Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton: City Council still concerned about Senate Bill 50

Original post made on Jan 23, 2020

The Pleasanton City Council had plenty to say Tuesday night about one of the most controversial housing legislation proposals under consideration this year in Sacramento, Senate Bill 50.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 5:23 PM

Comments (12)

Posted by Kiko
a resident of Val Vista
on Jan 23, 2020 at 3:07 pm

It seems like the city better get Costco and JDEZ going before that land becomes "high density affordable housing" and then the traffic really becomes an issue.

Posted by wow
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 24, 2020 at 5:11 am

Build a nice city and the libs will certainly show up and ruin it.
San francisco. Oakland, Hayward, Castro valley, San jose and now pleasanton with livermore up next. Shall we talk about Baltimore, Detroit etc etc etc. Facts are a pesky thing. It appears libs make an art form out of ruining good cities. Gee cant seam to figure out how trump got elected. LOL

Posted by Dave L
a resident of Stoneridge
on Jan 24, 2020 at 9:23 am

When you build Train Stations, High Density housing will always follow.

Posted by Phyllis G.
a resident of Country Fair
on Jan 24, 2020 at 9:32 am

Well gosh golly just imagine, an overbearing, all knowing elitist state government with a mild God complex that wants to enforce their utopian fantasies on the hard working people of California & transform their communities into slums. How this state over the past forty plus years has sunk to this decrepit third world level simply saddens me. Retirement in this “Golden State” is slowly turning into a nightmare.

Posted by Steve M
a resident of Sycamore Heights
on Jan 25, 2020 at 7:25 am

We need entry housing or we won’t have anyone available to buy our existing homes when we are ready to move, up- or down-size, but to require housing without provisions for schools, water, sewage, traffic mitigation or police enforcement and expect the citizens of the TriValley to pay for them without participation in the planning is an example of an idea that is half-baked. Rep. Weiner needs to quit talking to the developers’ lobbyists and start thinking his legislation through before he acts.

Posted by Paul
a resident of Avignon
on Jan 25, 2020 at 11:53 am

It’s not pretty but stackable housing is the answer. You see it all over the world with big populations. We should be getting rid of the big lots and big lawns.

Posted by sjd
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 25, 2020 at 2:32 pm

It would be nice if councilmembers engaged with the actual bill here.

First, SB50 was amended to allow cities 2 years to address how and where they wanted to build the housing. If they, for whatever reason, want a different makeup around their transit centers and want to carve out historic buildings beyond the state registry, they are welcome to do so. So the "one size fits all" objection is out.

"not prioritizing actual affordable housing"
Hello, let me introduce you to the 20 other housing bills the state has passed to give bonuses to income-restricted housing. Scott Wiener has introduced or helped pass many of these. Doesn't matter if cities still don't allow that housing due to zoning rules.

Yes, councilwoman Testa, we are aware that some cities would not want this reform. Every city shirking their own responsibility and pushing the problems further into the Valley is the problem. That's why the state is stepping in here.

We are all aware that cities don't create housing, councilman Pentin. "Zone and get out of the way" is not the way I would describe the city's housing approval process. "Once they get permits" is glossing over the whole problem.

I don't know what Councimember Narum thinks of inclusionary zoning, because that is included in the bill. In fairness, that doesn't drive costs down, it's more of an anti-segregation measure. But it's silly to claim there is nothing addressing rising construction costs. Needless delay for projects that comply with zoning, decade-long approval processes and the like. Of course, allowing more people near major transit centers helps with the land cost per dwelling, as well.

The Pleasanton city council is welcome to still disagree with SB50. But I'd rather they do it on the merits, and not whatever this discussion seems to have been.

Posted by Arroyo2
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2020 at 6:37 am


Rather than counseling Councilmembers Testa and Narum about SB50, why don't you just reduce your manifesto by a few paragraphs and simply say, "Pleasanton -- If SB50 passes, it's our way or the highway!" Sacramento will dictate where, how large, and how tall your transportation oriented construction projects must be.

Posted by Kiko
a resident of Val Vista
on Jan 27, 2020 at 8:36 am

I guess now you know why that new project for Stoneridge Mall includes a food market. It's for those new apartments that are going to be built in that "transit-rich" area...the developer knows that what's proposed in a one party state usually becomes law in a one party state so he's forging ahead. And they try to make the argument that President Trump is a dictator (insert eye roll here). Be careful what and who you vote probably will get it, except for Costco.

Posted by sjd
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 27, 2020 at 8:47 am


You clearly didn't read my comment if that was your reply.

Posted by Jason
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Jan 31, 2020 at 5:02 pm

We don't live in in Weiner's District. He shouldn't have any say over what happens here. The same guy who thinks transparency on bonds/taxes is a bad thing.

Also why is it that folks like him get to put up their up ideas for votes until they win? We have to win every vote to keep status quo but he only has to win once to impose his will.

Developers must love Weiner. He won't stop until he makes CA look like New Jersey his home state.

Posted by sjd
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 1, 2020 at 5:45 pm

And you don’t live in Wiener’s district, but the Peninsula’s and SF’s decision to create jobs without housing and create jobs far from transit centers results in the absolute craziness that is our traffic and environmental situation. This is how states work.

Please, consider that there are a lot of bills on housing because the “status quo" is completely unacceptable for many, many people.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Marriage Interview #17: They Renew Their Vows Every 5 Years
By Chandrama Anderson | 9 comments | 1,814 views

Taking an electric car on a northern California road trip
By Monith Ilavarasan | 0 comments | 505 views

Is San Francisco caught in a "death spiral"?
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 394 views


2023 guide to summer camps

Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.

Find Camps Here