Laserfiche WebLink
143 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer explained that Council cannot declare a moratorium <br />at this meeting because the matter in not on the Agenda. He <br />disagreed with Ms. Purnell's statement regarding more units being <br />built in the City and added that the City's Capital Improvement <br />Program budget has been cut by $1.5 Million because there have been <br />less construction, and less fees have been collected. <br /> <br /> Mr. David Glenn, 5650 Foothill Road, stated that the Water <br />Conservation Program should also have considered alternative plans <br />for possible occurrences such as the continuation of the drought or <br />the contamination of the underground water supply. He expressed <br />concern about how these events, in addition to an increasing <br />reduction in water usage, would affect the status of future <br />hook-ups and new developments in the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ada Lundgren, 4619 Las Lomitas Drive, stated that as a <br />farmer's daughter and a former 4-H Club leader, she has always <br />maintained a vegetable garden. She requested extra consideration <br />for water usage, especially during the summer months. <br /> <br /> Ms. Emily Carson, 2574 Skimmer Court, indicated that she was <br />a resident of Pleasanton during the 1976-77 drought and also served <br />as a member of the Industrial Review Committee and of the <br />Environmental Subcommittee at that time. She stated that in view <br />of the water situation, the entire State should declare a <br />moratorium on growth and development, particularly since drought <br />years cannot be predicted. <br /> <br /> Ms. Lundgren commented that she recalled that Hopyard Road <br />used to be a lake. She stated that she believed Pleasanton is not <br />in a desert area and that it has a good supply of underground <br />water. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that he can support Staff's percentage plan <br />proposal because it addresses the concerns of those who are already <br />conserving water, as well of those who use more than the average <br />amount. He noted that the program has various levels of <br />implementation, including a 25% voluntary reduction and mandated <br />levels of from 25% to 60% reduction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired what the penalty would be for a violation <br />of Section 9.30,150. Prohibition of Certain Water Uses of the <br />proposed ordinance. <br /> <br /> - 5 - <br /> 4-16-91 <br /> <br /> <br />