Laserfiche WebLink
41 <br /> <br /> Mr. Cordtz questioned if the City collects fees, are they not <br />bound by agreement and/or ordinance to turn the majority of these <br />monies over to DSRSD for capital improvements to the plants and to <br />cover their operating costs? Also, if these monies are turned over <br />to the developer, who pays the above costs? Will it be the <br />residents in the Territory serviced or will it be pro-rated among <br />DSRSD's customers? He concluded that there is no direct provision <br />for monies to be collected from the developer to purchase <br />additional water supplies. If this development puts burdens on the <br />presently stressed water supplies, this could force Zone 7 to <br />purchase expensive agricultural water from the State. Again, this <br />cost would be pro-rated among all Zone 7 users, thus in effect <br />subsidizing this development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked that if the sewer system were to be used for <br />this project only, why does the agreement mention that if sewerage <br />system fees and charges are collected by the City from other <br />properties in the territory served by the new separate treatment <br />plant, Signature Properties would be reimbursed? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that if it turns out that other properties <br />benefit by this treatment plant, then the developer would be <br />looking for reimbursement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Michael Hosterman, 2922 Chardonnay, expressed concern over <br />potential increased traffic on Vineyard Avenue and about impacts on <br />the schools from this development. He was also concerned about <br />loss of open space and the location of the proposed park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Keith Wardin, 2931 Liberty Drive, representing Friends of <br />the Vineyards, read a letter from the President, Patience G. Rogge. <br />The letter indicated this organizations initial opposition to the <br />project, but after lengthy discussions with Signature Properties, <br />the project conforms to the Guidelines of the Steering Committee <br />for the South Livermore Study. The Friends of the Vineyards now <br />endorses the Ruby Hill development and thinks it will be a <br />tremendous asset to the entire Tri-Valley area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked about the boundaries of the annexation being <br />such that should an agreement with Livermore come about, might we <br />want to change those proposed boundaries and did we had the <br />flexibility of doing that? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that we could change the boundaries if it <br />was found necessary to do so. <br /> <br />9-17-91 11 <br /> <br /> <br />