Laserfiche WebLink
42 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr wanted to know what would happen if the project, <br /> which is committed to the 300,000 gallon figure, found that in a <br /> few years when the project was finished it was discovered that less <br /> water was being used due to water conservation efforts? Would we <br /> be free to use the difference between what was built and what is <br /> actually used or are we going to be obligated to credit them for <br /> something less than what they use. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta replied that the size of plant on site was what <br /> would be required to support the project. That determination was <br /> based on the best data available today and once its in place, it <br /> stays. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver voiced his misgivings about supporting County <br /> development of property. He continued that the approval should be <br /> challenged legally in court. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner commented that this particular agreement mentions <br /> the mandatory rationing condition but doesn't contain a provision <br /> in regards to a water emergency plan that might have options <br /> available to the developer for replacing the water. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver pointed out that all the developer needs to do is <br /> pay its fee. The RO plant does not necessarily have to be in <br /> existence, only that the fee has to be paid. Then the developer is <br /> exempt from the moratorium based on mandatory water rationing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta explained that the formula was not intended to <br /> apply to rationing, but that a credit would be given towards so <br /> many building permits, to account for the amount of excess water <br /> created and the sewage capacity saved. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated that staff has done a good job of <br /> resolving the issues and concerns of bringing the project into <br /> Pleasanton. The County's approval of this project has not given <br /> the City much choice and that at this juncture everything should be <br /> done to mitigate the adverse impact the project will have on the <br /> community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that from the point of view of Pleasanton <br /> the pluses are on the side of annexing the property so that the <br /> City would be in a position to deal with all the concerns that the <br /> citizens have brought up. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented on the unfortunate fact that the County <br /> moved ahead on this project, however he feels it's a good project <br /> with a reputable builder and the efforts should be on protecting <br /> the community by requiring as many mitigations as possible. The <br /> pre-annexation agreement satisfies the concerns of Staff, the <br /> Developer and Council. <br /> <br /> 9-17-91 12 <br /> <br /> <br />