CCMIN101690 - Laserfiche WebLink

64 by a city, the decision on how, when and where to develop an area should be placed on the city, which would then determine whether or not the area conforms to that city's standards and long range plans and if it will be an asset to the community as a whole. She urged the Council to adopt the staff's recommendation and oppose the project on the grounds that it is contrary to Pleasanton's policy for that area and is detrimental to the City. Ms. Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay Drive, representing Save Ruby Hill Committee, indicated the Committee's opposition to the project. She stated that the project would have far-reaching negative consequences on the quality of life in Pleasanton, including construction traffic on Bernal Avenue, Vineyard Avenue and First Street and eventually having 80% of the school children from the area going to Pleasanton. She added that although the project is outside the City limits, it would need the City's services should the project encounter problems like the breakdown of the on-site sewer plant. She pointed out that the project would result in a loss of over 300 acres of prime vineyard land and the destruction of the prominent hillside, especially since the neighboring vineyard land property owners have already indicated their intent to develop if the project is approved. She concluded that the project's benefits are speculative and do not override all the adverse physical, cultural and unmitigated environmental impacts. She asked the Council to consider the long-term public interest and oppose the project, as proposed by the Staff Report. Mr. Brandes commented that the Council has always been unanimously opposed to the Ruby Hill project and has in fact sent numerous correspondence to the County to that effect. He stated that the project is a dramatic example of development in the County over which the City has no control and its adverse effects upon a community. He recommended that in addition to sending the letter to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, as proposed by staff, members of the Council and staff should attend the public hearing for the project when it comes before the Board of Supervisors to show the City's opposition to the project. Mr. Tarver concurred with Mr. Brandes. He stated that he attended one of the public hearings on behalf of the City and stated the Council's objections to the project. He added that several cities have expressed the same message and that the Mayors' Conference could probably take some action to hold the Supervisors accountable for their actions. Mr. Mercer requested staff to elaborate on the last paragraph of the Background in the Staff Report regarding modifications to the County General Plan to allow major unincorporated development. 10-16-90 - 8 -