Northern California’s largest outdoor shopping center is thriving  and hitting the market 83%

By Sarah Ravani95%

7/19/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 27.1% saturation with 228 hits. Analysis detected 1,891 faulty-reasoning hits from 842 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.8% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,678 of 21,203 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.70% of the article peer group.

Some Bay Area shopping malls have struggled with empty storefronts, bankruptcy filings and disappearing customers in recent years. 
But that’s not the case at Pacific Commons Shopping Center in Fremont. 
Northern California’s largest outdoor retail center is actually thriving. 
More than 90% of its space is occupied, anchored by Costco, In-N-Out, Sephora and Nordstrom Rack. 
It’s planning to open a 100,000-square-foot H Mart with an accompanying food hall and bar next year. 
Retail experts say that success is likely why the 84-acre commercial center is now for sale. 
Commercial real estate experts say owners tend to sell their best-performing properties when they’re worth the most, and Pacific Commons hitting the market now is a sign investors still see outdoor shopping centers as one of retail’s safer bets. 
John Cumbelich, CEO of Walnut Creek-based real estate agency John Cumbelich & Associates, said outdoor shopping centers throughout the Bay Area are bouncing back. 
“What we are seeing from a trend standpoint is occupancies are fully recovered from COVID and marching into a very strong sort of a position and that would be a signal to any smart owner that maybe now is the time to sell,” Cumbelich said. 
“They have gotten a great cross section of tenants. 
They are at attractive rents. 
They don’t feel like they’ve left a lot of dollars on the table,” he added. 
The contrast between Pacific Commons and other retail centers in the Bay Area is hard to miss. 
Blackhawk Plaza in Danville is in bankruptcy court and will likely be sold later this year  one of several Bay Area centers dealing with empty storefronts and thinning foot traffic while Pacific Commons is booming and adding tenants. 
Heitman purchased Pacific Commons in 2012 at an unknown price. 
The Chicago-based real estate investment firm did not return a request for comment. 
JLL, a San Francisco-based real estate services company managing the sale, declined to comment on why Heitman wants to sell. 
The asking price is undisclosed. 
But a look at other shopping centers in the Bay Area indicates that Pacific Commons could sell at a high price. 
Bridgepointe Shopping Center in San Mateo sold in 2024 for $127 million. 
But Bridgepointe is considerably smaller than Pacific Commons at 232,000 square feet compared to more than 887,100 square feet, indicating that the Fremont site will likely sell for a lot more. 
JLL’s listing, though, doesn’t hold back. 
It points to roughly 12.5 million annual visits to the property, a number the firm expects to climb past 15 million as new tenants move in, and calls Pacific Commons “a generational opportunity to control a dominant retail campus in a market where comparable land positions are functionally impossible to recreate.” 
The listing is touting the wealth in the area to potential buyers. 
Fremont’s annual average household income is $213,000, and the median home price value is $1.38 million, the kind of numbers that make the location hard to pass up, according to the listing. 
“It’s a huge site right next to Interstate 880 in the relatively affluent community of Fremont and it’s got a bunch of grade A anchors. 
Those don’t come along very often,” said Michael Berne, an independent retail consultant. 
“In general they can expect some decent interest. 
It’s partly a reflection of how valuable shopping centers are when they are in those very coveted and rare locations.” 
Spaces like Pacific Commons typically attract a broad range of potential buyers including private equity firms, real estate investment trusts, family offices and other types of owners, said Stephanie Cegielski, a spokesperson at ICSC, a global trade association that advocates for shopping centers. 
Cegielski said shoppers are attracted to outdoor concepts like Pacific Commons, but what makes the Fremont mall even more unique is the size. 
“Because the supply of retail real estate is extremely limited compared to the massive demand for it, properties with substantial scale and established infrastructure tend to stand out,” Cegielski said. 
In Fremont, the center is an integral part of the city’s community and economy. 
Mayor Raj Salwan said it generates nearly half the city’s total sales tax revenue, more than any other commercial complex in town. 
“We’ve always maintained that this is the largest outdoor power center on the West Coast  the amount of revenue and sales we get from there is just tremendous compared to most other centers,” Salwan said. 
On a recent weekday, shoppers at Pacific Commons perused aisles of eyeshadow and blush at Sephora. 
Across the street, dozens of cars were parked outside of Lowe’s as patrons ambled through aisles of appliances and tools. 
A Barnes & Noble is slated to open at Pacific Commons in November. 
Salwan said he’s excited to see the bookstore open. 
Whoever purchases the site, he said, will undoubtedly bring fresh ideas that will only improve the shopping experience. 
“For us, it’s been a great center. 
You’ve got the movie theater, fast casual dining for the kids,” Salwan said. 
“A little bit for everything.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Sarah Ravani: 5.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 2.1%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Sarah Ravani: 4.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.0%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 9.6%Sarah Ravani: 5.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 8.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Sarah Ravani: 7.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 5.4%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 24.8%Sarah Ravani: 21.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.0%Optimism Bias24.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Sarah Ravani: 4.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 6.7%Negativity Bias6.8%This article: 5.2%Sarah Ravani: 6.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Sarah Ravani: 6.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.9%Halo Effect12.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Sarah Ravani: 1.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 2.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Sarah Ravani: 0.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Ad Hominem1.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.1%Sarah Ravani: 21.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.3%Appeal to Authority27.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.8%Sarah Ravani: 14.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.0%Hasty Generalization20.8%This article: 2.4%Sarah Ravani: 0.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Red Herring2.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 1.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.1%Sarah Ravani: 11.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion13.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.8%Sarah Ravani: 4.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.4%Sarah Ravani: 0.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.4%This article: 4.6%Sarah Ravani: 2.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Composition/Division4.6%This article: 7.8%Sarah Ravani: 4.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.2%Anecdotal7.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.7%Sarah Ravani: 5.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 1.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.1%Sarah Ravani: 2.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice1.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Ravani: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Sarah Ravani: 9.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.3%

842 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers56%attributed speech369writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Cumbelich • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Cumbelich • 45 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Cumbelich • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Cumbelich • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Cumbelich • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJLL • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJLL • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageJLL • 32 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Berne • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Berne • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Berne • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Berne • 20 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Cegielski • 43 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Cegielski • 23 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Cegielski • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRaj Salwan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRaj Salwan • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRaj Salwan • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRaj Salwan • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRaj Salwan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRaj Salwan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRaj Salwan • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

JLL

100%flagged-word coverage
103 attributed words22% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +77.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%JLL: 80.6%80.6%Biased Writer Voice-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%JLL: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.