Laserfiche WebLink
54 <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated that the developer requested the City to <br /> review the project as if it were in the City, with the City to <br /> consider adding conditions that the County might not have placed on <br /> the project or excluding conditions that the County might have <br /> placed on the project. She stated that the project is currently <br /> being reviewed at the staff level and has not been presented to <br /> Council. She added that when staff's review of the matter is <br /> finalized in April, staff would bring a Preannexation Agreement for <br /> Council's consideration, and the public would have the opportunity <br /> then to discuss the issue. <br /> <br /> Ms. Storch commented that the Ruby Hill Project, which <br /> proposes to develop over two square miles of rural land into an <br /> exclusive private country club of 1,000 homes, is located several <br /> miles from Pleasanton's City limits and is included in the spheres <br /> of influence of both Pleasanton and Livemore. She indicated that <br /> the only access to Ruby Hill from Pleasanton is from Vineyard <br /> Avenue and that annexing Ruby Hill would have far-reaching <br /> consequences for Pleasanton residents. She suggested that Council <br /> take the initiative to create a citizens' committee, as it did for <br /> the Pleasanton Ridgelands, to study and make recommendations on the <br /> land use for the agricultural and open space regions southeast of <br /> Pleasanton, prior to any Council decision defining the land use for <br /> the area. <br /> <br /> 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br /> Item 6a and Item 6b were considered after Item 12a. <br /> <br /> Item 6cl <br /> Adjustments to Sewer Rates and Charqes (SR 91:76) <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br /> application. <br /> <br /> There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public <br /> hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired why the buy-in concept is not used for the <br /> sewer system. <br /> <br /> Ms. Rossi explained that capital expansion requires facilities <br /> to be in place before connections can be made, which presents a <br /> financing problem if the new development is to pay for the <br /> expansion cost. As a result, current users, which provide a stable <br /> revenue base, are charged for the expansion. However, staff can <br /> determine, when it studies the CIP program, if, for accounting <br /> purposes, the cost to current users can be reimbursed by the <br /> <br /> - 4 - <br /> 3-5-91 <br /> <br /> <br />