NEWS ALERT:Most local candidate lists confirmed

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Pleasanton: City rejects proposed five-story building on Harrison Street

Original post made on Feb 9, 2022

A potential five-story, mixed-use building on the edge of downtown Pleasanton that drew protest from some residents was rejected as proposed last month, according to city officials.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, February 8, 2022, 6:45 PM

Comments (14)

Posted by John B
a resident of Foothill High School
on Feb 9, 2022 at 9:24 am

John B is a registered user.

SB35 projects will be re-designed, litigated like Valco mall development in Cupertino. No doubt CA needs more housing and I strongly believe this project should have been approved if the conditions are met. Aging is inevitable, you can apply all kinds of creams, you can't stop it. Growth of the city is inevitable and so the housing needs. We can't box ourselves. Hopefully more infill housing will be carried out. Stay safe and heathy..

Posted by Willy
a resident of Old Towne
on Feb 9, 2022 at 10:21 am

Willy is a registered user.

I would say BULL. This type of project should not be allowed near downtown. As a resident of Pleasanton I personally would not like any further growth of low income housing!

Posted by KathleenRuegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Feb 9, 2022 at 12:09 pm

KathleenRuegsegger is a registered user.

A five story building with no parking should not be allowed in Pleasanton, especially when what the downtown area needs is more parking.

Posted by Margo
a resident of Hacienda Gardens
on Feb 9, 2022 at 12:43 pm

Margo is a registered user.

Not only does a 5 story not belong in our historic downtown, but add to that the fact that there is no parking for the residents. Given that each residential unit may own 2 cars. The number of parking spaces downtown is less than the number that would be used by the residents of this building and the business owners. That most probably would lead to the failure of many of our downtown businesses. Then what might happen to all those buildings that are left vacant? There are far too many negative effects for this 5 story building to go forward. Many of us moved to Pleasanton because our quaint downtown captured our hearts.

Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 9, 2022 at 2:38 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

The lack of parking in a design in todays day and era where full sustainability needs to be considered is mind blowing to me. Why is it ok to make something like that the communities problem for a residential unit?!

Posted by Jocelyn Combs
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Feb 9, 2022 at 2:50 pm

Jocelyn Combs is a registered user.

California Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) is a statute streamlining housing construction in California counties and cities that fail to build enough housing to meet state mandated housing construction requirements. If Pleasanton had met its mandated requirements, which we zoned for in our last Housing Element, the Harrison Street project could not have been proposed under SB35.
I believe the project is a bit too much, but I understand it. My first home in Pleasanton 40 years ago was on Harrison, right across the street from the proposed project. I don’t know about now, but then that area was the affordable, working class, side of downtown. Harrison St. has mostly multi family buildings including an apartment building next door to my old house. Many of the single family homes have added additional units in their backyards.
The Harrison site is zoned multi use, so it’s likely that a developer would add commercial. It’s across the tracks from the Ace train stop, close to downtown, schools, and shopping so it’s residents might not need a car. More affordable housing for our essential workers, teachers, etc. is sorely needed so it would help meet that need.
I don’t think the concept is unreasonable.

Posted by Mica
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Feb 9, 2022 at 10:01 pm

Mica is a registered user.

While I agree with Jocelyn this proposed 5 story building is simply out of scale with the area. Frankly too much squeezed onto the property. Maybe a well designed three story but it may not be enough reasonable profit for anyone to develop given land and construction prices.

Posted by James B
a resident of Del Prado
on Feb 10, 2022 at 8:15 am

James B is a registered user.

Future planning strategies need to change dramatically in the US for both housing and infrastructure. Zoning has always been revolved around the use of cars and that needs to stop. The suburban sprawl, the obsession of owning single family homes is devastating to the social and economic divide, together with the environmental impacts we are witnessing today. Of course everyone wants to live the ‘American dream’ but we are all living well beyond the means of what the environment can support. This project may look out of touch with the city as it is now but the city is really out of touch with the the general movement of urban planning. I do agree that because of decades of bad planning around the locality of services and commerce, ‘getting around town’ is much harder than it should (without a car). The city need to invest more on public transit and bike/alternate infrastructure - look to the Europeans. In the future we need much more of these affordable, multi-use housing so citizens can live, shop, and work much more locally, creating more integrated and vibrant communities, eliminating the need for yet more heat-absorbing, polluting, space-wasting, eye-sore patches of asphalt. The city is wonderful and quaint but I do believe we can integrate more modern forms of housing that can complement it, to grow and offer housing to key workers who are essential to the fabric of our communities.

This is for the generations to come.

Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 10, 2022 at 9:20 am

Michael Austin is a registered user.

City Council meeting 02/08/2022:

Nearly all of the city sites under consideration for development to meet state requirements will bull dose multiple small businesses that serve this Pleasanton community. With the state requirements in place, there will be no small business services available for this Pleasanton community.

The two entrenched nimbies on the council, Testa and Arkin are all out to rid this community of those small businesses. They want to increase the already 1500 units, under development, and slated for development at Stoneridge and other locations. This flies in the face with traffic engineers stating, those streets and arteries are maxed out cannot support current traffic.

Posted by John B
a resident of Foothill High School
on Feb 10, 2022 at 11:01 am

John B is a registered user.

City council of Pleasanton is not in favor of infill development. They could have got done by spreading the development by means of infill development embracing SB9 and SB10 state laws. Rather they want to go put rules(rather bad rules), so that any NO one can use them and build new houses. They have put too many standards to meet for any home owner can build and produce new SFH homes. The result is few tall and high dense buildings and clogging the approach roads/byways to these sites. Every one in the city will be affected in one way or other. If any one believed of what Pleasanton is, please vote for infill development, not for tall and high dense buildings, that changes the city for good, for ever. SAVE PLEASANTON...Need new city council.

Posted by Joe Public
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Feb 10, 2022 at 2:53 pm

Joe Public is a registered user.

I have watched several of the housing element meetings over the last weeks and commend the Mayor and City Council members for all their hard work to follow the State’s RHNA requirements for rezoning many of properties around town for residential use. This is not a task that any of them take lightly as everyone in Pleasanton will feel the impact of these housing increases on our streets, in our schools, our water needs and the loss of local control over planning. Many land owners have asked to be rezoned to residential use and the Council has met with, emailed and pondered over these concerns for many hours. I came away with a very different impression of the efforts of Vice Mayor Arkin and Council Member Testa than was posted by Michael Austin. They seemed to be trying to preserve neighborhoods from the impacts of the housing demands by putting the bulk of the residential zoning closer to jobs such as at the Stoneridge Mall Area.
Mr. Austin, before you throw anyone under the bus on the Council or provide misinformation about what they said at the meetings in a public forum have you reached out to email them in person? Have you raised a question at the Council meeting in a respectful manner? Name calling isn’t a solution to a problem. Respectful dialogue and understanding would serve the community and readers of this blog much better.

Posted by Michael Austin
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 10, 2022 at 3:34 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Anonymous posters have no credibility.

The Council meeting, I participated in, Both Testa and Arkin asked for the Donlon site to be removed from the list. Arkin especially wanted to pack more units into Stoneridge. Pleasant Hill, Muirwood neighborhoods will be impacted with the Stoneridge units. Their opposition to Donlon development they said was from the Nimbies they received feedback remove Donlon.

Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 10, 2022 at 10:16 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

James - show me a successful urban utopia in the US. Even in Europe while I appreciate and enjoyed visiting the urban neighborhoods I have no desire to live in such density and chaos.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting space, and not having a zero lot line.

Posted by MattSullivan
a resident of Lydiksen Elementary School
on Feb 21, 2022 at 9:00 am

MattSullivan is a registered user.

This is a rare situation where I agree with Michael Austin. The high-density zoning and high-tech offices near Stoneridge Mall, the Tommy T’s site, and Costco will make northwest Pleasanton a waste zone. Let’s not forget that the so-called affordable housing will become market rate housing for tech workers. Now the city wants to take away a significant portion of Muirwood Park and hand it over to economic special interests for a cricket field despite neighborhood outcry.

The RHNA process exists only to benefit the high-tech industry and state and local government's quest for never ending economic growth. Never ending growth on a finite planet is impossible. We need to rethink our economic models for our very survival.

City Council - this could be a place to start: Web Link

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.

Three recent decisions involved major Tri-Valley companies
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,415 views

“To get the full value of joy . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,157 views

Rekindling my love for Indian movies
By Monith Ilavarasan | 2 comments | 967 views