CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

of Livermore. At that time, she felt it made more sense for the development to be in Livermore, because it was so far from Pleasanton's city limits. Pleasanton expressed interest in annexation only after Livermore indicated it would not accept the development and it appeared development would go forward in the County. With respect to the Vineyard Corridor, it is unfortunate that some Councilmembers had individual conversations with property owners because everyone now has an expectation of what would happen. Because there was a general assumption of the concept of development, nothing came before Council for formal action. Mr. Brandes felt there was unanimous opinion among Council and the Planning Commission that Pleasanton should exercise control over the Ruby Hill area and it was necessary to annex all the property between Pleasanton and Ruby Hill. No one gave much consideration to the number of units to be allowed in the Vineyard Corridor. Ms. Michelotti indicated that when the Fertile Crescent Study (which later became the South Livermore Plan) was initiated, Ruby Hill was on the books and in the planning stage. When Mike Harris' property was annexed, it was thought that the rest of the Corridor would be transitional from there on out, but that was prior to Ruby Hill coming about. Mr. Pico asked staff to research what agreements or understandings existed. He was told at one point that there were none. At the next Council meeting, he requested a report from staff on this issue. He did not think each Councilmember should have to research this and that the public should have a response from the staff. Ms. Acosta indicated staff can present the history of what occurred and present any formal records that exist. There may still be differences of opinion on understandings or expectations. Ms. Michelotti thanked Karin and Frank for their perspective. Ms. Micheloff agreed that the Council and Planning Commission were unanimous in the desire to annex Ruby Hill so Pleasanton could have control of the development. As far as having a public meeting where all issues regarding the Corridor, we may not find a record. Mr. Tarver agreed there was not a consensus in terms of what should occur in the Corridor. Council delayed it for studies and people went away with their own expectations. Ms. Acosta stated it was clear a decision was not made, which is why them is discussion today. Staff will bring back whatever records it has. Mr. Berlogar recalled that when the annexation went forward, the property owners group was being represented by Peter MacDonald. At the meeting when the vote was taken to begin to annex the area, Mr. MacDonald indicated the property owners agreed with the specific understanding that the City would treat them in a reasonable fashion. The owners relied on that assurance. 05/28/96 - 10-