My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN022195
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN022195
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2018 2:17:58 PM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:00:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/21/1995
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Lum indicated the property owner would have to pay for a separate connection for <br /> an irrigation meter. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if there were a pre-existing connection and the only change would be <br /> installing a separate meter, what would the cost be? <br /> <br /> Mr. Cusenza indicated that if the usage did not change, there might not be a connection <br /> fee. For example, if the resident had a two inch meter and wanted to split it to 1-1/2 inches and <br /> the standard 5/8 inch residential meter, there would be no difference in connection fees. If the <br /> use changes, then there would need to be a connection fee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr supported having some flexibility to accommodate the Vineyard Corridor <br /> property owners, since the City wants to encourage viticulture use. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico pointed out that these properties are not connected to City water at this time. <br /> If they do connect then they will be subject to the Zone 7 fees as well, which cannot be waived. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cusenza indicated that if the properties are going from well water to City water, <br /> there will be connections fees for the City and Zone 7. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis believed these people could continue to use their wells for irrigation. <br /> <br />' Ms. Mohr referred to the policy requiring property owners who subdivide their property <br /> to cap existing wells. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cusenza indicated that was true. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr suggesting making an exception when the Vineyard Corridor properties come <br /> within the City limits. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated there was a 9 % surcharge for recharging during the drought. Now <br /> there is lots of water and he inquired when Zone 7 would remove the 9 % surcharge. It seems <br /> the more people conserve water, the more it costs them. Yet our structure is set up to get <br /> conservation. The cost of water reminded him of the State budget process, where the State <br /> spends more than it receives and then passes on the expenses to others. The State is not made <br /> accountable for providing the water to supply the demand and it seems to allocate twice as much <br /> as it has. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver declared the public hearing open. <br /> <br /> Ralph Romero, 2810 Foothill Road, referred to his bills for 1993 and 1994. He saved <br /> 12% of his water and his bill has gone up 16%; he believed that was because of the three tiered <br /> system. He urged Council to adopt a water audit service for large users. <br /> <br /> 02/21/95 <br /> - 15- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.