News


Pleasanton council discusses impacts of recent state housing legislation

Short-term effects seem minimal, but that will change during next RHNA cycle, officials say

The Pleasanton City Council received a recap from city staff this week about the probable local impacts of the so-called "housing package," a group of state legislation signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown last fall to address housing availability and affordability across California.

The conversation Tuesday night focused on three of the bills that city officials anticipate will have the most impact on the city's housing development review procedures -- new laws that target streamlined approvals for certain project types, housing density and affordability, and inventory of land for residential development.

And even those bills might not have as significant an effect on Pleasanton as on other cities in the next few years in light of multi-family housing projects recently built or approved here, but the key impacts will start to be felt more and more as the city enters the 2020s, city staff told the council.

"The playing field has changed," City Manager Nelson Fialho said during the hour-long discussion at the Pleasanton Civic Center.

"Housing production in general is a touchy subject in our community, invites extreme reactions from both sides," Fialho added. "The new legislation really does change the way we go about addressing these issues going forward ... (so) it's important to have these discussions, not only tonight but periodically over the coming months."

More than 130 bills were introduced in Sacramento during the last legislative session to address the state's housing situation. Of those, 15 were signed into law by Brown in September and started taking effect in the new year.

"From the state's perspective, without any intervention much of the population increase is expected to push people farther from job centers, from our higher-performing schools, from transit. And it's going to constrain opportunities for future generations," city community development director Gerry Beaudin said.

The housing package breaks down generally into five categories, Beaudin said: directly financing affordable housing, streamlining local review processes, increasing local accountability and reporting requirements, inclusionary zoning and preserving the affordability of existing subsidized housing.

The legislation covers a range of specific requirements, but the three of most immediate concern for Pleasanton are Senate Bills 35 and 166 and Assembly Bill 1397.

SB 35 creates a new streamlined approval process for high-density housing projects in cities and counties that haven't seen the construction of the numbers and types of units called for by their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) -- which quantifies each local jurisdiction's "fair share" of the statewide housing need.

Eligible apartment or condo projects would need only staff-level approval within months, and without a full public consideration process, full environmental review or being subject to a referendum, Beaudin said.

To qualify, a developer's project must meet specific criteria, including the site being residentially zoned and surrounded by development on at least 75% of its borders. It also can't be in environmentally sensitive areas, the developer must pay prevailing wages to construction workers and 10% to 50% of the units must be low-income affordable -- 50% in Pleasanton's case short-term, Beaudin said.

"So you're telling us that in our city, it would have to be 50% affordable ... and also you'd have to pay prevailing wage," Mayor Jerry Thorne said, with a chuckle, to confirm city staff's conclusion that a streamlined project is highly unlikely in the short-term.

Given the requirements, city staff thinks only five high-density sites in Pleasanton's Housing Element site inventory are currently eligible for streamlined processing, though no proposals are on the table.

The locations are the eastern Dublin-Pleasanton parking lot on Owens Drive, Stoneridge Shopping Center, the vacant Roche property at 4300 Hacienda Drive, the vacant Kaiser site at 5600 Stoneridge Mall Road and the Sheraton/Marriott hotel site at 5990 Stoneridge Mall Road.

Pleasanton's east side would not qualify under SB 35 in the short-term because the site is not surrounded by other development and could be environmentally sensitive, Beaudin said.

But the impacts of SB 35 could really start being felt after the city's Housing Element update in 2023, which will incorporate new RHNA mandates, including new marks for total housing and affordable units that will need to be generated in Pleasanton over the following eight years, he added.

SB 166 targets affordable housing requirements for new residential projects across individual cities.

Prior state law included "no net loss" provisions, which allowed cities to "down-zone" a site or approve projects with less density than specified in the city's adopted Housing Element as long as adequate alternative housing sites in the city existed, Beaudin said.

The new legislation requires cities to demonstrate those findings not only for total housing numbers, but also for different affordability income categories identified for the site in the Housing Element inventory, Beaudin said. That means if an apartment project comes forward with fewer affordable units than designated for the site, the city would need to rezone other sites as replacement locations for high-density housing.

SB 166 is another bill that isn't expected to have much impact during the current RHNA cycle, but that could change when the numbers are updated in four years, according to Beaudin.

And AB 1397 stipulates that potential housing sites must have a realistic capacity to accommodate new development, and it prohibits repeating proposed housing sites in the city's inventory for more than two RHNA cycles, Beaudin said. That means the five aforementioned high-density potential sites might have to be removed from the 2023 Housing Element and new sites identified.

Beaudin acknowledged the California Department of Housing and Community Development is still working to create new regulations and guidelines related to the new housing legislation, so the full impact of all 15 bills is difficult to hone in on right now.

He said city officials would monitor the forthcoming new state regulations while also working to prepare for the 2023 Housing Element update and potential review of the city's land-use policies and standards.

They also plan to watch for new legislative proposals from Sacramento.

"Typically, when the Legislature puts as much time and energy into a topic like they did with housing last year, they're going to move on and watch it play out a little bit. But that really hasn't been the case this time," Beaudin said.

Among the new housing bills already introduced early in 2018 is SB 827 from Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which would eliminate discretionary review of projects around transit stations and transit corridors and institute no density limits, no parking requirements and building heights of 55 to 85 feet tall for those projects -- a proposal council members bristled at Tuesday night.

In closing, Thorne said he and the mayors of Dublin and Livermore are "talking about inviting the authors of these bills out (here) to drive them around and just show them what kind of impact they could have on a community, which hopefully would have a real impact -- but you can't count on that."

Rest of housing package

Here’s a roundup of the remaining bills in the state's 2017 housing package, as recapped by Beaudin in his staff report to the council.

SB 167/AB 678 (Housing Accountability Act). SB 167 and the identical AB 678 increase the burden of proof required for a local government to reject or require downsizing of a housing project that includes affordable units.

AB 879 (Annual Reporting & Fees). This bill adds more technical requirements to provide additional data for required annual reports, which document the City's actual housing production each year, starting with the Annual Progress Report due April 1, 2019. It also directs HCD to evaluate the reasonableness of local government fees by June 30, 2019. These requirements will likely necessitate additional staff time to comply with the new requirements.

AB 72 (Compliance Review by HCD). This bill authorizes HCD to find a city out of compliance with State housing law at any time, instead of the current practice where compliance is determined in conjunction with Housing Element certification by HCD; and to refer violations of State housing law to the Attorney General if deemed to be inconsistent with the City's adopted housing element.

SB 2 (Building Homes and Jobs Act— Recordation Fee). This bill provides funding for affordable housing by imposing a $ 75 fee on each recorded document up to a maximum of $225 per transaction per parcel ( payable by the property owner). These fees are not a concern.

SB 3 (Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018). This bill places a bond on the November 2018 ballot. The bond measure would raise 3 billion for existing state affordable housing programs and $ 1 billion for CalVet, the home purchase assistance program for veterans.

SB 540 (Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone). This bill allows cities, at their option, to create Workforce Housing Opportunity Zones, or areas within the city or county that are designated for expedited housing development, with at least half of the homes required to be affordable to households with low or moderate incomes.

AB 73 (Housing Sustainability Districts). This bill allows cities and counties to create Housing Sustainability Districts, which function similarly to SB 540' s housing zones. Housing and Sustainability Districts require at least 20 percent of the homes required to be affordable and would allow streamlined environmental and planning review.

AB 1515 (Reasonable Person Standard). This bill provides a " reasonable person standard" when a developer legally challenges a local jurisdiction' s decision to reject a proposed housing project. It requires courts to give less deference to evidence presented by local governments, and more consideration of alternative reasonable evidence that would allow a reasonable person to reach that conclusion.

AB 1505 (The Palmer Fix). This bill is known as the "the Palmer Fix." Since the Court of Appeals 2009 decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles, most local agencies have not been able to require affordable housing in rental projects. This bill provides authorization for these requirements, so long as an alternate means of compliance, such as in lieu fees, is also provided. The restrictions imposed by the Palmer case has not been an issue for Pleasanton as the City has been able to satisfactorily negotiate affordable components of all proposed projects.

AB 1521 (Enhanced Preservation Notice Law). This bill strengthens the existing Preservation Notice Law by requiring sellers of a subsidized housing development to accept an offer from a qualified buyer if specified requirements are met. This law also provides HCD with additional tracking and enforcement responsibilities.

AB 571 (Farmworker Housing). This bill allows individual farmworker housing projects to qualify for more public funding and allows projects with 50 percent of units for farmworkers (instead of 100 percent) to qualify, making these types of projects more financially viable.

Comments

10 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Feb 21, 2018 at 12:43 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

Because this rejects the artificial potential housing the city has been using to make its numbers by counting the mall and the BART parking lots as potential but improbable houses, we will probably need to commit to houses on the east side.

I just hope that those houses are forever zoned low to medium density so that we 1) STOP allowing commercial office space development, which triggers the law requiring houses, and 2) STOP allowing apartments and postage stamp sized houses.

Dublin wasted a tremendous opportunity with their hills, which could have been build out like Ruby Hills and instead is almost San Francisco in its tightness of space. Let’s please please please not make that same error here.


5 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Feb 21, 2018 at 12:45 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

Oh, and you are aware that Wiener is trying to force Brisbane to build with that law. Sadly, he probably couldn’t care less that that law will lead to much worse, Los Angeles like sprawl conditions for the rest of the Bay Area and increased Spare the Air alerts for everyone.

Unfortunately, by having a Republican as our state representive, we have essentially no regional voice in one chamber of government.


6 people like this
Posted by Kim
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 22, 2018 at 11:33 am

This quote makes me sad: "Housing production in general is a touchy subject in our community, invites extreme reactions from both sides," Fialho added. Housing production is one of the most important issues facing this region. Prices are out of control and people are being forced further and further from their jobs to be able to afford a place to live. Pleasanton is victimized twice by the lack of affordable housing in our area: increased traffic/pollution from the congestion on 580 and 680 caused by people driving through our community to get to work and by the fact that our kids and teachers and police officers can't afford to live here. People who do not want any more housing in pleasanton should really think about what housing really is: a home for somebody who wants to become a member of this community. Growth is going to happen. You can't shut the gates behind you. High density housing next to transit is the answer. It provides choice. We have enough ruby hills (which is the definition of sprawl by the way). No one is forcing anyone to live in apartments. There is a demand for this type of housing. I would be surprised if the anti-housing people never lived in an apartment at least at some point in their lives. We need more housing and we need a variety of types and price points. These are facts.


4 people like this
Posted by Kim
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 22, 2018 at 12:11 pm

Just read this in an article about transportation. This supports the claim that there is a demand for different type of housing than what is currently available in pleasanton:

Declines in driver licensing and car ownership rates are often cited as an indicator of shifting lifestyle preferences. Since 1983, there has been a steady drop in the share of Americans 16 through 44 years of age with a driver’s license
(Sivak & Schoettle, 2016 ). Millennials are less drawn to the auto-oriented lifestyles of their parents ( Taylor,Blumenberg, Brown, Ralph, & Voulgaris, 2015 ). Unlike Baby Boomers, for whom the ownership of two major and costly assets—houses and automobiles—tended to be lifelong goals, Millennials are more inclined to direct their incomes to electronic gadgets, travel, eating out, going to
concerts, and other life experiences (Litman, 2015 ). According to one survey, 30% of U.S. Millennials are willing to give up owning a car even if it means paying
more to travel (Dutzik, Inglis, & Baxandall, 2014 ). Millennials are also reshaping the geomorphology of cities. Many are drawn to accessible, walkable, mixed-use
neighborhoods in traditional urban cores (Juday, 2015 ). Although even more Millennials are taking up residence in the suburbs (Taylor et al., 2015 ), this is mainly because most cannot afford to live in the gentrified urban core
(Juday, 2015 ). If they could, they would. When living downtown or nearby, Millennials and their neighbors tend to own fewer cars; are less likely to drive or have a license; and are much more likely to walk, take transit, or hail an
app-based ride than are residents of other parts of a city
(Rayle et al., 2016 ; Taylor et al., 2015 ). Where Millennials go, so do employers.


10 people like this
Posted by closed community
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 23, 2018 at 12:36 pm

closed community is a registered user.

Kim, I'll tell you what makes me sad, people who want to close the gate behind them and keep Pleasanton an exclusive, over the top priced rich people's club. Their attitude is "if you can't afford a $2 million dollar home in Pleasanton, just leave and go live somewhere else". Leave us rich people in peace! That is really sad. I have never seen a place so uncaring, unsupportive and unbelievably selfish as this. Many people work very hard and would like to live in Pleasanton where they work, but can't because of the extremely high prices here. They are forever doomed to commute their lives away and the "haves" couldn't care less about the have nots. Sad.


24 people like this
Posted by Buc Lau
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2018 at 3:11 pm

@Closed Community - your oversimplification of this issue is astounding. Gee, I’d love to live in Blackhawk and it’s just not “fair” that those homes are so expensive and I can’t get what I want - boo hoo for me. Sorry to break it to you, but life is not always equitable or equal. Nothing in life is ever 100% equal. The notion of forced equalization is called socialism how well did that work?


17 people like this
Posted by Homeowner
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 24, 2018 at 11:30 am

My family has worked very hard to live in Pleasanton. We don’t live in a $2 million dollar house or even a $1 million dollar house. Our house is neither ostentatious or huge, so generalizing those of use who work hard and live in this community as “rich and uncaring” is sad. We love Pleasanton, and yes, it may take my husband and I up to 2 hours each way to commute to work, we wouldn’t live anywhere else in the Bay Area and we work very, very hard to live here. We choose to live In Pleasanton because it’s not overcrowded (yet) like many of the other communities in the Bay Area are being forced to become. Sad, yes sad, if/when Pleasanton is also forced to succumb to the pressures of this “need more housing” (high density, 0 parking, 0 lot projects) mentality. The unfounded comments about those of us who live in this town, and who work very hard to live in this town, don’t apply, that’s what’s so sad.


2 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2018 at 9:30 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Homeowner and others,

Not everyone in Pleasanton is against high density housing, and high density doesn't automatically mean lower quality of life. Well planned development can be good for a community. Bringing BART to Pleasanton and adding the extra station were both solid improvements in my opinion.

I also like the idea of adding apartments and condos near public transportation, like the newer apartments near BART. I can't help but see the irony in the NIMBY attitude of people who move into new housing developments and then immediately oppose all future development. I'm personally glad to see the opposition really isn't working anymore. People have to face reality. If you want low density living, you need to leave the Bay Area.


6 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2018 at 9:42 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Grumpy,

Are you sure you really think Dublin should have tried to turn all those hills into one enormous high end gated community like Ruby Hills?

Do you really mean to say to all the people who bought those homes and live in those apartments that their houses represent a "wasted opportunity?". They probably like living there. I have friends living in that area and really like it.


15 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 24, 2018 at 9:45 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

Sorry, don’t care. Busted my @$$ to buy a home here (good schools, family friendly, parks, etc) and am really not interested in being neighbors with someone that thinks they should be able to live here due to geography.

Teachers, police, fire can’t afford to live here?! Give me a break, they can and choose not to due to the same reasons I choose to live here and commute 60mi daily. Quality of life for dollar.

I don’t want a high density community- I lived that life before and choose to not do so anymore.

I shouldn’t have to feel guilty for that either, stop bullying those of us that have a differing opinion on housing just because it’s not yours.


8 people like this
Posted by Winston
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 24, 2018 at 11:33 pm

Winston is a registered user.

Legislation that adds prevailing wage requirements along with increased affordability mandates only pushes land developers to outer lying areas such as Tracy and the central valley. For those applauding, it will mean that even greater infill densities will be constructed here per the City’s housing element aka affordable mega apartment complexes. It also means we are impacting our State’s agricultural area, adds more traffic and need for improvements to I580. If you care about big picture, it creates social, economic, and environmental inequities by distancing people from higher performing schools, better paying jobs, reduces their family time, and causes MORE environmental impacts. I dont support income restricted affordable housing, but I think we need to be better at integrating different medium and high density neighborhoods.

I blame people like Matt Sullivan and past council members for kicking the can down the street. They claim to be anti-housing for quality of life here. Unfortunately, we could have addressed it thougthfully to better integrate densities over time. Now we will have no choice but to construct much higher densities at fewer locations and have designated affordable rents or sales prices. And I cant wait for the East Side development which will no doubt ultimately be the last opportunity to maximize housing to avoid State penalties.

By the way, our daughter/family at age 35 bought a small new home in Livermore after working hard and saving. The City required the same house across the street to be designated at a low income price. So it is literally 1/3 of the market price she paid. Instead of celebrating their hard work and modest success, they are disenchanted and upset. Something is wrong with this approach and we believe affordable units should be only apartments with a property manager to handle exteriors, interiors, and landscape.


4 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 25, 2018 at 9:24 am

BobB is a registered user.

@Pleasanton Parent,

Dublin is family friendly and has good schools too (in some ways better than Pleasanton). People also worked hard to afford Dublin. No one is demanding that your house be torn down.

I'm glad I live in the Bay Area, where business and jobs are thriving. More housing is coming to Pleasanton, and well planned higher density housing can improve our quality of life.


9 people like this
Posted by Homeowner
a resident of Downtown
on Feb 25, 2018 at 10:38 am

Our small house was built in the 40s, far from “new,” in an area with large apartment complexes, so we already have density in our neighborhood. BobB, your NIMBY argument doesn’t apply. Telling those of us who live in Pleasanton, to get out, to make room for “well planned developments” is sounding like something straight out of the totalitarian notebook. Nope, thank you for the offer, but we’re staying.


2 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 25, 2018 at 6:06 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Homeowner,

I'm not asking anyone to get out and have no plans to leave anytime soon myself.


6 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Feb 25, 2018 at 8:40 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

@BobB,

No silly, I don't really think Dublin should have tried to turn all those hills into one enormous Ruby Hill. That's why I didn't say it.

What I did say is that they wasted their opportunity, and that the hills could have been built out like Ruby Hill--to which now I'll add Blackhawk. These are examples of low density residential. Dublin chose to do high density. The density of houses does impact the quality of life, and the resale value of the locations within the community.

As for apartments, why are you saying *they* represent a wasted opportunity? Apartments in Dublin seem, at least from a distance, to be well done and well integrated. I'm not sure what you have against them, or why you project that onto me, but those answers must lie within you. Thus, you may find that the discussion you need to have is with yourself, not here with others.

From an environmental as well as planning perspective, it is wrong to treat distant suburbs/exurbs as urban infill zones. These housing laws are designed to solve SF problems, which we don't have and the solutions of which will cause serious problems here.

I am totally fine with a broad mix of housing types: high density in Hacienda near BART for transit, with densities decreasing at distance to ensure consistency and preservation of rural and agricultural environments. I don't like out-of-place density, though I dislike the Bernal/Stanley development much less than I thought I would. What I don't like is the seeming thoughtlessness in this whole enterprise, where we have lots of official plans but no real cohesiveness of thought across them.

So, to repeat, I am against the general urbanization of exurbs. That's bad for everyone. But I am for having a wide variety of housing choices, from basic apartments to luxury apartments, and from first-time houses to luxury houses.


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Feb 25, 2018 at 8:45 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

Also, could someone please explain the fixation towards gated communities here? It's so rife that one cannot mention Ruby Hill as a density example with people getting wrapped around the axle on exclusivity and class issues. Perhaps I'll have to remember to mention Castlewood instead? No gates...but do people hate on it just as much? Maybe I should mention farmland? I'm at a loss here.

I understand why people might dislike gates. I don't want to live behind one. I might not care if a house I wanted already were behind one. But I'd never think to ask to have one built. But the Wente guys were smart when they took low-quality jug wine acreage and replaced it with a fortune-generating real estate development. I'm jealous for Wente. But good for them. And good for those who want to buy a house behind it. So long as those who don't like gates can buy good houses with public streets, then all is well.


11 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 25, 2018 at 9:48 pm

BobB,
Ask the people in Dublin if they're happy with their high density housing and commute through the town to get to schools for their kids.

Dublin has no downtown, no community, it's not a bad place to live, but not what I want in a community


2 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 26, 2018 at 8:49 am

BobB is a registered user.

@Pleasanton Parent,

Like I said, I have a number of friends who live in Dublin and like it a lot. Planning could have been better, but it isn't a bad place to live at all.


Like this comment
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 26, 2018 at 8:54 am

BobB is a registered user.

@Grumpy,

I don't have a problem with apartments near BART in Dublin or Pleasanton.


Like this comment
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Feb 26, 2018 at 9:32 am

Grumpy is a registered user.

@BobB, no but you think everyone else does, when they don’t either. That says something interesting about you, don’t you think?

What I want is good planning. Not magical thinking, like Owens Dr. Not bad infill projects. Not postage stamped lots so that landowners can double the density. But not all McMansions, not all private roads. I always refer back to Irvine, because like them or not that’s their one skill—varying the community density and style and doing terrific high density apartments. Now, they are terrible at transit oriented development, but OC doesn’t do transit well. We have BART. So let’s do that well.


Like this comment
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 26, 2018 at 9:53 am

BobB is a registered user.

" That says something interesting about you, don’t you think?"

Maybe you should stick to the subject rather than getting personal.

" no but you think everyone else does, when they don’t either."

I don't. Plenty of people on these threads object to all growth no matter what.

"Not postage stamped lots so that landowners can double the density."

I don't have any problem at all with "postage stamped lots". Plenty of people prefer them. Much less gardening and lawn care to deal with.

And I just want to repeat, that Pleasanton Weekly comments are loaded with NIMBYs who object to building anything, anywhere. I'm happy to answer them.


4 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 26, 2018 at 10:29 am

BobB is a registered user.

@Grumpy,

Regarding what you said about Ruby Hill, you made have been thinking something different in your head, but you said "could have been build out like Ruby Hills" and I responded to that.


2 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Feb 26, 2018 at 12:49 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

I'm genuinely sorry you took it personally. It's not strictly personal, as in it is not an ad hominem argument. When someone makes a quick and false assumption, it injects the assumer into the conversation. And I do find it fascinating when people assume. I buy what you say, that so many people are NIMBYs that you'd assume I was being that way too. But my opinions are generally more nuanced than that.

"Could have been build out like Ruby Hill", in plain English, uses the work "like" to mean "sharing one or more attributes of". You assumed the attribute I was discussing was uniformity and exclusivity. I wasn't. I was merely discussing density, since Ruby Hill is one of the few large, low density zoned residential areas in Pleasanton if not the largest. So I understand how you got to the assumption, but like I said, it was an assumption.

And you're making the same black-and-white assumption on postage stamp sized lots. The argument "some people like them" is no counter to "all of them should not be". Yet you use it as one. So I'm stuck again trying to figure out why you're seeing this issue in black-and-white. Dublin has exclusively postage stamp sized lots. Plenty can be said about how wrong it is to be exclusively or even predominantly postage stamp sized, none the least of which is that this didn't reduce prices, but rather increased density at the same high price, to allow developers to squeeze more money out. Dublin lost sight of their responsibility, as an exurb, to not increase density radically and cause localized pollution, traffic, and increased average commute times. The state doesn't help, because policies designed for SF get applied here by overzealous officials. Now, none of this argues for eliminating some zero-lot-line developments, and, as I mentioned before, some should exist because some people like them. But right now Dublin gives no one a choice, and just because people buy it doesn't mean that that was right or even what they wanted.

Are you able to see this part of the argument?


Like this comment
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 26, 2018 at 3:50 pm

BobB is a registered user.

@Grumpy,

Sure, I see what you were saying.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Wrapping up a 100-year-old detective job
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,533 views

Couples: “It’s Not My Problem. It’s Your Problem.”
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 864 views

Livermore's Marchand, aka the mayor of Seville, seeks re-election
By Jeb Bing | 6 comments | 464 views

 

Nominations due by Sept. 17

Pleasanton Weekly and DanvilleSanRamon.com are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form