News


City Council postpones East Pleasanton Specific Plan debate

Also: Council talks legislation with Bauer-Kahan, proclaims Josh Burger Day

The Pleasanton City Council delayed further discussion about the project approach and scope of work for the new East Pleasanton Specific Plan process until next month after a council member was out sick Tuesday.

Council members had been scheduled to consider confirming the staff-recommended concept initially endorsed by the council majority two weeks ago, but with Councilwoman Kathy Narum -- as well as City Manager Nelson Fialho -- absent, they opted to continue the item without discussion until their first regular meeting in January.

Mayor Jerry Thorne at first suggested setting the new hearing date for Dec. 17, but Vice Mayor Karla Brown urged her colleagues to wait until January to avoid any conflict for interested residents who might be too busy to attend the week before Christmas.

The council majority agreed, voting 3-1 to reschedule the hearing for Jan. 21. Councilman Jerry Pentin dissented; he was in favor of keeping the Dec. 17 hearing date.

The city typically holds only one council meeting in January because of the New Year's Day holiday week, so the next regular meeting is Jan. 21 -- although the way the calendar falls in 2020, the first Tuesday of the month would be the week after the holiday, Jan. 7.

Though they postponed the public hearing without discussing the topic themselves, council members did allow residents who turned out for the scheduled debate Tuesday to share their thoughts about the east side.

Four speakers went to the lectern, three of whom expressed general concerns about significant new residential development in East Pleasanton and a lack of necessary infrastructure such as roads, clean water and schools, while the other urged the council to prioritize more affordable housing.

"It is my concern that this public process is not going forward quite as transparently as we would like," said Kelly Cousins, president of the slow-growth citizen group PleasantonVoters.com.

"What's the rush?" Cousins added, a day after her group sent a mass email to supporters in a call for an advisory vote from the public on the east side before the plan is drafted. "Let us residents have a time to vote ... This is a very important issue; we'd like to work with you to help plan this area."

The East Pleasanton Specific Plan would be the city policy document that lays the groundwork for future development on the large swath of land on the far southeastern edge of the city long eyed for potential redevelopment with residential, commercial and other uses.

Narum's vote could ultimately prove key as she joined Thorne and Pentin in voicing support for city's staff recommendation for the planning process when the council first discussed the concept on Nov. 19. Brown and Councilwoman Julie Testa were more hesitant, though no formal vote was cast that week.

The recommended public drafting and review process centers around workshops and meetings overseen by the Planning Commission, with regular check-ins with the council along the way, as opposed to creating a new task force like what happened the last time the city undertook east side planning several years ago.

The final city deliberations on the specific plan, once completed, would occur before the council -- though a public vote on ratification remains a real possibility.

The east side was the subject of a city planning effort, including intensive task force work, from 2012 until mid-2015 when the council opted to halt the project amid public concerns about the drought, school overcrowding and general over-development in Pleasanton.

Before restarting the process this time around, city staff is looking to the council for direction on the project approach and scope of work.

City staff expects to begin the estimated 18- to 24-month planning process later this winter or in early spring, depending on when the council gives its final direction. The process would be paid for by Pleasanton-based developer Ponderosa Homes, which has secured agreements with the major private property owners on the east side, but all consultant contracts would be retained and managed independently by the city, staff said.

If the Jan. 21 date holds for the east side debate, it could be a busy meeting night.

City staff said Tuesday night that the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone -- the city's policy effort to provide the framework for a Costco store and other new redevelopment on land near the freeways' interchange -- is currently scheduled to return to the council on Jan. 21 for new deliberations after additional environmental work spurred by a lawsuit over the council's previous JDEDZ approval.

In other business

* The council's main discussion topic Tuesday was a presentation with an update on state legislation and a review of the city's position on certain housing and non-housing bills out of Sacramento.

City staff walked the council through outcomes of key bills during the 2019 legislative year, including their probable impacts on Pleasanton, as well as a look ahead at what to expect in the 2020 legislative cycle.

Local Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) was on hand for the discussion and spoke to the council about her legislative accomplishments in 2019, goals for 2020 and her own expectations for housing bills moving forward. The council also heard from Tri-Valley cities' lobbying firm, Townsend Public Affairs.

* Council members presented a proclamation declaring Dec. 4 as Josh Burger and Awareness of Atelosteogenesis Syndrome Type III Day in honor of the Amador Valley High alum and motivational speaker who has faced the extremely rare genetic condition since birth. Wednesday was Burger's 29th birthday.

Friends and family are also working on Josh's Drive for Independence Fundraiser to help generate funds to purchase a van fitted with special equipment so he can drive on his own. To learn more, visit www.32auctions.com/JoshBurger.

* The council pulled two items off Tuesday's consent calendar, continuing them to a yet-undetermined future meeting for unspecified reasons.

The first was a proposed $732,548 loan agreement with the Hacienda Business Park Owners Association to renovate landscaped areas in Hacienda. The second was a new ordinance that would give voting authority to youth members on the city's Human Services, Civic Arts, Library, and Parks and Recreation commissions.

The other seven items on the consent calendar were unanimously approved without discussion.

The list included confirming the council's 2020 meeting schedule, a maximum $334,695 contract with Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. for the Centennial Park bocce ball court renovation project, and a resolution creating new fees for processing small cell wireless facility applications -- $3,779 per site for facilities in a public right-of-way and $3,552 per site for private land.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

5 people like this
Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Stoneridge
on Dec 4, 2019 at 9:18 am

Matt Sullivan is a registered user.

Wow! Two of the dumbest ideas to come out of Pleasanton at the same meeting - Costco and Ponderosa Homes planning to build 1900 houses in East Pleasanton. It will be a busy night!


Like this comment
Posted by James Michael
a resident of Val Vista
on Dec 4, 2019 at 10:56 am

James Michael is a registered user.

"Eye of the Beholder"...but it should be a fun night. I think folks might need tickets for this one. See you all there, if I can even get in.


10 people like this
Posted by Melinda
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 4, 2019 at 11:47 am

Melinda is a registered user.

Hey Matt, I’m a resident of Ironwood next to the planning area. I’ll take housing, especially for seniors as well parks over the increased on-going industrial operations and transfer station which are noisy, dusty and have big equipment which block traffic on Valley and Santa Rita. We now have bright lights at nights, hear equipment starting at 5am, and homeless camping out in the fields. Where do you live? On the other side of town near hillside estates and open space. How nice for you. It’s smart to build needed (and required) housing and lake recreation trails, on an infill brownfield.


13 people like this
Posted by wowza
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 4, 2019 at 12:17 pm

Matt just called the nearly 2/3 voters who want costco dumb. Way to insult the residents!!! Just get on with filing your next lawsuit to try and block Costco so we can spend more tax payer money on lawyers to defend what the residents clearly want--no need for insults!!


3 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 4, 2019 at 12:52 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Wowza, To clarify, 2/3 of those who showed up and voted, not 2/3 of the community. I don’t particularly care if it’s Costco or not, but there is a clear distinction so as not to inflate the number of actual votes.


6 people like this
Posted by wowza
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 4, 2019 at 1:04 pm

Kathleen, fair enough that I could have been clearer. But my point is still valid that a significant number of voters said we want Costco, including me. To call it one of the dumbest ideas is an insult to all that participated in the democratic process by voting. Not too mention all the resouces being spent to defend against Matt's first lawsuit and he's on tv record saying he's going to sue again. when is enough enough? When does the will of the voters matter?

Not to mention, this is the guy who in an earlier posting on the eastside, was complaining about a lack of transparency with the eastside. Yet he continues to refuse to disclose who is funding his lawsuit. How can he legitimately complain about transparency when he has been less than transparent? How can he have any credability?


1 person likes this
Posted by Wow
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 4, 2019 at 2:02 pm

I know we have to build housing at the East Side development, but I think we should wait until we get the new housing requirements from the state in late 2020 before we start planning. To me it seems premature.


11 people like this
Posted by James Michael
a resident of Val Vista
on Dec 4, 2019 at 3:20 pm

James Michael is a registered user.

Kathleen,

wowza actually said "nearly 2/3 of voters" not 2/3 of the community just to clarify. And MaSu is usually insulting to those not seeing his side while talking out of both sides of his mouth. Just look at his CBSN interview...he can't understand why we can't drive to Livermore or Danville to get our Costco hot dogs while at the same time he sees increased pollution from a Pleasanton Costco but ignores the pollution created by driving farther to get to Costco in Livermore or Danville. I'm going to shop at Costco...if I drive 2 miles to Pleasanton then that is less pollution than driving 8 miles to Livermore.
Paraphrasing Mark Twain, sorta...if this man was around when God said "let there be light" then we never would've had any.


Like this comment
Posted by Melinda
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 4, 2019 at 3:58 pm

Melinda is a registered user.

It will take at least two years to go through the planning process and the required house numbers from the State will be known during that time and the density can be adjusted. This is the second time the planning has commenced so I’d like to get going instead of having it hang over our head. Plus we would like the industrial businesses to relocate now that there is homes here.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 4, 2019 at 4:19 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

“2/3 voters”. No of. I probably disagree with Matt Sullivan. Something is going on that land; Costco is no worse than many other options. In the, if you build it they will come, notion—anything we wish to drive to causes pollution. Same for the East Side adding population that will get in their cars, just like I do. I just hope for a K-8 school and thoughtful nature/park areas.


Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 4, 2019 at 4:34 pm

David is a registered user.

Kathleen, note that a K8 school will be 4th public school in close proximity not to mention Mohr Elementary and the Montessori school which also plans a ,K8 academy. Seems like a saturation in one area relying on and impacting Vally & Santa Rita intersection. Why are all these schools clustered in a single area?


1 person likes this
Posted by 125
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Dec 4, 2019 at 4:52 pm

125 is a registered user.

Melinda,

Call me cynical, but do you really think a developer will be ok with a downward adjustment of homes once the state's housing requirements are known? That's money they would voluntarily take off the table and I don't see it happening. Better to start with the right density, but that said, I empathize with having this upcoming development "hanging over your head", as you wrote.


3 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 4, 2019 at 5:01 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

David, it’s where the kids are—housing turnover and growth of East Side. All three middle schools are full (as are both comprehensive high schools). Demographer report of elementary need. Land availability. Traffic is a city issue and they should plan for it if they allow East side build out. And they will have to cuz the state will force it on us.


2 people like this
Posted by Ed
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 4, 2019 at 6:42 pm

A person that paid canvassers to collect signatures to flat out lie and deceive trying to get signatures for a deceptively worded referendum has no room to be calling anything or anyone dumb, kettle.


7 people like this
Posted by Windmill Lane Resident
a resident of Old Towne
on Dec 4, 2019 at 6:46 pm

All we hear about on the news is the lack of housing. Pleasanton recognizes their need to fulfill the need as best they can. I do not doubt that our city's governance will take all known issues or concerns into evaluation prior to final deliberation. We as a city have done quite well; school ratings, economic status, a first class business park, excellent roads and infrastructure, etc. We are a city that lives by its monocle, "City of Planned Progress". Read the old article on our city and take credit for our city's stature. Web Link

Quit complaining and work together. That is what Pleasantonians do!


1 person likes this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 4, 2019 at 8:29 pm

David is a registered user.

I agree, let’s work together than simply saying no growth like NIMBYS including the king Matt Sullivan. It’s been people like him that put us in this position of having to dense out an area to meet State requirements for new housing.
My question to Kathleen is that I have read for years that schools are needed in the north part of town. Why not build new facilities there so they (student population near higher density apartments) are distributed across town instead of clustering everything around Santa Rita and Valley. It’s a traffic nightmare now.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 4, 2019 at 9:18 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

The plan is to add a “new” school to the Donlon site, so that hopefully addresses the problem already occurring (there are some 200 students overflowed out of their neighborhood schools, primarily Donlon). We need capacity at 6-8 too (and 9-12, but that will never happen).

So given the few land options, my guess—that’s all it is at this point— is development of the East portion will require a K-8 on the only land where it might be possible and would not require boundary changes. I’m sure it’s all going to be part of a long discussion process. Time will tell.


4 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 4, 2019 at 9:22 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

I might add this is another reason why the bond the board wants in March is too soon. If the plans for the East start to fall into place, bond priorities might change to requiring some or all of the needed funds for opening that potential school.


3 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 4, 2019 at 9:35 pm

David is a registered user.

That’s assuming the bond gets approved. We are 65 and already pay a school bond and other assessments, including our HOA dues. We are not Prop 13 so we are getting taxed out of town after 30 years. Future bond measures need to exempt seniors but I suspect people want seniors to move away to make more housing stock available for families and tech workers.


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 4, 2019 at 9:59 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

David, I’m sure the powers that be would love to exempt seniors because they show up and vote and might be more favorable toward a bond they don’t have to pay, but the district is not allowed to exempt seniors on bonds. I don’t think there is a purposeful or organized attempt to move seniors out.


7 people like this
Posted by Matt Sullivan
a resident of Stoneridge
on Dec 5, 2019 at 8:48 am

Matt Sullivan is a registered user.

To all,

My conclusion that Costco and the 1900 homes proposed by Ponderosa is “dumb” is based on the knowledge of planning principles gained in 6 years as a Planning Commissioner, 8 years as a City Councilmember, and as a member of various city planning committees such as the Housing Element Task Force, Hacienda BP high density development near BART, the first city Energy Committee, and the West Las Positas Interchange committee, as well as the environmental and social challenges we now face.. This participation in civic planning goes back almost 25 years and has provided me with a good basis to determine what is good and what is bad planning. What is yours?

A copy of the email I sent the Council outlining my specific objections to the EPSP process is below. Since I know that you will ask what my alternatives are to Ponderosa’s plan, they are as follows:

1. When the first EPSP was conducted in 2012-2014, my suggestion was the city build a solar photovoltaic farm on the property. A perfect solution for an area devastated by industrial uses over the years. Now that the city has finally joined East Bay Community Energy, our regional Community Choice energy provider, this could be developed as a business deal that would provide revenue to the city and renewable energy to the community.

2. I also like Becky Dennis’ idea of keeping the land as open space and used for carbon sequestration. This would work hand in hand with the solar farm.

This land is zoned industrial. Ponderosa Homes is nothing more that a real estate speculator and has no vested rights to build anything. Instead of building 1900 homes that are not required by RHNA and adding even more Greenhouse Gas emissions, why not do something to help society?

Instead of name calling, perhaps you can make a cogent argument for why you want 1900 homes on this site?

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear Mayor and City Council,

As you may have noticed, things are a mess. We are feeling the effects of Climate Change more every day, and it’s only going to get worse. Thirty years of unhindered growth in the Tri Valley has stretched our infrastructure to the limit – roadway capacity, freeways, public transportation, and schools are being overwhelmed with no real solutions in sight. We’ve always had difficulty securing adequate potable water supplies, especially in time of drought, but now chemical contamination is making a significant part of our supply undrinkable and putting the public health at risk. And what will happen when the new RHNA numbers come out next year? The magical solutions offered up by staff to date won’t solve our problems.

In a sane society we would stop, take a step back, and work together to plan a truly sustainable community (and world) to leave our decedents. Instead, the city has decided to take a housing developer, Ponderosa Homes, by the hand and deliver them to the Promised Land: the chance to be an equal partner with the city, build whatever they want on the East Side, and eliminate the pesky and messy public (i.e. democracy) from the process.

The people who elected you to be their representatives in government are your true constituents, not housing developers. After you take this irresponsible step as you most certainly will, you should honor the voters who put you in office by placing Ponderosa’s plan on the ballot for voter approval. Only in this way can you salvage any legitimacy as a public representative.

Thank you.



2 people like this
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:40 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"As you may have noticed, things are a mess. We are feeling the effects of Climate Change more every day, and it’s only going to get worse. Thirty years of unhindered growth in the Tri Valley has stretched our infrastructure to the limit – roadway capacity, freeways, public transportation, and schools are being overwhelmed with no real solutions in sight."

As you may have noticed, it's the typical "progressive" response. Government managed decline to supposedly save the planet. Gavin Newsom just diverted gas tax funding (that was promised to the voters when increased) away from roadway/freeway improvement for more "green" projects instead.


3 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:44 am

David is a registered user.

Matt, my response is the EPSP has always been thought of as the City’s dumping ground for anything the City did not provide due to NIMBY-ism. With the quarry lakes nearby, it is a huge recreational opportunity that would be compatible with open space as you noted is good planning principals. Solar array should be decentralized on marginal lands throughout town instead of impacting a single area. What about the former West Los Positas Land set aside for freeway ramps. You championed stopping that access because it was near your home and don’t try to tell me it was because of good planning. Again, I’ll take senior housing, parks and some starter housing to help meet State requirements which you contributed to the now City wide shortfall. I’m sure you and Ms Dennis feel safe in your suburban equity and want all the industrial elsewhere.


2 people like this
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 5, 2019 at 10:33 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"And MaSu is usually insulting to those not seeing his side while talking out of both sides of his mouth. Just look at his CBSN interview...he can't understand why we can't drive to Livermore or Danville to get our Costco hot dogs while at the same time he sees increased pollution from a Pleasanton Costco but ignores the pollution created by driving farther to get to Costco in Livermore or Danville."

The climate change crowd already has the hot dog issued resolved - banning and/ or reducing consumption of meats, getting rid of cows,etc.

Do you suppose that a mandatory public transit plan (using non fossil fueled vehicles, of course) for Costco shoppers and veggie burger consumption/purchases only might be considered "acceptable"? If we don't have the money, we can always get the "1%" to pay for it, impose a surcharge/tax on purchases of ground beef, etc,


5 people like this
Posted by Fred
a resident of Foothill Farms
on Dec 5, 2019 at 3:42 pm

I drive a Tesla so I don't need their cheap gas station polluting my air, I vote in Pleasanton and I am not a member of Costco. I had hoped something of value would go into this space, but I never supported a Costco. The vote was to limit the SIZE of the buildings - there was no brand associated with the vote or I would have voted NO.


3 people like this
Posted by 25 years, Matt?
a resident of Birdland
on Dec 5, 2019 at 5:00 pm

Matt
You say you have been participating in Pleasanton planning.

You also constantly say the city is messed up .

Looks to me the is a clear correlation between these two data sets.

???


3 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 5, 2019 at 6:09 pm

David is a registered user.

Good Point 25 Years! But seriously, Pleasanton is always being named by various groups as being a highly desirable address. I guess the majority of City leaders, the business community, and reasonable residents have done a good job despite Mr Sullivan’s obstructionism. Sad that Mr Sullivan is always suing, name calling, and costing taxpayers to support his personal bias on how we should live and where we should shop. I expect to see him at the Pleasanton CostCo In the future late at night wearing a disguise and buying his hot dog and roasted chicken. It usually happens like that....


4 people like this
Posted by James Michael
a resident of Val Vista
on Dec 5, 2019 at 6:28 pm

James Michael is a registered user.

I can't afford a Tesla so I'll keep buying Costco's "cheap gas". Maybe someday, if I live long enough, the price of electric vehicles and solar will come down so that it is affordable for all of the people that the "progressives" pretend to care about to be able to afford.


3 people like this
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 7:26 pm

David, for someone who wants to be exempt from paying your fair share through a proposed bond to sustain a standard of life we have come to welcome here...in Pleasanton...maybe you should move out. BTW, Pleasanton has been desirable for a long time...even before 21st century politics.
You provide MS to much credit of being the villain. The remark about the West Los Positas Interchange was stupid. In every Council, Commission and task force over the last 55 years I have been here, involves those people whose future neighborhood could be at risk... and they involved themselves.


4 people like this
Posted by James Michael
a resident of Val Vista
on Dec 5, 2019 at 7:47 pm

James Michael is a registered user.

Pete...
"paying your fair share through a proposed bond..." Not true, if bonds were "fair" then EVERYBODY would be paying their fair share not just property owners. What would be fair would be to only allow people with "a horse in the race" to vote for bond measures or parcel taxes. Or having a "head tax" so that everyone pays a "fair share".
And telling people to move out is just plain rude.


Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 8:19 pm

Micheal, “And telling people to move out is just plain rude” “cheap gas” as compared to what? And telling people they talk out both sides of their mouth. Why don’t you get your facts straight. Maybe you should move out...telling...? That’s why no one takes these blogs serious. Made up crap, Mike!


Like this comment
Posted by just wondering
a resident of Harvest Park Middle School
on Dec 5, 2019 at 8:44 pm

For Matt and many who want to limit growth on East Side (which I do too), where do should we zone more housing to meet out next RHNA cycle? Word is it could be double the last cycle, so maybe 4000 units?
East Pleasanton is not really ideal as not near transit so just further congests existing streets. However, to elected officials it looks like an easy solution as it is all new.
Anyway, looking for thoughts on where in the city we should ideally zone another 3 or 4 thousand units. Not pretty but will likely be reality. I hope the city will be discussing this prior to making any decisions about east Pleasanton as there must be better options.


1 person likes this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 pm

David is a registered user.

No Pete, they don’t take it serious when people start calling others stupid and to move out. You are an angry person. No wonder you support MS. who called people dumb. Ive been next to EPSP for thirty years and I want a mix of uses there like a new neighborhood with a lake recreation area and industrial moved towards the batch plant and rail lines. It’s not a NIMBY-ism like stopping a needed East-west freeway access at West Los Positas. Making people drive home along Foothill instead of I680 or exiting I680 at Bernal and driving back is more traffic and emissions. But this issue was settled along time ago, at least until ACTA says enough is enough just like the State is requiring affordable housing now


3 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:05 pm

David is a registered user.

Dear Just Wondering, put those 3-4,000 units on the Mall parking lot and vacant Kaiser property. It has freeway access from both I580 and I680, BART, shopping and job centers nearby.


Like this comment
Posted by pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:25 pm

David, “ you are an angry person. No wonder you support MS.” You guys are beautiful...make up crap as you go along.


Like this comment
Posted by wowza
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:26 pm

David,

. . .and you are willing to accept 10 story buildings plus parking structures if you put all 4,000 units on the mall parking lot?

Doesn't it make more sense to try and distribute them thruout the city? Some on the eastside, some on the mall, perhaps some at the vintage hills shopping center, some in the southern end of town, etc. that way, school impacts are distributed as well as other impacts so that one area isn't overwhelmed.


Like this comment
Posted by pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:37 pm

And you are right, David. Nothing is ever settled with government...concerning transportation...and or housing. So, with 20 pumps scheduled for Costco and infrastructure at a bare minimum to support traffic...yes! yes! yes! We/I have a right to a proper vetting. Not some Councilmembers who say my vote not to limit building to 50,000 sq. ft. is an invitation to build at any cost to our Community...and future generations of residents.


Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Dec 8, 2019 at 10:39 pm

David is a registered user.

Wowza, yes you are correct. It was my failed attempt at sarcasm to those like MS who think all new housing should be at BART stations and high density. I totally support a mix of housing types in East Pleasanton per my prior comments and that high density (affordable and subsidized ) housing be spread throughout town instead of located in a single area.


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

Email:


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Dublin leaders position the city to develop a downtown
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 1,234 views

Premarital and Couples: What feeling is not allowed, and what do you use in its place?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 758 views