|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton City Council unanimously agreed on Tuesday that staff should look into what the pros and cons would be if the city annexes two properties in unincorporated East Pleasanton where developers are looking to build new housing.
One property would look to develop 194 detached houses and 49 accessory dwelling units while the other — which would be located right next to the first — would look to develop 569 residential units exclusively for seniors.
“We see a lot of merit in moving forward with a process that brings these projects into the city of Pleasanton,” City Manager Gerry Beaudin told the council. “This is going to be right on our doorstep, it’s all happening in the county right now and we think there’s a way to lane-change into the city of Pleasanton.”
Staff will now begin discussions with the developers regarding various issues that were brought up during this week’s council meeting in order for staff to bring back a final recommendation by either the end of the year or early next year.
Some of the issues that were brought up by residents and council members were on traffic, utilities, quality-of-life impacts and getting units from both properties to count toward Pleasanton’s assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation counts.
The two developments would be located in the East Pleasanton planning area, which is 1,100 acres area located east of Valley Avenue and Busch Road, north of Stanley Boulevard and south of Arroyo Mocho. Community development director Ellen Clark said there has been a longstanding history of planning efforts in that area.
In the early 2010s, Pleasanton created a task force to lay down a foundation for development in the area before the project was put on pause. Then in March 2020 the council had agreed to restart the process to draft an East Pleasanton Specific Plan but that was then halted due to the pandemic.
During the city’s sixth cycle Housing Element, the council and staff also decided it had enough areas zoned for housing and did not include East Pleasanton, which has continued to leave the area with questions in regards to future development.
But now, these two project sites owned by SteelWave LLC — a San Mateo-based real estate developer — are moving forward in the application process with Alameda County officials and it’s time for the city to decide if it wants to get involved and have the two projects developed within the city or the county.
The first project — the Arroyo Lago site — aims to develop 194 detached single-family homes and 49 deed-restricted accessory dwelling units on 26.56 acres. Clark said the area is zoned by the county for medium residential development and the project has been under review by Alameda County since early 2022.
The site is located immediately east of the city’s limits on Busch Road, to the west of El Charro Road. Homes would be located on lots ranging from 3,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet — the houses themselves would range in size from 2,541 square feet to 3,398 square feet depending on the size of the lot.
All homes would have four to five bedrooms depending on the model that is selected by the homebuyer. Access to the property would be via Busch Road, which is a street owned by Pleasanton, meaning the city would have to make street improvements.
Clark said there would also be a 0.7-acre park and walking trails which Steve Reilly, co-founder of 330 Land Company (the main developer of the Arroyo Lago site), said would be built to match the surrounding neighborhood, as is the plan with the buildings as well.
“Even though there is not a specific plan … we’ve tried our best to try and figure out how to bring everything together to look somewhat cohesive,” Reilly said.
Former City Council member Arne Olson said as a neighbor who lives west of the proposed Arroyo Lago project, he does support the development and of the city annexing because it would bring cohesive growth in that area.
He pointed to the city staff agenda report that stated that the planning process in East Pleasanton is piecemeal by different developers as an example of why he believes the city should annex the two properties.
But as he and other of his neighbors pointed out, the main reason residents who live just west of the proposed Arroyo Lago site want the city to annex the property is so that the council can have more of a say on certain issues.
One of the main issues was privacy given that the surrounding houses are single family homes and the proposed project would be two story homes. Several speakers who live along the privacy wall that exists on the project’s western border said even with a bigger wall, the new homes would still tower over them and invade their privacy.
Others also called out traffic congestion and water supply as other concerns they would like the city to look into if it does decide to annex the properties. Clark said water would come from CalWater and would not be connected to city utilities but the plan for sewage is to create a sewer treatment plan east of the development that would safely recycle water for agriculture.
Mayor Karla Brown had major issues with that plan as she did not want sewage so close to the Chain of Lakes water supply.
As for the second project, which doesn’t have a name yet as it was just filed about two months ago according to SteelWave senior managing director Steve Dunn, the goal is to create 569 senior housing units, which the council majority agreed is much-needed.
“We do have an aging population, people are living longer,” Councilmember Valerie Arkin said. “I think there is a need for (age-restricted housing).”
The application was submitted to the county under the builder’s remedy, which allows developers to fast track developments if jurisdictions fail to certify a compliant Housing Element. The county has not updated or certified its sixth cycle Housing Element, which is why the application for this development was made possible.
The second project would include 357 single-family residences — detached and duet units — and 212 multi-family independent and/or assisted living units with 455 of the units being market-rate units and 114 units being for low-income households. The development would be mostly located west of El Charro Road with a cluster of approximately 40 single-family units on the east side of the road.
Councilmember Jack Balch said he was worried that too much age-restricted housing wouldn’t be good for the younger demographics who want to move to Pleasanton but Brown said having more senior housing would open up homes that seniors move out of to those younger demographics.
However, one thing the entire council agreed on is that staff need to further analyze traffic, environmental and overall impacts these two new properties would have on the city in order for anyone to make any final decisions.
They all mostly agreed as well that counting those units toward the city’s RHNA goal over 5,000 units could be, as Vice Mayor Julie Testa said, a dealbreaker. Clark said both sites are included in the county’s Housing Element but unlike the Arroyo Lago site, the senior housing project could still be up for negotiations with the county on getting RHNA units counted for Pleasanton.
Beaudin also said he didn’t want to make any promises to the public and the council as far as the city providing significant input on either project, but especially the Arroyo Lago projects because of how far along that project is in the development process. He said because the senior project is in the early stages, if the city were to annex the property it could get more involved in the design process — but that wouldn’t be the case for the first project.
As staff get set to begin discussions with the developers and start looking into things like environmental impact reviews, the main question for these two developments will be if Pleasanton wants the burden of more students and residents who won’t contribute to the city.
“Having several hundred new county residents living adjacent to Pleasanton (and) taking advantage of Pleasanton facilities, services, parks and roads but not paying property taxes within the city, not electing any of our city councilmembers … not being subjected to city code compliance or other city rules and regulations does not appear to be an optimal scenario,” Clark said.
“This developer Steel Wave, a real estate investment and management firm based in San Mateo, California, has been involved in a notable situation recently. They along with Barings, surrendered a 164,400-square-foot office building in El Segundo to a lender due to $53.1 in troubled debt. This move was influenced by rising interest rates and declining values, which have significantly impacted commercial real estate.”