City Council to vote Wednesday on high-density housing plan Around Town, posted by Editor, Pleasanton Weekly Online, on Dec 29, 2011 at 9:15 am
The Pleasanton City Council will hold back-to-back meetings starting next Wednesday to consider and likely approve a detailed plan to rezone 73 acres of available properties in various parts of the city to allow the construction of more than 2,000 apartments in two- and three-story buildings.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 29, 2011, 7:10 AM
Posted by parent, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Dec 29, 2011 at 9:57 am
Most of it will be in the Hacienda Business Park. The main issue is not where the housing will go but what will happen to our schools with all this additional housing/students. One of the previous reports by the school's demographer said that our schools are already overcapacity and we would need two more elementary schools, and that is before looking at any of the high density housing (i.e., on old housing cap). The school district is in some serious debt for their facilities funds already so new housing will be paying off debt, not providing new facilities. Since most of the high-density housing will be 'affordable', they will be paying a much lower fee to the school district for facilities than other housing, but they will have the same student impacts so that will exacerbate the problem. So if the additional housing does get approved you should expect more crowding at the schools and/or the school district coming to the community for another bond. That would mean that all the current housing that has already paid their fair share in school fees (which I believe is over $25,000 per house), will then be asked to pay even more fees to pay for the impacts on the additional housing.
Also, expect redrawing of attendance boundaries. No way to fit these additional students plus existing housing into Fairlands or Donlon and there is no land, from what I hear, to build a new school in Hacienda, where these students will be coming from.
I am quite disappointed that our current school district administration/board is not talking at the public hearings on the impacts to the schools. The previous superintendent did put on record at discussions of the additional housing years ago that the school system would be impacted if the housing cap went away and he even said "all bets are off" on the impact to the district if all the housing went into a single location. Instead of this current administration being proactive on this, they are just going to let it happen without discussion, and they will end up having to react the problem instead of planning for it. During that time, our students will suffer. I wonder how many portables the district thinks they can fit at each school.
Posted by We do need a Map!, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Coming to an area near you, soon.
Where these large "instant slums" go affects everyone.
Much of this will be "Title 8".
Some were planned for on Santa Rita, I think where the motel is now;
some were planned for Stanley near where Valley changes its name to Bernal (Why could Pleasanton not get competent planners?), where the Home Depot was proposed.
Some near the new new Safeway, on former SF land near the freeway, and much more.
Many were described by names that mean little to the common citizens of Pleasanton. Maybe we need to satisfy the new state rules (they make them up as they go) , but we don't need to offer real estate better suited for higher uses.
Editor- could you please bring back some of the maps and descriptions?
Posted by Projects- Formula for tragedy, a member of the Mohr Elementary School community, on Dec 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I'm originally from Chicago.
Some low income people have good ethics, but some do not and ruin things for the rest, and for those who live near.
That city spent literally millions building new housing for the woe-begone, one of the biggest of these Projects was called Cabrini Green. After a few years of low income residential use, the crime, intimidation, violence, vandalism, and destruction of the properties, the area was so dangerous, and so bad that the city had to spend millions more to tear down the new buildings. How can we avoid that here?
Click on Item 6 for the staff report. The maps are among the attachments, which you can also access with a click. For those not familiar with downloading staff reports from the City's website, after clicking on the number 6, to bring up the report image, hit the printer/pdf icon on the task bar, then select "download and print" to bring up the pdf version, which you can either save to your hard drive or print.
Posted by Jason, a resident of the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:49 pm
The City could have appealed the judgement but chose not to. Regardless of the demographics of our new residents the sheer number of units will clearly have some adverse impacts. Where is the public outcry given all of the prior opposition to only 50 homes that included the donation of hundreds of acres of open space? The City is also choosing to allow 200 units in excess of what the court mandated.
Posted by Gwen, a resident of the Foothill Knolls neighborhood, on Dec 30, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Site 13 is across from Hart Middle school, just a little east.
Next to where 24 hr fitness was. Huge vacant building that backs up to the Arroyo. W. Los Positas has enough traffic now without adding lots of apartments. Not to mention a Section 8 housing complex across the street from the middle school.
Sometimes I really wonder what this city is coming to.
Posted by Racism in Pleasanton?, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 30, 2011 at 9:33 pm
This blog is a bunch of racists. Pleasanton by the CA constitution is required to provide its fair share of housing. This is what the lawsuit was about. The no growth bozos(Comment removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff for containing unverified or personal information) are causing this mess. Fear uncertainity and doubt is their method to trick you in believing that the change will be bad for Pleasanton when Pleasanton has always been welcome to all social-economic levels.
The deal about the schools is a smoke screen. More students = more revenue for the district. Besides they expect the school district to take a stand against a CA court order? What exactly can the school district do? Sue the city? That has not turned out so well for the district in the past.
Okay racists bring on your comments about how the neighborhoods will decline, crime will increase, and your community will change. Do you mean that it will be less white. Look around Pleasanton is already this way. Welcome diversity and celebrate our well balanced community.
Posted by Mexican in Pleasanton, a resident of the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood, on Dec 31, 2011 at 12:17 am
Pipe down with the racist nonsense. I'm a Mexican and have lived in this town for decades. My concerns are not about race. My concerns are with the crime and other issues that go along with low income housing. There are a few little areas in Pleasanton with some of the lowest rental amounts and guess where you'll find more drugs and crime and other BS. Hang out over by Vineyard in the apartments and high density living and you'll see what I'm talking about. Also look at the registered sex offenders registry and you'll see these pigs life where the lowest rent rates exist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. I had a neighbor on section 8 who locked all the food in the house in her own bedroom so I fed her three kids myself. Now I wouldn't mind a bit if she were s low income single mom working to support her kids, but no, the FBI rauded her house after having it under surveillance for several days and she was charged with federal identity theft crimes. That's right, she was a thug stealing from honest people and destroying lives, which trust me having your credit ruined can do this, and couldn't be bothered to even feed her kids. Thankfully after the raid she moved (Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff). Yeah, I said it. Let her be around other criminals and thugs.
It has nothing to do with race. Im a minority and have never felt out if place here.
Posted by hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Dec 31, 2011 at 10:24 am
I am sorry but I am sick of all the politically correct b.s.It is simply a fact that anywhere you have high density low income housing you also have more crime.It has nothing to do with racism or diversity.It is a fact of life.I am also willing to bet that 99.9 % of the offended people would scream if the housing was built across the street from where they live.Do not deny it.As I have stated before...live where you can afford to live like everyone else.Have some success in life and move when you can afford it.You do not have a right to live in the city of your choosing.You have a right to live anywhere you can afford.Period.
Posted by Un believable, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Dec 31, 2011 at 2:08 pm
The town is out of control or completely in the hands of real estate developers. Today I get a notice of public review. It seems the city is going to allow 29 more homes to be built on Trenery which is right off of Martin Avenue. Martin Avenue is right by Mohr school and only about 1.5 lanes wide so you can imagine the congestion. I wonder why the city is not building low income high density homes on this land? Would be perfect for people without money because it is in walking distance of Mohr School. Hosterman and her cronies are insane.
Posted by Drop the race card, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 31, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Racism in Pleasanton, from your lofty perch in amberwood is that low income=minority? My, how very condescending of you, Mr. Birch. So, we can't oppose thes new ghettos our city planners have dreamed up if the poor residents are minorities? Is that your logic? Why do we, who have worked very hard and sacrificed to live here, have to accept that nonsense as good policy? Even the poor white folks (the ones you leftist elitists refer to as rednecks) are not a good fit. So, if you think you need to carry the mantle for 'oppressed minorities', take your fight to berserkely, Richmond or Oakland.
Posted by Concerned Californian, a member of the Donlon Elementary School community, on Jan 1, 2012 at 9:52 am
The argument about more revenue for the schools with more students is nonsense. We're talking about capex (capital expenditure) vs. opex (operational expenditure) costs. The schools are already overcrowded, and the school district has acknowledged the builders of the high density housing won't pay enough in impact fees to build a new school. So, we'll have more overcrowded schools. In San Leandro, some of the elementary schools need three lunch periods because they are so overcrowded. That's coming to Pleasanton.
The city council should have fought this, they should have appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on the grounds that forcing a town to build more housing is an unfunded mandate that ultimately hurts the schools. But take a look at our esteemed council persons. Most (if not all) are in the pockets of developers - specifically BRE which is going to build the ugly dense housing on Hacienda. They love to shrug their shoulders and say, "My hands are tied because of the lawsuit" - meanwhile they take all the campaign contributions from their developer buddies while they willfully plan the destruction of our once-great town.
Posted by New ghetto, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 1, 2012 at 11:26 am
Good luck there, manny, in converting our city into something you're more comfortable living in. I guess it won't be long before we start seeing more junked cars on what used to be the front lawns. At least the rusting hulks will give you cover from the drive by shootings. Hasta la vista
Posted by hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Jan 1, 2012 at 5:06 pm
There seems to be a lack of knowledge about the vast majority of people who live in Pleasanton.We worked very hard and made a lot of sacrifices along the way and bought a home here when we were able to.I grew up in Oakland and my family was poor or close to it.I would say my dad in todays dollars made 40k at the most.We rented and had a family of 6.I had my share of struggles until I started a business which turned out to be successful with some hard work and a little luck.I bought my first house when I was 48 years old in Castro Valley.We moved to P 3 years ago and paid about 500k for a townhouse/duet which would have been maybe 300k in say San Leandro.The point of all this is we should not have to subsidize or put up with all the problems that come with high density gov't sponsored housing.I paid my dues as did many others.What is fair is for people to work hard and have some success and live where they want.It is not a right to live in a great city or neighborhood.
Posted by puckster, a resident of the Pleasanton Village neighborhood, on Jan 1, 2012 at 9:58 pm
I grew up poor, never went to a public school, never used a public library, never took a dime from the govt when I was unemployed, I don't use public police but rather carry my own peace-keeper and a copy of the constitution in my pockets. I never eat govt inspected food, and refuse on principle to take any drug that the govt has had a hand in "approving." I do not use public roads or highways, ever, but instead cut across private farm fields after offering farmers money for my crossings. I once watched my family's house burn down because my conscience would not permit me to call public fire fighers. All of the above qualify as govt hand-outs, and I don't take 'em. Nobody else should either. I'm dumb as a board, and selfish, too, but I've worked hard and I don't want low-income people living near me. I like hockey and boxing.
Posted by Been There, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 2, 2012 at 9:11 am
Pleasanton seems to be stuck with this requirement for low income housing so I think everyone in this town will have to come together to make it work. Maybe the logic of spreading out the locations is that it will be easier to control crime - yes, I think there will be some more - and to prevent one area of town from being the low income area. We will need some extra police and we'll have to find a solution for the impact in the schools. These are problems that have solutions if we all work together.
I would like to think we will have young teachers or our 20-something children, or our aging parents living in these new units but whether that will happen - I'm not sure.
Also - I am confused about how long these units will stay as low-income....after they are re-sold, don't they sell for the market rate and then would no longer be low income??
Posted by hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Jan 2, 2012 at 10:41 am
Been There.....I believe these are apartments to rent not to buy.There is a big difference and I am not against the first time buyer or lower income qualifying to BUY a place with strict rules like you have to currently live or work in the city..At least you are talking now about people with jobs and a responsible history like a younger couple who has not saved a large enough down payment.I believe that is good for the community to a point.The rentals that get into sec 8 are the problems.
Posted by puckster, a resident of the Pleasanton Village neighborhood, on Jan 2, 2012 at 11:20 am
Absolutely. Why should a college graduate like me have to live near low-income renters? This is America! Can't we cordon off sections of Idaho or Neveda and put low-income people behind barbed wire fences? Who does the state think it is to insist that good Pleasanton people have to brush shoulders with low income riff-raff? It doesn't take a genuius to figure out a solution. Put them all in really big caged in communities, and then make them file for special papers if they want to enter Pleasanton to clean our houses. Help keep Pleasanton segregated!
Posted by hoops, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Jan 2, 2012 at 11:57 am
Puckster...So tell me why I should have to live across the street from a high density sec 8 complex when I paid the price I did to live in Pleasanton.Please explain to me why I now have to deal with the crime and problems that come with the apartments.The problems are a fact and to say they exist is not racist but simply telling the non polically correct truth.I am not concerned with the 90 % of good hardworking low income people which I use to be one...I am concerned with the other 10% and what they do to our community.Just being honest.
Posted by puckster, a resident of the Pleasanton Village neighborhood, on Jan 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm
"So tell me why I should have to live across the street from a high density sec 8 complex when I paid the price I did to live in Pleasanton."
Um, maybe because it's the law, and it's a good law? Maybe because you should have inquired about such matters before buying? I dunno. But, being a good old racist just like you, I'm willing to ignore that truth and wail on and on about how I'm being encroached upon by that bad 10% you talk about. Like I say, it's probably best to just keep our communities not only de facto segregated but de jure as well. Got aparteid anyone?
BTW, I loved slavery, and I hate Civil Rights Laws. If I want to own another human being, it's my right; if I don't want to sell petrol to darkies at the gas pump, that's my right. If I want to exclude you-know-who from my neighborhood and schools, that's my right. Let's stop this political correctness and be honest. I predict Quebec will win the Stanley Cup this year!
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Jan 2, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Looks like Jane/slippers/pick your name of the day, is back.....welcome back from your involuntary commitment.
She equates poverty with racism, implying that all minorities are too dumb to succeed even if they choose to work hard. Fact is, she doesn't live in our town and would love to drag us down to her level since she can't accomplish anything to be proud of on her own. Typical of shallow minded trolls who can't engage in dialog without throwing around the race card. No doubt something she learned in berserkely, but not much else. Anyone can make themselves into a victim....it doesn't take much imagination or effort, but I guess that's the point.
Trying working and saving, then talk to me about moving to Pleasanton.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 2, 2012 at 1:14 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Who said the high density housing will all be Section 8? We already have high density housing in Pleasanton that is mostly market-rate with a certain percentage of units set aside as below-market. In all likelihood the new housing will be the same.