Laserfiche WebLink
Submitted On: <br />Mar 18, 2025, 10:40AM PDT <br />City Council Regular Meeting - <br />Submit your written public <br />comment <br />City of Pleasanton <br />Full Name First Name: Kelly <br />Last Name: Cousins <br />Email (this entry is disclosable <br />if included)cousins.kellene@gmail.com <br />City Council Meeting Date March 18, 2025 10:03 AM <br />Meeting Type Regular Meeting at 7 pm <br />Agenda Item Number Item #18 <br />Comments Dear City Council and Staff, Please consider another site for the <br />massive 697 (plus 100 inclusionary units) new homes proposed for <br />the East Side of Pleasanton. The area was deemed unsuitable <br />(earned a zero in RHNA metrics) for residential zoning in the current <br />Housing Element RHNA allotment and was a very unpopular plan as <br />seem by 1000+ residents in 2012and 2017 (East Side Specific Plan) <br />due to the same concerns: Traffic, Schools and City Services <br />impacts; Water concerns, Safety concerns for residential <br />development near the quarries and future roads adjacent to drinking <br />water supplies, zone 7 objection, airport protection areas, and the <br />Urban Growth Boundary infringement. There is no existing <br />infrastructure for such a large development and the considerable <br />costs of extending El Charro to Stanley (including a multimillion <br />dollar underpass for avoiding the railway, make this not only costly <br />to the City of Pleasanton but the developers who have to add these <br />amenities and infrastructure to their projects. The 797 households <br />could potentially add 7970 car trips per day to their projects already <br />impacted neighborhoods in the area and to connector streets <br />including First, Bernal, Santa Rita and Valley. Settlement in the area <br />is also a concern as well as surrounding businesses such <br />Pleasanton Garbage and the Gravel Companies were opposed to <br />this type of large scale residential development so close to their <br />businesses. The EIR is old and doesn’t meet the current needs of <br />this project. <br />Thank you for trying to meet the demands for residential housing by <br />developers in another way. The smaller number of age restricted <br />residential development was a plausible idea. <br />Pleasanton residents deserve more consideration than developer’s <br />speculation on what was very undesirable property. <br />Thank you, <br />Kelly Cousins