City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to your Pleasanton City Council meeting. Today is April 21st, 2026, exactly at 7 o'clock. And if I can uh please ask everyone to rise for the pledge of allegiance. Vice Mayor, will you lead us? Thank you. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Well, that was a quick draw. Roll call, please. Council members Iiker, present. Gatos, present. Nybert, here. Ta here. Mayor Balch, present. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have a few quick announcements for everyone. Uh the first I would like to mention is uh a congratulations to Mr. Chuck Deckert and all of our committee and commission members. We had a appreciation for them and we appreciate their service to Pleasanton and the residents. Secondly, I'd like to say thank you and congratulations to both our Foothill and Amidor we the people teams. Our Foothill We the People team just won the 2026 National We the People competition. And my third announcement, which is uh a real kudos to our city staff, economic development team, and community development, is we have the Pleasanton playbook available, which highlights how to open a business in our community in a quick, simple guide. So, I just wanted to call that out. With that, we're going to go to agenda amendments. Are there any agenda amendments by staff?

Thank you, mayor. Just one amendment this evening. Item number 24 on the agenda which is an appeal uh has been withdrawn by the appellant and so item 24 is being removed from the agenda and will not be heard tonight. Thank you. All right. Any agenda amendments by my fellow council members at this time?

No. Okay. So, seeing uh that the only agenda amendment is item 24 is hereby removed and the rest of the agenda will proceed as posted. We're going to move to the consent calendar. Items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion of the council. If discussion is required, that particular item may be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered separately. Do we have any questions on the consent calendar by my fellow council members at this time? Vice Mayor, no. Council member Nybert, no. Council member Tesa, no. Council member Gatos or Aiker, sorry. No. And I'll make a motion to approve it. Uh, I have to go to public comment first, please.

Okay. Uh, I don't have any comment cards for the consent calendar, items 1 through 17. If you would like to speak on the consent calendar or any item on tonight's agenda, please fill out a blue speaker card, they're located outside on the credenza, and hand them to the city clerk. If you would like to speak on the consent calendar, items 1 through 17, and haven't filled out a speaker card, go ahead and please approach the podium at this time. Hearing none. Seeing none, we'll close public comment on consent and council member Iker. I'll make a motion to approve it. I'll second. Motion made and seconded. Any comment before we proceed to a vote? No. All right. Roll call vote, please. Council members,

I. Ta. I. Gatos. I. Nybert. I. Mayor Balch. I. The motion passes unanimously.

Excellent. In a 25 item agenda, we're now on to item 18. This is the portion of the meeting that's some of the best to recognize some of the most amazing things in our community. And our vice mayor is going to take us away. So the first item is number 18, presentation of a proclamation de declaring April 19th through 25th as National Crime Victims Awareness Week. Vice Mayor, thank you. The city of Pleasanton proclaims that this week, April 19th through the 25th of 2026 as NA National Crime Victim's Rights Week. What we find is that whereas more than 26 million people become the victims of crime each year. These crimes impact family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. And whereas the Alama County District Attorney's Office Victim Witness Assistance Program was the first program established and it was established in 1974 and has been dedicated to ensuring the rights of crime victims and their families by raising awareness, providing services to aid in their recovery from the emotional, psychological, social, and economic impact of crime as they reclaim their sense of safety. And whereas in 1984, the Crime Victims Fund was established by the Victims of Crime Act to provide a permanent source of support for crime victims and services and compensation, especially for victims of crimes that don't have independent means. In 2025, the Alama County DA's office victim witness division provided over 3,198 services to more than 305 crime victims in Pleasanton, including but not limited to child victims of violence and sexual abuse, stalking victims, survivors of homicide victims, crimes against elders and dependent adults, sexual assault, domestic violence, robbery, and other crimes. Be it resolved that the Pleasanton City

Council does hereby proclaim April 19th through 25th, 2026 as National Crime Rights Week and reaffirms their the commitment to respect and enforce victim's rights this week and all through the year. There are four members of the Alama County District Attorney's Office here this evening. Um, Miss Tanya Jacobs, Anastasia Francis, Jennifer Melo, and Stephanie Maroen. And as a 20-year uh veteran of the Alama County DA's office, I can assure the folks here that I've spent countless hours uh especially with Jennifer Melo at kitchen tables uh in rooms in the community, in courtrooms uh fighting for justice and supporting people. And we're happy to have them all here. And I'd invite uh Tanya Jacobs up to say a few words and and afterwards we'll take a picture with everyone just down here. But, Miss Jacobs, thank you for being here and and uh we'd love to hear your comments.

Welcome. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor, council members, city staff, and the members of the public. My name is Tanya Jacobs, and I serve as the victim witness advocate with the Alama County District Attorney's Office at the Victim Witness Division. I'm honored to be here this evening on the behalf of District Attorney Ursula Jones Dixons, who has served as Alama County's District Attorney since her appointment by the Board of Supervisors of February 18th, 2025 to accept this proclamation recognizing National Crime Victim's Right Week. Our victim witness advocates work closely with the crime victims and their families as they move through the legal process. We help survivors understand their rights, keep them updated on their cases, prepare for court, and provide support during some of the most hardest times that they may face while including testifying. Our advocates also help survivors complete and submit California Victim Compensation Board or Calvcb applications as they can access important support for counseling, medical expenses, lost wages, and relocation and other crime related expenses. In 202025, our office helps survivors secure more than $2 million in Calvcp support. Behind every Calvcb application is a person or family member seeking stability, healing, and a path forward. That is the reason why our work with the victim the victim witness um office is more important and it matters so deeply

alongside the care and support offered through the family justice center and the trauma recovery center at our office. Together these resources help survivors find support, begin healing, and move forward without having to face that situation alone. National Crime Victim's Rights Week is an opportunity to recognize the resilience of survivors and to reaffirm our shared commitment to standing with them every step of the way. This proclamation is a meaningful reminder of our shared commitment to survivors. It also reflects district attorney Jones Dixon belief that victims and witness of crime deserve to be heard, supported, and treated with dignity, compassion, and respect. Thank you for standing alongside District Attorney Jones Dixon, survivors of crime and their families for recognizing the importance of National Crime Rights Week. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the work you do. We will take a photo with the council here. All right. We have you stand on the little trap door. Oh, trap door.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you so much. Don't bring donuts. Okay, just shift these real fast. That completes item 18. Item number 19, presentation of a proclamation declaring April 2026 as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month.

Vice Mayor, and if I may, I do have a public speaker of this, so I don't I think it's the proclamation recipient. We'll see where Okay.

Thank you and welcome. The city of Pleasanton proclaims April 2026 as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month. Whereas enriched by the diversity of its residents, the city of Pleasanton takes pride in supporting individual religious freedoms for all and is strengthened by the contributions made by the many diverse religious and cultural traditions of its residences, including those who practice Islam. And whereas Alama County is home to over 90,000 Muslims who make innumerable contributions to the cultural, political, and economic fabric and well-being of our city, county, state, and nation. And whereas tonight we have members from both the Muslim community center of the East Bay and the Islamic Center of Zara who have served their community members by holding spiritual workshops, children's learning programs, and volunteering opportunities and partnered with Prosper International to support community members in need of assistance and facing unemployment by creating a program that connects community volunteers to vulnerable elderly community members. And whereas through the Islamic practice of zakat, local Muslim organizations help give back to the community by providing grocery deliveries and financial assistance to local families, delivering 25,000 pounds of food to 150 families weekly and providing living expenses to more than 50 East Bay families per month. And now therefore, be it resolved that the President City Council does hereby proclaim April 2026 as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month to acknowledge the rich history and contributions of American Muslims in our community. And may it have a lasting positive impact for our city, state, and nation. April 21st, 2026. And we have uh believe one gentleman here and who wishes to uh address the council and make some words. So thank you sir.

Welcome.

Thank you so much. Good evening respected member members of the city council and the members of the audience. My name is Essen Kazmi and behalf of the Islamic center of Zara, I would like to express our our sincere gratitude to the city of Pleasanton and the city council of the for this recognition. Muslim awareness month is a meaningful opportunity to build, bridge and highlight the shared value of compassion, service and community. We appreciate the city commitment to celebrating diversity and ensuring that every community feels seen, respected, and valued. As the Islamic at the Islamic Center of Zara, our doors are always open. We believe that by coming together and learning from one another, we can foster a stronger, more inclusive environment for all. Thank you once again for the honor. We look forward to continue our partnership with the city and contributing to the vibrant spread of the community. God bless America.

Thank you, sir. Hold on. We also have one other speaker on this topic. So, we'll do that at this time. Anad Dawood also. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council and members of the public. It is an honor and privilege to speak here tonight as a member of the Muslim Community Center of East Bay located right here in Pleasanton or affectionately known as our masjid or mosque. The state of California has designated the month of April as the American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month. And on behalf of the approximately 20,000 Muslims of the Tri Valley area, I'm truly grateful to the city of Pleasanton for presenting this proclamation to the Muslim community. I'm joined today by fellow members of the Muslim Community Center, some and some who are watching online. This is the 10th year for this designation by the state of California and the fourth year this proclamation has been presented by the Pleasanton City Council. This designation aims to honor and recognize contributions and diverse history of Muslims in the state of California while fostering inclusion, combating Islamophobia, and addressing discrimination. While Muslims have lived in the United States since the founding of this country, very little is known or understood about us and often times we are misunderstood. These declarations help promote understanding of Muslim heritage and values, bring about familiarity and recognize community contributions of Muslims as your neighbors, colleagues, doctors, service members, teachers, first respondents, and many others you may interact with on any given day. The Muslim Community Center in Pleasanton is a vibrant regional mosque which brings children, adults, old and young together for worship, healing, and community programs. We serve the larger community with blood drives, voting drives, highway cleanups, three times a week, food distributions, homeless outreach,

mental health workshops, social and interfaith events. Most importantly, we host four congregations for our Friday prayer services to better manage parking issues. Additionally, we host an ESL English as a secondary language class, serve as a Red Cross disaster site, and strive to be an environmental friendly location with our recycling and conservation policies, as well as being a special needs accessible site. To summarize, we're a proud part and parcel of our community and of Pleasanton. And I can tell you this recognition, this recognition means a makes a world of difference to Pleasant residents who are Muslims. So again, on behalf of members of the Muslim Community Council, we thank you for this proclamation and recognition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If you could join us for a photo, we'd very much appreciate it. joined by members of the audience who are here. You're short.

Everyone need a little less. I already Outstanding. And thank you so much. That concludes item number 19 and we'll be presuming resumeuming to item 20. Presentation of a proclamation declaring April 2026 as arts, culture, and creativity month. Busy month here. Yeah, we we have a busy month. It's also my birthday month. So, I love this.

So, thinking about you, everyone,

not about me. The uh city of Pleasanton also proclaims April 2026 as AL arts, culture, and creativity month. Uh Pleasanton has a very vibrant arts and culture community. And this month is the 8th annual statewide awareness and advocacy event that recognizes the crucial role of arts, culture, and creativity in the lives of everyone in California. And whereas arts, culture, and creativity inspire lifelong learning and joy, encourage understanding, and spark innovation and growth. And whereas the Pleasanton Art League and the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council, two groups that are in attendance tonight, work in partnership in true Pleasanton fashion to lead efforts to advance the arts by organizing art demonstrations, workshops, art exhibitions, sponsorships, and scholarships in partnership with local businesses. And whereas the Pleasanton Art League and the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council partner with Alama County Arts Commission, the state level arts organization, California for the Arts, and the Arts Education Initiative, Create Alama County. And whereas the city of Pleasanton celebrates this collective work at the local level, encourages racial equity, uplifts our community, and changes our lives for the better. And now therefore be it resolved that the city of Pleasanton hereby proclaims April 2026 as the arts, culture and creativity month and encourages everyone to celebrate the power of arts in our community dated this 21st day of April 2026. And I know there are several members in attendance from both uh the art league and the arts council. Would anyone like to address council? Miss Kellyanne Cousins. Always a pleasure.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor, council members, staff, and community. I'm Kelly Cousins, and I'm honored to serve as the president of the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council. On behalf of PCAC, I'd like to express our sincere appreciation of the city's recognizing April as Arts, Culture, and Creativity Month. This acknowledgment affirms the essential role arts play in building a vibrant, connected, and inspired community. For 48 years, PCAC has supported and championed the arts in Pleasanton. We've been proud to share this vision alongside valued community and private partners including PAL PUSD Museum on Maine, the Pleasanton Community Band, the Harringtons, and of course the city of Pleasanton, collaborating on projects and citywide events that bring the arts to life for all. For the past 29 years, through our art, youth excellence in arts or the Yay awards, we've provided high school students in Pleasanton the opportunity to share their talents in literary, music, and visual arts. These programs celebrate not only artistic excellence, but also self-expression, creativity, and the resilience of the human spirit. Tonight we're I'm especially proud and we are to present and highlight two outstanding students who have participated in our um local arts events. Oh, three. Okay, another one

came. Good. Arts education is more than enrichment. It is f uh foundational. It fosters creativity, builds critical thinking, um, and provides the important outlet for social and emotional balance in the lives of today's busy students. Thank you again for the continued support of Pleasanton for the arts. And I want to um showcase Jeffrey Lou who is an 11th grader um in Amodore. and he was first place uh prize winner for the awards, the AA awards. And I'd like him to talk a little bit about what he brought to not hold up his art.

I think you visit us before, but yes, I was here last year. Yeah. Two time winner. Well, last year I won second place. This one.

Great. Um Okay. So, this is my artwork called Allure. It took me around one year and like 150 hours. So, it was a very big project of mine. Um, very long-term project as well. And I'm very proud of myself for being able to sit sit down every every weekend to work on it for like four hours every weekend. It was a big commitment. But, um, you guys might be wondering what medium I use to to draw this. Well, basically, it's called color pastel, which is like it's a variation of color pencil where the lead is a little bit softer, so you can like layer on the colors a little bit better. So, um, that's um I guess this piece right here. There's a lot of um I guess uh cultural significance with this piece as well because like when I was like picking out this piece first the first thing that caught my eye was like just how detailed the um I guess these head pieces are and I just thought it would be really fun to like draw out. I guess it was really fun even though it was really hard. But um uh basically it signifies like prosperity and wealth because like the backstory behind these um headpieces is basically when the girls are born, right? Their families like every single year they um take some of their silver and they like collect it until they're uh around like 18 years old and then every single year they keep adding on the silver to the head headpiece and they um wear on their like on significant days to symbolize like wealth and everything. So, and I think just to comment on like my overall art experience and um my experience through art cuz I've been doing art for like since I was like three on the walls in my house and stuff like that. But, um I think it's well firstly I I'm like I'm really happy that I can like do stuff like this. I think it's really cool. But I think the experiences that I've had through art and like everything that I've learned I can also apply it to my other interests because I I really love science. I love physics and like AI really fascinates me. And as an artist, I think, you know, generative AI, it's really um been a shock to me because like I have to spend a whole year doing this and the AI might be able to generate in like 5 seconds or something like that. So that it's a it's a little

bit it's a little bit scary, but I also think it's important to be able to get these two communities, the artist community and the AI community be able to work together in a way that you're not like one side is just fighting the other side constantly. There's a lot of conflict. So, I think that was that's like at least right now one of my uh main interests and uh yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you for having me. Thank you so much. And for those who can't see what for those who can't see that you did that with pastels. Oh yeah. That's astonishing. Yep. Um everyone shores the president of the Pleasanton Art League.

The Pleasanton Art League believes art should do more than just hang on the wall. We believe it should give back to the community. Through creativity, we connect people, inspire pride, and help make our city even more vibrant. We're proud to support our youth by hosting Pal's Pal's Art Show, celebrating the next generation of visual artists through our collaboration with the Museum on Maine, whose partnership helps showcase local culture, history, and the importance of the arts in our community. We are also excited to work with the Pleasanton Downtown Association to help beautify our city and create new opportunities for our local artists to share their work throughout downtown and you'll be seeing more of that in coming time. We are equally grateful for our collaboration with the Firehouse Arts Center, especially the staff there who are incredibly helpful. Um, they are a valued cultural partner that helps bring creativity, performance, and the visual arts experiences to our community. This year is especially meaningful for PAL because we're going to hold our first fundraiser for a scholarship that will help a local high school student pursue higher education in the visual arts. We're excited about that. We are honored to receive this proclamation and grateful to the city of Pleasanton, our mayor, our city council, and all of our community partners for recognizing the importance of arts and culture in enriching all of our lives. Thank you.

And do you mind introducing the other two students? That would be And do you want to talk about award winners? Would you like to talk about it? You don't have to. It's can be intimidating. Well, um, my name is Ethan Mosca. I'm a little closer. Sorry.

I'm a 16-year-old artist. And I've been making art my entire life, but I didn't get serious about until like 2021. And my favorite kind of thing to paint and draw is portraiture. And I like to work in color pencils and markers and uh painting. Uh this piece here is titled 86. Uh it's in my first oil painting. Uh it took around five months. I worked on it on and off because I want to take my time with it. Um it's a picture of my mom when she was a teenager. Uh I was inspired by the retro like colors and style of the piece and I had a a lot of fun making it and thank you for having me.

Thank you very much. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO talk about yours? Welcome. Hi, my name is Haley. Do you mind speaking into the mic a little bit? Thank you. Uh I don't really have much to say about it, but uh it took me a few months to make and I really like making making paintings with acrylic and that's just one of them that I made. It's of some song birds that I really like. um the pinion j and the white breast in that hatch. Thank you very much.

And if if I can just say I truly appreciate the partnership that the organizations have with our downtown association to beautify the vacant storefronts during the last holiday season and we look forward to continued partnership to do that. Thank you so much for caring about Pleasanton. We'll come down and take a photo. You sit on the little trap door. I saw that when I was there with your mom. for one.

Thank you. all about the Pleasanton hug right now. So on to item number 21, presentation of a proclamation declaring April 2026 as fair housing month. I'm glad everyone can share the month here.

Yes, thank you. Uh city of Pleasanton proclaims April 2026 is fair housing month. Whereas the Fair Housing Act enacted into federal law on April 11th, 1968 established a national policy of fair housing with a goal of eliminating racial se segregation and ending housing discrimination for all who live in the United States. And whereas the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin. And whereas fair housing is a positive community of good benefiting the environment and our social fabric. And whereas the city of Pleasanton is a community of inclusion strengthened by its diversity and acts of housing discrimination and barriers to equal housing opportunity violate our shared values of decency and fairness. And whereas fair housing is integral to the ethical commitment of members of the National Association of Realators and the Bay East Association of Realators and is critical to the ability of all real estate professionals to serve their clients, customers, and communities. Now, the therefore be it resolved that the Pleasanton City Council hereby proclaims April 2026 as Fair Housing Month, recognizing the city of Pleasanton as an exclusive inclusive community committed to fair housing and further advocates for equal housing opportunities for all residents and prospective residents of Pleasanton. Dated this 21st day of April, 2026. I believe we have uh Mr. Stark here from Bay East and maybe somebody from the National Association of Realtors if you'd like to speak.

Hard to follow the kids than they are or should have put you before them. Sorry about that.

An exciting night. Good evening, mayor, city council, and staff. I'm Steve Maderas. I'm past president of Bay East. I'm also on the current local government relations committee and I'm a full-time realtor. On behalf of the Bay Association of Realtors, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this presentation. It means a lot to our association. Uh this evening, I'm here with fellow B member Gerald Dean Ramirez and of course Dave Stark, staff member. Um we are this proclamation acknowledging April as um a fair housing month. We're very very proud to uh be receiving it. We thank the city council for recognizing the importance of keeping fair housing issues top of mind uh for your residents. This proclamation is a powerful symbol of that commitment and I accept that with this promise Bay East will continue to ensure all who seek to become homeowners are provided fair, equitable and professional help from our members. We also promise to partner with the city as we always have in any initiatives to further the principles of fair housing. Again, thank you so much for letting us be a part of this and thank you for the proclamation. We look forward to continue working with you in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Maderos. I'm ready to and I also want to give you a hand for getting up and walking over here to take a picture. Takes a commitment. We're only sit for four hours after this. You know,

that's why you do it in the beginning, right? Well, you probably say fair housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Good.

Okay, that concludes item number 21. We're now proceeding to item number 22, public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda. Uh, thank you very much. I'd like to read this duadi at the beginning of this part. Uh, good evening and welcome. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council on any matters that are within the subject within the council's subject matter jurisdiction but are not listed on the agenda. If you wish to speak on a matter that is on the agenda, please reserve your comments for when we get to that item. If you wish to speak now or on a future item, I ask that you please fill out a blue speaker card and then turn them into the city clerk as I outlined earlier. I ask all community members to 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 would like to show support or agreement with what the speaker is saying, simply raise your hand and we will see that and understand that as additional support. Please note that this is your time to be heard. If you do ask questions, those won't necessarily be answered unless taken up by a council member after the conclusion of your allotted time or after the conclusion of the public comment period. I have a this I believe. So speakers are hereby limited to four minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. And my first speaker is Melanie Sadak. You will be followed by Sharon Picarski and you will be Sharon will be followed by Holly Sanders. Welcome.

Hello mayor, city council members, staff. Thanks for having me tonight. Um I believe in people. I believe most people are good and well-intentioned. I believe that at our core, most of us want to do the right thing. We want to help, to protect, to be part of something meaningful. In today's world, we have more opportunities than ever to do that. Through social media, online communities, and shared spaces, we can raise awareness, support causes, and amplified voices that matter. That's why I believe our right to freedom of speech is not just a right, it's a responsibility. I've seen how quickly people come together around a cause, especially when it involves something they care deeply about, like animals. Animal shelters often inspire strong emotions, compassion, urgency, and a desire to help. But I've also seen how quickly things can go wrong. People act too fast, share false narratives, and assume the worst, and unintentionally hurt those who are trying to do their best. I know this because it happened to someone very close to me, my twin sister. She became the target of community attacks. People used false names, shared things that weren't true and took the opportunity to tear her apart. It was painful to watch. What stood out to me wasn't just what that what was said, but how quickly others believed it and how quickly it spread. I'd hoped that her track record, her commitment to doing the best that she the best she could for animals and people would be enough to stop false stories from gaining traction. But it wasn't. That experience didn't change my belief in people. It deepened my understanding of our responsibility to one another. When we see a story that feels important, we want to share it. But what we need is a pause, a moment to ask whether the story is accurate. Because our freedom of speech isn't just about our ability to

speak. It's about choosing to speak responsibly. What gives me hope is that this same instinct, the instinct to act, to care, to respond, is also what allows us to do better. We can choose to pause. We can choose to ask ourselves, "Do I know that this is accurate? Will sharing this harm or help?" Those small moments of reflection don't take away from our ability to act. They strengthen it. They allow us to build trust and to stand behind what we say with confidence. Because behind every story are real people, people who care deeply and are trying every day to make a difference. As adults, we can do better. We can model a more thoughtful and responsible future for the people who are watching us, especially our children. I believe in people because I've seen what we're capable of doing when we slow down, think critically, and act with intention. And that's why I believe in a world where we are free to speak. One of the most powerful things we can do is use our voices to lift others up, show compassion, and assume positive intent. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You are followed by Sharon Perkarsski and you will be followed by Holly Sanders. Welcome. Four minutes. Good evening everyone. I know I send emails, but I just wanted to thank you in person for prioritizing the opening of the north. Do you mind adjusting the mic? I'm sorry we're not c adjusting the mic or speaking into it because we're not hearing you very well. You're not hearing me? Okay. Is that better? Yes, please. Thank you.

I have to put my notes up here so I can see them. Um, I know I send emails, but I just wanted to thank you in person for prioritizing the opening of the North Royal Mojo Trail at your priority setting workshop. When I've talked to neighbors about the opening of this trail, everyone's eyes light up, whether they are walkers, runners, bicyclists, or a combination. One neighbor told me that he had sold his bike because the only way to leave the neighborhood was it at an intersection with Santaita Road, and it was just too scary. This trail opening solves that dilemma. But opening this trail will not only benefit the adjacent large neighborhood, but many others who live on the north side of Pleasanton. The north of Royal Moto Trail will provide a continuous trail from Martin Avenue all the way to the east of Liverour. When the West Lositus project is completed, which I understand first phase is going to start construction in the fall, um it will have protected bikeways from Foothill Road to Fairland Drive. And with safe bike lanes through the Pleasanton Meadows neighborhood to Martin Avenue, there will be a safe way to ride the entire width of North Pleasanton and all the way to east of Liverour. So again, thank you. This is a small project with a big impact. In another matter, I recently attended an event at Amador Park. I rode my bicycle after checking the city website which said there were bike racks at the park. I found only one at the entrance to the aquatic center. It was an oldstyle school rack where only a front tire is used to keep the bike from falling over. To properly lock a bike frame to the rack, you would have to back into it. That's impossible because it can damage the derailer. I later discovered another bike rack of similar design hidden behind restrooms near a

playground. I had ridden by this one without even seeing it. The only bike rack at the senior center is also a schoolyard rack. These are intended at for schoolyards where they are contained within a fenced area. Please replace these inadequate re bike racks. My cheapest bike cost over $3,500 and I don't like taking chances of it being stolen just because there's inadequate bike parking. Bike racks are some of the cheapest things the city can invest in. One that holds up to eight bikes costs about half the cost of replacing my bike and is far less expensive than providing a single parking space for a vehicle. Until there is a way to adequate adequately lock my bike at Amodor Park, I will be driving there and increasing traffic congestion, taking up a parking space, and if the battery on my plug-in hybrid vehicle is depleted, adding greenhouse gas emissions to the air we all breathe. So, please replace these inadequate racks. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Holly Sanders. And that's my last speaker card. If you'd like to speak on this item 22, matters open to the public. Please fill out blue speaker card. Welcome. Four minutes.

Thank you. Um Holly Sanders. I'm a 24year resident of Pleasanton. Uh it has been widely researched that digital technology including social media can lead to social isolation, cyber bullying, addiction, relationship challenges, and mental health struggles including depression and self-image issues. Technology can negatively impact all of us. So what can we do instead of technology? One good answer is to go to the library. Of course, books and reading is what comes to mind when someone hears the word library. I think we can all agree that one of the most critical skills to survive and thrive in life is the ability to read and keep on reading throughout the lifespan. There are a vast number of books in the library and you can spend hours reading multiple books and also check them out for free. Any subject you can think of is going to be there for all reading levels and ages. I am very passionate about reading. But it's not just books to borrow that are free. You can access music, genealogy, newspapers, state park passes, and that saves you money, air fryers, record players, and more for free. Please come visit the library, everybody, especially on a Tuesday or Wednesday evenings and Saturdays, and you will see that it is a thriving and diverse community. Besides individuals reading, you can see tutoring sessions throughout the library with people learning about math, reading, a new language, science, writing. At one table, you might see people completing a puzzle. And in another table, a group playing the card game Uno. In the back, there are many teens studying, discussing projects, or just talking, but rarely on their phones. I volunteer at the library and it is often the teens who are the last to

leave when we close for the day. This past spring break, I expected it to be quiet, but there were actually many families there. And I looked at some of them, you know, and the the parent or the caretaker, it was nice and quiet and the kids were not on screens and that might be the only time during that day that they might not be begging for screens. So I ask you to please not cut any more hours or days from the vi library as it is such a vital and precious resource for the community and how wonderful and healthy to have a place where all heads are not hanging down looking at their phones. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have no additional speaker cards. If you would like to speak on item 22, which is matters not on the agenda, please approach the podium at this time if you have not filled out a speaker card. Hearing none. Seeing none, we'll close public comment and item number 22. Thank you very much. We're going to proceed to public hearings and other matters at this time. I missed. Why did we extend time? Because we had a because I chose to. Item number 23, receive an update on groundwater supply project and approved joint project implementation with zone 7 water agency. And city manager, take it away.

Thank you, mayor, council. Uh we're really pleased to be with you tonight to uh take the next step forward in our groundwater supply analysis. Uh we've done uh uh significant amount of work on various analyses over the years uh since since really 2022 23. And so I'm here tonight with our public works director Such Chin Young and our utilities planning manager Todd Yamelo. Happy to see our colleagues uh and partners from zone 7 here in the audience this evening. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Director Young, and we're going to jump into the presentation tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor, council members, city staff, and uh public um audience. Um thank you for the opportunity to present tonight about groundwater well alternatives anal analysis. Just like the city manager had mentioned, since we have uh lost our wells in uh um uh uh back in 2022, it's been almost three and a half um almost four years that we have been working on looking for alternative water um options. And um uh Todd is joining me today. He's um public work utility planning manager. Um together with the help of Corollo Engineering we have done a couple an analysis on different options that um we are going to present tonight. Um our goal this evening is to walk through the alternative in a clear and practical way highlighting the trades off the opportunity and the decision in front of us so that we can move forward um uh on an alternative that is most resilient and sustainable for Pleasanton's future. I'm really excited about tonight the presentation because this is really mark a a a key milestone for us um tonight to make a decision that we can uh pick the best um alternative for the city to um secure um the best alternative water resources. Um without uh losing any time I'm going to pass to Todd to uh have the presentation.

Thank you. Thank you Suchin. Um, so for today's agenda, uh, we will, uh, go over the project purpose and goals. I'll give a little background on how we got to where we're at today. We will go through the costbenefit analysis that Corollo helped us with um, for the uh, looking at doing this project jointly with zone 7 or uh, independently. Um, and then we'll finish up with recommendations and next steps and then give an opportunity for questions, discussions, and council action. So the purpose of this project is to recover the use of the city's groundwater production quota of 3,500 acre feet per year which was lost due to the presence of PAS at city wells five, six, and eight and making those wells go out of service. Um the goal there's two two major goals for the project. One is to reduce the city's overall uh water supply and distribution costs from what they are today. and then to improve the city's water supply reliability, management of water quality, and ability to meet future regulations while mitigating impacts to the community and environment. Uh, this groundwater supply project addresses strategic plan C3, which is to identify funding and implement the recommendations from the water supply alternative study to resolve PIFA's water quality issues. And this project was also included in the 2025 water rate study with an approximate budget of 27 million in 2024. So for a little um background um when we talk about our water system we generally talk about it in two categories. One of water supply and one of water distribution. On the water supply side we have two major sources of water. One is wholesale purchases from zone 7 and that those purchases are delivered from

zone 7 into our city distribution system via turnouts. We currently have seven of those. Our second source of water was the city's groundwater production quota of 3500 acre feet per year. Historically that has been produced by wells five, six, and eight which are owned and operated by the city. And though that uh 3,500 acre feet uh typically provides 20 to 30% of the city demand. And then to get to that water to our customers, we operate a distribution system consists of 330 mi of piping, 14 pump stations, 21 storage tanks, and and that's how we deliver water to our 22,000 customers. Um, we're kind of pointing out the water supply and water distribution categories for today because although this is a water supply project we're talking about, some of the costs do require us to also improve our water distribution along with the water supply. So, we're just highlighting those kind of two categories and you'll see it as we go throughout. Um, so just a brief history of how we got to where we are today is we have a couple slides here. Um so back in 2019 the state water board issued advisory levels on PIFA and we did testing uh much like most agencies in the state. Um in 2000 June 2019 um we had to take well 8 out of service because it was above the advisory levels at that time. We still had five and six. So we lost a little bit of redundancy but we were still able to produce our quota. Um but recognizing that PAS was going to be a future regulatory issue uh council in September 2020 approved start of the PAS

treatment and well 56 and 8 rehab project. That was the project to uh to install PAS treatment and extend the life of wells 5, six, and 8 which are were approaching the end of their life and um needed rehab to get another 30 to 50 years out of them. We advanced that job to September 2022 uh the 50% uh design and then at that time council suspended the project for two main reasons. one were the the costs were escalating a bit especially at that time with inflation and secondly there was a desire to look at um if there was any other alternatives to the PAS treatment project particularly alternatives outside of our existing wells 56 and 8 and in October 22 uh that is when we uh started the water supply alternative study to to evaluate those alternative options shortly after that the uh the state revised the PAS advis advisory levels, lowered them a bit and as a result wells five and six went out of service and in January 2023 with all wells out of service we started uh offsetting uh the loss of our groundwater production with interim purchases from zone 7 at the wholesale rate. So, it's a more expensive rate um compared to our groundwater production and um that is what we're still currently doing. And we also constructed the near-term or we began construction of the near-term distribution improvements and that was to help facilitate getting that extra water through zone 7 and into our distribution system. In October of 2023, uh we finalized the water supply assessment and council approved the recommendation. There was uh multiple alternatives that were screened. Um four alternatives were

looked at more closely which included the PAS project and even a reduced version of it. Um ultimately the recommendation was to do new groundwater wells in the Bernal subbasin. that project. Um it was anticipated to be able to save when compared to the PAS treatment anywhere from 20 to $30 million on capital um cost. And uh although there was a little bit less reliability with that, it was um still comparable and and something that the city could um definitely utilize. Um so around that same time, zone 7 uh expressed that they were also had interest in new uh groundwater wells in the Bernal subbasin for regional purposes, particularly to help expand uh their water source groundwater sources for drought conditions. Um, so in June of 2024, council approved an agreement with the city and zone 7 to do a joint feasibility study. Uh, the purpose of that was to see if it was technically feasible to produce groundwater for both the city's purposes and and zone 7's regional purposes. Um shortly after that in November of 2024 while this while these feasibility study was underway the city completed its water system management plan and also began its water rate study. So, uh, this this groundwater project, uh, even though we were in the middle of the feasibility study, we did place a a $27 million CIP allowance for a project in there, and that also included long-term distribution improvements to match the groundwater supply uh, project.

In December of 2025, the feasibility review was completed with zone 7. It was presented in February to council. The findings were that the joint project in a Bernal suba basin was technically feasible. There was sufficient water yield and quality at Tennis and Hansen Park to support both the city and regional purposes and uh no impact to groundwater sustainability was anticipated based on the zone 7 modeling that went along with this study. The next steps that were recommended um was to develop draft terms for a joint project with zone 7. Uh developing the draft terms would help us evaluate things like cost of the project and then to perform a costbenefit analysis of implementing this groundwater supply project jointly with zone 7 versus doing it um independently. And so uh in February of this year we we contracted with Corollo engineers to help us do this analysis. Um we looked at three alternatives. Um the first alternative is to continue the offset of groundwater production with wholesale purchases from zone 7. So that's what we're doing now as an interim. And we really kept this alternative in here as a baseline to be able to see compare these other two um against alternative two was to um do the groundwater supply project jointly with zone 7. So in this presentation you'll hear that us refer to that as the joint project and then alternative three was to do the project independently and we refer to this as the cityon project. So alternative one, the baseline project of um wholesale water purchases. So for

this project for water supply, there would be no water supply capital investment or improvements. We would just continue to purchase um our water at the wholesale rate from zone 7. However, to do this for the long term uh and be able to reliably meet uh demands distribution improvements would be sh needed as as shown here. Um and a new turnout would be needed. And this is simply um in order to get long-term annual demands or even max day demands through our system through uh through the zone 7 system into our distribution system. we would need these upgrades. The pros of this alternative is obviously it has the lowest capital improvement cost um because we're getting all our water from zone 7 at the wholesale rate. Zone 7 is fully responsible for compliance with the current and future water quality regulations. We don't we would not have any wells or anything that um we're responsible for. Uh there would be no impacts to city parks. um because we would be no building no wells and it is obviously the shortest implementation schedule as as our improvements would focus mostly on just the distribution side. The cons are this has the highest life cycle cost um the and that's due to the annual purchases at the wholesale rate. Um, when we do that, we have limited control of this the blend of water zone 7 gives us, whether it's surface water or groundwater, because we're just doing wholesale purchases. And, uh, that does present challenges at certain times throughout the year for us to manage water quality within our distribution system. Um, I think this is probably the major

con. Uh the next two is for a long-term purposes without doing any groundwater improvements. Um zone 7 can't commit to offsetting our GPQ for future buildout conditions. They are doing that interimly for us now. Um but particularly in future drought years when we're heavily when the region's heavily relying on groundwater production um this there could potentially be limits on that. And then the the last one is is um we would be 100% reliable on zone 7. So if there is any emergencies, outages, we wouldn't have uh our own wells to to back up. So alternative two is the joint project and this would entail constructing two new wells, one at Hansen Park and one at Tennis Park with zone 7. There would be a new transmission main from these two wells to zone 7's hopyard chloramination facility and then that facility would be upgraded to handle the additional flow. These facilities would be own uh would be operated by zone 7 and tied into their existing transmission system and then we would receive the water uh via turnouts. Um, in terms of distribution improvements, because this water is all coming through zone 7's facilities, we would we would need to make the same distribution improvements that we need to make in alternative one. Um, like I said, to better evaluate um this alternative, we did work with zone 7 staff to develop some key draft terms. They're list we have a couple slides listed here. I'm not going to go through through all the bullets on here um for now, but I do want to uh highlight a couple that particularly impacted the cost impact of uh this analysis. Um so, first of all, the as

part of this project, the city would have capacity rights to 3500 acre feet. That is to meet our quota. Um and also 6.2 million gallons on a max day. So, that would help us achieve our max day demands. For the design and construction phase, the city's cost share would be 36%. The Hop Colloration facility would actually be reduced down to 23% because zone 7 has some other facilities outside of this project that that does go to that facility. So, we're only paying for our share of that um facility. Uh operationally, zone 7 would be responsible for O andM. the city would be paying uh its proportional share of that on andm. So in in one year if the city utilized 3500 acre feet and zone 7 also used 35 uh acre feet for the year we would pay 50% of the on&m cost based on that cost share split. So some of the pros and cons for this alternative is this this alternative presents the lowest life cycle cost and the capital costs for the project are in line with the allowance we had in the rate study. Um with with the construction of these facilities um zone 7 would be contracted with us long term for delivery of the GPQ. So we would not have that that reliability concern we have that we currently have for the long term. Um source zone 7 source blends would still be controlled by uh or still would be influenced by zone 7 but now with the contract we could have um some language

to help uh coordinate that and and um manage it alongside with them um particularly with the use of these facilities. Uh the other thing uh pro is partnering with zone 7 would greatly simplify permitting and offer uh schedule saving opportunities for constructing new wells. The cons for this project is these facilities would be in the parks. So it would be an impact to the city parks. Um we still are relying on zone even those facilities we we help pay for these facilities they are tied to zone 7 for delivery to water. Um so there would be uh no redundancy to their facilities. Um we do share cost responsibility for compliance with future water supply quality regulations. So if there's changes with um and these wells need to be modified, we do share cost responsibilities along along that zone 7. Um and with this alternative, zone 7 would be the lead agency. So they would be uh in control of implementation uh limiting some of our ability to um control certain uh items. And if we did have delays, there would be obviously impacts to us um financially um as we continue to purchase water. So alternative three is the city doing this project on its own also in the groundwater uh Bernal suba basin. So, we would still build two new wells still at Hansen Park at Tennis Park, but with these facilities being if they were just city-owned, the chloramination and fluoride facilities would be also located at the parks. We could not use zone 7's hopyard facility to do that. Um, these wells would be tied directly

into our distribution system. So that does modify and limit the distribution improvements that we need to make. Uh in in particular, we would not need to do a a turnout. Essentially, our wells would would be redundant to the existing turnouts and would not require that additional facility. Uh the pros of this is the city fully controls its groundwater production uh production quota. We do have re we would have re redundant um facilities to zone 7. So if there was outages, emergencies, um we would have some capabilities to still deliver water. Um the city can fully control its groundwater um sourcing to help manage uh quality within the distribution system and then the city is the lead agency for implementation. The cons for this alternative is it does have a higher life cycle cost including a capital cost that slightly exceeds that assumed in the rate study. Um the city becomes fully responsible for compliance with future water supply and quality rags. That's not just PAS but that's any other um water quality rag that may come down in in the future. Um it will have the highest impact to the parks because the footprint will grow compared to that with the joint project with zone 7 as um chemical treatment facilities will need to be included at the park sites and this project um will have a longer schedule and um will also have financial impacts from delays. So for a cost comparison, um we have the three alternatives. These costs are broken up into water supply and water distribution. Um you'll notice the baseline alternative does not have any water supply cost, but it does have

distribution. And then both alternative two and three have both water supply and distribution cost. You'll notice um on the water supply side the alternative two joint project that that number of 15 million that is our cost share responsibility. The project itself with zone 7 is more but this reflects our cost share. Um and so when you when you see these three alternatives, alternative one from a capital cost perspective is the cheapest at 12 roughly 12 million. The joint project is second at roughly 27 million and then the city-only project is 30 at 35 million. So those are those were capital costs but we also took a look at annualized cost comparison. So this is basically a life cycle cost. Uh we assumed a 50-year life for the facilities and a 3% discount rate when when doing the annualization. Um there's three main categories in this uh life cycle cost. The first is taking the capital costs and just analyze uh annualize those over the life of the job. The second is the cost to purchase water from zone 7 um at the wholesale rate. So for alternative one, the $6 million a year that goes indefinitely. Why you see money in um in alternative two and three is that during construction of these projects we still which could take you know three to four years we still have to purchase water from zone 7 at the wholesale rate. So we did factor those costs in and then the last item is the on&m cost. Um you'll see alternative one has essentially no cost because we are purchasing water from zone 7 and the on and m is on their end and um built into the cost and then alternative two and three uh has costs

of about one and a half million. Um so overall when you look at it from a life cycle cost that is annualized. Alternative one is significantly more money than two and three at 6 and a half million. Alternative two at just under three and a half and alternative three just over four million. The other thing that we did in this study was to try to help um quantify all the pros and cons. We did a uh benefit score and so we created uh five major categories to evaluate these alternatives against. Um and then we also weighted those um at a staff level. These weightings are probably pretty consistent what you would see in the industry for water supply um in both categories and waiting. So the five categories are water supply reliability with the 25% waiting, water quality reliability with the 25% waiting, ease of expansion for treatment. So this was really looking at if there is future regulations requiring water treatment in addition to what's there now, how easy is this to expand? That's at 16%. community and environmental impacts at 18% and implementation schedule at 16%. And I think what this um what this chart really shows is as you probably could see uh heard with the pros and cons, each alternatives definitely has different strengths and weaknesses when you're addressing these categories. Um but when you look at it holistically, their scores are very similar. And so with each alternative um you can you can see that you know for example alternative three the city-only

project is going to score higher on water supply reliability and water quality reliability but then then it's going to score score lower on the ease of expansion community impacts and implementation schedule. So to kind of put together cost and benefits together um is this this figure here. Uh projects that are on the upper left hand would be considered more you know higher recommended and projects on the lower would be less desirable. you'll see that alternative one because of its high uh annual cost um is is is not something that is recommended to be continued for the long term. Um alternative two and three from a benefit score are relatively close. Um but with alternative two having a lower life cycle cost um in this study reflects a more desirable alternative which is the joint project. So recommendations and next steps. The recommendation by staff was to implement the groundwater supply project as a joint project with zone 7. If uh for next steps, if council was to um approve this recommendation, uh the city would staff would work with zone 7 to finalize agreements with zone 7 for design, construction, operation of the project and then bring those back to city council for approval at a at a future meeting. So with that, um we went through this quickly, but if any questions, um let us know. Okay, thank you very much. Uh, we do have a speaker card, so I'll let my fellow colleagues know that. I am going to maybe just ask if you could go back to the slide with the Brown and Codwell

uh, analysis compared to this because I do want to make sure our community knows we're p um, pegged to that initial analysis for alternatives which kind of got us on this right here. Yeah. So, if I just can clarify, Todd, if I may, the three alternatives you've outlined, uh, one, two, three, just through the rest of the presentation are all within this third, um, red delineation here. Basically, those three are kind of in this area.

Alternative two and three are both different versions of the groundwater supply that you see here in red. So, so basically that was a recommendation to do the project in the Bernal subbasin. And what we're looking at today is what's the best way to implement that? Do it with with zone 7 or without. Um, alternative one is the baseline option of what we're doing now on the right. So, it' be the fourth one. It would be the fourth one. Yes. Okay. And those are still 2024 here compared to what you've now projected. Yes. Correct. These were preliminary 20 $24 and now we have $26 that are more refined for the groundwater supply project.

Okay. And then my last question before we go around Robin, the option two here, which is the reduced POS project, which I recall was a POS treatment plan on well 8 as I recall off hand was 29 million estimate then. We could estimate that that is significantly higher now. Is that a good estimate or a good assumption to make? Yes. Yes. Do you have any potential idea what that might be? Obviously, I'm asking because it's relatively close to the other uh third and fourth option presented here.

Yeah. So, even if if we were to just escalate that for general inflation, we'd be around 32 33 million. Okay. Um the other thing to keep in mind was one of the uh reasons this option wasn't recommended back in the water supply assessment was although its cost was comparable to um the groundwater supply project it was only one well and and NP fos treatment. So from a redundancy and reliability perspective it it had a lower score.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. We'll go uh to questions. As I said, I do have a comment card. Council member Tester, you're starting uh and we're going the same direction as we did earlier. So, clarifying questions of staff, please.

Um Okay. Well, um I I one of I think what we've heard a lot in the community is the concerns about um pulling the PAS plume. I think everyone's going to ask for clarification and um um reassurance that that is not going to happen with any of these. I think the suggestion was that if we stayed and rehabbed our existing wells, we would be just doing treatment and not putting um the risk of pulling the plume into the subbasin if I understand that correctly. Um so could you reassure us on that? Well, so as part of the feasibility study that was done with zone 7, zone, we we we drilled wells. We did um water quality testing, water yield testing. Zone 7 took that information and utilized their their groundwater model to evaluate that and their their results and we presented a lot of those results in zone 7 actually spoke on that at the February council meeting

right I do remember um was that they they felt that it did not impact the groundwater sustainability and they their results of their model did not show over I think it was a 20-year span of operation of the plume moving into that the vicinity of these wells.

Okay, thank you for that. Um that was my I do remember that conversation. So with that in mind um and you even said that um other water regulations in the future, whatever comes forward. Um, how likely is it that all water will need to be treated at some point because of we don't know yet what we don't know. And would it make more sense to go straight into a um treatment production instead of um counting on the new wells to provide water that don't need treatment from for the first 20 years? So, um, these wells do not require treatment for the for PAS. And so, when we're saying we're looking at, um, ease of expansion for future treatment, what we're saying is is over the next 2030 years, um, there may be uh, items of concern that we don't know about today. Um and obviously back in 2015 no one really knew about PAS to the extent we do now. Right? So there may be another um water quality issue that comes up. If that happens um there's the potential that those wells would need to have additional treatment. The same thing actually be the case if you did the project at wells 5, six and 8 and put POS treatment. That treatment is geared towards POS removal. there's no guarantee that that treatment would be uh utilized for um additional issues and and we may have to add something there as well. So I think what we're really

talking about here is in the event future water quality regs require more treatment, you know, what is the feasibility of doing that um with with the wells at at these park locations. And one of the benefits of doing the project jointly is currently that water or that water would be sent to the hopyard zone 7's hopyard facility and it would be much easier to expand that facility footprint-wise, locationwise than having to do that within the parks. Um, so that's that's really what we're we were looking at with that alternative.

Okay. But again um with I mean I I the joint project is is very appealing. It is I think really reassuring to have the expertise of zone 7 working with us on this and but to not have as much control over our water that that is something it's hard to let go of. It's something that I always heard from our um predecessors how important it was to retain the independence in that 20 to 30% of our water. So um yeah, it's it's I guess the balance. I'll I'll stop there.

Okay, Council Member Aker. Thank you. Clarifying questions, please. I'm going to jump back to uh option three. You had made the comment that option three has the longest implementation period and the greatest cost sensitivity due to delays. Can you explain why that would be?

Uh yeah. So if we do the joint project with zone 7 that definitely um will simplify the permitting process. I mean we're doing it jointly with zone 7 and we've already started a lot of that work with the feasibility study. Um if we were to do the city only project um we would now have to do permitting you know for a separate project with zone 7 we also would have to do uh permitting ourselves with DDW because it would be our groundwater sources. Um but the other thing too is is you know as part of this joint project we've already established like a 10% level design. If we were to switch over to a city project we'd have to establish that. Um, so I think it could take about an extra six months to get caught up to where we would be at with the joint project. Um, and then, um, in terms of delays, um, under the joint project, one of the terms that we're looking at with zone 7 is if there was a delay to implementing this project, um, and at the fault of zone 7. Um, not um, not, you know, there's some things that are out of everyone's control. Um but if there is something that's at the fault of zone 7 um and it delayed the uh implementation of that um we're talking with zone 7 about during after that delay point having a reduction in the interim purchases so that we're not continually doing the wholesale cost. if the city was to do that and we had a delay that was created by us, you know, we're purchasing that at the wholesale rate, right? Um, so I think there's just, you know, there's a longer upfront window to develop this job and then the risk kind of, you know, fully shifts to us if we do the project on on our own in terms of delays.

So if we if we end up shifting to the joint uh or approving this uh Does the city of Pleasanton need to be involved in water quality at that point? I mean, do we have to have our folks engaged in that or have uh a high level of expertise to deal with those issues or do we rely on uh zone 7 for that?

I mean, we will have we will still have oversight, but we will be relying on on zone 7. Um they will be operate owning and operate operating and maintaining the facility and um they have they have a they operate treatment plants. They they have a much wider spectrum of of expertise on this. Um where we come into play with that is more of a financial obligation. So if if improvements do need to be made, we will have to pay you know our fair share of that. Um but we will be re relying and that that is one of the benefits of the joint project with zone 7. We're we're tapping into another resource of that.

So you get a would you say you get a greater level of expertise by partnering with him for? Yes. Yes.

Okay. Um, uh, council member Tesa was asking about POS and the new wells and and I I recall the conversation in the study about how there's a belief that we can go 20 years before there is any POS in any of these wells. uh that the odds of the of us moving the plume are are minimal as we move forward. Um the reality of of the situation is if if we put these new wells in and PIA shows up before then there's the option of treatment.

Correct. So it's it's not like the water can't be treated. It's, you know, it's kind of built into what we're looking at and the responsibility of that falls primarily on zone 7 even knowing we may have to help financially deal with whatever that looks like moving forward or that our fair share of that. Yeah, that's correct. As opposed to if it was our well, we're going to own 100% of that. Yes. Yes. and we'd be fully responsible for implementing it on our own. C

can I just, if I may, council member Iker, can I just ask a clarifying question? In the contractual agreement, does zone 7 have to provide us 3500 acre feet of POSFree water? Yes, they have to meet all water quality regs when they deliver because they deliver at the turnouts. Yes. But we're all zone 7 partners and payers, so rateayers. So, well, we're we're paying for it one way or another. Yeah. Uh, option two basically gives us a reduced reduced cost in the long run to to get there.

Yeah. Option two lets us still get the benefit of our groundwater production quota as opposed to paying the wholesale rate. Option three also does that. Um but we do it on our own for a higher cost. Yeah. And through this analysis it's slightly higher. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Can I

clarifree and you qualified that as meeting all regulations and in the presentation it mentioned blended and so whether the water that we do receive from zone 7 is not necessarily and not 100% fe if the regulations. Yeah, good point. So, it's blended and I Yeah, the blending is something that I've never quite been comfortable with. So, I wanted to point that out. In other words, we're just clarifying it's still below the MCL's.

It would it would be below the MCL's and um you know, like right now, currently, zone 7 is delivering water below the MCLs, even though those MCL's are not in full effect yet. Um, and they they do it at the wells and whether they blend or however they do it, right? They're still when we get it from the turnout, it meets the water quality standards, right? Correct. Okay. Uh, uh, vice mayor. Sure. Thank you. So, currently we're not pumping any water out of the any any of the wells in Pleasanton. No.

True statement. Okay. And so what is the anticipated amount above the 3500 acre feet that the city's entitled to pursuant to the production capacity rights? What amount are we anticipating above that that zone 7 would essentially pump out of these wells beyond that? Is there is there a set amount? Yeah, approximately I would say in the 8 to 9,000 acre feet is the total production from the wells and we would be 3500 of that. So we're 40% or something like that. So 36% is the assumed amount. Yeah. Right. Okay. So and that that number shows up in the city cost shares were wells and piping is 36%.

Right. And so of the 64% more assuming the eight or 9,000 acre feet as max out of these wells that then gets sold back to Pleasanton by zone 7 at at a reduced rate. or not. So the the 3,500 uh acre feet that is our right right that comes back to us at the reduced rate from zone 7. Sure.

The remaining you know five to 6,000 that that's zone 7 that will uh water that will be used for regional purposes. So that's all the retailers including us that becomes part of their portfolio for their wholesale rate. Okay. And so some of that could be sold to Pleasanton. Some of that could very likely be us too. Yes. So before is that how it was operating before at the wells owned by the city of Pleasanton or not? We would get it all. We'd only pump the 3500 acre feet. So we would pump our 3500 acre feet at our own cost and use it for our own our own supply. Did we sell additional?

No. No. The all the water we used.

Okay. Um, now that additional, maybe this is a science question, but if we just pumped 3,500 acre feet out of the wells for our regional needs, theoretically these wells would last longer or be productive longer than if you pumped eight or 9,000 out of them. Is that true statement to the science that you're aware of? Um I I don't I I think that whether these wells are pumping 3500 acre feet or 8,000 um I'm not sure that the life's going to be that much different. um the O andM of it and the rehab would be more expensive. Obviously for a bigger facility but um um from a actual O andM perspective even in this B costbenefit analysis we we see the annual cost to be pretty close. Now the additional, you know, 64% of water, let's assuming the 8 or 9,000 acre feet number that goes to zone 7, they would then be selling that back at least partially to Pleasanton residents at a sort of an increased rate according to how they get their water and selling it sort of water out of the same well that we're taking our 3500 acre feet then sold back to Pleasanton residents assumably for some sort of a profit for zone 7. Fair statement. Um so z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z zones we buy water at the wholesale rate from zone 7 just like all the other retailers

right so the they have a portfolio zone 7 of surface water treatment plants ground waters this would just become part of that um we're not allowed per our agreement um to produce more than 3500 acre feet um that's always been the case. So we produce our 3500 groundwater production quota and this project will do that for us at at the new rate. Everything else just out of that facility becomes regional use. Where does that 3500 acre feet number come from that comes from the uh wholesale water agreements that date back to the 1960s

when zone 7 was established basically. Is I mean is there any have those ever been looked at to change those numbers? things are a little different than they were in the 60s. Um I don't know what presumptions went into those but um you know has the underpinnings or like the philosophical or geographical assumptions in that number changed between now and then? Um should that be revisited? I mean

no I don't think it should be revisited. it it does get revisited by the fact that when those wholesale agreements get renewed um and that is a discussion then but um it gets into the whole basis for um forming of zone 7 for the purpose of supply and not to to lower the groundwater basin. So um each retailer at that time was uh given a groundwater production quota to not overdraft the you know basically the basin. So, um I don't think that's a number that we were looking to actively, you know, revisit.

Okay. Do you know what the the production capacity rights are for the adjacent cities of Dublin or Livermore in the valley here or Santa? Yeah. Uh city of Livermore. Um I don't know the exact numbers, but I can give you rough. City of Livermore is is is very little. I think I believe it's below a thousand. Uh I'm sorry. The city of Livermore is none. DSRSD is below a thousand and I believe Cal Water who does you know twothirds of um the city of Liverour is around the 3,3500 like us.

Thank you. Um so let's say that when we had a presentation before about the viability of these wells, there was a representation made by zone 7 that you know you could pump um these wells for 20 years without wicking the plume or POS contamination. Let's assume just in a bad situation that assumption is incorrect and that happens after 10 years and we're pumping 8 to 9,000 acre feet out of those wells which was more than we've pumped out of any well in in Pleasanton's past and that happens quicker. What what happens in that stage? Let's say 10 years from now the water uh getting pumped out of those wells needs to be treated for pipe pas who pays for that and in what amount? So the um Hopyard chloramination facility would uh that zone 7 owns would be upgraded to have POS treatment added to it and then the city would pay its cost share very similar to the 36% um versus zone 7's regional cost share. So assuming we're, you know, pumping the eight or nine thousand acre feet out of it, we'd be on the hook for 36% of that cost.

Correct. Okay. Of potentially 20 or $30 million. Uh I don't think I I don't think the numbers are that high since they have a facility set up adding people. As part of uh as part of the feasibility study, zone 7 did look into and and Corollo did look into the cost. I don't have the numbers offhand. I want to say it was closer in the10 to$15 million range, but I'd have to double check that. All right. Thank you. Those are my questions. I appreciate it.

Can I ask a follow-up a question between before you begin? Council member, one of the questions I have is uh I remember from the zone 7 presentation that this was going to go into their portfolio of water, right? Just like you've said. So, uh, I'm I'm a little I'm I'm trying to understand and maybe you can clarify before council member Nybert asks his clarifying questions. How what if they choose not to use this pump? What if, you know, if they can deliver it and pump somewhere else? Maybe there's service water. You know, we keep talking about this pump will produce 3500 acre feet or these two wells. But what if these wells are offline and they produce it through service water and maybe, you know, I know we've got only 18% of snowpack, but what if we had, you know, 300% of snowpack, right?

Yeah. So, so if the city wants 3,500 acre feet per year, um then then the facilities can operate to do that. If zone 7 chooses on one year to not use those wells for regional purposes, then for that year um we're 3500 zone 70, we would pay 100% of the onm costs. So our cost is still tied to these wells. Yes. But the water molecule could come from a different well. It can. Yes.

And if they choose to not even pump these two wells for 3,500 acre feet, if they just choose to pump because of their portfolio for 500 acre feet, they'll still be charging at the 100% of O and M because we didn't hit the 3500 acre feet. 500 assumed pumped out. You're saying if they only pump 500 total from the well from these two wells? Yeah. What if they only pump 500 acre feet in in a particular year? Because the portfolio provides the rest of the turnout water that delivers the 3,500 acre feet in turnout 4, turnout six.

Yeah. I mean, in that in the I think the most common scenario is is they will operate for 3500 acre feet for our purposes and likely more for their regional purposes. um if they operate just 3500, we pay 100% of the O andM costs. If for some reason they want to give us uh water, the wells are down and they need to get it from another location, we would then just pay the um 3500. We would still pay the the typical rate for that on&m. We we wouldn't be paying, you know, uh uh uh costs for treated water or anything like that. we would still pay what is the on andm for for those wells.

Okay. I'm going to put a pin in that and let council member Thank you for letting me come in. Can I just follow up real quick?

Sorry, I apologize. If if unfortunately in a certain amount of years there is PAS in those wells and there it needs to be treated. Um, and we, I guess, would have the choice to shut them down entirely, not use them at all, or if we wanted to get our 3,500 acre feet out of it, we would be forced to then pay for a POS treatment. But if zone 7 said at that point, you know, well, we have our own POS treatment on our own areas. It's cheaper for us to pull more water out of there and treat it. and they no longer want to use water out of these wells, are then we on the hook for paying the full percentage of the PAS treatment because the only water that's coming out of there into the future is the 3,500 acre feet that we are entitled to. What happens then? Well, so I think under that hypothetical, first of all, um, zone 7 is going to be contracted with us for these facilities, right, over an extended period of time. If they chose to not want to build uh, PAS treatment for say, you know, regional purposes, um, per the contract, we're still going to have to keep that facility going. And so we would still have to put something out there for the 3500 that is associated with us. It may not be the full 9,000 scaled uh system, but um it would still be for us. So this is this is a cost share percentage, right? So it's it's it's just like uh if the project is, you know, 10 million to do for 8,000, we're paying 36%. If zone 7 wants to descale their or shrink their size of it, yeah, we're going to pay a higher percentage, but the project's

also going to be is going to cost less. Um, so there there's in the end it's you're you're just talking about dollar per well, you're sliding between two and three is what you're really doing, right? Because as council member or excuse me, Vice Mayor Gatos points out, right? If only 3500 acre feet is pumped and eventually 3500 acre feet needs POS treatment, we're right back into owning the wells ourselves for cost. Yeah. I mean the these are the things that will keep you up at night. Okay. We're going to keep No, these are also the things that we have to we would finalize, you know, in our agreement and you will have opportunities to to look at that. So there's a lot of details here we didn't get into or we still haven't, you know, fully got into with them. Um

I think there's a cap on cost share, but okay. appreciate your your answers. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your patience. Appreciate it. So, I get to go now. Yes, please.

Okay. Um so, yeah, thank you for the great presentation. Um I, you know, going over that um timeline and reminding us about it was very helpful. So, I appreciate that. Um in terms of um looking back at the original concept in 2022 that um you had discussed and which the council had you at that time put hold on because of the forecast costs um you know exploding or being very very high. and in order to look at other alternatives that would cost less and impact the rateayers less. Um, is it did I see it right? That that type of treatment in 2024 in the presentation uh showed us $65 million item.

Yeah, correct. Okay. So, that's not any that's not among the alternatives we're considering now obviously. Could could you go to that slide, please? Thank you. Thank you. Um, yeah. And so I want to compare that to $65 million that no, it was $42 million I think in 2022 and then escalated with uh actual construction costs and increase in, you know, materials and so on. Became $65 million in 2024 and is potentially even larger than that now. Um, compare that to the alternative to capital cost share that I think you said was about $15 million.

Uh, well, that that'd be Pleasanton share of the capital cost. Correct. Well, using alternative two, uh, 27 million when you look at distribution to go with it. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. 27 million. Yeah. Yeah. There's two part cost. the water supply is is construction of the well. The water distribution is the the system that we still need to build in order to get the water into our system. So, the total cost is $27 million. Okay. Um, with that original concept back in 2022 of treating at at uh the operation service center at Bush Road, um would that have required distribution work as well?

Um, it it it would have not required anywhere near the amount. Um but you know we haven't incorporated those old things and you know the newer modeling into that but correct keep in mind the reason why we need distribution improvements is because we're bringing in water differently. Yes. Back if you kept the five six and eight you're you're doing things the same way essentially. So less distribution improvements.

So comparing one oper one one option to that original concept it's extremely significant. Yes. When you compare the the projected costs. Um okay. Um I think at the um presentation we had in February or maybe before that um Mr. Mr. Min I forget his first name. Uh Ken Ken

Ken Ken of course um describe the significant improvement in the simulation software um that was going on to um improve the groundwater transport modeling and establish a higher level of confidence and um just you know refine the analysis um you know to be to be on par with the state-of-the-art is what I understood um so in fact part of the reason why the feasibility ility study didn't start sooner was because that part of zone 7's process occurred. Is that correct?

Yeah, the feasibility study definitely was being timed to go with their model calibrations. Yes.

Okay. So as an outcome of that um analysis by Ken Min and his co-workers um that's where we got the forecast for plume movement um over the 20-year period and we saw the the uh visualizations over time for the 20 years. Would you would you and we've talked about what if it's what if it's less than 20 years and the plume does move. Um could it just as equally be likely that could could be well beyond 20 years that the there's any movement to the plume?

Yeah, I mean I don't I don't want to speak for zone 7, but I I believe they just ran a model over 20 years. I don't believe their model extended past 20 years for the time period that it was being looked at.

Right. So, so we have the results of the modeling and they are what they are. Um let's see. Um even okay looking at the alternatives one, two, and three. Um, if we did alternative one, which was purchase only, zone 7 still has their incentive to pursue dueling these wells at the two locations. And I presume that they would go ahead with making application to do just that. Um, is that a reasonable conclusion? Yeah, I mean zone 7 has a a master they're working on master plans to improve their portfolio including uh groundwater wells. So they will be looking if if not with us presumably to do something in the future still.

Okay. Then alternative two of course we have the groundwater wells as part of that alternative. Alternative three, if city just went went alone in drilling its own two wells, zone 7 potentially could also apply to drill its own wells nearby as well. And then in that, am I looking at that right? Is that a possibility? That's correct. And then under that scenario that is why if the city did a you know its own project we would have to definitely permit that with

zone 7 you know outside of things like PAS plume which may not be different at that scale you do have things like draw down and having wells next to each other interfering. Um so that would be would have to be looked at. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. That would seem to me to be pretty complicated to look at. Um but it could be done. Um so as far as water quality goes, PAS wouldn't be the only um contaminants possibly present. We need to also satisfy all the other water quality components or regulations as well. And you know arsenic and whatever else there is um and as I recall those results came out clean in the zones in the feasibility study as well. Correct. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Um let's see. Um, I think that's all the clarifying questions I have right now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, and thank you to my fellow council members for letting me do clarifying questions along the way. I just have a maybe a one or two here real fast. During the water rate setting process, we had to fundamentally change our water rate structure because we only had one source, right? If we did this, and here's the technical question I'm trying to ask about. Are we still technically one source since zone 7 is doing the turnout or would we be able to potentially alter the fundamental structure of the water rates our water rates in the future saying we have a second source?

You'd be potentially able to um alter the rate structure because this would be considered a a second source. This is going whether we pump it, they pump it, it is a different source with a different cost. Yeah. So that fundamentally may allow us to have a different conversation with water rates when we get to that again in certain number of years. Yes. Yeah.

Outstanding. Okay. Um we talked a lot about costs. I don't think I have a question there. And then um impact on our parks. I asked this so I think you've done a great job outlining if we go with one of these only city-only projects and zone 7 goes right next door. All of that on alternative two which is the staff recommendation for joint project. What should our residents expect as the visualized impact at a park? Right. Is it the size of a restroom? Is it larger? Uh could you outline that?

Yeah, it's it's footprint is I mean still preliminary but you know I think uh the estimate was about 40 feet by 40 feet um at at its maximum. Um uh it is singlestory. Um it is uh during the design process we could uh we we would look at different architecture. Um a lot of times like like what you would see with the restrooms. Um maybe I help us a little bit. So So it's a building. It's a building. Yeah. Versus a underground well or something. So people would see it.

People would see it. It's a it's a bu it's a singlestory building. Um everything is contained within it. There would there be no equipment outside of it. Everything would be self self-contained. Um but it the architecture of it would would be blended into the site and we would incorporate things like landscape architecture to as needed to try to blend it into the site. Okay. And then my other question is noise or noise impacts that would all try to be designed around and mitigated best we could. Right. We'd have to meet the noise ordinances for construction and then operation and and there's things that can be done with those facilities to do that. Okay. Okay. I

Yes, please. That concludes my questions. Council member Tess has a follow-up. All right. Thank you. This might be a real simplistic that but I just um on what council member Gatos was asking earlier the the the basin refills. It's not that you take this water out and then there is it it refills hopefully each season with rain. And so it isn't a finite amount. When you take that amount, it's gone and the the capacity is used up. Correct. The groundwater basin can be recharged and that's part of

recharged. That's that's part of zone 7's, you know, uh you know, zone 7's a wholesale supplier, but they're also manager of the groundwater sustainability. Um that gets into some of the reasons why we have groundwater production quotas, right? Um, and that is that is what zone 7 does with with managing it. Okay. Okay. That that Thank you. That's Any further questions by my fellow council members before I go to public comment at this time? Okay. I have one speaker card. Um, I don't know if zone 7 is going to speak during the uh period. If you'd like to consider speaking and going first. If you don't, I'm

Do you want a minute to consider your options before I call on regular publicity? I think they decided. Yeah, I think that Thank you very much for willing to speak. So,

yes. Uh, good evening, city council. I'm Valerie Prior, general manager of the zone 7 water agency. um um as you get into um you know further discussion if you'd like to ask me uh to follow up on some of the the comments you made I'd be happy to do that kind of explain about how the groundwater basin works and how the groundwater pumping quotas came about but I I just want to say that um you know at zone 7 we we'd be looking forward to partnering with Pleasanton on this um zone 7 our long-term plans always included drilling new wells to increase our groundwater production capacity so We were planning to do this anyways. Um, since we have similar needs to Pleasanton, this idea of going in together, we thought we could have some synergies and and save, you know, costs and maybe time for both parties. Um, and obviously savings to Pleasanton or savings to Pleasanton, but recall that savings to zone 7 are also savings to Pleasanton, right? Zone 7 is our four retailers. So um uh so yes uh we would support you know Pleasanton in all of its options but we really think that a joint project is a win-win for you know Pleasanton and the entire community and um you know I'd be happy to you know answer any other questions that you might have. Uh I'm going to take the bit of a chair purview or privilege and ask. So the I think you've heard from the questions. There's a question about how much production is estimated to be maybe a standard baseline for these wells in the zone 7 portfolio. You may not know that at this time, but do you have an estimate of what you may think?

Yes. So um yes, I actually have that. So um we're looking at um you know our share um on average could be about 6,000 acre feet of water. So um there's what we call the native groundwater uh and so that is you know the natural runoff and all of that is allocated to the retailers and that was established many years ago um through a study and it came up with the groundwater pumping quota. So it's 3,500 acre feet for Pleasanton, about 3,100 for cow water and maybe around 900 for um the Dublin Sammon Services District. Zone 7 actually does not pump any of the native groundwater. Um what zone 7 does is we recharge the groundwater basin with state water project water that we import you know from far north from here and that is the only water that we pump. So, um, if we put these joint wells in, um, and you know, zone 7's operating them, the first 3,500 acre feet will go to Pleasanton, but anything on top of that, it won't be like water that Pleasanton could have pumped. It would be water that zone 7 recharged with the state water project. Um, so, you know, that's kind of how the groundwater basin works.

I think that's very helpful. Okay. Any additional questions of uh, Miss Prior before we go further? I just one um so how um what determines the reduced 3500 acre feet rate? We heard that we get it at a free or at a reduced rate because um over the decades I always heard that that water out of our own wells was free water and obviously it wasn't because there's um the on andm costs but what would our how does would we determine that at this point?

Well, you know, we've staff have talked about you know some draft terms and conditions. you know, I don't think we've got to the final uh rate yet. So, yes, groundwater um you know, I I know that in the past Pleasanton considered it it free. Um but there was a cost to pump it, right? So, it wasn't free. It was just less than buying from zone 7

and so, you know, we haven't quite, you know, come to the final deal and certainly, you know, I haven't taken to the zone 7 board and, you know, hasn't officially come to the Pleasanton City Council. Um but I envision we have a similar agreement with the Dublin standone services district. So um um you know we we operate you know a well for them and we pump their groundwater pumping uh quota and we've done that for years and basically we charge them I'll call it the groundwater pumping rate for their groundwater pumping quota. So whether it's the actual water produced from that well or water from a different well or state water project um their their groundwater pumping quota is just at that groundwater pumping rate. So that could be something similar you know with you know Pleasanton and again you know we're just talking about it and we haven't negotiated the final deal but it could be the first 3500 acre feet purchased from zone 7 is at a groundwater rate regardless of where the molecules come from.

Okay. And and I also I I I think that the um working together on this is something that will benefit us all. But I have to say if we don't know what that reduced rate is, are we you know going in without all the negotiating power that we should have going into this joint venture?

We we have estimates and that's how we got the annual. So the the basis for um the annual on and m is electricity cost of chemicals staffing repairs and the feasibility study had a a listing of what that is and so the agreement terms would be lining out those items are the basis and there would be a process to demonstrate zone 7 would have to demonst demonstrate what those actual costs are to do the 3500 to operate those wells and that would be your basis and then at the end of the year you would true up and and every year you know those those operating costs may change uh it's it's not very different than how we purchase our recycled water right there is a a process like that so

okay um we do we do have a a basis we just don't have all the the terms you know finalized okay and as I said we do that with the Dublin San Ramon Services District So if we estimate that electricity is going going to cost a certain amount of money then at the end of the year it costs a different amount that's what we true up. Okay. Can I just ask what is the term of the contract we are thinking of estim agreeing to before it renews or 10 years 15 what's the I don't think we've locked into a term yet but I mean from this city side we're thinking longer term you know more it's a significant investment

yeah so we're we're not thinking like a fiveyear term or a 10ear term I just wanted to know if we had a just as an example our long-term water supply contracts are for 30 years. Okay. Okay. Can I can I ask you is zone 7's interest in this just redundancy for water sources for your agency? I mean, can you explain it is why it is that you want to partner with the city of Pleasant than just in a in a reader digest version for this particular project.

So, for zone 7, you know, why we need additional well or well pumping capacity is to meet buildout demands. Um, and so knowing we were going to look at additional wells and then knowing that Pleasanton was going to, we just thought this could be a great opportunity for collaboration and a win-win. Right. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much for coming up and being willing to speak with us. All right. We'll go to the rest of public commenters. I only have one speaker card. If you would like to speak on this item, please fill out a blue speaker card at this time. My first and only speaker so far is Jim Lerman. You'll have three minutes. and welcome. Thank you for your patience.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk. Uh my name is Jim Laramman. I'm a Pleasanton resident since 1988. I'm a California licensed professional geologist and certified hydro geologist with 40 years experience in subsurface investigation. Uh also now a candidate for zone 7 board of directors on June 2nd. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That's a Ben Franklin apherism. See something, say something. That's a more current saying. Uh, and that's just explaining kind of why I'm here. Uh, I posed several questions to zone 7 regarding their POS plume modeling and they've acknowledged them as good questions but haven't provided many answers. Uh, many many unanswered questions here, therefore many risks. Uh, I have decades of experience in contaminant hydrogeeology. Many geoccientists share my concerns. We have over 500 signatures on a petition to stop or delay the proposed wells. Uh, there's a technical disagreement here with zone 7. Uh, former a former Pleasanton City Council member proposed hiring an impartial, highly regarded expert on contaminant hydro geology to evaluate risks before proceeding. I I think that's a good idea. There's been, I would say, a rush to drill the proposed new wells. I know there's some reason we want water, but the risk of making a bad problem even worse. I think the Franklin saying, um, you should proceed with caution. There are financial risks, legal and ethical risks. Uh, and these risks apparently haven't been quantified or included in the economic evaluation of alternatives. An alternative source of water exists here. Uh you guys talked about it. Pleasanton wells sit idle since being shut down a few years ago due to POS.

Well, zone 7's been installing wellhead treatment on thorough impacted wells. So they have the expertise, but Pleasanton has said they don't want to be in the water treatment business. Okay. So then work out a deal with zone 7 to produce and treat water from Pleasanton's wells. uh something equitable for all parties for the good of the people of the Tri Valley. Uh it just doesn't look like that alternative was re-examined recently. This would be a more responsible approach to PAS plume management, actual good stewardship of the groundwater basin. And this would be much better for the current and future residents of the Tri Valley, ultimately with lower costs, I believe. And now, uh, the architect of Pleasanton's current water plans, city manager, uh, is leaving shortly and the majority of the zone 7 board of director seats are up for election on zone on June 2nd. Therefore, your decision to on the proposed wells should wait until that new leadership is in place. Thanks for considering my suggestions.

Thank you. Okay. Uh, I don't have any additional speaker cards. If you would like to speak on this item, item number 23, and you have not turned in a speaker card, but would like to speak, please approach the podium at this time. Hearing none, seeing none, we'll close public comment on this item and bring it back to the council for further conversation, discussions. Uh, same order. Council member Ta. Um well I I I absolutely feel that our all of our experts are in the room and they've made um given us all of the information they and a recommendation. So, um I this has weighed heavy on us for a very long time and I think we really need to um make a decision and move on. So, and I I would um support staff's recommendation um would to um implement the groundwater supply project as a joint project with zone 7, alternative 2.

Is that your motion? It is my motion. Okay. Council member Iker, I also support staff's recommendation and we'll second the motion. Any uh Okay. Any comments before we go the rest? Because now it's just comments. No. Any additional comments? Nope. I'm good. Okay. Vice Mayor.

Sure. Um I'm also I'm also supportive of a joint project. It just it's it's a little tough to be asked to greenlight a joint venture without knowing the details of the joint venture. So I can support a motion that directs staff to um engage in you know negotiations of a joint project. Um but I want to know what the you know final final

final final says before we go forward on it. Um I just you know from our perspective while we are great partners uh zone 7's interests and the city's interests are not exactly the same all the time with with respect and so um you know they may be a little more financially healthy looking at their act fur than we are right now and I think we have to proceed a little more carefully um than than you know not any more careful than they do but we have um a little bit different of a position so uh I'm supportive of the conversation continuing. I'm supportive of uh a negotiation worked out that protects uh us. I also understand that, you know, we're committing, you know, debt service to this over a long period of time. Um I would like to find that, you know, before we go too far down the road, um do a little analysis on what it would cost us to to re, you know, put a PAS treatment on our own wells and and compare those two costs. I think we'd be irresponsible for not doing that. Um, you know, I I do think we could be good partners. I do think we can mutually benefit one another, but it it sort of come down comes down to the details. So, you know, with that caveat, I I would support continuing the conversation if that's what we're be being asked to do tonight, but I don't want to blindly signal my support for um a lot of unknown details in a negotiation that's yet to be done.

And maybe a point of clarification, staff. So we are the motion that I've read on the staff report is to direct staff to basically go do the negotiation. The final contract as count vice mayor states would come back.

That is correct. The the uh recommendation the the action uh today is to for council to direct staff to continue uh working on alternative two. And um the next step for the staff is we're going to work with zone 7 finalizing the agreement. And it's not until council approve the final agreement that this is not a a a finalized until council approve agreement. And that I think I believe that that's what the general manager um was saying that they would also have to do the same thing is to to work with us on finalizing the agreement and they have to present to their board and their board has to accept as well. It's if both sides has to to accept. Um today is not about um um uh accepting the agreement. We we have not done that part yet.

And and I think it's also if I may to not then keep pursuing all the options or alternatives. Now we're choosing an al option to start to move to phase two. So I guess I can I also didn't we do a thorough um analysis of gosh four years ago what the costs would be to do our own POS um remediation on our wells. We we've gone down that and we do have that those old numbers it would be even more now. Right.

Correct. I mean the we did a 50% design of that. So we had pretty detailed numbers of doing treatment and design and then the water supply assessment uh water supply uh alternative study looked at that versus these other options and and that's how we arrived to doing the groundwater supply project in the Bernal subbasin. It was find found to be more economical and and just comparable reliability wise and that has to do with the $65 million I before referenced. Yes. 20 $24. Yeah. Yeah. The vice mayor has the floor if we can legis. Thank you.

We've been collaborative and I appreciate that. I do want to say, you know, in the negotiations I,

you know, I guess a good friend of mine gave me the quote that I use at work all the time that you may be right about everything. You also the correlary to that is you may not be right about everything. And I'm not saying you or zone 7, but if I I what I don't want is to end up in a situation where those wells become, you know, pull contamination or um sort of pop hot for PAS a lot quicker than we anticipated and us to be sort of holding the bag as it were. So, um I I will not support in the future an agreement that would put us in that position because Zone 7 has very many places to get their water from as evidenced by the fact that we're buying 100% of our water from them right now and none of it's coming from our own city. And um if they wanted to simply say we don't need the water from these wells, it would be very very easy for them to do that. But it would not be easy for us to do that after committing the capital and sort of going all in on these things. Um, if you catch my drift. So that's where I would I just want to put that out there as a negotiating point because I don't want to, you know, presume we always presume good relationships. We always presume good stewardship. We always presume things are going to go according to the science, but we may be right, we may be wrong. So I want to plan for both scenarios. So that's those are my comments.

Thank you. Uh, Council Member Ny, thank you for your patience.

Yeah, sure. Uh, yeah, I'm I'm supportive of uh the staff recommendation. Um, I would like to say that because well, there are all kinds of hypothetical situations that have been raised and could be raised even further. Um to that end uh you know we're going to be relying on contract language to determine how we deal with most such situations. I mean that's the purpose of a contract to look at you know all the exigencies and you know for what can be foreseen if what can't be if something can't be foreseen then contract language should also refer to what happens in that case. So that's been my experience with contracts anyway. Um but with regard to you know some deficiency some something happening uh earlier than we think it happens. I mean there's there's an engineering solution to lots of things and and other alternatives. So we aren't if something unforeseen happens we aren't just you know stuck up the creek without a paddle stranded investments and things like that. there are engineering solutions um available to us and I'm sure those would be pursued if you know in the event of such an occurrence. So um I do value our partnership and relationship with zone 7. I'm very confident that we can u move forward and come to an amicable relationship at least that's my hope and um therefore I support alternative too and the recommendation.

Thank you very much. Um I do believe zone 7 does have a Royal Mocha wells and some other wells that still are coming from producing water throughout our city. But um I'll just go a little further. So thank you very much for the report and the work. And since the Brown and CD well to here uh we've been pretty open with our community as to what these potential costs are and clearly there's a lot of unknowns and and a lot of uh analysis that are going on to try to minimize risk. So I appreciate the analysis and the partnership with zone 7. Um long-term water reliability and rate stability are critical points as well as why we um as cost escalated our own PIOS plant. It's why we looked at these alternatives. So I can't foresee every risk. I'm trying to do our best to pro provide for it as the vice mayor mentioned as well, but I do believe a diversified water supply and portfolio helps all of us in this valley. So um I think that's really important. So, um, from my perspective, we gain a partner with zone 7's groundwater knowledge and expertise to help us provide the 3500 acre feet, unlocking that lower rate for potential future rate water rate conversations with our community. Um, and uh, that will go a long way to improve the stability of the supply for the whole valley as as zone 7 has an additional source to manage it for us. So all of this has helped us get to this point when we had to turn off our wells and zone 7 has been a provider of water and a partner to us to provide that. So I'm going to be supportive of the motion as well. Any further?

Yes, please. I would just like to offer my kudos to the council that existed back in 2022. Uh I think there were two members of the current council who were on the council back then. So uh for all the members on the council I think they were very um preient in their uh in their you know forecasting and uh looking at the true costs that we faced back then this as a city um and you know determining that the proper um path to take was to find a much uh more palatable alternative in several ways not the least of which is cost and um you know I think that's been achieved And uh I just offer my kudos to the members of the council back then for making that decision.

Okay, we have a motion made and seconded. Uh please roll call vote. Council members Ta I. I Nybert I. Mayor Balch I. The motion passes unanimously. Okay, that concludes item number 23. Item number 24 has been removed from the agenda, which means we have item number 25. It's 9:17. We're going to go ahead and take a quick 8 to 10 minute break as council's been at this for since 5:00. Thank you very much.

Good evening and welcome back to the continuation of the April 21st, 2026 uh Pleasanton City Council meeting. It is 9:28 p.m. and we are now proceeding to item number 25, introduction of an ordinance amending chapter 18.110 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Adopt a resolution adopting new policies related to applications for wireless facilities, macro towers, small cells, and modifications to existing facilities, and adopt a resolution updating the master fee schedule by adding wireless application fees and city manager.

Thank you, mayor. I'm here tonight with our assistant director of community and economic development, uh, also planning manager, uh, Derek Farmer, as well as assistant city attorney Julie Harman and Ellen Clark, our community and economic development directors here in the front row. Uh, they've been working diligently with some outside council as well to uh to create uh an updated modernized wireless ordinance. This is a city council priority. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to our team for the presentation tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Baldman, members of the council, and members of the public. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the city's wireless legal consultant, uh, David Nagel from Coastal Tower Law in San Diego. Uh, David is joining us via Zoom this evening. Make sure. Hi, good evening everyone. Welcome. Thank you for being with us, of course.

So, quick overview of what's before the council's consideration this evening. uh amendments to chapter 18.110 of the Pleasant Municipal Code as well as new policies related to applications for wireless facilities and an updated master fee schedule by adding wireless facility fees. A little bit of background on this. Uh there is a demonstrated wireless coverage gap or gaps throughout the city of Pleasanton. Uh these negatively impact residents, businesses and visitors and even more importantly they potentially impact emergency situations where the public and service providers need alerts and information. Based on this situation, uh as city manager Bowen mentioned, uh staff worked with the consultant and uh went over a comprehensive review of the current wireless ordinance and application processes. Uh one of the things that we found out through our analysis is that a significant contributor to the wireless coverage gap is the city's wireless ordinance. Uh we found it to be outdated and overly restrictive in terms of how long it's been since it's been updated approximately 2013. And also looking at the areas of the city where wireless is discouraged and outright prohibited. Um this also discourages wireless providers from locating facilities in Pleasanton. So the proposed new wireless ordinance and policies again proposing a new wireless ordinance uh which is basically repeal and replace of Pleasanton municipal code chapter 18.110 and three different wireless policy documents which you have before you one for large or macro wireless facilities, one for small wireless facilities and one covering modifications to existing facilities. The goals of this is to improve wireless

coverage throughout Pleasanton and also to maintain the standards related to appropriate sighting and aesthetic considerations. This project is consistent with the one pleasant strategic plan funding our future strategy 2 which is to identify expanded and new revenue sources to address significant infrastructure needs. and it also aligns with the cellular lease revenue program development which is also a city council policy. A overview of the new wireless ordinance again repeal and replace uh chapter 18.110 of the code. Um this removes most regulatory standards and refers to the new policy documents. the three policy documents. By having the three policy documents outside the code makes it easier to update and keep up with evolving state and federal regulations for and also for policies for specific kinds of wireless projects where the policy documents are tailored to the different kinds of wireless facilities and also the policies are just as enforceable as they would be in an ordinance. So basically the council be adopting them they would have the same weight as they would if they were in an ordinance they would just be outside that ordinance so we could address you know specific concerns of different kinds of wireless uh applications. The first is the uh policy document for you know largecale or macro wireless facilities. Uh these are usually freestanding towers and support structures or rooftop or building mounted sites and they typically provide a coverage radius of approximately 1 to three or more miles depending on the site's you know terrain vegetation and similar physical factors. Here is an example of uh some acro facilities. These are all in the city of Pleasanton. Perhaps you've seen these.

Um we have examples of ground mounted and roof mounted facilities here. And then for small wireless facilities, these are usually attached to street lights and or utility poles. They typically provide a coverage radius of a few hundred feet to upwards of approximately 1,000 ft. And they are intended to provide added capacity in hightra areas as well as dense urban settings and suburban communities. And the next slide uh these are examples of small wireless facilities. These were not taken in Pleasanton apologies but they are representative of you know how small wireless facil facilities are located on existing you know poles and light poles and different structures. Then you have the third policy document which is for modifications to existing wireless facilities. These are regulated by section 6409A of the federal spectrum act. They do require approval of certain additions and modifications that do not substantially change the dimensions of existing facilities and the actual uh you know the things in the federal code the um the standards are pretty well spelled out. Um and they also provide added capacity in hightra areas, dense urban settings and suburban communities. One of the advantages of what the staff is proposing tonight and the planning commission has reviewed already is these include location and design standards that are much more specific to the types of wireless applications and projects that the city would be receiving. um they include location standards that are in the the documents and uh staff worked with the consultant uh quite extensively on rankings uh to make sure that they went from preferred to ex to discouraged. Um these are based on you

know zoning designation trying to protect residential areas if possible or at least address them. Um environmental setting and distance from residential andor historic structures among other factors. They also include design and aesthetic standards. These are mostly for the large-scale macro facilities which include uh standards and uh provisions for stealth and concealment as well as design and location of structures like you know ancillary structures um as well as measures that mimic or blend in with underlying support structures among other physical factors of the site. In addition, uh staff has spent considerable time with the applicant, I mean, excuse me, with the consultant on updating the city's master fee schedule to include an update to include wireless facility fees. Uh the different fees are outlined in section seven of the policy documents, the three different documents and they are based on the type and complexity of the application and they include a combination of both fees and deposits and the intent of these is to be as cost recovery as possible to minimize any potential impacts uh to the general fund. The planning commission at its March 25th meeting considered the project and recommended the city council uh repeal and replace the ordinance uh chapter 18.110 and adopt the three different macro uh and small wireless and modifications to existing wireless policy documents with a couple of changes. uh staff brought to the planning commission in the macro policy a 10-day uh noticing period among receipt of a wireless application as well as a noticing radius of 300 ft. The

planning commission amended this by having a 30-day noticing period and a 500 ft uh radius for noticing. And again, these are for the macro uh large facilities only. And the recommendation this evening is to introduce an ordinance amending chapter 18.110 of the Pleasant Municipal Code as well as adopt a resolution adopting three new policies related to applications for wireless facilities and adopt a resolution updating the master fee schedule by adding wireless facility fees. And in addition to that, we did receive some late correspondence yesterday and uh staff has prepared a supplemental material for the council's consideration. And you have that before you as well. And with that, I will conclude presentation and we are here to answer any questions. Thank you very much. And I believe everyone received the supplemental material. So, council member Iker, you're the first out of the shoot on this item. Clarifying questions. I do have some speaker cards. So, as you guys entered into this uh project, you found that our current uh municipal code's out of compliance with regulations currently.

I wouldn't say that it's out of compliance. What I think we really found is that it it it does hinder carriers from coming in because there are so many areas that it currently precludes them from coming and they stopped coming. We really over the past since 2013 we really have had very few applications. Uh we've had some, but we had back in 2013 when we last updated the ordinance, we had approximately a little bit less than 30 uh carriers in town and we have about the same a little bit less now because a couple of them have like NextTEL for example went out of business and pulled stakes. So, what is, and I don't know if you're going to be able to answer this, but what what does that look like for other cities? Are they in the same boat we are, or

uh No, they've I'm going to give this to David because David works uh throughout the state with cities and he'll be better at answering this question than I will. Thank you.

Sure. So, you know, every locality is different, right? Some communities want to restrict uh wireless facilities as much as they can. Others um you know have more lax regulations and you may drive through certain cities or towns and you know you see bare monopoles everywhere with no concealment or disguising. So they're you know they're welcoming the the um you know wireless sites as these carriers want to build them. Um so you know it varies across the state. Um, you know, I I think with uh respect to Pleasant, I have to defer to Julie and and staff on you know, their experience uh and and some residents even spoke at planning commission about um you know the cell coverage issues in the city. Um, but I I think what one thing here as Julie was saying was uh you know the code hadn't been updated in a while and um you know part of that was um you know that were addressing is the restrictions on um locations particularly that uh may have been uh preventing wireless carriers from um deploying more. And then um also just best practices, right? You know, the the wireless landscape has evolved and changed through different FCC orders and litigation um and and different statutes o over the past uh you know, 15 years or so. And so, you know, part of that is just to bring all of the, you know, by adopting the ordinance that sets forth the the policies for council to adopt is just to bring everything up into best practices. So when the city does get applications um you know it can um manage them um in a responsible manner and and have um you know location preferences, design guidelines, etc. that are enforcable and and look out for the best interests of Pleasanton while also balancing the need of hey maybe we we might need a couple more cell sites

in town. So, these changes really uh change the landscape for the ability to approve a site in town, but don't necessarily strip away the regulations and what that's going to look like for our community.

Correct. Um yeah, I mean, underlying these policies are still design guidelines that um require the facilities to be stealth to the maximum extent feasible with concealment elements. And then, you know, uh staff work very carefully on locationational preferences, um you know, to again try to steer these sites out of uh residential areas, but also open them up to areas in the more um residential suburban parts of town that are apparently lacking in coverage. But um you know locations like city-owned parks or water tanks or you know even um religious institutional properties like churches um you know those might be good sites to put a concealed cell site in to improve the coverage in those neighborhoods um w without you know really affecting the character of the neighborhood. Um but that that was more difficult under the existing ordinance.

Okay. Thank you. That's actually all I had. You answered about three or four of my questions uh during this conversation. Outstanding. Okay, Vice Mayor, you're next. I have no questions. Thank you, Council Member Nyvert.

Uh thank you. Yes. Um I had the chance to speak earlier with the city manager and also I looked over the supplemental material. So, a lot of my questions have been answered, but I do want to ask um you know, I my understanding is that wireless companies have federal and state law on their side. If they need the coverage, you know, they if they wanted to, they could force the issue and, you know, install wherever they decided they needed to install for for adequate coverage. Am I do I understand that correctly? So they have the right and and I should just let David answer these questions, but they have the right to meet their coverage needs. And so if we if we didn't have an area in town like currently when when Craig asked if when council member Aiker asked if the our ordinance was outdated, it always had a provision, a catch-all that if required to meet federal law, it they can go in, right? We had all these places where they're not allowed, but if required, then they can go in. So, um, that's always in there. That's still in there. Uh, I'm forgetting the first part of your question. Um, council member Niver, sorry.

Oh, just you know the federal and state law being on the side of the telecom companies. Yes, it is. And and so to your question was uh can they go wherever? And and and yes, that is what state law and federal law allow for. But we are allowed to regulate

time, place, aesthetics, these kinds of things. And so that's what the ordinance also does. That's how we have priorities. They can't just go wherever they want. They have to show us that they couldn't have gone in another location. For example, I'm thinking of um uh I think of the I live in the Vintage Hills neighborhood, so it's easy for me to to visualize. And we have coverage problems there. There's a grocery outlet right there. Um, and then there's a whole residential area that's there's no commercial, there's no industrial, it's just residential. And so what do you have there? You might have parks, you might have schools, you might have churches. Those are the only locations that you'll have because people don't want them. We there we don't want them in residential, but those sites could be possible locations to get coverage in neighborhoods that are fully residential. I think that's where we have a lot of our our gaps. Um I know we have gaps in places that are surprising that you know you drive down and you're thinking why is Yeah. Why do I have a coverage gap here? Um but yeah. So

for example yesterday for me the dentist office. Yes. They they wanted they text me a form to fill out and I couldn't get it. That's why I hopped on their Wi-Fi. Yes. The operation service center for the longest time we'd have meetings there and no nobody could use get on their phones to look anything up. Yeah. Okay. Um I know you said that the you know policies would be as enforceable as the current code requirement. Um is that I mean is that really true? Policies can be changed or there could be leeway or there could be you know some discretion involved. How would you address that?

Yeah it it it is the case because the the council is adopting this ordinance and the ordinance refers to the policy. So yeah they're binding. But David, do you want to add to that? uh you you basically covered it. Um you know, already the city has a uh small wireless facilities policy and and we're updating that as well here um tonight. But um so you you've already gone through this process and um you know it it depends again on localities, but um there's at least a couple uh of other municipalities up here in the Bay Area that I'm aware of that um have a similar setup where all of their wireless regulations are in policy documents. So, they they have an ordinance that just refers out to a policy document and then when you get a new FCC order or there's a new lawsuit or or what have you and you need to update your your policy, it's um only, you know, it's it's council has to approve it again. It'll come back for a public hearing in front of council, but it's only that one hearing and and and reading. It's not, you know, like for a full uh ordinance text amendment, you know, two readings going to planning commission before, etc. So, it allows you to be flexible and responsive to um you know the not infrequent changes in in wireless law.

Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Um the um the 100 ft allowance for or restriction for residential. I had some discussion with city manager on this earlier today, but I just want to revisit that. uh seems to me that that might be a concern that we hear about from the community. So, could you say more about that?

Sure. So, I'll I can speak to that. Uh you know, I know staff was looking for um you know, trying to judge the the right distance to improve coverage in in again some of these more residential neighborhoods. and they look very closely at at various city parks, various city water tank properties, um again other other uh common um developments in residential neighborhoods like churches, etc. And um you know, they they I believe it's in your supplemental materials uh for tonight, but you know, there's an example of of of overlays of um you know, what a you know, 200 foot radius, what a 500t radius would look like. And you know, in many cases, that would um wipe out a lot of these potential sites like city parks or city water tanks um for uh potential new cell sites. And so um just because you know w with those with that separate or that separation requirement, it just it would be impossible to build on those on those particular parcels. And so, um, you know, staff's, um, sort of determination and recommendation for you tonight is that 100 foot spacing requirement to open up as many of those, uh, you know, city- owned and other, uh, you know, privately owned parcels as as possible to to try to get some coverage in in the more residential neighborhoods.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, so, okay, I guess just a question to follow on what I asked earlier in related to the what you were just talking about location control the ordinance, you know, instead of relying on exclusion areas in the ordinance. Are we confident we can achieve this the desired effect the same effect in this way without exclusion areas and with with the type of location control that's described or set forth in the policies? Yeah, at at a very high level, the the locationational preferences are divided into preferred and discouraged locations, right? And so your preferred locations, you know, start with industrial, commercial, and go down through various types of zoning. Um, and then, you know, the protected uh discouraged areas are the the residential um also some near historic sites, etc. Um so if you know as Julie was saying before um you know the carriers don't have an absolute right to go wherever they want but if there is some kind of situation where they have to prove um you know that they have to be in this area to provide coverage and th this site's the only site that they can possibly get to do it. Um and it's in a discouraged location or it's um perhaps a discouraged type of structure or design. Um the policies uh for both the the macro, the large facilities and the small wireless facilities have a

special exceptions uh provision where they will have to prove that um and provide evidence um that uh the city uh needs to grant the special exception uh to avoid uh an effective prohibition under federal law. So, you know, there's there's more steps they'll have to go through and it's not guaranteed that the city will absolutely grant it, but if we are going to if they are going to start looking for sites in discouraged areas, um you know, there there are extra steps that they will have to take to prove their legal right to potentially be in that area. Um the the other thing to note here is with um these updated locationational preferences, you know, staff thinks they've they've opened up, you know, a lot of the um you know, feasible zoning areas for the city to get better coverage with hopefully without these carriers needing to go into sensitive areas. So, you know, again, staff here was trying to strike a balance between, you know, opening up locations for for zoning these uh wireless sites um while still trying to protect, you know, residentially zoned properties to to a large degree.

Okay, thank you for that explanation. Um, last question. who in on city staff would be uh primarily responsible for inspecting or enforcing the uh policies.

Uh so as an application comes in, I think it's probably easier to to go through it this way. As an application comes in, planning staff takes it in and then they will send it to our outside consultant to review for accuracy, completeness, uh review the aesthetics, review the radio frequency. There's there's a list of things that the consultant will do. Um that's where the deposit comes in. That's what the deposit covers. So once um that happens, staff, planning staff will be doing the noticing to residents and and getting that out. So, it's primarily a planning function until it's time for them to get a building permit or encroachment permit depending on where they're going, right? Right away or or private property,

our property, then be lease negotiations. So, but it's primarily a planning function and uh and this outside consultant. Okay, great. Thank you. Uh no other questions. Okay, Council Member Ta.

Okay. Well, hello. Um I I appreciate a lot of questions I had. Um got responses today. So um I I think I've over the last decade heard many many residents concerned about our coverage and I think we all support um we welcome better coverage and and this is an important step for doing that. Um what we've heard we've we've received a couple of messages and I've heard from a few other um residents that they're concerned that we've overcorrected a little bit and while we want to encourage or um support the ability for the um carriers to come in and um correct those gaps, But um um are there places that we have removed the guard rails for our residents in the ordinance? Are you talking setbacks, noticing what I because I I know your your questions um we you want to take those separately or was there one over the other as far as the guard rails that you're concerned about? Well, I I think I think the main one was um requiring a siding hierarchy. Um that would require that before a tower goes into a neighborhood

that there's been a consideration of if there was a better or more appropriate location. Yeah. Um we not forbidding it entirely, but that that was that ability was removed. Is that Yeah. Um David, maybe you could talk a little bit about our our preferences and the site analysis and and how one would get say lowered down from preferred to less preferred.

Sure. So in the macro policy there is still a locationational hierarchy of um you know we we start at the uh industrial zoning and you know goes commercial office mixed use agriculture public and institutional and then we get to city parklands um city water tank properties parcels with existing schools existing religious inst institutions um and then certain areas of the downtown specific specific plan if it's concealed into a rooftop and then um parcels that have no underlying zoning apparently portions of the Iron Horse Trail um where there are already some cell sites there. Um so you know with th those are the preferred locations and um that if if the applicant is going to propose a a stealth a concealed site um you know they they don't have to um explain why they're going in commercial instead of industrial but if they're not then they they they need to do that. And then the after that is all the discouraged locations. So um least discouraged to most discouraged is um you know unconcealed uh towers within 500 ft of each other. um unconcealed towers visible from uh I580 or I 680 um or within 200 feet of a historic resource down uh areas the the other areas of the downtown specific plan where it would be on a on a new tower or a existing non-building structure like a flag pole or something like that. Um and then as as you go down that discourage list, it ends with parcels um with a land use designation of residential or then any location within 100 ft of a residential dwelling unit. So that those are the most discouraged locations. And

if it's on the discouraged list, the applicant has to provide the extra information for to just be considered for a special exception. So, um, in that sense, um, there's there's just as many or potentially even more guard rails for, um, you know, sensitive uses like residential zoning near residential uh, uh, dwelling units. Um, while while, you know, other more commercial or park open space type um, zoning locations are preferred. And you know again the policy um uh requires for you know stealth and concealment in those. So you you know the idea here is that they will be relatively unnoticeable in those you know more non-residential areas and then you know if if someone's going to try to site a a a facility in a residential area or another sensitive area like by a historic resource um there there's a lot there there's more steps and more information that's going to be required for them for the city to even consider approving that

consider approving and you made a lot of reference to policy Um there was a concern shared that um putting the language into policy, removing it from code makes it less enforcable. You're making it seem like that's not the case. Um perhaps they were wrong. Um but can you share the um logic of removing from the code and putting it into a policy and is it in fact as enforcable and defensible?

Yeah. So, with the way we've structured the replacement ordinance, uh, as Julie was describing earlier, it um, specifically references that, you know, these different types of of facilities will be governed by the the correlating policies for them that are adopted by the city council. Um, and so that's the legal mechanism um, that it it refers out to the policy. Um and and the benefit as I said earlier is that you know the the wireless um regulations change relatively frequently. Um you know so they're they're it allows you to respond um faster to new FCC orders or you know new outcomes in in litigation because these wireless companies are very ligious especially against municipalities with respect to applications and and and planning approvals. Um, so if there's some kind of new legal standard the city needs to meet, um, you know, you have the flexibility to respond quicker than a a true uh zoning ordinance amendment. And and then the, as I believe I said earlier, the the other uh benefit with the flexibility is more of a practical one. um you know, the city may um you know, decide, hey, you know, um you know, this standard needs to be tighter or like we we'd like to see more of these types of sites or um you know, maybe this we we actually would prefer to see um you know, sites located in this zoning district rather than this one. Let's bump it up the list. It it just it allows you to to do that without um you know going through the whole ordeal of uh you know a code amendment of again planning commission consideration and then two readings at at the council level. The the council remains in control of uh of the policies and whether they amend them or how they amend them. Um you know whether you want

to take staff's recommendation on on proposed amendments etc. Um, and you know, as far as the the legal enforcibility, again, it's it's legal enforceable. There's uh probably dozens of of cities um across the the state that have some or all of their wireless regulations um in policy documents. You know, I can tell you off the top of my head, I believe the town of Sano and city of Antioch, they have all of their wireless regulations in a policy that's referred, you know, from from an ordinance to the policy. Um, other cities, you know, may just have a small wireless facility uh as a policy, you know, again, from ordinance referring out to the policy um as the city currently does as of this moment. So, you know, it just it varies on how um cities want to handle it, but you know, again, with the need for flexibility and sort of the the everchanging state of the law in this realm, um some cities have made the decision it it makes more sense to use policy documents to be more flexible and responsive. I I have concerns because we've had other discussions where our staff has told us because of um ordinances being too vague um that we can't enforce um standards and and I would hate to enter into yet another situation where um our policy is our ordinance isn't um strong and and specific and our policy is too flexible. So I think that um our residents benefit from having clear standards. So, I'll just ask one. Um, again, it's kind of redundant, but um

can you um tell me where this proposal um um gives the same or better protection to our residential neighborhoods than the ordinance that we had. And I'm not advocating for keeping our prior ordinance. I'm just I am still concerned about what has been shared with some of our residents that we have overcorrected. Sure. It in the macro policy for the large facilities, it's section 11 um subsection B2 is the discouraged locations and the most discouraged locations are um subsections D and E. Those are residentially zoned parcels and then any location where the wireless facility will be with in within 100 ft of a residential dwelling unit. And for the small wireless facilities, um same numbered section, section 11, uh subsection B2, discouraged locations. Um uh it's the the first discouraged location is on uh local or residential collector roads in or adjacent to zoning areas categorized as residential as as is mapped in your general plan. And then the most discouraged location is the last one, D. Any location within 100 feet from a residential dwelling unit. Um so so those residential classifications are absolutely in the discouraged locations. And again, the discourage if someone's going to apply for a to site a facility in a discouraged location, they also have to apply for a special exception under section 15, which is it's the basically the same section in both of these policies. And that's where they have to

provide additional information for uh staff or whoever the um approving body is, whether it's the zoning administrator or or if it's referred to planning commission or if it's the city council on appeal, whether or not um state or federal law um you know preempts uh the part of the city's policy that that's trying to be applied and uh a special exception perhaps should be granted to avoid an effective prohibition. But again, it's not a guarantee that the city has to make that finding. But those are the extra steps the applicant will have to go through to site a facility in those kinds of residential districts or near a a residential dwelling unit.

Thank you for being specific with that. But again, you're saying that's policy, not the ordinance, correct? Yes, because the the ordinance refers to the policies as the regulating documents for the wireless facilities. Okay, great. Well, thank you. I'm done.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh I think my questions have been answered by priors. I just actually have maybe a little bit of a question about logistics and it might be when we actually get to lease negotiations, but if we're opening up water towers and other city facilities, thinking light poles and things like that. Uh my question is what if we the city need to move the light pole or you know the water tower becomes out of commission and we need to um uh you know have the cell tower move, right? I I'm just making sure may maybe that's an lease negotiation, but we want them to not hold us liable. That's kind of part one. And since I know you're thinking about it, what if the light pole gets hit by a car? Who's responsible for the loss of service? You know, things like that type of element. I don't know if that's design. I think that's probably lease, but just want to ask.

No, you're right, Mayor Balch. Uh, the lease agreements have those kinds of provisions in them. And David does a lot of leasing agreements. We will be using him when we get our next when we get our first uh lease agreement. We have we have four currently, six, four in town, one share with Limmore. So hopefully we'll be getting some more. And yes, those types of provisions are included. I'm not sure about the uh the light pole that would be in our master um license master lease agreement. Is that what the

Yeah. Um the destruction of the pole like if it gets hit by a car that should be covered by your pole license agreement form um that council adopted back in March of 2019. Um I I wasn't part of that, so I don't know off the top of my head what it says, but um it there's likely there's very likely something in there that covers um you know, those kinds of circumstances um in terms of the small cells on city- owned street light poles. Yeah. We'll make sure to have that when we get our first

Yeah. Well, and you know, as we open up the potential available Yes. city-owned facilities or or city things. It's just can we relocate them if we need to relocate it for functionality of our city without, you know, loss of a risk of of them asserting, you know, loss of revenues, loss of service on our liability versus their own. So, I just want to really make sure that's honed in. Okay. So, thank you for that clarification. Any further clarifying questions before I go to public comment? I do have two public speakers. None. Seeing none, we'll go to our public speakers. Thank you for your patience getting to 10 o'clock. uh Richard Bol and you'll be followed by Kevin Dugan. Three minutes, please.

Welcome and thank you.

Thank you very Thank you very much. Uh my name is Richard Wolf. I live off Bernal and Bentana Hills on Independence Drive across from Mission Hills Park. So you get a perspective where I am. Uh I've been a resident about 30 years in in the area. First, I want to thank the city council for addressing the pleasant poor cell phone reception issue. A couple of things I've driven around Pleasanton quite a bit and even circle the city and I'm looking at because I get cell phone coverage kind of spotty and you know I see one or two bars and see I got one bar here right now for for many years I commuted on 680 southbound and leaving my house I head to Uni Unipro down to Solo Boulevard dead zone halfway down Unipo don't call me I can't get a call it's a dead zone um and Um, so I just avoided taking any conference conference calls at the time. Our residents, we get one or no bars across from Mission Hills Park or it's SOS on my phone.

That's what's that's what I get. Um, and we try to use Wi-Fi for calling on everything. Um, it's been ongoing discussion with my Ventana Hills neighbors. Uh, we commiserate about this quite a bit. Uh the current cell phone coverage in Pleasanton is really unacceptable particularly for a city of this size and location. As I said earlier, I really appreciate the city addressing this important issue and would appreciate even more if you guys take action, you folks take action uh so that the cell phone carriers can better serve their customers and our residents needs because right now I don't think they're doing that whatsoever. Uh they're falling short. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Can I ask I'm sorry. Um, before you leave the podium, who is your carrier?

Uh, AT&T. Okay. And and my neighbors have switched to Verizon and they get like one bar more. So, I don't know where their antenna is, where their cell phone tower antenna is, but that's what I just heard from my neighbors. Sell sell bar envy. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Dugan, welcome. Three minutes as well.

Hi, my name is Kevin Dugen and I'm a local business owner and also a resident of the city. I live in the Vintage Hills neighborhood, Cottinger Ranch. Um, the comments that were just made almost mirror what I experienced with neighbors doing jokes about exactly what cross streets they lose signals on. Uh, I wanted to also, um, I guess generally say I'm in support of the update to the policy. Anything that takes away the chilling effect on the carriers being able to give us some coverage. If Verizon's listening, I would love you to look at Bernal at sorry at the Hurst Avenue water tank is a great location to consider uh for where you could put a signal in. Uh this has been bad enough and if I can set the time back to the COVID time period when uh the kids were forced to go and use uh remote, there was time periods with if you remember there was a lot of power outages. There was also data outages that were taking place and it made it really difficult to even like you couldn't even call the office to say I can't come in because the signal was so bad if the uh repeater was down. Um so I have guests that come to the house and if they I'm a Verizon user but um if somebody comes to the house who's AT&T from visiting from out of town they'll say what's going on with your neighborhood. I thought you guys lived adjacent to Silicon Valley. I don't understand what what do the local neighbors do. Uh so overall I think it's not just a convenience issue. It starts to run into safety issues with not having the ability of the teenagers if they're at home to be able to call for services uh from the city if there was an emergency because you know they just don't use landlines and they're not effective if the Wi-Fi is down. Um so in general just want to say thank you to the council. I know it's been a long day for you uh for being behind looking at some of these issues at the business level. This has a chilling effect on the interest in being in the area. We've been in in town for 25 years and I've seen a deterioration in the quality of the service uh because they are losing cell towers and locations and it's not

an interesting place for them to focus on. And although they can try to compel the city to do work, they do it they put their dollars where they make the biggest bucks. My neighborhood is you're going to lose residents. I don't think they think that's the major loss to them. the same way if they lost some, you know, large um commercial area like Sunnyale or San Jose. Uh so I really appreciate everyone looking at this update and I want to thank the the staff for putting a lot of thought on with the consultants to to come up with a great policy and I don't want to stay any longer than necessary, but generally just wanted to say I'm very supportive of of the update. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's my last speaker card on item number 25. If you would like to speak on item 25 and have not turned in a blue speaker card, please approach the podium at this time. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close public comment. Bring it back to the council. Council member Iker, your first out of the shoot again.

I want to thank staff for your work on this. Uh, good job. Um, it was a lot in a very short period of time, so definitely appreciate that. Um, I think this is long overdue. Uh this should have happened years ago uh to get our uh all of us I mean everybody here can probably talk about uh their uh cell service and uh being dropped or you know even in my house you have to go to the front door to be able to talk on the phone otherwise you can't have a conversation. Um and I'm closer to the center of town so you know it's just it doesn't make sense. we need to get the problem solved and and this is going to get us uh or at least propel us in the direction to do that. So, I'm in in favor of the ordinance uh and the the recommendations made by staff.

Is that a motion? Yes. I'll make a motion to approve it. Okay. Uh vice mayor.

Oh, I mean it is me. I second the motion. I I know I've been a big proponent of this and pushed this and um appreciate the city manager uh and staff making time for this. I know this was a big uh a big ask but an important one nonetheless. We I agree with Council Iker that this is overdue. Um to me it's just flatout public safety issue when you you know you cannot make a phone call in certain areas of town in in today's age. I don't know the number of houses that don't even have a landline, but I suspect it is a great deal of number of houses and um we needed to address this and we have so I will gladly second the motion. Thank you, Council Member Nyberg.

Thank you. Uh yes, thanks to staff for addressing this and coming forward with this recommendation. Um yeah, uh going into this I, you know, had a number of concerns, of course, um not knowing how the the new wireless ordinance um would turn out. Um so I asked a lot of questions and um got answers to them. One thing that I like to ask myself is um you know what are we most trying to protect as we talk about this um and in this case there you know I think this strikes the right balance um protecting neighborhoods um you know from from not being overrun with cell uh towers and facilities but on the other hand providing the type of coverage that is really necessary for the Um, so again, I think we strike the right balance here and uh I am supportive of the recommendation. So, thank you.

Okay, Council Member Ta. Um, I agree that it's long overdue and that much needed and I'm very glad we're um looking at it. I do still worry that um we removed some of our um protection for our neighborhood. Um but um yeah, I I do support that we needed to do something and we've been hearing from our community for years. So hopefully this will encourage the carriers to come and um correct those gaps.

Okay. Um, so I will thank uh staff as all have done and the plan commission. I think the additional amendments they've put in place to how that where we're trying to balance the shock clock and the community with their expectations because I've been a plan commissioner where you're unfortunately just having to uh be able to provide a venue for residents to express their um concerns but um are limited on our options for remedies. So, I think we're we're doing our best for our community to make sure that we're um transparent about where these will go, provide a maximum amount of opportunity for feedback or input. Um and then I do think we, you know, as as outlined by um the staff, we are maintaining high quality design standards, trying to mask these, trying to fit them into the neighborhoods. But obviously, I I fully agree with the vice mayor, risk to emergency services, a risk to our community, especially in today's age. So I'm supportive of the motion as well. Any further comments take before we take a roll call vote? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Council members Aker I. Gatos I. Nybert. Hi. Ta. I. Mayor Balch. I. The motion passes unanimously.

Outstanding. Thank you very much. That completes item number 25. We're moving through the agenda. We are now at matters initiated by council. Any matters initiated by my fellow colleagues at this time? Seeing none, I do want to mention one. Although I will probably bring it up because I didn't speak to the city manager beforehand, but I am concerned that action minutes are not providing the level of granularity we would like in our community. So, I will be at the next meeting uh looking to um take and go back to uh prior I'll call it fuller minutes and I'd like to see what the cost impact would that of that would be. So, I'll take that up with staff first, but know that I've got action minutes in the bullseye for me. Uh, hearing no further other things. If

I could, Mayor, I just wanted to bring up I know there'd been enforcement action on the sort of not legal taco stand that's operating on Santaita Road. And I appreciate the city's efforts in doing that. Despite the city's efforts and I think seizing equipment, they've been open several nights this week, including right now as we speak. So, um, whatever efforts are being done are are being met with, uh, opposite action to keep staying open. And I I have concerns as the community does for the health and safety of our residents, the health and safety of our roadways and and the me the the the countless health and safety code violations that are going on there. So, just want to bring that to city manager's attention and if there's capacity to get out there and uh do more intervention, we'd appreciate that. Okay. So, action minutes will be more formal. I'm just kind of hinting at that and then code enforcement action on that. Okay. Uh then we're going to council reports. Brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by council. Vice Mayor, you're first out of the shoot on this one.

I actually don't think I have anything I have mandated to report since the last meeting. So, council member Nairo. Uh it's been a while since the last meeting. Um of course, I attended the state of the city address given by the mayor. uh had the chance to uh ride along with meals on wheels and delivering uh meals to senior citizens. Uh attended the Alamita um land uh open space committee meeting. Uh there was a Tri Valley city council's meeting in Liverour that many of us attended. Uh I also attended League of California Cities the Environmental Quality Policy Committee which is a statewide committee. Livermore um Pleasanton Fire Department had an academy graduation which was a nice event. Uh attended the mosquito abatement board meeting as well as the AVA board meeting in um place of the mayor and also the well we had the commission recognition dinner or

Thank you. celebration

uh council member Tessa. Yes, it has been a while since I've got quite a bit um Tri Valley um city council meeting that um council member Nybert just mentioned. Um I uh participated on the Alama County Fair liaison committee meeting. Um lot of concerns from um the downtown neighbors about noise with changed um uh uh events that are going on at the fairgrounds. I multiple LAVTA meetings I think three since our last council meeting. I participated in um commission um or commission interviews um and attended the commission um dinner um yeah um participated in um ad hoc committee com uh also commission ad hoc committee where we were talking about the changes in our commissions um attended a Tri Valley transportation committee. That was um interesting. Cal city's housing policy committee and I attended um a conference in Washington DC as um uh the chair of our lava which is an appointment from um our council. So I think that's it.

Okay. Council member Aker.

Uh, I attended a loft transit employee recognition event, attended the state of the city, attended the Alama County Fair Leaison meeting and a Lofta projects and service actually two Lofta projects and service committee meetings. Uh, attended the Tri Valley City Council meeting, the Alama County Transportation Commission meeting. uh a loft of board meeting, the committee and commi commission and committee selection process and I attended the ad hoc committee and commission meeting and was at the public dedication of the Joy Shapiro bench in Cottinger Park on March 27th.

Thank you very much. Um I uh yeah, we've had a lot of meetings since then. Uh, Tri Valley Nonprofit Alliance had the mayor's panel, AVA board meeting in in mid-Marchch, Pleasanton State of the City address, AVA executive committee meeting in early April, Lumour, Pleasanton Fire Department Academy graduation badge pinning as mentioned by Council Member Nybert, seven new recruits added to our LPFD ranks, several service awards, and our own Chief Lacy sitting here pinned with that badge and not stuck by his wife. uh committee and commission recognition dinner as well as interviews, Pleasanton North's Rotary Star Night Gala, uh PPIE's fund run just Sunday where they raised a lot of money and the most interesting talk just for reference, the United Post Masters and Managers of Al of America California division is holding their annual conference in Pleasanton, California of all things. So there you go. There you go. Postmasters of America, city manager.

Uh thank you, mayor and council. Uh just four quick items for you this evening. First, I want to start with some really great news for the community. Uh Pleasanton's Police Department Alternative Response Unit, the ARU, has been named program of the year by the Alama County Emergency Medical Services Agency. So, uh that is a really well-deserved recognition. ARU is not just the clinicians and the officers in the field. There's leadership uh in the office. there's uh dispatch and obviously the community partnering with us uh on this tool uh in this amazing resource. So um we're basically um for folks who don't know ARU is reshaping how we respond to psychiatric related calls. Uh it really is a thoughtful compassionate approach while we reduce the number of people that are transported in ambulances uh to various facilities. And so it really is benefiting both the community and and the uh public safety uh branches that are serving the community as well. So the awards going to be presented during the week of May 17th uh which is EMS week and we'll have county and city representatives here in Pleasanton for that recognition and I'll have more details to come on that. Uh and so big congratulations to the ARU team and the it really does reflect the kind of innovative and uh community centered work that we're proud of in our police department and our in our organization. Uh the second one is National Library Week. Uh it's also um a great opportunity to recognize the impact of Pleasant Public Library on our broader community. Uh the the library continues to really be it is our most well attended facility uh in out of all of our city facilities. our programs uh they get so much recognition from people that the broader community doesn't see. Uh our librarians, our uh English language learners, uh it's just a really phenomenal uh diverse range of programs. Um also a lot of young families using our libraries. So uh really thank you to

the team, our customer service approach, uh and really building meaningful, frankly lifelong community connections. Uh so that's a few highlights there. uh from the program overall uh we have 90% of people rating the pro the offerings at our library as excellent. Uh our library of things continues to expand and again our literacy and ESL programs are phenomenal. So uh thank you to our library team for the work that that gets done there every day. Uh the third thing is our new uh Livermore Pleasant and Fire Department website. The council's all seen it uh but really want to highlight the launch of that website. It makes our resources much more accessible and user friendly. Uh it obviously is serving Liverour and Pleasanton. Uh but LPFD is the is the host. I want to thank Ogden Costa, a local firm that's helping to uh to develop this website just like they helped the city of Pleasanton develop our website. And take a look at lpfire.org. So that's lpfire.org. And then the last thing I have today is Earth Day. Uh I'm going to close. It's it's Saturday. Uh it's technically tomorrow, the 22nd. We'll be celebrating on Saturday, April 25th. We're going to host uh Earth Day and Arbor Day at the the Library and Civic Center from 9:00 a.m. to noon. So, Saturday the 25th, 9:00 a.m. to noon uh here at the Civic Center and Library. Uh we're going to have all kinds of things uh for people to do, but um if you're interested, there's going to be a clothing swap, document shredding, indoor games, and giveaways of five gallon trees. show up early because there's a limited supply of five gallon trees. We hope to see a lot of our our uh members of the community there. So, that concludes the remarks for this evening and thank you.

Yeah. And show up with an appropriate sized car to take home a five gallallon tree. Yeah. Thank you very much for that update. With that, we are moving to a German. Vice Mayor, thank you. The president's 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 serve. 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.