|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A revised application to construct a five-story, mixed-use building on the edge of downtown Pleasanton with no onsite parking was sent again to city staff for approval months after an initial rejection — and in light of recent state housing laws, residents and city leaders will likely not be able to push back.
If city staff don’t find any technical issues with the project, the proposed affordable housing project will be on track to be built at 4884 Harrison St., near the Pleasanton Public Library.
“I want affordable housing, but it should be something that fits in with the neighborhood and the fact of no onsite parking. I just don’t know how it’s gonna even work at all,” Mary Reding, a 43-year resident of Harrison Street, told the Weekly.
The project, as proposed by Encino-based AMG Associates, LLC, would consist of 46 residential units, including a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units, and 1,400 square feet of ground floor retail commercial space, according to a notice letter sent out to residents from the city. All of the housing units would be deed-restricted as affordable.
Senate Bill 35 is one of the two main recent housing laws that now require California cities and counties to streamline review and approval of eligible affordable housing projects, exempting such projects from full environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The Harrison Street project did not originally qualify for ministerial approval under SB 35 earlier in the year because it failed to address issues about fire department access and sidewalk width, according to city officials. After the initial denial the city did anticipate the application to come back once the corrections to the health and safety codes were made.
Part of the bill that led to choosing the Harrison Street location was due to the project’s location within half a mile of the downtown Altamont Corridor Express train station. Because of that close distance to major public transit, the state law specifies the city may not require the project to provide onsite parking and it can’t impose any limit on the density of the project.
“It is affordable housing, which I think we need,” Reding said. “I have grandchildren and nieces and nephews that I would love for them to be able to have a home here in Pleasanton and be affordable, but a five-story building with no on-site parking, it’s just not appropriate.”
She said that close proximity to the station is not a good enough reason to build the project because that station is not really being used as much as it was before the pandemic, meaning people will be driving instead, which in turn will lead to more traffic.
“Since COVID, there’s probably maybe 20 cars in that parking lot whereas before COVID, the whole parking lot was filled. So that’s the reason why I’m upset about it,” she said. “(The state) did not think about how this SB 35 was going to impact small neighborhoods like Harrison Street.”
Mayor Karla Brown told the Weekly she thinks the Harrison project could be a good fit for downtown Pleasanton but is also concerned about the zero parking that could lead to overflow of cars in neighboring communities and streets and how that could affect the neighboring developments.
Councilmember Jack Balch echoed that sentiment, saying that the parking allowance would have made more sense if it was a BART station, because then more people would be inclined to use that to get around.
“We definitely have a need for affordable housing in our community and I understand what the state is trying to achieve, but when we look at it at this site and we look at the waiving of parking, because it’s near mass transit, I think that the state probably did not see these unintended consequences,” Balch said.
But the main point of concern in SB 35 for many residents and city leaders is the fact that due to the limitations on local control — a term used to describe the power cities have in setting and enforcing zoning and land regulations — the city has no discretion in reviewing the Harrison project.
Also, per the specific language of SB 35, no public hearings or review by the Planning Commission or City Council are allowed.
Councilmember Julie Testa said she disagrees with the city effectively having no say and is advocating for the city to push back on the new state laws so that cities can regain power over making these decisions.
“The city, myself, and everyone I know that I work with supports affordable housing,” Testa said. “It should be affordable housing done in a way that the local municipality has input on, where we would decide how and where it fits in this community.”
The project feels like it got an “over-the-counter approval”, according to Testa. She said it’s not that she is against affordable housing, she just wants it built in a more appropriate location.
“If it were located somewhere more appropriately, it would be welcomed because we do welcome an affordable housing project,” Testa said. “But this one in that location is absolutely not welcome. It doesn’t fit, it will cause a tremendous amount of damage, it will cost the city a lot, monetarily.”
Testa added that the “Our Neighborhood Voices” initiative, which she has backed since the project first came to light, is promoting a statewide initiative to go on the ballot in 2024 to neutralize these kinds of laws and bring back local control.
“It will give cities an opportunity to say for a project like this. This doesn’t fit in this location, but it would fit somewhere else,” she said.
She is also asking the city to join with other cities across the state in a class-action lawsuit that will push back on the state in their intrusion of local control.
But Balch said that looking to regain local control is a complex and nuanced issue because of the history Pleasanton has with housing lawsuits such as the 2006 lawsuit when the city was sued by Urban Habitat, an Oakland-based nonprofit, over the city’s 29,000-unit housing cap — which the city lost and cost millions of dollars.
“If we don’t push forward to achieve an acceptable housing element and rezone the properties, we are facing the penalties,” Balch said. “I understand the challenge to additional housing units in our community when we’re facing so many things, but we also have to be careful with the lawsuit costs.”
He said with the significant amount of jobs and a housing imbalance, it is important to continue affordable housing growth to attract younger residents, which will in turn help grow the city’s economy.
“Every time someone talks to me … about local control, everyone is fearful that their slice of the pie has to get smaller so that someone has an opportunity to buy a home, or raise a family in Pleasanton, and I just don’t believe that,” Balch said. “I believe that the entire pie can grow, so that we can provide opportunities, and basically hope for young families.”
The other state regulation at play is the housing density bonus law, which requires the city, “to approve requested waivers and concessions from established development standards if doing so would improve the financial feasibility of the project,” according to the notice letter for the Harrison application.
The project has requested concessions for the front setback, floor-area ratio and common area open space requirements — a waiver that the city is obligated under these laws to provide.
“City staff is reviewing the application for conformance to the applicable standards set forth in State law and the Pleasanton Municipal Code and may only deny the project if it would not be in conformance to any objective development standards,” according to the notice letter.
Staff have until Sept. 16 to issue an approval letter so that the project can move forward into the next stage of the building permit application process.
I agree with Julie Testa. We need more affordable housing, but the location in downtown and no on-site parking is not appropriate and our Fire Department does not have a vehicle that can reach the top of the proposed building.
Maybe the design requires firefighting sprinkler system!
If Julie Testa feels its not the right location, where would she suggest?
Skynet, have you looked at the artist’s rendering—5 stories next to small cottages. Surely you don’t think it belongs there looming over those homes making backyards feel like 1000 eyes are watching?
I agree with Julie. This is not a good fit for Harrison Street. It looks out of place and will take alway the charm of the quaint downtown neighborhood!
The state needs to encourage businesses to open offices in other areas besides the already crowded urban areas where all the jobs are. Instead they are forcing cities to build more housing, without any thought how well it will work.
No parking is going to cause big problems for the 5-story building’s residents, and their neighbors. The state legislators and the governor are Urban Utopians who may have good intentions, but no realistic plan for the problems this will cause. And cities are going to be left to clean up the mess and pay for it.
When they passed these anti-zoning laws, every parcel in the city got more valuable because now more lot coverage is legal, making all housing much more expensive – the opposite of what they were trying to do.
My wife and I just returned from a trip which included a tour of the city of Prague. The tour guide pointed out a large block of housing units that were 4 and 5 stories with a very plain and rather unattractive exterior. The proposal that is shown remined me of the units we saw in Prague. The tour guide stated that they were required and built when Prague was under communist control from Russia. It seems that the state of California is following a similar pattern. Keep voting for the same people in our state legislature and we will continue to be subject to their demands.
Dear Mr. Austin,
Fire Sprinklers Save Lives:
Since 2012, ALL new and most significant remodel Residential buildings are required by California law to have fire sprinkler systems, including apartment buildings, care facilities, even single family residences.
Livermore has required sprinklers since the 70’s in all of these.
And it saves lives and taxpayer’s money.
Livermore has allowed more travel time to the fire, and so has been able to avoid building 3 new fire stations as the city expanded, which saves not only the initial cost but significant continuing maintenance costs, well over $1 million per year each.
But often these sprinkler systems are allowed to be very economical, designed mostly to allow people to exit safely, so we still need the fire service to access and finish rescue and fire extinguishment.
Parking is a different BIG factor, will impact the neighbors, as well as future tenants.
Also It is really ugly that they are taking away the BARTD parking lots (originally promised to be free – acquired by eminent domain or taxes) to build housing instead. See how poorly too little parking at transit worked before COVID!
How can we get back Local Control for local issues?
James Art, Fire Protection Engineer
Take a drive around outside the freeways and there’s nothing but land. Land outside Livermore, and near Mountain House. Google satellite and there’s land everywhere. Yet somehow experts can’t figure out how to build enough housing and buying a house is an unaffordable dream for middle class in The Bay Area.
I agree we need more affordable housing. But this? This is going to stick out like a sore thumb. Really wish they’d redesign it so it’s not so out of place.
It’s time to find another space, reduce the height of the building, put the parking underneath instead of retail space. There must be other solutions for this project, we have enough retail downtown we should not try to compete with the over building of Dublin..
I fully understand and agree we need the housing. However, I know how difficult it can be to find parking downtown for appointments, brunch, errands. Homes and businesses with NO designated parking? Crazy!
With the new city hall being built on that little property across from the library and a 5 story built on Harrison street sure looks like future 4-5 story civic center being built in the future after the small homes are knocked down.
Paging Mr. Sullivan,
Here is the real fight. If this project goes through it is going to be eye sore. Not only that the next developer(s) will be looking to steam role the town on another deal before this deal even concludes. A 5 story structure in middle of downtown on single family lot lining Southern Cal developers pockets enabled by Sacramento. The aerial view is straight ugly. It looks like the Arco in Sim City. The developer will probably make $10M on the deal. If this gets approved don’t sell your downtown house but rather start talking to a broker that deals with land sales to developers. Don’t forget to sue. They can’t block access to your house and dirty the place up during construction. Noise pollution….
One final comment. I see the mention of “need” the housing. There are many places around the Bay Area that are better than this location. This is profit on the backs of folks fighting against this for decades. The Bernal property was slated for thousands of homes and folks in town got that whittled down to very little relative. I’d rather that process turned into 50 more housing units than putting up an Arco structure in downtown. I think folks are missing the new laws say you can do this in any neighborhood not just downtown. There are classier operations like Thomas Jane Homes that do a good job of redevelopment. This is not one of those operations.
I favor affordable housing but how foolish in this day and age not to require adequate parking for the tenants. It’s not a good fit for the neighborhood without parking. PLEASE STOP THIS KIND OF FOOLISHNESS.
Robertbush81,
You are right, and this is a real fight. And it’s not just this single project, but the usurpation of local control of land use by the legislature, developers, and the tech industry (who work together to write these laws). This is what Julie Testa has been warning us about and is encouraging the Council to support a state-wide voter initiative to undo these laws.
But there are other “real” fights too. In terms of negative impacts on neighborhoods, air pollution, public health, and traffic, the combination of Costco and the redevelopment of Stoneridge Mall makes this project look like a flea on an elephant. The northwest side of Pleasanton is being turned into a wasteland of overdevelopment to satisfy the RHNA requirements and the city’s desire for commercial and retail tax revenue. If you were a City Councilmember and piled all this development into one corner of town and leave others relatively untouched, you won’t face a widespread voter revolt. In your words THAT is a REAL fight for those neighbors to protect their quality of life.
And at least this little project has deed-restricted affordable housing. All the other high-density housing, including the 1400+ planned for Stoneridge Mall, is for relatively affluent tech workers. It’s not for “our teachers, firefighters, and our kids (unless they are a tech worker)”. So, all this talk from Sacramento and ABAG about RHNA and affordability is hogwash. It’s about tech industry billions at our expense. And to make a point from my recent Op-Ed published in this paper, you can approve a hundred climate action plans that will do nothing about the climate unless you address this type of never-ending growth. So much for Councilmember Balch’s idea about “growing the pie” as the solution. That’s just Chamber of Commerce code language for more growth.
My opinion is Pleasanton has avoided making sure there is affordable housing for lower income ($100K?) people. You just have to look around and see new homes are 2500+ square foot multimillion dollar plus homes. People on this site regularly complain about any sort of higher density apartment type homes.
I think this situation could have been avoided if the citizens over the years would have done the responsible thing and agree to a mix of housing that would have provided housing for all income groups and at the same time be designed to fit in and possibly enhance the community.
I think Pleasanton is receiving the just rewards (penalties?) for the rich snob attitude that has been the norm for decades.
Excellent news! Build more and finally make this over-priced state a place where young families can buy a home and settle. Local government is beholden to a handful of wealthy NIMBY retirees, and I look forward to voting against them in November.
Except the thing is that Julie Testa doesn’t actually believe in affordable housing and has said time and time again she doesn’t think there is a need.
Someone should ask her where she wants affordable housing to go. Given the draft Housing Element sites, it shouldn’t be a hard question. But she won’t tell you. She will only vaguely claim to believe in affordable housing. Affordable housing in another town, mostly likely.
Didn’t getting sued once teach us a lesson?
I’ve been reading about what other cities did about this. Turns out that if a City owns the land for the project, then they have a lot of say in the project. So since Pleasanton knew they were way behind in affordable housing, why didn’t they start a project on a City-owned site several years ago? This may have been avoided.
Palo Alto is doing this. They say: If it’s important for you to step the building down to fit a neighborhood, you can do that. You own the land, you call the shots,” Baltay said. “You wait until the state tells you what the rule is, you lost. It’s so important that the city has the opportunity to not only do these things, but to do them under Palo Alto’s standards.”
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/09/23/housing-over-parking-architects-propose-building-apartments-on-public-lots
Who owns the land across the street from the Pleasanton library? That would be a better place for affordable housing. There’s room for parking ….maybe even a community garden using recycled water. That would make more sense.
The mass transit near the Harrison project, the ACErail station, only has four departures in the morning and four in the afternoon heading to Fremont, Santa Clara andSan Jose and back….I rode that commute for several years. There are two buses that service the station. Route 53 with four morning departures and Route 54 with two bus departures. How are people going to get to work in Tri-Valley or Livermore given that schedule? They will need a car and parking. What about parking for the ground floor of retail space? You can get away without a car in San Francisco…I’ve lived there and done that. But Pleasanton not only doesn’t have the infrastructure, the time getting across town to say work near Stoneridge, or getting kids to school every morning, then trying to get to work yourself, will be incredibly time consuming.
This is incredibly poor planning.
Diane makes a good point.
FYI for those who may not know: Pleasanton has a Housing Commission which meets the 4th Thursday of the month. Posted Agendas and Minutes are available by searching in the cityofpleasantonca.gov portal for ‘Housing Commission’. The latest published minutes are June23, 2022 includes the topic of ‘REVIEW AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE 6TH CYCLE (2023-2031) DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT’ for which the goals are itemized including ‘Goal 1: Meet RHNA’ and other goals. Details of discussions follows.
Can see from the Agendas that the July meeting was canceled. The August Agenda didn’t appear to deal with the issue of meeting RHNA.
Residents have an opportunity to engage and provide input/ideas to this process.
Navigation to the Housing Commission docs on the portal is: City of Pleasanton > BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS > HOUSING >