CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

306 Ms. Karen Wilson, 8078 Palomino Drive, complimented Staff for its report, especially for recognizing the traffic problems that would be created on Vineyard Avenue coming into Pleasanton. She also expressed concern about the water issues. Ms. Dagmar Fulton, 4019 Peregrine Way, long-time Pleasanton resident, stated that she has seen Pleasanton grow from a small town to what it is today and that those who have lived most of their lives in Pleasanton have made it possible for others to come in later. She commented that more people will be coming to the Valley and that Pleasanton will have no choice but to provide the amenities for these people. She urged the Council to proceed with the Preannexation Agreement and plan for the area as a whole rather than on a piecemeal basis. Ms. Jocelyn Combs, 4443 Second Street, representing the Board of the East Bay Regional Park District, stated that the annexation of Ruby Hill Project will require the annexation of land lying between the existing City limits and the Project. She pointed out that the impacts of the Project have been evaluated in an EIR, but not the impacts of annexing the land in between. She added that the District owns property adjacent to the land in between and operates Shadow Cliffs Recreation Area on Stanley Boulevard. She continued that the annexation and development of the land in between presents a potential for substantial erosion, siltation, loss of open space, and visual, traffic, water, and wild life impacts on the District lands. She indicated that she was not objecting to the City's pre-planning but requested that prior to entering into a Preannexation Agreement, the City do an EIR which would adequately address the District's concerns, including cumulative impacts, such as the potential need to construct a new sewer collection main to serve the annexations and which may be averted through Shadow Cliffs. Mr. Jim McKeehan, Signature Properties, 5612 Owens Drive, responded to some of the issues presented earlier. He stated that he has been working on land use issues for the past 22 years and is confident that a Preannexation Agreement does not require an EIR. With respect to the issue regarding the expansion of the City, he pointed out that over 85% of the property to be developed has historically been within Pleasanton's sphere-of-influence. He continued that the Preannexation Agreement would not be binding if the tax revenue sharing between the City and the County is not satisfactorily worked out. With regard to having viticulture next to residential units, he indicated that the issue was discussed at length over three years with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and experts and that substantial efforts have been made to ensure the compatibility of the two uses. - 10 - 7-16-91