Ideas of what to do with a vacant plot of land are swirling after
residents rallied to defeat a plan to build high-density housing on the
site.
The piece of land, known as Area 15 by Pleasanton’s Housing Element
Update Task Force, is in the Valley Trails development, between Hopyard
Road and Interstate 680 and along Valley Trails Drive.
Residents packed City Hall during a recent meeting to protest plans
for high-density housing, prompting the city to change course. Now ideas
include everything from single-family houses to schools to parks.
The site is one of several empty pieces of property the city is
looking at for future housing after it lost a lawsuit last year to
Urban Habitat,
an Oakland-based social justice advocacy organization, which challenged
the city’s growth cap. The final plan must be approved by the state.
“There will always be speculation (about what is built) as long as
that area isn’t developed,” said Pleasanton Planning Manager Janice
Stern.
Residents submitted their ideas and thoughts on the property to the
task force and city by mail, comment cards at meetings, by addressing
the city council and by e-mail. The land is owned by the
Evangelical Free Church on Valley Trails.
The ideas have run the gamut — from adding housing that fits in with
the one-story residences, or again, adding parks or a school. Concerns
about adding housing or a school ranged from the impacts on housing
values, traffic, noise, pollution and other negative effects.
“I don’t think it is a good place for high density,” said Vice Mayor
Cheryl Cook-Kallio, who is one of two council members on the task force.
“I think lower-density senior housing could go there. I think you
could put single-family homes, but it should match the neighborhood.”
Valley Trails resident Carl Pretzel favors the idea of putting a
school, church or other public or institution on the site. The city’s
general plan calls for such a use, but it is currently zoned for
single-family residential housing.
“A small school would probably be acceptable. The hope is they will rezone the land public-institutional,” Pretzel said.
But a church or other religious institution would be an ideal use, Pretzel said.
Single-family homes would number 20 to 30 homes and wouldn’t impact
traffic horribly, long-time Valley Trails resident Bob Gallagher said.
“If anything, they will be nice new homes," he said. "It blends in with the neighborhood.
“Schools and daycare people are picking up and dropping off kids at
the same time the commuters are trying leave,” Gallagher added.
Valley Trails resident David Pastor said the uncertainty about the
site, along with failed past attempts to develop, is cause for concern.
“This is the fourth time the hornets (nest) has been disturbed,”
Pastor said. “We would love to see it made a park, but we know that
isn’t going to happen.
“What would probably fit in there would be maybe senior housing, but
we are not talking multiple-story senior housing and 30 units per acre,"
he said.
"Maybe duplexes, smaller buildings with open spaces and parking instead of senior housing that would require an elevator."
The City Council will ultimately decide how to rezone the site after
hearing the task force and planning commission’s recommendations this
summer, but after months of examination, Cook-Kallio said the choice is
pretty clear.
“From my perspective, it will not be on the list for high-density,"
she said. "If there were to be any building there, it would have to be
consistent with the single-family homes."
Brenda
Bob Ratto
The whole things does make one's head spin...There are 10-12 people in the County that are the main "pushers" of this, and it does boggle the mind how far this all gets taken...using the income models proposed, most of Novato could qualify for this, and maybe that very same majority could come to their senses and decide what is appropriate for our community. Wishful?, maybe. The proposed sites just keep getting bigger and bigger.
janna nikkola
Edwin Drake
This needs to be changed at the federal level.
(Who's running to replace Woolsey?)
Please see parts of: California Government Code Section 65583.2
(d) For purposes of this section, metropolitan counties, nonmetropolitan counties, and nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas are as determined by the United States Census Bureau. Nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas include the following counties: Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Nevada,
Tehama, and Tuolumne and such other counties as may be determined by the United States Census Bureau to be nonmetropolitan counties with micropolitan areas in the future.
(e) A jurisdiction is considered suburban if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2,000,000 in population, unless that jurisdiction's population is greater than 100,000, in which case it is considered metropolitan. Counties, not including the City and County of San Francisco, will be considered suburban unless they are in a MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population in which case they are considered metropolitan.
Edwin Drake
Definitions of Metropolitan and suburban come from the US Census Bureau.
Please see parts of: California Government Code Section 65583.2 and nearby
(f) A jurisdiction is considered metropolitan if the jurisdiction does not meet the requirements for "suburban area" above and is located in a MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population, unless that jurisdiction's population is less than 25,000 in which case it is considered suburban.
Edwin Drake
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html
http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metroarea.html
http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metrodef.html
Bob Minkin
Sylvia Barry
Petaluma is part of the Santa Rosa-Petaluma MSA, which includes Sonoma County with just over 480K population. Even though Petaluma's population is similar to Novato, due to different MSA it belongs to, it's designation is Suburban.
If what I interpreted is correct, Petaluma’s suburban designation allows them to have 20 units per acre, while Novato’s Metropolitan designation forced it to have 30 units per acre in the context of what we are talking about here.
Unfortunately, the removal of Jared Huffman’s AB1103 eliminated the part to “allow a local government to petition the regional governing body for a density designation that more appropriately reflects the area.” which affects Novato and San Rafael. The part about conversion of 2nd units help Southern Marin towns more than Novato (only 13 units projected for the next four years in Novato).
Brenda
Sylvia Barry
Austin Morris
Novato must stand tough, hold the line and stop any further discussions until the County & 100% of the cities that comprise Marin County are onboard. Then and only then do we walk into the water holding hands. Sausalito, Mill Valley, Tiburon, Ross, et.al. to the north may claim they don’t have buildable space/acreage, that is not our problem find it, condemn it by ‘Imminent Domain’ if need be; but get those properties on the books and then Novato will take this matter into consideration.
They won’t, and thereby we should not be dictated to. Can you see some nice AH units being constructed on Belvedere Lagoon, I don’t think so, and that is what democracy is all about. We can not have voices in Belvedere, who won’t do their share, casting ballots to dictate to us within even the same County of Marin. Stop it here, and then widen the ring to the County, to ABAG (were they to be recognized) then to the State, when we have Representatives who know our voices.
Trish Boorstein
Edwin Drake
Trish Boorstein
Jerome J Ghigliotti Jr