SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – August 19, 2025
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #7: Approve the creation of a Quiet Zone Feasibility Study, a Preliminary Design Capital Improvement Project, and budget amendments to reallocate $175,000 from the Repair and Replacement Internal Service Fund (Bernal Community Park Synthetic Fields Project) to fund the study
1. Is there a chance this can be completed earlier than December 2027? A. Reviewing the experiences from other local agencies, discussions with consultants, and discussion with members from Union Pacific the Federal Rail Authority process to establish a quiet zone is at least 2 years. Several agencies reported 3 and 4 years, but those applications appeared to be more complex than the proposed Pleasanton Quiet Zone.
2. AB 179 provided 2 million for Newark quiet zone. Why not use our representative for cost of feasibility study? To secure funds? Same with Police cameras (Item #12)
A. AB 179 was also known as the Budget Act of 2022. The Budget Act made several one-time, focused State budget allocations to transportation projects throughout the state, including Newark’s Quiet Zone project, among other projects funded in Alameda County. Pleasanton benefitted from AB 179 in the form of a $5 Million allocation to the ValleyLink project.
Although AB 179’s one-time funds are no longer available, the City has a strong track record in our legislative efforts to gain support from State representatives for local project funding, when those opportunities arise. Staff will continue to monitor grant and funding opportunities to help support the implementation of the Quiet Zone improvements and other priority projects.
Agenda Item #11: Continued from June 17, 2025 - Introduce an ordinance amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 13.20 to Title 13 establishing a public art contribution requirement for non-residential development and adopt a resolution amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to add a public art contribution in- lieu fee
3. I want to make sure of a few things and look at some examples. People's opinions of what "art” vary wildly. Also want to look into the amounts that would be charged.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 A. In response to what “art” is, the City Council has a commission that reviews public art and provides feedback. Additionally, the proposed ordinance identifies criteria for art as follows:
§13.20.050 Criteria.
A. Public art shall be subject to the following criteria:
1. No unpermitted obstruction or encroachment in the public right of way shall be permitted.
2. The materials used for the public art shall be structurally sound and weather resistant.
B. The following may not be used to satisfy the contribution requirement contained in section 13.20.030:
1. Art objects which are mass-produced from a standard design;
2. Reproductions of original artworks;
3. Decorative, ornamental, or functional elements including details and fenestration of a building which are designed by the project architect as opposed to an artist commissioned for the purpose of creating the artwork; or
4. Landscape architecture and landscape.
The Public Art In-Lieu fee charged will vary based on the construction valuation and size of the project. Per the Draft Ordinance, an in-lieu fee (or value of art) would be either 0.45% for projects of 5,000 to 50,000 square feet; or 0.5% of construction value for projects over 50,000 square feet. Per these rates, a project with a $1 Million Construction Valuation would pay (or install art with a valuation of) $4,500 or $5,000.
To estimate the potential range of fees charged, staff reviewed six months of building permit data (January – June 2025). In this period, of the 183 commercial building permits issued, nine had a construction valuation of over $1,000,000. Among these, two large projects had respectively $60 Million and $20 Million in construction valuation, with the remainder valued between $1 and $2 Million.
1 1 The Public Art Ordinance is applicable to commercial development projects (new construction or alterations) over 5,000 square feet, as well as with a construction value of over $1 Million, regardless of project size. Staff was unable to complete a detailed analysis of projects by square footage in the time available, so has limited the reporting to projects subject to the Public Art fee based on construction valuation.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
3 Under the proposed Public Art Ordinance, the largest project, with a $60 Million aggregate construction cost, would have paid approximately $300,000 in Public Art In- Lieu Fees; the smaller projects would have paid between $5,000 and $10,000.
Agenda Item #12: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a five-year agreement with Axon Enterprise, Inc. in the amount of $1,724,652 for a service package for body-worn cameras, conducted energy devices (i.e. Tasers), and electronic evidence storage
4. Does any non-uniformed officer carry a taser? If yes, will there be a change to the policy?
A. No, only uniformed members of the department carry Tasers. All department members must complete annual department training on the use of the Taser or Conductive Energy Device (CED).
5. What is the reason only a uniformed officer is contemplated as having the authority to carry a taser?
A. The main reason is lack of adequate space and carry options without a gun belt or outer carrier vest. The only officers in the field, not in uniform, are our Alternate Response Unit. They function in a non-enforcement capacity and will call in uniform patrol officers to a situation if they are needed. They also have the option to back out of a scene to calm the situation and look for alternative methods of resolution which may include the response of uniformed officers.
Agenda Item #22: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a maintenance and as- needed services agreement with Terra Landscape for weed abatement services for a total not-to-exceed amount of $547,651 for a three-year term with the option to extend the agreement for two additional one-year terms, with a total agreement amount not to exceed five years and $982,921
6. Is this abatement something that our Public Works department can’t handle? A. Public Works regularly uses contracts to supplement City staff to keep up with the wide range of maintenance responsibilities across Pleasanton. In the last ten years, a number of additional assets and responsibilities have been added to the Parks Division without additional staffing, including: Bernal Community Park Phase 2, Cubby’s Dog Park, Stoneridge Creek Park, Harding Park, Cricket Pitch, Civic Park Planting and Transportation Corridor, El Charro Median, Marilyn Murphy Kane Trail, Mountain Biking Trail at Augustin Bernal Community Park, Lund Ranch Open Space and Trail, Old Vineyard Trail, Bonde Ranch eucalyptus trees and weed abatement, weekend trash collection from March 1 to October 31 which includes Main
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
4 Street, additional mowing duties resulting from cancellation of the mowing contract as part of the recent budget reductions, and soon the Johnson Drive landscape improvements.
Weed abatement is one of the areas where contracted support would allow staff to focus on core tasks while maintaining service levels. The contractor provides specialized crews and equipment that supplement the City’s crew to address large open spaces, roadway frontages, and rights-of-way more efficiently and enable timely removal of vegetation in high fire hazard areas and along major corridors, ensuring both public safety and compliance with fire prevention and environmental regulations.
While City crews continue to perform many park maintenance tasks, contracting out this work provides flexibility to respond to seasonal demand, reduces the need for additional City staffing and equipment, and allows our in-house teams to focus on higher-priority infrastructure maintenance, emergency response, and capital project support.
This blended approach using both City staff and contractors ensures the community receives consistent, cost-effective, and timely weed abatement services.
7. How long have we been contracting out weed abatement services? What year did we start using private contractors to do this work?
A. The City has used as-needed contract services to supplement existing staff, including the weed abatement services, for at least the past 10 years. Due to the City’s record retention policy, staff cannot confirm the actual start date for this as-needed contract further back than 10 years.
Agenda Item #25: Receive a report on the operations of the Pleasanton Pioneer Cemetery and provide direction on a modified service model
8. Is there a more detailed report from L.F. Sloane we can see? If there is no alternate detailed report, did staff call Graham Hitch Mortuary and ask for their opinion on the situation?
A. Sloane’s primary focus was on the service delivery vendors, Terra and ACMB, given their direct role in operations. They did, however, have brief conversations with Graham Hitch, which were supplemented by additional engagement from City staff. This allowed us to capture their input without duplicating efforts.
9. The cemetery accumulated a million dollars of unearned revenue before this review happened. Their recommendation (Slide 12, 21) is to use the $500k loan
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
5 to subsidize/offset future burial costs which is on top of the current $50k/year subsidy. With the average 3-year loss being $156k/year, they are basically asking for a $206k/year ($50k + $156k) subsidy until all previously sold units are buried. So, they are basically asking taxpayers to pay for their mistake of inaction. To their credit, they are pausing casket sales so the problem won't keep growing, but they could have recommended pausing or slowing casket sales earlier.
A. The financial detail in the report is focused on operating activity, and all figures are presented pre-subsidy so as not to make assumptions about the level or source of funding that might offset the operating loss. The intent of the recommendations is not to perpetuate subsidies but to reduce and eventually eliminate them. The goal is to move the cemetery toward a break- even operation by simplifying service delivery, streamlining partner/vendor relationships, and reducing the expense base. Pausing casket sales was an important first step to prevent the problem from compounding, and the broader set of recommendations are designed to stabilize operations, address legacy commitments, and create a more sustainable model moving forward.
To clarify, the cemetery has the following assets/liabilities:
• The Cemetery Operating Fund currently has a $170,000 fund balance.
The annual subsidy from the General Fund over the last several years was $50,000. The subsidy for FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 is budgeted at $170,000 and $50,000.
• The Cemetery Capital Improvement Project currently has $632,655 in unspent budget. However, these funds are restricted.
• The Unearned Revenue (liability) account for the cemetery had a balance of $919,084.78 at the end of FY 2023/24. Funds are set aside to pay these liabilities associated with the services (e.g. burial) that are sold pre- need at the cemetery.
• The Cemetery also owes the General Fund $500,000 in loan funds/advances for the establishment of the Cemetery Master Plan Implementation Reserve Fund.
10. Single Partner reads like one contractor runs the whole thing, but in the Detailed Cost Breakdown, Responsible Party (Slide 31) the City is still responsible for half the work. Shared Services (Slide 30) is according to the footnote in Slide 31, the single contractor model (assumes full operations of the site). Why is it not mentioned in Economic Impact of Available Options (Slide 11)? Is Current Model the same as Shared Services or are both options available? If they are the same option, they contradict each other.
A. The $100–150K expense shown as Management costs under the “Shared Services” model (slide 31) represents the annual subsidy the City would pay to a shared services partner to take on full cemetery operations. In this model,
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
6 no City staff time would be devoted, as the partner would handle all day-to- day responsibilities. However, beyond the fact that this level of subsidy is significant, it is unlikely that an operator would agree to such an arrangement.
Sloane held preliminary discussions with local cemetery operators at a conceptual level, and no viable candidates emerged.
11. Why can’t we contract out all the cemetery work?
A. The City has not found one vendor to provide all cemetery services. We currently contract with two separate vendors – one for cemetery sales and burials (Graham Hitch) and one for maintenance and grave digging (ACMB).
The cost of the contracts is proving to be higher than the revenue earned at the cemetery. As the cemetery is a City asset, City staff oversee the contracts and fees, answer day-to-day questions regarding the cemetery, work with issues that arise at the cemetery, and answer ongoing questions that arise from the contractors.
12. How much did we pay the consultant to evaluate this? A. The total not-to-exceed cost of the contract for this study is $52,000. To date, we have expended $34,548.
Agenda Item #26: Receive an update from the Pleasanton Downtown Association and approve appointment of the Advisory Board for the 2026 Downtown Pleasanton Business Improvement District
13. Do we have a list of downtown property owners that is publicly available - county tax roll?
A. Yes, a property owner list was provided to the City by Civitas Advisors during the property-based business improvement district (PBID) feasibility study process.
Submitted On:
Aug 15, 2025, 01:51PM 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 City Council Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number 6
Comments Limited Community Engagement on ACTC CIP Grant:
The One Pleasanton strategic plan comes to life when all our values, priorities, and strategies align. Community engagement was an important part of the strategic development process and will be an important part of the implementation. Key engagement strategies are:
OPTIMIZING OUR ORGANIZA TION: 4. Evaluate the organization’ s structure of community engagement opportunities (such as commissions and committees, and citizens’ academy) to improve information sharing, optimize staf f efficiency, and provide greater service to the community .
BUILDING A COMMUNITY WHERE EVER YONE BELONGS: Foster community engagement and conduct ef fective planning to promote a livable and economically vibrant community .
As wonderful as it is to receive millions of dollars in grant funding, it must be challenging for City Council to know if the community was engaged based on this agenda packet alone. As someone who was involved in both projects (WLP and 580 overcrossings), my observation is that the engagement has steadily declined.
Consequently , community input to City Council has also declined. The projects might be fine; but they've diverged since the time when the community was involved, so it's hard to tell.
What engagement opportunities have been missed?
1) RES 2024-003, revising the BPTC last year , established a duty that BPTC review projects and provide recommendations on design elements to City Council (Section 3, a.). Whatever feedback was given to Traffic Engineering was several years ago and not provided directly to City Council. Design changes have been made and not reviewed. With “Action Minutes”, City Council wouldn't know anyway.
2) RES 2024-003 established a duty that BPTC provide input on grant funding to City Council (Section 3, e.). You have not received any input from them. 3) ACTC's Countywide Bicycle Network is something I learned about during my time on ACTC's BPAC. I learned that Alameda County had several meetings with Traffic Engineering about Pleasanton's portion of the network. These meetings happened during my time on Pleasanton's BPTC, and we heard nothing. No input was solicited. There wasn't even an informational presentation. 4) Years ago, the so-called “Quick Build” portion was done on WLP . The plan was to test ideas, learn what worked, and engage with the community . Eventually, the “Quick Build” would be replaced by the ultimate design. If any feedback has been gathered, it has not been shared. At a recent review of collisions, I pointed out a collision in this section, but no analysis was provided. This, theoretically , is for the community, so shouldn't they participate in the discussion before we move on? Informing them afterwards does not foster engagement.
5) The agenda packet refers to a 100% design project in 2024 for WLP from Hopyard to the Iron Horse Trail. Was that design ever completed? If so, it has not been reviewed by BPTC. If the design is complete, is there a plan for construction? City Council should expect feedback from BPTC on that before moving on to the next Focus Area.
How have things changed since 2018?
1) The 2010 Master Plan prioritized the section of WLP from Owens to Santa Rita. This didn't happen, so it became part of the WLP corridor in the 2018 Master Plan. Significant outreach occurred, and a plan with seven segments was agreed to. After delays, a dif ferent consultant was brought on, and the design was changed with no outreach. Even though the section from Owens to Santa Rita was still a top priority , the “Quick Build” started near Hopyard. The “current projects” web page shows Phase 1-B from Willow to Stoneridge (weirdly , Phase 1-C is the same), so it dif fers from the current proposal. What's in front of you now is a design project (not construction) of $1M for 0.25 miles. Again, BPTC has not reviewed a design in years.
2) Staff continues to misrepresent the 580 overcrossing project as the 3rd priority corridor. Never mind the fact that multiple overcrossings are not a corridor . The 2018 Master Plan described the “I-580 and I-680 Overcrossings” project: eight freeway interchanges. What's in front of you today is three overcrossings so it would have a rather low priority if scored today . During the recent budget meetings, the project was referred to as just the Santa Rita overcrossing – one. A quick poll of my cycling friends said their preferred 580 overcrossings are the BART station and Fallon (once you get over 580, both Santa Rita and Tassajara are way too stressful). Last year , the feedback from Caltrans caused Traffic Engineering to rescind the TDA Article 3 request for the 580 Overcrossings, so I presume changes were required. None of this was reviewed with BPTC.
I assume the last paragraph in the Agenda Packet has a typo. Total design cost is $700,00, not $750,000.
I believe in the benefit of community engagement for these two projects. I believe the opportunities for community engagement exist within the committee framework. But it has gotten worse over the years.
Submitted On:
Aug 19, 2025, 07:30AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Kelly
Last Name: Cousins
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included) [email protected]
Meeting Type City Council Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number Item 11
Comments Dear Mayor and City Council members,
Please consider the benefits of increasing the revenues for our City’ s public arts installations with the enforcement of the fee for Arts for new development in the City. This small fee has been recommended by many who are familiar with how cities throughout the Bay Area and beyond help facilitate purchasing, installing and maintaining public art in their communities. As a member of the Cultural Arts Master Plan in 2014 and currently a designated agent of Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council to help represent the Harrington’ s generous public art funds, I am familiar with the importance of augmenting their generous donations for Public Art installation in Pleasanton with the needed installation and maintenance funds to ensure the City’ s Public Art Installations are protected and professionally installed and maintained in the future. The current Art Installations are a valuable treasure we cannot let fall into disrepair because we are a city facing a significant financial deficit for the next several years. Our City’ s asset management plan must include the many valuable pieces of public art that enhance Pleasanton and provide a service to the community and visitors alike. It is a critical time for the City to collect the necessary revenue from new development that is standard practice in most of the surrounding communities with the enforcement of a fee for public art purchase, installation and maintenance. Partnerships work best when more groups divide the costs for public art, including the developers, City and generous donors who are willing to work together on behalf of the community . Don’t pass up this opportunity to change the developer fee for Art enforcement for the sake of the City’ s current assets and future art acquisitions.
Thank you for your interests and vote in favor of this proposal.
Kelly Cousins
President of the Board
Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council
Submitted On:
Aug 15, 2025, 10:09AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Richard
Last Name: Schneider
Email (this entry is disclosable if
included)
Meeting Type City Council Regular Meeting at 7 p.m.
Agenda Item Number 9 & 10
Comments I believe that for the first time, annual overtime pay in Pleasanton exceeded $10M (per the latest Government Compensation in California data). In 2024, total overtime pay was $10.54M, (or 12.8% of total wages) of which overtime pay in the fire department totaled $8.33M, 79% of total overtime pay .
This is not new news for the Fire Chief, Mayor , City Council and City Staf f, but may be for city residents. The number is especially alarming in Pleasanton’ s current financial environment where so many , worked so hard on identifying cost savings, but could do little about reducing overtime costs (exceeding $10.5M per year).
In reviewing the budget package approved by the City Council on June 17th, fire department overtime is planned to stay constant at 18.5 personnel from the FY 2023/2024 baseline level through FY 2026/2027. While I understand that there are good reasons to budget for 18.5 personnel to cover for time of f, injuries, training, etc., the cost for those overtime personnel is where the challenge lies. In 2024, with the equivalent of 18.5 fire department personnel costing $8.33M, each overtime personnel cost $450K. Those are extremely expensive resources that I can’t imagine ever being approved in a normal hiring situation. As a comparison, in the police department 9.4 overtime personnel cost $1.62M. That's $170K per resource.
While I’m aware that the new LPFD MOUs contain modifications that should impact total overtime pay (and I commend the ef fort and diligence that went into this from both the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority as well as the labor unions and their members), until the new costs are quantified, I don’t know how significant the impact is.
I support fairly compensating the brave individuals that provide exceptional fire protection and emergency medical services but in Pleasanton’ s financial situation I would request fire department leadership to aggressively tackle the overtime issue and look for additional creative solutions. Even a 10-20% reduction per year would save $1-2M annually while minimizing the impact on employees.
As the City Council looks at approving fire department MOUs, please ensure that the proper individuals stay on top of this issue with a management oversight plan and transparent (and frequent) reporting of results.
Regards,
Richard Schneider - District 4 resident
From: Lisa Tarnow
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Subject: FW: City Manager Form submitted on City of Pleasanton Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 11:50:53 AM
From: City of Pleasanton <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 11:21 AM
To: Lisa Tarnow <[email protected]>
Subject: City Manager Form submitted on City of Pleasanton
Your
Name
Peter Miller
Your
Email
Subject Quiet zone/body cams
Message CM Eicher,
This note is in regards to the consent calendar tomorrow. With the recent addition of the feasibility study of the choir zone for $175,000, why are we not trying to find available money from outside sources for the feasibility study?Alex Lee assemblyman representing Newark apparently made available $2 million from AB 179 for Newark’s Quiet zone. With the transportation issues surrounding more activity of trains coming/going through Pleasanton, it makes sense to look for funds outside of Pleasanton primarily because this is a regional problem. As for the body cams, the amount of money being spent should be clarified and understood by Our Community…and what this means? Considering that code enforcement is a bit weak. Thank you respectfully Peter Miller
PUBLIC COMMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT