The Pleasanton City Council may strike an agreement with Livermore city officials as part of a “cooperative approach” to planning for potential future development of a trio of properties just outside city limits.
Councilmembers will hear more from staff and issue policy direction on the matter at their regular online meeting Tuesday, starting 7:30 p.m.
Located in unincorporated Alameda County, south of Jack London Boulevard and west of Isabel Avenue, the three properties owned by Pleasanton Gravel Company (PGC) are “generally north and east of the East Pleasanton Specific boundary, and are all adjacent to the city of Livermore,” staff said in a report.
Because none of the properties are in incorporated territory, development in Pleasanton or Livermore would require annexation by either city. All three parcels are outside Pleasanton’s planning area but within Livermore’s planning area. If Pleasanton is to annex any of the parcels its Urban Growth Boundary would have to be revise.
The company has reached out to both cities about developing the properties for industrial uses in recent years. Livermore staff started a dialogue with Pleasanton staff in June for “input on potential concerns and planning considerations” after Livermore indicated “preliminary interest in exploring potential annexation and development of some or all of these parcels.”
Both cities agreed “development of the properties within the city of Livermore (as opposed to Pleasanton) has merit,” and that it may be beneficial to draw up one or more agreements among them and PGC. The agreement would address “the processing of applications to develop the properties, including a cooperative approach to review and mitigation of project impacts.”
Because all three properties are outside both Pleasanton and Livermore city limits, staff said the disposition requires coordination on both sides, as well as with the property and county. Other agencies such as the Alameda County Local Area Formation Commission or city of Dublin may also require involvement.
Priority for annexation would be given to the two properties which lie adjacent to the Oaks Business Park in Livermore. The two sites would potentially be modeled after Oaks Business Park in future development, “but with some modifications.”
The city of Livermore has also “indicated” its support of high-end industrial uses for the two sites like research, development, and manufacturing. The other property would be similarly developed but allow warehousing and distribution as well.
Livermore would “eventually pursue annexation” for the one site “in anticipation that it will be developed with uses similar,” but staff said “such development would be a longer-term prospect.”
Agreements with Livermore and other parties would be drafted by the end of the year and brought to the council for review. Livermore has not yet provided a timeline on any applications related to the properties but Pleasanton staff said schedules will “become more clearly defined over the coming months in conjunction with the development of the agreements.”
There is no anticipated financial impact for the city budget related to the agreements.
In other business
* A nearly $1.5 million contract for updated body cameras and tasers that would be used by local law enforcement officers is up for consideration that evening.
The proposed five-year agreement between the city of Pleasanton and Axon Enterprise, Inc. describes “a comprehensive service package that includes all hardware, operational and analytical software, training and electronic evidence storage,” plus a report on the department’s policy regarding body cams and tasers.
Body cameras have been worn by PPD officers since 2012 but have been required for the past four years to turn them on whenever officers interact with the public. The department’s policy was revised in 2016, a couple months after a man was shot and killed by a Pleasanton police officer during an altercation.
The officer was later cleared of criminal charges but the revelation that his department-issued body camera was not operating at the time sparked controversy. As a result, there is no known video of the shooting.
If approved, the contract would be included in PPD’s annual operating budget at a total cost of $1,498,970.
* Food delivery apps like Uber Eats and DoorDash may be limited on how much they can charge Pleasanton eateries on commission fees, if the council adopts a proposed ordinance Tuesday.
The urgency ordinance would establish a “temporary 15% cap on commission fees charged by third-party food delivery companies on local restaurants during the declared emergency due to COVID-19.”
According to the city, “recent public health restrictions imposed by state and county public health authorities … has resulted in a severe loss of income to Pleasanton restaurants, especially those that have not been able to implement the infrastructure or staff needed for takeout and delivery services or which may not have suitable space for outdoor dining.”
“Particularly during COVID-19, many consumers are using third-party food delivery services to place orders with local restaurants which charge the restaurants up to 30% of the purchase price of the order,” staff said. “Placing a 15% cap on these delivery charges will help to manage the costs incurred by Pleasanton restaurants while supporting the financial structure of the food delivery services.”
The ordinance would go into effect immediately, if approved.
The virtual meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 29, the city’s YouTube channel or the city’s Zoom account.
To speak on an item listed on the agenda, residents should submit a speaker card by 7 p.m. Tuesday.
