My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020
>
100620
>
18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2021 1:28:54 PM
Creation date
9/30/2020 10:59:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
10/6/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
18 Attachments
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\100620
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The City of Livermore has also expressed that it would like to eventually pursue <br />annexation of SMP -38, in anticipation that it will be developed with uses similar to those <br />contemplated for SMP -39 and SMP -40. However, such development would be a longer- <br />term prospect. Livermore would like to discuss this property further with Pleasanton <br />and potentially coordinate annexation and planning for the development of this property <br />with preparation of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. <br />The following sections provide additional background context and information with <br />respect to the annexation process, relevant jurisdictional boundaries, and land use, <br />infrastructure and traffic considerations with respect to the three parcels. <br />Annexation <br />Since the properties are in Alameda County, development in either Pleasanton or <br />Livermore requires annexation by one of the two cities. If annexation is desired, the <br />respective City Council would need to adopt a resolution supporting annexation of a <br />subject area. Part of a city's annexation request to LAFCo entails a plan to provide <br />services, such as utilities, as well as adoption of "prezoning" for the subject properties, <br />and CEQA review. Subsequent to a city designating "prezoning" to the subject sites and <br />subsequent to an agreement between the city and Alameda County regarding property <br />taxation (often referred to as a tax sharing agreement), LAFCo provides the final <br />approval of the annexation. Unless waived, LAFCo also may hold a public protest <br />hearing to determine whether or not a proposed annexation should be terminated or <br />approved with or without an election.z <br />Planning and Jurisdictional Boundaries <br />Beyond the city limits, other jurisdictional and planning boundaries are defined, which <br />establish in various ways the policy intent for the areas bordering the city. They include <br />the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), Sphere of Influence (SOI), and Planning <br />Area. Both Pleasanton and Livermore have, and apply, these various boundaries. <br />Attachment 1 to this report provides a citywide map of Pleasanton's Planning Area, SOI, <br />UGB, and city limits; Attachment 2 also shows these features but is focused on the <br />subject properties and also provides a separate map showing Livermore's planning <br />boundaries. <br />These various boundaries are defined as follows: <br />- City Limits: the incorporated city limits are those which a city exercises zoning <br />control. In addition, the city provides public services such as water, sewer, and <br />police and fire protection within its jurisdiction. <br />All three parcels are outside both Livermore and Pleasanton city limits and are <br />located in unincorporated Alameda County. <br />2 Annexations of uninhabited territory containing fewer than 12 registered voters are terminated by LAFCo if <br />landowners owning 50 percent or more of the assessed value of the land within the annexation area protest the <br />annexation. <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.