Pleasanton planning commission approves 474‑unit Village at the Quarry with 101 deed‑restricted affordable rentals

The Pleasanton Planning Commission approved the Village at the Quarry housing project on April 23, authorizing a vesting tentative map and site‑compliance review for an approximately 52‑acre site in East Pleasanton. The development proposes 310 detached two‑story single‑family homes, 62 junior accessory dwelling units and 102 multifamily rental units — about 474 total units — and includes an affordable housing component of 102 units (101 of them deed‑restricted), staff said.

The approval follows a staff presentation that recommended the commission find the project consistent with the cityc27s Housing Element EIR under CEQA and approve the applications pursuant to state density‑bonus provisions. Planner Jenny and Director Clark told commissioners the project qualifies for density‑bonus incentives and is seeking 19 waivers and one concession under state law, many of them related to multifamily parking standards and certain design dimensions.

Why it matters: The project is one of the largest housing proposals in Pleasantonc27s current RHNA cycle and would add hundreds of homes and a significant affordable component to the East Pleasanton area. Staff said the project triggers off‑site traffic improvements and other infrastructure work and is being evaluated through the cityc27s objective design standards and the state density‑bonus framework.

Traffic, parking and infrastructure

City staff and their traffic consultant described project‑level traffic studies and modeling performed as part of the housing element EIR and the subsequent project checklist. Staff said the project will generate roughly 300 peak‑hour trips and requires mitigations including intersection and signal improvements (notably Santa Rita Road/Valley Avenue and other corridor work), left‑turn pockets and frontage improvements along Bush Road. The city estimated the project's traffic impact fee at about $4.5 million; the developer may receive fee credits if it constructs qualifying improvements.

On parking, staff said the multifamily portion cannot meet the cityc27s typical parking ratio without density‑bonus incentives and requested waivers for reduced on‑site parking. Staff later clarified a shortfall of 17 parking spaces between the cityc27s calculated need and the developerc27s proposed on‑site count; the presentation and applicant team said some public street parking and other project design elements are intended to address overflow.

Affordable housing and assurances

The applicant and staff described the affordable housing approach in detail. The project dedicates roughly 3 acres for an affordable developer to build the multifamily component; the applicant said it will deed the parcel to a third‑party affordable housing developer and contribute roughly $3 million as seed funding to strengthen the project's competitiveness for low‑income housing tax credit funding.

Steve Riley of 330 Land Company, representing the master developer, said the project will provide a deeper level of affordability than the IZO requires: "We're providing 25% of the units at very low (income) levels," he said, and added that the plan includes deed restrictions and other controls to ensure long‑term affordability. Caleb Rupp, CEO of Pacific Companies, the affordable developer on the team, said Pacific typically closes and starts construction on 20–25 affordable projects per year and expressed confidence the multifamily portion will be financeable.

Sewer and water

City engineering staff disclosed a known sewer capacity deficiency along Camp Drive with an estimated capital cost of about $2 million. The applicant agreed via the conditions of approval to an approximate 11% fair‑share contribution toward that improvement. Water supply was reported to be adequate under the housing element EIR, and the developer must install pipe sizes and utility connections required by final engineering plans.

Commission debate and conditions

Commissioners commended the project's affordable component and the applicant's community outreach but repeatedly urged the city to accelerate a broader East Pleasanton traffic plan — including El Charro Road — to address cumulative impacts from several large approved or proposed East Pleasanton developments. Several commissioners said they would send a formal recommendation or comment to the City Council on that broader financing and mitigation plan.

Chair Morgan asked whether the applicant would add HOA language asking homeowners to keep their garages available for parking; the applicant said it was amenable to CC&R language that is not overly onerous but did not accept making that a required condition. Commissioners debated a substitute amendment to require CC&R language; the substitute failed.

Vote and next steps

After debate, Commissioner Pace moved to approve the project as recommended by staff (including the revised Condition 143 memorandum of April 23). The commission voted to approve the project with all present voting yes (Jane Aye; Mohan Yes; Morgan Aye; Pace Aye). The planning commission's approval adopts the CEQA consistency findings and approves the site‑compliance review and vesting tentative map; the affordable housing agreement requires subsequent City Council approval. The commission also recorded deliberative comments on traffic planning for the council to consider.

What comes next: The developer described a schedule that could begin geotechnical remediation and site work later in 2025 with market‑rate single‑family building permits targeted in 2027 and a roughly two‑to‑three year overall build‑out. The affordable developer said it could begin multifamily construction earlier if financing and permitting proceed on schedule. The council will consider the affordable housing agreement as part of its separate review.