CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

308 Mr. John Innes, member of the Board of Directors of Friends of the Vineyard, stated that Save the Vineyards, now Friends of the Vineyards, was put together to save Ruby Hill from the Southern Pacific Development project which the members found unacceptable because it would divide the area into small independent parcels. He added that it was the consensus of wine experts that if properly planned, small 20-acre vineyards could be developed into economically feasible boutique wineries, which meets the objectives of the South Livermore Valley Plan. Ms. Mohr stated that a reference was made that there are only 7,000 acres planted in grapes at this time. She inquired what the South Livermore Valley Study indicated as the acreage necessary to develop a successful Napa concept. Mr. Innes replied that the Study came up with between 5,800 to 6,600 acres of viticulture land, including the 1,800 acres that are currently under cultivation in the entire Valley. Ms. Karen Wilson, 8078 Palomino Drive, presented a letter she sent to the Alameda County Planning Commission indicating that houses should not be built on the most fertile soil, which should be preserved for viticulture. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Scribner stated that Ruby Hill is a very complex issue and that she is not willing to risk having this project built in the County and then have Pleasanton service the needs of those County residents without having had any input into the development of the project. She indicated that what is important is to protect Pleasanton's interests and that annexing the property will eliminate many of the impacts created by the building of this project in the County. She pointed out that some issues still need to be clarified, such as Growth Management allocation and the role of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission in the process. She proposed that Staff work out a more detailed Agreement with Signature Properties for Council consideration at a later date. Mr. Tarver stated that he would like to take a more positive attitude and protect Pleasanton's interests. He pointed out that the information contained in the EIR states that the environmental work was inadequate and failed to address the environmental impacts to wildlife, transportation, open space and mitigation measures. The City's comments on the EIR indicates that the vineyard area should be planned as a whole, that the fiscal analysis is incomplete, that traffic and school issues have not been addressed - 12 - 7-16-91