CITY OF PLEASANTON
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
February 1, 2022
This meeting was conducted in accordance with Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 and AB 361 COVID-19 pandemic protocols.
REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Brown called the teleconferenced regular meeting of the City Council from various remote locations to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Narum led the Pledge of Allegiance and provided opening remarks.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown
Absent: None
VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
City Clerk Jocelyn Kwong provided directions on how members of the public may participate in the video conferenced meeting.
AGENDA AMENDMENTS
Mayor Brown switched agenda Items 10 and 12 due to the anticipated length of discussion.
Mayor Brown reported the scheduled closed session was canceled.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Sharon Piekarski requested clarity over Item 4's stated intention of switching from a bicycle-specific path to a mixed-use path design. She reported speaking with Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano who clarified it is a raised bicycle path separated from a pedestrian walkway.
In response to Mayor Brown, Traffic Engineer Tassano confirmed Ms. Piekarski reporting on their discussion is accurate and the intent is to provide a separated facility.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Arkin advised she will recuse from voting on Item 3 due to the proximity to her home of actions P21-0144 and P21-0132. She added PUD-139-01M reflects a change in colors changed after a lengthy discussion. She reported spending time with Michele Hodge earlier today, along with Councilmember Testa, to compare the old and new materials. She reported the new material is very similar in color only with more of a metallic sheen and texture.
Councilmember Testa echoed Councilmember Arkin's comments and reported Ms. Hodge assured them the finished project will look fantastic. She advised it is very similar to what was approved.
Councilmember Testa moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Narum seconded the motion.
In response to Councilmember Narum, Councilmember Arkin confirmed it is a recusal.
Mayor Brown thanked staff for providing clarity on a project in Item 3 through a site tour to help visualize the proposal.
City Manager
1. Approved meeting minutes of November 2, 2021
Appoication to calved tel rain 9 cal usine Grant program (7 20242) ad of ted authorizations
Community Development
3. Actions of the Zoning Administrator
Approved and authorized City Manager to execute the Funding Agreement with the Alameda County Transportation Commission related to grant requirements and reimbursements related to the West Las Positas Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Project, CIP No. 17567; Allocated $717,000 in Measure B and $150,000 in TFCA funds for a total of $867,000 towards CIP No. 17567
5. Adopted and waived full reading of Resolution No. 21-1269 regarding the additional expenditure of $160, 103 of Altamont Open Space funds for consulting services with the Alameda County Resource Conservation District for prioritizing land-acquisition based on wildlife presence/activity and habitat connectivity adjacent to interstate 580 and determining the expenditure is consistent with the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement
Engineering
6. Accepted public improvements performed by Ross Recreation, Inc. for the east and central playgrounds at Ken Mercer Sports Park and the playground at Vintage Hills Park, and public improvements performed by Park Planet for the playground at Tawny Park, CIP No. 21745; authorized the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion; authorized transfer of the remaining balance of $176,491 from CIP No. 21745 to CIP No. 22745, the Annual Playground Renovations
7. Approved and authorized City Manager to execute an amendment to the task authorization with Pakpour Consulting Group in the not-to-exceed amount of $36,915 to complete the design and prepare biddable construction documents for the Val Vista Underdrain Improvements Project, CIP No. 21457, increasing the total task authorization amount from $74,480 to $111,395 Operations Services
Approved continuation of Local Drought Emergency
MOTION: It was m/s by Testa/Narum to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended and as noted. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
oj Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 16 - February 1, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS
10. Approve a Downtown Parklet Grant Program to assist businesses approved to participate in the Downtown Parklet Program
Economic Development Manager Lisa Adamos reported this item was directed by Council to create a proposal for a Downtown Parklet Grant Program to help businesses with the costs of installing a parklet. The Council approved a Business Assistance Program in April 2020 to provide relief to local businesses impacted by the pandemic, including the element of a Business Support Fund. $3 million was placed into a special fund to provide 0% interest, unsecured short-term loans to independently or locally-owned businesses. She added the City has awarded $1,336,500 from this fund for 115 Pleasanton businesses, with $584,000 of this sum going to 43 downtown businesses.
Economic Development Manager Adamos advised staff recommends allocating up to $250,000 from the fun for a Downtown Parklet Grant program based upon the number of downtown businesses operating a temporary pop-up during the pandemic. Staff anticipates $250,000 being sufficient.
Staff researched comparable programs in other cities and found the amount proposed is consistent, along with the eligibility requirements and restrictions. She advised the grant amount would be up to 50% of the total cost with a maximum of $10,000. She reported the program will begin on March 1 with applications accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The program will end either on March 1, 2023, when funds are exhausted or at the City Council's discretion.
Eligibility criteria will be similar to the Business Support Fund such as the parklet approval by the City, location in the Downtown Commercial District, a City-issued business license, being in good standing with the City including demonstrating compliance with the County's health order and being either a dining or retail establishment. She added businesses are not eligible if they are corporately owned chains or franchises, or home-based businesses or hotels.
Eligible expenses include furniture, umbrellas, or other City-approved weather protection, lights, heathers, construction materials, installation, and architecture/design services. Ineligible expenses include business furniture not associated with parklet permit requirements, unapproved façade, or branded structures.
The grant application process will include receipt of parklet and encroachment permits, a completed application, and documentation of expenses. She reported the parklet application process is now open and applications will be reviewed by staff and expects a two-week turn-around for the review.
She advised the Economic Vitality Committee supported the grant program and some members suggested expanding the program City-wide. She reported staff notified all downtown businesses that had temporary pop-ups of this meeting's discussion of the proposed grant program while the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA) also sent notifications. She reported staff recommends the Council approve the Program, allocate up to $250,000 from the Business Assistance Program Fund for the grants, and provide direction on whether to explore expanding the Program City-wide.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Ms. Adamos confirmed the parklet program application became active online based upon the program as approved by Council in December 2021 and further clarified in January. Staff is still working with the architect on the pre-approved design with an expected completion date of late February or potentially early March. Deputy City Manager Pamela Ott clarified the design review portion of the program is what is currently active. She added when non-design review applications are ready for submission there will be a quick process because the design work will have already been done on the applicants' behalf by the City.
City Council Minutes Page 3 of 16 February 1, 2022
In response to Councilmember Balch, Ms. Adamos clarified the $10,000 sum is consistent with other cities which often range from $5-10,000.
In response to Councilmember Balch, Deputy City Manager Ott advised the design review application fee is $250 and confirmed the City is waiving the first year's license fee as part of the parklet program.
In response to Councilmember Balch, Ms. Adamos advised similar grant programs cover things like umbrellas, lights, and heaters.
Deputy City Manager Ott corrected her earlier statement by reporting the design review application fee is about $325.
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Ms. Adamos clarified the $20,000 is based on the type of parklet the City has done in the past. She is not aware of what the costs were of some of the more elaborate temporary pop-ups. She reported 22 downtown businesses applied to have a temporary pop-up so this number was used as the anticipated applicant number when arriving at the $250,000 figure.
In response to Councilmember Narum, Ms. Adamos clarified reimbursable operational expenses refer to lighting and heating and not business operational costs such as serving food and regular cleaning.
In response to Mayor Brown, Ms. Adamos confirmed if the furniture is approved through the parklet program, reimbursement would be eligible through the Grant Program. She advised business signage and logos on umbrellas would not be approved for the parklet program so they included the restriction in the Grant Program; Community Development Director Clark confirmed the restriction.
In response to Mayor Brown, Ms. Adamos confirmed the maximum of $10,000 would be the same whether the business' parklet covers one or two parking spaces. Deputy City Manager Ott clarified a parklet covering two parking spaces would be considered one parklet and not two parklets.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Maurice Dissels reported the City parklet from 5 to 6 years ago was not as elaborate as the new ones will be. He noted the cost of raw materials has quadrupled over this time. He agreed with the grant covering fixtures and heaters.
In response to Mr. Dissels, Director Clark advised it would be a policy question whether or not to include expenses incurred building a previously existing parklet that has been refurbished to meet the specifications of the new program. Economic Development Manager Adamos added the materials would be eligible for reimbursement so long as they are approved for the new parklet program. Deputy City Manager Ott added the goal is to make parklets more easily accessible to any businesses wanting one.
Andre Pegeron expressed support for the Grant Program, stating the City's government should be using funds to help maximize downtown businesses. He suggested a parking benefit district where downtown parking charges could be used to beautify downtown. He advised the logical extension of giving half the parking space to businesses is to give half the street to them so people can socialize and spend money, using bollards to limit motor vehicle traffic. He noted loud, dangerous, polluting cars should not inhibit residents' enjoyment of downtown.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Testa expressed pleasure that the City will be offering this Grant Program commended the recommendation's flexibility. She added she supports extending the grants beyond downtown and increasing the amount available if the Council agrees with her. She advised the choice to use the City Council Minutes Page 4 of 16 February 1, 2022
excess funds in the Business Support Fund is appropriate, but noted they are General Funds. She reported speaking to Director of Finance Tina Olson about the possibility of using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, stating the Grant Program is an appropriate use. She added having a similar discussion with her peers at a California League of Cities meeting and suggested having these funds specified as being a part of the City's ARPA funds.
Mayor Brown requested Economic Development Manager Adamos reshow the three things they will be voting on so the discussion can stay on-topic.
In response to both Councilmember Testa and Mayor Brown, Director of Finance Olson confirmed the $8.5 million in ARPA funds have been allocated evenly between Fiscal Year 2021/22 and 2022/23 and one eligible use is to replace lost revenues. She added help for small businesses like this is qualifying projects. She advised it would be acceptable to target $250,000 of the FY 21/22 funds for this project.
She clarified it can offset the losses of the City by being directed to the businesses. She added ARPA is General Fund money and it is acceptable to specify some of it is targeted for this program.
Councilmember Testa moved to support staff's recommendation with amendments to extend the program to businesses outside of downtown by adding an additional allocation of $100,000 from the Business Assistance Program Fund.
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Councilmember Testa confirmed it would be $250,000 for downtown parklets and $100,000 to be used elsewhere in the City.
Councilmember Arkin seconded the motion. She advised everything looks great and noted her agreement with the eligible expenses and extending the program beyond downtown because other businesses have also suffered during the pandemic. She agreed with Mr. Dissel's comment about prior expenses being potentially eligible. She requested staff see if they can do more with retailers, noting another City gave residents gift cards for local businesses.
Councilmember Narum expressed support, echoing the wise addition of non-downtown businesses.
She echoed Councilmember Arkin to find potential additional programs for retailers. She expressed her eagerness to see what Main Street will look like with well-designed parklets and commended how quickly staff put the program together.
Councilmember Balch advised he supports the $250,000 sum presented by staff but is concerned they would be giving $100,000 to non-downtown businesses because he does not know the basis of the figure. He advised he would be more comfortable if staff could come up with this figure similar to how the City Council and EVC were told by Economic Development Manager Adamos the basis for the $250,000.
Councilmember Balch advised non-downtown businesses do not often have a similar setup as the downtown businesses for being in a private parking lot as opposed to a street's public right-of-way.
In response to Councilmember Balch, Deputy City Manager Ott confirmed the nature of outdoor dining outside of downtown is different because it is generally on private property. She advised there is a separate process for this through the Community Development Department for this type of outdoor dining. She advised staff will have to do additional work to figure out how to apply the parklet program's concepts to the current outdoor dining on private property process.
Councilmember Balch expressed support for the Downtown Parklet Grant Program and advised the City is also providing businesses with a cost-saving pre-approved design. He advised he would support a similar program outside of downtown but would like additional clarity to ensure its success. He advised the current motion would provide money at a worthy goal but without a plan. He requested an City Council Minutes Page 5 of 16 February 1, 2022
amendment to the motion to stick to staff's recommendation, including direction to staff to return with a plan for outside of downtown.
Mayor Brown advised she feels similar to Councilmember Balch. She explained adding permanent parklets downtown is a big program and she would like to try it to see how it goes. She noted downtown involves using the City's right-of-way and parking spaces for the parklets whereas a City-wide program would include a different configuration. She stated she would support staff coming back with a plan for the rest of the City.
Councilmember Testa noted the areas outside of downtown should have also come forward tonight.
She advised other restaurants around town are also valuable to the City and this program should have been ready. Councilmember Testa stated she would be agreeable to the friendly amendment if Councilmember Arkin is but stated she does not think it is necessary.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Councilmember Arkin advised an extra $100,000 for a parklet or expansion of outdoor dining if unfeasible is something she supports wholeheartedly. She noted some would argue the pandemic has hit even harder outside of downtown. She reported she did not want to wait six months but would be agreeable if this proposed program could come back at the next meeting.
She stated this should not be difficult. She advised staff may have a more reasonable financial figure in mind.
Mayor Brown advised $5,000 will not get someone far in outdoor dining design. She cited Eddie Papa's American Hangout as an example where there is already outside dining and expansion could only be into the parking lot.
Councilmember Arkin reported Eddie Papa's did expand its outdoor dining during the pandemic and his expenses should be reimbursable just like Mr. Dissel's. She advised she would support the motion as it is while directing staff to bring back a comparable program for businesses outside of downtown at the next meeting.
In response to Mayor Brown, Councilmember Testa advised she would prefer it not come back to City Council and noted she and Councilmember Arkin are attempting to be agreeable.
Councilmember Arkin advised it does not have to be $100,000 and staff can look at the figure. Mayor Brown clarified $100,000 is in the motion.
Councilmember Arkin advised this addendum can come back at the next meeting. She noted she does not want to wait to see how well the downtown parklets work because it is months away so it would be unfair to non-downtown businesses.
Interim City Manager Brian Dolan advised it is unreasonable to expect a proposed program to be completed by the time the agenda packet for the February 15 meeting is released on February 8. He explained the March 1 meeting would offer better potential.
Councilmember Balch advised he cannot support a motion for $100,000 for a theoretical program. He noted he would like to understand a program and advised $100,000 would account for only 10 potential non-downtown businesses. He requested not deciding this from the dais and letting staff come up with a program. He explained staff was directed to create the Grant Program in December 2021 and did it pretty quickly. He recommended staff to come up with a plan for how to effectively distribute $100,000 of public money, or have a different recommended amount based upon data. He expressed confidence staff could do this expeditiously.
City Council Minutes Page 6 of 16 February 1, 2022
Mayor Brown requested Councilmember Testa bifurcate her motion to reflect the three staff recommendations individually. Councilmember Testa agreed. She advised it is irresponsible to say businesses outside of downtown could evaluate their needs and past outdoor dining expenses.
Councilmember Arkin agreed with the bifurcation and restated her second for the recommendations to approve the Downtown Parklet Grant Program and allocate $250,000 towards it. She advised these are public ARPA funds being used for their intended purpose.
Councilmember Narum advised she agrees with Councilmember Balch. She clarified no one is questioning aid for restaurants outside of downtown. She clarified they are seeking a non-downtown program. She noted they do not know how many restaurants there are to base a dollar figure on. She advised it is different because the dining is on private land and the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements may be different. She agreed with the bifurcation because the downtown components are ready to be set in motion.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Deputy City Manager Ott advised some downtown restaurants like the SideTrack Bar + Grill are applying for different kinds of outdoor dining permits not included in the parklet program. She reported statt is working with Vic's All-Star Kitchen to create something akin to a parklet. She advised Vic's is taking up private parking spaces and not the City's. She explained the intent is to work with them to find an answer as they are a downtown business, and staff will be looking for areas where there is some leeway. She advised she would have to look deeper at Side Track's situation but the intent is to help as many downtown businesses as possible participate in the parklet program.
MOTION: It was m/s by Testa/Arkin to approve the Downtown Parklet Grant Program with an allocation of $250,000. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilmember Arkin requested an amendment to the non-downtown motion removing the $100,000 figure and directing staff to create a funding estimate.
Councilmember Testa advised the City Council should not be making a motion without the $100,000.
She noted she has heard no support to make the motion tonight. She advised the City Council should withdraw the motion and direct staff to return with a program for non-downtown businesses as soon as possible, preferably in the next one to two meetings.
Mayor Brown explained the City Council needs to make a motion for the third component of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Testa explained that providing direction does not need to be a motion.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Interim City Manager Ott advised there has been extensive discussion this evening and it would be helpful to have a motion for clarity.
Councilmember Arkin moved to direct staff to return to City Council, with a goal of March 1, with an expanded City-wide Parklet Grant Program. Councilmember Arkin advised the amount of funding should be a staff recommendation. Councilmember Testa noted it could be a higher amount if it is considered in this form. Mayor Brown noted they can discuss the cost when the proposal returns.
Councilmember Balch requested an amendment that the return date can be at staff's discretion given the heavy workload the City Council has asked for, leading to four meetings in February.
City Council Minutes Page 7 of 16 February 1, 2022
Councilmember Arkin suggested amending her motion to specify March. She advised it is unfair to keep the non-downtown businesses waiting. Councilmember Testa seconded the motion with March as the target date.
MOTION: It was m/s by Arkin/Testa to direct staff to return to Council, preferably in March, with an expanded City-wide Parklet Grant Program. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
11. Overview of City's Water Conservation Program and provide direction on the City's Water Efficient Lawn Conversion Rebate Program
Managing Director of Utilities and Water Services Dan Repp reported on the water conservation services and rebates available to customers. He stated the City provides general WC customer assistance, water-efficiency outreach, educational events, a Controller Assistance Program, free indoor water-efficiency devices such as aerators and low-flow showerheads, and free water conservation lavatory signage for commercial customers. He added the City is also working with regional programs including Zone 7 Water Agency's high-efficiency clothes washer rebates, weather-based irrigation controller rebate, and its Water-Efficient Lawn Conversion (WEL) Program rebate. He added all of these rebates are funneled through City staff. He added the City's WEL rebate supplements Zone 7's WEL rebate. He noted the City also has a water-efficient irrigation rebate for commercial irrigation customers.
Mr. Repp stated the WEL Program's goals are to improve water efficiency by using drought-tolerant plants in outdoor landscaping, encourage additional environmentally friendly gardening approaches, enhance the Zone 7 WEL rebates for customer motivation, and having converted sidewalk visible gardens act as inspirational demonstration projects for the community. He noted the funds for the program are public grant money so the City needs to see a benefit for these funds.
In June 2021, Zone 7 increased the rebate to pay up to 50% of the cost up to a cap of $2,000 for single-family residential customers and $6,000 for commercial, industrial, and multi-family customers.
He added the City's rebate for non-dedicated irrigation metered residential customers is 25 cents per square foot, up to 50% of the total cost with a cap of $250, with 50 cents per square foot and $3,000 cap for dedicated potable irrigation metered customers.
Staff is presenting two options for consideration. The first option is to retain the existing WEL rebate.
Presently staff promotes, but does not require sustainable practices of lawn conversion, and the City and Zone 7 rebate terms allow customers to select their lawn conversion method. Under the first option WEL rebate amounts would remain unchanged.
The staff-recommended second option changes the WEL rebate to require sustainable practices and increases the amount of the rebates. He added this will help the City meet its Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 goals and help with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm- water pollution control plan and Urban Water Management Plan. The environmental benefits include protecting groundwater and surface waters through the elimination of herbicides, eliminating additional landfill material from removing the scraped-off method of lawn, preserving the potable water supply, protecting and attracted pollinators and birds, and potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration with compost and mulch applications.
Mr. Repp stated the proposed required sustainable practices include using sheet mulching to remove lawn, adding compost, including native plants, cool-season planting, and adding mulch as a top layer.
Staff is proposing raising the cap for residential customers up to $500 at 50 cents per square foot and City Council Minutes Page 8 of 16 February 1, 2022
increasing dedicated irrigation meters up to $4,000 at 75 cents per square foot. He stated this is a substantial amount of money as an incentive, noting it would be on top of Zone 7's rebates. He added the city funding levels came after discussion of how to best balance the operating costs to the Water Utility while also ensuring customers have an added enticement to participate. There are also tax implications for customers if the benefit exceeds $600 and a cost to the City for providing the documentation to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Mr. Repp reported there will be no additional funding required for Fiscal Year 2021-22 with staff- recommended Option 2, but it would require an additional $15,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund starting with FY 2022/23. This funding level will accommodate 80% of the highest number of applications received or 56 residential and three irrigation customers. He stated the $15,000 sum was selected by looking at the highest number of participants the City has seen weighing a balance of not being too heavy on costs while providing a good number of rebate opportunities as an incentive to customers.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Environmental Services Manager Rita Di Candia confirmed she has brought up connecting this matter to the new compost regulations presented by Assembly Bill 1383.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Ms. Di Candia confirmed Astro Turf is not permitted for rebate consideration but added the City cannot control what the public selects for their private property. She stated they could do outreach about better alternatives.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Ms. Di Candia stated the range of costs for a full-yard conversion can vary significantly. She reported about 40% of program participants completed the conversion themselves. She stated the added the average landscape conversion is between 600 and 800 square feet, tending to be on the smaller side. She stated she would have to look into particular applications to know what residents typically pay, noting the City looks only at eligible costs and not a resident's overall costs including non-rebate eligible expenses such as labor. She confirmed labor cost is not included in rebates, only material costs.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Director of Finance Tina Olson confirmed there is a category for water conservation projects in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and this would fall under the category. She added the City would have to appropriate the funds through the Council. She stated 100% of the ARPA funds have been allocated to the General Fund. She could not discern how much of the ARPA money is going to community projects.
Mayor Brown clarified the ARPA funds are going to things like grants and human services so it is unfair to state none of it is going into community projects. Ms. Olson added it is General Fund revenue so, like Property Tax and Sales Tax, it funds everything the General Fund covers including Public Works, the Pleasanton Police Department, and other costs.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Ms. Olson confirmed this would be an eligible use of ARPA funds if Council wishes to make this allocation from the General Fund. She recommended doing this as a part of the mid-year budget if this were the case.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Repp confirmed the window for cool-season planting has passed for this year, adding it is not a requirement of the existing rebate program. He stated, if approved, staff would try to have this program in place by June 1st so applicants would be eligible for next year's cool season planting window.
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Mr. Repp clarified it is the City's understanding a value over $600 needs to be recorded and provided to the IRS. Ms. Olson confirmed it would become taxable income if it were over $600. She confirmed Zone 7's rebate is considered taxable income.
City Council Minutes Page 9 of 16 February 1, 2022
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Mr. Repp clarified this item does not include backyards. Staff is not recommending backyards because there is no visual benefit to other residents. He added residential meters are combined so the City does not know how much water use is going to irrigation.
He stated they would need separate irrigation meters to assess the benefit of a backyard conversion.
He noted the current program only has a two-year term, so applicants are not obligated to maintain the conversion after two years. He noted a reversal in conservation measures would be visible in the front yard but not the back yard. He added if Council desires, staff could look for ways to quantify the benefit of a backyard conversion and also assess the potential cost of extending this program to backyards.
In response to Councilmember Narum, Mr. Repp confirmed staff recommends using the Water Enterprise Fund to pay for these rebates. He confirmed these rebates would be included in the rate studies if approved. Ms. Olson clarified staff has set aside funding for this program as part of the year- end surplus in the Water Fund so they may not have to incorporate any additional money into the rate study. Mr. Repp clarified currently they grant rebates up to the funding level authorized for the program and they would require Council's authorization for additional funds if there were still people interested.
He added this would be like the parklet grants discussed in Item No. 12.
Director of Operations and Water Utilities Kathleen Yurchak clarified the $15,000 would be an annual request to maintain the program in addition to the $25,000 already budgeted.
In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Repp confirmed if Option 2 were to be approved, Pleasanton would be the only Zone 7 retailer to have these requirements. He clarified the City is enhancing what Zone 7 is already doing so residents are both participants but also burdened with the Water Enterprise Fund pressures for the rates.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Andre Pegeron thanked Councilmember Testa for her earlier follow-up to his comments about Weekends on Main. He clarified his proposal was to have the Main Street closure be continuous. He added this would allow for the creation of play structures, greenery, and other permanent community benefits within the road space. He expressed his support for the expanded rebate program encouraging residents to invest in a more sustainable future and commended the aesthetics of the variety in these yards. He stated it is a good responsible use of City funds. He noted it impacts 60 lawns per year. He stated water conservation does not have to be a bogeyman preventing responsible growth.
Jill Buck expressed support for the staff's recommendation. She added they are working on an April 21st movie night for the documentary her 2020 summer interns made about the City's water. She stated education about this rebate program would be a perfect impetus for residents to attend.
Becky Dennis reported she added native plants to her backyard but not all of them are good for the front yard for their size and unruliness. She suggested the City create a native plant demonstration garden for residents to learn more about managing them. She stated the sheet mulching requirement is interesting but pondered if the City will provide free pizza boxes for it. She added people may want to use a professional for sheet mulching. She expressed support for the proposed program. She suggested participants should share their success stories through the City's newsletter. She inquired if the City has considered showing residents how to do a rain garden.
In response to Mayor Brown, Managing Director of Utilities and Water Services Repp confirmed the native plants around City Hail are a demonstration garden. Environmental Services Manager Di Candia added the City received a grant from StopWaste to perform this sheet mulching demonstration project at City Hall for residents to view the process. She noted the drought-tolerant plants around City facilities are landscaped for a commercial landscape and will not be as pleasant for what a resident would want around their houses for their difficult maintenance.
City Council Minutes Page 10 of 16 February 1, 2022
Linda Kelly reported learning compost is available to residents at the operations yard. She added she has placed this City compost in her yard. She stated a City backyard policy would not go well, noting he City has a general policy of staying out of people's back yards. She stated as an Energy anc Environment Committee member, Option 2 is the way to go and expressed appreciation of the acknowledgment of CAP 2.0. She added Ms. Dennis' backyard is a joy to behold.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Narum moved to approve Option 2 which includes an additional $15,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund to be used for the WEL Rebate Program. She expressed appreciation for staff trying to find the right balance in encouraging residents to use the program and not burdening the ratepayers. She noted the Water Enterprise Fund is self-funded by ratepayers. She expressed support for tying it back to CAP 2.0, requiring sustainable practices, and partnering with Zone 7.
Councilmember Arkin seconded the motion.
In response to Councilmember Arkin, Ms. Di Candia confirmed the terms of the rebate specify that the resident must maintain the landscape for a minimum of two years. She explained the City's terms were taken from Zone 7. She explained that most residents who take advantage of the program put a lot of time and effort into it and typically do not change landscape although when there is a change of ownership the new owner would be eligible to apply for a new rebate. She explained she will need to think about a situation where the same resident would apply for the same rebate after two years and will return to the City Council with more information at a future meeting.
Councilmember Arkin expressed support for Option 2 and feels the option could be extended to backyards in the future. She offered a friendly amendment of increasing the rebate to $600. Finance Director Olson advised $600 is the threshold where the rebate would need to be reported as taxable income, so it needs to be below that amount. Councilmember Narum accepted the friendly amendment to change the rebate to $599.
Councilmember Balch explained it is taxable income regardless of the amount but at $600 the City is required to issue a 1099. He recommended having the amount be $550 so it does not look like the City is to evade the Internal Revenue Service.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Repp explained there are many numbers used for residential irrigation and is hesitant to give an average percentage of residential water use on landscape. He suggested providing that information to Councilmember Testa after he performed the analysis.
Councilmember Testa expressed concern that the City is recommending water conservation that is so small yet is putting a burden on residents. She does not believe the incentive is high enough for residents to be interested. She noted the investment is also an investment in neighborhood beautification.
In response to Councilmember Testa, Ms. Di Candia advised she would have to investigate to the total of the StopWaste grant and agreed to provide it to Councilmember Testa.
Councilmember Testa expressed disappointment that the City did not use eligible pass-through dollars to benefit residents and businesses and instead chose to burden the ratepayers. She expressed support for the program.
Mayor Brown expressed strong support for the program along with Zone 7's generous rebate increase.
She noted it is available for residents who chose to apply.
City Council Minutes Page 11 of 16 February 1, 2022
In response to Councilmember Balch, Mayor Brown clarified the amended amount for the rebate is $599.
Councilmember Testa advised she shares Councilmember Balch's concern that $599 looks like tax evasion.
Councilmember Narum inquired if Councilmember Balch would be more comfortable with $575.
Councilmember Balch supported that dollar figure. Councilmember Narum amended her motion to include a $575 rebate. Councilmember Arkin agreed with the amendment.
MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Arkin to approve Option 2, appropriating an additional $15,000 from the Water Enterprise Fund to be used for the WEL Rebate Program, and amending the rebate amount to $575. Motion passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Narum, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None
Absent: None
Mayor Brown recessed the meeting at 9:48 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:52 p.m.
12. Continued from January 18, 2022 - Housing Element Update - Review and approve potential sites to be considered for future rezoning for residential development and inclusion in the environmental analysis as part of the Sites Inventory for the 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update
City Attorney Sodergren reported Councilmembers Testa and Balch both live within 500 feet of a potential site and both received advice from California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
He reported the FPPC advised there is an exception where both may participate in the discussion, approve the list as a whole, and participate in general policy discussions that apply to all properties. He noted the FPPC also advised the exception may not apply to a decision to remove a property that is close to their homes or a discussion of parameters for such sites that do not apply to the final list as a whole. He explained staff will discuss Site 25 and 26 first so Councilmembers Testa and Balch can refrain from participating in discussion of sites near their homes. He further explained once the City Council decides if these two sites should be included on the list and determine what their density should be, then the City Council as a whole will discuss and decide on the remaining sites on the list.
Councilmember Testa advised she will be recusing herself from those sites out of an abundance of caution.
In response to Mayor Brown, Community Development Director Clark reported staff will give the overall presentation which will cover all of the sites and content. She explained after the presentation Councilmembers Testa and Balch will leave the meeting, the remainder of the City Council will discuss Sites 25 and 26 and provide direction, Councilmembers Testa and Balch can then return and discussion can ensue on the remainder of the sites.
Staff is looking for input and guidance on the preliminary sites list for inclusion in the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element Update as recommended by the Planning Commission. She hopes the City Council will provide a list of sites that can then be carried forward into the environmental analysis as one of the next steps of review for the Housing Element, but noted a final decision on the Housing Element will be determined in early 2023.
Ms. Clark provided a brief overview of the Housing Element process and advised one of the key requirements is that the City must show adequate zoning capacity for its fair share of the regional housing need as allocated by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). She advised the City Council Minutes Page 12 of 16 February 1, 2022
deadline for adoption of the Housing Element is January 2023 although there is a 120-day grace period. She provided a brief overview of the timeline including past and upcoming events. She explained there have been some recent changes in state law that provided the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) more time for review and is pushing out the City's grace period.
Ms. Clark provided a brief overview of the site selection process to date. She reported staff identified 29 initial sites and density assumptions. She advised conducting Planning Commission and public review.
She reported the list has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Housing Commission and community workshops were held. She reported on December 15th the Planning Commission made its final recommendation to the City Council for review today.
The City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) number is 5,965 units distributed across various income categories and the City must show to the State the City can meet that need in each category.
She reported the existing zoning capacity shortfall is 3,143 units. She explained the final Housing Element site inventory will go through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), onto the HCD for review and refinement of final sites, and back to the City Council for final adoption in early 2023.
Staff recommends adding 50 percent more units than the identified gap to provide flexibility to adjust sites based on successive inputs during the review process. She explained the importance of having an appropriate balance of density ranges and housing types for each site. She advised high-density sites must be developed at a minimum of 30 units per acre and low and medium-density sites will be developed at the average density within the range per HCDs guidance. She provided local examples of density ranges.
Ms. Clark provided a brief overview of High-Density Housing. She reported in the last Housing Element, the City opted to allow a maximum of 30 - 40 units per acre in High Density. She advised the Planning and Housing Commission's consensus is that zoning above 30-40 units per acre in appropriate locations could accommodate RHNA more efficiently, improve design outcomes, encourage the production of smaller and more affordable units, and make projects more financially feasible. She noted that design and environmental impacts must be carefully reviewed. She provided examples of High- Density Housing.
Ms. Clark reported 29 sites have been identified and assigned a preliminary density range. She provided a brief overview of the sites including their density ranges and locations. She reported the total estimated zoning capacity if all 29 sites were developed would be 6,629 units. She noted the City Council has the flexibility to pare down that list and take some sites out of consideration.
Ms. Clark explained the framework for how each site was ranked and scored based on the Sites Criteria approved by the City Council. She advised other factors and policy considerations will come into play during the process that will elevate or reduce the desirability of some sites over others including community support, property owner support, land-use compatibility, the feasibility of development, and geographic location and distribution.
The Planning Commission was supportive of consideration for increasing densities on some of the sites and increasing the maximum density on existing Housing Element sites. Ms. Clark advised their initial feedback was to keep Site 28: Steelwave and Site 20: Boulder Court, Remove Site 26: St. Augustine and Site 13: Pimlico South as recommended by staff, and deprioritize/eliminate Sites 17: Mission Plaza and Site 18: Valley Plaza.
A Community Workshop was held on December 1 and noted there were concerns regarding displacement of existing uses and loss of small business and concerns of overall infrastructure capacity such as increased traffic, water supply and quality, and school capacity. Ms. Clark noted there was support for sites near Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) or transportation. She advised the community City Council Minutes Page 13 of 16 February 1, 2022
specifically identified a concern with Site 17: Mission Plaza, Site 18: Valley Plaza. She advised staff has received 25 emails regarding the initial sites and highlighted the community comments.
The Planning Commission had general concerns about the displacement of existing uses and loss of small businesses and shopping centers. Ms. Clark noted there was discussion regarding the Steelwave properties for and against inclusion. She advised the Planning Commission recommends planning for the properties should be considered through the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP). She reported the Planning Commission recommends removing Site 10: ValleyCare, Site 13: Pimlico Drive (South), Site 17: Mission Plaza, Site 18: Valley Plaza, Site 26: St. Augustine, and Site 28: Steelwave. She advised the recommendation would reduce overall capacity by 1,785 with 4,844 units remaining which is 129 units above the 50% buffer.
Staff's recommendation is to carry forward the Planning Commission's recommendation of including the 50% buffer, affirm the density ranges as proposed and recommended by the Planning Commission, and review and approve potential sites for the Housing Element Update.
Mayor Brown thanked Community Development Director Clark reported for her detailed letter to ABAG appealing the City's RHNA allocation and was sad to hear it fell on deaf ears.
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing.
Steve Dunn, representing SteelWave and USL, noted they own 260 acres on the east side of Pleasanton. He advised he has been involved with City-managed extensive studies and planning on the site including a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He encouraged the City to annex and zone the property so Pleasanton can plan the future. He noted the site is appropriate for all densities and has the potential to have added community benefits such as schools, parks, Iron Horse Trail once completed, and traffic mitigation. He encouraged the City Council to include the site on their inventory list for further discussion.
Robert Gonella reported he is a resident who lives near Site 17: Mission Plaza, Site 18: Valley Plaza, and encouraged the City Council to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendations that these sites be taken out of consideration. He expressed concern for the 75 small businesses that currently operate out of both locations and would like the sites to keep their hometown feel.
Brian Casey reported his residence backs up to Site 16: Tri-Valley Inn and encouraged the City Council to remove the site from consideration. He noted it is zoned commercial and residents would like it to remain a commercial property. He advised it is 2.4 acres and is not suitable for high-density units.
Colleen Hake reported Donlon Elementary School is the only school in the district where students do not have daily to their grass fields because it is fenced off. She encouraged the City Council to remove the site from consideration. She encouraged Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) to extend the fencing so students can utilize the grass field.
Aditi Nair encouraged the City Council to remove the Donlon Elementary School site from consideration as a site for the Housing Element Update. She noted the students do not have green space to play.
Joe Chillinsky encouraged the City Council to remove Site 16: Tri-Valley Inn, from consideration. He advised the hotel and restaurant would be displaced and would not yield a considerable number of units.
Andre Pegeron reminded the City Council that there is a housing crisis and part of the crisis is a housing affordability crisis. He strongly encouraged the development of the Donion Elementary School grass field for student use instead of building a negligible number of housing units. He expressed support for zoning for the maximum amount of housing units to help solve the housing crisis. He noted City Council Minutes Page 14 of 16 February 1, 2022
the City needs to plan for children and young families to live in a vibrant, walkable, bikeable community which helps mitigate the traffic concerns.
John Chwastyk, Executive Direct for Facilities and Construction at PUSD, reported the district is in the process of examining all school facilities and exploring options for district properties. He advised they are trying to align district assets with the Housing Element Update. He noted the district is also in the process of updating its Facilities Master Plan which will be completed in May and presented to the School Board in June. He advised PUSD is also facing several competing challenges with unbalanced enrollments in north Pleasanton areas, the impact of additional housing, and assessing aging facilities.
He advised PUSD is not committed to any scenario with Site 3, Site 25, and Site 27 and is simply looking at potential options to best serve the students. He noted if the sites are approved to be in the Housing Element Update it will provide PUSD with greater flexibility to meet the needs of students and staff. He clarified that any sale of PUSD property is required to go through a public regulatory process.
Michelle Tallon reported she lives in Val Vista and encouraged the City Council to remove Site 3: PUSD - Donlon from consideration. She expressed concern that Donlon Elementary School is overcrowded and noted residents are being placed on a waitlist to enroll there. She encouraged PUSD to not sell off the property and noted school growth needs to align with housing growth.
Becky Dennis expressed support for Sites 21a and 21b: Kiewit, and Site 20: Boulder Court since it is near the new Amazon facility and the City could partner with Amazon to build workforce housing. She believes Site 1: Lester is underutilized with only 30 units identified and could accommodate more density. She expressed concern regarding Site 16: Tri-Valley Inn, Site 17: Mission Plaza, and Site 18:
Valley Plaza and believes they are already a live-work walkable area but believes the area could use a refresh. She noted if the City Council approves Sites 28a and 28b: SteelWave, they disallow anything other than housing as it will impact climate action and emissions.
Guy Houston, representing Mission Plaza and Valley Plaza, advised these two centers have a long history of working together for the betterment of Pleasanton. He advised their vision is for a mixed-use horizontal project that keeps retail on Santa Rita Road and allows housing on the west portion of the property. He noted the property is nearly 50 years old and will soon need updating. He advised a mixed-use project will all the housing to subsidize the onsite commercial tenants. He requested that Site 17: Mission Plaza be removed from consideration. He advised there is support from Sunshine Saloon and True-Value Hardware that any future renovations would be positive for their business in Site 18: Valley Plaza and encouraged the site be approved.
Jill Buck reported her office is in Valley Plaza. She would love to see as many EIRs conducted as possible and would like to see as many sites as possible remain on the list.
Jocelyn Combs seconded the comments of Ms. Dennis, Ms. Buck, and Mr. Houston and wholeheartedly supports the staffs recommendation to remove Sites 28a and 28b: SteelWave from consideration. She advised it would be awkward to bring forward SteelWave's development proposal as part of the Housing Element Update. She inquired if this site even needs to be considered if the City can meet its in-fill goals on other sites.
Jeff Schroeder, representing Ponderosa Homes for Site 1: Lester and Sites 21a and 21b: Kiewit. He expressed support for Site 1: Lester and noted the many community benefits it will provide. He advised Kiewit could provide 100% affordable housing and would be the only development that provides typical Pleasanton suburban housing in low to moderate densities.
Mayor Brown closed the public hearing.
Given the late hour, Interim City Manager Dolan recommended a Special Meeting of the City Council on Tuesday, February 8 at 6:00 p.m.
City Council Minutes Page 15 of 16 February 1, 2022
In response to Councilmember Balch, City Attorney Sodergren explained that reopening public comment would be at the discretion of the City Council. He advised the City Council can make that decision at the time of the meeting.
Mayor Brown recommended continuing the item to a Special Meeting of the City Council on Tuesday, February 8th at 6:00 p.m. and was agreed upon unanimously by the dais. She encouraged residents to return to the next meeting.
MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL - None.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Balch reported he continues to attend the StopWaste meetings and mulch acquisition was discussed.
Mayor Brown reported attendance at the Alameda County Mayors Conference where homelessness was discussed. She reported she and Councilmember Balch continue to work with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to address ambulance response times. She reported attendance at the U.S.
Conference of Mayors and reported she will be attending a follow-up meeting with Senator Alex Padilla in a few days.
Councilmember Arkin reported attendance at a meeting with Altamont Open Space, at the Martin Luther King, Jr. breakfast along with other members of the dais, and the Cal Cities East Bay Division meeting.
Councilmember Narum reported attendance at the audit with Councilmember Balch. She reported attendance at the East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) Board meeting, noted they received an A credit rating, and approved a contract for geothermal energy as a renewable energy source.
Councilmember Testa reported attendance at the Martin Luther King, Jr. breakfast and the Cal Cities East Bay Division meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Narum adjourned the regular meeting at 11:06 p.m., with a tribute to men and women serving in the military, honoring the memories of those who have died in defense of our country.
Respectfully submitted,
City Council Minutes Page 16 of 16 February 1, 2022