CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING - WORKSHOP
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
4:00 PM
City Council Chamber
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Public participation: It is requested that members of the public wishing to address the City Council submit a speaker card. When public comment is opened on an agenda item, individuals may speak once per agenda item.
To submit written public comment regarding an open session item on this meeting agenda visit https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment. Comments will be accepted by the City Clerk’s Office until 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
• Roll Call
1. Public Comment - Comment is limited to only those items listed on the agenda.
WORKSHOP
2. Receive a report on background information for the East Pleasanton Policy Framework project and provide direction on key policy questions for future consideration
ADJOURNMENT
Notice
Under Government Code §54957.5, any writings/documents regarding an open session item on this agenda and items received by the City Clerk’s Office by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet will be available for public inspection on the City’s website https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/.
Accessible Public Meetings
The City of Pleasanton can provide special assistance for persons with disabilities to participate in public meetings. To make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation (e.g., an assistive listening device), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 123 Main Street, Pleasanton, CA 94566 or (925) 931-5027. If you need translation or interpretation assistance, please provide at least two working days’ notice prior to the meeting date.
Item #2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
September 16, 2025
Community and Economic Development
TITLE: RECEIVE A REPORT ON BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE EAST
PLEASANTON POLICY FRAMEWORK PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
ON KEY POLICY QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
SUMMARY
The East Pleasanton Policy Framework (EPPF) project is a City Council-directed initiative to update the City’s vision and establish policies related to East Pleasanton. At this joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting, staff will provide an overview of background information, including initial input from key stakeholders, and present an initial list of policy questions/ issues around which policy options will be developed for consideration by the City Council and Planning Commission in the next phase of work. The EPPF Policy Framework implements the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan, Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs strategy E.9. to "Advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan", which was identified among City Council's top seven strategic priorities for the current fiscal year.
Staff recommends that future phases of the EPPF project focus on a series of policy questions, organized under the following topic areas:
1. City Boundaries
2. Land Uses
3. Open Space and Recreation
4. Public Service Facilities
5. Infrastructure and Circulation
After receiving City Council and Planning Commission input, staff and consultants will develop options to address key policy questions, and prepare analysis as needed to allow for an informed consideration of the options. City staff will present these options and analysis to the Planning Commission and City Council in early 2026.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council and Planning Commission:
• Receive a report on background information for the East Pleasanton Policy Framework project;
• Confirm that the policy questions described in this staff report should be the focus of continued study; and
• Provide any preliminary input on these policy questions or other project issues.
BACKGROUND
Project Origins and Purpose
The Pleasanton General Plan identifies East Pleasanton as an area of special interest, but provides limited policy guidance as to how it should be developed. Land Use Element Program
6.1 calls for the City to “Prepare a Specific Plan for East Pleasanton as a coordinated effort between property owners, major stakeholders, and the Pleasanton community, including residents of East Pleasanton.” The boundaries of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP) area, as established in the General Plan, are shown in Figure 1 below. The General Plan anticipates that a range of different allowed land uses, including both development and open space uses, would be considered in East Pleasanton as part of the EPSP process.
Figure 1: East Pleasanton Specific Plan Boundaries
City efforts to prepare an East Pleasanton Specific Plan began in 2012. After substantial public participation, a draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report was published in 2014.
The draft Specific Plan presents a vision for the future of East Pleasanton with detailed policies relating to land use, urban design, transportation, environmental protection, and public infrastructure and services. Work on the Specific Plan paused in 2015 and resumed in 2019. In 2020, work on the Specific Plan stopped again due to the pandemic and other considerations.
The draft Specific Plan was ultimately never adopted.
At the October 3, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Council approved its first-ever 5-Year Citywide Strategic Plan, ONE Pleasanton. The plan serves as a roadmap for the city from 2023 to 2028, and addresses a wide range of critical issues, from infrastructure and economic growth to environmental sustainability and community wellbeing. Advancing the East
Pleasanton Specific Plan was identified as a strategy of Goal E — Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs. In late January 2025, the City Council conducted a strategic planning session to identify key priorities from the adopted ONE Pleasanton five-year strategic plan. Among the seven priorities identified, the City Council affirmed Goal E, Strategy 9, to "Advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan" as a high-priority effort for the coming two fiscal years.
Despite the absence of a specific plan, multiple development projects have recently been proposed in East Pleasanton. As shown in Figure 2 below, the City of Pleasanton is currently processing (or expects to process) five development applications in the area:
• Parcel H: 300,000 sq. ft. industrial and office (proposed) • Arroyo Lago: 189 single-family homes (proposed)
• East Lakes: 330 single-family and 367 multi-family homes (preliminary proposal, final project unit counts to be determined with application)
• Seefried/Villages at the Quarry (former Kiewit): 310 single-family and 102 multifamily homes (approved)
• Amazon: 640,000 sq. ft. warehouse (proposed)
Figure 2: Proposed and Approved Development Projects
On February 4, 2025, the City Council discussed the proposed Arroyo Lago and East Lakes project and directed City staff to process annexation and development applications for these two projects. At this meeting the City Council also directed City staff to initiate the East Pleasanton Policy Framework (EPPF) process to establish in the General Plan a vision for East Pleasanton with policies for future development in the area. The EPPF process is intended to be focused and streamlined, with Planning Commission and City Council meetings providing the primary venue for public input and participation, although the scope does provide the opportunity for some broader community outreach. The EPPF project will not evaluate the merits of the proposed projects in East Pleasanton or consider alternative land uses on these
sites. These proposed projects will be considered separately as part of the entitlement process for required permits and approvals. No change or modification to the Seefried project will result from this effort, since the project is fully approved and entitled.
The EPPF project will establish a high-level vision for the preferred future of East Pleasanton, including potential future land uses, open space, and public infrastructure needed to serve development. However, the City will not adopt General Plan land use map amendments or zoning code amendments at this time. Any action that would require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will occur as part of a subsequent implementation action, if desired.
Study Area Boundaries
Figure 3 below shows the boundaries proposed by City staff for the EPPF project. The EPPF study area includes the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area established in the General Plan (shown as “Core Area” in Figure 3) and lands east of the Core Area to the Livermore City Limits. As discussed below, all lands in the EPPF study area (with one exception) are within the Pleasanton Sphere of Influence (SOI). Inclusion of lands to the east of the EPSP boundary allows the City to consider the establishment of policies and a vision for the future of this area; it does not necessarily signal an intent to urbanize or annex these lands into Pleasanton.
Figure 3: EPPF Study Area Boundaries
Process and Schedule
Attachment 2 shows the process and schedule for the EPPF project. The project began with a review of background information and existing conditions. After receiving preliminary input from the Planning Commission and City Council on project issues, staff will prepare options for key
policy questions. After receiving City Council direction on preferred policy options at a future meeting, City staff will draft General Plan amendments for review and adoption. Staff expects to complete the EPPF by May 2026.
Public Engagement
The City will use Planning Commission and City Council meetings as the primary venue to receive public input on the EPPF project. The EPPF scope also includes consultant budget reserved for additional community engagement to be used for a community workshop, on-line materials, or other methods as needed to achieve project objectives.
Project information, including draft materials, will be made available on the City’s website. Staff will maintain a list of interested persons to share announcements and communicate information about the project. The City will also convene meetings to discuss the project with property owners, public agencies, and other key stakeholders.
Work Completed
The first EPPF project task was to review background materials and prepare background information maps. Attachment 1 contains background information maps created for the EPPF project and assembles other relevant maps found in existing documents. Attachment 1 also contains links to background documents relevant to the EPPF project, including City of Pleasanton documents and documents prepared by other agencies.
Based on the review of background information, staff prepared a preliminary list of issues to consider for the EPPF project (Attachment 3). This list was shared with project stakeholders and was used as a starting point to identify the key policy questions discussed in this staff report. Key findings and observations from the review of background materials are presented in the Discussion section, below, organized around key topic areas.
In addition to review of background information, in June through August, 2025 staff met with project stakeholders to introduce the EPPF, review relevant background information, and receive preliminary input on project issues. Stakeholders were organized into the following groups:
• Landowner/developers (Steelwave/USL, Amazon, Seefried) • Parks and open space agencies (East Bay Regional Park District) • Neighboring jurisdictions (Livermore, Alameda County) • Public health and resource agencies (Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services District)
• Gravel operators (Pleasanton Gravel)
• Public service providers (Schools, Police, Fire)
• Pleasanton Garbage Service
• Zone 7 Water Agency
At the meetings, participants were most interested in learning about City goals for the EPPF project and its overall scope. For some stakeholders, there was considerable interest in the current active development applications, and what the development of these sites might mean for adjacent properties or nearby facilities such as the Chain of Lakes. Participants also provided insight into any relevant current or past planning efforts, and shared specific concerns
and items that should be considered in the planning process. Attachment 4 provides more information about the stakeholder meetings, including a summary of feedback received.
DISCUSSION
The following high-level topics emerged as the most important in framing the planning considerations for East Pleasanton, around which various policy questions are framed, below:
• City boundaries
• Land uses
• Open space and recreation
• Public service facilities
• Infrastructure and circulation
City Boundaries
As shown in Figure 1 in Attachment 1, the entire EPPF study area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), which extends to Livermore’s westerly City Limit, and to the north to Interstate 580. The SOI for each city in Alameda County, including Pleasanton, is adopted by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and represents "a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality" (Government Code Section 56425), as established by LAFCO.
The City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) passes through the study area, extending north/south between Lake I and Lake H/Cope Lake; this boundary generally follows the alignment of (private) El Charro Road, although El Charro jogs to the east, whereas the UGB continues in a north-south alignment south to Stanley Boulevard. The UGB was approved by Pleasanton voters in 1996 and identifies the area suitable for urban development beyond which the City will not provide public facilities and services.
The General Plan contemplates potential changes to the UGB, particularly in East Pleasanton.
Specifically, Land Use Element Program 23.6 calls for the City to “Reevaluate Urban Growth Boundary locations in East Pleasanton at such time as comprehensive land use designation changes are considered for the reclaimed quarry lands.” Pursuant to the Pleasanton Urban Growth Boundary Initiative (Measure FF) approved by Pleasanton voters in 1966, amendments to the UGB require voter approval. However, Measure FF does allow for “minor adjustments” to the UGB line without voter approval if specified criteria are met, as described in General Plan Land Use Element Program 23.3. The Pleasanton City Limit Line also passes through the study area, with the southwestern portion of the study area located within incorporated City boundaries. Figure 2 in Attachment 1 shows the City of Pleasanton City Limits, Sphere of Influence, and Urban Growth Boundary A 105-acre area south of Cope Lake, zoned Industrial (I), is located within the City Limit Line but outside of the UGB. This creates an unusual situation where this area cannot be developed with urban uses despite the established zoning and location within the City Limit Line. The prior Draft EPSP identified some opportunities for urban development to the east of the UGB, and left it to the City Council to determine whether this would be treated as a major or minor amendment to the UGB. As shown in Figure 3 in Attachment 1, the City of Livermore and Alameda County have adopted urban growth boundaries that extend into the EPPF study area. Figure 3 in Attachment 1 also shows the Livermore City Limit Line and Sphere of Influence, which is conterminous with the EPPF study area boundary.
Recommended Policy Questions
Staff recommends that the EPPF project explore the following policy questions related to City boundaries:
• Should Pleasanton consider adjustments to its urban growth boundary (UGB) in East Pleasanton? If so, what UGB changes should be made to the UGB? • Are there any specific areas, currently outside the City Limit, that should be annexed into the City?
• Should the General Plan continue to call for the City to prepare a Specific Plan for East Pleasanton? If so, what are the preferred boundaries for this area?
Land Uses
Existing Land Uses
Figure 4 in Attachment 1 shows existing land uses in the EPPF study area. The southwest corner contains the approved Seefried residential project, the proposed Arroyo Lago and East Lakes residential projects, and the proposed Amazon warehouse project. The City Operations Service Center (OSC) and PGS waste transfer station are also in this area fronting Busch Road, and the proposed Parcel H Industrial project is north of Lake I.
Gravel and sand mining activities occupy a large area east of Arroyo Mocho and southeast of Cope Lake. As discussed in the Open Space and Recreation section below, these quarries are intended to become part of “Chain of Lakes” to be used by Zone 7 for water management and related purposes. Once mining operations cease, these lands could potentially be used for other purposes, including recreation or urban development. Staff learned from stakeholder interviews that plans to complete mining activities in the EPPF study area are uncertain. The timeframe to complete mining and begin reclamation depends on a variety of factors, including mining plans in other locations, potential amendments to mining permits, economic conditions, and other considerations.
Land Ownership
As shown in Figure 5 in Attachment 1, the entire area east of Arroyo Mocho is owned by Pleasanton Gravel (and related business entities) and the area southeast of Cope Lake is owned by the Vulcan Materials Company. Steelwave/USL owns the Arroyo Lago, East Lakes and Parcel H properties as well as the vacant land east of the Amazon site (outside the UGB).
Zone 7 owns Lake I and Cope Lake (and immediately adjacent land) and will soon assume ownership of Lake H.
General Plan Designations and Zoning
Portions of the EPPF study area are subject to General Plan land use designations and zoning of three different agencies: the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, and the City of Livermore.
• City of Pleasanton: As shown in Figure 6 in Attachment 1, the Pleasanton General Plan designates Lake I, Lake H, and Cope Lake as Water Management and Recreation (WMR). Sand and gravel quarries outside city limits are designated Sand and Gravel Harvesting (SGH). A multi-colored pill-shaped symbol or "lozenge" appears in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area to note that the Specific Plan process will consider a
range of potential allowed land uses for this area. The portion of the EPPF study area within Pleasanton city limits is zoned General Industrial (GI). Pleasanton's zoning for the area is generally consistent with the General Plan, although areas outside of city limits have no Pleasanton zoning. See Figure 7 in Attachment 1.
• Alameda County: Alameda County zoning applies to unincorporated portions of the study area. As shown in Figure 8 in Attachment 1, most of the study area is zoned Water Management (WM) or Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA). The site of the proposed Arroyo Lago project on the western edge of the study area is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR)
• City of Livermore: As shown in Figure 9 in Attachment 1, the Livermore General Plan designates much of the EPPF study area as Sand and Gravel (OSP/S&G), with approximately 80 acres northeast of Lake H designated as Limited Agriculture (LDAG).
Areas south of the airport and immediately adjacent to the study area boundary are designated Low Intensity Industrial (LII). The City of Livermore is in the process of developing an update to its General Plan; recently-published Draft Land Use Maps for the Livermore General Plan Update show no changes to these existing designations. As the City Council is aware, Livermore recently processed SOI amendments and annexation applications for two properties outside their City limit; SMP-39 and SMP-40 (see Figure 3 in Attachment 1). The area known as SMP-38 (west of SMP 40) remains within Pleasanton’s SOI, and there are no current plans or proposals for it to be considered for annexation into Livermore.
Future Use Discussion Sites
As discussed above, the EPPF project will not consider land use options for properties in the study area with proposed or approved projects, since those uses are either vested, or will be decided in conjunction with the active development applications. Excluding these areas, there are six additional areas (see Figure 10 in Attachment 1) where the City may wish to consider future land use options as part of the EPPF project.
Recommended Policy Questions
Staff recommends that the EPPF project explore the following policy questions related to land uses:
• What is the preferred range of future land uses in the EPPF study area? • What are the preferred land uses, including development and open space uses, for specific areas?
• Should existing allowed uses, as established by the General Plan and Zoning Code, change?
Open Space and Recreation
General Plan Community Separators
The General Plan land use map designates Lake I, Lake H, and Cope Lake as water management and recreation, and states that “these water areas act as community separators on the east edge of Pleasanton where no significant development is allowed.” General Plan Subregional Planning Element Policy 13 calls for the City to “enhance community identity
through the protection of community separators, scenic hillsides, and ridgelines.” The Land Use Element includes the following statement about East Pleasanton:
“The quarry lands create a valuable urban separator between Pleasanton and Livermore.
This land should be carefully studied during specific plan preparation, and its qualities as an urban separator should be substantially protected. The lake areas should be restored to a safe and natural condition, and wildlife areas should be regenerated to the fullest extent feasible. The future specific plan should be closely coordinated with affected property owners, the City of Livermore, Zone 7 Water Agency, and Alameda County. ”
Chain of Lakes
These General Plan policies align with plans to create a “Chain of Lakes” from reclaimed quarry sites in East Pleasanton. The Chain of Lakes is a series of former quarry lakes in the Livermore‐Amador Valley intended to be used for water management and related purposes by Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). Figure 12 of Attachment 1 shows the future Chain of Lakes Configuration as identified by Zone 7 in 2020.
Reclamation of Lake I and Cope Lake is complete with the land transferred to Zone 7.
Reclamation of Lake H is nearing completion, with the transfer to Zone 7 pending. Reclamation activities have not yet begun in areas east of Arroyo Mocho and southeast of Cope Lake.
Reclamation plans must comply with surface mining permits and the Specific Plan for Livermore‐Amador Valley Quarry Area Reclamation (LAVQAR), adopted by Alameda County in 1981. As mandated by LAVQAR, quarry owners and operators must enter into agreements with Zone 7 that establish terms and conditions for reclamation activities.
In 2014 Zone 7 prepared the Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation for the Chain of Lakes to identify potential lake uses suitable for individual former quarries to provide a framework for evaluating proposed uses as lakes are transferred to Zone 7 ownership. In 2020 Zone 7 updated this evaluation to reflect changed conditions, including the City of Pleasanton’s planned re-initiation of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan.
As shown on Figure 13 in Attachment 1, the 2020 update to the Lake Use Evaluation identifies the following suitable primary and secondary uses for the seven planned lakes in the EPPF study area:
• Primary Uses: All lakes are suitable for surface water conveyance. Lakes H, Cope, and I are suitable for stormwater management, and Lakes H and I are suitable for groundwater recharge.
• Secondary Uses: Lakes G and F are suitable for recycled water. No lakes are suitable for active recreation though Lake I is suitable for education/passive recreation. Lakes H, Cope and G are suitable for habitat/conservation.
During stakeholder interviews, Zone 7 staff indicated that the configuration of Lakes E, F, and G east of Arroyo Mocho may warrant revision. Plans for these lakes may need to change given amendments to surface mining permits, changes to quarry reclamation plans, Zone 7 flood management plans, and other considerations.
Other Plans
As linked in Attachment 1, the Pleasanton Trails Master Plan shows planned new trails surrounding Lakes H, Cope, and I and connecting to surrounding areas. The East Bay Regional Park District is discussing the Chain of Lakes as part of its master plan update. The East Pleasanton Specific Plan (never adopted) included new community parks and open spaces with trail and visual connections to the Chain of Lakes.
Recommended Policy Questions
Staff recommends that the EPPF project explore the following policy questions related to open space and recreation:
• Should an open space buffer be maintained between Pleasanton and Livermore? • What types of new recreational amenities, if any, should be provided in East Pleasanton?
• How should new development, open space, and recreational facilities interface with the Chain of Lakes?
Public Service Facilities
As shown in Figure 4 in Attachment 1, two public service facilities are located in the study area: the City of Pleasanton Operations Service Center and the solid waste transfer station.
Operations Service Center
The Operations Service Center (OSC) at 333 Busch Road is used by the City of Pleasanton Public Works Department, Pleasanton Police Department, and Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department. The 17-acre OSC property is owned by the City of Pleasanton. The following activities occur at the OSC facility:
• Public Works: Administrative offices, utilities, street and parks maintenance, vehicle/fleet maintenance, sign shop, corporation yard, outdoor storage. • Police: Evidence storage, training and meeting facilities, shooting range (closed because the facility does not meet current standards)
• Fire: Fire training tower, training and meeting facilities
Pleasanton Well 8 is located on the OSC property. Well 8 is a City-owned groundwater well that is currently offline due to PFAS contamination.
The City is currently conducting a comprehensive assessment of City facilities, including the OSC. Based on initial staff-level input, there could be advantages to relocating OSC functions to a larger or different site due to existing space constraints and changes to surrounding land uses; however, relocating these functions would be a complex and costly undertaking.
Existing residential development abuts the north and east sides of the OSC property. The approved Kiewit residential development is south of the OSC property, and the proposed Arroyo Lago residential project abuts the west side of the property. If Arroyo Lago is approved and constructed, the OSC property will be surrounded on all sides by residential development.
Solid Waste Transfer Station
The solid waste transfer station at 3110 Busch Road is owned and operated by Pleasanton
Garbage Service (PGS). PGS is the solid waste collection service provider in Pleasanton. The City has a franchise agreement with PGS which gives PGS exclusive right to collect and transport solid waste from all residential, commercial, and industrial waste generators in the city. The PGS franchise agreement is due to expire in June 2029; the City is currently studying options with respect to the franchise agreement.
The transfer station serves as a public drop-off facility for solid waste, electronic waste, and household hazardous waste. The waste transfer station property is 7.5 acres in size. Due to size limitations, PGS recently leased an approximately 2.5-acre site from Steelwave, east of El Charro, for storage of unloaded garbage trucks and other miscellaneous equipment.
The transfer station is currently surrounded by vacant land. However, the approved Kiewit residential project abuts the west side of the property and the proposed Amazon warehouse abuts the east side. The proposed Arroyo Lago and East Lakes residential projects are to the north of the property across Busch Road. If all proposed projects are approved and developed, the transfer station will be surrounded on all sides by residential and warehouse uses. As noted, the current site is unable to accommodate all of its required vehicle and other storage, indicating that a larger site may be needed if PGS continues to operate the full range of services it offers today.
Recommended Policy Questions
Staff recommends that the EPPF project explore the following policy questions related to public service facilities:
• What is the preferred future of the existing OSC and waste transfer facilities? • Should these existing facilities be relocated? If so, where?
Infrastructure and Circulation
Development in East Pleasanton will require new roads, bike/pedestrian facilities, water, sewer, storm drain, and other infrastructure improvements. Public infrastructure includes on- site improvements that principally serve project residents/employees, and off-site improvements that are needed to serve the development but which also serve or benefit other projects in the vicinity and the broader community.
The City has begun an analysis of public infrastructure needed to serve the proposed development projects in East Pleasanton, and how to finance off-site infrastructure improvements. The City expects that new water and wastewater infrastructure would be funded entirely by new development, since its primary purpose would be to serve new water and sewer connections and flows. New roadway construction, particularly El Charro Road, would have some sharing of costs between the City and developers, since El Charro Road is needed to serve citywide growth in addition to traffic generated from new development in East Pleasanton. The City is working with East Pleasanton landowners to develop a mechanism to finance El Charro Road and other shared public infrastructure, including the potential use of a community facilities district (CFD).
The Draft East Pleasanton Specific Plan (not adopted) included a chapter that described a conceptual financing plan for public infrastructure in East Pleasanton. This financing plan called for Plan area landowners to fund shared infrastructure improvements that benefit the
owners of developable properties. Shared infrastructure costs would be apportioned among benefiting properties on a “fair share” basis. The City would approve a detailed infrastructure financing program for development projects as part of the project’s development agreement with the City.
When developing the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, the City analyzed the economic feasibility of different land use alternatives. This analysis found that the preferred land use alternative would be economically feasible only with 1) accelerated unit production beyond limits imposed by the growth management ordinance in place at that time (since repealed); and 2) optimized land values achieved through increased residual land values (e.g., allowing a higher percentage of three-story homes). This analysis assumed that developers would fund and construct shared public infrastructure, including El Charro Road, and that a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) bond would be used to finance project-wide infrastructure.
Recommended Policy Questions
Staff recommends that the EPPF project explore the following policy questions related to infrastructure and circulation:
1. What mechanisms should the City use to finance public infrastructure in the EPPF study area?
2. What amount and type of new development is needed to make it economically feasible for development projects to finance needed public infrastructure?
3. Should the City allow additional development in East Pleasanton if it was determined necessary to help finance El Charro Road and other public amenities (e.g. relocation of facilities at the OSC)?
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
As discussed above, staff recommends that future phases of the EPPF project focus on the following policy questions:
City Boundaries
1. Should Pleasanton consider adjustments to its urban growth boundary (UGB) in East Pleasanton? If so, what changes should be made to the UGB?
2. Are there any specific areas, currently outside the City Limit, that should be annexed into Pleasanton?
3. Should the General Plan continue to call for the City to prepare a Specific Plan for East Pleasanton? If so, what are the preferred boundaries for this area?
Land Uses
4. What is the preferred range of future land uses in East Pleasanton?
5. What are the preferred land uses, including development and open space uses, for specific areas?
6. Should existing allowed uses, as established by the General Plan and Zoning Code,
change?
Open Space and Recreation
7. Should an open space buffer be maintained between developed areas of Pleasanton and Livermore?
8. What types of new recreational amenities, if any, should be provided in East Pleasanton?
9. How should new development, open space, and recreational facilities in East Pleasanton interface with the Chain of Lakes?
Public Service Facilities
10. What is the preferred future of the existing Operations Service Center and waste transfer facilities?
11. Should some or all of the existing facilities at the OSC be relocated? If so, where?
Infrastructure and Circulation
12. What mechanisms should the City use to finance public infrastructure in the EPPF study area?
13. What amount and type of new development is needed so that it is economically feasible for development projects to finance needed public infrastructure?
14. Should the City allow additional development in East Pleasanton if it was determined necessary to help finance El Charro Road and other public amenities (e.g. relocation of facilities at the OSC)?
Staff requests City Council and Planning Commission:
• Confirm that the policy questions above should be the focus of continued study; and
• Provide any preliminary input on these policy questions or other project issues.
After receiving City Council and Planning Commission input, staff and consultants will develop options to address the policy questions, and prepare analysis as needed to allow for an informed consideration of the options. City staff will present these options and analysis to the Planning Commission and City Council in early 2026.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The EPPF supports sustainability goals by thoughtfully planning for future development in conjunction with needed infrastructure, services, and public amenities. Equity aspects, such as the inclusion of affordable housing and equitable access to open space and recreation opportunities, can be a consideration in the formulation of policy options and preferences for East Pleasanton.
OUTREACH
As a workshop item, no formal public hearing notice was required. Email notifications were provided to the City's existing interested parties list for the recent residential development project, and to parties who had expressed interest in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process in 2020. The workshop was advertised in the City's monthly e-newsletter. Residents may sign up for e-mail updates on the City Website at https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/our- government/community-and-economic-development/east-pleasanton/.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs - Strategy 9 to "Advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan" by providing policy direction for the next phase of work on the EPPF.
FISCAL IMPACT
As a City Council priority, consultant work to support the EPPF is funded by the General Fund (Community and Economic Development Department Professional Services budget). The City Council and Planning Commission will be taking no formal action at this workshop, so there is no direct fiscal impact as a result of this meeting; however, future policy discussions and decisions regarding land use, infrastructure needs and development will include consideration of the relative fiscal costs and benefits of policy alternatives.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Ellen Clark, Director of
Community and Economic
Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Background Information Materials
2. EPPF Tasks and Schedule
3. Preliminary Issues List
4. Stakeholder Meeting Summary
5. Presentation
EAST PLEASANTON POLICY FRAMEWORK
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MATERIALS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MAPS
The City has prepared new maps and assembled existing maps with information relevant to the EPPF project. All maps listed below are attached to this document.
Maps
1. Study Area Boundaries. Shows the EPPF study area boundary and the East Pleasanton Specific Plan boundary (not adopted). Map prepared for EPPF project.
2. Pleasanton Boundaries. Shows the City of Pleasanton City Limits, Sphere of Influence, and Urban Growth Boundary. Map prepared for EPPF project.
3. Livermore and County Boundaries. Shows the City of Livermore City Limits, Sphere of Influence, and Urban Growth Boundary; and the Alameda County Urban Growth Boundary.
Map prepared for EPPF project.
4. Existing Land Uses. Shows existing land uses and proposed development in the study area.
Map prepared for EPPF project.
5. Parcelization and Ownership. Shows major property owners in study area. Map prepared for EPPF project.
6. Pleasanton General Plan Land Use Designations. Shows the City of Pleasanton General Plan Land Use Designations as shown in the General Plan Land Use Map. Map prepared for EPPF project.
7. Pleasanton Zoning. Shows Pleasanton Zoning. Map prepared for EPPF project.
8. Alameda County General Plan. Shows Alameda County Land Use Designations. Map prepared for EPPF project.
9. Livermore General Plan. Shows City of Livermore General Plan Land Use Designations. Map prepared for EPPF project.
10. Livermore SMP Site Plan. Site plans for the SMP 38/39/40 development project in Livermore. (Note, the SOI amendment for SMP-38 was contemplated in the environmental review document from which this figure is taken, but was since eliminated from the project proposal). Existing map.
11. Future Use Discussion Sites. Shows six areas where the City may wish to consider future land use options as part of the EPPF project. Map prepared for EPPF project.
12. Chain of Lakes Configuration (Zone 7). Shows the
future Chain of Lakes Configuration as
identified by Zone 7 in 2020. Existing map.
ATTACHMENT 1
13. Chain of Lakes Potential Primary Uses (Zone 7). Summary map of potential primary uses for chain of lakes. Existing map.
1 4. Chain of Lakes Potential Secondary Uses (Zone 7). Summary map of potential secondary u
ses for chain of lakes.Existing map.
1 5. Future Trail System. From the Trails Master Plan, shows planned new trails in East Pleasanton. Existing map.
1 6. Proposed and Approved Development Projects. Shows development projects proposed and approved within and adjacent to the EPPF study area. Map prepared for EPPF project.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
The following documents contain background information relevant to the EPPF project (click for links).
City of Pleasanton
1. ONE Pleasanton 5-Year Strategic Plan. Strategies to build a community where everyone belongs (page 16) calls for the City to “advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan.”
2. General Plan. The Land Use Element, beginning on page 2-11, describes East Pleasanton as an area of special interest. Land Use Element Program 6.1 calls for the City to prepare an East Pleasanton Specific Plan.
3. Trails Master Plan. Page 63 shows planned new trails in East Pleasanton.
4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Page 63 shows proposed vision network bicycle facilities in East Pleasanton.
5. Climate Action Plan. Pages 40-45 describe transportation and land use strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
6. Draft East Pleasanton Specific Plan. The 2014 Draft East Pleasanton Specific Plan (not adopted) established a vision for future development in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area.
7 . Draft EIR for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan analyzes potential environmental impacts that would have resulted from adoption of the Specific Plan.
8. East Pleasanton Fiscal Impact Analysis. Prepared in 2025, analyzes the net fiscal impacts of the proposed Arroyo Lago, East Lakes, and Parcel H development on the City’s General Fund.
Other Agencies
1. Livermore Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Establishes land use compatibility criteria in the area surrounding the Livermore Airport.
2. Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation for the Chain of Lakes. Prepared in 2014, evaluates the suitability of quarry lands for different water management, resource protection, and recreation uses.
3. Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation for the Chain of Lakes - 2020 Update. Updates and expands the suitability analysis of quarry lands for future uses.
4. Livermore General Plan. The Livermore General Plan Land Use Map designates lands within the Livermore Planning area as “Open Space / Sand and Gravel”. The primary use allowed in this designation is open space, with sand and gravel extraction, processing, and related activities allowed as secondary uses.
5. East County Area Plan. A portion of the Alameda County General Plan, establishes County goals and policies for the portion of unincorporated Alameda County that includes the EPPF study area.
6. Alameda County Zoning Code. Establishes land use regulations and development standards for unincorporated properties in the EPPF study area.
7. S
pecific Plan for Livermore-Am
ador Valley Quarry Area Reclamation. Adopted in 1981,
establishes reclamation plan for the quarries in the EPPF study area.
8. Arroyo Lago Draft EIR. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Arroyo Lago project, prepared by Alameda County, analyzes potential environmental impacts from the project if developed in the County.
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
¯
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
Study Area
Core Area
EPPF Boundaries
Figure 1: Study Area Boundaries
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
¯
0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles
EPPF Study Area
Pleasanton Urban Growth Boundary
Pleasanton City Limits
Pleasanton Sphere of Influence
Figure 2: Pleasanton Boundaries
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
¯
0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles
EPPF Study Area
Livermore Urban Growth Boundary
East County Measure D Urban Growth Boundary
Livermore City Limit and Sphere of Influence
Figure 3: Livermore & County Boundaries
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
EPPF Study Area Figure 4: Existing Uses
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
EPPF Study Area
*Site Currently Vacant
Busch Rd
ResidentialResidential
OutletsOutlets
Golf CourseGolf Course
Livermore
Municipal Airport
Livermore
Municipal Airport
Approved IndustrialApproved Industrial
Oaks
Business Park
Oaks
Business Park
Approved
Industrial
Approved
Industrial
Gravel
Quarries
Gravel
QuarriesGravel
Quarries
Gravel
QuarriesShadow Cliffs
Regional
Recreation Area
Shadow Cliffs
Regional
Recreation Area
CommercialCommercial
ResidentialResidential
Shopping
Centers
Shopping
Centers
Proposed Parcel H
Industrial Project*
Proposed Parcel H
Industrial Project*
Gravel
Quarries
Gravel
Quarries
VacantVacant
PGS
Facility
PGS
Facility
Proposed
Amazon
Warehouse
Project*
Proposed
Amazon
Warehouse
Project*
Approved
Seefried
Residential
Project
Approved
Seefried
Residential
Project
Proposed
East Lakes
Residential
Project*
Proposed
East Lakes
Residential
Project*
VacantVacant
VacantVacant
City Operations
Service Center
City Operations
Service Center
Proposed
Arroyo Lago
Residential
Project*
Proposed
Arroyo Lago
Residential
Project*
El Charro Rd
0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles
EPPF Study Area Figure 5: Parcelization and Ownership
Martin Ave
Stanley Blvd
W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
SteelwaveSteelwave
PGSPGS
Pleasanton GravelPleasanton Gravel
VulcanVulcan
KiewitKiewit
City of
Pleasanton
City of
Pleasanton
AmazonAmazon
SteelwaveSteelwave
Zone 7Zone 7
SteelwaveSteelwave
Pleasanton GravelPleasanton Gravel
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
¯
0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles
EPPF Study Area Figure 8: Alameda County
General Plan Land Use
I
LPA
LPA
LPA
LPA
WM
WM
WMWM
P
MDR
I
MDR
Land Use Designation
Industrial (I)
Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Mixed Use (MU)
Parklands (P)
Water Management (WM)
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
¯
0 0.25 0.50.13 Miles
EPPF Study Area
Livermore City Limits
Figure 9: Livermore General Plan Land
Use
Land Use Designation
Business and Commerical Park (BCP)
Airport (CF-AIR)
Isabel Neighborhood (IN)
Limited Agriculture (LDAG)
Low Intensity Industrial (LII)
Parks, Trailways, Recreation Areas (OSP)
Urban High Residential (6-8 du/ac) (UH-1)
Urban Low Medium Residential (ULM)
Urban Medium Residential (UM)
Urban High Residential (8-14 du/ac) (UH-2)
CF-AIR
IN
CF-AIR
OSP
Text
BCP
LDAG
LII
LII
BCP
UM
ULM
UM
OSP
LII
Figure 3-2
Approximate Project Site Boundaries Map
Oaks
Business
Park
Single-Family
Residences
Gravel Quarries/
Industrial Ponds
Legend:
SMP 38 (SOI Amendment Only)
SMP 39 and SMP 40 (Annexation and Development Area)
Additional Annexation Only Parcels
Existing C ity of Livermore Limits
Existing C ity of Livermore SOI
Existing C ity of Livermore South Livermore UGB
Existing C ity of Pleasanton SOI
Las Positas
Golf Course
Livermore
Municipal
Airport
Gravel Quarries/
Industrial Ponds
San Francisco
Premium Outlets
Undeveloped
Land
Figure 10: Livermore SMP Site Plan
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
EPPF Study Area Figure 11: Future Use Discussion Sites
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
EPPF Study Area
Future Use Discusssion Sites
1. City of Pleasanton Operations Service Center (OSC)
2. Pleasanton Garbage Serbive (PGS) Transfer Station
3. Vacant USL/Steelwave Parcel
4. Vacant USL/Steelwave Parcels
5. Vacant SMP 38 Parcels
6. Active Quarry and Industrial Pond Parcels
Busch Rd
55 66
44 33
22 11
Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation for the Chain of Lakes ADDENDUM 1 2 Figure 1-1. Future Chain of Lakes configuration showing existing and planned facilities, 2020.
Figure 12: Chain of Lakes
Configuration (Zone 7)
Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation for the Chain of Lakes ADDENDUM 1 34 Figure 4-18. Summary map of potential Primary Uses by lake, 2020.
Figure 13: Chain of Lakes Potential
Primary Uses (Zone 7)
Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation for the Chain of Lakes ADDENDUM 1 35 Figure 4-19. Summary map of potential Secondary Uses by lake, 2020. (NOTE: This analysis does not propose or approve these uses; all formal proposals would be brought to the Board of
Directors for specific consideration.)
Figure 14: Chain of Lakes Potential
Secondary Uses (Zone 7)
Figure 3-2: Future Trail System Detail Map
Figure 15: Future Trail System
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
EPPF Study Area
Lake H
Cope Lake
Lake I
El Charro Rd
Martin Ave
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd W Jack London Blvd
Isabel Ave
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
EPPF Study Area Figure 16: Recent
Development Applications
Pleasanton Application
1. Parcel H: 300,000 sq. ft. industrial office (proposed)
2. Amazon: 640,000 sf. ft. warehouse (proposed)
3. Seefried: 310 single-family and 1 multifamily homes (approved) County and Pleasanton Applications
4. Arroyo Lago: 189 single-family homes (proposed)
5. East Lakes: 330 single-family and multi-family homes (proposed) Livermore Applications
6. SMP 39: 755,500 sq. ft. industrial (approved)
7. SMP 40: 759,275 sq. ft. industrial (approved)
55 11
22 33
66 77
44 Busch Rd
EAST PLEASANTON POLICY FRAMEWORK (EPPF) PROJECT SCHEDULE 2025 2026
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Task 1: Project Initiation
Background Material Review
Existing Conditions Maps X
Task 2: Project Issues
Preliminary Issues List X
Stakeholder Meetings (Round 1) X
Project Background and Issues Memorandum X
City Council / Planning Commission Workshop 1 X
Task 3: Options and Recommendations
Preliminary List of Options and Recommendations X
Stakeholder Meetings (Round 2) X
Options and Recommendations Memorandum
Planning Commission Study Session 2 X
City Council Study Session 2 X
Task 4: General Plan Amendments
Draft General Plan Amendments X
Planning Commission Hearing X
City Council Hearing X
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT
East Pleasanton Policy Framework Project
Preliminary Issues List
Boundaries and Growth Management
1. Potential changes to the location of the City of Pleasanton urban growth boundary and sphere of Influence.
2. Potential annexation of lands into the City of Pleasanton.
Land Use
3. Desired future land uses, including open space, residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses.
4. Existing public uses (City of Pleasanton Operations Service Center; garbage transfer station).
5. Continuation of quarry uses.
Economics
6. Fiscal impacts of different future land uses (e.g., revenues generated and costs to service).
7. Market demand and economic feasibility of different land uses.
8. Effects of new development on citywide economic development goals.
Transportation
9. Roadway improvements needed for new development.
10. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements to serve new development.
11. Traffic and vehicle miles travel (VMT) impacts from new development.
12. Supporting transportation alternatives (walking, biking, transit).
Public Infrastructure and Services
13. Mechanisms to finance public infrastructure needed for new development.
14. Water supply and infrastructure needed to serve new development.
15. Sanitary sewer system improvements needed to serve new development.
16. Stormwater drainage, including discharge into Chain of Lakes.
17. School capacity to serve new residents.
Open Space and Recreation
18. Location and type of new public parks.
19. New and improved public trails.
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT
20. Lands to maintain as open space for habitat conservation and natural resource protection.
21. Chain of Lakes (long-term plans, resource protection, public access).
Natural Resources
22. Protecting water quality (e.g., PFAS).
23. Protecting wildlife habitat and other biological resources.
24. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
25. Opportunities to incorporate sustainability features into new development.
Safety, Hazards, and Noise
26. Geotechnical conditions which could constrain future development.
27. Safety and noise issues created by aircraft using the Livermore Airport.
28. Noise and vibration created by railroad operations along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
29. Impacts from continued quarry operations (safety, noise, truck traffic, vibration, dust, odor).
30. Zone 7 flood management plan and programs.
East Pleasanton Policy Framework (EPPF) Project
Stakeholder Meetings (Series #1) Summary
The City of Pleasanton hosted a series of stakeholder meetings in the summer of 2025 for the East Pleasanton Policy Framework (EPPF) project. The purpose of these meetings was to introduce the EPPF project to key stakeholders, present background information, and receive input on key issues. Meetings were conducted via Zoom, and began with a staff presentation (attached) followed by discussion of the following questions:
• Do you have any questions about the EPPF project purpose and process? • Is there any important background information not already on our radar we should be aware of as we get started?
• What issues from our list are most important? Is there anything you would add or remove?
• Do you have any initial thoughts on the future of the study area? Prior to each meeting staff shared a preliminary list of EPPF issues (Attachment 3).
City staff hosted eight meetings with the following stakeholders:
1. Landowners and Developers (June 16, 2025)
• Steelwave/USL (Bridget Metz, Steve Dunn)
• Amazon (Mike Mowery, Eddie Piatt)
• Seefried (Jason Quintel, Cali Galla)
2. Parks and Recreation (June 24, 2025)
• East Bay Regional Park District (Sean Dougan)
3. Neighboring Jurisdictions (June 24, 2025)
• City of Livermore (Brent Smith, Andy Ross, Jake Potter, Kristina Mai) • Alameda County (Albert Lopez)
4. Gravel Operators (June 25, 2025)
• Pleasanton Gravel Company (Jennifer Jimenez-Cruz, Breanne Funk)
5. Environmental Health and Wastewater (June 26, 2025)
• Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (Dilan Roe) • Dublin San Ramon Services District (Irene Suroso)
6. Public Service Agencies (June 27, 2025)
• Pleasanton Unified School District (Ahmad Sheikholeslami) • Pleasanton Police Department (Kurt Schlehuber)
• Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (Aaron Lacey)
7. Pleasanton Garbage Service (July 2.2025)
• Gina Cardera
• Marty Inderbitzen
8. Zone 7 Water Agency (August 8, 2025)
• Coleen Winey
• Elke Rank
Stakeholder Input:
ATTACHMENT 4
In general, stakeholders expressed interest and support for the EPPF project as an effort to provide more clear policy guidance for the area. Stakeholders had questions about the project purpose, process, and schedule, CEQA review, and the relationship with pending development applications in East Pleasanton.
Stakeholders asked about the relationship of the more broadly defined study area to the existing East Pleasanton Specific Plan Area, and queried whether the City still intended to prepare a Specific Plan in the future. Topics of interest included potential changes to the Urban Growth Boundary, infrastructure to serve new development, and the financing of new infrastructure.
Noteworthy information shared by stakeholders included the following:
• Seefried, the owner of the Villages at the Quarry project, would prefer for its site to be excluded from the Specific Plan area/study areas, since its project is fully entitled. • East Bay Regional Park District is updating its master plan and may address the Chain of Lakes.
• Land outside of Urban Growth Boundary is designated by MTC as a Priority Conservation Area.
• Livermore General Plan Update will be published in the fall of 2025. May include policies about future of East Pleasanton area.
• Zone 7 and gravel operators are considering adjustments to Chain of Lakes configuration
• Zone 7 Flood Management Plan may include flood control projects that could impact Chain of Lakes concept. The District continues to have safety and water quality concerns with respect to public access at the lakes, noting steep and unstable banks, and need to protect the drinking water supply.
• Pleasanton Gravel Company is exploring different long-term options for its properties, as they transition from active mining over the coming years • Schedule to complete mining operations is uncertain with operations at various states of active use or transition to non-mining uses.,
• Facilities at the OSC are important to LPFD and to the Police Departments. The Fire Training tower, in particular, is a uniquely beneficial facility for the eastern part of the County. Both Departments noted that existing indoor training and meeting space, and storage space does not meet current needs.
• PGS desires to continue to operate the existing franchise, and is concerned about new development impinging on its ability to operate.
East Pleasanton Policy Framework Project
Stakeholder Meetings – June 2025
Agenda
•Welcome and Introductions (5 minutes)
•Project Background and Overview (15 minutes)
•Discussion (30 minutes)
1
City Limit, Sphere of Influence, and Planning Area
2 Greater East Pleasanton Area
(Mostly) outside City
Limit but within Sphere
of Influence
3
Pleasanton General Plan
•Identifies East Pleasanton as
an “area of special interest”
•Land Use Map designates
area as East Pleasanton
Specific Plan
•Calls for City to prepare a
Specific Plan for this area
ĂƐƚWůĞĂƐĂŶƚŽŶ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐWůĂŶƌĞĂ
4 East Pleasanton Specific Plan
•2012: Work began
•2014: Draft Plan and EIR
•2015: Work stopped
•2019: Work resumed
•2020: Work stopped
(COVID)
5
Recent Development Applications
WĂƌĐĞů,͗ ϯϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů
ĂŶĚŽĨĨŝĐĞ;ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚͿ
ƌƌŽLJŽ>ĂŐŽ͗ ϭϴϵƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽŵĞƐ;ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚͿ
ĂƐƚ>ĂŬĞƐ͗ϯϯϬƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJĂŶĚ
ϯϲϳŵƵůƚŝͲĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐ;ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚͿ
^ĞĞĨƌŝĞĚ͗ϯϭϬƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJĂŶĚϭϬϮ
ŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůLJŚŽŵĞƐ;ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚͿ
ŵĂnjŽŶ͗ ϲϰϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘ǁĂƌĞŚŽƵƐĞ
;ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚͿ
6 City Council Direction
February 4, 2025 Meeting:
• Process annexation and development applications for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects
• Initiate East Pleasanton Policy Framework process:
• Streamlined process
• Independent from City review of Arroyo Lago, Amazon, and East Lakes projects
• Update General Plan vision and policies for East Pleasanton • Subsequent actions needed for any changes to City boundaries or land use designations
7
East Pleasanton
Policy Framework (EPPF)
8 East Pleasanton
Policy Framework (EPPF)
ŽƌĞ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ
WĞƌŝƉŚĞƌĂůƌĞĂ
9
EPPF Process
and Schedule
10 Background Materials
• One Pleasanton 5-Year Strategic
Plan (2023)
• General Plan (2009)
• Trails Master Plan (2019)
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan (2018)
• Climate Action Plan (2022)
• Draft East Pleasanton Specific
Plan (2014)
• Draft EIR for the East Pleasanton
Specific Plan (2014)
• East Pleasanton Fiscal Impact
Analysis (2024)
• Economic and Market Analysis for
East Pleasanton Specific Plan (2013)
• Development project plans and
materials (2025)
City of Pleasanton Documents
11
Background Materials
• Livermore Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (2012)
• Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation for
the Chain of Lakes (2014 and 2020)
• PUSD Facilities Master Plan and
Demographic Projections
• Livermore General Plan (2004)
• Livermore Active Transportation
Plan (2024)
• Alameda County East County Area
Plan (1994)
• Alameda County Zoning Code
• Arroyo Lago Draft EIR (2024)
• Alameda Countywide Transportation
Plan (2020)
Documents from Other Agencies
12 Draft Maps
• Study Area Boundaries
• Pleasanton Boundaries
• Livermore and County Boundaries
• Pleasanton Zoning
• Pleasanton General Plan Land Use
Designations
• Livermore General Plan
• Alameda County General Plan
• Surrounding Land Uses
• Study Area Uses
• Parcelization and Ownership
13
ŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚ
ŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚ
hƌďĂŶ'ƌŽǁƚŚŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ
/ŶƐŝĚĞŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚĂŶĚhƌďĂŶ
'ƌŽǁƚŚŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ
/ŶƐŝĚĞŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚďƵƚŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ
hƌďĂŶ'ƌŽǁƚŚŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ
KƵƚƐŝĚĞŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚďƵƚŝŶƐŝĚĞ
hƌďĂŶ'ƌŽǁƚŚŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ
KƵƚƐŝĚĞŝƚLJ>ŝŵŝƚĂŶĚhƌďĂŶ
'ƌŽǁƚŚŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ
City Limits and Urban
Growth Boundary
14 1. Parcel H – Proposed industrial development
2. Lake I – existing Zone 7 lake
3. Arroyo Lago – proposed residential
development
4. East Lakes – proposed residential
development
5. OSC – City and Fire Department
Operations Service Center (OSC)
6. Seefried – Approved residential
development
7. PGS – Pleasanton Garbage Service
8. Amazon – Proposed warehouse
development
9. Lake H – existing Zone 7 lake
10. Vacant – owned by Steelwave
11. Cope Lake
12. Vacant – owned by Steelwave
13. Vacant –owned by Steelwave
14. Quarry – active quarry operated by Vulcan
Materials
15. Vacant – proposed industrial development
(Livermore)
Existing Study Area Uses
ϭϱ͘sĂĐĂŶƚ
15
Preliminary Issues List
• Boundaries and Growth Management
• Land Use
• Economics
• Transportation
• Public Infrastructure and Services
• Open Space and Recreation
• Natural Resources
• Safety, Hazards, and Noise
16 Discussion
•Any questions about the EPPF project purpose and process? •Any important background information not already on our radar we should be aware of as we get started?
•What issues from our list are most important? Anything you would add? Anything you would remove?
•Any initial thoughts on the future of the study area?
17
Next Steps
•June 2025: Stakeholder Meetings
•August 13, 2025: Planning Commission Study Session
•September 2, 2025 (tentative): City Council Study Session 18 City Contact
Ellen Clark
Director, Community Development Department
925-931-5606
[email protected]
Emily Carroll
Associate Planner, Community Development Department
925-931-5608
[email protected]
19
East Pleasanton Policy Framework Project
Stakeholder Meetings – June 2025
East Pleasanton Policy Framework Project
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Workshop
September 16, 2025
Workshop Purpose
• Introduce the East Pleasanton Policy Framework (EPPF) project
• Present relevant background information
• Receive feedback on key policy questions for continued study • Receive any additional input and feedback on the EPPF project
Part 1: Project Background
• Project Origins and Purpose
• Process and Schedule
• Public Engagement
• Work Completed
Part 2: Key Policy Questions
• City Boundaries
• Land Uses
• Open Space and Recreation
• Public Service Facilities
• Infrastructure and Circulation
Presentation Overview
Pleasanton General Plan
• Identifies East Pleasanton as
an “area of special interest”
• Land Use Map designates
area as East Pleasanton
Specific Plan
• Calls for City to prepare a
Specific Plan for this area
East Pleasanton Specific Plan Area
4
East Pleasanton Specific Plan
• 2012: Work began
• 2014: Draft Plan and EIR
• 2015: Work stopped
• 2019: Work resumed
• 2020: Work stopped
(COVID)
5
9 Pleasanton Applications
Parcel H: 300,000 sq. ft. industrial and
office (proposed)
Amazon: 640,000 sq. ft. warehouse
(proposed)
Seefried: 310 single-family and 102
multifamily homes (approved)
County and Pleasanton Applications
Arroyo Lago: 189 single-family homes
(proposed)
East Lakes: ~330 single-family and ~367
multi-family homes (proposed)
Livermore Applications
SMP 39 – 755,500 square feet industrial
(approved)
SMP 40 -– 759,275 square feet industrial
(approved)
Recent Development Applications
City Council Direction
February 4, 2025:
• Process annexation and development applications for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects
• Initiate East Pleasanton Policy Framework process:
• Streamlined process
• Independent from City review of currently proposed projects • Update General Plan vision and policies for East Pleasanton • Subsequent actions needed for any changes to City boundaries or land use designations
7
EPPF Process
and Schedule
10
9 EPPF Boundaries
Core Area
Study Area
Work Completed
• Background Material Review
• Pleasanton materials
• Materials from other agencies
• Existing Conditions Maps
• Collected existing maps
• New maps
• Preliminary Issues List
• Stakeholder Meetings
1. Landowner/developers (Steelwave/USL,
Amazon, Seefried)
2. Parks and recreation (EBRPD)
3. Neighboring jurisdictions (Livermore,
Alameda County)
4. Quarry operators (Pleasanton Gravel)
5. Environmental health and wastewater
agencies (ACDEH, DSRSD)
6. Public service providers (Schools, Police,
Fire)
7. Pleasanton Garbage Service
8. Zone 7 Water Agency
EPPF Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder Interviews
Noteworthy Information Shared:
• East Bay Regional Park District Master
Plan Update
• Priority Conservation Area Designation
• Livermore General Plan Update
• Zone 7 Flood Management Plan
• Chain of Lakes Configuration
• Pleasanton Gravel Company Planning
• PGS operations and concerns
• Continued Mining Timeline
• Police and Fire Department OSC Facilities
Key Policy Topics
Topic areas for further study, consideration
of policy options:
• City boundaries
• Land uses
• Open space and recreation
• Public service facilities
• Infrastructure and circulation
City Boundaries
• City Limits
• Boundary of incorporated City of Pleasanton
• Area where City has zoning control, police powers, and provides public services
• Urban Growth Boundary
• Area suitable for urban development beyond which the City will not provide public facilities and services
• Approved by voters in 1996
• Sphere of Influence
• Adopted by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
• Represents the probable ultimate physical boundary and service area of Pleasanton, as determined by LAFCO
Pleasanton Boundaries
City of Pleasanton
Urban Growth Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Pleasanton Boundaries
City of Pleasanton
Urban Growth Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Inside City Limit but
outside Urban Growth
Boundary
City Boundaries
Recommended Policy Questions:
• Should Pleasanton adjust its urban growth boundary (UGB) in East Pleasanton? If so, what UGB changes should be made? Are there specific areas that should be brought inside the UGB?
• Are there any specific areas, currently outside the City Limit, that should be annexed into Pleasanton?
• Should the General Plan continue to call for the City to prepare a Specific Plan for East Pleasanton? If so, what are the preferred boundaries for this area?
EPPF
Existing Land Uses
EPPF
Parcelization and
Ownership
Pleasanton General
Plan Land Use Map
Pleasanton Zoning
9 Pleasanton Applications
Parcel H: 300,000 sq. ft. industrial and
office (proposed)
Amazon: 640,000 sq. ft. warehouse
(proposed)
Seefried: 310 single-family and 102
multifamily homes (approved)
County and Pleasanton Applications
Arroyo Lago: 189 single-family homes
(proposed)
East Lakes: 330 single-family and 367
multi-family homes (proposed)
Livermore Applications
SMP 39 -– 755,500 square feet industrial
(approved)
SMP 40 -– 759,275 square feet industrial
(approved)
Recent Development Applications
9 City of Pleasanton Operations Service
Center (OSC)
Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS)
Transfer Station
Vacant USL/Steelwave Parcel
Vacant USL/Steelwave Parcels
Vacant SMP 38 Parcels
Active Quarry and Industrial Pond
Parcels
Future Use Discussion Areas
Land Use
Recommended Policy Questions:
• What is the preferred range of future land uses in East Pleasanton? • What are the preferred land uses, including development and open space uses, for specific areas?
• Should existing allowed uses, as established by the General Plan and Zoning Code, change?
Open Space and Recreation
General Plan Community Separator Policies
• Designates Lake I, Lake H, and Cope Lake as water management and recreation to “act as community separators on the east edge of Pleasanton where no significant development is allowed” (p. 2 -26)
• Calls for the City to “enhance community identity through the protection of community separators, scenic hillsides, and ridgelines.” (p. 14 -23) • Describes the quarry lands as a “valuable urban separator between Pleasanton and Livermore” that should be substantially protected (p. 2 -12)
Chain of Lakes
• Series of former quarry lakes in the Livermore ‐Amador Valley • Intended to be used for water management and related purposes by Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7)
• Quarry reclamation plans must comply with surface mining permits and the Specific Plan for Livermore ‐Amador Valley Quarry Area Reclamation (LAVQAR) • Quarry owners and operators must enter into agreements with Zone 7 that establish terms and conditions for reclamation activities.
Zone 7 Future Chain of Lakes Configuration (2020)
Source:
Addendum 1 – 2020 Update
Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation
for the Chain of Lakes
Source:
Addendum 1 – 2020 Update
Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation
for the Chain of Lakes
Source:
Addendum 1 – 2020 Update
Preliminary Lake Use Evaluation
for the Chain of Lakes
Pleasanton Trails Master
Plan (2020)
Future Trail System Map
East Pleasanton Area
Open Space and Recreation
Recommended Policy Questions:
• Should an open space buffer be maintained between Pleasanton and Livermore? If so, how should it be defined?
• What types of new recreational amenities, if any, should be provided in East Pleasanton?
• How should new development, open space, and recreational facilities interface with the Chain of Lakes?
Public Service Facilities
Two public service facilities
in study area:
• City Operations Service
Center (OSC)
• PGS Waste Transfer Station
City Operations Service Center (OSC)
PGS Waste Transfer Station
Public / Quasi Public Facilities
City Operations
Service Center
PGS Waste
Transfer Station
Proposed
Arroyo Lago
Residential
Project
Approved
Seefried
Residential
Project
City Operations
Service Center
(OSC)
City Operations Service Center (OSC)
Used by the:
• City of Pleasanton Public Works
Department
• Pleasanton Police Department
• Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
• Site of City Groundwater Well 8
Proposed
Arroyo Lago
Residential
Project Site
Approved
Seefried
Residential
Project Site
PGS Waste
Transfer
Facility
Waster Transfer Station
Property owned and operated by
Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS)
Proposed
Amazon
Warehouse
Project
Proposed
East Lakes
Residential
Project Site
Public Service Facilities
Recommended Policy Questions:
• What is the preferred future of the existing OSC and waste transfer facilities? • Should these existing facilities be relocated? If so, where?
Infrastructure and Circulation
• East Pleasanton development will require on -site and off-site infrastructure improvements
• On-site infrastructure funded and constructed by developer • City expectations:
• Off-site water and wastewater infrastructure funded entirely by new development. • New roadway construction, including El Charro Road, funded by both new development and City
Infrastructure and Circulation
• East Pleasanton development will require on -site and off-site infrastructure improvements
On-site Off-site
Water
Developer DeveloperSewer
Roads* City and Developer
*Including El Charro
Infrastructure Funding Source
City is exploring financing options
Infrastructure and Circulation
• Economic analysis for East Pleasanton Specific Plan found preferred land use alternative economically feasible only with:
• Accelerated unit production; and
• Plan changes to increase land values
• Analysis assumed:
• Developers fund and construct shared public infrastructure • Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) bond used to finance project wide infrastructure.
Infrastructure and Circulation
Recommended Policy Questions:
• What mechanisms should the City use to finance public infrastructure in the EPPF study area?
• What amount and type of new development is needed so that it is economically feasible for development projects to finance needed public infrastructure? • Should the City allow additional development in East Pleasanton to help finance El Charro Road?
Requested Input
Staff requests City Council and Planning Commission:
• Confirm that the policy questions above should be the focus of continued study; and
• Provide any preliminary input on these policy questions or other project issues. • After receiving City Council and Planning Commission input, staff and consultants will develop options to address the policy questions, and prepare analysis as needed to allow for an informed consideration of the options. City staff will present these options and analysis to the Planning Commission and City Council in early 2026.
Next Steps
• Refine policy question based on City Council and Planning Commission input • Develop options to address the policy questions
• Prepare analysis of options
• Hold Planning Commission and City Council work sessions in early 2026 to consider policy options
East Pleasanton Policy Framework Project
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Workshop
September 16, 2025