Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton Council rezones 73 acres for high-density housing

Original post made on Jan 11, 2012

It took just 45 minutes for the Pleasanton City Council last night to rezone 73 acres in various parts of the city to accommodate high-density housing that will be more affordable for those in the city's workforce and others who want to live here.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012, 7:09 AM

Comments (37)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned Californian
a resident of Donlon Elementary School
on Jan 11, 2012 at 7:41 am

Big win for developers, poverty pimps, private security firms, burglar alarm companies and private schools looking to expand!

Way to destroy Pleasanton's quality of life, city council! Congratulations - successsfully destroying a town's quality of life qualifies you to run for higher political office in California. Who will be the next state assembly person, state senator, or perhaps even governor? Now that you have this "accomplishment" under your belt, the possibilities are endless.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:10 am

Stacey is a registered user.

The City excluded prime candidate parcels over on the east side due to the lack of the East Side Specific Plan. The jury is still out on "successfully destroying". There's nothing built yet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:12 am

Cheryl Cook-Kallio ___

Jerry Thorne ___

None of above ___


If none of the above wins...we go about business with 4, are their guidelines that say this is inappropreiate? Who will run meeting, you may ask? Everyone gets their turn every fourth meeting. Just allowing you alternatives to consider.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:19 am

Sales of spray paint are up, in anticipation as to which gang will tag this new territory first. Welcome to the new barrio dwellers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:29 am

Stacey is a registered user.

We need another elementary school _now_ and a second new one for the new growth. The current enrollment numbers at some of them are well beyond what is targeted in the City's General Plan and above the State averages and that's only the elementary schools. The middle and high schools are also overcrowded.

Maybe radical, but definitely out of the box, is to look at consolidating the elementary and middle schools into K-8 school, which have a higher State average enrollment than elementary. The question would be would we need to build less new schools with such a move? There's definitely pros and cons to such an idea that should be explored. The positive effect that the continuity of school environment has on the achievement levels of the middle grades could be one pro while the need to make some capital upgrades to support K-8 might be a con.

Another idea brought up by McGovern at the meeting last week was how the City built the park next to Mohr so that the district purchased a smaller parcel while still being able to use the field. Expanding that idea, the district could look at selling their fields next to existing schools to raise capital while preserving their current land use.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:30 am

But do not forget that even if the PW refuses to print her name, it was a Pleasanton Resident who got Urban Habitat involved in the first place. Yes, a Pleasanton resident is the one responsible for this mess. Urban Habitat got involved because of that Pleasanton resident.

And why didn't the Pleasanton attorneys do a better job? We have a lot of communities with NO or very little low income housing: Saratoga, Danville, Alamo - yet Brown did not go after them, did he?

And why did all of you vote for Brown, the attorney who sued Pleasanton?

You got what you asked for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Norm
a resident of Civic Square
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:30 am

We use to be an upscale community, what will we be called now, Oakand East?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by wmshawk
a resident of Grey Eagle Estates
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:33 am

Leave the local government people alone unless you want to have the city pay for an expensive lawsuit.

The people who have created this are in Sacramento and Washington by imposing things they deem right on things you may not want.

Cities are "stuck" with government mandates and can not really say no, just figure out how.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:36 am

Stacey is a registered user.

And also remember that the current rezonings put us right at the 29,000 housing units approved by slow-growth voters back in 1996. We should wait until the next planning period that puts us over 29,000 units to say our quality of life has been destroyed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:39 am

Stacey is a registered user.

What wmshawk said... If you care about how the State mandates the housing numbers to us, leave our local government people alone and show up at the meeting in Dublin tonight.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
5:45 - 8:30 p.m.
City of Dublin Civic Center
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tom
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:41 am

This is a distressingly bad decision.

Looking down the road at Pleasanton, how does City Council ever come to the conclusion that more high density housing improves the quality of life in our city? They should be ashamed. Score one for political correctness and the poverty lobby and a minus for common sense and a high quality town.

Citizens should remember this decision years from now when the town has changed for the worse.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2012 at 8:49 am

"slow-growth voters in 1996" that was just a term Stacey... not the reality at the time. That term was a media/developer way to piss people off. There is nothing about slow-growth in Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Apples
a resident of Country Fair
on Jan 11, 2012 at 9:19 am

I really agree that the schools are already impacted. The High Schools alone are more than four times the student body that they were in 1995. What a strain on our eco systems well. I think the Mayor and coucil have been pushed into this. Too bad.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Serf
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2012 at 9:24 am

The heavy handed, jack-booted leftist marxists, just don't believe we have the right to create and live a lifesstyle of our choosing. Oh no, the few can demand and DICTATE how we choose to spend our EARNINGS..how foolish to think we have the right and freedom to create a lifestyle of our choosing...with our own earnings. If that's not enough, have central-planning dictate sharing our earnings to assist in the theft against us.
Sad. I hear freedom use to be great.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Who?
a resident of Ironwood
on Jan 11, 2012 at 9:28 am

"But do not forget that even if the PW refuses to print her name, it was a Pleasanton Resident who got Urban Habitat involved in the first place. Yes, a Pleasanton resident is the one responsible for this mess. Urban Habitat got involved because of that Pleasanton resident."

Who?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danbury Resident
a resident of Danbury Park
on Jan 11, 2012 at 9:55 am

As a senior getting up in years...whats's with all the complaining? I'll be in the ground before affordable housing gets out of the ground. Live and let live. I certainly would of liked a helping hand when I was getting started. Who among us has lost their jobs? Who among us are are on a fixed income? I guess if you take a good look at where your at you may qualify for affordable housing. Move on, enough of the "Nose in the Air Mentality. Ah, a new slogan for Pleasanton "ELITIST ONLY" OBSTRUCTIST ONLY NEED APPLY!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 11, 2012 at 10:08 am

Class warfare does not hold up. As Stacey pointed out Pleasanton has challenged Oak Grove multimillion dollar homes as well as high density. Growth should not be a burden and should be good for the existing community or the citizens are Lemmings not to challenge it. But where were you all last night and last week?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Julie
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 11, 2012 at 10:42 am

I have the years of involvement and information to support everything that I said last night.
Knowing how impacted, indebt, without funding sources and PUSD's poor history of planning for growth, I do not believe it is too soon to say that last nights decision will have a negative impact on our community.

Nelson said it is reasonable that the district wait to talk about solutions. Given PUSD history and dire situation it is unreasonable to ask the community to have faith and wait and see. The community should have been given reason to feel confident before rezoning the land.

This is only the beginning of new growth and as of now there is no foreseeable solution other than the existing community paying to mitigate the new growth or suffer the burden.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lauren
a resident of Ridgeview Commons
on Jan 11, 2012 at 11:08 am

Speaking as a senior citizen within Pleasanton and having lived here and owned a home for many years, I think the city planners must also take into consideration the concerns our 50+ year old residents who own their homes here in Pleasanton and would like the option to stay within the community, but not be limited to cluster senior housing. What options will they have to find alternative housing with the crunch you are about to create in availablility. Ms. Testa speaks from the standpoint of having raised children within our school district. Just take a few minutes and ask parents with grade school children now enrolled how well they think their children are faring with the budget cuts and limited one-on-one time to learn critical material. We are looking into an abyss without considering the long-term outcome! I would advise that you reconsider the lawsuit versus what Pleasanton is losing as a community to other townships such as Danville. Will what makes us a lovely place to live even exist in 10 years? Food for thought.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Laurie
a resident of Harvest Park Middle School
on Jan 11, 2012 at 11:11 am

The out-of-touch PUSD senior management, made mostly of out-of-towners who have no stake in the community, haven't built and opened a school since the Clinton administration because obviously they can't be bothered with trying to have decent schools.

Given last night's Board meeting, the PUSD senior management gave the Board a report that said PUSD had been founded somewhere just after the Civil War during the terms of either Ulysses S. Grant or Andrew Johnson, when in fact it was 1988, is just hilarious. [ Did anyone but Valerie Arkin or Jaime Hintzke even read that report? ] It was absolutely a laugh fest when Valerie Arkin had to tell everyone that the report was not factually correct, that PUSD was founded in 1988, not over a century earlier.

The fact that the city council has asked Nelson Fiahlo to drive this process for new schools is a resounding message that the Mayor and City Council have absolutely no confidence in superintendent Parvin Ahmadi or the PUSD senior administrators.

Why else would the city council ask "City Manager Nelson Fialho to meet with school administrators to seek solutions to the likely need for at least another elementary school to serve school-age children who are likely to move into the new affordable housing units with their families" when the person responsible for schools is the superintendent Parvin Ahmadi?

It is up to the out-of-touch school district to figure out, given that PUSD turned down building Neal school even when they were offered a loan from the city and turned it down, to figure out this mess.






 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tired of this
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jan 11, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Get ready for crime increase mean increase in police force which means more tax, in turn a reduced quality of our town, property values, and a bigger drug problem than we have already. Yes there is a coralation between income and those sort of issues. Even tho your not really allowed tot say that.

Pleasanton is starting to lose its luster. At least gun sales will go up for those who want to protect there home.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegseger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jan 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Laurie, the district we know as Pleasanton "Unified" School District was unified in 1988. Prior to that there was an elementary district and a high school district that served Pleasanton (and a few schools here that actually belonged to Dublin). So while the date of 1988 is correct for a K-12 unified system, K-8 and 9-12 education _was_ established in Pleasanton when the roads were just dirt (there used to be two boards, one for each "district"). True, the report could have been clearer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm

I had to laugh when the PW article stated that the council members had concerns about the impact to infrastructure. Its like..duh!

Some people have written about concerns for affordable housing for new teachers, rookie police and firefighters, and employees at entry level positions for the city and private business. I thought that the Bernal properties across from the new Safeway was partially reserved for these Pleasanton workers. I would imagine there is not a lot of turn-over, so not that much housing needs to be dedicated to this purpose. You could probably count on your hands and toes the number of new police. firefighters, and teachers that are hired each year. By new, I mean rookie.

Where are all these 9,000 people going to work? And what kind of work are they doing that they have to live in high density housing? Most of the work in Pleasanton is for professional or semiprofessional skilled workers. Even companies based in Pleasanton do not consider that a prospective employee lives or doesn't live in Pleasanton. They are after the right fit for the job. I know this from personal experience.

Living by BART does no good if you cannot afford the fares. Living by Stoneridge Mall does no good if you cannot afford to shop there.

At what point does adhering to the mandates from the state cause damage so severe that the city is put into jeopardy? For example, if following the mandate causes more school age children to require school facilities, but the school district lacks funds to build new schools, can the city sue the state for jeopardizing the integrity of the city if the state refuses to allocate funds for the schools that were mandated? In other words, who is going to pay for the additional infrastructure that will be required by all these people who by default are negative contributors to a city's maintenance and capital budgets?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ray
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 11, 2012 at 3:27 pm

We need new schools. Let's halve all public school teacher salaries and pensions to compensate for how they've stolen so much from this community. No on new taxes!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sal
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 11, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Gotta love all the conservative fear-mongering! So typical. Since all you conservatives are so fearful of "other people" moving into Pleasanton, does this mean that you will move from Pleasanton (YAY!) or just cling to your guns and bibles. I hear Texas is nice this time of year. God forbid the era of whitebred, bubble-mentally Pleasnton comes to and end. I laugh at your whining. YOU LOSE!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Jan 11, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Sal, you lose, too. Not just the successful people you vilify, even the lower class citizens in Pleasanton, like yourself, will experience a degraded quality of life. Please, though, when your compadres come here, teach them how to spell the city's name correctly, por favor?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Timothy T
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm

I look forward to all of the people complaining about this moving out of Pleasanton (which will still be one of the greatest cities in California). I'll help you move.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2012 at 4:33 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Sal, all these conservatives in Pleasanton bothering you and you still haven't moved? I'm surprised!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ray
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 11, 2012 at 5:24 pm

Let's face it, Stacey. Though we conservativists are the majority on PW we couldn't even get Harmer into office during an off year for the Dems. And he was such a strong candidate. We're doomed to being the ridaculed voice on ineffectual web sites. It's the crucafix we must bear as real lovers of LIBERTY and COMPASSION.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 11, 2012 at 5:49 pm

What if Pleasanton took the stand that they do not care what the law says and do not care what the courts say.

What is the worst that could happen?

San Francisco has defied state and federal law so many times it is as if they are running a city state.

The unions make a practice of defying federal and state laws whenever it suits them.

Common sense and the will of the people are all that matter in the long run.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Why don't they treat Pleasanton differently?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm

What is the worse that could happen if Pleasanton defied state law? When the city lost the law suit and before some agreement was struck to keep a semblance of local control, Pleasanton was STRIPPED of its permitting authority. That's right! Even the most simple permit had to go to the city attorney, then to attorneys for Urban Habitat in San Francisco before it could be approved.

Pleasanton was targeted because the hard housing cap did not allow accommodation for state mandated housing numbers. Other cities set caps but allowed for some flexibility to address the housing requirements.

Whether you like it or not. . .the law is for everyone, even Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The other type of cap that cities set that _are_ legal and give flexibility regard the housing requirements are a cap on the number of building permits per year. I think Pleasanton has one of those too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ptownLover
a resident of Downtown
on Jan 12, 2012 at 10:54 pm


I think one should make pTown a private community! Maybe modify it and make it into a fort! That way one only allows what one wants!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Serf
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 13, 2012 at 9:19 am

Hey Danbury, so you say don't worry it won't happen that fast. Your attitude is screw the next generation, they don't need freedom, liberty, or personal property rights and is really offensive. Tom Jefferson would be sad to find your lack of appreciation of personal rights...we thought we were entitled to.
Now that we are losing our voice in our own communities, are being forced to subsidize something we don't want !
To 'treat Pleasanton differently' ? YES, YES, ALL towns should be treated differently ! !....like as our founders of freedom INTENDED !!! Shame on all who want to toss those freedoms aside...go to another country, and let us have our personal rights to are entitled to.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Zeb
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Jan 13, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Well let's see, if all the people that are so opposed to this new housing move, then there probably won't be overcrowding in schools will there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by hoops
a resident of Mohr Park
on Jan 14, 2012 at 10:57 am

I have read all the rants and arguing about the impact of this housing.Does someone have actual facts about the specific requirements to live in this housing so we can see the real numbers.Are the majority of tenants going to be low income from other cities.Are these all rentals or a combo of first time buyers and rentals.What are the SPECIFICS.It would really help to be able to picture the actual results of this instead of misinformed fear mongering.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by george
a resident of Parkside
on Jan 20, 2012 at 2:20 pm

hi,
Just like to figure out the impact on Foothill High/Hart Middle/
Donlon Elementary since most of the low income housing close to
I-580.
Are we going to have new schools? Or School attendance
boundary will change in the near future? harvest Mid/Admdor High might be immune of this..?
thanks


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

Where's the wind?
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 724 views

Martin Litton, force of nature. An appreciation.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 664 views

Pineapple Express memories
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 398 views