Submitted On:
Feb 1, 2025, 09:23AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Bob
Last Name: Watson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 12
Comments Please see attached letter regarding Arroyo Lago annexation.
Thank you
Upload File(s) Arroyo Lago annexation letter.docx
Arroyo Lago Comment on Draft EIR
To: Jack Balch, mayor
From: Bob Watson
January 31, 2025
First of all, thank you for considering annexation of the proposed Arroyo Lago site.
Annexation eliminates a number of significant concerns that were voiced at the public hearing meeting on October 29,2024. At that meeting, there were many good presentations, mostly relating to the health and welfare of the seniors living adjacent to the proposed site in The Village at Ironwood. That meeting was filmed and was available on the County website, but was taken down. I would encourage you to see if the County would put it back up so you could listen to the passion in the input from the community. There are a significant number of flaws in the EIR that were addressed, but I would like to reinforce our positions on some of them.
1. We have significant concern over drainage. After the last grading was done, many of the homes that line the East wall of the Village at Ironwood had their back yards flooded. The plans for the development do not show how water from rains is controlled.
2. Raising the ground level 6 feet behind the existing wall is a bad plan. On top of that, the plan is to install a “good neighbor fence” another 6-8 feet which will completely block our view of the sky from our bedrooms and family rooms. This is a health issue for seniors who now can enjoy privacy and open sky in their back yards. There is also the issue of maintenance of the gap between two fences.
3. The revised design, which showed single story houses along the Ironwood east wall, is an absolute necessity. Two story homes on pads already 6 feet above our back yard level is unacceptable. We would also hope the ADU units would not be on homes that back up to the existing east wall.
4. Soil contamination of the existing soil is a big issue. There will be a significant amount of dust and dirt in the air and we have not seen evidence that the fill that has already been used on the Arroyo Lago site is safe. Some of it came from Sunnyvale, where silicone valley companies have many toxic chemicals.
5. I know you are addressing traffic, which will be a significant issue. There will be impact on morning traffic with children going to Alisal grammer school, Harvest Park middle school and Amador Valley high school. Currently, traffic trying to go south on Santa Rita in the morning to get to Alisal or Amador backs up past Mohr Avenue. Adding more traffic to that mess is a mistake for all of us.
Again, thank you for your work on this. We hope the City of Pleasanton will take comments from the residents seriously and incorporate them into building plans.
Sincerely,
Bob Watson
Resident (74 years old)
The Village at Ironwood
Submitted On:
Jan 31, 2025, 04:51PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: David
Last Name: Atwell
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 12
Comments January 31, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members:
Subject: Feb 4 City Council Meeting regarding annexation, Agenda item 12
I live in the Village of Ironwood with my property line being against the west wall of the development. I am writing this memo to discuss the west wall side of the project. Specifically I have one question regarding this project; Why is the developer proposing to build a 6 foot tall retaining wall on the west end of the development? A beautiful wall built by Ponderosa already exists at the West property line. This existing wall is sturdy, blocks noise and other nuisances, and is a wonderful property divider.
A few months ago I reviewed the projects Arroyo Lago Impact Report (EIR) and under section 3.6 it states and concludes that the Preliminary Geotechnical Report does not identify any landslide- related hazards at the project site and is not within a landslide zone on the west side. I agree 100% with this conclusion in the EIR. There is currently a zero risk of a landslide at the west end of this development.
Notably, the developer’s proposal to add a retaining wall suggests an awareness of landslide concerns. But why? If there truly were no landslide risks as stated in the EIR, why would a retaining wall be necessary? This suggests that the developer believes that this project adds a landslide risk on the west side that currently does not exist there. This is a safety concern for the senior citizens living on the project border, as any landslide risk, even less than significant risk is higher than the current risk baseline of zero risk of a landslide.
I truly believe if the city decides to proceed with annexation, that safety of existing residents should be of high concern. No developer should be permitted to increase safety risks for surrounding communities. The city should require the developer to look at alternatives to the project that do not increase a landslide risk. Two options/alternatives on the west side that could eliminate risks to neighboring properties include:
Establishing a 20-30 foot buffer zone between the Village of Ironwood and the new project, which maintains a similar elevation to the current elevation to create a zero landslide risk area; or 2nd, add an access street between the Village of Ironwood and the new development, at the current elevation level, which would also provide emergency access and a zero risk buffer zone.
Community safety demands thorough and transparent planning, and the public deserves a clear understanding of how this development may affect neighboring properties. The more than 20 senior households living next to this project deserve the highest safety.
Best regards, David Atwell Village of Ironwood Resident Pleasanton, CA 94566
Upload File(s) Annexation of Prperty.pdf
January 31, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members:
Subject: Feb 4 City Council Meeting regarding annexation, Agenda item 12 I live in the Village of Ironwood with my property line being against the west wall of the development. I am writing this memo to discuss the west wall side of the project. Specifically I have one question regarding this project; Why is the developer proposing to build a 6 foot tall retaining wall on the west end of the development? A beautiful wall built by Ponderosa already exists at the West property line. This existing wall is sturdy, blocks noise and other nuisances, and is a wonderful property divider.
A few months ago I reviewed the projects Arroyo Lago Impact Report (EIR) and under section
3.6 it states and concludes that the Preliminary Geotechnical Report does not identify any landslide-related hazards at the project site and is not within a landslide zone on the west side. I agree 100% with this conclusion in the EIR. There is currently a zero risk of a landslide at the west end of this development.
Notably, the developer’s proposal to add a retaining wall suggests an awareness of landslide concerns. But why? If there truly were no landslide risks as stated in the EIR, why would a retaining wall be necessary? This suggests that the developer believes that this project adds a landslide risk on the west side that currently does not exist there. This is a safety concern for the senior citizens living on the project border, as any risk, even less than significant risk is higher than the current risk baseline of zero risk of a landslide.
I truly believe if the city decides to proceed with annexation, that safety of existing residents should be of high concern. No developer should be permitted to increase safety risks for surrounding communities. The city should require the developer to look at alternatives to the project that do not increase a landslide risk. Two options/alternatives on the west side that could eliminate risks to neighboring properties include:
Establishing a 20-30 foot buffer zone between the Village of Ironwood and the new project, which maintains a similar elevation to the current elevation to create a zero landslide risk area; or, add an access street between the Village of Ironwood and the new development, at the current elevation level, which would also provide emergency access and a zero risk buffer zone.
Community safety demands thorough and transparent planning, and the public deserves a clear understanding of how this development may affect neighboring properties. The more than 20 senior households living next to this project deserve the highest safety.
Best regards, David Atwell Village of Ironwood Resident Pleasanton, CA 94566 Submitted On:
Feb 1, 2025, 11:13AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Diana
Last Name: Atwell
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number not sure
Comments Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members,
I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property bordering the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I am writing to express concerns about the project’s impact on our community, particularly regarding the proposed six-foot retaining wall on the west end.
A high-quality, sturdy wall built by Ponderosa already exists at the west property line. This wall effectively blocks noise and serves as a reliable property divider. Given this, why is the developer proposing an additional six-foot retaining wall?
The Arroyo Lago Environmental Impact Report (EIR), specifically Section 3.6, states that the Preliminary Geotechnical Report does not identify landslide-related hazards on the west side and concludes that this area is not within a landslide zone. I fully agree with this conclusion—there is currently zero risk of landslides in this area.
However, the proposed retaining wall raises an important question:
If no landslide risks exist, why is the developer adding a retaining wall?
The need for a retaining wall suggests an acknowledgment of increased landslide risks due to the project itself. If this development introduces any risk—no matter how small—that would still be an increase from the current zero-risk baseline. This is a major safety concern for the senior residents living adjacent to the project site.
If the city moves forward with annexation, resident safety must be a top priority. No developer should be allowed to introduce new risks to neighboring communities. The city should require the developer to explore safer alternatives, such as:
Creating a 20–30-foot buffer zone between the Village of Ironwood and the new development, maintaining the current elevation to eliminate any risk of landslides.
Adding an access street between the Village of Ironwood and the new development at the current elevation level, which would serve as both a protective buffer and an emergency access route.
Community safety demands transparent and responsible planning.
The residents of the Village of Ironwood—whom are seniors— deserve certainty that this project will not compromise their well- being. I have a few more concerning issues with this project that I will send separately. Many documents were sent to the county in which I implore you to retrieve if possible.
Best regards,
Diana Atwell
Village of Ironwood Resident
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Submitted On:
Feb 1, 2025, 12:30PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Diana
Last Name: Atwell
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number Not sure
Comments Mayor Balch February1, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members
Subject: February 4 City Council Meeting – Annexation, Agenda Item 12 Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members,
I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property bordering the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I am writing to express additional concerns about the project’s impact on our community,
I want to express my EIR concerns, particularly its neglect to specifically consider impact on the most vulnerable members of our community, the elderly. I am not sure how I feel about annexation truthfully. Originally, I was a strong advocate, however if it becomes an easy way for Steve Riley's plans to get expedited, I will find it hard to support. If annexation takes place, I request a rezone plan allowing for a buffer zone between the senior community and this new development. After serving my country for 30 years in the USAF and moving around the country quite frequently, I was looking for a quiet place to settle down and enjoy the rest of my life. This project as it stands is anti-seniors, a detriment to their health and has been presented to us by Steve in a strong-armed way on several occasions. Below is what was discussed at the last county presentation a few months back.
The average age in our senior community is 76. This demographic faces unique challenges and are particularly sensitive to changes in their environment.
As a nurse for over 42 years, I have worked extensively with elderly patients. I know first-hand of their many challenges. Their mobility is often compromised, and they frequently rely on assist devices, such as walkers. They walk much slower than the general population, their vision and perception is often impaired, and they are significantly affected by stress and noise.
Research has shown that high levels of stress can lead to cognitive decline, exacerbating many conditions, especially dementia, blood pressure, sleep disturbances and other mental health issues, leading to decreased life expectancy.
For the record, there are numerous legal precedents set, (case laws), where courts have reversed support for development projects due to their negative impacts on elderly populations. To name a few:
• Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley
• Sierra Club v. County of San Diego
• Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento • Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County
These cases underscore the necessity of thorough environmental reviews that specifically consider health impacts on elderly residents.
It is the duty of local governments to mitigate risks and ensure that urban planning reflects the needs and safety of all community members. Buffer zones are critical between new developments and elderly communities, to reduce noise and enhance living conditions.
This is not just a preference; it’s a necessity. Anything less could be viewed as contributing to elder abuse. Several of our neighbors have already sought medical attention in response to this proposed project.
Increased traffic poses unreasonable risks to their well-being. I am truly worried that they will suffer fatal injuries from those cars speeding through yellow lights on the corner of Valley/Bush after having to now wait in longer lines to get through the light.
Lastly, adding many additional homes to our already stressed Pleasanton EMS system will severely impact EMS response times, putting our elderly at even greater risk. The EIR stated no significant impact to EMS on the community of which, I object.
In conclusion, I urge the Pleasanton leadership to create a community that respects and protects our senior residents. Our elderly residents deserve a living environment that supports their health, not one that jeopardizes it. They chose this senior community for a reason.
Thank you for your time
This Distressed piece of land, once looked like swamp land when I moved in with a lake and wildlife frolicking around. This developer created a false look when he placed pumps to remove the ponds, which also removed the beautiful wildlife that frequently visited.
Their wastewater drainage plan for this piece of land is a very questionable design, that from our side of the fence is a disastrous and ridiculous one.
It is Disingenuous and rather disgusting that Steve Riley listed this property for sale while he must have thought that he was going to get a quick approval for his plans. Plans to sell off this project and run away from it would leave the city, new owner, and the elderly population to suffer the consequences which is quite appalling.
Lastly based on the last Pleasanton Counsel meeting involving this project, it was evident that one of your members (community development director) is in support of this developer and not the residents. She showed no compassion and led Karla Brown to believe that it was a done deal which was very disappointing to hear from a city official. Perhaps she should recuse herself from further discussions if she has a bias.
Thank you for your time.
Diana Atwell
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
Submitted On:
Feb 1, 2025, 12:20PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Diana
Last Name: Atwell
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number Not sure
Comments A letter sent to the county back in 2018 as I am not sure what they will be sharing with you. Please include this one with my other two.
Dear Alameda County Community Development Agency, AICP, Rodrigo Orduna, et al.
My Name is Diana Atwell, and I live at 1510 Chatham place in the Village of Ironwood Senior Community, which is the community that backs up against the projected Arroyo Lago Residential Project, currently under environmental impact review.
First of all, thank you for what you do every day for the county and its citizens. County residents especially its senior citizens need people looking out for them, especially when they have less resources and ability to do so.
I have several major concerns regarding this project and the environmental impact moving forward that I will spell out below.
1. Elder Abuse: The definition of elder abuse varies and is complex.
One must consider the environmental impact the project will have in regards to noise and excessive light that will be projected upon those elderly folks that live the closest to this project. These stressors will occur during the development as well as afterwards with the increased habitants in such close proximity . Research has shown that these stresses/exposures contribute to a shorten life span in the elderly population. These stressors can lead to elevated blood pressure, strokes and heart attacks. With these homes projected to be developed so close to the senior community homes, literally a few feet away from our small back fences. It is practically impossible for this not to be the case. Also, the projected elevation of this project could lead to Arroyo homes looking down upon the Village of Ironwood yards, once again shining excessive light into the yards of these homes, especially with the road design also in close proximity to the Village of Ironwood back yards, and master bedrooms.
* Studies have shown that noise can have a direct and immediate impact on an elderly person’s health. Older adults are especially at risk simply because as older human’s they often react with a “fight or flight” response. With obtrusive noise, physiological changes actually are taking place in their nervous system, hormonal and vascular systems, resulting in potentially long-lasting consequence - Sleep disturbances: Uninterrupted sleep is known to be a prerequisite for good physiologic and mental functioning in healthy individuals. Environmental noise is one of the major causes of disturbed sleep. When sleep disruption becomes chronic, the results are mood changes, fatigue, depression, a decrease in quality of performance and other long-term effects on well-being of the elderly . - Cardiovascular disturbances: excessive noise can trigger a negative response to the cardiovascular system and increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease.
- Disturbances in mental health, Noise can accelerate and even intensify the development of mental disorders; however, it is not a direct cause of mental illness. The elderly and those with underlying depression may be particularly vulnerable to these effects because they may lack adequate coping mechanisms.
2. Removal of Endangered Trees etc. What happened to the trees that were recently removed from this projected development site? It is as if this construction company wanted to demonstrate as little impact as possible by removing anything that may have appeared to be endangered or an obstacle, especially protected trees etc. I guess they thought nobody was looking. I have photos that I can share upon request of what the land looked like a prior to their removal.
3. Endangered W etlands and endangered animals improperly removed (i.e. Alameda Whipsnake). As photos from previous years will show. Did they file permits?
4. Blockage of Solar panels on homes in the senior community from several angles. Projected plans show that panels will be blocked at various times of the day and by state law this should not be allowed to happen.
5. Excessive traffic on Busch Road. Many elderly citizens walk by Bush Road every day as there is a large senior apartment complex off of Bush as well as the Village of Ironwood. This excessive traffic will lead to dangerous concerns for the elderly walking in that area who are much slower to cross busy streets. Traffic is already a concern in that area, adding more homes will not be safe.
6. No available EMS/Schools. No accessibility to city fire and emergency responses will delay care for the residents of the projected Arroyo community . Will these builders be upfront and honest about delays that will most likely occur if one of their home buyers should need this service or will they lead them to believe that the city of Pleasanton will assume to burden of EMS as well as the cost of utilizing city Schools etc.?
7. Improper W ater Drainage: No guarantee that water will not drain upon the homes closest to the development as it will be on raised land. Storm and waste drainage is also very questionable, Thank you again for your consideration and let me know if you should have further questions. I served in the United States Air Force for 30 years for the freedom and protection of right for its citizens and not solely for the right of Big Business being deceitful and taking advantage of those most vulnerable, the elderly to make a profit. I am sure if one of their grandparents were exposed to this kind of stress they would think twice and do the right thing, i.e. building much further back on the property, ensures no excessive noise/light would be projected in this aging community as well as closing of Busch Road to traffic would be a move in the right direction.
Diana Atwell
Pleasanton C
Submitted On:
Feb 1, 2025, 11:47AM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Diana
Last Name: Atwell
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number not sure
Comments Mayor Balch February1, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members
Subject: February 4 City Council Meeting – Annexation, Agenda Item 12 Dear Mayor Balch and City Council Members,
I am a resident of the Village of Ironwood, with my property bordering the west side of the proposed Arroyo Lago development. I am writing to express additional concerns about the project’s impact on our community,
I want to express my EIR concerns, particularly its neglect to specifically consider impact on the most vulnerable members of our community, the elderly. I am not sure how I feel about annexation truthfully. Originally, I was a strong advocate, however if it becomes an easy way for Steve Riley's plans to get expedited, I will find it hard to support. If annexation takes place, I request a rezone plan allowing for a buffer zone between the senior community and this new development. After serving my country for 30 years in the USAF and moving around the country quite frequently, I was looking for a quiet place to settle down and enjoy the rest of my life. This project as it stands is anti-seniors, a detriment to their health and has been presented to us by Steve in a strong-armed way on several occasions. Below is what was discussed at the last county presentation a few months back.
The average age in our senior community is 76. This demographic faces unique challenges and are particularly sensitive to changes in their environment.
As a nurse for over 42 years, I have worked extensively with elderly patients. I know first-hand of their many challenges. Their mobility is often compromised, and they frequently rely on assist devices, such as walkers. They walk much slower than the general population, their vision and perception is often impaired, and they are significantly affected by stress and noise.
Research has shown that high levels of stress can lead to cognitive decline, exacerbating many conditions, especially dementia, blood pressure, sleep disturbances and other mental health issues, leading to decreased life expectancy.
For the record, there are numerous legal precedents set, (case laws), where courts have reversed support for development projects due to their negative impacts on elderly populations. To name a few:
• Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley
• Sierra Club v. County of San Diego
• Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento • Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County
These cases underscore the necessity of thorough environmental reviews that specifically consider health impacts on elderly residents.
It is the duty of local governments to mitigate risks and ensure that urban planning reflects the needs and safety of all community members. Buffer zones are critical between new developments and elderly communities, to reduce noise and enhance living conditions.
This is not just a preference; it’s a necessity. Anything less could be viewed as contributing to elder abuse. Several of our neighbors have already sought medical attention in response to this proposed project.
Increased traffic poses unreasonable risks to their well-being. I am truly worried that they will suffer fatal injuries from those cars speeding through yellow lights on the corner of Valley/Bush after having to now wait in longer lines to get through the light.
Lastly, adding many additional homes to our already stressed Pleasanton EMS system will severely impact EMS response times, putting our elderly at even greater risk. The EIR stated no significant impact to EMS on the community of which, I object.
In conclusion, I urge the Pleasanton leadership to create a community that respects and protects our senior residents. Our elderly residents deserve a living environment that supports their health, not one that jeopardizes it. They chose this senior community for a reason.
Thank you for your time
This Distressed piece of land, once looked like swamp land when I moved in with a lake and wildlife frolicking around. This developer created a false look when he placed pumps to remove the ponds, which also removed the beautiful wildlife that frequently visited.
Their wastewater drainage plan for this piece of land is a very questionable design, that from our side of the fence is a disastrous and ridiculous one.
It is Disingenuous and rather disgusting that Steve Riley listed this property for sale while he must have thought that he was going to get a quick approval for his plans. Plans to sell off this project and run away from it would leave the city, new owner, and the elderly population to suffer the consequences which is quite appalling.
Lastly based on the last Pleasanton Counsel meeting involving this project, it was evident that one of your members (community development director) is in support of this developer and not the residents. She showed no compassion and led Karla Brown to believe that it was a done deal which was very disappointing to hear from a city official. Perhaps she should recuse herself from further discussions if she has a bias.
Thank you for your time.
Diana Atwell
Pleasanton Ca. 94566
Submitted On:
Feb 3, 2025, 03:19PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Mike
Last Name: Moran
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date February 04, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 12
Comments Please read the attached 1-page file.
Submitted On:
Jan 30, 2025, 09:02PM PST
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Pamela
Last Name: Hardy Alpert
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included) [email protected]
City Council Meeting Date January 21, 2025
Meeting Type Regular Meeting
Agenda Item Number 12
Comments Dear Mayor Balch & Councilmembers,
We are encouraged by the revised Arroyo Lago and the two alternative East Lakes plans. We concur that annexation of the properties are appropriate. However the scope of traffic mitigation needed per the Traffic Engineer comments to include Busch, Santa Rita and Valley must be scoped out to ensure the applicants acceptance if annexed. The mixed housing types, especially age- restricted market-rate homes are superior as it is needed and will help to reduce traffic , however we don’t believe the assisted living facility is best suited at this site located adjacent to the transfer station and future light and/or heavy industrial nearby ( To include Amazon, gravel and transfer station trucks and tractor trailers).
We would like to see a larger public park (5acres per 1,000 occupancy) per City General Plan —perhaps in the ALUC purview area.
Lastly we suggest modifications should be considered to increase yard setbacks like monolithic sidewalks a reducing sidewalk widths to 5 feet. It is also important to verify if the revised Arroyo Lago pads next to The Villages can be lowered.
We appreciate the applicants revisions to date and we look forward to all of Ironwood, 251 households which are stakeholders taking sole access from Busch Road, being notified in the future by the City.
Thank you
Respectfully yours,
David Alpert & Pamela Hardy Alpert