Laserfiche WebLink
219 <br /> <br /> Mr. Wente replied that he has about 1,100 acres of premium <br /> production and about 300 to 400 acres that are in constant stage of <br /> rotation, which takes place every 20 years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pat O'Brien, 27 Castledown, endorsed Mr. Sweeney's <br /> comments regarding the Project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Steve Gilmore, 4019 Pons Court, a Pleasanton resident for <br /> 12 years and a business owner in town, stated that the Ruby Hill <br /> Project would be a major asset to downtown Pleasanton by promoting <br /> tourism into the City and enhancing it with wineries. <br />~ Mr. Michael Goodwin, property owner at 163 Vineyard Avenue, <br />< indicated his support of the project. <br />Z Mr. Jim Lavey, 4571 Gatetree Circle, stated that he was in <br /> favor of the Project and urged the Council to approve it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, representing Save <br /> Ruby Hill Committee, which has consistently opposed the Ruby Hill <br /> Project, stated that the people of Pleasanton should be allowed to <br /> participate in the determination of the destiny of the region <br /> because it is this community that will be impacted by increasing <br /> traffic, air pollution, degradation of the quantity and quality of <br /> "' water, and loss of open space and agriculture. She pointed out <br /> that the County found seven significant environmental impacts in <br /> the EIR that cannot be mitigated and that the EIR did not include <br /> the impacts from the Topham and Kalthoff properties, which have <br /> become part of the Ruby Hill proposal. In addition, the EIR does <br /> not address the substantial impacts of the imminent annexation and <br /> development of the properties along the country road to the <br /> Project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Storch continued that the benefits of the gated country <br /> club, golf course, and commercial development at the site exist <br /> only for those who have a financial or personal interest in the <br /> project, rather than for all Pleasanton residents. She stated that <br /> the Project should be analyzed in detail with respect to an <br /> interchange in Vineyard Avenue and Route 84; access from Vineyard <br /> Avenue; the cost of soundwalls, landscaping, and road improvements <br /> along Vineyard Avenue; the construction of new schools and <br /> additional school buses; and police and fire facilities and <br /> equipment. She indicated that it is unfair that the City would <br /> guarantee Ruby Hill 850 building permits for $1 Million houses with <br /> expensive landscaping while Pleasanton residents are on a water <br /> rationing program. She concluded that approval of the <br /> <br /> processes, as well as public review and comment, and leave all the <br /> <br /> - 9 - <br /> 6-4-91 <br /> <br /> <br />