Supplemental material 12-5-23 — Pleasanton City Council, December 5, 2023

THE CITY OF
Sl li
iii
PLEASANTON.

MEMORANDUM
Date: December 5, 2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager '!'
Re: December 5, 2023, Item 4: Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission
Following the publication of the City Council' s December 5, 2023 agenda, staff noticed a clerical error on the vote counts of the November 8, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. The corrected Planning Commission votes are as follows:

P23- 0605, 2025 Santa Rita Road, Vesting Tentative Map
Application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8676, a single lot subdivision for the purpose of creating 42 condominiums and common areas.

Action Recommended: Adopt Resolution No. PC-2023- 16 approving the application for Vesting Tentative Map 8676.

Action Taken: Adopt Resolution No. PC-2023- 16 approving the application, as recommended.

Vote: 4- 1
P23- 0607 & P23- 0608, Housing Element Update ( HOZ)
Applications for: ( 1) a Municipal Code Amendment to create a Housing Opportunity Zone District and Rezone all applicable Housing Project Sites identified in the Housing Element to this District; and ( 2) a Municipal Code Amendment codifying the Objective Design Standards housing sites compliance review process.

Action Recommended: Adopt Resolution No. PC-2023- 17 recommending City Council approval of: ( 1) a Municipal Code amendment creating a Housing Opportunity Zone ( HOZ) District; ( 2) Rezoning 21 housing opportunity sites identified in the 6t" Cycle Housing Element ( 2023- 2031 Housing Element) to this HOZ district; and ( 3) a Municipal Code amendment codifying the Objective Design Standards ( ODS) housing site compliance review process for applications P23- 0607 and P23- 0608.

Action Taken: Adopt Resolution No. PC-2023- 17 recommending City Council approval of Municipal Code amendments creating a HOZ district, rezoning applicable Housing Sites as identified in the Housing Element to this district, and codifying the ODS housing sites compliance review process, as recommended.

Vote: 5- 0
NSAivomaCity Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your Written public comment Dec 3, 2023, 08: 22AM PS
City of Pleasanton
QED
ull Name First Name: Jeff
Last Name: McFadden
mail ( this entry is disclosable
jeff. mcfadden998@gmail. com
F included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
genda Item Number 16
omments Please ban gas powered leaf blowers. Thanks
NS
City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 3, 2023, 11: 52AM PS
City of Pleasanton
ull Name First Name: Gwendolyn
Last Name: Connolley
mail ( this entry is disclosable
gwenconnolley@outlook. com
F included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Lgenda Item Number 16
omments I support this ordinance to add a new
Chapter 9. 06 Leaf Blower Restrictions to the Municipal Code to ban gasoline-
powered leaf blowers effective June 1, 2024.

City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
o
your written public comment Dec 3, 2023, 03: 45PM PS
1NiE Q City of Pleasanton
ull Name First Name: Bennett
Last Name: Olson
mail ( this entry is disclosable
olsonbw@gmail. com
F included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Lgenda Item Number 16
omments I support the proposed gas leaf blower ban. Thank you. r..

Jocelyn Kwong
Subject: FW: Gas Powered Landscape Tools
From: Michael < ras5a@aol. com>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 2:02 PM
To: Mayor and City Council < citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca. gov> Cc: Karla Brown< kbrown@cityofpleasantonca. gov>; Kellene ( Kelly) Cousins Subject: Gas Powered Landscape Tools
EXTERNAL]Thismessagecomesfrom anexternalorganization.Exercisecautionwhen openingattachmentsor clickinglinks,especiallyfrom unknown senders.***
Dear Honorable Mayor Brown et al,
I've been following with renewed interest the momentum throughout the BayArea and the state regarding, what will eventually be ( hopefully) a state wide ban on two- stroke gas powered landscape maintenance equipment; particularly leaf blowers, weed cutters and lawn mowers. a. There is plenty of documentation as to why this is not only a good idea, but a necessity for the future of Pleasanton and our society as a whole. See Kelly' s links below.

What I would like to discuss, is Pleasanton's unique approach to solving this issue.

You see, I have had exactly zero influence in even bringing the matter up for a vote at my HOA meetings here at Ruby Hill.

Let me be specific:

ISSUESas to why the board here will NOTeven consider putting it up for a vote here. 1) It will pass 100% no problem, but we will be perceived more elitist" than we already are.
2) A ban is CERTAINLYdiscriminatory against minorities, their families, and basicallyTHEIRsurvival, not just an economic hardship.
3) Our properties are so massive that it will take our landscapers 2-3 times as long to maintain, thus doubling or tripling our costs, and their rates... by necessity. Particularly if they have to go back to using a broom and a rake.
4) They can' t afford to retool using electric source
5) Current battery life technology will not last much more than an hour, rendering these tools useless quickly.
1 The above five issues are the exact reasons why we have not been able to move forward on this issue at Ruby Hill despite my solutions below.

The following are my solutions to each issue:
1) That ship has sailed. The entire City of Pleasanton with an average home value of$ 1.7 million, is upper middle class whether we like it or not. Other affluent cities have already passed bans. Get over this ridiculous stigma.
2) Yes, this particular advocation is primarily Hispanic. I say " embrace it" and be thankful for their contributions to our society. Do not down- trodden their areas of expertise. They are an important and wonderful adjunct to Pleasanton society and the major contributors to it' s beauty and charm. That' s the simple truth.
3) Really? Our pocket books are a concern? Ridiculous.
4) This area of affordability can be your administrations " crowning jewel" Karla and Boar 5) Battery life limitations are remedied by requiring each home and businessowner to have their OWN equipment purchased and charged. Then the landscapers do not need to invest their own money.

We should institute a 90 day buy- back program for all landscapers that can prove that they have contracts within Pleasanton. The City will either provide a switch- out to electric tools, ( available at Richert' s or Home Depot or Lowe' s) or offer cash back to replace their existing tools.

This grant program can be funded by either a ballot initiative, donations, or perhaps state funding...... through the clean air act out of Sacramento.

By offering viable alternatives, this turns out to be a win- win- win; the landscapers, the city and our environment.

Kelly' s links:
https:// www. nonoise. org/ guietnet/ cgs/ other htm
Best Regards,
Michael Knuppe
Concerned Citizen
Amk.
2 Qti
ASA`"'
oma City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 11: 30AM PS
Fa
0,
City of Pleasanton
ANNE
ull Name First Name: Jocelyn
Last Name: Combs
mail ( this entry is disclosable
Jocelyn. combs@gmail. com
F included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Lgenda Item Number 6
omments Dar Mayor Brown and Councilmembers,
Attached are my comments on Item 6 on the 12/ 4/ 23 City Council Agenda.

Best,
Jocelyn Combs
Ipload File( s) 12- 5- 23 City Council Meeting. pdf
Qy
NSA
NTo City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 11: 57AM PS
ANSI"
Q
40 City of Pleasanton
ull Name
mail ( this entry is disclosable
F included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
genda Item Number 16
omments I support the ban on gas- powered leaf blowers to take effect June 2024.

In October 2023, Environment America Research and Policy Center along with Cal PIRG published a report, " Lawn Care Goes Electric." The report' s appendix listed Alameda County as # 17 of top 100 US counties for carbon dioxide emissions from lawn and garden equipment.

More than 200 US cities have restrictions on gas- powered lawn equipment. Locally, this includes Lafayette, Alameda, Palo Alto, Oakland, San Rafael, Novato, Fairfax, American Canyon, Sonoma, IN Valley, Berkeley, Piedmont, among others.

By enacting this ordinance, Pleasanton is putting the health and welfare of people at the forefront by ensuring residents are not exposed to the harmful noise and emissions of gas- powered leaf blowers. Thank you.

ASAN'
o
City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 12: 50PM PS
City of Pleasanton
ull Name
mail ( this entry is disclosable
f included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
genda Item Number 16
omments I can hear gas leaf blowers going several blocks away from my house. It happens multiple times a day, everyday. Sometimes ther, are 2 or 3 blowers being used at a single home and it is disturbinc even when it' s blocks away.

Yardwork can take place, but where does the right of a homeowner to enjoy the peace and quiet of their home and yard get protected.

Vb have ordinances about loud sounds, but somehow gas leaf blowers operate anyway in violation of these ordinances.

Just based on the sound levels alone, gas blowers should not be allowed to be used. I have also learned that gas blowers are extremely damaging to the environment and harmful to the health the gardeners that use them all day long everyday.

Thank you to the City Council for discussing this important issue.

Qy
ASA,'
yCity Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 01: 19PM PS
A
p
City of PleasantonAANED Q
ull Name
mail ( this entry is disclosable
F included)
Aty Council Meeting Date December OS, 2023
Lgenda Item Number 16
omments Some who oppose a ban on gas- powered leaf blowers claim that their opposition is out of concern for the gardeners who use the blowers in their daily work.

If a ban on gas- powered leaf blowers went into effect then a gardener would need to find alternatives to using a gas- powered IE blower.

These alternatives could be:
leaving the leaves in place
using an electric leaf blower
raking leaves
mulching leaves with a lawn mower
using a leaf vacuum
And yes, some of those alternatives would cost the gardener morE which means the gardner might charge their customers more in order to continue doing business.

Mbuldn' t someone want to protect the gardener from the harmful exhaust of the gas- powered leaf blower and from physically damaging levels of sound?)
However, perhaps the opposition comes from an unwillingness to pay more for a gardening service that protects the gardener from harmful emissions and harmful sound, that does not damage the environment or contribute to climate change, and that does not disrupt the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood.

Qy
NSA"
Tom City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 01: 37PM PS
City of PleasantonNYED 4
ull Name
mail ( this entry is disclosable
F included)
Aty Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
genda Item Number 16
omments Gas- powered leaf blowers are a nuisance in our neighborhoods, ai I support the ban!
VIS need to stop the noise pollution and air pollution and increase t quality of life in our neighborhoods.

There are alternatives that can and should be used.

Christina Casha
rom:

LisaTarnow on behalf of Mayor and City Council
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:31 PM
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: FW: Gas powered Leaf blower ban.

From: Matt Maciel
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:29 PM
To: Mayor and City Council< citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca. gov> Subject: Re: Gas powered Leaf blower ban.

EXTERNAL]Thismessagecomesfromanexternalorganization.Exercisecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorclickinglinks,especiallyfromunknown senders.***
Good afternoon Mayor& Council,
I'm emailing today requesting that you do not passthe proposed gas powered leaf blower ban. Sincethe state has already taken the step to phaseout gas powered leaf blowers by prohibiting their sale, I feel an outright city ban would cause an undue hardship on those that need to use them.

AVMk
atteryleafblowersstilllackadequatebatteryruntimeandpowerto standupto thegruelinguserequiredofthemby professionals and some property owners. Just basedon my personal observations, it looks to me that most Pleasanton residents either hire a professional landscaper or already own their own battery/ corded leaf blower. Sothis ban would affect professionals and residents that have a specific need for a gas powered leaf blower.

I haveheardthat oneof the reasonsfor the banisthat theyare noisy. Upondoinga quicksurveyof readilyavailable battery leafblowersI observedthat unitswith similarpowerareonly marginallyquieter.Thereducedperformanceof battery unitswill needto beoperatedlonger, whichwill increasenoisepollutionandcleanuptime.

I amaware.that the statehasa $30million dollarprogramto helpprofessionalstransitionto battery, but in myopinion that would still be insufficient.

I haveattacheda newslinkfrom KPTVof PortlandOregon, from lastmonth, regardingtheir proposedlaw. Theleaf blowerdemonstrationwasreporteduponinaccurately. However, the gaspoweredunit, whichwasat the top of the screen, still looked to be faster than the other battery units. https:// www. kptv. com/ 2023/ 11/ 15/ landscaping- industry- responds- potential- gas-leaf- blower- ban- portland/ k
egards,
Matt Maciel
1 Christina Casha
rom: Lisa Tarnow on behalf of Mayor and City Council Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 2:37 PM
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: FW: Amador Valley High Courts.

Attachments: IMG 0. MOV
For CCmeeting.

From: Ricardo Padilla
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 10:36 AM
To: Mayor and City Council < citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca. gov> Subject: Fwd: Amador Valley High Courts.

EXTERNAL]This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.***
Mayor and council,
I understand Lifetime Activities has been given the authority to establish rules at all public tennis courts in Pleasanton. was informed that portable ball machines are banned at Amador High School on the weekends. have been using my machine there with absolutely no issuesfor months. The reason I like to use it at Amador:

1. The courts have fence dividers between courts

2. AVHS has a lot of courts( 9)

3. AVHS IS NEAR MY HOME.

I can understand having a rule that states those with ball machines must defer to players wanting to play tennis.

That makes sense tome.

Lifetime has suggested that I use the courts at PMS, Muirwood, and Stoneridge.

Reasons why that doesn' t work

1. Those courts do not have fence dividers between courts.

2. Those courts consist of just 2 courts per location and they are already impacted.

3. AVHS is wide open with plenty of free courts!
Finally, to illustrate my frustration please open the attachment.

An*,
i
Forwarded message---------
From: pleasanton@lifetimeactivities. com< pleasanton@lifetimeactivities. com> Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 9: 49 AM
Subject: RE: Amador Vallev Hieh Courts. n
To: Ricardo Padilla
Good Morning Ricardo Padilla,
Thank you for reaching out and sharingyour concernsregarding the useof ball machinesat Amador Valley High' s courts. I completely understandyour perspectiveandthe convenienceof utilizing the high school courts.

Pleasebe informed that the useof personalball machineson our courts goesagainstour facility rules and regulations at the Tennis park and Amador High School. There areno restrictions at any other public parks. We apologize if you were misinformed.

Our policy is statedbelow:

Court Rules & Etiquette
Respect all players at all times.

Shirts/ tops must be worn, non- marking shoes only, no open toed shoes.

Keep noise to an appropriate level.

Keep courts clean. Pick up all balls & throw away any trash in the provided trash cans.

Wait until the point in play is finished before retrieving a ball from another court.

Be safe. Do not participate in any behavior that would risk injury to yourself or anyone else. Before n
starting play, ensurethe court is free from hazards (extra balls, cansor other debris).

City sponsored lessons only
NO food, drinks, or chewing gum ( water is acceptable)
NO personal ball machines
NO wheels ( bikes, skates, skateboards, scooters, etc.) NO profanities, yelling, or screaming at any time on or near courts.

NO small children that are not playing tennis
NO pets
The link can be found below:
https:// www. lifetimeactivities. com/ pleasanton/ court- reservations- policies/ I truly appreciateyour understandingof the situation. If you're seekingalternatives for using your ball machine, I'd suggestexploring other parks or private spacesin the areathat might have different policies regarding their use. I've provided the following options below for your convenience:

Fairlands( 2)
Muirwood( 2)
Owens Plaza( 1)
Stoneridge Creek( 2 lighted courts)
Pleasanton Middle School ( 2 lighted courts) .

It is our hope that you can find another available tennis court that works for you to use your ball machine. 2 If you have any further questionsor needassistance, pleasedon't hesitateto reachout.

Wehopeyou hada wonderfulholidayandwishyou a greatweek!
Warm Regards,
Sweta Kaimal
Assistant Manager
Lifetime Activities Pleasanton
5801 Valley Avenue, 94566
925- 931- 3449
lifetimeactivities. com
Original Message-----
From: " Ricardo Padilla" <
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2023 4:51pm
To: Pleasanton( alifetimeactivities. com
Subject: Amador Valley High Courts.

I havebeenusingmy portableball machineatAmadorValley High ontheweekendsfor quitesome time. Today one of your employeestold me to stop and that ball machines arebannedfrom all public courts in Pleasanton?
Phismakesno sense. TherewerenootherplayersonthecourtstodaysoI wasusing1of 9 emptycourts. I can understandlimiting ball machinesat the tennis center but a complete ban on all public courts? A more reasonable rule is ball machines must relinquish their court to a pair of players. I got no problem with that.

Wereallydon't needLifetime Tennispatrollingourpublic courts. 3 NSA
NTo City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
a
q your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 02: 55PM PS
Y
City of PleasantoneNNeo e
ull Name First Name: Matthew
Last Name: Maciel
mail ( this entry is disclosable
maciel1767@gmail. com
F included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
genda Item Number 16
omments Good afternoon Mayor & Council,
I'm emailing today requesting that you do not pass the proposed g powered leaf blower ban. Since the state has already taken the stE to phase out gas powered leaf blowers by prohibiting their sale, I feel an outright city ban would cause an undue hardship on those that need to use them.

Battery leaf blowers still lack adequate battery run time and power to stand up to the grueling use required of them by professionals and some property owners. Just based on my personal
observations, it looks to me that most Pleasanton residents either hire a professional landscaper or already own their own battery/ corded leaf blower. So this ban would affect professionals and residents that have a specific need for a gas powered leaf blower.

I have heard that one of the reasons for the ban is that they are noisy. Upon doing a quick survey of readily available battery leaf blowers I observed that units with similar power are only marginal) quieter. The reduced performance of battery units will need to be operated longer, which will increase noise pollution and cleanup time.

I am aware that the state has a $ 30 million dollar program to help professionals transition to battery, but in my opinion that would sti be insufficient.

It is my fear that the consequences of this ban are not being completely acknolwedged. The state has already taken steps to phase out gas powered leaf blowers and usher in battery technolo I don' t understand why the City feels the need to take it to this extreme. It is my belief that when residents become fully aware of this council' s action there will be many irate people. For this reaso request that no action be taken on this proposed ban.
month, regarding their proposed law. The leaf blower demonstratic was reported upon inaccurately. However, the gas powered unit, which was at the top of the screen, still looked to be faster than th other battery units.
https:// www. kptv. com/ 2023/ 11/ 15/ landscaping- industry- responds- potential- gas- leaf- blower- ban- portland/
Regards,
Matt Maciel
Qy
NSA
Nro City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 03: 39PM PS
City of Pleasanton
ull Name First Name: Terry
Last Name: Chang
mail ( this entry is disclosable
terrylchang@hotmail. com
F included)
ity Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
genda Item Number 16
omments Hello City Council Members and Staff,
hope this message comes in time for the discussion about the ordinance to ban gasoline- powered leaf blowers. I want to share with yc 10 reasons for adopting this ordinance.

Thank you,
Terry
Ten Reasons to Adopt the Ordinance to Ban the Use of Gas- Powered LeE Blowers in Pleasanton

1. Gas- powered leaf blowers are noisy. It blasts 95- 115 decibels of soul at its user, equivalent to a passenger jet taking off at 305 meters. https:// www. chem. purdue. edu/ chemsafety/ Training/ PPETrain/ dblevels. ht

2. This ordinance will help reduce noise pollution in our neighborhoods and improve the quality of life. A single leaf blower annoys the entire neighborhood because its low- frequency noise travels a long distance a penetrates building walls and closed windows.

3. Reducing noise pollution has the co- benefit of protecting wildlife. https:// www. nps. gov/ subjects/ sound/ effects— wildlife. htm)

4. The ordinance will protect the neighborhood air quality and improve ti quality of life. Gas- powered leaf blowers, which frequently get idled whe being used, emit stinky and noxious fumes that travel blocks away.

5. It will reduce air pollutants ( such as PM2. 5, ozone- forming nitrogen oxides, and cancer- causing benzene) that are harmful to our health and our planet. The ordinance is forward- thinking and generational thinking.

6. The ordinance is an important step toward protecting our air shed that' s susceptible to accumulating air pollution, especially in a warming world. It speaks to Pleasanton' s motto of planned progress. blowers are used, often, by low- income landscape workers whose exposure to the noise and air pollution is overlooked.

8. Today, there are better options available on the market for electric lei blowers that are equally effective without the noise, air pollution, o-_ a hazards.

9. The ordinance will encourage people to rethink how they care for thei yard. Raking and sweeping are just as good for most homes, and some leaf litter is healthy for the soil and environment.

10. This effort can make a positive difference in the Tri- Valley, and families with babies will sleep better for it.

Qy
NSA/
Vjo City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:

A
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 03: 40PM PS
City of Pleasanton
hYE9
ull Name First Name: Tamara
Last Name: Danielsen
mail ( this entry is disclosable
ttdanielsen@yahoo. com
F included)
Aty Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
agenda Item Number 16
omments I would like to advocate for the ban on gas leaf blowers in Pleasanton. The noise and the mess that these leaf blowers creat( is a nuisance. Every day of the week, the gardeners show up to on house or another and the noise is awful. Not to mention that they are blowing the leaves and dirt into other people' s yards. V1L- have found the dirt and leaves all the way in our second level gutters.

That' s how high in the air this pollution is reaching! I have had to repeatedly request that my neighbors gardeners point the blowers towards the street instead of my house. My husband does our yarl all 1/ 4 acre of it, and then here come the gardeners with their blowers and they make a huge mess blowing our neighbors dirt, leaves and grass into our yard. The noise levels of these blowers awful. When you have two mowers and two blowers going for 45 minutes to an hour, it' s really disturbing the peace of the whole neighborhood. Please ban these blowers so that we can have a more peaceful and clean environment in Pleasanton.

Thank you for your consideration.

Tamara Danielsen
Qy NsaNro City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 4, 2023, 03: 49PM PS
City of PleasantonAryryEO Y
ull Name First Name: Mark
Last Name: Byerly
mail ( this entry is disclosable
F included)
Aty Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
genda Item Number Chapter 9. 06 Leaf Blower Restrictions omments I strongly support the banning of the use of gas powered leaf blowers in the city of Pleasanton due to their impacts on public health and the health of workers who are compelled to use them.

Although gas powered versions of these tools are the worst ones, believe that all machines that stir up massive amounts of particula pollution on a regular basis are harmful to public health. But at lea your proposed restrictions are start.

Qy
NSA
NTo City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
m
your written public comment Dec 5, 2023, 09: O1AM PS
L4NNL9
t` City of Pleasanton
ull Name
mail ( this entry is disclosable
F included)
Aty Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
kgenda Item Number 16
omments Gas leaf blowers disturb the peace and quiet of our neighborhoodE They should be banned. Currently there is no limit and often multir blowers are being used on locations without any trees or leaves.

Blowers are also used on sidewalks and roads. It is difficult to enjc our community as a pedestrian or cyclist without being subjected t this harm and disturbance. It is a quality of life issue. It is an equit issue as walkers and cyclists have a right to use and enjoy neighborhoods without the harmful noise and exhaust.

QytiNSAlVjo2 City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 5, 2023, 11: 42AM PST
City of Pleasanton
AFi ED
Full Name i
Email ( this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Agenda Item Number. 116
Comments Re: leaf blowers. The answer is simple. Buy an electric leaf blower and have it available for the gardener to use. Tell the gardener to use the same amount of time that they would have previously used with a gas blower and no additional time. It' s okay if they aren' t able to get up every single leaf. The leaves will decompose and become organic matter.

NSA`
V City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 5, 2023, 11: 51AM PST
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
Email ( this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Agenda Item Number 16
Comments Thank you to the City Council for leading the discussion about leaf blowers. This requires compromise on everyone' s part. A ban on leaf blowers demonstrates that the quality of life of residents and the sustainability of our planet are important!
Qy
NSAIV
City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 5, 2023, 11: 55AM PST
f 4
City of PleasantonANNE
Full Name
Email ( this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Agenda Item Number 116
Comments jMhy ban gas leaf blowers and not other gas equipment? Because studies have shown that the sound of gas leaf blowers travels farther and is more disruptive in a neighborhood than other equipment like lawn mowers. A single leaf blower can disturb hundreds of residents within a multi block area.
gywNSANT©
City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 5, 2023, 11: 46AM PST
a
City of Pleasanton
of
pElxxflr D
Full Name First Name: Kameron
Last Name: Klotz
Email ( this entry is disclosable
iif included)
City Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Agenda Item Number Consent Calendar/ Community Development/# 5 Comments As an owner of the JCPenney parcel of the Stoneridge Mall s("Project"), we request that the above referenced item be pulled from the consent calendar to the public hearing calendar. We believe the modification proposed below is essential to the collaborative process between all mall owners towards a successful Master Plan process. V1,b request that 19. 14 be amended to add subdivision: °( f) Developer shall provide for the 362, 790 square feet of expansion area to be distributed among the parcels within the 75-acre Project area as part of the Master Plan process for the Shopping Center." sAw?
City Council Meeting - Submit
Submitted On:
your written public comment Dec 5, 2023, 12: OOPM PST
City of Pleasanton
XX GO
Full Name
Email ( this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date December 05, 2023
Agenda Item Number i16
Comments I have a right to peace and quiet at my home!
From: Lisa Tarnow on behalf of Mayor and Zito; mat
To: Pleasanton city C'I-
Subject FW: Followup to tetter from Residentsof Neighborhoodsnext to the NealProperty Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 10: 59: 57 AM
From: Nita Trlvedi
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 3: 48 PM
To: Igor Ginzburg
Cc:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]:
dhaglund@Dleasantonusd. net; m; Mayor and City Council< Citvcouncil@cityofpleasantonca. gov>; Karla Brown<[email protected]>;JulieTesta<[email protected]>;ValerieArkin varkin@cltyofpleasantonca. gov>; Jack Balch< jbalch@cityofpleasantonca. gov>; Jeff Nibert< jnibert@cityofpleasantonca. gov>; EllenClark<[email protected]>;EricLuchini<[email protected]>;AlyssaHitomiGinzburg Mahesh Mattupalli
m
Subject:Re:Followupto LetterfromResidentsof Neighborhoodsnextto theNealProperty IEXTER:V,ALIThismessagecomesfromanexternalorganization.Exercisecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorclickinglinks,especiallyfromunknown seeders.•"
DearPUSDBoardPUSDSuperintendent, PUSDRealEstateAgent. CityPlanningCommissionandCityCouncil, In light of the upcomingcouncilmeetingtomorrowto considerintroducingordinancesto amendthe MunicipalCode

1. Create a New Housing Opportunity Zone District

2. Createthe ObjectiveDesignStandardsHousingSitesComplianceReviewProcess 3 . Introduce21housingopportunitysitesidentifiedinthe6thCycleHousingElementtotheHousingOpportunity Zone District
Wewouldliketo ensurethatourpositionregardingtheNealpropertyisconsideredif anydecisionsarebeing considered. Thank you and please see below copy of our email sent on June 1st and on Nov 7th.

Sincerely,
Nita Trivedi
Thisemailisa followuptotheattached"LetterfromResidentsofNeighborhoodsnexttotheNealProperty" sent on June 1st.

Thatletter. from40residentsofneighborhoodsnexttotheNealproperty(includinga majorityofthe householdsintheReserveatPleasantonandWindingOaksneighborhoods); coversthefollowingpoints:

Point# 1: Notification via yellow Postcards for Future Rezonings Point# 2: Vision to make Neal Property a more modest version of our neighborhoods Point# 3: Stick to the adopted zoning of 21 to 28 houses Point# 4: Enforce Lower Square Footage than Adjacent Less- Dense Neighborhoods Point# 5: Neighborhood Park next to Old Vineyard Trail
Point# 6: Comply with the" Vineyard Village" concept in the Specific Plan Point# 7: Utilize and connect existing external roads( Thiessen St and Manoir Ln) Point# 8: Respect setbacks and minimum lot dimensions
Point#9: Havea mixof 2-storyand 1-storyhouseslikethesurroundingneighborhoods Point# 10: Improve road safety of intersections with Vineyard Ave Point# 11: The City should give guidance to the Land Owner/Developer If you haven' t read the letter yet, please do so.

Since then, a lot of information has come to light that makes these points even more important.

For Point# 11, our letter said that ` We' re concerned that the current land owner, PUSD, and their advisors don't have a good understanding of what they own and what they're allowed to build there " and asked the Citystaffto helpPUSDgetthisright. Unfortunately, it doesn't looklikethishashappened.

PUSDhasputthe propertyupforsalewiththeattached "RequestforQualificationsandProposals(RFP)" pdf The RFP has several material inaccuracies.

On page 11 of the RFP, the 28-house plan says" 6,500 SF" lot minimum. As we stated in our Point# 8 and as Ellen Clark confirmed in a May 31st email). the City rezoned the Neal Property to R-1-8500 which is an 8,500 SF lot minimum and we think it's very important for that minimum lot dimension to be respected.

In point# 11 in our June 1st letter, we mentioned that PUSD had proposed building a park on land they do not own. In the RFP diagram on page 12 PUSD now proposes building a house on land they do not own ( parcel 946- 4619- 28 which belongs to the Reserve at Pleasanton HOA).

On page 14 of the RFP, it incorrectly shows the Neal property being located somewhere in Livermore. Some of the numbers on that page, like the number of residents within a 1-mile radius of Neal, look implausible.

As neighbors and PUSD tax payers., we're concerned that these material misstatements in the RFP will cause whoever buys the property to have false expectations of what they bought, unnecessary opening PUSDto liability. Thepurchasermayalsowastemoneyputtingtogetherunworkableplansthat we would then have to fight
OMWI
As we said in Point# 11 we again ask" the City Council and City Staff to make use of their deep knowledge of Pleasanton zoning to proactivelygive guidance to PUSD and their developer on the requirements their plans have to satisfy" We also ask PUSD to correct the mistakes in their RFP, publish the corrected version and notify any interested buyers.

While the Conceptual Land Plan on page 11 of the RFP is just a concept. we think it can influence future actual plans so its important that it's accurate and reasonable. We' re happy to see that the plan on page 11 seems to have a vineyard next to Vineyard Ave and a Park closer to Old Vineyard Trail. This fits with points 5 and# 6 in the June 1st letter. As we stated in the letter it would be great if more of the open space was dedicated to the park, and if the park had direct access from Old Vineyard Trail which would give walking and biking access to the park to Vineyard Corridor residents.

The Conceptual Land Plan on page 11 connects Thiessen St and Manoir Ln, which we also think is great, and will give both new and existing residents safer ways to exit the neighborhood (see more details in Point 7 of the letter). Other ideas in point# 7 which we think would improve upon the Conceptual Plan include:

Facing some houses towards Thiessen St and Manoir Ln. This has a lot of benefits including minimizingthe amountof newinternalroads(andhencemaximizinglot size) anddeterringnuisance uses of those existing streets.

The new connection between Thiessen St and Manoir Ln may allow removing the existing access road adjacent to the Old Vineyard Trail, freeing up more open space that can be used for the park.

This may require working with the City.

To further the conversation, we invite members of the PUSD board and their agents to meet with residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the Neal Property. We' d be happy to arrange such meetings.

We had similar meetings with Mayor Brown and Vice Mayor Balch which provided great community engagement. In a January 9, 2023 letter, Superintendent Haglund said that" The District proposes to collaborate with City staff in an extensive community outreach process that ensures voices of community members are heard and considered." Meeting with the residents of adjacent neighborhoods would be a great way to fulfill that proposal.

ForPoint#1 (NotificationviayellowPostcardsforFutureRezonings), theresidentsnexttotheNealProperty, andapparentlythe other20 'housingopportunitysites"selectedfor the6th CycleHousingElement,just receivedanOctober26yellowcard (attached) regardingaNovember8thZoningAdministratormeetingfor Municipal Code Amendments for these sites.

It's great that the City sent out the cards, and we would ask that our June 1st letter and this email be included as comment for this November8th, 2023meeting.

Unfortunately, thisstillleavesopenthequestionofwhyyellowcardswerenotsentoutforanyoftheprevious CityCouncilandPlanningCommissionmeetingsregardingthehousingelementwhilecrucialissueslikesite selection and density were still open ( Point# 1 in the letter). In our meeting with Mayor Brown, she did not haveanexplanation. InourmeetingwithViceMayorBalch, hegavetheexplanationthatsincesomany sites were under consideration, a large fraction of the City's residents would have to receive cards, which wasimpractical. Thatexplanationnolongermakessensegiventhatthe City just sent out cards for 21of the 29 sites.

Weagain request the City Council to officially changeCity policy so that yellow cards aresent out to residents next to sites under consideration for all public meetings regarding the 6th, 7th and future Cycles.

Keepingthecurrentpracticeof onlysendingoutyellowcardsonceall thecrucialissueshavebeenfinalized and submitted to the state excludes affected residents from the planning process. That does not befit the City of Planned Progress.

Scanned by Gmail
Cr, Tue; Ncv 7, 2022 at 3: 28 FM igcr Ginzturg wrcte:

DearPUSDBoard, PUSDSuperintendent, PUSDRealEstateAgent, CityPlanningCommissionandCity Council,
This email is a follow up to the attached" Letter from Residents of Neighborhoods next to the Neal Property" sent on June 1st.

Thatletter, from40residentsofneighborhoodsnexttotheNealproperty (includinga majorityofthe householdsin the Reserveat PleasantonandWindingOaksneighborhoods), coversthe followingpoints:

Point# 1: Notification via yellow Postcards for Future Rezonings Point# 2: Vision to make Neal Property a more modest version of our neighborhoods Point# 3: Stick to the adopted zoning of 21 to 28 houses Point# 4: Enforce Lower Square Footage than Adjacent Less- Dense Neighborhoods Point# 5: Neighborhood Park next to Old Vineyard Trail
Point# 6: Comply with the" Vineyard Village" concept in the Specific Plan Point# 7: Utilize and connect existing external roads( Thiessen St and Manoir Ln) Point# 8: Respect setbacks and minimum lot dimensions
Point#9: Havea mixof 2-storyand 1-storyhouseslikethe surroundingneighborhoods Point# 10: Improve road safety of intersections with Vineyard Ave Point# 11: The City should give guidance to the Land Owner/Developer If you haven' t read the letter yet, please do so.

Since then, a lot of information has come to light that makes these points even more important. lowlk
For Point# 11, our letter said that ` We' re concerned that the current land owner, PUSD, and their advisors don't have a good understanding of what they own and what they're allowed to build there." and asked the Citystaffto helpPUSDgetthisright. Unfortunately, it doesn't looklikethishashappened.

PUSDhasputthepropertyupfor salewiththeattached `Requestfor QualificationsandProposals (RFP)" pdf. The RFP has several material inaccuracies.

On page 11 of the RFP, the 28-house plan says" 6,500 SF" lot minimum. As we stated in our Point# 8 and as Ellen Clark confirmed in a May 31st email), the City rezoned the Neal Property to R-1-8500 which is an 8,500 SF lot minimum and we think it's very important for that minimum lot dimension to be respected.

On page 14 of the RFP, it incorrectly shows the Neal property being located somewhere in Livermore.

Some of the numbers on that page, like the number of residents within a 1-mile radius of Neal, look implausible.

As neighbors and PUSD tax payers, we' re concerned that these material misstatements in the RFP will cause whoever buys the property to have false expectations of what they bought, unnecessary opening PUSD to liability. The purchaser may also waste money putting together unworkable plans that we would then have to fight.

As we said in Point# 11. we again ask" the City Council and City Staff to make use of their deep knowledge of Pleasanton zoning to proactively give guidance to PUSD and their developer on the requirements their plans have to satisfy." We also ask PUSD to correct the mistakes in their RFP, publish the corrected version and notify any interested buyers.

While the Conceptual Land Plan on page 11 of the RFP is just a concept.. we think it can influence future actual plans so it's important that it's accurate and reasonable. We' re happy to see that the plan on page 11 seems to have a vineyard next to Vineyard Ave and a Park closer to Old Vineyard Trail. This fits with points# 5 and# 6 in the June 1st letter. As we stated in the letter it would be great if more of the open space was dedicated to the park. and if the park had direct access from Old Vineyard Trail which would give walking and biking access to the park to Vineyard Corridor residents.

The Conceptual Land Plan on page 11 connects Thiessen St and Manoir Ln, which we also think is great, and will give both new and existing residents safer ways to exit the neighborhood (see more details in Point# 7 of the letter). Other ideas in point# 7 which we think would improve upon the Conceptual Plan include:

Facing some houses towards Thiessen St and Manoir Ln. This has a lot of benefits including minimizing the amount of new internal roads( and hence maximizing lot size) and deterring nuisance uses of those existing streets.

The new connection between Thiessen St and Manoir Ln may allow removing the existing access road adjacent to the Old Vineyard Trail.. freeing up more open space that can be used for the park.

This may require working with the City.

To further the conversation, we invite members of the PUSD board and their agents to meet with residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the Neal Property. We' d be happy to arrange such meetings.

We had similar meetings with Mayor Brown and Vice Mayor Balch which provided great community engagement. In a January 9, 2023 letter. Superintendent Haglund said that" The District proposes to collaborate with City staff in an extensive community outreach process that ensures voices of community members are heard and considered.' Meeting with the residents of adjacent neighborhoods would be a great way to fulfill that proposal.

AOM%,
ForPoint#1 (NotificationviayellowPostcardsfor FutureRezonings), the residentsnextto theNeal wk
Property; andapparentlytheother20"housingopportunitysites" selectedforthe6thCycleHousing Element,justreceivedanOctober26yellowcard (attached) regardinga November8thZoning Administrator meeting for Municipal Code Amendments for these sites.

It's great that the City sent out the cards, and we would ask that our June 1st letter and this email be included as commentfor this November8th, 2023meeting.

Unfortunately, thisstillleavesopenthequestionofwhyyellowcardswerenotsentoutforanyofthe previousCityCouncilandPlanningCommissionmeetingsregardingthehousingelementwhilecrucial issues like site selection and density were still open ( Point# 1 in the letter) In our meeting with Mayor Brown, shedidnothaveanexplanation. InourmeetingwithViceMayorBalch, he gavetheexplanation that sinceso manysiteswereunderconsideration, a largefractionofthe City's residentswouldhaveto receivecards, whichwasimpractical. Thatexplanationnolongermakessensegiventhatthe City just sent out cards for 21 of the 29 sites.

Weagain request the City Council to officially change City policy so that yellow cards aresent out to residents next to sites under consideration for all public meetings regardingthe 6th, 7th and future Cycles.

Keepingthecurrentpracticeof onlysendingoutyellowcardsonceall the crucialissueshavebeen finalizedandsubmittedtothestateexcludesaffectedresidentsfromtheplanningprocess. Thatdoesnot befit the City of Planned Progress.

Sincerely,
Igor and Alyssa Ginzburg
On behalf of the signatories of the June 1 st letter( cc- d)

Pleasanton City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Pleasanton City Council
December 5, 2023