City Council - Regular Meeting

Hello. I'll take two

Okay, good evening and welcome to your Pleasanton City Council meeting. Today is February 3rd, 2026 at 7 p.m. and we're going to call the meeting to order. Vice Mayor Gatos, will you please lead us in the pledge? Please rise if you are able. I pledge allegiance to the flagged to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic under God for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Can we go ahead and have roll call, please? Council members Iiker, present. Gados, present. Nybert here. Ta here. Mayor Balch present. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm going to just uh do a quick few announcements. As you may have noticed, council member uh Nybert is joining us electronically. That then affords the opportunity from anyone who is uh in our audience wanting to join via Zoom. They may. If you would like to talk or speak during an item, you'll just simply raise hand function to be able to participate in this meeting remotely. In addition, I just have been reminding our community that the council's been moving to an electronic package or data. So, we have computers in front of us. That's typically the agenda. We won't be voting electronically tonight because of council member Nyberg's um uh joining us via Zoom, but we are dealing with that. So, less paper, hopefully more efficiency. We'll see how we're doing. We're learning a new trick there. So, appreciate everyone's patience. Okay, with that, do we have any agenda amendments by staff?

Thank you, mayor. No changes this evening from staff. Thank you very much. Any agenda amendments by any of my fellow council members at this time? No. And council member Nyber, any agenda amendments? No. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll proceed with the agenda as posted. With that, we're going to move to consent calendar. Consent uh items on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item may be removed from consent and considered separately. Consent consists of items one through three. Are there any clarifying questions by any of my fellow council members on consent? No. No. And hearing none from council member Nyber. None myself. Okay. No.

Thank you. I don't have any speaker cards. If you would like to speak on items one through three at this time and have not turned in a speaker card, go ahead and please approach the podium at this time. Okay. Any online comments for consent? None. Okay. Hearing none, seeing none, we'll close uh public comment on consent and bring it back to the council for action. Like to make a motion to pass the consent calendar. I'll second. Second. Okay. Motion made by council member Aker, seconded by Vice Mayor uh Gatos. Uh, any further comment before we take a vote? Seeing none, roll call vote, please. Council members Aiker I. Gados, I. Nybert,

I Ta. I, Mayor Balch, I. The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. Okay. Yeah, we have to wait for internet speed to uh down south. All right. uh meeting open to the public. This is item number four, public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda. I'd like to do a little introduction for this. So, I appreciate your grace with me. Good evening and welcome. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the council that on any matter that is within the council's subject matter jurisdiction but are not listed on the agenda. If you would like to speak on a madam matter that is on the agenda, I ask that you please hold your comments until we get to that item. If you wish to speak now or in the future, I ask that you please fill out a blue speaker card. They're located outside on the credenza and turn them into the city clerk and she can bring them up uh to have to pass to me. Uh I ask our community members be respectful and help maintain decorum. Speakers may have different opinions and we want to hear all perspectives and viewpoints. To that end, please no clapping, booing, or other disturbances. If you want to show your support for what the speaker is saying, simply raise your hand and we will see and understand that as additional support. Please know that this is your time to be heard. If you do ask questions of the council, those won't necessarily be uh taken up or answered unless taken up by a council member after the conclusion of your time or the full allotted time for public comment. Speakers are hereby limited to three minutes. I do have four speaker cards. If again, if you'd like to speak, a blue speaker card would be appreciated. My first speaker is Herb Hastings. You'll be followed by Jan Coleman Knight and followed by Hulin Song. Welcome. Okay, my joke, normal joke is can you hear me now? As in Verizon. Um, just quickly make my introduction. My name is her past Hastings. I live in Dublin, but

I'm also a transportation advocate as member Tesa and Aker do recognize me. Um, I'm also a member of the Tri Valley Accessibility Advisory Committee for Wheels. I am not representing the agency, but I am representing public as a transportation advocate. I've had a long time progress. I've been a member of the advisory committee for LFA as the county supervisors appointee and for over 25 years. And so I've been involved with the county fair situation. I was able to assist in getting the 50 route 52 bus for the annual fair for the 10 days current period of the fair. It took me 10 years of work to get it, but it succeeded. My next purpose, the reason of being here today is during the period of the fair, there are traffic problems that occur at the at the um bus stop. Okay. at the where the ace station is. During the period of the fair, the traffic evening pickups causes traffic problems with this 52 route bus that is scheduled by laughter and they do their run. People end up in the bus stop drop pickup zone for the bus and they park their cars. They just wait for evening after the end the evening of the fair. So kids are getting picked up. The kids are getting dropped. Parents are telling them just come out. They just parked their car in the bus

spot and they don't move. For the last five years, I've had to play traffic cop. So when I'm asking to assist with the bus, what I'm asking the city to do, which I've already seen one step of it done, Mr. Iger was very helpful with in getting a red strip painted on the sidewalk. What I am now asking for the city to do is to install no parking signs, bus only signs so that nobody can sit in that space during the fair or consider it a no parking zone and if necessary get tickets out to the people. to have police officers come during the fair to enforce the law. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Uh Jan Coleman Knight followed by Huling Song followed by Cindy Sabatini. Welcome. Who's a little taller than I am? Okay. Good evening, Mayor Ball, city council members and staff. On January 20th, 2026, I brought to your attention staff actions that place the city of Pleasanton out of compliance with its own ordinance 2278. The Civic's Art Commission last met in April 2025. All successive meetings have been cancelled by staff. The July 15, 2025 2025 city council action to establish an ad hoc committee did not authorize the suspension of any commission meetings. The ad hoc commission does not share responsibility for the failure to calendar meetings. The responsibility rests with the city manager and with his staff for not calendaring ordinance required meetings. After January 20th, 2026, the city staff sent out individual emails to multiple commissions proposing significant changes to the duties and responsibilities defined in ordinance 2278. City council did not authorize this communication and did not occur through a publicly noticed process. An ordinance is public business. It must be done on a public agenda. discussed in public and amended or replaced in public. The Brown Act exists to ensure that public business is placed on a noticed agenda

and deliberated in public and developed through individual emails and staff. It is not possible because this these communications are aggregated and input into an outside of public view. The public has the right to know. Transparency of process is fundamental to public trust and to the city's community of character commitments. The solution is simple. The city manager must direct staff to immediately comply with ordinance 2278. schedule a Civics Art Commission meeting for Monday, March 2nd, 2026, and place on the agenda publicly notice discussion of any proposed changes to the existing ordinance. Civic's art has been frozen for nearly a year. Critical work is stalled. Pleasanton's vitality is at stake. Council has the authority and the obligation to require immediate compliance. It's time to act. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Huling song followed by Cindy Sabatini. Welcome.

Okay. Good evening and happy new year uh city mayor and the council members. My name is Hing Song. I'm the current chairperson of the civic arts commission and have proudly served as a volunteer commissioner for past seven years. I respectfully request that the civic arts commission remain an independent body rather than be consolidated into a subcommittee. Also, I request council to direct city staff to resume civic arts commission meeting per city ordinance. The Civic Arts Commission is composed of highly dedicated commissioners and arts advocates with ex expertise in theater, public art, and music. Each of us volunteers our time and a passion to support and representing the arts in our community. The commission initiated the percent for art program designed to sorry my iPhone just stuck a little bit before um sorry uh let me go back the commission initiate the percent for our program designed to establish a fiscally sustainable model for acquisition installation and restoration of public art. Last year, budget consideration had removed our responsibility for grant reviews, though we spent hours reviewing the grant application before the notice. The commission still hold a additional duty defined under municipal code ordinance 227A. This ordinance was established on May 7, 2024 by civic art commission. As a financial planning and analysis manager in my professional work, community

member often asked me about civic art activities. Unfortunately, I have been unable to provide updates because the civic uh art commission meeting have been suspended since April. The labs affect accountability, transparency and public trust. It also runs counter to the goal of Pleasanton one strategic plan which emphasize inclus inclusion engagement and the sense of belonging. For this reason, I urge council to keep the civic art commission independent and direct city staff to resume civic art commission meeting per city ordinance. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. I think we're going to have a few more in that vein. Cindy Sabatini followed by Linda Kelly. Welcome.

Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Cindy Sabatini. I am a Pleasanton library commissioner. Uh when I joined the commission, I thought my feedback would be sought on matters of policy and library services and that I would serve as a liaison between the community, the city staff and the city council. Instead, commission meetings are presentations um by staff of programs already in place. Budgets, programs, hours are topics that do not appear on the agenda until the decisions are made. When any discussion or input is moot, there's no discussion about which programs and services the commissioners see as a priority or which programs and services we hear positive and negative feedback about from our community. The staff and thus the city council appear uninterested in the commissioner's opinions or the community's input. As if the commissions were not already hamstrung by a decreased number of meetings and a previous reduction in responsibilities, commissioners recently received an email from city staff member Heidi Murphy with recommendations for more reductions in responsibilities. It should be noted that a seasonal review of the adopted budget, the primary duty that the library commission argued strongly for last year, is now absent from these duties. Miss Murphy's email was sent separately to each commissioner. This personal email request about changes to a municipal code appears to go against the Brown Act. Collecting individual email responses does not provide the commissioners or the public with an opportunity to hear the various viewpoints and it certainly does not allow for public comment. The Brown Act was imple implemented to stop this exact type of shady backroom politics. I've been a proud Pleasanton resident for over 30 years. Unfortunately, my time on

the library commission has been very disappointing. It's made me pessimistic about the future of the city and distrustful of Pleasanton management and their interest in serving the citizens of this community. Thank you. Thank you. I hope we can gain that back. Uh, Miss Linda Kelly, followed by Katherine Strode. Welcome.

Good evening. I'm Linda Kelly and I'm here tonight as a a board member of the Community of Character Collaborative with a reminder that our annual Wanita Hogan scholarship application deadline is on February 9th, just about a week from now. If you are a senior in one of our three PUSD high schools, uh, and or know a worthy senior, please be sure to visit our website at communityofcarer.org. org to download the application and instructions. This is a character-based award, not an academic one, and it's open to any and all seniors. The thousand scholarship was begun by Wanita Hogan, a longtime school board member who greatly valued the principles of respect, responsibility, honesty, integrity, self-discipline, and compassion. A fund was established in her memory to recognize students who embody these principles to take some of the financial edge off as they graduate and embark on their journeys of furthering educ educational endeavors. Our selection committee will be meeting later in the month and scholarship winners will be announced sometime before the awards lunchon slated for May 13th. At that time, we will also be recognizing our 2026 organizational and individual honores. We welcome nominations from community members and they are being accepted through March 16th. If you know an individual, business or nonprofit who has demonstrate demonstrated exceptional service to Pleasanton, check out the awards page on the website for further information. Incidentally, the website has been greatly enhanced just recently. We realize Pleasanton is an exceptional

city by many measures and we share immense pride in having the good fortune to call it home. It's a great honor to be a part of this community and an even greater one to participate in recognizing those who exhibit these values which seem very much in short supply these days. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information this evening. Okay. Thank you. Uh Katherine Strand, I'm reading this wrong. I apologize. And this is my last speaker card. If you would like to speak on uh matters open to the public, please fill out a speaker card at this time. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you, Katherine Straoud. Um I am no worries. I am the chair of the library commission. And while I think my fellow commissioners did a really great job and I agree with all of their points, I also want to add that I think that the way that the feedback has been solicited from us in terms of the commission and I think um Commissioner Satini also addressed this. Um it doesn't feel like it has enough input from the community, from the people involved. I think the email that we got said it was driving for in efficiency and uh driving for efficiency and efficacy. And while I do think it is a very efficient way to get input from us, it's not a very effic it doesn't efficacy is not great when you're not doing it for the people, of the people, by the people. Um, and I just want to really say that I am newer to Pleasanton. I've only been here about three and a half years. Um, and I just joined the commission last year, and I'm sure the other commissions are the same. There are a lot of incredible people who've been in Pleasanton for years, decades, who have not only the opportunity and the drive, but they just want to help. And I feel so much that we are so limited on the commission from the skills that they have, from the backgrounds that they have, and the desire they have to help. And so if there is any changes happening with the commission, I would hope that it's utilizing that, utilizing the passion and then the actual abilities of these people who've been doing this stuff for so long. Um, so I just wanted to say that thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Uh, our next speaker, Brian, I think it's Jenkins. Welcome. This is my last speaker card. If you would like to speak on a topic, please fill out blue speaker card. Welcome, sir.

Thank you. I'm a relatively new member of the community. I moved here back in uh 2020. Um for those of you don't who don't know me, my name is Brian Jenkins. I'm a very concerned veteran of a foreign war. Presently feeling more at risk in my country on our soil in our town where we stand arm in- arm. I'm here to ask what we are doing to prepare for ICE and the other armed paramilitary poorly trained federal agents. We know they're depriving people of rights, lying about who is being kidnapped and human traffked, and we aren't sure where to. To forprofit prisons, to concentration camps, renditioned out of the country. Are our police ready to police ISIS activity and ensuring our people are protected? Ensuring they follow our laws, ensure nobody has disappeared, our peaceful protesters are protected from chemical and nerve agents against sonic weapons. Will you deputize our people to back you up? Will you tolerate a local well-armed, well-regulated, non-violent militia for self-defense to stand ready if our if or when we need to defend our people? by any and all means when we are aggressed upon first. I swore an oath in March of 2002. I completed my duty of service in March of 2010. I never forgot my oath. And I'll never not stand up for our people from all over this earth who we yearn to breathe free. Ask yourselves, will you stand with the rebels or the authoritarian empire? I know how this country started and why. No kings, no tyrants, free people, no freedom always has a cost. Be ready to take risks. You will get your chance. I leave you

with these words. Prepare. Take care. Stand up. Defend. Start deciding now what we want next. By the way, the moderate position isn't just abolish ICE. It's arrest and prosecute ICE, protect and defend the people, restore the public trust, or risk getting voted out and replaced. We the people get a voice, a say. We have demands. We do not stand for fascists. We stand against them. Thank you very much. Okay, that is my last speaker card. If anyone else would like to speak that has not turned in a speaker card, go ahead and please approach the podium at this time. May Mayor,

yeah, I would like to ask um in response to the last speaker, our police chief is in the room. Can we ask that she come forward? And I think a lot of our community is feeling weighted by what we are seeing happen around our country. And um Mr. Jenkins did send us all an email and um just to acknowledge we did we did see that we did read it and you've come forward and helped to reassure the community in at past meetings. Could you respond to some of the questions?

What specifically would you like me to respond to? Well, I think he was asking what our police department is prepared to do if there were and I I know the answer. It's a hard question. We're in a difficult position, but anything you can say that would reassure our community would help.

Um, so I will say we are in a challenging environment. I acknowledge that. Um, we do not participate in federal immigration enforcement. We also do not communicate. We are not briefed. We do not know their objectives, their purpose, their legal authority. And to for the police department to insert within a federal operation would be inappropriate. Um,

so there's really I mean I I will say in addition to that um without knowing the full operational awareness of what is a federal operation. It would be it would create if we were to attempt to intervene, it would create confusion surrounding legal authority as well as responsibility. And I will leave it there.

Okay. I I will mention to our community that the city of Pleasanton is watching and monitoring this uh very closely and uh we have a statement we issued back in January of 2025 that is on our website for our community to be able to view as what our policy is at this time. Has not changed I believe since then. Is that correct chief? Right. Thank you. I will add also as far as the just to put it out there um armed civilian militia is uh not legal or safe public safety solution and it will not be considered. Right.

Yeah. Well, thank you. It is it's a very difficult situation and it's really um I I can't say how many people have told me how they're feeling the weight of so much of what is going on. So, and we we have made sure that the um the police department is uh someone that can be contacted if they have questions regarding fear or um any any sort of questions. We are always going to be there for um answering those questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay. And uh city manager, if I can ask you to uh there was a few questions about the commissions that have come up. This is our second time hearing that. Do you mind elaborating on that, please?

Yeah, thank you for the opportunity, mayor. I do have to keep it brief because we're in public comment, but I want to quickly say thank you to the commissioners who came tonight. Uh, your concerns have been heard and we are addressing them. Uh, we do value the work of the commissions. I think the last round of budget discussions had impacts on how we serve our commissions and the the ability to uh continue to expand and and address a broader range of issues and topics is under review right now. Uh we did establish an ad hoc city council subcommittee to revisit commissions after our budget implementation uh work was underway. uh that that is the work. The reason that email went out is because the the the the the council subcommittee didn't want to simply show up to public meetings with changes to the program. We're trying to solicit input from our commissioners as we build that. Uh and and I just want to say very clearly the the next round of budget discussions will have a lot of public conversation with our council commissioners community. Uh and finally, no decisions will be made about the structure of the commissions or any re uh any further retooling or changes uh without public full public vetting uh commission input as well as council uh action. So appreciate your patience while we work through this. Uh it is uh it is challenging. Our library and recreation department in particular currently uh manages uh five different commissions and committees. uh and it is a significant load in a department that did see um uh higher impacts from the last round of budget discussions. So I'll I'll leave it there this evening. I appreciate the feedback. We've heard you and we are looking at ways to revamp, retool and restart uh with our commissioners including uh onboarding, training uh work planning and just a more collaborative effort. So appreciate the patience again. Thank you for the opportunity.

Okay. Apologize city clerk. I didn't check that there was no one online, but just there is no one online that wouldn't public comment. That's correct. Okay. So, public comment is hereby closed. Uh thank you very much for all the feedback. We do appreciate it. Uh we're going to be proceeding on to the rest of the agenda at this time, which is public hearing and other matters. So, um we'll begin with item number five, receive an update on the regional groundwater facilities improvement project phase one feasibility study results. Welcome. I believe you'll start us off, city manager.

Yeah, thank you very much, mayor. Uh, I'm going to just turn it directly over to our public works director, Such Chinang. She's here tonight with our utilities planning manager, Todd Yamelo, and they're going to handle the the presentation this evening. Thank you.

Um, good evening, mayor, council members, city managers, staff, and residents. Thank you for the opportunity for city staff to provide an update on the regional groundwater facility project feasibility study. Joining us today are zone 7 um water agency general manager Valerie Prior and zone 7 water resource manager Ken Men. Zone 7 water agency is the state designated groundwater sustainability agency for the Livermore Valley groundwater basin under California sustainable groundwater management act. Zone 7 led the construction of test well and the technical analysis including groundwater modeling in this project. We are very appreciative to the partnership with zone 7 on this phase. They are here tonight as subject matter of expert to answer any technical question that council might have on the feasibility study. In this slide, it recap the historical timeline and progress on alternative water study and effort in Pleasanton before September 2022. Um city water supplies come from zone 7 water supply and also Pleasanton water production from local well five, six and eight due to increasing level of PAFS and anticipated EPA effort um in uh uh rate uh uh raising awareness on the upcoming PAS regulatory changes. City council decided to place well five, six, and eight out of service. Soon after the well put out of service, council approved staff to initiate water supply alternative study in October 2022. Two main options identified in the report include constructing PAS treatment plan to treat well 8 or develop new groundwater wells in the Bernala basin. The latter approach was decided by council in um 20 it was decided by council um in 2023.

At that time, zone 7 also has an interest in seeking new groundwater wells. By June 2024, council approved an agreement to partner with zone 7 to perform phase one feasibility review on a joint project. City cost share portion as approved by council was $1 million. The cost share portion was later updated with amendment one to include additional scope for a total not to exit amount of 1.28 million. In December 2024, Pleasanton received state waterboard grant award of $1 million that applied to what the total agreement contract to complete the feasibility study. Pleasanton actual cost from the enterprise fund is $280,000 for phase one work. With the hard work and zone 7 leadership with the contractor and consultant, the project is now completed on phase one feasibility study. The phase one feasibility study align with city of Pleasanton's strategic goal of number number three which is identify funding and implement the recommendation from the water supply alternative study to resolve Pab's water quality issues and align with the council approved 20 years uh water CIP plan. Last year, the city has successfully adopted the new water rate that ultimately supported the groundwater supply improvement projects and initiative for an estimated budget of $27 million in 2024 cost estimate. The five key goals that Pleasanton has when we started with this feasibility study includes seek the replacement of well five six and 8. Recover 3,500 acre feet of groundwater production quota. Improve water supply reliability, quality and sustainability. Reduce overall water supply and distribution costs and improve management of water quality and ability to meet future regulation.

In upcoming slide, utility planning manager uh Todd Yamelo will summarize the technical result from the study led by zone 7. The full technical presentation can be found as attachment one and attachment two of this council report. The recorded zone 7 presentation that was presented in public at zone 7 board meeting on January 21st can be found on zone 7 website or on the Tri Valley Community Television website. Staff encouraged council and public to review the recorded presentations to understand more in-depth of the technical data and the result of the analysis on phase one feasibility study on constructing new groundwater well as a joint regional project. Um so as Suchin just mentioned the objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of zone 7 in the city jointly constructing and operating a new groundwater facility in the Bernal subbasin which is on the west side of the city. Uh when we first started this project back when the agreement with zone 7 was formed, there was three locations that were targeted. That was Delpra Park, Tennis Park, and Hansen Park. and those locations. Uh there was multiple factors that went into narrowing down into those locations, but the two main ones were that uh all three of those parks are located near uh zone 7's hopyard facility, treatment facility, which is uh where um the groundwater could be treated for uh disinfection residuals. Um and then in addition, this part of the area is um believed to be outside of PIFA concentrations at least

at this time. So with those three locations, uh uh early 2025, u zone 7 contracted uh with NorCal and they drilled three test wells, one in each of the park locations. After those wells were drilled, uh the consultant LSCE uh utilized those wells to do testing for water quality and water yield. And uh the first or the second and third column you see on the slides here is um an estimate of those productions. The the first column of potential pumping is the estimated rate of pumping that can come out of uh those locations. The second column which is probably the more critical column is the estimated production. That's basically the yearly production estimated um including uh zone 7's 75% operational reliability. So they want to plan for downtime for repairs and maintenance. Um and so you could see those uh ranges. Um, Han Tennis Park was found to be uh the most productive uh location with Hansen Park in the same range and then Delpra being approximately half that production. Uh, water quality was also tested and was determined to meet title 22 uh regulations which is basically the state's current regulations for water quality from water supply. In addition, uh their POS was tested and um all three locations were um non-detect for PFOS and PFOA which is the the two major uh PIFAs of concern and regulatory um limits coming up. PFH

excs was was detected at the Hansen but it was uh at a level that is um below uh anticipated um regulatory requirements. In addition, this data uh zone 7 who as Suchin mentioned is responsible for managing the groundwater basin used their models and this this data to plug into their models to look at the sustainability impacts to the groundwater basin of operating these wells. Uh and they looked at two um major uh criteria. One is the water quality and impact of the PAS concentrations moving um westward into this area with you know continuous pumping over the years and then the second item is uh with pumping and drawing down of the groundwater basins does it have any impact to other existing wells via zone 7's other existing wells or SFPU and in their their modeling and their results found that at all three locations uh the groundwater was basin would be sustainable and those two items were not impacted. Um so with this information the next step was looking at different alternatives of those locations to form a project that could actually you know an actual project that would deliver this water. Uh there was four alternatives looked at. One was alternative one was one well at Tennis Park. Alternative two was one well at Tennis Park and an additional well at Hansen Park. Alternative three was one well at Tennis Park and additional well at Delpra. And then alternative four was one well at each of the three locations. Um, as you can see in the figures, for

all alternatives, the groundwater would be pumped um through new piping to the hopyard treatment facility. That's where the water would be uh receive chloramination and um that facility would require upgrades to handle the additional flow. Uh one other one other item was there is after treatment zone 7 would operate these facilities. They would operate it through their their transport system um and deliver it regionally. The city would get its groundwater pumping quota by receiving water through existing turnouts connections to zone 7. So just like currently we receive our wholesale water purchases from zone 7 through the turnouts. This water would be delivered in combination with that. Um so to evaluate these four alternatives uh there was two sets of criteria. The the first set was a mandatory criteria. So this was pass fail criteria. The alternative had to meet this criteria or it did not continue through. uh that criteria was the the alternative needed to be able to produce 7,000 acre feet in total during a drought year. Uh that 7,000 would include the city's 3500. So essentially 3500 for the city and then 3500 for zone 7 for regional purposes. Uh the second item was the alternative have to comply with groundwater sustainability criteria. As you saw from the previous slide, all of these alternatives did do that. Um, and then based on the alternatives that met that mandatory criteria, then there was a feasibility scoring criteria that looked at six factors. The first was capital costs. That was the cost to

construct the the new wells, the pipe, and the treatment expansion. operation and maintenance costs. That would be the annual cost to run these facilities and maintain them. Um chemicals, electrical, labor. Uh number three was operational flexibility and resilience. That mostly gets into redundancy and the ability to accommodate outages whether they're planned or not. implementation schedule uh was the ability the the speed at which this project could be implemented looking at items like permitting and just construction equipment lead times. Uh the fifth was community and environmental impacts. This was primarily focused about having new facilities in the park area. Um the number of parks that are impacted and then also you know the anticipated impact to each individual park. And then number six is water quality and treatment risk. And this was more looking at the ability of the option to respond if to new rags or changes uh in the future. So um each alternative was was ran through that criteria. Alternative one which was tennis park only and alternative three which was tennis park plus delpra park. Those two did not meet the uh mandatory requirement for the for the project of 7,000 acre feet. They were both below. So you see those two options were grayed out. Um they were scored more for informationational purposes, but they did not meet the acre foot uh requirement. So those two options were eliminated. The alternative two and four did meet the 7,000. Alternative two was estimated at 8,200 and alternative four was 9,800. So both

above the 7,000 criteria. Um those two options were ran through the score uh the scoring criteria and and that criteria just to also clarify that was a joint criteria between zone 7 and the city. And so those were uh agreed upon jointly and regionally for what what were the benefits and the waiting and uh alternative two which was tennis and Hansen Park reached the highest score. Um and so that was selected as the preferred alternative uh location. um that alternative location was then uh the consultant used um Corollo Engineers as a sub subconsult to LCE and they did a 10% design essentially of the project and what that did was helped improve the cost estimating for this project and then also gives us a little bit more information if if um if this project was to advance forward more pro uh information to help with proceeding with that. Um so in summary, the project uh a groundwater uh facility joint project was determined to be technically feasible. The Hansen and Tennis community park locations were the recommended preferred locations. The project could meet the 7,000 acre foot um requirement in a drought. And the total project estimated cost was uh 42 million. Um want to clarify what that is. So that is the joint cost to produce or to construct the uh groundwater facilities, the piping um and the uh treatment upgrades. That is the joint cost. Um there would be a cost share with that for the city and zone 7 and

that's still to be worked out and determined. Um but in addition for the city to receive this water into our distribution system, there would be separate costs for the city to make some distribution improvements, upsize some piping and likely um an additional turnout to accommodate the flow coming in this direction. Um and so that'll that bigger picture will be what we're currently looking at and that'll be a next step item. So the next step is for both the city and zone 7 to take this information um from the feasibility report basis of design and and review that the two major items uh that are on the next steps is the discussion with zone 7 on draft terms and conditions for a joint project. So that would include both the design and construction and the operation and including terms such as cost share um and uh and other other terms needed to to to actually operate this facility. Um, in addition, the city will be doing its own evaluation of the cost and benefits of this joint project versus if the city was to do this independently. And like I mentioned before, um, a joint project versus an independent project does have different impacts to our distribution system. And so we need to quantify those and cost those out to see what the distribution um impacts are versus um the water actual water supply um needs. So, uh, the plan is for staff to return in a future, uh, council meeting targeted for March or April to present the results of that evaluation of the joint verse individual and to provide a recommendation to city council on which direction uh, staff feels is is

appropriate. Um, and seek city council direction on on whether to proceed. And if we were to proceed with the joint project, the next phase would be a design design and um construction phase two. So with that questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Uh all right. So we'll go with clarifying questions. It'll be left to right. So Vice Mayor,

thank you. I got a few. Um the $42.3 million estimate of the joint cost, does that include um the cost of connecting the pumps to the zone 7 existing building at the mouth of the sports park there? Uh yes. Well, that would that would consist of connecting the wells and the piping to their chloramination facility and upgrading that facility.

Sure. And then that facility is already connected to zone 7 system. Now if zone 7 had to do some upgrades downstream of that, that would be something that is in their cost court just like our distribution is would be in ours. Does that clarify? It does. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that that the additional money that you said the city was going to have to come sort of up with on its own would is not the cost of putting pipes to connect those new wells to the existing chlorination facility. Uh no. Okay. All right. Um I think is zone 7 giving a presentation as well tonight because I have questions. They're not.

Okay. Uh they're zone 7. Uh, so you're you're zone 7 general manager and um and as well as Ken Min whose title is escaping me, but are they here tonight to answer questions if the council has questions specific to the groundwater model or other things that might be in zone 7's wheelhouse? I do. Are they ready now? Is that is now the time? Now is the time. Okay. Um All right. Welcome.

Thank you. And look, I don't mind who answers the question because sitting here, I can't tell you who the most competent is to answer the question. So, I'll leave that to to you all. Um, so, you know, the the two options that were put forth in the in the analysis are um either to route two of the new wells in that area or all three new wells over to the chlorination facility. Um it what is the estimation of how long we'll be able to pump you know any combination of these three wells free of having to treat it for PAS contamination.

Good evening and thank you for having us here. I'll I'll turn over the technical discussion to Ken Men, but we we did run this through our model and um you know, if this project comes to fruition and it's operated uh these wells will not be operated 247, right? They'll be operated in conjunction with everything in the system. But to be very conservative, we we ran the model with running these three wells 247, you know, which is very conservative for 20 years. And we did not see at that point POS coming to the facilities. Is that based on your your groundwater, you know, model and the, you know, geology and the, you know, the what's going on underneath these wells? Yes.

Okay. Uh, what would be the term for that? By the way, I knew it was on my head, but your the term for the under underground model, it would be hydrarology. Hydrarology. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to speak your language if I could. Um, so 20 years. Um and is that at an average of what how many acre feet per year? So we pump the maximum capacity of those two wells. The the the model is used to estimate what would happen in the future if you do that.

Sure. So just like uh general manager prior said we stress the model by using those wells at maximum capacity 247 20 years which is far far from reality but we like to understand the extreme case. So we put those maximum capacity numbers in the model. We run it and we see how uh P concentration react to that or as well as um whether the basin can sustain that means that what water level going to go down to the point that is not sustainable. So all these features are analyzed using a model.

Sure. Um, as far as the model specific to each one of the three wells, um, does your model predict that, you know, if two are pumping or three are pumping, I mean, do you do you ask a foundational question, do you imagine having them online pumping all three at the same time or one or two? We analyze all all options but recommended or at least a sele recommended profile option is two wells. Okay. Which is between tennis park and Hansen Park.

Is is one or two out of the three wells um if you were to pump um does that change your model in terms of how quickly you think you may um run into a PAS problem on any one of the wells? Is there one that's more susceptible based on your underwater model? How did you evaluate those risks?

Well, uh what we have done was we maximize the pumping in those two designated wells and we haven't seen any significant impact to the water quality. So if we are to pump only one, the impact will be way less or less impactful if we do only do one. But we did uh the recommended options and as well as actually we also pumped three wells at once at the capacity and both of those scenarios the results are very satisfactory. Okay, let's just ask the the the hard question is what if you're wrong and um you know in a in less than 10 years or in five years, you know, one two or three of those wells has started um testing positive for PAS and we run into a problem we have to to not use those or think about wellhead treatment. Um, is that something that could be accomplished in the future at the location at Hopyard and Parkside right there? If we're running pipes over to that facility for chlorination, which do you do you would, you know, in the future of of zone 7 see a project coming to put, you know, PAS treatment facility at that location and and at what cost to the city in zone 7? We did not specifically analyze, you know, a facility and a cost, but we know that whether it's POS or some other emerging contaminant or some other regulation that's out there in the future that we don't know about, but we'll always have the possibility of having to install treatment. So, any new well that we look at, we'll always make sure that there's room to put in treatment facilities. Um, you know, we don't want to I'll say like a landlocked facility, but right now we don't anticipate that. And you know, if we're wrong, we would just we would just have to install treatment. Um, as far as the cost to Pleasanton, I mean, this is very

speculative. Um, we haven't negotiated, you know, we haven't decided if we're doing a project together. We haven't negotiated terms and conditions, but, you know, assuming that, you know, this becomes zone 7 regional wells operate on a regional basis, then whatever zone 7 costs are, you know, they get a portion to all of the retailers. Um, do you anticipate at any time I mean given the what we know about the plume of PAS where it's at its highest concentration in the city wells when they were pumping and we were testing it and all of the information coming out at some point do you anticipate these wells you know sort of wicking that plume and pulling that contamination up through those wells and and when

actually I'm I'm glad that um you are asking very pointed and important questions. So those are the question that we contemplate and consider through the planning process. That's why the groundwater model we invest in is so valuable uh to analyze or to predict the future outcome. And having said that our model is about 97 or 98% accurate based on the statistical analysis and the data that we have analyzed. So there are always a chance that the model might overestimate or underestimate as well as there might be the source of a pie for us which we haven't known. there are possibilities stay there but when you do the water development planning what we have to do is we have to use all the information available information and available technology to come up with the best available recommendation based on the current uh state of the knowledge so that is what we're doing at the same time just like uh general manager prior said we also have let's say plan B so to speak what if something spill and something's happened to those nearby those well and people has detected what we going to do. Zone 7 primary mission is the water supplies. So we are equipped up with the uh all these foresightes and plan for future treatment needs should that become necessary. But our goal is to def or not to have not have to treat those kind of vivas at all. If that come to the picture and we have to treat it and we will and you know city cost will be proportional to uh whatever that we agree upon based on that you know production capacity split. So one thing that general manager said uh

if you may pick up is that five years ago or six years ago PIFA is not in anybody else's mind. we don't even recognize as a harmful chemicals and only in 2018 we start to recognize it. We still assemble we we just monitoring and we just acknowledge that's the issues and there are other issues or margin contaminants as general man mentioned should come into the water supply uh issues we have to deal with that because this is that's our primary mission so that is what different between any other party and zone 7 is that we have the plan for or at least we are ready for you know treatment needs if if if that come but until then we try to make sure that we make the intelligent decision so that we don't have to you know knowingly or or uh predictably have to treat it in three years or five years.

Understood. So if I could summarize kind of what your position is based on the model you have in your testing is that on the three well three wells are sort of running at max capacity you're anticipating not having a problem with PAS for 20 years under the known circumstances to to a to a degree of 97% certainty

that is the accuracy of the model accuracy of we did uh mulling and the one way to verify that is using the analytical tools a statistical analysis is to understand the prediction of model versus actual measurement. If that tools are way far off obviously some you know model is not predicting right. So the way we validate the model is using an empirical data and then let it let the model do the same thing and see how close they are or how accurate it is. So for example the where a couple of uh major uh statistical uh analysis that we did R square and uh clean Gupta efficiency test those are two major uh uh statistical analysis for the modeling industrial or and in the water community or modeling community if you get for clean Gupta if you get 7 or 08 accuracy the the perfect score is one if you get 70% or 80% we call it But our model score 97 out of one and R square you know many of us in in science understand what the R square is how convergent the datas are the 100% will be perfect score the industrial average is 80 to 90%. So if you can build the model which predict the data projection about 80 or 90% accurate you call it good. uh moto has 98%.

And is this model specifically aimed at predicting you know the travel and um the concentrations of a PAS contamination and how quickly it moves through what's underneath the earth. Is that what you what that the aim of that study?

This model is we call it uh groundwater flow model. Okay. What it does is is analyze and understand the flow of the water under the ground and puss is very unique uh contaminants unlike uh let's say a dry cleaner or other gas station leak and things like that those are either heavier than water or lighter than water they float on top of it or they sink below it and stay there. Pas is just like water. It is exactly like the this specific gravity everything is is is act like a water. So if you understand how the water flows or if you drop uh some particles in the water and if it flow that's how PIFA is going to react. That's a basic concept of we analyzing this. Um we consulted with the the former uh Lawrence Livermore lab uh scientists. Uh when we are starting analyzing the PAS mobilization, we look into different chemical reactionary model. We look in a different um model to replicate the PAS movement and we were advised that any other chemical reactionary model will work. only things is going to work for us to understand is that particle tracking model which is using the tracking the particles through the flow of the groundwater that's what we have done so we have known concentration across the basin based on the empirical data from the sampling so this is what we know today and this is what model project if we pump this much here or suck this much more water from here how the water is going to flow so that's what we track

great I appreciate the explanation I'm sure, you know, you can appreciate that we have city wells that are just a couple miles away with an incredibly high, you know, concentration of prefasts and now we're kind of hinging our water future on wells a couple miles away. So, I appreciate you answering the questions. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we'll go to council member Nyberg virtually if you have clarifying questions of uh the staff and Jocelyn, are they see it? Sorry.

Yeah. Yes, I do. Um I know there's a delay in um you're receiving what I'm saying. So there's a delay also coming back. So let's try and work with that. Um I uh viewed the zone 7 presentation from the I think it was January 21st meeting um earlier today. Um found it very interesting. I did want to um note or ask about the the two black and white criteria. go no-go criteria that um were considered and um one of them had to do with sustainability. Um and it was mentioned that the modeling found that there was no rise in contaminants in the future and that would be all contaminants not just PAS you know for example arsenic or tce or perchloroethylene um am I correct in that understanding? No, we did not analyze TCE or Osnic or Chromium 6 because those are not concern at the moment for us.

So what type of other contaminants are of concern um outside of PAS? Well, the as far as contaminant goes, the P5 is the main concern that we have and which is represented by PFOS as a surrogate for all the POS compound. The other one that we analyze is for example uh um the TDS which give you the you know light water versus heavier water. So we we analyze that and we believe we analyze mang manganesees and other uh metals.

Okay. All right. So um you're satisfied that that aspect of the sustainability criterion has been met in terms of the metals um that you mentioned. Is that correct?

Correct. So there are six criteria we have to analyze including the water quality, water level, subsidance um and s you know storage and those are analyzed and making make sure that u the business is sustainable. In addition we we also analyze to make sure that adding those new wells and pumping it the way we plan to does not adversely impact the existing beneficial users. Okay. And so I understand that the uh finding was that there were no adverse impacts to groundwater levels or water quality. Is that correct?

Absolutely. Yes. Okay. In fact, all four options met those criteria.

Yes. Generally, yes. But we um we selected or staff recommended the uh profile option because that kind of gave us um enough supplies for city as well as zone 7 to make u uh develop this projects and also is sustainable because just like uh uh suchin mentioned in the beginning we are groundwater sustainability agencies we are legally responsible to manage this space sustainability. So whenever we analyze a project we look through that lens as as a you know uh steward of this basin as well. So we those those uh criterias are important to us.

Right. Okay. So um moving on from those two black and white criteria, you went on to the weighted scoring criteria of which there were six I believe developed in collaboration between the city of Pleasanton and zone 7. Um so was the is the scoring uh are the calculations and results contained anywhere in the documents that we have? I will let uh uh city staff uh answer the question for you.

Uh in this slide um one of the slide we have the summary of the four alternatives um with the estimated production um in drought year and also the total project score and the project score is based on the six weighted criteria. Right? So if I wanted to go and um review the calculations that resulted in that score, I could do so uh perhaps by going to a zone 7 report that's online. Is that correct?

There there is a feasibility study. We we don't have it online because it is 400 pages long, but we'd be happy to make a copy available to you or to any member of the public. Yeah, we'll just clarify too that right now this is just anformational update that that's a draft final report. It will be finalized here shortly and then we'll it will be made available. So you could see the whole breakdown of the uh criteria descriptions, the waiting and the score um that will be available.

Okay, thank you. Um, another question I had is, uh, when looking at the tennis park location, do we have an idea of what the, uh, the area of the footprint there will end up being. Um, yeah. So the we haven't the the location has been um the it's kind of the southwest or southeast corner of the uh tennis facility uh park. It it is um I don't have offhand the actual footprint size but um you're you're talking about um uh it's the building is about everything would be enclosed within a building and that building is you know smaller than a a residential house. It's a it's a smaller smaller building. I'd have to look up the uh footprint. I don't have it off hand.

Okay. Well, that's okay. I don't mean to dive too deep into the details. I know it's anformational um agenda item. Um I do want to ask about the clamination facility. Um and I understand from seeing the presentation as presentation online uh there will be larger amounts of u sodium hypocchlorites I guess that's bleach and ammonia in the tanks there. Um question was asked if there uh what the impact on the neighbors would be of storing or uh processing larger amounts of those two chemicals. Has that been looked at further?

Council member, we we already have chemicals at that site and we have all of the necessary chemical containment facilities, uh emergency procedures, uh spill containment procedures. Um, obviously if we were going to have increased amounts of those chemicals, we would revisit that, but we we would certainly, you know, safety would be number one, and we'd make sure that we followed all required safety practices.

Okay. Okay. Very. So, may this a question for Suchin and Todd. Does uh does Pleasanton currently have its own lamination facility that we've used in the past which is now unused or am I understanding that incorrectly? Uh each well well 5, six and eight um when they were operating had had their own uh chloramination facility with with the well it was within the buildings.

Okay. So then I understand that there's no um former chloramination facility that may be centrally located that remains available. Yeah. In the event of something unforeseen happening. Yeah. No, we don't have a centralized uh chloramination facility. Our our facilities are uh attached to each well currently.

I got Okay. Thank you. Um then um let me see um so I just wanted to um reiterate or well you've talked already in response to uh Vice Mayor Gatos's question about that was confirmed uh last fall through um that this is using state-of-the-art parts um modeling and uh input um would you agree with that characterization?

Yes. Okay. Um All right. I have no other questions right now. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate everyone's patience with the technology there. Uh Council Member Ta. Okay. Um, a lot of the questions I I think we're all kind of looking for the same reassurance and so a lot has been answered, but I'm going to ask for clarification because it is something that members of our community have really emphasized concern on. So I think if I ask you to repeat it again, forgive me, but um the concern being pulling the plume, I heard what you said. The model shows 20 years. We don't anticipate a possibility of that happening, but that's not forever. And we understand that there may then at some point require treatment. So again just confirm that I understood correctly that we do not see that the modeling shows that we will not be pulling the plume.

That is correct.

Okay. And then I guess my question and it's kind of not because I think I really do understand but we made a decision to um to discontinue use of our wells that's cost us and our rateayers a significant amount in buying purchasing that water. And you know if this is all a big expense obviously it clean safe drinking water there you know um no no price tag that is too great to make to ensure that but would if we're going to possibly be treating the new wells and all the expense to the new wells and I think I really do know the answer to this but I want to hear Would it have made more sense to simply treat the three wells that we already had?

I think council member, I think I would defer to Pleasanton on that. Um, and and let me just say that, you know, from zone 7's perspective, we were going to be looking at new wells, right? We we've always needed new wells, but knowing that Pleasanton was looking at this, we just said, should we take the opportunity if we're going to build like two really big wells or three medium wells, could we make them a little bit bigger for Pleasanton and make it work for both parties? Um, and that that's what we've done this feasibility study for. But, you know, now we have the results and, you know, Pleasanton, you know, your your city staff, they need to do d do their own due diligence um and answer those questions. And I I I will defer to them. But I I just want you to know that zone 7 is supportive of this project. We're supportive of Pleasanton doing its own project. Um, you know, but that's really your staff's due diligence and, you know, you as a governing body to make that decision. But I I will defer that answer to your staff. That doesn't surprise me. I anticipated that. But so before we go,

from from zone 7's perspective, it's all good. and and I I really appreciate hearing that that and the spirit of cooperation and I think is I I also I feel and I've heard over the years since uh 2018 that we started first found out about this and to to be partnering with zone 7 when you guys are the experts. Uh, I mean, we've got some great people, but um I think that coordinating that expertise certainly gives me additional um confidence. So, thank you for saying that you're all in and it's all good. So, yes.

Yeah. So, um I'm going back to the timeline, but when we did in October 2022 to 23 the water supply alternative study as part of that report, um that report looked at continuing to do a PAS treatment project for 56 and 8. It even looked at a reduced 56 and 8 project and it looked at new groundwater wells. And so through that report, you know, there was cost assessment provided and it was recommended and and costed out to be cheaper to do a groundwater supply project in the Bernal subbasin if feasible. Um mainly because wells five, six, and eight, it's not just PAS treatment. It's also redoing those wells. They're 60 years old and reaching the end of their life. So this project from just kind of that high level perspective is going to be cheaper because of you're just building new wells. If you had to add POS treatment, it's probably going to be more comparable. So the really the purpose though with with this study is if we do it in the Bernala basin, is it cheap even more cheaper now if we do it in joint with zone 7 for you know um cost sharing versus economy of scale but there is also some drawbacks for the distribution side of things. And so that's that's the next step. It's it's really looking at yes, this project is feasible. Zone 7's done their modeling. They do believe that the treat uh POS treatment won't be needed within the the short future. So now it's taking a look at those results and and making that relate towards the um the city and the distribution impacts.

Okay. Thank you. And I of course we've heard most of that over this journey. Yes. But I appreciate you restating it and relating it to where we're at now. So thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm done. Okay, Council Riker just made me think of a question. So, I'm going to start with zone seven. So, is in your modeling was drought factored in as part of the equation when you when you ran your modeling?

Yes. uh we run 20 years scenario with three droughts in it and we also add additional one year of drought artificially just to make sure that we are ultraconervative as opposed to three years drought we put in additional years just to see how the base and react to it as well as the P5 mobilization so the the it didn't change the outcome of the model with with those drought years increased even when we stress the you know pumping and the model to predict uh We got the satisfactory results saying that it is manageable. Okay. Are there circumstances when you when do you think that those wells would be run at capacity?

So our plan is as general manager stated earlier we going to run our system as an integrated fashion. So we have three well fields in in Amidor subbasins. By the way all pleasant 5, six and eight are in Amodore subbasin. So all of our production well can you imagine in one subbasin and then the banel subbasin currently we have only two wells active which is zone 7 wells. So when we run those uh we're going to manage the way we going to operate it is we have zone 7 has developed a pas management strategy that's pas management one component of pas management strategy is to manage the concentration hydraulically so having uh pas streaming facility already in place two of them and one we are currently working with the city staff to to go ahead to be able to proceed with the development if we three facility triangulating in most concentrated part of the basin and if we're going to operate that these facility we'll be able to hydraulically control the mobilization that is a pas one component of pas management strategy so having those wells uh new wells put in the bonos suba basin does not necessarily means we'll be pumping those well most likely scenario is that we will be operating those existing zone 7 wells why we are meeting city of Pleasanton groundwater production quota 3500 regardless of wherever well that we are pumping that way that we are uh hydraulically controlling the concentration and we will lean on these new wells particularly in second or third year of the drought when this the the emodor subbas has been drawn down and we're

getting to the point that we can't go not more because of the sustainability criteria then we're going to come back and look up this bunnel sub new wells to help us uh you know survive or 30 or 40 year the drought that is a operational strategy that uh zone 7 will be consciously implementing so so your scenario could happen but uh in very rare occasion we may be able to we may be pumping those well at the maximum capacity. So do the wells run 24/7 or basically as needed.

Well, when we say 24/7 is uh it's realistically it's not possible but things mechanical parts they break down and also we have to rest the well service the well you know just like any other mechanical device. So when we run 24/7 theoretically we're just stressing it out uh to see the impact of it worst case scenario but in real life scenario our rule of thumb is that 75% uh time 75 75% of the time we'll be operating because the 25% of the time we have to service the well.

Okay. Um, did you guys do a cost comparison for the cost per unit for the water on this project or did staff?

U, we haven't we haven't, but it is pretty it will be pretty straightforward. When we figure out the uh cost sharing everything, then we'll be able figure out what each party going to be paying for unit costs. So, if if Pleasanton decides to opt out or to do its own thing in the road, um how would zone 7 move forward? I mean, would you would you come up with another well site or Well, we have not decided that yet. Um and while we do intend to develop new wells, I don't think, you know, our timing is quite as urgent as Pleasanton, so I I can't answer that right now.

Okay. I'm just I'm just curious to see if you know is there a plan out there? Is there thoughts behind what what that could lead to? Um from zone 7's perspective, can you give us just a brief overview of what you believe our the overall benefits are for us to proceed with this project together as partners? Well, from zone 7's perspective, um I think that, you know, we think that there could be cost savings for both parties. And I just want to be clear, cost savings for zone 7 or cost savings for all four retailers, of which you're one, right? Yeah.

Um so, you know, for every dollar that zone 7 saves, you save, you know, at least a quarter of that. Um and then also the impact on communities, right? If you have two separate projects going on, that's two sets of mobilizations, that's two sets of construction traffic, that's two sets of demobilization. So doing one project together, I think benefits the community. And then I think from zone 7's perspective, I I think we think there's a real opportunity for conjunctive use. And conjunctive use is managing all of your water resources together. So, you know, simply speaking, during a drought when we don't have very much state water project water, we, you know, pump as much groundwater as possible. During a 100% state water project allocation year, like maybe we turn off the wells and everybody gets state water project. It's more complicated than that. You know, we're in a year right now where there's not a lot of snow pack and we're not going to have very much of a state water project allocation, but the groundwater basin's full. So, you know, so my point is from zone 7's perspective, we would be able to take all of those factors into consideration and, you know, pick a water supply mix for the region that, you know, maximizes sustainability.

Okay. And from staff, do you have anything additional that you would add to that?

Well, our our next step or what we're actually currently working on is is going to is looking at that. So you know the purpose of this was really to look at technical feasibility of a just even pumping out of this Bernal suba basin and then b can it be you know jointly done and and now we will look at you know co costs will differ you know not just on the capital side but the distribution side there is impacts to how we manage our distribution system depending on the source of water. Um so all those things that's what we're currently looking at and when we come back in March and April that you you're going to see um cost for both capital on&m for independent versus uh doing it jointly but just like there was this waiting criteria for the joint project there will also be one for us looking at it and there'll be you know there'll be some of these items that they're talking about that regional which are definitely considerations and then there's things that are more core to the city and its distribution that will also be factoring in. So, we don't have all those answers right now. We're kind of working through that.

So, that's in the next that's in the next that's in the next step. Yeah. Would you put risks in that category for identifying what risks there are to go alone versus with a partner?

Yes. I have quite a few questions and some of them or the majority of them council member Gatos had asked quite a few of them already. So um so from a from a time frame perspective I if we decide to jointly move forward with this what's the time frame look like before we'd actually see production for our community? So that's one of part of the nstep process where we're going to work with uh city staff to determine what will be the most efficient delivery mechanism is. Uh for example normally we go uh bid design construct or maybe design built where the design and construction is is combined. So there are several delivery mechanism available but being a partner with the city we don't do those decision single-handedly we will make joint decision uh along with the city's uh buy into it and once we determine the date uh mutually acceptable that is what we're going to go after and the caveat for that is there are external factors uh which are out of zone 7 or city's control for example getting substation of PG& connection done the permitting and any other for example strike happen in the port of Los Angeles and we're going to import material things like that there are other factors I I weren't aware of u external factors play into the bigs but as far as delivery go we're going to go most expeditious um delivery method which is acceptable to both parties

okay thank you. Um, and this is for Todd. You in your prior conversation with Council Member Ta. Uh, it seemed like that there were some concerns over distribution that we had to figure out what that was going to look like with this new tie-in in the water coming from zone 7. Um, would we still have those same concerns if we were going to do this ourselves? Um there is improvements needed for both both ways. Um we are currently completing our modeling for both ways and doing the cost estimating to see um but uh probably the biggest challenge for doing this project jointly is when we're getting all now we're going to get not only our wholesale purchases through the turnouts but now we're getting our groundwater which used to come directly into our system now has to go through the turnout. So, there is improvements that need to be done around the turnout and um they are we're still going through those numbers. They're likely to be more than if we were to build our own wells. Um and uh those distribution improvements would likely be a little less, but we now have but but at the same time, the water supply project is the water supply wells jointly will be cheaper. So, we have to kind of balance that out and really look at that um pretty closely to to get a confident level of, you know, where those costs end up. And that that's that's what we're doing right now.

Okay. Thank you everybody for uh your responses. I'm done.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll be brief. I did see the presentation before, so I appreciate uh zone 7 coming down and partnering with the city to get this far. Um, I will mention that pro uh the distribution side for the Pleasanton side when we get to that step because I thought we did a lot of improvements interiorly to already balance our pressures throughout our system when we did a lot of the three major emergency water line projects. So, I don't know if we need to dive into it now, but when when you're talking about it, I I didn't hear a new turnout being added in. And maybe that is being added in and that's what I'm missing. But theoretically we adjusted the pressures with the three emergency projects we did and the turnout for improvements. So

so the kind of prepping there a little bit. Yeah. So the Yeah. So when we did the modeling um there was near-term improvements without our wells that we had to do that we had to do. Yep. um those improvements um are are helping us and is is what we are counting on right now without our wells as we go further into buildout. Um we need to do additional improvements on top of those. They are coordinated with those. They do they build off of them to make sure that we can also um get that water. We never did those improvements currently because we didn't know which direction we were going to go.

I gotcha. So, so those improvements exist. They're they're effective and we would build off those as needed to meet future flows.

I'll mention that the residents traveling on Snow Boulevard hope we would do roadway improvements as a connection to the projects because that's on our plate still to do. Uh, okay. I have a few quick questions. I hope um I we we've just been through a rate setting process. I'm sure zone 7's been aware that rates just went into place for our residents. Um, and one of the major challenges that we are dealing with, I'm sure you are as well, is the increasing regulatory elements of all of water, right? So, I'm trying to look for rate stability for our residents long term. Do you have any like would this joint project help address uh that regulatory environment? I know we're talking POS, we're zoomed in on it, but just overall with water.

I would probably defer to, you know, Pleasanton staff to talk about some of the regulations they have now. Um, and I know you had a briefing recently. There there are a lot of new regulations out there for water utilities. I don't see that this project necessarily addresses those. Um, and as far as unthought of regulations from regulators, I I can't I I can't guess at what those might be. Um, but you know, from from I think the known regulatory world, I I think, you know, this project is addressing, you know, everything we know about that.

Okay, I'll take that. Um, Todd, you talked earlier about well size. I think a lot of residents are trying to conceptualize what the impact to a park will be that that you said the size of a small house but I think that's a bit of a misnomer. Do you mind trying to tell us for example Hansen Park if this project went forward? What would residents expect to see at Hansen Park? So, first of all, um all of the well equipment, the pumps, the electrical equipment, the piping, all of that would be housed inside a building. Uh the building would be a single story level building. Um the architecture during design, we would work with planning and and outreach to blend it in. Um, a lot of the times our facilities will look like uh from from the outside will look like a lot of the restroom facilities you see out there. Um, and and even in in size. Um, so in terms of uh impact, it's it's really everything is contained within the building. We've actually talked um with zone 7. We we um zone 7 wouldn't be requiring like fencing or anything. So this this building would be um uh you wouldn't have you could have access all the way up to the building. Um so I would say you know very similar to what you see in a lot of the facilities in the park restroom facilities we try to blend that in.

Okay that's I think much more helpful frankly for the community to understand. Uh my next question is and maybe to either agency, the 3,500 acre feet as council member Tess had talked about the groundwater quota that we have. I am still under the presumption that us doing any project go it alone or zone 7 is still cheaper than the state water project cost for water uh through zone 7. Yeah, we we can answer that. So when we do this the analysis we're doing we're we're also keeping the baseline of what we're doing now. Gotcha.

Um and so you'll get to see that but uh yes um it purchasing water at the wholesale rate which is includes you know all their surface water is is a significant expense and that is the one of the main goals of this project is to reduce the cost of our 3500 acre feet to get it. you know, we'll never get it back to where it was when we were doing five, six, and eight because of PAS and treatment and new wells, but um yes, it's anticipated this is going to be cheaper than the wholesale.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I'll stay with that. And then, uh my last relates to the cost, the $42.3 million is the project cost. So, I presume when I'm hearing you, and I'm just going to maybe put a a pin on it, we're going back to the Brown and Codwell go no go. if go to the baseline not baseline a reduced baseline we're going to be analyzing our portion of this Pleasanton portion of this to that analysis that was done in uh I think it was October 20 23 to know what we're doing next that's the work you're embarking on now correct

correct and and we're we're basically even for our own well project we now have a lot better information um on what it take to do it ourselves. So, we're we're going to update that alternative. Okay. Compare it to this joint alternative. Okay. And then my other question is I noticed a lot of uh material purchase. So, learning from our East uh Pleasanton specific plan process we're under. Are we able to designate the point of sale as a Pleasanton location so that we get the sales tax? We'll make sure we bring that back when we come in April.

Excellent. Okay. Uh, any further questions? Thank you both very much. Any further questions by any council member before we go to public comment? No. Seeing none. Council member Nybert, any further follow-up questions? Can't.

Yes. Yes. Uh, just one question in relation to the cost estimate that was um just discussed. This is a level four estimate according to the classification by the cost engineering association. Uh so uh before people latch on to the number 42.3 million, it's important to understand and correct me if I'm wrong that uh that has a pretty wide um accuracy range minus 30% to plus 50%. uh it certainly you doesn't have the accuracy that we would obtain as we go further in the project and reach um you know final you know basis of design and uh engineering and uh that would be a level one um cost estimate so we're a long way from there and correct me if I'm wrong is that your understanding as well

that that is correct and as as the project advances is through each level of design that that estimate gets more detailed and that level of accuracy gets smaller. Okay, great. Um, that's all I had. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Uh, we'll go ahead and uh now go to public comment. I don't have any speakers on this item, but if you would like to speak on item five, obviously our zone 7 groundwater modeling, it's anformational item. Uh, please approach the podium at this time. Okay. Any online comment? Okay. Hearing none. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the council. This is anformational item. So, any final comments before uh we go? Coun Vice Mayor? No. Thank you. Okay. Council member Nyber.

Yes. Um just briefly to um mention that, you know, I really value our partnership with zone 7. Uh it's been um uh great to work in partnership and reach this stage of uh completing phys feasibility study. Really look forward to the next steps and uh I hope that the coming discussions uh between the city and zone 7 um reach you know an amicable conclusion that we are both very happy with and I have every confidence they will. That's all. Thanks. Okay, council member Ta.

Um well I think that was well said Council Member Nyber. Um, again, I also think that the um partnership is really appreciated and really valued. So, thank you,

Council Member Ryker. I would concur with that. I think that there's a tremendous amount of value in the partnership uh moving forward and I'm looking forward to see what our options are and and how we can make that work for our community uh to best serve our community. Um, you know, it's pretty clear that groundwater is going to be less expensive than importing water. And so working together or or if we divert our ways moving forward that we find ways to to make this work for what's in the best interest of our community. So, thank you all for your work on this.

Yeah. And I'll just uh start by saying thank you very much for zone 7 uh to come down to talk to us and staff for presenting it. Uh, I do hope this turns into a win-win and I appreciate the cooperation we've demonstrated so far. Um, I know zone 7 as well as us want to diversify our water supply. That's something we've been uh pretty focused on as we've been 100% reliant on uh the state water project. So, how we utilize our 3500 acre feet is obviously something top of mind to us. Um, I do hope this achieves the cost savings that we've talked about that we anticipate to come about. Um, as uh the general manager pointed out, when zone 7 saves money, we save money. And so that matters to our rateayers as we've just went through a uh difficult rate paying rate setting process that we would like to have stability in the rates for our community. So, um, yeah, really appreciate it and look forward to the analysis with the Brown and Codwell. So, we're reporting right back to our community of our plan that we embarked on about a year and a half ago. So, all right. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to um that concludes item five. So, we're going to take a quick fivem minute recess before we come back for item six. It is 8:42. So, we'll just come back uh well, a little longer. 8:50. Thank you very much.

Okay. Uh, welcome back to the February 3rd, 2026 council meeting. It is 8:50 p.m. and we're continuing on. We're now moving to item number six. uh receive an update on stakeholder engagement and provide direction on a potential transit occupancy tax toot measure on the November 2026 ballot. Before I begin, staff, I notice we have a lot of people in the audience. If you would like to speak on this or one of the other items, please fill out a blue speaker card and turn them into the city clerk so we can hear your opinion. Okay, staff.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Tonight we are providing an update on our stakeholder engagement regarding a potential transient occupancy tax measure also known as toot or hotel tax for the November 2026 ballot and seeking your direction on next steps. As you know the city faces an ongoing annual structural budget deficit. In August 2025, council directed staff to explore a toot increase and engage with stakeholders to understand their perspectives. Tonight, I'll report back on what we heard during the engagement and seek your direction on whether to proceed with a ballot measure development. This table shows toot rates across Alama County. A few key points. Five of 13 cities are are already at 14%. 10 of 13 are at 10% or higher. The Tri Valley cities, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore, have the lowest rates in the county at 8%. Pleasanton's rate hasn't changed since 1983, over 40 years. We've also seen recent movement. Newark increased to 14% in January 2025 with 80% voter approval. Hayward moved to 14% last August with 72% approval. Toot measures statewide had an 82% passing rate in November 2024, significantly higher than other tax types as Toot is is a tax primarily paid by visitors rather than residents. Over the past several months, staff met with hotel operators representing the full spectrum of Pleasanton's lodging market, including full service properties, select service and extended stay, independent operators, and budget

properties. Here's what we heard. First, no opposition to a rate increase. Feedback ranged from neutral to supportive. No operator indicated they would actively oppose a measure. Second, operators confirmed the market can support 12%. They acknowledged Pleasanton's rate is well below comparable markets. Importantly, operators told us that guests are focused on the average room rate. That's the number they see when they're booking. The TOT and other add-ons come after. Guests aren't comparing tax rates between cities. They're comparing room rates. So a modest toot increase isn't a factor that deers bookings. Third, there was a preference for phased implementation. Operators would rather see incremental changes than a single large jump as it's easier to communicate to guests. Fourth, operators indicated they would not actively campaign either for or against. They accept this as a reasonable adjustment given market conditions. We also engaged with Visit Dry Valley who understands the city's financial situation and has expressed interest in additional funding for tourism promotion. Based on stakeholder feedback, staff recommends a target rate of 12% with phased implementation. Phase 1 would take effect July 1st, 2027, moving from 8 to 10%. That's approximately 1.4 4 million in additional annual revenue. Phase 2 would take effect July 1st, 2028, moving from 10 to 12%, bringing cumulative additional re revenue to approximately 2.8 million annually. Why this approach? It's a single ballot measure requiring only one voter approval. It addresses operator

preferences for gradual implementation and it achieves full revenue potential without requiring a return to voters. The estimated election cost is between 242,000 and 339,000. If council provides direction to proceed, staff will develop draft ballot language for your review. will continue coordination with our regional partners. Dublin has expressed interest in a similar measure and will remain in communication as their process develops. We will develop community education materials and we will return to the council for final approval by June 2026 to meet the August deadline for county submission. including in excuse me in conclusion staff recommends that council direct staff to proceed with development of a toot ballot measure for November 2026 provide direction on a target rate of 12% with phase implementation 10% effective July 1st 2027 and 12% effective July 1st 2028 and authorize staff to return with a draft ballot language for your consideration. And that concludes our presentation and we're here to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I'll just mention for maybe our uh our viewers and and people in the room, the staff report has an extensive amount of detail from California City Finance that went along with the package uh to supplement the immaterial. Okay. Uh because this is an action item, we'll go by standard process of questions, then public comment, then bring it back to council for providing direction. Council member Nybert, you're first on this rotation. Do you mind uh any clarifying questions, please?

Um not too many, but um I did want to um point out or ask about the list of um cities in California that appears on page 61 of the agenda package that you just mentioned, Mr. Mayor. Um, and there are quite a few that as staff pointed out, um, were recently increased, uh, including a couple from, um, our area. So, these are from all over California. A number of them have, uh, well, typically the ranges that we see here go anywhere from 1% increase to about a, you know, 4% increase. And looking down the list, there are only two cities that started from a 10% um baseline. So, uh all these cities started from a uh uh a number that's several percent higher than Pleasanton's and increased it even further. And all of them, well, most of them passed with very significant margins. And uh so I guess having pointed that out, I would um I would ask whether the idea of only raising the toot by 2% in the first year to 10% overall and going to an additional 2% the second year. um whether uh that approach would be, you know, the the efficacy of that approach would um appear more tenable or less tenable than

what some of the operators have suggested. I guess I'm asking for an opinion there. If you could, Council Member Nyberg, could you could you restate the question? I I think I'm not sure if you're asking if we should be considering going higher or if the phased approach is the right way to go at this period, this particular moment in time.

Okay. I guess uh what the phased approach is what I'm asking about. Um certainly the concerns of the hotel years and hotel operators are of concern and we should take them into account. But on the other hand uh are there arguments to be made for um you know going straight to the additional 4% at the outset?

Yeah. Uh it's a good question and I think this was part of the the listening exercise that uh staff had undertaken. The goal was to go and hear directly from uh the hotel uh operators, managers uh in our community. And part of what was acknowledged uh both at the outset and during the conversations is that uh postcoid hotels have not quite fully rebounded uh in the Tri Valley. We're not seeing the same level of hotel tax as we did uh before the pandemic. And so, uh, this this is an effort to be collaborative to to make sure that we can work together. So that, uh, you know, the the the conversation often went something like, um, I'm not thrilled about this, but I'm not going to oppose this either. And I think this was a way for us to collaborate with our hotel partners, acknowledging that there there is a financial need in the city. We want to be supportive of uh of the the rate of change uh that that was acceptable to the the hotel industry and that's why we arrived at the 2% in year one two and another 2% uh the following year approach. Uh so that's the recommendation this evening.

Okay. Thank you. Um I will just simply ask what is the uh expected impact if this were to pass on our structural budget deficits and the overall sit situation.

Yeah. Uh we we'll be presenting our updated financial forecast to the council uh in two weeks time. Uh but what I would say is that uh this doesn't solve the problem but $2.8 $.8 million certainly uh helps us as uh you know obviously it's it's no small amount of money either. Uh we have about a give or take $160 million general fund operating budget. Uh and so um $2.8 million is helpful. It likely won't fully address uh the operational structural deficit that we have. Uh but um certainly putting this forward because we think it uh it starts to move us in the right direction.

Okay. Thank you. I have no other questions. Okay. Thank you very much, Council Member Tessa.

Well, um my questions are are very similar. Um I also question the phased approach. Um I I I guess you've already answered why you're doing that. I just um question whether it's the right way to go. So, um, and my my other question is, um, and I think it just got answered and I think we know, but does this replace the loss of the sales tax measure that we, um, and it's significantly lower? It It absolutely doesn't come even close to replacing that.

Correct. It's uh it the projection at full 12% increase or full 12% a 4% increase from where we are today would be an increase of about $2.8 million per year and the sales tax that we had contemplated at the 2024 election was projecting about $10 million per year. Uh both of these tax options are volatile. they move with the economy. And so, um, uh, you know, we don't want to we don't want to assume that we're going to have all of those dollars. And so, when we get into our financial forecast, we'll talk about how we build in these kinds of, uh, options for the council to consider, but $2.8 million is what we're projecting. Uh, and at the at the full 4% increase in terms of, uh, net new money for the city.

Okay. So, when we do the budget update, um, do we have the opportunity then to revisit the tax measure, what is our time frame on doing that? I

mean, the city council, you all have the ability to uh, you know, if you're not interested in taring this and just having one one straightup approach, if you're interested in re reopening a discussion, that would require a a matters initiate or a vote of at least three three folks on the council. uh you know, we're we're at the point where ballot language has to be at the county uh in August, which means we're sort of backing up from that now uh to make sure that we have our ducks in a row for the hotel tax if the council wants to move forward. We'd have to move pretty quickly. Uh if we were to start to add other revenue measure options into the mix at this stage.

Okay. So, we would technically still have time to do it, wouldn't we? know how much where will we stand with the budget update? Okay. Correct. All right. That's all. Thanks. Okay. Council member Aker,

I have a couple questions here. Um I if we if we agree to increase the toot, uh would there be any financial impacts to Pleasanton residents as a result of it? not not to I mean this is a tax that people who stay at hotels pay uh and so as long as we are not putting our hotels out of business locally which that is not the intent and that's not the expected outcome uh it should not be an imp negative local impact

okay that's what I was looking for um by increasing the hotel tax would we anticipate this to be a factor resulting in fewer stays or customers staying in accommodations in Pleasanton by the tax increase alone. I mean, is that is that a thing that happens out there? Uh it it I I think that it can be if you're uh if you're talking about really, you know, going above what the market can bear, but we're we're generally low in our county. And um in talking with our hotel folks, um you know, I I did not sit in all of the meetings. Uh and unfortunately, our one of our folks who did sit in all the meetings is is out sick tonight. And maybe Melinda can add to this because she did sit in a number of the meetings. My sense is that as I said earlier, most folks feel like this is something that they're not going to champion, that they can be neutral on. They're not but they're not actively looking to oppose it with the understanding that we're all trying to balance different needs right now.

And it's accurate to say that Pleasanton has not evaluated an increase in uh temporary occupancy tax fees for over 40 years.

Correct. and that we currently have the lowest rates in the county. One of the lowest rates, correct? Um, and this is a speculative question. Um, maybe I shouldn't even ask it. Um, any any presumption of whether or not the community may or may not support this? I know we did a a look at the sales tax and got a an idea of what that might look like, but what about the toot or we just don't know?

Uh I'm I can't answer the question directly, but what I can tell you is the reason we provided the uh pass fail information from the last election is because it's a sort of a a gauge of of what's happening across the state relative to hotel tax. We did not poll. We don't intend to spend money on polling for this effort. Uh we would we would organize some information prior to the ballot or to this item being placed on the ballot and then step back and let the community decide. And do you see any downside to increasing the occupancy tax?

Uh no. The staff recommendation is to increase the tax. Um I I believe and this is not this is I I'm not saying that this will happen but I I know that Dublin is looking at this option as well and I believe that Livermore when when the opportunity is right when the time is right for them especially if Pleasanton and Dublin have gone will go as well. I think this is just a trend that um that's happening across the area and you saw Newark and some other cities have recently adjusted their hotel tax as well. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this. Okay. Uh, Vice Mayor, I have no clarifying questions. Thank you.

Okay. I, uh, just have a few as well. So, um, I know you said it in the staff presentation, but I'll just ask again so that it's very clear to our community. The estimated cost to add something to the November ballot is approximately it was 200 approximately 242,000 to 339,000. Yeah. Okay. I know none of us take that lightly. Mayor, if I could just ask our clerk to help to explain that dollar amount relative to what else could happen on the ballot,

please. So that cost is based upon a consolidated uh general election that which typically for us in November includes our election of candidates um the way that it has occurred in previous elections in the county um with a measure that gets with ballots for measures that are ma mailed citywide to all um registered voters in the city. Um typically if we have a candidate um for which a another a ballot would be mailed citywide for um a lot of times that is has an ability to be a combined cost. Um so this contemplates you know a stand if it was just this only um a single ballot measure that would be the standalone cost but typically there is an opportunity here for a consolidated cost if we have other candidates uh for which we are running an election for in 2026.

Okay. So uh you you thank you for that. So I want to make sure I make sure I understand. And so what I hear you telling me is that if we were to have a election, which we know we have an election in November already, correct? Uh by adding a single ballot measure like the toot, we could possibly be uh even more cost effective. Um it may have that opportunity if we do have this election for candidates for a candidate that would be elected citywide. But I will say um that uh the the estimate exists because of the way that the cost structure is is formulated by the county elections office.

I just want to be re really clear. It it really has to do with whether you see a challenger or mayor um because it's citywide. So Joselyn's being very, you know, being very um diplomatic and and politically correct uh in her response and trying to level it up. But but that really it is a citywide local election that allows us to piggyback. If that if if you do not have a challenger, then we would be paying the cost. And so that's not a it it's just the facts. It's how the system works. Okay. I'm sorry. I I just I want to make it really clear. There's no reason to it is the the election rules are the election rules and we have to pay the county what we have to pay the county.

Yeah. Okay. So, we'll move on from that loaded question. Uh so that goes to the next question which is uh obviously I've heard because of ACTC floating a transit measure on the ballot it's going to be a crowded ballot. I know as council member Iiker pointed out we haven't done polling. We don't intend to ask our community for that. So I guess I'm just kind of asking staff to measure the with the wind right our likelihood of success if we were to do this. We staff still recommends going forward.

We we are recommending going forward. Um we we have we have structural issues with our budget. Uh and and we do have a community that appreciates the the services and quality of life aspects of what we do and so we're trying to find ways to bring revenue to the discussion. Uh to your to your question about whether or not this will be successful, we will have a communications push prior to placing on the ballot. So, we'll do our best to put our best foot forward uh around how this impacts local taxpayers and uh and what this kind of um this effort would support in terms of local services. And and when I say local services, I'm talking about all of the things that our general fund provides uh for our city. Uh and I, you know, without being specific, it's it's libraries, parks, police, fire. our general fund uh really is our our go-to uh large funding source and we're looking for ways to to bring more revenue into it.

Okay. Uh and my last question which was right along that was the communications that we're going to be allowed to do and I think you just answered that. We'll get a better understanding of that later on. Okay. Uh are there any additional clarifying questions before we go to public comment on this by any of my fellow council members? Council member Nybert, any further questions? Okay. Uh, with that we'll go to public comment on item number What am I on? Six. If you would like to speak on item number six, please approach the podium at this time. Welcome. You'll have three minutes if we can add three minutes to the clock. All right.

Um, hi. Good evening, uh, mayor, council, staff. My name is Tim Howard. Um, I'm the general manager of the Courtyard Marriott here in Pleasanton. Um, and I I did prepare kind of a a written letter um that I'll maybe share with y'all. Um, and um, try to be brief. I'm not going to read the letter to you, but um, overall I just want to say, you know, I've been in the hotel business since I was 17 years old, over 28 years of experience, and, you know, I certainly understand the uh, position that the city's in. you know, from a fiscal perspective. Um, I've also served as a chairperson for convention and visitors bureau. I've been a commissioner for economic development um before and um president of chamber of commerce. So, I see a lot of the community aspect of what is being considered um and would just hope to maybe add some more um thoughts to this in terms of um a cautioned approach I think would be something I would say. Um transit occupancy tax is a function of multiple things. um not just the percent rate going from 8 to 12, which is a 50% increase, but it's also a reflection of the demand coming into the uh coming into to our city. Um which we've seen continually erode for three consecutive years and as a result of decreases in demand and you know that plays into the business community, right? Office buildings, things like that. Um and the broader economic things that are far beyond us. Um but um long term you push rates down and what comes down with your average rate whether you're paying $200 for a hotel room or $100 for a hotel room um the higher you tax it the lower those rates

tend to get compressed. So the cautionary tale is if hotels can't um charge customers at a rate that they can viably make money in um and pass through this service that they provide um you will see owner disinvestment. um it'll be harder for us to operate our hotels, to employ our locals, to pay our bills, and you know, in the long run, um you'll see that echo through on older hotels such as ours, which is almost 40 years old, constantly needing more capital to keep them up. And so, um I think that there could be more conversation about this issue. Um so, you could learn more about how this works. It's not uh in any way an opposition, but um just something that you could gather some more information. I know I myself was invited to a a listening session. I appreciate the the second call because I think originally it was December 16th before the the holidays and I couldn't attend, but um having that extra conversation made me feel a little bit hurt. So, I appreciate that. And if I can be of a resource for any other future questions down the road, I'm literally just down the road. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay. If there are any additional speakers who would like to address the council on this item, please approach the podium at this time. Any online? None. Okay. We will hearing none. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the council. I greatly appreciate the feedback we received. Council member Nyber, it's your first in this uh item

and it is action item. Um, I fully support the recommendation that has been made before us and u I would I would only um be concerned about the leaving $1.4 million on the table the first year, but I do understand the reasons for a phased approach. So, I have no problem supporting the measure. In fact, I will make a motion to approve the recommendation uh that staff has made. Okay. Anything further?

Um, just that you know, Menllo Park recently raised their rate to 15 and a half percent. So that's that's kind of extreme in my mind. Uh, and we're nowhere near that and having uh, you know, have had an increase in rates since 1983. Uh, and we're the lowest in the county. Um, as as a a citizen who came before the council during public comment uh last year said it's a no-brainer and uh I'll leave it at that.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member Ta. Um for many many years I was team mom on a a couple of different soccer teams and traveling um basketball teams and booked the the rooms and um never would have made a decision based on the um that additional tax And I I don't again the fact that we are as low as we are and have been um I would hope that we would move toward the full um 12% to to going out um to the ballot. So, I would like to second um the motion to ask staff to proceed with development of the toot um ballot measure for November 2026. And um I think that we really have no choice. We know we have serious um deficit issues that um remain given that we did not pass the um half cent tails sales tax. So that's it.

Okay. Council member Iker.

Uh I'm also in agreement with moving forward with staff's recommendation for uh items one through three as they're written. Um I think it's you know the city has not touched this in over 40 years and having some of the lowest uh tax rates on uh for occupancy tax I think it's time that we uh look at this and address that. Um I think we're taking a measured approach at it. We've done some outreach. We've uh heard what the uh hotel years want us to do and we're taking that into account in our actions and I think that's uh that's the pleasant way of doing things. Um that we're we're listening to our community and we're taking appropriate action. So, uh yes, I support this and I think it will help uh address some of the financial concern that we have moving forward. Thank you,

Vice Mayor. Um, no comments. I'm supportive of the motion.

Okay. Um, my comments will be that uh for the hotelers that are commenting tonight or supporting the comments by Mr. Howard, this is step one. The staff will be coming back with the ballot measure uh language and so there are further check-in points along the way. So, uh I will uh and I'm sure my fellow council members would all take you up on the offer to learn more, make sure we're uh reaching out to stakeholders. uh you are a stakeholder in this and your vibrancy is our vibrancy. So, uh that matters. So, I appreciate you coming down uh the lone voice of of concern and I appreciate that. That that actually is very important to hear. Um I'll mention and I called it out. I don't take spending the 240,000 to 338,000 lightly uh to put it on the ballot. Um challenger aside, that shouldn't be a driver here. Um, and I think our community is definitely more aware of our budget now, like I said at our last meeting, than they have been in a long time and the challenges and the balance that we are, uh, walking through with the aging infrastructure and, uh, the forecasted pension obligation. So, uh, I also support the motion as drafted, but again, I'm trying to signal to our stakeholders that the listening and trying to figure this out and see if this is the right path is still upon us. it is not passed with the action tonight. So that you're aware of that and then we'll be coming back with ballot language and an official position at that time at a future date. And uh just to remind the stakeholders, city manager, it's got to be approved to go on by is it June, July or a August? June.

It's an August date. And the city clerk's going to help me with the exact date for the for when the ballot language is due to the um I will be waiting for an administrative deadline from the county. They have not released. Oh, they haven't. But it's August. Yes, it'll be in October. It's in August. And and I think the the goal for us will be to be back with council in late May, early June, so that we're not pushing up against summer holidays. Okay. So, not only for our stakeholders in the room, but also for our community stakeholders to understand and get involved in this process and let us know what your opinions are of how to proceed. So, we appreciate everyone's input. Okay. Any further comments before we go to a vote? We have a motion and a second. All right. Roll call vote please. Council members Nybert

I. Ta I. Iker I. I. Mayor Balch I. The motion passes unanimously.

Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes item number six. Appreciate you staying for that. We are going to proceed uh quickly into item number seven uh which is considering developing a policy for evaluation of development related general plan amendments and reszoning requests and staff take it away. Thank you. So we're just getting the presentation loaded here. All right. Right. So, Ellen Clark, community development director, is going to be presenting tonight and we'll enjoy the discussion from there.

Thank you. Uh, good evening, mayor and city council. The item before you tonight is a request to provide direction to staff on developing a policy for evaluation of development related general plan amendments and resoning requests. Uh the item addresses a trend that staff has been seeing with increasing frequency over the past couple of years uh which is really approaches from property owners and developers uh to the city about whether or not the city would consider uh reszoning their property to allow for a change in use. And that includes both uh from non-residential to residential uses as well as in some cases change of use from one commercial use to another. Uh we've certainly seen the volume and frequency of these types of requests increase and that's really tied uh to I think a general softening particularly in the office market. um increased vacancy postcoid and we have a as you know a very large inventory of of I'll call them at this point aging office buildings built in the 70s and 80s um which are you know many of which are are seeing high vacancy rates and owners are faced with really a very difficult choice between making substantial investment in those properties or um seeking ways to uh find a higher and better use for them um and repurpose them for uses that may be more economically viable. Um so from a city perspective these are typically very significant requests. Um they're legislative actions which mean that means that the city council has a discretion to approve them. Um they generally require substantial time and effort for staff to evaluate and process these requests. And that's a commitment both by a prospective developer and city staff uh before to to to sort of make a determination on whether or not an application has a chance of success to even get to that point of deciding whether to invest in that application. Um so the challenge that we face is that Pleasanton does not currently have a policy or an approach that really sets forth a way in which a developer could

come to us or come to the city council for early consideration of a request. And that really puts staff in a difficult position, puts uh applicants in a difficult position of having a lot of uncertainty at the front end of a process um as to whether or not they can can uh be enable to bring a project forward. Um so for that reason, staff is seeking direction to develop a policy that provides a structured framework for city council review, early review and direction um based on some some basic evaluation of the merits of a proposal. uh things like community benefits and impacts and as well as staff resource availability before moving forward. Um so just to provide a little bit of context uh the ways in which the city has typically addressed these types of requests in the past the primary primary way has really been through um some of the larger scales larger scale resoning efforts around multiple properties uh for residential pro properties uh obviously in the most recent housing element cycle um looking at um mandates from the state to create zoning opportunities for new housing. Uh the city council considered as sort of a a bulk request and and through an evaluative process the resoning of 19 residential properties sort of all at once. Um on a on the commercial side, uh the most recent effort was the Johnson Drive economic development zone. I thought I'd fix that typo. Sorry about that. Um which was about 40 acres of commercial resoning over 12 parcels that set the stage for um the land uses that enabled the the Costco project and the two new hotels in Johnson Drive to move forward. Um the other major way has been um in the past through our two-year work plan process up until the most recent cycle um we had a sort of a a process by which uh developers could sort of introduce a project into that process um present a proposal uh sometimes sort of meet meet a a council member or two or three ahead of the meeting and sort of make a pitch on a project that would come forward and the council would decide if that if that project had had

some merit and could be integrated into the two-year work plan. Uh but that was very much an ad hoc effort without a whole lot in the way of clear criteria um about how such projects were were to be assessed. Um in our more recent two-year work plan uh we're taking a more structured approach uh looking at uh strategic plan priorities um overall work allocation the sorts of mandates that we have to deal with and projects underway. And um in that process, we have incorporated some efforts that would ultimately lead potentially to resoning of properties um but more on a large-scale uh basis at Stoneidge Mall or in the East Pleasanton area. And there's one resonary property uh which is identified as an active priority. Um so fairly limited. Um so the regulatory environment in in the state is a is probably some helpful context as well. Um, as you know, uh, state law limits the scope and discretion available to decision makers around residential project approvals once they are reszoned. And so, um, that discretion is generally limited to evaluation against objective standards. And there's a very limited basis for saying no or denying a project, uh, if it if it basically meets those standards. Um, many projects seek to deploy density bonus laws to wave or to um reduce development standards to allow projects to developed at uh their allowed densities. Um, so what what that's saying is those 19 housing element sites that that were reszoned, once that zoning is in place, the subsequent projects that come forward, um there's really limited opportunity to really kind of shape and mold those. And we've seen some of that frustration come out as we've seen projects move forward uh through that uh post-ousing element process. Um commercial projects a bit less constrained uh more discretion. However, there always has to be a nexus when you're imposing conditions or

modifying a project uh around project impacts, findings and so on. So the uh the counterpoint to that is is legislative approvals. Uh the c the city council has a lot more discretion in those types of applications. Um, and some of the factors that could be considered are things like whether or not the the the proposal would offer a more economically viable use for a project and for commercial properties are potentially seeing reassessment. That can be a factor. Uh, repurpose those those sites for something that might produce more uh more value. Um, it's an opportunity through the project to to shape a project, to do things like change uh perhaps a unit count or or the size, amount of commercial square footage, uh, to to better fit a site or to correspond to neighbor concerns. Um, it's an opportunity to negotiate community benefits and amenities as part of a project, potentially over and above what our municipal code would would require. And often um projects can be um attached to development agreements which are negotiated and again provide certainty on both sides for the developer to have assurance that their project can move forward but also establishes things like timeline timelines uh for uh for project um to proceed um that give greater certainty around development outcomes. So given all of these factors, uh staff recommends, uh developing a policy that would create an early review process for these types of discretionary reszone requests. Um so at a high level, staff is recommending creating a process that would include a regularized intake process. Um ideally at least once a year. It could be it could be more frequently. And that would allow um one or more projects to come to the council in an early review uh workshop format that would be based on a standardized set of application materials, not to the level of a fullyfledged application, but with enough information for to to get a sense of what the project is, uh what it

looks like, um what sorts of um uh what its affordable housing approach might be. um and could also be accompanied by some key technical studies such as say a traffic evaluation just to make sure that we're not going to be um overly burdening our city infrastructure and that a project is producing an appropriate fiscal balance for the city. Um a key part of that would be an assessment of staff capacity. One of the reasons why we are being more disciplined in our work planning process is to try and uh make sure we're right sizing our workload to our our staff resources. Um I certainly recognize our planning staff certainly recognizes that these projects do come with a a burden of of time and effort that are involved. So that staff capacity is really important. And one um one benefit of of this type of a process is is that you can identify the need for thirdparty um outside resources to help to support like a contract planner or engineer to help to support to bring these projects through and supplement our staff resources with those costs passed through. Um, and so the idea would be at that early workshop that the council could essentially authorize an application or more than one application to move forward. It could set a time frame for that if staff is, for example, saying, "Well, you know, six months, we've got a lot on our plate, but we could um start start work on this uh at a at a future point." Or the council could say, "Hey, this is not the project that we really want to see coming forward right now." Um, and and decline or or provide a probably a gap before substantially similar application could be brought back. Um, and I I did want to emphasize really the last point on the slide, which is the early workshop is really it's an authorization to submit. It says you can come in, you can submit an application to the city of Pleasanton. It's not an entitlement. It's not a determination or guarantee of approval um that has to occur through the review process uh SQA and all of the other um important work that needs to be done to determine the uh particular

merits of a project. Um, so with that, uh, staff recommends city council provide direction to staff to draft a policy for early review and direction on these discretionary property reszone requests or and general plan amendment requests, including any additional parameters or direction the council would like to provide. Um, and that would be brought back for future consideration by the by the city council. Uh we'd also suggest that we adopt a fee schedule for these kind of applications recognizing the staff time that would go into processing them and bringing them forward and uh bringing that back at the same time for inclusion in the master fee schedule. So thank you concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Uh we'll go ahead and start with same order but council member Tessa you're the first uh clarifying questions. Yes. Um okay. So decline to authorize submitt being one of the um workshop options. Could we I mean can we really decline um a project a residential project given um even though it's not on our housing element?

Yeah. So uh essentially we can we can accept an application. we just don't have to authorize staff resources. So, you can't tell somebody they can't apply and they can't uh put forward their application, but it doesn't mean that it has to be processed because these are legislative changes. These are changes that require changes to either the zoning code andor the general plan. Okay. Um so if it was a project and we thought hey yeah this is a really great project and um say again residential 200 unit project does that allow us to then remove 200 units off our housing element

that feeds our arena number conceptually you could I mean it would be sort of a no net loss replacement so you would add one and take one away. Um I I'm not sure that's an approach staff would recommend. Um because you're, as you know, you're constantly chasing those no net loss numbers and so taking units out of the inventory might be might be difficult. Uh you'd also have to match those units to the same affordability level and so on in in the arena. So it's not necessarily a one for one. Okay. So we could be just adding to our already inflated Reena numbers.

So So I will I will answer your question really directly, but if you'll humor me for just a moment or just give me a little bit more time. Uh the answer is yes. This is the possibility of adding additional residential above and beyond what the housing element does. What's different about this is that there is a community conversation or a council conversation with community input about the kinds of benefits that could come with that project. So, uh theoretically we would be adding value and there could be commensurate community benefits that could come uh into our community that we don't see from housing element projects because of the recent changes to state law which have turned it into objective design standards and streamlining. This is more of a what I'll say for people who've been around for a while, a traditional process where you're uh you're talking with the developer about uh reszoning property in the community and what kind of community benefits could come in with that application. And frankly, they're putting for that forward on the front end, which is a little different than even what the traditional process was where they'd be negotiated throughout the process. This would be on the front end. they would come, they would make their proposal to the council and the council would say, "Yeah, that sounds like something that we would like to move forward with." Or, "No, we would not or consider this instead."

So, um, we're right now in our sixth uh, Reena cycle. In the fifth Reena cycle, um, Pleasanton achieved 300% of our market rate mandate. 300%. So we didn't just meet arena, we met 300%. So this could in fact would again layer on more units because it would almost certainly be more market rate units um where the shortfall is always the um affordable units. So, I mean, that's what I I have a a great appreciation for value capture of our community benefits. The state has robbed us of our community benefits. They have absolutely robbed us of the value capture of projects that we used to count on in Pleasanton. So, in that respect, this is very appealing. But I just have a lot of concern that we already have met arena numbers that are inflated. We've already put buffer in there. We've added more units and this would add yet potentially more units. Right.

Uh you're correct. What I would what I would say though, the reason we're here tonight is because these these folks are coming to the counter today and the the experience is essentially they come in the door, they have an idea or they have something that they'd like to talk with staff about and there's really no guiding light. There's no guidepost. There's there's good planning principles. There's is this use compatible and appropriate for this area. there's a certain um technical uh there's a certain technical distance that we can go with somebody who's interested in a reszone project, but when they say will the city support this, there's really no way for that planner at the counter to give a clear and concise answer. Uh, and so what we're trying to do is create some clarity and certainty for for you because we don't want it to get all the way through the public process and get to you and you not like it and clarity for them on the front end and for the planners who know, yeah, we have a process for that. We'll be able to give you a uh an elected official that with with a modest amount of application material will be able to give you a yes, no, maybe uh answer in a reasonable amount of time or in a predictable amount of time. So, um it's happening now. uh these folks are coming which is why we're here and we're trying to understand whether or not the council would like to formalize a process to entertain and review these projects or if we would you know if we want to just continue to tell them we're not sure go ahead and submit your application.

I understand all that. I know the concept I like the concept and if we built in here that no net loss exchange where if we embrace a project that wasn't originally on our housing element and adding to our that we would do an exchange then I would think this was a really um I mean it's what we should be doing. But what we shouldn't be doing is um being enforced by the state to um do

a point of order. We're in questions. Clarifying questions, please. So, uh do you have a clarifying question of the material for staff? Well, I think I did ask a couple questions, but it it's a I think a package question. Um so yeah I again um I think that's a problem. But um then the other is this is a general plan amendment. Our general plan expired in 2025. Why are we not doing uh a new general plan and when would we perhaps be doing that?

It's is a really big question. Uh it's an expensive proposition and it is something that is on our uh on our list of projects to consider in the coming years. U the the plan the general plan doesn't technically expire. Uh there are there are uh it they typically have a 20-year time frame. Uh but there are many cities that have general plans that go longer. And as you all know because you've been involved in amending certain segments or um or chapters of the general plan over the years, it's not all 20 years old, but parts of it are 20 years old. So we know we need to update it, but it is what we have to work with until we do that work.

It might be worth adding. Thank you um Jerry. You know, I think just to one of the points in in the presentation, which is once particularly and and I think, you know, maybe just emphasize staff would propose this process for both residential and commercial reszones, not not just residential. Um but as you know once the general plan is amended and once a resa once a residential land use designation is applied that pro that that property owner has a lot of ability just to move forward and come come through with their with their project with with a very minimal amount of review under state housing law. So, I think one of the the positives as as you said, uh, council member Tesa, of of this the legislative process is it does give the city an opportunity to say yes, but we'd like to see more of more open space or more build some, you know, so it's that it's that community benefits conversation that is enabled by the legislative approval, which typically even in a general plan update, you don't have those kind of negotiations because you're looking at a much more macro level and saying, you know, allow for a zone change here and it's done as a as a batch and once that zoning is conferred a developer really has the right then to build typically residential under the densities that are allowed. Okay, one more uh um I saw a lot of mention of the um residential versus the commercial aspect of this. What are we really targeting? Are we really targeting the residential or are we really targeting the commercial? uh both and and I think the reason is that um I'm not sure that it would be appropriate for the city to establish a policy that said we're going to have a a gatekeeper type policy for residential but not commercial. Um that might be problematic from a you know legal scrutiny perspective. So I would say um it's for both. I I just but just to be transparent the majority of calls that I've been receiving over the ca

last year have been about office to residential conversions. That's that's sort of where the market's at in on both sides. The office market is soft and the residential market um especially for ownership housing is is relatively strong. So that's where the market is taking us. Commercial requests have been more limited but we have seen some uh for example the um Steel Wave property which is an annexation property was a resone or pre-zoning request as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Council member Ier clarifying questions please.

Yes. How does the reason or the uh creation of a policy uh how does that help staff? Is that going to is that going to speed up the process? Is it going to slow down the process? What's the overunder on on that?

I think as the city manager said, it it it's really about setting up a a regular setting up a process that's knowable and predictable. Um, and I'm not I don't know whether it's shorter or longer or somewhere in between, but I mean I'll say as a recipient of many of these phone calls and the hav of many of these conversations, it's really tough for me to sit there and say, "Well, you know, it seems like maybe a pretty good spot, but ultimately there's five, you know, council members who who get to to say yes or no to your proposal, and until you get in front of those five council members, staff can't really give you a perspective on whether or not you're you're likely to be successful." Um, and so the early the early review process is an attempt just to create a process that is again structured and predictable and I I would hope give the council the information that that you would want to know about a project coming forward to decide if it's something that is something the city should entertain or or not. It it sounds like it gives us a little bit more control of the process and gives staff a little bit more uh breadth in how they cycle these processes through so they're not getting a bunch of projects at one time that they're having to force through that we can measure this progress in our city out over time or manage what that looks like is what you're trying to

Yeah, I think the workload management piece is a really important one that that one of the I think important considerations for um for staff would be do we have the capacity to take this on and that would be part of the recommendation. Again we can we can start you know two months from now or six months from now or or two years from now because we have these other priorities on our list. So um that assess the assessment of capacity does let us meter meter the work. Um legislative approvals are also much less um driven by you know permit streamlining act and other sort of really shot clock driven uh requirements of a lot of of the of state law. Um so we have more latitude to pace out that work obviously to to deal with them in a timely manner but not to necessarily have a 30-day you know turn it around and and and produce a produce a a review um on a very short timeline.

Okay. What about the economics of this uh new policy? Um how does that work for us as a city and how does that work for say a developer coming in?

Um I think one positive is that uh it lets us bring some of that analysis to you. Um so we call it a fiscal basically fiscal analysis. What are the property tax um benefits? What are the long-term service costs of of of that particular type of development? and you saw some of that for East Pleasanton. We did a little bit of analysis around that. Um so it lets you at least be transparent and understand what's coming. Um the um I'm sorry, what was the part the part B of your for on the developer side or coming into this?

Yeah, I think that's that's a great question because what we hear sometimes from developers is that I can't afford to do that. And often the reason they can't afford to do that is because they paid too much for the land or didn't factor in a particular cost into their development perform. Um so I think to the extent that there's an expectation that for example you will meet the city's inclusionary housing requirement on site 15% you know whatever our requirement is you're going to provide XYZ amenity. um that then enables that developer to understand more fully what their development costs are going to be um as opposed to getting deep into the process and the city saying well what about you know a trail here and them saying well we can't afford to do that so I think it is helpful upfront for a developer to have more guidance about the city's expectation around things that need to be built into the the cost of the project and the cost of the land ultimately that they're acquiring.

Okay. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. Sure. Um, do you have a sense if if we approve this, you know, how many of these we we'd see a year and I know it's asking you to speculate, but I'm wondering about the frequency in which we would need to receive these.

Um, so I did go back through my uh my my notes over the past and I would say in the past six months I've probably I've had conversations with on maybe like seven or eight different sites or different developers who are sort of I'll say looking at opportunities out there. Um we have a we have a and that's and it's really all over the city numbered hosianda and elsewhere a lot of office projects um there's a currently a project on the market uh the Simpson Strong Thai site in on West Los Pacas and so that's being marketed I mean they they don't have they don't have residential zoning today they'd need to go through a zone change so perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to it because I've probably taken six phone calls in the last month and a half just with that very question like h can I you know could Is it worth us pursuing a residential project here? Um, so I would say probably, you know, six, eight, 10 inquiries, not all of them materialize into a into a proposal. Um, and and some, you know, developers have different appetites for risk. Some are really want to know upfront exactly what can be done. Others are a little bit more willing to write into their purchase and sale agreement, you know, a long contingency to maybe test the waters on a on a on a on a project. But most developers would rather have certainty early or more certainty early in the process.

Sure. As a follow-up question to that, you know, let's just go on the Simpson Strong Tie site that that you've mentioned and they've obviously called you and asked you about a residential development. What do you think the time from from the time they conceptualize it and say, "We'd like to try to maybe talk about doing this with the city." What do you predict for a project of that size? the timing and cost for a developer to get these list of items to you. Um, I'd say I mean I'd estimate, you know, like three months. Okay. You know, to pull that package together

and cost estimate. I mean, do they they tell you? I mean, they got to tell you this stuff, right? When they call you, they tell you, I'm going to have to spend this and this and this. What? You know, I I I would hesitate to give you give you a number for that. I mean, I think a lot of it depends on how, you know, what's expensive is to develop plans. You have a have a have a civil an engineer do do those things. Some of that stuff comes out of due diligence. Um, but the idea is that we're not asking for someone to fully render, you know, 50 buildings on a site. It's more about providing a a site plan, architectural concept, project narrative, and then uh some some technical studies to support that. So, it's, you know, hundred thousand maybe in that kind of range.

It's hard to ask you to speculate. I appreciate it. You know, they'd be coming to us with things like density, correct? And and ideas like that. Um, okay.

I think that's the questions I would have. I was mostly talking about the frequency whether it was a once a year thing or we could quarterly you know plan at at the very at the high end quarterly closed sessions or workshops and with the you know option of doing it twice a year or something like that.

Yeah. Uh so uh having lived this in another city it's uh it's it's best case scenario is likely twice a year. It's it's just a lot of churn to to get on a council agenda and get everybody lined up and do all the work that needs to be done. Um, and it'll be open session, open discussions with, uh, developers making their having their conversation with council and making their pitch based on analysis that staff's able to do with the materials that have been submitted.

I mean, I guess it's fair fair to say the idea for the developer is to, you know, get a pre-eread from the council that then they can then rely on to, you know, guarantee they're going to have the same composition when they submit something so they kind of know know what they're headed towards. Okay, that that is the goal. The the goal is to to have the council look at the application, give uh give direction and uh and and to authorize proceeding into the process to then let them know what their the expectations are from the outset. Sure. All right. Great. Thank you. Those are my questions. Okay. Uh Council Member Nyberg, clarifying questions of staff.

Yeah. Thank you. Um so is it correct that the a gap was identified in the process? Actually uh no process existed and this gap is causing concerns and problems potentially and this is a proposal to put in place a formal process a structured process that would address address that gap and enable more efficient workflow. Uh is that is that correct? That was an excellent summary. Yes. Oh, okay. Wonderful. And would this be a high bar for developers to meet or not so high bar?

You mean in terms of the amount of materials to prepare or um what's Yeah. standard application materials and uh you know the sort of thing it takes to prepare for one of these workshops.

Yeah. I mean our goal would be to find strike a balance between enough information to make an for the council to provide some informed input on it. Um so we would want to but but you know we're not asking for someone to submit a full vesting map package you know full improvement plans that really is a lot of work. So it's at balance. We have um today uh called preliminary review process and it actually is quite is would be something along those lines. Um currently we we don't charge for that process at all. So so it's uh it's this freebie and so we you know but it does and it's about that level at sort of you know concept level site plans um you know landscape plan potentially something like that. Um so not not a huge amount of information but enough to make an informed decision.

Okay great. Um I have no further questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh I just have a few quick ones which is and I think council member Iiker was on what I was thinking which is we've got uh per your prior slide 20% vacancy in class A office space 16% in class B. So presumably they're going in for a property tax reassessment for an impacted or uh uh impaired asset. So we're losing property tax on that. And so potentially this could be a higher and better use for at least our property tax development uh basis for us. Obviously housing which is potentially the last stop, but uh thoughts on that?

Yeah, you're jumping ahead to two weeks from now with our forecast assumptions, but you're bang on. Uh we're seeing reassessments happening in the community. I I I think the um the the only piece that's um there there is a there's sort of a where we are near-term perspective on this and then there's what do I want our community and our land use mix to be over time and and there's a balance and I think there are areas where we want to try and capitalize and and you know reinvigorate and there may be areas where we want to hold and preserve to to allow for that in the future and I think that's what our our application package and our our recommendation to council will be able to sus that out. But to go back to your original question, 100%. There's things that are that are withering and that that they could that that could be higher and better use serving the city in terms of property tax and maybe other uh revenue.

Okay. Um and then to Council Member Tessa's comment, we can't unentitle something that's already been entitled for residential housing in the housing element and entitlements an entitlement. So that would be a taking if we were to try to uh move around the zoning or something like that once we've already entitled a project for a housing.

Uh yeah, I mean so well Dan maybe you can you can chime in but you know we we can modify zoning and change and change use. Um however under housing law then you have to you know substitute those units for elsewhere in the city. So, um, but yeah, then you might you might get some agre an agrieved property owner who said, "Hey, you you told me, you know, two and a half years ago, I could do housing and now you're saying I can't anymore." Like, what what happened here and why why me? for example, you know, potentially sets them up for a claim of uh uh of a taking

because you've you know, the c the council made an affirmative decision to reszone those properties for housing and made made findings to say they were suitable and sudden and and to to then determine those are no longer suitable would be an interesting policy discussion, I guess. Okay. And then my last question, if you could move back a few slides, the uh material to be submitted. Yeah, right here.

I think this is it. Let me let me ask you this. Uh, and maybe it's the one in the staff report. I have it a little bit easier on the staff report. In the staff report, we've got traffic impact assessments. Um, traffic elements. What I'm a little concerned about is if a project modifies over time, and I'll call it, you know, good money after bad, for example. because when we've done those preliminary workshops back in the day and it's been a while since I've sat on planning but we used to you know I'll call it work to collaboratively to find a project that would fit in with the city which may not be their initial version right so a housing excuse me a traffic impact on an initial plan that they come in with may not and in many times may modify if they if they find out they have to comply with the ICO uh I I'm just trying to be very careful what we ask for on that initial work plan given we know it will likely change, right? And so I just I have seen too many projects change from what a developer or applicant thinks is their project day one go through a workshop and then it's it's a better project typically for our city. Comments on that with what we're asking?

I think I think that's a fair point. you know that that projects typically through the development review process do get do get modified and and you know we often have projects um uh include mitigation so intersection improvements or traffic signal you know there's there's ways in which a a project can address its traffic impacts um I think we included this one because or that idea of traffic impact because that it tends to be the obviously the number one question that comes up is isn't this going to cause all sorts of impacts to our um traffic um our in our our street network. Um, you know, one interesting thing about these types of projects, the projects are coming through is there's already something on those sites generating some traffic, right? And so the the patterns might be a little bit different, but um you know my expectation is that in most cases that change in use is unlikely to you know to cause a really significant impact because there's already traffic sort of generation built into our traffic model around that site based on an existing office use um you know generating x number of trips a day or or whatnot.

Uh sorry my computer clicked off. Uh the beauty of not paper. Uh the second one to that if I may uh is utility capacity and here's just where my caution is right if you as a as us as a city the royal we here uh said you have to provide sufficiency of power and you need a letter from PG I see that as a burden right even though you don't need a P gen letter of sufficient capacity uh you don't need to deliver that until several years on right because the project will not be produced so So I just I'm trying to make sure I understand when staff saying these technical documents that they want. Some of them seem a little higher of a burden than I personally would think we would need to just give a go nogo decision. Right. So is that something that in a motion we could just say you re-evaluate which ones are included and so we can

I think we can look at that question in a bit more depth as we develop the policy and you know there might be some thresholds for example about you know if the project doesn't increase the daily trips overall that there's you know you don't need to do the study and you know you make a good point which is that usually through the development review process either the project gets modified you identify you know for utilities downstream improvements and it's it's just a question of of implementing those and that can be actually be helpful for developer, right? Know that you've got to do a pipe up sizing and that's going to cost you some money in your project. Um, so that those are the sorts of things that do tend to get built a little bit into our early review regardless. Um, but I I take your point which is you may not want to get sort of um sort of blight a project with an assumption that might actually be mitigable or or evolve over time. and and uh to that point uh and we're in the clarifying questions point, but uh I worry that they would become married to a design that we do not like. Right. So, okay. So, uh that concludes the clarifying questions. We're going to open it up for public comment. Uh if you would like to speak on item number seven, please approach the podium at this time. Don't all get up at once. Anyone online? Hearing none. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the council. Council member Ta, you're first. Um, so you were saying that we we did we do have the ability staff wouldn't recommend it.

Thank you. Um we do have the ability even if staff wouldn't recommend it to um under the concept of no net loss pull something as we add something um a project by doing that. Um because we have we are limited to how many cycles for a a a site to be viable and as a Reena project it if they just sit on there and stay through several cycles they no longer get credited toward Reena. Is that true? It used to be that it was a couple cycles. Now, isn't it just one cycle?

Yeah, it's two it's still two cycles. There's some additional um streamlining that you have to allow for once a project has been in been in the housing element for one cycle, I think. So, the the it shifted a bit over time, but I believe it's still two cycles. it it can I I think I I'm sort of processing this because we're we're just sort of talking it through now, but the idea of of taking an existing housing site at a set density with affordability levels built into it and then trying to mix and match it or swap it with something else. Um, you know, my my expectation and what I what I assume is going to happen with a lot of these sites is that they will be very different looking projects than what the housing element would potentially bring to us because objective design standards, minimum densities and, you know, parking limitation, all the things that have come with the housing element wouldn't necessarily directly apply. And so I I hear I understand what you're trying to do. I'm not sure it's going to be practical with the kinds of applications that would be coming forward. They're not going to try to mesh up with our ODS and uh and parking requirements and things like that with with something that is a discretionary reasonzoning application. I I but I understand what you're trying to do. I just don't think practically it's going to be as straightforward as you might want it to be or you know what you're trying to achieve. We we have certified housing element and if we can't if we can't keep what we have, we're we're going to be we're going to have compliance issues with HCD and we're also going to have um just practical issues with the project we're trying to approve on a more flexible basis because we're trying to make it look like or fit like the thing that

we're swapping it with if we were trying to swap. I I really understand what you're saying. I'm still going to explore this. Okay. So, the if if a site at the end of our cycle was was not looking like it's going to produce, it's not going to happen. And so, we took the opportunity to pull it in because we have another project that comes in and can slide in and kind of take its place. then that site um kind of goes out of the reno rotation and can come back later and be credited. Yes.

So you would un I'm sorry un undeson it and then reszone it on the next um housing element or two housing elements later. We've got some sites that have been on for a couple of cycles. Right.

Correct. I mean, I think you have to bear in mind also that when the state is reviewing our housing element, they have a lot of criteria about which sites are selected and how we justify them. And so, we would have to be able to tell that story in a in a credible way to say why the site that didn't develop over two housing element cycles and five more years have passed or eight more years have passed and we're bringing it back. what what in the circumstance has changed that now makes that site viable in the eyes of of of the state. Right? So this the state is they don't they want real sites and they want sites that can feasibly develop. So, we just have to be cognizant of that review and and if you're going to do something like that that there's a again a sort of credible story to be told about what's changed in the circumstance to have zoned it, unzoned it and reszoned it and and make that site be one the state would accept into our inventory.

Right. I understand that. Thank you. So the um through this um early review again if a project comes in gets gets approved gets built we that is a eligible reena numbers that becomes those units become eligible for arena if we haven't met um that category correct those units would be um counted in our annual reporting and and count against our arena obligation,

right? And because we have an ordinance of 15% um affordability um one way or well they they could fee out and not produce. So that that is something that you could make a criteria uh when you're looking at what this you know what the city council wants from these applicants. you could make it clear that building on site just just as an example. It's it's one example. There's a lot of different criteria you can use to evaluate whether or not a project should be supported. Um but you you could create the expectation that sites that units are built on site through this discretionary process.

Can we though? Yes. Because city attorney didn't we just go over this that one it's not it wasn't 3:30. was a different um piece of legislation. But I think when you're dealing with a legislative approval, you do have discretion on on what you want in that.

And and we have um as you know, recently updated our our inclusionary zoning ordinance to be a lot more stringent about the circumstances in which you can request to fee out. So we had a rather weak ordinance uh previously that sort of allowed that for an option or on request almost. Um, and so that um I'm not saying it's not saying it can't be granted, but it's very clearly at the discretion of the city council to allow for someone to to fee out or do something different to to um not build the on-site units. The bar has been raised significantly in the ability to do that.

Okay. Um well, I I I like the concept. I like this um concept. I I do think that I I would really hope that we would Well, I know I won't get support. So, um I I will say that I I do like I really, you know, if we can get a little value capture back, um gosh, that would really have a lot of um value for the community. So, um I would um I would mo move to uh support staff recommendation.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Council member Aker, I think it's uh good that staff has identified the issue and has come up with a plan to address it. Um, from my perspective, I think we should move forward with uh having staff draft a policy and develop proposed fees for processing this. So, that's my my perspective. Is that a second? That's a second. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'm supportive of the idea. I I understand this came before the council in the past and wasn't wellreceived. I cannot for the life of me imagine why. Um, but you know, working well and giving early direction to avoid staff having to give, you know, to do the best they can to not give an opinion about what five people might think in the future, uh, is a good thing. So, I'm supportive of the motion. Okay, Council Member Nybert,

thank you very much. I like the idea of value capture early in the process um by you know in the form of creating community benefits and getting specific about those benefits early on providing clarity and certainty to both the city and developers and um also the potential cost recovery elements in um you know the master P schedule. So I support the motion. Thanks. Thank you very much. Uh staff if I can just ask a clarifying question. Do we need to modify the motion to address the issues of the technical documents required or that will be something you can do in the policy?

I would yeah I'd recommend uh let staff look at that uh scope and we have a there's another city that that does has a similar I'm not saying we would we would copy their policy exactly but it has some good I think a good starting point maybe to look at what they do and and talk to their staff about what makes sense in terms of that that kind of analysis. Um but yeah we can bring bring that that back in the policy itself.

Okay. Uh yeah, I comments have already been made. I think it's excellent to have a process so that uh we have some reliability, some u ability for staff to be able to have clarity on it and process applications accordingly and as council or vice mayor Gatos mentioned uh not having to put staff in the decision to see where they are trying to predict the future of five council members. So appreciate the clarity on the process. Okay, with that we have a motion. Just ask one more question. Yeah. Council member Tesa,

um you're referring to this as early review. I know, um colleagues in other cities I've had conversations with that they have uh that we had a discussion about a first look and I know I brought it to the city manager that is this similar to the first I mean it's similar clearly to the first look. How is it different? Is it the same policy?

It goes by a number of different names in different communities. um gatekeeper, first look, early review. It's it's got a it's it's the same idea. Council weighs in early. Project goes into the process once it's been vetted and and authorized by council and then it comes back to council for final review, right? Okay. That Yeah, we we did have this discussion. Okay. All right. I'm good. Okay. Uh we have a motion made and seconded. Uh roll call vote, please. Council members Ta I Aker Hi. Gatos I Nybert I. Mayor Balch I. The motion passes unanimously.

Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes item number seven. We'll proceed with the rest of the agenda as expeditiously as possible. Matters initiated by council. Are there any matters initiated by fellow council members at this time? Yep. Yes. Mr. Mayor, if I could just interrupt. I'm sorry. I do need to leave the meeting at this point uh for an obligation. So um I will do so and my apologies to everyone else there. Thank you and be safe. Okay. Please note for the record council member Nybert has departed the meeting clerk and uh yes council member Ta.

Okay. Um, we I'm sure all saw the article that um came out in the weekly uh another economic vitality follow-up um article and I would um if you haven't read the 177 comments um on that uh Facebook the Pleasanton Weekly Facebook page, I would suggest us doing so. Um because of that my um I I had already brought a question about um what having a discussion about what could be done about um long vacant sites. And I mentioned it as a uh vacancy tax because that is um one option, but there are many options and I've looked at a lot more and certainly of that 177 comments. Our community has reached a point we're not we're we're not going in the right direction in our downtown. We're losing more sites and there are some sites that have been vacant for so long. There is opportunity that doesn't have to be a vacancy tax does not have to be a punishment but can be more of an incentive. There are many possibilities and I would like again to ask to have a discussion about it. 77 comments pretty unanimously saying

um something needs to be done. And um like again I some of the research that I have done since the last time I brought it forward has identif I've identified lots of really I think positive ways to incentivize the um concept being a carrot as opposed to a stick. Um there's um opportunities to um do kind of a phased approach in um offering incentives but then um you know nudging a little more along the way with a goal of um activis activism instead of um a punitive Um and I would again like to ask if there is support to um to have that discussion a discussion.

Can I ask a point of order? What specifically are you suggesting we talk about? Um I'm having trouble distilling like the action item you want to put on the

Right. Well, I'd like to discuss alternatives for um uh downtown ACT action on downtown vacancies. Um and again I I don't see it um the vacancy tax I think is the end of the line after a lot of other um well yeah so a discussion I I think other people and staff would come up with a lot of um create creative I I think our PDA would be part of that discussion. Um,

okay. So, we we need to it's not agenda. So, so, uh, city manager, I recall council member Iker bringing up a matter related to the downtown economic vitality as a matter initiated a few meetings ago. Uh, and you had asked for us to wait until the staff was ready for workload. Could you just remind us of what that was and when? Yeah, we're we're planning a workshop with the city council to review council priorities, council council projects essentially, uh to have council weigh in. And are we March 3rd or March 17th? March 17th, it'll be a workshops. I think we're starting early that day. I can't remember if it was 4:00 or 5:00. Uh but the idea is to to to once again go through the projects and priorities uh so that we're all clear on what we're doing and what we're not doing right now around Um well it it it touches every department but I think community development is particularly impacted right now.

Okay. So uh I believe council member Iker had and I don't want to put words in your mouth. You're sitting right here but I think he had asked about downtown economic vitality in that as a matter initiated and that was something where you said we could prioritize it at that time. Is that correct? Yeah. The preference would be to to flesh out. We're going to present to you the things that we're doing. We'll present things that are on the list and we'll see if you want to add anything as a council at that time so you see the whole lay of the land while we're talking about what we're doing and not doing.

Okay. So, with that clarity, council member Tessa, do you want to restate the action that you're trying to initiate? Well, I I am trying to initiate a discussion of um alternatives for um um mitigating downtown vacancies.

Okay. Does the workshop as the city manager outlined on the 17th of March work for you as it worked for Council Member Aker to wait? I I I don't I mean I think the priorities getting it on the priority after a discussion whether after council has decided that there there are alternatives that they are interest we are interested in exploring. I don't really see it that the 17th is not putting a discussion on there is not really what we're looking at. It it would have to be uh it would have to be um you would at that meeting suggest that we add something like um you know an evaluation of alternatives to address vacant vacant buildings in our downtown. And at that point um we would come back with a reshuffleling of the work plan to be able to work that in. So this is going to be a two-step process. There'll be a workshop discussion which will then come back into a just like we did the last time. We'll workshop it, get your input, and then we'll come back and formalize it. And when we formalize it, it will uh become a work plan item, and we would go from there. the the the the issue that we have right now is um you know there's we we could write you a memo on this but in terms of an actual making it a work plan like making it something that we go out and do in the community. We can it can be an academic exercise but I'm not sure that's what you're looking for. I think you're looking for setting up a program and um I think we're going to even to do the academic e exercise. I don't have planners right now who can do that with East Pleasanton and some of the other

things that are going on. So my suggest my suggestion to make Kay is that the 17th that staff have an item for the downtown because economic vitality has already been brought up by almost every count I think every council member at this point and we can then prioritize it on the 17th as if there's support and go from there for staffing resources so that there's resources behind the goal. Correct. if that works for my fellow council members. Uh, and I I'm kind of asking because I think all of us are in the same uh desire of a vibrant downtown. Sure. Can I add something? I please.

I um I think that's a good idea. I also will note that, you know, at the event we all attended this morning. I met a new employee for the city whose job included the term economic, although I can't say the other words of the job title because I can't remember them right now. But that person seems to be newly arrived. Welcome to the city of Pleasanton. There you are back there. Sorry I didn't recognize you. Um and so I think we're moving in the right direction and I I see that you know to distill what council member Test is saying. I think we have you know specifically if we're going to agendaize vacancy tax, active ground floor use or mills act or something to start making some movement. We're going to need to be specific about what we're doing. um you know agendaizing talking uh isn't productive and so uh you know that's that stuff can happen offline but I think on the 17th I think we'll with the five of us in one place we'll get an idea about what their support for moving forward so you know I'd like to see what you know our new employees are suggesting and you know get that on the ground and see what moves forward so at that time we can you know have a discussion together so

yeah well we can't offline have a discussion because Brown act etc. But okay. Yeah, that's fine. Let's let's see what we can do on the 17th. Okay. You you suggested a memo. What would that memo be? You know, this is the I would like to understand and I I'll I will follow up with you to understand what options you're you're you're considering. Um you mentioned some carrot options. Um yeah, if if there are things that involve investment, uh then I just want to make sure that we're starting to think about those things relative to the budget. So March 17th helps us with that as well. Okay, we'll talk. Okay. All right, that's fine.

Okay. Any additional matters initiated by any of my fellow council members at this time? Seeing none, uh we'll move on to council reports, brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended. Vice Mayor, he's Oh, sorry. I still think that's Jeff. I have uh one thing to report a stop waste meeting on January 28th. Uh and that's all I have. Okay, Council Member Tessa.

Um, yeah. Let's see. I uh um When was our Okay, there we go. Um I Oh, I know. I did um I participated in the point in time count. Um that is um uh going through um Pleasanton. I I think we had four teams um counting our unhoused individuals and I've been wanting to for several years to have that opportunity and and I got to do that. Um, I also attended a uh Cal City's policy committee in Sacramento. Um, it was I I thoroughly enjoyed it. Um, there was a there were a couple of um I think one was a city manager and one was a city council person from another city. They did a presentation and basically it was saying um cities need to unite and stand up to um the um abuses and uh from the state and I I mean they were singing my song on that one. So I found that really refreshing that there are um new and different voices that are starting to say this has just gone too far. Um then I um attended the what was it the breakfast at Palm event. What was that correct?

Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King. That was the Martin Luther King breakfast. That was the Martin Luther King breakfast. I had a loft meeting, an iGate meeting. Um I stopped by the um community outreach utility um it was it was really nice. There was a lot of um support from our operations team to help um indiv residents sign up for the utility discount, the water discount. um did the interview for um what was that? The interview that we did, we all did. Anyway, another LFA meeting um did the this morning the chamber um at the firehouse mayor spoke um installed the new um uh board for the for the chamber and I think that's it.

Council member Aker for the sake of brevity I'm going to kind of rip through this. So these are all the meetings I've attended between uh now and the last council meeting. So the league of California city's tax and revenue committee meeting. I attended three loft meetings. One's an ad hoc meeting, one's a project and services meeting and the other is a regular loft board meeting. Uh I attended a couple meetings regarding Pleasanton connects a collaborative between workday and the city of Pleasanton. I attended the three valleys community foundations Dr. Martin Luther King fellowship breakfast. Uh I attended uh a meeting with the iGate or uh who are functioning as the city's organizational assessment team and I attended the state of the Pleasanton chamber this morning.

Okay. Thank you very much. Uh I will skip a few but Ava community energy meeting on the 21st of January. A couple of other parts there you'll start to see notices that your bill is changing and they are dealing with something called integrated resource planning which is the future uh uh uh power generation and data centers are are really a major problem or challenge to estimate. On the 26 2nd of January, ACTC met so that everyone knows in our community, they are going to be opening the lanes. They they anticipate opening the lanes on southbound 680 to open approximately mid to late February. They will not be tolling because PG has a delay and even the county cannot get Pen to hook it up. So, the fee will likely start to occur later in summer, but they've chosen to uh open the lanes uh because they're done. They're just waiting for power. On the 24th, I want to give a shout out to our Pleasanton Blair Gallery, Fergus City had the Burns Supper. Actually, a very fun event, a great community there. On the 26th, the Martin Luther King breakfast. And then also on the 26th on my fifth attempt, I made it to the US Conference of Mayors winter meeting in DC. But just for my fellow council members, I did bring material home that I'll uh ask the city to distribute. Aging infrastructure, rising costs with inflation, public safety, mental health, housing affordability, hate with immigration and ICE challenges, and all of that with the mantra of filling a pothole isn't a political issue. So I thought they did a really good job. And then this morning, Pleasanton stated the chamber event, uh, which was always fun. With that, we are now moving to the newly section, I almost skip over, the city manager update. All right. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, council. Uh, tonight I'm

going to start by recognizing a few really uh, notable personnel updates. Our Liverour Pleasanton Fire Department command team had several promotions and I want to call attention to uh Steven Lond and Anthony Berdicelli who were both promoted to battalion chief as well as Curtis Dicki and I want to it says was formally and I would almost say was finally. Uh Curtis has been uh in an acting deputy chief for almost a year and a half and he has been promoted formally to uh to deputy chief. So congratulations to those three folks. Uh, thank you to Vice Mayor Gatos for calling attention to Abraham Selenus, who is our new economic development manager. Abraham waited here tonight to uh for his introduction. I don't know if Melinda wants to say anything uh tonight or if we're just going to let it roll, but uh welcome welcome Abraham. Uh we're really looking forward to to working with him and um second day on the job. So, he's here tonight uh to to see the council in action. Uh board and commission recruitments is coming. Uh we've got uh city commission and committee membership recruitment. Uh I I want to I'll just really briefly circle back on what happened earlier this evening. We are in the process of revamping that process. I would encourage people don't be discouraged. Uh uh you know everything goes through cycles and we're we're at a point where we're we're about to uh kick it into high gear with our committee and commission participation engagement and um I just appreciate everyone being patient. So we have boards uh open right now. bike ped trails committee, energy and environment, library, parks and recreation. Uh we've also talked about some of the regional things that are happening. The Ultimont Education Advisory Board, Altimont Community uh monitor committee as well as the Alama County Paratransit Advisory and Planning Committee. So all of these details are available on the city's website, and you can always talk to our very accessible city clerk, uh Joselyn Quang. So that's that piece. Uh, I'm going to finally

wrap up with a couple of upcoming cultural celebrations that are uh really uh important in our community. The Lunar New Year celebration will be Saturday, February 14th from 1 to 3:00 p.m. at the Senior Center at 5353 Boulevard and we'll be celebrating Black History Month. Uh the celebration will take place on Saturday, February 28th from 1:00 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Pleasanton Library at 400 Old Bernal. I'm going to wrap up uh by saying um thank you to our public works folks and our um our customer service folks who helped with a water discount assistance day last week. We had one-on-one support for 89 residents with a strong turnout and I want to continue to invite people to engage with us on this topic. If you if you believe that you need help with your water bill, uh we are we're offering a 30% discount for folks who qualify. It's on a rolling basis and you can visit pleasantwater.com if you want more information about that. So that concludes my remarks for this evening. Thank you again for the opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Vice Mayor, can you take us out? Thank you. The president city council adjourns this meeting with a tribute to our nation's men and women serving in the military and with gratitude for every United States veteran who has bravely answered the call to service. Further, we wish to honor the memories of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in conflicts both past and present in defense of our country. Thank you very much. We are adjourned.