Laserfiche WebLink
255 <br /> <br />resources are too limited for its rapid growth. (6) Council <br />betrayed the faith of the people by signing away the SAVE <br />Initiative. (7) There is a need for regional planning. (8) The <br />City should take a closer look at what it is doing, such as paying <br />for treated water it does not get. (9) Water rates have increased <br />by 40%-60% because of increased demand and reduced supply; the City <br />has a capacity of only eight million gallons of water a day as <br />opposed to its demand of 24 million gallons a day. (10) Concern <br />was expressed regarding Zone 7's first-come first-served policy. <br />(11) The City and County of San Francisco should contribute 50,000 <br />gallons of water a day when it develops its property. <br /> <br />Mr. Tarver then summarized Council's response, as follows: <br />(1) There is no water crisis, and the City has a seven-year <br />groundwater supply; there is no need for a moratorium at this time. <br />(2) The City has to provide homes for the children of Pleasanton <br />residents and the people who are coming into the State. <br />(3) Technology can solve the water problem; Staff needs to look <br />into the RO process as a possible solution. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver agreed that the City is not in a crisis as long as <br />there is no mandatory rationing. However, water is a Statewide <br />problem, and the City should begin doing something about it. He <br />stated that six million people come to California every ten years, <br />and Pleasanton does not have the resources to accommodate and <br />service these people. He commended the concept of an off-set <br />program and added that the City should be proactive, looking ahead <br />for solutions to future traffic, school, and water supply problems. <br />He pointed out that it is not rational for the City to continue <br />approving new developments when the residents are being asked to <br />conserve water. He indicated that Council has to be very careful <br />and find solutions to the City's problems before going any further, <br />particularly because there are two million square feet of approved <br />commercial-industrial projects and 1,200 approved homes that have <br />not yet been developed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that stopping everything is not the <br />solution to the City's problems and that Pleasanton is in good <br />shape today not because it stopped but because it continued to move <br />forward. He stated that hundreds of Pleasanton citizens have <br />contributed thousands of hours to help set the City's priorities <br />and to make Pleasanton a better place in which to live. In <br />response, the Council must continue to develop the community <br />accordingly. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver pointed out that if different viewpoints were <br />brought together, and compromises were made to arrive at a <br />consensus, the dissension in the community would have potentially <br />been changed. He stated that it is necessary for people to sit <br /> <br /> - 11 - <br /> 6-18-91 <br /> <br /> <br />