SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

because the East Side is not critical to meeting our current statewide housing obligations, but may be required following 2022. Regardless, the Mayor and Council have asked that the matter be returned to the City Council for a comprehensive update and to determine whether the planning process should be stopped. This matter has been set for the May 19th City Council Meeting. Again, thank you for writing and taking the time to be informed about our community. I hope you find this information useful. Please let us know if you need additional clarification about the timeline or process. Sincerely, Nelson Fialho City Manager From: Carol Cohen (Fisher) [mailto:fishcarol @aol.com] Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:02 PM To: Mayor and City Council Subject: Letter to city council concerning EPSP ey and Carol Cohen 3358 Ledgestone Court Pleasanton, CA 94588 [email protected] 925-461-2821 May 13, 2015 RE: EAST PLEASANTON SPECIFIC PLAN Dear Mayor Thome, Vice-Mayor Brown, and City Council Members Pentin, Narum, and Olsen: We are writing to express our desire for all work on the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP)to be terminated and for this project not be reconsidered in the future. The reaction from the Citizens of Pleasanton, the people you serve, in the three community meetings has clearly demonstrated that the EPSP and its Environmental Impact Report(EIR) should be laid to its final resting place and never be exhumed. The citizens of Pleasanton do not now, or in the future, desire additional housing to be built in East Pleasanton. The process and the plan have been fraught with many problems. While concerns have been expressed about the process used early to obtain citizen input, the plan itself disregards the voter approved urban growth boundary, ignores the current and likely future mandate for water conservation, ignores the current issues of air pollution and traffic congestion, raises safety issues that were not addressed (i.e., children tempted to play by the lakes and quarry), and ignores the current issues of school overcrowding. The three"town hall meetings" have been fascinating to witness. At the first, the East Pleasanton community overwhelmingly expressed its disapproval of the idea to build 1300 homes. At the second meeting, an even larger group spoke passionately about putting the East Pleasanton Plan to rest. The third and final town hall meeting in City Council Chambers was the most informative. Educated, professional citizens provided critical assessments and documented critical inconsistencies in the EIR. They specifically pointed out incorrect assumptions made in the EIR and discussed where incorrect models were used. For example, the 2010 federal census has approximately 15% of Pleasanton residents working in Pleasanton, not the 40% that was used for the traffic model. Finally, the anger and upset of the citizens was palpable, so much so that some citizens discussed the possibility of a recall petition for the city officials on record supporting a base-preferred plan of 1300 homes. The citizens of Pleasanton have clearly indicated their disapproval of not just the EIR and the EPSP but the idea of constructing additional homes outside the urban growth boundary at a time that the city is challenged by limited water, congested roads, and overcrowded schools. Now is the time to address the misguided decisions regarding the EPSP and not just stop work on this but to kill this project and not revive it in the future. 2