Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Nice to meet you. Yeah. So, the church will probably

Good evening. Welcome to the Pleasanton Planning Commission for uh March 25th, 2026. We're in the city council chambers for the city of Pleasanton. Uh it's wonderful to have you all here, those that are attending um here in the city council chambers as well as those that are watching through a live stream. Um let's begin with a pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Jgo, you do that for us, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Arcella. Are you please do roll call for us, please? Commissioner Jacob, present. Jane, present. Morgan is absent. Wedge is absent. Chair Pace, uh, present. Thank you. We have Cororum. Wonderful. Thank you. Um, all right. I do think we have agenda amendments, right? Uh, assistant director. Uh, correct. We are requesting that the commission consider public hearing item number six ahead of number five this evening.

Great. Thank you. Um, all right. So, let's uh go to the uh consent calendar. Um, these are items that will be considered in one routine motion unless they are pulled off by a member of the public who wishes to make a comment or there is a member of the commission that would like uh to make a comment. So, we have three items that are listed there as uh on the agenda. The actions of the city council, the approval of the minutes from the last meeting and then the commissional use permit for the uh Pleasanton Academy of Music. Do we have any uh uh speaker cards on these items? We've received no speaker cards.

Thank you. Uh, do we have any uh comments by council uh by commission members? No. No. All right. Um, let's entertain a motion. A motion to um pass as noted the consent items. I second. All right. Uh, all in favor? I I I.

Any opposed? Pass unanimously. Wonderful. Thank you. Um, okay. Let's go to meeting open to the public. This is agenda item number four. Um this is for members of the public um that would like to speak on an item that is not agendaized. Um we invite uh those folks who would like to do that um to submit a speaker card over to Arelli and then we will um ask people to limit their comments to three minutes. Uh do we have any speaker cards for this one? We received no speaker cards.

Thank you. Okay. So, we're going to close agenda item four uh and we're going to move to agenda item six um which is uh going to proceed five uh uh p pursuant to the agenda amendment. So, um this is this is we're going to be looking at P26123 uh the wireless telecommunications facilities uh for the city of Pleasanton. Who's presenting on this one? I'll be presenting. Oh, you're doing it. Okay, great. Um uh take it away. Thank you. Thank you. Give us one second.

Thanks for coming. Want to short and sweet from the seller. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Okay, thank you. Now that we're done with that, all right, this is a recommendation to the city council to approve proposed hang amendments to chapter 18.110 of the Pleasanton municipal code and adoption of new wireless policies related to applications for wireless. I can't see anything. Okay, there we go. All right,

there we go. Okay, can we do next slide? Am I doing that? Okay, we doing that. Okay, I'm just gonna

How about that? There we go. Okay, now that we're all set, apologies. So, a little bit of background on this project. Um, currently there are significant wireless gaps, wireless coverage gaps throughout the city of Pleasanton. And these gaps have several negative impacts. They negatively impact residents, businesses, and visitors. And in some cases, more importantly, they also potentially impact emergency situations where the public and service providers need alerts and information. So, addressing some of these uh concerns and issues, the city uh performed a comprehensive review of the current wireless ordinance and also the application processes for wireless projects in the city. Uh the city determined that a significant contributor to the wireless coverage gap is the city's current wireless ordinance. Uh the city found that it is outdated and overly restrictive. The city also found that it discourages wireless providers from locating facilities in Pleasanton. Based on those findings, the city is considering a new wireless ordinance is presenting to the planning commission for consideration tonight. That would be a new Pleasant Municipal Code Chapter 18.110. In addition to that, there are three policy documents uh for your consideration and recommendation tonight. One of those is for large or macro wireless facilities, one is for small wireless facilities, and one is for modifications to existing facilities. The goals of these uh documents and the revised ordinance is to improve wireless coverage throughout Pleasanton. It's also to maintain standards related to appropriate sighting and also the aesthetic considerations. And it's also

consistent with the one Pleasanton strategy strategic plan for funding our future strategy too which is to identify expanded and new revenue sources to address significant infrastructure needs. The new wireless ordinance uh when you look take a look at what you have before you tonight would actually be a repeal and replace of Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 18.110. The new ordinance would remove most regulatory standards and refer them to the three new policy documents for each of the three different kinds of wireless applications. This would make it easier to update and keep up with evolving state and federal regulations and also to have policies that are specific to the different kinds of wireless projects that we receive. Okay, hang on. Okay, the first is a policy document for largecale or macro wireless facilities. These are usually freestanding towers and support structures or rooftop or building mounted sites. They typically provide coverage a coverage radius of between 1 to three or more miles depending on terrain, vegetation or similar factors. And these are some examples of micro facilities. These were all taken by my colleague Jenny Sue who's sitting to the left of me instead of the right. And these are all in the city of Pleasanton now. And you can see the variation of the different kinds of macro facilities. Uh you know some are you know poles, some are above the the roof and some are concealed uh by parapits that are made to look like you know additions to the actual building it's sitting on. Additionally, there's a policy document for you for your consideration for small wireless facilities. These are typically

usually attached to street light and utility poles. They typically provide a coverage radius of a few hundred feet to upwards of about 1,000 ft. And they provide added capacity in hightra areas, dense urban settings, and suburban communities. And here are some examples of small wireless facilities. Uh full disclosure, these are not all in the city of Pleasanton. We took a look at just some good range of examples of what these look like. And again, a lot of them, you know, polemounted on an arterial or adjacent to an arterial and built into the existing structure. And then the third policy document are modifications you're concerned modifications to existing wireless facilities. These are uh regulated by the federal government under FCC uh section 6409A and they require approval of certain additions and modifications that do not substantially change the dimensions of the existing facilities. The key word here is require approval. Uh we have very li limited capacity for any kind of discretionary review of these. there are standards in the federal law that if these projects are consistent with those standards, then they are approved. So again, the that's why this policy document's a little bit less than the other two because there isn't a whole lot that we can do in terms of discretionary review for these. These do provide added capacity and hightra areas, dense urban settings, and suburban communities, sort of like the small cell wireless we just presented. Um, one of the benefits of the policy documents is that we have worked with our wireless consultant who I'll introduce shortly on standards for location and also design standards. The locations no longer stipulate areas

where these are prohibited, but instead talk about locations that are preferred locations all the way down to locations that are discouraged. So that there's not areas where it's like you you cannot have one of these facilities just that we are trying to you know give a a good you know examination and analysis about the best locations for these. These are based on zoning designation um environmental setting and distance from residential and or historic structures among you know many other factors is in terms of design and aesthetic standards. Uh and this is primarily for uh the mac the macro facilities. We're looking at standards for stealth and concealment. Um in the policy document for macro, there's a lot of different uh criteria and policies and standards for how to best have stealth facilities and concealment structures that you know help to you know obviously conceal the actual structures in terms of their environmental setting. also the design and location of structures, making sure that they're designed to fit in and blend with the other and and also in terms of their environment and surrounding environment and also measures that mimic or blend in with underlying support structures again among other factors. Uh the next steps here based on the planning uh commission's recommendation tonight would be for this uh to go to the city council on April 21st, 2026. And this would be for consideration of planning commission resolution regarding new wireless ordinance and also policies for macro wireless small self small wireless and also modifications to existing facilities. So tonight's recommendation from staff is for the the planning commission to adopt resolution number PC-2026-07

recommending that the city council and I'll summarize this find the project statutoily exempt from SQA also repeal and replace Pleasant and Municipal Code Chapter 18.110 and adopt new policies related to the applications for macro small wireless and also modification ations to existing facilities. And that concludes staff's recommendation, but couple things. We want to introduce our wireless consultant that we've been working with for the past several months on this. His name is uh David Nagel, and he is from I have here, Coastal Tower Law, and he's been working um daily pretty much with uh staff on the new ordinance and also the three policy uh documents. Um, and so what I'd like to do now is, uh, bring it back to the planning commission for questions for us and any additional information, uh, that you need from us. Thank you.

Thanks. Uh, thank you. Appreciate that. Um, it's great to get that overview. The, uh, it's these are dense documents and it's a pretty material change. Um, so I suspect there may be, uh, some some meaningful questions. Um, you want to start, Commissioner Jane, would you like to start? Sure. So I think I asked staff to compile some numbers u you know if you want to share some numbers over a period of time how many applications we received.

Yeah. Uh Jenny and I worked on this project the last time this ordinance was amended back in 2013. So this was kind of fun. Uh back then we had in 2013 we had there were 29 facilities in Pleasanton and since then one dropped off a nexttel site dropped off. Um but in the last 13 years we've processed very few. We've added one to the in inventory. Uh so we had in 2020 we had a a few modifications in 2021. Um, one new approved 2022 another mod 23 we had nothing. Uh, 24 new

one new and then and then right now we're working on a couple. So, uh, hoping that those also one in one at Pacific Pearl and I don't remember where the other one is, Jenny. Do you? Anyway, we've we've got a couple both in commercial locations. Water tanks. Ah, yeah. We'll see if that one hopefully that comes to fruition. So, not not many. We haven't made a lot of progress. This is something I've been eager to work on, to be asked to work on for many years. So, and we believe based on the feedback from applicants that if the regulations were less, they'll like I'm just trying to understand like what what you're hearing.

Yeah. Um over the years, particularly back uh when this we went through this last process, the carriers did voice. It was primarily Jenny and me working on uh wireless things and voiced that there were a lot of restrictions and there are so if you if you read the staff report and or looked at our current municipal code you'll see that no res you can't go in residential zones, parks, schools, senior living facilities or within certain distance of them even if you're in industrial or commercial. So it it's really it was really limiting particularly in certain neighborhoods. I think of my own neighborhood in Pleasanton and there would be nowhere to place uh a a tower facility small or or macro. So you can imagine that lots of places uh have that and then surprisingly you drive in the in the middle of town and you you find the same thing. I know you guys have experienced the same thing. So um yeah. Did I answer your question?

Yes. And if someone wanted to look for an exception, what would have been the process?

Yeah. Now, the we always had a I like to call it the catchall. We always had language in there stating that if uh by federal law, we were required to allow it. If they could show that they had coverage needs that they could not um they could not accommodate, then we were required. But we didn't have any carriers pushed that far. So, I think they probably just, you know, lowhanging fruit in other communities, uh, moved on, spent their investment money there rather than here where it was a little more challenging. So, we've tried to open that up and but at the same time, you see lots of language in here about making sure the aesthetics are appropriate for our community. So that that was the goal is to open it up and then um and and then the council also had has a priority of trying to get some lease revenue on sites that might make sense. One that I've thought for decades makes sense is uh our sports park for example. We have a very tall building there. We've got very light tall light poles there that it's uh it's in the middle of town. You got people there every Saturday on their phones while their kids are playing soccer. you know there we have we have places where that make uh sort of obvious sense to perhaps reach out to carriers and say you interested you have a do you think you have a coverage gap here would you like to would you like to come so that would be sort of down the road hopefully soon sooner than later but yeah

and in terms of just a concern in these kind of situations is mostly when they're adjoining residential dwellings so right now as I read it it's about 100 ft yes Uh so is that uh 100 ft? It could be a city facility. Let's say there's a school or there's a park. Yes. And if it's within 100 ft of a residential backyard or property lot line, yes, we'll be able to place a large tower. Yes. However, uh there are preferred locations above that.

So you'll see uh preferred and then and then rankings. And so there are other places we would attempt to have them go first to show that they couldn't go to um farther a better location. So yes, legally they can and legally they pro they always could if you think about it. They just didn't push if if they could show that they couldn't meet their coverage needs and there wasn't another feasible location, but that just didn't happen. And and I think carriers, you know, they they they work with local governments to try and meet their needs and also respect okay the community.

And this could be for both the large type of towers as well as the smaller ones.

Yes. Uh there's a little bit of difference and I might defer to David, our outside council, um because he he drafted all this and then we worked together to sort of refine it. Uh and he also used our last or ordinance as a guidance. Actually, the small cell was in a policy, not in an ordinance, but uh so we talk about roads, collector roads, arterial roads, and I'm not going to have them in the right order, but sort of your larger roads as being more appropriate, the more encouraged. Uh Valley Avenue, for example, does pass by um homes, but most of them back to it. they're not it's not as opposed to uh another neighborhood having it right out on your street light pole in front of you. So it the preference is to have it say down Sanorita or Hopyard uh things like that before you'd have it in front of I'm not going to name someone street but you you you get the idea.

Yeah. So I think 100 ft and I'm just trying to see like if I had a house and there's a big tower 100 ft from my house, I would see it, right? If there's a

electric line which runs near my backyard, no one wants to buy that house. So it does affect uh you know the value of their properties and things like that. Um so I was just curious what it was. Uh the other thing which I noticed for the small cell it's zoning administrator and then it goes to the city manager. So there's no planning commission or uh council review required. Yes. Is that to reduce the time?

It is and and I'll have I'd like to have David talk a little bit about the shot clock rules. we have very um very short turnaround and so we try to recognize noticing these for the community to know the appropriate amount but also to get it done in the amount of time that we need to. So David, do you want to follow up on any of the the shot clock and what Commissioner Jane was referencing?

Yeah, sure. Hi, good evening. Um so with respect to the the small wireless facilities, the FCC has established um presumptively reasonable time periods to act on those applications. And depending on if it's an attachment to an existing structure like a utility pole or a street light, um the the number of shot clock days that the city will have to review um could be as low as 60. And then if it's um like a new pole like the someone's going to try to propose a say a new concrete pole that doesn't have a luminere but um just is going to host a a a small wireless facility on it. Um those um would be uh 90 days uh for for the shot clock period. So it they they put a very uh the FCC's put a very tight constraint on um city staff to review these within the time periods. And so uh one element here is of course if that the application is incomplete, they didn't the applicant didn't submit everything uh legally required by the city, then it's possible that the shot clock could pause or toll. But, you know, without that or if a shot clock um tolling uh period is is is missed and the clock just continues to run, it's a it's a very small period of time. So, that's why staff's recommendation in this situation um is is to um not have it go before planning commission because, you know, simply to make any kind of agenda can be a just a big timing issue. Um and and then uh the the other element here is that we also have to squeeze in any appeals. And that's why um in in that shot clock period, it's not just 60 days and then you can approve or deny it and then there's more time for an appeal. Uh FCC and case laws, all the you've got to get everything done uh that could possibly be done within that shot clock period. So, you know, that's why we're having um

appeals to the city manager uh for the small wireless facilities to try and meet um that very small window of time. Um and you know the sort of consequence to um not meeting it is uh the California legislature passed a law um that if uh the city doesn't approve um a small wireless facility and even a a macro facility application within the FCC shot clocks the carrier can take certain steps to have the application deemed approved. And so you know we're trying to avoid that. We're trying to make a legally sound decision within those short periods of time to avoid situations like carriers um you know trying to declare their applications deemed approved or they also have the alternative to take the city to court to um see uh about um you know something like an injunction or something uh to overrule the city's action or inaction. So, we're just trying to safeguard against those possibilities and get everything done in the limited time that the federal government says uh city staff should be acting in.

And the decision could be affirmative or it could be a denial.

Correct. Yes. With with uh the small wireless facilities and the macro facilities. Uh yes. uh it c it could be denied um so long as that you know I I suppose you could deny it for invalid reasons but then you may have a lawsuit on your hands but um yeah if it if it's uh something that doesn't meet um the the local requirements and u state and federal law and there's substantial evidence in the in the the written record at the time of the decision. Yeah, you you can deny it if you if you feel that you really need to. It's a little bit different with the eligible facilities requests for the the modifications under section 6409. Um those could technically be denied as well, but um there's perhaps a a better path there where if it doesn't look like it's going to qualify as an eligible facilities request to see if we can convert it to the correct kind of application and run through that shot clock period. But that's a little bit more of a complicated situation than just a straight up or down approve or deny.

Yeah. Thank you. And I think I'm trying to balance your point arguments with just the noticing and for the residents to react and you know come up with some objections. So that time period is also very short. Um so that notice goes out within 10 days of receipt. That's how it's written. And then people have time to respond. How long do they have? Also 10 days. 10 days. So within 10 days, yes. Someone has to reach out to zoning administration.

Yeah. And the notice will will provide the information, contact information for staff and also say whether they have a right to appeal or just they want to make comments or get more information. Okay. Thank you. I don't have more questions. Thank you.

Okay. Let me just add one followup before uh Commissioner Jacob I pass it on. You there was a a comment at the beginning when you were talking about kind of one of the objectives about um increasing or supplementing the city revenue and there was reference to that in one of the answers. Can you just describe um due to the documents I don't think everyone's going to read that if they're watching this video. Uh so so may maybe can you just describe how the city benefits economically from adding more of these uh facilities within the city? So on private property, the the the revenue from the lease would go obviously to that property owner. Um and actually the school district I I see board member uh Brown here tonight and I know the school district has also voiced interest in having um cellular sites at one or both high a couple of the high schools. So uh that that brings an opportunity. They vary in lease terms and and I'm you're not going to quote me on this. I already know. Let's just say roughly 3,000 a month per site ballpark. Um David could expand upon that, but that gives you an idea, right? Um and obviously they provide the coverage that we need and emergency services and all the things that that we're lacking. So maybe not a huge dent in our budget, but it is money. It is lease revenue.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner JGO.

Um a couple questions from my end. Um, most of the general information is pretty pretty straightforward. And I my question is more of it looks like when you look at the um a lot of these are kind of already set like we we don't have a lot of leeway one way or the other because these are requirements and and federal law and it's stuff that we need. So, can I assume that um some of the things that we've already discussed on this commission um in speeding up um the process number one and taking things off of the planning commission docket that really a don't need us to look at because it's something that staff has all the capability to approve. I think that's something that, you know, not only have I seen on my time here, but over over the years is that is if if staff can do it, and you guys are all professionals and you know what you're doing. If it doesn't need to come to this step, we you would want to avoid that. Um, so I'm looking at it as the if you're modifying existing facility, I would assume that's fairly straightforward. And the small wireless facilities are not going to be that much of an obtrusive element. Um, and probably we don't need to see that either either that the macro wireless may be the the one where in some cases it's going to really affect the overall kind of layout or look or you know it's going to it's going to affect people that maybe that is something that you would want to bring um in front of us. Is that kind of the direction that this whole scenario is moving is that it's kind of like we have to do this, we got

to do it quickly and let's streamline it, get it so that it's pretty black and white and it's an easy process to get this moving through and kind of hopefully not involve us as much over the over the long term.

Precisely. If if everything goes smoothly, you you guys won't see any. Right. And and just so you know, so staff does look at all of these and it's different departments, especially when you get the small cells, that's more utilities involved and other things. The macro, but but the first thing we do after staff reviews to see if the if the application is complete or or we we obtess uh to make sure it meets the RF standards. they've submitted that report. Design aesthetics, are they the best they can be, right? Is there better technology or better methods of of concealing and making these things look the best? So, we have an a consultant and that will collect a deposit for that and that consultant will be paid from the deposit from the applicant and then the applicants also submit a fee, a permit fee for to cover staff's time and the noticing and anything else. So, um, yeah, you your this body and the city council and the city manager hopefully will not be too involved and also will keep us within the timeline to to make the decisions.

And and I think overall that's kind of where you want to aim is keep it within staff as much as possible. And and I think you know our overview of of of looking at things is if you've already deemed it okay it meets all the qualifications what we're doing is affirming that number one if it comes to us. Um the big thing is is it going to be a large tower that we need but is in a place where we know people are going to say yeah I like the coverage but that's not attractive. we that's where something would come to us and we would have a say in it.

Yeah. As as one example, one of the applications that we we've been working with a carrier for a while for a at the Bondi water tank. It's uh if you're heading up Bernal, it's up to the right and carriers have been wanting to go there for a while because that's it's it's up on the hill, right? And um provides what they need that way. And um it's also allowed under our ordinance and was allowed under our last ordinance. So it that made it an appealing site. And one of the things we're thinking fake tree, I hate to say fake tree, but you know that you've you've seen them and some are better than others. Uh maybe a a water tower, like those kinds of visual what might look better, right? Option A, option B. And and again, the outside consultant, they've seen some things. Some things look better than others and fit in in the location better than others. Like a monopine up there, maybe not. It's a bunch of oak trees around it. So, those are those are the kinds of things. But, yeah, other than that, these should be processed through staff. And those are the kinds of things that I think we'd weigh in. What do you guys think is better? This versus this?

I think that in the the shot clock all made sense. The requirements all made sense to me. um the you know review the the um I was very impressed with the I know you we don't want to completely say no you can't have one here but I do like um where you guys went with the you know we this is what we'd like to see and we're really you know I think for us and for people that are in the town it's it's all aesthetics you know yes we want the coverage but I think as as long as the aesthetics are at at a high um qualification rate as part of getting it done. I think that's your that's your key. But that's really only the questions I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Um may maybe just a couple of things maybe I think some of the responses at least to me were a little bit confusing in the approval process are applications for a modification to an existing facility and to a small one. the small cell versus the macro. Are those all treated the same way or are there different kind of time processes for each of those?

They have different shot clocks. So that's why you see different noticing different appeals rights. Um so so yeah, they're they're different that way. And then the 6409's they're they're already there, right? So there's no location preferences because they're existing. The macros have a preferred list that starts at industrial and works its way down, right? And the small cells also has preferred and that would be your I don't remember the the the larger streets versus the smaller streets and it works its way that way. So, so one could imagine in a hypothetical, we don't have anything in front of us, but in a hypothetical that someone um where a macro site is getting built around someone's home, someone would likely, I would expect, have a stronger reaction to that than a a modification to an existing facility that basically does nothing to it. uh you know maybe add a couple of small electrical structures or to you know to a small tower that gets that stuck that gets stuck on top of a a building or something as we've seen in in the diagrams. What what would be the kinds of things that the public could say about that during that notice and kind of comment period that would allow our community to kind of inform and then maybe shape the choices that that would get there. If someone just says, you know, you we we we've we have before us many times is this commission. Someone's building a second story on an existing home and the neighbors around say, you know, you're invading my privacy, right? And so we have these kind of these complicated how do we address the public interest versus these private interests, you know, that each of these different people, you know, we have to try to accommodate what everybody needs, but we also have to try to accommodate like private rights. So, just as we're thinking about that kind of private balance, public balance, how do we think

about these these big public um you know, public private kind of balancing when we're thinking about these macro towers?

Well, hopefully so the the project will be noticed, right? An application will be noticed. And let's just let's just use a community park. So, I'm I'm thinking about my neighborhood because I know where there are many many dead spots. And this this was actually a helpful exercise. So I went and looked where could someone locate where could a carrier locate now? Nowhere. They couldn't locate anywhere that would serve the area. And so then what other and school sites there are school sites in residential zones. They're relatively large. They might have a better opportunity for concealing and so you don't have that aesthetics in your face. Um community parks, I looked at them. Some of them better than others. They're small. Some of them are maybe too small and not an appropriate site. And then some of our religious facility sites, some uh church sites are are can be quite large. And maybe uh one something that was proposed many many years ago was that uh carrier wanted to go at St. Augustine's Church where there's a dead spot there and up in the the steeple, but the church um got a little bit of push back from neighbors and decided not to move forward with that lease. Um, but there are there are locations and there are ways to to conceal. So, and and we're we're expanding that and and hopefully making it uh easier for them to come in, but requiring them to conceal.

Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. So my second question um in the past when it at least in my memory as having lived here we haven't seen it with respect to this particular proposition but there have been times when the city through some of these changes these ordinance changes been has been the unfortunate uh unfortunately kind of entangled in litigation both private and public. One of the things that's been used at least in my memory and some of the more expensive litigations the city's been involved in over the years has been squa. So I think it's worth just understanding um there was reference uh uh Mr. Farmer in your presentation to the fact that we don't we don't need to include and even in the proposed resolution there's reference the fact that we are sexually exempt from SQA. Can we just make clear for the record how this works? Is there some judgment about whether or not we believe SQA needs to be required? Like can you maybe just talk us through that for a minute so we have a clear record for anyone who's listening?

Sure. Thank you. Yeah, the the recommendation on the ordinance tonight is statutoily. We're recommending it be statutoil stat statutoily exempt. I have a hard time saying that because there's no physical change to the environment based on the recommendation to the city council on the ordinance. Now, when we get into physical locations later, um again, we're looking at SQA being, you know, physical effects on the environment. If there is a project that comes before us that is subject to SQA based on the project's potential physical effect or change on the physical environment, then we would be undergoing whatever level of appropriate SQA review at that time.

Okay. So, so, so, so I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this clearly. So, the change that we are proposing tonight does not require a SQL review. However, if at some point in the future an applicant were to come in and wanted to put in a tower, we would still examine each of those applications and whether or not those applications required a sequel review. And then should they, we would obviously uh require that those be done. Correct. Great. Okay. Thank you.

And if I could jump in for one second, um yeah, the that that's exactly right. uh the app the SQL will be looked at on an application by application basis and one of the requirements that staff will be asking for in its application package is um for the applicant to submit you know um information about whether it's um an exe there's an exemption under SQA that they believe applies or you know whatever the case may be and then staff will look at that and and make their own determination. Um for many of these wireless sites um there are exemptions under SQA because they're um you know relatively small you know speaking compared to you know developments of of thousands and thousands of square feet you know by comparison or they're they're going on the roof of an existing building or something like that. So me many times the there there is a qualifying uh SQA exemption but you know it staff will or the consultant will with staff look at all of those um factors to make sure the correct SQA analysis is made when uh before anyone makes their findings on the application.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions from the uh committee members? U it's for the consultant. So you probably worked in other cities, other jurisdictions on the similar matters. U when you look at the policy we had on the books u in front of us today, how how do they compare in general uh to other cities? Um

yeah, sure. So it's it's a wide range as you can imagine, right? Some cities have not updated their policies since the uh communications act of 1996. Um others have been um sticking with more recent developments. Um you know, as staff was saying, um it's been a while since the city took a look at uh this code and and made any changes to it. Um, so you know, the existing code was somewhere in the middle and as Julie was saying, um, you know, a as it's currently drafted, it it makes it tough to cover a lot of the more suburban areas of of the city, the residential areas. You know, even, you know, no one no one's saying put a cell tower in a residential house, but from other potentially viable places like, you know, in a church steeple, as Julie was just saying, it's very difficult to accomplish that. and it seems to have put off carriers from deploying in areas where it sounds like there there is a need for for residents to have better coverage. Um so this you know moves up um the city in terms of of trying to get better coverage. Um it's uh the you know I think this these policies nicely balance um you know the aesthetic issue which is one area where the city has an immense amount of control um you know to make sure these sites are um stealth with concealment elements to the maximum extent uh feasible so that you know you can get better looking sites in the city and hopefully ones that no one notices because you know they they can go behind an existing mechanical screen on a roof. for something like that. Um, you know, there's other communities that try to go in the other direction and um, you know, some even attempt to uh, quote unquote ban wireless facilities even though that's um, not really a thing and would be a a fast track to a lawsuit for the city. So, you know, um I think this the city's taken a very reasonable approach

here based on um actual problems it's seeing while still protecting um the the aesthetics and and having a robust application process to make sure, you know, if these applicants are going to take advantage of um all these federal laws and and regulations that have really reduced the city's authority that they're going to, you know, uh dot every eye, cross every tea and make sure they have a legally compliant site and application. Thank you. Yeah, please.

Um, I just wanted to add something too is um, you know, we we've looked at projects and discussed wanting to enhance Pleasanton as a destination point for businesses and economic growth. I think this kind of fits right into that. you know, if you're if you're a company that's coming in and you see that, oh, look, Pleasanton has a completely updated wireless um agenda and is going to allow us to have this, you know, whether you're a hospital or biotech company or anything coming in and you're like, okay, I'm not I'm not coming into a location where I'm going to have problems. Um, I think that's just another kind of notch on the belt for Pleasanton that we're trying to make life easier and and business better for those coming in. So, I think that's a positive on on Pleasanton's part also.

Okay. Thank you. So, let's go to uh to uh comments from uh members of the public. I know we have at least one card. Yes, we've received one speaker card. Great. Can we have Justin Brown come to the Mr. Brown? Hello. All right. Is there a button or you control? Um, it should be on. You'll have

should be on. All right. Uh, so my name is uh Justin Brown. Was a planning commissioner for six years. I've been retired uh for four years and uh currently serving on the school board as a trustee. Um I'm talking tonight not as a school trustee though although um as was mentioned the school uh district obviously has nine elementary schools, three middle schools um uh two high schools and two uh um and uh and then we've also got uh the old district property etc. Right? So we've got a lot of property within the city that could assist with that. So, but uh like I said, I'm talking as an independent citizen here tonight. So, I mean, everyone knows this. We think of it as a phone. It's really not a phone. It's a computer in your pocket that has wireless connectivity. I think we all uh use it um excessively. Um I know when I pick my kids up from school, I have an expectation to arrive early so I can get on a Zoom um and then when I get off the Zoom, get get my kids and get them home. I cannot drive from Hurst Elementary to my house uh without losing the connection at least two or three times. I know I'm not describing anything. You guys live in the city. You experience it, too. Um half the city is is is a dead spot uh with one or two bars and it's really hard as a resident to uh to do that work life balance um and uh and participate in the community and leverage this. my kids um I've deliberately not given them phones and they're they're I've got two in middle school, one in high uh one in elementary school. I use it as an emergency device to contact them. Can't, right? They have to be on a Wi-Fi for it to work because the cellular coverage is so poor. So, both at our school sites for our students from a safety perspective as

well as the city at large, um it's an important safety device. I echo what you were saying, Dave, in terms of it's uh an enabler for business. I mean, my car even has streaming music, streaming directions. Businesses in the city rely on couriers that that use G that use cellular tracking and so on. It it is an enabler for economic vitality. And um years ago, I worked in the wireless industry. I actually um was had teams that installed cell sites. And so I know the evolution of the technology and and working off a a policy that's from the 80s that's not keeping up with what we're capable of in terms of disguising them, shrinking them down, having them higher data and and more distributed uh is absolutely the right thing to do. Has my full personal support of this and thank you very much for your service.

Thank you. Thank you for your service. Uh do we have any other speaker cards? No other speaker cards received.

Okay. Um, so we'll close public comment. I'll I'll um I guess kind of in the transition, what I would say is um reflective of uh we did get one um uh email that was sent to the city that was uh commenting in in support of the uh in support of this uh with with sentiments that were similar to what we heard from uh from Mr. Brown uh and others. And I will say that my engagement uh with a wide range of uh city uh residents over the past uh few years uh this is one of the top items in addition to parking and traffic uh that the planning commission gets uh gets to hear about all the time. And so um um I I think that there is a very large amount of focus on this citywide um as to are there ways we can improve um you know some of some of the some of the connectivity uh within the city. So um there was uh wide uh acclaim for the city bringing this up and and having spent time uh to look at it. So, um, from the from the various different folks that I've I've communicated with over the past several years and even in the last couple of weeks, thank you, uh, from from them on on on considering this. Um, all right. So, I think that's it. We will go to, uh, kind of comments, uh, and discussion by the by the commission members and then we can uh, if we get there, we can decide on a vote. So, uh, Commissioner Jane, do you want to start? I guess we kind of heard a bit from you already, Commissioner JGO, on kind of It sounds like you're in support.

I am. I've got I got a couple other comments, too, but Yeah. So, why don't you start and then we'll go to Commissioner Jane.

Um, in kind of um adding on to um Mr. Brown's comments. Um, I work very closely with, uh, Emor Valley High School and am on campus all the time working, you know, games and everything and it is it's, you know, for a high school where everybody there is required. You're on laptops, you're on you're on tablets, you're on iPads, you're on phones, you're on everything. It's it's horrible. Um, and to be at a game and not be able to, you know, access anything. the kids constantly. I work with their athletic, you know, I work with their principal. Um, it's it's a huge problem just on campus. Um, and so that's another thing where I just think I just think everything about doing this is going to be a huge positive um for the city. But I think, you know, not just in the okay, now we're following uh new procedures and new rules and and following the federal. I think it's one of those where you had um had mentioned this is you know we're worried about safety also. Um but you also have to think about the educational portion of it and um if business if you're at work and you can't you can't connect and if you're at school and you can't connect basically everything shuts down and you can't get anything done. So, um that's just another rousing comment from my end and and just as a um a personal um I owned um was part owner in a in a business um venture and we had a we had built a um commercial building and on that property was a south tower that had a vault below it. So, I'm pretty versed on on what a because we owned the property. That meant that we got um the the leases and the proceeds from that tower and we had to then sign leases with the individual carriers that wanted to come onto the tower. Um it was very interesting and you know I got to

learn a lot about it. that our location was in a commercial zone in in Stockton that was, you know, covered in a large immense area of residential, but our tower was in a small pocket of commercial. Perfect. You know, nobody noticed it. It wasn't right next to somebody's house, but it was dead center in a huge housing de development and just made things and every every carrier had something on our tower. Um, and so it was perfect. And so I think this is we're targeting that in in this kind of scenario. And I think the fact that we haven't kind of allowed that up to this point is part of the reasons why we're why we're here today. So that's my comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Jane.

Yeah, thank you. U, I think there are three different topics here. Uh, so I'll handle them one by one. So modifications to existing facilities. If there's not much discretion, I I think there's no need for us to uh put more process around it. So the way it's written, I I think it makes sense. U small wireless facilities, I think it's fine like and looking at the numbers, we didn't really see any traction on that. I'm expecting them to be part of an existing structure. Uh so would not be that much of a big deal for residents in my opinion. Uh but the macro wireless would be a problem especially if it's within 100 ft of residences. U so I'm I'm concerned and we are not giving enough time for noticing and uh people to respond. People may be out on vacation. People may be u away from their homes when those notices arrive. U and the noticing requirement is 300 ft or 100 ft. 300 ft. So you could see that big tower if it's u placed 100 ft or more uh from a residential property line from more than 300 ft away. So there could be a lot of angst in residents. So not many people hear about this discussion today but when it comes in their backyard u they'll be concerned u so I'm specifically asking about the macro and the distance we have for that facility from adjoining residential I feel like 100 ft is too low

so so um maybe staff could could you help with this the one of the I think when We talked about this uh to begin the conversation. We were talking about the you know the shock clock and and at least for those that aren't following the the athletic reference. There's a there's a period of time in which a decision has to get made or um there is a a default decision that gets made and it sounds like the default decision is in favor of the uh in favor of the carrier to be able to build. Is that is that correct? I'm seeing heads nod. Yes. Um that's that's essentially correct. The the car the carrier or the applicant has to take uh certain steps, but that's one possible outcome if the city doesn't uh make a decision within the shot clock period.

Okay. So, so it sounds like that then staff with that kind of predicate understanding, what you were trying to build into the process was how do we inform the public and get enough time to get their feedback uh and then in use that to inform a decision before we kind of run out of time and that and the default position where we don't where we have less leverage as a city to to to inform it. That's what we're trying to balance, right? Correct.

Okay. And so, and so I think what what we had described when we walked through this was just to make sure we're all clear on the record about what we're talking about here was there would be a a 10-day period in which um in which uh notice would be sent out and then there would be a 10-day period in which people would need to respond and then kind of the overall decision the city would then need to make needs to be from start to finish within 60 days. Is that right? For the macros. for macro more

uh 60 days is uh one possibility for small cells and then for the modification requests um the the macro facilities uh can have up to 150 days if it's a brand new tower for example

so it's 150 so so we're not it's not quite the same very short period of time it 60 and 150 meaningful difference it's not a lot of time but but it is it is a meaningful difference. So, so may is there a way to be more flexible then with the 10day notice period and give you know to to Commissioner Jane's point is there a way to be more flexible and maybe build in some more time for comment there. Could we just start with that with that piece of the comment?

I'll jump in here. Yeah, I think so. Um, one thing that I thought about is as soon as staff gets an application, notice goes out within 10 days, right? Staff has a little bit of time to do that. But I was thinking we may not have all of the information just yet. So what that does if you get a notice is it tells you, oh, there's a proposal and you'll have some information. And then if you thought, I I think I want to know about that. It's it's proposed on at the park, the community park. It's with, you know, a couple hundred feet from my house, and I want to know more about that. You would have the planner's name. you would call the planner and you would get whatever information. Um, we could have that a little bit longer in time, but I think when I heard um, Commissioner Jane say, "What if someone's on vacation or something, maybe it's the the the back 10 days that has more time from the date of uh that we send it as a possibility. Uh, we could build in more time. We don't want to build in too much time obviously but we we can build in more time. So

yeah I think the 10day notice that need to go out as soon as possible. So that's fine as as soon as you can but for public to respond especially if we are putting a big tower and I'm prefacing it with the first macro and the second is if it's adjoining the residential. So those two

and I'm not talking about everything else. So if it's in a commercial which is not near any residential even up to,000 ft I'm less concerned. But if it if you're talking about something which is less than 1,000 ft um and it adjoins a residential unit. So I'm thinking about schools and schools can have the tower closer to the residential or it could have tower further from residential. Same things for public parks. So a lot of properties they are adjoining public parks. If you are going to put a tower in the public park like it it would be I I would say residents would want to know. Um and 60 days is probably a reasonable time for people to respond. Uh we have 150 days total. So if someone responds within that 60 days for macro what's the process does it? So they just respond they send their comments in to you and you still make a decision. No one is appealing. May I may I ask add something? I I think we mix the small cell and a macro process. The small cell is the shorter time. We get application, we send out 10 days. The public have 10 days then no appeal. That is the small sale. But I think commissioner James question is for the macro. That is for the brand new one. 50 days for collocation like a commission Jacob had said for your site you have every other carrier coming in so once you build for instance you build for T-Mobile Verizon said oh good I have the need they colllocate for the collocation

is 90 days we have to approve David please correct me if I get all the dates wrong and so when we just say we got a brand new application coming to the city for macro 180 days we have to respond

150 oh 150 days sorry so what we do is once we get the application we don't send out the notice immediately staffwise we look together with our consultant to see if the design is acceptable if it's not we go through options so by the time we send a notice out to the neighborhood to the residents We pretty much refined the design several times. Then we set a notice. So we will refined it to the best we can. So you do not see just say u a big dish to be plugging top of a building staring at your window. We don't want to do that. We wanted to have a screening to disguise it to stealth. That's what do we do. So,

I think we're looking for an extension of the time that people have to respond. Not the not the time that it's approved or anything. It's just the from if I'm speaking for you is how much time on a macro from the time you get it in the mail to you have to respond. I would think for the macro would be longer than 10 days. Yeah.

Is that what is that time frame? Um, so it's what we have currently written before you tonight is 10 days, but what I'm hearing is we want more time. And I get that. That makes sense. Uh, so we can add more time and we can talk with David about what he what based on what he sees in other communities, what he thinks is a reasonable time. Uh my only question is is I heard Commissioner Jane talking about the sensitivity just being around when it's within X number of feet of a residence

and that those are the ones we're not worried about as much about the commercials. We feel like the timeline is is okay for those others. It's just within when it's within x number of feet having um a longer process for calls for review which is the city council member saying that we h we set them the same so any member of the public can say hey I want to I want a public hearing on this or the city council member can say that that's how it's drafted but we want more time

I you can we I just want to um obviously we care deeply about the residents of our city and that's why we're looking at this change. I just want to kind of reflect for a second on um the you know if something is built next to school but it's not on school property you know I don't I don't know if 10 days would be enough time for the school to comment either right and you know for commercial properties you know someone building something next to Costco I you know I I I'm not sure they're going to get something done in 10 days but you know that they don't while they have people in the city that work there people that run Costco aren't in the city and so I guess I'm trying trying to figure out like how do we think about putting up the kind of the disperate opportunities or time the disperate time periods in which people were to comment.

Yeah. Do I mean is that feels like it's okay but I just want to make sure as I kind of think about disperate rights how to how to think about that. Yeah. I I'd like to ask David what he thinks about clearly what I'm hearing is we want to do more than 10 days and that does I I get it that that makes sense to me. Uh the question is what kind of timeline would you suggest David and it I think it might be nice to have just uniformity and not have one be one this way one that way but just maybe it's maybe it's is 30 days does does that typically what do you see um

right so one one thing to keep in mind here is that uh while it is 150 days for a new uh like a new tower it it could be as little as 90 days uh you know for a a rooftop site for example, that's not uh that doesn't already have wireless equipment up there. It's a new site, but it's on a roof. So, you know, we don't we don't want to make a period too long that um uh you know, staff is receiving public comment so late into the review process that it doesn't give them adequate enough time to um make an informed decision um about their recommendation for the application. um you know as as far as um you know a time period in which um you know you you you're willing to receive information from staff. I mean that could be or excuse excuse me uh information from the public comments from the public that could be uh a very long period potentially in terms of the the whole shot clock period. It's just, you know, if someone submits information on day uh, you know, um, 89 of 90, it it may not, um, have much effect. Um, in terms of, uh, what what the policy does say though is, you know, there's a period to request a hearing for the macro facilities, and that's within 10 days of the date the notice was mailed by the city. And I think there's definitely room here to uh, for for the macro facilities to push that out a bit. we, you know, two weeks, um, you know, maybe even 30 days. Um, uh, you know, there there's no one right or wrong answer. It's, you know, it's a it's a fit of, you know, what's best for this community to give the community a voice while also, um, you know, making sure staff has enough time to receive the information, process it, and and do their due diligence in processing the application.

Can can I can I can I ask a followup there? Thank Thank you. Thank you for that. That was helpful. Um um to your point, there has to be at least some period of time in which staff on boards the feedback and so we've got to segment this in a way where there's meaningful time to incorporate uh that. Is there some requirement or norm uh if it's not a legal requirement around um who gets to comment and how long those comment periods are? Like do we say commercial interests get 10 days and private interests citizen interest gets 20? Like how do we think about you know if it's if it's a resident that's complaining versus a commercial interest is complaining you know we we give them different periods of time. How do we just think about kind of the potential for creating different periods of time in which to comment?

Right? And I think Julie addressed this a moment ago where she I think she said something like uh for simplicity it might be best just to have a uniform period rather than trying to give commercial property owners or occupants a certain period of time versus residential and then you know that also gets complicated. What if you have a mixeduse building what you know residents are residents but you know it it just I I think it over complicates it. So, um, you know, I think the best option here may just be to extend it uniformly, uh, to, you know, whatever the date is that, um, you know, staff might want to recommend here and that ultimately city council, uh, would consider approving, you know, if 14 days, 30 days, you you know, there's some wiggle room here. There's no, uh, fixed requirement um, for for that. Um the the other thing that we we also haven't talked about um and you know we don't we don't have to go into a deep dive about it but for for the macro facilities you know there is an appeal to city council and so even if someone doesn't have the opportunity to comment because they've taken a month-long vacation and they they missed the mailing and and they they didn't get to submit their comments. Um if if they do see the approval and they um believe that part of the policy wasn't followed or staff got something wrong um you know they have the opportunity um you know within 10 days after the approval or denial to um submit with the city clerk um for an appeal that that city council would hear. So, it's the the end of the line isn't just um with um you know that sort of initial um notice 10 days after the application comes out and then however long they may have to respond and request a hearing. You know, there's also an appeals process here that that's open to any interested person who who can file an appeal for the macro facilities.

Yeah. So together I think if let's say we move fast it's possible that we send out notice in first 10 days then within the next 10 days we make a decision and then we have 10 days for residents to make an appeal. So that seems very short to me for something as substantial as a macro tower in someone's backyard. A and while that I think is theoretically possible, I think in uh reality, having um you know, advised on many of these applications over the years, it's very unlikely that an applicant is submitting a legally complete application on their first try that, you know, staff is going to have time to process in 10 days and it checks every box. Um you know, it it's always possible, but I think it's unlikely. You know, usually these um applications go for extended periods of time and especially if if the applicant doesn't submit like uh something that's um you know very code uh very policy compliant um there there will be conversations about the aesthetics with with staff and you know in some cases um I've seen applicants you know basically take their incomplete application and sit on it for you know six months months, even longer, almost up to a year, while they try to figure out what to do next. So, uh, you know, again, theoretically, it is possible for an application to be processed and and potentially approved rapidly, but in practice, I I don't think that uh that's likely to occur.

Yeah. So, I think what what I'm hearing is and specifically for macro towers, I I think I will reiterate that I'm not concerned about the other two types. For macro towers, seems like these things take time and it is fair to ask for a little bit more time for u the community to respond. Um and we can send out the notices right away or do we need to wait for so Jenny you were suggesting we wait for uh some kind of a checklist uh to be completed before you send out a notice to the

that that's we that's how typical process is. We don't send out a notice until the application has been deemed complete.

Yeah, that's not what we're what we're proposing. We were trying to bring it um up into 2026 time frame. That's worked fine, but um so look at page five of 8 of your staff report if you're not already on that page because it provides um a good little cheat sheet here. So within 10 days of receipt of an application, staff mails notice to everyone within 300 ft um and it's published in the newspaper or posted. And then at some point the zoning administrator will um render a decision. So if you got the notice, you know, okay, there's something I'm going to call the city. I'm going to find out. I'm going to be asked to be notified when the ZA is going to um make a decision or I want to what you're that you want to participate, you want to know more and then the ZA will make a decision um the ZA will then uh within five days of the zoning zoning administrator's decision or if um let's say let see it says or the planning commission the zoning administrator could based on the location say, you know what, this one feels like based on what where where they're proposing it or what it looks like, this one might go straight to the planning commission. Uh so that's why you see that language. So within 5 days of the decision, then the community development department will provide written notice of the decision to the applicant and to the city council. So again, anyone who was interested and is paying attention will will know that a decision has been made and then any interested person may file an appeal within 10 days of that decision or the city council can uh do a call for review up. Perhaps that's the time period that you want to um to move

out a little bit. Is is that 10 days to 20 days or Yeah, I think that that's what makes sense. But they may not even receive any communication when that happens. Right. When the decision, we do send out a notice when the initial application comes in. Correct. But we do not send out a notice once a decision is made. So that's publicly posted. Correct. But the like no one gets a card, right? When when we make a decision.

Yeah. We we're really sending out it's that initial, hey, you're within 300 feet and it's in the newspaper or posted. Hey, this is this is happening and if you're interested then you're you're following. We're not like poking them again. Hey, now we've made we got it and hey again now we've made a decision. We could do that. It just um not many jurisdictions do it that way. Uh noticing costs and other things, but that's you know we like transparency here. That's not as significant. It's really more more time. And also the other thing that in the past that what we what we've recognized is many people what they really want to talk about is RF the sorry the radio frequency emissions which if it meets federal law it meets federal law and then they're just frustrated people because that's what we tell them and that doesn't what what we can regulate is time place manner aesthetics and David can talk a lot more than I can on that. So that was sort of another at least in my mind as to why not the continual renoticing of we're letting them know once and if they're interested then they then they follow up. So that was the thought there.

I I think there's a also a scenario where I don't think I think there's a point where it's not up to us to hold everybody's hand that's a resident of Pleasanton. Like if you're if you're concerned about stuff, you kind of need to be in the know. And it, you know, it's kind of like school. The longer you get along in school, the more they put upon you, right? So I I totally understand the hey, we're giving you one notice. Once you get this, it's on you to follow up and understand what's happening. We shouldn't have to do it all along the way. So I I think I would be in favor of just on the macro extending that first set of time maybe just to 15 or 20 days. Um because that's the one that's you know you're you're people are potentially going to have a negative comment toward. Um but I don't think we need to take it too far. That would just be my opinion. If I may add, um I I think that would be the right approach to add extended times upfront rather than um a longer appeal period. I mean, the 10 days is is pretty standard. And the reason you don't want to make it longer on the appeal end is remember all the decisions up to the city's final decision, which in this case would be uh an appeal by city council really should occur within that shot clock to avoid, you know, the the deemed approved or other uh potential litigation issues. So, you know, the the 10 days to to make the appeal and then obviously it has to make an agenda and be heard. um you know, you don't really want to extend it more than that without, you know, at that point. If say if you extend it to 30 days, then you're really risking blowing the shot clock if it's say a the shorter 90-day um total shot clock for a new site on a rooftop.

Yeah. So, just to be clear, I did not mean to increase any appeal period part. I meant to increase the period from noticing to the comments. Got it. So that part if we can add some verbiage that at least 30 days or something. Okay. Uh so that will be upfront. Yes. And that's not going to be uh the same thing as increasing the appeal period. Mhm. And we promptly send out the notice. So from the date we send out the notice like we give at least 30 days for people to respond.

U the other thing was regarding the 100 ft uh from the residential. Um I want to hear from other commissioners how they feel about it. It's the notice the notice range is 300 feet right? No this is a separate topic. So notice period so notice range is 300 but the tower could be placed within 100 ft of your house as it's written right now.

Yeah. So um Commissioner Jane's not talking about notice anymore. He's wondering whether 100 feet is too close to anyone's house. Now, we do have that I'll I'll say at the lowest priority, right? That is the the least preferred, but but I think he's saying that might still feel too close for him is what I'm hearing. Yeah.

Yeah. that that that 100 feet is a uh actually a discouraged location, meaning if an applicant absolutely had to be within 100 feet from a residential dwelling unit, um they would have to go through the special exception process to prove that there's no other feasible alternatives out of anything more preferred by the city. Um so yeah, it's a question of whether that 100 ft should be a different number even though it is the the most discouraged location. Yeah. So, how did we come up with that 100 ft? If you can add some color to it.

I I I can. Um, I sat down with the city manager. I showed we pulled out Google Earth. We looked at different sites. We looked at what's realistic and what we what we might need. And uh that is and figured if the planning commissioner, the city council wants to modify that, which is what what we're hearing, then then they can ask to have it modified. So, um yeah, that's where it has to it we had come upon some number. And keep in mind that the ordinance does say concealed stealth other things, right? And if you can't regulate RF and you can have good design and stealth, then that should be

what what's the I mean I appreciate kind of the bid to open it up and let's have a conversation about it. So I you know job well done. Yeah. What what's like part part of what we're trying to do is create better coverage in the city than what we now have. Yes.

Part of that's going to be around commercial viability. Part of that's going to be around uh your commercial viability for the city as well as for um as well as for the you know whoever the the cell the cell phone provider uh you tell your network provider is going to be. What what are standards you know again back to one of the reasons why people haven't made an investment in Pleasanton over the past 20 years is because it's relatively difficult to do it here. what what are kind of typical standards if we're trying to get more in line with where the market is? Um what would be typical standards we would see in other in other areas uh around what that setback I'll call it a setback. I don't know if that's what it is, but let's call it because I think we understand what that means. Yeah.

What would it what would be a typical setback? Yeah. I'm going to defer to David because he's worked with jurisdictions up and down the state and probably out of the state.

Sure. So for for macro facilities like this um you know again it all depends on the community and their goal. But um you know higher than 100 feet it may be 250 ft to 500 ft. It all just depends on um the exact you know situation trying to be regulated. So, um you know, it sounds like staff here has has looked and um you know, perhaps a larger um distance from residential units may have the effect that hey, it can't even go on the church steeple because there's a a home 500 ft away from the church. Um you know, so uh I I think that's part of what led to the the 100 ft. But, you know, to to answer the question, you know, an increased range, you might see something from 250 ft to 500 ft.

Yeah. So, I guess I'm not I'm not good with visualization. Um uh you know, but as I think of the number of neighborhoods that are basically residential only we have and you think of like where it is likely to be able to go. There might be a commercial building interspersed or there's going to be a park or there's going to be a school, right? Or or a church and that's kind of it. And there's not even many of those neighborhoods there even going to be that much in the way of commercial property. It's really going to be a school or a church or a park or a water tank or a water tank. That's why.

So, so the the practical implications I I'm all for like how do we make sure we have the right amount of distance, but I don't I don't know how to do the math on those neighborhoods, what what the right amount of space like is with 250 ft or 500 feet, we may not even be able to get something in there. Well, I I just I have

Yeah. The the the best the easy way for I that I explain it to people is think of a football field. Every everybody can visualize everybody goes to high school football. Everybody can visualize the length of a football field that's 300 feet, right? So, that's a really good way to set yourself. It's like, oh, I'm next to the school. There's the football field. It, you know, 300 feet not that far, you know. So um and but it's far enough away that if it's you know so the three the football field's kind of a good a good circumference um or I'm not circum diameter radius away from you um you know and then then I was thinking it's like okay wait well if we if if we happen to set it at 300 feet and people only get notified if they're within 300 feet does that mean if the if you can't get closer than 300 feet to somebody and you get notified at 300, then you're you're kind of cutting out a lot of scenarios.

Yeah. Like like I I I said, we I looked at Google Earth. I spent a lot of time looking at Google Earth and using that ruler to try and figure out you know knowing where some coverage gaps are in town. And so I just was trying to be practical about it and looked at some church sites, did some measuring from the closest house, pulled it over and uh 100 feet does give more flexibility and and again uh 300 feet might put it plunk in the middle of a park. That's where the playground is. That didn't work.

So at a church, the same thing. It might be. It just depends on the on the lot and and staff is going to and our outside consultants are going to try and put it in the best place possible, right? Whether it's on the school on a rooftop behind parapits, whether that's in a steeple of a church, the parks are a little trickier for me to conceptualize other than a than a faux tree, but you know, we could get creative presumably. So, I think that's really why we landed on the hundred as opposed to pushing it out more is

well, it's it's actually the same as when we were talking about um when we were changing the statutes for height um in our um infill projects and how close they were to, you know, we were always concerned about, okay, well, if we set if we set a minimum too high, then we're we're taking something out of your guys's hands. And I think that that may be how we look at it is okay, it's at 100. Nobody really wants it at 100. Um, and it's discouraged and it's going to be highly reviewed if it's submitted that way. And then everybody's going to take a look at it and go, we've got to find a different way to do this. But if we set it at 300,

there may be great locations shorter than 300, but now we've just taken them out of the ball game and we can't even talk about it. So why are we restricting ourselves when we know it's going to get reviewed by so many different levels that we hope it's not going to get to that point?

I think the way I read it, it's not like a restriction. It's rather a discouragement. So there's not like a hard line in the policy which says you cannot have at 100 ft or less. Right? So it is uh discouraged locations in the so there's preferred and there's ranking and then there's discouraged and there's ranking and the le the most discouraged legal location is any location where the wireless facility would be within 100 ft of a residential dwelling unit. So, and they can only get that if they can um I'm looking up above. When no preferred location is technically feasible and potentially available, they may propose a wireless facility in a discouraged location. And if it must be placed in a discouraged location, the applicant shall use the least discouraged location up higher that is technically feasible and potentially available. So they can't go there unless they've already shown that they can't do

up the chain. Yeah. It's really a it is a last resort. That's not where we and they're not going to want they they don't want the push back either. The carriers if there's a a a better location or parcel. This is really for as I see it. This is really for those our our neighborhoods, right? are residential neighborhoods where there's just no there's water tanks, churches, schools. That's why we open those up. Before those weren't open and now now they are. So that's um

so so what what I'm what I uh I hear kind of the points what what I'm struggling with is how do we balance we've been going for a while so I want to try to bring this to a close. Um, I want to try to balance making sure we're protecting, you know, our neighborhood and the unique character of the city and what the residents want with the very real fact that we have got to do something better about cell phone, you know, cellular coverage in the city, right? Like those are both really kind of important things. And the thing that I struggle with, you know, as I often do in these in these kind of situations is I'm just not smart enough to figure out like what the scenario is going to be where something's going to come back. how how that's going to play out. And so where I end up leaning is I think kind of to the to the point that um uh Julie you you were making which is if we've got a process around disfavoring certain things but in the right scenario it's something that we can at least consider that feels like it gives us the flexibility to not end up with a something that's just an absolute no and then we can't do anything. I I don't know if 100's the right, but I don't know. I after that, I'm just picking I'm just picking a number. I could say 150, but like why does that feel better? Because it's bigger. And so so I don't know. I don't know. You know, without kind of doing the work around actually trying to measure and figure it out. I, you know, my my instinct would be um, you know, when the city council gets to review this to have the city council kind of maybe ask this question again and say like what would the impact be? Um, and may maybe there'll be a little bit more opportunity to kind of think about some specific neighborhoods, but I'm pretty worried about some of the neighborhoods we have where there's there's no commercial property in there. So, if you're not putting it in the middle of a park to satisfy that, you know, the setback requirements, you know, and that you can't force it on a church, right? Like that's private

property. So, what are we left with? A water tower maybe, but a lot of those neighborhoods don't have water towers either. It it doesn't leave us with many options. And so I'm I'm inclined to kind of give some discretion to the city using the criteria uh you know that that that the um that Julie that you kind of listed for us so that we we give ourselves some flexibility and then maybe this can come back for the city council and they can articulate maybe with a little more data they can come up with something that's a little more nuanced. That that's my inclination.

Yes. So I think I'm proposing two amendments. I motion to amend uh approve with the two amendments. U the first amendment is from noticing period to the public input. There should be at least 30 days on macro towers. U and the second amendment is the notices go out to 500 ft from the boundary of proposed wireless facility. Yeah. I support those. What do you think, Commissioner Jgo?

Um, if I was going to say 20 days, but I I think we're just bouncing it around. But, um, if you guys are both for that, I can I can totally see that. I do have a question though. Um I if extending it to from 3 to 500 is that a significant amount of work cost to our city staff. I'll let I'll let them I'll let them answer. But Jenny's doing math.

Well, while Jenny's doing math, you know, you've seen some denser populations and some you know it's a few more parcels. Sometimes it's a lot more parcels. Yeah, in apartments then we notice all the tenants as well.

I I think it's going to be a big tower. Even if it's on a rooftop, it's concealed. That's fine. But there will be situations where it I don't want to differentiate between each types otherwise you have a policy which is very specific. So I'm just saying as a rule of thumb for macro towers to 500 um and 30 days from the time you send out the notice that there's a application we let people and what I'm hearing is it will take way longer than 30 days. Nothing gets done in 30 days for macro towers. And I think we also have to realize that we're not they're not getting a lot of applications, right? This is not like you've got 500 coming in in a year. You get one a year, two a year. Hopefully now we'll get like three or four. Um so I I'd be I'd be in favor of that.

Yeah. So I I think we are. So I think we have a pending motion which is to approve these uh recommendations with the modification for the macro wireless facilities to increase uh correct me if I get this wrong to increase the period of time for the public to respond from 10 days to 30 days and to increase the range for the notice to be sent out to the public from 300 feet to 500 feet. So that that's the pending motion and do we have a second? I'll second the motion. Okay. All in favor? I I I

Any opposed? Okay. It's unanimous. Let's take um a short break. Thank you to everyone. Thank you to the staff. Uh this is really important for the city. Appreciate all the feedback um both in this meeting and otherwise to do this. Let's take a quick break and then we'll start uh maybe in just like three or four minutes uh on the on agenda item five. Thank you, David. Thank

All right, great. Thank you for your patience. Appreciate having everybody back. We're going to go to uh this is Bill Planning Commission for March 25th. We're going to go to item number we're going to turn on my microphone. This is planning commission. Uh we're continuing the meeting. We're going to go to item number five. Thank you for the reminder. Uh which is uh PUD 25-02M uh which is PUD modification for uh for property on Vista Oaks. Uh Mr. Eric, you got the ball?

Yes. Thank you, Chair Pace. I appreciate it and good evening to you and the other members of the commission this evening. Uh, as you mentioned, the request tonight is an appeal of the zoning administrator's denial of a PUB minor modification to reduce the street sideyard setback um from 20 ft to 8 ft in order to accommodate the construction of an approximately 360 foot 10-ft tall detach accessory structure uh on a corner lot within Lond Ranch or the Diamond Canyon subdivision and as mentioned specifically at 1011 Vista Oaks Court. Uh staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution tonight that recommends that the council uh deny the appeal and uphold the ZA denial of case number PUD-25-2M. Uh just in terms of the regulatory framework around this application, uh as mentioned in the agenda report, the planning commission is responsible for forwarding a recommendation to the city council uh based on your determination as to whether the required minor PUB modification findings can be made. Uh per the agenda report, the ZA and staff have concluded that none of the required findings can be made due to inconsistencies with the PUD 25 objective development standards and adverse streetscape and neighborhood character effects. Uh some of the key themes related to those in inconsistencies include uh that the PUD25's condition of approval number 14 specifically requires a 20 foot street sideyard setback for corner lots which is intentionally adopted by the city council to preserve the streetscape design and the aesthetics and to apply uniformly throughout the subdivision. Additionally, the street sideyard setback reduction request is less than the minimum required 10- foot interior sideyard setback uh development standard for the subdivision and that all property owners were provided CCNRs by the developer that included the approved objective development standards and they required to sign disclosures acknowledging receipt of the of said CCNRs.

Uh just for some locational context, uh the subject site is notated here with a red marker. Uh the the home itself fronts and faces on Vista Oaks Court and the street side of the subject property uh where the proposed accessory structure would be located abuts the EVA lane that connects connects uh both Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace. Uh as you can also see in this image, all other corner lots have similar street sideyard setbacks to the subject as a subject lot regardless of whether they abut an EVA or they are on a primary street. Uh, additionally, and as noted in the agenda report, the city council required the subdivision developer to construct this EVA uh, corridor adjacent to the subject property to address project traffic impacts uh, by directing new vehicular trips away from Lund Ranch Road and toward the Sunset Creek Lane extension uh, which would serve the easterly lots of the subdivision. Uh, the city council did not indicate that the EVA corridor would alter the applicability of the PED development standards for the subject parcel as a corner lot. Accordingly, the ZA and staff both concur that all PUD 25 objective development standards remain applicable including the 20 foot street sideyard setback for the detached accessory structure. Uh also wanted to provide this perspective for the planning commission uh as it uh provides probably the closest uh street level view that I can get off of Google. Um the proposed accessory structures location is shown there uh in the red circle. Uh and uh you can see the visibility of it uh as you enter the subdivision from Lond Ranch Road. And then moving over to the backside of the subject property, this is a view um from Spree Creek Terrace uh which actually sits higher uh than the current project site. So this is kind of looking down as you come down Spree Creek Terrace from uh towards the subject property. Uh for a little bit more context, uh these images provide an overall site

plan as well as an enlarged site plan of the proposed project. Uh as shown here, the proposed detached accessory structure would be located in the upper right hand corner of these images uh and be set back approximately 8 feet from the property line and approximately 13 ft from the edge of the EVA lane between Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace. Uh, as mentioned, the proposed accessory structure is about 360 ft in total area and is about 10 ft tall. Uh, it's designed as an outdoor kitchen and storage facility. Uh, it features traditional architectural style, a stucco exterior finish, and a lowprofile slope roof, all of which would be complimentary to the existing residence. And then just for the commission's reference, a full site plan and design details of the structure itself are available in exhibit B to the agenda report. Uh, transitioning now over to the ZA findings for denial. Uh, for finding one, summarily, the ZA found and staff concurs that the 20 foot street sideyard setback was intentionally established to create a visual buffer, subordinate accessory structures, and preserve the neighborhood's visual openness and attend an intended semi-ural character. Uh reducing the minimum street sideyard set back to 8 feet, which is less than uh even the subdivision's minimum 10- foot interior sideyard setback for accessory structures would make the would make the structure more prominent and diminish the open landscape corridor as well as reduce the potential for increased landscaping on the subject property to further enhance this aesthetic. Uh the reduction in setback could also potentially affect visual sight lines along the EVA. There we go. Uh, sorry, I think it skipped over. There we go. Uh, so for finding two, uh, again, the ZA and found and the staff concurs that condition of approval number 14 deliberately set more restrictive detached accessory structure setbacks, uh, for 20 to 20 feet for uh, corner lots and to help preserve the

visual aesthetics and the subdivision's semi-ural character. Uh again, an 8-foot setback conflicts with the adopted PUD framework uh which is intended to apply uniformly across the subdivision and to all corner lots and would not be and would not be granted if this were a standard interior lot within the subdivision. Uh and again that was established at 10 ft. Uh granting this appeal would effectively amend a core standard without a broader PUD level policy review used to adopt it and also would be as part of the neighborhood design. Uh for findings three through five, summarily again the ZA found and staff concurs. Uh regarding compatibility, uh there are other comparable corner lots within the subdivision uh such as 1012 Vista Oaks Court, 2192 Countryside Court, and 2175 Shadow Creek Court, which would all be expected to maintain the same 20 foot uh required street sideyard setback. Uh thus, the 8-oot proposed setback would be incompatible with surrounding development. Uh regarding site conditions, this lot is generally flat like most lots uh at least the the buildable area parts of the lots within the subdivision. Uh so there are are no unique grading or engineering constraints required requiring uh reduced setback or precluding the accessory structure from being located elsewhere on the property and within the prescribed setback standards. And then lastly, regarding streetscape, the 20- foot setback requirement was adopted to maintain separation and reinforce a consistent residential edge for the subdivision. Reducing it to 8 ft would diminish this buffer and disrupt the visual rhythm of the neighborhood. And then for our last two findings, six and seven. Uh summarily the ZA found and staff concurs that even if building and fire code compliance is achievable, the setback reduction raises broader corridor design and sighteline considerations addressed in the original PUB standards. The PUD standards were adopted through a comprehensive public

uh review process uh by both the planning commission and the city council and they were intended to preserve the neighborhood character and and um create a consistent development pattern. And then lastly, there is a precedent risk here uh as no detached accessory structures have been improved within this subdivision uh that modified the street sideyard setback. Uh so uh a deviation to 8 ft would be a significant departure uh and potentially erode the PUB framework over time. Uh this last slide just uh starts to address briefly some of the appellants key points in their appeal. Um the applicant notes that the proposed accessory structure is a low-profile open design complementaryary to the existing residence. Uh staff and the ZA do not disagree uh with that assessment. However, the the design itself does not resolve the fundamental conflict with condition of approval number 14 and the adopted development standards for the subdivision. Uh while the applicant has also correctly pointed out that the subject property is located next to an EVA lane, uh the city council uh was clear that they intended that all PUD25 development standards be applied uniformly uh throughout the subdivision and the subject properties adjacency to a city council required EVA did not exempt them from that. And then lastly, regarding um the applicant's request to just impose sight specific conditions in this case, uh staff believes that that is actually probably fairly impractical to do. Um the council's intent when adopting adopting the uniform applicability of the development standards uh you know was was purposeful and in this case if we oppose sight specific conditions, it could open the door for future applicants to seek the same setback relief. So just in summary again, the planning commission uh must determine and recommend to the city council whether the required findings for a minor PUB

modification can be made. Uh if the planning commission determines the proposal is inconsistent with condition of approval number 14 and PUD25 overall um then the city excuse me the planning commission should recommend that the city council deny the appeal and uphold the ZA's denial. Alternatively, if the planning commission uh determines the accessory structure and design and the uh all the other conditions that are currently present with the proposal are appropriate, uh they could uh decide to grant the appeal uh and recommend that to the city council. Uh if the planning commission goes that route this evening, uh staff would uh request very specific language uh in making each of the seven findings from the commission this evening. And if that's not an option that at some point in the future staff would return back to you with a revised resolution uh for approval with those revised stand uh findings, excuse me. So again, staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt uh the resolution as proposed tonight by staff uh which is a denial of the appeal and upholding of the ZA denial of case number PUD-25-2M. Uh just briefly, the property owner uh Mr. Tong Tong, I hope I didn't butcher that, is here as well as his contra contractor, Gabriel. Um, they don't have a presentation formally for commission, but they are happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thanks. Sure. Uh, do we have any questions for uh Eric? Um, just real quick, u can you talk a little bit about EVA versus regular street? Like what's the difference?

Sure. And I'm going to actually flip to uh let me give me one sec here. This is probably the best shot. So, yeah. So, the original plan for Lond Ranch was um one way in, one way out. Uh and that was an extension of the existing Lund Ranch Road. Uh and as shown in this photo here, uh where you see that kind of narrowing of Lund Ranch Road, that actually was intended to be the same width as Lund Ranch Road and and push all the way through the subdivision to what is now known as Spring Creek Terrace. Uh during the public hearing process, uh there was a lot of pressure on on the council and on the decision makers about traffic specifically from the neighbors that are to the generally the west of the Lund Ranch project site. Uh so the alternative that was uh come up with was one that the we would split the traffic impacts throughout by extending Spring Creek Terrace uh on the south side of the site. build an extension in and then they would do this EVA kind of pass through to uh basically to meet public safety requirements to to to have to have better circulation and that sort of thing. Uh so you see the narrowing there and that sort of thing. But at no time during that process did the council say it doesn't mean development standards don't continue to apply as is and this is simply kind of a way for us to deal with the impacts of traffic and pull some of the pressure off of the existing neighborhood next to Lund Ranch and then uh also through the um I'm sorry I forget the name of the homeowners association but where Spring Creek Terrace was extended uh to kind of just split those trips in half and again we're talking about 46 homes it's not a ton of cars but there was enough political pressure at the time and this project was 20 years in the making. So, uh, this kind of helped get it over the

finish line. And right now there's a bullard or something. Correct. So, they have removable ballards at at either end of that. Um, occasionally those come down, especially when there's uh still construction uh occurring, but generally speaking, those would be uh ballard that would be installed and be removed by a fire department or ambulances as necessary should there be an emergency. Okay, maybe I'll have more questions after applicant present, but thank you.

Um, the question I have is the house that is basically facing this sideyard. Where are the Ballards? Because it looks like their driveway comes into the EVA. Yeah, so the ballards are actually that that's a very good question. So they actually on the in this shot this the the edge of the EVA closest to us the ballers are right at that edge. Okay. On the far end there in this photo they actually are uh pulled forward some because as you as you mentioned the driveway for that particular lot is is is indented there uh into what?

Right. That was yeah, that was my big question because this is kind of in my wheelhouse because um I I did large scale planning for projects just like this and EVA's emergency vehicle access points are you know not usually this open um you know to the to the site view. It's usually kind of at the back end of a project that you have to get an extra exit out. So, this is a little non I don't see it a lot, but the the big kicker is it's basically the front yard of that home directly across from the applicant's location,

right? And that I think speaks directly to the council pressure at the time is kind of designing from the DAS in that respect and well, let's put an EVA there to solve one problem, but the loting pattern, you know, kind of held true. So, yeah. Um, so that yeah, that was that was my main question. Um, okay. I don't I don't have questions from staff at this time. So, does the applicant want to say anything? Contractor, any anything you have any comments that you'd like to make in response to any questions? No. Okay. All right. So, we'll we'll close the the public hearing and then we can we can ask comments and have a discussion up here. Yeah. Mayor.

Yeah, please. U so I think in the staff summary report it talks about a pool going in. So that was approved. Was that part of the same package? Like can can you talk a little bit about the chronology of events? Was everything submitted at the same time? Like how how did the designer miss it?

Yeah. And so I will speak um from what I know of that um because I was not part of that part uh initially, but my understanding is that the pool was designed and submitted separately to our building division and was ultimately approved and permits for pulled construction started uh before I before the the accessory structure application came into us. I as I understand from the applicant, it wasn't until after the fact did their architect realize that there was a conflict with setbacks. Uh and then we walked them through the process while there is a you know there is a modification process you might be able to go through but support probably wouldn't necessarily be there because it's quite a deviation. But yeah, and maybe the applicant is can speak to it a little bit more. But uh you know ideally and how it's worked with most of the lots out there, they've master planned their backyards out there uh which is why staff made the mention in the staff report as well about uh CCNRs being provided, the conditions of approval being provided early on in the in the purchasing process and disclosure signed to acknowledge receipt of those. So um you know and again too the artfront counter is always open. Our phones are available. So uh you know you know whether the architect missed it or the right questions weren't asked at the time something slipped up and the pool went ahead of the accessory structure. Um I mean in a perfect world if you read the the little excerpt of the of condition of approval number 14 um I think it was exhibit D or E to the staff report one of the two. that swimming pools can be within 10 ft of of the property line regardless if it's a corner lot or not. Um so um ideally they could have shifted the pool much closer to where the accessory structure is to be located and then put the accessory structure on the opposing side and unfortunately just uh cart before horse. It didn't it didn't happen that way. And um

so so what you're saying and I'm just trying to make sure I understand u the pool application came separately to building department. Yep. At that time there was no mention of the accessory structure to to my knowledge. Yes. I I again I picked this up from another planner who's out on maternity leave. So at least in as as my understanding of the chronology is yes. That's how it worked is the pool permit was pulled, construction was started, and then we received the the issue with the with the accessory structure. So, what was it built? Is it built? Uh, it's still under construction, right? The swimming pool is still under construction.

Okay. U and in terms of just the approvals we it's not like we approved something and then you know building department approved and then it came to planning right I mean we we would be reviewing and responding to what are on the set of plans in front of us and so uh again I did not do the plan check for the swimming pool myself but if it was only a pool shown on the plans that's what we would have responded to at the time. Okay. I think the second question I have is related to the professional working on this project. Is it like a licensed architect who submitted?

Um, I only met him but via telephone, Tim Nestro, and unfortunately he's not here this evening, so I honestly don't know. He does have a stamp on on the plan, so I assume he's a a licensed architect, but um I don't want to speak to the status of commission or put words in his mouth. So you you you have been feeling I I have a lot of comments on this one. Yeah. So before you submit something, the first thing you would probably expect an architect to do is look at the setbacks. What are the requirements?

Correct. So you you do not need to be a licensed architect to submit a project like this. So you can be a drafter, designer, anybody because it's a it's an accessory structure single family home. You don't need to be licensed. your structural engineer has to be um but anybody could have designed this but yes it doesn't matter in in our world we and we see this unfortunately a lot is you don't do 100% of your homework or or that that that would be the first question you would ask what are my setbacks um what can I can't I do and where um and and yes exactly u c can we ask question from applicant or

we need to we'd have to reopen uh So, let let's just see if we have any other comments. We want the I don't want to keep opening and closing. So, let's just make sure there's nothing else you want. I do not I do not have any questions for the applicant. No. Okay. So, let's let's uh pause and uh open for public comment. Is there anything you'd like to respond to here just given what you've heard? We're not going to keep opening and closing. So, this will be your chance to say whatever you'd like to say so we get it on the record. You you you're invited to speak. You don't have to. It's entirely up to you. Great. So, so come on up. Yep. Great. Thank you.

Hello. Okay. Yeah. Uh, two things I want to uh mention real quick. Um, first one uh to address your question about the uh uh why we submit two permit because I uh we would I I thought that um I was told that um uh it would take longer time to get the pool finished and get the pool permit. So, we we can like you know do it two separately. That's why we put the uh pool submit the pool permit first and then we do that one after. Um if I knew I I just want you to know that like I didn't purposely do two permits like just to make things more confusing just because I was told oh it's easier to do it that way we can do it so we can get the pool started the pool job started first and then uh the rest later. So that's the first thing. Uh and the second thing is I'm pretty sure it's a license our the uh the people uh because um at least I when I hire the company they told me their license. So if not then there's a really really big misunderstanding or problem that like you know I I hope it's not. So and then the rest I'll have my contractor to like you know uh speak for it. Yeah. Thank you.

May I ask a question? Yeah let's ask question. Um so when you planned the pool did you at that time have a plan for this accessory structure? Yes absolutely. So we uh I hired a designer and they do all the like you know the design for for me and then like the design uh I can still show you the video. Uh they have like you know everything uh uh you know the the accessory structure the um the fry pit the uh the pool um yeah the cabana things like that. So uh absolutely have everything there. So I'm I'm surprised why they won't submit at that time the whole package. I'm I'm not the pro so I don't I really don't know. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for him? I have no questions.

Okay. All right. Do you go ahead if you want to uh So you're the contractor? Yes. Okay. Great. I'm the project manager. Okay, great.

Uh, so I work for Green. I'm the leading project manager for this team. Um, now when we received this project, we received it from an designer when he gave us the the all the old package. Now, as part of the permitting process, we have to do the pool permit separately than the any other landscaping. So, it's just uh we had uh our pool guy Kevin, he's basically from KBN pool. He's the subcontractor that doing the pool. Submitted the pool and got the the plans actually relatively quick like within two weeks we got the permit. But since then uh we dig the pool, we passed inspection and for 6 months we are not continue to doing the work and um dealing with this setback. And once the architect was uh working um our architect worked initially on the plan he didn't see any red flags any nothing was popping out from 20 ft setback specifically about this corner lot only when we submitted the permit then the comments back about the pod modification and from my understanding too uh the city staff was recommending actually for this uh being approved by the city council so I'm not sure why the again the plan checker and you know

Yeah. Okay. That's I mean they're saying they didn't recommend approval so that and that's why we're here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any any questions for the contractor? U sorry I think is there a I don't know how far you are in the process but is there a possibility to relocate like flip the pool and the cabana or that's uh like what stage are you in? It's basically reversing the work but uh you have already dug the pool and

concrete poured. I just need to do the plaster and connect the pool equipment. It's really in a process of f I'm with the pool I'm 70% done 80% done. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um and I have pictures and videos shows. So but so part part of the process would be to have looked at the CCNRs and the and the code when when the typical process when you are doing construction in a backyard or any other place would be to look at what these city codes require and what the CCNRs require. Right. Mhm. And so what the setbacks would have been, those would have been things you would have known when you were looking at those documents and then building your whatever you were going to do in the back in the backyard, right?

Mhm. Okay. And so you you I mean you had those documents when you were going through the process, the design process, right? The when we were working on we didn't design the actual uh that was a designer that referred us. We just got the design ready. You didn't check because you got the design. You didn't check kind of what the setbacks and so forth were. You just kind of We had the architect dealing with this as part of the because we had to actually do the plans. We just got the uh you know just architectural design but not uh Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah, of course. So, we'll close. Uh any anything else, sir? Uh I'm I'm just asking any questions because we're going to close it and then there won't be any more comments.

Please approve this. Okay, got it. Yeah, understood. Thank you. All right. Okay. So, we're going to close the the public the the public hearing and then we'll go to comment uh and then you know whatever the uh respective motion will be. Commissioner Jgo, go ahead.

Okay. I'll try and keep this um short. I totally understand the situation that happened. Um uh just to let you guys know, I've been in the I own an architecture firm for 32 years and I this is what I do and have done over the years. I also am involved over the years in writing um design review guidelines, setbacks, PUB requirements, and that's part of what I did. And I've also reviewed it for cities and for neighborhoods. So, this is not new to me. Um the the problems are the the setbacks are black and white, right? And when they're set for a subdivision and either whether a gated community or not, they're there for a reason. And I think the the unfortunate part is once you deviate, you've now cracked the window. Um and and and as it's kind of like unless there's an act of of of something that's that you you can't you can't go against him because everybody else that's bought into that project has has realized that I'm buying into this project because I have restrictions and things aren't going to be built that I don't want and I know what those things are and everybody signs and everything, right? So, it's it's unfortunate that it's a black mark on whether that person's a registered architect or a designer in my profession. It's a terrible black mark on their end because that should have been literally the first thing I do is I go down to the planning department and I find out before I even design the project or even show my client anything, what are my restrictions? Step one, you do not you don't put pen to paper until you know what you can and cannot do. Okay? So, somebody failed you miserably. Um, and that was your designer. Um, but unfortunately because you've created a problem with

your design, it's not upon us to fix it. Um, you can't regulate based on an error. Um, and unfortunately because this sideyard it's the it's facing the front yard of the house across which is not fair to them. It's obstructing views and nobody else is allowed to do it. I I I can't see how we we or anybody else should be able to allow it only because it there's nothing arbitrary when it comes to this. I mean, it's it do I want you to be able to build it? Yes. Would I want to? Yes. But I would have known I couldn't do that. And you know this is this this becomes you you and your architect need to have a discussion because they failed you. Um but unfortunately in a in a very crass way of saying it is but that's not our fault and and and we can't allow it because it doesn't meet the guidelines of the whole subdivision. Because if I'm anybody else in that subdivision and I see this go up then I'm going to go well what happened? Why couldn't I do that? and and then you open the floodgates. Um and and in a subdivision like this, this is why you write these guidelines so this does not happen and it's not allowed. And so that's that's I mean unfortunately when I read through this I totally knew I mean I could see myself in your in your shoes. The unfortunate thing is you know it should have been designed better and it should have been moved around and they should have come in and and recognized that they couldn't even show you that design. that would have never come across your your eyes. It would have been crumpled up and thrown away like we cannot do that. Um so it's a matter of you know we we've got into situations where the architect was put in a position and I don't ever advocate this of of fixing the problem or helping financially to fix the

problem if need be. And I've I've been I've experienced those kind of things. But unfortunately, I don't think it should be allowed because of the black and white requirements of the subdivision. And if and that's that's pretty much kind of where I'm at and and only because I've done this a million times and I and I know how important these rules and regulations are. You just can't deviate from them. So that's that's my comment. Thank you, Commissioner J.

Yeah. Thank you. So u I think first of all I think you probably have a liability against the designer as u you know commissioner Jgo suggested. I'm not going to comment on that. U it was a simple fix on paper like you move the pool on this side and the cabana on the other side problem solved. U it is much harder to fix once you put things in the ground. I would say it's not a total lost cause. I'm sure if it was the other way around and you can check with the zoning administrator or whoever is your planning uh partner u to figure out if there's an alternative proposal which could work. So if what we're trying to say is pools have a less restrictive setback requirements than an accessory structure. Uh so if you or your designer came earlier or even if they come now and they propose an alternative plan uh where things are flipped um and I don't have all the technical details that could be an option for you to pursue. Of course I'm assuming the decision here can be appealed with the council.

City council will decide it. We're just recommending the city council. Yeah.

All right. So I I think there are few options which you can pursue. It's still not too late. You haven't put the foundation for the cabana. You haven't done landscaping work on that side. So you're probably 50% in but the other 50% you're not in. So instead of 100% your cost maybe 150% or something. I don't know. I'm just saying u the regulations are pretty clear here. There are some exceptions which will be for ADUs and I don't know if that applies in this case that doesn't right like this is not a ADU it's a accessory structure it's not a dwelling unit. Uh so accessory dwelling units which are built for housing they have uh some exceptions from setbacks but in this case this is a this is not under that classification. So based on what we see on paper as rules and regulations for this lot, it it's in my opinion what zoning administr administration is doing is the right thing. And you don't want neighbor next door to you uh coming and you know putting up another excess structure. U so if everyone in the community does that it becomes a problem. So I I would agree with what Commissioner Jgo said and we all acknowledge there's some fault of the designer here. U so I'll just uh finalize uh these are always difficult decisions um because we're impacting you know we all live in Pleasanton and and um and you know when we see things happening where obviously no one meant to do the wrong thing it makes these decisions incredibly difficult um um in your shoes I would be you know as

worried and as concerned and as frustrated as as I'm sure um you feel um the The process to create this location with these homes took a really long time and was heavily negotiated between the developer and the city. And there were very specific rules around safety, around traffic concerns, around public support and everything else. And so, um, it's terrible when we get these kind of requests in where we're seeing someone that's suffering and then we have to con, you know, debate kind of the public good versus kind of the private impact that this is having. And that those are the hardest decisions because you're seeing everyone is is is being impacted by this. But the reality is is there was huge amounts of work. I'm not sure what that was. We Okay. Okay. Um, uh, there was a huge amount of work that went into building something that would be uniform and understood by the homeowners and that the city council in extensive conversation with the land owners or the other property interests that were around there would do to try to create something that was safe, obviously beautiful, um, and that would be that would be, you know, attractive for the new homeowners as well as the city. And so I I don't think we have heard enough here uh on this dis to kind of overrule the judgment of the of the city council unfortunately. So um that is uh that's a tremendous shame um because that that's going to impact you personally um and I and I wish we had a way to kind of grant it. What I would encourage you to do is commissioner Jane suggested is there could be some alternatives. you may not want to pursue them, but there could be some alternatives around other things you could build there if you really needed wanted to build something that may not have the same requirements. Obviously, it would change the use and it wouldn't be a cabana. But those are things we would encourage you to have a conversation with the with the with the staff around um should should you want

to do that, but I don't think we're going to be positioned here. Uh it sounds like we're unanimous here around around granting this exception. So, that would be our recommendation. We'll we'll do a vote and then you'll go to the city council. Um um and so I think that's where we'll sit. Do we have other comments before we vote? No. Okay. All right. I'll entertain a motion. So are there seven bullet items on the list? Can we just do one one big Okay.

The text in red is the re recommendation that will fully encapsulate all seven points. I will uh provide a motion that staff recommends that the planning comm uh that we adopt a resolution recommending the city council deny the appeal and uphold the uh zoning administration denial. I second. All right. Um so let's do a vote. All in favor? I I I.

Any opposed? All right. The uh motion passes unanimously to uh to recommend the city council deny the appeal. Um so good luck to you, sir. I'm I'm sorry it's worked out this way. Um and uh um good luck in your in your future endeavors. So that's going to close this item. So we're going to go on to uh matters for uh for commission's review. We'll go on to number seven, which is reports from meetings attended. Uh Commissioner Jgo, do you have any reports? I do not.

Okay. Uh Commissioner Jane. Um so there was a recent BPTC meeting. So if anybody is interested in uh how many accidents we had especially bike and pad kind of accidents uh there was a report published at the last meeting this week and um we will be uh making that public. Um so if anyone on the planning or in in the public interested in looking at what kind of accidents we are having what kind of fatalities the bike and pedestrian um involvement in some of those accidents please feel free to look at BPTC website. Thanks.

Thank you. Uh and I don't have any uh meetings attended. So future planning calendar uh Mr. Farmer thank you. First, as a reminder to the commission, thanks guys. Appreciate it. Good luck to you.

There is no scheduled planning commission meeting for April 8th. So, enjoy your time off. And then we do have a couple items for the future planning calendar likely heard on the April 22nd meeting. the Lester project which is going to be the planning commission's recommendation to the council on certification of the final EIR and all of the project entitlements as well as an appeal of a denial of an application for sign sign review to rebrand an existing 76 gas station and Circle K market to Shell Gasling and a fast fill market at 41 91 street. Thank you. I have something brief if I may.

We are fully staffed in the city attorney's office. Again, we hired uh Katie Wisinski and she you'll probably be seeing her at your next meeting together. Um lots of land use experience and she was a city attorney uh for the city of Brentwood most recently, but worked with many cities and I know you you guys are going to like her. Thank you. We will appreciate your service as always, uh, Julie, and, uh, and we'll miss you, but we're grateful we get to see you around. Um, uh, thank you. Uh, thanks for the update. Um, all right. So, do we have any matters initiated by commission members?

Um, no. I think the quick question, the SED report, was that published at the last council meeting or the one before? Was it like the housing commission? Sorry, that was uh at the council on uh March 13th. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Yeah, I I'll look at that meeting. I forgot which date it was, so was just curious. Thank you. Anything, Commissioner J? I have nothing. Okay. All right. Um we'll we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you everyone. Appreciate it. Staff, thank you as always. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Julie.