SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

February 18, 2025 Page 2 7357-017acp printed on recycled paper East Bay Residents asks the City Council to direct City Staff to prepare a single environmental impact report (“EIR”) to analyze the environmental, public services, utilities, and public health impacts associated with the proposed annexation, construction and operation of the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects in the City. The Agenda item, continued from the February 4, 2025 Council hearing, indicates that the City Council will “Receive update on residential development proposals on two properties in East Pleasanton, outside the City Limits and 1) Provide direction to proceed with applications for annexation and development in Pleasanton; 2) Provide feedback on key issues relative to the two projects; 3) Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the Arroyo Lago Project; and 4) Approve Key Terms regarding processing of applications for the East Lakes Project.”2 The Agenda Report (“Staff Report”) and attachments include the same documents and analysis that were provided to the Council prior to the February 4, 2025 hearing. The Agenda Report does not attach, acknowledge or respond to comments submitted by East Bay Residents and other members of the public in response to the February 4 Agenda Report. East Bay Residents submitted written comments to the City Council on February 4, 2025 3 explaining that, as the new approving agency for both Projects and a lead agency for annexation, the City must assume the role of lead agency for both Projects’ entitlement process and environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).4 The comments further explained that the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Projects are part of a single overarching development which must be analyzed in a single EIR to address the environmental consequences of the overall development.5 The Arroyo Lago and East Lakes Project share a common property owner, would undergo concurrent development and operation, and may occupy the same parcel, APN 946-4634-2. Although the projects are being processed under separate applications, they represent a single combined development proposal for residential and mixed-use development of the Project sites. CEQA requires the effects of this development to be analyzed as a whole.6 2 City of Pleasanton, City Council Agenda (Feb. 4, 2025). 3 EBRRD’s 2/4/2025 comments are attached hereto as Attachment A. 4 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 CCR” §§ 15000 et seq. 5 Arviv Enters., Inc. v. South Area Planning Comm’n (2002) 101 CA4th 1333, 1336. 6 Id.; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 396; Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 690, 698 (EIR must analyze environmental effects of multiple proposals if related activities are integral parts of same project).