Town Square

Post a New Topic

Court to rule early next year on validity of Pleasanton housing cap

Original post made on Dec 21, 2009

In a three-hour hearing in Alameda County Superior Court Friday, Judge Frank Roesch sparred repeatedly with Pleasanton's legal representative Tom Brown over the city's 29,000-unit housing cap before taking a suit under advisement that claims the cap is illegal.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, December 21, 2009, 7:59 AM

Comments (22)

Posted by Kafka-esque, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2009 at 8:24 am

People of Pleasanton, you vill obey! Your I mean, leaders have spoken, your will, local legislature & wishes do not matter to us, only your strict obedience to the state & the general well being of the citizenry!

...we are soooooo screwed.

Posted by John Z., a resident of Dublin
on Dec 21, 2009 at 8:58 am

Pleasanton voters have already declared that they want a housing cap. It's ridiculous for the County, State, or some other agency to try and tell Pleasanton that they have to build or else. It should be up to the city's residents whether or not they want to build.

It is clear why cities like Alamo refuse to incorporate - they don't want to be subjected to the same strong-arm tactics that are being used against Pleasanton and other Tri-Valley cities.

Posted by Jay, a resident of Danbury Park
on Dec 21, 2009 at 9:33 am

Two thumbs up to the above.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 21, 2009 at 9:44 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Well, there's the little matter of State law regardless of what some majority of voters in a municipality desire.

Web Link

Posted by Sirena, a resident of Val Vista
on Dec 21, 2009 at 10:12 am

I agree with John Z. The majority of people in Pleasanton don't want to expand. Soon the valley is going to look like Oakland to San Jose. One big strech of land with houses and buildings. You can't tell where one city starts and stops. I don't think 580 can handle more traffic during commute time, so why build more apts/homes?

Posted by The Other Mary, a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm

According to data on the City of Pleasanton website, there were over 4,600 apartments built or in process by January of 2002.

Web Link

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 21, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Web Link

"Defenders of the housing element requirement tend to argue that
local governments that comply with the law, by demonstrating adequate
plans, enable more housing to be built....
Using Census data on the number of housing units in each city, I
find no detectable relationship between housing element compliance and
the percentage increase in housing across these communities during the
1990s. Thus, for all the potential merits and benefits of housing element
compliance, one must look to other factors to explain why some cities
experience rapid housing development and other cities experience little.
The analysis suggests that a city's demographic characteristics, its
position in the urban hierarchy, and its physical capacity to
accommodate new buildings are better predictors of housing growth."

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 21, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"The results imply that cities with
compliant housing elements are willing to substitute multifamily (more
affordable) units for a share of single-family units. Nevertheless, it is
striking that one can detect no measurable relationship between
compliance and overall housing production."

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 21, 2009 at 4:05 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"California's housing element requirement
has often gone against the grain of local policymaking because it asks
cities to plan for the needs of the wider region, not just the needs of
current city residents. Indeed, the philosophy behind fair-share housing
policy is that the so-called police power of local governments to regulate land use should be directed toward the general welfare of the region, not just the general welfare of the specific locality."

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

BTW, Jeb, RHNA not RENA.

Posted by Justin, a resident of Mohr Park
on Dec 21, 2009 at 8:39 pm

Jerry Brown has joined in the lawsuit against our city regarding this issue. Please remember this during the next Governor's election. The state "borrows" our tax revenue then sues us.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 21, 2009 at 9:21 pm

I do not get it. Why should the court decide what happens in Pleasanton when voters have already decided. It's not like we have a housing shortage. The other thing I don't get is that why in the world does every city in California have to build out every square inch of open land. Look at the mess in Dublin which is right over the highway from Pleasanton.....why do we need to have something like that! We should not be strong-armed into building beyond the housing cap that was voted in years ago. There is no reason to cover every piece of land that exists. There is plenty of housing available in Dublin, San Ramon, and Livermore if there isn't enough in Pleasanton. Say NO to Jerry Brown. Vote NO for Jerry Brown. Tell Jerry Brown to stay focused on his own job and leave Pleasanton alone. He doesn't live here and he doesn't live here. If he wants more affordable housing - tell him to build it in his own back yard.

Posted by Karen, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 22, 2009 at 9:52 am

Since he was the mayor of Oakland, he must live there. Perhaps he wants some of this troubled criminal/citizens to jump on BART and move out here. Less crime in Oakland for his neighborhood and the low or low-low income houses for his ex-Oakland citizens.

Posted by Mike, a resident of Val Vista
on Dec 22, 2009 at 10:41 am

Good point, why does every inch of land have to be covered with homes and apartments. Dublin looks like a mess from the freeway and driving in Dublin doesn't make sense. There are homes and business all mixed up together. All those enviromentilist should be concerned, but they are first to complain about low housing. To answer Stacey's question in English, regarding why some cities have rapid growth and some don't is that Pleasanton is concerned about the safety, beauty and the economy of Pleasanton, unlike some cities in the East Bay. No reason to run our city like a socialist.

Posted by Jim, a resident of Del Prado
on Dec 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm

How is building more houses going to help highway congestion? Right now, about 60%-70% of the people who live in Pleasanton work outside of Pleasanton. If we add more houses, more people will be on the freeway.

I am concerned that Judge Roesch is the judge for this case. He is the same judge that stopped the citizens of Pleasanton from putting the referendum on the ballot regarding the Lin Oak Grove development, and he was overturned on an appeal. I wonder how objective he is with land-use planning or if he would go against the citizens of Pleasanton since his last case was appealed and overturned unanimously by the appeal court.

I am also concerned that our current city council is giving directions to our attorney on this suit (the city attorney works for the council; not the citizens). A majority of the council members would like for the housing cap to go away so I wonder how hard they will fight for the citizens here. The council will be doing some arm-waving to make it appear that they are fighting the suit and if it is successful they will tell the citizens "sorry but the judge told us we had to remove the housing cap (snicker, snicker)." I wish there was a way that citizens could really see what is going on in closed session about this case since it is a case about the housing cap that the citizens voted for. If guess if we loose the case the only thing we can do is vote off council members in favor of development as they will build and build till we look like Dublin.

Posted by John, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 22, 2009 at 12:59 pm

I think the point is that if Pleasanton does not support sufficient population (according to state rules), it promotes development farther out and therefore increases traffic on the freeways (this is just one reason for this). And, actually, many environmentalists very much favor increased housing and density (including mixing up businesses and housing) as that promotes less use of the automobile to get between houses and basic services like markets. Like it or not, Pleasanton is no longer "out in the country", but is basically a San Francisco suburb. Smart development doesn't have to destroy the quality of life Pleasanton enjoys (and the contrast with Dublin is obvious). Small towns are great, but there aren't enough small towns to go around.

Posted by fyi, a resident of Birdland
on Dec 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm

RHNA has to do with the balance between jobs in Pleasanton and housing.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 22, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

John wrote: "environmentalists very much favor increased housing and density (including mixing up businesses and housing)"

Then they failed in Dublin. You have to use a car to get between the high density housing and the local grocery store, etc. The development there isn't very pedestrian friendly or mixed. We can do smart growth here in Pleasanton right in Hacienda and it won't be ugly or messed up like they did in Dublin.

Mike wrote: "To answer Stacey's question"

It was actually a question from the web link. In the case of Dublin, all that land between Tassajara and Dougherty used to be Camp Parks. I don't know the details, but it was annexed into Dublin. So Dublin suddenly found itself with a vast expanse of land and went nuts. That's why they had rapid expansion. We didn't have that in Pleasanton. It'd be like if one day we woke up and all the gravel pits between Ruby Hill and I-580 were filled in and that was now Pleasanton land.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 22, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

... So the point is that Dublin's rapid development wasn't caused by some State law on planning for housing.

Posted by John Z., a resident of Dublin
on Dec 22, 2009 at 10:10 pm

In response to Stacey's comment, Dublin's rapid development has been (and will continue to be) caused by many factors including a) the opportunity for developers to receive their just rewards for investing in the community and b) pressure from State and local agencies to build x number of affordable housing units. The only way that private developers can make mixed-income development pencil out is to build high and close together.

The state and local agencies are very subtle in that they don't tell cities that they need to build x number of affordable homes directly. They say that cities need to add a certain number of homes and then they say that if you want to build those homes, then x% need to be affordable. Fortunately, there are credits for the developers to help off-set the ongoing expenses of having affordable housing.

More transparency would be helpful so that voters know exactly what they are voting for with the housing cap.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 22, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

John Z.,

It is even more subtle than that! The State assigns a number to these quasi-governmental agencies, like ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments) where we have quasi-representation, who then dole out the local numbers. But really, the numbers aren't the number of units cities have to build, they're only the number they have to plan for.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 22, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I'm not positive, but I think Pleasanton didn't even have quasi-representation on the relevant ABAG committee until Janet Lockhart retired.

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

Jim Kohnen Post Office Signed into Law
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 846 views

Never Say Never -- the Perry Indictment
By Tom Cushing | 5 comments | 628 views

Patience and very deep pockets can pay off
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 470 views

CPRA: Balancing privacy, public's right to know
By Gina Channell-Allen | 3 comments | 451 views