify the findings made by the County regarding overriding considerations due to economic and social benefits. (17) Was the traffic model used for the Project consistent with the City's model and will the Project fees for traffic and facilities be sufficient. (18) Has Staff done a detailed financial analysis, rather than rough estimates, of the costs and revenues of the Project. (19) How can Growth Management allocations be made for 1993 to 1999 without an annual study, as called for by the General Plan, and does it have a lapsing provision. (20) Does the Agreement preclude any law suit to determine the validity of the City's objections to the County approval. (21) Why should the cost of maintenance and operation of the Reverse Osmosis plant be the responsibility of DSRSD when the City has maintained that growth should pay its way. Ms. Scribner stated that in addition to the concerns addressed by Mr. Tarver, she would also like Staff to address how the Project meets the City's single-family and multiple-mix policies and the location of the elementary school, as well as the funding of the facility and its on-going program. She commented that while Ruby Hill will not necessarily be utilizing Pleasanton's water, the Project's water requirements will impact the City is some manner. She requested additional information on the viability of 20-acre parcels as winery sites. Mr. Butler indicated that the plan has many positive aspects, particularly the preservation of the vineyards; however, he would prefer to wait for the completion of the South Livermore Valley Plan before making any decisions regarding the Project. He expressed concern about accepting a plan which was approved by an agency other than the City and about minimizing public ~roject on the total Valley water supply and to look into the cost - 15 - 6-4-91