CCMIN060491 - Laserfiche WebLink

216 extensive review process of the EIR and the supplemental EIR was -- held in July 1990. The Alameda County Planning Commission recommended EIR approval in October 1990, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors certified the EIR in March 1991 and approved the project in March 1991. He stated that over six public hearings on the project were held and that the concerns expressed by Valley residents at these hearings were incorporated in the final plan. Mr. McKeehan continued that the primary purpose of the Ruby Hill Project is to revitalize viticulture in the Valley through the restoration of the Ruby Hill Winery and the Fenestra Winery, the development of a bed-and-breakfast site for overnight visitors, and a special country club and golf course membership for those involved in viticulture in the Valley for entertainment of guests and promotional activities. He added that buffers have been established between the houses and the vineyards, conservation easements have been given on 85% of all the prime land in the property, and an integrated irrigation system has been developed for water conservation between the needs for the farming and the golf course and personal home needs. Mr. McKeehan stated that approximately 800 acres or 50% of the property will be retained in open space, consistent with viticulture, the golf course, the salamander habitat and parks. He added that the property that will be acquired by the open space mitigation fee of $10 Million would also be retained in open space. He stated that environmental considerations include the relocation of revegetated native grasses to the 56-acre tiger salamander habitat to provide long-termsurvival, the horticulture examination of all trees in the property, the preservation and planting of native specimen trees, and the relocation of 50 oak trees to the site. With respect to community impacts, he indicated that the project would fund the construction of a fire station, contribute to the affordable housing fee, incorporate water conservation techniques in the project, and provide a community park on the site in addition to contributing property or park fees, as set forth in the City's Park Ordinance. He added that improvements to the roadways would mitigate existing and future traffic problems. In connection with growth impact, Mr. McKeehan stated that the open space areas will not be developed and that permanent conservation easements will be granted on the golf course. He added that the urban edge buffers will prevent the project from expanding into any contiguous property, and the off-site mitigation for 200 acres will eliminate any potential for development on the other side of Route 84. He concluded that the project is consistent with the South Livermore Valley Plan map, goals, and Pleasanton includes 15 items that the developer has agreed to do, - 6 - 6-4-91