SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – May 6, 2025
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #14: Approve a professional services agreement with Carlson Management, Inc.
1. Please describe what types of projects Bill Carlson will be supporting.
A. Bill Carlson will be backfilling the Senior Civil Engineer position during the recruitment process and supporting a variety of projects including:
• Hopyard Road and Owen’s Drive Intersection Improvements - construction • Puri Court Storm Drain Improvements -construction
• Johnson Drive Economic Zone final cost allocation and change order review for final payment approval
• Valley Avenue Soundwall Stabilization - bid and construction • Overview of Streets Programs - annual curb and gutter - construction, annual resurfacing - construction in July
Agenda Item #20: Update on Police Department’s Operations, Services and Activities
2. From Table 9, how many of the 7 sustained complaints were internal versus citizen?
A. All sustained complaints were internally generated.
3. Please provide the details on types of calls and outcomes of the ARU.
A.
2024 ARU Annual Summary Report (January 1 – December 31) A. Calls for Service (CFS)
Total Calls for Service 1268
a. Calls Deferred from Patrol 457
b. Assisted Patrol / Co-Response 303
c. Proactive Engagements (Outreach) 508
B. Average Daily Response – 5.1
5150
Total 5150 Holds 172
a. Holds Placed by PPD patrol staff 86
b. Holds Placed by ARU Clinicians 72
c. Holds Placed by ARU officers 14
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 C. Holds transported to hospital by ARU 18
Holds Placed by Mobile Crisis / CATT 2*
5150 / 5585 Evaluations conducted by ARU 233
a. Evaluations at PUSD by ARU 33
b. Holds Placed at PUSD by ARU 9
4. Please provide SRO on campus and youth statistics and details.
A. In 2024, SROs handled 191 incidents, 35 cases and made 3 juvenile arrests.
Officer Trovao was the only SRO during the beginning of, and throughout summer, 2024. Officer Jones began his SRO assignment on August 20, 2024.
5. Of the 5,000 department contacts, how many are related to traffic, and what activities make up the other contacts?
A. All other generated incidents that a police department resource is assigned to including CSOs and dispatch. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the most frequent type of incidents, along with other incidents such as crime response/ reports, arrest reports, advice calls, citizen assist, alarm calls, medical calls, hazards in street, etc. These incidents also include dispatch resources, such as entering a repossessed or towed vehicle or a 911 call.
Submitted On:
May 6, 2025, 09:26AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Kriti
Last Name:
Raj
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
4 Comments
I aim to talk about the downsides of implementing these budget cuts against the library and the city’s budget plans.
Submitted On:
May 2, 2025, 01:27PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Todd
Last Name:
Nelson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
4 Comments
(consent calendar, Use of TDA funds for mini street sweeper) I recommend deferring the purchase of a mini street sweeper to a future year and substituting another priority of the bicycle and pedestrian community.
Staff and City Council have slightly different roles in approving TDA funds. I am sure that Operations Services have done a good job specifying a vehicle that meets our needs. City Council, however, needs to consider perceived benefit to the whole community and if this decision achieves their preferred outcome – even if the process arrived at a different outcome.
I understand that TDA funds are from taxes, apportioned to the City of Pleasanton based on population. To me, as a taxpayer, this is the same as “general fund” money and I expect the same level of scrutiny when the city spends it.
An electric mini street sweeper is useful, it supports our Climate Action Plan, and it falls squarely within the approved uses of TDA funds. However, for the following reasons I don't think this is the right time.
1. Optics: You are about to spend $300k for a piece of equipment at the same time you are deciding to lay off employees because you cannot find $150k in the budget. I understand the different budgets and this isn't a fair comparison. But I also understand how engaged residents were and how you wrestled with line items as small as $30k.
2. Timing: Perhaps the vendor's quote included delivery, but Traffic Engineering did not share that with BPTC. I contacted the vendor.
They told me that they ”...are struggling to get it to market but hope to be ready by the end of the year.” It doesn't quite meet their specifications yet. If they are like most salespeople, they are being optimistic. Will we be here next year at this time and still not have this vehicle? Could we do something better in the meantime?
3. Benefits: How many complaints do we get on the existing protected bike lanes? I'm guessing it's on the order of 10 per year. I use the Mobile Citizen app to request the clean-up of debris in bike lanes. Most of my cyclist friends do also. Operations Services have data on how many complaints arise. What is the threshold where it rises to a legitimate annoyance? If it's not annoying, then the perceived benefit will be small.
4. Relative Justification: We have about 250 miles of streets. I assume we have less than 10 miles of protected bike lanes – call it 12 miles for easy math. That's 5%. How many full-size street sweepers do we have, and how often are they used? How will this mini street sweeper be used in comparison to the full-sized ones? If we have 12 miles of protected bike lanes and this mini street sweeper operates at 12mph (I confirmed), that is one hour. How many times will these protected bike lanes be swept in a month? One, two, maybe four? Four hours per month is 48 hours per year.
That's less than one-fortieth of an FTE, by comparison. I would think that we need above 10% of the streets to be protected before we could justify a mini street sweeper. What threshold did Operations use?
5. Payback Period: Staff said that operating this mini street sweeper would require less time than hand sweeping. If I make an assumption of $75 per hour and the number of hours in the above bullet, that's $3.6k per year. The payback period is then 86 years.
Another way of calculating the payback period is by comparing to the cost of renting an equivalent vehicle. The City of Livermore has a mini street sweeper and is willing to let Pleasanton use it, per staff.
What is the operating cost? How many years of renting Livermore's vehicle would it take to pay back ours? Also, how does this payback period compare to the expected lifespan of this mini street sweeper (probably 10 years)? Again, I understand the difference between “general funds” and “TDA funds,” so this isn't directly equivalent.
But as a data-driven organization, I assume that someone ran the numbers.
Alternative Priorities
This mini street sweeper is not necessarily BPTC's top priority. Staff gave BPTC one option and asked them to approve, which they did.
No one asked them if they'd prefer something else.
In 2024, I sent Mr. Tassano suggestions from the “near-term protected bike lanes” section in the current Master Plan. This is the Master Plan that City Council approved in 2017.
- Owens from Hopyard to West Las Positas (LTS 4, that's high-stress, 2 recent collisions)
- First Street from Vineyard to Valley/Bernal (LTS 4, 1 recent collision) - Hopyard from West Las Positas to Valley (LTS 4, no collisions) - Valley from Kolln Center Pkwy to Bernal (LTS 4, no collisions) LTS is “Level of Traffic Stress”. Collision data is from the last report that I found, which has three years of history. By comparison, the protected bike lane on Stoneridge (east) would have been LTS 2 and no collisions, but it wasn't even listed in the Master Plan as a recommended project. I asked repeatedly, and apparently no one from the community asked for it. But we did it anyway.
These projects are very cheap compared to this mini street sweeper. They would add to the percentage of protected bike lanes and make it easier to justify the new vehicle.
Also, since I checked this too, MTC says that we have $178k available. They are unaware of the intention to rescind $493k (at least they did not tell me about it). Therefore, the total available is $671k.
Motion to Edit the Resolution
If City Council approves the recommendation “as is”, you should make a motion to edit “Finding #8”. City Council is attesting to the truth of the statements in the findings and the Complete Streets checklist, which is not attached but found in the BPTC packet from March 24th.
Finding #8 states that the project (the street sweeper) has been included in a detailed bicycle plan or responds to an immediate community need. Neither is technically true. The plan only asks that bicycle facilities be maintained, not that a mini street sweeper be used. This is a minor point. But when the protected bike lanes were proposed, the BPTC asked about maintenance and were assured that cleaning could be done with existing equipment (including manual sweeping). From personal experience, I think the bike lanes are almost always clean.
In 2023, I challenged the findings in RES 23-1393 (the most recent TDA request). It included several falsehoods which the previous City Council attested as being true. One was that the Stoneridge protected bike lane was in the Master Plan. It was not. Another was that sufficient funds existed to complete the 580 Overcrossing project. As explained in the agenda packet this year, that statement was also false. MTC is aware of these falsehoods. They chose not to hold the City of Pleasanton accountable.
For the sake of integrity, I would hope you want to do better this time.
Submitted On:
May 5, 2025, 11:24PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Margaret
Last Name:
Baker
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
10 Comments
I am concerned about militarization of the Pleasantan Police Department (PPD), in particular, its use of equipment like the Ballistic Tactical Transport. I urge the Council to reject the current use statement/policy for this armored vehicle in the PPD's AB 481 Annual Report until modifications have been made to create limits including the following:
1) PPD should not be allowed to call its armored vehicle, formally called a Ballistic Tactical Transport (BATT), a “rescue vehicle;” 2) the vehicle should not be paraded at community events; and 3) any deployment or use of the vehicle must be clearly specified, strictly limited, and adhere to principles of de-escalation.
In 2022, PPD used the BATT in the killing of Cody Chavez. An investigation by the Alameda County District Attorney found PPD’s militarized response “troubling” and concluded that Mr. Chavez’s “death might have been avoided” were it not for the Department’s failure to de-escalate.
In light of these critical issues, PPD must amend its AB 481 report and resubmit prior to Council approval.
Submitted On:
May 3, 2025, 01:06PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Joshua
Last Name:
Dai
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
17 Comments
I will be here to speak on the potential budget cuts the Pleasanton Public Library is facing.
Submitted On:
May 6, 2025, 11:18AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Jake
Last Name:
Nguyen
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
17 Comments
The agenda item that I would like to speak on are the potential budget cuts for the library.
Submitted On:
May 5, 2025, 07:06PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Gabriel
Last Name:
Thompson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
17 Comments
I am a high school student who plans to speak on the proposed budget cuts to the library
Submitted On:
May 5, 2025, 06:56AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Aanya
Last Name:
Shenoi
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
17 Comments
I will be speaking on the budget cuts facing our public library.
Submitted On:
May 5, 2025, 11:39PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:
Jeannette
Last Name:
Moore
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number
17 Comments
I wish to speak in support of the library. Thank you
1 Jocelyn Kwong
From: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: RE: Gulf Station on First Street
From: Linda Garbarino
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 9:46 AM
To: Ellen Clark <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Gulf Station on First Street
From: Linda Garbarino >
Date: May 5, 2025 at 6:49:57 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Gulf Station on First Street
To: Ellen Clark, Director,
City of Pleasanton
From: Linda Garbarino, President, Pleasanton Heritage Association Re: Gulf Gas Station on First Street
In reviewing the General Plan 2005-2025, section 12-7 includes specific language that addresses the concerns about commercial structures and signage.
“Pleasanton has few commercial corridors unlike many other cities.
Unlike the “strip commercial” development in other cities where garish signs, franchise architecture, and poorly maintained areas can dominate.”
“In 2006, Pleasanton upgraded First Street, which carries the bulk of traffic through the Downtown area-with removal of overhead lines and installation of pedestrian-level street lights, and the construction of the bridge over the Arroyo del Valle, commercial design has a substantial impact on community character.”
“In achieving its purpose of identification and information transfer, private signage in commercial areas varies from extremely well-designed and effective to visually weak and ineffective. Signs with good graphic design and high quality materials enhance commercial areas and streetscapes and contribute to the buildings appearance.”
The Gulf Gas Station should be a great example of what our General Plan describes for that major thoroughfare. An eyesore is not what residents want to represent the best design for First Street.
Thanks for your time and attention to this issue.
1 MEMORANDUM
Date: May 6, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Re: Agenda Item 18: Review of the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Sign Design Review Application (P24-0731) to install new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street – Supplemental Information
This memorandum transmits images of existing gas stations in Pleasanton, which were requested to be shared by Councilmember Testa, with respect to Agenda Item 18.
2 3