|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A five-story, mixed-use building on Harrison Street in downtown Pleasanton that could potentially bypass traditional local review has been proposed by a Southern California-based developer.
If built as described in a notice of intent filed with the city in June, a 48,000-square-foot building with 3,000 square feet of retail space and 37 units of almost entirely lower-income housing would be constructed at 4884 Harrison St., near the Pleasanton Library.
The building would include a mix of eight studio units, four one-bedroom units, 13 two-bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. Seven units would be reserved for moderate-income households while the remaining 30 units would be restricted to low-income households.
An existing single-family home on the site that’s been vacant for 15 years would also be removed for construction of the building, according to documents submitted by AMG & Associates.
Though the city’s Downtown Specific Plan caps a project’s maximum floor-area ratio (FAR) to 1.25 based on its mixed-use transitional designation, qualified projects are allowed a higher FAR value of 3.1 under the state density bonus law.
Signed into law four years ago, Senate Bill 35 was among a cluster of housing bills intended to address the statewide housing crisis by streamlining the development approval process to how a city is fulfilling its regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) allocation.
Under the law, city and county jurisdictions “shall not impose any maximum controls on density and the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet” for development projects built within a one-half mile of public transit. The proposed project is within a half mile of the Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail line and multiple bus stops served by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority.
No formal application for the project has been received yet, but community development director Ellen Clark told the Weekly that it “proposes to utilize streamlined, ministerial review as allowed under California Senate Bill 35, and state density bonus law that also allows for concessions for project density, floor-area ratio, height, parking and other development standards based on affordability and transit proximity.”
A longtime proponent for local control and public review of proposed development, Vice Mayor Julie Testa said in an interview, “A project like this is exactly what’s wrong with the state legislation that’s being passed, in that it does not allow us to approve something according to how it fits in our community.”
“There are other places where a five-story building would not be offensive,” Testa said. “We, as a city, we do want affordable projects. But our historic downtown is something we’ve worked hard to protect and this project flies in the face (of that).”
Testa said other areas of the city by Hacienda Business Park or Stoneridge Shopping Center would be more appropriate for the project, which she added “is going to tower above downtown” and has “zero parking in our downtown that is already parking burdened.”
“If and when this building gets built, our residents are going to be very disappointed,” Testa added.
To that end, Testa said she’s working on a statewide initiative to “neutralize these pieces of legislation” and would be “very surprised if there’s another councilperson who would support this project.”
The city would review and confirm the project’s eligibility under state law once a formal application is received.
This is not appropriate anywhere in our downtown. Our downtown already has inappropriate buildings that were approved by the previous council that were in bed with the developers.
You have to be out of your mind to think this is good idea!! Take a look at the the ugly development at the West end of Livermore’s First Street. It’s kind of like taking a Large Elephant to the Small Dog Park!! It’s just not a good idea!!
Please don’t approved this!!!
I agree that this is not a good plan. If this is built, existing landowners in the area would try to cash in and then the downtown character would be lost forever. We don’t need another Dublin downtown. Our city’s planners have up till now taken special attention to maintaining our downtown.
The City Council would have to be living on another planet to even consider a project like this. Parking? Really? Should not parking for a project like this be part and parcel? Five stories? Really? Consider the eyesore this would create, if nothing else. No! A resounding no.
Should be a quick study and a No vote!
@Margo. I’m new to the area. Can you provide or point to information about how the former council was in bed with developers? I’m very curious about this.
Bad idea. Who is going to shop at these tiny boutiques on first floors. That structure will cause a domino effect. Please rethink this.
Can someone post an Architectural Scale Drawing to show what this 5 Story Building would look like, along with all the single story homes in this area?
Time to turn downtown into what BART did to the Stoneridge Mall!!
I don’t get why people seem to oppose any kind of development at all (except maybe senior centers). I know it’s a NIMBY thing, but I wish Pleasanton downtown was a little more like Livermore. I don’t know if this building would be such a bad thing. I think our downtown is a bit drab. Time to move on from “historical”.
Does a project like this conform to the recently updated Downtown Specific Plan? If not, problem solved… If it does, then this is the direction our leaders want Downtown to go…
According to the article, the City of Pleasanton under the 4-year-old state law, “shall not impose any maximum controls on density and the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet” for development projects built within a one-half mile of public transit. This means that if a developer checks all the boxes in the law, the city MUST approve it, regardless of the city leaders’ positions. This is another example of the state of California imposing a spate of “one size fits all” housing laws.
Project bypasses our local council thanks to Sacramento legislatures. It’s all apartments, no parking. These are developers outside the area that don’t give two hoots. We have other city locations where this project would be conducive. Pay more attention to the impact voting has across the state if you want to preserve your communities. I sacrificed and worked hard to be in this community and not have density rental in my back yard.
So assuming the city cannot impose any maximum controls and the applicant gets a 3 story height increase, is there anything prohibiting altering the price the developer would pay for this to the city? ie: can’t oppose the building permit, but can control the fees to implement it….make it cost prohibitive. Just wondering, totally against this, anything above 3 stories at that spot is a no deal for me.