Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Narum asked and Mr. Dolan confirmed that staff felt the Task Force would require one, <br /> possible more, additional meetings to complete its work. <br /> In an effort to streamline the process, due to the large amount of people wishing to speak on this issue, <br /> Mayor Thome requested a show of hands from those present to answer the following questions: <br /> • Which of the options presented by staff they supported. <br /> • Who would support placing any decision on how to proceed on the November ballot, should the <br /> Council not be able to reach a majority vote? <br /> • Who viewed the current drought as a major reason not to proceed? <br /> • Who believes water conservation efforts should not be used to support water consumption in <br /> the plan area? <br /> • Who believes the use of recycled water in the plan area conflicts with the General Plan? <br /> • Who has flooding concerns? <br /> • Who questions the school district's demographer's report? <br /> • Who believes extension of El Charro Road would not resolve traffic impacts? <br /> • Who believes the plan would exacerbate traffic conditions or First Street? <br /> • Who believes the plan fails to address congestion on Sunol Boulevard? <br /> • Who believes the plan is flawed due to its reliance on extending El Charro Road? <br /> • Who views the Urban Growth Boundary as an impediment to the plan? <br /> • Who was concerned that taking action prior to the next RHNA cycle could result in a need to <br /> place more high-density housing on the east side? <br /> • Who feels that any specific plan for the east side should be put the voters? <br /> • Who is concerned about property being annexed into Livermore? <br /> Mayor Thorne thanked the public for their participation and said the Council has seen how the audience <br /> feels about these issues. He acknowledged that the vast majority demonstrated opposition and/or <br /> concern regarding the continuing the East Side Specific Plan process. He opened public comment and <br /> asked that speakers not address the same issues during their comments. <br /> Patrick Costanzo, Kiewit Properties, requested the Council's support for continuing the planning <br /> process including completion and certification of the EIR. He expressed surprise over the city's <br /> contemplation of stopping a 3-year planning process, which the larger property owners were asked to <br /> fund, prior to its completion. The Task Force has worked diligently to evaluate the constraints and <br /> opportunities of the area as well as considerable input, and the result is a draft plan that provides a <br /> balance mix of housing, parks, retail, commercial and industrial uses. He expressed concern that the <br /> integrity of the planning process is at risk. He noted that the initial request to revisit the process was <br /> based on the drought but has morphed into a fabricated fear of sprawl. He stressed that the planning of <br /> East Pleasanton has absolutely no effect on the drought and in fact prematurely stopping this process <br /> could result in the development of millions of square feet of industrial use that would certainly strain an <br /> already limited water supply. He said this process provides an opportunity to lead the region in planning <br /> a unique community that exemplifies water conservation and completion of the EIR is critical in order to <br /> address this and other issues through proper planning. Halting planning at this point would compromise <br /> over $125 million to be used for the completion of El Charro Road, construction of a new school, <br /> completion of Iron Horse Trail and other recreation opportunities. He asked the Council to support <br /> Option 1. <br /> Ed Broome said he read the full Draft EIR and discovered a distinct conflict between the contemplation <br /> of recycled water and the city's General Plan. He asked how the draft document, which is intended to <br /> be specific, could consider options in such drastic conflict to the General Plan. He asked the Council to <br /> support Option 3 until a better supply of water and a more workable plan is available. <br /> Ms. Seto explained that some members of the public and Council had expressed concern over a <br /> perceived conflict between Policy 1.5 of the General Plan and the Draft EIR's discussion water sources <br /> City Council Minutes Page 7 of 15 May 19, 2015 <br />