|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
One of Pleasanton’s busiest intersections — Stanley Boulevard where Valley and Bernal avenues connect — is about to get more traffic, a lot more.
Large earth-movers are now preparing the fenced-in 16-acre site along Bernal across from McDonald’s for construction of a 345-unit multi-story apartment complex and retail center that will be one of the largest ever in that part of Pleasanton.
When completed, it will be home to up to 1,000 tenants in upscale one, two and three-bedroom apartments in a number of all-rental buildings.
The complex, to be called Vintage Village, will feature a gateway monument sign at the corner of Bernal and Stanley, elevated slightly to camouflage the parking area along both streets for the retail stores at the corner of the development. The project will include two-, three- and four-story apartment buildings on what is now on the barren acreage just north of Congregation Beth Emek.
Although approved for construction by the City Council as part of its court-ordered and state-mandated agreement to provide more high density, affordable housing, this development by Carmel Partners is hardly “affordable” in the sense of serving those with low or moderate incomes.
It will have some of the highest rents in Pleasanton, starting at $1,900 a month for a studio/one bedroom, going to $2,262 for a regular one bedroom, $2,803 for two bedrooms and $3,427 a month for three-bedroom units.
At the developer’s request, the council waived the requirement to make at least 15%, or some 52 apartments, available as below-market-rate units. Instead, Carmel Partners paid the city $4.5 million when it took out its building permits so that it could offer all 345 units at upscale rents.
Those units, which would have remained affordable at low-income rates in perpetuity, likely would have cost the developer much more over the long term.
The option was seen as a win-win offer. The city deposited $1,041,421 of the in-lieu fee to its Lower Income Housing Fund for future affordable housing purposes. The rest — $3,458,579 — was placed in a special fund for a one-time operating program or capital project, which could also include an affordable housing project.
In favoring the waiver, the council determined that Carmel’s payment will provide the city with the flexibility to consider either an affordable housing project in the future, or a one-time operating program or capital project that would be determined through the city’s annual priority setting, budget and capital improvement program process.
Across town, work is underway nearing completion on other apartment complexes that also were part of the settlement agreement between Pleasanton and Urban Habitat, an Oakland-based affordable housing coalition that successfully sued the city over its 1996 housing cap and lack of adequate affordable, workforce housing.
A 168-unit, three- and four-story apartment complex at 5729 West Las Positas Boulevard near Stoneridge Drive in the Hacienda Business Park, is nearing completion. Being built by St. Anton Partners, a California-based multifamily development company, it is located on a 5.6 acre site next to ValleyCare’s outpatient medical office building.
Also part of of nine sites on 73 acres rezoned for high density housing is the project just recently started by Essex Property Trust, consisting of high-density apartment buildings with 498 units in three-and-four-story buildings in Hacienda Business Park.
That development on two building sites includes mixed-use, high density residential and commercial units with “live/work” apartments and ground-level retail space at the southeast corner of Owens Drive and Willow Road and at the northern corner of Gibraltar and Hacienda drives. More than 70 units that will be available to lower income households.
Yet to come are two other high density housing projects already approved by the City Council. They include:
– A 177-unit apartment complex in buildings as high as four stories on a 6-acre site at 5850 W. Las Positas Blvd., across from Hart Middle School, being built by SummerHill Apartment Communities. A vacant one-story building now on the site that was built in 1984 and most recently occupied by clinical laboratories for SmithKline Beecham, will be torn down.
– A two-, three- and four-story apartment complex in the California Center at Rosewood Drive and Owens drives buildings to be built by Pleasanton Partners. It will have 305 studio and one-two-and-three bedroom apartments and a retail center at the corner.
We are screwed if they put in those 1,300 homes in the Eastside Plan!
Make sure you let our City elected officials heae about your pain and misery of our creeping sprawl that THEY let happen!
Enough is Enough!
What is going on????/ No more building in this town!!! Stop!!! Stop!!! I wish the City Council vote was today…I would vote them all out of office;we need a CC that is not in bed with the developers & with their pocket books $$$$. Stop the SPRAWL NOW! We are not Dublin, don’t make us one!!
@Barry, “Creeping Sprawl”? More like explosive sprawl. The Tri Valley is becoming the new San Fernando Valley. I do agree with you when you say contact your Councilmembers. But the “Train has left the Station”. Jerry Pentin seems to want to stop or slow down the East Pleasanton Plan and suggested people write or call the other Council Members and suggest the same. Need a new Council, one not beholding to the Chamber, Developers and Old Money.
Why is this story being written as if this is a new development about
an already planned and approved project.
This plan has been well publicized and we have know about it for many months.
My first thought when I saw the headline was that an entirely new separate
project of the same size and scope of the one being put up at Stanley and Bernal was just approved at a location somewhere new and additional to Stanly and Bernal.
I believe a better way to have written the story would have been to title the article as “Building now beginning on the approved high density project located at Stanly and Bernal”.
Just one question: Where are all these people coming from, who are going to live in all these new places????
What about new schools? There is no mention of a new high school or other school being built. Amador is already impacted. We live 1.5 miles from Amador and are forced to drive 6 miles to Foothill. Please tell me there is hope for a new high school?
Wow. Our City Council was bought by Carmel Partners and it’s called a “win-win”. The City gets out of having to put in affordable housing, and the developer gets to make much more money in the long run. Meanwhile, the current residents (I live in the Shadow Cliff Neighborhood) get to deal with an incredible increase in traffic and congestion from the largest development ever built in that part of town. Sounds like a lose-lose for the citizens, City Council.
I don’t see any outrage about the water, isn’t that an issue here ?
Can’t we just stop for awhile until we get a handle on our lack of water? In a drought it can’t be build as usual. City government are you listening?
Everybody needs to slow down and relax. Do you remember when a Home Depot was proposed just a few years ago and all you “no growthers” shut it down because you didn’t want it? Another large store proposed shortly after The Home Depot project was also shut down by local residents. You need to think a little into the future…ever wonder what would happen to that bare land over time? Sure it’s just not going to sit there and do nothing but make you happy. Now we have to meet State guidelines, and VOILA!, apartments pop up to help us meet our State housing requirements. Next time you vote a project down, whether it be retail, commercial or residential, THINK about what could be the alternative in the future…..There you go, exercise some common sense.
Oh, and I wonder how much less water a Home Depot Store would use compared to 300+ new apartments……?
Too much traffic on 580 and 680……..schools are packed and overwhelmed. No water to water our lawns……..Business are leaving. What’s next Jerry? Let the building continue in Dublin but not Pleasanton. Enough is enough. Our infrastructure cannot handle anymore ill planned programs. It’s time for a recall. Concerned citizen.
Well, I guess this is what happens when the “powers-that-be” reject the proposed Home Depot a year or two ago on this property (excuse was too much traffic)……..now we have this which has already y been approved. So, is this going to be less traffic? I think not.
@Common Sense: “Everybody needs to slow down and relax. Do you remember when a Home Depot was proposed just a few years ago and all you “no growthers” shut it down because you didn’t want it? Another large store proposed shortly after The Home Depot project was also shut down by local residents. … Now we have to meet State guidelines, and VOILA!, apartments pop up to help us meet our State housing requirements. Next time you vote a project down, whether it be retail, commercial or residential, THINK about what could be the alternative in the future.”
I think that your logic is mixed up a bit. The reason that we have to build more housing in Pleasanton, including high-density housing, is that our city did not exercise enough restraint on business growth in the past. More businesses in our city mean more jobs in our city. And more jobs in our city mean that, by state law, we have to provide more housing for all of those additional workers. Jerry Brown’s memo to Pleasanton years ago explicitly pointed out the fact that the Pleasanton jobs per Pleasanton resident ratio had reached an outrageous value. I forget what it was exactly but I think it may have been around 2 Pleasanton jobs for every adult resident of Pleasanton. That’s what led to the lawsuit against Pleasanton and the requirement to build more Pleasanton housing.
The way to break the cycle is for Pleasanton to say “No” to more businesses, but it seems that Pleasanton city leaders have historically had a difficult time saying “No” to more business. Instead. they wanted to say “Yes” to more businesses but “No” to more housing which is against state laws, and as they found, trying to argue with the judge is an exercise in futility. The law is the law, whether you like it or not.
Bottom line: If Pleasanton wants to limit further housing growth then it has to learn to say “No” to more businesses. There’s no other way.
Wow-how are the current schools going to accommodate all these new families? The elementary schools are crowded, the middle schools are at their highest enrollment yet and the high schools are over enrolled. Please start working on a plan to address the over crowding in our schools.
Water, water, everywhere…whoops
To Scott Walsh…. Jerry Pentin has just flip flopped on this one.. He voted YES to go ahead with this idiotic development!!!!!
Other YES Votes: Mayor Thorne! Kathy Narum! Kook-Calio!
The ONLY SANE VOTE was Karla Brwon who was pleading not to go ahead with this STUPID PROJECT…
Jerry Pentin has to put his vote where his mouth is! He will get a chance at the 5-19-15 Council Meeting!!!
TALK IS CHEAP! HIS EXTENSIVE DEVELOPER CAMPAIGN DONATIONS AND PRO DEVELOPMENT VOTES HAVE HURT!!!
I would be very happy if he is a SLOW GROWTHER NOW!
Damon’s comments are accurate. If you’re looking to blame anyone, blame Governor Jerry Brown for forcing, by state law, the Mayor and City Council to rezone and approve high-density housing projects in Pleasanton. And you can blame prior City Councils for approving major business after business after business (Workday, Safeway, and the list goes on and on and on….). You reap what you sow.
To Kathy, Victor, and Common Sense, all good points, and yes, if folks had thought about the alternative to Home Depot (i.e., high-density housing), maybe we’d have a Home Depot there instead of 345 apartments and 1,000 new residents, and the incredible increase in traffic that’s sure to follow (along with more overcrowded schools, increased burden on other city services and infrastructure, and additional strain on an already limited available suppy of water).
All these developers care about is making money…lots of it. The developer working on the Stanley and Bernal mega project is from L.A. They could care LESS about ANY negative effects their development has on Pleasanton. They’ll build it, and then collect millions for years to come, or sell off the whole development for a tidy, handsome sum.
You think traffic is bad now on First Street (which cannot be widened–go ask the City Traffic Engineer) and Bernal? You just wait–watch in a couple years when the City and it’s Traffic Engineer will be looking into turning Bernal into a local 4-lane expressway to deal with the overwhelming increase in traffic that’s coming.
Not to mention–where’s the water gonna come from for 1,000 more residents?
Thanks Jerry Brown, Urban Habitat, and City Planners. “City of Planned Progress?” More like “City of Misguided Progress.”
The Mayor and City Council have no power/authority (i.e., ‘local control’) over anything when it comes to this mess–other than rezoning land to turn Pleasanton into Dublin. Maybe the ongoing drought will give them leverage to stop this urbanization assault on what was a small town.
The quality of life is slowly ebbing away in the entire Tri-Valley.
this is haphazard work by the city council. took the money & sold it to the builders at our (residents) inconvenience. no new elementary , middle & high schools to accomodate new children…….sounds like this is gonna be a disaster .
i am glad I am starting to look to get out of this city…….go on make the life quality third-world.
I moved to the Tri-Valley 22 years ago from Silicon Valley because there was traffic on the freeways even on the weekends and I thought that was ridiculous. Well, guess what, it is that way now on either 580, 680 or 84. With the new outlets 84 is a joke in the afternoons on the weekends. It is so sad that they just keep growing and don’t do anything about the infrastructure.
Thank goodness my kids are almost done with school here in Pleasanton because that, by far, is the saddest victim of this whole boom. They will promise schools but will NEVER build them UNLESS they put in the developers contract that they HAVE to build the school before the houses. I completely agree the schools are so crowded and the city does nothing to alleviate this except a bunch of false promises. Oh and by the way, I didn’t realize this had all been approved, I read the paper every day and thought it was just on paper that it actually wouldn’t happen but I guess that was the Danville affordable housing. I see absolutely NO reason why the city council would have approved this when it doesn’t meet any of their forced criteria. Seems a little fishy to me….
When you look at (or drive in) the incredible commute traffic all around Pleasanton, it is clear that Pleasanton will become FAR MORE people-intensive in the coming years, rather soon. The only question is: in what exact way? Some choices re that, but the onslaught is so inevitable that I’m surprised to see people hope to retain “small-town feel.” Looking at the standing-still freeways, it seems obvious that that ship has sailed — not recently but long ago.
@Jennifer – The legal immigration into the US is over 1 million per year. California has 25% of the illegal immigrant population. In the Bay Area 36% of the people living here were not born in the USA. Where do you think they are coming from?
Barry, check your facts–Karla Brown voted for the development this article references on a 5 to 0 vote. She also voted to take the 4+ million dollars from the developer instead of having the affordable units. Does that mean she has taken extensive campaign donations from developers?
The rational from Brown above ” around 2 Pleasanton jobs for every adult resident of Pleasanton. That’s what led to the lawsuit against Pleasanton and the requirement to build more Pleasanton housing. “. If the job/housing balance is so far off, why do 60-70% of Pleasanton adults still drive to jobs outside of Pleasanton.
When you have 70% of Pleasanton adults driving to jobs outside of Pleasanton, it means that each additional house adds to the traffic problem; locally and regionally.
How about this as a new requirement for high-density housing that is ‘supposed to help traffic’; no garages and parking for visitors only. The developer will need to figure out how to utilize public transportation or augment it to solve those people getting around.
To handle the overcrowding of schools where the planners say that the apartments will not have many kids in them, charge a very high school impact fee for each apartment unit being built. If no kids live in those apartments for 10 years, the developer gets the money back. I am sure that will stop the developers from saying this new housing is for the younger single generation and will not impact schools.
We’ve been Pleasanton residents for almost 30 years and have very much appreciated “slow growth” which, we believe, was instituted by our late Mayor, Ken Mercer, and carried forward by virtually all of his successors. Our son, now 31 and a Sr. Manager in the corporate arena, took full advantage of the OUTSTANDING schools (Donlon, PMS, and Foothill), which greatly helped enable him to attend and graduate from UC Davis, with a (major) degree in Math, and a minor in English, with Honors!
Now, it looks like the city with a population of about 70,000, which still feels like a small town, is expanding way too quickly. This will lead to overcrowded schools, traffic problems, greater crime rate, and a whole host of adverse conditions/problems. Pleasanton – Don’t sell out to mega-developers!
Ron and Carol Russo
Pretty soon,the quaintness of beautiful, old Ptown will no longer be. It’s well on it’s way out.The builders, the one’s who vote for more homes crammed in, could not LOVE this town, or they would leave it alone. The things that are being done are not improvements, except to someones bank account, or name title. They should be ashamed, first, that they have no heart for the place we call home, or they wouldn’t be doing this. How about taking a vote from “WE THE PEOPLE”, who have lived and worked here for 80 years, and their parents, and grandparents before them, that have made this beautiful town what it is? What makes you feel good to be here ? It’s comfortable and easy going. Strolls down Main Street, people walking with their kids, their dogs. You keep slicing the pie, and the pieces get smaller.People love to come and visit ptown because it is what it is. It is already getting more and more uneasy to just be in town ! This town was, never meant to be Disneyland !!! The builders, build, and then they go home, in some other town ! And though I know in my heart, that none of these words will even be read, or matter to the ones that are making these big decisions for “WE THE PEOPLE”,I have to say them anyway. If you were ever caring about anything at all, you would pack up your work crew, and go where someone really wants you. Go build a water park somewhere, since water does NOT seem to be an issue either. Oh wait,…. you’re already doing that too !! The bottom line is, let’s get real. Ptown does NOT need more apartments . They are apartments because we are running out of room to build out, so you build up. Soon, we will look like Silicon Valley. A big, ugly mass of mess and confusion. You know it’s the truth, but doing the right thing does not seem to prevail these days. More is not better, but the rich get richer. A quite different level of thinking. Thanks for nothing.
“US” who love our Pleasanton…..please, plan to attend next meeting on 5/19, 200 Bernal, time I believe 6:30? We need all the support for keeping Pleasanton our Ptown! Lets show developers hands off Pleasanton!
@oldtimer: “The rational from Brown above ” around 2 Pleasanton jobs for every adult resident of Pleasanton. That’s what led to the lawsuit against Pleasanton and the requirement to build more Pleasanton housing. “. If the job/housing balance is so far off, why do 60-70% of Pleasanton adults still drive to jobs outside of Pleasanton.”
Look, I’m not going to argue about how much sense the existing California housing laws do or do not make. That’s neither here nor there. The law is the law and if you get caught don’t try telling the judge that you think that the law is a stupid one. That’s not going to get you anywhere. The important points are (1) that there are housing laws concerning the requirement to balance local jobs with local housing and (2) Pleasanton city leaders chose to ignore those laws, thinking that they could invite all sorts of new businesses into town but yet not be forced to build new housing for all those new workers. Pleasanton city leaders knew that they were taking a gamble and they lost. That’s where the blame for all of this rests – not with Jerry Brown or Urban Habitat or with the law itself. The blame rests on those who knew that they were stretching or breaking the law and thought that they wouldn’t get caught.
What I do not understand is the developer gave more money to the city which then allowed them to waive any lower income units.So this has NOTHING to do with any mandatory state requirements and we are adding 350 very expensive rentals for the benefit of WHO?The traffic in the Santa Rita- Valley Ave area is already ridiculous and as others said….WHAT ABOUT THE WATER.?
I forgot…it is interesting how rents are just rising and rising just because they can.The increases are simple greed and have nothing to do inflation.As always,the rich get richer and the middle class and below get poorer.
Dear Fact Checker, sorry I wasn’t clear about the topic. The 4-1 vote with Karla being the only NO vote was on continuing the process to build the massive 1,300 home development on the Eastside.
Mayor Thorne, Pentin and Narum all voted a BIG Yes for the Developers as usual. It was the same vote for the new crime magnet 7-11 for an out of town developer.
The Yes to Devolpment majority have ALL taken campaign donations from developers while Councilwoman Brown has turned them down.
It’s all public record Fact Checker, please check the voting records and follow the money…
Collecting fees instead of building low income housing does not help solve the issue of providing low-income housing. Really is just another way for the government to assess a tax. Almost a bribe; you pay us some money and we will waive the requirements of you providing low-income units as mandated by the state.
The fee will never be used to provide housing that will keep people off the regional highways as was the charge of the state. At best this will pay for senior housing which was not a traffic issue. Plus when was the last time you saw the government building something cheaper than the private sector. My guess is a $250,000 unit as built by a private developer would cost the government $750,000 to build. Just have to look at the restrooms downtown that the city built for $300,000 (maybe more, I cannot remember the exact number).
I’m guessing that none of these posters will ever admit to voting for these clowns. Lesson learned I hope, a little late though, they have already capsized our ship!!! Anybody running a pool on how we will get all these new kids into our school system?? Plan A – build new schools and tax us to death. Plan B- bring in modules and tax us to death. Plan C- do nothing, pack the kids in like sardines and still tax us to death. Plan D- make the developers pay to upgrade our schools– never going to happen!!! How much longer before the next city elections, hopefully we can hold on till the bums are voted out.
Is there a public forum where we can make them answer questions and explain what has gone down?It is nice to complain here but I would love to see these city council people be put in a situation where they have to defend themselves or maybe better have the newspaoer do a front page story and make them answer.
I live here in Smoketree Commons and watch everyday as I drive by the new development. Traffic is going to be awful, getting into my own unit is going to be a mess but who cares? No one. Everything will always be about more money. More revenue for the city, the rich get richer and I am so sad this is happening…. where are these entrances going to be? What a joke. A mess it is going to be a mess!!!!
Hey “hoops” good luck with that public forum, you can’t even get those “circus performers” to give you any straight answers at a council meeting with a bunch of tax paying citizens present. Everything is pre-planned and set in stone!! We would have a better chance of getting our traffic lights timed to discourage cut through commuters than we would getting the city planners to wake up and smell the coffee
So right Hoops, traffic in Stanley, Valley Ave, Santa Rita area is already at capacity. And Kristine in Smoketree Commons is likely using Valley Ave, to get to our Hacienda job center. Everybody must use Valley Ave, since all alternate routes have systematically been closed off over the years. ONE street only, and it’s full. There must be alternate routes. Hacienda companies need to join employers in Mountain View and companies like Google, who have chosen to take many tens of thousand of employee care off streets, providing corporate shuttles for employees only. With just 2-3 stops, i.e. a Livermore stop, a Stanley Ave stop, and a Vintage Hills stop. How can additional thousands of cars be intentionally planned for already full Valley Ave. Is that called ‘planning’? I thought there were Pleasantonians who are against excessive or unnecessary carbon. Hello??
Any conversation about housing is premature, until after alternate plans are made for accessing our JOB CENTER, and our BART TRANSPORTATION CENTER.
Thanks Trapped, good points.
I see in the mornings endless stream of cars coming from Livermore via Stanley and making right onto Valley, now there will be another 5-700 cars every morning on that corner, and no way to get from Stanley to Santa Rita or Stone Ridge between Valley and Isabel. That intersection is bad enough as it is with people making mad U-turns coming out of McDonalds and Arco in the mornings to head toward Santa Rita, now there will be another wave of cars on the right hand side of the street?
I suggest everyone living in Pleasanton commuting on that road to get dash cams because the madhouse is gonna get madder.
The city council has been irresponsible by approving past developments without being able to provide water to the current residents and the lawsuit by the Attorney General was settled by agreement, not by a judge. The city didn’t put up much of a fight to keep the housing cap in place. They rolled over and, to little surprise, gave the developers what they wanted. Both the city council members and the AG collected developer contributions.