My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SUPPLEMENTAL
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2025
>
020425
>
SUPPLEMENTAL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 2:27:41 PM
Creation date
2/4/2025 2:27:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/4/2025
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Submitted On: <br />Feb 1, 2025, 11:13AM PST <br />City Council Regular Meeting - <br />Submit your written public <br />comment <br />City of Pleasanton <br />Full Name First Name: Diana <br />Last Name: Atwell <br />Email (this entry is disclosable <br />if included)diana_atwell@yahoo.com <br />City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025 <br />Meeting Type Regular Meeting <br />Agenda Item Number not sure <br />Comments Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members, <br />I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property <br />bordering the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I <br />am writing to express concerns about the project’s impact on our <br />community, particularly regarding the proposed six-foot retaining <br />wall on the west end. <br />A high-quality, sturdy wall built by Ponderosa already exists at the <br />west property line. This wall effectively blocks noise and serves as a <br />reliable property divider. Given this, why is the developer proposing <br />an additional six-foot retaining wall? <br />The Arroyo Lago Environmental Impact Report (EIR), specifically <br />Section 3.6, states that the Preliminary Geotechnical Report does not <br />identify landslide-related hazards on the west side and concludes <br />that this area is not within a landslide zone. I fully agree with this <br />conclusion—there is currently zero risk of landslides in this area. <br />However, the proposed retaining wall raises an important question: <br />If no landslide risks exist, why is the developer adding a retaining <br />wall? <br />The need for a retaining wall suggests an acknowledgment of <br />increased landslide risks due to the project itself. If this development <br />introduces any risk—no matter how small—that would still be an <br />increase from the current zero-risk baseline. This is a major safety <br />concern for the senior residents living adjacent to the project site. <br />If the city moves forward with annexation, resident safety must be a <br />top priority. No developer should be allowed to introduce new risks to <br />neighboring communities. The city should require the developer to <br />explore safer alternatives, such as: <br />Creating a 20–30-foot buffer zone between the Village of Ironwood
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.