Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to teach you how to do it.

The on-air button is not on yet, so I assume, okay, now it is. Okay, we're live. Good evening and welcome to the October 22nd, 2025 Pleasanton Planning Commission meeting. And with that, I'll call the meeting to order. And Commissioner Jago, would you please lead us in Pledge of Allegiance? United States of America to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And Acela, could we please have a roll call?

Commissioners Jago?

Present.

Jane? Here. Mohan?

Here.

Pace? Present. Alleges absent and chair Morgan present great. We have a quorum.

Okay, very good. Do we have any agenda amendments by staff? No amendments by staff. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any agenda amendments by commissioners fellow commissioners? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WELCOME TO THE PUBLIC FOR ATTENDING TONIGHT, TOO, TO HELP US ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE COMMUNITY IS BEING REPRESENTED. AND FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM TONIGHT, PLEASE SUBMIT A YELLOW SPEAKER CARD TO ESTELLA, OUR RECORDING SECRETARY. SPEAKER CARDS CAN BE FOUND JUST OUTSIDE THE CHAMBERS HERE. AND WITH THAT, LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION UNLESS A REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OR DISCUSSION OR EXPLANATION IS RECEIVED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC BY SUBMITTING A SPEAKER CARD FOR THAT ITEM. STELLA, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS FOR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS?

NO SPEAKER CARDS WERE RECEIVED FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

All right. And is there anyone else that would like to speak on a consent calendar item? Seeing none, I'll ask whether there are any comments from fellow commissioners for items on the consent calendar.

Yeah, I'll just make a quick comment. The winding Oaks is relatively close to where I live. So I did we have in the past measured the distance there and it I'm not close enough to be getting the notification or otherwise. So I believe we're in good shape. So I will be participating here.

Okay, good. I think I just have a question. I don't mean to pull it from the agenda. Is there any fire safety issue? It said there will be some delay in the response time for police. Would it also affect in any way the time to get, let's say, the fire department there?

So no, they are required to have both a Knox box and a keypad. So the fire department is able to access the Knox box readily. And that's part of their procedures.

Okay, thank you.

That's true for all gated communities, I assume.

I believe anything with a key requires an ox box.

Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or concerns from fellow commissioners on consent calendar items? Okay. Seeing none, I'll invite a motion for the consent calendar.

I'll move to approve consent calendar.

Do you have a second?

I will second. Okay.

Estella, could we please have a roll call?

Sure. Commissioners Jaco?

Aye.

Jane?

Aye.

Mohan? Yes. Pace? Aye. And Chair Morgan?

Aye.

Great. Motion passes unanimously.

All right. Good. Now moving to the Meeting open to the public. Public comment is for items that are not on the agenda. If you would like to speak for an item that is on the agenda, please hold your comments until we get to that item. Do we have any speaker cards for items not on the agenda?

We did receive one speaker card. If we can get Sharon Piekarski to step up to the podium.

Good evening. The City Council recently received a presentation regarding the City's efforts for emergency response. As a volunteer for the Citizens Emergency Response Team, I likely think about disaster preparedness more than the average resident, and I think there is a huge element missing in how we play in our community. I see so many neighborhoods that have been built with restricted exits, which would, in a major disaster, make it difficult to easily and quickly evacuate residents from the neighborhood. A prime example is the Jensen track. There's a curb-to-curb brick wall blocking the exit to Valley Avenue. The only exits are on Santa Rita. Why? Because residents complained about cut-through school traffic on their public streets. The train derailment, which released hazardous materials in East Palestine, Ohio last year, required the evacuation of residents within a one-mile radius. If a similar derailment occurred in Pleasanton, how would we quickly evacuate the Jensen track along with two schools on Santa Rita? Think about the recently approved senior living development on the Merritt property. This commission had a lengthy debate about how seniors would exit onto heavy Foothill Road traffic on an average day. A sudden, rapidly spreading wildland fire on the ridge with strong winds from the west that requires an evacuation would cause major traffic jams on Foothill Road. How would you evacuate seniors, some of which may have mobility issues? Remember the Coffee Park neighborhood in Santa Rosa? Any neighborhood could need to evacuate if an earthquake causes a gas line break that catches fire. Remember the Marina District during Loma Prieta. My own neighborhood of 1,500 homes is limited to exits on Santa Rita due to Staples Ranch Drive being blocked when Stone Ridge Creek was built And what about Ironwood with its literal maze of streets with limited exits and new developments planned along Bush Road? These are just a few examples. There are locked emergency gates at newer developments, but in a major disaster, would our limited number of first responders be able to open emergency gates? Even if they could be opened, there would be delay, and would residents, in a time of panic, even think of going in the opposite direction than they are used to? Some may think it can't happen here. That is either a naive assumption or denial. It is time to quit limiting traffic circulation in housing areas. It not only could cause lives in a major disaster, but continues on a day-to-day basis to increase traffic congestion on our major streets, and increased pollution with its own health impacts. Cut through traffic is no excuse. We need to learn from the many disasters we are seeing on a regular basis in other parts of the nation and the world. If we don't plan better, it could cost lives. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing to light an issue that some of us probably think about more than others, so appreciate that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak about an item that's not on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing for this section and we'll move to public hearings and other matters for consideration. We have two items on the public hearing tonight. The first one is related to streamlining the process for design review, and the second one is a BART concept plan for development in that area. So let's go ahead and start with the staff presentation for the first item. Is that Megan or Emily?

Both of us.

Good. Very good. Thank you.

Hi, Planning Commission. It's great to see you tonight. My name is Megan Campbell and this is Emily Carroll. We're planners with the City of Pleasanton. We're here to talk with you about Item 7 for P250352 related to process streamlining. In our presentation tonight, we'll plan to go over some background data, proposed amendments to the Pleasanton Municipal Code, and next steps. So in recent years, growing concerns have been raised about the city's application review process and that it's burdensome and not user friendly. Accordingly, through recent city council project priority process, staff was directed to review the city's codes and suggest permit streamlining and process improvements. Staff conducted an analysis and identified some key problems and areas for improvement. The first area of focus is the design review process. These codes have not been updated since the early 90s, and applicability is extensive. From a staff perspective, we spend a lot of time processing very small applications that really have very little impact to the community, if any at all. The next area of focus is around the public notice procedures, particularly the city's public notice radii, which far exceeds the requirements in the government code and as well as neighboring jurisdictions. And the last area of focus is around the city's appeal period, which exceeds that of our neighbors and contributes to the lengthy application review process timeline. Staff is bringing forward a series of amendments for you tonight that are all consistent with various city plans, including the city's strategic plan.

All right, so as Megan said, we are focusing on three key areas and three key chapters of Pleasanton Municipal Code Title 18, which is the planning title. So first, project noticing. Our primary amendments are modifying the notice radius to align with government code. and amending the notification, the mail notification requirements. In addition, staff is recommending the repeal of city council resolution number 91-132, which was the vehicle to kind of extend these notice requirements beyond that which was required by government code. Secondly, we propose modifying the design review chapter, primarily modifying which projects are subject to design review, adding findings and clarifying those procedures. And lastly, we propose modifying the appeals chapter to clarify the appeals procedure and modify the appeal period. So as you've noted in your packet, there are a number of other sections that we propose modifications and those are to align with these major notifications that are being proposed and some other comprehensive cleanup changes as recommended by our city attorney. All right, so we wanted to kind of take a very high level look at permitting as we begin to discuss design review. So broadly, any physical change to a site or building in Pleasanton requires some type of permit. The two main permit types are building permits and planning permits. Building permits are non-discretionary, so building permits review projects against compliance with codes such as the California Building Code or the Fire Code, whereas planning permits include some level of subjectivity. So in both cases, there's an opportunity for all of the city departments and divisions to review and ensure that projects are meeting our various programs and policies. However, the planning permits include this layer of subjectivity where we look at design and aesthetics and often send notices to neighbors and gather neighborhood input as a part of our process. So at present, design review is required for new commercial and industrial developments, all signs without master sign programs, all exterior modifications, new single family and multi-family units, and a variety of single family projects.

And this slide shows an example of a typical timeline for a commercial project that goes through both of those processes that Emily just described. In this example, a new business is coming to town. The business license and zoning certificate are approved over the counter in the same day. However, a design review permit is required with planning because of some proposed facade modifications. I won't get into all the details shown here, but at a high level, from the time the business owner starts the process with us until their application is approved, we estimate it about 10 weeks. And this assumes no neighbor notification and a fairly complete application submittal to begin with. From there, the appeal period may add an additional two to five weeks. In our example here, we used three weeks. So this business faced a 13-week planning permit process before they could move on to the building permit process. Then building permits may take an additional four-plus weeks. And this timeline is fairly representative of most commercial design review applications. I will say a residential design review application takes a lot shorter than this, typically closer to four to seven weeks, followed by the building permit process. So design review is an important process because it protects neighborhoods, it protects character, scale, privacy, and for projects that may have impacts on the community, the time to navigate through this design review process may be warranted to allow that layer of discretionary review. But for small projects that objectively have very little or no impact on the community, they can demand almost as much time and resources as those larger projects. And so for those smaller projects, the benefit achieved is disproportionate to this exhaustive process.

All right, so you may be wondering, how many of these projects are reprocessing? So we dug into some of the data and found that over the past 10 years, staff processes an average of 110 single family projects annually. And that single family processing alone accounts for between 20% to 40% of a community and economic development full time staff member. So as you can see in the bottom left corner, about half of those projects are single family additions. Another quarter are for detached structures.

We have an owl issue.

All right. OK, so back to the data. So about half are single story additions. About 25% are detached structures. So that's things like sheds over 10 feet in height, pool houses, pavilions, shade structures. And about another 22% are single story additions. That 6% other category accounts for things like fences, second story windows, or modifying roof lines. And over the past six years, staff processes an average of 42 multifamily and commercial applications annually. As you can see on the right hand side, the bulk of those are commercial and multifamily remodel and addition. So that could be a project as simple as repainting a building or doing facade improvements to an entirely new structure. Another 25% of those are sign permits, process a lot of sign permits as businesses refresh their signage or come into Pleasanton. And then 13% are new single and multifamily projects. And I'll just note here that we process housing projects through a variety of processes, the PUD process, the housing site compliance review process, and then there are certain projects that are processed through the designer review process.

So as we mentioned, staff is recommending a comprehensive overhaul to the design review chapter. The recommendations include adding design review findings for both residential and commercial projects, clarifying design review procedures, because again, these codes haven't been updated in about 30 years, and reducing the number of applications that require design review. Really focusing on projects that are more substantive in nature and have the potential to materially impact a neighborhood, a commercial district, or a neighboring property. One thing that's important to note is our intent is not to ignore regulations like building height and setbacks, nor city policies like those reflected in the downtown specific plan. All of these will still be enforced. Even if a project is exempt from design review, it will still be required to be reviewed by the planning division, for code and policy compliance through the building permit process. So the list on the screen shows the projects that staff recommends be exempt from design review and go straight to building for building permits from a single family perspective that includes single story additions less than 15 feet tall. accessory structures like sheds and shade structures, fences and other minor projects. And then from a commercial and multifamily standpoint, we're suggesting that minor exterior building modifications, site modifications and additions can go straight to building. So examples would include color or material change on a building, modifying a window to a door, a new arbor, a new trash enclosure, small additions, things like that. Additionally, refacing and replacing signs without major alterations. And items with an asterisk are largely at the discretion of the zoning administrator, so there is an opportunity to require these projects to go through the design review process if in that initial review they're deemed more substantial or sensitive in nature.

All right, so what will remain subject to the discretionary review process? For single-family projects, two-story additions, newer and large balconies, or new lofts with second-story windows would still be subject to design review, so those projects that would have greater privacy impacts. And as you can see in the chart below, that reduces the number of projects processed by staff by about 75%. So that reduces the staff processing time to about 5% of an FTE as opposed to 20 to 40% of an FTE. For multifamily, something like adding a new unit or removing site amenities or balcony enlargement would still require designer review. And for commercial additions to buildings downtown or adding a story to an existing building would still trigger designer review. So on the multifamily and commercial side, we estimate that these proposed changes would reduce the number of projects processed through design review by over 60%. And this is a non-exhaustive list of those projects, but examples, some examples.

So projects that require planning permits, like design review, are subject to an appeal period before their approval becomes effective. So in addition to the amendments to the design review chapter, staff proposes amendments to the appeals chapter of the code that will further streamline the process. At a high level, the proposal reduces the appeal period down to 10 days. The current appeal period is a minimum of 15 days, but it may last over 30 days due to the City Council review, the call-up provision, which delays the effective date of the approval until ZA and PC actions can be agendized at a City Council meeting. So rather than a city council agendized item reporting out PC and CA approvals staff suggestion is that we issue a weekly approval memo that's posted on the city's website that contains all appealable discretionary planning approvals. And this members of the community can subscribe to this memo and it will be sent directly to the planning commission and city council as well. And then all appeals and city council call-ups must occur within that 10-day appeal period. The revision will be in alignment with most neighboring jurisdictions and will increase efficiencies and reduce delay time within the process.

All right, so lastly, we propose updating the noticing chapter, chapter 1812. So as we've discussed, the primary modification here is to align with government code, which requires a 300 foot notice radius from the site and newspaper publication. So as you can see below a 300 foot radius for this site, 200 Old Bernal produces 123 notice recipients. So that includes both tenants and owners, property owners. Whereas a 1000 foot radius produces about 10 times more recipients, 1073 recipients. So reducing the notice radius to line with government code reduces a cost burden to the city for mailing and also reduces the amount of staff time required to send out notices. So for larger projects that perhaps are more sensitive, We propose codifying the onsite project notification policy. That is required for any project that will come before you, the planning commission or the city council, and projects that produce new housing units. So this alerts passerbys to the project, gives them some information broadly about what is planned to happen at that site and contact information for the planner. And lastly, we propose updating the project notification process. So for certain projects that don't require a hearing, we still send a notice to alert neighbors that the zoning administrator will take action on the project. And this includes things like single family design review and minor conditional use permits. And we'll also align that project notification to the government code requirements.

So last Thursday on October 16th, we presented these recommendations to the Economic Vitality Committee. The committee was supportive of the proposed amendments and appreciated the streamlining that was being achieved here. There was a recommendation from the EVC to make sure that after these amendments are approved, if they're approved, that we take them on a roadshow with the business community to advertise the changes.

All right, so we wanted to come back to our objectives here. So first, our goal is to make our processes more efficient and easier to navigate. And by simplifying and clarifying, we can reduce confusion for applicants, save time for staff, and create a smoother overall experience for everyone involved. Next, we want to make sure that as we review projects, we use our discretionary process to uphold what makes Pleasanton unique. And this means encouraging design and development that fits within the established character of the community while still allowing for streamlining of less impactful projects. Third, we recognize that some of our current codes are outdated, and updating these will help ensure that our regulations reflect current community needs. This will also reduce inconsistencies that can slow down the approval process. And finally, we hope to align with government code, particularly for our noticing section, and ensure that we're complying with the legal standards set by government code.

So as noted in your agenda report, staff finds the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061 . And tonight staff recommends that the commission review and consider the draft amendments to the PMC as outlined in exhibit A and adopt a resolution recommending approval of case P25035 , rescinding city council resolution number 91-132 and adopting the proposed PMC amendments and finding the project exempt from CEQA.

All right, so the next steps for this project would be to present your recommendation and the proposed updates to the city council in December with the goal of having the amendments effective in early 2026. And then from there, we have a number of implementation items that we'll be taking on. First, working with our colleagues across other departments to make sure that all of our internal processes are as efficient and streamlined as possible. creating that discretionary approval memo that Megan discussed in the appeals section, and then doing more outreach to the community like the PDA and Chamber of Commerce. So with that, thank you so much. We are available to answer any questions and look forward to your feedback.

I appreciate your teamwork approach to this. BUT LET'S START WITH TECHNICAL OR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER JAGO, DO YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL OR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR THIS TOPIC?

I DO HAVE COMMENTS, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONER MOHAN? NONE. NO TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.

I do have a couple of questions. Do we know what percentage of the design review and other applications we receive result in appeals? Is it a very small percentage or?

I'll answer this two ways. We send out notifications to projects that are getting approved by the ZA that don't have public hearings. On average, we get about five requests for public hearings for those projects annually. It's a pretty small percentage. Typically, those hearings are requested for things like second story additions, balconies, or where there's already conflict between the neighbors. and they're kind of using this as a mechanism to resolve their conflict, if you will. And from an appeal standpoint, it's even less. We've had, I wanna say, two in five years, so very few from a percentage standpoint.

So that's over 100 plus applications, so fairly low number. And those appeals, were they mostly for the second story and things which we will continue to? review?

Yes.

Except, so the one issue we recently had with the lights, would that go through the expedited process or?

Yeah, that's a separate process. So that was a PUD modification. So for projects with planned unit development standards that are being modified, it's an entirely separate process.

So that will continue. We don't do any email notifications, right? It's all paper.

We do not have the email address of every resident and business owner in Pleasanton.

Okay. I think I The other question was on fences. So when it's administratively or ministerially approved for fences, is it up to a certain height or any height, up to six feet or?

Yeah, so currently fences up to six feet are approved over the counter. They don't go through design review, and they don't require building permits. Overheight fences, which are up to eight feet, do require this process with us called an overheight fence permit before it goes on to the building department for a potential permit. Building department requires permits for fences over a certain height. I want to say seven feet Plus would require a building permit So our suggestion is for all fences that they go straight to building Planning would still look at those fences when they go to building to ensure that they meet all of the requirements in our codes But we're suggesting that we don't require this extra step with us before they go on to building

Thank you. I have one more question that's related to just the Timing, so when someone applies for the first time, and let's say we want them to modify something, so that response time is, let's say, X days, and then they resubmit the application, and having gone through this process many times, that's why I'm asking this, when you review it second time, does that again trigger the notification process, or that's just internal? review of the application. So let's say someone submitted the first version, its second story edition, and now they're modifying it, let's say changing the roof or changing something. Would that trigger another notification to the neighbors?

So are you, just to clarify the question, is this after it's been approved? So you get a second story edition, it's been approved, or just a resubmittal?

So let's say you found some issues in that packet. So somebody submitted the application. And let's say, Megan, you're reviewing that. And then you say, oh, here's a few things which are not in compliance. these setbacks are incorrect. And then they resubmit to fix those. And in addition to that, they also added something new, like let's say another roof form or something. So would that trigger another notification?

we wouldn't have sent the notices out until the application is deemed complete so it wouldn't be like a second notification and typically our review time on resubmittals is shorter than the initial review time for an application because we're not needing to review the all of the contents of the application just the the changes so to answer your question only one notice typically and it would be after the project is deemed complete

Okay, I think I really appreciate all the effort here. I think I'll hold on to some of my pieces for the comments.

Technical questions or clarifying questions?

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the presentation as always. This feels a little feedbacky. I'm gonna maybe move this away. It feels like I'm in an echo chamber. Is that helping? Nope, it's not. I don't know what's going on. Am I in the wrong place? Is that better? That's good. All right. I don't know what happened, but we're going to I'm going to not move and let's see what happens. Okay. The first one is I just want to have a kind of a really clear record that one of the things that this did was it brought the changes that were made, brought the notice period and the notice breadth of location notice. I don't know what to call it. Uh, radius. Thank you. Good. Um, the notice radius, those were brought into conformance with state law. So is there, is there any kind of other changes that are proposed that would be outside of the state law? In other words, is there anything that would be less than what state law requires or anything that would be more than what state law requires?

So to clarify, at present, the city's notice radius exceeds the requirement of state law. So the 300-foot radius conforms exactly to state law. However, we do things that do go above and beyond state law, including the on-site project notification. We send notices to both tenants and building owners, where I believe state law only requires that notices go to property owners. And those are the primary distinctions.

Thank you. So the second one I wanted to follow up on is, if I look at the city council provision with the 91 in front of it, makes me think it's been around since 1991. So that's a long time. I was alive back then, for those at home that are wondering about the gray hair. But obviously, the city council at that time had made a decision about what it wanted in terms of that notice to be. um and while i'm not looking to kind of do a history book on all of this change has have is there whatever that concern that was motivating that change at the time was do we feel like what this is going to propose would address remedy it doesn't matter anymore because now we have the internet i don't know what the issue is right but i just want to make sure that there was something that city council was trying to do in 1991 they were not somehow Ooh, I'm back. Now it's worse. Should we try again?

Oh, that's better.

Okay, all right. Are we somehow undoing something the city council wanted to that would be to the benefit of the city that is now going to you know, harm the members of the city or that's kind of undoing a benefit. That's just what I'm trying to understand and make sure we're clear on this change that we're making that was deliberate at the time. And now we're undoing.

Yeah, it's hard. It's hard to know. We didn't actually go back and sort of figure out all the motivations for that particular policy. The records aren't necessarily all that clear. There's probably some some reason why that decision was made to adopt that policy that because the code wasn't, you know, complete, and it was maybe just sort of a shortcut to get to a more robust noticing policy. Some of those procedures are in fact now, or were since codified into the municipal code. So there was some correction, you know, and codification of those requirements. You know, I think it really comes down to what Emily and Megan explained, which is that the regulations just don't seem to be serving us very well, and the data seems to suggest that despite the fact that we do a lot of noticing, that we notice a lot of very small projects, that they don't really yield a lot of returns in terms of solving issues or there doesn't seem to be issues that are arising based on all the notification that we're doing it. So this is a bit of an adjustment, I think. And then to your question, I do think some of those requirements are of a time when media was very different and people's ability to find out what was going on and so on. And the community, frankly, is different now than it was in 1991. So I think for all of those reasons, It's timely to make this change. Thank you.

And I'll just add, I did a quick Google, and it looks like our population was close to 50,000 people in 91. Now we're up to 75,000. So probably the quantity of folks noticed, even within a 1,000-foot radius, was probably lower than what we're seeing today. So with the change in years, the changes of the city have also changed.

Thank you. That covers my questions.

And I don't have any questions about streamlining to subject less projects to design review, nor do I have any questions about the radius. The only questions I have are if a project is appealed, are there any changes to whether or not that would come to the Planning Commission once it's appealed? no there are no changes to the procedures so procedurally if a zoning administrator approval is appealed it would come to the planning commission and if a planning commission approval is appealed it would go to the city council okay and then for the last question is for the projects that will still have a public hearing granted they'll be less now than there was in the past Will there still be the same level of efforts to notify the community that there will be a public hearing such as publishing in the newspaper? I wouldn't want to necessarily streamline that because once it's known that there's a public hearing we want to do everything reasonable to alert the community.

so projects that require a public hearing will send out a notice card for a 300 foot radius and if it's coming before the planning commission or the city council will also require the on-site project notification in addition to dunes paper publication as well okay so similar to what we have in place now other than reducing the radius which you've already talked about okay okay very good um

Looks like that's all the technical and clarifying questions. Do we have any speaker cards for this item?

No speaker cards were received for this item.

All right. And any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? All right. Very good. With that, we'll move to commission discussion and deliberation. Commissioner Pace, would you like to start?

yeah thanks so in the long effort we've had over the last couple of years to streamline and make things more efficient without losing the benefits to the city of the types of things that the the code and that is intended to provide also to make sure we are aligned with what the state requires of us. I think this is another good example of work to try to get us to that point. So I appreciate the thoughtful approach to both align us to what the state requires and also to find ways in which we can reduce the time it takes to get businesses up and running in the city. We've gone through the statistics and examples over the past few times, so I won't recite them here. I think this is a great step of finding ways to make the city maintain its character, but also find ways in which to be more business-friendly and kind of speed small and medium-sized businesses, especially into our city. So I'm excited to see these changes. I'm in support.

Mr. Dane? I'm really happy to see this come through. Something's going on today. It's Halloween coming. I think it's a great effort and shows how we can improve our community. Like, how can we help our community get things done faster as a city? It also helps the businesses get set up quickly. So it's a net-net positive. I would recommend that we go one step further and have something which further streamlines or reduces the time for our reviews. I didn't ask this question, but do we outsource any planning matters to any third party today, or everything is done in-house?

We don't outsource planning. It's all done in-house. Very, very rarely, I'll say. But we do outsource building permit review. We have a set of on-call plan check services, and we routinely assign larger projects and excess overflow workload to those outside consultants.

Yeah, I think anything we can do to go further and, you know, do things faster. Personally, my experience has been it feels as an applicant that things are taking very long and even getting the first set of feedback. So once you submit the application and it's all the departments, not just planning, because if you are submitting a large enough project, all departments have to look, including fire and safety, traffic, et cetera. It does take quite a while for us to do things beyond what notice requirements and appeal period adds to it. So I'm very happy to see the trimming on that side. I would love to see some more action on our side of efficiency, like how can we improve our processes and how can we cut short. The second point is for resubmissions. So whenever we have, so we usually get comments, sometimes from planning, sometimes from building. But I can only speak for planning right now. So how can we put that application ahead of others, which are probably in very early stage. They're not even looking for a response, or they have not even started to engage with any contractors. They have not essentially started to get shovel-ready project. So they're very early stage. If there's a priority which can be given for resubmissions and have a shorter time frame to review those resubmissions, those will really help the residents and applicants in general, even for business. So I really support this whole process. I think we have an opportunity to go further and improve efficiencies. Thank you.

Mr. Mohan, you've been talking about these types of improvements for ever since I've known you here. What would you like to add?

This is good. This is good. That's all what I can say. Anything that improves speed is good. Anything that reduces cost is good. Anything that keeps the quality of the service the same or better is good. It seems like that's what you're trying to do with this. So I appreciate this. And people who work with me for me know that I'm a very impatient guy. Once something is done, I'm like, good job. Okay, what's next? What's the next step? So I look forward to the next step of further streamlining and more from a customer's point of view. So to me, the best thing is when the guys who came the last time with that pottery Ceramics. Ceramics, right? And they said that they got everything done quickly and in partnership with the city office. I'm like, that's beautiful. That's music to me. Similarly, if we get more feedback from the customers.

There may be a time in which the ceramic studio perhaps does not even need to come to the planning commission. So I would say I think that's a step that we're looking at through our economic development lens. Is there a set of projects that we currently require more exhaustive review for that perhaps are proven to really be non-controversial or could maybe go through a simplified process and avoid that public hearing altogether just to expedite?

That's awesome. Because to me, I think, especially from the Planning Commission and even for you, for the staff, it has to use the more various things like what Susan referred to, for example. It's disaster planning. It's traffic. There's a lot of big stuff that needs to be done. And the more time you get to think about the fun, big stuff, I think even you'll enjoy your jobs a lot more. So thank you.

Mr. Jago, your thoughts?

Thank you. Because I have done this my whole career, I actually really read into all of these revisions. And it was awesome to see from a perspective of somebody who's worked with planning departments as long as I have and recognizing that a lot of things take too much time and too many people have to review something that does not need to be reviewed. have having been in uh pleasanton i've i do work um i did an addition on my own house i've done a lot throughout the years and you know for a single story single family addition with a roof the amount of time that it took me you know to send out the notifications i i knew you know okay well here's 15 days that is No one's gonna comment on it and no one did. Those kind of things, these are the things that are, I think every one of the ones that I went through that you guys modified are easily dealt with and are very, they're not gray areas. They're kind of black and white. There's something that you guys can do and and i think the the information that you backed it up with with the you know few appeals why is everybody the thousand foot radius and all that kind of stuff so i appreciate it from somebody who works with planning departments um i think every single one of these changes is is incredibly smart i think it's it's in the direction that we want to go and And I think it achieves everything that you guys are looking to do. So I am 100% behind everything and can't wait to get this approved. Thank you.

And I'll just add that I'd like to echo essentially what people have already said, and that is that, one, I think this allows staff to spend more time on the things that really matter, and so it may increase the quality of the work from staff on an overall basis since we're not doing busy work. And secondly, I believe that the residents in Pleasanton will be happy to see these changes because the people that are wanting to do small upgrades to their house won't have to deal with the frustration of delay knowing that nobody's going to object to it so it will make sense to the community as well so thank you and commissioner jane you had made some comments about potentially even going further i don't believe you're suggesting that we slow this down i think what you're saying is that we go through this process, we potentially approve it, and then beyond that, maybe there's some additional work to be done later. Is that, do I read that correctly?

Yeah, absolutely. And I don't think you can fix everything in one shot. Yeah. It takes multiple iterations.

It's taken years to get this to go to where we are.

Yeah, as Director Clark said, it took years for us to get there. So I think I'm not trying to block it in any way. I'm very supportive, but I'm saying we need to follow up with more of these.

Does that answer? Okay, thank you. Commissioner Pace, were you getting ready to say something?

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE.

OH, VERY GOOD. YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FOR?

I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS PROPOSED BY THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? Very good. I'm glad to see that you're seconding here since this has been a hot topic item for you. All right.

I'm following Commissioner Pace's model now. Let's go.

So we have a motion and a second to approve the streamlining changes as proposed by staff for item seven. Could we please have a roll call?

Commissioners Jago?

Aye.

Jane?

Aye.

Mohan? Yes. Pace? Aye. And Chair Morgan? Aye.

Aye.

OK. Motion passes unanimously.

All right. Well, very good. Thanks, ladies.

Thank you. Pace is in the name, right? Yeah.

I'm waiting just a minute while some of the people are packing up to go home for the day. Thank you, Emily. Thank you, Megan. Thank you. We have one more item under the public hearing, and that is for the BART conceptual plan update. And my understanding is there's no votes, no conclusion tonight. This is just an update for education and feedback to the staff. Is that correct? And who would like to go ahead and give the presentation here?

Yes, that's correct. So this is another one where we'll be tag teaming it. So you'll have the presentation from two people here. So let me just get set up. So good evening Planning Commission. Thank you very much for having us here. So tonight we're reviewing the site development scenarios for the BART station on Owens Drive. So the agenda includes a discussion of the project goals and objectives. a review of existing conditions, key design elements of the scenarios, a summary of the feedback provided at a community meeting last month, and then a review of the next steps before discussion and comments with the Planning Commission. So I'm joined tonight by the project team. This includes representatives from design firm Van Meter Williams Pollock, Rick Williams to my left here, and BART staff via Zoom and other city staff as noted on this slide. The project team also includes transportation planning firm Farron Pierce, engineering firm BKF, and strategic economics who completed the market assessment. So why are we planning for this BART station in particular? This site has been identified for housing for over 10 years, at least three housing element cycles. And the last housing element committed to advancing planning the site for housing. There's strong support in both BART policies and state law. that support housing and increased density around public transit. And then this process is also to develop consensus between Bart the city and other stakeholders around the parameters for development of the site. And then all of this is really to inform a future RFP from developers that Bart would issue that would further housing actually develop housing on the property. So accordingly, the goals for this meeting include an introduction to the scope and purpose, soliciting the Commission's feedback on the proposed development scenarios, the vision and objectives for the site, and thirdly, any potential issues of concern that could benefit from further evaluation. And then staff and the project team will take this feedback from this meeting to define themes and options that would be included in the framework that would then be brought back to both the Commission and Council. So here's a timeline that indicates all of this, and the work that has been completed thus far. So we kicked off the meeting earlier this year in April, and the draft materials for public review, planning commission this fall, which is where we are right now, and then we're targeting adoption of the framework in early 2026. So let me turn it over to Rick Williams who's going to go over the details of the development scenarios with you.

with Van Meter Williams Pollock.

We've been working with the BART and city team and the whole consultant team for that period of time, and we're looking forward to getting your feedback tonight. Next, please. The goals and objectives is where we started on this project. We worked with both BART and the city in a collaborative process to develop initial goals and objectives, providing some of those primary goals and objectives to the community for their input. And a couple of them I just want to highlight. We really want to encourage neighborhood vitality around the whole BART station area. It's not just the station itself, but the business park and the surrounding properties as well. We really want to address the regional housing needs. This is a fantastic site for housing and higher density housing. And so it has less impacts on surrounding community neighborhoods. So they're really looking for a kind of a high level of housing to help meet the regional housing needs. And then also require at least 20% affordable homes to be built on the site. And that is a little bit above the city's requirements and in the middle between the lower portion of some of BART's requirements, which are about 35% over the whole entire system. also to provide a well-designed high-quality plaza at the Iron Horse Trail, and to attract BART patrons from the larger Hacienda business area and the surrounding housing as well, and really focus on walking, biking, and taking transit to the station.

Next please.

So first we're gonna go through the existing conditions summary. So this is a simple opportunities and constraints map, which highlights the big key elements to the property. And I'll just say some of the bigger ones to start out with is the eventual Valley Link line and station to be connected. to the Pleasanton-Dublin BART station. There's also the Tri-Valley Event Center being planned, which will add additional activity. But closer to home, I mentioned that this is really a great site for high density development, high capacity. And we're also looking at having changes to Owens Drive, possibly a road diet, better biking infrastructure, and then also integrating the new upgrades to the Iron Horse Trail and then further upgrades to the plaza are all important opportunities. There are a few constraints. We have to, first off, deal with the construction of the Valley Link Station, and so there are outlines of general parameters for easements that really don't impact the development that much, but there's also access requirements for the surrounding canals, the existing canals in the area. And of course, the fuel pipeline that runs under the existing plaza and the anticipated Iron Horse Trail Plaza is also a constraint that we have to deal with. Next, please. There is some potential infrastructure. I mentioned the Valley Link and the Plaza are the two major ones. The Iron Horse Trail is seeing some current upgrades starting now, and that will be... The two-way bike track and pedestrian path, they're going to remove a couple of the vacant retail kiosks and add new landscaping, lighting, public art panels, signage, et cetera, to the Iron Horse Trail as an initial set of upgrades. And then, of course, the Valley Link station, when it is implemented, will be a major new element of infrastructure within the property. but there's also proposed new bikeways eventually that would be part of some of the new development next let's talk about parking for a minute right now this is the existing conditions and this is based on spring 2025 parking counts and we're getting updated parking counts uh pretty soon, so we'll get some updated information. But the real focus is that we have a large pool of parking. There's about 1,350 BART parking spaces on the Pleasanton side facing Owens Drive. And then there's about almost 1,800 BART spaces on the Dublin side. And there's also the county parking, county garage, which has an additional 500 spaces. Currently, the Pleasanton site is about 51% occupied in the last measurement. We think that might have ticked up a little bit over time, It's in that same ballpark. And the Dublin side at 58% occupied, we feel is pretty consistent there with their large garage being approximately that much occupied. And then the county garage is much less occupied and is a resource in the future. So that's kind of today's parking analysis. We're also anticipating that there's gonna be an additional parking study that is part of a second phase of technical studies that is going to be occurring and really starting up just now and will be happening probably in the spring of next year. And then this report will be updated to integrate that information. And that will be both an access study for the station as well as a parking management plan. And that will not just be regarding the station site itself, but it'll also include the surrounding areas and surrounding properties and Hacienda Business Park area and look at all the parking opportunities both on the Pleasanton side and on the Dublin side and look at it more holistically with the goal of right-sizing the parking at the BART station. So it will be less parking, but we're not sure how much less yet. And what we're doing is defining a plan which will allow some flexibility in the amount of parking that is eventually required. I just want to say a couple more things about parking. Parking is really expensive. Today, on the current, in other park parking structures, they're looking at $80,000 a space. It takes up land for housing or other development opportunities. It's very expensive to build, and then it's also very expensive to maintain. BART spends about $1,000 of space annually to maintain the parking. So really, BART's focus is providing development and residential and other uses on the site, and having a right size to the parking for the BART patrons. And it's going to probably be a blend of parking throughout the area that is going to be a resource for people that want to park at the at the BART station.

Next, please.

The regulatory planning context that we have today has dramatically changed things. So Assembly Bill 2923 kind of sets what the city must allow for height in a minimum sense, a minimum of five stories. That means it could go taller. A density minimum of about 75 dwelling units per acre. And we have a 13 to 14 acre site, so it's a very large site for development. A minimum of 20% affordable housing. It could be larger. And as I mentioned before, BART's goals are 35% across all stations. Some stations are a higher percentage, some stations are less. And then on the residential side, for new residential development on the site, a maximum parking of one space per unit. And then, of course, there's also pleasant and subjective design standards, which will help shape the building designs and the open spaces and the street frontage. And those can actually work well with kind of these other assembly bill set of development parameters. And so that's kind of where we start to look at the development potential for the site. Next. We also had a market assessment done. I think it's been thought of for many years that this is really considered primarily a site for high density housing with maybe a small amount of retail. We looked at the market assessment in terms of kind of short, medium, and long term. And what we really find is that in the short and medium, housing is actually a very strong use. But possibly in the long term, maybe a little bit in the medium term if the markets change a little bit, that there may be the opportunity for other complimentary non-residential uses. It might even be a hotel or education facility or some other special office user tenant. so there is the opportunity for a more mixture of housing a more mixture of development uses not all housing but in we're not really sure when that might be triggered within the overall uh within an overall schedule of development and so far the development team the team The planning team with both the city and BART have generally agreed that either scenario with or without those other uses would be an acceptable strategy to proceed with. Next. Now we'll talk about some of the design elements that we've been discussing. I've mentioned that that the site is very attractive, it would be very attractive to the development community. And one of the reasons is generally rectangular sites, very flat, easy to develop. And they're large enough sites, each one, and we're looking at this as three to four different sites. They're each over two acres, more likely three acres to four acres. And those are kind of ideal development sites within an overall phasing development strategy plan. So we're looking at it generally being between three and four parcels or three and four developments. There may be additional more than one building on any of those parcels, but some of the parcels will take advantage of the size and probably be developed as single large buildings. Next. We've also been looking at circulation and been working with the city's traffic and parking and circulation group. Mike is here tonight, I believe. There he is. And we really came up with two different strategies for vehicle circulation. onto the site. We're keeping the backbone of the circulation that is the buses crossing underneath the highway and extending over to Owens Drive. But at Willow Road, we're looking at two different strategies. One would be just sort of, and I kind of call it a circular drop-off or almost a cul-de-sac strategy, mostly for accessible patrons that need accessibility, and they would get closest to the station entry and drop off right at the top of the loop there. There would also be bark drop-off along Owens Drive and it's newly framed Owens Drive improvements and Potential bar parking would be over on the farthest to the left parcel which is also thought of as being an ideal location for supporting park parking for Pleasanton residents. The other option, the loop circulation, would have access from Willow, but also access off of Owens over by the Iron Horse Trail. And that loop would allow for additional drop off along the Iron Horse Plaza, and along, really close to the BART station itself, and then you could get circulation going either way. It would be kind of a right in, right out for the access that wasn't on Willow, and if you're going in and out and want to turn either direction, then you would want to get to the Willow Road intersection. But this provides a little bit more drop-off potential. It brings it closer to the station, but it also means that that development that's on that central site would have circulation all the way around it and would be disconnected from the plaza. So there's pros and cons to each of these different applications. But there's some benefits to it as well, and so we're kind of looking at it from a pros and cons standpoint.

Next please.

Owens Drive Frentage, when the previous apartment buildings across the street were developed, had a special unique frontage on that side of the street. And what we're looking at is two different scenarios for Owens Drive frontage improvements. One of those would be a separated bikeway that would be off-road. and it would be in parallel to the pedestrian walkway and sidewalk along it, and it would connect up with the Iron Horse Trail. So it would keep the bikes out of the circulation of people dropping off. The other would be similar to the other side of the road, which would be an on-street bike system, bike lanes. Maybe it isn't the most favored approach, but it still provides a good bike circulation and connection to the Iron Horse Trail. But I think generally speaking, we would suggest that a road diet could be achieved to provide a good protected bike lane along Owens Drive.

Next, please.

The plaza is something everybody should be really excited about. It's a large plaza. We've shown here as an illustration of scale the Bart Plaza at Pleasant Hill and at Walnut Creek they have a tighter Paseo. This is going to be larger than either of those images. It has a very large area and with buildings framing it that could be anywhere from five to seven or eight stories tall. You're going to still see it as being a very open plaza with lots of potential activities. And we're really interested in hearing from you the types of activities that you might like to see at this centerpiece for the whole BART station development. Thanks. So holding capacity studies, initial studies have been done just to get a sense of how might the development community react to a RFP and what type of buildings would we see being developed on these. And we looked at it to try to maximize the housing opportunity. So we did two test fit scenarios. And they vary based on building height, but also based on unit size, average unit sizes. So what we've illustrated here in test fit one, we have the plaza in the center and that's directly accessible. And then on site one, we have a wrap building, what we call a wrap, which is a tall garage wrapped in housing so you don't see the garage. And that would be connected to site two, which would be a five-story courtyard building, which doesn't have any parking necessarily on it. The residents would take the bridge across from the parking garage. That parking garage allows for parking for the residential, and it also allows for parking for BART patrons, and they would be on the first, second, or third floor with the residential being above, something to that effect. On sites three and four, those would be maybe traditional podium buildings, two stories of parking for residential parking. And then, and it could also house visitor parking. And then it would have buildings of approximately seven stories and they would be, have housing facing the street with stoops and entryways in general and breaks in the building for massing and articulation that would be generally consistent with your current design standards. This shows a general holding capacity of between almost 900 units and 1100 units. So that range really is relative to how large or small the units are. Next. Test two, test fit two shows a podium building on site one with parking below it. And then the seven story podium on site two. So each building basically parks itself. Here we moved the RAP building to the eastern side of the site. And this similarly could hold both residential and BART parking. So we're looking at it as BART parking could be on one end of the site or the other end of the site. And either of those could serve the station and BART patrons. And then this illustration shows a larger RAP building, which could be as tall as seven to eight stories. And the maximum housing capacity on this is anywhere from about 1,050. And if they went to the eight story scheme, up to about 1,300 apartment units. If you think about Pleasanton in general and where larger scale developments can occur without impacting surrounding residential neighborhoods, et cetera, this is really the place to work on a lot of your housing element needs. And this would be a good opportunity for looking to achieve kind of the highest densities that you generally could fit on the site. And these are building types that you see throughout the region. They aren't unique building types, but they would be designed to the standards that Pleasonton has in your design standards.

Next, please.

We've also had a recent community meeting, and we also had stakeholder meetings as well. So a lot of people said it would be good use to use the BART parking spaces or the BART parking lots for additional housing because they're substantively 50% or so empty. There is a concern whether the parking demand will increase and take up. And so that will be accounted for in the next phase of the study. Right now the transit isn't quite good enough to really rely on, but they're starting to really focus on the transit at the Dublin Pleasanton Station. And so looking at that further will be something to be considered in the future. Biking is really a great way to get there, get to the station. And so that's really an important way trying to achieve greater access to the station by other modes besides driving. And you've got a great framework with that with the Iron Horse Trail and the other surrounding bike systems that we're looking at being in place. Uses for the buildings. The new development wants to fit in and feel like Pleasanton, but it'll be a larger scale version. And think of it as a long-term vision. Think of it as complementing the long-term vision for Hacienda, as it becomes more of a mixed development as well. There has to be noise abatement because of the BART station, the link, and the freeway. But we place buildings such as these close to the freeways, close to train stations, close to freight train, and very close to BART, and been able to fairly easily achieve the code required acoustic requirements built into the building itself. And what would really be beneficial is how to achieve a critical mass of retail and dining to make this kind of a destination use. Those are all issues that were discussed. On the plaza, the attendees really provided preferences for places such as downtown Livermore, kind of post some of the redevelopments, very vibrant. Other locations were discussed as well. And so really thinking of it as a gathering place and an outdoor living room for the plaza is really something that I think everybody in the community can rally around. And then we also think that really the pedestrian experience along Owens Drive with new bike lanes, lessening of possible lane of traffic, we really feel like there can be a dramatic change on Owens Drive on this side, similar to what was made on the other side of Owens Drive when the previous development occurred. But they would like better signage and lighting and bike safety. And I think all of those can be achieved. But lighting is something they really want because they want to extend the amount of time that you can bike to the station.

Thanks.

Shweta, I think I'm gonna give this over to you for the next steps.

Yeah, so I have a couple more slides before we wrap up. So as far as the next steps are concerned, city council is scheduled to review the materials in front of you tonight at its November 18th meeting. So we would forward any feedback from the commission onto the council and then take council and commission feedback along with that from the community meeting into a draft framework plan. And of course that plan itself would come back to both the commission and council. And that's anticipated to occur early in 2026. And then as a related note, the city has been awarded additional grant funding. Rick sort of alluded to this in his presentation as well, but it's really to allow for a closer review of both parking and station area access. So with this process that the project team would determine what parking management strategies and supply opportunities would right size the vehicular parking on the site. And then we do have a link for members of the public to sign up for email updates to sort of stay up to date with the project as it proceeds. So these are the questions that we prepared for this workshop. We did add one after publication of the agenda report. It's identified as question three. On this slide, it's really to ask the commission about its support of the scenarios. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I know the project team would be happy to answer any questions as well, so thank you.

I'D LIKE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AS SOON AS WE'RE READY, BUT ARE THERE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN COME BACK FOR COMMISSION FEEDBACK? I HAVE QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE THOROUGHNESS. NICE TO SEE THE CONSULTANT BACK AS WELL HELPING US THINK THROUGH THESE ISSUES. I guess the first one is I've been riding BART for well more than a decade, so I'm there every day. Let's not exaggerate. I'm there most days. Pre-pandemic, I was just looking at the BART website. They were looking at like 120 million rides a year, and now we're down to less than 50, so they're below 50% utilization. What... how much of the viability of what we're thinking about here relies on the viability of BART. I mean, some of the solutions BART was talking about that it may do if it were to run into trouble would be shutting service down at 9 p.m., reducing trips, reducing trains to once an hour or something else. My question, I'm not asking to solve the BART issue. I'm asking to say, if BART were to radically change the way it serves this community because of its own issues, how much of the modeling that we have here relies on the assumption of the use of BART at certain times or in certain places or whatever else? That would be question one. Question two would be, You had a slide up there that talked about the amount of parking. Parking pre-COVID was impossible to find after 7.30 a.m. And right now, no matter what time of day or night I were to go there, I could park in any spot I wanted for as long as I wanted, right? So clearly parking is underutilized, but if I did the math correctly, I'm not a mathematician, but if I did the math correctly, if you lumped in together all the parking on both sides, both the Dublin and Pleasanton sides, and you took the county parking in there, it looks like the entire of the usage of BART as it currently sits could be parked on the Dublin side. So why do we have... any parking at all on the Pleasanton side if it can all be done on the on the on the on the Dublin side.

So That's gonna be the question that is going to be answered in the next part of the study. I think that that's one of the solutions that we're looking at because of the cost of parking. And there are other conversations around should some parking be on the Pleasanton side? And if it's on the Pleasanton side, does it actually have to be on the station site, or could it be integrated into other parking, say, within the Hacienda Business Park area? Because there's, like we added parking for the apartment building that, was fronting along the street, could street parking and other agreements with other property owners achieve greater parking without actually building any parking on the Pleasanton site itself? So we don't have all the answers to this right now. But Farron Piers will be looking at it as an overall strategy plan and what are the best ways to approach it. And one of the ways to approach it, because you did the math and we've done the math, would be to minimize or put nearly all, if not all, of the parking on the Dublin side. I think one of the things we know is that a lot of the people that park in the Pleasanton side are not from Pleasanton. And one of the things we've discussed is if you just did better signage, you would draw a lot of people off of the freeway onto the other side and allow them to park there. We did the initial test. If you take it from Livermore and you Google it, it sends you to the Pleasanton side. But you can actually get to the other side just as quickly. So better signage and better instruction and direction we feel would be very helpful in minimizing the amount of parking that would need at any point to be on the Pleasanton side, if any.

And then on the economic viability, if whatever changes may be with BART,

I think these are great development sites with or without BART. But BART is not going to go away as we see it. And we do have BART representatives on Zoom, I believe. But I think that nobody is anticipating that BART isn't going to be there. And it's going to be the best and most viable transit that system that we're going to have in the Bay Area for many years to come.

So just to kind of maybe frame your answer, because again, I'm not, we're not going to solve Barton here and that's not kind of what the question's about, but the assumption underlying this development is that there was some viable BART thing that is running whatever that may be but we're not we don't have any kind of specific planning around it's got to be a certain capacity or certain number of uses coming out of the station to make this site viable for the city no but i would say that every unit that you every housing unit that you put on this site supports bart and

creates better ridership as well as lease income to BART and helps them with their costs and their income.

I understand why they would want to modify some of the parking. The final question I had was there's been retail fronting the Owens Drive across the street from BART and there's been those four kiosks if memory serves that have been one has been intermittently used in the past 15 years and three have not been used at all. I question kind of the analysis that we've used to think that retail is going to be viable here. Can you help me understand? I saw that in some of the diagrams you proposed retail there. Help me just understand that because, you know, data doesn't doesn't support that, at least in the last 15 years.

So as somebody that worked with the city and trying to encourage retail on that corner that has remained vacant, I would say, so I've been thinking of this site for a long time. The developer that's putting in a mixed-use development is a pretty unique animal. They want to do both. They want to succeed with the residential, and they want to succeed in the retail because they know if they have successful retail, it will improve the rents in their apartments, and that's where they make their money. There are other developers that don't really put much effort into the retail at all. And what BART has done in their selection process through RFPs in the past is they have been very good at selecting developers who have the ability to curate retail. You've got to have the desire. And if they're putting in 1,000 to 1,300 units, that can support retail. It's a matter of having the developers that are doing it want to do it. And I think that that is a bigger reason why some retail isn't successful than any market study or anything like that.

Thank you.

Mr. Jain, any questions?

Yeah, I have quite a few. So I think given that this is more like a permanent change, you can lose parking, you cannot gain parking easily. There is a cost for parking, but there's a cost to community. So I'm trying to understand. So your look back for the numbers is five years? What is the look back for coming up with averages?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Are you looking back five years and what the existing condition was?

So how many years have you looked back in the past to come up with ridership numbers or the occupancy numbers?

So BART has a very good history of what the numbers are. And pre-pandemic, I think everybody agrees, generally speaking, it was hard to find parking at the station unless you got here early. However, We're not anywhere near pre-pandemic levels. We're at 50%.

I understand. My question was very simple. When you did the study, which years did you consider to come up with the numbers on the vacancy?

So currently, we do not have, and we're not as part of this piece of the study, we will not have a BART parking number. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS PROVIDING ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY IN THE PLAN.

I'M SORRY, THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. YOU HAVE NUMBERS IN THE SLIDES.

MAYBE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, AND IF I CAN JUST JUMP IN, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS, THE COUNTS. SO THE DATA IS BASED ON 2024, OR EXCUSE ME, 2025, SPRING 2025 NUMBERS.

SO IT DOESN'T REPRESENT PRE-PANDEMIC.

No, but we know what the pre-pandemic numbers are or were.

Was it more than 100% oversubscribed?

It was close to. It varies per time of day, et cetera. But at some points, it was challenging to find parking at the station, yes.

Okay.

so the second question is when you talked about livermore uh the downtown picture which you showed uh was there a transit center before did they lose any parking for the transit i think the image that we are showing was the community's suggestion that we that they wanted an active space for the plaza it wasn't trying to replicate livermore it was trying to suggest was trying to suggest that the plaza has an opportunity to be a very active place and that can have retail in front of it and services and events that are planned and programmed and if you think about the same way as retail developers and working with the city and economic development can curate a plaza to make it a very successful active and thriving place

Yeah, but you also drew a comparison that said that this is a successful project, comparable successful project, but that's not comparable. It didn't take away any parking. It was a standalone downtown project.

I think Rick was saying that that image was sort of an illustrative of a concept about an activated plaza space. It's not intended to suggest it's a redevelopment project around parking. Maybe I could just add, though, you know, BART has done a number of these types of TOD developments throughout the Bay Area. El Cerrito, Walnut Creek, Concord, they've...

Pleasant Hill, thank you.

So we do have a number of analogs. And I think maybe where you're heading with this is I think every station is unique. Every station has its own set of demands for parking. A suburban station in Pleasanton is very different from a station in Berkeley or Oakland. And so one of the things that we're committed to through this process, as Rick suggested, is to really make sure we try and get it as right as possible. Some of that is really hard to, it's going to be hard to do because we're looking into the future and trying to anticipate a future condition that we, you know, it's our best guess or there's probably some data behind it from BART's side that can help to anticipate that. But our goal is to get it as close to right as we can. So to your point, Commissioner Jane, when these changes are made, we don't do a disservice to the community by not parking the project appropriately.

And I will add that we do have a member of BART staff on Zoom. She has raised her hands if the Commission would like to hear from BART staff. We do have that resource available.

Are they adding any comments?

Yes. Rachel, I think are you able to hear us and provide your comments?

Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes. Oh, great. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to add it. Thanks for having us here tonight. Sorry I'm not there in person. It would have been easier for everyone probably. And I just wanted to just add a little bit to this last question about the well, I guess the second to last question about the parking and kind of the occupancy. So yes, definitely before COVID it was filling up, but it wasn't filling up every day. So Fridays and Mondays tended to be lower demand days and also the weekends are much lower demand as well as nights so that the parking lots do sit empty a large part of the time. That is pre-COVID throughout the system, though they do fill up during, pre-COVID they were filling up during peak hours on peak days. And one thing I also want to just point out is that our costs, the cost for parking is fairly cheap today, $3 a day. But we do have a new parking policy out, which is going to significantly raise our parking rates based on demand. So right now, when the parking lots aren't filling, then the rates are not going to go up. But as soon as we start to see the parking lots filling up, then the rates are going to start to go down. And what that will do with some people, and this is what we're going to look into more in the next phase of the the analysis for the station access study and the parking management plan is to see that we are going to find that there are a lot of people who live around the station who drive and park there because it's just it's it's pretty cheap and it's it's simple, but they could you know many people could have the option of walking 10 minutes or. Potentially biking or taking a bus getting dropped off so that's that's the kind of thing that we're going to look into the next phase, so I just wanted to add in that little bit of that context.

Thank you. So what you're saying is we'll reduce the parking so that we can charge customers more and we'll add artificial friction so that they'll have to walk or bike. Well, I hear you. Thank you. One more question. I think that's personal for Ashwath. So when we got the, and by the way, why I'm asking these questions, I'm a regular BART commuter, and I was there pre-pandemic. I'm there now. I have been contacted by so many community members, and I have also asked people on the BART. People are really upset. People are really what? Upset. about losing parking. So I'm not in the comment period, so I'm just asking questions so that I have an informed discussion. So when we had the new development come on the other side of the BART station, we lost one lane for the traffic, and there was a parking space given to the development. What I saw in the pictures, are we going to lose one lane on the BART side as well? And if you can clarify, like, what's going to happen?

Talking about Owens Drive, correct? Yes. Right.

So what we've done is been speaking with your city's traffic engineer about how many – how much traffic is on Owens Drive and how much the type of development that we were illustrating would create there as well. And It's anticipated that we could reduce Owens Drive by a lane and still achieve the volumes of traffic that would be anticipated with the development fairly easily.

We're saying there's an opportunity to do it.

It'll take additional study to be able to do that. But it's an opportunity that won't hurt the traffic proceeding through the area or getting to the station. And it could benefit the bicycle community and other ways of getting into BART as well.

So maybe this is a question for the traffic engineer. We are reducing entries to the BART from I think multiple now. So there were two proposals, if you could bring it up on the screen. So a lot of people today are just parking and they're walking, right? So they come at different times of the day. So we're going to have many more people actually coming and dropping off. So let's say we are probably going to have people take Uber because they won't be able to park anymore. So the traffic is most likely going to increase unless they bike or walk while we are reducing the spaces for drop off in both plans. There's fewer entry points. And then we are also choking them on the street by giving one lane. How is it possible that traffic still works?

Sure. So just so I understand your question, you're asking why we don't have more drop-off area because there's going to be fewer parking spaces so more people are dropping off. That's what you said, correct?

So that's part one. The part two is we would expect more traffic on the street because earlier you had people just come one way, park, and then they get into BART.

Right, plus thousands of residents, right? 1,000-plus residents as well. So yes, there'd definitely be more traffic. We do have, you know, in the eastbound direction, we have a single lane, right? And I think, I don't know if everyone has commuted regularly. I know that Commissioner Pace and you. And so there is some difficulty in that single-lane design. And it took some, like, adjustments for us to get vehicles through there. And honestly, just as a side note, most of that delay was because of the pedestrian crossing. And we were facilitating pedestrians. They were walking in front of moving vehicles, so we just made that signal move faster. So when we tried to adjust that back, we had better flow through there. So the single lane design wasn't my preference on that far side. So it was either a single-lane design or a two-lane design where people backed straight into the roadway. So neither was great. And so we went with the single-lane design. My preference on the other side would still have a two-lane design and then have that entire frontage be used for pickup and drop-off. We don't actually have a lot of pickup and drop-off that occurs in a way where they're stacking. If you recall, prior to Uber, we had taxis that were pretty consistent. We had them parked on the road, but we actually took away a travel lane to have the taxi stand. There's still the taxi stand sign. There's just no more taxis, and Ubers don't actually wait there. But the pickup and drop off is actually a really efficient movement. I don't believe that the loop is a necessary design. The drop off, just the roundabout is the preferred design that I would have for that. But I think, just to go back and answer your question, I think that entire frontage, which is just unused, is a very convenient place to drop off as soon as there's a nice plaza to walk through. So as long as there's a convenient way to pull off to the side, let your person out, and have a waiting facility, the walk's essentially the same.

So between these two options, you are leaning towards the second one?

Yeah, and it's less about how much space we have to drop off and pick up right at the closest spot, because people are going to do that closest spot no matter what. My preference in walking through various downtowns and BART locations is that if we have a plaza, I don't want to have travel lane where people are you know driving both directions and it's kind of frantic and people are trying to cross i think the plaza design it's important to make that pedestrian and bicycle oriented and and that be the focus and so putting a travel lane there whether it's you know primarily for pickup and drop off or not it just it doesn't feel like we're meeting the goals of having a pedestrian and bicycle first approach. So that's the reason for my recommendation for the roundabout.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Which is referred to as the turnaround circulation in the diagram, right?

Sorry, since we've got Mike up here, I can't resist. What's the viability of, for the sake of being provocative, of not having a plaza down the middle, but instead using that for your turnaround? So if we look at this diagram where it currently says plaza, if you take that out and make that the traffic flow.

So that is viable. I'm pretty sure we can drive over the gas line that's there. It shouldn't be an issue. We would have to then modify. What I liked about the turnaround location also is that we have a signal that's there. So you get this signalized in and out.

On Willow?

On Willow, correct. And so if we were to go with the plaza as the turnaround location, we would have to then It'd either be a right in, right out, and then you'd have to drive. If you're going eastbound, you'd have to make the U-turn. It just seems like it's a less efficient movement. Then the people that are leaving would also have to make U-turns. You can't make a U-turn at Willow. You'd have to then go down to Gibraltar. So it seemed from a circulation perspective, or it seems, probably a little bit more difficult. Not impossible. You could probably modify it and then have...

signalized pedestrian crossing that also had an entrance through there but it wasn't something we looked at yeah but just just so I'm clear I one of the things that constantly comes up in the city around kind of all these developments is about parking and traffic so just I just want to make sure you know in your judgment the ability to have a plaza in the middle and then putting the parking not on the plaza but someplace as depicted in these two pictures here is actually better for traffic flow for the for the community

Yeah, I prefer the east side. The west side parking works as well. My preference is the east side just because we have more people that come from Hacienda. In the early 90s, we had more people that came from Hop Yard, and so that was our primary movement. That's why you have a double right turn at Hop Yard and Owens, and you have a much bigger intersection there. But we just have so many more people coming from the Hacienda side, and in fact, you know, the Pleasanton residents, we have a stronger concentration than is over on the east side that's using bart station so my preference would be to use the east dublin pleasanton entrance there next to oracle and have that be the location potentially uh use the same roadway that that the buses currently use and have an access through there it's my preference um but to have vehicles drive and then get go in and out on the west one is fine as well we we We played with whether or not there'd be a direct entrance off of Willow into the parking structure. I don't think any of that's finalized yet. I think that comes down to a little more detailed traffic studies. But from a location standpoint, what I told Rick and the rest of the team was, I don't think that's the deciding factor. If you have to drive through one extra signal when you're going westbound, I don't think that's something where you have to draw the line in the sand.

And then maybe just one final question for me on this. You don't believe it's necessary that we have two drop-off spots, one on east and one on west. You feel like one's going to be enough?

Well, I think the front, like, So if we have the turnaround, and that's kind of the west side, that's your Willow Road, anyone from the east would probably just drop off along the frontage, right? Unless, you know, it would be nice if that plaza was covered, because then you could drop off and not get rained on, right? Or you'd have to use the umbrella for as long of a distance. But no, I don't think it's necessary. It wasn't something that we looked at for that amount. Thanks. Sure.

I have two more questions. And I'm sorry if I'm going over. One question is, do you have an active developer you're working with for this project? You mentioned something about someone who's

This is in preparation for an eventual RFP for developers, and that they would, Oh, sorry. Um, so, uh, BART is anticipating letting an RFP, uh, after this piece of the study is done after their board has approved a direction after some of the other technical parking and management and access plan studies are completed and integrated into this, uh, And then they would go out for an RFP. They would put out an RFP, and multiple developers, we would anticipate, would put in their proposals for this. First, and it's generally a two-step process where they do general qualifications first, and then have a number of them compete. So it becomes kind of trying to get the best of the best for both BART and the community. And generally speaking, the cities are also involved in these processes as well.

Thank you. So I said, too, I probably am going to ask one more. So in your plan, you have either parking on the east side or west side. Why not on both sides?

One of the things Bart tries to do is put most of the parking in one place. It's a challenge for people to come into one garage find out whether or not they have a parking space and then proceed to the other. So generally speaking, BART's desire is to have their parking located in a single location.

But you can potentially achieve more parking if you have the RAP building on both sides?

Yeah. You could from a number standpoint. I think that there's another issue, and that is what the cost of it is. And I failed to say earlier that... In the past 10 years ago, the environment was different. There were grant programs and other redevelopment programs that no longer are available in California that would help to pay for parking structures at BART stations. Now those grants are few and far between. And so BART would work with the city to obtain grants for that, but they wouldn't want to pay for a parking structure that they don't believe they need, depending on where the parking management plan ends up.

Residents end up paying. Anyway, I think the last question I have is on decision-making. Who has the authority? Of course, BART owns the land. What role does city play? What role does BART play? Who makes the decision? What decision we make here affects any further decisioning? Is it just a rubber stamp or how should we look at the decision-making?

In our discussions, BART's board kind of makes the decision on how much parking they feel they need at the station. They think of this as a Dublin Pleasanton station, so they have a lot of parking resources there on both sides now. So they're looking at it holistically as a station. So their BART board is really the final say for both the land uses that they would like to see at the station as well as the parking. Though they do work with the community, work with the city that they're in to try to achieve a goal for everyone. And that's really going to be the challenge here at this station.

So would there be a hearing with the board at some point, like a public hearing? Could we publish those to the community here?

Yeah, the BART board decisions are public hearings.

So when is this agendized for something like this discussion?

It would generally, I believe, be before an RFP was put out, but it could be afterwards.

Rachel Factor may be able to elaborate on that answer. Rachel, are you able to provide a response to the Commissioner's question?

Yeah, I just, so what we've been doing in our recent developments is that In the sort of the pre development stage before the RFP is out for the developer there the bar board will adopt the goals and objectives for the project. That the city city and Bart combined goals and objectives and we would have the parking maximum in there, which will come out of the. which will come out of the analysis that's forthcoming. That's the first phase with the board taking action on this development site. Then the next action would be once we've, and yes, I just want to emphasize this is definitely a public process. then that will give us the information that we need to help define the RFP or RFQ. And once staff has a recommendation for developer, then we will go back to the board and the board will then make a, they'll have to decide on the exclusive negotiating agreement with the developer. They need to approve that. We'll be working through all the site design with the city, with the developer, with any other stakeholders, the community. And then after some time, we're going to go back to the board once everything is firmed up with the ground lease negotiations. So there's multiple phases of board approval. And then just to be very clear that that's, you know, because it's our property, we would go through that process, but the city will be approving the planning entitlements the building permits that is definitely a city process and we would just be working jointly on all the design review as the project moves on let's go to the other commissioners and then we'll come back to you once more can i just add one point to um rick's discussion about the the parking and uh the payment for the parking i just want to just just to clarify that you know bart is not in a not in the most fiscally healthy position right now. And even before the fiscal crisis, BART could not invest in parking. It did come from grant funding and redevelopment agencies when parking was prioritized. And as we've, you know, as kind of the regional statewide and regional and policy goals have shifted, BART is also, these grant programs have shifted and and Bart's access policy and everything that we are trying to achieve with these developments and all the access projects that we're doing is really trying to provide equitable access and investing equitably in access. So while it's really important that people you know, driving and parking to the stations, we also need to, when we are looking at these grants, we also need to look at investing for people who are walking, biking, getting dropped off, a lot of people who don't have access to cars. So I just wanted to add that in.

All right. Well, thank you. Commissioner Mohan, do you have any clarifying questions?

Yeah, a couple of them. So are any of these proposed apartments or condominiums going to be for sale or all going to be permanent lease?

Generally speaking, because BART does not does not sell the property underneath, it's generally been that the development community doesn't generally look favorably on for sale on properties or other leased properties because of the diminished value based on the leases. So generally speaking, it would be rental apartments. I'm not saying that it couldn't be, but most likely it would be rental because of the lease situation.

The same conversation in the Stone Ridge complex, right?

Okay.

You talked about parking on the Dublin side. And I agree that from a BART perspective, this is one station. From the city, it is two cities. But from BART, it's just one catchment pool. I get that. But what's to prevent, or why would the city of Dublin also eventually not work with BART and say, we want to have a development of whatever, 1,000 plus homes? That side too. they actually have that right now. Because they are more pro-development, right? So why would they not want to have the similar site and then we have the same conversation about further cutting the parking?

So BART's property ownership on the Dublin side is very different. Most of the land is, there's a couple of small parking lots, but nothing to the scale and extent of the Pleasanton side. We have the surface parking lot and Dublin just has some pockets. The BART property is also occupied by an existing parking structure and it's unlikely that would be demolished for housing. So the interest has always been in this surface parking lot as the most viable development. There is other, I should just to be clear, there are, Alameda County owns property and there's, I think, very real possibility that additional housing could be developed on that vacant site that's across the across the freeway there. So to your point, there could be more housing and different demands over time for parking on the Dublin side. So I would say part of our conversation is to talk to the city of Dublin. We've already engaged with them. to just let them know what we're talking about and making sure we're understanding what plans W might have for the surrounding area there and how that might change the parking dynamics overall, because we need to be mindful of changes over time by our neighbors to the north.

And Rachel also has her hand up for this question. Okay. She'd like to add.

Okay, let's hear from her then. Actually, Ellen answered perfectly, so I don't need to add anything.

All right, okay, good.

I came to this country in 1988. BART was built before that, so this is a question just more from my knowledge. Does BART own this land free and clear, or is there any co-ownership with the city of Pleasanton? I believe it's free and clear.

It's all BART-owned property. There are easements and things, but there's no underlying encumbrances of shared ownership.

Okay, and I assume as a taxpayer-funded property, whatever the BART ownership is, was eventually at some point paid for by taxpayers. The land, in a theoretical sense, does belong to the taxpayers as opposed to a private developer who buys land at a commercial rate from someone. Was this like easement given to the BART in the 60s, 70s, or did BART pay commercial rates for lands here and everywhere in the Bay Area? Do you know? Just curious.

I'd say that they probably paid. This is a little bit of a guess, but I'm guessing that they had to pay commercial rates for land then. They may have had some eminent domain, but even then they're paying commercial rates. throughout the whole system but it that the cost of Bart was shared by the whole entire district which is cities throughout the Bay Area yeah for now but I'm good thank you mr. Diego questions

uh just a couple most of the the parking ones have been beaten to death but um the only question i additional question i had was and it's something that's incredibly intriguing to me and you it is brought up is the future event center I've kind of read the stories on it, would be an amazing item to come into the East Bay area. And it looks as though the projected parking is obviously anticipating that the possibility of that exists. And maybe you don't know this answer, but does anybody know like the percentage of is that going through or is that still just a concept?

There's a negotiation that's happening right now. Conceptually, Dublin was selected and the site just north of this BART station was selected as the preferred location for the Visit Tri-Valley facility. It's a very costly project. A lot of the conversation is about how it would get paid for and financed over time. Those conversations are still ongoing. There's quite a lot of work to do, I think, to figure out how this would get paid for.

So it's very early stages of thinking about doing it.

There's a concept, there's commitments that have been made by the city of Dublin, by Alameda County, who owns the land on which the site is proposed. So I think there's some momentum behind the project and support for it. But I would say the actual making it a reality, there's a number of hurdles to go through. But maybe to your point or larger point, you know, I think thinking about that site as a prospective use that will create different additional demands for parking and other circulation and so on, I think is important. And so we are it is in our our sort of planning to consider that possibility and not be blind to the fact that that facility would change the dynamic.

Yeah, that was the only thing I was thinking of. And obviously, in kind of relating to that, I know my wife works in the Silicon Valley, and their businesses are starting kind of a trend of people going back to the office, right? And she's starting to see that. I think everybody's starting to see that. And you had mentioned there's kind of like a 5% rise in in you know parking use kind of since since covid and and i think i think we have to be realistic that this is very you know we're still in initial stages i mean when i when i read through this this packet you know you're still in you know schematic idea discussion zones right and so you don't haven't even done your parking study yet I don't think, our concerns I think are warranted, but until you do the full parking analysis and bring in all those items, it's kind of pointless. Everybody realizes, hey, it's an important thing, we don't ever want to decrease to the point of now it causes trouble down the road, and I don't think anybody any of you want that either. Um, so I don't think it's, it's something that you, you've mentioned all of the items that come into contact.

Um, remember we'll be back to give recommendations too.

So I, I would just, I would just like to say that I, it can, I'm happy that you guys are, planning for potential future projects and not ignoring that, but obviously that's all part of the study that's going to be done, correct? Okay, thank you.

Okay, any final questions before we move to public comment? And then we'll be back for round two, which is recommendations for planning staff. Okay, it looks like we're good. Any speaker cards for this item, Estella?

We received two speaker cards, Sharon Picarski Followed by Nathan Harold.

Welcome and thank you for persevering here.

Oh, I've been here much later than this. Good evening again. I'm here to encourage you to support option B2, the protected bike lane off-street configuration, which aligns the bike lanes away from traffic lanes and next to the curb. There are many reasons protected bike lanes are much better option than the alternative class two bike lane that is between the traffic lane and the drop off lane. A class two bike lane is only a six inch line of paint separating bicyclists from fast moving vehicle traffic. Protected bike lanes vastly improve safety for bicyclists for many reasons. It separates bicycle traffic from car traffic. If you've ever ridden a bicycle down a Class 2 bike lane, you will see drivers weaving into the bike lane, straddling the lane marker, and even sometimes driving down the bike lane. The protected bike lane option also removes conflict zones where bicycles and vehicle traffic cross paths. Driver's parking in Class 2 bike lanes is also an issue. It forces bicyclists into traffic, which is a problem everywhere, but especially where there is heavy pickup and drop-off traffic. Just observe traffic around schools. This is likely also what you would see at BART. A protected bike lane would encourage more people to ride bikes to BART. There are many who feel safe in a protected bike lane, but not in a Class 2 bike lane. In a growing city, encouraging micro-mobility not only helps reduce traffic congestion, but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions, which improves air quality that's already an issue in this valley. To improve safety for bicyclists, the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan calls for protected bike lanes on multi-lane streets such as Owens with 35 mph or more speed limits. Speed limits on Owens Drive are 40 mph. Implementation of Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan is also in the Climate Action Plan. In an aside, it's difficult to tell from the diagrams how both designs for Draufbaugh lanes along Owens Drive coordinate with the plans for the extension of the Iron Horse Trail. which has an awkward crossing of Owens Drive. I hope the plans coordinate well. We've seen very successful implementation of protected bike lanes, similar to those shown in option B2, which you can see at both Hart Middle School and Pleasanton Middle School. Everyone, not just drivers, deserves safe transportation options. It is in the best interest of us all to encourage bicycling. It reduces traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, PM2.5 pollution in our air from tire wear, especially from heavy EVs, and reduces wear and tear on our roads, reducing costs to the city. It's a win-win for everyone. So please, support the protected bike lane option along Owens Drive. Thank you.

Thank you for your perspective. We have a second speaker too.

Nathan Harrell.

Hello. Hey, everybody. First time I've ever been to one of these things. I didn't even know you all existed. Hello. I'm here to support the off-street bike lanes supported, separated, and keeping us out of harm's way tonight. I've bike commuted here in Pleasanton. I've lived here almost 20 years, and I've bike commuted to three different jobs. 6 a.m., 10 p.m., rain or shine. Usually, right now, I go like four miles. So like Kohl Center, past Ken Mercer Park, Iron Horse Trail, and all the way to Rosewood Commons. And I love it. I biked here tonight. I mean, I'm a biker. And I'm weird. I'm unusual. I'm not a normal person. Did anyone else here bike tonight? Probably not. So you don't need to build that bike lane for me. I'm going to ride no matter what. But if we want to get other people on bikes, you've got to make it safe for them. I think most of us, maybe not most of us, maybe half, are in this interested but concerned space. Like, I want to be safe. And with a separated bike lane, it's very easy. It's very obvious. I think this BART site is for mass transit and you can get even more people out of their cars and onto mass transit if you have something that is safe for them. Separated bike lanes do that. I was in Fort Collins last weekend visiting my son and the bike lanes are amazing and I saw people in 30 degree weather with their kids going to dinner at 7 p.m. at night in the dark. Because it was safe. It was easy to get around. So that just psychologically gets you into a better state. And then you're willing to do that. Instead of it being an option or a maybe, it becomes attractive. Like, cool, let's go downtown. Cool, let's go to the bar station. So you can build infrastructure that serves just me and the 2% of me's that are out there. or build something that's inviting for all of our neighbors from parents, seniors, teens, the mobility impaired. You know, I bike so much, I see these people out there who can only bike. They don't have capability to have another option. So let's think about them and build a separated bike lane and put more butts on bikes.

Thank you. If anybody else would like to speak, please approach the podium now. all right we'll close the public hearing and i probably should have asked this earlier but does our bart representative have anything else they would like to say before we start making suggestions to planning staff

I haven't heard that, but Rachel, please do speak up if you'd like to add anything.

I don't want to exclude her just because she's on Zoom and I forget about her. So I just want to make sure she feels heard and had a chance to speak. I should have asked earlier.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I think I don't have much to add. I just want to thank everybody for their time tonight and hearing this item.

All right. Well, very good. IT'S A LOT TO DIGEST. WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF EDUCATION AND OF COURSE A LOT OF THESE PLANS ARE STILL PRELIMINARY. A LOT OF WORK TO STILL BE DONE. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO GUIDE STAFF AND MAKE SUGGESTIONS ON PROCESS AND PATH FORWARD AND EMPHASIS OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS COMPLICATED. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? DOES SOMEBODY HAVE? OKAY. COMMISSIONER JAGO, YOU GOT SOME IDEAS, SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. GOOD FOR YOU.

THIS IS AN AMAZING PROJECT AND ESPECIALLY COMING IN AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS. I was really intrigued by all of the different options, looking at each individual little item. I've done a lot of podium projects in my career. I do know how unbelievably expensive they are, and I know that comes into play when we're talking about what type of parking, how to provide it, do we use the podium in multiple buildings and what that costs. And so I kind of looked at your presentation and kind of went through and analyzed it from my own perspective. And when we're looking at the BART site, you have two options, A1 and A2. I think the turnaround site works wonderfully and pulls in with the existing traffic signal. and i do like the explanation of instead of the loop where the plaza would then be fronted to basically a drop-off roadway zone i like the idea of having the the buildings on both sides at the plaza so that plaza feels a little bit more secure more like a plaza versus you know an offset of a of a potentially busy drop-off zone who knows On the bike circulation, I think it's pretty obvious that the off-street works great, mostly for bikers. And I just want to comment, I was also in Fort Collins this last weekend for Parents Weekend. And notice all that, I'm not a huge biker, but I do notice what that brings to that town. It's a college town and you've got everybody biking all over the place. It is amazing and so if you take the plaza, you take the Iron Horse Trail and you link it all together and I think that makes sense. When you look at your test fit options, if you're looking for our opinions, the test fit number two is kind of looking at it from an architectural perspective. I like that scenario the best. And for multiple purposes, I like the larger building on the east side and utilizing one large parking structure versus multiple smaller parking structures in each building. I think we have to, as a planning commission, we can't just say, oh, this is the best, let's do this. I think we have to think of cost consideration across the board because that makes it viable or not viable. And I think you have to play a little bit of ultimate what you'd want to what can we afford and what's the best we can do to afford that. And the affordable housing portion, I think this is obviously a great location to be able to do that. And I think somebody mentioned earlier that by this site, doing the taller kind of condo apartment building, it is mirroring across from dublin and dublin seems to be you know the the leader in large-scale very tall multi-family projects and so if we kind of do set our standards up against dublin it kind of all flows in together along the along the interstate uh freeway And so I liked all of those, but I think I just want to reiterate for us that this is just an informational time period. And you guys are still in the initial programming stages of figuring this out. So, you know, we're not trying to solve the parking issue. We're not trying to solve anything. We're just trying to give input as to what we think is important. Um, and of, of all of the, the layouts, I, I think that the one thing that we commented that I have noticed as a, as a bicyclist in town is what, I'm sorry, I forgot your name, but you're, you mentioned the iron horse trail. When you come up to Owens drive is literally the worst thing. part of the iron horse trail of the entire roadway to that little piece of trying to cross owens drive everywhere else you're they're building overpasses and you've got all these wide areas and then you come to a halt at this weird little zigzaggy intersection to get through to the BART station. And I'm hoping that whatever, I know it's a small piece of it, but whatever end design you have, that has to be taken care of because those are the things that kind of bottleneck the Iron Horse Trail in my opinion. Thank you.

Who's ready to go next?

I'll go. Yeah, so I think number one, thank you for the work. You know, as usual, I think it's been thoughtful and very considerate of the needs. With respect to kind of what to take an opportunity to do, I think it needs to look like we need to put as much density there as we can to satisfy our housing element requirements. It's also the right place to do it because you have I mean, you do have the, what is it, the Galloway that's across the street, but you don't have all that much impact to other kind of existing residential neighbors around it. And so we don't have the same impact we would with an infill somewhere else in the community. And so I think that's a really important component to try to figure out ways ways to do that and i think if you go across the street and look at the way that it was done on the dublin side there's podium in there uh and rap in there as well uh as the best my memory reflects but um i think that those have been well done and i think they they do a good job of preserving you know that the character of that community and i think there's ways to do that here too so i think we should take advantage of those of those things you know that i i trust the process we will go through will be reflective of the you know the the almighty roadway concerns that we always have in this community and it sounds like there's been some thoughtful work done there but obviously ingress and egress is going to be really important in addition to parking um obviously rationalizing the parking and that's going to be a decision for bart about how much you're going to need but putting parking into our community is going to be very difficult for this community and it's going to create all kinds of uh trouble so let's i would encourage us to continue to be very thoughtful about making sure this gets parked not just at the kind of the sub um or the the post-covered nadir we are now at um assuming it'll come back i don't know if it'll ever back to where it was i don't know how it's gonna be economically viable if it doesn't but that's the bart problem that we'll deal with uh in a in a different setting With respect to the plaza, I love the idea. I think we should do it. My observation about the plaza is if there's nothing to do at the end of the BART line, which this becomes, and there is no viable retail around it, The types of activities we are likely to see there would not be the types we would want to see there. So if we can't make it really viable from a commercial perspective, I think we should think very carefully about how much space we want to have there and what we want to put there. When I think of other BART stations where I see this kind of activity, you want vibrancy around it or you don't want it. And so that's what I would encourage us to think about is what can we do to make this either a vibrant center or not an empty park at the end of a train line. With respect to kind of the various different other elements, I think, you know, we've been through this before with this group, and I think, you know, building something that's consistent with the character so we don't have big massing, it doesn't look like a high rise, you know, and the architectural features that we've talked about here and in other places, I think is important. And having it look more like the rest of the city as opposed to the Galloway, I think, would be important, all due respect to those that worked on the Galloway previously. And then we should take advantage of this opportunity. We don't get them very often, and this could do a lot of relief for our city with the housing element. And so finding the right ways to do that, I think are gonna be really important. I'll leave it there.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mohan, looks like you're ready to go too.

Sure, thank you. So this reminds me a bit of right when I joined the Planning Commission with you as the consultant for the Stone Ridge Mall project, right? And the conversation sounds familiar because that also is off a BART station, big piece of land. So on the positive side, the way I see it with this project is a decent amount of housing that is possible. It's near the BART, so ridership would hopefully go up. And BART, we can need more ridership. The city will, by the way, I assume this is a fully commercial project and the city will get the regular property taxes as it would with any project?

Correct, it's a property in the city of Pleasanton, so we would benefit from the, although let me say, let me revisit that actually. BART's a public agency which don't typically pay property taxes. I'm not sure exactly how that would work with a ground lease arrangement, so I'll maybe, I'll plead ignorance on that question.

That would be an important one for me personally, is to know what the economic benefit to the city is. Okay, that was the by my intent on my question initially That is Bart, you know, this is a regular commercial transaction or does bar have any special dispensation? from us, okay, so On the part that that I would like to get more details on I You know, we approved the Stone Ridge Mall project.

That's been what, like two years, two and a half years?

And it was the same conversation about the housing element and how the city would benefit. So far, not sure what exactly has happened there. I would have imagined there would be a beautiful mixed-used set of buildings that would have shown up by now based on your designs, but nothing so far. So I'm not sure if this is also just going to be yet one more, you know, get approval from the city and then park it and then... then we'll see when the right time is right to develop it.

Remember, Stoners has multiple owners and all of that.

That is true, but nothing has been done so far.

So what I'm trying to say is, every year we see a one-year extension of being asked for by, you know, from the city. If we approve something, you know, I would love to see a tangible plan for a finite timeline to get that thing built, and not just approve stuff so the developer can put it in their back pocket and just wait for when their time, you know, when they think the time is right for them to develop it, because the city is frankly not benefitting from it so far. And things change. So what we approved five years ago is not stuff that you might approve today. So that's the thing I would want to see more of. So A, the property taxes was the economic benefit to the city. Second, would there be a tangible plan to actually build the property? By when? Third, my personal preference, and that was the same thing for the Stone Ridge Mall project, is that I would love to see a mix of sales and lease because pure lease, pure rental developments are a transient population. I personally would love to see more people take root in Pleasanton, especially younger families who typically come to condominiums in these areas so they can fill the schools, they can make the city more vibrant. Because the city is getting old, and I am one of the older guys here. So I would love to understand better if we can actually do a mixed sale and lease option. The other point about the traffic, this is more of a philosophical point. I'm not sure how this can be addressed. But the purpose of BART as a tax paid entity by all of us is to promote ridership. And part of promoting ridership to me is having a good amount of parking. because if you cut the parking, then you basically are setting up, frankly, a downward spiral where if folks go and they can't find parking, then the next time they don't go to Bath. This is what used to happen before COVID at least. A lot of my friends stopped going to Bath station for that reason. So I would actually prefer to see the parking be the main focus, and then whatever is left, And then a parking can be a multi-story building doesn't have to be only ground because ground is expensive today. Land is expensive. But I would like to see what can be done to preserve the parking and build only the housing that is in the space that is left rather than housing be the prime driver. And then parking is kind of a adjustment factor that we put around it by, you know, doing some studies which say leadership is down today because that that would not be fair to the city of Pleasanton or Dublin or Livermore, for that matter, because this is the catchment area for all three cities. So that would be the very last point from the building side. I think it seemed like every time you're pushing the number of floors higher, we're talking about possibly seven story buildings here now. I'm not sure what the rest of the commission members feel. I think five, when we talked about five, the city population, citizens cringe a bit when they hear five levels, but now we're talking about seven. So I think we just need to be prepared as a commission to think through the implication of these multi-level buildings and the traffic that will drive on Owens Drive and the parking and the drop off and the in the pickup points. That would be my main thoughts on this for now. But again, good work. Thank you.

MR. JANE, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR PLANNING STAFF?

I THINK I'LL JUST GO THROUGH WHAT I LIKED ABOUT THIS PROJECT FIRST. SO I LIKED THAT IT'S ADDING HOUSING. I LIKED THAT IT HAS AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT. I LIKED THAT IT'S GOING TO BRING PEOPLE CLOSER that there will be access using bikes and other modes of transport. And I'm on a BPTC bike pedestrian trails committee as well and we have a member of that or the chair of that today who came and spoke so i i support what they were saying it's unclear to me looking at current plans how that separate bike lane is being set up. It's not very clear from the plans, but that could be something preferred over having bikes go in the same driveway as the rest of the cars. I also liked the wrap concept. I think whether it is expensive, it's going to be expensive, but it's also unlocking value for BART or whoever developer is coming in. So I would have liked to see the trap structure on both sides, east and west, to keep the parking at a sustainable level. This is a permanent thing. As I said early on, you can take away parking. It's very hard to put it back. We are making a decision here to take away parkings. And it's a big decision. My decision to live in Pleasanton was driven by access to parking, access to BART. And a lot of residents have reached out to me. You also see comments in the packet. All of them are concerned about parking. So I cannot ignore the fact that the proposal right now does not address the parking at the peak capacity. We're taking a moment in time which is today, or 2025 spring, and using that as a big demand. BART can handle much higher ridership. It has in the past. I'm not sure what the ridership numbers were in 91, but I'm sure it was not the same as we had in 2019. So if someone did not think through or plan ahead in 91 to put this many parking spots, I think we would have been in even worse situation in 2019 with the parkings. So parking is important. I think we need to not take away parking. So there is definitely a conflict between housing and parking. I also heard about finding parking in buildings around it in other businesses. For me, and I'm just giving you my perspective, if I have to go out in a different building. It's probably a multi-level parking somewhere. That adds five to seven minutes to my commute. Then I have to walk down, get to the BART station. That's another ten minutes. And you are in a rush, right? Like you are trying to get to the BARD, you have a BARD frequency which has reduced now. So if you miss a train, the next train comes 20 whatever minutes later. So if I miss that train, I'm late for my meeting. If it happens enough, I'm not going to choose BART. I'll drive. That puts pressure on our roads. There's already heavy traffic on. If you're going into San Francisco, there's a very heavy traffic. It takes me more than an hour and a half if I miss my BART and I need to drive. So BART is supposed to solve that problem, not recreate that problem again. What's the purpose of BART in our community? BART is a reason why a lot of people live in Pleasanton. We have riders from San Ramon, and I'm speaking not just for Pleasanton residents. When you look at numbers, there are residents of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon as the primary users of this parking facility. So it affects everyone who's using that facility today. There is a return to work happening in many locations. The economy is not at that point yet where it was probably before pandemic in all true sense. People are not going to offices, but that could change. Like whoever thought in 91 and we still had problem in 2019 for excess capacity. Now we are saying, oh, there's not going to be any need for people to commute. That's a mistake. I would also like to add THE SITUATION WITH DRIVING THROUGH THAT AREA, I THINK IF WE REDUCE FROM TWO LANES TO ONE, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT HARDER. THE TWO OPTIONS WHICH I SAW, THERE COULD BE A THIRD OPTION, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PAYS HERE, THAT EMPTY SPACE THERE CAN TURN INTO A VERY a different outcome than what we are expecting. So if you look at BART, in BART we have community service who visits in this train quite frequently because people just stay there overnight or they try to use that as a shelter. So what stops them from using this empty space at the end of the line as a shelter? um so it's going to be a tricky situation which we probably don't want so there's i also agree with the retail component it's not clear to me how retail will be sustainable in that area we haven't seen much activity on the other side of the street which is commutable which is close to the bard what makes us think that retail is a good proposed used in that area if we are concerned about first story it's less desirable for people to live because no one wants commuters looking into someone's house when they're commuting like you could make first story as a parking or make it more like a podium structure so there are some creative ways which could add parking it will come at a cost If that cost is not paid by BART or the developer, that cost will be borne by residents of Pleasanton and surrounding cities. It's not free either way. I would rather prefer an agency pay that cost and the developer who's going to materially benefit from this proposal as opposed to residents of Pleasanton having to pay that. So I'll stop there. Thank you.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND WEIGH IN NOW. I BELIEVE AS OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE INDICATED THAT PARKING IS THE LYNCHPIN OF THIS WHOLE EFFORT AND THAT WE HAVE TO GET THAT RIGHT. And so I recommend that we focus our resources on that aspect of the project, maybe slow down some of the other design work that we're doing, and accelerate the parking study that I think we're talking about doing next year. Do it now. um because that'll that'll be the ground ground level understand give us ground level understanding for what will fit and work once we know how much parking that that we want to put there and the parking study it should be you know reviewed and agreed with with bart with the city maybe even public hearings just around that one aspect of the project because that's the area where most people are concerned and fellow commissioners are concerned that they moved here because they wanted to park and other commissioners are concerned that maybe we're short sighted. We do what we can to monetize the property now. And then five years we wish we had the parking back because the BART system is underutilized and you can't recreate it once it's gone. So we've got to get that right. And if we get that right, everything else I'm confident we'll be able to to get to get right. So yeah, let's focus on that and spend a lot of time and resources to get a common goal and understanding across the community and with BART about how much parking will be provided at that site. I also agree with Commissioner Jain's suggestion that it may not be the greatest place for destination retail, bringing people in from the outside, because that's going to take parking places. and we have underutilized retail areas in the city now including stone ridge and even the downtown area so for me it doesn't necessarily seem like the best place for a destination to draw people in although i think it's very important to have enough retail to where people that are living in those apartments feel like they have the services that they want to need and that could include coffee shops and dining and CLEANING AND WHATEVER ELSE WOULD MAKE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE IT WAS A GOOD COMMUNITY TO LIVE IN. SO I GUESS I WOULD BE FOCUSING ON KIND OF RESIDENT NEEDS AND DESIRES WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT THE RETAIL ASPECT OF THE PROJECT AND NOT TAKE TOO MUCH OF THE PARKING TO TRY TO TURN IT INTO A DESTINATION WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY LOCATIONS IN THE CITY THAT COULD HAVE HIGHER UTILIZATION FOR DESTINATIONS. SOME OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT BUILDING UP. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT BUILDING UP. WE'VE GOT WORK DAY. I THINK IT WORKS VERY NICELY WHERE IT'S AT NEXT TO THE BARK STATION. AND A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WE APPROVED IBB FOR TECHNOLOGY CENTERS THAT WOULD ALLOW UP TO 85 FEET HEIGHT IN HACIENDA. And so if we're allowing other places in Hacienda to be 85 feet, I don't think on the surface I have big concerns about allowing up to 85 feet here, too, because it's right next to the freeway. And so if you're going to go 85 feet anywhere in the Hacienda Business Park, why not here? I agree with the comment about making it easy for bicyclists. We don't want to make the last 200 feet hard for cyclists. There's been so much work done to improve the Iron Horse Trail, and Dublin built a bridge across, I think it's Dublin Boulevard there, and we've got good lights and access. I ride my bike on that. on that Iron Horse Trail. I'm comfortable with it. It's always a little bit dicey around the BART station, so it's a little bit of a bottleneck there. Try to make it easy for the cyclists because we spent so much time and effort and got such a good access on the Iron Horse Trail from both sides. Excuse me for the delay. I'm just reviewing my notes one more time. It's getting a little bit late and tired. I just want to make sure I haven't forgotten anything here. I guess just to close, I'll say that I appreciate Bart's dilemma. You know, they've got financial challenges, and they want to monetize as best they can to help alleviate some of those challenges, but I encourage Bart to also be thinking about, you know, long-term vision, too, about capacity for the the trains, and I think that we as humans tend to think that whatever the current situation is, that's what's likely to continue. If we're in a recession, we think things are never going to get better. If we're in a boom and a bubble, we think things are never going to get worse. We were at capacity five years ago, and now we're only 50% capacity. I think several people here have alluded that we may not be at steady state yet. In five years, we may recover somewhat. I'm not suggesting we'll go back to 100% capacity, but I read and hear about a number of companies that are encouraging and demanding people to go back into the office more. So by no means do I believe that we're at steady state now and that five years from now we'll be at 50% capacity, and maybe we'll be at 70% capacity or something in that range, but that's why I encourage all the parking study and analysis and let's put the smartest thought process into developing that that we can so that we don't wish we had retained more parking so that BART was better utilized five or ten years from now. We've all heard from each other, so I don't know if it's potentially caused other people to have other thoughts, so maybe one other quick round. Commissioner Jago.

I think a good point would be because who ultimately has the decision on the parking that will be provided? I mean, if it's a if it's BART parking, obviously the residential portion is kind of a given, but the BART parking itself, obviously that's the biggest issue that I think everybody up here is having. Whose ultimate decision is that? And if it's BART and do we have any recourse to say, well, OK, that's what you came up with, but we don't agree with it. How what is that scenario?

Yeah, so it's ultimately BART as the, I don't know, the creator of the need for parking, commuter parking will be the decider of what the maximum parking, replacement parking numbers should be. You know, we understand from BART and it's happening through this process that they're very interested in hearing from our city and understanding what our concerns and needs are and having and also applying the right analysis, as you said, to understand that the best. There are some real constraints about how new parking will be funded. It does affect the financial viability of a future project. So all of those things are really part of the balancing act, but ultimately BART will make that decision. But obviously they're listening closely to what the community is saying and the analysis that's needed in order to come up with that decision.

So I think that's something that we need to be very aware of is that our comments are important, but ultimately it's parts decision as to how much parking they're going to provide on this site. That's correct. Okay.

Thank you. i'm actually not sure i agree with you right because this i've heard this a lot of times before i just wanted to know if that's it so yeah no i i get it but i think the again a bot is a public agency just like the city is and i think as as a planning commission even if let's say let me go with your thing let's assume they override right We need to do what's right for the city, and we need to put our point across very clearly, is my view.

I'm trying to find out what our legal ramifications are.

I don't think we should talk about this stuff as of now, because I think right now, Barr and the city are working very well together. Only if we come to that point should we be talking about all this tough, tough stuff. I'm pretty sure BART's worked with other cities in the past. I'm sure that they know the process and they know the concerns of suburbs like ours. But again, from my side, I feel strongly that as a commission, as a council, as a city, we need to be clear about what we need and then figure out a way to get there. So that's just my two cents. Thank you.

Any other guidance for the staff?

Mr. Dane? I think just a couple of disclosures. So I own stocks in Uber. I own stocks in Google, who's a parent of Waymo. I also worked in the self-driving technology and scooters and micro-mobility. So I envision that this problem just goes away. 10 years from now where people will be picked up from their home in a self-driving car or they choose to use a micro mobility solution but that's the best best case scenario i think we should defer removing parking until that future comes like i don't want to project that too early and say, oh, it's going to happen, and thus we don't need any parking. I would rather have zero parking for BART riders and have these other modes of getting there. I think I'm not against removing parking, but the alternate options have to be viable. And I truly believe, you know, it might take a decade, it might take 15 years. So 91 to now is like how many years it took? 35 years. So I'm sure in 35 years, we will not need that parking. and then you're free to take even those parking lots and convert them into some housing stock. But at this point, I feel it's premature. We haven't seen that in our city, people using those modes of transport. And other approach could be you phase it out You you could let's say you have four parcels. So one parcel you can develop and go based on your plan, but the other three you can Make them as a phased rollout which are staggered over 10 15 or 20 years to see real impact to the parking I would be really, you know, it's just my personal opinion. I think a lot of people would agree in the city. Taking something away which people thought they will always have. It's just people don't accept that easily. Also, I would like to know the BART board's contact and how this community can reach out to them. BART is a public agency. Its purpose is to transport. Why is it getting into housing is unclear to me. So they should focus on getting more riders in BART and not worry about housing, but they choose what they're doing. That's their choice. But I would definitely want this community to have a voice whenever their board meeting happens, and it should be published at least to this planning commission and to the city how to reach them. Thank you.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ALL THE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DOES STAFF HAVE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THIS ITEM?

NO, WE DON'T. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE ON TO MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW ACTIONS. ITEM 9, REPORTS FOR MEETINGS ATTENDED. COMMITTEE'S TASK FORCE, COMMISSIONER JAGO.

None.

None. None to report. Pardon?

None to report.

Okay. And none for me either. Future planning calendar?

Thank you. Just a couple of items upcoming. I believe on December 10th, the commission will be hosting a study session to consider draft policy and land use scenarios for the East Pleasanton work that staff is currently undergoing to help shape some of the development and the policy framework out there. And then the meeting prior to that on November the 12th, a housing site compliance application pursuant to SB 330 will be coming forward at 4400 Black Avenue, which is one of our housing element sites. And I believe this is the first one that we have. It's over 50 units. So that'll be the first time the Planning Commission gets to review housing site compliance type project. So those are the two things on the calendar right now. Could change down the road, but right now it's what we have for you.

THANK YOU. SURE. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. COMMISSIONER PAYES. NONE. THANK YOU. MR. JANE. NONE. THANK YOU. MR. MOHAN. NONE. MR. DIGGLE. NONE FOR ME. NONE FOR ME AS WELL. SO LET'S ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR TIME AND ENERGIES TONIGHT.