Town Square

Post a New Topic

City leaders give 'thumbs up' to affordable apartment plan

Original post made on Dec 8, 2011

The Pleasanton Planning Commission and City Council wrapped up more than a year of community meetings, public hearings and studies Tuesday night on a plan that will rezone 73 acres of available sites throughout the city for high-density affordable and market rate housing.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 8, 2011, 7:38 AM

Comments (42)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned Californian
a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 8, 2011 at 8:38 am

Was the vote unanimous? And how many of our "esteemed" city council representatives are on the take from the developers who want to build high density housing? It would be nice if the Pleasanton Weekly could do some real investigative journalism instead of just being a cheerleader for the city council.

We all know that affordable housing will be the beginning of the end for Pleasanton. #1 - the schools just can't absorb this impact, and high-density housing developers pay lower impact fees by law - meaning we won't be able to afford more schools without a taxpayor bond.

And as much as Urban Habitat and public housing propponents tell us this won't affect our quality of life; anyone with a modicrum of common sense knows it will.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by no hope now
a resident of Avila
on Dec 8, 2011 at 8:51 am

The only solution at this point is to move out while you can still get a half way decent price for your home.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 8, 2011 at 9:45 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Concerned Citizen,

There was no vote. It was a workshop format meeting. I wish Jeb Bing didn't make this sound so final with words like "wrapped up". There's still several meetings to go before it's truly final.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Old Towne
on Dec 8, 2011 at 9:48 am

This has been a joke since day one and continues on it's path for the destruction of Pleasanton. Just another example of the government "helping" the community. And yes, how many of our representatives are on the take? It's just sickening to watch a city that had so much to offer start it's decline. And for those who say that low income housing (excuse me - high density housing) doesn't result in higher crime, go crawl back into your liberal hole and don't produce some "fixed" report generated by some governmental agency...take a look @ San Ramon's results.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John K.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2011 at 10:00 am

Don't forget to voice your displeasure to our miserable joke of a Governor, Moonbeam Brown. He is the person most responsible for this shafting of Pleasanton, from his actions when he was Attorney General. This is just one of many things that left-wing loon politicians are doing to destroy so many aspects of our lives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 8, 2011 at 10:08 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Yea, we only like unaffordable housing here in Pleasanton. If seniors want to commit crimes, they can go live in low income housing elsewhere.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2011 at 10:14 am

This is such a non event. Move on. Local politicians are not on the take. That is rediculous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Dec 8, 2011 at 10:19 am

I can see it now; a black, brown, yellow, red and poor white soul on every block...oh my!

i sure hope that this plan doesn't cause the sky to fall...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Dec 8, 2011 at 10:21 am

for those of you who are sooooooooooooo upset, may I kindly suggest that you consider purchasing a few dozen diapers?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carlos
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Welcome to East Hayward.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:53 pm

Pleasanton should change its motto from "City of Planned Progress" to "City of Planned Progress...or not".

I kind of like the original nickname, "The Most Desperate Town in the West". Its pretty much where we are headed anyway.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by me
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm

I agree with concerned citizen. I moved here and paid what I paid for my house because of the feel of the area. If I wanted to move to a place crammed with high density housing, I would have bought in such a place. It has nothing to do with crime or race... it has to do with preferences for a small home town feel. I'm liberal in a lot of ways, but this is ridiculous. And the developer should be contributing in a major way to lessen the e impact to the schools, and other public services.

Our schools do not have enough money as it is. Classes are full. There is no money for paper (kids have to print their own handouts at home) and it goes on and on...

If this were my personal budget I would not take on a home addition if I didn't have the resources to pay for it. Why is the city doing this??!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by WhatWeDeserve
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm

This housing and the bullying by "our" state government, the judicial system, and leftist "social justice" organizations is what we get as a return for electing Democrats to control our government. Enjoy the drop in school scores, growth in crime, and inevitable drop in housing prices in Pleasanton. This is what our state citizens voted for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by michaelfox
a resident of Heritage Valley
on Dec 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm

I pitty my less affluent future neighbors. They are going to have to stomach a lot of snobbery from me and my real hometown American pals. Let's build a fence while there's still time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by to: Michael Fox
a resident of Birdland
on Dec 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm

Don't worry Michael, the low income rental units will end up mostly in the hands of Pleasanton employees while below market housing will be provided to early career teachers, firefighters, or friends of somebody. This goes back to about 2001, in Danville, but someone I know very well sold their 2500 square foot house in a gated community (three car garage and 1/3 acre - lived their over 10 years) for 680K. He did so because he won a lottery bid for subsidized housing that only required he live there for five years before he could sell it at market rate. He had money so it surprised me he was able to get away with it. To this day I regret not making an issue of this abuse.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Dec 8, 2011 at 3:52 pm

are you saying that you were out-slicked?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Going down the tubes
a resident of Foothill Place
on Dec 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm

Not good. Low income housing only brings in crime and thugs. Get ready it will spread all across the east bay if this continues. Thugs will be kids in a candy store here. Amazing how people work hard to live in a good neighborhood and pay there dues where others just hold there hand out and get what they want. America = Land of accommodation . Looks like its time to move :(


 +   Like this comment
Posted by crz
a resident of Civic Square
on Dec 8, 2011 at 6:47 pm

all u pleasanton people are so judgemental! im happy for the low income housing because now i will have a place to live (removed).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by katy
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Dec 8, 2011 at 9:10 pm

Is there a list somewhere of which of the proposed sites they are rezoning?
There were many different areas that were on the list and I wonder which ones they are actually rezoning


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie Testa
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm

The reality of the dire state of Pleasanton School District's overcrowding and capital fund situation is being ignored.
The Housing Element, used to approve these changes, does not reflect the reality of our school facilities situation. The Housing element states " The fees are expected to cover the facilities costs". That is not possible! There is no way for the fees to cover facilities costs when the mitigation fees are committed to $27m in existing debt.
The General Plan identifies school sizes but ignores it in the Housing element. The current state of "PUSD facility overcapacity" is not reflected.

Here's a link to the Housing Element:
In the General Plan, Schools are discussed starting on p. 6-2 of the Public Facilities and Community Programs Element
Web Link
, and the policies related to schools and education start on p. 6-23, with Goal 4.
Kindergarten through Twelfth grade Web Link.
htmllink to the rest of the General Plan:
Web Link
"600 students per elementary school, 1,000 students at each middle school, and 2,000 students at each comprehensive high school, with a 10 percent contingency" PUSD excedes these target numbers at every campus.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Julie,

Are those numbers from the General Plan the same as the State averages? Are you aware of any studies on optimal student population size?

How many new schools does PUSD need to achieve the State averages, plus 10%, for the _current_ enrollment?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Is the number for elementary a K-5 or K-6 number? Any idea on K-8 averages?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 9, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Oh, heh. We'll have another grade level called Transitional Kindergarten to add in very soon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sal
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 9, 2011 at 3:04 pm

"The only solution at this point is to move out while you can still get a half way decent price for your home."

I encourage all you conservatives to move away if you're are that fearful of "low income people"!! I'm sure there is a whitebred paradise out there for all you bigots. Pleasanton is changing. I'm sorry the Tea Party members in town can't deal with it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sal
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 9, 2011 at 3:40 pm

So you conservatives hate all these things about California and Pleasanton huh? That raises a question: WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?

Go move to The Villages in Florida if you hate taxes, minorities, and poor people so much. Maybe we'll have bigot-flight from Pleasanton


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie Testa
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 9, 2011 at 4:56 pm

Stacey,
600, 1,000 and 2,000 are the numbers established by PUSD and written into the General Plan for Pleasanton. A 2010 PUSD report said that the district is at 113% of optimal capacity by State student loading (classroom) capacity. It has been several years, and a few hundred more students, since I calculated how overcrowded our campuses are by State acreage recommendation. Every campus significantly exceeds the State recommendation for students per acre, I think the high schools were over 150% of capacity at that time.

The last demographic report suggested two more elementary schools and the was before overturning the housing cap. The middle and high schools are the most over capacity but there is no longer any hope of improving them.

I wish the community understood that this 3000 units is just the beginning of the rezoning. There will be the equivalent of another small City on the east-side of town.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie Testa
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 9, 2011 at 5:51 pm

Many Pleasanton parents are under the illusion that our school standards are higher than the state requires. The truth is that PUSD allows enrollments to exceed State of California maximum enrollments; by state standards our high schools are seriously overcrowded. Each of our campuses is less than 40 acres and by state standards should not exceed 1,400 students. Each now holds around 2,500. The state recommends 60 acres for our "very large schools."

The State of California Department of Education clearly opposes "very large schools" Web Link

"Educators have learned that very large schools have disadvantages. The impersonal character makes it difficult for students and staff to know one another well enough to create a sense of belonging. In very large schools many students find it difficult to participate in student government, sports, and other activities. In smaller schools more students participate in activities, and close relationships between students and staff can be more easily achieved. Very large schools may cost more per student to operate. Student's circulation patterns and congestion in areas such as libraries, cafeterias, and hallways are a problem in very large schools."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hoops
a resident of Mohr Park
on Dec 11, 2011 at 6:01 pm

Does anyone know the number of total units and the income criteria to live there?Sorry for not being up on this issue but are these rentals,new condos/homes or a combination.Thanks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hoops
a resident of Mohr Park
on Dec 11, 2011 at 6:05 pm

Please do not tell me these are section 8 units.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hoops
a resident of Mohr Park
on Dec 11, 2011 at 6:31 pm

People should live where they can afford to live.I am sure there are a lot of people living in Pleasanton who chose to buy a lot less house for their money because they wanted to live here.Crazy as it is 500k does not get you much here compared to most cities and lets not even talk about what 500k will get you in AZ.,Nevada etc.I am fairly liberal on a lot of issues but not on this one.I just do not see the reasons being valid.I want a condo on the beach in Maui or a penthouse in SF.Is Mr.government going to subsidize me??They should use the money to improves the cities that they are trying to move people out of.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hortense
a resident of Happy Valley
on Dec 12, 2011 at 12:57 am

P-towners. Pampered cheapskates, one and all. Go cry your crocodile tears over in the next state.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Dec 12, 2011 at 9:40 am

Hortense (without the leading 'W")---pampered? Search through that space between your ears again and try for another adjective. Residents that worked very hard to afford living in this community are hardly pampered. Most have sacrificed and saved in order to live here. You either don't live here or you inherited money so you could occupy Pleasanton. Use your own funds to build hovels for your fellow members of the bleeding hearts club.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Former Pleasantonian
a resident of another community
on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:25 am

For all those who commented about leaving town because of the horror of affordable housing, go. And go quickly. Make way for those who are not overwrought with fear of uncleaned masses taking over Pleastanton neighborhood, streets and schools. There are plenty of rocks you can crawl under elsewhere. I look forward to the day when I can move back, to a community with a few less hatemongers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned California
a resident of Valley Trails
on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:52 am

Love how the libs call everyone racist who wants the integrity of our schools to remain and ask us to leave when we don't agree with them. Aren't you guys all about diversity and tolerance?. The race card is getting real old real quick; and even the hardworking "people of color" who already live in Pleasanton aren't buying it.

I'm betting once the schools go to crap, each one of these libs puts their kids in private school - just like they do already in Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, and all the other urban ghettopias in the East Bay.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sknywench
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm

sknywench is a registered user.

Pleasanton is changing alright! Up-tight, scared suburbanites who think the sky is falling. Residents protest affordable housing, protest any kinda of music in downtown during the evenings (wow, what a concept), Walmart, nearly 500 acres of FREE open space rather than 50 homes in an obsecure hillside area, and anything they deem as being not family friendly . . . whatever that really means. I guess that means to live here you must be white, married, have more than 2.3 children, one dog, one cat and a white a picket fence around your beige cookie-cutter house and lawn, possess an income with at least six figures. Say good-bye to your kids when they turn 21 if they dont die of boredom beforehand, or send them out in the real world


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

No, it hasn't really changed. It's been like that since at least the late 80s.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sknywench
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:51 pm

sknywench is a registered user.

Stacy, I agree with you. I never thought I would say it, but it's refreshing to go to Livermore these days. More vibrant downtown, wider range of restaurant choices, and less uptight


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jackie smith
a resident of Civic Square
on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:33 pm

Dont worry it will be nothing like u think i am for sure they will be bias on picking the resident to live in these homes they have been basis before. I think u should be more worried about the kids in this city on drugs and underage drinking. maybe u should build more substance abuse housing u already have secret problems what about a kid committing sucide once a year worry about that not low income house.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm

Pleasanton shouldn't be so expensive, it's cute, boring, and far from everything important. I applaud some affordable housing. I find it hilarious that some homeowners are afraid of crime by opening a few apartment complexes. How elitist and sad.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Distriburtion
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2011 at 11:28 pm

Sad the distributions around the city were so poorly done. Every Commissioner should be ashamed to show their faces on Main street for what they have done to the East side ! !
I hope I don't see any of them any time soon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by UnReal
a resident of Castlewood Heights
on Dec 28, 2011 at 9:36 am

Has anyone looked at or considered what "median income" and "low income" is in Pleasanton?




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dan
a resident of Foothill High School
on Jan 3, 2012 at 8:07 am

Growing up in a Bad area (Stockton), then living in a war zone (Oakland,) now living in a wonderful community (Pleasanton), I know the ramifications of what is proposed. They are talking 2000 plus units in a town with fewer than 70,000 people. So figuring 4+ people per unit this will increase the size of the city by 8000. Roughly 10% increase not including all of the scams people will use to get into the Pleasanton school system. Pleasanton will suffer there is no doubt in my mind. My wife and I made real tangible sacrifices to move to Pleasanton. We gave up a large house with a great view just to have that small town feel. I like that Pleasanton is a place that you have to sacrifice to live. At this point you have to want the lifestyle, and if you are a little lower income, you have to make sacrifices to live here. This program will let anybody that wants to get on a waiting list in, without regard to the community or their impact on the city as a whole.


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

Demographics present challenges for Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 13 comments | 1,232 views

Why we need the Water Bond
By Roz Rogoff | 13 comments | 803 views

November Ballot Prop 2 Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 799 views