PC 10/23/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

RZ-Ol-7. Citv of eJp.ll~lInton Application to prezone approximately 1,650 acres of land located in the vicinity of Vineyard Avenue east of Montevino Drive, and VaUecitos Road south of Vineyard Avenue. The application includes a prezoning of the 1,300 Ruby Hill site to a Planned Unit Development district to match the uses that were recently approved by Alameda County. The application also includes a prezoning of approximately 350 acres of land (25 land holdings) to a Planned Unit Development district to match the uses currently designated for the area by the Pleasanton General Plan (Rural Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, Agriculture and Grazing, and Public Health and Safety). Wayne Rasmussen presented the staff report recommending approval of Cases GP-91-8 and RZ-91-7. At the request of Chairman Mahem, Mr. Rasmussen also summarized a letter directed to the Planning Commission from the City Attorney of Livermore. This letter stated that the Negative Declaration failed to accurately describe the project; that the Ruby Hills EIR failed to comply with CEQA and is thus inadequate; that the Negative Declaration prepared for the General Plan Amendment and Prezoning fails to comply with CEQA; that the prezoning of the site to enable development of the Ruby Hill Project is inconsistent with Pleasanton's General Plan; and that amendment of Pleasanton's land use map will result in a legally inadequate General Plan. For those reasons, the City of Livermore requests that the Planning Commission require preparation of an ElR that adequately analyzes the impacts associated with the proposed General Plan amendment, prezoning, annexation and ultimate development. Commissioner Horan asked Mr. Rasmussen if he was familiar with the suppositions of the lawsuit when Pleasanton was a party to the suit. Neither Mr. Rasmussen or Mr. Higdon were not familiar with the suit. Commissioner Horan questioned whether Pleasanton had written a letter to the County when they were against the same thing that Livermore is writing them about at this point. The Commission did not know; Mr. Rasmussen said there were a number of concerns, but many of them were resolved through the preannexation agreement. Commissioner Hovingh asked Mr. Rasmussen if the Pleasanton City Attorney has reviewed the letter from the Livermore City Attorney. Mr. Rasmussen stated that the letter just came today, so the City Attorney would not have had time to adequately review it or respond to it. He suggested that in light of the letter Planning Staff can meet with the Pleasanton City Attorney, and thence work with the City of Livermore. He noted that information from the staff report can be incorporated into the Negative Declaration which will solve some of the problems. Chairman Mahem questioned Mr. Rasmussen as to the timeline for the project in regard as to what would come first, golf course, retail, etc. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 1991 Page 17 .. .