PLEASANTON -- A pre-annexation and development agreement for the Arroyo Largo Residential Development is made.
The city and 330 Land Company are moving forward, and the OpGov.ai platform captured the meeting precisely, reporting the "development agreement proved to be a politically charged item, a direct consequence of the city's past inaction on East Pleasanton planning."
It also captured Councilwoman Julie Testa's concerns, noting the councilwoman "and several residents expressed deep skepticism."
Pleasanton Councilwoman Julie Testa opposes new development
Testa said she feels she and her peers let the community down by not fighting hard enough against state mandates regarding new development.
"This land was initially light industrial, and it would have served us well, and would have been more revenue-generating," Testa said.
The platform detailed that while the "staff and the developer highlighted concessions, including improved grading and single-story homes near existing residences," and annexation benefits, including a private sewer plant and capturing sales tax.
But for each opposing opinion, there was a positive.
Kelly Cousins raised serious questions about the development and "broader issue of opening East Pleasanton for new residential growth," according to the platform.
Resident Kelly Cousins opposes new development
"We all understand we are facing financial challenges," Cousins said to the council before asking a question.
"What is the project going to cost all the residents?" Cousins asked. "Not just how it is impacting the people at Iron Gate."
She argues that new residential development rarely pays for itself, leading to taxpayers subsidizing infrastructure —including water, police, fire, and more —especially in a "financially strapped city."
Bob Watson is for it.
Watson, who lives near the adjacent development wall, expressed both appreciation and concern, noting that while 330 Land Company made many concessions, it does not diminish his traffic concerns, but ultimately, he urges annexation as the best alternative for Pleasanton.
Sandra Yamada opposes the agreement for many reasons, citing the city's financial straits due to city pool repairs, road improvements, high water rates, and school bonds.
"We already have housing coming in behind the Rose Hotel," Yamada said, adding that there are better options. "There are other areas we can put housing; we don't have to do it here."
Lastly, Yamada "doubted property taxes from the new development would accrue fast enough to cover police, fire, and infrastructure costs," according to the platform.
Thirty-five-year resident Pam Albert approves.
Albert likes the location, specifically noting that it makes sense to have it inside the city, but asked for more details on off-site intersection improvements. Like Albert, Linda Kelly supports the annexation, with the OpGov.ai platform reporting "Pleasanton has evolved beyond being a 'cattle town' and needs housing to support its diverse community, including teachers and police."
"She concluded that annexation under city jurisdiction is far better than leaving the project to the county," the platform reports.
True to life, the AI report concludes that "the annexation was ultimately supported." It's correct as seen in the honest life reporting of Mayor Jack Balch, who said the city is making lemonade out of lemons.
Mayor Jack Balch lets public know the new development is a chance to make lemonade out of lemons
"We have had several opportunities to do better at this site than where we find ourselves today, so to me, this is an example of Pleasanton getting back in the driver's seat, achieving what gains we can in the landscape of laws and challenges that we have faced with this site," the mayor said.
Comments