|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
-
The Pleasanton Planning Commission on Wednesday is scheduled to discuss the owners’ concepts for redeveloping these two properties on St. John Street. Both scenarios currently on the table include tearing down the Barone’s Restaurant (right) and retaining the two-story house next door, with primarily new residences being added across both parcels. (Photo by Jeremy Walsh) -
Barone’s restaurant on St. John Street on the north end of downtown Pleasanton. (Photo by Jeremy Walsh) -
The restaurant and residential properties, next to the Rose Hotel, are located on St. John Street near the Peters Avenue bend. (Photo by Jeremy Walsh)
A proposal to redevelop the site where Barone’s Restaurant currently stands downtown will be the subject of a public work session with the Pleasanton Planning Commission next week.
Ellen Clark, the city’s community development director, confirmed to the Weekly that plans to build an 11-unit detached single-family residential project — seven of which would also include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — at the properties at 475 and 493 St. John St. will be discussed at the meeting.
An alternative option for an 1,988-square-foot commercial/office building on one of the lots fronting St. John Street (with one less residential lot) has also been proposed by the applicant.
“The commercial building would retain the appearance of a residential structure, but would be configured inside to accommodate office uses,” Clark said.
Under both scenarios, the existing restaurant building (475 St. John St.) would be torn down while the two-story house next door (493 St. John St.) would be retained, with redevelopment spread across the neighboring parcels.
The commission and city staff expect and encourage input from the public on the types of uses on the site, “particularly the amount and type of commercial” as well as the type and density of new residential units, that are appropriate for the location and that best meet the goals and priorities laid out in the Downtown Specific Plan, Clark said.
Clark added that “things like the overall site plan, street frontage/character, relationship to surrounding uses and development, parking and circulation, and so on, are of interest.”
In the past, the Pleasanton City Council discussed the policies that mention commercial uses on downtown sites like the one for Barone’s, “and with those policies in mind, staff has strongly encouraged the applicant to include a commercial component in this project,” Clark said. “They’ve done so in their proposed alternative plan, and we look forward to the commission and public’s input on the proposal.”
The Planning Commission meeting, designed as a workshop to receive feedback on the initial project concepts without any final decisions to be made, is scheduled to be held virtually next Wednesday (March 24) starting at 7 p.m. The city staff report had not been made public as of press time this week. Once posted, it can be viewed at www.cityofpleasantonca.gov.
Police: Mother, son killed in shooting in neighborhood near Ken Mercer Sports ParkFebruary 18, 2026 5:47 pm
Back in the early 70’s it was still the Villa Armando Winery with the big open concrete lined pits for holding the grapes, then something happened with the family and everybody bailed??
Beautiful piece of property not what I was hoping for when these current owners got ready to bail, we don’t need this type of housing downtown, how about some more retail spaces???
Biggest checkbook wins in PTown!!
Ugh!!
I keep hearing “raise” this tax or that tax, but I never hear a damned word about cutting waste and spending at the city/county/state/federal level.
It’s obvious that waste accounts for billions if not 100’s of billions of our tax dollars that could be put to use in projects such as what Janet Chen is pontificating.
But no, always tax more first.
To hell with that. Cut spending and waste first and THEN we can talk about taxes.
You all are fighting each other when you SHOULD be fighting our so-called political leaders at all levels.
Until that happens, you are just whistling past the graveyard.
Dan
“but it Pleastanton, it is those on the right who are the problem.“
And your evidence for this claim is where, exactly??
You’re just pulling it out of no where, BobB.
Dan
@ Janet,
You can’t do whatever you want with your property. The affect to the community of what is built on your property and how that property is used is one function of government.
If the proposed homes are not on the power grid (which is expensive but achievable), they get their water from an entity other than the City/Zone 7 and they can mitigate 100% of the issues they will cause (no cars allowed by these residents, won’t use any city services, etc.) then build away! Mitigation fees don’t come close to addressing the costs associated with new development.
You chose to move to Pleasanton instead of a high density community. Performative Activism.
BobB,
You didn’t point out James and Michael in your original comment. You specifically said “Pleasanton”.
James and Michael, though often correct in their opinions, do not speak for all conservatives on this issue.
Well, now, Ms. Chen, you surely have strong opinions regarding a community that we have called home for the past 50 years. We remember sheep grazing in the fields along Bernal where there is now a lighted sports park, a giant Safeway store, national restaurant chains, and cars. Lots and lots of cars.
Kids attended middle school on 1st street, where that campus has evolved into a sports field, pre-school, school district offices, and even a continuation high school.
The movie theatre, dimestore, smoke-filled bars, and pubs (remember the Union Jack?) along Main Street have been replaced with upscale, cute eateries of diverse cuisines, a posh hotel, and plenty of banks to safeguard our hard-earned monies.
Next door to the west of Barone’s used to be a mortuary. It now operates on 1st St. and the former site is now residential townhouses. Right next door to the restaurant.
Our home was once a vineyard. We even grew a couple of grapevines the bulldozers missed when grading was done on our back hillside. City councils have planned zoning changes over the years to allow the community to develop as needed. Mixed-use for the Barone site has been zoned. Commercial can stay at the front of the property, shared with housing at the back of the property. It can make a gentle transition so long as enough parking is accommodated.
No reason it has to be anything but a win-win for retention of cuteness and carving out space for human habitation. Vitriolic diatribe about single-family homes being the curse of a nation is pure hogwash.
We ARE the old folks who live in one of those relics under Prop. 13 and are aging gracefully in place, continuing to contribute to society, (instead of being a burden) and are not about to let your or anybody else run us out of town on a racist rail. We welcome diverse neighbors and will staunchly defend our right to live here as being equal to newcomers who seem hell-bent on displacing rather than living peacefully with us.
Is there anybody out there that has millions of dollars that they can just give these people so they don’t teardown this beautiful old buildings and build housing projects. I know it sounds crazy but it is such a beautiful area and what is proposed here is going to ruin it. I don’t know what else to do except for asked for someone to give them money so they don’t ruin this area
Is it possible that these buildings are so old that they cannot be torn down legally
Many fond memories of eating there. I held a big birthday for my wife there. We held a going away dinner for some friends moving to Hong Kong, as well as many smaller intimate dinners and pre-dinner cocktail hours.
Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the timely article about this important change to downtown Pleasanton. I agree with Steve and many of the hundreds of residents who want a vital downtown vibe instead of more houses. Barone’s offered the community a restaurant and a public place that stayed open later in the evening. The Planning Commission (planningcommission@cityofpleasantonca.gov) and the City Council (citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov) need to hear from residents who aren’t in support of building more expensive houses, even with a small commercial plot as a concession to all the opposition to changing the zoning to residential. Many of us remember in 2019 when the Council majority (Narum, Pentin and Thorne) allowed Barone’s to change their zoning to allow for both residential and commercial development. Hopefully the new City Council will take a critical look at the proposed plan when it comes to them for a final vote. In the mean time the Planning Commissioners need to hear from the public by March 24th when they address this planned development.
My family and I moved close to Downtown Pleasanton so we could walk to restaurants, shops, entertainment and to be close to schools. It would be a shame to loose such a great piece of commercial property if this proposed project if given the go-ahead.
I wonder what the Chamber of Commerce’s opinion is on this project. It would seem, with the problem of getting people to shop at downtown stores, having more retail would only bring in more downtown customers. This is supposed to be a “mixed-use” area; where’s the mix?
In reply to Dave Wilson, it would be better for residents to speak up now by writing to the planning commission. Why waste time letting the planning commission go down their own path – against the wishes of the resident majority – only to have it voted down by the Council? That would simply be a waste of time.
Write or phone the planning commission and Councilmembers now.
Why only 11 homes? Why not 110 homes at the same site?
Enough with the neighborhood ‘character’. We all know what that means.
We need more housing. The denser the better. That is the only way we can bring down the cost of housing, save our economy and our planet.
We need 15-minute cities all across the bay area. Walkable, bikeable and public-transit rich. Small businesses can only survive when there are families that live near by. And families means more, a lot more homes.
Back in the 70’s? We are not back in the 70’s. How about back in the 50’s when the home you live in was a fruit orchard.
We need to move forward and the only path forward is to build denser communities, public-transit rich communities. Great for business and great for our planet.
Single-family zoning is a relic of the past. We need to evolve for a better future, not just for the landed gentry but for all of us.
So the destruction and remodel of the “historic house” on 2nd St. in the summer of 2019 was a bad thing because they didn’t have the proper permits? But the destruction of this building will be okay because the city council and planning commission will provide the proper permits? Can someone explain the difference? Payola maybe.
Janet Chen,
I think you moved to the wrong city. Many in Pleasanton moved here specifically for its small town charm and excellent schools. If you want dense, please feel free to to establish residence in any other Bay Area city. Dublin, Mountain View, San Jose, Fremont, San Mateo, Burlingame, Pleasant Hill, Lafayette, Walnut Creek there are so many to chose from that have your desired dense population living. There is only ONE Pleasanton for those of us who do not desire such crowding.
To James Michael,
Maintaining suburban sprawl costs money. All that road and sewage infrastructure on top of the environmental impact doesn’t come cheap. Plus prop 13 property tax limits do not help.
So either we repeal prop 13 and normalize taxes to pay for sprawl or we build dense to raise revenues. Oh and save the economy and the planet in that process. Our choice.
To Stephanie,
Cities evolve and they have to evolve. Pleasanton or any city in the wider Bay area is no longer immune to density. And we should not be especially with access to Bart and other future infrastructure projects that can pencil out with density.
And remember the wild fire season last year? That was just a preview.
And I bet when you travel to Europe out of that money you save due to the prop 13 subsidies you enjoy, you marvel at how they live in dense, walkable, bikeable and public-transit rich communities. We the enlightened generation want to bring that living to every major city in this country. That’s best for our planet. That’s best for our economy.
Enough with this screwing the poor and the young and perpetuating segregated communities We should be for all kinds of people to be living amongst us. Not just the rich or the white.
Although the article doesn’t mention it, I assume the owners of the properties is the family that owns Barone’s restaurant. I guess they want out of that restaurant and the most financially lucrative way is to have the properties rezoned and not just sell the restaurant site. The future of downtown Pleasanton is at stake here.
To highdriver,
If I owned that property, I own it. Apart from building say an oil refinery or anything like that, if I sell and the buyer besides to build homes, even better. And mixed-use would be even more better.
Small businesses cannot survive without density. Density will only happen when we reform our zoning codes. It’s about time we do that. Great for everyone except folks who want to maintain their neighborhood ‘character’.
Not to be disrespectful, Ms. Chen, but you didn’t answer my question. You just went off on your high density rant and now you are playing the race card with your reply to Stephanie. How can you spin race into this? Oh, you must be a democrat.
To James Michael,
So that’s it. Democrats bad and Republicans good though I identify myself as neither. Here is what any sensible person would be for:
– Building diverse communities where all sorts of people can live, not just the rich or the white. We want someone born dirt poor to be able to cycle through and have a shot at dying rich. We don’t want to create a class of landed gentry who sit on their ass and hoard everything for themselves.
– Drive the cost of living and by that I mean the cost of housing so low that if I want to take a chance on a startup or start my own business, I would not hesitate to take that chance. Mortgage indebtedness is not only bad for a family but is bad for the economy.
– Silicon Valley has become an innovation machine not only for this country but for the world. NIMBYism is a threat that can take away all of that. If businesses cannot hire the people needed because those people cannot move due to the lack of housing, that’s no good for anyone.
– Build denser communities where bike and public transit infrastructure pencils out. I assume you don’t know but every mile you drive in a car, our economy suffers a negative cost implication of a $1.10. Every mile you bike, the government saves $1. Where do the savings come from? Not needing to expand freeways, pollute our air and impact our planet but all the positive externalities associated with savings on healthcare costs and maintaining bike infrastructure.
Downtown is a center for people to gather and for the community to shop, eat and unwind. Converting this site to a housing project that will serve a handful of folks robs us and future generations of that experience. Keep downtown small…if you don’t like it Dublin and Fremont may be more of your cup of tea!
To Foothill Falconator,
Downtown is not at your service where you can bus servers to serve on you from somewhere in Stockton or Merced. That mindset oh God. The rich overlords demand the servers show up from 50 miles away and they should.
And housing project? Oh so anything but a single family home is a project to you? So evolved.
There is a reason why businesses are shutting down. Have you tried hiring a server in a restaurant and see what it takes to run it?
Downtown will only work when it is allowed to work. Running a business is not charity. A business needs customers and a dense community that lives in and around downtown provides a ready set of them.
You can unwind all you want in your single family zoned backyard. No one is asking you to change that. But you or the other NIMBYs don’t own the planet and if I own a home and want to convert to a fourplex to have four families live there, I should be allowed to. It’s a free country after all. We are not asking for an oil refinery folks if that is where it will go.
All we need is to densify a bit or at least not obstruct progress. And I am not a Democrat because you know Democrats bad and Republicans good.
Chen, you are right, it is a free country. If you want to densify then go forth and densify somewhere it is wanted and allowed. Not all of us want to densify. You are densify royalty.
With all due respects “Ms. Chen” the citizens, homeowners & business owners of Pleasanton do not wish to see our town transformed into a mirror image of the stack & pack nightmare that currently exists just across the freeway in Dublin. I have sat in front of numerous city councils, planning commissions & court rooms railing against the plot that the ABAG/ICLEI cabal has set forth to establish just what you are foolishly proposing and I will once again don my cape & fight for the rights of property owners and to maintain our cities small town charm. For a moment I was hoping you were just dripping in sarcasm but sadly you are just part of the globalists that wish to inflict the Agenda 21 narrative onto middle class communities & impose the radical realignment of our communities infrastructure to mimic & a 3rd world slum. The kind of slums which my father struggled half his life to bring his family from Mexico City & finally immigrate to the the United States to escape from. Thank you, but I think we’ll pass.
To John,
You have the definition of a free country wrong. If I own a property, I own a property. Neighborhoods don’t get to decide or at least should not decide what I do with my property, of course within reason. If my land can provide shelter to four families, I should be allowed to do that.
To Guillermo,
So walkable, bikeable, public-transit rich communities equals slums? And sprawl equals good? So evolved and how so planet friendly. Your grand kids will thank you for that. Try visiting some Dutch cities with all that tax savings you enjoy due to the prop 13 tax subsidy that allows you to not pay your fair share and see how ‘bad’ their quality of life is.
Small businesses are toast so don’t even bring them up. Yes, the ‘middle-class’ NIMBYs living in million dollar homes would want to preserve their neighborhood ‘character’ but that needs to change. It has to.
And let me tell you what happens when you don’t build in say Pleasanton. People are not going away. They’ll build on that next pasture and sprawl out more. And guess what freeways and byways are they going to use? The same ones you do. And then you’ll squeal about traffic. That’s besides the environmental mess.
And guess what. That next neighborhood that should not have happened will have their own set of NIMBYs not allowing density. And the sprawl perpetuates.
As much as I hate it, this is what we get when we have too much local control. It’s about time we try something new and set housing policies from the center. Otherwise this selfishness will not only destroy the people who think is helping them but will destroy families like mine as well.
Oh and prop 13 is another impediment that needs to be reformed. Sprawl doesn’t come cheap. Pay your fair share if you want to perpetuate that. Reforming prop 13 and replacing property tax with land value tax will get rid of this planet and economy destroying selfishness overnight.
That’s it.
Here, something to ponder over. We still have time.
https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
“So that’s it. Democrats bad and Republicans good though I identify myself as neither. ”
How about a socialist/communist instead?
We can only “make progress” by having the government tell you how/where to live, force people into mass transit/bicycles, the predictable “pay your fair share” (not enough “normal” taxes) complaints in a state with some of the highest taxes in the nation – and it’s “prejudice” and the “world will end” if we don’t.
Nothing sensible about any this if you want to remain living in a free society.
Regarding Barone’s new development Does it really matter what we think or will the City just do what they want anyway. Doesn’t anyone remember the Pleasanton of old? I guess not. We do not need new homes in the smack of down town. This is just crazy. More congestion is all it will recreate.
Please listen to the people who live here and want it to stay the sweet town it has been.
To MichaelB,
Socialist / Communitst? Ha and no. Pragmatist, yes. And on taxes, I agree on its onerous nature. Reduce sales / income taxes dollar for dollar by reforming prop 13. Replace instead with a land value tax and you will see our economy and the environment flourish.
We as a society need to discourage mal-investment that is in real estate and channel more of that investment into things that solve real problems instead of creating new ones.
To Shirley,
The home you probably live in used to be a pasture at one point. That was the Pleasanton of old. You started that congestion. And congestion is exactly that we need to solve by creating a bike friendly and public-transit infrastructure that pencils out. And that will only pencil out through light density. If we don’t, the congestion that you claim to talk about is just going to get worse by folks moving to the next pasture just like you did with this pasture you live on.
To SHIRLEY,
I hope you go the the City Council meetings! And SPEAK!!!
To Shirley,
Also show up with money at the City Council meeting to buy the Barone’s site outright so we can leave it empty and preserve it as a testament to preserving our neighborhood ‘character’.
If we want to retain a cute downtown, we’ve got to support the cute Downtown. And encourage or City leaders to invest in the Downtown. Look at Livermore, they are building their third parking structure, meanwhile Pleasanton has invested next to nothing in our Downtown. Pleasanton… We loved to drive by Amelia’s Deli on our way to Subway, by Kolln Hardware on our way to Home Depot, and Bob’s Giant Burger on our way to In & Out…
Fifty Years Here response to revitalizing the downtown is to build more parking structures. Someone, please shoot me.
Every mile of bike infrastructure adds a $1.10 in net GAINS to the economy. Every mile of car infrastructure COSTS $1.02 to the economy due to the added healthcare costs and the negative externalities associated with maintaining the infrastructure and the associated environmental impact.
Walk or bike to all these wonderful places you claim you’d go to if there was parking. Oh you can’t? Because it is not easily accessible without driving in an automobile? See the result of sprawl.
By the way Fifty Years Here, what’s your property tax bill? Someone has to pay for that parking and the long term costs associated with maintaining all that road infrastructure.
I hope you are paying your fair share.
Agree with DKHSK.
Normalize taxes by moving to land value tax instead of property taxes, eliminate prop 13 while we cut dollar for dollar other taxes that most times are utterly regressive and unproductive.
And cut some more. Drive the unions out of the government that are busy shafting the taxpayers at every chance they get.
But NIMBYism got to go too. That’s just not an economic issue but it is an issue that will impact all of us for generations to come due to climate change etc.
We need to build dense and leave the rest of the space for nature (I mean cow pastures) to flourish.
With a bank and a hotel nearby I see no objection to commercial improvement. Is the restaurant a landmark? I hope not.
“You have the definition of a free country wrong. If I own a property, I own a property. Neighborhoods don’t get to decide or at least should not decide what I do with my property, of course within reason. If my land can provide shelter to four families, I should be allowed to do that.”
Yes, exactly. The NIMBY’s around here want to stand in the way of building, and they want to use the government as the tool to stop it. All the while the people standing in the way of property owners doing what they want are claiming they are the ones in favor of freedom.
In this essay Thomas Sowell is claiming the political left is standing in the way of affordable housing, but it Pleastanton, it is those on the right who are the problem.
https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/2002/02-09/0002_thomas_sowell__exposing_the_affor.html
I thought the administrator had put the brakes on this thread — something like all was said that needed to be said.
To Carole Lee Manning,
So just silence views that do not conform?
DKHSK,
Just look at people like “James Michael” and “MichaelB” who support government restrictions on high density housing and growth in Pleasanton. If I misunderstand their positions, I will be happy to be corrected.
Janet Chen, you want density? Move to Fremont. I moved FROM there!
Janet…
You missed my point altogether… The people of Pleasanton always say they “want unique shops and restaurants, especially in the Downtown.” Yet, when we have them, they don’t get the support they need to be successful. The people of Pleasanton love chain stores and franchise restaurants! And it doesn’t have to be a parking structure, but Livermore is a city that invests in its downtown, and Pleasanton isn’t. And their tax bills are no higher than ours…
And it was a guy named Barone who created Barone’s, and if he wants to tear it down, it’s his to tear down! With more support and some city investment maybe properties downtown could be more valuable as commercial properties then they would be for housing…
To Carole Lee Manning,
Fremont is doing it’s part. Pleasanton must as well. This is not 1950s America where we can keep certain type of people out by using zoning as an excuse. Plus we need to densify as a country especially with markets close to jobs. People are not going away. They will just sprawl out more and that sprawl will directly impact you.
And neighborhoods evolve with time. You can always sell and move to the next pasture but if Barone’s site can accommodate homes and more families, they should be allowed to.
Single-family zoning was an experiment that is costing this country greatly in terms of its economic and environmental impact. It is time to reverse that.
If by choice or through taxation. Sprawl does not come cheap. It has to be paid for and cities don’t have the money to pay for it. Prop 13 limits where the young and the poor are getting screwed does not help either.
Here is why.
“The Growth Ponzi Scheme” https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
To Janet Chen,
OK, Janet. You win. Don’t move to Fremont. Move to the Condo ghetto called Dublin.
To Carole Lee Manning,
Yup Ghetto. Different type and kind of people living amongst each other equals Ghetto and segregated communities is just fine. Single family zoning is a relic of the racist past. Plus environmentally disastrous and economically unsustainable. It’s about time we rethink how we provide shelter in this country.
Along with the vision that we should have more jobs in Pleasanton where people live and work, it would be great if the site was deemed for professional offices. Downtown is a hub for great transportation options and there are several restaurants that people who work there can choose from. I would hope the idea of a live-work community is encouraged here in Pleasanton instead of the contrary where people stuff every corner of their city with coffin houses for commuters.