Town Square

Post a New Topic

More high density apartment complexes coming to Pleasanton

Original post made on Jun 7, 2013

St. Anton Partners, a California-based owner-driven, privately held, multifamily development and investment company, is expected to receive final approval Wednesday from the Pleasanton Planning Commission of its bid to build a 168-unit, three- and four-story complex on West Las Positas Boulevard near Stoneridge Drive

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 7, 2013, 7:33 AM

Comments (15)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Timothy T
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm

I know some of the aged mindset in Pleasanton will be screaming "Get off the lawn!" at this, but I think it's great that the people that work here will also get to live here. Diversity in a community is important and people in this type of housing have a lot to offer.

I'm sure the racist comments below this one will abound but this is good news for everyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moonbeam Socks
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 12:08 pm

Pleasanton is changing forever. You can thank our meatball Governor Moonbeam Brown. Elections have consequences. Californians elected a meatball, now we pay the price, and pay some more, and pay some more for decades to come.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 12:25 pm

The problem is not the low-income/subsidized housing. The issue is the state using this as an excuse for us to build more housing; any housing. Even though our infrastructure cannot handle it; especially the schools. First the state tells us we have to build more housing. Then they will say we are required to educate the additional students, and if it costs more, our local taxpayers will have to pay for it, not the state.

Personally I do not care if the high-density housing is low-income or million dollar units. The city built the infrastructure based on a maximum population, and we are going to exceed that. The school district and administration in the past worked hard to make sure we have the school infrastructure before we had the students. The current administration could care less.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm

resident wrote: "The problem is not the low-income/subsidized housing. The issue is the state using this as an excuse for us to build more housing; any housing. Even though our infrastructure cannot handle it; especially the schools. First the state tells us we have to build more housing. Then they will say we are required to educate the additional students, and if it costs more, our local taxpayers will have to pay for it, not the state."

I think that you are barking up the wrong tree in blaming the state for this mess. I used to think that but then I read through Jerry Brown's memo to the City of Pleasanton (Web Link). Here's a particularly strong point made in his memo:


"Pleasanton is already a "job rich" community, with more than 1.6 jobs for every working resident. As the City notes, "even if every resident stayed in Pleasanton to work, there would be substantial in-commuting to fill the remaining jobs."ABAG estimates that in 2005, the City's 4,100 businesses employed approximately 58,110 full and part-time employees. Approximately 21% of these workers live in the City, another 29% live elsewhere in the Tri- Valley area and the remaining 50% commute from the greater outlying area. The City has also acknowledged, "The location of people's place of work compared with their place of residence plays a crucial role in traffic patterns, commuting time, energy consumption, noise, and air pollution.""

If, as you claim, out city can't afford the infrastructure and the additional population, then why were our city leaders allowing so much business development here? That's where this problem all started. It's nice for the city and its budget to accept all those businesses while telling all of the people working for those businesses to go find homes elsewhere because, sorry, we're not going to build any more houses here, but that's not very fair to the workers or to our neighboring cities, is it? By allowing the jobs-to-working resident ratio to get all the way up to 1.6, our city leaders were basically thumbing their noses at senate bill AB 32, the state of California, AND our neighboring cities.

If our city leaders had been a bit wiser, they may have tried to at least limit the ratio to something like 1.1 or 1.2. That may have flown under the radar. But, no, they didn't step just a little over the line. They stepped way over the line. We're now dealing with the consequences of that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm

The house/jobs balance on a per-city makes no sense.

Pleasanton took the lead many years ago with the business park. This allowed many people who live in the east bay and the tri-valley (and the central valley) to work here instead of having to drive to San Francisco and/or San Jose. We should be thanked and rewarded for this.

A house/jobs balance might have made sense when people held jobs for life and there was a single worker in the family. With people changing jobs and both spouses working, the whole equation has changed.

Moonbean in joining the suit against Pleasanton on providing more houses stated the reason was reducing traffic. However, 60% of the people who live in Pleasanton commute outside of Pleasanton. That means for every house we add, we are potentially adding to the traffic problem. Last I heard a survey of those living in the business park said that 40% of those living in the business park commute outside of Pleasanton.

As for affordability, Pleasanton was ahead of the curve there also. When I moved to Pleasanton, it was because I could not afford a place to live in the Silicon Valley area. Pleasanton provided a lot of 'affordable housing' for decades where our neighbors did not provide any additional housing. Now we are being penalized for being ahead of the curve.

I also think the state is jealous of Pleasanton's success. Since they cannot give this success to other cities, they want to bring Pleasanton down to be equal with other cities (e.g., Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, etc.).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Longtimer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 2:32 pm

0h, for the days of our first 200 years when Americans could create communities they wanted. Compatible groups, lower crime, and each community scould be creative and unique. Now giant federal & state government oversee us all, and communities must be rubber stamped to suitable guidelines. Percentages have been calculated for race, income, distance to job, etc, etc. Freedom of individuality is GONE !!....by the people who scream about doing your own thing.
I feel sorry for the generations of today. People are told how the basics of life will be structured. Elders can only tell younger Americans the founders dream of free people, and share how it was for us growing up with freedom to make our own choices and could live our own lives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jun 7, 2013 at 3:37 pm

This is like waaaaaay cute! Kinda like sweetie pie time! Lots of single moms, new kids to add to the mix, seniors in need of better housing, hopefully the rents will be more than reasonable to help out a bit!

I still feel sad about the native populations who lived in this space prior to the theft of America.

VIVA AMERICA! GORA/VIVA!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:05 pm

resident wrote: "The house/jobs balance on a per-city makes no sense...."

resident, you can argue all you want about whether or not the rules make sense. I might even agree with you, but none of that really matters does it? The bottom line is that those are the rules. If you get a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone, trying to argue to the judge that the speed limit should really be 45 is an exercise in futility. Our city leaders knew or should have known the rules as well as the reality of the situation and acted accordingly. So, no, I didn't read the rest of your post after your first sentence because all of your arguments are irrelevant.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Let's hope more police officers are being hired as part of these plans.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Sam, I advocate that we just don't roll over (like our council did). Try to change this. Get out of ABAG possibly. The additional housing requirement seems to be required by the state. So make the state pay. Cities have the right to bill the state for mandated actions that cost the city money. Figure out the cost of what we need for infrastructure for the new development and send the bill to the state. Once they pay, we can proceed.

You said "If you get a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone, trying to argue to the judge that the speed limit should really be 45 is an exercise in futility." Not always true, especially if you know the 85% rule and how speed traps are classified. But irrelevant for this discussion.

New police officers will be there if the tax revenue these new units create will cover the additional police costs (as well as other infrastructure costs).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mary
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 6:25 pm

I am hoping that it doesn't attract the wrong attention. As we all know low income apts can attract the wrong people depending on how much the apts will be.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jun 7, 2013 at 6:53 pm

I sure that the "M" believes in her heart of hearts that the world is a better place when low-income folks move in as your neighbors and you have an opportunity to have a good ole fashion heart to heart!

Wouldn't that be wonderful? I can smell the BBQ now!!!

yum yum plenty!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jun 7, 2013 at 6:58 pm

My prediction is that eventually, all open space will eventually be filled with low-income housing and lots of cute little fruit trees, colorful flags and perhaps a few folks who speak English with very adorable accents! Yes indeed Sam Sneed.

VIVA AMERICA! VIVA!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Morgan
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2013 at 8:06 pm

(Post deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Longtimer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 8, 2013 at 9:03 am

I'm off to quaint Solvang. I love their Dutch windmills. People travel to enjoy a break from rubber stamps. Amish villages with their horse carriages. Certain towns have really wide open streets, others cobblestones. New Orleans is unique with a different charm that would not be allowed today, because ABAG would require rubber stamps. Proper 'diversity' would not allow a New Orleans today, even though animals and humans since the beginning of time, have always tended to cluster, following a natural herd mentality, yet having a desire to mix it up where and when we choose. Big brother has now removed the possibility to create any new Solvangs, so I'm off to buy some wooden shoes, then off to the food and charm of New Orleans in the Fall!!
Why do we make 100 models of American cars....freedom of choice of individuals!! Why do we have successful restaurants serving food from thousands of regions...freedom. But, CA government determines, our streets, our mixture of houses, mixture of apartments, so all rights, freedoms, and individuality are removed.


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

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,173 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 | 679 views