Pleasanton — The City Council voted unanimously to approve changes to the Pleasanton Municipal Code intended to speed up permitting and reduce staff workload while preserving broad mailed notice for most projects.

Staff said the package narrows which projects need discretionary design review, shortens the appeal period and clarifies notice procedures. Emily Carroll, a planning division presenter, described three main amendments: aligning project noticing with Government Code standards, limiting design review to more substantial or sensitive projects, and reducing the appeal period and call‑up process. "The government code is the state of California's set of laws and regulations that the city must follow," staff said during the presentation.

The council approved the package as amended after a debate about the public notice radius. The original staff recommendation would have reduced the mailed notice radius from 1,000 feet to the 300‑foot radius required by state law, with additional on‑site posting and tenant notification retained. Council member Tessa Testa said she could "absolutely not support" reducing neighborhood notification, arguing residents frequently tell her they missed mailed notices in the past. Council member Eicher moved to approve the staff recommendations; after discussion the council adopted a friendly amendment to keep the 1,000‑foot mailed notice for nonadministrative items but to set a 300‑foot mailed radius for administrative design‑review notices. The amended motion passed unanimously.

Staff presented data to justify streamlining. Using a sample site, staff showed that a 300‑foot radius would produce 123 mailed recipients versus 1,073 for a 1,000‑foot radius, and estimated postage for a single hearing at roughly $75 versus $650. Staff estimated annual planning‑commission notice costs at about $2,000 under the 300‑foot standard compared with more than $10,000 at 1,000 feet. Presenters also said the typical planning/design‑review timeline can be about 10 weeks plus an appeal period; exempts for minor work would move many small projects directly to building permits and cut staff time.

Public comment largely favored the change on business‑friendliness grounds. The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, speaking through its board chair, urged a unanimous vote, saying the amendments "streamline processes for business, homeowners, and developers" while still "maintaining essential safeguards for major projects." Several youth and longtime residents also spoke; some applauded reduced delays while others urged retaining the broader notice radius.

The ordinance package includes codifying an on‑site posting policy for projects with hearings or that add units, a weekly discretionary‑approval memo posted to the city's website to replace ad‑hoc council call‑ups, and a recommendation that the council find the project exempt from CEQA. Staff said the amendments would become effective in early 2026 and that implementation steps include internal process changes, creation of the weekly memo, and outreach to the Chamber and Pleasanton Downtown Association.

Council members emphasized the package is not final forever: Eicher and others said it could be revisited if problems emerge. The council vote, as recorded in the meeting, carried unanimously on the amended motion.

The city clerk recorded the motion as introduced by Council member Eicher and seconded by Council member Gaydos; the friendly amendment to preserve 1,000 feet for most notices while using 300 feet for administrative design review was accepted before the final vote. Staff will return with implementation steps and ordinance finalization as required.