City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, so we're about to come to order.

Good evening and welcome to your Pleasanton City Council meeting. Today is Monday, July 27th, 2026 at 7 p.m. As you may notice, it is not our regularly scheduled meeting time due to obviously a very significant event in our community. With that, if we can ask everyone who's able to please rise and Councilmember Tessa, can you lead us in the pledge? Thank you very much and roll call please.

Council Members Eicher. Present. Gaydos.

Present.

Nybert.

Here.

Testa.

Present.

Mayor Balch.

Present.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. So at the beginning of the meeting I typically save room for announcements and we're going to do that today just so that we talk about what we're going to do. We're going to go through the agenda with first recognizing our first responders and city personnel. Then we're going to move to the main agenda. If you would like to talk on the firefighters or the first responders, that will be at item 14, which is public comment. And we will get there as quickly as we can so that you will have that opportunity. But it will take us a few minutes to get there. You are more than welcome here. We appreciate every perspective and viewpoint. I have a little thing I'll say when we get closer to that, but appreciate it all. So with that, if I could please invite our fire chief, our police chief, and our director of the Emergency Operations Center to come forward, please. Is Leo here? So it's a rare occurrence that we have something that significantly threatens our city, such as what the little fire has represented. And what I would like to do while they're standing here is to allow the council to express on behalf of the population of Pleasanton, the voters and the residents. Our thanks to them. We'll have each of them speak and possibly introduce and talk about it from their perspectives. And then at the end, if I can ask, so everyone that can hear my voice, city employees, we're gonna ask you to stand and we're gonna just clap and thank you for all your efforts. So with that, I'm gonna turn to my vice mayor and ask him to start us off.

Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I just wanna take a few minutes and share what I noticed last Tuesday. I could see the smoke from the courthouse in Dublin and could tell that It was something near and dear to our city. I had my daughter go outside, take a picture. It looked really close. I had her drive up to Cottinger Ranch and take a look, and she said, Dad, there's firefighters everywhere. So I came and joined her. I drove in my district up to the ends of all the streets in Cottinger Ranch. I talked to everybody I could outside to find out if there was elderly people, if there were disabled people in the neighborhood. And it was really amazing to me to see how the neighbors knew their neighbors. We knocked on, I knocked on doors. I knocked on friends that I knew the doors up there and had everyone check on each other and spread the word of what was going on. Um, I appreciate our interim city manager, our assistant city manager, Alexa Jeffress, who was hard at work at city hall, um, that night, um, chief Lacey, especially cal fire who took the front of this thing there were no structures destroyed last tuesday because of the quick response and i can't tell you how lucky we are i mean since i was little this is the closest and biggest fire i've seen in the city of pleasonton um close friend of mine is a firefighter always says there are days where i would do this job for free and there are days that you couldn't pay me any amount of money to do my job there were firefighters who were injured fighting this fire and saving our homes and protecting us i spent the evening with the mayor at city hall and then at the evacuation center helping people with their pets giving them water giving them food and and i'm glad as a city we were so prepared for it i think it's a big feather in our cap i'm sure all the other city council members were busy doing important things, texting people, getting in touch with people, spreading information. It was a pretty late night for us. I'm sorry we had to cancel the city council meeting or reschedule it to this evening, but I'll just say, There are places in the world where there's a fire. There are places in this country where there's a fire and there are structures and there isn't the kind of response that we have in California. So, you know, come budget season, come appreciation time for the people who literally put their lives on the line for our safety, we're lucky to have what we are in this city. Um, so thank you to all the firefighters here tonight. Uh, we won't forget what you guys do for us on a daily basis. And it just, it always takes a bad thing for us to appreciate how good you guys are. Uh, that's unfortunate, but let's keep that in mind as we move forward. So a big heartfelt thanks from me.

So council member neighbor. Yes, please.

Thank you. I, of course, would like to echo everything Vice Mayor mentioned and want to congratulate and thank all of our first responders especially those in, of course, the fire department who responded so quickly to put out the fire and it was no small effort, I know. And also our police department who were there to provide support and conduct the evacuation and make sure that people were evacuated safely. It's just, it's, you know, we see you around town. We see you at events, at badge pinnings, promotion events, and those are all really, really nice ceremonies, and we enjoy them. But when it comes to what the job actually is and what we are asking our first responders to do, It's exemplified by the type of response that we saw last week for this fire.

It was extremely close to Pleasanton.

Everyone was concerned about the structures in the area and the people who were living there. I'd also like to thank our city employees. Each of them is designated as an emergency responder. The Emergency Operations Center was stood up very quickly. That decision was made early on, and last word I had was that 65 people sought shelter there, along with 20 pets. It may have been even more than that. sought shelter at the Senior Center, I should say. The Emergency Operations Center was over on Bush Road. I believe it's in the Remillard Room there. And that was a testament to all of the emergency preparation that Our city employees have have taken have undertaken in recent years. Recent city councils have made sure that emergency preparedness is one of the top strategies and goals of the city council and of the city of Pleasanton. And for good reason as we saw last week. Those preparations were born out. I noticed there was a commendation from I believe the Alameda County Fire Department or

The chief's going to mention it.

Oh, okay. Yeah. I won't steal the thunder, but very impressive. Lots of good things happening there. The professional work that our firefighters and police officers and first responders do every day. Pleasanton is really, really proud to have you here. We're proud to have you among the best of the best. here helping all the residents of Pleasanton. Not every day is like last week, the day that the fire occurred. Thankfully, not every day, but every day the citizens of Pleasanton can be proud knowing that all of you stand ready to protect their lives and property. So thank you very much.

Councilmember Testa?

Well, I want to offer a sincere thanks to the extraordinary men and women who responded to the Little Fire. Little Fire, the irony of that title. Our deepest gratitude goes to Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department, Cal Fire, Pleasanton PD, to all of the mutual aid who responded and to our own emergency services team who did a stellar job activating our emergency response that we've spent a lot of time preparing for and never really believed that we would need. I want to thank the caring team for supporting our evacuated residents at the Senior Center, providing comfort and safety during a time that was very scary. Your courage and professionalism protected our community. When we needed it, you were there. Thank you all. We're fortunate to have you. Thank you.

And Council Member Eicher.

Well, I wanted to. Can you hear me?

Yeah.

It doesn't sound like it's on from my end of it. So. When I first got notice of the fire, I was surprised at how fast it was moving, being it wasn't really that windy of a day, but it picked up and started moving quickly. And once it got into an emergency situation and noticing that the city immediately responded by activating its EOC, which is Emergency Operations Center for those in the community that are unaware of that, the city has planned and worked through their emergency operations coordination, both as a city and as a region for years. And when it comes time to play in ball, which is what this fire was, was they had to go out and actually field the game when that happened, not a table talk exercise, but to make the rubber hit the road and they knocked it out of the park. There was a good chance that homes in Ruby Hill would have been lost had they not gotten on this and started taking action immediately. And it's it's the leadership in this room that made a big difference in how they coordinated those activities from Leo Lopez to the police and fire chief to their partners at Livermore, at East Bay Regional Parks, the East Bay Regional Parks District and their contribution, Alco Fire, Cal Fire, how everybody worked together to help save our community. And that's huge. And to know that you have professionals in this room that can step up and really pull off a miracle, which is what they did. That's huge. Their communication, their coordination, their support of their staff and making things happen. I bet you don't know that during this whole coordinated activity that our water maintenance guys are making sure that there's enough water pressure so that way the fire guys had the water pressure to put out the fire. So that's the level of coordination that went on. So when there's an emergency in town, it's not just the public safety officials that are that are working on it. It's everybody in the city and how they coordinate their activities to make sure that folks can do the jobs that they need to do. And then when when you're looking at that, you're also looking at the communication aspect. So from the city manager's office and making sure that essential information is getting out to the public so they know where to respond to, they know to evacuate. how and when and where to go. There's a lot of coordinated activities that go into that, and again, they pulled that off remarkably. My first impulse when I got notice of the emergency was, and this is from my prior police experiences, I wanted to run to the Emergency Operations Center and get involved and be there and do what I did. And it took a lot for me to step back and pay attention and listen to what the manager's updates were and seeing that these guys are on top of it. I don't have any concerns about how they're handling this because they are on top of every aspect of this as it was moving forward. They all need to be commended for that. So thank you to the entire city staff and thank you to the community for your support in dealing with this.

Well thank you and I'll round out our council comments pretty quickly here. I echo everything my fellow council members have said. The severity of this event for what it meant to Pleasanton cannot be understated. How close it got to many homes within 30 feet, I'll let the Chief maybe talk about that, of some homes, 30 feet. the amount of equipment brought in from both our fire department, LPFD, as well as Cal Fire and others, our mutual aid partners answering the call that Pleasanton put out. So to fire and all of the partners, to police and all of the partners, to the EOC team, I was at City Hall. I saw how it got activated along with the interim city manager. and the professionalism was there without a doubt. All the city employees who helped keep the rest of the city running while those people got much needed rest because they were basically up 24 hours or pretty close to it. So I did go to the shelter and one of the starkest things as mayor is to see beds being set up in our senior center. That is, you only see that on TV. You only see it in other places. So when it's happening in the city that I represent, it was a stark reminder that emergencies can happen anywhere. So my message to our community is thank you for thinking of your neighbors. And as our first responders have said many times, please sign up for AC alert so that you can be notified and please make an emergency plan today or update yours so that you know what to do and you have a go back. Um, no loss of life, no shelter destroyed gratitude. beyond belief and beyond words. So thank you so much.

Honorable Mayor, esteemed council, city staff, members of the community, I'm your fire chief, Aaron Lacey, and I am completely humbled and honored and proud to be able to speak on behalf of our public safety workers, our city staff, and the fire department in relation to the little fire that was everything but little. The public's probably, why do we come up with these names? So it's actually where the fire starts or originates. This fire came in at the corner of Vallecitas and Little Valley Road. So the firefighters will simplify it and just call it the Little Fire. And that's how it got its name. But the Little Fire, although not little, it burned 1,007 acres. We evacuated over 6,000 people, threatened close to 2,000 homes, activated our emergency operations center. Activated a shelter, had members of the community at our facility. And I cannot tell you enough that this would not be possible without the training that these firefighters, police officers and city staff do on a daily basis to make sure that when and if this event occurs in our community, that we will be prepared to answer the call. and bring calm to chaos. So I want to highlight all of the agencies that helped respond to assist us in this Cal Fire. There was a firefighter that was injured. It was a minor injury. He was transported and released later that night with minor injuries. So not not serious or life threatening. But our dispatchers, our city staff that that answered the call When we get a large event like this, our city dumps every one of our ten fire stations without that fire. And we have to not only think about the incident, but also how do we maintain services for our community? So we had fire departments from all over Alameda County, from Oakland Fire, Alameda City, Hayward, Fremont. They were covering our covering in our fire stations and they were answering the call for us because that's what we do. We help each other in a time of need. Completely humbled, completely honored. All of the outpour and the thank yous and the emails and the phone calls, we've received it all. But really, thank you very much for honoring us and recognizing us tonight. And thank you very much to the men and women of the Livermore Pleasant Fire Department, specifically. You're rock stars. You're heroes. And you've made me a very proud fire chief tonight.

Thank you.

Chief.

Good evening. Tracy Avalor, uh, police chief. I, um, I was going to say, I usually don't, I never give fire compliments ever. And I, I cannot even tell you how impressed I was with the people on the ground, the air units, the helicopters, the plates. It was incredible. So kudos to you all. Um, There is a method to the madness. And when fire is fighting the fire, evacuations are handed down to the law enforcement or police officers to do. And we had a bunch of people coming in. um to help us so Pleasanton was there was kind of a shift change people that started in the morning did not leave they waited to see what was going to happen so we had every shift which was beneficial we had volunteers out there we had our CSOs out there we had Livermore East Bay Parks And to evacuate that number of residences is no small task, keeping track of it, doing all of that. I will say a shout out to the community. They followed directions. The mood was, what do you need us to do? And I think it followed through over to the shelter as well. And it wasn't a heavy, it was, we're gonna stick together as a community. So shout out to the community as well. There is an incident command system, how situations are handled and managed, and FIRE's really great at it. The police department, probably I would say maybe 20 years ago, started getting good at it. We just didn't use it as much as FIRE. but i will read to you the east bay regional parks district police chief sent me a letter and it was there is a quote in the letter and it says during my career i've participated this is captain terence cotcher who represented the the east bay parks throughout the incident It says, during my career, I have participated in more than 35 integrated unified command responses to significant fire incidents. It is difficult for me to recall another incident that was managed more effectively or more impressively than the coordinated response to the Little Fire. The professionalism, communication, collaboration, and operational discipline demonstrated by the members of the Pleasanton Police Department established the standard for what unified command should look like. And it says, please extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Acting Lieutenant Llewellyn, Sergeant Pittle, Sergeant Chin, your dispatch center personnel, and all the members of the police department. I just wanna say I'm incredibly impressed with the way that this was all handled. I'm so proud of the police department and everyone. And in fact, we had to send people home. They wanted to stay. They were on 16 hours and we had to send them home. That's how hard they wanted to remain. I will turn over now to our Leo Lopez, who is the person that you hear about doing all the training for us. We're gonna give a clap to police first, if you don't mind.

And Mr. Leo Lopez, EOC coordinator, I apologize.

EOC coordinator, I'm the city's emergency services manager, Leo Lopez. I'm humbled to be here right now and being included in this recognition. This is really a team effort, as I've said to most of you. interagency collaboration was absolutely outstanding. The community was so supportive. You just made our jobs so much easier. I want to thank this council for supporting our emergency preparedness efforts and prioritizing it for this community. and for the organization. Training and exercise pays off, and we proved that on Tuesday night. If you were in the EOC and you're not already standing, could you please stand for a minute? I just want to recognize city staff who did that. I want to thank all the city staff who played like they trained and they paid really close attention to what needed to be done and for the most part with little to no direction. Again, made my job fairly easy. So thanks again. I really appreciate being here tonight. It's my pleasure to serve this community, to support our first responders and to be here tonight. Thanks again. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. City Manager, did you have anything you wanted to add to it? I know you've been here for a heartbeat.

Mayor and Council, I think you all said it very, very well. I think we're all incredibly appreciative for the actions that were taken and all of our first responders. And I think it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, given the magnitude of this event, I think we can all appreciate that the outcome could have been devastating for the community. But thanks to that prompt response and the efforts of so many, we we really saw the most positive possible outcome. So Pleasanton is incredibly fortunate to be served by these public safety folks who are so dedicated and who who care so much about the community.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

We have one more round of applause for them. So I want to just finish out. The fire, the little fire, was a stark reminder that emergencies can strike without warning, and every household needs to be prepared. Please take two important steps, maybe while you're waiting for your time to speak tonight, to go to the City of Pleasanton's website, search emergency preparedness, and there you can sign up for AC Alert, as well as the steps you need to create an emergency plan for your household. Secondly, I fielded a lot of calls from our community during the event. Frightened and scared is the simplest I can probably gather. impact each of us differently. If you or someone you care about is having a difficult time through this, please do not let stigma keep you from reaching out for support. A guide to mental health resources is also available on the city's website. If you go to the website and search for mental health resource guide, it will pop right up. It is very real. So thank you very much. If we can just have one last clap for all of our city staff, all the mutual aid partners. Thank you. Thank you so much. OK, so as I mentioned, we are going to proceed along. I've got a few additional announcements. Speaking time, we've got about an hour and a half of comments at two minutes, so we will be at two minutes for public comment. I wanted to acknowledge former police chief Bill Eastman, who was our Pleasanton police chief for nearly 20 years, passed away earlier this summer. And we'd like to also thank him for his contributions to our community. We had a public comment at the last meeting and seeing the chief here talk about it reminds me about the license plate reader. I know it's not a published item, but we've published an agenda or a memo. So city manager, would you like to make some brief comments on that? Again, it's not on the agenda, but the license plate reader comment.

Sure. Thank you, Mayor. As you indicated, this isn't something that's on the agenda or before council this evening, but there were concerns that were raised at the July 7th council meeting with regard to whether or not our police department was sharing ALPR data with federal border patrol agencies. We did take these concerns seriously and immediately followed up and what we found is described in a memo that the chief and I prepared to the council. It's also posted on the city's website for those that would care to see it that haven't. That memo acknowledges the fact that there were unfortunately errors that were made that could have allowed one federal agency, which was the San Diego Sector Border Patrol, to access individual license plate data through the vigilant Motorola ALPR system that was previously in use by the city. That's because that agency was incorrectly listed as a state agency on the eligible search list for the vigilant system. We also learned that the vigilant system, those cameras were continuing to operate in three locations despite the city having terminated that contract last October. We don't know whether or not any license plate information was actually searched because the older system wasn't configured to tell us that. So what I can tell you is that all of those cameras, the older cameras, vigilant cameras, have now been deactivated. The current flock system is specifically configured to exclude access by all federal and out-of-state agencies. I want to acknowledge these errors. We appreciate the fact that it was brought to our attention by the speakers. And I want to assure you and the chief wants to assure the community that our police department remains committed to protecting the privacy of our community, to complying with all applicable laws and maintaining the public's trust.

I'd like to ask a question of staff.

Yeah, it's not on the agenda, but please.

You pointed out that all cameras, those cameras are deactivated. Are they all removed, and if not, why?

Yeah. My understanding, Councilmember Testa, is that all but one of the cameras has been removed. The reason being that the last remaining camera is on a pole that is controlled by Caltrans, and so we are working with that agency to get permission to access the pole and remove it. But it has been deactivated, and we have confirmed that.

All right. Okay. Thank you.

OK, so that's it for announcements. We're going to go. We're proceeding a little slow, but that's OK. It was worth it. Agenda amendments. Any agenda amendments by staff at this time?

No amendments, Mr. Mayor. There is supplemental material and information, which I believe council is aware of. But with that, no further changes.

Yeah, there was a supplemental for page item 16. We'll take a small pause before that, just so we can read that, because it was here right when we got here. OK. With that, we'll get to public comment shortly. So again, if you can please start adjusting your comments to be two minutes, I'd appreciate it. We're going to go to the consent calendar. Items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item will be removed from consent calendar and considered separately. With that, are there any questions on the consent calendar by any of my fellow colleagues at this time? No. Okay. I have a few minor questions if I may ask. City Manager, the lawn conversion has received quite a lot of interest by the community. Are we going to put that map up of the areas where we're changing out the non-functional turf? Is that up or are we going to make that available so people know where it's at?

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I believe that that information is on the website.

OK. And then on item five, there was concern over the deadlines related to that in that package. But can you confirm staff's reached out to ACTC to make sure that we'll get an extension or possibly still be able to take the action tonight?

Yes, that's correct, Mayor. In planning to bring that application to the Council on the 21st, of course, none of us anticipated the need to postpone that meeting. Our staff has been in communication with Alameda CTC with regard to the mitigating circumstances, and based on those conversations, we believe that they will accept our applications following the Council's action tonight.

Okay, thank you. All right, any further clarifying questions before I go to public comment? And I do have two public speakers on this item. Seeing none, we'll open up public comment for consent. Consent is items one through 12. If you would like to speak on any consent item or any future item, please fill out a blue speaker card and turn it in the city clerk. It'll be randomly shuffled as it makes its way to me, and then it will be here for you to be called on. So I have two speakers for item five. For the first is Todd Nelson, followed by Sharon Prakarski. If I can have you come up and two minutes, please.

Welcome. Thank you. I oppose the application for the 580 overpass item, specifically at Hacienda and at Hop Yard. This is an item that goes back to Mayor Thorne. So two mayors ago. Originally it was called the 680-580 overpass and that's how it got itself up to the third priority item and included six or seven bridges. Back then it was $200,000. Now it's four million. And I think you'd have questions about that. Last month you approved the design contract for $483,000, so who knows what this $4 million estimate is actually based on. I object to Hacienda because it's right next to the Iron Horse Trail. Dublin has built a brand new bridge and the BART station is being renovated to make the Iron Horse even more low stress. I've looked at all the input for the new master plan and no one expressed any interest in Hacienda or Hop Yard. It's not on the vision network at all. There's just no interest. There is, however, a lot of interest in safety for kids. But none of this matters. Mr. Sassano can do this. He can move these forward. He can do this without asking for any input from the bike ped community. And he can move this on consent calendar. The only thing that stops him is you. can shift the focus to safety for kids. You can insist on community input, and you can show that you are concerned about safety. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ms. Sharon Prakarski, two minutes. I'll try to talk fast. Hold on, let's reset the call.

There we go. I'm excited to see the ACTC funding request for several important projects that will make a big difference for safety of bicyclists at some of our most dangerous roadway segments. I've spoken before about previously living only one mile from my work in Dublin and never even considering riding my bike due to the need to cross I-580 at Santa Rita Road. I'm not a timid bicyclist and regularly ride in vehicle traffic lanes, but Santa Rita Road is just far too dangerous. I've seen the conceptual plans, which include huge improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians, It is a bit frustrating though to see how long it takes to complete these projects. The freeway overpass conceptual plans were reviewed by the BPTC in January of 2023. Speaking of a long time to complete, this agenda item also includes a request for funding for phase two of the West Las Positas project. I'm a bit confused about what it covers though. My understanding is phase two covers a segment from Stone Ridge Drive to Fairlands Drive. The agenda report first says phase two is from Stone Ridge to Santa Rita. Then in the detailed description of the seven million request, it states phase two will complete the eastern segment of West Las Positas in parentheses Owens Drive to Fairlands Drive. The actual resolution says the project will implement a protected intersection at Owens Drive and West Las Positas Boulevard, elevated bike lanes, reconstructed medians, and a new sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. It appears that it does not include improvements at the Santa Rita intersection and east of Fairlands Drive. There may be a logical reason for the differences in the definitions. I'm just not sure what it is. I personally don't ride through Sonal interchange area, but heavy fast moving traffic that crosses bike lanes makes it clear that this too is a very dangerous segment for bicyclists. I understand the city, which has budget restraints, must find matching funds for these projects. But what could be more important than potentially saving someone from serious injury or even death? Not everyone is able to drive or can afford to, but everyone deserves safe, reliable, affordable transportation.

Thank you.

Which a bicyclist provides when we have safe infrastructure. Please approve this item. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. If you would like to speak on items 1 through 12 and have not turned in a blue speaker card, please approach the podium at this time.

I would like to.

Hold on, I'm in public comment. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Council Member Testa.

I want to ask staff to respond to Mr. Nelson's comments. If I know that he had sent his concerns in an email and there had been a response, is there anything that you can share?

Well, I will address it broadly because Mr. Nelson sent a very detailed email that covered a lot of things. What we pointed out in the response back to Mr. Nelson is that, and the last speaker alluded to this, These projects are all part of a process that involves planning, design, all the way through construction. And so the application for funding this project not atypically is being handled in phases. The Council previously approved grant applications for both the West Las Positas and the I-580 overcrossing projects for the 2026 CTC Comprehensive Investment Program, and during that cycle, We were granted funds for the project design and encouraged to reapply for the construction funds for both projects. And so that is what this application is doing for those two projects. There is a partnership with the City of Dublin with respect to the I-580 project. With respect to the I-680-SINOL interchange and the technology upgrades, both of those projects are included in the approved Transportation Safety Action Plan that was considered by the Council just this past May. So from the city's standpoint, we are following along with a process on all four of these projects that started some time ago.

Well, all right. Thank you. They're all important projects and yes, costs have gone up and it's shocking, but thank you.

Okay. Council Member Eichert, any comments on consent?

I like that. I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Okay. Looking for a second? I'll second. Any additional comments? Mr. Mayor.

I'm reading that.

Yeah. Okay. Before we take a vote, state law requires me to read this, so I will. State law requires an oral summary of changes in compensation for local agency executives, which is item one on tonight's consent calendar. This action amends the employment contract with the interim city manager, this gentleman here in the blue coat, to clarify that he will be enrolled in CalPERS. That's all I have to read. Okay, so I've read the disclosure and we have a motion made and seconded. Roll call vote, please.

Council Member Eicher? Aye. Gaydos? Aye. Nybert?

Aye.

Testa?

Aye.

Mayor Balch?

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we're almost there, I promise. We are now moving to... Item number 13, presentation of a proclamation recognizing the Pleasanton community of character. Council Member Testa.

Okay.

I will read the proclamation and invite members of the community of character to come up and speak and we'll take a picture. The Pleasanton Community of Character Collaborative. Whereas the mission of the Pleasanton Community of Character is to promote community culture, build on goodwill, and the values of responsibility, compassion, self-discipline, and honesty, respect, and integrity. And whereas their vision is to create a community where character counts, kindness leads, and the community feels a sense of belonging and value. Whereas they strive to inspire, motivate, and recognize individuals, families, and organizations within the city. Whereas through awards, scholarships, and community events, the collaborative fosters a culture of character and positive impact in the community. And now, therefore, be it resolved that the Pleasanton City Council does hereby recognize and commend the Pleasanton Community of Character Collaborative for their dedication and commitment to the city of Pleasanton. Can we invite, we have quite a list of members of the collaborative. Anyone who is here that wants to come to the podium and speak and then we will present. Okay, I have Linda Kelly, Ken Mono, Heather Rizzoli, David Halperin, Christina Gray, Carrie Cochran, Heidi Murphy, Kurt Schlaehooper. Welcome. Captain Schlaehooper.

Okay. Well, I guess I was abandoned tonight. Thank goodness. You have a policeman next to you. Yeah. Many of our board members did have other obligations tonight and were unable to come. They were here actually at last week's meeting and of course we all know what happened. We thank you very much for this recognition. We do work together. We're a working board. We believe very much in this community and in the spirit of making it the best community that we possibly can. seeing all of this tonight tells me that something is working really really well for us and so we thank you very much.

Okay and Captain Schleyhuber would you like to add anything to that?

I don't know how I can top that. Thank you, Linda. No, this again, what Linda said, this what we just experienced last Tuesday with the community coming together for the little fire and all the city workers and first responders that emulate these character traits that sit up here in the council chambers. I just couldn't be more proud as a city employee and a member of this community. So thank you very much for the recognition for the community of character. We really appreciate it. Okay.

We have a speaker on this so I have to go to that person then we'll take a photo right after. So two minutes please City Clerk. Shirley Lenovowski. Yeah, welcome.

You have two minutes.

No problem. Did you want to speak for something not on the agenda?

No, this is on the proclamation.

Oh, okay, on the proclamation, please.

I'm trying to get it to two minutes, thank you.

Well, but it's not specific to community of character, right? No.

But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say.

You would like a proclamation for FCI Dublin? Yes. That's the next item. We'll put you on that. Okay. With that, would anyone else like to speak on the community character proclamation? Okay, with that, we'll take a picture. If I can ask our fire chief, our police chief, and if Leo's still in the room, Leo, to join us, because I couldn't think of a better example of community of character handing this proclamation out.

He left, yeah.

Are you taking the photo? I'm waiting for me to pass.

Ready, one, two, three. One, two, three.

OK, so we have about an hour and 10 minutes of public comment, a little longer now. So we're going to get through it as quickly as we can. We'll do it all now. And we're moving on to item number 14. So I like to read this at the beginning. And I appreciate your patience. Good evening and welcome. You are all welcome here. This is an 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, we ask that you please reserve your comments to when we get to that item. For members of the public joining us in person, if you wish to speak now or for a future item, please fill out that blue speaker card and turn them into the city clerk. For members of the public joining us virtually, please raise your hand using the raise hand feature or press star nine on your telephone at this time. When your number is called or name, you will be unmuted and be able to speak. I ask that all community members help to be respectful and maintain decorum. Speakers have different opinions, and we want to hear all perspectives and viewpoints. To that end, please no clapping, booing, or other disturbances. In the interest of time, if you agree with the speaker before you, you simply can say you agree and don't need to utilize your full time. And if you want to show support with what the current speaker is saying, you're welcome to raise your hand, and we will understand that as additional support. Lastly, please know that this is your time to be heard. If you do ask questions, those won't necessarily be answered unless taken up by a council member after the conclusion of the allotted time or after your comments. Speakers are hereby limited to two minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. I will call three names at a time. I know we've got a little queue here to the left, but we'd ask them to get in line so that we can try to speed through this. I'll do my best. Barry, no last name. Barry, you're first, followed by Aurora, followed by Mose McKenja. McKenja, yeah. So there we go. Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone shuffling around as we work through this. Welcome.

I too would like to commend the work of the Pleasanton community of character. I grew up in the 50s and 60s in San Leandro. I was handed a life of advantages, not because we were wealthy, we weren't, but because I was white, my parents never divorced, and they had enough money to send me to 16 years of private education. Decades later, I learned San Leandro had been an extremely racist community. I'm sure the city leaders had their justifications as to why blacks in the city after sunset were escorted to the Oakland border and why real estate documents had a clause in them that indicated this property could not be sold to Negroes. Regardless, the city leaders made up their own discrimination rules. Maybe a proclamation on character traits back then would have helped. Whether Pleasanton's license plate readers turn over my info to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, I do not live in fear. I do not carry extra documents. I was born white. Tonight, many in this chamber came from a vigil for the latest ICE victims. Too many have died at the hands of ICE personnel who, like San Leandro, had made up their own rules. ICE has a blatant disregard for habeas corpus and proceeds without legal repercussions, unlike other law enforcement agencies. Last year, our neighbor Miguel Lopez was taken from the steps of an immigration court only to help achieve Stephen Miller's quota. Our city council may or may not ever sign a resolution against a nice detention facility in the Tri-Valley, but I sense there will be other opportunities to fight for the immigrants. In closing, I hope that unlike my earlier hometown of San Leandro, we will all be on the right side of history, the law, and character. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Aurora, followed by Jan. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Balch. Good evening, city council members. Last Saturday, about one week ago, the Alameda County Rapid Response Network, ACELEP, confirmed that ICE was at the Safeway in downtown Livermore. The concern is no longer if ICE comes or even when ICE comes. The concern is now that ICE is here, what will you, the mayor and city council, do to protect us, the residents of Pleasanton and our beloved community? We as a compassionate community must extend our kindness to our immigrant neighbors. We must be responsible in our preparedness and plans for every possible scenario. We need to be honest about what is happening with FCI Dublin and ICE with the community. We shall be self-disciplined in meeting every challenge with proper plans that lead to safety and not chaos. We must be respectful to each and every resident of Pleasanton. For we are a community of integrity. We are a community of good character. The council and mayor recognize this. That is why you have passed the proclamation recognizing the Pleasanton community of character collaborative. I have lived in Pleasanton my whole life as a constituent of District 2, and now that notification from Saturday still haunts me. I hate that I'm worried about a greater ICE presence, and I'm terrified of what will happen to our immigrant neighbors, but also for what will happen to me. I love Pleasanton for its safety and security, and this is the first time in my life that I have felt unsafe in the only place I've ever called home. I ask you to consider a resolution reaffirming our commitment to our immigrant neighbors, our commitment to the good character of our community. The resolution would be more than a symbol. It would show ICE our preparedness and our unity. Let's keep Pleasanton a place where we can all feel safe and secure. Thank you.

Thank you. Mose, followed by Jan, followed by Andrew Shotland. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and member of the City Council. My name is Moez Makinijan. I live on Oak Vista Way directly across from Bernal Community Park. I first came before the city council two years ago to raise the very same issue, the rapidly growing ground squirrels infestation affecting our neighborhood. At that time, I was referred to the city manager. We met, exchanged numerous emails, and I proposed restoring the periodic use of heavy equipment to turn and compact the soil. Similar to the way the property was managed before it became a park in 2016. That proposal was not pursued because of the budget constraints, and no alternative solution was implemented. Unfortunately, the problem has become much worse. Today, ground squirrels are burrowing beneath residential properties throughout our neighborhood, Dozens of homes are affected and many homeowners are deeply concerned about damage to foundation, landscaping, irrigation system, and other improvements. You will hear from several of those homeowners tonight. this is not just a neighborhood nuisance it is community issue that also affects city property the squirrels are damaging trees and landscaping in bernal community park an investment made with public fund and deserves protection over the past two years we have repeatedly contacted the Walnut Hill Homeowner Association with little progress. I also contacted the Alameda County Vector Control Service. After reviewing the situation, their senior vector control biologist notified us.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Your time is complete.

Okay.

Jan, you'll be followed by Andrew Shotland, followed by Anara Cheng. Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor Bosch and City Council members. Many of us that are here tonight came from a vigil at Civic Park for two men that were killed by ice. Our hearts are heavy as we remember Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Johann Sebastian Duran Herrero. I say their names now because they matter, as do the other 50 people who have died as the result of ice actions, including Renee Good and Alex Pretty. As our Pleasanton City Council, you have heard many comments about ICE and the possibility of them turning the former Dublin Women's Prison into a detention center. I'm not going to bring up all those points that you have heard, but I want to make a point. That is that the Department of Homeland Security cannot be trusted. It is not a transparent organization and it has been caught telling numerous lies. It says no US citizens have been detained. False. They say they're going after serious criminals. False. More than 75% of those detained have absolutely no criminal records. In multiple incidents, they have altered video footage to support their narrative of events. They claim the economy is improving with the removal of undocumented immigrants, while studies show the opposite effect. On March 27th, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security issued a letter to the city of Dublin saying they were not planning on using the FCI Dublin as a detention center or facility. This would be wonderful news if it was true, but this is not reliable. What is true is that the Bureau of Prisons is currently conducting environmental reviews before potentially transferring the property to the General Services Administration who could then transfer it to ICE and then it could be turned into a detention center. ICE routinely under reports the number of detention centers they are using. Tens of thousands of people are missing because they are held in temporary facilities and not counted. The Vera Institute is a watchdog group and they will tell you that you cannot believe ISIS statements or numbers. Mayor Ballaton, city council members, please reconsider your position. Join Dublin and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and hopefully Livermore soon in their stance of saying no to an ICE detention center in Dublin. Let us show solidarity with our neighboring communities. If Pleasanton is a community of character, and I know that it is, then we need to show it by doing what is right. We cannot be intimidated by what the current regime might do someday. We need to protect our community now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Andrew Shotland, followed by Andrea Chung, followed by Emily Zhang. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening. I'd like to request the City Council direct staff to place the use of ALPRs on a future agenda item for public discussion. The memos prepared by the interim city manager and police chief on the illegal data breaches left me with several questions about these devices. use of these cameras in other states have led to innocent drivers having been pulled over business insider reports that one in ten license plates scanned by flock cameras misread the state and the nation's largest police department the lapd is letting its surveillance contract with flock expire after an audit found that in a two-month period the lapd improperly investigated 161 people whose cars were incorrectly flagged as stolen in the department's ALPR system. I want to know, is this kind of a mistake happening in Pleasanton? How often does it happen? What are the character of those mistakes? PPD policy says ALPR system audits are conducted on a regular basis. I'd like to know what goes on in those audits. What are we finding? Less than one percent of vehicles scanned by ALPR technology are involved in any crime or wrongdoing, according to the ACLU. Is Pleasanton seeing similar figures? The Pleasanton Weekly reports we have a five-year, $600,000 contract with Flock. I want to know, is this the best allocation of these funds? What are the tangible benefits the city has received from this investment? I might argue, given the subject matter today, that it might be better to hire more police or hire more firemen, fire people, and increase our staff, our emergency staff. I ask the council to put a discussion on the ALPR cameras on a future agenda item to learn more about the pros and cons of these intrusive devices. It undermines public trust in government if private data is not protected and if we are investing in inefficient technology. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Andrea Chung, followed by Emily Zhang, followed by Seema Chawla.

welcome good evening mayors council members firefighters and neighbors my name is andrea chang and i'm honored to represent the communities of chinese community tonight to express our gratitude to the firefighters and first correspondents all chinese are very shine and i'm not accustomed to express like um I'm not accustomed to speak publicly, but our appreciation is deep and sincere. Tonight, I'm going to read a letter from a neighbor who was overseas when the little fire broke out and could not attend in person. Dear Little Fire firefighters team, I am a Ruby Hill resident who was far away in China when the Little Fire broke out, and I could only follow every update through the news and our local community post online. My heart was in my throat when I watched the fire move closer to my home, knowing that I have no way to return for help. I can never put in words how grateful I am for your timeless effort during those dangerous hours. You fought the flames around the clock, walked through thick smokes and intense heat, and never backed down. Because of your courage, your quick response, and your dedication, the fire was contained and so many homes, including mine, were saved. Even thousands of miles away, I could feel the peace and safety you brought back to our neighborhood. You didn't just stop a fire. You gave families like mine hope and peace of mind. Thank you for risking your own safety and protecting our homes and our community. You are true heroes and your service will never be forgotten. With deepest gratitude, Jane Huang, a Ruby Hill resident who was far away from home during the little fire. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yeah, so while we clap at the beginning, we don't clap now, even though our hearts pour out. I get it, and I bend rules, but that one we're going to stick to, please. Okay, Emily Zhang, followed by Sima Chawa, followed by Erica Gallegos. Welcome.

Good evening, mayor, council members, firefighters, police officers, first responders, and the neighbors. I'm Emily, and I'm a Ruby Hill resident. I'm here tonight simply to say thank you, thank you, appreciate. The little fair reminded us how quick things can change. Well, many of us were watching the smoke and hope everything would be okay. You were out there protecting our homes and our community. Because of you, Ruby Hill remained safe. We know that it took long hours, hard work, teamwork, and the dedication of every firefighter, police officer, pilot, dispatcher, and first responder. I'd also like to recognize Brian Ward, a retired firefighter and the husband of one of my tennis friends. He came back to help during the little fire. Seeing him reminded me that serving your community isn't just a job, it's something that stays with you for life. Thank you. To everyone who helped during the little fire, thank you for your courage, your sacrifice, and everything you did for our community. On behalf of my family and I'm sure many of my neighbors, thank you for helping keep Ruby Hill safe. Pleasanton is a strong and a safer community because of people like you. You won't forget what you did for us. Thank you, appreciate everything you did for us.

Thank you very much.

Also, we want to present for our Chinese community a little.

The chief's in the back and you can hand it to him and thank you so much. I'm going to unfortunately have to keep the meeting going even though I really, because we'll be here longer. So if we may ask maybe that, I think that, go ahead.

.

Okay, we can clap for that. No, we're going to keep the meeting going. So if I may, if you wanted to get a photo with the fire chief and the fire personnel, they're still out in the lobby. So you might want to do that while we keep public comment going. okay thank you very much okay so yeah so let me get through the meeting thank you so much and appreciate you coming down and appreciating them if you'd like to go outside and take a picture with the fire chief and the fire personnel this might be the time so uh my next speakers are sima charla erica galios and lisha kang so there you go yes sima

hi i want to express my heartfelt gratitude towards our brave first responders and our fabulous mayor jack balch and all the council members i live in a neighborhood that was affected by fires tuesday and mayor balch personally messaged me and spoke to me over the phone that our neighborhood will have to be evacuated and i should start planning and help my neighbors and friends I cannot express how he truly proved his message and speech given during his State of the City. I believe in the power of people, the power to create and build, the power to care for one another through service and the power of human kindness, empathy and compassion. He actually put this into actions and not just his words or speech during his State of the City. Excerpts from his speech, advance kindness, practice empathy, cultivate gratitude, show up because participation is how promises endure, serve. Well, he did all of this Tuesday by visiting every shelter in place to check on people to make sure they were okay. He worked tirelessly, honestly, and with empathy. This is true leadership and Pleasanton is lucky to have Jack Balch as our mayor. I want to thank Vice Mayor Matt Gatos. When the first reports came in, he was already at City Hall monitoring and calling residents. Vice Mayor Gatos came down to monitor the situation. He coordinated calling, texting, and notifying residents with Mayor. The district they both live in and where more than half of their constituents were placed. I also met with Fire Chief Lacey, he's right here, and thanked him and his brave team to contain the fires. In the process, one of the Cal Fire, I'm going to skip that, but I really, because we already spoke about it, but I really wanted to send this note here for our community. We take life for granted, but things can change in the blink of an eye. Please be kind to one another and be happy. Stay safe and help one another. God bless our brave men fighting these fires, and please pray for them, and God bless America. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, thank you very much. We'll keep the meeting going. Erica Glegos, followed by Lisha Kang, I think she just stepped outside, and Jean Zheng, welcome.

Fear is the stain of mind in which we live day by day. My name is Erica Gallegos, and I'm here representing my community, Latinos. I represent cooks, nannies, house cleaners, servers, gardeners, and many, many more. I live in Placenton for 24 years. This is my home. You guys are my family. Recently, we have been survived under pressure. We have a lot of emotions, fear, but with hope. You know, it's weird, go out with the fear to come back home and leave our children with the same question at home. So now we no longer know we can make it home, but the worst part is might take someone our lives in the way back home. I know it's not easy to understand because we need to be in the situation or in the same shoes for understanding. We're not criminals. We are not. I just want to ask to you guys Any decision you're taking, take it from the bottom of your heart with kindness and empathy. And I hope you help us to take care of families. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Well spoken. Leisha Kang, I think she's still outside. I can come back. Jean Zhang. Z-H-A-N-G. I think she's outside. We'll come back. Ron, you get to follow that up, followed by Michael Ben Israel, followed by Marvin Gibson. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, esteemed council people. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ron Saki. I've been a neighbor of yours for about 30 years now.

And I've seen a lot of change over the years.

I want to begin by saying it plainly.

I voted for you.

And as a responsibility as a voter, I need to support your decisions as well as

you know, hold you accountable for the decisions you make.

I feel a responsibility. I'm speaking to you tonight about the ICE detention centers in the Tri-Valley. First, I understand that Pleasanton cannot, should not interfere with Dublin's land use decisions. I respect jurisdictional boundaries. I'm not asking you to weigh in on Dublin's process. Secondly, I recognize the federal government has failed profoundly to recreate a humane and functional immigration system. That failure is not yours. My question is, how would you respond if Pleasanton were asked to host an ICE detention facility on an adjacent land or maybe even the fairgrounds? I'll skip to the end. I have data that shows Government Accountability Office and Physicians for Human Rights show that they're not, the detention centers are not humane. So who are we as a community, especially on a night when we're recognizing community of character, collaborative, great people to building a culture of goodwill, compassion, respect and integrity. That's Pleasanton is the best and tonight I ask you to celebrate Pleasanton's character. I ask you to show it. Your silence will be remembered as part of Pleasanton's character or as your departure from it. Thank you for your time. Godspeed your work.

Thank you very much. Michael Ben Israel followed by Marvin Gibson followed by Teresa Lee. Oh, I am so sorry.

It's okay. It's Michal. Evening, mayor and council members. I'm here to talk about some unwanted residents in Pleasanton on a different scale. I'm talking about very cute little ones, the ground squirrels that I see every day from my balcony, from my house. They are borrowing under the houses. I'm here talking for myself, but I have here Lists of names and names, like an entire neighborhood of people suffering from this infestation. They are out of control, the population, and it's not something that we as homeowners can fight ourselves. We contacted the vector control, as Mo said, and the HOA, but everybody referred us to the city.

Same thing happened in Berkeley, and the city of Berkeley took care of it.

I contacted pest control companies, but this is a much bigger scale than something that we can fight. So as my friend Mo said, they are burrowing under the house, they are risking, they're harming the foundation of the houses. and they also carry diseases, and this is something that the city must help us with. We love the park, we enjoy the park, but you have to think about the neighborhood that lives around it and what it means for us. I tried everything, and it's not something that we as residents can do on our own, so we will appreciate it if you can Help us fight it and and reduce the number so we can live peacefully in Oak Vista Way and all the neighborhood of Bernal Park. Thank you.

Thank you very much Marvin Gibson followed by Teresa Lee followed by Charles When I close button comment

Good evening. This is a statement to the Pleasant City Council regarding squirrels and gophers affecting Oak Vista Way residents. First of all, again, good evening. Members of the City Council.

Could you move the mic a little closer? I'm sorry. Thank you so much.

Okay, is that better? Yes, please. Or thank you. Again, and to the city staff as well. My name is Marvin Gibson. and I'm a homeowner and one of the original residents of Oak Vista Way. My family's lived there since November of 2002. It'll be 24 years. First, I want to say that we appreciate Bernal Community Park. It is a valuable part of our neighborhood and many families, children's visitors, sports programs use it every day. For those of us on this away, the park is not just nearby, it's directly in front of our homes. However, we're here tonight because of the neighborhood is facing a serious and growing problem with ground squirrels, gophers. They didn't mention the rats. About five years ago, it cost me $2,000 to get them out of my attic. Coming from the park into our residential areas, the issue has become more of a nuisance. It is now affecting our yards, our landscaping, our property, and peace of mind. On July 20th, the Homeowners Association held an online meeting to discuss the extent of the infestation. The Oak Vista Way community has also begun compiling a list of affected property owners so we can document the scope of the problem. Since then, we have contacted Alameda County Vector Control. They responded promptly by sending a representative to inspect the situation in our community. We recognize that this is not a simple issue. We understand that the wildlife management must be handled carefully and legally and responsibly. But we also believe...

Thank you very much. Your time has passed.

Thank you.

Okay. And we're going to put you in contact with the city staff just so you know, to follow up. Teresa Lee, followed by Charles, followed by Shravana. Best I can. Welcome.

Good evening mayor and council members and all the community members in the room. I would like to express my appreciation to the emergency responder for handling this little fire that protecting our community. And I am also thankful for the shelter center set up by the city. where I was able to drop off two relatives of my neighbor who are visiting from China. And we were unable to find any hotel rooms, and then they don't feel comfortable going to my friend's house, so I finally dropped them off at the shelters set up by the city. I am really, really appreciate those staff at the center. They went above and beyond and were able to find them translator because the mother and the son doesn't speak English. And so they were able to find them translator and then they were able to spend the night in a safe community. So really, really appreciate all the helps. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Charles, followed by Shivani. And then I don't know if Alicia King's come back in the room or Jing. OK, we'll come back around. Thank you for your patience. Yes.

Go ahead. Good evening, Mayor Bulch and members of the City Council. I am also here tonight to urge you to adopt a resolution formally opposing the construction of the proposed ICE detention facility in our neighboring city of Dublin. In combination with the proposed processing facility in Gilroy, the Dublin facility would create an end-to-end processing pathway that would supercharge ice activity throughout the Tri-Valley area, subjecting our residents to racial profiling, families being torn apart, and a pervasive atmosphere of fear that threatens the safety and cohesion of our community. Tonight, this council has recognized the Pleasant Community of Character Collaborative. The mission of this collaborative is to promote a community culture built on goodwill and the values of responsibility, compassion, self-discipline, honesty, respect, and integrity. Their vision is to create a community where character counts and kindness leads. I'm exhorting you today to put those words into action. If we truly believe in these values, we must resist an institution that actively undermines them. Upholding our values requires us to speak out against systems that deal in cruelty rather than in kindness. A formal resolution will signal to our most vulnerable residents, immigrants who are our neighbors and friends, that we support them and that we will stand up for their safety. It will also send a strong message of solidarity to the residents in Dublin. In moments of moral urgency, a lack of a statement is a statement. Silence on this issue can and will be construed as consent. If we do not publicly and unequivocally oppose this facility, we are implicitly acknowledging the danger that it brings to our community. Let us show that Pleasanton is truly a community where character counts and kindness leads. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Shivani, followed by Alicia Kang, followed by Jean Zhang. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Balch, Vice Mayor Guidos, Council Member Testa, Council Member Eicher, and Council Member Nyberg. I stand before you tonight on behalf of our immigrant community to make a personal appeal to this council. Please oppose the establishment of an ICE detention facility in Dublin. I am an immigrant. I grew up in India and immigrated to America in my early 20s. Ten years ago, when I became an American citizen, I posted a picture of myself with an American flag and said, I am proud of this country that welcomed me and many like and unlike me. I am proud of its ideals and happy to call it home. It is now 2026 and I am deeply shaken by the events of the past year. As an immigrant with an accent and brown skin, I am acutely aware of a climate that at best alienates me and at worst makes me a target. I carry my passport card in my wallet now at all times. A quiet, heavy reminder that all is not well. I am not alone in this fear. Over 30% of the Tri-Valley residents identify as immigrants. We worry that ICE might raid our daughter's quinceañera party. We worry that an angry neighbor can cost us our legal status. We worry about our children and how all this must affect them. We are your neighbors, teachers, students, customers, employees, business owners, and friends. We are an integral part of this community and the local economy. Yet today, we are afraid. Tonight's proclamation celebrating compassion, respect, and integrity reflects exactly why I am proud to live in Pleasanton. I respectfully urge this council to put those values into meaningful action By opposing this facility, you will send a clear message that Pleasanton is truly a community of character, one that has the backs of all its residents when it truly matters. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thank you for those very poignant words. Leisha Kang, followed by Jean Zhang, followed by Todd Nelson. Welcome.

Hello mayors, city mayors, city councils. I'm here today on behalf of Ruby Hill resident because it really asked me to come here to say a lot of thank you words and especially by the time our neighbor realized that there's a fire in their backyard and they call me, they put in like a way how group just right 10 minutes after like a four o'clock. we got the mayor's call saying, leaders, call your neighbors, call your friend, evacuate right now. So we feel like this was a joke, you know, there's a fire all the time over there. And I heard the mayor voice very deep, very sad. So I realized something wrong. So right after I call, everybody in our group say evacuate, get ready, get a good documentation, important photos, passport, get ready, run. So after we come back on the second day, you know, our heart is really feel like this is our home.

We finally come back.

We feel so grateful. And here we like to say express our deepest gratitude to the firefighters, police officers, mayor and city council members who worked timeless during the welfare emergency. You did more than just protect our home. You saved our lives and gave us the hope during one of the most frightening moments we have ever, ever experienced. your courage dedication quick response and the compassionate leadership made a tremendous difference on behalf of all the residents we want to say thank you so much for standing with us protecting protecting our family and keep our community safe we always remember your privilege and the service And one more last thing is that today's calligraphy, the person who write it is a very famous person. They charge a lot. So when I asked him to write that, he said, for firefighter, for the city council, it's free. So I'm so touched. That's all. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Jean Zhang, are you here? Welcome. Todd Nelson, followed by Angela Zhao. Welcome.

Good evening, males, city council, and everyone. I'm Jean. I recently moved to Ruby Hill. First of all, I want to sincerely thank to our firefighters and first responders for protecting our community in last week's fire. What impressed me most was how quickly you respond and how dedicated you were. You went door to door to make sure everyone is safe, and if no one answered, you even go around to back of our house to make sure no one has been left behind. That level of care and responsibility truly touched me. In Chinese, we have a special expression for heroes like you. We call you . which describes those who work towards danger while others walk away. It's our way of owner people who put the safety of others before their own. You are ordinary people too, you have family and loved ones, and I believe sometimes you will fear, but when community needed you, you work towards the danger to protect all of us. That takes incredible courage, and I have the deepest respect for each of you. Before this experience, whenever I saw the fire truck drive by, I just simply think they are responding to another emergency. And I really not stop to thinking, what's that truly mean? But this grass fire make me realize that the safety we often take as granted exists because we have people like you are willing to face danger on behalf of all of us. This experience has made me truly grateful for your service and your courage. So I wish every one of you a safe return every time you are called to serve. Thank you for everything you do for our community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Very nice words, yes. Mr. Todd Nelson, followed by Angela Zhao, followed by Rene Gupta. Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you again.

I remain concerned about the ALPR cameras. In addition to the recent data released to federal agencies, I'm concerned about the increase in the private flock cameras installed by homeowners associations. If these are on public roads, I believe there should be an ordinance requiring them to meet the same transparency standards that the city does.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Angela Zhao? Welcome. Followed by Renee Gupta. You'll be followed by David Miller.

Good evening, Mayor Jack Bosch, our council members and police chief and fire chief and our courageous firefighters were here earlier and our fellow Luby Hill residents. My name is Angela Zhao and Tonight I have been honored to have the privilege to speak in front of you. And I'm as a grateful and proud resident of Pleasanton. I just heard Mayor mention about all those things come together because Pleasanton have a system that for emergency collaboration, everybody works together. So really appreciate. On behalf of my family, I simply want to say thank you. Those two words may seem small, but they carry the deepest gratitude in our hearts. I will never forget the evening of the little fire. My daughter and I had just finished serving our church's vacation Bible school when my husband called and said there's a fire over Ruby Hill. It is something that, just like Lisha mentioned, it sounds like so far away fire, but it's in Luby Hill. It is shocking. And soon after, we got the evacuation order. So it is very serious. We gathered the passport and some important documents, and we packed a few essentials. We drove away. I still remember when my car was slowly merged onto Vineyard Road, and we looked back. We can see the sick smoke was rolling over the hills, and it is rushing, approaching Ruby. I glanced at my 18-year-old daughter. I saw tears welling up in her eyes. At that moment, we didn't know if we would ever come home again. So while we were waiting, praying in our friend's house, And you, our firefighters, what you did is really rushing into and running to those danger. Just like my friends mentioned, you are against everybody. We are trying to protect ourselves, but you're running into danger. you have to face the heat, the flames, the uncertainty.

I'm sorry, I'm going to need to conclude. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We wanted to say that at the very last sentence. I'm so sorry. May God bless each of you, keep you safe, and watch over you and your loved ones. Thank you.

Thank you. Reena Gupta, you'll be followed by David Miller. You'll be followed by Vicky Labarge.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and all attendees. I'm Reena Gupta, candidate for Pleasanton City Council District 3. First, I'd like to personally, on behalf of Pleasanton Connects, with some of our colleagues here, like to thank our firefighters, first responders, city staff, volunteers, and everyone who helped protect our community. Echoing Mayor Balsh's comments, seeing cots in the evacuation shelter was a reminder of how unpredictable life can be and how important it is to be kind to one another. At my last public comment, I promised to carry residents' voices to City Hall. Today, I am sharing a quick summary. These are the voices of residents who participated, not necessarily my opinions or positions. Residents shared feedback on fiscal responsibility, ensure projects have sustainable funding, and consider long-term financial impacts. On economic development, attract technology and clean energy companies, support startups while balancing thoughtful growth. Downtown, more active first floor businesses, fewer vacancies, lower rents, later evening activity and support for local businesses, restored library services, concerns about water, concerns about flock cameras, more transparencies about data collection and sharing, other topics. Most importantly, many residents expressed concerns about the proposed ICE detention facility in Dublin. mandatory e-bike safety training for riders under 18, and a local hotel owner raised concern about the 28-day long-term guest. So thank you for everyone who shared their voice. Oh, I did well on time. was trying to rush but uh if you like your voice to be included in the future update please stop by our farmers market booth on saturdays every saturday we are there visit our website rena for pleasanton this is the little card that we you can collect and share your voices there so thank you

Thank you. David Miller, followed by Vicky Labarge, followed by Rincott Racamancha. Welcome.

Good evening. Mayor, council, staff, fellow citizens. Before I get to my prepared remarks, I just want to give a shout out to the ground squirrel guy. I feel you and I want to add to that. Can we please add gophers?

Excuse me. That is not acceptable. Thank you.

Okay, so anyway, my name is David Miller. My wife, our three kids, and I have been living here in Pleasanton for 17 years. My wonderful wife immigrated to America the old fashioned way. She applied, stood patiently in line, and was grateful when this welcoming country offered her the honor of citizenship and embraced her as her own. Tonight, I want to give a shout out to my friends opposing the facility in Dublin and acknowledge their efforts because I like them. I'm here to speak up for immigrants caught up in the removal proceedings to make sure that while detained, they are treated humanely and with dignity as their cases move through our immigration process. If Dublin doesn't provide local detention capacity, the opposition's advocacy may simply result in detainees being shipped to Texas or Florida or elsewhere, far from their families, their friends, their lawyers. That doesn't add up. I'd expect our community to want these facilities close by where they can personally help oversee humane treatment, not pushed out of sight to another state. A less generous read might call this nimbyism just from an unexpected direction. So this council has already looked at this issue and rightly decided it wasn't Pleasanton's business to referee our neighbors affairs. It was the right call. The problems inside our own city limits deserves your full attention, and I ask you to stand firm and keep it there. Thank you. Okay.

Vicky Labarge, followed by Rincott, and I apologize, Rasha Shan, followed by Jamie E. Yes, well, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, council members and staff. First and foremost, before I really talk about what I'm going to talk about, I want to say thank you to the first responders. I know everybody's thank them tonight. But I feel like I need to say thank you to I was on an airplane, trying to watch what was happening on airplane Wi Fi, which isn't very reliable most of the time. So thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that many residents care deeply about the ICE issue, and I respect those who have come tonight to share their views. I also want to be clear that questioning this resolution should not be interpreted as support for ICE or its policies. Many people, including myself, may have serious concerns about ICE and the way immigration enforcement has been carried out. But that's a separate issue and a separate question from whether Pleasanton should adopt a resolution opposing the detention center that federal officials have stated is not being pursued. On March 27, 2026, the city of Dublin received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security stating that ICE is not planning to use the FCI Dublin as a detention facility. The letter states that the facility was not included in the February 6, 2025 interagency agreement with the Bureau of Prisons to allow ICE to house immigration detainees at various Bureau of Prison institutions throughout the United States. Based on the information available today, there is no active proposal before us. My concern is that adopting a resolution now addresses a proposal that federal officials have said is not moving forward. If that changes, this council can revisit the issue based on the facts at that time. I believe Pleasanton is best served by responding to actual actions rather than anticipated ones. That approach keeps us thoughtful, credible, and prepared to act if circumstances change. Thank you.

Thank you. Venkat, you'll have to say your last name. I'm so sorry. Jamie Yee, followed by Meg Burke.

Hello. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Venkat Ramachandran. I'm speaking for the residents living next to the Bernal Community Park. We are experiencing a large and growing California ground squirrel population spreading from the park into the nearby homes. Homeowners are already facing damages and are concerned about costly structural damages. Treating one private yard at a time cannot solve a colony centered on adjoining public land. The city needs a coordinated and integrated pest management program at the source. We asked the council to direct staff inspect the affected areas and implement a lawful, professionally guided ground squirrel control plan. Public safety and responsible park management do not stop at the park boundary. Please act before the damage becomes more extensive and expensive. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Jamie followed by Meg Burt, followed by Shirley or background. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, and staff. I'm Jamie Yee, and I'm also a candidate for City Council District 3. One of the questions that I've been hearing most often is, how do we maintain the character of Pleasanton? It's an important question because Pleasanton's character is not easy to define. We can point to our historic downtown, tree-lined neighborhoods, parks, schools, and the places that remind us of home. But Pleasanton's character is about more than places. It's about the people. It's the neighbors that you wave to while you're walking your dog. It's the local businesses that remember your name. It's the volunteers who give their time because they believe this community is worth investing in. It's how neighbors come together when somebody needs help. That sense of community wasn't created overnight. It's been built over generations. My family came to Pleasanton in 1969, and I attended Pleasanton schools, raised my children here, served on school board for 12 years, and spent much of my adult life working to support this community. I've watched Pleasanton grow and change, and many of those changes have made our city stronger. But it's really about stewardship. Stewardship doesn't mean resisting change. It means guiding thoughtfully so that we can preserve the qualities that makes Pleasanton a special place to call home. To me, stewardship means maintaining our infrastructure, parks, trees, historical resources. It means supporting local businesses, making decisions transparently, understanding long-term costs, and listening to residents early. It means respecting our established neighborhoods while planning responsibly for the future, for future generations. Pleasanton didn't become California's most desirable communities by accident. It became this way because each generation chose to leave it a little better than they found it. Now it's our turn. Growth is inevitable and change is inevitable. But losing the character of Pleasanton is not. We learned from the past, we plan responsibly for the future and the next generation will look around Pleasanton and say they love this community enough to take care of it. Communities, leaders and residents have a special responsibility in that stewardship because the decisions are made today will shape the Pleasanton for generations to come. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Meg Burt, followed by Shirley Landowski, followed by Trump T. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Balch and the council members. My name is Meg Berry. I'm a resident of Pleasanton and I live in Ruby Hills. When the evacuation orders came, we had minutes. We had minutes, my mother who's sitting here, my two kids, one in elementary school, one in high school, our dog, my husband and I, we went out the door together and we did not know what we will come back to. The fire burned like thousands of acres and at one point it was 30 feet away from our homes, as you know. And the firefighters held that line morning, evening, through the night, they did not stop. while we were somewhere else safe, wondering how our houses were, they were standing right in front of them. So I want to be specific about what that means. It means people who chose to walk towards a fire that everyone else had been ordered to run away from. It means cruise working shifts, most of us could not physically survive the heat, the smoke, and with no guarantee that it would hold. It means that the reason my house is still standing, my neighbor's house is still standing, is that a group of people decided our families were worth that risk. The updates never stopped either. Every notification told us someone was awake, someone was working, someone had this. When we were displaced with our children and my family, my mother, everyone, it was not a small thing for us. Mayor Balsh, a lot came from you. You were on the ground during the fire, which was not typical for someone in that position. Like, you were messaging residents late into night, you know, when nobody would have faulted you for, like, taking a break. You did, you know, you did not manage this from a distance. with us. You kept us informed that information was the only thing that we had, and this was what leadership looks like in a genuinely difficult situation. And the community feels it, my family feels it, I feel it, so thank you. I also want to recognize, you know, but my neighbors, they were, you know, there were a few people who got evacuated and they still were able to help others and provide food to firefighters. So we saw small and big things like Sunny and small and big things come in and support all the community and we kind of came together. But tonight I'm mostly here to say, Thank you to our firefighters and responders. Thank you. Wish you happiness. Wish you good and safety. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Shirley, you'll be followed by, and I apologize, T-R-U-P-T-I and followed by Pam Hardy-Albert. Welcome.

Good. Thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor and Council members and staff. My name is Shirley Lewandowski and I live in Dublin. My father was one of 78,000 Filipino and American soldiers captured by the Japanese in 1942 during World War II and forced into the Bataan Death March destined for an Imperial Japanese prison detention center in the Philippines. Our soldiers were brutally abused and beaten as they walked for 65 miles in hot, humid weather, given very little food and water. Any prisoner who protested, dropped from exhaustion or illness, was stabbed by the bayoneted rifles from the Japanese soldiers and left to die. I'm here today only because my father survived that march. but over 30,000 other soldiers died during that march as well as in the detention center from continued abuse, forced labor, disease, and starvation. The Federal Correction Institution in Dublin closed in 2024 after months of discovery that incarcerated women there had been abused and raped for years by correctional officers and forced to live in deteriorating mold and asbestos infested conditions. Today, there are roughly 73,000 immigration people being held in 225 ICE detention centers across the U.S., with the current administration having detained more than 6,200 children. Our members of Congress reported that the conditions when they visited these detention centers were horrific and dehumanizing. There are cities afraid of retaliation and loss of funding from the federal government should they oppose the current ICE raids and detention centers. However, our humanity, moral, and ethical compass for equal justice and fair treatment of all people must prevail over fear of retaliation. The foundation and sanctity of our Constitution are based on it. The integrity and goodwill of our democracy depend on it. With your proclamation of character and corroboration tonight, as a Dublin resident, as your neighbor, I respectfully ask you to demonstrate it by supporting the resolution intent of ICE out of Dublin. Thank you.

Thank you. Trump, T-R-U-P-T-I, left, okay. Pam Hardy Alpert. This is my last speaker card. I have one more after this, actually, I should say. If you are interested in speaking and have not yet turned in a blue speaker card, please do so at this time. Again, this is for items not listed on the agenda. Welcome.

Welcome to you. Mayor Balch, council members, welcome Mr. Calabrigo, city staff. Now something completely different. A couple months ago, the city council adopted a resolution or ordinance on telecommunications towers. And I know that the mayor and the council are committed to economic development. And I'm hoping that there will be a meaningful outreach with the utility companies of the providers because as i said before east pleasant end has no telecommunications i have a 91 year old mother i cannot get a hold of her on the phone and i've talked to similar people in the neighborhood we have no signal from any of the providers so i'm hoping staff is perhaps contacting those providers and perhaps the city would be interested in putting an antenna on their corporation yard. That would be wonderful. Thank you.

Yeah, I'll mention that we have interest from carriers at this time that we've been working through the process. Okay, we have additional speaker cards. Give me a quick moment, please. All for this item? Oops, sorry. Okay, I think this says Jan, you'll be followed by Joe Reed. Oh, Jan Batchelor. You're up. Yep. You just turned in the blue speaker card, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Yes, please. Two minutes.

Mayor, council, staff, I understand that many speakers tonight addressing ICE's use of the Dublin facility are members of a group called Indivisible Tri-Valley. And they're asking this council to discuss a federal issue in a neighboring community. And that I find very inappropriate. The Pleasanton City Council should stay focused on city business, not federal debates. The city has no authority on this issue. Please do not use valuable staff time and council agenda time on this matter. The city council currently has a very full plate. Selecting a permanent city manager should be top priority. I commend the council for appointing an outstanding interim city manager. Your excellent reputation precedes you, sir. In addition, Pleasanton has deferred maintenance issues with our infrastructure, which leads us to economic and financial issues that need immediate attention. Yet some are asking staff to spend time researching a federal issue. I support your right to free speech, but I suggest you would be more effective by directing your concerns to addressing the affected federal agency involved and to United States representatives to express your views. As you all may know, we don't have any representative in the House of Representatives at this time. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Joe Reed, you'll be followed by Ward Konowski. Welcome.

Thank you. Mayor Balch, members of the council, and fellow residents, I am Joe Reed, and I'm here tonight to urge this council to stay focused on the responsibilities that actually belong to the city of Pleasanton. The former Dublin prison is federal property located in another city. Pretty simple. Whether it is reopened, transferred, or repurposed is a decision that will be made in Washington DC, not here. Symbolic resolutions, staff investigations into matters outside of our jurisdiction may feel satisfying to some, but they do not change federal law. Nor do they alter federal land use. and they do not protect a single resident of Pleasanton. What they do is consume limited staff time, divert attention from the real work of the city, housing, traffic, public safety, firefighting, infrastructure, budget, and they create the false impression that local government can control immigration policy. Indivisible doesn't want to get rid of ICE in Dublin. They want to get rid of ICE nationwide, and they want you to support them. Dublin has already spoken for itself. Alameda County has already spoken for itself. Livermore has chosen its path. Pleasanton does not need to join a regional chorus on an issue that is not ours to decide. I ask the council to decline further formal action on the Dublin facility. Return to the focus of the issues you are elected to address, the ones you can actually influence. That is the responsible use of public's time and resources. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Ward Kanowski followed by Doug Miller. Welcome. Two minutes.

Thank you. I was not going to speak originally, and I don't have any prepared statements. I came from the vigil across the street to remember the two most recent... men that have been murdered by ice and we had a memorial there for of 66 total that have been killed by ice so i'm just coming here um as a final plea to the city council of this town where i've raised my children and lived since 1994 to please do the right thing and keep ice out of our community. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Doug Miller. This is my last speaker card. If you would like to speak on items open to the public, please turn in a blue speaker card at this time. Welcome, Mayor Balch, City Council staff.

My name is Doug Miller. As Vicky Labarge said earlier, there are no plans by the federal government to have an ice facility in Dublin. It's ridiculous to even think about it because that old facility would have to be modified and upgraded and a lot of money spent. It would be much simpler for them to go down the road and buy a field, a farm field, and do it immediately. The reason you're here, the reason those people are here is because they want to abolish ICE. Instead, you want open borders. You want to protect criminals who are in this country illegally. You are not concerned about drugs that have been flowing into this country and killing 100,000 people a year. You are not concerned about human trafficking and the rapes and the murders that have occurred because of the open borders. And now you're concerned, you're not concerned about the terrorists who have come into this country across the border. We know why we know with such certainty because all of these speakers never mentioned the real victims of the open borders. Instead, you mentioned Renee Goode. Remember Kate Steinle? She was from Pleasanton. In 2015, she was killed by an illegal alien in San Francisco. shooter had already been deported he was a felon who was deported and he came back in the country and murdered kate no one ever mentions lincoln riley she in 2024 was a nursing student at the university of georgia she was murdered while she was out running The assailant was an illegal alien who was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault with the intent to rape her. Renee Good, on the other hand, was a victim of the organizations that train people to resist ICE. She made a bad choice and died because of it. At 83, I'm old school. I taught my kids to obey the police all the time. And perhaps it's just a pure coincidence that none of them have ever been arrested, none of them better shot by police. Thank you. Okay.

That is my last speaker card at this time. If you would like to speak and have not turned in a speaker card, please come forward to the podium now. Clerk, do we have any speakers online?

No speakers, Mayor.

OK, I have one last speaker, which is Mike Moon, the Ruby Hill president. And he asked me to read this into the record. So if we can start the clock, ready? This is again from Mike Moon. Allow me to ask a question of all of those in attendance this evening. What would you say to the brave men and women who have saved your homes, your friends homes, your neighbors homes, and likely hundreds of lives? The conclusion I have to come to is that you can't. There are no words in the dictionary to adequately describe the courage and sheer grit it took to trek 1.5 miles up and down 1,200 feet of elevation in 100 degree heat, carrying packs, shovels, and several pounds of hoses. There were no roads, no fire hydrants, and no easy terrain. How do you fly a large multi-engine aircraft designed to operate at 10,000 plus feet down to as low as 100 feet off the ground through invisibly thick black clouds of smoke in near zero visibility to drop flame retardant on a line in such precision? Helicopter crews flying below tree lines to refill their water tanks from nearby ponds so they could return and make their own dangerous run over the flames. The other endearing element of the shocking experience was the professionalism exhibited by our law enforcement. Ruby Hill has never had to evacuate even some of our residents, and they were all in shock. Everyone talked about how calm, cool, and collected law enforcement was in explaining the evacuation, directing residents, and making sure everything was running smoothly. One of my friends told me I was about to lose my mind and these law enforcement guys are acting like it's just another day at the office. It was precisely that demeanor and professionalism that made the difference. This time of adversity will go down as a defining moment in the history of Ruby Hill, one that makes us all proud of the community and equally proud to be residents of Pleasanton and Alameda County. Please accept our dearest heartfelt gratitude, as we will never forget what you did to help save Ruby Hill. Mike Moon, President, Ruby Hill HOA, they had a meeting tonight, which is why he was not able to be here. That concludes his comment, right at two minutes. Do we have any further speakers at this time? OK, we're going to close public comment at this time. Thank you all for being here. Thank you all for expressing such a wide variety of this tonight's discussion from immigration to finance to first responders to ground squirrels and cell towers. We've heard quite a right. We're going to take a quick ten minute recess at this time and then reconvene. Thank you. Good evening and welcome back to the continuation of the Pleasanton City Council meeting. Tonight is Monday, July 27th. It is 918 p.m. We have concluded item 14, public comment. If you are staying, matters initiated is at the end of the agenda, so we'll be discussing that then if there's going to be a matters initiated item. In addition, I've been serving for 18 years and the depth and breadth of conversation was frankly pretty wide, I guess I'll say like that. So appreciate everyone's input and help with that. We're going to proceed to item number 15. So this is public hearings and other matters. Just so that the community knows, this is a very prescribed process. I'm going to read through it a little bit here. In addition, because our meeting was originally scheduled for the 21st and continued, we have to do a recital in front of any resolution we do. The city attorney will help me with that. But I've got some notes here that I'll have to make sure. So for my fellow colleagues, just please be aware of that. Okay, so if you'd like to speak on item 15, same process, please fill out a blue speaker card and we will go from there. And I have my script for item 15 per staff. Okay, item 15 is the public hearing tabulation of prop 218 assessment ballots, adopt resolutions approving the city engineer's report, confirming the diagrams and assessments and ordering the levy of assessments for the Ponderosa Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 and Bondi Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 for fiscal year 2026 and 27. And here we go with my reading. The public hearing is the conclusion of the ballot proceedings that allow property owners in the Ponderosa de la Prado and the Bondi Ranch subdivisions to decide whether an assessment should be approved to provide funding for the proposed Ponderosa de la Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 and the Bondi Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2. The procedure for today's public hearing will be as follows. First, we will hear a presentation from city staff, followed by public comments. Staff will answer any questions from the public at the end of the public comment period. After public comment, there will be a final call for ballots to be submitted, after which the public input portion of the hearing will be closed. This item will then be continued for a short while until after the conclusion of the next public hearing item so that the ballot tabulation process can proceed. The ballots will be counted by the consultant in plain view of any property owner who wishes to observe the count. after the next public hearing item, which is item 16, we will come back to this item and the results of the Proposition 218 ballot measure will be announced. Note, all ballots must be submitted prior to the close of the public input portion of tonight's hearing. Please submit your ballots now to the city clerk if you wish to submit your ballot and have not done so yet. If you need a new ballot, please see Melanie Who's Melanie? That's Melanie, who has her hand raised. I guess I should have read after the comma to receive a replacement ballot. You must provide some form of identification and proof of ownership for the parcels you claim to own. With that, we have the staff presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You've outlined the whole process. I'm just going to turn it over to our landscape architect, Matt Gruber, and have him walk council through this.

All right. Thank you very much, city manager. Mayor and council members, I've already been introduced, so I'm not going to say my name again. But with me tonight, as the mayor pointed out, I have Melanie, who is the Melanie Gyori Lee with SCI Consulting Group. They're a consultant that specializes in assessment districts. We've got a very short presentation for you tonight. uh this uh what we're here tonight to talk about something that we've been working on for years we're at the end of a long road to find a sustainable solution to fund the two to the most underfunded landscape maintenance districts to the five in the city of Pleasanton as the mayor pointed out it's Ponderosa del Prado landscape maintenance district and Bondi Ranch landscape maintenance district What we're asking the council to do tonight is basically the things he just went over, which is conduct a public hearing, close public testimony. And we have about 300 ballots that were submitted. There are little less than 450 properties that are within the two districts. So we have to take once the public hearing closes, we'll be taking those counting those ballots that could take up to where our goal is to beat 100 ballots an hour so we'll see how long item number 16 takes yeah so basically if more people vote yes than no then it passes and this is actually running concurrent with agenda item number 17 which is would be passed if these measures don't pass. And this is all explained in the agenda report. I'm not gonna talk about this too much, but a little bit about the background of the city's five landscape maintenance districts. All five landscape maintenance districts in the city were created before the passage of proposition 218 which is the right to vote on taxes act that was passed in 1996 and essentially we have not raised the assessments for the districts since that happened Ponderosa del Prado and Bondi Rance were prioritized because they face the most significant funding shortfalls. The other district that has a significant funding shortfall, we're working with the HOA to take over the district. The existing assessment structures that were created before Prop 218 didn't allow for inflation factor, so we haven't even been able to raise the assessments per the inflation. So basically, there's no money left to do anything. That's the gist of it. Yeah, so if approved, Article 13D would approve the property ballot process, and the two new districts, if passed, would replace the old districts, and all the funding that exists in the districts would be turned over to the new districts.

Hello, good evening. I will try to keep mine short. I just want to piggyback on what Matt said. Actually, SCI was hired back to work with the city in 2019 and to start the Prop 218 process. However, in 2020, as you know, with the pandemic coming in, we had to put on the back burner. And then in 2022, we restarted and we held several community meetings with two of the LMDs. And after speaking with property owners, there was a decision to put them on hold until additional outreach was done. We were brought back again in 2025. And so we started the process again, but this time with Bondi Ranch and with Ponderosa Del Prado. AND THERE WERE THREE COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT WERE HELD FOR EACH. THE FIRST ONE WAS VIRTUAL AND THEN TWO ADDITIONAL ONES WERE HELD IN PERSON. AT THE SECOND COMMUNITY MEETING, THERE WAS THREE OPTIONS FOR A LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT THE CITY WAS PROPOSING TO PROPERTY OWNERS. WE ALSO CONDUCTED AFTER THAT MEETING AN INFORMAL SURVEY JUST TO TAKE A POLL TO GAUGE WHERE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT PROPOSED LEVEL OF SERVICE. We returned in April of 2026 at the last meeting and presented what those surveys results were and based on those surveys results is what the proposed ballot amount is for each property owner. In March of this year, the city council approved the resolution to allow the engineer to start the engineer's report And then in May, City Council then adopted a resolution which preliminarily approved the engineer's reports and also set the procedures for the Prop 218 process, which includes, this is a very different process, is that it's not one of the registered voters, but is one of property owners. So all property owners received a ballot with a proposed dollar amount, and those dollar amounts is what their votes are. On June 2nd, the council also approved the preliminary report of a process that's running concurrently, which is the existing LMDs. And if tonight's tabulation is approved for Ponderosa and for Bondi Ranch, then these Prop 218 assessments would move forward and those other two would just dissolve into the existing one. so tonight we are here for the public hearing to hold the public hearing get any public input portion once the public input portion is closed we have ballots that are in the back once once we're given direction we can start the tabulation process again if they're approved the assessments would be sent to the county auditor's office for inclusion of the 26 27 property tax bills okay

So just for a little bit more context, I think you're familiar with the districts, but the maps that you see in front of you do highlight the two districts. On the left-hand side, you've got Ponderosa del Prado, which is on kind of the west side of town up against the 680 freeway. And there are five proposed districts right now. Every single property owner pays the exact same assessment. But the property owners, because of Prop 218, they will have to pay the proportion of the special benefit that they receive for the landscape maintenance area, which is why there are different amounts that different property owners are going to pay. Bondi Ranch is only split into two districts. Bondi Ranch was primarily created for weed abatement or fuel management. So the property owners on the south side of Bernal Avenue will pay more money than those on the north side of Bernal Avenue. I'm just going over this really quickly. I mentioned, you know, there's about 450 total properties in Ponderosa del Prado. There's about 344 of them. There's the range of prices that you'll, the property owners would be paying up in front of you. We're looking at a total budget if approved at about $84,000 and those property owners look like they were gonna approve the, or were most supportive of the moderate level of maintenance when we brought them an informal survey to talk about that. With Bondi Ranch, there's 103 parcels. Right now, they pay just under $400, depending on which zone you're in. Some property owners are actually gonna have a reduced payment. Other property owners are gonna have a much increased payment, looking at a little over $50,000 for the annual assessments. And when we talk to those property owners, they seem like most supportive of the reduced level. It didn't look like the moderate level or the high level was going to pass if we put that on the ballots.

So how are the ballots tabulated? Again, once we receive direction that the close of the public hearing has been complete, there's a last call before the public hearing, the public input portion of the meeting is complete. There's a last call for ballots. Ballots that are not received before then, or that are received after do not count. We do not consider postmarks. So as long as the ballots are here, they are considered tabulated. We will tabulate in the small room right in back here, the door will be open. So if anyone wants to come by and just have a peek while we're tabulating that it's in public view. Again, the ballots are weighted, so based on the proposed dollar amount that is on their ballots, that's their weighted amount that they get. Again, only return ballots count. There's a comparison between the weighted yes and the weighted nos. Obviously, those ballots that are weighted with a higher dollar amount get more votes. Once we are done with the tabulation, we'll come back and we will let the council know the results. If the returned weighted no is greater than the returned weighted yes, then there is a majority protest and the assessment cannot be imposed.

So Melanie just went over our last slide. Basically, if more people vote no than yes, then it doesn't pass and we go to agenda item 17 and we adopt those resolutions. Now, I'm a mean envelope opener, so if you want to give me permission, I will go open some envelopes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Does that conclude staff's presentation?

Happy to take any questions, Mr. Mayor.

Okay. Are there any questions by the council at this time? We're working on a prescribed process. No questions? Okay, no questions by council. So I'm going to proceed according to the script then at this time. Actually, maybe I'll just clarify. Mr. Gruber, you said people, but it's actually a weighted group, not individual people.

That's correct. As Melanie mentioned, each property pays by the dollar that they are, their vote is worth a dollar amount that they pay. So we'll actually be counting the dollar amounts and not the people.

The total weighted dollar valuation in support and opposed.

There we go. Thank you for the clarification. Okay. We're going to open the public hearing for item number 15. You've hopefully heard the process here. So are there any people who would like to speak on this issue? I have no speaker cards, but if you would like to and have not turned in a blue speaker card, please approach the podium at this time. Online?

No speakers.

Okay. We'll close public comment at this time. Hearing none, seeing none. Are there any written communications to be read into the record?

I have received none, Mayor.

Okay. They say, I need to say, are there any communications the public wishes to make on this item? Hearing none, seeing none. No recess necessary to answer questions from the public, I presume. Okay. At this time, I'm issuing the last call for ballot submission for the proposed Ponderosa Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 26-1 and the Bondi Ranch Landscape District 2026-2. Please turn in any ballots you wish to have counted now. Ballots received after the close of the public input portion of this hearing will not be counted. Okay, the public input portion of this hearing is now closed. On behalf of the city of Pleasanton, I hereby direct the city clerk to begin tabulation of the ballots in this matter. If the tabulation finds that a weighted majority of ballots submitted are in support of the proposed assessment, the city council may consider a resolution to levy the assessments commencing in fiscal year 2026 through 27. This item will now be continued after the next public hearing item. I'll be placing it on our agenda as 16B right after 17. okay let that process launch and we now move to item 16 which has a very long title but I will summarize it up as the Arroyo Largo residential project there are several elements as outlined in the notice for this item so that you may be aware including CEQA EIR a PUD, a development agreement, and many other things. With that, I'll turn it over to staff for a presentation. And if you can, please summarize the memo when you can that we were all presented on the dais related to Plan B.

uh thank you mr mayor so if it pleased the council what we'll do is turn it over to staff for their presentation and as um as we are concluding that we will address the uh the memo that you received earlier so i'm going to turn it over to jenny

Mr. Mayor, Mayor Balch, City Council. The application in front of you is the Arroyo Lago Residential Development which is located on Bush Road and the site is in the county. The applicant seeking the following project entitlement, general plan amendment, Pre-zoning, re-zoning of the project site. Plan unit development for the development of the residential development. Vesting tentative map to subdivide the site. Pre-annexation and development agreement to annex the project to the City of Pleasant. A little bit of background on this project. The project is located in Pleasanton. The applicant, Steel Wave, has expressed a long interest to have the property to be annexed into the city of Pleasanton. They have wanted to the property as a residential development, and they have approached the city several times, expressed their interest. However, the project site is located in the east side of Pleasanton, and we do not have any plan developed for the east Pleasanton. Therefore, their request for being chosen as a housing site for the last housing cycle was not considered. However, the applicant or the property owner did not give it up. So they still wanted to submit the application to the Pleasanton, but meanwhile recognized the issue They are located in the county of Alameda so they submitted the application to the Alameda County and in August 2022 wanted to develop the project and also the project and the county has been approved by the Board of Supervisors this year in February. Meanwhile, the applicant continued their effort, wanting to be located in Pleasanton, interested to have the project to be developed in Pleasanton. And the staff sees the needs. And also with the other property owner, owns the property in Pleasanton on the east side. In absence of applying in place, staff took the request to the city council seeking directions and to see how we should develop the east side of Pleasanton. Council had three work sessions on this. The first work session, council directed staff to talk about the study, the pro and the cons, what it should be developed in the city of Pleasanton, what benefit or what impact we're going to have. And at the second work session, staff brought back the studies and it shows the pro and the cons. And it shows whether or not the project is feasible to be developed in the City of Pleasanton. And with that, the City Council directed the staff to process the annexation application for Steel Wave and also continue negotiation with the applicant on the terms of the pre-annexation and development agreement. And the last workshop we have on this item with the city council for direction, it was on the pre-organization and development agreement on the key terms, such as how we should handle the affordable housing agreement, how we should do the fees. And the fees has been determined to take the 2024 fee schedule and unlock it again, and also recognize the funding for development of this project and direct the staff to form a community facility district for the maintenance of the public infrastructure. And also in terms of for the El Charro Road construction design, the council directed that the applicant would contribute $3 million towards that. And with the council direction, the applicant submitted the application to the city of Pleasanton to formally annex to the city and for the development within the city. So again, the project is in the East Pleasanton and the right next to our Public Works Department on Bush Road, as well as the Ponderosa's Village of the Ironwood. And I show here in the location plan. The project and it shows it's a very straightforward site layout and it shows a total of 189 homes in three development groups and the project will including 48 attached junior ADUs and also shows a park to be located in the center of the development for convenience of all the residents. The project also shows at the city council work session when the council look at the project and direct the staff to process annexation agreement, the council also direct the applicant and indicating if you want the project to come into the Pleasanton, you need to meet the city, the following requirement. Number one is considering your neighbor, which is the village of Ironwood. Consider the elevation difference as now and when you come into City of Pleasant, Council directed the elevation need to be lowered to make the pad compatible to the existing residents. And the second is to consider to lower the house. The original plan was for two-story homes and the Council directed to lower the house and the applicant agreed to do single-story home. and then on the west side. And also the council director said if you want to come into the Pleasanton your site plan need to be modified to provide a deeper backyard and in that way you provide adequate buffer buffer between the existing house and your proposed project and the applicant did. So their submitted application meets all very very specific requirements from the City Council on this exhibit you could see in the insert you could see the elevation has been significantly changed the great difference is a very very little and so their house is going to be sit on a similar elevation as the existing home in the village of the The Ironwood and the Holmes is also going to be single story for those along the west property line. This shows you a glimpse of the elevations the applicant's architect proposed. You could see the other homes are two stories, have three elevations, and the middle perspective shows the single story design, which is going to be located along the west side of the project, about the village of the Ironwood. PRE-ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SEEM TO BE THE FOCUS OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS AN ANNEXATION PROJECT AND ALSO DEVELOPING IN THE CITY. AND SO THE TERMS OF THE ANNEXATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS COVERED IN THE PACKAGE IN for the council to approve is the terms of the agreement and how the off-site public improvements is going to be done and the fees and formation of the CFD and the point of sales and also talks about reaffirm the the public contribution for the El Chavo Road extension as the council has agreed at 3 million. Planning Commission, however, have a different opinion. When they look at the project, they suggest 8. But the PEDA in front of the City Council and reflect the council's direction at a work session and assess it's going to be stay at 3 million. The project, as indicated, it was the applicant first proposed the project to the county. The county supervisor reviewed the project and approved the project and also certified the EIR. The EIR certified at the county recognized annexation as the environmentally superior option of the project and when the city staff we look at this as the project presented to the city is very similar to those approved and certified by the county supervisors as no new impacts has been presented in this project. So therefore in the environmental side of the project we did the addendum to the to the county EIR. The tandem specifically studied those which would also impact the city such as traffic and air quality and these continue to be the two unavoidable significant avoidable impact. As such, the statement of overriding statement has been considered. The project presented to the Planning Commission last month And the project presented to the Planning Commission is the same as today we presented to the City Council. The Commission recommended to the City Council of adoption of an ordinance to approve the project, adopt a resolution to support the addendum of the EIR. And also to approve the PADA, but again, the planning commission recommend the city council to consider the public contribution dollar amount is higher than what the council has provided prior directions. So with that, staff recommend the City Council to take the following actions. One is adopt a resolution to certify the, about the resolution to adopting the addendum to the county's EIR to introduce the ordinance to make the following to make the to approve the following project. The initiating the annexation process with LAFCO approved the PUD project and the rezoning general plan amendment and the subdivision map and also introduce an ordinance to approving the PETA which is presented in front of the council and as city manager has indicated we have additional information from the City Council regarding some language revisions to the PEDA and Mayor Boucher has asked the staff to summarize those and I'm going to ask City Manager to talk about the additional language revisions in the PEDA.

sure thank you jenny mayor and and council i would highlight that the city received two letters from the applicant on july the 17th which i think would have been the friday before we were supposed to have the meeting uh last week so One of those letters was from 330 Land Company, Steven Riley. It was directed at the amount of the project's contribution toward the future El Charro Road extension. I think that that issue is rather fully vetted in the city council agenda report presented for the item. The second letter was from Steel Wave, Steve Dunn, and it addresses the applicant's desire to have additional language included in the pre-annexation and development agreement as a contingency, if you will, in the event that for any reason they're unable to obtain the necessary off-site easements for storm drain sewer and trail purposes from Zone 7. In speaking with Zone 7, I think city staff has every confidence that that process will run its course and it will be possible for the applicant to obtain those easements. The city does expect that the applicant will take whatever steps are necessary in order for them to obtain those easements from Zone 7, including meeting any conditions and or requirements that might be required by Zone 7. However, the memo that was forwarded on to Council late today If the council is amenable to considering adding further language to the development agreement, the potential supplemental language does leave the door open for the applicant to pursue an alternative course of action if they haven't been able to secure the necessary easements by March 31 of next year. The memo includes language that if you would care to, in your packet, turn to the development agreement page 788, I will point you directly to where the, and just as an aside, I never got to say that where I worked before. We never got up to page 788. So page 788, section 3.2, where it talks about developer obligations up at the top of the page, there's a subsection A, and put forth for council consideration would be a new subsection B that would be inserted there. and it well I'm just gonna I'm just gonna read it out loud and into the record for the the sake of ease the parties agreed that the design of the project as regulated by the project approvals is a material inducement to the city to issue the project approvals including the intention to initiate annexation and enter into this PRE-ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. TO THAT END, DEVELOPERS SHALL USE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE BEST EFFORTS AS EVALUATED SOLELY BY THE CITY TO OBTAIN THE UTILITY AND TRAIL CONNECTION EASEMENTS NECESSARY FROM ZONE 7 TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT AS APPROVED. In the event that zone 7 does not grant the utility easements envisioned by an incorporated into the project approvals by March 31 of 2027. The developer and city acknowledge that the project design that project design changes to accommodate utility and or grading modifications will be necessary to proceed. without the Zone 7 utility easements. If a substantial compliance finding under the government code section cited cannot be made with respect to the vesting tentative map as it relates to any such design changes, the parties acknowledge that the vesting tentative map will need to be amended. And under such circumstances, the parties shall expeditiously process and consider any such map amendment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, developer agrees that any such design changes to the vesting tentative map shall maintain substantially the same grade differential for all lots within the project site as the grade differential shown on the February 2026 approved plan. that the tentative map shall maintain a 15-foot rear yard minimum and single-story limitation for all residential units along the project site's western boundary. That's the boundary that's shared with the ironwood development and the city's service center. And that the vesting tentative map should be sought only as to those modifications to the map that are essential to accommodate any necessary utility and or grading modifications required by the failure to procure an easement from Zone 7. And then it goes on to talk about the modifications must substantially conform to the project approvals. And I won't read the rest of it, but it's essentially tying back to the landscaping areas, sidewalk, trail width setbacks, Essentially, what we're trying to do is incorporate enough into this language to where it's clear that basically the only thing that we're looking at changing pertains to the utility design itself. and all of the other conditions and standards that have been built into the entitlement would remain substantially as shown on the plans. And there is also a, if we flip over to the following page, page 10 of the development agreement or page 789 of the packet. There is a sub-session section F at the bottom of the page. F would become G. with the addition of the new language and it would include some additional language that would indicate that for the avoidance of doubt the parties acknowledge and agree that said maintenance community facilities district must satisfy the foregoing annual funding obligations for the project including any design changes that are approved by the city pursuant to section 3.2 above again This is clarification language that wanted to be included to quantify a little bit further and offer assurances that the CFD was in fact going to be able to cover the cost of the various services that it would be responsible for providing and the maintenance that it would be performing. And then lastly, one change to condition number 51 that has to do with water, and it simply deletes the sentence that speaks to the city having no easement rights across Zone 7 property, because if these changes were necessitated, the presumption is that that easement would not have been maintained. or would not have been acquired, excuse me. So again, to reiterate, we do have an expectation that the applicant will take whatever steps are necessary in order to be able to obtain those easement rights. But this language is included at the request of the applicant for your consideration as part of any development entitlement. And happy to field any further questions from council.

OK, thank you very much. We will go for clarifying questions for council just so that the community knows the run of the show for an application like this is the applicant will have 10 minutes when we get to public comment. The public comment will have three minutes. We will go back to three minutes and the applicant will have a rebuttal at five minutes at the end, which I usually forget. So I've got a nice orange sticky note here so I don't forget it. and then we'll proceed accordingly. So with that, clarifying questions by council, I'm going this way for this. Oh yeah, this way for this item, council member Nyberg.

Thank you. Do a couple of questions regarding the plan B that was just discussed. We had a communication earlier in the month that said, any modifications to the current utility easement requirements would pose other significant issues, including drainage problems and maintenance concerns. And that would be due to the grade differential. So, does this revised Plan B preclude those other issues and concerns?

I think the man to answer this question is Michael Stella. Michael, are you available to come to the podium? Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Balch, members of the City Council. I'm Michael Stella, City Engineer. With respect to Council Member Nyberg's question, I believe when the City Manager was quoting the revised language that's proposed for the pre-annexation development agreement, he quoted the section that said that the grading would be substantially the same as what's presented in your packet if in fact the easement was not acquired from Zone 7. That would necessitate some changes to underground buried utilities, in my view, although we have not yet seen a Plan B. Logic would dictate that the underground utilities would need to be changed if that easement were not acquired, since the easement does provide a conveyance system for both storm drain, sanitary sewer, and water. But the language in the pre-annexation development agreement is very clear that the plan grading must be substantially in conformance with the plan that you're viewing tonight in your packet.

Do you view any other significant issues, potential issues as a major concern having to do with that easement?

As I mentioned before, if the easement were not required, it would have impacts on the proposed utility networks because our water, sanitary, sewer, and storm drain networks rely on a way for those utilities to extend and connect to existing utilities in Moore Avenue. If the easement were not required, or were not acquired, pardon me, then those utility networks would need to be redesigned. The logical way to redesign them would be to include pump systems. Right now, the design is for gravity fed utilities within the easement. If the easement were not available, then we would need to pump those utilities. Water would travel via pumps to a different connection point. Those pumps have related maintenance costs, which the city would obviously like to avoid. But as the city manager mentioned earlier, the pre-indexation and development agreement does prescribe that the community facilities district would then bear the burden of those added costs.

Okay, so the CFD would, you know, potentially bear the burden of, you know, unforeseen improvements or repairs, not repairs, but, you know, replacements that need to occur as a result.

Yes, and when you think about pump systems, they rely on electricity. They also require more burdensome maintenance for city staff. So again, our preference would be to not maintain pump systems if those utilities could operate without them. And they would be able to operate without pump systems if the easement were acquired. If the easement were not acquired, then a redesign would likely require some infrastructure such as pumps.

I see. Okay. And I don't know if you're the person to answer this, but I had a question about in the revised language for Plan B, it mentions a date of March 31st, 2027. if we do not, if Zone 7 does not grant the easement envisioned. So why that date and what does it mean?

Yes, so I can take a stab at that, Councilmember Nyberg. I think that that date was a product of the discussions that were held going back and forth with the project applicant. What's been described to us at this point is that the applicant is already in the process of having discussions with Zone 7 and working toward obtaining this easement. So I will speak to Pleasanton staff's perspective on this. We wanted to allow sufficient time so as not to cause zone seven to have to reprioritize anything that they're doing in order to try to accommodate the project and you know by the by the same token something that seemed reasonable in the context of the the construction timeline that had been laid out for the project. So again, because our expectation is that they're going to do everything that they need to do to work with Zone 7, we wanted to allow adequate time for that to happen.

Okay. In terms of managing risk, would you classify that as a low risk that would not happen by then?

What I would say is that the preference would be for the applicant to obtain the easement from Zone 7.

Okay. It was, this is in regard to the discussion by the Planning Commission where they recommended that the payment, it's termed a contribution, but not sure that it actually is a contribution, but won't argue that point. So what are the, it said that there are limitations on the ability of the project to support a large increase from $3 to $8 million. I've heard that stated. So what are those realistic limitations on the ability of the project to support that amount?

So the information is derived really from discussions with the applicant at the time that this was discussed originally with the city council. Some of them were actually outlined in the applicant's communication to the council ahead of last meeting, really highlighting some of the additional cost burdens that come with annexing and developing in the city of Pleasanton, including payment of development fees that don't exist within Alameda County, loss of a number of lots as a result of changes to the plans that the city of Pleasanton sought to be more sympathetic to the adjacent neighbors and a few other things that sort of elevated costs. And really it's about that, you know, that sort of the burden and the ability of that project to proceed with an additional $8 million contribution versus a smaller amount. And so that was a negotiated number. that we brought to the council several months ago and explained sort of the calculus that was in there, the reasons for that, and the recommendation that came from staff at the time that was supported by the council. So that's the genesis of the numbers.

Okay. The Planning Commission seemed to equate the $8 million figure as a fair share toward the construction of El Charro. Correct me if that impression is wrong. There was quite a bit of discussion about the fair share contribution to development of El Charro Road. I believe a traffic engineer to Sano spoke to that in the Planning Commission meetings a bit. And so I'm just trying to understand how that fair share amount was arrived at and is this contribution we're talking about in response in any way to that El Charro allocation?

So there is a calculation methodology that was developed by the traffic engineering staff based on the contribution of the number of vehicle trips to the new roadway, proportion of frontage improvements that would be borne by those and other future developments in East Pleasanton, and that was all part of the calculus. So the proportionate cost of the total cost to construct El Charro was calculated to be around that $8 million estimated number. So to be transparent, the $3 million contribution is a reduction from the full cost, but the full cost is not one that can be supported by the project by its current finances. We know that. That's, I mean, I think there's been a reasonable amount of information provided by the applicant to document the various changes that they, and costs that they're both absorbing and loss of revenues that they're absorbing and the additional costs that they're incurring by virtue of developing in Pleasanton.

Okay. Thank you for addressing that. One of my concerns is, of course, with the city's financial position as it currently exists and is projected in the future, are the fiscal costs versus benefits over the long term, the lifetime, if you will, of the project. So 30, 40 years down the road, perhaps, all that time. As the city, well, if you have numbers that have looked at those kinds of costs in the future, if you have them, I don't know if you have them or not, if you would mind addressing them or do we have that kind of analysis in the first place?

Yes, so you might remember back in February of 2025 when we brought back a number of different analyses to the Council looking at, as Jenny described it, the pros and cons of annexation. And one of those matters that was very important to the Council was understanding the fiscal balance, so the cost of offering city services over time versus the additional property tax and other revenues that would accrue to the city. So we had an outside economics firm, EPS, do that analysis, looked at both Arroyo Lago and other East Pleasanton developments, concluded that the fiscal balance would be positive. That is principally an equation that looks at the cost of providing services, and it resulted in an estimated positive of about $276,000, I think was the number. for Royal Lago in terms of its... Annually? Annually, correct. So there are a series of other questions around maintenance. And at the time, the discussion was about, well, this project is going to introduce new public streets and infrastructure. How will we pay for the cost of maintenance? As part of the negotiation, the developer has agreed to form that community facilities district that Mr. Stella mentioned, which will absorb all of the long-term maintenance costs as will not accrue to the city for the project related infrastructure. So those two things are a considerable step forward beyond most other projects in Pleasanton. The CFD concept is a new one for us. It's a more modern structure. It's one that allows for long-term maintenance in perpetuity that will grow as the needs grow over time and that should help to fund all of the added burden of maintenance over time. So that's looking really at the project improvements.

And did those costs consider the El Charro Road as well as any other major capital projects?

They look generally at the methodology basically relies on what we maintain today and how that gets sort of escalated over time with additional population and that's sort of a prorata number that's then factored into the fiscal analysis. So road maintenance generally is in there. I don't think it's as granular as to say El Charro is or isn't in there, but it's the city's roadway network that is assumed to expand over time. But I don't believe it was explicitly called an A number for maintenance of a future El Charro Road. Again, this project, future East Pleasanton project and existing development in the city of Pleasanton all contribute to the need for El Charro. It's not just this project. It's a small fraction of the total demand. And so that cost will be spread out and part of our road maintenance budget over time as well.

Okay. In the EPS report from last year, I think it said that there's a general fund benefit projected an annual benefit of roughly 900,000 per year. So, does that include the proposed East Lakes and any other developments, you know, at build-out

Yeah, includes the analysis looked at three projects, Arroyo Lago, the adjacent East Lakes project, and then a third project also on a property owned by Steel Wave called Parcel H, which is up near El Charro, closer to El Charro, Stone Ridge intersection. So those three projects together are responsible for the 906,000, you know, fiscal positive.

Okay. Should we be worried about obtaining a secured funding plan for El Charro, major improvements?

I think that would be a wonderful thing. We're working on doing the work obviously to refine the alignment and the cost estimates. I won't get into the details because I don't know them all, but Mr. Tassano can speak eloquently about money that we have proportioned within our TIF funds, but we understand there's a shortfall. Some of it we hope will be contributed by future development and all of that needs to be worked out. But I think the challenge is that we have a project in front of us today. And we've walked down the road of deferring decision making on this project and other development in Pleasanton for decades. And the decision has to be made about this project today. And if it's not approved in Pleasanton, this applicant has a valid entitlement with Alameda County. And one would assume they would proceed with that, in which case all of the traffic happens and no contribution occurs. And so I think that's fundamentally the challenge of this project, which was discussed at length by the council at the prior workshops is it's not ideal in many ways, but we believe this is a more ideal outcome than the alternative, which is for this project to develop in Alameda County and make no contribution to Pleasanton property taxes. made no developer contribution to El Charro, have no CFD and yet produce 198 homes worth of impact on Pleasanton facilities and streets and services.

Okay. All right. So I understand that certainly in comparison, as you just pointed out, the having having the development in Pleasanton versus in the county much greater benefit to Pleasanton for it to be in the city. I guess if it were in a county, Would our costs, how would our costs compare to it being in the city? I mean, there are different costs that would be incurred. Perhaps Pleasanton might be contracted for some services. I mean, it's all, you know, speculation, but do you have any comments?

Yeah, that was part of the fiscal impact analysis. I will confess I don't I don't recall the exact numbers. I think the challenge is that while there are services that hypothetically are provided by Alameda County for a project in Alameda County Library, you know, the fact is that those residents will, you know, likely use Pleasanton Library, Pleasanton Parks, Pleasanton facilities and add that burden. So because of proximity, right? So it's logical. So there is a calculus. There is a marginally lower cost based on a few services. Some of the costs are equal between the two jurisdictions. But the delta is really Pleasanton recouping the property taxes and other revenues that come with that property being in Pleasanton.

Okay. Mr. Tassano during the Planning Commission meeting mentioned the possibility that the city could defer the second half phase two of El Charro, which is the part that would go under the railroad track and connect to Stanley, could defer that and take that on potentially for the city's part and therefore defer that burden to the future. Is that, it's an interesting idea. Do we think it would work?

I think that the idea is that it's feasible, although probably not optimal. So I don't know if Mike, back there, maybe you could speak more expertly than me on this.

I think whether it is phased or not, and mike will speak to this the critical component is the alignment yeah uh you know a determination of where we believe that the road is actually going to go so that in particular for those properties that are south of where that overpass under over crossing under crossing would be um there's the ability to uh you know to be able to uh to plan there so i don't want to Steal your thunder, Mike.

No, just to add to that. Good evening, mayor and council, by the way. I like that Aaron said esteemed council and honorable mayor. So I forgot to throw that in, but I thought that was really nice of him. Anyway. The suggestion of splitting the north and the south came directly from the city's contribution. The large part of that contribution comes from our traffic impact fee. But we don't have the 30 million traffic impact fee should we decide to build the whole thing right now. We don't really have our portion. So in an effort to say for the short term, we could have the north section built completely and put that fully on the developers that are coming in and then the city take on that burden of the southern section, which is going to take more time. We're doing an underpass below Union Pacific and then running into county uh existing roadway that's going to have to be lowered so there's there's a lot of challenges to that southern section it's going to take more time so to help our congestion levels in the short term if we build that north section the city of what i suggested was a city take on that southern section the difference is it goes from the 35 million dollars that that we're looking at to 55 million right so we would take on an additional 20 million dollar burden and that extra time And so that was just something that was kind of sent out as an option, but we didn't really pursue that in any great...

Okay, so it's an idea, not a plan. Right. And it's been said many times that... People seem to agree that El Charro, at least the northern section of El Charro, needs to happen if this project happens. And if there is Arroyo Lago there, and certainly if East Lakes follows, we just can't have those developments there unless the northern part of El Charro at least is there.

Yeah, so when we conducted our El Charro extension study back in 2025, One of the things that we really wanted to look at specifically was when. When do we build it, and what do we build it, and how wide do we build it? And so what the study said was, hey, you can really use it with Kiewit, right? So Kiewit's coming in and is underway. Kiewit causes Santa Rita and Valley intersection to fail, right? And then it kind of ripple effects. Once you have one intersection fail, the other ones start to not do so well. So we put mitigations on Kiewit to improve the Santa Rita and Valley intersection. So, okay, they don't have to, it would be very helpful to have El Charro with Kiewit, but the one intersection that's failing gets a pass. Arroyo Lago comes in much smaller development. It deteriorates that level of service. What the traffic study says, you can adjust signal timing to make it not terrible, right? So you just have like peak hour that's right on the border of failure. And so that's kind of where we're at with that. But but really, that's that, you know, that's that one straw and the camel's like starting to like, you know, fall to the ground. Right. So you throw another straw and you're done. And so that's kind of that's the general idea, I think, that that I've tried to express to the council and to the planning commission and to the rest of staff.

OK. Thank you very much. I don't have any other questions right now.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor? Sure, just a few. Councilmember Nyburton, the answer Director Clark gave was very helpful. With regard to the grading being substantially the same, a lot of the discussion and what we had before, I guess last year was about the, you know, They can get compatible with the Ironwood neighborhood. If the Zone 7 easement doesn't happen and they have to reroute all the utilities underground, do we have an idea of how much of a difference in the grading along that western face would be?

Well, I think that acknowledging the fact that the plan was redone to drop those grades substantially from what was approved by the county, and then also create the additional rear yard setbacks, the single story homes. So I think the intent of all of the parties is that we're going to you know, do everything possible to make sure that, you know, if those grades need to be adjusted, we're talking about a matter of inches and not feet. Okay. Okay. Just in terms of order of magnitude.

That answers my question. Thank you. The CFD, we went over that. That essentially from correct me if I'm wrong places the responsibility of the maintenance on the residents in that specific project and for the maintenance fees of that project impacted by that project fair statement it's a funding mechanism all right thank you those are the questions I had most of it was answered again in the dialogue between councilman I Burton and community directors development so that's okay councilmember Tessa

Whoa. Okay. Um, so first, what is what is the current zoning on this site? Under in the city, it does not have zoning. Okay, so it's only what is the zoning in the county?

It's medium, medium density residential.

Okay, thank you. And is because this is not a housing element site, there was something in the staff report that said that the council chose not to put it on the housing element. I don't remember that it coming to us on the housing element selection.

So at the time of the housing, the council was considering various housing sites. Sites in East Pleasanton were brought forward at that time by the property owner and were not supported by the city council.

Kiewit, though, was supported. That's a housing element site.

But this one is not. Other sites were not, correct.

I honestly don't remember it being on that list, because I remember thinking, why wasn't it on it? But OK. But the fact is that it's not a housing element site, so we don't have that pressure from the state that we would have if it was a housing element site, right?

We don't, but the county did.

THEY PUT IT ON THEIRS, I UNDERSTAND.

IT'S ON THEIR LIST, IT'S ZONED FOR HOUSING, AND SO THE APPLICANT EXERCISED THEIR RIGHTS UNDER STATE HOUSING LAW TO PROPOSE A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT UNDER THE COUNTY ZONE.

OKAY. SO THE COUNTY Did the city of Pleasanton send objection to the county approving this project?

Yes, we sent numerous comment letters with expressing significant concerns about, in particular, the off-site grading spray field and other concerns we had, but that was a major one.

But it wasn't about the project in general. It was the spray fields that we were understandably concerned about.

It was a range of things. I think that we had concerns about services. We had concerns about traffic. We had concerns about things that could not be mitigated unless the project was in Pleasanton. And so those were submitted to the county during their process.

Okay. All right. So the affordability on this project is entirely ad use for the city proposal. What was the affordability with the county?

No affordability was proposed because the county does not have an inclusionary zoning ordinance.

And they don't have a rena requirement for affordability?

They have, similar to us, they have various income levels that they need to provide housing for, but generally a single family project like this is considered to be an above moderate project unless it's deed restricted and no deed restriction was proposed. So it was an above market rate or market rate project.

Okay. So for the project coming in being asking for annexation, this project pays nothing into our affordable housing fund. It is what, 48 ADUs?

The proposed means to satisfy the inclusionary zoning ordinance is to de-restrict 48 junior accessory dwelling units in the project.

Right. But there's no requirement to rent them? Correct. We cannot impose a requirement to rent them. Right. So they can be used as yoga studios. They can be used as a home office. There is not a requirement of them becoming affordable housing. If they're rented, they have to be within the income requirements. OK. And there was no thought to requiring in addition actual payment into the affordable housing fund to actually try and create some level of real affordability from the project.

So that was posed among the policy questions brought forward to the council at prior study sessions. And the direction from the council at that time was to accept the 48D restricted ADUs. And that was direction that staff reached out to council for an opinion and got that feedback.

OK. And all right. So let's see. I'm going to. EIR. The overriding concern was basically the vehicle miles traveled, right?

That was the one overriding statement or overriding consideration was for VMT as an impact that could not be mitigated.

And then there was some air quality something?

Yeah, air quality.

Yes, it's the VMT and air quality. So that's connected?

Yes, these two are the same as the county EIR. Got it, okay. Now there was something about geotechnical concerns. Wasn't there on the EIR? When was this EIR done? What was it?

It was done over the course of about during the course of the county's approval, but it was certified in February of 2026.

Okay, February of 2026. So, but it was actually done when though?

I would say over the preceding two to three years. Okay, all right.

So, geotechnical, there was something on the EIR about geotechnical and do we, I would like, I asked to get this information but it wasn't readily available. There was something about a liquefaction calculation. This is all land that has been quarried, right?

Yes, so the majority of land in East Pleasanton, as you know, is reclaimed land. A lot of it is uncompacted fill and so exhaustive geotechnical investigations were performed on this site. There is part of the development process will be to compact the soils to bring them to a level where they can support residential development and to bring them up to the engineering standard. Those are a component of the project. All of those impacts were discussed and disclosed as part of the environmental review. The city did some additional due diligence on the geotechnical studies that were done and had them sort of, we looked at them again just to make sure that we agreed with their conclusions. And so all of the findings and conclusions of the county EIR were found to be valid and properly mitigated as documented in the county EIR.

So once the aggregate is removed from the soil, it it's very the stability is very different. And that's what's going on at the key with site right now with those mountains of soil. It's compacting. Correct. And that's what you're talking about will need to be done with this. Also, mountains of soil.

It's called a surcharge. You put, you know, large amounts of dirt and it sort of presses the soil down and compacts it. And there's you know, but there's a an engineering standard that must be met in terms of the quality of the soil by the time that compaction exercise is completed.

Okay. I was told by a county planner, Bruce Sorensen, 20 plus years ago that once the gravel, the aggregate is removed from the land, it should not be residential. So that's something that's just haunted me ever since he was talking specifically about the quarry sites. And so I was told to ask for a liquefaction rate calculation and I know we don't have that right now but I would like to request that please. SO, THE why going back to the question already asked about several questions about the easement and um let's see the county is planning on keeping even if we annex this project they the county is planning to keep the rena um numbers so this won't other than the the um the ADUs. We won't get RHNA credit on this.

We will absorb 189 units worth of the county's RHNA obligation, and so it will be a net zero, effectively, except for the ADUs, which will count in excess towards Pleasanton's lower income RHNA. Right.

But again, that's a compliance acceptance. We'll get some compliance credit there. It doesn't really create affordability is my concern because I genuinely believe that, you know, that's what we should be working toward is the genuine affordability. So the back to the EIR when the issue is the overriding concern is traffic. No, I won't go there. Speak at the Planning Commission. I watched the Planning Commission meeting. I thought it was interesting and discussion on this. There was a concern about while it's been a very positive that the project has accommodated the ironwood community with the so a lot of changing of the road and the one stories and and that's very positive but at the Planning Commission there was concern about now there's this big straight road are there speed bumps or anything gonna be considered there is it built in now It's built in.

Mr. Tassano is nodding his head. There are traffic calming measures incorporated into the project design.

Okay, so that's already, yeah, okay, that's good to hear. So then I will go back to the easement issue. That's all very complicated. There's a lot of concern about the easement. Why are we being asked to approve a project when that's not resolved? Um.

Um.

I think that what staff is attempting to do is to provide alternatives that the council can consider as the project moves forward. If the council decided for any reason that you wanted that issue to be resolved in advance of any consideration of an entitlement, That is a way that you could go, but once again, we're dealing with a project that has already been entitled through Alameda County. We're mindful of that, and I think what we're doing is attempting to present viable options that will allow us to complete the process through the city of Pleasanton while again you know you've you've you've heard me say more than once that the that the preference would be for those easements that easement those easements to be obtained Uh, because not only of the utilities, but the necessity to get the trail connection up there at the north end of the, uh, of the project. So, uh, you know, I think we're trying to provide alternatives that the council can consider that will allow the process to continue.

Okay. I think we should have that resolved before we approve it. But I'll ask another one that I don't understand. Explain the property tax sharing with the county. that we're being asked to annex this, which we showed, I think we all that we had a one of our workshops and we all agreed, we would rather not absorb another county project that will bring with it the challenges that some of the other county projects in the city of Pleasanton have brought us. And I mean, I think it's inexcusable that they would even approve another one when they're asking us to take the ones that exist right now with all of the problems and expenses that come with them. So that we're being forced in a in a position that's not in the best interest of Pleasanton with this entire project. So property tax. Why are we approving it without knowing what that property tax sharing is going to be?

So we, you know, we have as a model the tax sharing agreements that have been done for other recent annexations and expect that that will be the template that we will use for this moving forward. We do need to have a tax sharing agreement approved before everything is finalized with LAFCO. I think that one of the things that makes this more feasible economically than it might in other communities is the fact that because the city of Pleasanton is a full-service city and has been around since 1894, The portion of the property tax that would accrue to the city is, right now I think our average citywide is just under 25% of the property tax paid by property owners. So the template that we're looking at looks at property tax, it looks at other supplemental property taxes that might be paid for other services such as libraries and fire service, and it factors all of that in.

Okay, so if we have that template, why haven't we figured that out before we're approving this?

So we have had initial discussions with county staff. We have had a similar successful negotiation as city manager mentioned for the merit property which was reviewed at that time by our finance director and our property tax consultant and felt to be a reasonable apportionment and follows a model as city manager also said that we've adopted for a number of other residential annexations over the years. The county has given us no indication that they would want to or expect to deviate from that or command a different share. It's somewhat mathematical. It says it's negotiated, but you have a good, as the city manager said, we have a pretty good template and a lot of examples. Our expectation is we will negotiate a similar agreement with the county at this time. It's not, frankly, it's not timely to do it. It happens as part of the annexation process. We've had the initial conversation. I think we're comfortable we'll get to an appropriate share similar to merit based on our discussions with county staff.

But it is timely because we're being asked to blindly approve something that, and it just seems like it could, it didn't have to wait, right? It could have been done by now, right?

are you saying that it is not possible to approve get that settled before we approve this the process is initiated as a part of the lafco process so once the laf once the annexation application is in with the county um it it sort of starts the starts the process running we we have i think done what we needed to do which was to have those some little bit more informal discussions with County staff, as you know, bringing forward a formal tax sharing agreement requires a board of supervisors action, it requires a council action, and county staff, I don't believe, would have been willing to do that in advance of the city having affirmed its interest in annexing the property and initiating the annexation proceedings. Okay.

So... We talked earlier about the financial cost benefit financial analysis that was done in February of 2025. And we got the amount that we were told would be somewhere just under a million dollars annually. That none of that included, as was just said, it didn't include the cost of the road. It didn't include the other consequences of these residential in this area that was that hasn't been residential. We've got the garbage transfer center that there's been discussion of that that would most likely, there would be an effort to relocate at a big expense to either rate payers or, well, rate payers on that one. There's been a discussion that our corp yard operations on Bush would need to relocate. And the question is what the cost of relocation would be on that. and all of these things that are appropriate located where they're at right now but won't be once this becomes residential. Is that a correct assessment?

I'm sorry. I wasn't hearing the question.

The question is, are we looking at the future expenses of incompatible uses in that area when it becomes residential? And the question being that if in fact that's the case, I would like a future cost analysis that includes not just the property tax analysis. The property tax analysis was limited in what its scope was. You outlined that a little bit. But it doesn't include the road, the cost of the road, right?

The fiscal analysis really looks at the city's operating costs and the impact to the general fund. It doesn't look at capital.

And yet those costs are going to fall to, I'm just, I'm very concerned about hearing, listening to the.

We're clarifying questions, Councilmember.

So the typical way that we would assess that is through the development impact fees. Those are intended to address the costs of all future large scale capital improvements inclusive of new governmental facilities or recreation facilities or whatever they are. Because the city does not have a plan in place or an adopted plan that speaks to relocation of the transfer station, relocation of the corp yard, those costs are not built into our current development impact fee structure. And so we cannot, you know, we can't properly assess them. It would be a very speculative exercise to do it and difficult to defend. You have to create a nexus. You'd have to understand the direct nexus. And those things are, I appreciate the question, but we, it's not part of our development impact fee program. It may be in the future, but it isn't at the moment. And I'm not sure it would have been possible to come up with a number, timing, or nexus rate to attach those two things together. I'm just explaining why it wasn't done. I get that.

I'm talking about transparency. I'm talking about when we asked for a cost-benefit analysis to our community, is this a fiscal benefit or is it? i think it that should have been a part i think just giving us that small snapshot wasn't an honest um transparent assessment for the community to see how they're going to be impacted how but let's go back to the questions please yes i am so go back to el charro and um WHERE ALL OF THOSE, THE ANALYSIS WAS DONE, AND A CLEAR NUMBER OF 8 MILLION WAS ASSIGNED TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT FOR THEIR FAIR SHARE, AND THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIATED. WE HAD CONFIDENCE WITH THAT. I KNOW I HEARD OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAD A LOT, WAS VERY CONFIDENT THAT THAT WAS A significant and solid number but your response was that the cost can't be supported by the project is that really the city's responsibility should we be approving projects that can't pay their fair share that in fact that is going to fall to future taxpayers

I think if you had the option of approving or not approving the project absent any county entitlement, you could reasonably have that conversation. I think if the applicant proceeds to develop the process, the project in the county, once the dust settles from all of the litigation that will inevitably occur, they're not going to be obligated to provide any funding for El Charro Road or some of the other offsite mitigations that we're talking about if it happens through that entitlement. So while I don't necessarily disagree with the substance of what you're saying or the question that's being posed, I mean, I think that the circumstance that we find ourselves in here is a little bit of, you know, we're trying to turn a sow's ear into something that's closer to a silk purse, given the circumstances that we have to deal with.

Okay. OK. I'll stop with that for now. Thank you.

OK. Before I go to you, Councilmember Eicher, our procedures require that at 1030 and we're at 1050 that we check in if we are going to continue the item or not. And if we're going to work in earnest for the remaining items on the agenda, just doing a check, I presume we want to keep going at this time.

Is that where my majority is at?

Keep going and be poignant. Yep. So Councilmember Eicher, thank you for that. Go ahead. Any clarifying questions?

Actually, all but one of my questions was asked and answered, and I don't want to belabor them again. I do have a question about drainage from Arroyo Lago to Ironwood. So the residents, the new houses will actually have an elevation that will slope down to that one foot level. Is there any drainage at the base of that to ensure there's no flooding in the Ironwood backyards so they're not taking the burden of what that runoff might be?

I'll come back. Yeah, thank you. So to answer Council Member Eicher's question, you know, this gets to the very issue that we discussed with respect to the easement with Zone 7. Our storm drain system would work best if we relied on a storm drain pipe that extended in the easement area. for those overflow conditions. And that would be for large type storm events or in the event that a pipe got clogged, for example. So from a storm drainage perspective, it's very critical that we have the connection for our storm drain network. The alternative would be to, as I mentioned earlier, to employ pumps to pump the water in a different direction. Not saying that it could not be done, but the most efficient way would be to drain the water to the northwest, as currently shown on the plans that are before you. Plan B, so-called Plan B, has not specifically addressed that issue. And that's some of the city's concerns. And that's why we're, I believe, recommending that you approve what's before you tonight.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Okay. Thank you very much. I have a few minor questions. A lot were answered earlier. If I can go to the staff supplemental memo and draw your attention to page three of three, I just want to make sure I understand the CFD funding because I understand that if we were to go with a plan B alternative language as proposed, the CFD

i i guess the question is is it going to maintain these pumps these so-called pumps and electricity correct that was the the purpose of that additional language was to reflect any additional maintenance cost that would be tied to a redesigned plan that may for example use pumping equipment

Okay. So in that paragraph, if you look and it says facilities CFD, it's bolded. That's where I'm going to point to. The next sentence is the one I actually have a question about. The combined total effective special tax rate for the maintenance and facilities CFDs shall not, and that's the word I'm worried about, exceed one and that one half percent, which conservatively equates to approximately $1 million per year based on today's total dollars. My question is this, On our agenda tonight at the item before and subsequent to this is landscape maintenance districts that are insufficiently funded. I know that this is a rate on a property tax bill. How do we know that this rate will be sufficient to keep up so that in 30 years from now, we do not have landscape maintenance district underfunding, or in this case, a potential CFD underfunding, especially if we don't have the plan B engineered fully and additional pumps are required. Could you help me with that?

Yeah, so this number was discussed at length and this limitation, this cap, I'll say on the cost to those homeowners. I would say that our engineering staff feels very comfortable that there's more than enough within that cap to accommodate the maintenance.

Can I counter that? I'm pretty sure that the engineering staff 30 years ago when they created the Bobby Ranch thought it was going to be sufficient, right?

So I'll say two things. One is I think the base is there. There will be a very, you know, exhaustive process to actually formulate the CFD, including developing engineer's estimates and all sorts of things to actually assess what the proper rate should be. And that will be inclusive of an escalator, which was missing for many of our prior CFDs. I appreciate the question, and I think we asked the same one, looked at this number, stared at this number pretty hard. It's important to recognize there's also two components to the CFD. One is about cost to maintain infrastructure. The second is the facility CFD, which is actually an opportunity for the developer to fund offsite improvements, meaning the large capital costs that go with things like the upstream or downstream sewer improvements offsite. So, the aggregate of those two things, the maintenance and the off-site improvement sort of funding piece of it are all built into this number. If there's not enough money to fund the maintenance piece of it, there may not be enough capacity in that cap to also absorb the second piece. So, the maintenance will always be the priority. This is a generous amount, and I'll invite Michael back up to, if he has any further comment on this. As we've discussed this, it's been my understanding that this has a generous buffer built in that will address the question or concern that you have about costs over time.

I'm going to go one more thing, and we're going to end public comment here, or get to public comment, but I'm going to give it to you so you can think about it when we come back, which is I happen to have a strong knowledge about backflows now in my life due to my spouse. Does maintenance mean that when the state requires backflows, they are responsible because it's state law, even though it's a capital item? Or does maintenance mean they just mow and blow?

I believe it's everything that the city would be the performer of the maintenance in question that's funded by the CFD. So it's everything that the city would be obligated to do to maintain the systems.

But is maintenance meaning comply with current law if current law changes? Another example is ADA. ADA changes as ADA evolves. if an ADA, to just make it in a different concept, right? If ADA required that these pumps in Plan B be accessible or changed, that capital cost, is that part of the obligation of the CFD or not? And I can give that as a, I know that's kind of a curveball.

Thank you for the question. We'll consult about that and see if we can get back to you.

I'm going to point out this limiter because I would like staff to talk about this further. I don't know if you want to do it now or if you want to think about it when we go through public comment and come back. Maybe the applicant's got some comments to it and we can come back around. We're going to take a break after public comment. We're going to try to get through all the public comment and take a break. And then that can be something we can bring back up to answer my question there. My other question, if I may, which was the solar, excuse me, the spray fields and the sewer treatment plants and all of that, we absolve the that we don't we get rid of that in a city plan, right? We we get a utility connections to city utilities and the city plan.

That's correct.

OK. All right. With that, any further questions or clarifying questions before we go to public comment? Yeah, please.

I think at the bottom of page three of 14 of the staff report.

Yeah, just a clarification.

It says staff concluded that annexation provided the best opportunity to create a long-term funding mechanism for the extension of El Charro. I believe that's talking about El Charro. whether through a cooperative funding arrangement, shared costs among major property owners, or through creation of a funding structure such as the CFD. Based on discussion, I understand the CFD would not be a long-term funding mechanism for El Chorro.

um so the cfd is um for for arroyo lago is is based on the maintenance cost of it of the current infrastructure that's that's envisioned um the cfd is what's called an an annexable cfd meaning that other projects can annex into it into the future and create a larger district that could fund other things i mean i can't speak to the specifics of whether or not it could could include el charro But the CFD can expand basically to incorporate future projects and have other funding mechanisms attached to them as well. So there's some flexibility in there. I'm not sure about El Charro specifically. I don't think we've got that far in our thinking about the CFD and what it would ultimately be and what sorts of things. But generally it's, you know, project related infrastructure maintenance costs.

Okay. So the statement could be totally true, not a mistake.

It could be. I mean there's, CFDs are used for all sorts of purposes and so I think at the time we wrote that we were sort of at an earlier stage of thinking and so the CFD we have written now is more defined in terms of its maintenance responsibilities.

Okay, thank you.

OK, thank you very much. We're going to go to public comment. We're going to try to get through it, and then we'll try to take a short break after that to get on the other side of this. So with that, the applicant will have 10 minutes. The public will have three minutes, and then the applicant will have five minute rebuttal. Applicant, you together only have 10 minutes. If we could put that on the clock, please. And you will be cut off at the time of the night.

So welcome. Honorable Mayor and esteemed Council, staff and the community, big night tonight. There's going to be a lot of discussion. We would like, because of all the detail of this, to have 15 minutes. I respectfully request that, Mr. Mayor, for us to basically fulfill some of the questions that have already been answered or questioned and that also that we could provide some more information.

Okay.

Okay, with that, I'm going to bring up Steve Riley, who will talk specifically more about the project, and then I'll finish. Thank you.

Good evening, honorable mayor and esteemed council members. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. And we're very excited to be bringing this project forward for consideration. And I was just going to ask staff if we had sent a PowerPoint presentation before. Perfect. Thank you. So I will try and go as very quickly as I can through the PowerPoint presentation and make sure that we get to the end and answer any questions that the council might have. I wanted to take a minute of time to go over a little bit of the history. I think Steve Dunn's being very generous that he's been involved in this project for over two decades now. I've only been involved in it for about four years, but back in 2012 to 2015. The city did have an opportunity to do an East Pleasanton specific plan. I think some council members might have even sat on the task force that was going on then. So this project, the point of it was always contemplated for residential development going all the way back into the 90s. It was part of the county's general plan. In 2017, after the city decided not to move forward with the East Pleasanton specific plan, Steel Wave, who's the property owner, decided to put this for this project forward as an application to the county, which they then withdrew in 2019 when the council decided that, OK, maybe we do want to do the specific plan again that got put on hold. And in 2022, we came on board and we put forth this project to the county because at the time that was the only path to have the property developed after the city decided not to include it in their housing element. So we submitted this plan in twenty twenty two. And as Alan mentioned, after several years of processing the air and the other project components, it was approved by the county in twenty twenty six. That plan also included some off-site infrastructure that I think people found very controversial. But the basic components of the plan outside from the off-site infrastructure are very similar now between the two plans. One of the main issues that I think people were alluding to before was that in our county plan, We did not have the ability to keep our grading the same as our neighbors. We had to solve for what's referred to as overland release, which is where does the water go in the event the storm drain pipes get clogged? And because we had no path to go into the city storm drain system, our only alternative was to raise the grades of the pads by approximately six feet in the northwest corner in order to force the overland release path back towards Bush. In the city plan, we were able to fast forward that. In the city plan, we were able to lower those pad elevations to basically be almost exactly the same as our neighbors. And I'm going to mention this as part of the plan B. I know that's been a highly controversial issue, so we wanted to make sure everybody was aware. We are fully committed to this grading plan. as Michael Steller or somebody mentioned, when we say substantially the same grading, that really means like within an inch or two. If we have to solve for a plan B, we're very confident that we can solve for a plan B without affecting any of the major components that people like in this project, which would be having the pads be the same elevation, having single-story houses on the western edge, and including lots that have 15-foot rear yards. We're 100% committed to providing all those things, even in a Plan B. I'm going to blow through some of the other things. I think one of the important items that this project is providing as a community benefit is also hopefully providing that last leg of the trail system to connect to more. The other projects in the area, one of the ones I worked on, the Villages of the Quarry, has a trail network. And so as you guys can see on the screen, when you add those two together, it's creating a very nice trail network for East Pleasanton. I'm going to blow through some of these homes and get to some of the developer concessions that we made, because I think some of the discussion about El Charro was happening in a little bit of a vacuum today, and we wanted to go back, make sure everybody was aware of all the different things that we've done over the years to try and make this project work for the residents that are going to be our future neighbors. So first of all, we reduced the unit count from 194 to 189 units, which is essentially a loss of about $10 million of revenue. We took the lots along that western edge, and in addition to losing five of them, we shrunk the size of the houses to increase the backyards and to make them single stories. That resulted in a loss of another 18,000-ish square feet of the size of the houses, which was another about $9 million revenue. In addition to that, in order to allay some of the concerns about ongoing public financing that we heard, we proposed the idea of creating a maintenance CFD. The city has no experience with that so far. We're helping kind of pave the way for that. That maintenance CFD we would estimate will bring into the city four and a half million dollars of additional revenue over the next 30 years that you will be able to use solely to pay for the infrastructure and the maintenance for Arroyo Lago, meaning that the regular tax that you collect from property taxes, the city can use that money to go focus that money towards other areas that are maybe underfunded. So the project will definitely be a net positive. And then the last two things is we are also agreeing as part of the POTA to fund approximately $1.5 million of offsite improvements along Bush. And we've agreed to construct the trail extension from the current project all the way over to more drive at an estimate of approximately approximately $1 million. The El Charro contribution in our mind is completely voluntary at this point. As staff had mentioned, we have a project that was fully approved in the county. We are committed to seeing El Charro be built. Steve Dunn will come up here and speak in a minute, but I want to point this out that as part of the East Lakes application that was recently submitted to the city of Pleasanton, included in that application is an offer from the developer to build the first two lanes of El Charro from the project site to Stone Ridge. So I think what everybody is asking for, that's already being committed as part of the East Lakes project. So from our standpoint, in addition to Arroyo Lago making that voluntary $3 million contribution, there's another $2.2 million of traffic impact fees that the city can use and direct those towards El Charro as well. As a counter example, the Villages of the Quarry project, which I was also involved with, made zero contribution to El Charro. And I think the distinction here is, is there a nexus or not? And there's no nexus for any of these projects right now. So the contribution is being referred to as voluntary because right now what we have is a traffic study and some analysis that's been done by the city's traffic engineer, which as much as we like him and respect him, We don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions of that report and so instead of arguing about whether this methodology was correct or not we tried to come up with a plan for how do you actually get El Charro built and the only way El Charro realistically gets built is with the East Lakes project. And with that I'm going to hand it over to Steve and then at the end we'll be happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you.

Thank you Steve.

Yeah so it is important for everyone to understand that This is like the first domino of approvals. I mean, we're here as a committed applicant, not just to do Arroyo Lago, but to do East Lakes, which we're also vested in the county for right now. We can do both these projects in the county. But we're here before you, and it's been my commitment for 20 years to make this all happen. I'm also working with, as Steve has mentioned, to try to get El Charro phased. I think that's the only way it gets funded. So we are committed to doing those two lanes to the north from the project, and we would do that with East Lakes. But if you don't get El Charro, if you don't get Arroyo Lago approved, You won't have the next domino, which is Eastlakes, because we'll just go into the county. We'll have two projects in the county. So it's really important to understand this is not just, this is a first stepping stone. And in addition to that, we continue to work with our neighbor, PGS, with the city to cooperate on trying to work with the city to move PGS to the east side. the far east side of our project, which is a better location for the city, for the community. And so we're committed to working on that. I know there's a lot of people here that know that we're doing that, including PGS. So this, and in addition to that, we have about 100 acres right now east in the city that now outside the urban growth boundary. So we're also hoping that we have the ability to work with the city to move the urban growth boundary to the east, and therefore, that 100 acres can contribute in additional dollars to El Charro. So we're here before you to work with you, but here we have stakeholders that are all aligned. I mean, it's really interesting because Zone 7 wants this. The city wants this. The neighbors want this. We want this. And so it's kind of that simple. We've been working on this for years. And you heard all the economics. I mean, we can go into the county and not pay anything to the streets. You're getting $3 million plus our fees of $2.2 million. Someone didn't mention that. But we're paying our normal fees, too. And then we had the voluntary contribution on top of that. so and it's already already been proven that fiscally this is the best thing for the city to go forward with again this is the first phase of it it's only going to get better so i think one of the other really key things was which was really unfortunate for me is that at planning commission we didn't get to present after Mr. Tisano stood up on any kind of counter to what he was saying. We did submit a letter before the council meeting in October of last year that was part of your decision-making process. Just remember, El Chero is not designed. We heard it tonight. There's no alignment set. There's not even known projects that are going to contribute to it yet. and then somehow there's an allocation. So I just think that's disingenuous. It's just not there yet. But we're here to make it happen. So despite all the continued indecision of the city over the years, we're here. And we're here in an honorable way that we're gonna stick to the deal that we committed to last October. And we're hoping that you do the same. We're not taking money off the table. We're committed to it. We told you that last October. And we're hoping that you will also stick to the deal that you guys supported last October. So with that, we're here to answer any questions. And I think we did it with three minutes left. So thank you.

OK. Thank you very much.

We will go for council clarifying questions of the applicant.

Same order. Councilmember Niver, any clarifying questions of the applicant?

It's nice to see the list of contributions, the voluntary contributions spelled out like that. In reality, aren't those simply the outcome of negotiations, normal development negotiations, normal development obligations, part of project design. In other words, is the city obligated to compensate developers for concessions made to obtain entitlements?

I don't think there are obligations. I think it was a deal that was structured together, for sure. We're all in this together. We're trying to make it happen. And so we agreed to terms that like a voluntary contribution, like a CFD, this is the first one of any developer or applicant in the city. We've offered to do that. That's a big bonus because you can use those funds elsewhere. We're going to be putting more contribution into Bush Road to take care of the corp yard's frontage. Obviously, there's numerous things here that are concessions that we wouldn't have to do in the county. It's really important because there's an economics here. It's economically better for us with all these fees and everything to go into the county. But we believe in the big picture and the long-term benefit of being in the city and working with the city. Okay.

By being in the city instead of the county, though the project, correct me if I'm wrong, receives city utilities, receives vested development rights. I guess you get in county maybe as well. Fee certainty and just the... the challenges of developing in the county, including sewer treatment and spray field requirements. So are those, do you agree that those points make annexation substantially increase the project's value and feasibility?

I don't think, based upon our economics, no. But I think the long-term viability of the fact of trying to get Royal Lago in and getting East Lakes in and El Charro in and our industrial, if you pull all those things together, we think that's a benefit. But the straight-up economics are better for us to go in the county.

So... Do you do you agree with what I said or not in terms of the answer? Well, I didn't quite understand.

Yeah.

Claire, does annexation substantially increase the project's value and flexibility?

It will not increase the flexibility. We already have approved project, which is a similar project to this one.

OK. Fair enough. Thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor, any clarifying questions of the applicant?

Just, you know, the long negotiations you had with regard to fees and the $3 million, I know Director Clark was involved, and that also spent a lot of time with our former city manager, Jerry Bowden, correct? Correct. So substantially, this deal that was hashed out and finalized essentially in October was Jerry Bowden, yourselves, Ellen Clark, and our staff, basically, right? Those are the parties, the people at the final table, let's say?

That's correct. Okay. All right.

I don't have any further questions for this applicant. Thank you.

Okay. Councilmember Testa?

You are taking the position that the $3 million contribution is voluntary, when really, I mean, You're asking the city for the annexation which would bring with it the city utilities, development rights, avoids the substantial cost and environmental challenges of developing in the county with the sewer treatment plant and spray fields. It's hard to hear that. OK, it's questions. So we heard that the development project can't

can't absorb the costs of their fair share of and you say i get it you're saying that el charro is not an obligation i think correct i think yeah we're firm on the three million yeah it's a voluntary we're hoping that you'll stand by your honor roll agreement that you guys had last october i'm sorry i'm having a hard time hearing you we're hoping that the council will stand by their support unanimous support for the terms that we agreed to last October.

The unanimous support was for that we agreed, because I know I clarified that all we were really saying was that... We're clarifying questions of the applicant, please. No, he said something. Let me speak, Mayor.

It's clarifying questions of the applicant. Let me speak, Mayor. Councilmember Testa.

This is a question. This is a line of questions.

Okay, but again, we're at the clarifying questions to understand. We have public speakers. So it's just clarifying questions of the applicant, please.

So would you show us your pro forma that identifies that you can't CONTRIBUTE MORE. I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YOU'RE NOT CONTRIBUTING FAIR SHARE TO THE ROAD. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SHOW THE PERFORMA THAT SHOWS THAT THIS PROJECT CAN'T SUPPORT CONTRIBUTING YOUR FAIR SHARE?

WHEN WE WERE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, WE DID SHARE THE COMPARISON OF FEES AND THOSE COSTS, YES.

YOU SHARED

We shared the fee comparison.

Fee comparison.

Right. Well, that's what we're talking about, in addition to the concessions.

Well, that's not the same as the pro forma. That's not your profit margin on the project, right?

It's cost, similar cost.

OK. You said we did vote unanimously that we didn't want this project another county project that would bring the burdens that some of the existing county projects have that we're dealing with. We agreed we didn't want the environmental negatives of the spray fields and so But why did you then take that after we did say that we would prefer to work toward a project in the city and eliminate those negatives, but then you took it back to the county? Why did you do that?

It was already in the county process, and actually the city attorney requested us to process it in the county so they had an approved EIR with the project that was approved. Our city asked you to process it in the county. Sorry, we are clarifying questions of the applicant.

That was a question.

Could you restate your question?

Well, he answered it. Okay, thank you for acknowledging that our city asked you to take it to the county and finish.

We were already at the county.

But it wasn't a completed process. We had signaled that we wanted to work with you to have it be a to annex.

I was in full support of the nation clarifying questions of the applicant and please

And so again, so your reason for going back to the county was because our city attorney asked you to do that?

We didn't go back to the county, we were at the county.

But you were asked to complete the project in the county?

Correct.

After we signaled that we wanted it to be work with you on a project in the city? Okay, I'm done. All right, thanks.

Thank you. Councilmember Eicher, clarifying question to the applicant, please.

I actually don't have a question for the applicant, but I do have a question for staff.

You will have to wait until I close public comment, please. Okay. Okay. I have a quick question for the applicant, which is my comment related to the facility CFD 1.5% issue I brought up. I don't know if you want to talk about now or at your rebuttal period of time. But do you have a concept of this or what it would mean? Sure. Thank you.

And I know it's a relatively new concept and it's all trying to explain it in layman's terms, but essentially no different than what you were alluding to with the landscape maintenance district. Essentially, the maintenance CFD is a funding mechanism. So the first thing that you do is the city hires their own consultants and they get input from Michael Stella, other people at Public Works about what the ongoing costs would be to maintain that public infrastructure. And then you put in place a rate and method of apportionment to charge the homeowners. But in this case, it would be the landowner. So we would vote yes to write just like you guys did today. We would vote yes to levy that assessment against the land. And that assessment would be based on those engineers reports. There's always say a margin of safety, but there's always a contingency built into those annual costs. And in addition to having a contingency, you also build in some inflation ticker. Usually I think it's like tied to CPI or it's typically how they work is that it's like the greater of, you know, a number or CPI so that you don't have a situation where you pass the assessment in 1996 and you're still only paying $50 a year. So typically what you would see with this is the maintenance CFD might have a starting of, let's say, $1,000 per lot per year. So that would be, in the case of Arroyo Lago, about $189,000 a year of additional tax revenue. That $189,000, because all the infrastructure is brand new at that point, is really you're building up the reserve. like you kind of mentioned so that when you need to replace something 10 years down the road, you've been building up a reserve of let's say $200,000 over several years. So it's, I'd say it's kind of more think about it as like a, how a homeowners association works where you pay in, but you're really building up a reserve to pay for the repairs or the replacement of infrastructure that is typically going to last 10, 15, 20, 30 years.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, any other questions of the applicant before we go on? Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to proceed to public comment three minutes each, please. Uh, I have several speakers on this. Our first speaker is Ms. Valerie prior, followed by Sandy Yamada, followed by Ms. Kelly cousins. Welcome.

Good evening. My name is Valerie prior and I'm the general manager of the zone seven water agency. I just like to say that zone seven supports annexation so that the project is in the city rather than the county with the expectation that the project will be connected to the city's wastewater and stormwater systems. I'd also like to add that zone seven is working with the parties on an easement and we see no reason why the easement wouldn't be approved. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That is, comforting words to have. Sandy Yamada, followed by Kelly Cousins, and you'll be followed by Linda Kelly.

These are some of my comments. I appreciate some of the questions that the Council has brought forth. I think there are still a lot more questions that need to be answered. INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN THE CITY TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS GOING TO COST DOWN THE ROAD. BECAUSE PLEASANT IS CURRENTLY STRUGGLING WITH MAJOR BUDGET CHALLENGES, RESIDENTS ARE PAYING FOR MORE FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICES WHILE IMPORTANT CITY SERVICES ARE UNDER PRESSURE. A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT MAY HELP FUND CERTAIN PROJECT SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS BUT IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE BROADER COST OF SERVING hundreds of additional residents costs involving roads police fire emergency services parks libraries utilities and other public structures traffic is an essential especially serious concern preliminary studies indicate that the development already under construction will significantly increase the congestion on santa rita and valley avenue intersections where there is already a level service F conditions, severe congestion. The Arroyo Largo project together with the Bush Road development and other proposed East Pleasanton residential projects will add to that pressure. The proposed El Charro Road extension is often discussed as a possible solution, but that project costs close to or more than 100 or 110, I'm putting my numbers in, I know somebody has said 80, million dollars and the developer contribution is minimal. Who will ultimately pay for this? The answer could be Pleasanton taxpayers. There are also serious considerations about the potential impact of the roadway on the two lakes that are part of our regional drinking water system, Zone 7 And I know that a woman just spoke about Zone 7, but my notes say Zone 7 Water Retailers Board have expressed opposition to the proposed road construction for this reason. The El Charro extension would also bring more cut-through traffic into First Street as drivers seek access to Interstate 680 and 580. Before adding additional development that increases the need for expensive transportation infrastructure, the City needs a realistic and fully funded plan for addressing these impacts. I also urge the Council to consider the proximity of residential developments to gravel mining operations, the Livermore Municipal Airport, and its flight patterns. Pleasanton has already met its RHNA requirements. I'm sorry, I'm at the end. The potential for additional housing credits from 48 ADUs would not outweigh the long-term financial infrastructure. Thank you very much. Thank you.

That's your time. Thank you very much. I just have a clarifying question for you, which is you may have heard staff, the choice is between the county plan and city annex plan. You understand that is our choice before us?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

But I can't finish.

Your time is done. No, thank you very much. Our next speaker is Ms. Kelly Cousins, followed by Linda Kelly, followed by Vicki Labarge.

In closing, I'm sorry. I'm opposed to this. No, thank you.

Please don't yell at me.

You were asked to conclude your comments in allotted time. Welcome.

Thank you. I know it's late. And I appreciate the concern you have about the annexation issues. My concern tonight is whether the city and ultimately the residents fully understand the total long-term costs of approving Arroyo Lago and the additional development on the east side. I would like to ask a simple question. If you are a business and considering a costly long-term financial agreement, would you agree to it based on only a narrow analysis of one portion of the budget? Of course not. You would insist on knowing the full cost, the immediate cost, and the reoccurring cost, the long-term obligations, the risk, and the liabilities. That is the level of analysis Pleasanton residents deserve before approving major developments. The city should not look only at whether a project appears to benefit the general fund today or over time. We need to understand the full cost of the community over the life of the development and a comprehensive community impact and fiscal analysis should address annual reoccurring costs for additional city services, including police and fire protection, long term employee compensation benefits and pension obligations associated with these services. The cost of relocating existing city facilities, as you talked about, the garbage company and the operations service center. The unfunded maintenance and eventual replacement costs of roads, traffic, utilities, storm drains, parks, and other infrastructure, transportation improvements needed throughout the city because of the cumulative development, not just on El Charro extension. And of course, the potential risks to our drinking water if a large highway goes through there. And we need to know whether the revenues generated for this development will actually cover the cost. Pleasanton already faces significant long-term financial pressures, including major infrastructure needs and growing pension obligations. We are struggling to maintain what we already have, considering our reduction in services. So why would we commit to a major expansion of the city's infrastructure and service obligations without first knowing the complete financial picture? So I suggest that we do a greater. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Linda Kelly, followed by Miss Vicky Labarge, followed by Bob Watson. Three minutes. Thank you.

One of the previous mayor's first agenda items removed the east side strategic plan from its work plan. As a result, Pleasanton was dealt a blow with state arena requirements. That could have been avoided had it been addressed from the get-go. Previous council majority's priority focused on fun rather than finances. This resulted in scrambling to assess how to deal with a looming structural deficit, a daunting task that this council is methodically approaching with a greater focus on fiscal matters. Developer fees and property taxes are a mainstay of funding for any municipality, as is the case with Pleasanton. Arroyo Lago is a project that has long been in the works and has adapted to the city's changing needs and requirements as the process has dragged on. Its developers have acted in good faith to scale down the numbers of units, adjusted heights, and otherwise tweaked the project in order to gain approval, working closely with staff to achieve the best for both parties. Should council not approve this deeply examined, heavily tweaked, and thoroughly vetted project, the county can approve it, circumventing the city's control over perhaps the most sensitive piece of land within its borders. this could place our groundwater supply in jeopardy from leach field directory above a portion of it which is unacceptable to zone 7 as well as to residents it's time to stop the false narratives surrounding water and infrastructure and get on with creating a viable new residential community thank you thank you vicki labarge bob watson cliff mcdonald

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening again, Mayor, council members, and staff. Vicky Labarge, 42-year resident. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I support the annexation and development of Arroyo Lago because I believe it's an investment in Pleasanton's future. Growth raises important questions about traffic, infrastructure, water, and city services, and those concerns deserve thoughtful planning, but we also need to ask whether Pleasanton can afford not to build more housing. Currently, ownership vacancy is at a historic low of 1 to 1.4%. Rental vacancies rates are also low at 4.9 to 5%. Our schools are already experiencing declining enrollment, not because families don't want to live here, but because too many can't find housing. As enrollment declines, schools lose students, funding, and opportunities. If we want to preserve the excellent schools that make Pleasanton special, we need to make it possible for young families to call this city their home. We also rely every day on teachers, nurses, first responders, health care workers, other essential workers who often commute long distances because housing here is just not available or out of reach. Housing closer to jobs strengthen our workforce, reduce commuting, and improve quality of life. Development should pay their fair share for infrastructure and services it requires, and the city should continue to hold developers accountable. Finally, if Pleasanton chooses not to move forward, development pressure is unlikely to disappear. Alameda County could ultimately pursue development instead, leaving Pleasanton to provide many of the surrounding support services while missing out on property tax revenue that would help pay for them. Pleasanton has always planned for the future. Arroyo Lago gives us the opportunity to welcome more families support our schools, strengthen our economy, and ensure that the people who serve our community have the opportunity to live here. I respectfully ask you to support the annexation and development of Arroyo Lago. Thank you.

Thank you. Bob Watson, followed by Cliff McDonald, followed by Pam Hardy-Alpert.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, staff. My name is Bob Watson. I live in the village at Ironwood. I'm on the wall that backs up to this project. You know, as our new city manager said earlier, we're trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear here. The train left the station when we didn't approve an east side plan a long time ago. So we're down to either approving the annexation, doing it through the city where we have control and we have a much better option for all of the residents that live in the village at Ironwood or If they go to the county, then kind of all bets are off. So we support the, and the applicant has been very cooperative in working with the residents out at Ironwood to address our concerns. That's really all I have to say. I encourage you to approve the annexation but I would like if when the applicant has more comes back up to have them address what the Operating hours. They already have a grading permit from the county and they were out there grading today In fact, they were grading after five o'clock so I'm just want to know what the hours of operation are I assume it's not weekends and and you know When we should be able to expect that we don't have to listen to the graders. Anyway, that's it for me Thank you very much

Cliff McDonald, followed by Pam Hardy-Alpert, followed by Doug Miller. Welcome, sir.

Good evening, and mayor, council members, and staff. My name is Cliff McDonald. I've been a Pleasanton resident for 50 years now. I currently for the past eight years have lived in the Ironwood Village, and like Bob Watson, I back up to the wall. So I'm directly impacted by this. I've been to all the meetings over the last four years, not as many as Steve or Steve, but quite a few meetings. They have, Rio Alago has agreed to all the, most of the concerns of the Ironwood Village residents. I think the big thing, the big concern now is just the traffic. And I understand that we can't get blood out of a stone. They were offering $3 million. They're also giving us a lot of other benefits. So I encourage you to, tonight, let's get this done and approve it. But we need to have a backup plan for the El Charro underpass. Whether it comes from state money or federal money, we've got to get some money somewhere. Because we can't wait for 10 years to build that. It's got to be done as these developments are going to be built. So that's the challenge. So anyway, enough said. Thank you very much. It's late. Thank you very much.

Pam Hardy-Alpert, followed by Doug Miller. Approaching the end of my speaker cards. If you would like to speak on this topic, please fill out a blue speaker card.

Good evening again, Pam Hardy. I'm a resident of the Ironwood community. It was the second house that moved in, so I've been there quite some time. And I want to remind the council that there's approximately 400 homes in that area. I, for one, am thrilled about all the street improvements that the Kiewit property is going to be doing offsite as well as along Bush Avenue. I'm also excited for additional improvements that the current development will be providing us in our area. We've been kind of an orphan out there. The city had a chance to do your specific plan. You never picked up on it. And as the previous person stated, there was a lot of other things that were looked at instead of big picture planning items. So here we are now. Why annex the site? Because you've already going to annex all the way down to the corporation, past the corporation yard and to the garbage transfer station. Whether or not those properties stay there or not is immaterial. They're going to be surrounded by housing. That's why it makes sense in the city and other reasons why it shouldn't go in the county, as was previously stated by some of the speakers earlier. Anyways, I'm going to keep it short because I know too much, and I could go on and on and on. But I do appreciate the contribution of $3 million in the development agreement. This project doesn't have a nexus to do that work. We forget about that. And I highly find it insulting to barter with an applicant about how much money he should or shouldn't pay. And to ask for a performa is really outrageous. Take the $3 million. He's not going to propose something that he can't do. and there will be other projects that will be contributing in the future. So I say, like Mrs. LaBarge said earlier, let's get on with it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Doug Miller, this is my last speaker card. If you would like to speak on this topic, please fill out a blue speaker card at this time. Welcome.

Mayor, city council members, staff. I really have been impressed with everybody's working on this project. The new city manager, temporary city manager, has really come up to speed. Ellen Clark and uh mr tisano and traffic i really appreciate the insight that they have and the wealth of knowledge as far as city council goes everybody has been working for a solution at least three of the five city council members are on the same boat they're looking for ways to make this work Unfortunately, Council Member Testa is always asking questions designed to stop this, and they go way back. Recently, she- If we can not do personal attacks, that would be appreciated, though, if we can- Yeah, well, point out what she said. um recently uh julie testa brought up the school population the schools were desperately overcrowded she says and i believe that she still is of that opinion that was one way to stop this project as we've heard tonight um The schools continue to lose population and are going to need more students. So I ask you all to work towards the solution that we need here. I thank the City Council for doing that and I urge you to support this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If you have not spoken on this item and have not turned in a blue speaker card, please now approach the podium. None. City Clerk, do we have any online comments?

We do have one speaker.

Three minutes, please.

Martin Inderbitzen, you can speak at this time.

Mayor Balts, members of council, Martin Inderbitzen representing Pleasanton Garbage Service. Pleasanton Garbage Service operates the transfer station at 3110 Bush Road. We're in support of this project. Steve Dunn and Steve Riley have both been working cooperatively with PGS to find ways to mitigate impacts of the surrounding residential development that, frankly, were not addressed early on with the Kiewit project. But once called to their attention, both Steve Riley and Steve Dunn have agreed to build a right-turn lane that would allow traffic to get into the transfer station that was not previously provided. I would point out that neither one of those projects were obligated to do so, but they volunteered because they understood that that would be an appropriate thing to do. I want to also add that both of them, and in particular Steve Dunn, continue to work proactively with the garbage company to try to address long-term impacts that will undoubtedly occur as residential development continues and residents occupy those two projects. And we appreciate their community effort and the fact that they are willing to work with us to try to resolve these problems and look forward to working with them in the future. So I encourage you to support this project. Thank you.

CHAIR BRYANT L. Any other speakers online?

No further speakers.

Okay, and everyone in the room wonders why they didn't take it online. Okay, with that, we'll move to applicant rebuttal. You have five minutes at this time to address any further comments or issues you would like. First, I want to respond to one of the

Community members, we actually are just doing disking out there. There's no grading going on right at this moment. But when grading does start, it's interesting. The city and the county have different hours. And I'll just let you guys know. So Monday through Friday, it's 7 to 6 in the county that you can work. And then in the city, it's actually Monday through Saturday, 7 to 5. So that's just for the awareness of the community. We've been very close with the neighbors to let them know when we're going to start, when we're going to do work. But we do have a grading permit, but we have not started grading it. So we do have a grading permit in the county. I want to say that we really appreciate staff. Since our letters went in a week ago last Friday, we've been working together to come up with a solution because we, as the applicant, couldn't have a, well, if the easement doesn't go through, we can't develop. So we worked together to come up with this plan that you now have the language for, that we can work with that. And I think it's reasonable, and I think, again, it also shows our true testimony that we're trying to live by what's been approved, but we're gonna have to adjust for the utilities. But we're honorable to the neighbors. We'll keep the grades. We'll keep one story on the property line. We'll go 15-foot setbacks. We're going to do our best. And we believe that we have a potential solution. But we all know when you have to do a plan B solution, it takes some time. So with that, we thank you. And we hope that we can do the right thing and stick to the agreements that we had on the business terms. and to the language now that's been proposed that staff's supportive of. Thank you.

Okay. That concludes the public comment for item 16. At this time, we're going to go ahead and take a quick five-minute break, and we'll resume shortly. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning and welcome to the continuation of the July 27th council meeting on the early morning of July 28th. It is now midnight. With that we have completed the staff presentation for item 16. We have completed the public comment and we are bringing it back to council for final comments, a motion and whatnot. I might mention to my fellow council members, as I mentioned earlier, we have, because this meeting was continued from the 21st, we have some recitals for any resolution we adopt. In addition, the city attorney's probably gonna help us through any of the motion because there's some red line changes that we've kind of spoken through today. So with that, same order, Council Member Nyberg.

Well, I really appreciate the discussion. I appreciate the involvement of staff and the applicants and all the members of the public who have come forward and contributed their opinions and thoughts on this project over the long time that it's been considered. I was asking about the benefits of annexation. I believe annexation does, of course, substantially increase the project's value, whether or not it increases the feasibility since there is the option of the county. Yes, there are benefits of annexation to both the city and the applicant. All of them have value. My biggest concern is the big unknowns of what we could be asking the city and our residents to take on long-term down the road. I'm sensitive to the desire to have a complete financial picture. Understand all of those potential costs to the city that were not part of the EPS analysis. that was done a year ago. Police, fire emergency services, future traffic improvements, cut through traffic, burdens on taxpayers. Those are all things that concern me. However, I can't in good conscious let a lot of those benefits slip out of Pleasanton's hands. It obviously is superior to the development occurring in the county. So I will be supporting the city option. I understand there are some other motions that the city attorney will guide us through. I do believe that the Planning Commission recommendation of the applicant contributing the full $8 million fair share is a good one. And so I would encourage the other council members to support that as well.

So that's it.

Can I ask, if I may, just while you have the floor, about your thoughts on Plan B language that was in the supplemental that was on the dais?

Yeah, I agree with the proposed Plan B language that was on the dais. Okay, thank you very much.

Vice Mayor? Thank you. I'll just say briefly, it's late, I'll be as poignant as I can be. There was a lot of, I'll skip that part. Being in this seat I think requires people to do things, council members to do things that are unpopular to some. You have to make decisions with reason and not emotion. What you want is oftentimes irrelevant. I think the agreement that was brokered essentially between Jerry Bowden and his staff and Steve Dunn and his folks over the last year, I spent a considerable amount of time talking about that to Jerry and also got a lot of the information about it through my subcommittee assignment with Councilmember Eicher with Puzzle and Garbage Service, who's across the street and supports this project. That is an interesting issue that will soon come up, but our public, in response to a questionnaire, greatly values having PGS, greatly values having a transfer station. There are plenty of garbage service companies who would love our contract to come haul our garbage, close the transfer station, and truck our garbage in electric trucks far away. How that would change your rates is a different story. This is something that's going to come up in the future, but I just wanted to mention that. i i'm i'm supportive of this coming into the city and i think it's an it's it's really a no-brainer i don't think um you can intellectually at this point and be intellectually honest and oppose it um there's some irony in this discussion because going back to 2022 when both councilmember nybert and i were on the planning commission when we went through the housing element Essentially, I'll admit it, I caved to some pressure not to include steel wave on the housing element list. Had I had the perspective that I have now, I wouldn't have done that. That essentially could have been maybe 2,000 units if we agreed to annex that, if we agreed to put that in the housing element. knowing it was going to inevitably be done through the county, if not the city, that would have allowed us to not zone for 2,000 units other places in the city. Maybe lower the density on some structures and some developments like the one that's going in on Santa Rita Road, pushed all the way to the curb where the hotel used to be that everyone disliked so much. We would have gained ourselves some flexibility in doing that, and we didn't. That forced the developer to go through the county. We did a stop start at least a couple times on the East Pleasanton specific plan. I've seen diagrams of what those task forces hoped it would look like, but it was never anything that was feasible in my opinion. It was never going to be extensive parks. It was never going to be anything like that. And any chance of doing that, and putting more community input from the city would have necessitated us annexing into the city so we have more control in negotiating with the developer. So the same folks who didn't, and we left it out of the Planning Commission and it went to City Council. And I know Council Member Testa said she didn't remember it being talking about that but it came before I looked it up it came before this council after it left the planning commission and it was a 3-2 vote that left it off of the housing element and at the time then council member Balch I think it was Kathy Naram talked about the fact that this is something that could happen and a 3-2 vote against them left it off the list and so we lost the ability and this has been the elephant in the room the whole time but by not putting it in the housing element and not annexing in the city of Pleasanton we essentially lost negotiating power and we haven't been able to say it publicly but now that we're in a put up or shut up mode with the developer and they've been approved through the county There's no downside to admitting that had that been in the housing element, they'd be paying the $8 million right now and they wouldn't have a say about it. They'd be paying a lot more. We would be able to negotiate, but we lost the ability to do that when we refused to put it in the housing element. That's the impact of not doing something unpopular and looking towards the future. um the two issues i have going forward um when the mayor brought up that's a good point of the cfd and the amount because as stated in the staff report it's i think estimated 4.5 million dollars over 30 years that sounds like a lot of money just like when i was a kid a million dollars sounded like a lot of money um but i'm i'm wondering if you know we might think about upping that the top end of that by a half a point or a point just to make sure that we don't end up with you know, unfunded, and we don't have to pass it through all to the homeowners. Maybe it can be incremental or based on need, but that's something we need to talk about. As opposed, the other option is about option B. I have some concerns. I take a lot of confidence that Valerie Pryor came tonight, I think she's still here, about the easement. I think that's 100% the way to go. There was a lot of effort put into, the grading Heights, the plan. So I'm, I'm supportive of, of a, um, I don't want to do B. I don't want to include that in. I think that the language that we've had to kind of scramble and put in in the last week is I'm concerned that it defers a disagreement to the future about what the city thinks is, um, you know, what best efforts mean and whether we'd agree or disagree on that in the future. I don't like to buy potentially vague disagreements in the future and leave it to a maybe a subjective standard. So I have some concerns about that, but I'll see where my other council members land. But those are the two Outstanding issues. I think we need to hash out in my opinion, uh, the CFD and plan a versus plan B. But, um, as I said, we don't have the luxury of, of saying no for more reasons than I, I think that I can explain. We've heard them all tonight, but, um, this is, uh, this is a position we find ourselves in. Um, do some of our own making. So, uh, those are my comments.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, staff, I apologize to the lateness of the hour. I forgot to ask, uh, the followup related to my question on the CFD 1.5%. Did you have a chance to look at that over the public comment and break and, uh, any comment on that? Do we think it's sufficient? Do we think it's not?

I think that based on what we know, that we believe that it is sufficient. I'm going to expand a little bit on that, Mr. Mayor, if you'll permit me for just a moment the other point i think that is worth making because we have alluded to the fiscal analysis that was done by by eps earlier that looked at impact on the city's general fund expenses So, I would just highlight that the CFD discussion and the revenues that will be generated by the CFD, those revenues were not factored into the EPS analysis. So, they are in addition to that EPS analysis.

Okay.

Okay. And if I can just ask further, thank you, because that helps. So basically it gins it up a bit. That 1.5 is off of the basis of the sale. How's that one point? What is the number that number is applied to?

Well, it's based on the, pardon me, it's based on the valuation, the sales price of the units that are used to determine the amount of property tax, the 1% property tax factor.

Okay. Similar to, yeah, okay. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Testa?

As far as the supplemental language, I would also say stay with the original language that we have, not do a plan B, especially given Valerie Pryor's statement that she believes that the easement is not going to be an issue. So I don't see why we'd need to put supplemental language in that makes our staff uncomfortable anyway. So the um we've all said there's no question we all know that the project should be annexed into Pleasanton um it should be um the philosophy of Pleasanton for decades has been growth should pay its way so um the 8 million fair share should be included in the approval. The other points here I would agree with as far as the annexation. I do think that the I think the project still isn't, it should be contributing to our affordable housing fund. It should be contributing its fair share. The value of being annexed into Pleasanton for this project far exceeds the the small issues that would make the project pay in its own way. So, yep, that's where I would, I'll stay with that.

Okay, Councilmember Eicher.

I do have a few questions for staff. Can you tell me when Kiewit was approved? 2025? Time flies. It was before I was on council.

Yes. No, it didn't come to council. It was SB 330.

That's true. So it was a housing element site. It was an SB 330 application. I'm not sure that the project came before the council.

Only the affordable agreement did because we had to approve that, and that's reserved for council.

So when that came through and you guys dealt with it, was there an obligation for Kiewit to pay a contribution to El Charro?

So they were vested under their SB 330 application to the fees in place at time of submittal. So they had certain vesting under SB 330 and that was basically the traffic impact fees and nothing else. So that was what the city could require legally of the project.

So no.

So there are, El Charro is included in the city's TIF, so not strictly no. So there is a proportion of that, but it's not the same negotiation that we're able to have with this developer.

Okay.

um were they required to provide any mitigation in regards to the transfer station that they're being built right up against or the corporate corp yard um no there are there's some there's a sound wall and some some other buffering that's provided um but there aren't additional mitigations and then there's as um one speaker noted the bush road improvements but they were only required to deal with their frontage, not the adjacent frontage for PGS to provide that additional turnpocket that was mentioned.

So we're not asking them to do extra on top of what they've minimally required?

Correct. They have to build the Bush Road frontage to the city's standard, which does include a number of improvements, but not that particular one for the transfer station. Okay.

How's the density at Kiewit compared to Arroyo Lago?

It's a little lower, Royal Lago is a little lower than Kiewit.

It was eight. Isn't that eight? Is that right? Yeah, it's like eight per acre.

Jesus. Jenny worked on both projects. I don't remember the exact density range. There's a few different products, so there's a range. I think it's a little bit higher than Arroyo Lago.

So you would anticipate a higher traffic impact coming from Kiewit than necessarily from... Correct.

Many more units as well. Yeah, that's why I doubt it.

And was there a consideration of a CFD at the Kiewit property versus what we're doing at Arroyo Lago to help pay for it?

Not at the time, although I believe the applicant may actually have an interest in participating in a CFD, but that has not been formalized at this point. But they're doing that voluntarily versus as part of a negotiated. Okay.

OK, I just wanted to see if we could compare the two based on what we're trying to require today versus what we required yesterday as a city. It's the city's been working on East Pleasanton since 2010. Stop, start, stop, start many times. And and our lack of planning as a as a community or as a city has really led us to where we are today. You know, I think as the city manager coined it, the silk purse. I think with all of the options that we've had, we've actually come out with a fairly reasonable plan based upon all of the conditions that we're trying to work around to make this happen. I truly believe that at the front end of this, that staff worked in good faith with the developer to mitigate some issues on site, which resulted in the $3 million contribution from the contractor. And I think the contractor bent over backward to help mitigate issues with the neighboring community by lowering that grade, by creating the offset of 15 feet behind those houses and then building single stories up again, up against that residential tract right there. That's a big contribution. And there is a cost to doing that. And my perspective is based upon the good faith work of staff. I would, I'm leaning towards Staff's recommendation and using the $3 million contribution, I don't know that we really have a basis for the $8 million contribution other than that would be in an apportionment. And I'm not sure how we got to the apportionment for El Charro Road considering we don't have any other development out there right now. the larger development isn't going to be contributing to it anyway. And they will be using that road as it gets built out. So, and you want to know about A or B. I'm okay with either one. I think with Zone 7's commitment to work through the the process we could do option a or having a plan b is good too um so that's kind of where i'm at i i'm going either way on that okay that's it okay yeah councilmember nyberg

Yeah, I'm confused about the nomenclature of these plans. We have Plan A, old Plan B and new Plan B. I'm not sure what Plan A is, but the old Plan B, as I understood, made aware about a week ago that city was concerned that we'd be painting ourselves into a corner. Today, we have a new Plan B that was available to us on the dais. And yeah, with the language spelled out, that one, my understanding is staff is comfortable with the new one, not uncomfortable. It's less risky for the city as I look at it. Otherwise, why is it being proposed?

Yeah, Councilmember Nyberg, I think you're in a way you're acknowledging the fact that there have been discussions that have been ongoing for you know literally up until about three o'clock this afternoon to try to find some language that the applicant and the staff at least could live with to be able to present to the council for consideration so that that that is the difference and

So something you still don't understand. My agreement is with what you just said. So that agreement that will let us live, both parties live with a difference. Yeah. Which is the plan B supplemental.

Which is the supplemental language that you were handed just before the meeting. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Yes.

So Council Member Nyberg, can I ask a question on that?

Are you finished?

Yeah. I just don't know what Plan A was.

Plan A. Plan A. I'm sorry, Council Member Nyberg. Plan A is. get the easement from Zone 7 and build it the way that it's been presented.

And Plan B will only call it one Plan B, the revised Plan B. Plan B is that if you don't get that, the grading has to be within inches of the existing design. And XYZ is outlined in the memo on page two.

That's better. That's why I support that.

Okay. Yeah. Councilmember Tessa, you had a comment.

Did the one that we get at the dais, was that different than the one that we received in an email at about 445?

I don't believe so.

No, it's the same one? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. Because when I read it, I thought that there was something in there where it said this could be acceptable, but the plan A is what was originally in the original staff report, right? Plan A was in the staff report. Yes. And the conclusion was that is still the most viable choice.

Yeah, the way that the staff report was written was it acknowledged the fact that there had been a request for a contingency plan, a Plan B, if you will. But at the time, the report was prepared and sent to Council, which would have preceded the meeting that should have taken place last Tuesday. We did not have, had not arrived at language that was at least acceptable to staff to be able to put forward to council. So the difference in the additional weeks delay, if you will, was that it allowed an additional four or five days to continue to work on that. But Plan A, as we've indicated, which is obtain the easement from Zone 7, is the preferred approach.

Right. And it's still staff's preferred? Yes. So that's why I would support Plan A that staffs preferred.

Thank you. I haven't had a chance to chat, so I'll just go through my things. Clearly, annexation is what we want to do. The choice of no development is not a choice so that people understand that that's not a choice before us. The choice that we have is not the county choice either because we're not the county. The city gets the choice of whether we want to annex it or not. If we do, we get contributions towards Pleasanton. Those contributions are property tax dollars in perpetuity, a CFD to help pay for the ongoing maintenance obligations of this housing project. Elevation grade changes to be consistent with the adjoining neighbors in Ironwood. No sewer treatment plant and spray field right next to our drinking water recharge lakes. So I think we all know as the Vice Mayor said, if you apply some thought to it, Annexation makes a lot of sense. There's an economic analysis that had it where it was a modest $270,000 without the CFD and then obviously stronger with the CFD. So in terms of annexation, I'm there. I'm just going to, in light of the time, go through a quick other few points. I agree with the Vice Mayor that our A $3 million amount that was derived at was in good faith based upon a lot of factors at the time. And we still have those same factors at play. So the $3 million for me is where I'm at as well. I truly appreciate what the Planning Commission talked about. I understand that desire. There's nothing wrong with that desire. But when we look at the overall compilation, I can't make those findings myself. In terms of Plan A or this Plan B supplemental revised in front of me, I think this Plan B is good. The applicants asked for it. The city has come up with language that our staff says they can work with, and it provides us quite a lot of actual guarantees, including that any potential redesign will be in substantial conformance with Plan A. And to me, in light of being a partner partnership, I think that shows a willingness to do that. I also really want to talk about the percentage or the limit in the CFD at the page three. I think if if the vice mayor is willing to support Plan B, but we might make it, you know, 175 or 2% to help with that. Maybe staff has an opinion of that. I'll maybe pause to see if they do just for comfort. Again, this is just a maximum amount. It doesn't mean it's the amount. But I think we should provide for this opportunity or potential contingency requested. Staff, do you have an opinion of 1.5 versus 175 or two for that number?

Well, I'm going to posit a question, if you'll permit me, Mr. Mayor, and the developer can sort of give me a nod of the head on this. The way that we have calculated this, we believe that that 1.5% is somewhere north of $5,000 a unit. Does that number sound right? Per year. Per year. So, I mean, it's a lot of money. And the other thing that I would add, and it is not part of your question, but I only just thought of it this way, so I jotted these numbers down for what it's worth. When we talk about $3 million versus $8 million, because we're all cognizant of development impact fees and affordability and all that stuff. $3 million a unit for this project is $15,873 per unit, the $3 million contribution, 15,873. The $8 million contribution is $42,328 a unit. So you have those numbers to think about on a per unit basis. based on the nod of the head of one of the Steves, that's exactly how we had calculated it and, you know, $5,000 a unit per year up to, SHOULD BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO TAKE CARE OF. OKAY.

MAYBE WORTH NOTING, THAT'S BASED ON A TODAY VALUE, BOTH FOR SO IT'S THE HOME SELL FOR $1.7 OR $1.8 MILLION TODAY. ONE PRESUMES THAT THAT BASIS WILL GO UP OVER TIME AS PROPERTIES TURNOVER. SO THERE WILL BE A NATURAL INCREASE BECAUSE IT'S AN AD VELORUM RATE BASED ON THE SESS VALUE.

I appreciate both of those. Can I just ask for the, sorry if I may real fast, city manager, you have a denominator in that number with your numerator being that fee. Does your denominator include the JADUs because those cannot be deeded separately, correct? They are attached to the...

I'm dividing everything by 189 units and not the JADUs.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Sorry, Vice Council.

I was going to point out that a lot of buyers know what CFDs are and they avoid CFDs for the very reason that we're talking about.

Okay. All right. So to try to make, hey, I think we've got a council majority. I'll just try to try to get us there. It's 1230 in the morning. Ask another question. Okay. Give me a second, please. So we have council consensus for $3 million for the fee. We have a majority All of us unanimous for the annexation. In terms of the B, I think we need to still work that out. And the percentage, it sounds like I would probably revert back to the 1.5 drafted by staff. Council Member Tessie, you would like a follow-up question?

I just want to clarify because, in fact, a All of our projects on our housing element are more restricted. We have less. They're pretty much ministerial once they're on the housing element. Isn't that true? And in fact, you were talking about Kiewit and how limited we were on input on that because it was an SB 35. But being on the housing element does create more restriction and less community control. Isn't that true?

Ministerial creates less discretion for the city in terms of its approval process.

Right. So saying, oh, if it had just made it on the housing element, we would have had, you know, lollipops and unicorns and all kinds of ability. That's just not true. It would give, you know, our housing element projects are like the project on Santa Rita, where we had no, very little say in what happened there. People are really mad at us about that project. People are very unhappy. But we had very little say in it. And the housing element projects, we have very little say because of the state's control. OK, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

The meeting in question is on February 8th of 22. It was item housing site number 28. It's worth a watch if you'd like to. We need to resolve out item B, yes or no. It sounds like Councilmember Nyberg and I are agreeing to the revised B. We'll just say as B. Councilmember Eicher, you were A or B. Would you be willing to go with B? Okay, so we have consensus on that. We have consensus on everything, but different people for different things. Is anyone going to be willing to move around so we can get there or do we want to go through it again or? Yeah, we have three different motions and I don't know where everyone's at. Vice Mayor, do you have any opinion? Are you willing to move on B? Yes. Okay. Councilmember Testa, are you going to, you were no on B. Are you willing to move on B or not?

I think I would feel much more comfortable going with what staff is more comfortable with, but that's not a big issue to me. I just don't know why we would want to do that.

Again, it's your vote, so would you like to have A or B?

Well, I would like to have a, I think that's what staff is recommending.

Okay, so city attorney, as you and I talked about, I can read the recital I need to put in. I can maybe do that for that and get us started. So for item 16, we are adding the following recital to both the resolution and both ordinances. The recital, excuse me, a little late here. Whereas due to a natural disaster, the city council meeting of July 21st, 2026 was continued to July 27th, 2026 prior to its start time. And so that will be part of any motion we make for those things that will just be incorporated into the recital so that everyone knows when we're doing this work. Do you want to help us with the rest, please?

So the first resolution that you'll be voting on concerns the approval of the addendum, which is the environmental review document. In looking through the document, it appears that there's a missing mention that we wanted to clarify. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is the collection of mitigation measures that were assembled for the county EIR. You're not adopting the EIR, but you're adopting an addendum to it. And we want to make sure to pull along those mitigation measures. So if the council would consider allowing staff to add language whereby the mitigation measures are adopted by the council in this resolution, In addition to the recital that the mayor read, staff can put the clarifying language in the resolution. And we will specify that the addendum did have some clarifications. So in the event of a clarification, the clarification would govern. But that will just clean up that oversight.

OK. Looking for a motion on that. We're going to do them a la carte.

OK. Yeah. I'll make the motion to do that.

OK. Vice Mayor? I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion made and seconded. Any discussion before we do anything? Okay, roll call vote, please.

Council Members Nybert? Aye. Gatos? Aye. Eicher? Aye. Testa? Aye. Mayor Balch? Aye. The motion passes unanimously.

Okay, second one. Same recital I read earlier plus.

So this is the ordinance that would approve the project entitlements except for the PATA. In order to incorporate the direction that you've given, we would include the recital that the Mayor read, as well as changing condition of approval number 51 to reflect what's on the supplemental material in front of you. In addition, we would add a new condition of approval, number 134, to require as follows. The applicant must fulfill all mitigation monitoring and reporting program requirements as stated in the county EIR, except to the extent clarified by the addendum, in which case the clarification will govern. Those are the requested changes from staff.

Okay. Looking for a motion, anyone?

I'll make the motion.

Okay. I look in for a second. I'll second. Motion made and seconded. Any comments before we vote on this item? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Councilmember Gade, sorry, Eicher?