|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It appears to be back to the drawing board for a landowner proposing to bring a 42-room lodging facility and a three-story, amenity-filled activity center to their property on Ruby Hill Boulevard.
That after Pleasanton planning commissioners were united last week in saying they wouldn’t favor amending the city’s General Plan to allow the high-use commercial development on the agricultural-designated site just outside the northern entrance to the gated community.
“No, not unless there’s a compelling business case and strong community support. That would look like 200 letters coming to us, or 300 letters, saying, ‘We want it.’ Not 300 letters saying ‘we don’t want it,'” Commissioner Nancy Allen said registering her opposition to the concept that was also heavily criticized by city staff and Ruby Hill residents.
Around 100 people, mostly disapproving Ruby Hill neighbors, filled seats in the council chambers June 14 during the Planning Commission’s workshop for early feedback on the application filed by Hakam Misson for 2001 Ruby Hill Blvd.
The project, as described by city staff, would see an existing building on the site renovated and expanded to become a two-story hotel and then a brand-new building added nearby on the property to house a three-story event center.
The hotel would be almost 20,500 square feet while the event center about 62,200 square feet with a lounge/restaurant, large event space, spa facility, sports bar, art gallery and conference center to accommodate up to 672 guests, according to city staff. The project would also involve a 176-space parking lot, new site entrance and related changes at the 36-acre site.
The applicant’s team, however, disagreed with the city’s characterization of the project, instead calling it a 42-room bed-and-breakfast and separate hospitality center while also claiming city planners misrepresented some dimensions.
The property on the south side of Vineyard Avenue between Rubino Estates Winery and the signalized entrance to Ruby Hill has seen its share of development proposals over the years.
Once home to the temporary Ruby Hill sales office (a building that still remains), the site was previously in line to receive a restaurant and custom house after the prior owners received approval from the City Council for their project in 2007.
But that project never got off the ground, and the owners old the property to Misson in 2014. A year later, Misson proposed a B&B and event center concept but city staff opposed the concept and urged the owner to scale down the development concept.
Misson returned with the new proposal last August, but city staff and many Ruby Hill neighbors opposed the project, citing concerns such as size, traffic, noise, parking and land-use compatibility.
“We probably got 350 or 400 emails. Among those, all but one oppose this (project),” city associate planner Jenny Soo told the commission last week.
“We believe it is too big for the size of the site and we believe it is not compatible to surrounding uses. And we urge the applicant to revise the project so that it will fit into the neighborhood,” Soo added.
With a General Plan designation of open space, agriculture and grazing, the property is allowed to have non-agricultural development occur on a 2.5 acres of the site — but not near the scale of project Misson proposed, according to city staff.
Architect Mark Stoklosa, who designed the project for Misson, tried to distance the project from the description outlined by city officials, arguing their dimensions were off in some areas and saying the project was actually a bed-and-breakfast and hospitality center.
“It is not an event center, nor it is not a hotel. The project is a hospitality center with a variety of functions proposed by the owner for the public to enjoy. And the bed-and-breakfast, it is a boutique place to go to and it is accessory to the functions of the hospitality center,” he said, drawing snickers from the audience.
“Our goal is to provide a first-class facility with emphasis on green architecture,” Stoklosa added. “We don’t intend to have some, I would say, shindigs with large number of people … Our approach was to have something very classy.”
Misson’s attorney Michael Pecherer also attempted to characterize the project in a different light than as described by city staff.
“The staff report dictates and describes this project as a monstrous development, out-of-scale, etc., etc. It’s out-of-scale because the numbers for volume, envelope and footprints of the buildings as described in the staff report are simply wrong,” Pecherer said, also pointing out that about 30 acres of grapevines would remain onsite after the development.
“And as a result, it has inflamed the neighborhood, legitimately so, because the neighborhood sees this project as much larger than it is proposed,” he added, urging the commission to send the proposal back to staff to work with the architect “to get the dimensions right.”
City staff said the project didn’t meet the municipal code’s definition for a B&B, which are typically much smaller in Pleasanton. Later, Commissioner Justin Brown questioned the applicant’s B&B contention by pointing out they described the B&B as a 24/7 operation and “breakfast may be offered.”
And for their part, the resident speakers Tuesday weren’t buying the applicant team’s efforts to re-characterize the project.
“I know we all feel a lot better we’re having a hospitality center, rather than an event center,” resident David Perry said, a tongue-in-cheek remark eliciting laughter from the audience.
Other speakers were more direct, saying the proponents’ descriptions were examples of their “deceit” to disguise the true nature of the project.
“A hotel would be out of character to the nature of our quiet, suburban neighborhood and would bring unsavory elements and attention from transient elements and unwanted seediness catering to the night life in a suburban, family-friendly neighborhood. We are not interested in starting a second downtown out here,” Ruby Hill resident Vin Pohray said.
“The current quality of life that is being enjoyed by residents in our community will be severely compromised as a result of this change, and we are very much opposed to it,” Pohray added. “We say no to a hotel. We say no to an event center. Please here us, loud and clear.”
Resident Terri Yang said she opposed the project for wanting to rezone open space and agricultural lands for a large commercial use instead.
“If we support this proposal, where do we stop? There’s plenty of agriculture or grazing land around Ruby Hill, in Pleasanton all over,” Yang added. “I urge you to strongly consider the consequences of setting this precedent. When’s the city going to stop it?”
After the public comment, Sameer Misson from the applicant’s team told the commissioners, “I appreciate the comments … I want to take back the feedback that we received today as well as from the emails and modify our submission.”
The debate then returned to the commission, with city staff prepared to vet specifics of the proposal like size, parking and design elements.
But it soon became clear the commissioners weren’t even in favor of a General Plan amendment to allow a hotel or event center — or B&B or hospitality center — at the property, most recommending instead a winery or small tasting room.
“I’m 100% not in favor of doing a General Plan amendment unless there’s a big community benefit,” Commissioner Herb Ritter said.
And the four other commissioners would agree. Commissioner David Nagler was absent so alternate member Justin Brown joined the dais in a full seat for the meeting.
“I actually like a lot of the things you have in the project and personally I think there is a need for some hospitality centers or event centers,” Ritter later added. “But I don’t think this location is right for this project.”
He also urged Misson and other development applicants around town to engage their neighbors from the outset to gain feedback and support sooner. “I think that will really help because once you get the community behind you, it makes it a lot easier to go through the process,” Ritter said.
It’s now up to Misson to decide whether to revise the project concept, try moving forward with the current application without apparent city support, come up with a new idea or possibly abandon developing the site altogether.
Why is our council making decisions on stuff that happens out in Livermore?
Hallelujah, the planning commission heard “US” for a change, I’m still in a state of shock!! Hold on tight I feel some flipping and flopping coming down that road.
from a previous thread — “”The property has an existing building on the southeastern side, originally a temporary sales office for a property management firm. City staff claims the building was used in recent months as a short-term rental listed on Airbnb despite that not being an allowed use for the zoning.”
This guy has already proven that he has no problem with flaunting the law. No project that he proposes should be considered at all.
Ruby Hill is in Pleasanton.
There is not much out there. Build. Let it grow.
@spudly. “There is not much out there. Build. Let it grow”. Exactly, that’s the thinking that got us in this cluster we have now what with Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton building on every inch of bare dirt with little or no planning for traffic flow, schools, affordable housing for our own kids, it’s been full speed ahead for the developers with little regard for the quality of life that used to be here
It is the employers, corporations, driving the need for housing.
Maybe employers/corporations should provide the housing.
In japan, employers/corporations provide housing for their employees.
Maybe research into Japan employer/employee housing related to employment is worth looking into.
Not a model I’d want to follow -perhaps increase relocation expenses to more adequately cover cost of living and extend to shorter distances
HAHAHA! There is nothing merrier than seeing greedy developers get screwed. Let’s band together and make sure nothing can EVER be built on their land. We want our open space! Building anything on those parcels will undoubtedly create more traffic congestion in the area, not to mention it will be an eye sore compared to the open space now. Say NO to any development!
Let’s use eminent domain to take back Ruby Hills and bulldoze all those ugly houses on the hills so we can go back to when Pleasanton was wide open and beautiful.
Let’s put in a large park area with a nice benches, trails, trees and how about some places for camping?
In one corner there can be a COSTCO so those of us who have trouble buying homes in town can get affordable foods and house hold supplies.
Down with the rich, up with the middle class!
@Map,
How to you get “affordable housing for our own kids” if you restrict building? Weren’t you against all the condos and townhouses built in Dublin? Am I missing something?