MEMORANDUM
Date: May 7, 2024
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Aarón Zavala, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Agenda Item #5 – Review and Consider the City’s Legislative Framework with the 2024 Focus Areas, Establish the City’s Legislative Positions on Selected Bills, and Request City Staff Monitor Remaining Legislation Throughout the 2024 Legislative Session
To be more responsive and to pursue City goals and objectives by working with agencies, the City Council annually adopts a Legislative Framework. The framework is developed through the Guiding Principles representing the City’s adopted policies and plans and frames the City’s legislative interests. Some of the City’s adopted policies and plans used for reference include, but are not limited to:
• ONE Pleasanton 5 Year Strategic Plan 2023-2028
• Pleasanton Climate Action Plan 2.0
• Pleasanton General Plan 2005-2025
• Pleasanton Economic Development Strategic Plan
• Pleasanton Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
• Pleasanton Human Services Needs Assessment Strategic Plan
On March 14, 2024 the draft Legislative Framework with the 2024 Focus Areas was approved by the City Council Legislative Subcommittee along with recommended positions on selected 2024 bills. A document outlining the recommended positions on 2024 bills was attached to the staff report.
The legislative framework is adaptable, to accommodate the dynamic nature of the State legislative session, in which items can move at varying paces. Key aspects of the City framework include:
• Purpose of the Legislative Framework: The Legislative Framework is designed to ensure that the City's legislative interests align with its goals and objectives. It provides staff with the ability to be more responsive when engaging with agencies working on state and federal legislation.
2 of 3
• Adaptability of the Legislative Framework: A benefit of the framework is the ability for staff to adapt when new legislation is brought forward. Staff tracks and takes positions on bills based on established guiding principles and focus areas, ensuring the City's best interests are consistently represented.
• Framework Basis: The City's Legislative Framework is developed through Guiding Principles that represent adopted policies and plans. This ensures that the framework directly reflects the priorities and direction set by the City Council.
Since the March 14 Subcommittee meeting, 6 additional bills have been brought to staff’s attention and are being tracked.
1. AB 1886 (Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act.) – This is a bill by Assembly Member David Alvarez which would clarify in statute that a housing element is substantially compliant with Housing Element Law, when both a local agency adopts the housing element and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or a court finds it in compliance, for purposes of specified provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
2. AB 2560 (Density Bonus Law (DBL): California Coastal Act of 1976.) – A bill by Assembly Member David Alvarez which deletes the provision that states that nothing in Density Bonus Law supersedes or in any way alters or lessens the application of the Coastal Act of 1976 (the Coastal Act). In effect, the bill makes DBL applicable in the coastal zone.
3. AB 2943 (Crimes: shoplifting.) – A bill by Assembly Member Rick Chavez Zbur which enacts the California Retail Theft Reduction Act, which contains multiple provisions pertaining to shoplifting, grand theft, criminal deprivation of a retail business opportunity, and theft-related probation and diversion.
4. SB 1037 (Planning and zoning: housing element: enforcement.) – A bill by Senator Scott Wiener which would require specific penalties to be imposed in any action brought by the Attorney General (AG) to enforce the adoption of housing element revisions, or to enforce any state law that requires a local government to ministerially approve, without discretionary review, any land use decision or permitting application for a housing development project. The bill would require that the penalties set forth in its provisions only apply when local land use decisions or actions are arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, contrary to established public policy, unlawful, or procedurally unfair.
5. SB 1164 (Property taxation: new construction exclusion: accessory dwelling units.) – This is a bill by Senator Josh Newman which would enact a new property tax construction exclusion of specified duration for the addition or construction of an accessory dwelling unit.
6. SB 1494 (Local agencies: Sales and Use Tax: retailers.) – This is a bill by Senator Steve Glazer which would prohibit a local agency from entering into, renewing, or 3 of 3
extending sales and use tax rebate agreements with retailers in exchange for locating in their jurisdiction, and voids agreements entered into before that date on January 1, 2030.
If the City Council would like to take an official position on these bills, staff recommends the following positions:
1. AB 1886 (Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act.) – Oppose, unless amended
2. AB 2560 (Density Bonus Law: California Coastal Act of 1976.) – Watch
3. AB 2943 (Crimes: shoplifting.) – Support (Note: The Tri-Valley Cities (TVC) Coalition previously sent a letter of support in May 2024)
4. SB 1037 (Planning and zoning: housing element: enforcement.) – Watch
5. SB 1164 (Property taxation: new construction exclusion: accessory dwelling units.) – Oppose, unless amended
6. SB 1494 (Local agencies: Sales and Use Tax: retailers.) – Watch
Submitted On:
May 6, 2024, 04:01PM PDT
City Council Workshop and
Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Thomas
Last Name:
Vincent
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date
May 07, 2024
Agenda Item Number
not sure
Comments
Someone posted on next door that there is going to be a discussion of the leaf blower ban. I dont' see it on the agenda, but wanted to throw in my two cents. One of the big reasons for the ban was noise pollution. Gas-powered leaf blowers can generate noise levels exceeding 100 decibels, which is harmful to hearing. For reference, a chainsaw operates at around 110 decibels. Leaf blowers produce a low-frequency noise which travels further and penetrates walls more easily than higher frequencies. This means the disruption extends far beyond the immediate area.
Even with improvements, gas-powered leaf blowers still produce considerably more emissions than modern vehicles for the time they're used. This is due to their less efficient engines and less stringent emission control.
Submitted On:
May 7, 2024, 09:46AM PDT
City Council Workshop and
Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Phil
Last Name:
Bowman
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
May 07, 2024
Agenda Item Number
17. Public Comment
Comments
Support for the Gas-Powered Leaf Blower Ban
I am pleased the City Council recognized the importance of reducing our local air pollution as well as reducing our greenhouse gas emissions with your approval of the gas-powered leaf blower ban in December.
This will make a noticeable improvement in the quality of life in Pleasanton for both the residents as well as the landscape contractors who have to breathe toxic fumes all day.
I recognize and can understand that some people are reluctant to support this measure because of the economic burden it may place on small landscape contractors.
I believe there are a number of ways for homeowners to mitigate the financial burden on their small landscape contractors. For example, the homeowner can:
- Offer to increase their monthly fees to cover the costs to upgrade to electric. (I did this with my landscaper the week the ordinance was passed and he was very grateful.)
- Offer to let the landscaper plug-in to their electrical outlet if they choose to use a corded leaf blower or to recharge their batteries. - Buy an electric leaf blower and make it available for the landscaper to use while they are working at their home.
- Ask their landscaper to use a rake and broom instead of a leaf blower, making it clear that it’s OK if the yard isn’t completely free of leaves and debris. (Suggest that the landscaper not spend any more time than they would if they used their old gas leaf blower so there wouldn’t be more expense involved.)
I can see that having this discussion with a landscaper may be difficult for some homeowners.
It would be great if the City could
create a bilingual flyer with suggested talking points like this and post it on the city web site.
Homeowners could print it out and give it
to their landscapers as they discuss which options would work best for them.
These are some fairly simple options to help make this gas leaf- blower ban more successful without imposing too great a burden on the small landscapers.
Phil Bowman
Submitted On:
May 5, 2024, 04:04PM PDT
City Council Workshop and
Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
David
Last Name:
Camp
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
May 07, 2024
Agenda Item Number
17 (Public comments, non-agenda)
Comments
I hear rumblings about using the Public Comment period of this week's Council meeting to oppose Pleasanton's gas-powered leaf blower ban.
I ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT THE BAN on gas-powered leaf
blowers.
I can't stand the noise.
Yes, it will cost the operators and their customers some combination of money and performance. That is true of nearly all pollution controls. The benefit is reducing the "cost" of noise on all the neighbors.
The costs and the residual noise from electric blowers can be reduced by some combination of less frequent and less perfect blowing, lower-volume blowers, and, God forbid, rakes and brooms.
We can tolerate a few leaves on the lawn or sidewalk.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
May 6, 2024
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – May 7, 2024
Agenda Item #8
1. Q: On the June 1, 2021 Council meeting agenda, the not-to-exceed was $186,360, what amount was authorized in 2021 for St. Francis and was it exceeded? A: The 2021 report language reads:
The language in the 2021 report is meant to convey that the $189,360 annual cost is for the routine maintenance portion of the contract, but the emergency repair/extra work is not meant to fall under this maximum. The Maintenance Agreement does a better job of indicating this intent and the City Attorney’s office has reviewed the Maintenance Agreement language and that extra work/ emergency work doesn’t fall under the $189,360 cap.
The 2021 Maintenance Agreement language:
The staff report for May 7
th, 2024 addresses the 2021 staff report confusion and also addresses the Finance Department’s desire to have fixed maximums on all contracts by amending the contract to incorporate a contract maximum that is inclusive of the emergency repair/extra work.
While it is difficult to predict the amount of emergency work needed in a given year, our annual expenditures for routine maintenance and emergency work has historically been in the $450,000 to $500,000 range. While the previous 20 years of maintenance contracts have been without a comprehensive contract maximum, we will incorporate a comprehensive contract maximum into this maintenance contract and our future contracts.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
May 6, 2024
2 Agenda Item #19.a
2. Q. Is there a summary/overview of the Habitat for Humanity program relative to grants in the last year?
A: For more than two decades, the City of Pleasanton has been providing its residents with a Housing Rehabilitation Program which provides low-income homeowners, who are often seniors and/or are residents with disabilities, with funds to complete health and safety- related repairs to their homes. Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) has been the program administrator since October 2016. The City utilizes two sources of funds for this program: 1) Lower Income Housing Fund (LIHF) is allocated to Habitat’s administrative costs, which include marketing the program, conducting outreach to promote the program which includes answering questions that applicants might have about the program and the application process, reviewing applications for program eligibility, inspecting the homes, managing the program documents, obtaining bids for the projects, managing the projects from construction to completion, and finalizing the projects; and 2) federal HOME funds are used towards funding the actual construction costs for the rehabilitation grants that have been awarded to homeowners. The current maximum grant amount is $15,000. While the program continues to have attrition as “interested” homeowners ultimately decide not to submit their application, the program continues to be a tremendously beneficial program for Pleasanton homeowners who need health and safety repairs to their homes, and is one of the few programs that exists to allow eligible lower-income residents make repairs to their homes that allow them to be livable and safe and to age in place. Since FY 2019, Habitat for Humanity has completed 16 projects, which includes 3 completed projects in this current fiscal year 2023/24, totaling more than $283,000. For FY 2024/25, two projects are preapproved, and Habitat will be reviewing two applications for program eligibility.
Agenda Item #20
3. Q. How is an “incident” defined?
A: An incident is any call for service where resources were dispatched as well as any activity initiated by any unit. This includes all calls where a person requested service from the department as well as all self-initiated activity.
4. Q. Is activity the same as an incident? If not, how is activity defined, and what is the difference?
A: “Activity” is traditionally used to indicate self-initiated responses from any unit type.
Incidents are usually where the community calls into the department requesting service. In reference to the report, these terms are used interchangeably, as in Figure 1.
5. Q. What is the explanation for the difference of approximately 30,000 between the 59,841 and the 29,000 shown in Figure 1?
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
May 6, 2024
3 A: The 29,000 referenced in Figure 1 only refer to the top ten types of calls officers and department staff either initiated on their own or in response to a request for service from the community. There are many other categories and types of responses that are not depicted in the chart.
6. Q. Lastly, 59,841÷365 = an average of 164 incidents per day (6.83 per hour). This seems like an artificially high number for the current headcount of the PPD.
A: On average there are approximately 15 staff working in a 24-hour period across the department. This includes officers, Community Service Officers, Animal Services, Investigations, and volunteers. The number of incidents handled by staff each day on average is a little less than 5 incidents. This is aligned with what has been observed over the past several years.