Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we're on air. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the September 10, 2025 Pleasanton Planning Commission meeting. With that, I'll call the meeting to order. And Commissioner Mohan, would you please lead us in Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Estella, could we please get a roll call?

Yes, sir. Commissioners Jago?

Present.

Jane?

Present.

Mohan?

Yes.

Pace?

Present.

Wedge? Present. And Chair Pace? I'm so sorry, Chair Morgan?

Present.

We have a quorum.

Okay, thank you. And staff, do we have any amendments tonight?

No agenda amendments, Chair. Thank you.

All right. And fellow planning commissioners, any amendments? See everybody nodding no. And regarding speaker cards, for members of the public, if you would like to speak on any topic tonight, please submit a yellow speaker card to the recording secretary, to Estella here. The speaker cards can be found out front. And with that, we'll move to the consent calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION UNLESS A REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FOR DISCUSSION OR EXPLANATION IS RECEIVED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC BY SUBMITTING A SPEAKER CARD FOR THAT ITEM. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ONE IS THE ACTIONS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. TWO ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF WHICH THERE WERE NONE RELATED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE THIRD WAS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. AND ESTELLA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS FOR CONSENT ITEMS?

NO SPEAKER CARDS WERE RECEIVED FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

OKAY. AND IF ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AT THIS TIME. I don't see anyone here. And do we have any comments from fellow planning commissioners for items on the consent calendar? Seeing none, I'll invite a motion to approve the consent calendar. I'll move. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

All right. And Estella, could we please have a roll call? Sure.

Commissioners, sorry, Jane?

All right.

Mohan?

Yes.

Pace?

Aye.

Wedge? Aye. And Chair Morgan?

Aye.

Okay motion passes unanimously.

Okay moving to the meeting open to the public. Public comments is for items that are not on the agenda. If you'd like to speak for an item that is on the agenda please hold your comments until we get to that item. Estella any speaker cards for public comments?

No speaker cards are received for items not listed on the agenda.

Okay. And if anyone else would like to speak for items listed not on the agenda, please approach the podium. Okay. So seeing none there, we can move to the public hearing. We have one item on the hearing tonight related to lighting at private tennis courts. And I know we've seen this item a couple times now, and we have it again here. And let's go ahead and start with the staff presentation.

Good evening, Planning Commission. Before you tonight is item five on the agenda. Appeal of zoning administrator's approval of an administrative design review application P25-0236 to install six approximately 15-foot tall tennis court lights in the rear yard of an existing property located at 2207 Mart Avenue. The project site is located between Martin Avenue and Dennis Drive. It is developed with a two-story single-family residence with an attached garage. The property includes several mature trees clustered near the center and is also thoroughly landscaped throughout. Surrounding the property to the north, south, and west are other single-family homes consisting of one and two stories, while to the east, across Martin Avenue, lies land owned by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Below is a brief background summary of the site's entitlement history. Please refer to the agenda report for more details. The owners, also the applicants, applied for a PUD development plan approval under case number PUD 148 to establish development standards and construct tennis court fencing for 2207 Martin Avenue on March 17, 2023. The PUD application received a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission and was approved by the City Council on February 6, 2024. When recommending approval of PUD 148, the Planning Commission accounted for the potential of tennis court lighting, approved the tennis court location with a six-foot northern side setback, and established specific tennis court regulations without prohibiting sports court lighting. The specific tennis court development standards include the requirement of an administrative design review for tennis court lighting above eight feet in height. As such, the property owners first applied for ADR approval for six 15-foot-tall tennis court light poles on May 22, 2024, for which the ZA referred the application to the Planning Commission. After reviewing all testimony and project materials, the Planning Commission denied the application. However, the Commission clarified that denial did not mean lighting could never be installed. Rather, the specific proposal submitted was not supported by an adequate lighting study analysis. In response, the property owners reapplied for ADR approval on June 2, 2025. On June 17, 2025, staff sent neighbor notices as part of the ADR process and received a request for a ZA hearing by the property owners Ray and Michelle Peterson of 3520 Dennis Drive, who are also the appellants for tonight's item. On July 18, 2025, after considering all public comments, the ZA approved the ADR application subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit A of the Agenda Report. In approving the application, the ZA considered all public comment relevant to development standards and the Planning Commission's previous comments and determinations made at the public hearings held on August 23, 2023 and December 13, 2023. The ZA focused on the design and lighting impacts of the proposal, not whether lighting would otherwise be allowed or subject to the R140 district accessory structure setbacks of 20 feet. The ZA concluded the project complies with PMC section 18.20.030 design review criteria and the lots applicable development standards. The ZA's action was appealed to the planning commission on August 4th, 2025. basis for the appeal including exhibit c of the agenda report include an alleged staff conflict of interest a claim that the za's reasoning for approval is not consistent with the planning commission's determination on may 22nd 2024 and the overall attendance court project history the slide before you illustrates the development standards for the site per pud 148. The applicant is proposing tennis court lights with a height of 15 feet with a six-foot side setback to the north side property line adjacent to the appellant's property, approximately 33-foot rear setback from the west property line adjacent to Dennis Drive. The proposed tenant court lights also consist of a color temperature of 5,000. All six poles will have an extension arm of 18 inches for the light fixtures and three poles located north on the court next to the adjacent residence will consist of 12 inch shields. Per the photometric study, also included in the agenda report in exhibit B, concludes that the no light spillover will occur to the north residence at 3520 Dennis Drive and the public right of way on Dennis Drive to the west. The light study also provided rendering to further illustrate the light impacts. The first is a color temperature rendering followed by a night rendering, both noting no spillover. In the revised application, the property owners further clarified the existing light conditions. They noted existing street lighting on Dennis Drive and garage lights from their neighbors at 3520 Dennis Drive. Here we see visual images of the current lighting conditions at night. Furthermore, as part of the revised ADR application, the property owners highlight the presence of mature vegetation that has grown and been installed above the requirements of past entitlement for the tenants core fencing. Existing vegetation includes 25-foot trees, six 7-foot tall hedges, and new six approximately 7-foot tall 24-gallon trees. As part of the public hearing process, staff sent out notice cards to tenants and property owners within a 1,000 foot radius. Staff received comments that shared concern for the project and others that did not. For those that expressed concerns, they related to proximity of the tennis court lights to nearby residences, potential lighting and traffic impacts, including light pollution, height of the light poles, aesthetic considerations, tennis court setbacks, consistency with the planning commission's prior denial. Staff recommends to adopt a resolution upholding the zoning administrator's approval of an administrative design review application case number P25-0236 based on the required findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A. I would also like to note that the appellate, Ray and Michelle Peterson, are not here tonight. They did provide additional clarification of their appeal letter as the supplemental memo should be included in your packet. We do have the property owners of 2207 Avenue here with us tonight to present as well. and lastly just want to make a quick edit here clarification on page two of six of the agenda report on the second paragraph reads that on january 16 2023 and february 6 2023 the correct year date is 2024 minor edit on that side other than that a staff is here and ready to answer any questions the commission may have

If I remember correctly, Commissioner pace, you and I were, we've seen this a couple times, but I don't think the other folks here have seen it. We're, we're part of their original discussion anyway, which was a complicated discussion. And so perhaps we could start with you and your perspective and whether you have any questions for staff, for starters.

okay thanks um thank you chair um uh thanks diego appreciate it as always so um just going back in time um the application that we ultimately approved was that the lights could be 10 feet and the fence could be 10 feet and that these setbacks uh on the court at the time as they were set forth, all of that was consistent with what the city regulations required. Is that correct?

Yes, and consistent with the already partially constructed tennis court at the time.

Yeah. Okay. So when we approved this the last time around, there weren't any variances from what the typical requirements for the city regulations would be, is that right? Correct. Okay. So what's before us now is the applicant wants to change that original design and make the lights five feet higher and make the fence five feet higher, is that right?

NOT NECESSARILY THE FENCE COMPONENT. IT'S AN INDEPENDENT COMPONENT FROM THE LIGHTING ITEM HERE TONIGHT. PD 148 ESTABLISHED THE LOCATION OF THE PARTIALLY BUILT THEN TENNIS COURT AND ALSO REQUESTED APPROVAL OF TENNIS COURT FENCING WHICH HAD PARTICULAR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WITH A STEP DOWN DESIGN. THERE'S 20 FEET MAX AND THEN STEP DOWN TO THE MIDDLE TENNIS COURT LINE. AT THE TIME STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT TENANTS COURT LIGHTING SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. HOWEVER, AFTER DISCUSSION, TESTIMONY, HEARING FROM THE APPLICANTS AND THE NEIGHBORS, THE COMMISSION ELECTED NOT TO NECESSARILY PROHIBIT THE LIGHTING AND THAT WOULD BE REVISITED IF AND WHEN THAT LIGHTING PROPOSAL CAME THROUGH.

OKAY. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M TRACKING, SO WHEN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION CAME THROUGH, And when the PUD was approved, the location for the court, as well as the fence and the various components of the fence, those were all approved. And lights ultimately existing up to 10 feet was the kind of open item. And now we are back discussing the lights. Is that right?

It's correct in a sense for the tenants court and tenants court fencing. Lighting originally was included as part of the overall proposal of PD 148. However, the owners with conversations with the Dennis Drive property owners, Ray and Michelle Peterson elected to just remove it from the scope and later revisit that item.

Okay. So the original proposal was lights for 10 feet. Then they withdrew that as part of the application. And now we're back talking about lights at 15 feet. Is that right?

CORRECT, AND IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE FOUR OF THE AGENDA REPORT, IT SUMMARIZES THE PUD 148 SPECIFICS, AND ITEM E IS UNDERLYING TENNIS COURT LIGHTING ABOVE EIGHT FEET SHALL REQUIRE ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW. OKAY. SO THAT WAS IT. THAT WAS THE ONLY CRITERIA RELATED TO LIGHTING.

OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. Where we are now is... coming back to a discussion about the lights. And so I just noted that there were a number of other things that were included in some of the comments that we had gotten over time. And so I just want to be clear about the scope of what we're considering here as we're trying to get through this again to make sure that we are kind of considering the right things. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that clarification.

And I'd like to follow up with just another question or two regarding what happened in the original approval and my memory of that to see if that's correct. First, a general question. As we've talked about, this was a difficult item that originally came before us because construction had already started. And so my first question is, if they had come to you requesting approval for this project before they had started building the tennis court, what types of setbacks, if any, would you have required for the side of that?

yeah thank you thank you for the question so i'm pulling up here the r140 development standards and if we focus on the class 1 accessory structures staff would have recommended at that time of the pud proposal to have the tennis court and lighting at that 20 foot set back from the side

CORRECT. AND MY RECOLLECTION, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M STATING THIS FAIRLY, BUT I FELT AT THE TIME ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT SINCE CONSTRUCTION HAD ALREADY STARTED, IT PUT US IN A DIFFICULT POSITION TO REQUIRE THE demolish the work had already been done and so part of the calculus of all of that was determining whether or not we wanted to approve something that did not meet a 20-foot setback and that it was a more difficult decision because construction had already started does that seem like a fair assessment from your perspective

it is i'd like to clarify though um do i know i know it's difficult because uh we not all the planning commissioners were at the past hearings and so i understand some of the questioning but what is before us is really limited to the tennis court lighting and that that is the aspect that we're we're reviewing terms of asking questions about the past I mean in all fairness the the applicant did come in in the beginning and ask staffs permission whether or not they could build the tennis court they were given permission however again I don't I don't want to open up a lot of what happened in the past because again I PUD 148 was approved and it did allow the tennis court, it did allow all those, the various aspects on page four. But again, in all fairness to the applicant for the record, they did come in, they did ask for permission for staff to build the tennis court. At that time, lighting, fencing, some of those aspects of it were not considered. So I need to state that for the record.

okay i have one follow-up question that's actually related to that and that is that when we had that original uh proposal before us our um our chair at the time commissioner pace had uh set aside some time for a break away for the applicant and the party that was opposing the project to meet and discuss amongst themselves whether they could come to agreement and make a proposal that was satisfactory to both of them. And my recollection was that the applicant agreed to remove the lighting aspect of the project and return for support from the neighbor to build the project to agree to the project. Is that a fair assessment?

That is correct.

OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THE BACKGROUND ELEMENTS OF THIS THAT MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT THINK FOR A NORMAL APPROVAL, STARTING WITH THE IDEA THAT CONSTRUCTION HAD ALREADY STARTED BEFORE IT CAME TO US. SO IT PUT US IN A MORE DIFFICULT SPOT THAN NORMAL. SO THAT WAS THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD. AND SO WITH THAT.

GO AHEAD. BUT JUST YOU, CHAIR, LIKE WHAT I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON IS what's in scope because the PUD was approved. Yeah. Right. So we can't walk that back like that's that would lead to I'm not a lawyer for the city in this, but let me just say like undoing a PUD would create a whole bunch of headaches for us. And so I just yes, there is a complicated history here. But the thing we've got to focus on is the lights because that's what's before us. Right. And I don't want to create

a bunch of litigation work for whoever it is that manages that going forward at the city okay it looks like uh commissioner jago has a question oh please uh so this is with that being said i have kind of a pull-off question because i am one of the people that's coming in from from scratch and having been exposed to these types of things over the years, especially when we talk about things under construction and having to kind of retro do something, but I totally get that this item is approved as is. But if we are now looking at something new for this specific court in this existing location, the actual lights are now going to be outbound of that setback, correct?

And clarify, there are no lights there now?

No, I know. The proposed lights. Correct. theoretically would be inbound of our normal 20 foot setback because of the fact the location of the tennis courts has been approved in that location, but the lights are brand new, completely separate item. So that being is if the lights are coming in and proposed and they're within six feet of the side property line, Are they then considered still in that 20 foot setback or was that 20 foot setback eradicated by the PUD?

So per that conditions there on page 406 subsection E, the commission did account that tennis court lighting at this location would be considered in the future. And so in order, the commission wanted to see that design. So normally the threshold would be greater than 10 feet in height. Administrative design review generally triggered. In this instance, they put in more restrictive threshold, which is eight feet to ensure that the planning division, but also ultimately the planning commission can review the design should there be issues or concerns.

right I'm not worried about the height I'm worried about the location to the side setback is the side setback still 20 feet even though they got a PUD for the tennis court are the lights because they were not part of the original PUD are they still now allowed to be within that that current existing location

That's the million dollar question for the commission to deliberate tonight. At the time that the PUD was approved, staff had mentioned and I'll stop sharing saying urged the commission to if they were going to establish individual standards for the sports court, including lighting, we had hoped that a setback would have been established as well. The commission chose not to go that route. So you will see discussion in the documentation related to a 20 foot setback for the R140 standards, but that's applicable, in this case, staff's interpretation applicable to other types of accessory structures independent of the sports court. The way that staff has interpreted these standards is that anything encompassed within the tennis court kind of footprint is still subject to that current six foot setback.

Okay, thank you. Sure.

Commissioner Mohan, questions?

I think we all were there, including Commissioner Mohan. And Commissioner Mohan actually broke out. He suggested that the two parties talk to each other. And as you rightly said, Chair Pace called for that recess, and that happened. Yeah, so it has come to us, I think the third time. And just to be clear, if I remember correctly, there was a discussion, but there was not a concrete. So eight feet was put in place so that the application, if it comes, would come to the zoning administrator. That was the intent at that point.

So wait, can I, sorry, can I just ask clarification? If they were to have eight feet and put in eight feet, they wouldn't need to come back and they could just build that under the PUD, right?

That's correct. It'd still be subject to building permits, electrical, but with respect to that threshold of eight feet, the other component to it and the reason of the commission to install that eight feet is because there is a neighbor noticing requirement. And so that kind of bridged the gap there for the neighbors can also be notified if lighting was to be proposed.

Yeah, so I think eight feet was without any zoning administrative review, just go straight to the building department, put them in? That was the case? That is correct. Okay. Yeah, those are my questions. Thank you. Mr. Woods, questions?

I remember being in the meeting, too. And I remember the eight foot. I think I was the alternate at the time, but maybe somebody was sick. I don't remember. But I remember being part of this discussion. And they went out, broke out twice. And eight feet was what we came back with. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE MY MIND IS.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE TO APPLICANT PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT, WE'LL INVITE THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT.

All right.

Diego, if you can put the presentation. Thank you, commissioners. Good evening, everyone. So while Diego has this presentation, a couple of things that I do want to mention, and I know we're not revisiting the past and we're not going back as to how the POD 148 came about. But two things, one is we did seek permission, including a 15 foot height of the lights at that time and building off the tennis court. And I'll not go in the reasons why we thought we could go ahead and what happened between us and the city, but we did ask for the permission and in a way permission was given to us. So that was the reason, it was not a half constructed court that we were just building on the side and then we were just put in front of the planning commission. I do want to just clarify that, number one. The second part, I think, which is also important to clarify is that, yes, while we did discuss with our neighbor at the time, and we said, okay, we will take the lights off right now, we will reserve the rights that we can apply for them later. Which is why, if you go to the next slide, Diego, these are the exact conditions under which this PUD 148 was approved. And the last line, tennis court lighting about eight feet in height shall require ADR. And the thought process at that time by the commission was that, okay, let's put it more restrictive than the 10 feet so that these guys come back with the design and they at least seek an approval so that we go through this review, at least with the zonal administrator, before we can go ahead and put it. That was the first thing that I just wanted to make sure from a history perspective. The second thing I think, Commissioner Morgan, we were here last year in 2024 as well, 23 or 24. Again, with the exact same request, 15 feet height. We wanted to put it in. There was a lot of discussion about it back and forth. And the suggestion by the commission was there's not enough information right now. There was a photometric study, but there was some spillover into our neighbor's yard. I think less than 0.5 foot candle. And the question was, well, what is a foot candle? How do we think? And one of your suggestion was, can I come with you guys and can I see something which has been done with that kind of a technology that the spillover can really be contained to the degree that you guys are saying. That was an offer that you made to us. We have tried that with our vendor and the vendor is, because of the privacy reasons, they don't want to reveal the, and take us to their client sites and have us visit those. So I just wanted to give that background. So last time, the only thing was come back again. You can apply again. Just bring more information for us. So that was the thing that commission had decided on. And that's how we were left to pursue the course. And now we think we have more information, which is why we went back to the city. And we reapplied. We have become a little more tighter with our spillovers. We've become a little more specific with our photometric. We've done a little bit more in terms of the foliage around the property. And we'll talk about it. One other thing that I would like to point out is all the conditions in here we have been able to meet, other than the condition number D, which is that there was also an agreement between us and the neighbor that we would increase the fence height to seven feet and that you know we'll split the cost of it uh we have sent quotes to them twice and we never heard back from them unfortunately so the time expired we're still open if they if they want to come back and consider this we're still open And we would love for that fence to be seven feet if that helps them. Although the foliage that we have put in, the trees that we have put in, are now beyond that fence. They're taller than that fence. The other thing I'd also like to point out is the condition suggested that we put only five gallon minimum vegetation. We have 24 gallon trees that we have planted. And the vegetation that we had planted is now seven feet. So we've been working on it. We've been trying to do whatever we can as a responsible neighbor. We, of course, don't want to cause any harm, cause any damage. So that's the important background I do want to highlight before we go further. So next slide. OK. So we've worked quite hard on this. And we've worked with a couple of vendors that do this for a living. And a very detailed photometric study has been done that we've been able to bring down the spillover to zero. absolutely zero spillover into our neighbor's yard. And this is when the lights are going to be, of course, that the foot of the pole is six feet. And I'll talk a little bit more about how we are extending it further and what we are doing to make sure that that spillover is not there with that light. But this is one snippet of that photometric study, which clearly shows. So what you see, the inside two rectangles that you see is the tennis court. And what you see in the purple color, or pink color, however you want to see that, is the neighbor yard, and that is where Emax is 0.00, which is really the spillover is zero, yeah? Next slide. Okay, in the next slide what I wanted to highlight was that what are we doing? So if you look at the light up, first of all it is an anti-glare LED light. It's not your typical tennis court light which is bright and shining down. It's an LED light with anti-glare prismatic technology. And then there's a one feet shield that we are bringing down to make sure no light goes into the back. And that's the rendering. If you don't put the shield, as you can see in the first picture, there's a light going back to the back. In the second picture, there's no light going into the back. And that's the anti-glare tennis court lighting, which is just falling into the front. Next slide. Now, ignore the light in this particular picture. We couldn't find the picture because this is not the LED light that we are putting. We are putting the light that we showed you in the earlier picture. But this is the single-arm tennis extension. So what we're doing is we're taking the light further inside into the tennis court by 18 inches, which is 1 and 1 half feet. So effectively, we are bringing it further in to achieve that zero spill that we want into our neighbor's yard. Yeah. The only point I'll also add is there's been some concerns raised about the rear of the property. Now this is a six or, you know, now of course, seven and a half, eight feet inside our property and there's a zero spillover. The light pole from the rear is 33 feet away. So obviously we are achieving a zero spill over there as well. And in the rear of the property also, we have increased our fence length after approval to seven feet. And we have already put in 24 gallons of evergreen trees over there and foliage, which is also at about seven feet. So we're trying to take care of that. There are still bald patches in between where that foliage has to come up, but we are working hard on it to bring it up as soon as we can. Yeah. So that part has also been taken care of. Next. This is just a picture of this. This is a few months ago when we had applied for this approval. I think in June. This is what it looks like. That's our neighbor's house that you can see the roof of. And this is, of course, us standing in the tennis court. Next. Just another view from the corner. You can see the back of the property as well, if you look deep enough. But of course, the lights are going to be 33 feet in from that end of that fence. Yeah. Next. The other thing we want to highlight is we have already also proposed a timer such that there's an auto cutoff on that light and that the lights cannot be turned on between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. So the lights can only be turned on 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. that is another thing that we are proposing now this is a picture uh that we have taken of our neighbors that's their garage lights and that's how their driveway looks and this is about 10 30 11. and that's of course the the back side of the road because there's there are two street lights there so that's how it looks the street lights of course remain on for majority of the night or at least we have seen it past midnight we don't know what time they switch off So just want to let you know that from a foot candle perspective, from an illumination perspective, there's already quite a bit. And we have zero spillover going into that, absolute zero. Next. These are the streetlights that we want to talk about. Next. And this is just how the picture is going to look like. And the dark side is, of course, the neighbor side. And that's how this technology is going to work. And with the shield and everything else, and the photometric studies have been done to sort of prove that. And that is how we're going to deliver this result. Now, I'll just add one more thing, and that's probably based on the experience that we had last time. You had asked, hey, is there more information that you guys can share with us? Hopefully, this throws some light. We have also looked around and said, what can we show other than a photometric study to convince that, hey, this is really not going to spill over? Now, pleasant and wise, wherever there has been anything to do with lights, photometric has been used as the de facto standard. We looked at almost all neighboring cities. There also the de facto standard is photometric studies. We also looked at the sport court lighting rules and regulations in the neighboring cities. What we are proposing is better than the strictest, which was Palo Alto. Palo Alto says less than 0.5 foot candle of spillover, ours is zero. And if that's of interest, I have a full slide on it as to what city prescribes what sort of limits. The minimum height is, of course, 15 feet. Some allow 18, some allow 20, in terms of that. So we are on the strictest side. Latest LEDs, anti-glare, 33 feet from the back fence. Of course, six, six and a half foot, but that is where the thing was. all properties in pleasanton whenever there is a light analysis that's always done by photometric so that's why we decided to stick with that versus trying to reinvent another way to sort of sort of show that show that so hopefully this was this was helpful for you guys and uh that was the presentation thank you um yeah in case people have questions yes for a bit uh yes 100 mr wedge do you have any questions for the applicant

All right now.

Okay, Mr. Pace.

Can you just describe the engagement you've had? We've got a bunch of emails that have come in, but the engagement you've had with the neighbors around kind of the feedback, you've obviously done the work of trying to demonstrate zero spillover. And, you know, you had the right to go to to eight feet, you decided to go further. So can you describe kind of the reasoning behind, you know, not just sticking with eight feet, and then kind of what the, the kind of the engagement with the neighbors and, you know, give shed any light there? While we've got you on the stand here?

100%. Thank you, Commissioner Pace. So let me first address your question, the second one, which is why did we decide to go from an 8 feet to a 15 feet. Tennis, eight feet light, the only way we can illuminate that court is by facing it like that. We can do that, but that obviously is going to shine exactly into our neighbors and exactly into the backyard and exactly everything. This light is downward facing, designed for the application to contain the spillover. That will cause the maximum spillover if we were to create a light which is at eight feet. And that's why we have stayed away from it despite having not to go through the planning because I know it's just gonna be not a happy scenario, number one. Number two, I think about the neighbors, I think, and this is also something which has been a very consistent thing. Unfortunately, we have not succeeded in ever having a conversation with them other than the one conversation which I think Commissioner Mohan sort of enabled that time when the breakup was done, you know, in the very first meeting that we had. I have numerous texts going to them. I have invites going out to them. I have left them voicemails. When it came to that seven feet fence that we had to commonly agree, I sent them two proposals and said, if you have any, please come back. I'm happy to accept whichever one works for you. No response whatsoever. We did get to talk to them because we were building a pergola in the backyard. And there was also a zonal administration review. Again, appellant were the neighbors. There is a concern about it. Went to zonal administrator. And that was the time when we met. Not met, but spoke online at least. And concerns were, hey, I have a privacy issue. My bedroom window is visible. It's too tall for what you guys are building. Thankfully, there wasn't an appeal to that. That pergola, just so that you know, was 84 feet away from their fence line, 84 feet. And if you look diagonally into their bedroom, that is 130 feet, 140 feet. And the appeal was it's a compromise of our privacy. So I'm very happy to talk to them if they're willing to come down, sit down with us. We would love to explain to them how hard we are working. Okay, I got everything we can.

Thank you. Diego, do you mind, can you put up the picture of the fence and the foliage from the street? It was in the applicant's presentation. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding what we saw in the picture. Been like maybe the second or third from the last picture?

Sure.

Apologies for that.

Keep going. Okay, right here, thank you. So the fenced yard here, are you behind the fence? Is that your yard that's behind the fence?

This is our yard, just two points to add there. This picture was taken two years ago. Okay, so just- Yeah, yes, but it is- I'm just trying to get oriented. The lowest picture, right? The one at the bottom is what you're talking about?

No, so if I look at the top picture on the left, your neighbor's yard is the one to the left and yours is the one to the right behind the fence. Is that right?

That is correct. Yeah. We are standing on the street behind us.

Okay. And so if I look at the, now the next picture over to the right, that's your neighbor's driveway. Correct. And if I'm, if I were to walk now, if I go back to the picture on the left at the top.

Yeah.

If I were to walk forward from wherever this picture was taken, you know, whatever, 10, 20 feet, and stand there, it would look like the picture on the right. Is that right? Absolutely correct. Okay. So then your yard is going to be to the right of the picture that's on the right, right? That is absolutely correct. Behind those trees? That's absolutely right. Okay. And so then the picture that's at the bottom, that's looking, walking into your yard at some point, maybe standing on the fence or on the court, and then looking over the fence onto the driveway. That's the way to think about it? That is absolutely correct. And so then I think there was another picture with foliage. Maybe it's the next picture.

That was probably before this. no the other way go back this one yeah so now we're this picture is that is this kind of looking at the same area it's that setbacks between you and the neighbor yes so so that picture that you had was a few years ago when that foliage had not grown in and that green that that green had not come up this is a few months ago where we have now all of this green and you're absolutely right is the same site yeah

Okay. And so this is, and if I'm just orienting here, this is, is this the long side of the court or the, or the, so we're standing on the, yeah, this is the long side facing the wrong side because we want to show you the entire fence. So there would be, there would be three lights on this side of the court. kind of behind wherever this picture, or to the left where this picture is taken, facing into the court, and then to the right would be the neighbor, right?

That is absolutely correct.

Okay. And so then there's been some growth of trees and other foliage between the end of the court here and the neighbor's yard, and you have more going up. What's your expectation about how high this foliage here is gonna grow over the next year or two?

So this privet was five gallon. This was three feet when we had planted it, and this we planted in 23. She would know more. Why don't you come in? Minoo, come. She's a gardener, so I don't want her to speak out of time.

So the half of the court already has the mature trees, which is like 25 to 30 feet high. And the other half, which is where we had planted additionally these privets, which are like now maybe six to seven feet high. And in between these hedges, we planted 24 gallon trees, six of those. And they're around like maybe eight or nine feet.

So they're going to get to eight or nine feet?

No, they are right now, but eventually they're going to be the same height or maybe higher, like around 30 to 40 feet is what they would eventually grow. So when they grow, they're going to be looking exactly like the other half, which is...

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions for now.

Mr. Mohan, questions for the applicant?

Have you seen any tennis court with eight feet high lights?

No, I have not. Thank you. Mr. Jain.

So I think looking at, or just remembering from the past, there are other houses on the same neighborhood which have street, like tennis lights in their backyard, which is much higher probably. Because I walk around that area and a lot of people actually have much higher lights in the neighborhood.

Yeah, we did bring those pictures in this time. I think we had showed some of those last time. You're absolutely right. There are quite a few tennis court in that region, in that area, and there are tennis court lights which are taller than that, and they are not LED. They're not shielded. The other thing which I'll also like to point out is we've seen where these letters have sort of come from in terms of some of the concerns they have laid out. And again, inconsequential in my opinion, but there are already sport courts with lighting between that property and our property, which have lights. And yet they have complained about this property, which is further away from them. But that's besides the point. My hope is that since every property in Pleasanton is measured by the same standard, which is photometric, my hope is my property is going to be measured with the same standard as well. which I've tried to comply in all sense. I've complied with all conditions of my PUD 148. I strongly want to make the point that when we came first time to Planning Commission, we did not come with a half-built, well, we did come back with a half-built tennis court, but that was not because of lack of us reaching out to the city. That was because of a confusion, which again, none of us want to revisit. So I just want to reiterate that. And any condition other than that one that I pointed out where we couldn't get the cooperation of the neighbor, we have fulfilled, including anything that we have done so far in our property.

And I think I would like to bring two points as well, that as part of the city restrictions, you know, we have added the fact that we're going to be, like, turning off the lights by 10 o'clock. So I think the timing of from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., they'll be turned off. And secondly, they would have a timer, like if I accidentally leave it open for a certain number of minutes or hour, it will automatically turn off. So we are adding that as well.

See, the idea here is if I can add, and I wish there was neighbors here that we could talk to them as well, You know, we're gonna live here. It's our neighborhood. We want them to be happy. We want us to be happy. I think staff will also testify to that. I've gone to Diego a few times and I've requested even to Melinda to say, hey, is there a way you can just get us together with them? Can we just talk to them? And I think you can speak to that, Melinda. I mean, I've gone to you a couple of times to say, please facilitate a meeting. We would love to talk to them to understand what's going on. If you wanna throw some light on it.

Let's Yeah, no, let's okay.

So I think maybe we hold that till till discussion.

The other question I have is, initially, when you came to the city, you had to go through this process of doing a beauty, getting it zoned as R 140. All of that was just to get approval for the tennis court.

That is correct, Commissioner Jain. That's a very valid point. And that's where it all started because, yeah, and again, not to go into history, but eventually we realized that our property did not have a zoning at all. And then, so we had to first gain zoning and it was important for us to have that tennis court there. And so we worked with the city to come up with this R140,000 with special conditions for the tennis court, right? And because, you know, we wanted that. So you're absolutely right. We had to go through the whole PUD process to get a zoning on the property And that's why I have a little few more gray hairs since then when we started this whole process, which was back in 2022. We're right now in 2025. It's three years on this application. But you're absolutely right. Yeah, we had to go through that process. Absolutely.

Thank you. No more questions. Mr. Diego, questions for the applicant?

So I have a couple of questions. One, the photo that shows your neighbor's garage lights. And I know since then you've got vegetation that's blocking that. But I'm asking the question more from your perspective. That's your backyard. their garage is facing your backyard, which is kind of an odd scenario for you guys. Are those lights motion censored or are they on all the time? They're on all the time.

They're on all the time. But look, we're okay.

No, but I'm just kind of looking at it as, and this will be part of the discussion outbound of you, Bob, which I'll hold, but the question is basically those lights are on from what you can tell most of the time. We've seen them past midnight. We don't know when they switch off. And they don't look as though they're approved downward facing lights. Those look as though they are blazing outward toward you. I know we have a lot of, and I know the city does, has a lot of regulation on how lights are supposed to work. I'm looking at that going, that seems to be from your perspective potentially an eyesore coming onto your property. I just wanted to make sure that those weren't just motion censored. And I think that's the only question I have for you. Thank you. Thank you.

I do have one. You said you planted six 24-gallon trees. What type of trees did you plant?

Okay, let me take time to think. What's the name?

It's Ficus nitida. And they grow 30 to 40 feet?

Yes. And they're evergreen.

Evergreen, OK. Could you please put up a picture again of the tennis court? And I'd like to better understand where those trees were planted, too. I don't know if there's one looking down at an aerial view, maybe?

Maybe go back to the last one and describe it. Yeah. Go back one, yeah.

So if you can see in between the privet, you would see that one in the middle a little higher. So that's the privet.

No, that's a tree. No, no, no, not the tree.

So the bigger, higher trees in the background.

Oh, yeah, privets are a little ahead.

So in between the privet, you have those.

What I see right now is I see the house behind you, and then I also see where the fence line ends. there and I don't know where the trees are relative to that.

That's one.

And there are six trees, is that correct?

Yes.

And you pointed out two of them or?

Yeah, so one, two. Yeah, there's one there and there's one in between.

I see now.

And these are fast growing trees. On average, they grow like around two to three feet high.

Every year.

And also to highlight their house is single story. And the side that you're seeing is the garage. The main entrance is from the front side. Are they deciduous trees?

Evergreen. I've got them here. They don't specify they're evergreen unless I've spelled them.

Let me show you.

okay um that's all my questions no further questions for the applicant thank you thank you and she's uh looking up that tree on devil mountain where we got it from so she'll just show it to you thank you i guess one one other question if it shows the mature height of the trees or anything related to that

All right, well, she's well, she's let's see if we can just get all the same information for the record. So once you've found it, if you just want to read into the record, then we can all have the same information. Well, while that's happening, maybe should we go to close that?

Well, there's other comments from the public, I guess. Yeah. Ask whether there's anybody else from the public that we do we receive any speaker cards for this item?

NO OTHER SPEAKER CARDS WERE RECEIVED FOR THIS ITEM. WE DID RECEIVE A SPEAKER CARD FOR AN ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. HOWEVER, ACTING DIRECTOR DENNIS DID SPEAK WITH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND EXPLAIN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCEDURES. SO WE DO HAVE COPIES IF YOU GUYS WANT AFTER THIS HEARING. AND IT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.

THIS IS FOR AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA? EXACTLY. AND IS THAT PERSON STILL HERE?

HE LEFT.

OKAY. Let's address that later. Anybody else from the public wish to speak on this item? Okay, so we'll close the public hearing and Commissioner Wedge, I think you were gonna make a comment.

I did. I just want to correct. It's a ficus retusa natita, not a ficus natita. And this does state that it's evergreen where the natita was not. So I do want to put that on record.

Yeah, thank you. And can you just, like, talk about height at all or things like that just so we can have a clear record?

Let me look. carry on until I can locate this, if you don't mind.

Before we close the question and answer, I have some questions, not for the applicant, but for staff.

Yeah, so we can

we can go through a general discussion and so yeah if you'd like to start with questions more questions for staff that sounds good uh i think it's more for maybe city attorney like uh what are some allowed basis for appeal so i i'm reading the reasons for appeal the first reason they say is conflict of interest like where is the conflict of interest like why why would be in favor or opposed to this application? Why does that arise?

Well, I will refer to staff as that was, I believe, an allegation. Oh, okay. That was an allegation, not a criteria from the code.

And what are some criterias for appeal? Like, can someone just say, I don't like the color?

Any interested party can appeal. They can say, oh, I don't like the color. They can say they don't like they're not in agreement with the decision and they have the right to appeal. And as long as it's done within the requisite timeframe, they are allowed to appeal. So the appeal was valid.

And the appeal could be for any reasons?

Yes, and the appeal can be by, like I said, any interested party or participant. And likewise, the council can review. It's not an appeal, but they can take an item up on review on their own accord.

Thank you. Can I ask one follow-up? Is there a process for a conflict of interest review if an allegation is made? I'm not suggesting there should be. I'm simply asking if there is one.

Is there a process for review?

So if the case here where there was an allegation that someone on the staff is somehow conflicted, what is the process if there is one that the you know, the city staff goes through to kind of, you know, consider that vet that I mean, we will obviously consider that too. But I'm just wondering if there's a process that the city staff goes through.

I'm not aware of a formal process. Generally speaking, my understanding is if there's a question from staff, they will bring it to the city attorney's office for review.

Okay, thank you.

And then I guess, Diego, what was your response to that allegation? Did you have one?

I'll fill this one for you. So I believe that the the appeal for conflict of interest was actually directed at me. I provided the initial direction to the applicant for the construction, the pre construction of the tennis court the at the time. And then I also served as the zoning administrator ultimately that approved the application before you this evening. So I believe that that's what they're referencing in terms of a potential conflict of interest.

You don't have any property interest in the area?

No property interest, no financial interest, no.

The outcome of this is not going to somehow impact your pay? It will not. Okay. So I'm just, you know, I'm not trying to joke. I want to make sure the record is clear in case this were to come up. Correct. Whatever the outcome here is not going to impact you financially in any way, right? That's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm not surprised otherwise, but it's worth checking.

And I guess I have one follow-up question, just again, because this is complex, because it's got a history to it. I'm trying to remember at the last meeting we had on this topic, and there was an approval for lighting, but up to eight feet, is that correct? Only eight feet?

The development standard allows up to eight feet. At that time in 2024, with the first design of the light poles, they came in at 15 feet. So eight feet was never proposed. Rather, it was deferred that the moment you go above eight feet, you need to apply for an ADR.

Okay, so at the last hearing, there was a request for lighting, was it 10 or 12 or 15 feet? 15 feet. 15 feet? Correct. And that was denied at the last hearing? Correct. And maybe you could explain one more time what the basis for the denial was.

Sure. In summary, the commission found that there were some questions to be had as to what were the assumptions of the photometrics, understanding what the photometrics actually detail. What is a foot candle? How is light measured? Are there other examples in town that can be referenced? And one of the components that we, at that point in time, referenced were our own community lights at tennis courts. and really industry standards and also did a comparison with other cities, but absent of our own. In that regard, there were more questions than answers per the given information or even justification as to why the 15 feet are proposed. Considering all that, the commission elected that unanimously or the majority could not support the decision with some outstanding questions at that time.

Related to light spillover and uncertainty on standards for other similar cities and situations? Correct.

All right, well. Would you like the definition of the ficus retusa?

Please.

It's a rapidly growing, rounded, broad-headed, evergreen shrub or tree that can reach 10 meters or 33 feet in height with an equal spread.

Oh, okay. All right, well, let's, I guess, focus on discussion amongst ourselves and maybe our thought processes and... Yeah, can I ask another question of staff?

If they were to do eight feet and they were to... similar to the lights that are in the neighbor's yard, just stick them at eight feet, kind of projecting across the court. Would there have to be requirements around how to shield the lights at that level? Or what would be, if it were not going to come as an ADR, right, what would be, they could just stick a light there, motion detector light or anything else, and it just kind of would sit there kind of projecting onto the court, right?

That's correct.

Okay. So similar to the neighbor's lights across the way, it would just sit there as on and projecting across the court. And so they could circle the court with a bunch of lights that would illuminate the court, but would also have a spillover effect, but there would be nothing that this city could do about it because it would be within the eight feet requirement that we had previously set under the 10 feet that the city requirement has. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So Commissioner Diego's got a question or a comment.

So if it, from my perspective, that question and answer just gave us our answer, in my opinion, because they don't need approval to put whatever light they want facing horizontal to light that, and it's going to be brutal, what they're doing is doing it correctly. One of the things I was waiting on how I was going to look at this project was obviously the presentation, which I thought was wonderful. But we dealt with photometrics for 30 years doing apartment complex lighting. And you've got apartments, walkways and parking lots around three and four story apartments. And the amount of photometrics that have to be done to make sure that there isn't light going into those apartments is crazy. Those studies, you have to have your own you know the knowledge of how to read them but um they that is how you you deal with things and the photometrics for this do show that they are doing everything humanly possible to light that court whether we decide that's okay or not um in in the best way possible without it being a problem to the to the other neighbors my question to the applicant was they have to stare at those garage lights And there's no there's no well regulation on those lights blazing into their yard. And I think I think we just in my mind my question was just answered on this whole topic was what they're doing is considerably better for the neighborhood as opposed to what is actually they could go in and do without anybody saying anything. That's kind of how I look at it. But the photometrics are correct. That is how we do everything. And that is how everything is approved. And am I correct in saying that there's really only one neighbor that this is technically affecting?

I don't think the record's quite that clear. I think we've got a number of neighbors that have commented. If we kind of look at what the record is.

I know others have commented, but when you look at adjacency, it looks like it's because the court is so close to that neighbor.

I'm sure those people have commented. I don't remember what the neighbor's name was, but there were several that have commented, but obviously the one that are closest to it are going to... The ones that are 35 feet away would seem to kind of naturally have... less of a potential impact than the ones that are 20 feet away or whatever the numbers end up being.

And so there's a couple of things that over time you look at. It's like I realize that the neighbor is not here. Why not? If it's that big of a deal, why aren't they here? Why aren't they meeting with the applicant? Those are kind of things that are kind of glaring red flags to me. But I am, as of hearing all the information, I think I'm in actually support of everything that the applicant's doing.

Other people have... Chair Morgan, if I could interrupt. My apologies. Have you closed the public comments?

I INTENDED TO.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GOING INTO DISCUSSION VERSUS QUESTIONS.

PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED AND WE'RE IN DISCUSSION NOW.

THANK YOU. I'LL START. WE ASKED THE APPLICANT LAST TIME TO DO A STUDY. WE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT TO the neighbors would be with the you know light impact we also wanted to understand what these standards were within the community as well as within the region that applicant has identified what those were and characterized them for us it sounds like the staff doesn't disagree and the applicant has taken the most conservative approach in terms of light impact by having zero you know zero light impact light pollution onto the under the neighbors uh through this effort so it seems as if the applicant has done a good job of trying to identify all the questions that have come up over time and mitigate the impact to the neighbors and my observation based on the record we have in front of us is this is the least impactful way short of no lights at all, which they could do, but they could also just do eight feet and we would have nothing to say about it. This is actually the least impactful way on the neighbors to try to create some lighting for the court and they have an approved PUD for that court. So that's kind of where I'm landing on the subject is, is this feels like it's a good faith effort to comply They've done everything we've asked. They're more than on kind of the side of the conforming to community norms as well as regional norms around light pollution contribution.

Mr. Jain, it sounds like you would like to weigh in.

I think I still have some questions. So I'm looking at the three reasons why they appealed. So first one is, you know, I don't see any alleged conflict of interest. I just don't see it, what conflict of interest the staff would have in making a decision like this. Then the second one is they're claiming zoning administrator is not making decisions in consistency with planning commission's determination, which is also untrue because we told them, we told the applicant that if you're going to put anything above eight feet, you have to go through the administrative design review. So they did that. I think the staff did what they have to do. They looked at the light study. They looked at all the parameters and made a sound decision. So I don't really see any basis for one and two, to be honest, to be appealing. The third one is overall tennis court project history. Yes, I think we had this back and forth. And the applicant has come through with a solution which is least impactful to the immediate neighbor. I just don't know. I could just appeal anything. It could be for frivolous reasons. It could be like, oh, I don't like this color. It is more than that here. But I don't really see. merits to definitely points one and two as they have alleged in their appeal.

Mr. Mohan, do you have thoughts? Your thinking thought process here?

Yeah, I think the long and short of this is I agree with Commissioner Pace, which is I feel the I think the applicants have been thoughtful about doing what's the right thing for the neighborhood. as well as for the game of tennis, because it might not seem like it, but I used to play tennis in college. I still can't figure out in eight feet, lights, and playing tennis with those. So there's a double layer. So we have the caretaker with the lights and the shields, then we have the fast-growing,

a pretty thick layer of trees and the foliage.

And we have a garage the other side. So, I'm inclined to support this application.

Mr. Jago, I think you made your thinking clear previously here. Did you have anything else to add?

Yeah, the only thing I think would be smart is something I was thinking about, and the applicant brought it up, was the timer. And that was kind of my biggest question was on previous projects, we kind of had the same thing is, you know, can they turn these lights on at 1 a.m.? If I'm a neighbor, I don't care what's blocking it. I don't want those on at 1. But if you guys were to vote upon something to approve, it would be great to have as part of the approval requiring that timer. Because I think that kind of takes the last – kind of questionable item kind of off the board if they did do that timer cut off at 10, I think that would be great.

Staff, does this, if this is hypothetically approved, is there a condition that the lights will not be on between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. as a part of the approval?

Correct. Condition of approval number nine addresses hours of illumination, and then condition of approval number 10 addresses that a timer will be required.

that i think that meets your needs yeah mr witt i agree with commissioner jane that there is no merit to on the uh alleged staff conflict of interest as well as the zoning administrator reasoning for approval um i'm still mulling over going to 15 feet I wish the neighbors were here. We do have several letters from people who oppose this. So that's where I sit right now.

And I'll admit that when we came here tonight, I was a bit skeptical of this, because we've seen it a couple times already. And I will admit that my memory wasn't completely correct in a couple of instances. And now that I've been reeducated, I understand the situation. I'm in favor of approving this, because at our last meeting, our primary concern, as the record indicates, is whether or not there would be spillover lighting. into the neighbor's property from this project, and also whether this project met standards in other cities or jurisdictions relative to other applications for tennis court approvals. And so everything that I've heard tonight indicates that this is the standard, and with zero light spilling over to the neighbor, that addresses the previous question we had. And then with the shrubs that are growing quite nicely over the last couple of years, and in addition to that, the trees that will eventually grow up to 30 feet high, that's going to do a very good job of of further screening this tennis court from the neighbor's property so it seems like the applicant has done everything that they could do and everything that we had asked and then the icing on the cake for me is the condition that the lights won't be on between 10 p.m and 7 a.m so the neighbor doesn't need to worry about you know lighting during the middle of the night when they're trying to sleep so Based on that and everything I've learned tonight.

I don't have any objections that I'm supportive of the project I'll move to to Approve this subject to the conditions specified including the the timing for the light can with the with the timer and the light conditions Do we have a second a second

okay so we have a approval with a second for the project is proposed tonight and commissioner wedge did you have any further comments before we go ahead not at this time okay all right let's go ahead and have a roll call please stella of course commissioners jane hi

MOHA? YES. EXCUSE ME. PACE? AYE. WEDGE? AYE. AND CHAIR MORGAN? AYE. OKAY. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. CONGRATULATIONS.

THANK YOU.

I'M BACK. AND WE'RE FINISHED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY OR IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU CAN LEAVE AS YOU WISH TO.

So I think we need to reopen the public hearing to get whatever that comment was that that person came in and dropped off and get that on the record. We don't need to reopen. It'll just go into the record.

yes it will just be added as supplemental but it'll be part of the record at the end okay so if we don't need to open to do that then it's not required you can you have the choice but you're not required to reopen what I guess even if we did reopen what would we do because I don't since they're not here I don't know that it could benefit we could benefit from reopening could we well that's a really a call for the chair whether you think we wouldn't read the comments or anything at this point would we There's no need to do that, no. Yeah.

Based on that, we just let it be part of the record. Yep. And then if they wish to speak, they can come back next time.

Everyone's welcome to come and talk.

Okay. Thank you for raising that. I'd forgotten about that outstanding item. All right, matters for commission review. Reports from meetings attended. Commissioner Wedge? Nothing to report. Mr. Pace? None, thank you. Mr. Mohan? None. Mr. J? None. Mr. Jago? None. And none for me. Future planning calendar?

Yes, thank you, Chair. So as of now, we do not have any items scheduled for our next meeting on September 24th. So I'm not officially canceling that, but most likely it will be canceled. Just giving you a heads up. And then as you can see, we do have three items that we will be bringing to the commission before the end of the year. East Pleasanton Policy Framework Workshop. Actually, I'm sorry, that is scheduled, as you well know, for the joint City Council Planning Commission workshop on September 16th next Tuesday at 4 p.m. That is that item then the other two items receive an update on the Dublin Pleasanton BART station concept plan project and then finally the reviews proposed amendments to PMC chapter 18.20 design review which the Commission has Already provided some comments on on that in the past. So we're hoping to bring those those two items in October I just don't know which meeting yet

and that's that concludes the future pining calendar okay um matters initiated by commission members mr wedge nothing mr pace no thank you mr mohan you look like you're getting ready to say something nope no i'm just saying you just said no mr jane yeah none at this time thank you uh commissioner jago and then for me and chair pace i i or excuse me chair morgan see now i did it

So sorry, I would just like to to formally acknowledge and thank Assistant City Attorney Kimberly Seeley. This is her last meeting. She she did send you a communication earlier in the week. So again, just wanted to say thank you for for all that you've contributed to the city of Pleasanton the time that you've been here and we're really dearly going to miss you.

Yeah, thank you very much for all of your help and support over the last couple of years. Livermore's lucky.

We're going to miss you.

Thank you. I've loved it here. It's a great city to work for. So thank you for the opportunity.

Yeah, we can be like a good neighbor, like not fighting over the fence.

APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU ENJOYED WORKING WITH THE STAFF HERE AS WELL. SO, YEAH, IT'S BEEN GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE. MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR A GOOD OPEN DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC TONIGHT.