News


95 homes, special needs residences planned for Stanley Boulevard

Sunflower Hill community would be part of residential development

A plan to rezone a 15-acre commercial site on Stanley Boulevard for a 95-home development and an adjoining site to accommodate housing for autistic adults is under consideration by the Pleasanton Planning Commission.

Mike Serpa discussed his application on behalf of three property owners and Sunflower Hill before the commission last week at an informal workshop session. After the two-hour meeting, at the commission's direction, city planners took the proposal under advisement to consider changes before scheduling a public hearing in the next few months.

The site, familiar to passing motorists for years, has been marked by a long-closed family market and a rusting tractor as well as three farm-like homes owned by the Irby, Kaplan and Zia families.

Serpa wants to replace that with two- and three-story homes and the Sunflower Hill community, a Pleasanton-based nonprofit whose goal is to provide home living options for individuals with special needs. The proposed facility would be similar in scope to senior living with live-in units.

The Pleasanton City Council, after hearing pleas by Susan Houghton, a founder and director of Sunflower Hill, made finding a suitable site for a special needs housing a top priority of its current work plan.

Serpa asked the city to approve his plan to consolidate and develop the three family properties last year with Sunflower to provide the affordable housing part of his plan. The 95 separate homes would be sold at market rates.

The Irby and Zia properties are located at 3780 Stanley Boulevard and 3988 First Street, with different addresses because First becomes Stanley at the traffic light where Old Stanley splits off to connect to Main Street and downtown Pleasanton. But the Irby, Zia and Kaplan properties are connected.

The Irby and Zia properties were developed as single family compounds around 1887, with homes, barns and agricultural buildings. The home on the Irby property has been determined to be an historic resource. Planning commissioners said at their meeting that they want that home to be restored and preserved.

The proposed development would include extending Nevada Street from Bernal Avenue along the backside of the proposed homes and then north through the development to connect at Stanley with the junction at Old Stanley. The extension, long a part of the city's street plan, would open another access to Stanley from Bernal.

The proposed development also would include a new multi-use trail along the Arroyo del Valle on the south side of Nevada Street.

Serpa is proposing four home models, including two two-story designs and two with three stories with those approximately 35 feet in height.

Houghton told planners that there are more than 700 special needs individuals in Pleasanton who need housing. She said the units planned for Stanley Boulevard would be similar to college dormitories with common areas for recreation, kitchens and dining. One large building would serve as a community center, and the compound would include a swimming pool and other outdoor amenities.

"Most of the adults with special needs who would live here will never marry but they will live together," she said. "Most don't have physical disabilities, just mental."

Several speakers told commissioners that a special needs facility such as the one Sunflower is proposing is much needed in Pleasanton.

"I have a son with autism," one speaker said. "It took us four years to find a group home in Livermore. We would like to have him back in Pleasanton where he can live comfortably."

Others spoke about their concerns that as they grow older, they need a facility like Sunflower Hill is proposing to be sure their autistic children will be cared for when they're gone.

"Sunflower Hill brings these special needs individuals together and helps them find work they are capable of performing," a mother said.

Comments

14 people like this
Posted by Marie
a resident of Downtown
on May 4, 2016 at 9:36 am

Irby, Kaplan and Zia families, Please don't sell!!!


18 people like this
Posted by Bob W
a resident of California Reflections
on May 4, 2016 at 9:51 am

Marie,

"Don't sell" Right, because the trash filled vacant fields are better than nice new homes. Not to mention the numbers of homeless people living in the arroyo that are breaking into the empty homes on the property. I hope the city works with the builder and makes a nice gate way to downtown.


10 people like this
Posted by mooseturd
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on May 4, 2016 at 10:04 am

mooseturd is a registered user.

Will these new homes be equipped with composting toilets?


25 people like this
Posted by Resident of Ventana Hills
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 4, 2016 at 11:14 am

It's unfortunate that the City has already approved the massive, 'stack 'n pack' 345 apartments + retail complex (aka PUD-87) at Stanley and Bernal that's being built right now (across from the McDonalds). The traffic impacts from that are going to be significant.

I applaud the Sunflower Hill project, but adding 95 single family homes to the mix?

I don't see how either the existing or proposed road infrastructure (the latter of which is just dumping more traffic onto Bernal Avenue and First Street/Stanley Blvd. will be able to successfully support that, as adding those 95 homes alone puts the new housing total in that area up to 440, not including the Sunflower Hill project.

The Planning Commission and City Council will need to carefully look at the traffic impacts (i.e., congestion) this overall project will add to First Street/Stanley, and to Bernal/Valley Avenue.

Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano has previously stated that First Street cannot be widened to accomodate more traffic, so the only available traffic flow relief will be to widen Bernal to 4 lanes from Valley/Stanley all the way southwest down to Sunol Blvd.

It's not going to be pretty.


35 people like this
Posted by Special Ed Teacher
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on May 4, 2016 at 11:30 am



Where there is land they will build and I believe this is a great opportunity the city is creating for our adult special needs population! People need to be more sensitive to the importance of the development and not so concerned with "more traffic"

I applaud all involved in Sunflower Hill!!


12 people like this
Posted by Steve S
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm

Traffic can be eased by putting El Charro Rd. thru to Stanley. This will cut down on cut thru traffic. 95 homes will not create that much traffic. McDonalds and Arco create 100 times the traffic of 95 homes.


24 people like this
Posted by No
a resident of another community
on May 4, 2016 at 12:31 pm

A facility for special needs adults is one thing but there is no excuse for stuffing more housing into Pleasanton, particularly along that stretch where we've yet to see how severe the impact of the McDonald's-adjacent development will be. It's bad enough. Council, you've destroyed our city- enough already.


4 people like this
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on May 4, 2016 at 12:34 pm

Steve, I dis agree with part of your comment. I live in the area, and believe that putting El Charro through to Stanley Boulevard will make an even greater traffic disaster for Stanley Boulevard, first Street, Bernal and Vineyard .


7 people like this
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Birdland
on May 4, 2016 at 12:54 pm

More development we don't need! 95 homes for special needs. I don't think so! Heavy water users


20 people like this
Posted by Bob W
a resident of California Reflections
on May 4, 2016 at 2:13 pm

I'm guessing that all growth in this town is bad. We would rather our fields full of garbage and homeless rather than new homes. I get it we are here and no one else is wanted. I invite all of you to walk Stanley, California , Nevada St. and see if it is your picture of Pleasanton. We need to clean up this area and now there is someone who wants to improve the street and it's a bad thing? If you don't want single family homes on that land what do you want there? The families that own the land have a right to sell.


9 people like this
Posted by Bob W
a resident of California Reflections
on May 4, 2016 at 2:13 pm

I'm guessing that all growth in this town is bad. We would rather our fields full of garbage and homeless rather than new homes. I get it we are here and no one else is wanted. I invite all of you to walk Stanley, California , Nevada St. and see if it is your picture of Pleasanton. We need to clean up this area and now there is someone who wants to improve the street and it's a bad thing? If you don't want single family homes on that land what do you want there? The families that own the land have a right to sell.


8 people like this
Posted by Nancy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on May 4, 2016 at 2:14 pm

To clarify my earlier comment--- Although I'm opposed to any future extension of El Charro Rd, I think this project will have minimal traffic impact and be a good addition for Pleasanton.


2 people like this
Posted by Steve S
a resident of Vintage Hills
on May 4, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Nancy My thought was that people using Stanley to get to Livermore could use El Charro to Stanley. I would hope that route would limit cut thru traffic from 580 to livermore. That was all I was saying.


20 people like this
Posted by Tanya
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 4, 2016 at 3:49 pm

I want to thank the Planning Commissioners for all their questions throughout the workshop and discussions that took place. Our community is a special place and we can have thoughtful dialog to provide a safe living environment for our special needs community. I look forward to continuing our discussions.


10 people like this
Posted by Spudly
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on May 4, 2016 at 4:19 pm

Where are the special needs "heavy water users" supposed to live?


21 people like this
Posted by Member Name
a resident of California Reflections
on May 4, 2016 at 4:23 pm

Does anyone think that it is fair that the families that have owned the land forever shouldn't do what they want with their land? And we don't want commercial development across the street nor do we want vagrants and trash. The homes raise our property values and the homes are what create the special needs community so let it go!


9 people like this
Posted by HOA
a resident of California Reflections
on May 4, 2016 at 5:36 pm

Yes our neighborhood will be the most impacted by the action taken on the Irby property. It would be best to work with the city and the developer to ensure we keep our neighborhood nice. A residential development would be the best use for this land. The land will be developed and commercial or high density apartments weill not be in the best interest of our neighborhood. And for those who do not live across the street from the property should know there is trash, homeless and drug use one the property. Not a great way to represent our town.


16 people like this
Posted by HappyValleyReader
a resident of Happy Valley
on May 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm

HappyValleyReader is a registered user.

I wholeheartedly support this community! It is currently zoned for commercial, so the single family neighborhood would be a much better use for that location, and better than another apartment project. The addition of a much needed special-needs component is a huge plus for Pleasanton.


2 people like this
Posted by Flightops
a resident of Downtown
on May 5, 2016 at 6:00 pm

Flightops is a registered user.

Justifying another 95 homes that we don't need by throwing in a housing unit for special needs is pretty clever, kind of like justifying those 40 something homes for Lund Ranch II by claiming you can't see them because they will be built down in the "bowl" of the surrounding hills- nice try, I'm not biting on either project !!!! Just use that property for special needs and make the rest of it park land, or better yet use what's left over for free parking for black tie limo employees


9 people like this
Posted by HappyValleyReader
a resident of Happy Valley
on May 5, 2016 at 6:51 pm

HappyValleyReader is a registered user.

Dear Flightops,
Whom do you propose should compensate the property owners should it be turned into a "park"? I believe we already have more than our fair share of parks as a City, personally. And as for the Lund II project, as a Park lover you should embrace the fact that the City will get 174 ACRES of permanent, public open space, 2 miles of Public trails, over $1M for our schools, and more. Just sayin' ...


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

Battle over downtown Livermore plan heats up
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 1,224 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 704 views