Town Square

Post a New Topic

Commission to debate Valley Trails neighbors' dispute over 2nd-floor addition

Original post made on Jul 12, 2017

The Pleasanton Planning Commission is set Wednesday to wade into a disagreement between Valley Trails neighbors over one family's proposal for a second-story addition to their house.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, July 11, 2017, 10:11 PM

Comments (13)

18 people like this
Posted by RU Kiddingmii
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jul 12, 2017 at 11:59 am

RU Kiddingmii is a registered user.

There is much more to this story than is eluded to in this article. The proposed project seems innocent enough on the surface, however the details are much more detrimental to the neighborhood than a simple addition. The Zoning Administrator completely ignored the pleas of neighbors asking that this project be denied at the first hearing.

If approved, this would end up being a 8-9 bedroom house! Totally incompatible with the rest of Valley Trails. The largest home in Pleasanton is (7) bedrooms and is on a much larger lot with adequate parking.

More alarming is that this property has a long history with the Pleasanton Police Department. The PPD has responded a total of 92 times in the past few years. Last year there were 11 arrests at this property and 5 more to date this year. Last November, the VT neighborhood experienced a large number of car break-ins. ALL of the criminals resided at this house.

A dangerous precedent would be set if allowed to go through. Can you imagine a slew of 9 bedroom homes right next to each other throughout this development. Not to mention (in this particular case) the associated criminal element that would come with it (public record on the history of this house).

The truth is, that this 'home' will become a boarding house - plain and simple. There are currently 13 people residing there - and they are not all related. They are looking for the city's endorsement to their behavior and tenancy choices. We can only hope that the Planning Commission acts to protect this neighborhood and deny this project altogether.

17 people like this
Posted by WhatTheHeck?
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 12, 2017 at 1:09 pm

After reading this: Web Link

I feel so bad for the neighbors! Over 5 to 6 cars parking at the house?! So many police involvement coming to the house? All the renters living there? Makes me feel grateful for the neighbors I do have.

13 people like this
Posted by A Witness to the Mess
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jul 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm

This is so unfair to this neighborhood. We have watched SWAT teams with guns drawn approaching this property. What can the city possibly be thinking? Please don't allow this boarding house to be expanded. There must be laws to protect us.....

17 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 12, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Oh come on, where is your sense of humor? Just rename the property the Ghost Ship of Pleasanton and let the multiple resident criminals live there in peace. Well, not exactly in peace, considering 92 calls for police service. Does the planning commission have one brain cell among the entire group? If so, why would they even CONSIDER this project, with or without the window? Yeah, let's just make it a 9 bedroom boarding house, rented to the scum of the earth, and allow them to vandalize the entire neighborhood. The best case scenario is that the slumlord owners get denied and then decide to torch their property like that other house in Pleasanton a few years ago. Let them fight it out with the insurance company rather than wasting any more time and resources from the city.

9 people like this
Posted by Another in the Know
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jul 12, 2017 at 2:46 pm

Please stop using the word "renters". I am quite sure no rent is being pad. This is a crash pad. Obviously the planning commission does not have that one brain cell.

16 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm

If the behavior at this place is as bad as some here are saying it is - and from my quick googling of this yellowstone address it appears it might be - the neighbors might consider banding together and filing a "nuisance lawsuit" against the owners of the property. I think that something like that can be handled in small claims court and could result in an award of up to $10K (or whatever the current small claims court limit is) against the property owners. Band together a dozen or so neighbors and you could make it very expensive for the owners of the property unless they agree to clean up their act. If conditions don't improve, band together again and repeat. Check with a lawyer or the legal information website for more info.

13 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:09 pm

P.S.: To be clear, that's $10K per plaintiff in the lawsuit. If there are a dozen neighbors participating in the nuisance lawsuit, that's a potential award of $120K against the property owners.

17 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:27 pm

@ Oak Hill Sam -- great suggestion. I did this years ago and in another county. The limit was $5000 per person. It was called a "class action small claims court suit" and the city attorney assisted us with it as the city PD was tired of the wasted time and effort at that property. We had enough people that the total would have been more than $200K and they agreed just to move. We insisted that they pay all of our filing fees ($26 per person on the lawsuit) before we dropped the suit. These things are grouped together and all heard at once by the judge. You can get a judgment and attached it to the property. Most people give up and move. There is no way that I would tolerate that sort of neighbor, they need to be stopped for the good of everyone.

11 people like this
Posted by Angry
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jul 12, 2017 at 3:48 pm

Earlier this year one of the transients living in the attic overdosed in there and it took the fire dept. hours to get her out. The city told the home owners they had two choices restore the attic or build legal living space. This is what brought us this proposed expansion of the local drug house. If the owners didn't appeal the decision to keep the north window the planning commission wouldn't have this second chance to do the right thing for Pleasanton and deny this project. Let our local commissioners know this is not what we want in Pleasanton.

12 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jul 12, 2017 at 4:07 pm

Should this go through, at least the fire dept. won't have to work so hard to get the further overdoses out. It is absolutely ABSURD the city EVER ALLOWED 4 adfitional bedrooms to this drug den. What are they thinking?

12 people like this
Posted by RU Kiddingmii
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jul 12, 2017 at 4:21 pm

RU Kiddingmii is a registered user.

Just to be clear it was the Zoning Administrator (not the Planning Commission) at the first hearing who approved this project! He stated that he felt "the project met all of the health and safety requirements as well as being compatible with the surrounding neighborhood" (direct quote from the Staff report). That was despite 12 neighbors strong objections. I don't know what project he was thinking of when he approved it; it made no sense then and makes no sense now.

Tonight is the first time it is going before the Planning Commission as a result of the appeal. If the Commissioners have the same level of common sense as the commenters on this story, it will be soundly rejected. If it is approved by the Planning Commission, the next step will be to appeal it to the City Council.

I have always found the Planning Commission and the City Counsel approachable and reasonable in these situations. I hope I am not disappointed this evening.

This project does not belong anywhere within this city. Period.

14 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jul 12, 2017 at 6:05 pm

In this case, it is too bad that Pleasanton does not have a private right of action for a public nuisance. That would let everyone get in on a suit. (Not that that is fair, but it would lead to the right result.)

The city attorney should start a public nuisance complaint, however. Neighbors should email the city attorney's office.

5 people like this
Posted by FrequentWalkerMiles
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 13, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Sounds like many wheels in the planning commission were well greased for this to happen if they approved it despite all the evidence the neighbors brought forward. The only other explanation is planning people are incompetent at their jobs.

Also, doesn't Valley Trails have an HOA? Or is the HOA useless in real nuisances and only good at going after people with grass .25 inch above "acceptable"?

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

Couples: Do you Really Agree or are you Afraid of not Agreeing?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 626 views

Castlewood may consider selling Valley course for development
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 459 views


Pleasanton Readers' Choice ballot is here

It's time to decide what local business is worthy of the title "Pleasanton Readers' Choice" — and you get to decide! Cast your ballot online. Voting ends May 20th. Stay tuned for the results in the June 29th issue of the Pleasanton Weekly.