Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Shoot. Yeah. Was I've I've I've never done the same thing. Alright. We're gonna go on the air.

Good evening. Welcome to the City of Pleasanton Planning Commission for, 05/13/2026. We're in the city council chambers for the city. We're thrilled to have, so many of you here with us. We, are also, excited to, have this livestreamed as well for for anyone who'd like to participate, digitally. I completely forgot to ask someone to do the pledge. Do we have any volunteers for that? Dave? Okay. Commissioner Jago, please.

Thank you Commissioner. Alright, let's do the roll call. Okay. Please, thank you.

Commissioners Jago. Present. Jane?

Present.

Morgan is absent. Commissioner Wetch? Present. And chair Pace?

Thank you. Yeah.

I'm present. Quorum.

Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you. Derek, do we have any adjustments or amendments to the to the agenda?

No amendments this evening.

Thank you. Great. Thanks. Okay. So we're gonna go to the consent calendar. The consent calendar are items that are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is made by a member of the public or by a member of the of the planning commission. And so for a member of the public to to do that, they would need to submit a a speaker card. So we have two items that are in the consent calendar. We have the actions by the city council, which obviously would have been done in a separate meeting, and then the approve the minutes of this of this body from the 04/22/2026 meeting. Do we have any cards on this one?

No speaker cards received.

Do

we have any request from commission members to to con to discuss these items?

None from me.

Alright. Doesn't look like it. No. Okay. I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

I second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. So we're gonna go on to item number three, which is meeting open to the public. So for this, this is for items that a member of the public would like to speak on that are not on the agenda. So if you'd like to speak to something that's on the agenda, you will wait until we get to that item. This would be for something that you'd like to speak to this body about that is not on the agenda for this evening. So do we have any cards for for any items that are not on agenda for tonight?

No speaker cards were received.

Okay. Let me just make sure since we've got a lot of people in the audience, many of whom I don't recognize. They're probably here for the first time. Make sure. Okay. Alright. We're gonna close the the the open the the meeting open to the public. So we're gonna move on to agenda item four. This is public hearing on the Liberty Drive item P260136. And, miss Amos, you're up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, again, this is an appeal of a zoning administrator action, for an approximately eight hundred and sixty sixteen square foot single and second story addition to the west elevation of an existing two story home. To give you some context, this is the within the Shadow Cliff Village. Shadow Cliff is South of the East Bay Regional Park District land and to the east a little bit. There's a more open space. And then you have your single family detached homes more to the east and the southern side.

And then to the west, you have some manufactured homes to give you some neighborhood context. That's the smaller image that's shown in there. The grayish image gives you an overall view of Shadow Cliff to give you kind of the dynamics of the neighborhood. What you're looking at at this is generally where the property lines are, and those darker grays are building footprints, if you will. The Shadow Cliff development was done in the early eighties, was phased development in the late eighties, taken over by KB Holmes who did there it was a 200 unit subdivision.

KB Holmes ended up producing about, I think, a 138 of those units within it. The yellow dot shows the location of where the proposed project is. This gives you a little bit better view of how that dynamic looks in the neighborhood kind of in real time through our oral our aerial imaging, you can see that a lot of those lots appear to have these zero lot lines, but they aren't necessarily built to those property lines. There definitely is a different type of relationship out within the subdivision where there are some properties more on the northern and eastern side. And some of these corner lots that you can see in this image here that have a little bit more opportunity to develop if they choose to expand on their property.

Or you can see one of those other lots that are more to the east in this image. Most of their opportunity lays either in the front of the house or somewhat in the back of the house. This gives you the context of what that layout looks like. You have two images here. The one on the left shows the site plan layout, which gives you the dynamics of it being a corner lot.

The east elevation, will not have any expansion on it. What you'll see in this image as well is there's some setbacks that they've noted on there through some dash lines. There's also some easements along that line, limits the amount of development that can occur. It gives, the the second story addition is well within the setback requirements for the side yard, rear yard, front yard, and maximum floor area ratio. There is a side slide that I'll show you later that shows that dynamic to it.

And then also an overlay of what that will somewhat look like in relationship to the rear and neighboring properties. Again, it is an image. It's just overlaying on the site plan to give you some visual context of what's out in the neighborhood. What they're proposing, as you can see on this, is that the single story addition on the bottom is about 451 square feet in area. The second story addition above it is around 365 square feet, which gives you that 816 square foot total on top of that.

In this image, you'll see here the the dynamics of how it's broken up. It's not a a rectangle or a square, And this next slide shows you that floor plan layout. On the left, you'll see the existing floor plan of what's, currently out there. To the right, you'll notice that they're redoing their entryway, adding a new office, bathroom, and bedroom. And, it's it's broken up on those wall planes on that, west and south elevation and a little bit on that north elevation side of it.

For the second story addition, it's the same thing. There's the existing floor plan on the left, and you have the proposed floor plan on the right. You'll see that it still has that breakup along that wall and that massing. There's no windows on the southern elevations. Any windows that are proposed are facing the west on the street side or the north on the street side again. It's also including the bathroom and a bedroom. The dash line that you'll see on the proposed floor plan is where that new single floor plan layout will be. So it's not right on top of each other. There is some breakup that occurs with it. The next slide includes the elevation drawings.

We're on the left. You'll see how it exists today. And then on the right is what is proposed in terms of in plan form, it doesn't really translate, but there is some breakup in that wall massing. They're keeping with the same architectural style that's within the neighborhood and the existing home. They've broken up the massing by not having just a rectangular or a wall plane that's a part of it, and the roofline is a little bit lower than what's existing.

You can see that dynamic along the west elevation, which is this one here where the existing has that single wall plane that doesn't have a lot of breakup to it. But on the the addition that they're doing, again, it'll have that breakup dynamic, same color and materials, well within the height requirements and the setbacks for their particular lot within the development. This is the south elevation, which is facing the rear neighbors. You'll see that there's no new windows on that south elevation. And, again, that breakup in that wall, which doesn't necessarily translate sometimes in plan form, but those those lines that are on there show that it does have that breakup that you saw on the floor plan as well.

The next slide gives you the zoning conformance standards. What's laid out here is the floor e ratio, building heights, setback requirements, and the open space requirements specific for this planned unit development. The PUD requirements, you'll see on that middle slide or a portion of it, and then on the right, you'll notice the proposed part of it. Their maximum floor ratio, are within. Floor area ratio is calculated, and we have a definition in our municipal code that it's gross habitable square footage.

So it does not include any attic space or garage space because that is not habitable square footage. So when you take the habitable square footage and divide it by your lot size, they are within that maximum 40% that's allowed. There are other homes in the development that do exceed 40%. They were either developed that way or had done additions in the past. So there have been other expansions within the development itself. Their front yard setback doesn't have much of a change. They're still meeting the minimum or exceeding those requirements. There's no change to that east side yard setback. The rear yard setback is at 15 feet. I will note that the existing house is around 13 feet, so it's legal nonconforming.

So they're actually stepping it back to meet those requirements. And a part of getting that 15 feet is that you have to maintain at least 850 square feet or 700 square feet of open space in the rear yard where they're maintaining 850 square feet. And their street yard side yard setback is a minimum of 10 feet, and they have it at 17 feet six inches. Staff's recommendation is to affirm the project meets the findings in the Pleasanton Municipal Code, which are outlined in exhibit a, and deny the appeal thereby upholding the zone administrator's approval of the project subject to the conditions of the approval. What staff will present to you next are those findings that the commission has to be that commission has to made based on the scope of the work that's being presented before you, that it's in the best interest of the public health and safety, that the site plan elements, including the open space setbacks and design of it are consistent with the the house and the neighborhood itself, and that the plan requirements of the municipal code and any other applicable standards are being met at this time.

That's staff's presentation. I'm available for any questions that you might have.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. I appreciate the thoroughness, as usual and and also the the context about, how this fits within the what the municipal code requires. Do we have questions for, Natalie at this time? Maybe I'll start with commissioner Diego.

This is just, I think, for everybody's information, and that is the 40% floor area ratio. I'm very well versed in that, and I understand how it works. I think there has been a question from certain parties that there's a some random 48% or something like that. And I think it's just very, I just wanna confirm you did answer that the garage is not included and never has been part of the floor area ratio. Is there anything in this subdivision that would be different than the the main, requirements in the city of Pleasanton?

I mean, the setbacks are a little bit different what we refer to in the our straight zoning district, like an R 165 and R 10. But for the most

just part the floor area ratio.

So just the floor area ratio at 40%. It's just then they are they are at 40%. Right.

That's all I had. Okay.

Commissioner Jane. Yeah. Thank you. So, this has not come to us as a ADU. Right? Like, this has come as a addition to an existing house?

Correct. It has not come forward as an ADU.

Thank you. Commissioner Wedge?

I had my questions answered earlier. Great.

Thanks. Okay. I don't have further questions. So what we're gonna do at this point is we're gonna open this up for public comment. I understand the appellant may have something on this they would like to present on. So so that let's we're gonna talk about the procedure here so so we can all be clear. So the way this works is the applicant or the appellant will get ten minutes to make a presentation. And then anyone else that would like to speak, they will get three minutes. And then at the end of that period of time, the applicant will get five minutes to kind of do any kind of response they would like to over the course of time. The dialogue though is between the speaker there and with us.

There won't be any engagement between people that are sitting in the audience. So if you like to speak, you can come forward and speak and you'll speak this way to us. And that's how we'll we'll manage this. And then at the end of that, we assuming that all questions have been answered between who who's ever speaking and and with us, then we're gonna close that part of it. And then we will speak here and make a and make a decision. K? So let's get started. Do we have

Deck real fast. Yeah. Because I I did say I would do this, and I completely forgot that there was some supplemental information that the commission was provided with

Yeah.

Yesterday, this morning, right before the meeting that you were presented with additional public comments. So just to let everyone know that, yes, the commission was provided with that information.

Thank you. Yeah. I I have a packet here of a whole bunch of material that we've received from from various different folks. So that's a great call out. There are different ways in which people can communicate with with us, with the city. They can send emails. They can obviously show up here. They can make phone calls. And so we do try to get as much of that as possible into the public record. We have a number of of correspondents here that we've received. I I don't know what the exact number is. Looks like it's several. Alright. So let's go to public comment. You wanna call up the the appellant?

Kate. Is it Kate? Katie? Kate? Yes.

Thank thanks for coming. You have ten minutes.

Good evening. My name is Yuktiri Nyutova, and I am the appealant for case p 260136. I'm here tonight to respectfully ask you to grant this appeal and overturn the zoning administrator's approval. I will show you tonight that this project is not only out of scale and character for our neighborhood, but that its approval stands in direct contradiction to the city's own recently stated principles. Our appeal is based on three fundamental grounds.

Let's begin with the first, the severe and irreversible harm this project will cause to my property and to my neighbor's property. This is not about numbers or zoning codes. This is about the place my family calls home. This is the reality of our home today. From our main master bedroom, we have a view of the open sky and the hills of Mount Diablo.

It fills our home with natural light. Our backyard is a sunny, open area where we love to spend our time. This sense of openness is why we chose this home, and we love it. This is what is at stake, and this is what will be permanently taken from us. To understand the severe and personal harm, let's start inside my home.

This is the current view from my master bedroom window, the natural light and open space we enjoy today. Now this is the applicant's official south elevation plan. This is the two story wall that will be built directly in front of that bedroom window, permanently blocking our light. The impact does not stop there. This is their north elevation plan, the view from the street.

The sheer scale and mass of this addition will essentially hide our home from view, dwarfing it and forever changing the character of the streetscape. So this massive project, a 58 increase to the living area, doesn't just take away view. It builds a wall in front of my bedroom and erases our home from the street. This is the direct and irreversible con consequence of this design. This devastating impact was approved based on what our research shows is a flawed and inconsistent administrative process.

As a resident, you expect the city's rules to be objective and clearly defined. Unfortunately, in this case, they were not. I will now show you two clear examples of these procedural failures. The first procedural failure is the city's inconsistent application of its standards for floor area ratio. On the one hand, ordinance eleven thirty nine sets a clear 40% limit.

The project claims to comply with this 40% number. So why is this an issue? It's an issue because the process itself is broken and arbitrary. The city planner for this project stated in writing that she believes that the limit is actually 48% based on a very informal memo from 1998. The fact that the planner can feel free to ignore a formal city council ordinance in favor of an informal memo shows a permissive and inconsistent mindset.

This is how oversight projects get approved. Next, the approval is based on inadequate and misleading shadow study. We acknowledge the city may have performed a quick single day video analysis, but the study done in the spring is scientifically incomplete. Any credible shadow analysis must be based on the winter solstice, which produces the longest and most damaging shadows. The city did not perform the critical analysis.

This unsteady winter shadows will eliminate our ability to install solar panels. They will cast our backyards in shadow for much of the day. And by blocking the natural winter sun, they will increase our energy costs. These procedural failures all point to, all point to an approval process that was arbitrary and inconsistent. And now I'll show you the most glaring inconsistency of all.

Our final point point is a call for the consistent application of the city's best planning principles. At the planning commission hearing just last month for case p twenty three zero four zero two, the city staff champion the core principles of good planning to protect another neighborhood. They argued for denial based on the principles of character based on the principles of character, scale, and precedent. We agree with with and applaud that position. We will now show how applying that same protective philosophy to our case leads to the same logical conclusion.

On March 25, the city champion the vital principle of neighbor neighborhood character. We applaud them for this. As their slide shows, they argued that the project must be compatible with the neighborhood scale. Now let's look at our neighborhood. Our physical survey proves that nearly 40% of the host homes in our specific section are single story.

Given this fact, the city's own principle dictates that this massive out of scale addition is fundamentally incompatible. Next, let's look at the city's own principle for appropriate scale and massing. On March 25, the city staff argued that a project must be denied if if its scale overwhelms adjacent properties. We agree completely. On the right is the applicant's plan for our property.

This massive 58% increase in the living area creates a two story wall that, by the city owns definition, overwhelms our adjacent homes due to its sheer scale and proximity on these small lots. Again, we are simply asking for the city's own principles to be applied consistently. On March 25, the city argued against a hypothetical risk of precedent. In our case, the precedent is a documented fact. The approval of this project will, without question, trigger a wave of similar projects that will permanently and negatively alter the character of our neighborhood.

This

brings us to the central question of principle for tonight. On March 25, the city staff showed us what good protective planning looks like. They agreed that core principles, character, scale, and precedent should be upheld. We agree completely. Our neighborhood is also unique and deserves that same thoughtful protection.

So the question is not whether the written rules are consistent. The question is whether the gilding philosophy of good planning should be consistent. Why should the core principles of good planning be applied so vigorously in one case but not in ours? All we are asking for that same commitment to protecting neighborhood character. If this commission denies our appeal, it does not end our options.

However, we demand at the minimum that you adopt as legally binding conditions of approval the full list of mitigations we have prepared to protect our families from the worst severe impacts of this construction. Accepting our mitigation plan is not a compromise. It is the absolute minimum the commission must do if it allows this harmful project to proceed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Do we have other, speaker cards on this item?

Yes. Let's see. I believe we have other presentations. Okay.

Michelle, do you wanna speak with your photos?

Please state your name.

Please bear with me tonight. I was up all night last night. My daughter delivered a baby boy.

That's wonderful. That's

word here and there because I am I'm also with lack of sleep as they are. She cannot be here tonight. She is living at 2906 Liberty Drive. It's the home that I own. And she wrote up a statement that we will have a member on our street read for you.

So like I said, my name is Michelle Tornagi. I'm the owner of 2906 Liberty Drive, and I'm here to respectfully appeal the approval of the 816 square foot second story addition at 2986 Liberty Drive behind our home. I am a 35 resident of Pleasanton, and I've seen lots of changes, some good and some not so good for our community. In this, I feel that this project is not consistent with the established character of our neighborhood. Our area is made up of tightly spaced homes that are different from some of the other homes that have half an acre and acres of land in their backyard.

We are used to modest scale and modest massing. To our knowledge, per HOA, this there has not been a two story addition ever before in our neighborhood. And that Like she said, this neighborhood was built in the nineteen eighties, and this is finally the first one that really will change the character of our neighborhood. Most of our homes in our neighborhood are in the 12 to 1,500 square feet. There's a couple of 2,000 plus, which this will be in the end, but those are usually along the backside of our neighborhood or the side of our neighborhood that don't have single story homes right behind their own home or next door.

Approving this project, the scale would set a new precedent and fundamentally change the visual harmony that has been established for the pattern in our neighborhood. My daughter and son-in-law did make a good effort to meet with the neighbors several times and to talk with them to work a compromise after we received the cards and notice of this two story addition that will severely impact our livability. They suggested, my son and daughter-in-law, maybe a single story home that wouldn't completely block out the whole entire left there will disappear. It'll be obliterated. There will be no sunshine.

And you can see there is a little house for my two year old granddaughter and my now newborn son. To be able to play in the backyard with a little sunlight, a little fresh air, a little skylight to look at will be completely obliterated. We're already used to looking at the blank wall behind us from their original home. We asked them if they could maybe shift up. You saw in the photos.

There's a big front yard there. And they didn't even use their whole set books setback space that was on her diagram that was 20 feet. They went a few feet more. My son-in-law who's an engineer for a company in San Francisco met with them with drawings and suggestions of where you can move at nine feet four forward so it wouldn't be right up next to our 15 foot fence line.

K. We are you're at time, so please finish up.

Alright. That was it. Alright. We're simply just asking for a more balanced solution, a single story compromise or a little bit of a pushback in the property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have

The I think the applicant should probably go next Yeah. If you're okay with that. So if don't know if Kurt or 300, which one of you wanna speak? You have ten minutes.

Do you want us to go now?

Let's may maybe let's let's let's have the other let's just Okay. Any do we have any other cards that are kind of on on the, I just wanna structure this to try to get as constructive a dialogue as we can. Do we have any other cards that are, for the appellant? If so, maybe we can have those two come up. Alright. So just call the call the names out, and then let's see who's gonna go.

Okay.

So we have let's see. We have Nazrat. Great.

Come on up, sir. Three minutes, please.

Alright. So I am the I'm a owner of a property in Shadow Cliff, and and I've lived in Shadow Cliff pretty much since the beginning of Shadow Cliff. I've lived there for thirty six years. I bought my property in early nineteen ninety, And I know this neighborhood better than probably I would say probably about 98% of the people who live there. And I've seen this neighborhood change over the years.

And I Michelle said most of the things that I wanted to say about the impact on the immediate neighbors, but I'm just speaking because I live in I also live in Liberty Drive, but then I don't, but but I'm not a immediate neighbor. So what I wanted to say was that it's just the character of this village. It's it's like I have never I've seen construction myself. I actually even added a a small room to my house. This was about three years ago, and I consulted with my neighbors because these these are zero lot properties.

So you really know your neighbors. You can hear your neighbors and everything. So I consulted my neighbors, and I discussed with them before doing any expansion. This design, I've studied this design myself. This design was it's a massive design. It's a massive I've never seen anything of this nature. I mean, I know my shadow clip very well. I've never seen any design of this nature. It's a completely a gigantic, you know, addition. And so, basically, the neighbors were never consulted about this.

And doing any kind of addition of this nature without consulting the neighbors, this is an insult to the neighbors in in my opinion. So so so that's one thing that I wanted to, you know, you know, stress on. And then the next thing is the construction itself. I added 150 square feet after consulting with my neighbors because I thought that more than 150 square feet was not reasonable for my neighbors. And that itself took eight months.

There were flatbed trucks. There were almost a small tractor was needed to do the foundation, and then there were obviously concrete that needed to be poured. Our whole pavement was just done after thirty years of waiting. So we have a new asphalt pavement. I waited for thirty years for this.

And and now, basically, we're gonna have all these little tractors coming in doing the foundation for this massive, you know, for this massive project, flatbed trucks, all kinds of things. So and not to mention this edition, I was told that there's gonna be construction happening on Saturdays. Now these neighbors, these immediate neighbors, construction happening. We're talking about compressors, you know, nailing things, generators. I mean, I just had construction done three years ago. It makes so much noise, and these neighbors are gonna have a nightmare and forget about their weekends for the next seven to eight months. I mean and and all the dust that's gonna be created. I mean, I I just really feel for these neighbors.

Thanks, sir.

And the precedents also. I mean, this gonna this is gonna set a precedence a really bad precedence for my neighborhood. I mean, this this is horrendous.

Thanks, sir. Sure.

Should we do the appellant? Or I'm sorry. The applicant

I think there's another one here for the appellant.

Yeah. There might there might be another one. I think

that's the last one. Can

you please state your name?

Vince Boba. I'm on Liberty Drive as well, but I've been asked to read a statement

Okay. Great.

Thanks, sir. For the neighbors.

Thank you.

It's for my daughter that's

in the hospital.

The new addition to the neighborhood. Okay. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Joa Tornati. Her and her husband and two young children live there. They're writing respectfully to, oppose the proposed two story addition.

Before filing this appeal, they made several good faith efforts to try to negotiate and come to an agreement with the people doing the the upgrades apparently to no avail. They asked the city for guidance on this kind of thing and, you know, what was feasible and what wasn't. Some of the standards for the one of the lot lines was 13 feet instead of 15, I guess, which is required. The bigger issue that it's is that it's a 60% increase in size, and that coupled with the work on Saturdays is just gonna cause a great disruption to the neighborhood. They're respectfully asking the planning commission to carefully consider the real impacts of this proposal, the what this proposal has on neighboring properties, particularly with respect to privacy, light, and livability.

In addition, they'd like the commission to consider

all of us would like

the commission to consider that the narrow spacing between homes and its associated new potential construction with scaffolding, dust, and noise would cause problems to the neighbors nearby. They have strong concerns for their family with two young children with these airborne issues. They heavily use their backyard and feel that this would cause issues with respect to health, safety, and livability. They would like the opportunity to have the commissioners and staff review the site conditions from their property, showing the limited amount of spacing between homes. I think we saw that on the very first picture of the map of the area.

You can see how dense everything is there. So it really would block every the two properties, views, which is why they bought the properties in the first place. So thank you for consideration. Appreciate your time.

Alright. Thanks, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you for your comments.

Sure.

Alright. Do we have anyone else for the appellant that wants to speak? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Appelli? Someone wanna speak? We'll give them ten minutes.

Hi. Good evening, everyone. So I'm the owner of 2986 Liberty Drive, which has applied for this extension. I've been living with my family there for the last five years, and now we are at a state where we really want to expand due to our family's growing needs. I have twin children who just turned 12.

It's a boy and a girl, and they are at a age where they can't really share the same room anymore as they are growing. And my mother visits us once in a while. She is also getting old and having difficulty with her feet. Basically, she has a tear on her meniscus and also plantar fasciitis, which is severely detrimental for her to really use the stairs, which because we don't have a bedroom or a bathroom at the ground level. Right?

I mean, to access the bedroom itself, she has to climb the flight of stairs, which is affecting her quality of life. And when she visits, it's kind of a hardship for her. So these were the primary problems we were trying to address while trying to do this expansion. So we wanted to get it right from the beginning and comply to whatever city recommended processes. So we hired Kurt, who's a very reputed architect and has done a lot of work in present and city.

So basically, we have I mean, Kurt has ensured that we have met all the recommended standards, all the setbacks, all the floor area ratio requirements. So I think we are compliant on that front, Right? I mean, I'm not an expert on the field so that any technical questions, think Kurt will be answering. So I'm just giving my perspective of these things here. So I couldn't help but notice a couple of things in the appeal statement.

There is a statement saying that this is not appropriate spacing by any reasonable standard. I I don't really understand what the appellant meant by any reasonable standard because we have met all the city regulated standards, and I don't think, I mean, we cannot approach this in a subjective way where each person will have some definition of the standard, but we have tried and exceeded all the city recommended spacing requirements to the construction. And another concern was definitely regarding the scale and mass of the construction, but which is already well explained in zoning administrator hearing. And zoning administrator report kind of covers that it has met all the requirements to maintain the neighborhood harmony and address the massing concerns and everything in detail. And we have also ensured that we don't have window facing the neighbor side respecting their privacy while planning it itself.

Another concern which I could find in the appellant report was that public concerns were ignored, but that is not true because the zoning administrator hearing clearly addresses most of the concerns raised during the hearing. And also, there were voices in support of having the ability to expand their homes also. So it is not like one-sided opposition, which happened during the zoning administrator hearing. The FAR requirement confusion, I think it is already addressed technically, and I think Kurt will be able to explain further. So basically, my request will be to consider that we are code compliant, and we have tried our best to stay within the permitted rules and have tried to meet every requirement laid down by the city.

So my humble request will be to consider I mean, kindly overturn the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator's approval. Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Hi. My name is Kurt Harold. I'm an architect here in Pleasanton. I'm a resident of Pleasanton. I'm at 3568 Vine Street. Lived in Pleasanton, I think, twenty years. My boys graduated from Foothill High School, and, we love the community. I've been practicing here in Pleasanton mostly with my brother-in-law, Dave Ayers. We were Harold and Ayers architects. I'm kind of in a retirement mode right now.

But, I know the area really well. I've got some fantastic clients all throughout the city. I'm just gonna give a couple little bump effect. Like, Natalie did a great job at at explaining all of the the numbers and all of the setbacks and all of that. So I won't get into any of that.

But just real quick, this piece of property faces due north. All the shadows that the the house and the new addition are gonna project are all on the north side because the sun raises rises in the east, comes to the west. All the shadows are on Liberty and the side street. So there's no shadows on the neighboring any of the neighbor's properties at all. Also, with that, the neighbors behind this addition the this existing house and this addition aren't going to block any sunlight going into their backyard so they so the so the little kids playhouse and stuff will have the same sun today as it will, you know, if this project goes forward.

Also, a two story addition. I think every house in this subdivision is two stories. I do know all No. No.

No. Hey. No. No. I I this is exactly what I said. It is not your place to comment. You if you have something to say, you'll speak when you're at the podium. The rest of the time, it's the person's opportunity up here to speak. So please continue, sir.

I'm so I'm speaking kinda conceptually. It's not a one story neighborhood. It's a two story neighborhood. I'm not saying there's not a one story home. I said there's majority of the homes are two story. So it's a two story addition. The addition that I I believe is is laid out and designed in in a in the perfect part of the how the yard. This particular property is very special because it has a little bend in the street. So it it has more property than all the other properties to the to the to the East and to the South. So I think that is very appropriate.

And, that that's pretty much all I have. And if there are questions because Natalie really did pick up pretty much everything. But if if there's a question about something, I'm totally open.

Okay. Thanks, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you. Do we have any other speaker cards?

Yes. Can we have Bonvad Adhikari step forward followed by Ravikumar.

Hi. My name is Banu Adhikari. I'm West Side, West Side neighbor to the subject property. So so we I kind of expressed all the concerns and the the things that in the zoning administrator call. So I had to kind of repeat certain things.

You know? So so like like what Shrihar mentioned, right, so the subject property applicant for expanding the house. My my house is also a two story house. I mean, it's just mirroring, so I have a huge lot, And I'll be kind of aligned up to do a similar construction because my parents are planning to move back here, so they're gonna relocate and they're gonna stay in future with me. And they're going they're, you know, they're getting old.

Okay? So my concern is if this project I mean, if this if this gets rejected, so this is going to set a bad precedence and HYA could take the TAF from here and probably will reject my project as well in the future. And also, you know, so I bought this property because I a huge lot and paid premium dollars for this property. Now if this doesn't go well, I know that might cause property value to go down. And the same, I mean, I hear from the other people in the community too, and most of the people are on the same boat because like everybody know, most of the homes are two story homes, and some homes do have huge lot.

And this is a practical thing. So so the joining administrator has done a pretty good job on the day. So I urge the planning commissioner, I mean, like, you guys to uphold the appeal I I mean, sorry, uphold whatever the zoning administrator has done and deny this appeal. Okay? That's all I have.

Thanks, sir. Appreciate your comments. Okay. Thank you. Next.

We have Rabakumar Dundeev followed by Jobin George.

Good evening, everyone. Thanks for the opportunity. I live in 3061 Badger Drive. I've been living here for fifteen years. My kids, they went to middle school, high school, and they graduated. They gone out of house now. Me and my wife, we are going living here. We want to live here rest of our life here, but we need our we need to extend our house. Right? We are thinking of extending.

So they see I I so this I want, you know so this is like, you know, if this is get denied, then I cannot extend my house. You know? I want to I also want to extend two story, ten, fifteen feet. So, I I ask you guys to consider and approve this request. Thank you so much.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you.

Can we have Javan George? Please step forward. Followed by Lucia Lewis.

Hi. Hi. My name is Jovan George. I own 676 Great Point Drive property. I'm like, you know, I had the privilege to attend the zoning administrators hearing as well, and I heard all the feedback and comments from the opposition party, like, you know, who is trying to appeal this as well.

I also have intention of, like, you know, extending the property to make sure that, like, you know, my, you know, property increases value. But at the time, like, you know, with the baseless acquisitions and like kind of feedback, the particular people who are trying to bring this particular request down is setting a bad example from a community perspective, making sure that like no construction happens. Well, my home is expanded. Our things are taken care. Now I don't want anybody else's property to be enhanced and made better.

We don't want any more dust, but all the dust which we created is all good, which is not a great example to set. So I just want my community to be welcoming which, of course, like, should go up. If I if you look at the property price I bought and now it hasn't increased in value. And I want to make sure that, like, you know, any opportunity, you know, the the residents could do to make that, you know, make that particular community a little bit more welcoming would be really great. There has been concerns of privacy, which was raised and looking at the pictures today, I found out like the only privacy issue is like from the defendant like from the people who appeal.

They have a view into the backyard versus not the other way around. My property is actually around three-two storey building, which does not block any sort of sunlight. I have like orange trees, which gives year round production based off all the sunlight which I get, which is like most of the property, like there are two stories. I don't think it will add any negative impact to the character of the community. I just want to humbly request to uphold the decision from the zoning administrators hearing and please approve this project.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, sir.

Can we have Lucia Lopez step forward, please?

Hi, everybody. I'm Rucha Lovas. I know the properties in Liberty and Shadow Cliff for about twenty years. And I understand exactly the project of that property is like a very private, very quiet, has entry and exit practically. And the park at the but, you know, like, one third of the space is park and park around.

So it's like everybody moved in that area because they do like the settlement and they did like the type of of, you know, buildings. Really, in Liberty, where I live, is like 50% is like one level house and only the rest are two levels, whatever you call it. The but you understand. Practically, space between houses, of that, one is high, one is low, one is high, low. If you build all high with two levels, practically they're too close because the lands are very small, and now I encourage everybody to double and double and double.

When you buy the property, you don't like it, don't buy it. Please, please don't make such a high density in that beautiful, you know, location, Shadow Cliff. Please don't destroy it. We like the park. We don't like to build into that park. We don't like to make everything too crowded, uncrowded. And also the construction will be very lengthy, will go over a year. Believe me. We've been through that, and there's always delays for this, for that, for different situation, and there'll be a lot of disturbance. Well, let's say one level is good terrain there because it's a corner which has bigger terrain.

Why shouldn't do one level? It needs for the parents, are elderly. So one level will be enough, can do more rooms, whatever. But the top level is so ugly because the roof actually is even the roof is completely blocking the two houses behind, like Katya House and the other one. And it is. I'm there and I see it. Yes. It's very very ugly practically when you look from the property. The roof is completely flat, like cutting your view completely. Thank

you, ma'am. Appreciate it.

No other speaker cards or receipt for the sign.

Let me let me just make sure. Do we have any other folks in the audience who'd like to speak on this? Okay. Alright. So we'll ask the appellant if you'd like. You can have five more minutes to come back up and respond anything you've heard.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Okay, commissioners. Thank you. You have now heard the justifications for approving this project.

I want to address three core arguments the city and the applicant have relied upon because all three are based on fundamentally flawed premises. First, the zoning administrator and the architect of the project stated on the record on March 18, and actually today as well, that this is a predominantly two story neighborhood. This is an assumption, not a fact. As I demonstrated earlier with the hard data, a house by house survey of our specific section shows that nearly 40% of the homes are single story. This substantial presence of single story homes is our established character.

You cannot uphold the decision that is based on a factually incorrect premise about the very nature of our neighborhood. Second, the zoning administrator justified the scale of this project by stating that an 800 plus square foot addition is not out of character throughout the city. Respectfully, we do not live throughout the city. We live on a uniquely tight zero lot block. A massive 58 increase in living area might be appropriate on a sprawling half acre lot elsewhere in Pleasanton, like Ruby Hills, but the city's own design principles require development to be compatible with the immediate surroundings.

Building a looming two story wall inches from our properties line is, by definition, an overwhelming scale for this specific block. Finally, the city dismissed the danger of setting a negative precedent, calling it unpredictable and hypothetical. Commissioners, it's not hypothetical. At the March 18 hearing as well as today, multiple neighbors went on the public record and stated explicitly that if this massive expansion is approved, they will feel compelled to build similar additions themselves. The domino effect has already begun.

We are proving by approving this project, you are actively encouraging the rapid distinct densification of a neighborhood that was carefully designed for balanced and open space. The applicant has a right to improve their property, but not at the severe expense of their neighbors and the established character of the community. The city staff got this one wrong. Their decision relies on assumptions, citywide generalizations, and the failure to enforce the city's own principles of scale and compatibility. I ask you to look at the facts we presented today.

Look at the 40% single story reality. Look at the 58 increase in mass. Look at the applicant's own plans showing an analytic wall destroying our open space and livability. The fact demand that this appeal be granted, and this project be denied. Thank you.

Thank you. We're gonna close the public hearing. Ask questions. Oh, yeah. You wanna ask questions? K. Alright. Maybe yeah. We can go ahead and do that. Who wants to start? You commissioner Jane? K.

I think I have questions for the appealing party, if you are okay to answer. So when when you say it doesn't meet, like, is there something which happened in the zoning administrator review which was not per the standards? I'm just trying to understand some of the facts you have presented.

Which exactly? About floor area ratio, about scale and massing?

Yeah. Which particular item

you So you

you have this access to zoning administrator's meeting notes. Right? They are included in the agenda, so you can go through them. And, basically, I build my statements based on those notes.

So which which particular item you thought they did not comply with? Like, which particular city ordinance or which city

of all, like I mentioned now, right, in my latest speech, so they mentioned that this is like a natural for the city of Pleasanton. Right? Again, we are fighting for our neighborhood, and our neighborhood is special. You should be there. Believe a couple of you came and visited us, and thank you so much. I appreciate it again. So this is a unique zero lot neighborhood. If you stay in my backyard, I even see now, like, how close they are, but this construction will block it completely. I even first did not realize that the roof has, you know, different Yeah.

Think you my question, so thank you. Okay. Question, but

Anyone else have questions for the for the appellee? No?

Go ahead.

I have one.

Ma'am, do you wanna come back up?

Since have you spoken to the have have you tried to work things out and ask for something different? Have you communicated at all

with others? We we went together one time with these neighbors as well as, I believe, Ducie and Nasrat supported us. Yes. We talked about compromises, one story single one story, like, addition. They said, no. We we oh, actually, I don't even remember exactly. Maybe they said we will check with our architect, but I believe the answer was no. We and then, Joy, right, she was trying to negotiate because they exchanged the phone numbers. I don't have their phone numbers or their contacts. They, like I said, they never reached out to us.

So they were working on this project for a couple of months. We never knew. We were surprised. Actually, we were shocked to receive these, yellow cards. And actually, first, I did not pay attention, and my husband said, you see, it it's going to impact our property. And I was shocked. Imagine my first reaction.

Okay. Thank you. You.

Any other questions for the appellant? No? Okay. Do we have questions for the appellant?

I do.

Yeah. Okay. Sir, do you wanna come back up?

And maybe it's for the architect more than the applicant,

but Architect.

It's okay. So given the desire to increase the square footage, when you looked at the site, is it feasible to remain within the setbacks and add the same square footage on one story? Like, is that even feasible when you looked at the conditions?

We did not look at a one story solution.

Why not? Hey. Speak this way, sir, please.

We did not look at a one story solution. A two story solution, the stacking the bathrooms and stacking the bedrooms seemed very intuitive. We kept the shapes of the house, the roof shapes of the house consistent. This piece of property is different than all the other properties. It's got a lot more land.

It's got that you maybe Natalie could put up on the screen again the overall site neighborhood site plan, but you'll you'll see it's a different piece of property. It's not like the other properties. There are some properties on the North Side Of Liberty and way over on the East Side, which they don't even look like the same homes, but the the properties are bigger. They have curving to, you know, curving driveways. So these are very different. So this lot's different. We're do you know, we're proposing a two story addition. I think it fits in the neighborhood nicely. I think we've we're matching all the existing details, shapes, roofs, all of that.

And that's the desire of the applicant. They wanted to do two story. That's why.

Right. In fact, we never even talked about a one story, and the one story would have taken up the whole corner. Just look at the look at the floor plans or the side plan and pretend like you pick up that square from the upper floor and put it down on the on the Ground Floor. It'll it'll in fact, they'll even look funny from the outside having a one story, a big one story piece even if was even if it was five or 600 square feet, and then this two story, you know, you know, building sitting next to it, it looked like two different pieces. It wouldn't look like it fit in at all.

K. Thank you. So we received a comment, I think is that from you, Shri Hari, today, where you documented some rhetoric, some personal bias, and things like that? You didn't cover any of that in your comments today. Yeah. It was probably a private conversation.

Or

No. That was an HOA meeting. Right? I mean and during HOA meeting, when I was raising a valid concern that one of the considerations was for my mother's health consideration. She is not trying to immigrate or she is not trying to come here.

I'm so I'm sorry. I hate to interrupt the applicant, mister Jane, but, given that, the HOA matters, the city doesn't really have an enforcement function in that matter. So I would, recommend that the council stick to, the presentation as presented and just the findings that are required to either approve or deny the projects.

Sure. Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure that they understand that it is something which was not in front of the planning commission. Like, we will not be reviewing Okay. Okay.

That's it.

Some of the things which you have mentioned there as part of our decision making.

No no problem. Yeah. I mean, I I just wanted to bring that thing to the attention, but I did not yeah. Again, I I I thought it was not relevant for today's meeting. That's why I did not bring it up. If you want, I can clarify. Okay. Thank you.

Good. K. Do we have other questions for the appellant? No? Okay. No. You're good. K. The the the one final question I had is the the your property and the property behind you, they're both two story properties. Right? Yes. K. Alright. Thank you.

Well, wait a minute. I'm behind him, and it's a single story. It it

There are two houses before

We're done. Okay. I've talked to the person that's at the stand. So now I'll come and ask you. You can you can sit down. Thank you. Yeah. K. You can come back up.

Can we

go? Because we're both

k. So now I'll ask you the same question I asked them.

Let's go. Too because both of our houses are affected by this.

Yeah. There's one appellant.

That's why that's I can't then.

So I've asked the appellant to come forward. Your home is a two story home. Right? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Now I'll ask the the other young woman to come forward. So there's a process here. Right? We're trying to be respectful of everyone. Yes. We're trying to give everyone a chance to speak. We're trying not to interrupt each other. Yes. So we need to keep the record clear. So you can see I'm trying to keep everything fair. Right? And so now I'll ask you, is your home a two story home?

No. It's a

single story.

Thank you. Okay. So I'm gonna close the public hearing. So at this point, the commission will speak, and we will we will if we have other questions, we'll we'll deal with that, but we're gonna talk with the with the, with the staff about this now. So we appreciate everyone being here and all the engagement we've had. We've got lots of facts before us, and now we're gonna go through the decision making process. K? Do we have other questions for staff before we go into into discussion? Go ahead, Dave.

Okay. This is this is going to answer is going to be highly affect my decision, I think, tonight. So under the direction of of what we're supposed to look at tonight in making our decision, we have four findings. And I want to get a kind of a a answer on number three where it says architectural considerations, including character scale and quality of design have been incorporated to ensure a harmonious relationship with the existing site and adjacent buildings. That is a very subjective statement, especially from my perspective.

We all know my background. I've designed projects just like this zero lot line for way larger projects in over the last thirty years. And I understand how this all works, but that is very, very subjective. And we are up here going off of kind of black and white rules, but that is not a black and white comment that we are supposed to do. So are we allowed as commissioners to utilize that in a subjective form in making our determination?

Good question, consider Jayco. And, that, so those findings are within our it it's contained within our municipal code. For those who are hearing online and for those here, it's a eighteen dot two zero dot zero five zero. There is an element of subjectivity to it built into the, four findings that you're required to make. So, how it kind of meshes in that subjectivity of your discretion, how that meshes in and aligns or does not align with those findings, that's purely within the, realm of the planning commission to determine.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

So, commissioner Jane?

I I don't have any questions. Just a clarification. We discussed this earlier. There was a prior comment about sprinklers. So that would be something which building department reviews, and it's in their purview. As far as the sprinkler requirements are concerned. It's not something which planning department does.

Correct. That's something that'd be handled through building permit phases.

Alright. Thank you.

Thanks, commissioner Jane. Commissioner Wedge?

I have the same question as commissioner Jago.

K. Thank you. So just just a couple for me. The throw up the slide that kind of listed what the what the city municipal ordinance is. No. The other one. The one that keep going. That's this one. K. So there's there's nothing frequently, happens in a when something comes to us is there is a request that is made from a particular property owner to get an exception to what the PUD requires, which is something that the original developer in the city agreed to, or that there is a request to change some kind of zoning or whatever else.

So I just wanna make sure that under the existing PUD that is set forth, the addition that's being proposed here, doesn't require any exceptions to the PUD or any other municipal ordinance in order to in order to, permit the the building to to to proceed. Is that correct?

That's correct. Yes. There's no variances or PUD modifications that are being requested.

Okay. So whether or not someone may have said something that would be different than what the actual PUD requires, the the record is clear, and it's, I think, in front of us about kind of what the requirements are for the city. Right?

Correct.

Okay. The the second one, the second one I had was, I'm I'm have been doing this for a long time, and I haven't heard about a shadow study before, for a for one residential property. Is that something that's required here? I I help me understand the requirements for a shadow study.

A shadow study, generally, when we require it, is something when you have a a new single family home or something when you're doing a new subdivision. It's not something as a required checklist when someone's submitting for an addition or modifications to an existing single family home. It's not a submittal requirement.

Great. Thank you. Okay. So I think and then, with respect to if this were to get approved, there are existing ordinances around when to build, how to build, dust mitigation, sound mitigation, and so forth and things like that. Has there been any request by the applicant to do something different than what the city ordinances require around building? Should this be approved?

No. If you're if you're referring to in terms of construction and noise, it would be the requirements of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. The condition of approval that's in there for construction is actually more restrictive than what our code says for construction hours. So I know there was some concerns and comments about having Saturday construction. The hours are more restrictive in the condition than what our code says. And while you can have the discretion of eliminating that Saturday hour, eliminating a day does draw out construction longer. Just something to consider.

Thank you. K. I think I'm done with questions. Should we get started with conversation? Okay. Who wants to start? Commissioner Jay, Diego, I've been starting with you the whole time. So we'll have you finish off this one, and we'll start the other way next time.

Okay. Thank you very much. This is a very difficult scenario, because I've got two sides of my brain going on. My architecture background says it meets all the requirements. It should be approved.

Black and white. But listening to everything, and I don't agree with a lot of the, the arguments for the appellate. I I think a lot of them are are unfortunately incorrect, and I think a zero lot line project is exactly what it is. It's being able to put a larger home on a very small lot for for cost considerations, and that's why we do zero lot line projects. I've done many of them.

And so when you go into that, when you buy into that type of project, you assume you are going to be a you're not gonna have much yard, and you're gonna be in a very tight community. This lot is very different than you know, it almost could be two lots, so we're kinda lucky there's not an entire home on that. But then I I I may not agree with almost anything. I don't agree with the construction argument. I don't agree with anything like that.

But that comment today, number three in the findings is where I really kind of stop and say, is this project in harmonious relationship with the existing site and adjacent buildings? And if we do get subjective review of that, I I don't think it is. And so that's where I'm struggling because if and I don't know how open I can be or honest I can be, but if I if I'm the architect on a project like that, I would've I would've gone to the neighbors and asked, and I would've presented to my client a single story option. And I would have figured out, hey. Instead of doing a two story, I'm gonna do a single story, be and this is not gonna affect everybody.

And if you do a single story, you're not gonna trigger this planning commission meeting where we get to subjectively analyze it. If you would have come in with a one story, there would have been no opposition, and you would have cruised through and not had this opportunity. So now that we've been given the opportunity, the design to me, I don't wanna look at a blank wall. I would actually want windows on the backside. Architecturally, I wouldn't do that.

And I don't understand if they're doing a two story. Why don't they push it forward? I think there was a lot of design options that I would have tried that would have potentially made this a lot easier, may have still had opposition, but maybe had less opposition or not had any opposition at all. And so I am absolutely torn. And so I I think because it's because of the addition, the way it's drawn, triggering a planning commission meeting, I think we now have to decide, does this ensure harmonious relationship?

And that's where I don't have an answer for myself yet. K. So I I think that's the discussion.

K. Thank you. Commissioner Jay?

Yeah. I think just like some of the other cases, we do have a two sided arguments here. There's a definite tension between the immediate neighbor, who will, have some changes in their backyard, substantial changes to how they see out of their window. And on the other side, the applicant does have some rights. When you buy a property in a certain zoning district, you expect that you can utilize the full economic value of that lot.

So in this case, they're not asking for any exceptions. They are entitled to use the full economic value of that lot, which is the case here. Whether we need to be so subjective on the community character, it's not a community where everything is single story, and you have this one addition, which is two story. We have the house behind it on the other side of the street. The house on the north side, they're all two story houses.

In fact, the house on the north side seems to be slightly bigger than this house. So from that perspective, I do see this to be in the ballpark of other houses and structures on in the community. I I would have I agree with what commissioner Diego was saying, and that's why I asked the question for the architect. A single story would have been an option. Like, that that would have not not caused this meeting to ever happen.

But I I was not sure if there was enough space, enough room to put even a single story with the setback requirements and everything. So it it is kind of in that area right now. The other thing which we have to consider is and we have seen it in other cases. People just put a kitchen there, and then it comes in as a ADU application. And then you have much less setback requirements.

You have almost, like, five feet or four feet setback requirements from your house. You can still build the two story or whatever you want, and then you won't have any zoning administrator review. By right, they get to do it. So, you know, my fear is if we deny this application or we upheld up don't Deny the We deny the applicant and we uphold the appeal. The applicant might turn back and say, hey.

I'm gonna resubmit it as an ADU, put a small kitchen, and then you have no arguments. So I I I those are my positions here. So I I worry about both things. Thank you.

Commissioner Wedge?

I also agree with commissioner Jago. I am torn on item three with the harmonious relationship, with adjacent buildings. And then on, number two, when it talks about site plan elements including open spaces, orientation and landscape are compatible with site topography, existing and proposed structures and neighboring buildings. So we talk about open space, backyard, side yard, front yard. Is there anything what about sky?

What about view? What about impact? I just kind of just think about that when I see the word open space. Is that defined clearly only in ground and earth, or does that also include sky? But number three for me is I'm very torn.

I this does not seem like it's harmonious with the adjacent buildings. I also don't think a wall is very, attractive. I think a window would be nicer. I did actually walk the property of the appellant and was able to visualize, I think, being a real estate broker and and building a few homes myself. The way the structure does bump out, there is a window on the side, and that window appears that it will look directly in the backyard by the way the lot is is designed.

I would like to see a one star. I think that would have been nice to have two options here. That's that's just my thoughts.

K. Thank you. So I'm the first place I go is kind of everyone's got legal rights. And so legislating what you what your neighbor may or may not do when they don't have a legal right to your property is a is a pretty troubling, is is is pretty troubling, and I understand the impact. But we this is something I've dealt with a thousand times where the neighbor doesn't like the the second story edition. Right? And and the the reality is is what commissioner, Jane had said, which is the state has already decided what they're gonna do with that. If you put up an ADU, it goes up with five feet setback, and there is not a thing in the world you can do about it. It doesn't even come to this body. They just get to build it. And so so yeah. Go ahead.

Are ADUs allowed to be two stories?

Yes.

Yes. They are.

Okay. And the and but there's restriction on square footage. Right?

So the you have state exempt ADUs, which are anything under 800 square feet. That's state exempt where you can be built four feet from your property lines. Anything over that, then it can grade.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. But so but but that's the point. Right? Like, I mean, what the the the trouble I have with this is is we've got we've got neighbors that are, like, literally next to each other. They're battling this out. When I see harmonious, what I'm worried about is is what's gonna come back in the in the future because, you know, they're having they're having trouble communicating, and that's that's why we we get to deal with it. And so binary decisions, by their nature, when they get to here, are going to be very difficult. And someone is gonna come away frustrated or maybe everyone comes away frustrated. But it's it's gonna be difficult.

And so but that that's the nature that's the nature of this decision. And so what, you know, what we're looking at is we're looking at a two story house that wants to put on a two story addition that is code compliant. And the the neighbor that is most impacted behind them is a two story structure, of the same way, and they deliberately didn't put, you know, windows in on that backside that would be able to look into the into their neighbor's backyard. I understand it interviews with views, but that's the reality of developments, and we're putting in much bigger developments because the state requires it all over the city. They're gonna be impacting neighborhoods.

And so that's the struggle I'm having with this is Mhmm. Is it's it's it is it is a two story structure like many of the others in the neighborhood. It is not all of them to be clear, but it's certainly some of them. You know, I the the subjectivity of, you know, whether it fits into architectural consideration or not, I'm I'm totally with you there. I'm not the architect. Right? But, like, if if if the if the planning, sorry. If the staff has kind of worked with them on, it's gonna be similar materials, similar heights, and it's code compliant. I get I'm really reluctant to start getting in and saying you can't build a two story building on your property. That's code compliant.

Like, in in the future, if if one of these neighbors wants to go in and build an addition on their on their one story house, they don't get to now because their neighbors say it's interfere like, that's really that's really a troubling precedent.

That that that is a 100% where my gut reaction went to immediately. My architect brain went, well, of course, they can do this.

Right.

And but I've also been in situations like this where because you chose oh, sir. Because I was sorry about the microphone. Because the design is such a way that it brings us to us, and then these findings, two and three, get brought in, it's I I'm I'm fighting myself because I'm like, the design in in the way it was designed brought it to this point, and now we have subjectivity to look at it. And I'm like, if it would have been designed differently, we would have never gotten to

this point. Maybe. We don't know. Right? We don't know.

We we don't know.

We we don't know. So so we have what we have in front of us. Right. Right? And so and and, you know, this is not the place where architectural designs are gonna get made. No. Right? So so we have a decision to make that that's here that's in front of us. And, you know, and if they don't like it, they can obviously go to the city council as well. That that that would be, you know, a a decision they could make too. But I think we we we are we owe a decision here. Mhmm. And and we, you know, we have the facts in front of us that we do. Not notwithstanding that we all wished it would would have been, you know, proceeded a little bit differently. And, again, I'm worried about the impact this is gonna have on the neighborhood. We still have to make a decision here.

And, chair, if I may interject to if it and it is based spur for discussion. So the chair, this comes before the commission de novo. So and so there's been a lot of reference to the z eight hearing and whether that pull or not. It comes de novo, so you guys are essentially the decision maker for the purposes of this project. Whether approve or deny, our code does require to make findings, to match those four elements as described in the muni code section. So, for approval, since, that's what staff had previously recommended, those findings are listed before you in the attached resolution proposed. If there's if the vote ends up being a denial, I would have to ask the commission to make five similar findings for a denial for that purpose.

Thank you.

Yeah. And I think zoning administrator has done a lot of effort on this project. We we don't like to see these on the commission. Right? Like, we hope the zoning administrator and our staff has already handled those situations.

So I think we need to trust their decision as well. I think, personally, I I would have wished it was a single story. And I asked that question, and I don't know if the applicant has any desire, but I don't want that to be a forcing function because then people find other ways around our decisions, and then you have no control. Like, if you deny it, then also what guidance we are giving to our zoning administrator. So if they have to make this decision again, something like this comes, and they can't follow a standard set of guidelines for that PUD when it's meeting all those criteria.

Yes. There are some subjective things, but I don't know, like, how much those should be discretionary. Like

I think I think the ADU option kind of muddies the water a little bit too because you can I I I I'm working on an attached ADU project right now? So all you have to do is have a kitchenette.

Exactly.

And we nobody has any jurisdiction over it. And so it's kind of like, be careful what you wish for.

800 square feet.

Mhmm.

Four feet away.

And no review.

We don't get to we don't get to say a thing.

So that I I I I had my gut initial answer, and I think I'm gonna go back to my gut initial.

Can I just interject? Just I don't know which

way you're

going with this. You've there's been some conversations about a single story addition. Just noting that these days for some developments that come through for single story houses, their roofline is about 25 feet. It may not achieve what you're looking to achieve if you do have that conversation about single story, because their maximum height allowed is 30 feet, and you can have various roof heights that can play into that part of it. So a single story addition, there that's that doesn't mean it's gonna be at 10 feet in height or 15 feet in height.

They You

you do you do get a better view corridor, though, with sloped roof.

Yeah. Just just Yeah. Putting it out there that it yes. A single story addition, depending on how your roof heights and just making a note that most single story houses are around 25 feet. This house at two stories is around the addition is around 26 feet.

Thank you. Mhmm. K. Anybody else wanna comment? Otherwise, we'll entertain a motion.

He wants to make the motion.

Do we can we ask the applicant one more time? Question if we can open.

Yeah. We can do that. We can open it one more time and go through it. K. So I'm gonna reopen the public hearing. Can the applicant come up, please?

So just in good faith, I asking I'm asking a question. Do you have any desire to go back to a single story design? And, again, I'm not in a position to force anybody here, but I'm just asking if you have any desire to revisit your design and come back with a single story, or this is really, really what you want and you want to stick with it? Yeah.

I think let me so we were they were talking to us and were asking us to push it by nine feet because that will be exactly on the offset line. So, clearly, nine feet is what we have to build extra, right? So even if I build a single story thing, the, say, 14 by 12 bedroom and bathroom setup will not fit in that nine feet available window meeting all the offsets. So we'll not meet that square footage when we go single story for sure. I was just thinking while I was sitting there. Another option was to push the entire structure slightly more where we end up with slightly more higher corridor area. So I was exploring that with Kurt, and we look at around six feet push. Right? I mean

Yeah. Sharjah and I met two two weeks ago, and we looked at some sketches of of literally taking the addition, sliding it forward, I think it was six and a half feet, and then reducing a little bit of the size of the of, like, the closet off of the back of back of the wall, move it in. I think it was two and a half feet and bring the the wall the bedroom wall the bay yeah. The bedroom walls that face the side street bring that in a foot. So that's what we that's what we met with met and and discussed, put together some sketches, and we were hoping to meet with the the neighbors before this meeting, and and that did not happen.

Yeah. Yeah. We had reached out, but we could not really discuss with them because the area was busy, obviously. So

Okay. But but it will still be two story design?

Yeah. It'd two story. You know, what happens is the roof line comes in a little bit and, you know, it doesn't it doesn't stick out close to the side street. It goes back six and a half feet, which is still within all of the setbacks.

Good. Thank you. Alright. Thank you.

I I and I and I and I was just gonna add this tag this on. I think it would help the the rear neighbor with that feeling of the addition being close to them even though we're, you know, within the setbacks.

Thank you. Thank you. And Any other questions for applicant? No? Mm-mm. K. We're gonna close public hearing. Alright. So let's do we need more discussion, or are we ready to we need more discussion? K.

Let's That that was an interesting I I don't I don't know how that affects. It's like we've kinda just heard that they're potentially amicable to modifying it if but I don't I don't think we would have the I don't think we would want to make the authority of, like, oh, you have to do that, but maybe that would be something that they could do on their own that would help the situation. Is that kinda where I'm

Yeah. We're I mean, we we we could make it a condition of the of the approval Right. To to require that they move it forward a couple feet or whatever. I mean, we we that that's within our prerogative,

but, you

know, we're back to Yeah. We're we're back we're back to, like, architecting from the bench, which which I struggle with Mhmm. Philosophically. Yeah.

Yeah. Personally, I take Yeah. Go ahead, Derek.

Go ahead, commission, if we if we can interject. The commission does have the discretion to with the applicant's consent and making sure that it does, you know, continue to comply with all applicable PUD standards and the Pleasant and Municipal Code Standards. If there is a condition to that architectural design that the commission wants to suggest with the applicant's, cooperation and agreement, that's something that the commission can do.

Do you want to ask? Okay.

I would.

Okay, can we have the applicant come back up, We're going to reopen the hearing, go ahead.

Before

Yeah. Mhmm.

Talking about we can get a variance, give a variance if they took a one story. I'm just saying when we're starting to do this, then I see variance, and I see them going outside the line.

I think that just opens another can of worms. If then the neighbors will be still upset if they put a 25 feet high roofline. So but we can we can ask. We can ask.

You wanna ask? K. Let's reopen the public hearing. Go ahead.

Would you consider a one story and filing for a variance so it would fit on your lot?

That will mean an entire rework, and it will not really meet the square footage requirement right now, right? Because clearly, we only have nine feet left to push to meet the offset line. If you move a big bedroom, bathroom combo down to the Ground Floor, it is going to violate the offsets required in the front yard. And probably, it will violate the FAR also because the open space area, which is required, was only exceeded by 150 square feet. That also might violate, right?

We haven't done that math, but in the initial consideration itself, it did not seem feasible. That's why Kur did not explore it. We looked at the push option because that seemed more doable. And yes, I think as long as yes, think that's the only option we saw actually when we explored.

And Commissioner Wedge, if I could add to that. We would not recommend the commission have any sort of condition that puts the project in a situation of nonconformance. So basically, what we're looking at is if and I'll defer to Natalie as well on this, and she's been working on this. But if there's something that, you know, all parties can amicably agree to in terms of, you know, I'm I'm speaking, you know, like a window, something like that, but we don't want or we're suggesting the commission not condition anything because right now, the project complies with all standards and codes. And that's clearly stated in your fourth finding.

So we don't wanna do anything which basically is not consistent with the fourth finding. And then the commission is, you know, creating something where the project is then not going to be consistent with all the findings in number four related to code compliance and PUD compliance.

Thank you for the clarification.

Not yet. I

I think it would be I think multiple people here would like to see, would you be amicable to keeping the two story design, but as a condition of approval, showing something that pushes it forward like you've been talking about, I think that meets a lot of, or would solve a lot of issues But for I'm I'm just just asking if we're not asking you to change the the two story, the one over one, everything, just looking at what you guys explained in shifting that whole two story section, sliding it forward. Sliding. And that way, we're not asking you to change the design per se other than just shifting it forward and creating more space between your addition and the two rear neighbors. Would would we're asking, would you be amicable to doing that?

So will the process be delayed when we submit a new pushed version, or will it have to go through the entire approval process again? Because what is the cost of time involved is one thing which we are worried about. And

and I was thinking, can maybe maybe it can be

conditioned that that we review these this revision with with Natalie and the zoning administrator who was at at the previous meeting. I would I would think if if this is approved with the condition, that if we are actually approving the look and the design, the basic concepts Yes. That I would feel comfortable with a staff approving it, not having to come back.

Well, let's let's just let's just make what what we don't wanna do is restart this entire process. Correct. I'll be back here again. So let's just make sure

Right.

If we were to condition this on this getting moved forward, would that be the end of it, or is there a a process where this would have to get re potentially get re spun up again?

Well, it's going to depend. Right? Because you've heard various public comments on what concerns are. You've heard that the neighborhood doesn't want a two story addition and whether that sliding it or not, and then who's gonna be in agreement to it. So how many people are we saying have to sign off on this in order for them to move slide that forward? Is it just the appellant and the other rear neighbor, or is it anyone who provided public comment? Is it anyone that received a notification card for it? It kinda opens up the door for if they have if you make this action to put this condition of approval, let's say that they meet with the two rear neighbors, the two neighbors agree to it, it's still open to an appeal period. And then anyone else can file an appeal, it's gonna go to planning commission. So then there's different scenarios that have to work out with when you're doing that condition.

So even if we approve with conditions, it would go back out?

That's the question is that if who's who's who are we I I understand the intent. The intent is if they're agreeing to move it, and that's gonna be amicable to the two rear neighbors. That's just the two rear neighbors. I don't know if if if there's anyone else that's already been involved in this or has that.

Have to

go up a thousand feet. You're you're going through the process again. You'd have to go up a thousand. How would you bypass the process?

So we would unless it's something that's found maybe in substantial conformance to where it's they're moving it out six feet, and it's still changing it still keeps the the character and the dynamic of it, then yes. But if it's something where it deviates so far off, then we would have to re notice it and do that part of it. It just it just kinda depend. I mean, I understand that I understand that what you're you're trying to work out to condition where

this comes back. And and that's what that's what I'm asking. Like, if if we just make it a condition to move it forward, you're not changing the massing, You're not changing the design. You're not changing the look. If I I think that is if if it doesn't if you can say, okay. We're approving with this condition. We've already approved it. If nobody else can come back to the item, then I I I would agree with that. But if if it's gonna kick start the the appeal process again, then I don't think we can do that. I would totally agree with that.

Agree think if any action you make tonight is gonna start an appeal process. It does it whatever whatever the outcome is, it's still open to a ten day appeal period.

And if I may reject, since there's been some discussion on on whether it's appropriate to impose conditions, eighteen twenty o six o, I'll just read it for the record.

We're gonna we're gonna close public hearing. Thanks, guys. You can go sit down.

Thank you.

The reviewing authority may, and then subsection one, impose conditions on granting of design review approval if the reviewing authority finds that the proposed project does not otherwise meet city codes. So that should give you some guidance on whether or not it's appropriate to impose condition. That does sound like, at least from staff recommendation.

City code. Right.

Okay. Yep. Okay. And I think my I don't know. Just shifting that two, three feet is gonna change too much for the rear neighbor. I do not think it substantially is going to change anything for the. So

But I just I I think that was good to hear.

Yeah. I the the conversation, the exploration is really important, so I'm glad we're doing it. Yeah. I I feel like we're being very thorough. K. Alright. Do we have a motion?

Can we go back to see what the what we're making a motion on? How we're how we need to stay it? I'm gonna make a motion to recommend item one to affirm the project meets the findings. And do I also

Yeah. And

two. And number two, deny the appeal.

Do you have a second or alternative motion?

It's it's a hard one, but I'll second it.

K. So we have a pending motion and a second. So let's let's I'm not sure how this is gonna go, so let's do a roll call for this one.

Okay. Commissioner Jago?

Aye. Approve.

Commissioner Jane?

Aye.

Commissioner Morgan is absent. Commissioner Whatch?

Nay.

Commissioner Pace?

Aye.

Chair Pace?

It passes.

Alright. Thank you. So the the appeal is denied. You will have ten days to appeal it further up to the city council if you'd if you'd like to do that. Okay? Alright. So we're gonna close item number four and go to item number five. Maybe let's take a quick break. Take a couple minute break. I realize we got some people that have been sitting in the audience for a while.

But let's just take a couple minute break. Maybe we'll go to 08:45, and then we'll get started with the with the next item. Okay? Thank you. Hey, Emily.

Good to see you.

Nice to see you too, though.

Thanks for coming in. Looks like we're on. Okay. Welcome back. We're gonna continue with the with the planning commission meeting for for May 13. We're on item number five, which is the 4191 1st Street sign design review. And Emily is gonna take it away for us.

Alright. Thank you, chair Pace and, planning commission. So here's another appeal for you to consider this evening. This is an appeal of the zoning administrator's denial of an application for sign design review to rebrand an existing seventy six gas station in Circle K Market to a Shell gasoline station and fast fill market. So staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution upholding the zoning administrator's denial of case number P250300.

Great. So here is an aerial of the site. It's demarked with a star. It's an approximately half acre parcel that's located at the intersection of 1st Street and Ray Street. As you can see, the site contains an existing gas station and convenience market.

Adjacent uses to the site include detached single family homes and an office building to the west along Ray Street, commercial tenant spaces to the north along 1st Street, residential to the East Long Vineyard. There's another gas station catty corner to this site, and a variety of, commercial uses to the south along 1st Street. This intersection is a part of the downtown specific plan area and is one of the entryways to downtown. I've also included an image of the former seventy six station in at the top there. I think there's, temporary signage there now, so you may not have seen the gas station looking like this for a while, but this was the former seventy six canopy.

Great. So just wanted to get a little bit into the sign design review process since there are a couple different processes that the city uses to evaluate signage. So broadly, sign design review is required for sites that do not have an approved master sign program. Master sign program is when an applicant comes in with a sign design package. This is typically for larger commercial sites where there might be a lot of different signage coming in, many tenants that are changing out over time so that we need consistency as as businesses change out and signs change.

So in the absence of a master sign program, this the zoning administrator reviews signs based on our Pleasanton Municipal Code chapter eighteen nine point six, and that includes dimensional and other standards. With any application, we also look at any applicable general plan or specific plan policies as well as design guidelines. And the sign general plan policies that we typically look at are community character element policy 15, program five 15.3, which suggests that the city promote attractive sign design and higher quality sign materials. Additionally, promoting attractive colors and minimizing bright franchise colors and community character element policy 16, which discourages franchise and prototype art architecture and signage. Alright.

So without strict objective standards for signing a a signage, especially for the amount of lighting, use of colors, logo, and branding. The zoning administrator considers factors such as location and visibility of the site, the existing signage and sign conditions, the design character of the site, the nature of the sign, and the character type and proximity of adjacent land leases. Additionally, the city does consider a reasonable expectation that a business may wish or be entitled to use corporate colors, business identification, or branding as a part of its sign program. Alright. So we'll get a little bit into the application.

So we're talking about a Shell station here, but we first started out by talking about Sonoco. So on September 2, the applicant, applied for sign design review to modify the monument sign, wall signs, canopy signage, and pump signage as a part of rebranding to, the Sonoco brand. On September 16, staff deemed the application incomplete and, issued comments to the applicant suggesting some minor changes to the pump signage, which they made and some some updates to the canopy to reduce the bright blue, franchise branding colors to approximately 25% of the canopy area in line with the former seventy six station. Staff had, many conversations with with applicant over a number of weeks or maybe months, to review possible canopy options. And ultimately, on January 15, the applicant resubmitted a a package with, Shell branding.

So that's the, rendering that you see below. So this rendering does include less franchise branding color than the Sonoco design, but still features a predominant amount of brand colors. And as a compromise, staff requested that the applicant further reduce these brand colors so that the total brand color canopy band fascia on each side of the canopy, so that would be the yellow and red stripes, not exceed 33% of that canopy area. The applicant, worked with the property owner and Michelle and ultimately asked us to render a decision on the application without making further alterations, and the zoning administrator denied that application. So, again, here are the three kind of iterations of the canopy design that we, are looking at.

Again, the 76 station, that initial, Sonoco design, and then the Shell branded design. So staff finds that the project fails to meet the intent of those two general plan policies that I referenced earlier. And staff also notes that the project site is located at a prominent entryway to downtown where the visual character of the streetscape contributes to the overall city community identity, and that the proposed canopy design creates an overly franchise brand forward visual emphasis that detracts from that downtown character. And so as such, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the attached resolution upholding the zoning administrator's denial of this application. And I'm available for any questions.

Thanks. Do we have questions for staff on this one? Appreciate it, Emily. Good job. No?

What when I have, we have had a very similar conversation in the last several months, that was diagonally across the street to another existing gas station where we went through this entire signage process. We ultimately rendered a decision, and then the city council took it up and discussed it a couple of different times and came to a decision as well. Can can you just talk about kind of the how it what do we learn from that last time that we should use as we're thinking about this time? I mean, that was about signage and branding as well. So this is a very similar thing literally on the same corner, and and it's literally the same commercial use.

And so I think there would be some some use to us in kind of remembering what happened that last time around. So so we that can inform how we're making a decision this time.

Yeah. So I'll I would let the council and applicant speak to lessons learned specifically, but I'll let you know about the, council's decision. So they did end up approving a modified version of the Gulf gas station canopy. So they modified the canopies to include a white background with less branding color, although they did not reduce any of the lighted signage on the canopy. And then they also modified the monument sign, so that also had a white background instead of the orange franchise color background. And with this this application, staff's primary contention with the signage is solely with the canopy.

K. Thank you.

I do have a question. So the two sites which I looked at, there was another Shell station in our city on Hopyard, which is near Lucky's. Oh, yeah. You pulled it up. So this one doesn't have that much color. It's a Shell station. They approved it. Right? And there's another one. I think we we see yeah.

This one is close to the freeway, so that that is fine. But we also see so I I did visit Danville. I also went to a gas station, which is probably Chevron in Livermore next to Ruby Hill. That also pretty much doesn't have any kind of branding on their canopy. So I think the main concern is on the canopy, not so much on the pump.

Is that correct? And we have examples in the city where the corporation has approved, and that's how it's supposed to work. Like, in any good cities, if you go in Danville or some other towns, they were able to have less branding on the canopy. So the main concern is on the canopy from zoning administrator side. Is that correct?

That's correct. And the there I believe that there's three other shell stations within the city, so I have screenshots of all of their, designs. These the other three are with located within plan unit development, so there may be additional signage requirements associated with those plan unit development approvals. So, yeah, this one's on Hopyard. This one is I can't remember the exact street name, but I feel like we all know exactly where this is. You know,

can say it already. Center.

Yeah. Thank you. And then, this is another, newer Shell station that's also on Hopyard. And as you mentioned, this one has the least brand.

And I like to see more of these, but that we'll discuss in the comments. Yeah.

This is the new seven eleven that's right across the street from Lucky. Yeah. This is the one we redid a couple years ago. Okay.

This is Shell. Right? Yeah. No. Not seven Eleven?

No. This is Shell. But the seven Eleven's in the corner behind it. You can see it there. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Let's have the applicant. Welcome. Thank you very much.

Appreciate the opportunity, mister chair and members. Guy Houston here acting on behalf of Govco, the principal and owner. The owner's name is actually Mike Amati. And, GOVCO owns the Gulf Station across the street. So they had that one, and, of course, we went through that whole process.

And then subsequently, during that process of of the rebranding, he purchased the one across the street. That's what we're here talking about tonight from that, the the old 76 station. Couple corrections I would like to make. So, yes, we have the Gulf Station, and you went through a lot of lot of wrangling and process with that. And the city council voted ultimately.

There was zero changes in the canopy. The canopy that was approved originally by staff was unchanged. What was changed was the monument sign. We took out color, and it was very, very, very orange. And so a lot of the orange was taken away.

So there was no changes to the canopy and but there was changes to the monument sign. And then as well, the city council wanted, kind of a decorative thing, so we had a a light that that shines up onto the the palm tree that's out there. And so that was all part of that whole whole process that took quite some time. In in this application, normally, I like to cut to the chase and say, you know what? We're talking about five inches.

But I think it does bear that I should kinda go into a little more details on the process and where we've been. So, yes, staff said that we started out with the Sunoco project. And the Sunoco, as you see, the entire canopy, 36 inches was gonna be colored. And when we were going through the process of of discussing this with staff, there was zero discussion about reducing the amount, the side, the 36 inches of the color. But what they wanted to do was to eliminate the blue and go with a Sunoco light gray.

And so that was something that we on all the other portions of the project on the pumps, everything else was good. We're just talking the canopy. And so I went back to to Sunoco, and you have our our owner, of course, our operator, and then you also have the the the brand. So they have some say. And, they said, you know, no. This is our current it's the the bright blue, is what we want. And so, we can't make it a light gray. That's what staff wanted originally. Everything else was fine. And so, then, we came back and said, well, this is our application, and let's go with it.

And then in December, I received a call from the city manager and said, hey. Can you go back one more time and ask, You know, can we do something? Can we make a change? And so the reason for this whole story is to show that that this applicant, mister Amati, has tried, to to work with the city. And so what he basically did over the holiday is he fired Sunoco, since they would not bend at all.

So he fired Sunoco, and then it took a couple months, for us, and he got back Shell, which is ironic because Shell was originally right across the street. But Shell is the brand, and so we asked them to put together a package, including the canopy, and that's what we submitted. So the the the current, you know, Shell brand you have, it's it's yellow. It's kinda pale yellow, certainly different from the orange across the street, and certainly different from the bright blue. And so we thought we were doing a good thing.

Also, we it was not 36 inches of canopy of color. It was brought back down to where my five inches comes from, 22.96. 63.8% of that canopy has a color on it. We submitted this, and the response was, you know, we really like it half. And so that's where we're at.

We're 18 inches versus 22.96. Now you might say, jeez, mister Houston, why don't you just do it? Well, the brands they as with Sunoco, they have they have their book and they have their their options and choices, and this is the one that they felt fit this location the best. So all in all, we have tried to work with the city, learning our lessons from what happened across the street. The the intensity of the colors are a lot less.

The amount of the color is a lot less. We're just talking about the canopy now. And so we feel this is a very reasonable type of an application. The city council approved 36 inches with the orange branding of golf across the street. And so we felt this was a very, very good compromise and should have been embraced, and it wasn't. And so that's why you're here tonight. So I'm asking that you approve the additional five inches and that you approve our application. It's a very reasonable one, and we feel no reason why we have to go any further with this. Mister Amati would like to spend money in Pleasanton. He he has confidence in Pleasanton.

As a business owner, I think we should encourage that. And, again, he has worked with the city, and we appreciate all the consideration you can.

Thank you. Questions for Doug?

Yeah. I have a question. Go ahead. Yeah. So how come Shell allows in the same city a canopy which has very less branding? And I'm having hard time understanding why they won't accept in this location.

If if you every project is different and you have old stations like these, these are very small footprint. The one that you cite is a very large footprint, a lot bigger than this one. They also have a very large variety store or convenience store. So there's not every project is the same. There's branding on that building. There's not as much branding on the canopy. So PUD's are different. We have a a a little postage stamp lot just like we have with across the street, you know, old historical centers. And so we work within the envelope we have.

K. Thank you.

Can I the the one across the street was the shell? Yes. Do we have any pictures? I mean, I have a picture from Google Maps, but, you know, that's hardly part of the record. But do we have any pictures of what the old shell across the street used to look like? Do we have that somewhere?

I could pull up Google Maps if you wanna look at it.

Yeah. I I mean, I think it might just be worth as the record, for people to be able to see what it looks like. From February 2023, it looks like there's a picture there of the of the shell across the street. So I I think that's that's worth it as we're as we're looking at that. I don't think that's a question for you, but just for the for the record. But

We think the upgrades over at the the new Gulf, you know, that old Shell station was tired and ugly, and did horrible. So, you know, it is a much better station now. There has not been any discussion about it since we have installed all of the the canopy and the the the monument. I have probably leaving here tonight. I'll probably drive out there for the first time at night and see the light shining up on the palm tree, but, it it's an improvement. That center and that corner was very unattractive, and we wanna do the same thing on the old 76 site, which right now looks pretty shabby.

Thank you. Alright. Any more questions? No. Okay. We're gonna, close public hearing. Thank you. Appreciate that. Further questions? For staff?

Actually, Chair Page. She's she's pulling up. Yeah. Emily's pulling up the image.

Yeah. So there it is. Thanks, Emily. That looks like it's, like, maybe a third or a quarter white, two thirds yellow, and a quarter red. And the and the proposal that these guys have is what? A third? Is a third white? And then

It's about two thirds the brand color and one third white. White is a part of the brand color, but when we're talking about the brand color, we're talking about the bright franchise colors.

It be it would be less than kind of what was already existing across the street when they did it because it's the the branding would be slightly less. The the branding color would be slightly less on the on the on the awning.

Potentially. And then I'll just note it again, this way that we look at signs is can be a bit challenging, but we are looking at the what was existing on the site. I do acknowledge that this was right across the street at one time.

Yeah. Yeah. And but so the then the one across the street, just so we're clear on the record, that's that was the 76, and that had just those stripes of orange. Yeah. There it is. Yeah. Okay. So it clearly would be more color than what the '76 was, but it looks like it would be less color than the shell that was across the street two years ago. K. Any other questions or comments, discussion we wanna have on this?

I'm pretty cut and dried on this one.

K. Alright.

If I

may interject again before, y'all vote, similar to previously, prove or denial requires findings. Currently, the resolution, is a denial. So if there is a denial, we could just accept that proposed resolution. If there's an approval, I would ask that the, commission make those findings as required by our municipal code. And, there is a CEQA determination that will have to happen as well.

I thought it was exempt from CEQA.

It would be if there's a denial. But if there's an approval, this would be a minor modification to an existing

structure. So wait. Walk me through that.

I think

there would still be a categorical exemption if it was approved, but we would need to include that as part of the resolution language.

Yeah.

So the resolution language would say that we think it's exempt from CEQA?

Yeah. Except for a different subsection of the statute. It would be probably and we'll find a good reference of the code. Wes' computer is is working like mine's not. The existing facility is likely one five three zero one or one five three zero three, one of the two. Okay.

But section three of the resolution, which is on page four, includes the CEQA determination for denial, and there are specific exemptions when a project is denied. K.

I think just my comments, I think the project can do more. I like the projects which have come to the city where you have much less branding. I think there was a lot of back and forth with the other project across the street, so I won't use that. I I don't think that ever came to the planning commission.

It did. And then but it would pull out of the consent calendar, and the city council went around on it a couple of different times.

But we we never

We didn't

deliberate it.

We didn't focus on the colors because at the time, we didn't understand the importance of that to the city, and we obviously now do.

And it was a consent item?

Right. Yes.

Okay.

Okay. Well, it looks like people have their minds made up. So let's do a motion then.

I'll I'll see if I get any support, but I motion to deny the appeal.

K. Do you have a second? No? K. Alright. Do we have an alternative motion someone would like to make?

I'd like to make an emotion to what would I if I

the appeal?

I would say I am agreeing with the appeal, approving the appeal.

K. So do you have a second for that

one? I second that.

K. So that is we approve it as is as is shown. Is that correct?

The appeal is Against The appeal was to deny it and force them to either make a change or do something else.

I would like to do the opposite of that. I would like to approve the application as it is. And

So then you I think we want to I think we want to affirm the appeal and deny the and deny the decision. Right?

So so I I could help out there. Okay. Then this one's de novo. So, essentially, you're taking the application at first blush, essentially. So, that would require those findings. There are six of them. So I would recommend, addressing each of those findings in turn. They are, included as part of the proposed resolution in

Can we just can we pull

that up? Can we please pull that up?

I know. I

I drive past the one at Hop Yard, next to the freeway, and it looks exactly like that, and that's I am totally fine with that.

And I'll direct your attention to the nonitalicized portion. Those would be the findings.

That's the first one. I'll scroll through the findings.

So are we going back and having to approve each one of the six findings?

I think the way it would work would be we would make a motion sustaining the application, and we would have to list we would have to list kind of the reasons why. And I think to the extent we believe that these were as written, these aligned or supported the decision, we could just adopt these reasons. Right?

So those reasons are for a denial. So the commission would actually have to come up with reasons, to meet each of those six for approval.

Finding five is neutral or supportive for the project, so you would just need to make five findings.

I I'm having really hard time. Like, if you look at the first one, I don't think it's meeting those standards we set for our city Because this is right next to the downtown, and we're just putting those bright signs.

I know, but we just approved the one across the core across the corner from it. And and every other shell that is where we enter the city, which is our prime spot, is Well, enter the full shell in it.

Besides the new one.

Yeah. Entering the city is different because you're next to the freeway. That's a okay location for something bright and shiny, but near the downtown.

But so so decreasing the yellow, which now we're saying, okay. We can't we don't like yellow because it's part of the brand, but maybe they just put yellow up because they like yellow. So four taking four inches of yellow off is gonna all of a sudden make it

No. I'm I'm much better? I think there should be just no signage. No. There should be just a

But that but that doesn't meet but that doesn't meet the requirements at all either. They're they're a they're a national brand. They should be able to put their brand up. And if they don't want to, that's great. But what they're saying is it will pass if they reduce the yellow by four inches, and I don't think that makes a difference. Well,

my argument is it should look more like what we approved next to Lucky's and what we have in other parts

of city. Approved the the the one across the corner from it on the same street.

Yeah. But we also approved the other one at the Lutz.

But Lutz

a different location.

Yeah. Lutz is a brand new building. You can't compare that. That's a high Well different construction, different design.

We can have our opinions.

Yes.

And Yeah.

I made the motion. I can get the support. Right.

I okay. So I would like to make a motion to

Hey. Can I can I ask you a question? I'm not sure. I think I'm not. I don't we're gonna we're gonna I think we're gonna end up with a split vote here at two two. What happens when that's the case?

So a majority of the quorum would have to vote, and majority of the quorum given that there's four, it would be required three votes to to either pass or approve or deny the project. If there's a split vote, there would be no action in this matter. And because it's de novo, it wouldn't default to the z a hearing. And I don't think there would even be an action for city council to consider because it would be a no action vote, essentially.

So, basically, they would either have to reapply?

That that was that is that is my understanding. Yes.

Okay. So we've got it we've we've got it to do the right thing for the applicant, we need to come up with either an approval or denial so that if if the applicant doesn't agree with what we're gonna do, then they've got a right to do something. We don't wanna put the applicant in limbo.

Oh, so so we if we vote two to two We

the it's limbo. Nothing happens. So we've gotta come up. We've gotta structure something because I think I'm with commissioner Jane on this. So I think we've gotta come up with something where we get three to one so that the a decision's made. And so that then the applicant the applicant gets okay. So let's do this. I'm gonna I'll support I don't know I don't exactly know how to structure this to get the findings we need. I I don't I don't so I don't know how to formulate a motion that would give us the findings we need. So can can you guide us to to be able to do that?

Yeah. So I think most so the the findings are pretty detailed. It does cite things like our general plan Yeah. And and and things of that regard. I think for at least for number one, the discussion that this commission had about the the old Shell station, for example, could be looped into condition one. Condition two, it could just

So so the so the the way to think about this motion would be with respect to condition one, given that the Shell station across the street had similar branding, we think this branding is acceptable for the city now. Would that do it? I don't know. I'm I don't I I I'm

This is this is a challenge because, you know, the staff has put together findings for denial based on consideration of actual specific policies in the journal plan that we've supported with robust discussions. So I I don't think that the the bar is as high, you know, given where we're at at this hour, and we're in a public hearing right now to be able to to require you to do that level of analysis in terms of findings for approval of the project as is submitted. But you would have to have some sort of, you know, basis for each of the findings. And I think that, again, Wes, correct me if I'm wrong, The findings, are subjective in nature that gives you some discretion about how you put those together.

K. So I I think we're gonna be split unless we figure out a way to align to something that would create some kind of decision that that that that can be that can then be acted upon.

Okay. So so we have we have heard from the applicant that they would they have been asked to reduce the the color of yellow or their their colors, and they would they've elected to go forward with the way it is. That's understandable. Obviously, waiting for a decision. Okay. So if if we need to get a three one or four zero, can we go 50%?

Can we condition yeah. So I was gonna ask the exact same question. Can we condition this on they have to reduce the canopy further, the color further, or or we we don't approve it?

If the project were to be approved, we do have some standard conditions of approval, and we would also recommend a condition of approval to time lighting any lighting on the site to turn off by 10PM. So, yeah, you could include conditions of approval, but that would still require making affirmative findings for the application.

So right now, it's fully denied as as submitted. So for us to not deny it, it's gonna come

We've gotta come up with findings and change it.

But didn't the applicant say they can't go smaller, that this is the smallest Shell we'll let them do?

That's not true. I think Shell will Shell has allowed very little branding in other locations. We have

But we Okay. Do but don't we have to take his word?

Yeah. We don't know. Right?

We don't know. But We we can't make that assumption.

But That's the challenge.

But what I'm saying is it's not, like, impossible because they have done it other locations in the city. So you can't say that Shell doesn't do it. So that argument, I don't buy.

But he said it was different construction.

I'm not gonna let you get that here. Yeah. But I think Shell has done it in other parts of our city. Chevron has done it, and they have done it not just in our city, so many other cities.

Alright. So let me let me try this. I'm gonna propose that we it's been that we grant the application Maybe I'll go the other way so I can do less findings. I'm gonna propose that we no. Either way, I'm gonna have to do findings.

Mhmm. I'm gonna propose that we grant the application, but the application is granted that subject to the awning looking like it looks like the one on Hopyard across the street from Lucky's because we know that Shell has approved that before. And so and that that I think we can then use these recommendations as the I can walk through them. But I think that's gonna get a decision that then the applicant can decide what they wanna do with, and we at least are giving them a way to work with this work with this decision. Or could I do could I do this one?

We we agree to approve it, but only if they shrink the awning color by another 50% or whatever it is, five inches, whatever math that is.

Staff's recommendation was that the the bright franchise color, so, again, the yellow and red, not exceed 33% of the canopy. And I believe right now, it's at 63.8%.

So they have to do reduce it by another 50%. K. The applicant, I think do you wanna can I reopen? Do you have something you wanna add here?

Doug?

So again, thank you for the chance to reopen that. When we we were going back and forth, a lot of this was verbal, and there was never ever any that we would go down to a third. It was always 50%. That was that was their fallback position. And that's when we said, well, no. We have this 63.630.8%, that, we have approved from Shell, and that's where we wanted to go with it. So there was never a discussion of pulling it down to one third. In all my records notes, it was down to 50%. Okay.

Well, I I wasn't a part of the

She wasn't.