|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton Councilmember Julie Testa continued Tuesday’s agenda item regarding the two East Pleasanton proposed housing developments due to what she said was a lack of information.
Testa told the Weekly on Thursday that she continued the item during the agenda amendments portion of the meeting because there was “information not yet available that I thought would allow for a more complete discussion.”
The City Council was set to receive an update during its Feb. 4 meeting on the two large residential development proposals in East Pleasanton before deciding whether or not the city should annex the two project sites.
One project — known as the Arroyo Lago project — aims to develop 194 single-family homes and 49 accessory dwelling units while the other, recently dubbed the East Lakes Project, aims to build 357 single-family, age-restricted homes and 88 age-restricted assisted living units.
According to the Feb. 4 staff report, apart from recommending that the council annex the two properties, staff will also seek council direction on changes to one project’s design, feedback on the other project’s age-restricted housing and inclusionary units and terms related to the application process for both.
“The applicants have made clear their intent to continue processing both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects in Alameda County, pending any formal decision to proceed with annexation to Pleasanton,” according to the staff report. “However, the applicants have expressed willingness to work with the city to modify the projects in conjunction with an annexation application, and after considering feedback from neighbors of the Arroyo Lago Project, and from city staff regarding both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, have submitted revised ‘city’ versions of the two projects.”
The two developments would be located in the East Pleasanton planning area, which is a 1,100-acre area located east of Valley Avenue and Busch Road, north of Stanley Boulevard and south of Arroyo Mocho. Both properties are owned by SteelWave LLC — a San Mateo-based real estate developer.
According to the staff report, the Arroyo Lago project is aiming to span across 26.56 acres located immediately east of the city’s limits.
The East Lakes development aims to build a total of 445 units across 61.6 acres located east of the Arroyo Lago site.
Steelwave originally submitted an application to the county under the builder’s remedy state provision, which allows developers to build housing projects that don’t comply with local zoning or general plans, last June that sought to build 569 residential units exclusively for seniors. However, since then the applicant submitted a revised preliminary application to the county that reduced the total unit count to 357 single-family, age-restricted homes and 88 age-restricted assisted living units, according to the staff report.
After Testa continued the item, City Manager Gerry Beaudin said staff will aim to bring it back on Feb. 18 but he also asked for flexibility so the city can ensure the right consultants and staff are available for the discussion.
“We will schedule for the 18th and we’ll do our best,” Beaudin said.
Fast-growing wildfire south of Pleasanton prompts evacuation order in Ruby HillJuly 21, 2026 4:55 pm
Private volleyball coach arrested outside Pleasanton school on suspicion of child pornJuly 19, 2026 10:12 pm
“Doing your best” requires that you bring it back on February 18 with no excuses. The matter is time-sensitive and failure to act will certainly be at great expense to the city budget as well as every single resident of Pleasanton, especially those residing on the east side of town. Not only fiscal but also environmental and quality of life considerations would suffer mightily should the council not act on the matter as soon as possible. Councilmember Testa has placed us all in this position because of her rigid anti-development stance that took these properties off the table when she pushed the East Side Plan off the table several years ago. Revenues and RHNA compliance have suffered as a result of this earlier misstep. Putting it aside once again could be the final nail in the coffin of recovery of financial stability for the city.
Council members have a right to continue agenda items. I believe Council member Testa has legitimate concerns about development on the east side of town. Busch road is in a terrible state. In its current state, this road could not support increased traffic. The development proposed is very close to the Pleasanton waste transfer station. Children could be exposed to unknown air and waste pollutants. It’s not unusual that this item should be continued to collect more information regarding annexation and development.
Some in our community who campaigned against the tax measure last November fail to see that unpopular decisions regarding growth now have to be made due to the financial imperative for the city. Mayor Balch put Pleasanton in this “Grow-or-die” situation. We are in this financial predicament because of his inability to support the tax measure. He put the thumb on the scale for his own political benefit.
We need to recognize that Pleasanton residents have legitimate concerns regarding growth. Whether it be with increased traffic, noise and vehicle pollution, and the municipal burden put on Pleasanton in fulfilling the state housing mandate.
Pleasanton does not want to become another version of Dublin. Plain and simple.
Tick tock tick tock – the clock is ticking. If we don’t annex this parcel, alameda county will and the cost to the city will be the nail in the coffin. Thanks council member Testa for leaving the door open to Alameda County. If Alameda County takes this land and develops it, they get the tax revenue, developer fees and Pleasanton gets to burden of supporting the new development for schools, fire, police and water. The cost to Pleasanton will be in the millions.
I would also like to suggest to Critical Thinker to read the materials from the East Side plan included with the agenda packet to see the financial hole we will be in if Alameda County gets to the finish line first. It would not be a good thing for Pleasanton!
We need to annex this land, work with the developers for a well planned community and gain the financial upside in this deal.
This ploy by Julie Testa is very reminiscent of what transpired many years ago in North Pleasanton when the city lost the right to develop Staples Ranch. ( https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2007/05/21/pleasanton-could-lose-millions-in-staples-ranch-grab/ ) Now Livermore has the tax revenue and we must support the Stoneridge road extension. I agree with Check the Facts. It will be developed, regardless of efforts to prevent it from being an integral part of our community and further satisfying mandated new housing growth laws.
Critical thinker, you miss the point that the east side is going to be developed. The only question is it annexed into Pleasanton so that Pleasanton gets the financial benefits and RHNA credit or is it developed in the county so they get the financial benefit while these new residents would use our parks, streets, services etc all without any financial benefit to the City? Aren’t we the City of Planned Progress afterall? BTW, who thinks putting a sewage treatment plant next to the chain of lakes, part of our potable water infrastructure, is a good idea which is the plan if this is developed in the county?
I’d like to hear from CM Testa what information wasn’t available that she wanted to have–otherwise I assume this is nothing more than a de a delaying tatic.