CCMIN060491 - Laserfiche WebLink

224 Mr. McKeehan indicated that the developers had agreed with Pleasanton Staff to ask the County not to file the Notice of Determination to avoid any pressure during the negotiation period. He stated that the City should consider what time it needs to address its concerns about the Project when setting the date to continue the matter. Mr. Tarver indicated that he does not support the Project and submitted the following issues which he requested Staff to address: (1) The Staff Report does not include the City's option to bring a lawsuit against Alameda County to overturn the approval of the Project. (2) The City is on record as opposing the Project, not only because it is a County-centered development, but also because: (a) it is not consistent with the General Plan; (b) it has issues surrounding wastewater treatment that was not addressed in the EIR; (c) its growth-inducing impacts were not addressed in the EIR; (d) police services have not been properly addressed; (e) issues surrounding traffic and schools, other than simply financial, have not been addressed; and (f) ground water availability issues have not been addressed. The Project is not an environmentally superior alternative but one that is serviced by the City; yet Staff indicates that the EIR work is satisfactory. (3) CEQA requires more than just Staff satisfaction with the additional conditions proposed by the developer; no public hearings have been held in the City for Council and the public to discuss the Project. (4) Has the City ever entered into a Preannexation Agreement of this type in the history of Pleasanton, and, if so, what are the outcomes. (5) How significant are the impacts of a breach of the Agreement. (6) Has there been any project in the history of Pleasanton that has avoided Planning Commission and Council review under a PUD approval, as this Project seems to be doing. (7) The Agreement appears to delegate this Council's or a future Council's responsibility to Staff. (8) Has the County agreed, in writing, to a tax-sharing level and forfeiture of fees, other than the vineyard trust, that were discussed under County approval. (9) How can the Project be consistent with the South Livermore Valley Plan when the Board of Supervisors and the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton have adopted that Plan only in concept. (10) What does the term "generally consistent with the open space policy" mean, as well as other General Plan policies, specifically no specific development being allowed in agriculture and grazing lands. (11) What is the cost of "growth paying its fair share of the community's facilities" and how does Staff determine that cost. (12) Does the Agreement require the immediate construction of a school within walking distance of the residential neighborhood; what is being done with respect to the preservation of open space, and Livermore; are current Park Dedication fees sufficient to fund - 14 - 6-4-91