Coming sooner, comming later

I got a voice message from Joe Head of SummerHill Homes. He said SummerHill (Urban Housing Group) really does plan on moving full steam ahead with building a 301-unit apartment complex on that grassy field along Walnut Avenue and State Street. The project would include a screen for outdoor movie watching.

Meanwhile, before I went on furlough I spoke to Richard Frisbie of the Patterson Ranch development. He said he expected the Patterson family to hold on to the land until home prices recover, however long that takes. Once the market is healthy, he expects that they would sell the land to developers who would build the 839 homes, two churches, school, park, etc.

Matt Artz


  1. Just what we need – more high density, low-income, transient ticky-tacky. And who came up with this wacky movie screen idea?

    The second paragraph proves what I’ve always assumed about the Pattersons – it’s all about the big mamu, the bottom line, the most they can get. They couldn’t care less about what’s good for this town.

  2. Hey Perry M. I’ve got another one I think you’ll find amusing. Go to the Grade Separation website linked here: http://www.fremontgradesep.com/project_overview.html

    Click on the two “photo simulation” illustrations on the right side on the page to enlarge. In both, but most easily seen in the Paseo Padre Parkway illus., is a bare strip of land with the words “Proposed Residential Development” in the upper left corner. This toothpick shaped, and almost as thin, strip of land running from Paseo Padre to Washington, (see other illus.), is approved for housing. Guess who the planner is? Richard Frisbie of Patterson Ranch fame. The Planning Commission has already given the green light to its development although they weren’t pleased with his boring, Ardenwood-style, ram rod straight layout. This won’t happen anytime soon thank God.

  3. Interesting post in SF Gate today regarding some homeowners thoughts about high-density “affordable” housing.

    “Some Mountain Viewers Prefer Unaffordable Housing

    Condo owners at 108 Bryant Street worry that Mountain View’s plan to build affordable housing nearby will hurt property values.

    A small group of Mountain View residents are riled up about a city proposal to build an affordable-housing development on a city-owned lot, according to the Mountain View Voice.

    The concern, as one resident put it, is that the city is “building a ghetto” next to a fairly new condo development, 108 Bryant Street, and property values there will be shot.

    The city’s plan for the affordable housing project could climb up to four-stories tall with 51 units, and would be built at a Caltrain overflow parking lot on Evelyn and Franklin Streets. The units will go to those who earn less than 60 percent of the area’s median income, according to the report.

    As it stands now, prices at 108 Bryant Street appear to be holding somewhat steady. The most recent sale we could find at that address was a two-bedroom unit which went for $650,000 in October 2008, and previously sold for $620,000 in November 2006.”


    It’s interesting how their posts sound a lot like some of the ones I see in The Beat . . .


  4. Interesting article in the Tri-City Voice with a lot more detail on this development (Summerhill).


    Sorry to be referencing the competition, Matt, but good info is good info. Glad you’re back, by the way.

    I’m sure that outdoor movie screen won’t present any problems for the apartments right next to it. Am I the only one who didn’t know that they’re talking about two four-story buildings with an internal 7-level garage structure within one of them? Park – good, but I thought we didn’t have the budget to maintain the parks we have. Do we really need 300 more apartments? Is there really a shortage of apartments in Fremont? And why are we giving away public land for apartments? Something’s wrong when Wasserman starts to make sense.

  5. Doug, thanks for the info on the “proposed residential development”. Another one of those projects that sneaks in the back door? If memory serves, Frisbie is the guy who used to be in the Planning Department; I’m sure that didn’t figure at all in having this ridiculous project approved.

    I’ve been thinking lately that, if this recession has any bright side whatsoever, it may be that it’s delaying development long enough for us to get our act together on what the City really needs. At least it makes me feel better to think so.

  6. Article from the 3/27 Merc (penned by our pal Matt) states, in part:

    “During the next two years, Fremont is planning to loosen zoning rules to encourage the redevelopment of about 110 acres bound by Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont Boulevard, Mowry Avenue and Walnut Avenue.

    City leaders hope that over time, what now is mostly a collection of strip malls, city buildings and empty lots one day will give way to tall office buildings, live-work lofts, high-end shops, trendy restaurants, a movie theater and maybe even street cars shuttling young singles from the Fremont Hub shopping center to the BART station.

    The proposal involves allowing much taller and bulkier buildings, which would increase land values, and, city leaders hope, encourage property owners to scrap their strip malls for something more urban or to sell to developers who would do it for them.

    While the council was bullish on the plan, not everyone sees the district as a future downtown. John Weed, an Ohlone College and water district trustee, said Fremont would be better off utilizing the nearby hospitals to turn the area into a health care district. Weed envisioned sidewalks crowded more with seniors in wheelchairs than singles sipping lattes.

    “The life fluid of a commercial center is traffic, and there ain’t no traffic there,” he said.”


    Nice. And I assume that, at some point, somebody was going to ask the taxpayers if they’re on board with the tall and trendy plan?

    Hello? Remember us? We pay you. We elect you and we can choose not to re-elect you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *