CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 7-21-26

101 California Street, Suite 800, San Francisco CA 94111 | PH 650-571 -220 0 | WEB SteelWaveLLC.com July 17, 2026 City of Pleasanton Mayor Jack Balch and Honorable Members of the City Council P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 jbalch@cityofpleasantonca.gov ceicher@cityofpleasantonca.gov mgaidos@cityofpleasantonca.gov jnibert@cityofpleasantonca.gov jtesta@cityofpleasantonca.gov RE: Arroyo Lago Residential Project (P25-0115, P25-0116, P25-0118, PUD-154, and Tract 8423), Proposed Revisions to the PADA Dear Mayor Balch and Honorable Members of the City Council: In advance of the City Council hearing on July 21, 2026, I am writing this letter as the land owner representative for USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P. (USL) for the Arroyo Lago Residential Project (Project) to respectfully request certain revisions to the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA). We are very appreciative of the City’s collaborative and cooperative approach to help make this critical housing development happen in Pleasanton and look forward to next week’s hearing to bring the Project before the City Council for its consideration and approval. However, for USL to be in the position to proceed with the Project, one change to the current draft of the PADA is essential. The current plans require that Zone 7 grant a utility easement to allow for the Project to be built. The development team has been working closely with Zone 7 to secure this easement, and we are confident that Zone 7 will grant this easement to the City. Unfortunately, in the unlikely event this does not occur, then the PADA must include a “Plan B”. The current draft of the PADA effectively prohibits a Plan B. When this concern was raised to City staff and the City Attorney, we were informed that City staff did not want to allow for a Plan B, and that City staff and the City Attorney instead viewed the use of eminent domain against Zone 7 to secure the easement as Plan B. While we appreciate the effort of City staff and the City Attorney to address our concerns, unfortunately, their proposed solution is entirely unworkable with uncertain timelines and thus unacceptable . First, contrary to assertions in the Planning Commission staff report, proceeding with eminent domain is not “common”, and we believe it would become adversarial and are not interested in funding or pursuing eminent domain against Zone 7. As I’m sure the City Council can understand, we simply cannot proceed with this level of exposure, and we are not interested in a Plan B that would involve the use of eminent domain. Therefore, to