CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

gy�NSA NTo2 City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your written public _= �y comment OP'NNED C4Dv City of Pleasanton Full Name Email (this entry is disclosable if included) meeting Agenda Item Number Comments First Name: Kelly Last Name: Cousins [email protected] Regular Meeting Item 20 Submitted On: Oct 21, 2025, 10:50AM PDT Dear Mayor and City Council Members, We all understand that Pleasanton is facing financial challenges. The City is cutting services and deferring maintenance just to balance its budget. So before we commit to a costly new development agreement, we must ask one simple question: What part of this project will current residents be paying for and at what is the cost financially and to the quality of the life in Pleasanton. City studies and fiscal analyses across the Bay Area have shown again and again that new residential development rarely pays for itself. The long-term cost of new infrastructure, water systems, police and fire service, and street maintenance almost always exceeds the revenue generated by new property taxes. In a cash-strapped city, that means Pleasanton taxpayers will end up subsidizing this project for decades. I am not opposed to annexation of the county property but mainly concerned about the numbers of residential units already being proposed for the area, if they will increase our affordable housing numbers and the actual costs to the current residents whose fees for maintaining a home in Pleasanton rises with every election. Additionally the 48 Junior ADU's proposed for the site do not require a bathroom so the homeowner couldn't rent these out for affordable housing yet they would allow the developer to get out of paying $9 million in affordable housing fees to the City. The Arroyo Lago site also sits at the far eastern edge of Pleasanton, adjacent to sensitive environmental areas managed by Zone 7 Water Agency. The proposal for an extension road from Stanley Boulevard to EI Charro Road—a critical access point for this project—has already been opposed by Zone 7 because it would directly impact the lakes that feed our drinking water aquifers. The extension of EI Charro road alone is estimated to cost $110 million, and there's still no clear plan for who will pay for it. The developer is purposing to only contribute $2.5 million which is a mere drop in the bucket towards very costly road. Beyond the cost, this area was not included in the last Pleasanton State Housing Element precisely because of its environmental sensitivity, infrastructure challenges, and distance from major transit corridors. This is not where Pleasanton's largest housing development should go.