I’ll start with the speed limit change. Clearly the city and the traffic engineer are trying to take advantage of reduced loads with COVID to drop the speed limit, knowing they won’t have to fix it back up for at least five years.

I don’t know why cities like to do this. It breeds contempt for the city and the traffic cops who are forced to police unfair speed limits.

At least California allows an affirmative defense against speeding tickets. Oh well. Guess we’re powerless otherwise.

The speed limit change is a joke. Pleasanton police don't enforce the current traffic laws. What does lowering the speed limit do? Nothing. People exiting i680 N @ Stoneridge Drive will continue to run the RED light and cause accidents. Limiting parking of large vehicles does nothing to address the issue of trash and litter. Instead of focusing on making things more restrictive why don't we focus on educating people on their responsibilities as a member of a society of rules, norms and laws. And the PFAS problem, how did we get to this point? How did this chemical get into our water supply to begin with? The bill for remediation needs to be submitted to the point of origination. This stuff began somewhere and we need to address that too.

It would be helpful if the Weekly would cover these issues with some depth and not combine them into one article about the City Council agenda. Presumably they will do this.
ADU fees and regulations need to be adjusted to be LESS restrictive. "limit the imposition of impact fees, and streamline approvals by eliminating discretionary review of ADUs and JADUs." Now that is a joke. The regs are certainly not encouraging the building of ADU's. There is nothing " quick and affordable to build" about the ADU requirements or restrictions as they stand. But it sounds good on paper and in the press.
PFAS is a very complex topic and should have an ongoing column and in-depth report frequently as this contaminant is poisoning our environment and has been for many years. .
As far as throwing more money at a study by Carollo, I'd say council needs to demand more from the engineers in terms of solutions. I knew this would happen. We haven't spent one dime to mitigate, litigate or protect against PFAS . Since this article doesn't give enough detail as to exactly what Carollo wants the additional $100 K to study, I'd say No. I want to see the solid results of their recommendations before we commit to any further funding of feasibility studies. Then the Council can decide which options make the most sense and hire another firm to actually do the mitigation work. These blanket contracts tend to be "blank checks" with never ending projects to be studied or expanded while not addressing the original problem or hazard.

ADU's are going to ruin neighborhoods. Do they require dedicated parking be included? Do they require the owner to live in the main house, or can investors buy up properties and make a bunch of money?
How about the state encourages SV tech companies to build offices in OTHER areas instead of cramming everybody into SV and making surrounding cities subsidize their workforce.

I think Becky of Livermore expresses our collective greatest concern. There is a huge tension between the State of California and its political power to write blanket rules ... waiving off-street parking for ADU’s for example....overriding the local building jurisdictions.

On the other hand “in-law-units” are a good example of a planning concept that quickly morphed into a different use where once the in-law left the rental, a perfectly good rental unit stood empty. The in-law concept became the 55 mph speed limit where everyone just decided to drive 65 mph anyway. No blood relative, no problem, owners began renting to whoever seemed good to them. The cities began turning a blind eye. Some cities changed their in-law rules to accommodate the morphed user conditions. In San Francisco, the political forces reached a level of absurdities that 110,000 bootlegged, illegal rented cellars and garages, were granted immunity in mass to continue as long as they let the fire department know the location.

There are networked computer programs being developed Web Link that will give city planners real-time evidence of how rental units, ADU’s, apartment complexes, transit systems, bike lanes, taxi services, ADA facilities actually work. Planners will be able to see what real level of off street parking is sufficient, when it works and when it stops working.

Everyone who broke into the Congressional headquarters probably had no idea they where a dot on an electronic security map that had monitored their every move...for example.

Urban living is confused at the moment. Our planners believe their jobs are dependent on compliance with state mandates. Our state mandates are leaderless, confused, directionless and fear based defaulting on a convoluted notion of following the science...the science ends up with dehumanizing dictatorial, suppressive, hypocritical, political motivations. Running it all are silly-con valley hypocrites with oligarchic powers that hire naive young adults who tell everyone else what’s right and wrong, keeping their oligarch bosses happy. None of this gets solved easily.

In the meantime be calm, your State Governor will let you know what to do if you choose not to try to figure it out for yourself.

What a fascinating can of worms this story has opened! A headline of ADU impact fees suddenly triggers angst regarding speed limits, pandemic influences, contempt for law enforcement, water quality, parking, national security, and even family relationships!
Yet not one commenter has addressed the need for affordable housing in our community, indeed across the state, which brought the subject to the fore in the first place.