Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton Council rezones 32 acres in Hacienda for more housing

Original post made on Oct 21, 2009

The Pleasanton City Council voted 3-2 last night to rezone 32 acres of commercial properties in the Hacienda Business Park for high-density residential use although no plans for possible high-rise apartments and condominiums are yet planned there.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 7:36 AM

Comments (67)

Posted by Mike B., a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Oct 21, 2009 at 9:03 am

Woo hoo! Get ready Pleasanton, all those nice, friendly Section 8 housing residents will now be able to live right here! Just think they'll be close to BART so all their friends can come & visit (i.e. sell drugs, commit crimes & then commute home) Their kids can all go to our great schools & sell our kids imported drugs & [portion removed by staff for being just mean spirited, right wing rambling] & it's also highly unfortunate that children raised here, returning military, teachers & city workers can't afford to live here.

I really wish I could live closer to the Los Altos Hills where I work too but I don't expect that or ANY city to be forced into subsidizing the housing for those whose incomes who fall under that cities median housing prices. If this sounds elitist & exclusionary, well sorry. I too cannot afford to live where I grew up nor where I work & I have come to accept that. In addition, all of your rhetoric regarding excess pollution generated by commuters, is baseless & simply impossible to calculate. This is simply class envy warfare being initiated on our town, especially when you figure in the effort to halt construction on the large, hillside homes but will favor a Dublin-like unsightly, nightmareish looking high density housing development. On the revenue side, the property tax intake, plus the local monies from construction, maintenance, civic participation & shopping efforts by the hillside homes would easily dwarf ANY revenue generated by low to very low income households.

If Jerry Brown & the social revisionists from urban habitat have their way this will set a dangerous precedent for other cottage communities throughout the state & begin to usher in more government control over what should be local community based urban planning & development.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 21, 2009 at 9:41 am

Parent of Two is a registered user.

Well, all you idiots who elected Jerry Brown to the Attorney General post can all celebrate now. After all, the re-zoning is almost entirely due to his class warfare lawsuit that he initiated against Pleasanton. His past record made him the LAST person that should have been put in a law enforcement role, but liberals turned out in droves to pick ex-Governor Moonbeam and his social re-engineering team. And now we'll have some low-cost, high-crime housing in our city to go along with our unnecessary BART station and various other crime magnets.


Posted by Patricia L., a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Oct 21, 2009 at 9:42 am

More houses. More students. Still no mention of schools? Is that no longer a priority in Pleasanton? Pathetic.


Posted by Patrick, a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:03 am

The first two posters should be ashamed of their mean-spirited stereotyping.


Posted by resident, a resident of Birdland
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:07 am

Agreed, just because this is exactly what has happened in every other section 8 housing development ever constructed, there is no reason to assume it would happen here. After all, this is Pleasanton.

Of course that is what Palo Alto thought too.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:10 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Parent of Two wrote: "the re-zoning is almost entirely due to his class warfare lawsuit"

Actually not. The re-zoning was already considered as part of the General Plan update. The only effect the lawsuit is having upon this planning is that the re-zoning is occurring out of a previously established order whereby a taskforce was to be created and be a part of looking at re-zoning. The Council voted to establish the taskforce in addition to the re-zoning.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:13 am

Parent of Two is a registered user.

To Patrick,

Stereotyping requires two things: knowledge of history and ability to apply it. Low-cost housing leads to more crime. PERIOD.

Check the stats. Look for the percentage of low-cost housing and compare it to the violent crime rate. Then come back, and tell us we're "mean-spirited" for caring about our community, and wanting to avoid the fates of other cities who put up unnecessary low-cost housing.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:16 am

Parent of Two is a registered user.

Uh, Stacey, we agree. I guess I was unclear, but based on the dissenting comments (and the aye votes too), this political leapfrogging was primarily done to pacify Jerry Brown.

He wants every city to become Oakland and Berkeley.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:29 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I think this City was certainly put between a rock and a hard place with that lawsuit. I really didn't understand McGovern or Sullivan's desire to put the City's local control in planning at further risk over the lack of a preexisting taskforce. A judge isn't going to care much about intent through making sure a certain process is followed. One of the Hacienda residents said it best, "It is water under a bridge." Get the re-zoning done and fire up the taskforce.

About the lawsuit itself, really ridiculous Brown's comments regarding "green", as if the State has absolutely no role. The State mandates these numbers and yet where are they providing the regional infrastructure to support those numbers?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:37 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Just an additional observation about the meeting. It seems like "growth management" is treated like a method by which to restrict growth when it is supposed to be a method by which to facilitate control over types of growth. I'm not saying that growth management is supposed to be pro-developer, only that if you destroy your local control of growth management by using it as a means to restrict growth in one area (i.e., residential), you can't even have slow, smart, what-have-you growth. It was this use of growth management that brought us to this "jobs-housing imbalance" that I'm sure we'll all hear more of.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:38 am

Parent of Two is a registered user.

I hope this opens some eyes about Jerry Brown and his rumored gubernatorial run. He's trying to initiate class warfare and trying to mobilize the lower class to vote for his social re-engineering program. He's using the office of Attorney General to force social programs onto cities.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

Stacey is a registered user.

And did anyone else catch Sullivan's "Joe Wilson moment" when he interrupted Fialho with, "That's not true!"

But of course, I'm just a well-known Sullivan basher...


Posted by jim, a resident of Hart Middle School
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:04 am

We did not all three parcels to pacify Jerry Brown, only two. We will have another 350 apaprtments for what reason? We need a park in the business park for all those new residents. Why not make a large park on one of the parcels instead of a useless greenbelt that just has to be mowed and is not wide enough for any activity.
What a great idea to have a park in the business park.


Posted by Mike B., a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:12 am

Ashamed?? Moi?? Patrick you are truly just another middle-class apologist, ashamed of your own success & afraid of what your social do-gooding friends probably think of your living in such a "non socio-racial-eco-global conscious town such as Pleasanton.

Ashamed...I'm damn proud of what I've accomplished & furthermore
[portion removed by staff for being inconsiderate to the plight of the ignorant] you should too!


Posted by Karen, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:13 am

Well I have certainly seen this program before...

The 3 amigos approve a zoning change; The property owner feels he is now entititled to put almost anything he can sell back the 3 in place; The local homeowners were promised a compromise; The locals are screwed by the "3" because now that zoning approvals are in place - a task force has very little power to restrict; The developer donates $$$ to the 3 amigos campaigns in future elections.

Oh yes, and when the communities try to tie down or request reasonable restrictions - everybody cries NIMBYism. The Planning Commission is staffed by hand selected Mayor supporters and the council has a majority of 3 for approvals.

Sounds a lot like Oak Grove to me. Yep been there done that - got screwed.


Posted by Razzzzor, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:38 am

The 3 amigos seem to be trying to balance pending litigation versus planning commission and staff recommendations versus public input. I don't think developer $$$ are a factor since one of them is about to term out. I think I heard it said that there were two public workshops during the planning process, and there were a total of 15 residents combined at both? This planning department sends lots and lots of notices to a wide area anytime any small issue might affect us. Where were the 60 resident who showed at last night's council mtg? And without ignoring the state imposed housing numbers, changing zoning to those parcels to 'mixed use' seems to have given the city some breathing room to explore the options and future use.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Karen,

Ask your buddy Sullivan why he didn't form the taskforce earlier.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Make sure you do NOT vote for Jerry Brown if he decides to run for governor, imagine what he will do to California.


Posted by Outsider, a resident of another community
on Oct 21, 2009 at 1:35 pm

I read this article because I'm involved in writing a housing element for another area, and wanted to let you all know that Jerry Brown had nothing to do with writing the current housing element law, only in enforcing the laws as written by your legislators.


Posted by Jake R., a resident of Downtown
on Oct 21, 2009 at 3:30 pm

As long as this rezoning angers the close-minded, sprawl loving, redneck conservatives in Pleasanton, we can be certain this was the right choice. I guess Jesus told them "thou shall only build single-family stucco boxes" and that "high-density development is the devil."


Posted by Sal, a resident of Birdland
on Oct 21, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Mike B. and Parent of Two,

Boohooo!!!! I'm so sorry rezoning brings out your fears that "different" people might move to Pleasanton. OH THE HORROR!!! Might I suggest you move to Placer County or some other homogeneous community where you don't have to live near "scary, different" people.


Posted by Sanders, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 21, 2009 at 3:48 pm

LOL!!! I love it when CHANGE brings out the fear and hatefulness of our local right-winger minority. The "Mike B"s and "Parent of Two" really show their true colors. Maybe they're angry because their white hoods are on a little too tight.


Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of Val Vista
on Oct 21, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Parent of Two is a registered user.

Jake and Sal,

Why are you assuming that I'm white? That says more about your incorrect assumptions and generalizing about Pleasantonians than it does about my reluctance to encourage low-income housing in a city that has had consistently high school ratings, test scores, and property values.

Many of us moved here because Pleasanton had a certain standard of living, low crime rate, good schools, and a nice downtown area. Now that certain politicos have determined that Pleasanton needs to lower the standard of living, raise the crime rate, and lower the test scores, it becomes a less attractive place to live, at least for those who value a nice, crime-free neighborhood.


Posted by Another Mike B, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 21, 2009 at 6:13 pm


To the backers wait until we vote, and the residents supporting this, move out please...

I have 2 boys and grew up here in town, moved when I was young and worked my way back to get away from the discomfort of lower living standards.
I would challenge any supporter to go to any BART neighborhood (suburban not downtown) and take their kids to dinner and then walk home after dark. Alternative is to drive and then walk through a parking-lot?
It is obscene to think that low income housing will improve any of the local taxpayers HERE who bear 75% of both the tax base and avg P-town resident. There is no plan to ensure this will not extend local burden.

Somebody has to pay for this, people! Two houses next door to to each other in this proposed site will have duplicate homes, only one will cost double ultimatly paid for by the guy who can afford it through HIS efforts.

Then, the people who will get hurt are the people who are living here with loss of value, and then loss of county revenue....See where I am going with this?

Yes Education...
(and without going into that management mess)
Education is the key to a desireable groth here, and lowering our standards will reduce Pleasanton.
I know my parents moved here many yrs ago to get away from an eroding enviornment on the other side of the Dublin Grade. I used to trick or treat on B Street in Haytown ,and look where it is now! This type of politicing is responsible for that deterioration.

I am with the 1st Mike B, if you want to live somewhere like Pleasanton, you must not only show effort, but additionally make it happen, and then protect your right to live here the way you see fit.
I also work here, and to assuume that you can mandate me to lower my standard is discriminating and despicable.


Posted by If they are really out to get you, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2009 at 6:19 pm

Are you paranoid?

When they ran the BARTD to Orinda, crime went way up.

Then there's the example of the poor downtrodden Oakland residents, who took the BARTD there, walked a couple of blocks, broke into a resident's garage to steal her fancy car, and drive home in style. Why not?
Unfortunately the lady was home, and came out to see what was happening, and they killed her.
Now normally the police do not put car theft very high on their priorities, so you can't always say who committed the crime, but because of the murder they actually tracked them down that time. Does anyone know if they were convicted?

BTW How came the BARTD has tracks halfway to Livermore, but they are just used to park trains, and BARTD never installed the station that the poor people of Livermore have been paying taxes for, for 35 years?


Posted by If they are really out to get you, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm

BTW They stole her fancy car anyway, that's how they caught 'em.


Posted by Karen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2009 at 9:16 pm

I actually don't understand why other neighborhoods don't get hounded by the State to put in low income housing like Pleasanton gets hounded...someone mentioned Los Altos before - why doesn't that town have to put in a certain number of low income housing units??? Can someone explain this?

The other problem we're skirting around is the school system...it costs how much (?) around 5K to educate one child per year...if you have a couple of kids and your property taxes are low enough that you're not paying more than $10,000 annually, then it seems that there has to be a shortfall somewhere. I'm not saying we have to educate kids in a pay-for-each-kid system but with A LOT of low income housing, we are bound to have even more costs than we have now and less funding in the whole system. Does commercial property tax make up for it??? Anyone know the answer to this?


Posted by Skeptic, a resident of another community
on Oct 21, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Karen-

All neighborhoods are required to plan for this but it was just poor planning for City of Pleasanton. Now that the State is demanding for the City to comply, the city are acting without thought and without study of the consequences to satisfy the State. Now, the the Developers are using this excuse to dig themselves out from the hole that the industrial park has been under-utilized for many years, especially after Peoplesoft got acquired by Oracle and Sybase or Cisco deserted an entire Dublin site.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

There was one person who spoke at the meeting and provided an interesting explanation for Hacienda vacancy. He noted that Pleasanton is expensive to do business in. If I remember correctly, he mentioned that Pleasanton's business fees are 8 times higher than surrounding communities. It could be one explanation for how the Park maintained vacancy during the boom years.

On the other hand, another person brought up an example of a large corporation that relocated their headquarters to Pleasant Hill because of the mixed-use development around their BART station. They had looked at Hacienda, but found the amenities lacking. So mixed-use can attract business as well.


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:18 pm

stacey,

the other person who claimed to know the "large corporation's relocation " plan was calling himslef a former banker. he happened to be the same person who called the developer's plan "fantanstic"! i don't know about you, but in light of what happened to this country in the last a few years, i got very nervous whenever i heard a banker trying to sell people a "fantastic product"!

at the end of the meeting, that banker was shaking hands with the developer, saying congratulations to each other. clearly, they won! and you are happy for them. it proved one thing: the people never learn!


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:24 pm

last nigth council member chryl Cook-Kallio put up quite a show. while ackonwledging there is a trust and credibility issue between the council and the people of pleasanton, she repeatedly emphasized the importance of establishing trust with the state and Jerry Brown. so there is a council memeber who cares so much about how the state and jerry brown feels.

one year was not long enough for them to establish that task force, let's see how long it takes for the developer to runsh to the field and start to dig. i bet you money moves fast!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Former banker? I heard BART. I didn't write down who he was in my notes. We'll have to wait until the minutes or video come out... Oh, the video is online. This will take a little bit of time to find it...

Sullivan was also quite a show, going on about how conflicted he feels because he supports TOD but then opposes the re-zoning over a process issue.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:38 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

John Reynolds. At 2:56:50 into the video (I lucked out and clicked the progress bar to right at the spot when he was speaking). He's Principal Property Developer Officer for BART.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:45 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I guess I really didn't understand Sullivan's decision. Why would he put Pleasanton's local control of land use planning at risk over a mistake that occurred with process? Which is more beneficial to the majority of Pleasanton residents? Following a process or ensuring local control?


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:56 pm

"a mistake that occurred with process?" wow, you put it better than those politicians. then allow me to ask how many of such "mistakes" do you expect to happen in the future?


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:58 pm

oh stacey, you are right. it was the developer from the wildly successful BART program who said that. Scores!


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:05 pm

also what is the benefit to the majority of the pleasanton resident? so the "minority" who live in hacienda business park deserv to be screwed? guess what, stacey, the schools will be flooded and they are alreay saying the posibiloity of "disperse" students cross the city. yeah, check that vedio that you were watching, "disperse" was the original word from the city manager! everyone of us who live in pleasanton will see our kids dispersed somewhere in the town. i guess for you that is benefical enough.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:15 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

sam wrote: "then allow me to ask how many of such "mistakes" do you expect to happen in the future? "

That's the concern, yes. There's been an obvious breakdown in the governing process that led to the ball being dropped on the taskforce formation. Who was responsible for that? There's four Councillors and one Mayor and for whatever reason they dropped the ball. Which one of them is looking at implementing a follow-up process to ensure that the ball doesn't get dropped again? Not one of them sought answers to that last night, but it was certainly used as an excuse not to approve the re-zoning.


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:24 pm

the ball was not dropped, it was designed to be that way from day one! just one of the political tricks they are fond of playing all the time.

now even if there is a task force, but that task force will be a sorry paper tiger without any teeth. council member chryl repeatedly denied any proposal to add any kind of real influence/power in this so far purely imaginary task force.

and they have the nerve to say credibility!


Posted by Pete, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:56 pm

It is a shame that government intervention was necessary with this process but the lack of process when Prop 13 was implemented, our Community rose above others to thrive. The same government,behind the same man are at it again. Think!


Posted by Pete, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2009 at 12:26 am

The point is..."we can't solve problems by using the same kind of things we used when we created them" Einstein
We have great minds in Pleasanton, maybe not mine, but collectively we solve our future stability as we have in the past.


Posted by john, a resident of another community
on Oct 22, 2009 at 8:09 am

Couple of things came to my mind watching the meeting.
1 - the reason given that people who work here have a right to live here. To that, i would say that i don't know anyone that doesn't commute to another town to work. Its 52 miles round trip for me.

2 - The guy, i assume from Urban that got up near the beginning of the meeting, who was going to help all us bigoted + racist Pleasantonians get thru this, was a dweeb and was in fact, as prejudiced as anyone can get.
His comments were not lost on the good gentleman after him, who pointed out the diversity of his own nieghborhood(and looking at the audience, should have been obvious).

I think it was correctly pointed out in a previous email that we do have something special here(and getting more unique every year). It stays this way because people are here because they want to be, not because they can be. The bar is high, but not impossible for those who are disciplined and make sacrifices to get here. And that makes for superior people and a superior culture -period
I'm not going to say how long it took for me to get here, or what i gave up, but i have the strongest appreciation for this Pleasanton. After 8 years,I can't walk by a piece of litter without picking it up. I know its a small thing but I'm not alone in this.
Bottom line. That SF Urban hw boy makes me believe that i am being asked to open up doors for someone who has neither the discipline or attitude that i want in a neighbor and it is this, above anything else, that i want to hear addressed by the Council and Mayor.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 9:47 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam,

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that Sullivan and McGovern could possibly be in on this great conspiracy of political trickery?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 9:48 am

Stacey is a registered user.

sam wrote: "the ball was not dropped, it was designed to be that way from day one! just one of the political tricks they are fond of playing all the time."

I wrote: "There's four Councillors and one Mayor"


Posted by Jim Van Dyke, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 22, 2009 at 11:16 am

I welcome high-density development in Pleasanton near mass transit, with appropriate planning and review processes in place. I laughed when people said BART would fill the city with thugs, and I'm laughing at similar paranoid comments now. (Too much Glen Beck, somebody?) Seriously and factually, if we want to preserve the planet and open space, we all need to get used to high-density development near mass transit. High density need not necessarily bring high crime, just as low density does not always result in low crime. It's all about effective planning.


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 11:56 am

stacey,

when they have so considerate citizen like you, it doesn't matter who is in or who is not. the fact remains: there was no study what so ever on the safety issue, education issue at all. and there will never be because they already got what they want! the plan was approved. if any of those bad effect happens, i bet you all those supporters are no where to be found! no one will take any responsibility at all, including you.


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Jim,

i completely agree with you that this thing should be done and can be done with"appropriate planning and review processes in place"! but you know and i know that that condition is just an empty sentence. no one will do the planing or review. they don't need to because they are already approved! the task force was supposed to do the review and planing and that is exactly why the task force was never formed!


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Oct 22, 2009 at 1:41 pm

SteveP is a registered user.

I look forward to seeing all the bleeding hearts on this thread moving in next to the new Section 8 housing in Pleasanton.

What's that you say? It's OK to use other people's tax money to subsidize low lifes as long as you don't have to live there? Why don't you put them up at your house, instead of bringing down the property value of all of us who worked so hard to afford to live here? Some things have to be earned. You welfare pushers haven't earned the right to be generous with my taxes, nor are you going to turn Pleasanton into another Berkeley or Oakland.


Posted by jeff, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Oct 22, 2009 at 5:51 pm

Council member Sullivan's comments were indeed "awkward" as he pointed out himself. He has been an advocate for years for TOD at the Pleasanton BART station. He still considers himself an advocate yet he voted against the rezoning to mixed use, even at the entry level qualification of 30units/acre. Mindboggling, but that is politics.


Posted by jeff, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Oct 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm

(jim) "they don't need to because they are already approved!"

Jim, you are certainly free to make things up as you have done here. There are no designs, or reviews of such (which don't exist), nor approvals. Developer 101 (so I am told) is don't spend money until you get zoning constistent with your concept, and then spend sparingly until you get the entitlement. In the meantime, you point to other projects with similar zoning and conditions.

OK, Jim, that's all the help you get for free.


Posted by Kelly, a resident of Avila
on Oct 22, 2009 at 7:26 pm

I thought it was astounding that the council member purported to be in favor of TOD would continue to vote no on something like zoning, especially over some process issue. The other council members were willing to vote on the kind of task force Sullivan was suggesting. They just wanted the staff to look over the language. So he votes no and puts the residence of that area at risk of having NO VOICE in what happens to that area. The task force was not formed because the General plan had to be approved. The city did not get to choose when the lawsuit hearing would take place.

Speaking of political, Sullivan can posture knowing that based on the discussion, the rezoning was going to be approved. He heard the very expensive consulting attorney tell the council and the public the risk of not rezoning. He has the luxury of allowing three council members to protect the local choice of the residence while claiming he is protecting those neighborhoods. If the court directs Pleasanton to rezone, it may be even more density. The council did not have the luxury of time since the hearing is scheduled in November or December.


Posted by Karen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Is it possible to make this low income housing only for people 55 years of age and above? We cerainly need this kind of housing because so many older adults near retirement age have lost their savings in this financial downturn and can no longer pay high property taxes etc. If we could make this housing for older adults, we would be meeting a need in the county/region and we wouldn't have the disasterous impact on our school system that younger residents would bring with them.


Posted by sam, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 8:23 pm

jeff,

your "free" help stinks just as all the free stuff out there. the developers were lining up during the meetings. oh, i guess you cannot count, sorry about that!

city manager nelson said the task force will start to work "7am tomorrow". it was on the record! and he said that one year ago! i see, he meant the tomorrow that will never come! why the word "lie" jumps into my mind, strange!


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2009 at 8:48 pm

It is not LOW INCOME but affordable housing, which means people who are young and or in entry level jobs could afford to rent, you know like the kids we have raised and go out into the world! (at least in theory)


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 9:11 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The concern, and it is a valid one, is that subsidized housing leads to lower property values and the creation of what basically amounts to a ghetto. It is a concern based upon past experience in other municipalities when such housing was constructed in the US after World War II. Much has been learned since then and it does not always need to be the case that the place turns into a ghetto. In the staff report presented in the Council meeting, mention was made of studies that show that the property values property surrounding multi-family housing is tied to design of the development and not growth management policies. We should remember that the Hacienda Business Park has a vested interest in maintaining property values. They're an organization that maintains the Park. They will want good design that promotes property values just as much as the neighbors.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I forgot to add, that it is my own concern as well. I think owner-occupied housing, whether subsidized or not, encourages a certain desirable behavior. I have yet to read up more on this subject though.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Oct 22, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Once again our elected officials are out of step with what the voters want. If Pleasanton voters wanted high density housing they would have bought in Dublin or Tracy. What is wrong with having a different kind of community and not having high rise - high density housing? What is wrong with living across the freeway in Dublin where there is already masses of houses built. Amador teachers and others are not living in Tracy because they can't afford to live in high density housing in Pleasanton....they don't want that kind of housing. If they did they would live in Dublin and be a stone throw away from their job. Jerry Brown has just gotten his wish. Pleasanton officials cave again. We do not need Pleasanton to look like every other Bay Area town. Don't we teach our kids to think differently - be an individual - think outside the box. What does this show them....Be like everyone else....think like everyone else.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2009 at 9:50 pm

Whether we like it or not, most times not. . .Pleasanton has to adhere to state law. The council members are sworn to uphold state law. The council is trying to make the best of a bad situation. The voters of Pleasanton can't vote to not listen to state law.


Posted by Karen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2009 at 10:50 pm

To Anonymous:

I'm so tired of the politically correct vocabulary. It's pretty obvious that if you have a low income (for whatever reason), you need affordable housing...whether you are a senior citizen or a young couple or just don't have a high paying job. A situation like that is very different, in my mind, than supplying housing units which are subsidized by the government.

No one has answered my original question about why cities like Los Altos, Lafayette, Moraga, Alamo, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, etc. are not hounded by the State to put in low-income/affordable (I don't want to offend anyone) housing. No one seems to be pressuring these cities to put in subsidized housing.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 22, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Karen,

Other cities do have these problems with the housing allocation process: Web Link

It is a good question though, how do these other municipalities get away with smaller RHNA numbers? I think it might be related to the job-housing balance. Web Link

I think it was Thorne who spoke about how RHNA is a poor way to go about regional planning. All of the Council pretty much felt the same way.


Posted by Pete, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 22, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Karen

Outsourcing a transportation issue to another community without an infrastructure as capable as ours is not an option.This is not to say that the City of Pleasanton, under the current leadership,will make every effort to create all flexibility available for the cities future. That I'm sure of.If not, the next election will direct our path. Simple as that.


Posted by Give me liberty or ..., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm

My opinion: State mandated zoning controls are unconstitutional. Our city leaders should have had the backbone to fight the extortion/lawsuit all the way to the United States Supreme Court. I firmly believe we would have won, and I would support every tax dollar of mine spent in the battle over this very important local versus state control issue. The fact that our city leaders caved doesn't surprise me. After all, the council leans (way) left and embraces central control (state and federal), stripping the citizens of local control over their destiny.
Low to very low income households -- code words for Section 8 federally subsidized housing and senior housing. I support senior housing. I don't support Section 8 housing.
Many of you have no idea what Section 8 housing is. Please do some homework and learn for yourselves why the program is the failure that it is. Rather than giving citizens a short-term hand up with our tax dollars for a short-term need, it pushes citizens to be dependent on government, long-term, for a basic need – housing.
We're creeping, ever more quickly, to a socialist state.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 23, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Give me liberty or,

I'm not sure I understand you. Zoning has a history of being challenged in the US Supreme Court already and State control of land use was held to be constitutional. Web Link

But zoning itself isn't what is at issue in this lawsuit. There's still a fight coming up. The hearing is in November.


Posted by jeff, a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Oct 23, 2009 at 10:56 pm

All of this talk about Section 8 Housing. Pleasanton has a low income housing ordinance, which requires developments over a certain size to include 15% low income housing. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that a developer would propose a "section 8 housing project" in Pleasanton or that Pleasanton would approve one if one were proposed. Maybe there is something I don't know about in regard to what may be require on these sites. All I saw was mixed use zoning up to 30/acre.


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Oct 24, 2009 at 8:05 pm

I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the developer of a project requiring "low income" housing could, with the blessings of the local powers that be, pay into some sort of "special funds account"(or something like that)as a way of getting around the low income housing requirement...

If this isn't the case, with all the development that's gone on in this city over the last ten/fifteen years, where's the "low income housing"...



Posted by Robyn Banks, a resident of Stoneridge
on Oct 25, 2009 at 1:40 pm

I would like to point out that there is a huge gap between what is considered poverty-level income and what you need to earn to be able to afford the "McMansions" that are being built in the area. How about simple housing for people who earn between $50K and $100K? Where is the subsidy for us? I earn "too much" to qualify for low-income housing, but not enough to buy anything in the area.


Posted by Becky Dennis, a resident of Foxborough Estates
on Oct 26, 2009 at 5:05 pm


Hi, Jerry and Robyn -

If you would like to know where Pleasanton has used the affordable housing fees collected from new development over the years, go to Web Link
Pleasanton has facilitated a considerable amount of affordable rental housing, including varying amounts of Section 8 housing. The use of Section 8 vouchers by individuals varies, depending on the rental market. Only in the last 10 years has Pleasanton fallen behind in its housing obligations as the City planned and approved additional commercial development while restricting residential development for the increasing workforce.

Robyn, you might want to contact Pleasanton's Housing Specialist to see what programs and opportunities are available for first time home buyers. You can get more information at the website link above.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 11 comments | 1,118 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 967 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 4 comments | 254 views