City Council - Special Meeting

We're waiting for TV 30 and we'll begin. Okay, good evening and welcome to your Pleasanton City Council special meeting. Today is Tuesday, August 11th, 2026, and it is 6 p.m. Councilmember Testa is participating virtually in this meeting for a just cause, and all votes will be taken by roll call. Council Member Testa, please disclose if there's anyone present who is 18 years of older in the room with you at your location and your relationship to that person, please.

There is no one in the room with me.

Thank you. Okay. As we know, this is not our regularly scheduled time or cadence, but we appreciate it. It's a special meeting because it wasn't something we set up when we adopted the yearly calendar. That's why it is. And with that, we'll begin with a Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Mayor, if you can lead us in the pledge. Please rise if you are able.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty

Okay, thank you very much. Roll call, please.

Council Members Eicher?

Present.

Gatos?

Present.

Nybert?

Here.

Testa? Here. Mayor Balch?

Present.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we have a few announcements I'd like to go through for our viewers and audience members. The first is a truly outstanding National Night Out by the City of Pleasanton. We had 46, if you count BART, National Night Out locations that our first responders stopped by. And just thank you very much for the community for signing up and supporting them. 46 is a large number and shows that Pleasanton really does care to support our first responders. Thank you. Secondly, school is back in session this week. Please drive carefully. Take extra time as our youth return to school this week and they're obviously walking and biking to school. We want them to get there safely and learn their new routes. Third, committee and commissions. Our fall 2026 recruitment for our city of Pleasanton committee and commissions is underway. This is your chance to get involved, volunteer and help the city so that we are community for everyone. Applications are due at 5 p.m. on August 18th and you can access them, the applications and a description of the vacancies at the city's website. If you go to the city's website, our government boards and commissions, there are 26 positions available and many for our youth. And then lastly, items number two and 10 were noticed for 7 p.m. tonight, not the 6 p.m. special meeting time. So any action for them shall be held until 7 p.m. when we achieve that time. And with that, we are going on to any agenda amendments by staff. Seeing none, any agenda amendments by any of my fellow council members at this time? No. No. Okay, we will go with the agenda as posted. With that, we're gonna go to consent. 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 the consent calendar and considered separately. In light of my prior disclosure about item number two, we will have a second consent action after item probably number nine based on timing. So just FYI. So item, the consent calendar is items one through seven, not including item number two. Any speakers for item number two will be held off until that time. Any comments on consent? Council Member Eicher. Or questions, excuse me. Any questions on consent? No questions. Council Member Testa, any questions on consent?

I have comments on consent.

But I'll not questions. Okay. Council member, uh, hybrid. Sorry.

No questions.

And vice mayor. None. Thank you. Okay. I have no questions on consent either. Uh, we will look for public comment on consent. I do have a public speaker for item number one. So with that, we'll open up public comment for consent. Jan Coleman Knight, you are afforded three minutes for public comment, please. And welcome.

Good evening, counsel. I would like clarification on Exhibit A, Section C, which appears in the subsection of all of the commissions. The section gives procedures that apply to termination of office as a result of absences. For example, since the Civics Art Commission meets four times a year and one quarter of four is one, then the absence of one meeting may trigger termination based on the suggested procedure. NOTATION OF NUMBER TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT THE CITY MANAGER. SHE'LL NOTIFY IN WRITING ANY COMMISSIONER WHO'S BEEN ABSENT MORE THAN ONE QUARTER. REMEMBER, THAT'S ONE MEETING. OR MORE OF REGULAR MEETINGS DURING THE COURSE OF THE 12-MONTH PERIOD AND REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSIONER SUBMIT IN WRITING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE REASONS FOR THE ABSENCES. Further, number three says the City Council shall determine if the Commissioner's reasons for the absences were justified. If the City Council determines that the reasons for the failure of the member to attend the meeting in question were not justified, the City Council shall terminate the term of office of the Commissioner and declare the office vacant. Remember, that's one quarter, that's one meeting. FINALLY, IF THE CITY COUNCIL DECLARES SUCH OFFICE VACANT, THEN THE CITY CLERK SHALL NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE COMMISSION'S TERM HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY TERMINATED. FURTHER, NUMBER ONE, THE SAME SECTION SPECIFIES AT THE END OF A 12-MONTH PERIOD, THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION SHALL REPORT THE ATTENDANCE OF EACH COMMISSION MEMBER TO THE CITY MANAGER WHO SHALL TRANSMIT THE RECORD TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IS THIS TRANSMISSION IN A CLOSED CITY COUNCIL MEETING SINCE INDIVIDUAL NAMES ARE SINGLED OUT? I DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMS IF COMMISSION ATTENDANCE IS AN ISSUE, THEN THE SOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE SO BURDENSOME FOR CITY COUNCIL. THE SOLUTION SHOULD FIT THE PROBLEM. ANOTHER LAYER OF PROBLEMS IS NO HELP AT ALL. PLEASE CONSIDER AMENDING THIS SECTION. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. This is the consent calendars, items one through seven, not including item number two. If you would like to speak on consent and have not turned in a blue speaker card at this time, please approach the podium at this time. One through seven, not including item number two. Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close public comment on consent and bring it back to the council. Staff, if I may just ask, the comment about attendance records, I know we had a subcommittee that handled this recommendation in the staff report. I don't know if we want our fellow council members or staff to weigh in on that item or concept.

I can weigh in. Please. From my recollection from the meeting, the intent behind the council notification was more advisory, so we're aware of what's going on with the commissions as opposed to an intention that the council take action at that point in time. Maybe the library director can add more to that.

Good afternoon. I'm Heidi Murphy, Library and Recreation Director. The content of that section was not modified. So those were the original rules. The only thing that was changed was it used to be more meetings. It would have been more punitive. It was one-third of the meetings. So if you missed one-third of the meetings, you would be potentially triggered for this. We reduced that to one-quarter because the number of meetings changed. So it was meant to be non-punitive. This has been what we do every time. So what happens is every month we submit our commission attendance records. And then periodically, I think once a year, every six months, those get transmitted to the mayor who reviews them. You know, mostly people have very legitimate reasons for not being there. We've never triggered, at least in the commissions I've ever seen. I shouldn't say that for the whole city. Never is a strong word, but I've not seen it happen.

Any clarifying questions of the staff related to that section brought by the public speaker, by any other councilmembers?

I would like to ask a question. So it was not intended, we did not consider the reduction in meeting But we did want the attendance to be acknowledged as, and certainly now with only four meetings, mandatory meetings a year, attendance is important at every one of those meetings. But I would like to ask staff if there is a suggestion to amending it, given that that might be overly severe when it's one meeting and out of four,

I would offer that we could say more than one quarter if you wanted to change it a little bit more than we previously modified it. And that would be anything more than one, so two perhaps. So if we said more than one quarter. Okay.

I would like to suggest then that we do that. But no, there's no question. We discussed the importance of attendance and that we wanted that to be very clear to the Commissioners and again with so few meetings now. I think it really is even more important. So I'll mix up my comments and That is that In the staff report there were often references to that the ad hoc committee and staff recommended the reduction of Meeting how many meetings. And the reality is it really wasn't, I wouldn't want to be associated with having recommended that because in fact we, I think myself and, um, um, council member Eicher were both reluctant to limit the meetings so severely to only four meetings a year. But I, I, I think we accepted that it was a necessity, a necessity in our efforts to preserve all commissions, because there were some that would either be folded, combined, or eliminated entirely. And certainly, I'll speak for myself, I didn't want to see us lose any of our commissions. And as much as I also didn't want to see reducing so severely the number of meetings, I accepted that that was something that we had to do at this point. I also would like to point out that as it's stated in the staff report, that these actions are necessary given our budget constraints. I would like to just remind the community that this is just one of many impacts on our residents as a result of not having a successful sales tax measure. So we have had many reductions that have direct impact on our residents. I, having served for over a decade on a commission, value what the commissions do. I think it's been a positive aspect of the Pleasanton culture to have our commissions, and they've served an important role as ambassadors and our experts and liaison to council. And I'm disappointed that we've had to modify our commissions, but I'm glad that we were able to preserve all of them. So again, I wouldn't say we recommended these actions. We accepted the necessity of it. And that's all in my comments there.

Thank you. Councilmember Tessa, would you like to make the motion with the more than friendly amendment from staff?

Thank you. Yes, I would. I'd like to make that amendment that it's more than to address the legitimate concern that was brought up.

Okay. And just to clarify, your motion is for the entire consent calendar with that?

Really quickly, more than is actually already in. I just reread it. It already says more than one quarter. I apologize. Okay.

Okay. So just to clarify, your motion is for the consent calendar then with more than being emphasized, we'll maybe say like that.

If that's allowed that we don't have to separate that into its own action, that feels a little awkward. Should it be separate?

It does not have to be.

Okay. All right, then yes, that would be my motion.

Council Member Eicher, you were also on that committee. Do you want to second the motion for the consent calendar with that friendly suggestion of more than?

I'll second the motion.

Okay. We have a motion made and seconded. Any further comment before we take a vote? Okay. I'll just echo comments that our committees and commissions are an essential part of the relationship the city has with its residents. I appreciate that we are trying to have content driven meetings for our commissions and committees. so that they can bring their skills, talents and perspective to providing a better Pleasanton for all. So thank you for serving. As I said at the beginning of the meeting, we have 26 positions available for community members to be a part of the city. And I highly recommend you consider if any of them bring your interest to bear. And again, the deadline for filing is August 18th at 5 p.m. through the city's website. With that, we have a motion made and seconded. Roll call vote, please.

Council Members Testa? Aye. Eicher?

Aye.

Gaydos?

Aye.

Nyberg?

Aye.

Mayor Balch?

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

OK, thank you very much. We are now proceeding to be open to the public. So this is public comment on items that are not listed on the agenda. I like to read this at the beginning so that we are all on the same page. Good evening and welcome. This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the city council on any matters that were within the council's subject matter jurisdiction, but are not listed on the agenda. If you wish to speak for a matter that is on the agenda, please reserve your comments for when we get to that item. For members of the public joining us in person, if you wish to speak now or for a future item, please fill out a blue speaker card, they're located outside, and turn them into the city clerk. For members of the public joining virtually, please raise your hand using the raise hand feature or star nine on your telephone at this time. When the item number is called, you will be unmuted and your name will be called. I ask for all community members to be respectful and help maintain decorum. Speakers may have different opinions and we want to hear all perspectives and viewpoints. To that end, please no clapping, booing, or other disturbances. In the interest of time, if you agree with the speaker before you, you may simply say you agree and do not need to utilize your full time. If you want to show support for 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 your allotted time or public comment in total. Speakers are hereby limited to three minutes. Thank you for your cooperation. And our first speaker is Valerie Arkin, followed by Reena Gupta, followed by Carla Brown. Welcome.

Thank you.

Okay.

okay good evening mayor and council i'm valerie arkin former city council member and a 33-year resident of pleasonton i'm here tonight to just correct some misinformation that continues to be put forward in particular i know council member guidos has done it i i'm not sure about anyone else but it's regarding the east side property and its relationship to the housing element which was developed while i was serving on the council And I am saying all of this with the utmost respect to all of you up there. My reasoning in 22 and 23 when this was going on for not including this property was based on several factors. There's no infrastructure at the site, no nearby school, very limited amenities, and importantly, no proximity to a transit hub. Transit accessibility is a significant factor in determining the viability of affordable housing, and that is an integral component of the housing element. Traffic circulation was also a major concern, particularly without the El Toro extension, which, as you all know, has an estimated cost of over $100 million. This property had been a contentious issue with previous city councils before I had served, and I believe that further analysis was warranted. Just as a footnote, the Kewitt property on the east side was actually included in the housing element. There were other concerns as well, including the property's proximity to the airport protection area, as well as questions regarding water supply and safety, sewer capacity, and potential ground settling issues. Importantly, the Planning Commission recommended that the site not be included. City staff also recommended against including it. Because we did not need these units to meet our housing element requirements, I agreed with the decision to not include the site. At the same time, we identified housing opportunities throughout Pleasanton that allowed us to meet our obligations under state law. That housing element was ultimately approved by the state. It has also been stated that the city's decision regarding the Eastside property would be easier today if it had been included in the housing element, and that is simply not correct. Director Clark explained during a February 2022 council meeting that once a property is zoned for housing, it becomes much more difficult for the city to deny a project. She reiterated that point in a very recent council meeting. Once land is zoned for housing, developers have greater ability to move forward with development, which means the city council has less control, not more. So the suggestion that including the property in the housing element would have made the city's decision making easier today is in fact the opposite of what would have occurred. I feel compelled to correct misinformation when it is presented to the public, particularly when it concerns decisions that were carefully considered and made during my time on the council. I do wish you all the best of luck as you continue to navigate these challenging housing issues and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Reena Gupta followed by Carla Brown. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and all attendees. I'm Reena Gupta, candidate for Pleasanton City Council District 3. I believe democracy thrives when residents are informed, engaged, and heard. That's why civic engagement is at heart of my campaign. I listen, summarize, and carry resident voices to the city hall. In the last two weeks, I have collected 19 additional voices at the farmers market and through my website. These are resident voices, not necessarily my own positions. Residents from senior residents from Carlton Oaks and Pheasant Ridge requested for shade over benches at Fawn Hill Park on West Lagoon Road, as well as safer and more convenient wheels bus access. They said reaching existing stops near Valley or Bernal can be difficult and unsafe for seniors who do not drive. Residents can raise concern about bicycle and pedestrian safety, especially for children and asked for safer and more accessible ways to move around our community. On housing, some residents asked for more affordable housing, while others expressed concerns about location and impact of new development, including around Stone Ridge Mall. Residents raised concerns that roads, water, and sewer infrastructure are not keeping pace with development, and some questioned the overall pace of growth. Residents asked for adequate funding for libraries, parks, recreation, arts, and community programs, while others emphasized controlling spending and staffing costs. Residents are asking that council to take a clear stand regarding the proposed ICE facility in Dublin and its potential impact on Tri-Valley community. Residents continue to raise concerns about downtown vacancies and want concrete action to bring more businesses and activity downtown. These voices do not always agree, and that's part of civic engagement. My goal is to make sure residents have a way to be heard. Thank you to everyone who have shared their voice. If you'd like your voice to be included in a future update, please stop by at our Farmers Market booth on Saturdays or visit renaforpleasanton.com.

Thank you.

Thank you. Carla Brown. This is my last speaker card. If you would like to speak on items not on the agenda, please turn in a blue speaker card at this time. Welcome.

Good evening. Good evening, council. As a former city council member and former mayor, I watched in surprise and disappointment at the way a speaker was handled at a recent city council meeting. Sandy Yamaota is in her 80s. She walked slowly to the podium. She spoke in her opinion on a project that's being considered for the east side, Arroyo Lago. She ran over on time, but that evening so did many speakers that how wonderful the city council and staff had been with regards to the fires. Instead of having the same courtesy that was granted to those that were giving positive feedback to the council, she was truncated in her speech after three minutes. She tried to complete her final sentence. The gavel was slammed down, and you were heard on recording. Did you even understand what the subject matter was? I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe it, Mayor. She walked away and said, stop yelling at me. Is that really the kind of behavior this council is proud of? I will also hold you as council members involved as well. If you see your mayor acting in a way that is not becoming of your city council, perhaps it might be a time to step up. Because as a resident, the number of calls and emails I received on this issue alone was a great disappointment to me. I know that you have a large project

front of you for arroyo lago i know it's important i know you work very hard but let's not take it out on the residents who are here to share their thoughts thank you thank you okay that's my last speaker card if you would like to speak on items not on the agenda please approach the podium at this time mayor i'd like to respond to a public comment yeah please let me close public comment first okay is there anyone else hearing none seen none online virtual No additional speakers. Okay. We'll close public comment. Council Member Tussauds, you had a comment?

Yes. I would like to apologize to Ms. Yamamoto for not speaking up on her behalf because that was a hard interaction to watch. And it was clearly a very biased conversation. action against one speaker when so many others that particular night had been given the grace of running over their speaking time. So I apologize for not being more responsive at the time.

OK, thank you very much. We'll now move on to public hearing and other matters. It's 625, so we cannot take up item number two yet. We'll be proceeding to item number nine. Receive a presentation on debt financing regarding water improvement projects and adopt a resolution declaring the city's intention to reimburse expenditures related to capital improvement projects from the proceeds of tax exempt obligations. City manager.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council, in addition to our staff here this evening, our Finance Director, Susan Shea, and our Public Works Director, Soo Chin Young. We are also joined via remote by our financial advisors and our Bond and Disclosure Council. So by way of brief introduction, and I believe that they're floating around up there somewhere. Jaime Trejo is a senior management consultant with PFM Financial Advisors. These are folks that specialize in the municipal securities market, assisting public agencies with structuring and selling municipal bonds, helping their clients receive fair pricing for their bonds. David Farma is a partner with Jones Hall, Anybody in California who's ever done a bond financing knows who Jones Hall is. They're a prominent firm that works with municipalities all across the state on all aspects of bond financing. These two firms, I would hasten to add, were also a part of our team for the 2024 water revenue bonds. So with that, I will turn it over to staff.

Good evening, Mayor and Councilmember. Tonight, we will be providing an overview of the City proposed financing for our Water System Capital Improvement Program. Tonight, we are going to provide some background information and Director of Finance, Susan Sher, is going to share our financing options and we're going to talk about next step and staff recommendation. So the city water capital improvement project is driven by four primary projects. It's replacing aging infrastructure to maintain or improve system reliability and operability, improve water system capacity, comply with regulatory requirement, and also align with our One Pleasanton strategic plan goal of investing in our environment. Tonight action is to request council consideration to approve to establish the city intent to reimburse eligible expenditure for these capital improvement project with bond proceeds. This is an important financing steps that allow the city to move forward with eligible project expenditure while preserving the flexibility to reimburse those expenditure from the bond proceeds. In the past year, we have completed a robust water system management plan that built our 20-year CIP capital improvement plan. We have council approval to select enhanced scenario with a $73 million of CIP projects delivery over the five years. and with an expected $35 million of new debt that we will be inquiring in the next three years. With the expectation in 2026 for $15 million, in 2027, $10 million, and in 2028, another $10 million, a total of $35 million. For the 2026 water project scope, the bond proceeds will be used to finance all or a portion of the following improvement collectively referred to as the 2026 water projects. The projects that we will be funding would be water meter and advanced metering infrastructure AMI system replacement that is approved and award by council and is currently in implementation phase. The city groundwater supply project, which we have completed phase one feasibility study, and now we are into phase two design and phase three construction phase. The water system emergency power improvement program, which is currently in bid and award phase and the annual water distribution system improvement that is currently in planning and engineering phase and also any other improvement to the water system that is approved by City Council in the next three years. This is a breakdown of how we anticipate the 2026 bond will fund the four main projects that we have proposed under this bond. As you can see, for the four projects all add together, we roughly have about $56.5 million of needs. to fund all four projects. And this bond is a portion of the total funding, which is a total of 15 million. Just want to bring it up that the 2026 bond is not the only sole funding source for these four projects. These four projects are also funded by other sources such as 2024 Revenue Bond. the water rates grants that is also be supporting the projects. This slide shows the scope of the four projects. A lot of these projects are already very presented by council in the past. Like I say, the city groundwater supply project, we have completed the phase one feasibility study and now into phase two and phase three. This is to develop two new groundwater wells in partnership with Zone 7, including the transmission line and distribution system. The water meter and AMI replacement project is a citywide water meter replacement project. Water system emergency power, that is to upgrade our emergency power system at water pump station to improve reliability. and to ensure continuous operation during power outages and emergency and at last the annual water distribution system that is an annual investment to our water distribution system that is including installation of water mains valve services and items that is prioritized with street resurfacing projects Next, I'm gonna turn the speaker to Director of Finance, Susan Sher, who is going to share financing options and discussing about our different financing option.

Thank you, Xichen. Good evening, Mayor and council members. I will present the financing options. In working with the city's financial advisor, we consider a public sale and a bank loan or private placement with 20 and 30-year repayment terms for public offering and 20-year repayment term for a bank loan. The effective interest rates for those three options are projected to range from about 4% to 4.6%. For public bond sale, AA rating is assumed. This slide presents more details about the three options that the financing team evaluated. As you can see here, we have three options. We don't have the fourth option related to a 30-year bank loan due to limited capital markets for 30-year bank loans. For a $15 million public bond sale with a 20-year repayment term, the interest rate is projected at about 4%. The average annual debt service payment is about $1.1 million, and the total debt service payment is about $22 million. For a 20-year bank loan, the interest rate is higher, projecting at about 4.6%. The annual debt service payment and the total debt service payment are also higher than a 20-year public bond sale at about $1.2 million and $23 million. Basically, a public offering is the less expensive option. For a 30-year public bond sale, the interest rate is projected at about 4.5%. The annual debt service payment is about $920,000, and the total debt service payment is about $27.5 million. A bond functions similarly to a mortgage. With a longer repayment term, we incur higher interest costs. A 30-year bond is going to cost about $5.5 million more than a 20-year bond. In the staff report, staff recommend a 30-year repayment term to protect their service coverage and credit rating, including maintaining a sufficient cash balance. Utilizing a long-term repayment term will also provide us financial flexibility for unexpected capital needs. As we continue to implement the capital projects identified in the city's water system management plan, we may run into issues related to unexpected asset conditions and unexpected capital needs. having available resources to cover those cost overruns would be helpful for the city. The issuing costs are estimated to be about $189,000 for bond issuance and about $130,000 for a bank loan. In the staff report, we recommended utilizing an underwriter to market the bond sale. An additional cost of $90,000 is expected. These are all conservative estimates. The cost may be lower than what we are estimating. This month, the financing team will be meeting with S&P to attain a credit rating for the bond issuance. Staff will return in September to seek council approval for bond sale. Between September and October, the financing team will finalize the bond offering documents and money expected in the project fund by mid-October. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution declaring the City's intention to reimburse expenditures relating to capital improvement projects. This concludes our presentation and we are happy to answer questions. As the City Manager mentioned earlier, Jaime and David are also joining us remotely. They are available to answer questions as well.

Okay, thank you very much. Clarifying questions, Councilmember Eicher, we'll just go down the line.

Yeah. How long does it take to procure a bond?

It's about four months. About four months? Okay.

And once we have procured the bond, the funding that comes with it, what's the timeline on receiving those funds that come with it? Is that the four months?

Yeah, within that four-month timeline. We expect to receive the money by mid-October.

Okay. And then once we've gotten it, what is the anticipated disbursement timeframe looking like for these projects?

Yeah, for tax exempt bonds, we are required to spend about 85% of the bond proceeds in the first three years. That's the timeline that we are looking at. We can also incur costs prior to bond sale. That's why we are presenting a resolution to the council tonight. So that way we can start incurring costs and get reimbursed later on when the bond proceeds are received.

Okay. What are the risks that are associated with the public sale of bonds?

Usually the risk is pretty low because we are paying back the investors. As long as we generate revenues from the water system or from the rate payers, we should be able to pay the bond.

So it should be low risk for the residents of Pleasanton.

Yeah.

Okay. And in looking at the 2026 revenue bonds and I know that and this is probably a conversation for when we approve whatever the bond is going to be when we get there, as opposed to this, this what you're asking for here, but in looking at some of these items that we're looking at getting bonds to pay for, some of those items appear to have a 20-year or less life, which to me doesn't make sense getting a 30-year bond on something that's going to have to be replaced before we pay it off.

Well, in general, what we are funding, the life of the assets are longer than 30 years. I, you know, I would defer to Sicheng to provide a little bit more detail. So the 30-year proposed term is consistent with the life of the asset. Of course, a 20-year payment term would also work, too, and you would save some interest costs, but at the same time, you may not have the financial flexibility to meet unexpected capital needs and also protect your debt service coverage.

Okay. Yeah, the thing that sparked me was the water meter aspect. And I know we have an unusual circumstance where the water meters lasted 10 years shorter than anticipated, which put us in the bind where we have to do something to take care of that. But I'm also looking at if we had taken a bond out, we'd still be paying for those 10 years. That's not a question. No, actually I'm getting into commentary. So that's all the questions I have. So that was my thought process on it.

Thank you. Council member Tessa clarifying questions.

Yeah, I just have one. I kind of touched it already, but what struck me is the 30-year versus the 20-year. And you just addressed that the 20-year saves some interest costs. It kind of saves a significant amount. And I really, could you break up the difference in the cost of what the 30-year versus the 20-year will cost us? You said that it could leave us less. Well, I'll ask you to explain that again further. It seems to me the 20-year would be a more efficient choice.

Yeah. And actually, Jaime, would you like to respond to this question? And then I can add more comments.

Good evening, members of the City Council. My name is Jaime Trajo, PFM Financial Advisors. You're correct. Issuing bonds over 10 or 20 years will produce savings. You will pay less in interest for a bond if you pay it off over 20 years versus 30 years. The reason why we proposed 30 years or we discussed 30 years several fold. One, it matches the life of the assets. Two, in what financial flexibility. So for example, in 2023, you had less revenues available to pay debt service than your debt service payment. So your net revenues were less than one times. In 2025, due to the rate increases, that has significantly increased. So now your coverage is over three times. So you have three times as much revenue to pay your debt service. I'm talking about net revenue, revenue after you pay your expenses. uh in fiscal year 2026 that could potentially decrease from 7.8 to 5.5 these numbers are still preliminary but you see there's been some fluctuations in your net revenues and if the net revenues decrease it will also decrease your debt service coverage so for example nationally For S&P, the median coverage ratio is 2.3 times. So you have 2.3 times net revenues of your debt service. And with the issuance of this bond and the 2028 bond, that coverage level will drop. It could drop as low as 1.5 times, depending on how you structure the debt. It can drop to around two times. So decreasing your debt service coverage is a credit negative, and if your net revenues decrease even further than anticipated, it could limit your ability to issue the next series of bonds. So we want to preserve the financial flexibility for the next series. Additionally, if we issue 30-year bonds, we have the option to refinance these bonds in 10 years. In 10 years, we can decide, okay, we can now pay these off in 10 years versus 20 years. So we are not locked in to the 30 year term at this time. We will have the opportunity to refund them in 10 years. And at that point we could reduce the maturity down even further.

Thank you for that explanation. Was staff going to make any further comments?

Yeah, I was going to mention that we are still in the initial stage of implementing the capital projects identified in the water system management plan. As I mentioned earlier, we may have cost overruns that we did not anticipate. With a longer repayment term, we'll have more resources to cover those costs. That's another reason why we are considering a 30-year repayment schedule. We also have two more bond issuance in the next two years. If our cash balance looks sufficient or it's going to be built up to a point that's going to meet the standard of rating agencies, we can consider utilizing a shorter repayment schedule for those bond issuance. That's another option that we can consider in addition to what Jaime mentioned about refinancing your debt in about 10 years.

Okay. Lots of good feedback on both of those. But I did ask to, could you break up out the savings of the 20-year versus the 30-year?

Yeah. It's about 5.5 million, close to 5.5 million in savings. Okay.

Thank you for that. And then one more. If there's refinancing in 10 years, the origination costs and all the financing costs factor in as well, right? So.

That's correct. in 10 years, if the savings are at least, you know, let's say 3% of the refunded amount, net of the expenses, that would be the minimum threshold to refund the bonds.

Thank you. That's all I have.

Okay. Thank you. Vice, Council Member Nyberg, sorry. Thank you.

Just a couple of questions. It was mentioned that this, the request was a resolution declaring the city's intention to reimburse expenditures. And I know that the entity to be reimbursed is the city itself. Could you explain how that is?

Dave, would you like to respond to Council Member Nyberg's question?

Yes, thank you. Dave Fama from Jones Hall. We're the bond counsel for the city. And what this is tonight, it's a resolution that is required for tax exempt rules by the IRS. And it doesn't obligate you to issue the bonds, but what it does, it sort of protects you that if you have expenditures on the project that you incur before the date the bonds are issued, it allows you to reimburse yourself. So the city would be borrowing money through the bond issue and the proceeds ordinarily would go to a project to be built in the future. And what this resolution does is it preserves the tax exempt nature of the bonds and allows you to reimburse for costs that you've incurred The way it works is it's hard costs incurred up to 60 days prior to tonight. So you'd have a period from 60 days prior to tonight to the date of issuance of the bonds. If you spend any money on hard costs for the project, you'll be eligible to recover those once the bonds are issued from the bond proceeds. So it's just a good thing, and it's not a commitment to issue. It's just a preservation of an ability to reimburse yourself under the tax exemption rules.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, and I understand that is the main purpose of what we are considering tonight. Exactly. Speaking about the water meter replacement project, The city has submitted claims to the manufacturer, and I guess we probably anticipate some kind of resolution on those claims. This probably doesn't assume a level of claims, but can we say anything about that?

It's really too early in the litigation to speculate on what, if any, we'll be receiving from that.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. And... When the staff report says the city would benefit from working with an underwriter in a negotiated sale, I'm no expert on underwriting or why that is and has to do with sometimes with volatile markets. Could you explain why that's a benefit to the city?

Yeah, do you want me to take that, Susan?

No, Jaime, go ahead.

Yeah, the reason why we're recommending a sale here with an underwriter is there's kind of two options. In public bond sale, there's competitive and negotiated. Here, the underwriter performed extremely well for the 2024 bond sale, and the market has been fairly volatile this year. We have a number of deals as a firm that we've kind of pulled from the market due to volatility. It's a lot of political, economic turbulence in the market. So we've had to pull deals and go day to day. And having an underwriter allows you to be nimble and flexible when to sell the bonds. So an underwriter essentially markets the bonds to investors, gets investors to buy the bonds, and whatever investors don't buy, the underwriter will buy those bonds from the city.

Okay. All right. Understood. Thank you for that. And just one more question. You had answered Councilmember Testa's questions about 30-year versus 20-year and why there are benefits to going with the 30-year approach. To me, that sounds like a pretty forward-looking risk management strategy, and I agree. That is a good thing. Well, I guess that's not really a question. It's just an observation. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Given that we've adjusted our water rates and we anticipate that funding the enterprise much more fully than it had before, is there a concern that paying essentially on the 20-year bond at $1,097,000 a year versus $915,000 a year on the 30 is problematic somehow? You know, my I think of this in terms of a monthly mortgage like anybody, because it just makes sense. And the difference between those two is the difference between making paying $91,000 a month for a 20 year or $76,000 a month for a 30 year. And that makes up to 5.5 million. I mean, I think I guess my question is, with all the increases that we passed on to the ratepayers, do we anticipate the enterprise will be able to fully fund this debt service into the future at either the 20 or the 30?

Yeah, with the rate increase, we expect sufficient revenues to cover the debt service payment at the 20-year level as well. We're billing a slightly higher interest rate, and just to make sure that we have enough money from the rate study. And also, the market can be volatile. We will never be able to predict what's going to happen with the interest rates. So the answer is yes, we have sufficient funds to cover the cost. The reason we are recommending a 30-year repayment term, it's mainly due to the reasons that Jaime mentioned earlier. In 2023, we were not able to meet our debt covenant, so we are trying to build up their service coverage and then the cash balance as well to be at a higher level so that we have more flexibility. If the council decides to go with a 20-year repayment schedule, what we can do is that in the next two bond issuance, we're going to reevaluate to see how cash flow looks like, how their service coverage looks like. We may have a longer payment term for those bond issuance. Our initial analysis was to be conservative. For the first issuance, go with a 30-year. For the next ones, we can re-evaluate. If the council wanted to do a 20-year for this bond issuance, then we'll re-evaluate whether the other two bond issuance can utilize a longer repayment term or should, if needed.

Right. My second question would be if we, let's say we were to go with the 20 year, I know you mentioned on the 30 year, it can be essentially, I'm going to call it refinance because that's essentially what it is and you can pay it off quicker and move down to a different 20. But if we were locked into a 20 year bond, could we at some point extend that out or redo that for more years or does it only go one direction?

Jaime, can you respond to that question? I think the answer is yes, you can re-evaluate and refinance as well.

Yeah, I believe, and Dave can correct me here, as long as you show savings, you can move the maturity out as long as you show savings overall to the bond. But it would be very rare to do that, particularly for a AA-rated credit to push back the debt.

Understood. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. I appreciate it.

Okay, thank you. I understand the item that's before us for the resolution to pay back, but I do want to keep going on this 20 versus 30 year. And my question is related to the water master plan that justified the water rates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that had a 6% assumed debt level in it compared to what we anticipate as, I think on one of them, 4.6 or so, correct?

That's correct.

So when I do poor math up here, and I was looking for a battery for my calculator for a bit, so I apologize, a 6% at $15 million versus a 4.61% at $15 million is $26,000 difference, right?

There is sufficient revenue to cover the debt service. In the rate study, that annual debt service payment, it's estimated about 1.1 million, which is the 20-year repayment term that, you know, we are talking about here.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah. So so because the actual interest rate we would observe when we place the debt would be less than what we've assumed in our water rate study and rate plan, we'd be able to this is the question we'd be able to utilize that additional interest rate savings to possibly do a 20 year and save the city $5.5 million, correct?

Right. That's correct. We can cover the debt service payment.

Okay. All right. I think that's it for my questions. Any further questions before we go public comment on this item? Seeing none, okay, we're going to public comment on item number nine, the water debt. I don't have any speaker cards for this item. If you would like to speak on item nine and have not turned in a blue speaker card, please approach the podium at this time. Hearing none, seeing none, any online at this time?

None.

Okay, public comment is hereby closed. We're bringing it back to the council for action or comments and or both. Councilmember Eicher, you let us off. Any comments, actions, or motion?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to accept staff's recommendation.

Okay, any further comments while you have the floor?

I think it's essential that we're going to need to pass bonds so we can get these projects moving. Delaying doing this is just going to make things a little bit more challenging for us in the future, where our rates should be able to, at this point, easily cover the bond if we get it. And I think that staff's done a good job articulating what the money's going to go for. So thank you.

Okay. Council Member Tester, you're next.

I have no comments.

Would you second the motion?

Yes, I'll second the motion.

Thank you. Council Member Nyberg? Comments?

Yes, just a comment that the existing plan that the city is following is to use a series of bond issuances that's been established in the past. So this is moving us down that path. Nothing unusual about this particular topic that we're discussing. use of a risk management strategy to, you know, justify a 30-year repayment period instead of a 20-year, I find is an excellent use of risk management. And I commend the staff for looking at those types of risks as we face them and which also leaves flexibility in how we may respond to, you know, any future, you know, adverse occurrences. So, I do support the recommendation. Elliot Kaye. The motion, okay. Vice Mayor?

I support the motion. I will make the comment, though, that I understand we may need to have more bond issuance in the future, but the way I'm calculating the math is essentially if we pay $16,000 more a month over 20 years, we save $5.5 million. Given that there is sufficient money in the enterprise to make that payment, I think it's worth the discussion about considering a 20-year issue as opposed to the 30. I'd be curious to hear other people's comments about that, but given what we've passed on to our ratepayers and how well that seems like it's going to be funded, that seems to be good math in my opinion but I'll defer if anyone else wants to pick up on that given there's three indication of support by three council members for the 30

Okay, any further comments? No. Okay, I'll just close out. So the item before us is the repayment resolution that's obviously before us. But I'll lend support that we're going to probably need a robust analysis of a 20 versus 30 year plan. Because when I do the, just like the Vice Mayor mentioned, when I look at the water system plan that we put together with a 6% assumed, depending on what we're able to obviously lock this interest rate in with the sales. will provide us some headroom to be able to possibly absolve ourselves of that $5.5 million that a 30-year would have provided. I calculate it as only about $26,000 a year between the assumed rate and the strike price rate. the coupon rate and so I would think we could save the money so that will come back for a future item so we'll get some more robust analysis about that we have a motion made and seconded we'll call vote please council members Eicher aye

Testa? Aye. Gaydos?

Aye.

Nybert?

Aye.

Mayor Balch?

Aye.

The motion passes unanimously.

And just, thank you very much. And just like that, we are one minute away from item number, from seven o'clock, which will allow us to go to item number two. So I'm just going to talk slowly and let us all sit for one minute. And we've achieved seven o'clock. Okay, with that, we are going to resume item number two, which was on consent. It's consent part two. It's the only item. So just to help everyone follow along, we've just completed item number nine. We're going to slide in as 9b, item formerly known as item number two from our consent calendar, which we had noticed at 7 p.m. This is introduced a revised ordinance number 2308. of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton approving, one, installation of the proceedings for annexation, P250115. Two, general planned amendments, P250116. Three, rezoning, P250118. Four, a planned unit development, PUD 154, planned for residential development with related on and off-site infrastructure. And five, a vesting tentative subdivision map, track 8423, associated with the Arroyo Lago residential project. The revisions add two new conditions of approval for wastewater treatment facilities, facility analysis and funding. So that is the item that we're sliding in as 9B. With that, staff, do you have any presentation that was on consent? Anything at this time? Nothing further? Okay. Clarifying questions by council members.

Can I? Mayor? Yes, please. I would like to pull it from consent. I would like to hear that presentation.

I think staff just said they don't have a presentation. All right.

Well, I'm sure we can come up with one, Mayor. So the, I, if through the chair, if I may very briefly, I think that as explained in the staff report, Owing to, I'll just call it a miscommunication, there were discussions that took place between the applicant and DSRSD prior to the last meeting that had to do with the the need to fund the preparation of additional utility analysis to determine impacts on the district's system, that being the sewage treatment system. In addition, at the same time, we had understood that the applicant had agreed to mitigate any impacts that were going to be identified by that analysis and funding for the study would be provided to DSRSD. The two additional conditions that are being added this evening essentially are intended to memorialize that. I think that the city also understands from our discussions with DSRSD that there are some additional concerns that aren't spoken to directly here that have to do with the capabilities of a sewage lift station that would serve not only this project but potentially other development out there in East Pleasanton if additional annexations take place. And so over the last, gosh, week, week and a half or so in discussions with the general manager from DSRSD, We've also resolved to have our staffs work together to see whether or not there may be ways or opportunities to look at potentially accelerating forward some additional improvements that are in the city's capital improvement program in future years that would be contingent upon the increase in sewer rates that is currently going through the process now. Again, these are the only changes. The discussion at the council meeting on July 27th was pretty robust, covered a number of topics in relation to alternative utility plans, offsite improvement costs related to El Charro. and so on, this would not change any of that as it was approved by the council. It would merely add these two conditions. These two conditions have also been discussed with the applicant who has concurred with having them added to the entitlement. So with that, I or staff that is here this evening, happy to answer any other questions from council.

Okay. Clarifying questions by council. Council member Testa, since you have the floor.

Thank you. Yes. So I do have a couple of others. First of all, on that, when we heard this last time, I was concerned that there were unresolved issues. So once again, there was a significant unresolved issue that apparently staff knew about but I don't think council got informed that there were there was a letter from DSRSD I don't remember hearing about that so I'm concerned that we're looking being asked to vote on projects that are still have outstanding issues the other is This isn't just about the amendment from the DSRST concerns. We are addressing the other layers. Isn't that correct? Approving the other points of the approval? That's a question.

I'm not sure that I understand the question, Councilmember Testa, but owing to the fact that there are two additional conditions of approval that are being added that were not a part of the information that was presented to the Council on July the 27th, it does require the reintroduction of the ordinance that the Council acted on on July the 27th. So what is before the council this evening is the, I'll call it the reintroduction of the ordinance that essentially duplicates what you did on July the 27th, with the exception of the addition of the two conditions of approval that are set forth on page two of the staff report.

Okay, good. So in order to preserve my opposition of the underpayment on the El Toro Road, we would need to break out the vote on this again. Is that true?

Yeah, so to clarify, I believe what Councilmember Testa is referring to is that on July the 27th, there was a discussion among the council with respect to action on the matter itself. And then there was some separate discussion that took place that had to do with a recommended Plan B with respect to certain infrastructure in the event that there was an inability to secure a utility easement from Zone 7.

And then also the amount of... City Manager, that isn't what I was referring to. I'm sorry.

Okay, so Council Member Testa, if you could clarify, please.

We had a separate vote that I was able to indicate my opposition to the underpayment of El Charro. And I want to preserve that... that opposition in this. So how do we pull that out of this motion that approves all of these points of the project?

If I can ask the city attorney real fast and city manager, one of the things I noticed from the item noticed here is I think that council member Testa, if I recall correctly, voted in against the pre-annexation agreement. And that is not listed as one of the five items here.

Okay, so that's not currently a part of this.

Staff is looking at it now. If we could just give them a moment, please.

So that's correct. The only item before the council is the ordinance. The monetary contribution for El Charro was part of the pre-annexation and development agreement. That's not being amended, and so the council's action on that is not being revisited at this meeting.

So Councilmember Testa, did you hear that?

I did. And thank you. That clarifies my concern. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so with that, did you any other clarifying questions? Councilmember Tessa, while you have the floor?

No, I do not.

Councilmember Eicher clarifying questions.

I have none.

Council Member Nyberg? None.

Vice Mayor? None. Thank you.

Okay, we have two speakers on this item. If you would like to speak on item number two, or item 9B, formerly known as item two, please turn in a blue speaker card at this time. Our first speaker is Carla Brown, yorably followed by Mr. Rich Harklett. Three minutes, please.

Such a friendly place to come back to. Thank you. Good evening City Council, City staff. I'm speaking today on agenda item 2 as mentioned. Before serving on the City Council for 12 years I was a founding member of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan Task Force and that's why I'm speaking here today. So in 2015 the city was bombarded with a thousand residents against the development in East Pleasanton and I want to make sure you know that because many as I see staff and of course council were not in place at the time. It was labeled the largest development in the history of Pleasanton. And between the drought and the size of the project, by a raise of hands, we had a thousand residents come to multiple meetings. You've never had a project like a thousand people angry at you, and I hope you never do. So, on a raise of hands, everyone was against East Pleasanton development projects, except one person, and that was the developer, Steve Dunn. In response, in 2015, based on the vast number of residents, Mayor Thorne proposed putting the entire project on hold, and the council at that time agreed. I'm providing staff with a copy of his guest editorial for you to review. As you go through this process, I know, Annexation can take a while. But while developing the 2024-2031 housing element, staff used a survey, the city council, and they created a rubric score saying where is a good site. Again, East Pleasanton was ranked poorly and the result was a zero score. So for many reasons for that, as mentioned by former council member Valerie Arkin, but also the Livermore area, airport protection area, referred to as APA, in the general plan, States there will be no residential land use within the APA and this site is right next to it East Lakes that may come before you is within the airport protection area you would violate if you approve that your own your own general plan and So as we look forward, also, the East Pleasanton Task Force hired a geotechnical engineer, and he stated that you're going to have to wick that property because it's so wet. Remember, you're right next to lakes. So the property would have to be wicked before housing could be constructed. So I'd like you to tell me, would a new dream house under an airport flight plan, which is used 24 hours a day, subject to hardscape settling near possible sites for PFAS contamination such as the Operation Services Center, the Chain of Lakes, the Garbage Station, First Street traffic, and a road that hasn't been completed. That means Arroyo Lago should be a zero.

Thank you very much for your time. Okay, Mr. Rich Hartlett, welcome. Three minutes. This is my last speaker card on this item. If you would like to speak on item number 9B, formerly known as 2, please approach the podium at this time.

Welcome. Mayor Balch, council members, thank you so much for letting me speak. I'm Rich Halkett. I'm currently president of the DSRSD board. I want to have two points, and I'll be fast. We've been working together for 50 years. We are joined. So when we put in letters and we want to get stuff into the record, it's not an oppositional thing. We're working together. To be blunt, when you flush your toilets, they go to the same place when I flush my toilets. So it's a vested interest to work together on this stuff. So we appreciate that you reopened the record and you got our two stipulations in. I want to thank you for that. We do need to work on this lift station, which I know is not tied directly to this project, but it's something that needs to be addressed. When something goes wrong in a lift station, bad stuff ends up on the streets. And when bad stuff ends up on your streets, we're going to get blamed for it just like you. And we don't want that to happen. So I want to encourage us to be very collaborative on that project. Let's get it funded. Let's get it built. We don't want the bad stuff to happen right in the middle of your sports park. Anyway, thank you so much for addressing our concerns. We appreciate it. We're all in this together, so we're going to get through this. I understand this project may not be the project you all want, I've been through several of those in my past, and we're just going to have to actually work the problem and get it done. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. This is my last speaker card on item number two, formerly known as item number two, item 9B. Do we have any comments online?

We do. Sarah Callahan.

Hi, good evening. My name is Sarah Callahan, and I'm here on behalf of East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, which includes 2,000 members who live and work and raise families in Alameda County. Tonight, with the Council considering whether to initiate annexation of the Arroyo Lago project site, approve the revised conditions of approval, and approve the project entitlements, I wanted to add our voice. THESE ACTIONS ARE PREMATURE BECAUSE THE CITY HAS NOT RESOLVED CRITICAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FROM THIS PROJECT COMBINED WITH DEVELOPER STEELWAVE'S PROPOSED EAST LAKES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. THE EAST LAKES WOULD BE LOCATED NEXT TO THE AROYA LAGO AND WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL 350 TO 700 RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO THE AREA. In 2025, the City Council discussed both Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects and directed staff to process annexation and development of these two projects. In July, the City approved the CEQA addendum for Arroyo Lago, which did not resolve these issues. Tonight's hearing adds new conditions of approval for the applicants to participate in wastewater treatment analysis and funding for the Arroyo Lago project because the Dublin-San Ramon project Service District's master plan did not address the wastewater treatment capacity for the annexed project sites. But the condition of approval doesn't require analysis of the wastewater treatment impacts from the developer's other projects, the East Lake projects. If the East Lake site is also annexed, it will create more strain on the Water Service District's wastewater treatment infrastructure that must be addressed in the new wastewater analysis. The City has not done an adequate job of addressing the cumulative public health and environmental impacts that Arroyo Lago and East Lake projects will have on the Pleasanton community. The Council should push pause and ask staff to revise the project's condition of approval and address cumulative wastewater impacts before moving forward with Arroyo Lago. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Any further comments online?

None.

Okay, we had an additional public comment in the room come in. Steve Riley, three minutes.

Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. I'm Steve Riley, the applicant for Arroyo Lago with 330 Land Company. I just wanted to make a couple points to clarify things. Number one, we have already signed an MOU with DSRSD regarding this issue, and we've already actually paid for the technical study that they've requested. So the conditions of approval, I think, as somebody mentioned, it's just a memorialization of something that we've already agreed to. With regard to some of the other comments made by the earlier public speakers, I would like to note that in addition to Arroyo Lago, I also was part of the development team for the villages of the quarry project. At that project, it only went to the planning commission. We had zero public opposition to that project at Arroyo Lago, which was heard three weeks ago, I believe there was two public speakers that spoke in opposition of the project and probably a dozen speakers that spoke in favor of the project. So we feel like whatever happened five or 10 years ago is somewhat irrelevant to today. And today the projects in East Pleasanton have essentially received overwhelming support for approval from the citizens of Pleasanton.

Thank you. Okay. That's my last public speaker card. If you would like to speak on item nine B formerly known as item two, please approach the podium at this time. and no additional online. Okay. We'll close public comment and bring it back to the council staff. If I can just ask a clarifying question to start us off, uh, clearly there, uh, as I recall from the last time we handled this matter, there was a lot of work still to do, including negotiating with the county for our property tax sharing agreement, Rena credits, and, and quite a lot to do. So the concept that, uh, more is to come is a expected status, correct?

Correct. It's very standard that there are post-entitlement approvals that are required that typically are conditioned as part of the entitlement to require further study, investigation, design level. Including building plans and engineering plans. Correct. That's not necessarily part of this more macro level approval that happens with the approval of the subdivision overall. Yes, there is more work to come. That does include additional study and design.

Okay. And then my second question, just help us off. Uh, I, I have heard this before, but just to clarify a second subsequent project, we have no application for that. We don't, I mean, we are obviously in conversation, but we, we don't anywhere in our city. We don't hold up one application from being reviewed or processed, uh, when another one might be adjacent to it. Correct.

So for the record, we actually do have an application in hand, although that was received very recently. So within the last month, I think, it was submitted. And long before, obviously, this project was taken through. And it will be evaluated on its merits, correct? Correct. And so that project will come with the current thinking is to do a comprehensive EIR for that project that will look at the cumulative impacts of it and all the prior projects that have come online before it.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

okay so we'll uh bring it back to council council member tessa you let us off on this item do you want to start us off anything further here well i would i would um question the

suggestion that business as usual when apparently my understanding is on this the letter from DSRSD came in before we were hearing this item on what was it the 27th and we weren't told about it and so I think that's very different than just an expectation that other things may come up and

the my other point well I'll just I'll leave it at that and I have no other comments okay councilman Riker I had a couple questions but you asked them both I really don't have any comments other than I would Support moving forward with staff's recommendations, so I'll make a motion.

Okay. We have a motion made. Council Member Nyberg?

No comments, really. This seems to me like a do-over from a few weeks ago, so I can't see myself opposing it. I'll second the motion. I'll second the motion.

Okay.

Vice Mayor?

No comments. I'll indicate my support for the motion.

Okay. I'll just continue to say that, you know, the choice between us is the county plan that the developer or property owner already has, which contains a leach field and sewer treatment plant right next to our drinking water supply. That's the county plan approved or a city plan which has them connecting to city utilities. and does address the topography change elevation change between them and the adjacent neighborhoods so those are the choices between us here we are okay we have a motion made and seconded roll call vote please this is item 9b formerly known as item 2.

Council members Eicher?

Aye.

Nybert?

Aye.

Gaydos?

Aye.

Testa? Aye. Mayor Balch? Aye. The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. That concludes Item 9B, formerly known as Item 2. And with that, we are at 724, so we are after 7 o'clock for item number 10. It is quite lengthy, but it's adopt a resolution to deny applications for a PUD, and I'll just say it's at 231 Old Burnell Avenue, skipping the stuff in the middle, but Diego can help us out and introduce the full item, please.

Thank you. Good evening, City Council. Before you... Apologies.

Thank you for that.

AS MENTIONED, GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. BEFORE YOU IS ITEM 10 ON THE AGENDA. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO DENY APPLICATIONS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM MIXED USE TRANSITIONAL DISTRICT TO, EXCUSE ME, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE TRANSITIONAL DISTRICT TO A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 6,160 SQUARE FOOT commercial office building in the Downtown Realization District, and three, a PUD development plan, PUD 152, to construct a three-story, four-unit residential building with the units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements located at 231 Old Brunel Avenue. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO AND WAS ANALYZED BY THE FOLLOWING, GENERAL PLAN WITH THE LAND USE MIX USE, ZONING WITH THE DESIGNATION OF MIX USE TRANSITIONAL, THE DSP KNOWN AS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MIX USE TRANSITIONAL, THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES, THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, THE PLEASANTIN MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ASSEMBLY BILL AB 2097. The 21,381 square foot subject lot is located along Old Burnell Avenue between Augustine Street and Peters Avenue. The lot is generally flat, consists of 34 protected trees, and is currently developed within approximately 6,100 square foot two-story multi-tenant commercial office building measuring approximately 25 feet in height. The structure is set back approximately 20 feet from the front property line. The proposed project proposes to demolish the existing office building and construct a three-story, four-unit residential building consisting of three studio units, A, B, and C, each being 430 square feet, unit D being 13,626 square feet, with an approximate height 34 feet. The project also proposes two parking spaces, but is invoking AB 2097, which prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum parking requirements for most development projects within half mile of a major transit. As noted, the four-unit residential building is located on a 21,381-square-foot lot. The project proposes driveway access from Augustine Street and consists of the following setbacks. Front, 9 feet when 10 feet is required. Rear, 37 feet, 6 inches. Side setback, a minimum 6 feet when 7 is required, and a combined setback of 24 feet, 10 inches. The three studio units are located along the west wall of the building with the larger unit D encompassing the remaining of the building and three floor levels. The proposed FAR is 71%. Although the project invokes AV 2097, it includes two parking spaces within the proposed car garage. The project proposes, as mentioned, a 34-foot height as measured for the PMC. The project also proposes traditional architectural modern elements. These modern farm styles is characterized by wood siding, gable roof form, and contrasting natural stone veneer. Additionally, the design incorporates vertical wood siding, oyster stone veneer tiles, and a black standing seam metal roof. Detail trim elements include black door and window trims and black painted guardrails for the second story balcony. The building's south facade features a combination of roof forms, including sloped and flat roofs, and articulation to break massing and columns between floors. The west elevation rises three stories, with the third story slightly stepped back from the first and second floors. No additional articulation is provided between the lower floors, such as belly bends or step backs. Here we see additional renderings of the proposed design. Before you is the left side, which is the west side of the project. Here we have the east side of the project. And lastly, we have the rear side. The site's general plan designation is mixed use. In the downtown, the mixed use land use designation permits residential uses located behind commercial uses. The allowable density for mixed-use residential is 20 units per the acre with a minimum of 10 units for this particular site. The project proposes four units. FAR is established per the DSP, which is 125 percent. Project proposes 71 percent. The site's DSP land use designation is mixed use transitional as outlined in the agenda report. The proposed project is inconsistent with the DSP. Project conflicts with DSP MUT policies. The proposed project is a 100% residential development in an area intended to support a mix of commercial and residential uses. The project does not provide the following. Required street fronting commercial space. Flexible ground floor commercial space designed for future service uses. Retention of existing commercial square footage. commercial frontage that maintains an active downtown streetscape, The proposal results in a 100% net loss of commercial space, contrary to DSP objectives supporting downtown economic vitality, residential densities below the DSP and general plan expectations for downtown infill development. Staff find the projects inconsistent with DSP goals and policies intended to, one, preserve downtown commercial viability, maintain small-town scale and character, and encourage context-sensitive infill developments compatible with downtown standards. With respect to height and massing, the proposed building, as mentioned, is three stories and 34 feet tall. DSP standards for residential uses in the MUT district limit buildings to two stories and 30 feet with the maximum height of 30 feet. Exceeds the DSP residential height standards by four feet and one story. The building would also exceed the DSP transition standards by being more than 15 feet taller than the adjacent residential structure. Excuse me. With respect to design, the DSP emphasizes pedestrian-orientated architecture and compatibility with downtown character. Staff identified several inconsistencies, including exclusion of storefront-style frontage or active street-facing design, primary entrance orientated toward the driveway rather than the public street, Limited integration of landscaping and pedestrian-scale architectural elements, absence of traditional downtown residential features such as porches, articulated facades, and street-facing entries. Staff find the project does not further DSP goals to reinforce downtown's pedestrian-oriented design character, preserve the scale and massing of surrounding residential neighborhoods, support compatible streetscape enhancements, and visual transitions. The site is subject to the 2023 objective design standards for multifamily housing in the RMCC and MU zoning districts. The property is zoned MUT, which allows residential and mixed-use development as part of the PUD application.

The applicant has requested deviation from non-compliant objective design standards.

As further described in the agenda report, staff identifies 33 ODS standards that are either not met or unable to be verified due to incomplete plans. The following is a summary of those ODS standards not met. With respect to site layout and access, project access is oriented primarily toward the driveway on Augustine Street rather than the frontage along Old Burnell Avenue. Plans do not clearly demonstrate pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk to unit entrances. Building orientation does not support an active pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Setbacks and height, as mentioned, the proposed setbacks are nonconforming. Nine foot front setbacks, six foot west side setbacks. ODS sloping plan required a greater setback adjacent to residential properties, nonconforming by approximately nine feet along the west side setback. The proposed height is proposed at three stories and 34 feet per the ODS and DSP standards limit residential buildings to two stories and 30 feet maximum. With respects to building design and architecture inconsistencies, building orientation and active frontages, visible and accessible primary entrances, architectural and articulation and facade modulation, building massing and volume, high quality materials and transparency requirements. With respect to open space and landscaping, the project's required to provide open space of 750 square feet per unit. Private open space is not provided for the three studio units. Plans do not clearly identify tree removals versus tree retains, vehicle gate design details, compliance of bicycle parking areas, And utilities and service areas, the project plans do not yet demonstrate compliance with stormwater requirements, sewer and utility standards, refuse enclosure location standards, and refuse areas are proposed within 50 feet of the primary entrance, contrary to ODS requirements. The table before you, also included in the agenda report, provides a summary of the project's conformance with applicable site development standards per the DSP, MUT, and ODS. As illustrated, the project does not conform to the front setbacks, the side setbacks, the private open space, and the height measurements. Inclusionary zoning ordinance per PMC section 1744040A. The IZO applies to all new residential for sale and rental projects, including mixed use residential and non-residential projects consisting of 10 or more residential units or parcels. The IZO does not apply to the proposed four unit residential project. However, the project is required to pay affordable housing fees pursuant to the city's master fee schedule. Certificate of Appropriateness as required for PMC Chapter 1874. The project seeks approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Unless the applicant can establish that there is unnecessary hardship in the strict application of Chapter 18.74, it may be denied or delayed if one, the proposed demolition of a structure would be inappropriate or inconsistent with the purposes of the PMC Chapter 1874 or that the proposed demolition would have an adverse effect on adjoining property or on the build context or that the proposed future use and design of the property would be inconsistent with PMC Chapter 18.74 or the adopted guidelines. Staff find the proposed future use and design of the property would be inconsistent with the applicable guidelines and standards. As required per PMC 18.68, the project seeks the City Council make the PUD findings pursuant to Sections 18.68.110 through 7, as seen here on this presentation slide. Per staff's detailed analysis and the agenda report, staff believe the proposed project does not satisfy the PUD findings. Planning Commission is in action. As mentioned in the agenda report, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 27, 2026 to review the proposed project and provide a recommendation to City Council. In addition to the applicant, two members of the public spoke. Two speakers, an adjacent neighbor to the north and a local resident on Augustine Street, expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns regarding the number of requested deviations from applicable standards and policies. The characterization of the project as a single unit residence rather than a multi-family or mixed-use development, future use of the building, following ownership changes, and potential impacts on parking, privacy, sunlight, and property values. After listening to public testimony and discussing the project, the Commission voted to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-14, recommending the City Council deny the applications for rezoning a Certificate of Appropriateness and a PUD Development Plan, file its case numbers P26-0360 and PUD-152. CEQA does not apply to projects that the City rejects or disapproves. Should the City Council wish to approve the project, staff would evaluate the project for compliance with CEQA and return to the City Council at a future public hearing for formal consideration and action. Staff recommendation, adopt a resolution to deny applications for one, a planned unit development rezoning P26-0360 to rezone the subject parcel from mixed-use transitional district to plan unit development mixed-use transitional district. Two, a certificate of appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,100 square foot commercial office building in the downtown revitalization district. And three, a PD development Plan PD 152 to construct a three story four unit residential building with units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements located at 231 Old Burnell Avenue. That concludes staff's presentation and is available for questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. So we'll go with clarifying questions. Councilmember Nyberg, I'm starting with you. I'm going this way, though, so don't let me forget about your vice mayor.

Okay. Oh, gosh. The Planning Commission requested that the council determine that none of the seven findings can be made. And the seven findings are called out specifically. I think they're in the presentation.

Correct. Then not all seven could be made.

Just suppose that council found that a few of them could be made. Not saying that's going to happen, but what happens then?

So in general, all of the findings need to be made in order to approve the project.

Understood. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. The Planning Commission voted three to one to recommend the City Council deny these applications. Do you recall? I didn't watch the Planning Commission meeting. Do you recall the one having some opinions about that?

from staff recollection regarding the support for the project was for the for the need of the residential housing units and finding that the justification to be made regarding housing okay all right

AB 2097 is mentioned as the applicant proposed to use the provisions of that law, which is a fairly new law as I understand it. In the trench of housing laws that the legislature has passed over the last five, six, seven years. That would preclude the city from imposing minimum parking requirements due to proximity to public transit. Public transit in this case being the A station, railroad station. Despite the fact that it just has a few trains going through in the morning and a few trains coming through at night with passengers, it nevertheless qualifies for transit-oriented development. Could an applicant that owns this property seek immensely higher densities and other benefits from that law?

Not AB 2097 specifically. However, there are a number of other state laws that would allow, with very limited discretion on the part of the city, a significantly higher density project to come forward that was consistent with the zoning and objective standards.

Okay. And in that case, as this council has faced in other proposed projects, that could be required approval by council ministerially, depending on the project.

Yeah, it would depend on the nature of the application. But, you know, as you know, just down the street, the project at 4884 Harrison actually was approved without council approval ministerially as administrative action pursuant to SB 35 and SB 330.

Did this applicant also own that property?

The same applicant does own currently the property down the street. There is a revised application that's being processed for a, I think it's an eight-unit townhome project on that site versus the high-density housing that was proposed.

Yeah, that other high-density. How many fewer units is the applicant proposing there as opposed to the previous project?

If I remember correctly, it was over 80 units in the... I can't remember. It was significantly more eight versus, I'll say, some tens of units on the other side.

Okay. All right. I have no further questions right now. Thank you. Okay.

Councilmember Testa, clarifying questions of staff?

I'm wondering, was there any communication from the applicant with staff trying to work? I'm surprised that they couldn't achieve their goal with a better understanding of how it could work into our very protected downtown. I mean, as is implied by Councilmember Nyberg, four units compared to what could happen instead but done right to fit into downtown. Was there working together? Did they come to staff during the process?

Yeah, we had, I'll say, innumerable conversations with the applicant in an effort to produce a project that balanced what they were seeking to do, which was a sort of a large, multi-generational, single-family home. a modest number of additional smaller units to help to improve the unit count and to potentially meet our housing and density goals for the site and to incorporate the, if not the letter, but the spirit of a lot of our downtown guidelines around commercial frontage, pedestrian orientation, building massing. And I think we described, we tried not to go into too much painful detail, but there were a number of different iterations of the project over time, some of which included some commercial space, some of which didn't. And we just ultimately couldn't get there and couldn't get to a place where staff could support a project that was close enough to what the applicant wanted to propose. So here we are. We don't generally like to bring projects forward that we can't recommend approval of. That's not our preference. I think we tried, and I know Diego and Derek and other staff worked very hard with the applicant to try and come to some consensus on design that could sort of meet in the middle in terms of an acceptable configuration of the project overall.

Okay. All right. I wasn't sure you were done there, so I'm sorry. Okay. I have no other questions. Thank you.

Okay. Council Member Eicher.

Thank you to Council Member Nyberg and Council Member Testa because you both asked my first two questions. Do we know the maximum number of units that that site could hold?

I believe it's 10.

Yeah, it's 10 based on the site size and the 20 unit per acre density.

And the other question I have is if we deny the applications, what do you foresee as next steps? What does that look like in your mind?

So denial of a project typically would send an applicant back to the drawing board to come back with a project that was, you know, potentially more consistent with the downtown specific plan and would meet more of the standards. So obviously to the extent that the council would have thoughts or comments or direction on the sort of project you would like to see come back, that would be probably helpful to the applicant. Or they may simply choose not to move forward with any project at all on that site and either dispose of it or propose something completely different.

Perfect. Thank you.

Okay. My questions were all answered. Thank you. Okay. So I have a few follow up to what was just asked about, if I may, staff, which is I understand it's 20 years an acre per the zoning right in the downtown specific plan, of course. But my question is, is with the half mile from the ace station and state law the way it is, Could they not come back with a transit-oriented development with no parking that could be much more dense than that?

Yes. Is the long story short? I mean, I think the, I won't call it the worst case, but certainly a scenario would be a project coming in and executing the sorts of rights that exist, as we saw with the 4884 Harrison Street, and that was 100% affordable housing. That confers even significantly more density and additional height allowances and things like that, which would not apply to a market rate project. So you could certainly see a very different project come forward with a lot more units and a lot more density on the site.

And no parking.

And no parking.

Okay. So I'm just going to list some things and ask a question at the end. If we denied this as well, there's an element I've noticed in the presentation that it actually may not be dense enough, right? Can you maybe talk to that real fast?

It's a little complicated. The downtown specific plan does establish a minimum density of 20 to the acre. In looking back at some of our past practice in terms of how we've applied that density in other projects through the PUD process, we've generally allowed some, we have historically allowed some deviation from that. and to dip down below the minimum. There's rarely a controversy about doing less than the minimum. But that was really one of our challenges, I think, with this project was the delta between what was being proposed and the minimum that's required. And your question actually made me realize I misspoke a little bit earlier. Ten units is the minimum that could be built on this site. The upper end could be higher.

OK.

The upper end could be higher. So again, not dense enough. Could be much different if it was affordable, because then it could receive state density bonuses and parking waivers. Let me ask you this. We developed the objective design standards because state law then took away subjective approvals. This isn't the housing site, but it's a residential site, so we're not in the same element with the PUD before us. But Zoning matters, right, in our city if we don't follow our own zoning. So we factored, I'm asking staff, we factored in the not dense enough conversation question we've just had, the zoning element of zoning matters just as a principle, ACE train stop, state laws, and objective design standards, and the staff recommendation to deny it, right?

Correct. And I will say this applicant was willing to go through a planned unit development application process, which is discretionary by the city, knowing that they would likely deviate from a number of the standards. And so that's a tool that exists in our municipal code to allow, I'll say, flexibility for different and creative and other sort of not quite, don't quite fit in the box sort of projects. That's allowable under the PED process, and that's the process that the applicant was willing to go through, which is why we were able to entertain some degree of deviation in different cases. So it wasn't a matter of, well, you just don't comply, so straight to denial for you. There was an avenue by which we could look at, you know, requests to perhaps have a little extra hide or, you know, modify the setbacks if the project warranted it, and as Diego went through at length, there was just an overwhelming number of areas in which this project did not conform to policies and to standards that exist within our various planning documents.

Okay. I think that's my questions at this point. We'll see if we come back around. Any further questions before I go to public comment? Seeing none. Okay. Hearing none. Okay. Um, the way this works, I don't know if we have them here, but, uh, because of it is an appellant appellant has 10 minutes public comment is three. And then the appellant has a rebuttal of five minutes with that is the appellant here at this time.

Um, actually it would be the applicant and I do not see him in the room.

I thought they were appealing the decision. Oh, I see. Thank you very much for the clarification. Okay. So, we don't have the applicant? Seeing that? Okay. Public comment? If you would like to speak on item number 10, please approach the podium at this time. I have no speaker cards. Welcome. Three minutes, please. No worries, we'll wait for you to get there, no problem. She'll start the clock in just a second.

Hi, my name is Kara. I'm a local resident and I oppose the project due to inadequate parking, the massing being too large and it not complying with the mixed use zoning requirement. In previous council meetings it seemed like the zoning was not going to be able to change and so I am just questioning how many more times do we need to meet to turn down this project? That's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And if, yeah, if we could have you fill out a blue speaker card, if anyone else is in the room and would like to speak on item 10 related to the old Burnell Avenue project, please approach the podium at this time. Seeing none in the room, I'm closing in the room and any online. None online. Public comment is hereby closed. Give me a second here. Public comment is closed. Bring it back to council. Council Member Nyberg, questions and comments.

Yeah, I don't recall this project coming to this council too many times. Has it come to this council before for a yes or no decision?

This project has not come before council, no.

Okay. I know, well, yeah, there have been discussions that the applicant has had with some council members, probably some planning commissioners, but yeah, okay. Thank you. Just want to make sure my memory serves.

Okay. You started us off. You have the floor. What would you like to do, Council Member Nyberg? Oh, my gosh.

Yeah, I'm very sympathetic to this applicant, but I mean, there are just so many findings where standards are not being met, general plan requirements are not being met, downtown specific plan goals are not being met. Considering that this project or this property is so close to the A Station and thus qualifies to become a transit-oriented development, which means largely ministerial approval for the city for all such projects that are within half a mile of the A Station, I'd like not for this property to end up there. The owner of this property is states that he grew up in Pleasanton and cares about the city. That's why he saved, according to him, the Harrison Street property from massive development. I'd love for him to have the opportunity to address some of these issues. staff findings and recommendations and come back with a better plan that stands a much greater chance of passing muster. Earlier when we talked about the general plan in regard to downtown, I said that council members and commissioners should think long and hard about voting against staff recommendations that are rooted in the general plan. And yeah, I have to stick with that. There are so many here. I can't. make any findings of the seven. Move staff recommendation. Yeah, so I'll go along with staff recommendation much as I really, you know, sympathize with this applicant and hope he comes back with a better project. So, yeah. That's your motion? I'll make the motion. Staff recommendation. Staff recommendation.

Thank you very much. Council Member Tess, you're second in the shoot on this one.

I agree with Council Member Nyberg. I absolutely would like this applicant to come back, work with staff and come back with something that really honors the downtown location that they want to live in. I applaud. I absolutely applaud staff for standing up. for our downtown specific plan and the standards that the community has asked for. So I believe that something wonderful can come of it. And I would ask staff to continue working with them and look forward to seeing a project that is more appropriate for our downtown. So I will second that motion.

Okay. Councilmember Eicher. We have a motion and a second.

Yes. I concur with Councilmember Nybert and Councilmember Testis. As Councilmember Testis said at our last council meeting, standards matter. And in this case, there are seven objective areas that we have a considerable number of issues that aren't being met to meet our standards. And I think we, you know, if this were one in two minor issues, it would probably be a no-brainer and fly. But I think there's too much, at least for me to feel comfortable advancing this project. I do hope the applicant comes back with something that better suits the downtown area and better suits that can meet his family living arrangements at that location. So that's where I stand and I'll support the motion. Vice Mayor.

So I want to say and I wish the applicant was here tonight to hear this. There are in my There are objective reasons we can say no, and there are subjective reasons we can say no or yes. I think we owe the applicant a little more in terms of feedback on why we are headed the direction to deny their application. There are obviously very specific things about setbacks. no plan on where trash cans are going to be and water issues however I want to say that you know some of the standards that are in the downtown specific plan that staff is saying this doesn't comport with are very subjective and it leaves people I think a little hesitant to propose something that They put significant resources into trying to build generational family housing. And this is literally in our view across the street of where we are right now. And my first thought when I looked at it is, that's a beautifully designed piece of property that I wish I could build for my family and have my children and my grandparents live in. I think it needs to be a little more respectful of the height to the neighbors and consistency with surrounding. Any new house isn't going to look like things in our downtown that are 100 and something years old. If our standard is you have to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, what do you have to build a house that looks like it's ready to be torn down and rebuilt? at some point we have to be a little fair to people wanting to put something new and i think they did a good job of conceptually putting something out there if there is just i think small tweaks to this i think the biggest one is the second and third story um you know and and it's how it fits with the houses around it but i don't want to signal that i'm unwilling at least as a council member to be a little creative and working someone to put you know a residential know development downtown especially in light of the fact that frankly as councilmember nybert said we sort of kind of owe the guy one more or less for not you know for buying a piece of property that could have had 80 units on it and apparently saving an 80 unit no parking development right near the ACE train, which for the record, we shouldn't even be considered within a half mile transit because no one uses that anymore. Parking lot's empty. Unless you work in Silicon Valley, if you do, you'd probably telecommute. That parking lot's now empty every morning. So we're putting square pegs and round holes here sometimes and stopping people from putting round holes and square pegs where maybe they could fit. So I think we need to be a little more friendly to things when we're imposing subjective standards on someone who's trying to do the right thing by the city. So I hope the applicant listens to this. I hope they can work with staff and come back with a PUD that maybe is more consistent with the neighbors as far as setbacks and a forward thinking plan. But I do not want this vote to indicate that, you know, we're going to be rigid and we're going to, you know, not, be practical and just open-minded about what we're doing downtown. I mean, I think any one of us would would would want to put something like this in you know whether it needs to be a more spanish looking house or whatever it is we can get feedback but i hope they do a session with the planning commission i hope they do a proposal and can get some feedback and we can work with them and make something work because this is the kind of housing people are going to want to build to be able to afford to stay in our community with their family and i think we need to be careful about signaling opposition to it based on subjective standards of a specific client. So those are my comments.

OK, thank you very much. I'll round out a lot of feedback obviously being given here. The site and all sites within the half mile of the train station definitely are going to be challenging, which is why many of us in the past have said one size does not fit all for state housing law. But that being said, for the particular project in front of us, I really do support reinvestment in the downtown. I think that this presents elements I actually do like the farmhouse style, the gabled roofs. There's a lot of design elements here as well. So I'm kind of leaning into what the vice mayor has said related to that. However, my decision isn't based on the personal architectural preferences I have. It's based on our general plan, our downtown specific plan, and our objective design standards, which I can't make the findings based upon it. Some specific things that concern me for the applicant is on page four of nine of the staff report, The application has not demonstrated conformance with city standards for clean water, sanitary sewer connections, utility enclosures, and potential ponding on the city street. So until those are resolved, I can't pass go here. So I do hope that we get a redesigned proposal that can address those challenges and then work with us to go forward. I realize that we may have a challenge ahead of us if an affordable housing site comes forward with no parking and some other challenges mentioned. But at least for this project in front of us here, that's where I stand as well. So I'll be able to support the motion. Okay. We have a motion made and seconded. Roll call vote, please.

Council members Neibert. Hi, Testa. Aye. Gatos?

Aye.

Eicher?

Aye.

Mayor Balch? Aye. The motion passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. That concludes item number 10. We are moving right along. Let me find my schedule. And we have nothing listed. So no city manager update, no... Special meeting. OK. With that, thank you very much, community, for showing up for National Night Out, again, to support our first responders. Right after our little fire, they appreciated getting to be able to see all of you and to show your appreciation for the amazing work our first responders do. With that, Vice Mayor, can you take us out?

Yes. The Pleasanton City Council adjourns this special meeting with a tribute to our nation's men and women serving in the military, with gratitude for every United States veteran who has bravely answered the call to serve. Further, we wish to honor the memories of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in conflicts both past and present in defense of our country.

Thank you very much. This special meeting is hereby adjourned.