My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2024
>
031924
>
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2024 2:26:47 PM
Creation date
3/19/2024 2:24:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/19/2024
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
228
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
Page 8 of 8 <br />comments. The Livermore CIty Council will consider certification of the Final EIR as part <br />of its approvals of the proposed development and annexation. The EIR will also be used <br />by LAFCO in its consideration of the SOI amendment and annexation requests. No <br />further environmental review is required by the City of Pleasanton to support the <br />requested recommendation by the Pleasanton City Council. <br /> <br /> <br />EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY <br />Not applicable; this is a routine item of City business. <br /> <br />OUTREACH <br />Not applicable; this is a routine item of City business. <br /> <br />STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT <br />Not applicable; this is a routine item of City business. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br />Moving SMP-39 into the SOI of Livermore would allow Livermore to annex the site, and in so <br />doing, benefit from a share of increased property tax, sales tax, etc., generated from future <br />development of the site. To the extent Pleasanton may have similarly desired to annex the site, <br />the decision would forego any additional incremental revenues for Pleasanton that may be <br />generated by these parcels. However, Pleasanton would also be required to provide City <br />utilities and public services to these sites, which would offset such revenues. Further, when an <br />unincorporated site is annexed to a city, a negotiation occurs between the county and the <br />annexing city, to determine how taxes will be shared between the two agencies. <br /> <br />Since these agreements have not been developed, nor has a fiscal impact evaluation been <br />prepared, it is not possible to place a precise figure on the relative costs and benefits of <br />annexation of SMP-39 to Livermore versus Pleasanton. It should be noted that, while an <br />important consideration, the financial implications are just one consideration among many <br />whether the City should support the proposal, including the location of the parcel, and the <br />likelihood and feasibility of annexation by Pleasanton in the foreseeable future, as outlined <br />elsewhere in this report. <br /> <br />Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by: <br /> <br />Jenny Soo, Associate <br />Planner <br />Ellen Clark, Director of Community <br />Development <br /> <br />Gerry Beaudin, City <br />Manager <br /> <br />Attachments: <br />None <br /> <br />Page 23 of 228
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.