Laserfiche WebLink
87 <br /> <br /> Jim McKeehan, Signature Properties, commented that Signature <br />Properties had met over the last five to six months with both <br />cities to discuss and solve any concerns they had. He felt that <br />what was being proposed would benefit both cities. He pointed out <br />the preannexation agreement would need to be modified if the City <br />of Pleasanton were in agreement of this process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked if Mr. McKeehan was in agreement with Ms. <br />Brown's proposal. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan replied yes. He added that they were working on <br />a final draft settlement to circulate to all parties involved. <br /> <br /> Margaret Tracy, Preserve Area Ridgelands Committee, spoke in <br />opposition to this project. She requested that the City prepare an <br />Environmental Impact Report on the Ruby Hill/Vineyard Avenue <br />Corridor Area, General PlanAmendment, and prezoning and prepare an <br />analysis in writing of the provisions for the sewerage treatment. <br />She felt that a negative declaration was inadequate. She asked <br />what the cumulative impacts were of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor <br />and Ruby Hill project on traffic, schools, police and fire fighting <br />services. Ms. Tracy was also concerned with the water <br />availability. <br /> <br /> DougAbbott, Sierra Club, concurred with Ms. Tracy's comments. <br />He was concerned with the financial, environmental, and traffic <br />impacts to City of Pleasanton residents. <br /> <br /> Deborah Barker, 2947 Chardonnay Drive, spoke in opposition to <br />the negative declaration. She was concerned with the environmental <br />and traffic impacts and air quality. She suggested that additional <br />traffic studies be conducted on the Bernal/Vineyard intersection. <br />She believed that all of the traffic generated by this project <br />should be directed to Pleasanton via Isabel Avenue and Stanley <br />Boulevard. <br /> <br /> Donald Miller, 2862 Waverly, Livermore, Citizens for Balanced <br />Growth, spoke in opposition to this project. He was concerned with <br />the loss of prime vineyard land, traffic, financial impacts, water <br />shortage, and public policy. He felt the original Environment <br />Impact Report and the County responses were defective and a <br />negative declaration was not applicable. <br /> <br /> Robert Pearson, 3590 Churchill Court, believed that a review <br />of the General Plan should be completed. Mr. Pearson reiterated <br />the concerns of Ms. Barker and Mr. Miller. He objected to this <br />project being a locked gate community. Mr. Pearson also objected <br />to the use of reverse osmosis. <br /> <br />2/18/92 5 <br /> <br /> <br />