CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

3O5 off if Ruby Hill were not built and proposed that Pleasanton join Livermore in its lawsuit against the County. Ms. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, stated that the County erred in approving the Ruby Hill Project without an adequate EIR and in conflict with a prior policy supporting city-centered growth. She indicated that it would be to Ruby Hill's benefit, rather than Pleasanton's, to annex, because annexation would involve a process of overextending the City's services and rapidly developing the area between Pleasanton and the project, causing unexpected and unexplained expenses and impact on Pleasanton residents. She urged Council not to support the development of Ruby Hill and of the lands between Pleasanton and the Project. Ms. Peggy Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, stated that the County should not be in the development business because it interferes with the City's growth as called for in the General Plan. She indicated that Pleasanton needs to join Livermore in suing the County to keep the County from developing on Pleasanton's boundary line without regard for Pleasanton's interests. Mr. Thomas Pico, Jr., 795 Neal Place, indicated his opposition to the Ruby Hill proposal. He stated that this project, together with projects currently being studied in South Pleasanton and the Ridgelands, would contribute greatly to Pleasanton's problem of extending its limits beyond what the City needs. He added that the project would have a significant effect not only on environmental issues but also on the quality of life of Pleasanton residents. He expressed concern about the effect the project, with its golf course, would have on the water situation and added that Pleasanton needs affordable housing units near business centers and mass transit areas rather than upper-end houses. He urged the Council to approve Option 3 of the Staff's recommendations. Mr. Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela Street, stated that the Preannexation Agreement is vague and does not indicate how the tax revenue would be shared with the County. He commented that if the golf course and the vineyards will be in place prior to the development of the houses, only 75 of which are proposed for 1992, there would be a problem with producing the 479 million gallons of treated sewage water for the golf course. Mr. Ron Kane, 3679 Canelli Court, expressed concern about the plan to combine viticulture with the residential areas because of the possible adverse chemical effects of the vineyards on the residents. - 9 - 7-16-91