Stoneridge Mall Housing Development Approved By Pleasanton Council

PLEASANTON, CA — The Pleasanton City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a 5.5-story, 65-foot tall, 360–unit apartment complex and parking structure at the southeast corner of the Stoneridge Mall site.

The project, which has been in the works since 2020, is not a part of the ongoing Stoneridge Mall Framework or the recently-approved 6th Cycle Housing Element, since planning began earlier. Still, applicants and staff assured the council that it will fit into the framework’s vision of a pedestrian-friendly, environmentally sustainable mixed-use development.

The development will replace a surface parking lot near the former location of Sears. It will contain a mixture of studio, and one to three-bedroom apartment rentals, including 58 affordable units. The site will also feature several public plazas with trees, and a residents-only section containing a swimming pool, barbecue areas, children’s playgrounds, and a shaded landscape.

A large parking structure will contain 473 parking spots, a ratio of 1.3 spaces per unit. The development will also provide 230 bicycle spaces, in addition to a number of other sustainable features like EV chargers, low-flow water fixtures, drought tolerant landscaping, and solar heating with a battery backup.

The development is expected to break ground in late 2023 and take approximately two and a half years to complete, according to a city staff report.

“I think it’s a lovely building,” Mayor Karla Brown said on Tuesday, noting her approval of the building’s architecture, sustainability, affordable units, and impact fees. “I think it’s going to be a good fit building-wise. This is a commercial area. It is a mall area, there’s development all around Stoneridge Mall Road, so it will fit well in a multistory area. I think it will be one of the most attractive buildings in the area.”

Other council members expressed similar sentiments, and the project was approved relatively quickly. Still, some raised concerns over traffic; the building’s appearance, height, and density; and how the project and its architecture fit into the developing Stoneridge Mall Framework.

Councilmember Jeff Nibert said he had a “gut feeling of pessimism” when considering the project’s impact on local traffic.

“The [Stoneridge Mall] framework that we just completed and approved in January dealt quite extensively with the traffic situation, and I know that analysis done there incorporated this project as an input or set of assumptions, but I kind of have a gut feeling of pessimism when thinking about traffic … it clearly is a con to add new developments and daily trips to an already congested area,” Nibert said.

Pleasanton Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano replied that the city has been planning to build housing at the site for over 10 years, and has made a number of traffic improvements that have improved circulation in congested areas, including a third southbound left turn lane, an extension of McWilliams Lane, and a second left turn lane near the exit from 10X Genomics.

“New modeling doesn’t actually show that there are additional things that occur,” Tassano said. “The main concerns I had within the next set of residential units is really within the mall, like how do you get around the mall. It wasn’t a concern with Stoneridge or with Foothill or with the freeways or with Hopyard - it was really, how do we maintain mobility through there, and there is some capacity there, it’s just those peak times of day where there’s going to be congestion. Those are the things I’d like to mitigate with proper placement of the residential units.”

Council members also asked about the two regulation exemptions that developers were able to request because the project exceeds the number of affordable units required by the state. The building will be a half-story higher than the 2012 Housing Site Development Standards allow so the project can meet the specified densities for the site and add to the unit count to reduce the construction cost per unit. Developers are also requesting an exemption to the rule that 75 percent of ground floor units must have an entry into the street. Due to a modest downslope on the site that would require the construction of a number of ramps, the current plans do not have any entries onto the street from ground-floor units.

“The real estate that’s between us and the sidewalk is very valuable for landscaping and other uses, so to comply with this grade change of 10 percent, we would have miles of ADA ramps out of every single unit that would open up to the outside, so the decision was made to use that waiver so that all our units open into the interior corridor,” said Scott Travis, the vice president of development at Simon Property Group.

The lone public commenter also raised the question of possible formaldehyde exposure. Victoria Yundt, an attorney for the Laborers International Union of North America Local #304, alleged that the city “improperly relied” on a CEQA addendum to the 2012 Housing Element supplemental EIR, and a “streamlined” review of the project, “because new information exists that indicates that the project could result in new significant indoor air quality and health impacts as a result of the project’s formaldehyde emissions.” LAYUNA’s indoor air quality expert reviewed the project and found that future residents and employees could be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde.

“I do believe that there’s substantial evidence to support the findings contained in the addendum, and the addendum fully meets the requirements of CEQA,” City Attorney Daniel Sodergren replied. Sodergren also said in response to a question from Vice Mayor Jack Balch that should there be a lawsuit filed, the city and the applicant would likely share the legal costs, and an indemnification provision is included in the conditions.

Despite some hesitations, council members expressed support for the project, which was approved 4-1 by the Planning Commission in February. The Planning Commission also reviewed the project in 2019, 2020, and 2022, and scaled the project from 500 to 360 units.

“A lot of those concerns I think have been accommodated over the last couple of years. I know that staff and the applicant mentioned that they have worked closely together to achieve what is presented here before us tonight,” said Councilmember Nibert in closing remarks. “I’m encouraged by the finding by staff that those exceptions are appropriate, and if we look at all the items on the recommendation list for this proposal, all of them are answered in the affirmative. I think this is a well-considered, well-discussed project that has gone back several years.”

For more information on the project, see the agenda packet.