14 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE CITY OF}L `y u n i n2� a`� .. j�LEASANT . "' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT May 19, 2015 Community Development Planning Division TITLE: CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TERMINATING, PAUSING, OR CONTINUING THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE EAST PLEASANTON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUMMARY The City Council is being asked to consider terminating, pausing, or continuing the multi-year planning and environmental review process for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP). The EPSP represents a major planning effort for an approximately 1,100- acre area of eastern Pleasanton that consists primarily of former quarry lands, including lakes used for flood control and drinking water. The Draft Base Plan EPSP would allow for the development of 1,300 residential units, approximately 1,636,000 square feet of non-residential development, and approximately 759 acres of open space, and is one of nine alternatives considered in the project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Other alternatives evaluated in the DEIR include the No Project (no build) alternative, the existing zoning alternative, a 1,430 unit project, a 1,000 unit project, an 800 unit project, a 500 unit project, a 500 unit project without the El Charro extension, and a park alternative. Due to recent concerns related to water supply, schools, traffic, and other issues, the City Council has asked that the EPSP return to a public hearing for an update on the process and to determine whether the planning process should continue, pause until a future date, or should stop entirely. RECOMMENDATION Discuss and adopt one of three options that would affect the planning process for the EPSP and related activities, including the DEIR. FINANCIAL STATEMENT All consultant costs for the EPSP are being paid by the two major private landowners in the EPSP Area. Planning review and administration is being conducted by staff and is part of the City's Advanced Planning budget. Terminating the planning process for the EPSP, depending on if and when the process is re-started, would result in the loss of some or all of the monetary investment in the process to-date, but would not incur substantial additional costs to the City with the exception of staff time.