SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – June 3, 2025 R
egular Meeting
A
genda Item #3: Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission
1. P
lease provide pictures and specs for the 4 signs for 4321 First St (P25-0180).
A. The approved signage plans, including location, design and dimensions of the new signs, are shown in Attachment 1. The project includes four new signs, one on each building side, generally in the same locations and of similar dimensions as the existing signs.
Agenda Item #5: Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Spectrum Community Services
2. Please confirm that the following corrections are accurate for the terms of the agreement.
o Tier 1 correction to “less than” symbol
o Tier 1 and tier 2 overlap at 60%
A. T he agreement terms were unclear as to the two income ranges/tiers eligible for support under the program. Staff recommends the following corrections be made to the agreement (Exhibit A to Attachment 1):
• Modify all references to Tier 1, currently shown as “greater than or equal” to 60% SMI (≥60% SMI), to be “less than or equal to” 60% SMI (≤60% SMI)
• Correct all references in the agreement to Tier 2 as “Between 60% and 80% AMI" to instead state “From 61% to 80% AMI”
• On Page 6 of 9, replace the text “fall ≥60% State Median Income” with “are at or below 60% State Median Income”; and "fall ≥80% AMI” with “are at or below 80% AMI”
3. How will the City coordinate and monitor Spectrum’s progress implementing the program?
A. As reflected on the Scope of Work on page 8, City Housing Division staff will have quarterly check-ins with the Spectrum team to discuss Spectrum's progress, including but not limited to, its outreach efforts and events; any program implementation questions, challenges, or concerns; and program
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 progresses and accomplishments. Seeing that this is the first year for Spectrum as the city's program administrator, staff will be closely monitoring work to ensure Spectrum is fulfilling its contract obligations and successfully administering the city's Housing Rehabilitation Program.
Agenda Item #13: Receive an overview of sewer rates and approve staff recommendation for CPI rate increase effective January 1, 2026
4. Please provide the CPI rate amount or, if not available, when will it be available? A. The City’s annual sewer CPI increases are based upon the percentage change reflected in the annual CPI available as of March 31 st of each year, so
the proposed CPI increase effective January 1, 2026 would be 2.7% for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
5. What will the CPI adjustment mean for a typical residential customer? A. For a single-family home, the CPI increase of 2.7% is about $0.81 bi-monthly
Agenda Item #17: Continued from May 6, 2025 - Receive an update on the Police Department’s operations, services and activities
6. Is there a breakdown of youth/minors over the last 5 or 6 years of the number of school arrests, and 5150s and 5585s city-wide?
A.
JUVENILE ARRESTS 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Grand
Total
AMADOR HIGH SCHOOL, AHS 2 5 3 2 1 13
FOOTHILL HIGH SCHOOL, FHS 3 4 5 1 13
HART MIDDLE SCHOOL 1 1 2
HARVEST PARK SCHOOL 1 1
PLEASANTON MIDDLE
SCHOOL 1 2 3
PUSD OFFICES 1 1
Grand Total 4 8 9 7 5 33
All Juvenile Cases 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Grand
Total
5150 / 5585 101 92 31 24 24 272
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
3 7. How many sustained complaints are there internal vs external (community)? A. There are 7 sustained internal complaints and zero sustained citizen complaints. Three complaints are in pending status.
8. Regarding the ARU, why was there an increase in number of contacts in September and October?
A. The increase in ARU contacts during September and October can be attributed to several factors. First, the addition of Officer Barcelo to the unit increased capacity from one team and a Sergeant to two full teams, which expanded coverage and outreach capacity. October had a stretch of extreme heat exceeding 100 degrees for a full week. This created an urgent need for proactive outreach, distributing water, performing welfare checks and offering immediate services. Finally, the encampment cleanup process at Stanford Medicine Sports Complex led to increased contacts. These efforts required a coordinated approach that involved multiple contacts explaining the process, posting notices, and helping people find alternative shelter or resources.
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
AS
PRESENT
TIME
EAST
ELEVATION
/
ENTRANCE
NORTH
ELEVATION
/
CORNER
SIDE
SPRING
ST.
EAST
ELEV.
BLDG./
FRIST
ST
&
SPRING
ST
SOUTH
ELEVATION
/
PARKING
LOT
WEST
ELEVATION
/
BACK
OF
BUILDING
A.G.K~
=;?.,:
om,
:::r-:.-1
DEIIIIEI
~
P11
llffl
IU-,.._
PIO.IECT:
::::X.;:-
_ •
Fa
llnl
IU-l4rt
LDCADOI:
4321
FIRST
STREET
DIAWINI
•
:
~
PLEASANTON
CA
94568
1e3
EAST
N«#/(//
8lYD
~
CA
94SS1
------------
ALEX
IAIDUNO
INITAU.AOON
I 111'1
PLAN
ACCT.
IIEP:
ALEX
IIAIIDUNO
PEll
■ITI:
CITY
PLEASANTON
SCALE:
.17=
14"
SITE
PLAN
s
SIGN
YOUR
APPROVAL
HE:
IH:
OWNER/LANDLORD
APPROVAL:
EAST
BAY
MOTORCARS
JASON
Al
...........# "'
1,1
_f
I "
A:
,
.(>
•
EXlST1NG
WOOO
SIGH
4 X16'
TO
BE
REMOVE
NO
SIGN
HERE!
-.L
TO
Bl:
REPAIREED
TO
ORIGINAL
CONOfTlOH!
SIZE.
4'
X
16 :
\
-
.. ::_
-
~
~-'·
:--.
~:.,.o--~!
ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL
MATERIAL 6/3/25
CHANNEL
LETTERS
NON-ILLUMINATED
ON
ALUMINUM
1/8"
ACM
wrTH
BLUE
AND
BLACK
BACKOROUND
VINYL
GRAPHICS
AEllJRNS:
5"
~S:
1/8"
YMD
BLUE
3M
TRIM
CAP:
BLUE
SIZE
3'
X
20'
AND
tNS1M.L
ON
MAIN
ENTRANCE
240" 202"
{r
E/\STB/\Y
1~
130
EAST
ELEVATION
/ ENTRANCE
SQ
FT
60 ONE
SIGN
18"
x 172"
ALIJMINUM
PANELS
(ACM)
WITH
3/4"
PVC
LETTERS
( BWE
&
WIITE
) NON-UJ.IIIIW'ED
10 REPLACE
1lE
SME
SIZE
OLD
SIGN
/ SOLi)
BUE
( VIVI>
BUE
311
) a IIW1E
BUCK
1 172" 95"
wfl
E/\STB/\Y
--
SOUTH
ELEVATION
/
PARKING
LOT
a: ct w _. (.) ('I) ,-
,r r ..!r
SQ
FT
21.5 ONE
S10N
4'
11 24'
AUMNUM
MMELS
(ACM)
wrTH
3/4"
PVC
LETTERS
~
( BLUE
I WHrT!
) NON-tl.LUflllNATE>
10 AE1UCE
ntE
SAME
SIZE
OlD
IION
/ 80ll>
BLUE
( VIVI>
BLUE
3M
) I MATTE
BUCK
288"
I
g
48'
'
E/\STB/\Y
168"
NOOlli
ELEVATION
/ CORNER
SIDE
SPRING
ST.
E, SQ
FT
96 ONE
SIGN
30"
x 216"
AUNNUM
PANELS
(ACM)
WITH
VINYL
GRAPHICS
LETTERS
VIVI>
BLUE
3M
& WHfTE
/ MATTE
BLACK
/ NON-WJMINATED
10 REPLACE
THE
SAME
SIZE
OLD
SIGN
1 ~ 30
'
216" 158"
E/\STB/\Y
114"'
1 E. .. t-
WEST
ELEVATION
/ BACK
OF
BUILDING
SQ
FT
45 --
I
~I
I
A.Q.K.
---
Mn:
05-07-2025
.....
Mil......
A«r.lEP:
MEIUIIM
~
,., -==
PIUCT:
EMT•
IIOIOIICMI
l'UMI:
CITY
PLEASANTON
OWNIII/LANDlOIID
APIIIIOVALI
'
,_ _
___
......
4U1
FIRST
STIIHT
-
• :
~
/-IUII
EAST
BAY
MOTORCARS
~!.IDI
PUAMNl"ONCAMaee
__________
ICMi:
.f1•14"
JASON
1a31MT,,_all'D
LNIIIMOMCA-
SII.N
Yllllll
/ll'f'HllV/11
Ill
Ill
■....._
I
l
Otd,,,.
CA.UC.•---c,-.ea
SITE
PLAN
tv
EAST
EL£V.
Bl.OG/
FRIST
ST
& Sl'fllNG
ST
~·-CL
.',''
-
-r
,.._
..
,t
--
.
.
•
EJUST»IG
WOOO
SIGN
4'X18"
10 BE
REMOVE
NO
SIGN
HERE!
-.I..
TO
a~
TO_,
C()Nl)fTION!
SIZE;:
4 X _,.
-~
•~
r
,t"\
~~
.... -0
-'>/
SIDE
YEW
INSTAl.UOON
FOR
1/8"
ACM
ALUMllJM
& 3/4"
PVC
LETT.
WOQDKIIIWSI/TXZ"W/-1° N 10
DlmG
WOOD
l"IUla
--...
1aWfflCa1/rlM:IIO~....._. .-WL
ON
-
O,
IDfflllQ
...
PIICIE
Wffll
WOOD
....
air
IT
N 10
WOOD
-
10f'
A IIOnOII
IWlff
...
P&T
ML
........
CAEWB>
RIO
W00D
ICIIIWS
11T
x r wt
-
r
1110
IEDITNl
WOOD
AIME
--
EX1ST1NG
SCREWS
5"
X 1/4"
1HRU
WALL
WASHER
AND
NUTS
FRONT
AND
BACK
/
Al.1.
AROUND
EVERY
&-8
FEET
/ TOP
&
BOTTOM
EXIS11NG
SIGN
FACE/WITH
WOOD
FRAME
2XA
ECJSTING
~
/ ~
METAL
FRONr
1,116)
BACK
OF
81.DG.
,_-EX1ST1NG
SCREWS
5"
X 1/4"
1HRU
WAl.1.
WASHm
ANO
NUTS
FRONT
ANO
BACK
Al.1.
AROUND
EVERY
6-8
FEET
/ TOP
&
BOTTOM
SIDE
VIEW
INSTALlAllON
CHANNEL
LETT.
NON-ILLUMINATED
FOR
EAST
MAIN
ENTRANCE
W00DICIIIWSS1rxrw1
...
r
N
10 EllfTNl
WOOD...,._
--._.
-
laWPIICIE1/rUIICIGWWAUWI .-WL
ON
-
OI
DSnNl
...
MCa
Wffll
WOOD
ICMWS
air
ll r • 10
WIXa
10P
A IIOnOII
IWlff
...
P&T
ML
5"
CHANNEL
LETTERS
FWSH
lO
NOM-U.lMIAlED/
5a!EWED
RIOM
I
W
l, 2'"X1.18
•
SCREWS
a NUT
EXISTING
SCREWS
5"
X 1. 4"
1HRU
WALL
WASHER
AND
NUTS
FROKT
ANO
BACK
_.,/
ALL
AROUN)
EVERY
6-8
FEET
/ TOP
&
BOTTOM
EXIS11NG
SIGN
FACE/WITH
WOOD
FRAME
2XA
~
~
I COAR1JG"1m
METAL
FRONr
1,116)
BACK
OF
81.DG.
,_-
ElOST1NG
SCREWS
5"
X 1/ 4"
THRU
WALL
'
WASHER
AND
NUTS
FRONT
AND
BACK
AU.
AROUND
EVERY
6-8
FEET
/ TOP
&
BOTTOM
1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 2, 2025
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Aarón Zavala, Assistant to the City Manager
Subject: Supplemental Information - Legislative Framework and 2025-2026 Focus Areas (June 3, 2025, City Council Meeting)
Background
Following the May 20, 2025, City Council meeting where the Legislative Framework item was continued to June 3, 2025, this supplemental memo provides additional information requested by the City Council regarding clarification on additional bills discussed during the Legislative Subcommittee meeting, a comparison of City and Tri-Valley Cities Coalition (TVC) legislative priorities, and considerations regarding legislative advocacy approaches.
Additional Bills from Subcommittee Discussion
At the May 20, 2025, City Council meeting, Councilmember Testa mentioned additional bills discussed at the Subcommittee meeting in the Agenda Report. Staff reviewed the notes and confirmed with Townsend Public Affairs that one additional bill was discussed during the April 29, 2025, Legislative Subcommittee meeting but was not included in the formal recommendations: SB 560 (Smallwood-Cuevas) - Public Social Services. This bill would decriminalize certain types of welfare fraud by eliminating criminal penalties for welfare overpayments under $25,000 when they result from administrative errors, removing criminal penalties for attempted welfare fraud involving less than $950, and shifting the handling of such cases from the criminal justice system to local welfare agencies for administrative resolution.
While this bill was noted as an item of interest to Councilmember Gaidos, it does not align with the City's established Legislative Framework focus areas (Housing, Fiscal Sustainability, Infrastructure & Environment, and Wildfire & Emergency Preparedness), as it addresses public social services and criminal justice policy rather than municipal government operations.
Therefore, it was not recommended for a formal City position.
City vs Tri-Valley Cities Coalition Legislative Priorities Comparisons Strategic Framework Alignment:
Focus Area City of Pleasanton
Priorities
TVC Coalition Priorities Alignment
Housing • Support affordability in
housing stock
• Balanced approach
(housing/jobs/
transportation)
• Affordable housing and
homelessness
• Balanced solutions
considering housing, jobs,
transportation
Strong
alignment
2 of 6
• Protect development
impact fees
• Preserve CEQA
provisions
• Support funding for
affordable housing
• Address barriers to
building at Very Low,
Low, Moderate-income
levels
Fiscal
Sustainability
• Oppose unfunded
mandates
• Oppose limits on revenue
measures
• Support pension liability
solutions
• Update local government
tax structure
• Support SB 1383 funding
• Fiscal Sustainability and
General Governance
• Safeguard local
government revenues
• Prevent unfunded
mandates
• Modernize revenue streams
Strong
alignment
Infrastructure
&
Environment
• Address PFAS in
drinking water
• Funding for regional
recycled water
• Water/sewer/storm water
infrastructure
• Climate Action Plan
support
• Climate, Environment, and
Health
• Water quality (including
PFAS/PFOS)
• Infrastructure investment
• Transportation and
Infrastructure
Strong
alignment
Wildfire &
Emergency
Preparedness
• Funding for disaster
preparedness
• Defensible space/home
hardening
• Insurance
availability/affordability
• Streamlined CEQA for
wildfire prevention
• Climate, Environment, and
Health
• Year-round wildfire
concerns
• Emergency preparedness
Strong
alignment
Economic
Development
Not a formal City focus area • Economic Development
• Innovation hub support
• Workforce development
• Business support
Implicit
City
interest
Public Safety Not a formal City focus area • Public Safety • Retail theft, burglary,
assault
• Emergency preparedness
Implicit
City
interest
Mental Health Not a formal City focus area • Mental Health • Social services support
• Resource advocacy
Implicit
City
interest
3 of 6
Bill Position Comparison:
Bill Number & Topic City Position TVC Position Alignment Bills with Same Positions:
AB 647 (Housing
development approvals)
Oppose Oppose Aligned
AB 650 (Housing
element: RHNA)
Support Support Aligned
AB 712 (Housing
reform laws: fines)
Oppose Oppose Aligned
AB 888 (California Safe
Homes grant)
Support Support Aligned
SB 79 (Transit-oriented
development)
Oppose Oppose Aligned
SB 454 (PFAS
Mitigation Program)
Support Support Aligned
SB 456 (Contractors:
muralists)
Support Support Aligned
Bill Number & Topic City Position TVC Position Alignment Bills with Different Positions:
SB 707 (Open meetings:
teleconference)
Support if
amended
Oppose unless
amended
Different approach:
however, City Clerk
provided amendment
language to TVC.
Bill Number & Topic City Position TVC Position Alignment City-Only Positions:
AB 300 (Fire hazard
severity zones) Support No Position
-
AB 306 (Building
regulations) Oppose No Position
-
AB 762 (Disposable
vapor devices) Support No Position
-
AB 846 (Endangered
species: wildfire prep) Support No Position
-
SB 233 (Regional
housing consultation) Support No Position
-
SB 358 (Becker) Oppose No Position -
SB 496 (Advanced
Clean Fleet appeals) Support No Position
-
SB 501 (Household
Hazardous Waste) Support No Position
-
SB 634 (Homelessness
penalties) Oppose No Position
-
SB 677 (Housing:
streamlined approvals) Oppose No Position
-
4 of 6
Bill Number & Topic City Position TVC Position Alignment TVC-Only Positions:
AB 290 (CA FAIR Plan:
automatic payments)
No position Support -
AB 348 (Full-service
partnerships)
No position Support -
AB 544 (Electric
bicycles: equipment)
No position Support if amended -
SB 429 (Wildfire Safety
& Risk Mitigation)
No position Support -
SB 455 (Electric
bicycles)
No position Support if amended -
SB 616 (Community
Hardening Commission)
No position Support -
City's Position on CEQA Reform
The City maintains a nuanced approach to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform, balancing environmental protection with the need for efficient project delivery. While the City strongly supports preserving CEQA provisions that protect the environment and maintain local control over land use decisions, it also recognizes the need for targeted reforms to enhance streamlining in specific circumstances.
The City supports CEQA reform efforts that:
• Maintain robust environmental protections and local decision-making authority, including with respect to the scope of required CEQA review. • Provide tailored streamlining where appropriate, including for critical public safety projects, particularly those related to wildfire prevention and emergency preparedness initiatives, and for small infill projects where there is limited potential for environmental impacts as defined by CEQA.
• Include clear guidelines and criteria to ensure that the streamlining provisions are applied appropriately.
• Enhance project delivery timelines without compromising the quality of environmental reviews.
• Support infrastructure development that advances the City's Climate Action Plan and sustainability goals.
• Reduces the potential for frivolous third-party litigation.
This balanced approach allows the City to advocate for both environmental stewardship and efficient government operations, ensuring that necessary projects can move forward while maintaining the environmental safeguards that protect Pleasanton's quality of life.
Legislative Portal Transparency
It should be noted that when the City submits position letters through the legislative portal system, all Assembly members and State Senators, along with their staff, have access to these communications. This ensures broad visibility of the City's positions across the Legislature, regardless of district boundaries.
5 of 6
City vs. TVC Legislative Advocacy Considerations
Budget Context: At the April 10, 2025, Special Budget Meeting, the Council unanimously directed staff to move forward with proposed reductions in professional services contracts, which specifically included the elimination of the "Townsend Public Affairs (Pleasanton Only contract)" as part of $130,000 in annual contract reductions. This decision would end the City's standalone legislative advocacy contract, which was set to expire June 30, 2025.
Subcommittee Discussion: During the April 29, 2025, Legislative Subcommittee meeting, following the City Council's direction for the draft budget to eliminate the city-specific contract, there was discussion about the implications of this change and potential alternatives.
Councilmember Testa expressed interest in potentially reconsidering a city-only advocacy approach that would focus exclusively on Pleasanton priorities. Councilmember Gaidos expressed interest in ensuring greater focus on Pleasanton-specific issues within whatever advocacy structure is maintained. Staff committed to bringing this analysis back to the full Council for consideration, and the staff recommendation and alternatives are presented below.
Currently the City pays $60,000 annually for legislative advocacy services with Townsend Public Affairs, of which $30,000 goes toward the City-specific contract, and $30,000 is for the Tri-Valley Coalition (part of $150,000 total shared among five cities). It is important to note that under the current arrangement, bundled pricing benefits are available because the City has multiple concurrent contracts. This beneficial pricing would no longer apply if the City were only to carry a single Townsend contract. As discussed in Alternative 1 below, these benefits could be available again if maintaining the TVC and adding a city-specific contract, however an additional budget allocation would be needed beyond the $30,000 included in the draft budget.
April 10 City Council Direction (included in draft budget) - TVC-Only Approach • $30,000 annual contribution (price consistent through remaining two contract years) • Savings of $30,000 from the prior fiscal year
• Regional collaboration and federal advocacy included
Alternative 1 - Continue TVC + Add Back City Legislative Advocacy:
• Maintain current $30,000 TVC contribution
• Could use sole source contracting for City Legislative Advocacy as we remain a Townsend Public Affairs client, which could expedite process and retain pricing benefits • Costs are likely similar to the previous arrangement (+/- $60,000), but could be higher • City Council would need to find and add at least $30,000 back into the draft budget
Alternative 2 - New Standalone City Contract (Exit TVC):
• Exit TVC and reallocate the current $30,000 legislative advocacy funding to City Legislative Advocacy
• Would require a Request for Proposal process that could lengthen the process and increase costs
• Would no longer receive bundling benefits as a Townsend Public Affairs client • Estimated $60,000+ total cost for new municipal clients (City Council would need to find and add additional $30,000+ to the draft budget)
• Would need to develop exit strategy with TVC cities, as Pleasanton currently serves a key role as fiscal sponsor in the TVC coalition.
• Would likely be state advocacy only (no federal component) 6 of 6
Comparison of Advocacy Approaches:
TVC Regional Approach Benefits (Current Path):
• Regional voting bloc representing over 500,000 residents • Federal advocacy components included
• Cost efficiencies through shared contract structure
• Pleasanton serves as the fiscal sponsor and scheduled lead agency for the upcoming cycle • Aligns with the Council's budget reduction decisions
City-Specific Approach Benefits (Would Require Draft Budget Amendment):
• Tailored focus exclusively on Pleasanton priorities
• Direct control over advocacy priorities and messaging • Greater flexibility in legislative positioning
• Would require exiting TVC and reallocating those funds toward a city-specific contract, OR maintaining TVC while adding a city-specific contract • State-only advocacy estimated at $60,000+ total (at least $30,000 more than current TVC allocation)
• State and federal advocacy would cost significantly more than $60,000
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council continue with the TVC-only approach as directed in the draft budget process. This recommendation is based on the elimination of the City-specific contract and proposed staffing reductions in the City Manager's Office, which diminishes staff capacity for managing multiple legislative advocacy contracts and coordination efforts. The streamlined TVC-only approach requires less staff oversight and coordination than managing multiple concurrent advocacy relationships, making it operationally feasible while also delivering cost savings consistent with the draft budget.