Laserfiche WebLink
411 <br /> <br /> Mr. Dixon replied that the State may restructure the manner in <br />which the entitlement would be given so that the communities would <br />receive a bigger block in wet years. He indicated that the State <br />would not penalize those who have a groundwater basin but <br />encourages them to use it through a financial incentive which would <br />help pay for the extra pumps that would be put in. <br /> <br /> Ms. Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle expressed concern about <br />withholding new building permits at a 50% mandatory water <br />rationing, which is Stage 5 of the water emergency plan. She <br />stated that the Growth Management agreement forces Pleasanton <br />residents to subsidize new developments with their investments in <br />landscaping, home and quality of life by assuming all the risks <br />associated with providing water for the new development. She added <br />that the wishes of Pleasanton residents, as expressed at the ballot <br />through the SAVE Initiative, would be far more appropriate than <br />approving the proposed agreement. She noted that an earlier Staff <br />Report hinted at the unspecified negative economic impacts of a <br />building moratorium in terms of difficulties for Pleasanton <br />residents who are dependent on new development for their <br />livelihood, but no Staff work has been done on the impacts of <br />mandatory rationing on Pleasanton residents in terms of the <br />financial impacts associated with landscape losses, replacement <br />cost and lost property value associated with insufficient water to <br />meet the community's needs. She urged the Council not to approve <br />the proposed form of Growth Management agreement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, stated that through the <br />years, Pleasanton has become dependent on Zone 7 for its water <br />supply. He commented that Zone 7 now needs to purchase water from <br />other sources to continue supplying the Valley and would pass the <br />costs on to the purveyors. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst objected to Ms. Dennis' comment that new <br />developments are being subsidized by the old developments in the <br />community. He stated that his development is paying its own way <br />with approximately $800,000 in fees for 40 units. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, stated that there is a <br />need for a systematic accounting of what happens to the various <br />fees paid by new developments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer requested Staff to prepare an information report on <br />the matter. <br /> <br /> - 18 - <br /> 8-20-91 <br /> <br /> <br />