CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 7 of 8 review, no adverse environmental effects or traffic impacts would result from development of the parcels. The projects, when developed, would include a number of mitigations including the widening and improvement of Jack London Boulevard to accommodate project and other traffic. Additionally, Livermore's City Council will review and certify the prepared EIR and use it as the basis for subsequent LAFCO approvals. On review of Livermore’s proposal, staff believes the development of SMP-39 and SMP-40 within the City of Livermore has merit. Both properties are contiguous to Livermore City Limits, whereas several intervening (unincorporated) parcels separate them from the Pleasanton City Limit. As outlined above, while SMP-39 is included in Pleasanton’s SOI, it is outside Pleasanton’s adopted Urban Growth Boundary and Planning Area; whereas it is within the equivalent boundaries for Livermore. The two parcels would most readily be served by utilities within the City of Livermore, rather than from Pleasanton. The availability of utilities in that easterly area from Pleasanton is unknown at this time, and will likely be dependent on the development outcomes for intervening parcels that lie between the subject properties and Pleasanton. The City is currently processing an application for annexation and development of a 20.4-acre parcel immediately to the east of the Pleasanton City Limits, within the UGB, owned by USL/Steelwave. While, if approved, this annexation would reduce the size of the future annexation area needed to connect SMP-39 to Pleasanton, such annexation would involve the intervening SMP-38 as well as a series of small parcels, with multiple landowners, the majority of whom would have to agree to annexation. The proposed SOI change would retain the parcel closest to Pleasanton (SMP-38) within the current SOI, giving the City discretion to determine the most appropriate disposition of this site in the future. The largest factor weighing against support for the project is the hypothetical loss of property tax and sales tax that could come to Pleasanton if the properties were inside the City limit. However, given that these parcels lie outside the UGB (potentially requiring voter approval to modify or expand the UGB, by necessity they require annexation. Given these obstacles, and factors outlined above, the likelihood of the parcels developing in Pleasanton in the foreseeable future is very low. The City has not relied on projected revenue from development of these sites in any long-range financial forecasts. If the City Council agrees with staff’s analysis that it is logical for SMP-39 to be moved into Livermore’s SOI, and that both SMP 39 and SMP-40 be annexed to Livermore for the proposed industrial development, then the City Manager will provide such a letter to Livermore and LAFCO. If the SOI amendment is approved by Alameda LAFCO, the next time the City Council amends the General Plan for another project, staff will also include a consistency amendment to Page 1-10 and Figure 1-1 which describes/illustrates the SOI, to reflect the SOI changes. Combining General Plan amendments is necessary because state law limits the City to only four amendments each year of any element of the General Plan. (See Cal. Government Code 65358(b)). CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The City of Livermore, as lead agency prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report, on which Pleasanton staff had the opportunity to review and provide Page 22 of 228