|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Simon Property Group, owner of the majority of Stoneridge Shopping Center in Pleasanton, has filed an application to build nearly 500 apartments and associated amenities on a southeast portion of the mall site.
That according to Tuesday evening’s Pleasanton City Council agenda, which touches briefly on the development project — with consideration of a city-appointed environmental consultant to review the proposal listed on the council’s consent calendar.
Simon applied for a planned unit development (PUD) development plan approval on Aug. 21 for its proposal to construct 486 apartment units, a new parking garage and related site improvements, according to a three-page staff report by assistant city manager Brian Dolan.
The staff report provides few details on the specifics of Simon’s application, but it does state that the apartment complex would be built on the southeast portion of the mall property that is one of 17 sites designated in the city’s Housing Elements as suitable for redevelopment with high-density housing.
The project is on the council’s agenda only in relation to a proposed contract with consultant firm FirstCarbon Solutions to conduct all environmental analysis of the project for a maximum amount of $93,275, to be paid for by Simon, according to Dolan.
“Staff believes that securing the firm’s services for this project would be to the city’s advantage in that this firm is already familiar with the tasks required to prepare this document; already has background and technical data regarding the Stoneridge Mall Housing site on-hand; and has successfully prepared high- quality addendums for six other similar projects,” Dolan wrote.
It is unclear what part of the existing Stoneridge facilities will be affected by the proposed new construction.
Earlier this year, Simon also received city approval for its proposal to demolish the now-vacant Sears building and parking garage the company owns at the mall and replace them with a movie theater, grocery store, a lifestyle health club, an outdoor courtyard, and new retail and restaurants.
The FirstCarbon Solutions environmental contract is listed among the council’s 12-item consent calendar for Tuesday night, a collection of items deemed routine and voted upon all at once unless pulled for separate consideration.
Also on the consent calendar are the second reading and final adoption of two ordinances related to the 2019 Downtown Specific Plan Update, which the council endorsed two weeks ago.
The council’s regular meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the council chamber at the Pleasanton Civic Center, 200 Old Bernal Ave.
In other business
* The only full discussion item on the council’s agenda is consideration of a proposed ordinance to update city regulations for massage establishments.
The ordinance would phase out the existing massage technician permit program issued by the Pleasanton Police Department in favor of requiring California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) certification for all massage practitioners in the city.
“The proposed ordinance retains city permitting of massage establishments through a newly named city registration permit. The proposed ordinance also enhances operating requirements and restrictions to protect the health and safety of customers and curtail unlawful activities such as prostitution and human trafficking,” city officials wrote in their staff report.
The ordinance would also repeal the existing urgency ordinances that the council approved to halt new or expanded massage establishments in the Downtown Specific Plan area while city staff worked to create the new, citywide massage regulations.
* The council will also present three proclamations: in recognition of Muslim Awareness Month, National Senior Center Month and Constitution Week.
Nice.
Refreshing an old style mall with new amenities and groceries, with easy access to BART, Pleasanton employers, and freeways. This is the way to do it.
Let me guess. They’ll say that those apartments will be for commuters not families therefore they’ll have little impact on our already overcrowded schools. No wonder they’re not willing to put a student cap on the soon to be super-sized Donlon.
Just what we need. More high density housing. Really? Wow! Let’s just cram them in right!
Once again what will happen when we have our next drought…which will come sooner than later…how much will we need to cut back then? Also, what about the impact to the already crowded streets…schools, etc.
What’s missing from this article is that WorkDay, who just opened a huge office complex next to the West Dublin BART station on the Pleasanton site, owns this site and is behind its development as high density housing. What’s also missing in the general discussion on high density housing is that it’s not for “our firefighters, teachers, and our kids who can’t afford to live in Pleasanton” as we have been told for years. It’s for housing the massive influx of tech workers for Google, Twitter, Apple, ad nauseum. So will this new project be the “company town” housing for WorkDay since its just down the street? I have also heard that the CEO of WorkDay has called for the “Manhattanization” of Pleasanton.
Since someone mentioned Costco, this project was not analyzed as part of the cumulative air quality and traffic impacts in the revised EIR just released, which is a violation of CEQA. I’ll share with you the email I sent to the Council this morning about this:
Dear Mayor and Council,
I was wondering if anyone can answer a question? On your Consent Calendar tonight, Staff is asking that you approve a contract to perform an environmental analysis for a 486-unit apartment complex called the Stoneridge Mall Housing Project. Since this project is planned for the old JP Penny’s Home Store site directly across I-680 from Costco, why wasn’t the air quality and traffic impacts of this project reviewed as part of the recently updated SEIR for the JDEDZ? My understanding of CEQA is that any new project that could have a cumulative effect on the project impacts should be analyzed as part of the EDZ SEIR update.
Now, I don’t realistically expect an answer, even though I’m one of your constituents, as you routinely disregard any question or requests I have made on this project going back several years. However, if the results of Measure MM can be trusted, roughly half the community is opposed to Costco. My question is a legitimate one and the answer could be important to half of your constituents. By disenfranchising me you are also disenfranchising half the community. Is this how a City Council should behave?
Fortunately, we still have CEQA. One of the last tools citizens have to keep their representatives honest and provide some form of environmental, economic, and social justice. We certainly can’t look to the majority on Pleasanton City Council for any of that.
Kathleen, you’re correct that there are limits imposed by the state on school fees. There are 3 levels and it’s very difficult to get to level 3.
Lorraine, residential buildings use 10% of the state’s water usage, but half of that is landscaping and apartments/condos use much less than the average.
Matt, I don’t know where you heard dense housing is only for special groups, but housing pays into the affordable housing funds or allows onsite affordable housing. Also, starting soon you cannot use LOS as a proxy for CEQA impacts, and instead must use VMT. This project by state guidelines will default to no-significant-impact due to transit proximity. So, uh, good luck.
I know for a fact that MANY, MANY students at Lydiksen, Donlon, Hart and Foothill live in the Stoneridge Apartments. Let’s release the statistics so we can see just how many more kids will move in. OUR SCHOOLS ARE ABOVE CAPACITY. What can our town leaders be thinking????
Workday hires many many below market “interns” to do their work rather than regular employees — https://www.glassdoor.com/Intern-Salary/Workday-Internship-Salary-E197851.htm
Is this 500 proposed unit high density apartment complex one giant complex for temporary, below market, cheap labor?
Why did we as a city want Workday to be here? The larger the corporations the more housing we’re required to build. And, unfortunately, the housing they want is high density so that they can pay lower wages. This isn’t specific to Workday itself…it’s just how corporations work. They don’t represent residents but shareholders.
That being said, I’m fine with them building housing there. I just don’t understand why the city allowed it in the first place if people are this much against it.
SOS. How fast can we get that Costco built!!!
Duffield has a vacant, huge, estate that is larger than many university campuses and is in Alamo and has been on the market for years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7FmpW3uND4 It is called Fieldhaven.
If he wants to build dormitories and divide up his mega-mansion to house cheap labor and interns, he already has a location and space.
In Alamo.
1.) I suppose the common understanding, James Michael, of Measure MM, was to have Costco in Pleasanton at any cost. That’s what you are saying. As most of our council members vocalized.
2.) Then, there are those who voted, that did not want to limit our City’s ability to bring forward the best possible project for said property…wanting good faith representation from our City government…if they had the capacity.
The fact is, JM, you just want to win. Costco is your prize. Developing everyone’s outlook in group discussion is key…for a balanced project. So the facts about the apartments must be heard…whatever they are.
Leaving discussion to apartment application is the blog, not Costco. I get it…finding shovel to get beneath snow.
Stoneridge Native,
Simon does not own the JCP lot. Different lot.
Please write your concerns to city council. Let’s all voice our concerns and protect the Stoneridge neighborhood from these 500 apartments.
citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov
“protect the Stoneridge neighborhood”
Oh come on.
I lived on PLeasanton for over 50years and have moved to another state because you are building so much… It was a great place to live at one time now it’s just a place for people from other countries to move into and mess it
up….
I want to applaud our city council for hiring a consulting firm whose services will be paid for by the company that want to build the 500 units.
Will we get two new elem schools that are so desperately needed a 3rd J high and a third HS including land and all the infrastructure expenses?
What about requiring Simon to guarantee teachers, fire fighters, policemen, hospital workers and Pleas civil servants below market housing.
I doubt Simon will do that
Remember Simon will build and then leave, while us residents must endure the traffic and crowded schools.
Hey let’s invite the Simon management to live in the community where they want to bury in all the problems.
We need new leadership at our council level.
And the school board, I think they should stand and be counted, or let’s recall them! They are next to useless anyway.
Since obviously our schools can’t support a large influx of new students how about making this proposed project adults only, Pipe in recycled/treated water to serve those apartments water needs and build a mini Costco gas station on site to help alleviate any traffic concerns at our new Costco if it ever gets built. Problem solved.
This makes more sense now: “Earlier this year, Simon also received city approval for its proposal to demolish the now-vacant Sears building and parking garage the company owns at the mall and replace them with a movie theater, grocery store, a lifestyle health club, an outdoor courtyard, and new retail and restaurants.”
Okay, so where are all the “traffic people” on this proposal. Oh, ya…not Costco and no gas station involved and apartments already exist in the area soooo….no problem. Right?
KR is right about it making sense now. A nice little Bart village.
Thanks, Audrey, you’re right. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see portable classrooms on the Donlon site EVEN AFTER THEY SUPER-SIZE IT.
I’d love to see the stats on how many students are from the housing near BART/Hart middle school and the 350 apartments on Stanley/Bernal. It’s worth repeating that the demographer, using the current portables as permanent capacity, has indicated we need two new elementary schools IF (but really when) they build out the east side. One of those schools was needed years ago and we are no closer to having added capacity, only having the Donlon plan. The demographer also uses phrases like: as long as the district is comfortable with large middle and high schools, there is no need for new schools at these levels (paraphrasing). The high schools are both well over capacity, which was around 1,800. Foothill is maybe 2300 and Amador 2700.
When you strain a school with over enrollment, ALL services suffer. MP rooms, libraries (hours and books/student), counseling (student:counselor ratios, and then time spent), outdoor play spaces, events for students or parents, and the cost of maintenance due to additional wear and tear. I think it’s harder on staff too.
I’m not against these apartments; it makes sense to put growth there. As long as our city downplays the impact to schools and our district thinks portables are good enough and together they can’t maximize tax dollars, our community is getting the short end of the stick.
Is Simon going to help build a school and/or offset some of the costs? Shouldn’t all of these developments have a requirement that they help offset the cost of building schools for the people who live there? The Donlon plan is terrible, Hart is at capacity, and Foothill will be soon too. We cannot continue to build more housing with no plans for schools! The city and the school board need to be a little more in line when it comes to allowing more growth without further thought to the impact to the already impacted school district (especially Donlon, Lydiksen, Fairlands, Hart, and Foothill).
Foothill is over capacity. Has been for quite a few years.
Yes, most developers have to pay fees to the district. I don’t know that Simon has one of the agreements to pay more than the state already allows (these do/did exist for other developers in Pleasanton). The fees, however, are rarely enough to cover building the needed capacity. In some instances, land is granted by a developer, for the building of a school. I would imagine that would be a possible prerequisite to the east side being developed.
Otherwise, the district (all districts) go back to the entire community and ask for bonds. So all of us pay all of the time.
“If the results of Measure MM can be trusted, roughly half the community is opposed to Costco”
Better look again Mr. Sullivan, I just did, and 62.63% favored Costco and 37.37% opposed it…that’s a far cry from “roughly half” and more like roughly a third oppose it.
And why can’t the results be trusted? Because you lost? Or were the Russians involved?
Let’s be crystal clear, we weren’t asked to vote for or against Costco.
“The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
“Shall the ordinance proposing to amend the City of Pleasanton’s General Plan to prohibit retail uses of 50,000 square feet or greater, larger scale retail and club retail, in the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone be adopted?[2]”
https://ballotpedia.org/Pleasanton,_California,_Johnson_Drive_Economic_Development_Zone_Changes,_Measure_MM_(November_2016)
Ya, KR, we were being asked to vote for Costco and anyone that went to the Livermore location and saw the lawn signs that they were giving out knew that and everyone that I know in Pleasanton knew that that was the issue. Nice try though ;>). Sometimes you need to dig beneath the snow.
JM, The fact is we did not vote for a Costco. That it was part of a larger debate and $20MM is a given. But if the city approves a 50,000 sq. ft. roller rink on that property, we approved a 50,000 sq. ft. structure, not a Costco. Something will go there; maybe it will be a Costco. Maybe it will be a winter wonderland.
Okay, Kathleen, you didn’t vote for Costco…but everybody else did. And even the Sullivans linked Measure MM to the Costco deal. I see your point, however technical it may be.
Would have made much more sense than other housing developments we built, but our infrastructure doesn’t support existing growth. We need to catch up first, prioritize this project right after we catch up on infastructure before approving other new developments
Sorry, Pete, I don’t even have a Costco card and I’m not saying build it at any cost, you know “build it and they will come”. What I am saying is that Costco was the impetus for drafting Measure MM and that is what the voters perceived the measure to be about. I didn’t say anything about “Costco in Pleasanton at any cost”…that’s what you THINK I am saying.
What I said at the start of this discussion was where are the “traffic people” who are so opposed to Costco but see no problem with this project.
You need to go back to the beginning of the thread, not the middle, to make an informed response.
500 apartments where Best Plaza (now JCP home store) was located.
How do I protest this insanity?
For those who doubt Matt, on Costco, if the t’s were crossed and i’s were dotted, Costco would be open by now…