CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

310 the issue of fiscal responsibility should be resolved in the Agreement and that she would like the City to review the tentative and final maps, even if the City's input would only be advisory to the Board of Supervisors. She continued that if Ruby Hill is annexed to the City, the Design Review Board should set the guidelines for development and that the developer should dedicate parkland rather than pay park fees. She added that the Project should be included in the City's Growth Management program if annexed and that the City could deal with the sewer and water issues in a more constructive and positive way if the Project were in the City. She recommended that Staff consider the Project in its entirety rather than just parts of it and then work with the City of Livermore on certain issues. Mr. Mercer agreed with the statements made by Ms. Scribner and Ms. Mohr. Mr. Butler stated that the ideal situation would be for Council to look at annexation of the Project as well as all intervening properties as a block and have the entire area go through the City's normal planning process. He indicated that he had no objections to the Project as it is laid out but that he did not want the County to develop the property. He expressed his willingness to support the continued effort to come up with a Preannexation Agreement that would best support Pleasanton's interests. Mr. Tarver indicated that he is not opposed to getting more information but that he does not support the concept of a preannexation agreement. It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, to continue the decision on the Ruby Hill Preannexation Agreement to the August 6, 1991 City Council Meeting. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilmember Tarver ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Council took a break at 10:40 p.m. and reconvened at 10:44 p.m. to consider Item 8g(1) and Item 8g(2) together. - 14 - 7-16-91