CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

309 correctly, that the EIR lacks an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts, and that the project is a revised site plan that was questioned and never re-addressed. CalTrans has indicated that the alignment of Highway 84 was not addressed, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District stated that the project would have unacceptable adverse effects on air quality, and two law firms representing landowners and Livermore have indicated that the EIR is fundamentally flawed. Mr. Tarver continued that the Agreement suggests that the City agrees with leapfrog development and with the economics that the County uses, namely the fiscalization of land use. He stated that the Agreement would involve legal risks and would set a precedent. It would tie up the City's infrastructure and the ability to address the City's General Plan and the real needs of the community. He indicated that Ruby Hill, if annexed, should go through the City's planning process and work on a comprehensive plan for the entire area. Ms. Mohr commented that she could not question the desirability of Mr. Tarver's statement to have the opportunity to deal with Ruby Hill as a Pleasanton project. She asked Staff if the County can amend, modify, or redraw its General Plan if Pleasanton joins Livermore's lawsuit on the basis of flaws in the EIR that has already been certified by the County, and if so, what the time frame would be. Mr. Roush replied that if the matter were litigated with respect to the General Plan and the EIR, the Superior Court process would take from six to nine months, plus another 18 months if the matter were appealed. He added that if the Court decided that the General Plan or the EIR were inadequate, the County could amend its General Plan and process another EIR that would attempt to correct those problems in order for the project to go forward. He clarified that the lawsuit, in and of itself, would not kill the project. Ms. Mohr stated that whether or not Pleasanton decides to join Livermore in suing the County, it appears that, barring economic infeasibility to develop, Pleasanton will have 825 homes on its boundary. She commented that the City is already experiencing the results of County development in Castlewood, which is now looking at annexing to Pleasanton. In view of this, the Council should evaluate the Preannexation Agreement in terms of how the City can best be protected. She indicated that it would be a serious concern for the City if the annexation will result in a tax revenue sharing that will put the City in a negative tax situation. At the same time, if Ruby Hill is not annexed, the City will experience the full impact of the Project with no fees. She pointed out that - 13 - 7-16-91