03 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE CITY OF 3 { CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT pL£ASANTON® October 20, 2015 Community Development Planning Division TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LINFOOT-MARKS-MIX ANNEXATION (ANNEXATION NO. 154) FOR THREE PARCELS ON ALISAL STREET IN HAPPY VALLEY AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A TAX SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY SUMMARY Janet Linfoot, the property owner of 6300 Alisal Street, is requesting to annex her approximately 7.21-acre parcel to the City in order to subdivide her property at a future time. To promote logical and orderly growth, two parcels directly west of the property (the 2.67-acre property at 6352 Alisal Street, owned by Daniel and Cindy Marks, and the 1.94-acre property at 6360 Alisal Street, owned by Steve and Darlene Mix) would also be part of the annexation. The Marks and the Mixes have previously consented to support annexation in exchange for connecting to City utility services. All three properties are located within the Happy Valley Specific Plan (HVSP), which was adopted by the City Council on June 16, 1998, in conjunction with the pre-zoning of the area and the subject properties. If the City Council chooses to proceed with this request, City Council would adopt resolutions requesting initiation of the annexation and agree to enter into a tax-sharing agreement with Alameda County for the properties. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to file an application with the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for annexation of approximately 11.82 acres to the City of Pleasanton. 2. Adopt a resolution agreeing to enter into an agreement with Alameda County for the exchange of property tax revenue under the standard property tax exchange formula, in a final form approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. FINANCIAL STATEMENT The property owners would be required to pay all costs associated with the annexation, including City, County, LAFCo, and other agency fees. The City would provide services (such as police and fire). Future development on the property would be subject to permitting costs and would also generate property tax and other revenues. Also, the enclosed tax sharing agreement ensures that the City will receive an allocation of computed property tax revenue equivalent to the share of property tax revenue it receives on a weighted average City-wide.