(PLEASANTON, CA.) – The proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Project came before Pleasanton’s city council once again on August 11.
First approved on June 24 by Pleasanton’s Planning Commission, this 189-home residential project hit the city council’s tables little over a month later on July 27. Currently located on land owned by Alameda County, it is the developer’s wish to annex the site into Pleasanton.
During the meeting on July 27, the council reviewed and discussed the project’s Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement. The vote passed three to two.
The two dissenting members of the council, one of whom was Council Member Julie Testa, felt that the developer was not contributing enough money toward the expansion of El Charro Road.
During the meeting on August 11, the council reviewed two new items to be added to the conditions the developer must agree to before annexation. These conditions were meant to address the concerns of the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) regarding the need to fund an additional utility analysis to determine the project’s impacts on their sewage systems.
Photo Credit: https://www.dsrsd.com/Home
According to city staff, the developer already agreed to mitigate any impacts found by this study.
Concerned about her right to remain firmly against the developer’s amount of contribution toward El Charro, Testa opened with clarifying questions on this matter. She inquired of city staff whether they would have to separate the two new conditions from the previously approved Development Agreement so that Testa could vote, once again, not to pass it due to the developer’s current expected contribution.
In response, staff explained that the two conditions were not part of the approved Development Agreement, but separate conditions.
Testa also remarked that the council was not informed of the communication between DSRSD and the city that led to the creation of the two new conditions.
“I'm concerned that we're being asked to vote on projects that still have outstanding issues,” she voiced.
Photo Credit: YouTube / City of Pleasanton Public Meetings
With no other questions from council members, Mayor Jack Balch opened the topic for public comment.
Carla Brown was the first up to the podium, first introducing herself as a former city council member for 12 years. According to Brown, the city was “bombarded” with around a thousand residents who were against any development in East Pleasanton, which is where Arroyo Lago is located.
Due to this extreme opposition, the council at the time decided to put development in East Pleasanton on hold. Later, while the city was evaluating different sites for housing, East Pleasanton in general received zero points, meaning it was deemed extremely unfit for housing.
The second speaker was DSRSD Board President Richard Halket. Halket had concerns less related to the project, but more closely related to the sewage system as a whole. He called for the city’s cooperation in working on a lift station within their system.
“When something goes wrong at a lift station, bad stuff ends up on the streets,” he said.
Photo Credit: YouTube / City of Pleasanton Public Meetings
Up next was Sara Callahan, who introduced herself on behalf of the East Bay Residents For Responsible Development. Callahan claimed that the DSRSD did not address the wastewater capacity of the site, and that a wastewater treatment analysis and funding for the project is necessary.
She explained that she had this concern because the conditions being added did not require this analysis.
In response to this, Steve Riley approached the podium and explained that they had already signed a non-binding agreement with DSRSD regarding the issue Callahan brought up. He also explained that they already paid for the technical study required by DSRSD.
With no further public comments, Balch closed public comment and allowed the council to make comments or commence a vote on the two proposed conditions.
Once a motion was made, Balch commented that the council only has two choices.
The first is to deny the project and let it go through the county, which would include a leech field and sewer treatment plant right next to Pleasanton’s drinking water supply.
The second is to accept the annexation of this project and allow them to connect to Pleasanton facilities, which brings with it other benefits.
Following his comment, the council voted and passed the two proposed conditions unanimously.
To add or correct any information in this report, please contact me at madison.v@lead4earth.org.
0
0
Comments