|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
St. Anton Partners, a California-based owner-driven, privately held, multifamily development and investment company, is expected to receive final approval Wednesday from the Pleasanton Planning Commission of its bid to build a 168-unit, three- and four-story complex on West Las Positas Boulevard near Stoneridge Drive.
The City Council has already approved the project, but the developer is also seeking a Development agreement that will “memorialize” some of the commitments St. Anton has made in exchange for a longer expiration date on the project approval.
The St. Anton Partners apartments is the third in a series of high density housing developments approved by the council with two similar proposals to follow shortly. All are part of the settlement agreement between the city and Urban Habitat, an Oakland-based affordable housing coalition that successfully sued the city over its 1996 housing cap and lack of adequate affordable, workforce housing.
The St. Anton site is 5.6 acres at 5729 West Las Positas Boulevard in the Hacienda Business Park. It is one of nine sites included last year when the City Council rezoned 73 acres in various parts of the city to accommodate high-density housing following the court settlement.
Last year, the council approved a project by BRE Properties for high density apartment buildings with 498 units, also in Hacienda Business Park. The developer is expected to break ground on those apartments later this summer.
The two building sites include a mixed-use, high density residential and commercial developments containing residential units, live/work units and ground-level retail space at the southeast corner of Owens Drive and Willow Road and at the northern corner of Gibraltar and Hacienda drives.
The planned projects will provide more than 70 units that will be available to lower income households.
In April, the council also approved a new multi-story, high density apartment project and adjoining retail center for a section of California Center that has until now has been one of the city’s major office centers. That project will include two-, three- and four-story buildings and a two-building retail center on a portion of the office building site at Rosewood Drive and Owens drives that the developer, Pleasant Partners, has acquired from California Center, formerly called CarrAmerica.
The project, on 8.4 acres, will include five residential buildings with the two story buildings facing the streets and the taller buildings in the back. Of the 305 studio and one-two-and-three bedroom apartments planned for the development, just under 50 will be in the “affordable” classification, well under the 15-20% rate once required under the city’s now-invalid inclusionary zoning ordinance.
St. Anton Partners, on the other hand, have agreed to make at least 20% of their units available at low, subsidized rents to low-to very-low income tenants. In addition, three of these units will be designed for tenants with severe mobility issues, with door knobs, drawers and switches lower to the floor to accommodate the needs of those in wheelchairs.
St. Anton also is drawing on $40 million in tax exempt bonds from the state of California to be used to finance the development. Those funds are available at low interest to developers such as St. Anton who pledge to make the affordable units available in perpetuity and also to provide other amenities. In St. Anton’s case, it will offer educational services and other specialized programs for low-income tenants in the complex, programs and services that will also be available to its other tenants as well.
Plans for two more high density housing projects have been submitted to city planners.
South Bay Development, which sold part of its 35-acre site at the corner of Bernal and Valley avenues to Safeway, which is now the Pleasanton Gateway retail center, plans to build 97 single family homes and apartment buildings to accommodate 210 units on its remaining property south of the Safeway site.
Scott Trobbe, who represents South Bay, reviewed those plans with the Planning Commission May 22. A public hearing on the project is expected to be held later this month or in July.
Also pending is a 345-unit apartment complex on 16 acres of undeveloped land at Bernal and Stanley Boulevard, across from McDonald’s . The property is owned by Frank Auf der Maur and Konrad Rickenback. The developer is E&S Ring Management.
Preliminary plans filed with the city planning staff also call for a corner retail center at Bernal and Stanley with a small grocery store and a coffee shop, possibly a Starbucks. Those plans will go to the Planning Commission for consideration later this year.
The Auf der Maur site once was considered for a second Home Depot store in Pleasanton, but the developer declined to pursue the plan after no one on the City Council at the time expressed an interest in approving the bid.
I know some of the aged mindset in Pleasanton will be screaming “Get off the lawn!” at this, but I think it’s great that the people that work here will also get to live here. Diversity in a community is important and people in this type of housing have a lot to offer.
I’m sure the racist comments below this one will abound but this is good news for everyone.
Pleasanton is changing forever. You can thank our meatball Governor Moonbeam Brown. Elections have consequences. Californians elected a meatball, now we pay the price, and pay some more, and pay some more for decades to come.
The problem is not the low-income/subsidized housing. The issue is the state using this as an excuse for us to build more housing; any housing. Even though our infrastructure cannot handle it; especially the schools. First the state tells us we have to build more housing. Then they will say we are required to educate the additional students, and if it costs more, our local taxpayers will have to pay for it, not the state.
Personally I do not care if the high-density housing is low-income or million dollar units. The city built the infrastructure based on a maximum population, and we are going to exceed that. The school district and administration in the past worked hard to make sure we have the school infrastructure before we had the students. The current administration could care less.
resident wrote: “The problem is not the low-income/subsidized housing. The issue is the state using this as an excuse for us to build more housing; any housing. Even though our infrastructure cannot handle it; especially the schools. First the state tells us we have to build more housing. Then they will say we are required to educate the additional students, and if it costs more, our local taxpayers will have to pay for it, not the state.”
I think that you are barking up the wrong tree in blaming the state for this mess. I used to think that but then I read through Jerry Brown’s memo to the City of Pleasanton (http://transbay.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ag_pleasanton_genplandeir.pdf). Here’s a particularly strong point made in his memo:
“Pleasanton is already a “job rich” community, with more than 1.6 jobs for every working resident. As the City notes, “even if every resident stayed in Pleasanton to work, there would be substantial in-commuting to fill the remaining jobs.”ABAG estimates that in 2005, the City’s 4,100 businesses employed approximately 58,110 full and part-time employees. Approximately 21% of these workers live in the City, another 29% live elsewhere in the Tri- Valley area and the remaining 50% commute from the greater outlying area. The City has also acknowledged, “The location of people’s place of work compared with their place of residence plays a crucial role in traffic patterns, commuting time, energy consumption, noise, and air pollution.””
If, as you claim, out city can’t afford the infrastructure and the additional population, then why were our city leaders allowing so much business development here? That’s where this problem all started. It’s nice for the city and its budget to accept all those businesses while telling all of the people working for those businesses to go find homes elsewhere because, sorry, we’re not going to build any more houses here, but that’s not very fair to the workers or to our neighboring cities, is it? By allowing the jobs-to-working resident ratio to get all the way up to 1.6, our city leaders were basically thumbing their noses at senate bill AB 32, the state of California, AND our neighboring cities.
If our city leaders had been a bit wiser, they may have tried to at least limit the ratio to something like 1.1 or 1.2. That may have flown under the radar. But, no, they didn’t step just a little over the line. They stepped way over the line. We’re now dealing with the consequences of that.
The house/jobs balance on a per-city makes no sense.
Pleasanton took the lead many years ago with the business park. This allowed many people who live in the east bay and the tri-valley (and the central valley) to work here instead of having to drive to San Francisco and/or San Jose. We should be thanked and rewarded for this.
A house/jobs balance might have made sense when people held jobs for life and there was a single worker in the family. With people changing jobs and both spouses working, the whole equation has changed.
Moonbean in joining the suit against Pleasanton on providing more houses stated the reason was reducing traffic. However, 60% of the people who live in Pleasanton commute outside of Pleasanton. That means for every house we add, we are potentially adding to the traffic problem. Last I heard a survey of those living in the business park said that 40% of those living in the business park commute outside of Pleasanton.
As for affordability, Pleasanton was ahead of the curve there also. When I moved to Pleasanton, it was because I could not afford a place to live in the Silicon Valley area. Pleasanton provided a lot of ‘affordable housing’ for decades where our neighbors did not provide any additional housing. Now we are being penalized for being ahead of the curve.
I also think the state is jealous of Pleasanton’s success. Since they cannot give this success to other cities, they want to bring Pleasanton down to be equal with other cities (e.g., Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, etc.).
0h, for the days of our first 200 years when Americans could create communities they wanted. Compatible groups, lower crime, and each community scould be creative and unique. Now giant federal & state government oversee us all, and communities must be rubber stamped to suitable guidelines. Percentages have been calculated for race, income, distance to job, etc, etc. Freedom of individuality is GONE !!….by the people who scream about doing your own thing.
I feel sorry for the generations of today. People are told how the basics of life will be structured. Elders can only tell younger Americans the founders dream of free people, and share how it was for us growing up with freedom to make our own choices and could live our own lives.
This is like waaaaaay cute! Kinda like sweetie pie time! Lots of single moms, new kids to add to the mix, seniors in need of better housing, hopefully the rents will be more than reasonable to help out a bit!
I still feel sad about the native populations who lived in this space prior to the theft of America.
VIVA AMERICA! GORA/VIVA!
resident wrote: “The house/jobs balance on a per-city makes no sense….”
resident, you can argue all you want about whether or not the rules make sense. I might even agree with you, but none of that really matters does it? The bottom line is that those are the rules. If you get a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone, trying to argue to the judge that the speed limit should really be 45 is an exercise in futility. Our city leaders knew or should have known the rules as well as the reality of the situation and acted accordingly. So, no, I didn’t read the rest of your post after your first sentence because all of your arguments are irrelevant.
Let’s hope more police officers are being hired as part of these plans.
Sam, I advocate that we just don’t roll over (like our council did). Try to change this. Get out of ABAG possibly. The additional housing requirement seems to be required by the state. So make the state pay. Cities have the right to bill the state for mandated actions that cost the city money. Figure out the cost of what we need for infrastructure for the new development and send the bill to the state. Once they pay, we can proceed.
You said “If you get a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone, trying to argue to the judge that the speed limit should really be 45 is an exercise in futility.” Not always true, especially if you know the 85% rule and how speed traps are classified. But irrelevant for this discussion.
New police officers will be there if the tax revenue these new units create will cover the additional police costs (as well as other infrastructure costs).
I am hoping that it doesn’t attract the wrong attention. As we all know low income apts can attract the wrong people depending on how much the apts will be.
I sure that the “M” believes in her heart of hearts that the world is a better place when low-income folks move in as your neighbors and you have an opportunity to have a good ole fashion heart to heart!
Wouldn’t that be wonderful? I can smell the BBQ now!!!
yum yum plenty!
My prediction is that eventually, all open space will eventually be filled with low-income housing and lots of cute little fruit trees, colorful flags and perhaps a few folks who speak English with very adorable accents! Yes indeed Sam Sneed.
VIVA AMERICA! VIVA!
Gone are the good ole days when for over 200 years our neighborhoods and schools were segregated. Then the tyrannical state intervened and imposed its rules and regulations to override our human freedom – the freedom to have our kids in schools without having to deal with types who really aren’t Americans, and the freedom to live in neighborhoods where you don’t have to be afraid to walk down the street at night for fear of seeing a couple of dark shadowy males or females walking in your direction. Our country has really deteriorated over the past 50 years. And now I can’t wait for all the liberal loons from Oakland to proclaim I’m being racist.
I’m off to quaint Solvang. I love their Dutch windmills. People travel to enjoy a break from rubber stamps. Amish villages with their horse carriages. Certain towns have really wide open streets, others cobblestones. New Orleans is unique with a different charm that would not be allowed today, because ABAG would require rubber stamps. Proper ‘diversity’ would not allow a New Orleans today, even though animals and humans since the beginning of time, have always tended to cluster, following a natural herd mentality, yet having a desire to mix it up where and when we choose. Big brother has now removed the possibility to create any new Solvangs, so I’m off to buy some wooden shoes, then off to the food and charm of New Orleans in the Fall!!
Why do we make 100 models of American cars….freedom of choice of individuals!! Why do we have successful restaurants serving food from thousands of regions…freedom. But, CA government determines, our streets, our mixture of houses, mixture of apartments, so all rights, freedoms, and individuality are removed.