Town Square

Post a New Topic

Council finalizes rezoning of 32 acres in Hacienda for more housing

Original post made on Nov 6, 2009

The Pleasanton City Council has finalized its decision two weeks ago to rezone 32 acres of commercial properties in the Hacienda Business Park for high-density residential use and at the same time established a task force to help shape the needs of any residential expansion before actual development plans are proposed.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 6, 2009, 7:47 AM

Comments (42)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:33 am

Good move to make sure Pleasanton is not in trouble.

But this does make me hope that Brown does not elected as governor. Too bad there are not too many choices, but anyone will be better than Brown. He is the one who sued Pleasanton, and I hope he does not become our next governor. I will vote for anyone but Brown.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by S>>>
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:53 am

I am from Dublin, too bad Brown had to get involved. I won't be voting for him either. Hopefully Pleasanton won't look like Dublin with those apartments over stores. What a mess it is driving by the old Toyota building with those apartments and BART. I guess no one cares about all the surface traffic the apartments have caused. Dublin planning doesn't make sense. Too bad city goverment has to cave into people like Brown.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 12:13 pm

well, making the state and jerry brown happy is the first priority of Cheryl Cook-Kallio anyway. she repeatedly accused anyone who disagreed with her as someone with attitude against "section 8" housing and low income family. unfortunately, the meeting were on the record and not one single person ever said they look down to the low income families! when pressed to identify the persons who said that, Cook-Kallio simply said several people said that in front of her, not in the public meeting though... i guess that is it. whatever she said is solid proof already.

the residents in the business park actually paid lots of money every month to the business park and this is what they got in return! i bet all those great people who support this decision never spent a cent of their own to the great business park!

shame on them!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam wrote: "the residents in the business park actually paid lots of money every month to the business park and this is what they got in return"

The actual property owners of the properties in question also pay those dues. Don't make it out like the residents get any special status over the property owners.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam also wrote: "well, making the state and jerry brown happy is the first priority of Cheryl Cook-Kallio anyway."

If that were the case, she wouldn't be voting yes on rezoning because a no vote would allow a judge to come in and dictate to Pleasanton exactly whatever Jerry Brown wants built.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 1:37 pm

the other property owners paid money because they actually GOT SERVICE from the business park. but the residential people got NOTHING back! God, you are dumber than what you already sound!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 1:39 pm

make sure the state is happy with us was HER OWN word! check the record! no wonder pleasanton got such kind of politician. They got cheer leaders such as you, Stacey!

oh, did you ever pay anything to the wonderful business park? no, then shut up!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam,
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 1:58 pm

stacey,

if you look up dictionary for the word "hypocritical", you will find your picture in it. that rezone and new high-density apartment has nothing to do with you, you are not paying a thing, therefore you support it so that you feel good about yourself. therefore you are saying it is ok for those people living the business park to pay the money. therefore it is ok for those people to see they home losing values because of the wonderful ideas of those council members! you don't care so you pretend to care!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Cheryl Cook-Kallio owe people an apology for calling them discriminating the low income families! when she throw out that accusation, she'd better show some proof! the fact is, she got her words and her words only!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam,

Why the vitriol?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam wrote: "the other property owners paid money because they actually GOT SERVICE from the business park. but the residential people got NOTHING back!"

What services are commercial property owners getting that residential property owners are not and isn't that then an issue to be taken up with Hacienda management? That's not a City problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam wrote: "make sure the state is happy with us was HER OWN word! check the record! no wonder pleasanton got such kind of politician. They got cheer leaders such as you, Stacey!"

I haven't seen the video yet so I'm not going to deny that it wasn't said, but I'm pretty confident that you're taking something out of context. If the State isn't happy with actions taken over this matter, we could lose local planning control. Then the residents in Hacienda that you seem so angry over will have even less say than now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam also wrote: "therefore it is ok for those people to see they home losing values because of the wonderful ideas of those council members!"

For some information regarding connections between affordable housing and the property values of neighboring properties, I recommend "Growth management and affordable housing: do they conflict?
By Anthony Downs" Web Link

Sam,
We can be civil towards each other. I'm a neighbor of the business park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:35 pm

according to the record, the people in the residential area paid 180K each year to the business park to fix/maintain the things that are NOT in their complex at all!

in fact, even the council members, all of them, are calling this arrangement "unfair"! oh, they didn't know that was the case (of course they didn't) by the way.

with the new development, the business park will push more charge to the residents! everyone was saying the new development has nothing to do with the residents. actually, that will be GREAT if that is true! but we all know what will happen, the residents will pay!

that is why it is a city problem! that is why the people living there has the right to speak out. that is why people such as you has no position what so ever to say anything about those residents!

if you are one of those who paid every month, welcome to say anything you want!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by parent
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Yeah,
they'll complain about no elementary and get one but those of us that PAID for one years ago will never see the Neal school built. Now with 1000 homes built out on this corridor shouldn't they make that elementary happen first. We have to travel 3 - 4 miles to get to an elementary school - never mind the upper levels. Yeeesh!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam,

If you have links to other studies detailing impact on property values to neighboring properties, please provide them and we can discuss them here.

In the link I provided above there's a chapter on the different types of subsidized housing and property value impact to neighboring single-family dwellings. The conclusion points towards either a positive, negative, or minimal impact that depends upon the design of the subsidized housing (City Staff mentioned a similar conclusion from their own research). If we lose local planning control, we may end up being unable to control the design.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm

ok, stacey,

let's try to have a civil talk.

if you look at the end of the meeting last month when Cheryl Cook-Kallio started her talk, you will see she was pressing how important it is to let the state and jerry brown feel good about the city. yes, she specifically said "jerry brown"!

also during that meeting, she was saying "the rezoning does not mean any real development"! she just wanted to push the state off the city's back. so rezone for the pending litigation. nothing real will happen. but in this week's meeting, all of the sudden, she wants a schedule to get everything done within 12 months! are you surprised by such a change? of course not. none is. it just tells how politicians get their way inch by inch. and that is what i am mad at them.

right now there are students sitting on the floor at foot hill high school. and you know what the answer was from the school district? "we have plenty of money to build even new schools!" that is also on the record and you are welcome to check it out. it was the school district meeting last month. wow, i didn't know our school district has that much money! i did hear the layoff, cutting program, etc....

anyway, i am just resident, so what do i know...

imagine what the new 1000 apartments will do to our school? one lady actually said that was ok in last month's city council meeting since the "school was crowded when her son was in!" sigh, it was wrong to have the school crowded then, and it is wrong to have it crowded now! why that doesn't make sense to that lady, i will never know.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 2:57 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam,

I have not lived in the business park so I have not paid any of these fees. I have not said anything negative about "those residents" and I even defended their right to be involved in the planning through the task force because they pay these fees in an earlier thread on this subject. All I'm saying is that there's no other special status conferred upon Hacienda residents that trumps the status of the actual property owners because of these fees.

As a neighbor to the business park, I have a stakeholder interest in the traffic and school issues. As a resident and taxpaying homeowner in Pleasanton, I have a stakeholder interest in the lawsuit against the City. I don't want to see a judge telling Pleasanton what we can and can't build.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sam,

I'll get back to you with more thoughts on the Council meeting once I see the video of the most recent meeting (I forgot about the meeting!).

Your report regarding the school district having money to build schools is funny. As I understand, there's money for capital expenses like facilities. They're not allowed legally to use those on operating expenses. Building new schools is a whole other issue and you might get Julie Testa here commenting on that. :)

So I'm to take it that you're a resident of Hacienda?

I hope they don't just build apartments. I'd like to see a mix with owner-occupied units too. The question is as to how we can encourage more desirable developments and designs.

Over in Dublin it seems to me like it is just rows and rows of apartments. I don't think that's what Pleasanton has in mind. The rezoning is to mixed-use, not high density residential only. If left up to a judge, we might not get a choice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patrick
a resident of Castlewood
on Nov 6, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Hey Sam,

The proof that we have residents who spew vitriol against low-income individuals is in the minute of the Planning Committee meeting. Have you read them? You should - it's very eye-opening. Horrific. The number of people who said things like we shouldn't build low-income housing because THOSE people's relatives were going to come to Pleasanton on BART and rob Pleasantonians were astonishing.

Read the minutes. Listen to the tapes. Not a proud moment for our town.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 3:28 pm

stacey,

i see your point that you don't want the judge or the state to tell us what to build there. and i don't want that neither.

but based on my observation of what was going on during those city council meetings, i do not have any confidence that the decisions made by the city council will be any better. they never addressed the school issue. like one of the attorney said, public school means "when kids show up, they take them"! i am afraid that will be the reality! you can check the record of last month's planing committee meeting and find out who said that!

as for the traffic, they are bragging about how everything is within half mile of those three sites. well, one more thing that is within half mile: the junction of 580/680. that part of 580 has been ranked as one of the most jammed area in the entire bay area. those 1000 apartments units can only make it far worse! i think you will agree with me that even though "everything is within half mile", including the great BART, every family will still has at least one car! so that is 1000 cars minimal! and they are saying there is "no impact" at all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm

stacey,

i also agree that those three sites should be put into mixed use, not just high density apartments. i have absolutely no problem with building affordable housing there, but i am opposing building nothing but affordable housing there. i have read some articles/books on this subject and lots of research has showed that building a concentrated affordable housing area has a very negative impact on the people actually living in there. the best solution is to spread and mix them with everything else, single family house, condos, apartments etc.

and the school! to me, that is no.1 issue here. that has got to be addressed before the projects are approved, not afterward. often times that the government only works to clean up the mess, not prevent the mess in the first place.

stacey, i hope that you will continue to pay attention to those issues and add pressure to the council members (all of them) so that something good can come out of this. i, as i said, am not optimistic about that at all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 6, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Concentrated affordable housing is contrary to Pleasanton policy and wouldn't happen. What is being considered is 15% affordable tops. That includes very low, low, and medium range salary affordable housing.

Also, Sam, you mentioned that Cheryl Cook-Callio wants everything done by 12 months. WRONG. She would like a report back from the Task Force in 12 months. That's it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 6, 2009 at 9:20 pm

david,

did you by any chance already look at their plan? if not, then how do you know it is 15%? also 15% or not, what those 1000 units are going to do to our schools? where is the plan to handle that?

also, she wants to have that report in 12 months. but do remember, there is a "good cause" thing there. what will happen is by the end of 12 month, she will say good bye to that task force and show green light to the developers in the name of "good cause"! that's just how politics works! let's mark this day and look back in one year! we will know who is right. i am sure she can come out different excuses as all politician do. you buy it, i won't!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Sam -

They said it was going to be 15% at the Planning Commitee meeting. The same meeting where people were freaking out that affordable housing residents were going to rob them and destroy the neighborhood.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Any chance Sam could be Matt Sullivan? Talking about taking comments out of context!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 9:21 am

so it is just some words they said!

they also said nothing real will be built, just rezone for the litigation.
they also said only rezone two sites, instead of three. then cheryl cook-callio said no no , has to be all three sites.
they also said the task force will start to work "7am tomorrow" a year ago. not happening even now.
they also said the school district has "plenty of money for new schools" while they are letting students sitting on the floor.

politicians words just worth that much.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 9:29 am

to the "anonymous" person who doesn't have a name,

if i am matt sullivan, i guess that will make you cheryl cook-callio.

so next time, everyone should put the entire meeting record online to avoid "taking comments out of context"!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2009 at 10:07 am

Or actually watch both planning commission, combined meetings and council meetings because Sam has it all mixed up and out of order.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 10:16 am

the planning commission only approved site 1 and site 2 for rezone, but not site 3! that was their final vote and was written down in their proposal to the city council. then in the city council meeting, cheryl cook-callio insisted to add site 3.

so tell me where is the "mixed up and out of order"? are you saying the planning commission didn't approve just two sites? can you read?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2009 at 10:57 am

Yes, I can read. I can read the planning commission minutes and I can read the general plan. I can also read California State Law.

I was specifically referencing the negative comments made about renters at the planning commission and the misinformation about what the joint planning commission meeting recommended regarding the task force and when it would go into effect relative to the approval of the general plan. It's amazing that misinformation can be repeated and repeated and then reported as fact.

Pleasanton has been out of compliance with the state mandated numbers for more than seven years. Pleasanton has repeatedly said that it would come into compliance and hasn't and now is facing the loss of local control over where land will be rezoned. Some council members have said for years that there needs to be some density near BART. Yet has done virtually nothing. The state thinks the city is giving it lip service. That is why the city is being sued. All of the council members have said something needs to be done about affordable housing, including Cook-Kallio and Sullivan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 12:12 pm

the task force was supposed to be formed a year ago and city manager Nelson said on the record it will start to work "7am tomorrow" LAST YEAR. where is the task force even now? who is on that task force NOW?

so i guess someone definitely lied!

only two sites were required to "make the state happy" with us, then why Cheryl Cook-Callio insisted to have all three of them rezoned?

you know what the state should have done? mind their own business and clean up the mess they already created!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 12:15 pm

it took them more than a YEAR to just remember they have promised to form a task force. but now the task force has to finish a report within 12 month! wah, if the city council had that kind of efficiency in keeping they own promises!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 7, 2009 at 1:51 pm

All 3 sites were approved because of additional information provided by the City's attorney to the litigation at the City Council meeting. Information that wasn't provided at the Planning Committee level.

This is all easy information to obtain via the City's website. Why not do some research? Or better yet, volunteer to be on the task force!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 2:06 pm

i was there in both of those meetings! where were you david? how about next time you show up in the meeting, instead of relying on the city website!

one planning commission member specifcially asked is it sufficient to just rezone two sites. the answer from the attorney was yes! the same attorney you mentioned! that is why they made the proposal to the city council to rezone just two sites!

all that was good until cheryl cook-calio came to the picture!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Nov 7, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Stacey! The old bitty is back!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 7, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Sam,

I was at both too. The attorney who replied "yes" to the question at the Planning Comitee meeting is not the attorney I'm talking about. There is a lawyer specifically retained for the litigation, NOT the city attorney who spoke at the Council meeting who clarified that rezoning the 3 sites was needed, not the 2 that the Committee rezoned.

Seriously - pay attention please.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 7:52 pm

david,

the name of that attorney please! the one you were talking about... as far i remembered, the same two guys showed up in both meetings!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by fact checker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Doesn't it take three votes????? Isn't this where Sullivan wanted housing? By the Bart station?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Nov 7, 2009 at 7:59 pm

also based on what you said, we got different attorney talking about opposite things on the same question! wow, i feel so confident about the ability of this city to win the litigation already. another proof of tax payer's money well spent! i am sure they will have a "good plan" for the future development since they are so competent!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2009 at 8:10 pm

you could move or run for office yourself. . .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 8, 2009 at 8:48 am

Sam, I don't know the names of the lawyers but I am pretty sure the lawyer running the litigation is an outside lawyer and not on City staff. He was not at the Planning Comittee meeting but came to the Council meeting as part of the closed session before the open session to talk about the lawsuit. I think he was sitting up in front in one of the "public" seats. Hope this helps.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


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

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,172 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 869 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 678 views