City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to your Pleasanton City Council meeting. Today is July 7th, 2026. It is 7 0 1. Thank you for your patience with us. And we're calling this meeting to order. Uh, if council member Niber, you can lead us in the pledge. Please rise if you are able.

Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance 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.

Thank you very much. Roll call. And just so that our community knows, my monitor is completely out in front of me. So we'll be doing everything via the older process. And so roll call, please.

Councilmembers Eicher?

Present.

Gaydos?

Present.

Nybert?

Here.

Testa? Here. Mayor Balch? Present. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I just have one quick announcement, which is I wanted to express on behalf of the city our thanks to the Pleasanton Community Concert Band, the Lions Club, our veterans, and the sponsors and volunteers, as well as the amazing staff who helped to put together Pleasanton's 4th of July celebration in our own Lyons Wayside Park at our bandstand. A great event for the families and true Pleasanton Americana and what a way to celebrate America's 250th and welcome to your first council meeting in the new 250 years of America. With that, we're going to go to report on and close session. City Attorney. Mayor, nothing to report tonight. Thank you very much. Agenda amendments. Are there any agenda amendments by staff at this time?

Mr. Mayor, no amendments per se, but you do have on the dais before you a couple of supplemental pieces of information that have been provided. One is a letter that pertains to agenda item number 11, and the second is just a follow-up memorandum following up on some direction that we received from council at your last meeting on June the 16th, which is pertaining to follow up with the cities of Livermore, Dublin, and Alameda County regarding the Federal Correctional Institute, FCI facility in Dublin and its potential use as a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.

Okay, thank you very much. Any agenda amendments by my fellow council members at this time? Seeing none, the agenda will proceed as posted. And with that, we're going to move to the consent calendar. Consent items listed on the consent are considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item may be removed from consent and considered separately. The consent consists of items 1 through 7. Do we have any clarifying questions by any of my fellow council members at this time for consent, item 1 through 7?

Councilmember Testa? No. No questions.

No questions. Okay. We have no questions. I have no speaker cards on consent at this time. If you would like to speak on a matter that is on consent, item 1 through 7, and you haven't turned in a speaker card but would like to speak, please approach the podium at this time. Seeing none in the room, clerk, are there any online comments for the consent, item 1 through 7?

There are no requests to speak.

Thank you very much, uh, to our public members at home. If you would like to speak virtually, you can press star nine or raise your hand to be able to signal that you would like to speak. Okay. We'll close public comment on consent and bring it back to the council, uh, items one through seven. How would we like to proceed vice mayor?

So I'll just announce two things. One, I'm recusing myself from number three, but since it's not pulled, I'll stay for the vote, but I'll move to, um, approve the consent calendar, but recuse myself from number three.

Okay, city attorney procedurally, I think then I need a second person to do three and we can bifurcate or so from there, right? Okay. Thank you. I think your mic was off, but it sounds like we can continue to proceed. Okay, I need a second then please.

I'll second.

Motion made and seconded. Any comments before we take a vote? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Council Members Gaydos.

Aye.

Eicher.

Aye.

Nybert.

Aye.

Testa. Aye. Mayor Balch.

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. And noting Vice Mayor recusing from item number three. Okay. With that, we're going to proceed to item number eight. Moving right along in our agenda. This is meeting open to the public public comment for items that are not on the agenda. I like to read this little bit. I do have a few speaker cards here, so we'll go from here. Good evening and welcome. This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Pleasanton City Council on any matters that are within the council's subject matter jurisdiction but are not listed on the agenda. If you wish to speak for 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 for a future item, please fill out a blue speaker card and turn them into the city clerk. If you're joining us virtually, please press star nine on your telephone or raise your hand so that we will be able to call on you appropriately. 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 for what the speaker is saying, simply raise your hand and we will be able to understand that as additional support. Also, please know that this is your time to be heard. If you do ask a question, those won't necessarily be answered unless taken up by a council member after the conclusion of your time or after the conclusion of all public speakers is heard. Speakers are hereby limited to three minutes, and I appreciate your cooperation. With that, we'll proceed with speakers in the room. My first speaker is Reena Gupta. You'll be followed by Johnny Rowland, followed by Linda Kelly. We have a bit more as well. Thank you. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Reena Gupta. I have lived in Pleasanton for 15 years and I have been honored to serve this community on Economic Vitality Commission and the PUSDCT Advisory Board, as well as through organizations such as Three Valleys Community Foundation and Pleasanton Connects, which help bring events like the Longest Table to our city. To deepen that commitment, I'm announcing my decision to run for city council seat from District three this November to fully understand complex city topics. I have spent the past several weeks talking to more than 200 Pleasanton residents and experts asking one simple question. Do you know what decisions are being made at the City Hall and how they affect your daily life? Many residents care deeply about our community, but simply don't have time to attend city council meetings or read through agendas, or too often, they only hear about a decision after it is being made. So I built a simple tool that gives residents a short audio bulletin on what's on the agenda and invites them to share their thoughts in a simple conversational way. Residents can log their feedback directly at arenaforpleasanton.com and I summarize that feedback and carry it forward here during public comment. So residents have a voice at this podium even when they can't be here themselves. Mayor and council members, my goal is to be a voice for residents starting now, regardless of the November election outcome. I'd welcome any feedback you have on this process as I get it off the ground. As I go through this process, my respect for everyone serving on this council now and for everyone who has served before has increased manifold. Thank you for everything you do. I hope to continue doing my part to help Pleasanton build a strong economy and a vibrant community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Johnny Roland, you'll be followed by Linda Kelly. You'll be followed by Vamesh. Vamesh? Yeah, Vamesh. Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Johnny Roland. I've been a Pleasanton resident since the year 2000. This is my first city council meeting. Thank you for allowing the citizens to get up and speak. I'm here just because I wanted to thank you all. I watched the recording of the June 16th meeting. And I want to thank everyone on the council for agreeing to pursue and instructing the staff to confer with officials from Dublin, I'm sorry, from Livermore and Alameda County about the Dublin FCI. I've been here since the year 2000. I've never felt a need to really get involved or active in what's going on locally. I've trusted the officials that we all elect to sort of pursue their duties and make sure that the interests of all of us are being taken care of. I feel that the Dublin FCI, even though I know it's not a positive move at this time, just any, but it's being discussed. And there's been looks like serious efforts by ICE to try to put a facility in the Tri-Valley. I can't imagine the turmoil that that would cause to this area, to the citizens who live here, and everyone else who goes through the Tri-Valley. It bothers me enough to come down and attend a City Council meeting for the first time in 26 years. And I will be following up and attending because I'm really interested to see where this goes and what the City Council of Pleasanton decides to do regarding this. In looking at the last meeting, I saw that some people felt that it was kind of a non-issue. It's not in our jurisdiction. Why is this important? But just looking at what happened in Minneapolis and other cities, it's obvious that any facility in the Tri-Valley would have significant impact on all of us. So thank you again for listening to the citizens who brought it up at the last council meeting and directing the staff to investigate. I heard that the city manager said something to the effect that there'll be maybe something said at the meeting regarding the communication that was done with Livermore and Alameda County. So I look forward to that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. And I'll just let you know that the memo was just provided to us. So I don't know if we've all had a chance to read it. And all memos are posted on the city's website for the public to be able to review.

And Mayor, may I? Yes, please. So, yes, we did just receive a memo and I have not read it. I don't, literally within the last couple minutes. I think we actually got an email earlier that some of us may have had time to read. Is it possible to ask for a summary of it at this time?

Thank you, Councilmember Testa. Yes, good evening. Alexa Jeffress, Assistant City Manager. So yes, at the request of Council after the June 16th meeting, staff did reach out to the cities of Dublin and Livermore, as well as to Alameda County, really just to inquire as to what actions had been taken by those other agencies and to ask about the current status or any opportunities for future coordination. So as is outlined in the memo, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors took action in April of this year. They unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the reopening of FCI Dublin for any correctional operations. There's a link in the memo to that resolution. The city of Dublin has had fairly extensive communication with the federal government on this topic, including writing letters to the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, making clear their opposition to the use of SCI. Dublin is a nice detention facility, and the Dublin City Council also approved a resolution last December formally opposing the facility's use for any future detention or correctional operations. So the city of Dublin does have a website. It's linked in the memo. It's called Dublin Buzz, where they outline all the sort of history of correspondence with federal agencies on this topic. Most noteworthy, something we learned in talking to both Dublin and Livermore and Alameda County, There hasn't been any confirmation directly from any federal agency, from DHS, or from the Federal Bureau of Prisons regarding any intent to use the FCI Dublin facility as a detention facility. In March of this year, the city of Dublin did receive a letter back from the Department of Homeland Security that essentially stated that ICE is not planning to use the FCI Dublin facility as a detention facility. and explicitly stating that that facility, that FCI Dublin facility was not included in a February 2025 agreement between the Bureau of Prisons and ICE to house immigration detainees at various Bureau of Prisons institutions around the country. The most recent activity was that the Bureau of Prisons did conduct an environmental assessment report on the property earlier this year in May. There was an opportunity to submit comments on that report. Well, through early June, and the City of Dublin did actually submit comments on the environmental assessment report, essentially requesting a thorough evaluation of any proposed future use of the site. So at this current time, after talking to all of our partner agencies, the general sense that staff received is that everybody is monitoring the situation really closely and will continue to provide comment when possible and sort of share information if any new information comes out regarding any, you know, explicit intent to reuse the facility, but there's no such information at this time. Okay. Hopefully that's helpful.

Okay. Well, that's the update. We will continue to follow it. Okay.

Okay. Continue with public comment. My next speaker is Linda Kelly. You'll be followed by Bamishi, followed by Alok Damaridi. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, staff, and all those watching. I'm here with what has become the annual invitation to Community of Characters fundraising barbecue. For those of you unfamiliar, Pleasanton Community of Character was founded in 2008. We administer the Juanita Hogan Scholarships for character given to all three high schools. Students are filling out applications, we select from those applications. This year we were thankful to be able to give 14 scholarships, which is the greatest number we've ever given, and we're proud that this year we were able to give our 50th since the onset of the program. So come August 8th, we will have our annual barbecue fundraiser. We are the cooks, the bottle washers, the planners, the dishwashers. We do it all. It's held in Councilmember Eicher's backyard, as a matter of fact. He has generously over the years he and his wife have sponsored this venue which allows us to do it at a lower expense than if we were to have to rent a venue so we're having Expect a lot of fun. We have a live band again this year and would like all of you to check us out online at communityofcharacter.org. Check it out and you can buy tickets there. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Vamish, followed by Alok Damaridi, followed by Kelly Cousins. And I apologize, I am not saying this correctly. If you can correct me, please. That's fine.

Thank you, Mayor and city council members. My name is Vamshi, and I've been in Pleasanton from 2001, so it's been a while. So I do like the community here a lot. One of my dreams was to build a home in Pleasanton. So with that ambition, we kind of acquired the line in Equus Court. And two years back, we approached the city council, and then we got the favorable decisions. Now, for the past three months, we are stuck. There has been a drag between the city's engineer versus the geotech engineer. We hide the right engineer, geotech engineer, and it's been going on for three months. We resolve all the comments. Every time they have an opportunity to comment on that thing, we resolve the comments. it's been a while. It's been like the project has been going forever. And we are the I'm the owner of one of the owner and I'm getting I'm paying the price for paying the the whole thing. So I would really appreciate if you guys can step up and then help us in moving this project forward. That's all I have.

Okay. Thank you very much. The city clerk can hand you my business card. She has maybe a sit there. And I would like to learn more. And then our city manager probably or I can get in touch with you.

I really appreciate it, Jack.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

I can't read your surname, but I apologize. Welcome.

I owe you a phone call, by the way. Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. I'm the owner and the developer at the Equus code that we just had my other friend talk about. We've been here a few months ago. Sorry, I mean a couple of years ago when we were getting the plans approved for the improvement. This development was approved back in the late 80s and early 90s. We took it upon ourselves to go and grade this. It's right in front of Foothill High School and make this home for six people in this community. So that's what we've been going after for about three years now. We are finally broke ground about a couple of years ago and We we've done everything we hired the engineers the geotech engineers. I'm I've done a few developments across the Bay Area and At the current stage where it is there seems to be a logjam between the city engineer and our geotechnical engineer of record and We understand and respect the city's inspection responsibilities and the city's on-call engineer is reviewing this carefully. All we are requesting is the city council help us go and adjudicate this quickly so we don't have to spend multiple months, especially in the dry season when the entire site is open. We don't want to get into the wet season and have the entire site open, especially on a high-visibility site like the Foothill Road. So the more time we lose, that's going to be negatively impactful for not just us but the entire community. We intend to cooperate fully and in good faith, and hopefully we resolve this at the staff level without any further escalation. Just out of abundance of caution, we also want the council to be aware that we want to preserve our right to appeal under the municipal code and what are the legal opportunities we have if they can't resolve this year. So I'd request, I would solicit the council's help in making sure that we have collaboration, a three-way collaboration between our geotechnical engineer of record, the owner, and then the city staff. Thank you.

City staff, I know I'm flat-footed on this, but do you have any comments that you can offer here?

Yes, thanks, Mr. Mayor, with respect to both of the previous two speakers, but the last gentleman who spoke in particular. I'm happy to have a conversation with them and with our staff to try to further ascertain where things stand in the development review process. Typically when we're dealing with things like geotechnical and construction standards that are associated with a development application, Those aren't typically subjective standards, but I would be happy to have a conversation, learn more, and see whether or not there is anything that could happen to facilitate that process. Okay.

Thank you very much. We'll start with that. Okay. Our next speaker is Ms. Kelly Cousins, followed by James, and welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor, city council members, and staff. I'm Kelly Cousins, and I'm the president of the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council. And I want to thank all of you for coming, or many of you, for coming to the 4th of July concert we had. And I want to thank the coordinators for that great 250-year concert. It was well attended and very well done, and appreciate all the the effort everybody went into, and the invitation to Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council to have a booth and a table where we could showcase some of our patriotic chairs. We're having a charity event. Currently, it's a fundraiser for the arts projects that we do. throughout the years, and we can have had artists paint various chairs and also put them on our website, PleasantonArts.org, and the chairs are a variety of children's chairs, tables, and they're very unique. I don't know if anybody has seen, there's two chairs at the Museum on Main, And there's two chairs at the town center books. One is a child's chair that's in the window. And also we have some chairs on display at Da Vinci Gallery, which is across the street from the museum on 600 Main Street. And on July 11th, we will be having a sale and a reception for the fundraiser. And we will be bidding on the chairs. But if you really see a chair that you like, you can buy it now at a certain price. And we'd love to get it reserved for you. And I have some flyers if anybody's interested.

charity event and we appreciate your attendance and your support thank you thank you very much okay uh and our last speaker card so far mr james i apologize can't read your last name but merit property welcome

Good evening. James Sandler. Oh, thank you. I've been a longtime Pleasanton resident. We just celebrated our 40th year in Foothill Knolls. My question is about the Merritt property, which we adjoined. Last fall, I was here for a number of discussions, what was happening and timing. I've spoken to Alameda County about the annexation and such, and I can't seem to find any information of where that stands. My primary concern is for myself and my neighbors. All the time for the last 40 years we've lived here, when the Merritt property was a working orchard, the families that ran it took care of the infestation of rats and squirrels and voles and all kinds of other rodents. And since the property has been vacant and unused for now four or five years, our neighborhood is getting overrun by rodents. They're dangerous. They're expensive. They're destructive. I've had my underground, my residential low voltage lighting destroy the wiring. They seem to like to chew on that. They get into your attic. I didn't know that a squirrel and a rat can climb your downspouts and chew in through the headers under your eaves. I have a $12,000 bill coming up to replace the insulation and clean out my attic from rodents. I've spent over $2,000 on landscaping. My concern is right now, well, let me put one other thing. Do you like peaches and plums and apples and tomatoes? So do these animals. They are so destructive. They particularly like, I found out last night, beefsteak tomatoes. They went through my garden and destroyed every single one. It's kind of upsetting when you work really hard at that. My concern is when will they start to either excavate put roads in or anything or work on that property. If it's six months from now, I can tolerate it. I contacted a landscaper and said, what do you do to protect it? He says, well, we tear out your lawn first, then we put in a wire mesh, and then we put in stones over that, and then we'll bring dirt back in, and then we'll start it for you and put in the irrigation. I said, what would that cost? He says, about $35,000. I'm a little bit frustrated and just want to find out and can tell my other neighbors. A lot of neighbors are concerned because they have small children and they can't let them out in the yard unsupervised. People had their cats killed and it's it's it's something that's just reached the point of being intolerable. Is there any update on when they're going to start working on the property? Once the homes are in, there won't be a problem because they'll have to destroy all those nests and everything.

So again, this is your time to address us. I don't know that answer. Does staff have an answer for it? Because I think we're waiting for the applicant to complete their process at this time. I'll mention maybe for you that no matter what code enforcement is available and maybe we can connect you with

Well, the issue of code enforcement, I talked to people in the city about that. They said until the property is annexed to the city, it's Alameda County's responsibility.

That's exactly correct.

And I talked to Alameda County and they said, well, there's really nothing we can do about it. until it's until the discussions are finalized. So it's it's it's been a very hollow discussion.

Well, so we're going to close public comment here. So we'll we'll have to put a period in this now, but we can have staff reach out to you because Councilmember Niver mentioned vector control is also an option. So so we're going to close this. because this can't be a back and forth at this time. And we'll get you a contact phone number so we can. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Okay.

I'm just going to make the comment that it's unusual to hear that perspective because what we've listened to for literally over a decade is don't start the housing. So but you know what? I've got the best cat. My cat, you know, get some cats, get some cats. Every neighbor get a cat and it'll take care of it.

Okay. Okay. So that is my last speaker card for people in the room. If you would like to speak on matters that are not on the agenda and have not yet spoken, please approach the podium at this time. If you are online and wish to speak, please raise hand or star nine and we will be proceeding to that. Are there any further speakers in the room? Hearing, unseen, none city clerk, any virtual speakers.

We have one request to speak from Mike Katz, lack of E three minutes, please.

Good evening honorable Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Mike Katz-Lacave and I'm the Director of Research for Oakland Privacy. As a result of a recent public records request, I discovered that the Pleasanton Police Department is illegally sharing license plate reader data with Federal Border Patrol. Sharing license plate reader data with federal and out-of-state agencies became illegal in 2016 when SB 34 was signed into law. However, so many law enforcement agencies were failing to comply with the law that the California Department of Justice issued an information bulletin in October 2023 reminding law enforcement agencies that, quote, SB 34 does not permit California law enforcement agencies to share ALPR information with private entities or out-of-state or federal agencies, including out-of-state and federal law enforcement agencies. Now, this is a little bit odd because Section 447.6 of the Pleasanton Police Department policy states, quote, ALPR system audit should be conducted on a regular basis. This is also a requirement under SB 34. However, it appears that either audits are not being conducted as required or the audits are not thorough enough to check whether the police department is complying with California state law. Not only is it disappointing that the agency tasked with enforcing the law is itself failing to follow the law, its actions may have endangered the residents, visitors, neighbors, and families of Pleasanton. I look forward to this violation of state law being quickly addressed and a transparent investigation into how this happened, how long this has been occurring, and accountability for those responsible, including a plan for how it will be prevented in the future. Thank you very much for your time.

OK. Any additional speakers at this time?

I'd like to ask staff to respond to that.

Let me close public comment, please. Any further speakers online at this time?

There are no additional speakers.

OK. We'll close public comment. Councilmember Testa?

Yes. I'd like to ask staff, perhaps our chief, because we have had this discussion. And certainly, council has a very different understanding.

Well, it's an assertion. You don't know if it's true.

Is this even something you're aware of?

No, it's not something I'm aware of.

I'm not sure what he's talking about.

Okay. That's what I would expect.

We can definitely look into it.

Look into it. Okay. Thank you for that.

Sure. Okay.

Okay.

We've closed public comment and we are now proceeding to the rest of the agenda, as mentioned, public hearing and other matters. So we have three items on the agenda, items nine, 10 and 11. So we'll be proceeding through them accordingly. First item up is item number nine. Adopt a resolution ordering the submission to the qualified electors of the city of Pleasanton to measure to approve a uniform transit occupancy tax increase requesting that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors permit consolidation of the measure and related materials with the general municipal election to be held on November 3rd, 2026 directing the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and provide direction on written ballot arguments. Staff, please.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. This item this evening is the latest step in the council's ongoing consideration of a potential ballot measure that would allow voters to consider increasing the city's transient occupancy tax, also known as the hotel tax, to secure new revenue for the city. And our assistant to the city manager, Arun Zavala, is going to present this to council.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and community members. Tonight, I'm bringing you the final action to place a transient occupancy tax measure, our hotel tax, on the November ballot. For the mechanics, I want to ground this and why we're here. The City is facing a structural budget gap, which simply means our costs are growing faster than our revenues. In the 10-year financial forecast we reviewed with you on May 19th, the baseline projects ongoing annual general fund shortfalls. That is before the additional gap that we face in infrastructure funding. We are working this on two fronts at the same time, reducing spending and responsibly pursuing new revenue. This measure is one piece of that second front. It is one of the few revenue tools where the cost falls mostly on visitors rather than Pleasanton residents. I want to briefly walk through how we got here because this has been a deliberate step-by-step process with you. Last August, on August 19th, we brought you a range of revenue options, and you directed us to focus on the hotel tax and to begin talking with our hotel operators. We did that through the fall. In February, on February 3rd, we came back with rate scenarios and market context, and you directed us to develop a measure at a target of 12% phased over two years. Then on June 2nd, we brought you the draft resolution, the draft ordinance, the ballot question, and our community survey results. That night, you voted unanimously to move forward with placing the measure on the November ballot with majority consensus on the phased rate structure. So the substance of the measure, the rate and the ballot question were decided on June 2nd. Tonight's item is a formal step to finalize the measure, adopt the resolution of the ordinance and provide direction on the written ballot arguments. Here is what the measure does. It raises the hotel tax from 8% to 10% on July 1st, 2027, and then to 12% on July 1st, 2028. At 10%, that is about 1.4 million more per year. And at the full 12%, it is about 2.8 million more per year. All of that revenue stays in Pleasanton. For context, our 8% rate has not been increased in 43 years, and it is tied with Dublin and Livermore for the lowest in Alameda County. 10 of the 13 cities in the county with a hotel tax are already at 10% or higher. Even at the full 12%, we would still be at or below most of our neighbors. Because this revenue supports general city services, it is a general tax, which passes with a simple majority, 50% plus one. On the right is the exact question voters would see unchanged from June 2nd. I will give you a moment to read it. That brings us to what we're asking of you tonight. There are two actions. First, adopt the resolution that places the measure on the November ballot. That resolution also approves the ordinance as exhibit A, which amends section 3.20.030 of our municipal code, requests that Alameda County consolidate our measure with the November election, and directs the city attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. Because this places a measure on the ballot, it requires a two-thirds vote of the city council. Second, provide direction on the written ballot arguments. Staff recommends that the council file an argument in favor of the measure and form an ad hoc subcommittee of two council members to draft the primary argument and any rebuttal. To be clear, staff does not write the argument itself. That is the council. And the city clerk sets the filing deadlines. A quick word on how arguments work because it informs your direction. Under the elections code, when the council places a measure on the ballot, there is a priority order for who authors the argument that appears in the voter guide. The city council or members you authorize sit at top of that priority. After that comes proponents, associations of citizens, and individual voters. Only one argument in favor and one against are printed. So if council wants the argument in favor to be the city's, staff's recommendation is to authorize it tonight and name your two-member subcommittee. Giving that direction now lets the subcommittee meet the clerk's deadlines without another council action. Here is the road from tonight to November. If you adopt the resolution this evening, the city attorney's impartial analysis is due August 5th. Primary arguments are due to the city clerk by August 13th and rebuttals by August 20th. The measure then goes to the voters on November 3rd. The one time sensitive piece is the argument direction because those August deadlines come up quickly and the subcommittee needs runway to write. To close, staff recommends that the council place a transient occupancy tax measure on the November 3rd ballot by adopting the resolution, which includes the ordinance and that you provide direction to file a written argument in support and form the two-member subcommittee. This measure is a meaningful, visitor-funded step that keeps dollars here in Pleasanton for the services our residents rely on. Thank you for your time. This has been a collaborative effort across several departments, including the Community and Economic Development Department, Finance Department, the City Attorney's Office, and the City Clerk's Office, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we'll go with clarifying questions on the item. Councilmember Nybert, you're first in my order tonight. Any clarifying questions of staff?

Can you remind me how far this would go toward offsetting our anticipated structural deficits?

THE $2.8 MILLION THAT WE WOULD EXPECT TO RECEIVE UPON THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEASURE TO 12% WOULD OFFSET THE CURRENT STRUCTURAL DEFICIT, WHICH IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $7 TO $8 MILLION. SO IT WOULD COVER A THIRD OR SO OF THAT AMOUNT.

Okay, thank you.

No other questions. Okay. Councilmember Testa, I'm going this way this time. Clarifying questions of staff?

No, I really don't have any clarifying questions. I think we've discussed it enough. Thank you.

Okay. Councilmember Eicher?

No questions. Vice mayor.

None. Thank you. Okay. And my clarifying question, if I can just staff, uh, when, when we moved to this point or from this point on, uh, the city itself as an entity, uh, steps back and only provides information. Could you just maybe explain that our role as a city, uh, and city staff is simply, we're not advocates. We just provide information. Correct.

THAT'S CORRECT. LIKE I POINTED OUT EARLIER, THE COUNCIL CAN FILE BALLOT ARGUMENTS, BUT THE CITY AS A BODY CAN ONLY PROVIDE INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS AT THIS POINT IF IT'S ADOPTED.

MAYOR, CAN I ASK FOR QUALIFYING ON THAT? SURE. BUT THAT'S THE CITY'S ROLE. CERTAINLY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE, IN FACT, RESPONSIBILITY

Sure. Just as long as no city resources are being spent.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

That was going to be my subsequent follow-up question. Thank you. Okay. That concludes my clarifying questions on this item as well. So with that, we are opening up public comment on item number nine. I have no speaker cards. If you would like to speak on item number nine and have not turned in a speaker card at this time, please approach the podium at this time if you're in the room. Three minutes, please.

It won't take that long. Guy Houston here, very interested in this. You had the ballot language. What's the ballot title going to be on the ballot? I'll have to ask staff when you're done with your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Staff, do you have an answer to that question?

That is exactly the way it's going to appear on the ballot.

The one that, do you mind putting that, I know we're right in the middle of public comment, but do you mind re-putting that slide up, staff?

I should note the ballot question and the ballot title are limited to 75 words. We chose to focus on more of the ballot question since we were limited in verbiage. Okay.

Thank you. All right. If there's anyone else in the room that would like to speak on item number nine and has not done so, please approach the podium at this time. Hearing none, seeing none, online. Are there any public comments online? Please star nine or raise your hand at this time.

There are no requests to speak.

Okay, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the council for deliberation. Councilmember Nyberg, you're starting us off on this item, please.

I'll make a motion to City Council to adopt this item.

Okay, so we're going to bifurcate then, it sounds like, because then we can choose the ad hoc committee, so they'll do the...

Item 1A? Or whatever the first part is, item 1.

Okay. Councilmember Testa?

Okay, comments would be that I still have... absolute support for putting this on the ballot I think we it's it is needed and I believe it'll be strongly supported by the community it's not enough to replace measure PP that we tried to pass two years ago, but we can't not take this opportunity to at least support our budget deficit. My concern remains that I don't think it should have been phased. I think that that's leaving money I know that's leaving money on the table. And that's money that we need. And I think that's unfortunate. But I do support the measure. And that's my comments for now.

Would you like to second the motion? No. OK. Council Member Eicher?

I'm going to repeat a comment that I made at our last meeting. So with this ballot measure, it will allow the city to generate new, reoccurring revenue without raising taxes on our residents or our local businesses. It's gonna help diversify our city's revenue base and reduce the reliance on volatile sources like sales tax and property tax. And to be clear, this is just one of many methodologies this council is undertaking in an attempt to stabilize our budget moving forward, and it is intended to have the lowest possible impact to our residents and businesses. In addition to this modest revenue generation tax, We will need to continue our efforts at growing our city's economy while also aggressively managing our budget to ensure future balanced budgets while meeting the service needs of our community. I am in support of this measure and I'll leave that for up for our vote when we get there. I'll second the motion since we haven't had that. Okay. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. I agree with the comments wholeheartedly by Councilmember Eicher. Appreciate Councilmember Neibert making the motion, I'll happily support the vote.

Okay. Councilmember Neibert. Yeah. Did you want to say anything further before I do?

Yes. Thank you. I I agree wholeheartedly that the city needs to pursue economic development and economic vitality. Those are two things that are absolutely needed as we stare down the gun barrels of this structural deficit. However, I think it needs to be clear that over the next four or five years, there's no way we can grow Pleasanton out of our structural deficit. by relying on growth to generate enough revenue to offset the remaining amount of our structural deficit is, in my mind, relying on hope. One good thing about this proposed hotel tax is that it will be predictable and it will be a reliable source of income. Thank you.

Okay, I'll just round out by saying I'll be able to support the motion similar to my earlier comments in June. The city as a royal city of all of us has progressed to belt tighten, identify efficiencies, complete fee reviews, reduce headcount principally through vacant position elimination. and strengthen our long-term foundation for the city, including developer impact fees, sponsorship opportunities, cell tower leases, streamlined permitting, and focusing and redoubling efforts on economic vitality. I'm a CPA by training and profession. There never is one single bullet that answers all the questions. It's a variety of things that come up to make the solution and this is one of them. And so while our fiscal challenges will require fiscal discipline, I do believe asking the voters for the Pleasanton Transit Orient Tax to increase, which hasn't changed since 1983, is appropriate and reasonable at this time. So I think our voters understand what we've done to address their concerns that came up earlier and how we're progressing along the way. So with that, we have a motion made and seconded. Can we have a vote? Roll call vote, please.

Council Members Nybert?

Aye.

Eicher? Aye. Gaydos? Aye. Testa?

I will make a statement with my vote and that is I do not believe that we should be phasing this, but I do support the tax, so aye.

Mayor Balch?

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. We have the second part of this and thank you to my colleagues for unanimous support on that item. The second item on this is directing the writing of the written ballot arguments. Staff has recommended an ad hoc committee, and I would suggest the same. Do we have any discussion on this part of it? Councilmember Nyberg?

I would volunteer to be on the ad hoc subcommittee. By no means do I insist upon it. Okay. Councilmember Testa, any comments?

No comments.

Councilmember Eicher?

I would be okay being on that committee also.

Councilmember or Vice Mayor?

I'm happy to support Councilmember Zyker and Nyberg for the subcommittee.

Okay. I don't normally will do this, but I will mention that, uh, given the, um, does that help it with the best chance of success? I guess I'll just say it like that because I'm willing to serve on it as well, but I don't need to, but I want to the best chance of success. So I would go with that. Okay. Yeah. So, uh, why don't you make the motion vice mayor for an I Burton Iker?

Sure. Okay. I'll move to put Council Members Kniper and Eicher on the subcommittee to write the argument for the ballot measure.

Council Member Tesso?

I'll second that.

Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any conversation before we proceed with the vote? Okay, roll call vote, please.

Council Members Gaydos.

Aye.

Testa. Aye. Eicher. Aye. Nybert.

Aye.

Mayor Balch. Aye. The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you to my colleagues and thank you to Council Member Nybert and Council Member Eicher for writing the ballot argument on behalf of the city. And we hope our residents can fully become informed of this important measure on our ballot this November. Thank you very much, staff. Okay, that concludes item number nine. Give me a second here. We're going to proceed to item number 10.

Mayor, can I ask you a question? Wasn't there something about how it would be... Weren't we supposed to decide on one of these?

We did. We did the ad hoc committee, which is item one here. Okay, but...

But this is saying whose names are going to be.

It will be both of their names that will appear.

Actually, just as a point of clarification, this is on behalf of the council as a whole and it's drafted by the subcommittee. So any or all council members will be able to sign on the argument. Perfect. It will be on behalf of the council.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

Maybe I just, for point of clarification, if we can make sure we're offered the opportunity to sign on if we can. Yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that clarification. We weren't really on mic, but just clarifying that. Okay, we're gonna proceed to item number 10. I think staff is in the change. Let me just read it in Mr. Lucchini. Item number 10 is continued from June 16, 2026. Review an application for sign design review to rebrand an existing 76 gas station and Circle K market to Shell Gasoline and Fulfill Fast Fill Market, located at 4191 First Street, filed as case number P250300 and staff take it away. Welcome. We haven't seen you both in a while.

Thank you. And good evening, Mayor Balch and members of the council. Pleasure to be in front of you again this evening. So tonight, excuse me, the City Council has requested a review of the sign design review application to install new signage as part of a gas station rebranding at the former 76 station in Circle K market to a Shell gasoline and fast fill market. This is a de novo review of this application and as such, any previous actions taken on either by the zoning administrator or the planning commission do not apply. meaning the City Council is tasked with making a determination on this application based on its own independent review. As shown here, the project site is located at 4191 First Street, generally at the northwest corner of First and Ray Streets. Adjacent uses include multi-tenant commercial and office buildings to the north and the south across Ray Street and detached single-family residences and offices to the west and east across First Street. For reference, an existing Gulf gas station that was subject to a similar City Council review last year is located diagonally across the intersection of First and Ray Streets. Under the regulatory framework, when there's new signage proposed within a project area without an approved master sign program, sign design review is required. This type of review is common for older straight zone gas stations that tend to either update their branding or rebrand entirely every few years or so. As part of the sign design review process, and before making a determination, the zoning administrator evaluates the proposed signage against any applicable provisions specified by the municipal code, any applicable general plan policies, specifically community character policy 15, program 15.3, which encourages attractive sign design and higher quality sign materials, as well as attractive colors that minimize bright franchising colors, as well as community character policy 16, which discurs discourages franchise and prototype architecture and signage. The zoning administrator will also consider any applicable design guidelines if they apply, such as the downtown design guidelines. Staff would also like to note that city signage codes, policies and standards are fairly subjective and very non-prescriptive as to materials, size, placement, permissible levels and types of lighting, colors and the use of branding.

Sorry there, I skipped ahead too many. There we go.

So consequently, without objective standards in place, especially related to the amount of lighting and the use of corporate colors, logos, and branding, the zoning administrator must subjectively evaluate sign design review proposals. The zoning administrator will consider factors such as location and visibility of the site, whether the project is a rebranding of an existing gas station or new construction, existing signage and sign conditions, and design character of the buildings or structures on which the signage is being placed. nature of the use for which the signage is proposed and the character type and proximity of adjacent uses. Additionally, the city must also consider the reasonable expectation that businesses may wish to or be entitled to use some of their corporate colors for business identification or branding as part of their signage program. I will note that in most instances, the zoning administrator is successful in negotiating with applicants for well-designed, high quality, and proportionally sized signage. To paraphrase the agenda report, the main things that we focus on are indirect backlit or halo illumination, individual channel letters, high quality finishes, colors consistent and complementary to the project area, reduction of corporate branding whenever possible, And then lastly, proportionality to the project area in which the signage will represent. Specific to this signage proposal, on September 2nd, 2025, the applicant submitted a sign design review application for approval of rebranding of the existing gas station. The original brand that was to come in and replace the 76 was Sunoco. That scope of work included signage modifications for the monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage, all inclusive of that rebranding process. The application was deemed incomplete on September 16, 2025, and comments were provided to the applicant in two key areas. First, that there was general support from staff to upgrade the appearance of the overall gas station and the project site. However, that staff would require a reduction of the blue Sunoco branding colors to a maximum of 25% of the total canopy fascia height. In response to those comments, over the next few months, staff held several discussions with the applicant to review opportunities to reduce the overall amount of corporate branding with specific focus on canopy design options and lighting options on the site as a whole. On January 15th of this year, the applicant resubmitted their proposal, which included a brand shift to Shell Gas Station and Fast Fill Market from the Sunoco product. There was less franchise branding colors compared to the Sunoco design, and it did remove some signage in and around the pump island areas. And the predominant amount of franchise branding was focused on the canopy fascia at approximately 66% of the total canopy fascia height. In response to that, staff proposed a compromise to the applicant. The first item that we offered was a request to reduce the franchise branding colors to no more than 33% of the total canopy fascia height. And then also a condition of approval that all canopy lighting, with the exception of the under lighting that faces down towards the pumps themselves, be turned off daily between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., which is similar to the existing gas station that's there now, as well as a condition that was placed on the Gulf gas station across the street. The applicant subsequently declined to make any further modifications, and they requested that the zoning administrator make a determination on the application as proposed. Just briefly, this slide kind of provides a chronological overview of the zoning administrator and sign design review process at the staff level. I won't touch on all these points. I just will fast forward to the February 25th, 2026 date where the zoning administrator did ultimately deny the application and cited inconsistencies with the general plan community character elements 15 and 16, which I mentioned earlier. On March 5th, 2026, the applicant filed an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. That was heard on May 13th of this year. The Planning Commission ultimately upheld the applicant's appeal by a three to one vote. As part of that action, the Planning Commission made findings for approval and adopted standard sign design review conditions of approval. And additionally, they placed two project-specific conditions of approval on the application, the first being that the corporate branding color on the canopy not to exceed 50 percent of the total canopy fascia height and that, as I mentioned earlier, all canopy lighting with the exception of the under lighting be turned off daily between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Before I conclude staff's presentation, I just wanted to provide the council with a comparison slide that kind of shows the evolution of the application over time. In the upper left-hand corner is the existing 76 station as it exists today. And then as we move clockwise around to the initial proposal by the applicant for the Seneco product there, which is primarily blue and yellow with a touch of red. And then finally, ultimately, in the lower left-hand corner, this is the proposal that was provided by the applicant, ultimately approved with a slight modification by the Planning Commission for the Shell gasoline. So based on the information provided in the agenda report and this evening, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution upholding the zoning administrator's original denial of case number P25-0300. Alternatively, based on the Council's de novo review of this application, you may elect to approve the project consistent with the Planning Commission's determination as it's stated in attachment six. You also have the option to uphold the original proposal by the applicant in attachment five. Or you may approve the project with your own modifications as you see fit. For the council's reference, the applicant Guy Houston is in attendance this evening to answer any questions on the applicant's behalf. And that will conclude my presentation. Happy to address any questions.

Thank you, staff. If I just may point clarification for the record, I think the existing slide, the 76 is currently covered. Correct. Okay. So just so that we're just aware of that for the council. Okay. Thank you very much. So any clarifying questions of the staff report at this time? Council Member Testa.

So There is a cover currently on the canopy. What's under the canopy? Has any of the new branding been done, or is it still the prior 76?

I'll defer to the applicant specifically, but to my knowledge, driving by there a couple times over the last few months, I don't believe they've actually changed any of the branding underneath those banners.

Okay. Thank you. We will ask that then. Thank you. This is the same applicant that came forward with the prior, what is now the Gulf Station, I think you said in the presentation, the Kitty Corner? That's correct. Okay. And that was also had issues about that it wasn't in compliance with the general plan but the work was done before council approval so is that right and so it was voted not unanimously but it was voted by the council to allow the the branding done rather than the expense of redoing it since it was done before approval

Yes, the council elected to call that application up and review it.

Right. Okay. That's all I have for now. Thanks.

Okay. Same order. Council Member Eicher, clarifying questions at this time?

Not a staff, no.

Okay. Vice Mayor? No questions. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Nyberg, clarifying questions?

No questions. Okay.

I do not have any questions. I made the clarifying point earlier. Okay. Thank you very much. So just so that our community knows, because this is an application or appeal, the appellant will have 10 minutes after which there will be questions of the appellant by counsel, then public comment, three minutes. Then the appellant will have a rebuttal of five minutes allotted to them. With that, if the appellant would like to come up and you have 10 minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Guy Houston representing Mike Amati and Gofco Enterprises, who owns the, as was said, the station across the street and also this 76 stations that we're trying to rebrand. Eric did a fantastic job of chronological events. It's what happened since our application last September. And so we would like to, you know, really just summarize as we have gone back to Shell and gone back to the applicant and the provisions of the Planning Commission to make it 50% is acceptable. And we would like the City Council to approve that measure. Originally, we were with Sunoco. And we're talking about 36 inches there. Sunoco had 36 inches of color. And that was deemed unacceptable late last year. And so we went back to Sunoco and said, hey, we need to make a change. And Sunoco said, no, we're not going to change our brand. This is our brand. And so at so much time and expense, Mr. Ahmadi fired Sunoco. and sought out shell, which is kind of ironic because the station across the street was a shell, but that's the way it goes. And they were able to come up with a plan that was at 63.8% of that. And so that's 22.96 inches. So we went from 36 inches to 22.96 inches. And then now we have the Planning Commission has said, okay, we can settle a three to one vote of 18 inches. So we're talking about six inches now, which driving down the street, I don't think you could discern it at all. But the applicant would like to see some finality to do this. They think that businesses is being hurt because they don't have the proper branding out there. And the Planning Commission was very thoughtful and went through this back and forth. And so we would like to ask that you approve the Planning Commission's recommendation of the 18 inches or 50% color for this branding. Everything else attached with, and Eric can second this, everything else the monument signs, the pumps, all the other colors and brandings, that was never really the issue at all. It's just what happens up on that canopy. So we ask that you support the Planning Commission, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. And no, we don't have anything hidden underneath the banner right now.

Okay, thank you very much.

So we'll go with questions by council.

Councilmember Testa, clarifying questions of the appellant.

Well, you answered my clarifying question. I'll just, no more questions. Thank you.

Okay. Council Member Eicher?

I really don't. I thought I was going to have a question for you, but you answered it. And that was why the change from Seneca to the Shell Station, which thank you for, well, thank your applicant for recognizing that one wasn't going to work and transitioning to something, somebody that may work with the city to make that happen.

We've tried to make it work along the way, so we appreciate that.

And I wanted to basically acknowledge, I appreciate you bringing this to the council prior to doing the work this time. That makes things a lot easier. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Okay. Vice Mayor. No questions. Thank you. Council Member Nyberg.

Yes. Where I grew up, there were lots of these stations. Well, you mentioned Sunoco. Where I grew up, it was Sunoco. No one ever called it Sonico.

So- Potato, tomato. Yes. Potato, potato, there you go.

If I don't respond to Sonico, that's the reason why. So how long is the canopy all sides at the station?

How long? Lineal length, yeah. Lineal length. I do not know that off of hand. It's on the plan. 102 feet. 102 by 43.

It just seems to be 102. It's on the one street and 43 facing the intersecting street.

Facing Ray is I should apologize. Maybe I should defer to staff, but confirm my facing rate 36 feet facing first 102.

You got it. Yep.

Okay. That sounds to me like quite a bit longer than the Gulf Station across the street. Does that seem reasonable, that judgment?

Mr. Ahmadi bought this station as is, and so how it was developed and how that was approved back in the day, I have no idea, but that's what he bought.

Okay. Well, one total length of one is... is longer than the total length of the other.

I don't see the connection between the two.

I'm getting at the amount of canopy that would be forward facing. in particular with regard to a gateway entrance to the city. And so it seems to me, and I was just asking, that the canopy length along all sides at this location is quite a bit longer than what we considered in the past for the other station, but I don't need to know the exact amount. So I have no questions.

Okay. I have no clarifying questions. The applicants at this time. Thank you very much. Okay. We'll go to public comment. If you would like to speak on this item, item number 10, please fill out blue speaker card. We have one speaker card currently, Ms. Kelly cousins. You have three minutes.

Hello again. Welcome. Thank you. Tonight you have an opportunity to uphold the vision that Pleasanton residents and previous city councils established through a voter approved general plan and aspects of the downtown specific plan. Agenda item 10 is not simply a signage of one gas station. It is about whether the city will continue to follow the planning principles that have helped preserve Pleasanton's unique character for decades. The proposed shell franchise style signage and branding at this highly visible gateway location of 1st and Ray Street does not reflect the design directions contained in our adopted planning documents. These documents encourage attractive context sensitive designs and specifically discourage prominent prototype or franchise branding in important downtown locations. The city's own staff report acknowledges that the proposal does not fully align with the general plan policies that encourage less prominent branding and colors. And hopefully we'll have, that encourages less prominent branding and colors, but rather compliments rather than dominates the surrounding environment. The goal is to draw people into our historic downtown and reinforce its character, not create a visual impression more commonly associated with highway commercial corridors or strip malls from decades past. The residents of Pleasanton entrusted future councils with these planning documents for a reason. They wanted growth and investment to incur within a framework that protects the qualities that make Pleasanton special. When exceptions are granted to this framework, they inevitably become precedents for future requests. Your decisions tonight extends far beyond one property owner or one business. It will signal whether developers and businesses seeking approvals in Pleasanton are expected to follow our adopted design standards or whether those standards are merely suggestions that can be set aside when convenient. Many residents are increasingly concerned about new projects that appear inconsistent with the community's design expectations. So I respectfully ask you to vote no on this proposal and reaffirm your commitment to the general plan and the downtown specific plan and preserve the integrity and planning documents that will protect Pleasanton's character. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. My next speaker card is Ms. Linda Kelly on this topic, item number 10. Three minutes.

The two gas stations in question are in my almost daily path of travel. I have to go past them to get anywhere. There is absolutely nothing detrimental about, putting a station's colors on a canopy. It's done throughout the community and there is no aesthetic detriment by doing so. It's the epitome of nitpicking and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's a gas station. The roadway is a main thoroughfare from Livermore to and from Pleasanton. And it is beyond me why so much time has been spent now that we're down to this over six inches of a color which suddenly is objectionable. Saying it destroys the aesthetics of Pleasanton has to be one of the silliest things I think I've ever heard. We are in a deficit problem partly because businesses have had such trouble getting going here in Pleasanton. And to deny this indicates to me and I'm sure to any business owners that Pleasanton is not cooperative, is not welcoming to those businesses. And we can expect further detriment to our economy as we go forward. I certainly urge you to approve this and to allow the gas station, which has been there for as long as I can remember. It was rebuilt at one time. I've been through all of that, and there should be no objection to it at all. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any additional speakers in the room? If you have not turned in a blue speaker card and would like to speak on this item, please approach the podium at this time. Hearing none, seeing none, any speaker online that wishes to comment on this item, please star nine or raise your hand.

There are no requests to speak.

OK, we will close public comment and bring it back to the Council for action. Councilmember Tester, you're leading us off, please.

OK, thank you. I will ask another question of staff. How quickly after the Gulf Station was approved did this application come in?

Roughly four to five months give or take. I feel like it was November of 25 and we approved golf sometime early midsummer.

The final council approval. Correct. Okay. And so one of the speakers mentioned precedence. That was certainly discussed in the discussion about the Gulf Station is setting a precedence. The fact that that one was recognized to have concerns that it was not in compliance with the general plan. It set a precedence for this next one. And, you know, this isn't about a gas station. It really is about a resident-driven process. the general plan. The general plan is a guideline, long range guideline that establishes standards for the quality that our community expects. It isn't only the general plan. We have other community resident-driven documents, the downtown specific plan. I sat through all those meetings and you know we it's important people care about our downtown people care about the quality in Pleasanton and a standard and that's what this is about is maintaining a standard throughout our community I support the staff recommendation because the staff recommendation was absolutely on target. It identified aspects of our downtown specific plan and our general plan and it was very clear in how this project was out of compliance. The fact that this project brought forward had approximately 64% of the canopy was heavily branded and staff worked with the applicant, asked that it be brought down to 25%, which was the current gas station, the level of branding, so that it wouldn't be as overly branded as the Gulf Station across the street. The applicant was offered multiple off ramps and declined each one, ultimately asking staff to act on the application as submitted. Didn't care what staff had to say. The site does sit at a gateway. Our general plan is very specific in identifying parts of town that are more protected. There's an expectation of higher quality design standards and minimize bright franchise colors, discourage franchise photo type signage. All of those words are in our general plan. The downtown specific plan similarly calls for gateway treatments that create a sense of arrival, not a dominant corporate color field. A canopy where nearly two-thirds the fascia is saturated with brand color does not meet that bar, does not meet the standard established by our predecessors that have given us this tool to to protect the quality of life that we all value. The applicant was unwilling to accept the compromises that the staff asked them to work within and it's only now because it didn't get And I support staff's recommendation. Staff stepped up and stood up for our community. Our community deserves the standards that those documents have outlined. So I absolutely do not support this application. I think it needs to go back and come back and really value staff's original recommendations. So I'll make a motion that we deny this application.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Council Member Eicher? Yes, I do have a couple questions for staff. The station itself, does it fall within the downtown specific plan area?

Yes, it's in the downtown specific.

So it's right on the corner of that?

Yeah, it's right on the edge.

And the Gulf gas station across the street doesn't?

They are also within the . They're in there, okay.

Yes, correct. Specifically, how does the modification not reflect the design guidelines in the downtown specific plan guidelines?

So the downtown specific, excuse me, the downtown specific plan guidelines, their signage section is fairly small in nature. It's not very prescriptive. It tends to focus more on signage along Main Street and kind of downtown proper in terms of materials and colors and styles and that sort of thing. It does not extend very far out to the kind of the far fingers of the of the downtown specific plan area and definitely does not specifically address gas stations, canopy signs associated with those. It doesn't talk a lot about monument signage and those types of things.

Okay. Thank you. Sure. I do have to say that I agree with Councilmember Testa that standards matter. And in this case, where my concern is, is our predecessors have given us very subjective standards. So it's really at the opinion of each of the Councilmembers up here as to whether something's appropriate or not It isn't a clearly defined standard. Attractive design, what I find attractive, you may not. What higher quality sign materials, I'd leave that up to the engineering folks. They're going to determine what that looks like and whether that's appropriate. Attractive colors, again, I like grays and blues. that I find that attractive. Somebody out in the audience may not find that attractive, that those colors may not be what resonates with them. In this case, we're talking a Shell station with white, yellow, and red. We have several of those in town where they have the same type of branding on them. I do believe we had a recent one with minimal branding on it. In this case, I see that our applicant disagreed with with what the zoning administrator had asked for and he went through an approved process and appealed it to the planning commission and the planning commission saw fit to adjust those standards to something that they felt that the community could live with And, you know, so I think the applicant went through the correct process. I think planning was trying to find a way to mitigate this and make it work for both parties, both the city taking into consideration what the city is trying to accomplish and for the applicant who is trying to run a business. They want the business to be able to come in and be able to attract customers to their brand without being overly aggressive in the colors. They still want their brand out there, and if I were running a business, I would want my brand out there. So I fully understand that. So with that as my thought process, I'm okay with the compromise that the Planning Commission has made, and I support that option.

Okay.

Okay, Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Just want to note a few things. I'm looking first at the denial letter from the city that was dated February 25, 26 by, I believe, Emily Carroll. Yes, very well written. Good analysis in there about where the city... gave direction and it references prior conversations with the applicant and a read from several paragraphs. But it says over and over again that staff support was explicitly tied to limiting the band to 50% or less to ensure the canopy remained an architectural element with subordinate branding. um and this was when the applicant wanted you know i think it's 63.8 of the canopy height to be the branding um so the direction that the city gave the applicant in its denial letter was to limit it to 50 percent um and so i think the applicant you know tested that and uh um appealed it to the planning commission and i watched that planning commission meeting um and discussion and i i give great deference and respect to those that we've we've placed on those commissions and that do that work and they thought it through and they compromised and they talked it through i also looked at the downtown specific plan and i agree with the comments made by our senior planner i um the term signage appears 32 times in the downtown specific plan It's a 233-page document, 223-page document. Nowhere does it give any clear direction to anybody in this particular concept of putting signage on a gas station at this intersection. It doesn't talk specifically about gateway signage in that plan. You know, when I, when this first came up and I saw the Sunoco or Seneca, I want to say it how you like it. You know, I, I saw it and I, I'll be honest, I had the reaction of saying, never heard of that gas station. That looks like something that was putting on like Lightning McQueen's hood in a Cars movie. And I kind of hoped it didn't turn out to be that brand. Nothing against that business or that brand. But I didn't see that as a good fit. And those colors were out of place. And I think that would have been an odd look for that location. you know when the gulf gas station happened uh that went down in kind of a funky way and and unfortunately got built and there was some information that was exchanged between the city and the applicant that left us in a tough spot so uh reluctantly we compromised and sort of left that up but you know i made the comment that how we had a de novo review and a fresh sort of a clean hand situation, I probably would have voted to tell them to tone it down a little bit. I think, however, adjustments that were made to that site with the monument height and the up lighting of the palm tree at night looks beautiful i think it gives that corner a very cool nostalgic look you see the pleasant plaza lighting at night during dusk i think it looks very nice i appreciate the luck stroke of luck that we got the getting shell to be the new applicant because i think Shell stations look cool. I think they look nostalgic. I think they look old. And I think it's a good fit brand wise for that corner of Pleasanton. And so, you know, all that is to say, I think this does, you know, from a subjective perspective, from my perspective, I think it's consistent with the general plan of the downtown specific plan. I can think of, you know, any more restriction I think we would put beyond what the staff in Pleasanton told them to do, which is 50% or less, I think would be a little in excess of our authority here as council. So I know the applicant has worked with staff and ultimately If they had submitted this project with 50% or less, what I'm reading from the staff report is staff would have supported it. And then that's what the planning commission tailed it down to after a long and considerate meeting. So I'm supportive of the planning commissions and I'll just go on record, I think, It's going to make that corner look nice. I do think it is not garish. I don't think it stands out. I don't think it takes anything away from the gateway of Pleasanton. And if it was Sunoco you drove by or Sunoco, I apologize. You know, I think And we would not have a lot of control over that if they wanted to build it. We would have had to approve some version of what they wanted to do. We couldn't say, well, I just don't like this business look, so you can't come to Pleasanton. I know maybe people would like to say that, but I don't think that's what we're doing up here. So I think the way it's going to fit in with that corner, with the gulf and the uplighting of the palm tree and Pleasanton Plaza is going to be a nice, nostalgic look. I think it's going to I think it's going to look nice. So I'm supportive of where the Planning Commission landed, which is, from my reading, where the city landed when they first denied the project. So those are my comments.

Okay. Councilmember Nyberg, I have a motion made by Councilmember Testa. I didn't call for the second, but I'm presuming you may be willing to second it or not.

Can you restate the motion to deny it?

To deny, to support the staff's recommendation to deny the application.

Okay. Okay. Will you second the motion? I will second that.

Okay. Motion? You know, I'll echo what several previous commenters have said. You know, this is not just about a gas station. Before I go any further, let me just point out. The Planning Commission decision on the gas station signage is defective. No vote was taken on their findings. The motion as stated was motion to approve the application with modifications. That motion passed. Then further discussion followed and no further votes were taken. So we have no findings from the Planning Commission that were legitimized by a vote. if we decide to entertain the findings of staff. And since this is a de novo review, we would need to go through each of them one by one and consider each individually. On the other hand, we can simply follow the motion as stated and vote to deny. But again, I go back to this is not just about a gas station. As so eloquently stated in the staff report, the general plan policies should prevail. And as stated, the plan as submitted is not consistent with the general plan policies, nor is it consistent with the downtown specific plan. And I may point out that branding of other stations in other parts of towns doesn't impact this current situation. The staff recommendation is absolutely clear. There are five different findings that it noted as reasons to deny the application. So I think that as a council we need to think long and hard about overturning a staff decision that's based upon the general plan. on on whether any gas station on this corner will be successful that's not really something that we need to consider any gas station on this corner will be successful on the this will not scare business away here I don't know this is this is accurate or not but if the shell station shell corporation like the Sunoco Corporation insists on its branding being exactly what they want. There's no reason the city needs to simply give in on its standards. The staff evaluation noted that projects like this are considered on a case by case basis through the review process. taking into account such factors as location and visibility of the site and notes that the proposed canopy would create an overly franchise brand forward visual emphasis that detracts from the intended downtown entry character and does not reinforce the site's relationship to the city's broader aesthetic context and natural and visual setting. The canopy reads as a dominant graphic franchise branding element, which is also discouraged by the general plan community character element. And the general plan, I may note, was, as was pointed out before, arrived at some time ago, I believe about 25 years ago. Many wise people considered long and hard what the general plan should say in order to protect the character of our downtown and of our city. People, when they talk about their desires for Pleasanton, note the special historic character of our downtown. They note that Pleasanton desires as a community to be much more than simply what other communities are. So as I said, this is much broader implications for how the city applies its standards, especially at the city's most prominent gateway locations. The proposal is not fully consistent with the general plan policies regarding prominent branding and color treatments. And more than that, it creates a precedent When you have a decision made that in the past that is objectionable or questionable, you don't double down by making another bad decision and then going down a slippery slope where we have a gradual loss of the distinctive character that sets Pleasanton apart. So it risks weakening the credibility of the general plan and the downtown specific plan is guiding documents. So we as a council need to protect the integrity of the general plan and the downtown specific plan. And for that reason, I urge that the council deny this application and Go on from there. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. I'll move a substitute motion to approve the project consistent with the Planning Commission's determination outlined in Attachment 6. I'm looking for a second.

May I ask a question first? Sure. And this is for the City Attorney. Is the Planning Commission's recommendations flawed as stated by Councilmember Nyberg?

This is a day-no hearing, so regardless of what occurred at the Planning Commission, the Council has the authority to make an independent decision on this matter. Thank you. Council Member Ecker, will you second my motion?

I'll second your motion. Okay.

We have a substitute motion to approve the project consistent with the Planning Commission's determination outlined in Attachment 6. Any further comments before we take a vote?

Yes.

Councilmember Testa.

Okay. Well, in, let's see, September 16, 2025, staff expressed general support for the site upgrade but requested a reduction in franchise branding color on the canopy consistent with the approximately 25 percent featured in the existing 76 gas station canopy so initially staff was asking our the applicant to give them 25 percent um can i ask In the staff report, I think it's on the very last page, it shows the most recent shell station that was re, I don't think it was, it wasn't new construction, so it was, I know you know which one I'm talking about, right, on Hop Yard? There we go. That is that is a good looking gas station.

It's always can pose a step because we're having technical difficulties. Oh, thank you. I was waiting for it to come up. Thank you.

Okay, so that is a gas station that was very recently, within I guess probably two years, redone, and it's a Shell station. It's got branding on the sign. That's great. It is clearly identified. It's got some Shell logos on the canopy, but has a clean look on the canopy. and so I will my comments I support businesses that choose to invest in Pleasanton and I appreciate improvements that enhance our commercial areas but every project should also respect the community it serves and has chosen to be a part of Pleasanton's general plan is a resident driven vision for our city's future it provides standards that guide decisions like this and helps preserve the character that residents value. This isn't about a gas station or a Shell brand. It's about applying our adopted policies and there's very clear language in our general plan. When a proposal doesn't meet the general plan and downtown specific plan, and by the way, there is a lot of language about how it is not in conformance with the downtown specific plan. It is our responsibility to uphold those standards. I support staff's recommendation to deny this application. Doing so affirms that Pleasanton welcomes businesses that invest in our community while respecting the community standards that make Pleasanton the special place that it is. That's what we're asking for. There are people in this community that worked on the general plan. They put that in place for us to, for situations like this. I absolutely also agree and have asked over the last year plus that we create a stronger sign ordinance, but we don't need the language in the sign ordinance. The language exists in our planning document, our most important planning document, the general plan. It's what our residents worked on, put in place for exactly this kind of situation. So I absolutely do not support the substitute motion.

Thank you. I'm going this way. Council Member Eicher, any comments on the substitute motion or anything further?

No, actually I only have, I have a question. In regards to the construction at Hop Yard, that shell station that's at Hop Yard in West Las Positas, was that a rebrand or was that a raise the old buildings and build brand new buildings?

THE LATTER. IT WAS A COMPLETE DEMOLITION AND REBUILD OF THAT SIDE IN A PUD DISTRICT WHICH GIVES THE CITY A LITTLE BIT MORE TEETH IN TERMS OF DESIGN CONTROL AND SIGNAGE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND SOMETIMES DEVIATIONS FROM TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT MAY BE OBJECTIVE IN OUR CODE. SO IN EXCHANGE, WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE LATITUDE AND THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE. THANK YOU.

I mean, I follow on that.

You know, there are other council members, please. So if you I thought you had your time, but yes, please.

OK, thank you. Actually, the project came to council over branded. significantly over branded. And it was the council that asked the applicant to do the right thing. And they actually we I, I was the one who pulled that project because of the rebranding, and the over branding I meant. And the council made the decision and asked the applicant to take it back and do the right thing. They approved it the way it came forward. It wasn't a question of that there was an effort or more negotiations. It was the applicant recognized that coming into our community, they should respect our community. And so this is the way it looks.

Okay, thank you. Okay, Councilmember Eichert, do you have anything further?

No.

Okay, Vice Mayor?

No further comments, thank you. Okay, Councilmember Nyberg?

Yes, I agree with what Councilmember Testa just stated. The gas station here at Hop Yard and West Las Positas looks great. It was, as our staff pointed out, There was a little more teeth available to the city in this case because part of the PUD. But just because an applicant may have a little more leeway, it doesn't mean they should take advantage of that, especially in our downtown where that kind of branding is discouraged. So I'd like to propose an amendment to the substitute motion. and ask that since we are doing a de novo review, I would move that we consider each of the six findings in the staff recommendation separately in order to determine that the council can make all six findings if the desire is to confirm the appeal, okay? Which the substitute motion, I believe, I don't accept the friendly amendment. Okay, well, I'm seeking a second.

Your friendly amendment is denied.

I'm not making a friendly amendment.

You can't substitute a substitute. You have to vote on the substitute.

I'm amending it.

And I'm denying it because I'm the... You're making a motion to... No, you have to vote on the substitute motion first, right? Yes. We have to carry out the substitute motion. Okay. You can make a friendly amendment. It can be then accepted by the motion maker or not.

Okay. Well, I'll change it to a friendly amendment then.

And it's denied. Okay. I'll just add a few comments before we take a vote. I completely agree with my fellow council members. All five of us, preserving the general plan is by far extremely important. It is. the guiding document of our city, it is important to preserve. Inconsistent application of those rules and general plan is challenging. So we have a shell station at Hop Yard in West Las Positas where we had a PUD that does allow us a little bit more review, as well as one on Santa Rita, which has a lot more, in my quick opinion, traffic coming into our city than this first street location based on traffic volume. However, also encouraging investment in our community to upgrade aging and existing facilities is a competing interest as well. So balancing these dynamics is difficult. Preserving the downtown absolutely critical to the heart of the city and being open for business as a community is extremely important. So I think the planning commission did a fairly good review or should say again, they did a very good review of respecting the community standards, and that's why I was able to make the motion. Yeah, C, question.

City Attorney, at the Planning Commission meeting, when the Planning Commission was seeking to overturn staff's finding, The procedure according to staff was that they had to vote on each of the six findings of staff or had to consider each of them separately in order to make a contrary finding And that's the discussion they went through. Why would it be different for us?

Because my motion said that I had kept all of them per attachment six. Yes.

The city council can incorporate if they agree with those findings that the planning commission made could incorporate those into a city council resolution. And as long as there's agreement to do that, that would be acceptable.

Okay. I would just say, it seems to me that the planning commission, um,

simply changed the positive to a negative substituting its judgment that the exact same finding by its staff was a negative instead of a positive and vice versa and that's perhaps why they went individually to change that language but if if if the council's in agreement that the planning commission resolutions findings contained so in uh the

Planning Commission finding they Said that with the language that they use and I'm not finding it right at the moment, but that it then made the application in compliance with with the general plan without any explanation of how it was suddenly in compliance with the general plan. So I guess I just want to, I also watched that meeting and I certainly wouldn't want to duplicate the motion that was made there. Okay. That's it.

Any other comments before we go to a vote? Okay, roll call vote, please.

Mayor Balch? Aye. Councilmember Eicher? Aye. Gaydos? Aye. Nybert? No. Testa? No. The motion passes 3-2.

Okay, that completes item number 10 at this time. We're at 9.51. I'm going to take a quick five-minute break before proceeding to item number 11, probably a little bit longer. We'll try to reconvene right at 9 o'clock. Thank you. Good evening and welcome back to the continuation of our July 7, 2026 city council meeting. It is 8 59 PM and we are now continuing to item number 11. This is continued also from June 16, 2026 authorized the city manager to enter into agreements with core and main LP for the water meter, advanced metering infrastructure, AMI replacement project in an amount not to exceed 10 million, $62,257 for capital improvements and 2.5 million approximately for operation services and authorize a 5% aggregate contingency for project implementation. Staff, do you have a report?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. I'm joined by our Public Works Director, Soo Chin Young, sitting right next to me here. As the Mayor has indicated, this matter was carried over from your June 16th regular meeting. That staff report is attachment one to the staff report for this evening's item. The item was carried over in order to allow additional time for the city staff to engage further with Zone 7. I am going to make the presentation this evening, and it'll be somewhat brief owing to the fact that there was fairly considerable discussion at the June 16th meeting, including representatives from CORE and Maine and CAMSTRA. So the city and Zone 7 are operating under a settlement agreement that was entered into in July of 2025 regarding the collection of water connection fees. Among other things, that settlement agreement requires the city to complete a water meter replacement project by June the 30th of 2028. However, the city also has a December of 2027 deadline to complete the project to meet state regulatory requirements. And owing to the size of the replacement project and the number of meters that are involved being in excess of 20,000, we're beginning to run into a bit of a time crunch here. The city, as we have indicated in our meetings with Zone 7, would of course prefer to work cooperatively with Zone 7 as our partner agency in moving forward with the project. The city's existing water metering system has experienced widespread failures, as council is aware, with up to 300 meters every month and approximately 2,200 failed meters waiting to be replaced pending availability. And so, as you can appreciate, with those meters not functioning properly, there's an ongoing loss of revenue that's associated with that. The project that is before you involves replacing the existing ultrasonic meters that are in use currently that are manufactured by Diehl with new ultrasonic meters that are manufactured by Kamstra. The new meters carry a warranty that extends for up to 20 years. The entire procurement process once again was described in the June 16th staff report. Zone 7 sets their connection fees based upon meter size and meter type, which is to say positive displacement versus ultrasonic meters. The settlement agreement requires the city to provide Zone 7 with documentation that reasonably demonstrates that the replacement meters to be installed provide an equivalent maximum flow rate for continuous use as the equivalent size meter provided for in Zone 7's ordinance. In other words, the flow rate for an ultrasonic meter is equivalent to the flow rate for a positive displacement meter. Our staff has been engaging with Zone 7 staff over the past several months toward arriving at a mutually agreeable solution to this issue. Discussions have focused on Zone 7's concerns that CAMStrap meters have a greater flow capacity than the older positive displacement meters. the city has presented information to satisfy the requirements of the settlement agreement including providing documentation from a registered engineer following our last meeting on june the 16th camstrup was able to provide additional documentation regarding the flow rate of the water meters to be used for the replacement project council has just recently received a a copy of that letter that information This information was also shared with Zone 7, and I have appreciated the opportunity to meet with the general manager at Zone 7, Valerie Pryor, and her willingness to be available to have some ongoing discussions regarding potential options for moving forward with the project in a way that could fulfill the settlement agreement. We believe that the information that has been presented along with previous information that's been presented to Zone 7 reasonably demonstrates that the replacement meters satisfy the connection fee requirements in Zone 7's connection fee schedule with respect to the applicable continuous flow rating. More simply stated, the water meters selected for the replacement project provide equivalent maximum flow rate for continuous use as the same size displacement meters that are referenced in Zone 7's connection fee rate schedule. We do, of course, look forward to the opportunity to continue to work collaboratively with Zone 7 to complete this replacement project within the timeframes that have been set by the state and the settlement agreement. Staff stands ready to respond to any questions that the council might have on this matter. But on the basis of the recommendation that's been made, staff is recommending that the council authorize the city manager to enter into the agreements with Core and Main LP for the Water Meter Advanced Metering Infrastructure AMI Replacement Project in amounts not to exceed $10,262,257 on the capital side and $2,514,096 on the operating side. as well as authorizing a 5% aggregate contingency for the project implementation.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

At this time, clarifying questions of the presentation, Councilmember Eicher, your starting position.

Thank you for your thorough report. Once approved, assuming this gets approved by council tonight um once approved how soon can we expect to start replacing the 2200 failed meters you know what's that timeline look like

We have a full schedule of implementation. The first step is to do proof of concept and with the schedule we have, we are planning to do the first batch of testing and proof of concept and it should be done by October and after that it will be a full implementation The proof of concept will be roughly about, we will be replacing the outstanding $2,200 that is not working right now, plus on top of it, roughly about $3,500 that we'll be installing in the first phase. So implementation-wise, we are planning to go straight ahead into, once it is approved and award contract, we'll go straight into implementation.

So what does the proof of concept, what does that look like, just for edification?

Yeah, so for that phase, for a meter to work properly, it's not just the physical part of the meter that works properly. It has an automatic reader that reads into a software system that is in the public work yard and the software system will have to register what is the reading and read appropriately and transfer to the computer for us to know that what is the meter reading out in the field without our staff going out there and do manual reading. So that's part of the proof of concept to make sure everything linked together appropriately, everything reads appropriately. and once we test and and there will be some fine tuning here and there and that is the face of proof of concept to make sure it it's everything tuned in before we go full blown on 22 000 meter out there so we're going to install and then validate that everything works the way the manufacturer said it was going to work correct before we do our full install

Correct. So, Suchin, if I may, would another way of saying that be to say that with the initial batch of meters to be installed, there is testing that goes on to ensure the accuracy of the meters and that they're operating properly?

That is correct. Okay.

Thank you. I have no further questions. And thank you for your work on this.

Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor? No clarifying questions. Thank you. Councilmember Nyberg?

Could you please inform me whether time is of the essence on what we're considering here? And if so, how?

Yes time is at the access and like city manager had explained there's two things that we need to fulfill. One is the state regulation on lead and copper inspection surveying and inspection that is required for the city to have a citywide inspection that tied to this water meter contract. The second is the cross connection survey that is also required by the state regulation that is tied to this contract And the third is the requirement in the settlement agreement to complete all the replacement by June, 2028. As of now, our target goal to comply with the state regulation is by December, 2027. And that is already very tight right now based on the schedule that we have.

Okay, thank you. Since you just mentioned the planned finish date of December 2027, I believe, right? If the city causes the completion to go beyond that date, is the city subject to claims from the contractor for delay?

Right now it's tied to a total contract durations. So it start when we award the contract. The end, the target completion date of December 2027, that is something that we need to talk to the contractor to see if we, how to meet that goal still because of all the delays that is on the contract award side.

Okay. Thank you.

I don't foresee additional costs.

Yeah. Yeah. I'd be surprised if that's not part of the standard terms and conditions for any contract.

Okay.

Okay. Uh, I have no clarifying questions myself at this time. So with that, we'll open it up for, Oh, I am so sorry. You know, this is always when I start in a different spot. Yes, please. Council member Tessa clarifying questions.

Yeah. Um, so Public Works is currently replacing up to 300 failed meters per month. So we're currently, we've been replacing, but we haven't used these meters that we're approving tonight. Have we installed any of these?

No, we have not installed cam strap meter. We have a very low inventory remaining on deal and we do not have enough to replace, to keep up with the failed meter and that's why there is 2,200 of them that we are not able to replace at this point.

Okay, so we haven't used this meter yet. And the, I'm sorry, just, We're just with this. We're only addressing replacement meters. We're not addressing new development meters.

That's correct.

Okay. And that's all I have for now. Thanks.

and i would just just for for context since uh sue chin uh mentioned this i i think to put it into perspective if we have 2200 meters that are not operable at the present time that represents about 10 of all the meters that we're looking to replace so it underscores the significance of being able to move forward with the project given that we don't have sufficient of the existing meters to be able to replace the ones that are not operational.

Right. I think we all recognize the gravity of what we're dealing with. Can I, one other thought. Has Zone 7, who is our partner in this, have they suggested or recommended a meter that we should use?

No, they have not suggested any meter to be used.

Yeah, they they in my discussions with the with the general manager and sort of reviewing some of the background on this, I believe in such and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that there was outreach to zone seven when we started down this path and they declined to participate in that review and selection process.

That is correct. We outreach to zone seven several times, um, before the RFP is put together during the RFP is put together. And during the selection process, we have outreach done to them and invite them to be, um, included, um, and join us together to select the meter and they have, um, declined the invitation. Okay. Okay. So, all right. Thank you.

OK, thank you. And I'll just point out for those viewing that we are aware what the costs are from those 2200 meters. And that's all in the staff report from the prior published report. So you can look at it there. OK, with that, I'll open it up to public comment. If you would like to speak on item number 11, I have no speaker cards. Please approach the podium at this time. Hearing none, seeing none in the room, City Clerk, do we have any virtual? Please star nine or raise your hand.

No request to speak.

Okay, we'll close public comment and bring it back to Council. Council Member Eicher, what would you like to do with this? You're the starting position.

I'd like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation to purchase the meters to enter in an agreement for the software services and network services and to authorize the Director of Public Works to approve and execute change orders as appropriate, not to exceed 5,000 plus or minus dollars there.

I think it's 500.

I'm sorry, $500,000. Yeah, 5%. Yeah.

Okay. That's the motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Any comments by Council Member Eicher? Any comments before we go around, Robin?

Really, this is a necessity. It's not something that we're spending the money lightly. We have a serious need with our deal meters that are failing faster than we can replace them. And, in fact, the deal meters that we have that we're replacing them with are failing on top of the failed meters that we had on the field. So continuing to do more of the same is not going to work in this situation. And with our settlement agreement, this should help fix the problem and move us forward to where we can provide more reliable water services to our community. without the failures which results in lost water and lost revenues to both the city and to Zone 7. So we need to get this problem fixed. And we need to fix it now.

Thank you. Vice Mayor?

No comments. I'm supportive of the motion. Thank you.

Okay. Council Member Nyberg.

Just to note, in agreement with Council Member Eicher, this is not an optional expense. This is a necessary expense for our infrastructure in regard to the water enterprise. And these are the types of things that demonstrate the need for lots of attention to be paid to our infrastructure in the coming years. So I support the motion.

Okay. Council Member Testa?

I have no comments and I support the motion as well.

OK, I'll just make a few brief comments myself, which is I appreciate the additional staff time to investigate this since we continued it from the last meeting. So appreciate the additional information added into the record. I agree with my fellow council members asserting that we need to get on top of this in the prior meeting and in the supplemental. We talked about our water master plan and how the finance structure that we've come up with provided for this as a pathway forward. We saw it there. So for our water rates, uh, that was something we factored in, in that plan. That's all in the supplemental that was added to the prior staff report for our community watching. So, uh, and I appreciate the work that has really gone into these last couple of weeks to get us here with that. We have a motion and a second. Can we go ahead and have a roll call vote, please?

Council Members Eicher?

Aye.

Gaydos? Aye. Nybert? Aye. Testa? Aye. Mayor Balch?

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. Okay, we are now proceeding on to matters initiated by council. Any matters initiated by council at this time? Yes. Council Member Nybert?

I note that the update was provided to the council earlier in the meeting in regard to the concern about FCI Dublin. So yeah, the update is fine. To be honest, most of the updated items we already know. But I still ask myself the question, what are we trying to protect in considering this in the first place? I submit we need to protect all of our international residents, be they citizens or non-citizens, and especially all people of color, because those are the people who are targeted by ICE. And we have thousands, tens of thousands that fit that bill. Sure, the facts haven't changed in the last few weeks. But the facts do point to the need to stand up and show courage to do the right thing and uphold our community's values. If we wait, it'll just be too late. We need to get ahead of this issue. So I humbly request support to agendizing a discussion of a draft resolution.

I'll second that. OK. And I'll make the comment that I Joining together as a tri-valley in unity, showing courage matters.

That's it.

OK. I haven't even had a chance to read the memo with the meetings I had for the city all afternoon. So is there any additional support at this time? Dies for lack of support. OK. With that, any additional matters initiated by council at this time?

Yes. I would like to, given yet another project where we're told by our staff that we don't have an adequate sign ordinance to protect our community, I'd like to again ask for prioritizing a sign ordinance. More quickly.

Can I make a friendly amendment to that? What would that be? I would support doing that if we can focus in on maybe making it specific to just addressing gas station canopies. That way it narrows the focus on what we're addressing.

I THINK THAT'S MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A SIGN ORDINANCE. I THINK, AGAIN, WE'VE GOT THE FOUNDATION IN OUR PLANNING DOCUMENTS THAT ARE SAYING THESE ARE QUALITIES AND STANDARDS THAT WE WANT. AND I REALLY DON'T THINK WE the sign ordinance when I spoke with my colleagues in other communities.

It's not agenda. So we have to be careful what we're talking about. So the matter initiated is a sign ordinance update.

Uh, we can have a discussion about it.

It's not agendized councilman. So we have to not talk about on the record. We can talk about if we are to agendize it to have a conversation or not.

I'll support having further conversation about it, noting that it is a city priority as determined by the council.

Okay, so I'll just mention that the council just went through its priority setting process. We just ranked out all of the critical priorities for the council and this is on there. It's just not one of our top ones and staff is proceeding accordingly. So at this time, I don't support elevating it above some of those higher, more pressing issues facing our community. Is there any third support for the matter initiated?

Yeah, I'll just say that there was if it was scoped in a way that wouldn't prioritize such a large project for staff ahead of other things. I think there could be some more support, but it's a very, very broad ask right now to to do that. And this might not be the time. So

I remember our last conversation, the suggestion was that I should write my own version of a sign ordinance, which I had already done, and really don't think it should be the burdensome issue when our staff is telling us that we have a gap that has now twice been, and in fact not just twice, there have been other projects as well over recent years. I think that we are doing a disservice to our community to not close that gap.

Okay. I'm looking for my priorities. I usually carry them so I can reference.

Can I comment? Please. I would support a narrow focus on it. I think cracking open and creating a whole new side ordinance at this juncture with all the other priorities that we have is really going to be distracting because we're starting to change our focus on something that's a preference. versus something that is a significant issue that we need to address moving forward. So I'm willing to address the issue so we don't have to come back every time we have a gas station rebranding or a new gas station built. to address those issues that have come up, but I think it's gonna be a heavy, heavy lift to put an entire sign ordinance out there for staff to address on top of all the other priorities that we're focused on right now as a council.

If I can ask the city manager, do you have any opinion on this at this time, given your review of the priorities and what staff's availability?

Certainly. What my response to that question would be that it is It would be considerably dependent upon the scope of the review that you want us to do. My experience in doing comprehensive sign ordinances and design standards for signage is that that typically is going to involve going out and hiring a consultant and it's a fairly, it is a fairly extensive undertaking. On the other hand, if we're talking about a set of more universal design standards that could be applied to gas station canopies per Councilmember Eicher's comment, I think you could probably take a look at the staff report that was presented to you this evening with respect to the appeal that was brought forward and look at what staff's recommendation was or the zoning administrator's recommendation was initially And you'd have a pretty good idea of what the recommendations would be that would be coming back with respect to that specific issue. But if it's something broader than that, my experience has been that those can involve a fairly extensive review and commitment of time and resources. If you'd like more, if you'd like something in greater detail than that, you know, we'd be happy to come back and once I have an opportunity to talk with Ellen and her staff and give you more detail about what would be involved.

How about if we make the scope gas stations in general, not just canopies?

Is this something that the Planning Commission could help with? IT WOULD START THERE. I COULD PROBABLY GET ON BOARD WITH THAT.

COULD YOU RESTATE YOUR

I would request that we ask staff to close the gap on gas station signage and create an ordinance for gas station signage.

Okay, so we'll go with the sign ordinance on gas station signage because the gap is a matter of subjectivity. Council Member Riker, do you support that matter initiated?

I support coming up with clear standards or guidelines for gas stations, yes.

Okay. I respectfully, Mr. Mayor, I would suggest to you that what we're talking about are signage guidelines. You know, an ordinance, a sign ordinance would be something that would be more comprehensive. So I think we could come up with some guidelines that we could then codify somehow. What I would recommend, given whatever direction that the Council gives us, assuming that it's affirmative, would be for us to come back at a subsequent meeting and show you a scope for what that would include. Okay.

So maybe a baby step there is what I hear staff asking for. So, Councilmember Tuss, are you agreeable to that?

Probably. So guidelines would be attached in what way and where would that fall? Attached to as an amendment to the general plan, attached, I mean what we keep hearing is the language in the general plan isn't supportive enough for a sign ordinance. So where do those guidelines fall?

Yeah, well, I don't have the same level of familiarity as the five of you do with the policies that are in the general plan. But, you know, typically if you're going to come up with, if you're going to do an ordinance update, it's going to be a more comprehensive update that would cover a broader range of topics or types of signage. So what I would suggest is that we look at some design guidelines that would address the specific circumstance that we're talking about, i.e., gas stations. uh those could be brought forward in the form of a set of policies or standards that could go to the planning commission for their review and then once they come through the commission come forward to the council and those could be adopted by resolution i believe i will ask the city attorney here but I don't think that they need to be adopted by ordinance.

Okay, I'm gonna say we have gone way further than we should for a matter initiated conversation. So that's the suggestion by staff. Do you support that as your matter initiated or not?

I do, but first I'd like to ask, City Attorney, I don't understand the guardrails that the Mayor is referring to. Have we exceeded the conversation?

Yeah, it should be limited to whether to place this on the agenda and what to place on the agenda. So I think the item on the table is place the scope of such an item and staff will bring back the details such as how those will be incorporated into our regulations and zoning ordinance. And so those are all details that we can address when the scope is brought back.

Okay. I'm comfortable with having it brought back with an understanding of what we've been discussing.

Okay. I support that kind of discussion. Also, noting that we need something to discourage people from, or decision makers, from simply ignoring what's in the general plan. Okay.

Council Member Eicher?

I'll support the motion. Okay.

Motion has to put that matter in a shape. Matter initiated has sufficient support to direct staff to do such.

Okay. Any additional matters initiated at this time?

Seeing none, we'll close that out and go to council reports. Brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended, circling all the way back around. Vice Mayor, you're leading us off.

Stop-waste meeting, June 24, only reportable conference I attended.

Okay. Councilmember Nyberg. Recently, the state legislature passed a bill and the governor signed it, SB 827, requiring city council members and special district boards of directors in California mostly to undergo financial training. to understand city finances better. So I completed that required training via webinar. On June 18th, I attended the ABAG annual general meeting as an alternate for the vice mayor. Coming out of that was a discussion of the next arena cycle for housing element cycle that begins in, I believe, in 2031. or 2032, depending what part of the state. One of the takeaways is that they're going to get started earlier this time. 2027 is when a bag will begin their process of determining their methodology for allocating housing element assignments. So we need to stay on top of that and make sure that, you know, that that is absolutely transparent and clear One other thing that was mentioned by the ABAG staff, actually it's MTC staff, acting also as ABAG staff who were there, was that RHNA numbers for all cities next time will likely be higher than what we experienced this past time. And that would go for almost all cities considering state legislative mandates regarding homelessness. And one other item which escapes me, but I'll just leave it at that. June 26th, I attended the placement of a time capsule. at the fairgrounds to be opened in 50 years. On the 29th, I had the pleasure of attending an Eagle Scout Court of Honor for Sasha Yamasani on the 4th of July. After participating in a local parade, I also went to the Pleasanton concert celebration in the park in my Continental Soldier uniform and attracted a little bit of attention. That's all. Thank you very much. Councilmember Testa.

I attended a ribbon cutting for our Pleasanton IKEA store and I'm very excited about it. I was also their first customer purchasing some really cool stuff. So everyone check it out. It's over by BevMo. I attended a Derwa WHICH IS CELEBRATION FOR THEIR BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT DERWA STANDS FOR. BUT IT'S SOMETHING WATER AGENCY. I WENT TO A LAFTA TRAVEL TRAINING FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AT THE SENIOR CENTER. I attended a LAFTA meeting on the 23rd. I attended the Bay East, real estate annual luncheon. And that was interesting. Some interesting conversation about what is anticipated. A couple of us were there. I also attended another LAFTA meeting. And I think that's all that I have that's city specific. OK.

Councilmember Adker? Yes. On June 22nd, I attended a LAFTA projects and services committee meeting. On the 23rd, I attended a ribbon cutting at Futures Explored on Hopyard Road. On the 25th, I attended the 2026 Bay East Real Estate Summit. On July 4th, I attended the 4th of July concert and picnic honoring America's 250th birthday at Wayside Park. And on July 6th, I attended a LAFTA board meeting.

Can I just, I also attended the Fourth of July and the Time Capsule at the fairgrounds.

Anything else?

No. Okay.

On June 17th, AVA board meeting deciding their 26-27 annual budget and prepay finance agreements. They are almost at $5 billion in those, which is a tax structure they do. On the 18th, Alameda County Fairgrounds kicked off with the foundation garden party. The foundation is a method for youth that live in urban areas to be able to house animals at the fair so that they can be part of 4-H and FFA. On the 20th, the chamber was part of a watch party for Now You Know with Steve Guttenberg highlighting our city. It is now on YouTube. They've posted it. Outstanding to highlight just all the things great about Pleasanton. Also on the 20th, I attended the Goodness Village fundraiser along with the Mayor Marchand of Livermore and Councilmember Kashif Qadri from Dublin. The mayor of Livermore's homemade cheesecake was the prize-winning cheesecake over our Nolan's Bakery cake. On the 23rd, Pleasanton Connects reconvened to talk about the longest table, lessons learned, and what they're doing, and they're working on community block connectors for the next thing that they are doing. More to follow. I also attended Bay East Association of Realtors luncheon. On the 25th, I also attended Alameda County Transportation Commission's board meeting. There's a couple of things going on. The first is that if the sales tax passed, they had to figure out how they would do the framework for funding. And then the second thing going on is rail safety enhancement programs, principally in Livermore and in Hayward at this time. But we're watching it closely to see if Pleasanton might be able to be able to get on the rail safety enhancement program list for future funding, possibly for quiet trains in our community. Also in the 26, I attended the time capsule internment at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, a pretty impressive demonstration and internment they did there. I'm calling it an internment. Maybe that's not what you call it. I don't know. 50 years from now, I won't have to worry about that. On the 1st of July, I attended Ava Executive Committee's meeting. They are talking about the annual audit process and the CEO performance evaluations. And on the 4th, the 4th of July celebration, our own Lions Wayside Park to round it out. And then today, Vice Mayor and I attended the ribbon cutting for the deli in here in town so always something going on with that council member oh city manager updates good thing i looked at the agenda boy

All right. Well, thank you, Mayor, City Council. I'll deviate for just a moment here and thank Councilmember Nybert for bringing up ABAG and RENA numbers. I've only just now recovered from the process that we went through three years ago, so it makes sense to know that our numbers are going to go up in light of the fact that there's been out-migration happening for the last two years and a decline in population, but, you know, that's just editorializing. I want to share a few updates with Council about things that we've got going on around the organization. First of all, you've already alluded to the 4th of July weekend, very successful 4th of July weekend with the concert at Wayside Park. I am always appreciative of going through a long weekend such as that when we don't get any calls from public safety and everything goes the way it's supposed to, the weather cooperates. I do want to appreciate our police, fire and public works teams that worked over the holiday to keep us all safe and make sure that our facilities were ready for the weekend crowds. The planning and coordination that went on ensured, helped to ensure safe celebrations including managing traffic following the fairgrounds fireworks display. And certainly, again, to thank and acknowledge everybody who attended the 4th of July concert and picnic at Lyons Wayside Park, along with our community partners, Make a Difference for Pleasanton, Pleasanton Community Concert Band, and the Pleasanton Lions Club. I want to highlight the fact that July is Parks and Recreation Month, and our city has an extensive system, community parks and trails, that I think set us apart from a lot of other communities. We certainly want to urge our community members to get out and visit one or more of our community or neighborhood parks. Our trail systems look into the many classes and programs that the city offers as well as where we have something to offer. The fact that we have something to offer all of our various age groups of residents from the very young to our active adults and seniors. and also want to recognize our city staff recreation division in the library and recreation department as well as our parks division and public works for their contributions for keeping our facilities up and making Pleasanton such a great place to live. We've got national night out coming up on August the 4th less than a month away it's that time of year already. The neighborhood registration is now open and we are encouraging residents to register a block party or neighborhood gathering so we can do the best we can to cover as many as we can. Police officers, city staff, city leaders are going to be visiting the registered events throughout the evening as we celebrate these community partnerships and these connections with all of our various neighborhoods throughout the community. Right now there is a wildfire fuel reduction project that is going on as part of our safety efforts to reduce risk before the height of the fire season. Work is continuing at Augustine Bernal Park as part of the city's fuel reduction project, which has been funded through a $1 million CAL FIRE grant. This is a collaborative effort with Livermore Pleasanton Fire and Alameda County Fire to help reduce wildfire risk and protect nearby neighborhoods. Visitors and residents should expect minimal impacts. There may be periodic trail closures this summer while some of that work is underway. On the infrastructure side of things, the Valley Avenue sound wall repairs, that construction is nearing completion on the segment of the wall that is between Santa Rita Road and Hop Yard Road. For those who like statistics, more than 90% of the 1,229 steel reinforcement posts have now been installed to strengthen the aging sound walls and extend their useful service life. And we expect to be able to complete that project here in the coming weeks. And then on the planning and development front, I will mention that Ellen Clark and I met recently with representatives from the Castlewood HOA to discuss the HOA's interest in potential annexation into the city. It was a productive discussion. We did express a willingness to work with them, all while underscoring the fact that the annexation would need to move forward in a way that would not adversely affect our current residents and taxpayers, which is a polite way of saying that they need to be able to demonstrate that it will pay its own way and that we want to be able to do a fairly comprehensive evaluation of the infrastructure involved so that as I've characterized it with some of you, we're not buying a car that won't be able to run for another 100,000 miles without having to put a new engine and drivetrain in it. So I will conclude my report there. Happy to take any questions. Appreciate the time.

Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. Council Member Nyberg.

The Pleasanton 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. I'd also like to add that the Pleasanton City Council will also adjourn in the honor of Scott Haggerty, a longtime 24-year Alameda County supervisor for much of Pleasanton who passed away on July 5th. The Pleasanton City Council hereby adjourns in honor of him as well in recognition of his life of service. Thank you.