Pleasanton City Council
February 3, 2026

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
7:00 PM
City Council Chamber
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566

Cm. Nibert Teleconference Location:
52 Hopetoun Rd, Drouin, VIC, 3818 Australia

The meeting will be held in-person, broadcast live on Channel 29 and streamed live for viewing at the following links TV30 https://www.tri-valleytv.org, the City's website in the Meetings portal (a red dot will indicate a live meeting) https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/, and the City's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCityofPleasanton.

Public participation: It is requested that members of the public wishing to address the City Council submit a speaker card. When public comment is opened on an agenda item, individuals may speak once per agenda item.

To submit written public comment regarding an open session item on this meeting agenda visit https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment. Comments will be accepted by the City Clerk’s Office until 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting.

In Person at Council Chamber:
• Submit a physical speaker card to the City Clerk at the meeting. When your name is called, please provide comment at the podium.

CALL TO ORDER
• Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance - Cm. Gaidos
• Roll Call
Resolution No. 2026-003
Ordinance No. 2304

AGENDA AMENDMENTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered separately.

City Manager

1. Approve meeting minutes of January 13, 2025 and January 20, 2025 Library and Recreation

2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into the second amendment to the services agreement with Folger Graphics for Activities Guide and City Newsletter printing

City Council Agenda Page 2 of 3 February 3, 2026

services in an amount not to exceed $51,525 until November 30, 2026, for a total amount not to exceed $411,829
Public Works

3. Accept public improvements performed by Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc., for the Annual Slurry Sealing of Various Streets Project, CIP No. 25504, and approve a budget amendment to return $83,939 to the Gas Tax Fund

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

4. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda – Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS
If necessary to ensure completion of the following items, the Mayor may alter time limits.

5. Receive an update on the Regional Groundwater Facilities Improvement Project – Phase 1 Feasibility Study Results

6. Receive an update on stakeholder engagement and provide direction on a potential Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) measure on the November 2026 ballot

7. Consider developing a policy for evaluation of development-related General Plan amendments and re-zoning requests

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL

COUNCIL REPORTS
Brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by the Council

CITY MANAGER UPDATES

ADJOURNMENT

Notice
Under Government Code §54957.5, any writings/documents regarding an open session item on this agenda and items received by the City Clerk’s Office by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet will be available for public inspection on the City’s website https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/ and also at the Pleasanton Library located at 400 Old Bernal Ave., Pleasanton, CA 94566.

There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders, which require a hearing by law, the receipt of

City Council Agenda Page 3 of 3 February 3, 2026

evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting.

Accessible Public Meetings
The City of Pleasanton can provide special assistance for persons with disabilities to participate in public meetings. To make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation (e.g., an assistive listening device), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 123 Main Street, Pleasanton, CA 94566 or (925) 931-5027 at the earliest possible time. If you need translation or interpretation assistance, please provide at least two working days’ notice prior to the meeting date.

City Council Minutes Page 1 of 1 January 13, 2026

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Tuesday, January 13, 2026
2:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Balch called the Special Meeting Closed Session of the City Council to order at the hour of 2:03 p.m. from the Council Chamber located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert (teleconference), Testa, Mayor Balch

Absent: None.

1. Public Comment
Mayor Balch opened public comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Gov't Code Section 54956.9: 1 potential case

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
The City Council gave conditional direction to initiate an action. The action and other particulars shall, once formally commenced, be disclosed to any person upon inquiry.

A
pproved by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert, Mayor Balch Noes: Councilmember Testa

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Balch adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m.
______________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
Item #1

City Council Minutes Page 1 of 5 January 20, 2026

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Balch called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m. from the Council Chamber located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert (teleconference), Testa, Mayor Balch

Absent: None.

AGENDA AMENDMENTS
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Balch opened public comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

MOTION: It was m/s by Councilmember Gaidos/Councilmember Eicher to approve the consent calendar as recommended. Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Balch Noes: None

Absent: None
City Manager

1. Approve meeting minutes of November 18, 2025, December 2, 2025, December 3, 2025, and December 16, 2025
Recomme
ndation: Approve meeting minutes of November 18, 2025, December 2, 2025, December 3, 2025, and December 16, 2025.

Community and Economic Development

2. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission Recommendation: Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission.

City Council Minutes Page 2 of 5 January 20, 2026

3. Adopt a resolution approving a Ground Lease Amendment for Promenade Apartments at 5300 Case Avenue
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2026-001 to:

1. Approve the Ground Lease Amendment for the Promenade Apartments;

2. Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to make minor modifications to Ground Lease Amendment, including any extensions or minor amendments that are necessary in the future; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute such additional documents and take all necessary steps to implement the transactions described in the resolution.

Finance

4. Public Hearing - Adopt a resolution finding that certain development impact fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000, et seq.) are unexpended after five years and the funds are committed to particular projects Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2026-002 finding that certain development impact fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code section 66000, et seq.) are unexpended after five years and the funds are committed to particular projects.

5. Accept the monthly disbursements and investment report for November 2025 Recommendation: Accept claim disbursements in the amount of $13,696,577 and the investment report for the month of November 2025.

Library and Recreation

6. Approve the Library Commission's workplan priorities for fiscal years 2025/26- 2026/27
Recommendation: Approve the Library Commission's workplan priorities for fiscal years 2025/26-2026/27.

Public Works

7. Authorize the City Manager to enter into the first amendment to the Maintenance and Trade Services agreement with East Bay Pool Service, Inc. for pool maintenance services and repairs, increasing the annual not-to-exceed amount by $75,000 to $254,950, increasing the cumulative not-to-exceed amount to $1,124,750, and extending the term through fiscal year 2027/28

City Council Minutes Page 3 of 5 January 20, 2026
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into the first amendment to the Maintenance and Trade Services agreement with East Bay Pool Service, Inc. for pool maintenance services and repairs, increasing the annual not-to-exceed amount by $75,000 to $254,950, increasing the cumulative not-to-exceed amount to $1,124,750, and extending the term through fiscal year 2027/28.

8. Authorize the City Manager to amend the professional services contracts and increase the on-call general civil engineering professional services agreements with Pakpour Consulting Group, Inc., Mark Thomas, Wood Rodgers, Inc., and Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar to a grouped aggregate not-to-exceed contract limit of $1,250,000, an increase of $500,000, through June 30, 2026 Recommendation:

1. Authorize the City Manager to amend the professional services contracts and increase the on-call general civil engineering professional services agreements with Pakpour Consulting Group, Inc., Mark Thomas, Wood Rodgers, Inc., and Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar to a grouped aggregate not-to- exceed contract limit of $1,250,000, an increase of $500,000, through June 30, 2026.

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to approve task authorizations.

9. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Operational Technical Services, LLC for staff augmentation services in an amount not-to-exceed $1,500,000 for a three-year term
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Operational Technical Services, LLC for staff augmentation services in an amount not-to-exceed $1,500,000 for a three-year term.

10. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Woodard & Curran, Inc. to support sewer system operations in an amount not-to- exceed $500,000 for a five-year term
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Woodard & Curran, Inc. to support sewer system operations in an amount not-to-exceed $500,000 for a five-year term.

11. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an on-call professional services agreement with Pakpour Consulting Group, Inc. for Utility Program Manager Services, in an amount not-to-exceed $5 million for a five-year term and approve the budget amendments
Recommendation:

1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into an on-call professional services agreement with Pakpour Consulting Group, Inc. for Utility Program Manager

City Council Minutes Page 4 of 5 January 20, 2026
Services, in an amount not-to-exceed $5 million for a five-year term and approve the budget amendments.

2. Authorize the Public Works Director to approve future task authorizations under this contract without further council approval.

3. Approve the budget amendments to transfer $150,000 from Fund 431 (Sewer CIP Fund) to Fund 430 (Sewer Operating Fund) and appropriate $150,000 to the Sewer Operating Fund Professional Services account (43041202-430101).

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

12. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda – Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.

Mayor Balch opened public comment. The following individuals provided comment:

Kelly Cousins, Jan Coleman-Knight.

Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS

13. Accept the audited financial statements of the City of Pleasanton including the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and other related audit reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025
Recommendation: Accept the audited financial statements, including the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and the related audit reports for FY 2024/25.

Presentation by Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance.

Mayor Balch opened public comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

MOTION: It was m/s by Councilmember Eicher/Councilmember Testa to approve the item as recommended. Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Balch Noes: None

Absent: None

14. Receive an update on Utilities System Activity advancing the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Priority, Investing in Our Environment
Recommendation: Receive an update on Utilities System Activity advancing the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Priority, Investing in Our Environment.

City Council Minutes Page 5 of 5 January 20, 2026
Presentation by Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public Works.

Mayor Balch opened public comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
Councilmember Eicher requested a revisit of Downtown ground floor use restrictions at a future City Council meeting. City Manager Beaudin requested if the City Council would be willing to have the item be considered with the next City Council workplan review in a month and a half. The City Council agreed to the future update.

Councilmember Gaidos asked if a formal request was needed to initiate a new appointment to the Altamont Community Monitor Committee. Staff confirmed that the position will be advertised as part of the spring 2026 recruitment.

COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers reported on regional and local meetings attended.

CITY MANAGER UPDATES
The City Manager provided informational updates on the community and organization.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Balch adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
______________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

Item #2

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

February 3, 2026
Library and Recreation

TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE SECOND

AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FOLGER GRAPHICS

FOR ACTIVITIES GUIDE AND CITY NEWSLETTER PRINTING SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $51,525 UNTIL NOVEMBER 30, 2026, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $411,829

SUMMARY
The City produces an Activities Guide highlighting its programs and services, which is now distributed twice per year (reduced from three times per year) and a City Newsletter. This amendment extends the existing agreement with Folger Graphics for printing services for an additional year and reflects the reduced number of Activities Guides, resulting in a decrease to the annual not-to-exceed amount, with additional savings possible depending on the final page counts of the Activities Guide and City Newsletter.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into the second amendment to the services agreement with Folger Graphics for Activities Guide and City Newsletter printing services in an amount not to exceed $51,525 until November 30, 2026, for a total amount not to exceed $411,829.

BACKGROUND
The City offers a range of recreational classes, preschool activities, environmental education, and civic arts programs. It also manages and coordinates youth sports programs and recreational activities for adults with developmental disabilities, as well as community-wide special events. The City advertises these classes and programs in its biannual Activities Guide, which residents use to register for the wide variety of activities available.

The City provides the Progress Newsletters to inform residents of important topics, events, and key milestones.

The City and Folger Graphics executed the original agreement on November 20, 2021 with a three-year term and a not to exceed amount of $91,000 in year one, $94,640 in year two, and $98,426 in year three for a total amount of $284,066 (four percent increase per year). In December 2024 the City executed an amendment to the agreement for a one-year term, for $76,238, for a total amount not to exceed $360,304.

DISCUSSION
In an effort to reduce General Fund expenses while maintaining effective community outreach, the City has transitioned from printing three Activities Guides per year to two. This change reflects updated program scheduling and marketing practices, resulting in cost savings while continuing to provide residents with a comprehensive and accessible overview of programs and services.

Printing two guides per year allows the City to better align content with seasonal programming, reduce redundancy, and streamline production and distribution costs. This adjustment also reduces the total number of pages printed annually and lowers the overall not-to-exceed amount under the printing agreement.

The City will continue to publish the Progress Newsletter in the upcoming year.

Folger Graphics has provided excellent service to the City of Pleasanton and has demonstrated a high level of professionalism and quality of work.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The proposed agreement supports equity by providing the Activities Guide and City Newsletter in both print and digital formats, ensuring broad access for residents. Sustainability is supported by combining the Spring and Summer Activities Guides into a single publication, reducing paper use and printing impacts.

OUTREACH
As a matter of routine business, no outreach was associated with this item.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
By reducing printing costs for the Activities Guide, this Amendment advances the ONE Pleasanton Goal A - Funding our Future to support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, and cost containment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this contract is included in the Library and Recreation Department budget (00150100 435135) and in the City Manager’s Office’s Communication Division budget (00132400 435135). The not-to-exceed amount is $31,790 for the Library and Recreation, and $19,735 for the City Manager’s Office, for a total of $51,525, with the total not-to-exceed amount of $411,829 for five years (Attachment 1).

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Ania Pawlak

Ania Pawlak, Management
Analyst
Heidi Murphy, Director of Library and
Recreation

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Folger Graphics - Second Amendment to Agreement

Second Amendment Page 1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
Th
is Second Amendment to Agreement ("Second Amendment") is entered into this First day of January 2026 by the City of Pleasanton ("City") and Folger Graphics, Inc. ("Contractor”) W
hereas, on November 30, 2021, City and Contractor entered into an Agreement for printing services ("Agreement"); and
W
hereas, on December 1, 2024, City and Contractor entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement, and
W
hereas the parties desire to extend the Agreement
N
ow, therefore, in exchange for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. S
ection 6 of the Agreement, "Terms," is amended to extend the term through November 30, 2026.

2. S
ection 7 of the Agreement, "Compensation," is amended to read: the compensation from December 1, 2025 to November 30, 2026 shall not exceed $51,525 and the total compensation for this Agreement shall not exceed $411,829.

3. Th
is amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.

4. A
ll other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

I
n witness whereof, authorized representatives of the parties have executed this First Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first above written.

CI
TY OF PLEASANTON CONTRACTOR or CONSULTANT
_____________________________
By: __________________________
Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Signature
__________________________

Print name
T
itle: __________________________
Attachment 1
Docusign Envelope ID: BBDA4AA5-7721-44FA-AE80-8E377DA18A1A VP of Sales
Kirk Folger

Second Amendment Page 2
[If Contractor or Consultant is a corporation,
signatures must comply with California
Corporations Code §313]

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: __________________________
_____________________________ Signature
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
__________________________
Print name

Title: __________________________

Rev. 3/23
Docusign Envelope ID: BBDA4AA5-7721-44FA-AE80-8E377DA18A1A

ϭ
Exhibit A for Second Amendment
Scope of Work with Folger Graphics
Scope of work will include the following projects and tasks:

Library and Recreation Activities Guide
Task 1: Produce a final printing proof from an uploaded file (PDF) received from City’s contract graphics artist. The production timeline should allow for changes (spelling, dates, grammar, corrections, etc.) before the final draft is printed. The contractor shall submit costs associated with revisions made on the printing proof to the Project Manager and receive the Project Manager’s approval before final printing of the project.

Task 2: Provide same-day courier service to drop off and deliver printing proof copy to and from the City of Pleasanton Library and Recreation Office, located at 400 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA.

Task 3: Produce up to 32,000 copies of the Library and Recreation Activities Guide two (2) times a year.

Each brochure will contain up to 92 pages, cover to cover, depending upon content, and will be produced in accordance with the specifications below:

The document shall consist of a four-color, smooth Hi-Brite offset cover (outside front cover, inside front cover, inside back cover, outside back cover), and inside document color shall consist of four-color standard throughout. Paperweight shall be 70# gloss book for cover and 27.7# Newsprint for inside material. Bindery shall be stapled using saddle stitch.

Task 4: Obtain City of Pleasanton residential mailing list/routes for zip codes 94566 and 94588 and deliver the appropriate number of activities guides to Pleasanton Post Office, located at 4300 Black Avenue, Pleasanton, CA. Post office boxes and commercial addresses are not to be included.

Task 5: Deliver remaining activities guides to the Library and Recreation Department-Administration Office on the same day as delivery is made to the Post Office.

Printing for up to 32,000 copies per guide, by page count Amount (Annual) 88 pages + 4-page cover $ 31,690
Annual sales tax on approximately 1,700 booklets (850 per guide @ 88 pages) to be delivered directly to the Library and Recreation Administration Office (400 Bernal Avenue) (based on 10.25 % rate)
$ 100
Timelines -The parties shall agree in writing to a production timeline for each Activity Guide, which shall include these and other relevant elements.

Turnaround time to receive, print, and deliver blueline and color key to Library and Recreation Administration Office (400 Bernal Avenue) 2-3 days
Docusign Envelope ID: BBDA4AA5-7721-44FA-AE80-8E377DA18A1A

Ϯ
Turnaround time from receipt of blueline to print and deliver to the Post Office and Library and Recreation Administration Office (400 Bernal Avenue) 7 days
City Newsletter
Task 1: Produce up to 33,378 copies of the City’s Newsletter up to three times per year, generally Spring, Summer, Fall. Each publication will contain up to 8 pages, cover to cover, depending upon content, and will be produced in accordance with the specifications below:
x 4 Color Process & 60# web offset Throughout
x Cut, Score, Fold, Mail
Task 2: Obtain City of Pleasanton residential mailing list/routes for zip codes 94566 and 94588 and deliver the appropriate number of newsletters to Pleasanton Post Office, located at 4300 Black Avenue, Pleasanton, CA. Post office boxes and commercial addresses are not to be included.

Task 3: Deliver remaining newsletters to the City of Pleasanton Administration Office, located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, CA, on the same day as delivery is made to the Post Office.

Printing for up to 33,378 per newsletter, by page count Amount (Annual) 8 pages $17,900
Annual sales tax (based on 10.25% rate) $1835
Timelines - The parties shall agree in writing to a production timeline for each Activity Guide, which shall include these and other relevant elements.

Turnaround time to receive, print and deliver blueline and color key to the City of Pleasanton Administration Office (200 Bernal Avenue)
2-3 days
Turnaround time from receipt of blueline to print and deliver to the Post Office and City of Pleasanton Administration Office (200 Bernal Avenue) 7 days
Docusign Envelope ID: BBDA4AA5-7721-44FA-AE80-8E377DA18A1A

Item #3

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

February 3, 2026
Public Works - Engineering Division

TITLE: ACCEPT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PERFORMED BY SIERRA NEVADA CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE ANNUAL SLURRY SEALING OF VARIOUS STREETS PROJECT, CIP NO. 25504, AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RETURN $83,939 TO THE GAS TAX FUND

SUMMARY
Slurry seal is an application of a thin coat of asphalt/aggregate slurry mixture that seals the road surface. The 2025 Annual Slurry Sealing of Various Streets project consisted of applying a slurry seal to existing pavement to prolong the useful life of the street infrastructure while providing a safe and smooth riding condition. On May 6, 2025, the City Council awarded the contract to Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc., in the amount of $293,007. The work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and in accordance with the City Engineer’s approved scope of work. It is recommended that the City Council accept the project as complete.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept the project as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

2. Authorize release of the retention in the amount of $14,743 to Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc., 30 days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion.

3. Approve a budget amendment to return the project’s unused balance of $83,939 to the Gas Tax fund balance (Fund 160).

BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2025, the City Council awarded Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. a contract for $293,007 and authorized the Director of Public Works to approve change orders up to the project contingency amount of $29,301. Construction began in September 2025 and was successfully completed in October 2025.

DISCUSSION
As part of the City’s Pavement Program, this annual project applied slurry seal on approximately 744,000 square feet of existing pavement.

The new asset upgrade is captured in the geographic information system (GIS) and asset management databases for tracking. See Attachments 1 and 2 for the slurry street list and the project location map, respectively.

All work performed by Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. has been reviewed and verified by the City Engineer to meet the City’s approved plans and specifications and has been completed to

the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Staff recommends the City Council accept the work, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion, and authorize the release of the retention 30 days after recordation.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Ensuring the safe condition of Pleasanton's streets benefits all residents and visitors who travel on local roadways.

OUTREACH
Construction notices, social media messaging, and information on the City’s website were provided before the start of construction. The contractor hand-delivered construction notices to businesses and residents in the area where the project occurred.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment, Strategy 1 – Implement the four-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to complete design and construction of budgeted capital projects.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for this project totaled $785,000, and the available balance for the Annual Slurry Sealing of Various Streets project, following a transfer to the Annual Resurfacing and Preventative Maintenance, CIP No. 25503, to cover the costs for base repairs on slurry seal streets, was $385,000. Project expenditures totaled $301,061, including final contract ($293,007) and change order with Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. ($1,847), material testing by the City’s on-call contractor ($5,384), and other project support costs ($824), leaving a balance of $83,939 (see Attachment 3). Staff recommends that the project balance be returned to the fund balance in the Gas Tax Fund (Fund 160) for all future eligible projects through the CIP Prioritization process.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Slurry Street List

2. Location Map

3. Financial Expenditure Summary, CIP No. 25504

ATTACHMENT 1

SLURRY STREET LIST

STREET NAME BEGIN LOCATION END LOCATION SLURRY SEAL AREA (SF) MARIGOLD CT COLUMBINE DR END 16356
OAK CREEK CT COLUMBINE DR END 14062
OAK CREEK DR FOOTHILL RD COLUMBINE DR 24253
ARBUTUS CT OAK CREEK DR END 6020
CAMELLIA CT OAK CREEK DR END 7258
PALM CT MUIRWOOD DR END 14042
ASPEN CT MUIRWOOD DR END 15556
ALDER CT MUIRWOOD DR END 16632
LEMONWOOD WAY MUIRWOOD DR ASHWOOD DR 12060
ASHWOOD CT ASHWOOD DR END 10022
ASHWOOD DR EASTWOOD WAY LEMONWOOD DR 42190
EASTWOOD CT MUIRWOOD DR END 8491
EASTWOOD WAY MUIRWOOD DR COUNTY LINE 12267
GRAND CANYON CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 8,268
MT MCKINLEY CT LASSEN ST END 8,060
N GLACIER CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 15,424
MESA VERDE CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 10,935
SHENANDOAH CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 17,705
S GETTYSBURG CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 8,157
PETRIFIED FOREST CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 8,422
ISLE ROYAL CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 17,721
ZION CANYON CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 19,508

SEQUOIA CT NATIONAL PARK RD END 11,932
ACADIA CT NATIONAL PARK RD END 11,163
VIRGIN ISLAND CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 20,211
HOT SPRINGS CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 8,431
WIND CAVE CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 19,827
S PLATT CT VALLEY TRAILS DR END 18,233
NATIONAL PARK RD SEQUOIA VALLEY TRAILS (S) 12,228
NATIONAL PARK RD VALLEY TRAILS (N) SEQUOIA 16,588
VALLEY TRAILS DR HOPYARD RD PLATT CT 61,302
VALLEY TRAILS DR PLATT CT PETRIFIED FOREST CT 56,908
VALLEY TRAILS DR PETRIFIED FOREST CT ZION CANYON CT 68,476 VALLEY TRAILS DR ZION CANYON CT HOPYARD RD 64,966
VIRGIL CIR ARTHUR DR (WEST) ARTHUR DR (EAST) 39291
KEVIN CT VIRGIL CIR END 7,192
KIM CT ARTHUR DR END 6740
This is provided for information only.

CITY OF PLEASANTON

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ANNUAL SLURRY SEALING OF VARIOUS STREETS
PROJECT- CIP NO. 25504
������,
\a
����"r� �'..,.."' :]
/1

LOCATION MAP

NOTTO SCALE

ATTACHMENT 3
CIP NO. 25504
02/17/26
Project Funding to Date Amount Totals
2024-25 CIP Allocation (Fund 160 - Gas Tax) $785,000
CCAR # 05/06/2025 transferred to CIP No. 25503 (400,000)

TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING TO DATE
Project Expenditures to Date
Bay Area News Group (advertising) $786
Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. - Construction Contract 293,007 Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc.- BCO#1 1,847
Testing/Inspection Services - Geocon (on-call consultant) 5,384 Studio Blue Digital Print & Copy (printing services) 38

TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Funding Balance/ (Shortfall)
Project Balance (Return to F160) $83,939

ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL OF VARIOUS STREETS
$301,061
$385,000

Item #5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

February 3, 2026
Public Works - Utilities Division

TITLE: RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – PHASE 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY RESULTS

SUMMARY
This report provides the City Council with an informational update on the Phase 1 Feasibility Study for the Regional Groundwater Facilities Improvement Project.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on the Regional Groundwater Facilities Improvement Project – Phase 1 Feasibility Study Results.

BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2024, the City Council approved an agreement between the City of Pleasanton and Zone 7 Water Agency to perform a Phase 1 feasibility review for the Regional Groundwater Facilities Improvement Project. This work was necessary after per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were discovered in the City's groundwater supply, and because the City's wells were aging and beginning to fail. Therefore, this effort supports the City’s evaluation of options to recover the use of its Groundwater Production Quota (GPQ) of 3,500 acre-feet per year.

The City shared costs with Zone 7 to explore the feasibility of constructing new groundwater wells in Pleasanton. The City's cost-share portion for this phase is not to exceed $1,283,231.

The three proposed sites for the Phase 1 feasibility work included Tennis Park, Hansen Park, and Del Prado Park, whichare located on property owned by the City of Pleasanton.

DISCUSSION
As the Tri-Valley Groundwater Manager, Zone 7 Water Agency has taken the lead in performing the Phase 1 feasibility study for engineering and construction, water modeling, contract management and feasibility analysis.

The feasibility study was completed in December 2025. An informational update was presented by Zone 7 staff to their Board on January 21, 2026. The Zone 7 agenda report and presentation materials provided to the Board are included as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively.

The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the same informational update presented to the Zone 7 Board.

City staff is currently reviewing the final feasibility study report and conducting an independent evaluation. Staff anticipate completing this analysis and plan to return to the City Council in late March or early April with a recommendation and to seek City Council direction on next

steps.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This effort advances the Citywide Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP) - Water Resources - Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from water usage (including conveyance) and prepare community water resources for a changing climate which will result in cost savings, enhance water quality and availability, improve infrastructure, and increase resiliency.

OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is a routine matter of City business.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the Citywide ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Investing in Our Environment, Strategy 3 – Identify funding and implement the recommendations from the Water Supply Alternative Study to resolve PFAS water quality issues.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this informational update.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Siew-Chin Yeong, Director
of Public Works
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Zone 7 Water Agency Board Agenda – January 21, 2026 (Item 11)

2. Regional Groundwater Facilities Project – Phase 1 Feasibility Study Results Presentation (Zone 7)

3. Presentation

ITEM NO. 11
ORIGINATING SECTION: Groundwater
CONTACT: Colleen Winey/Ken Minn
AGENDA DATE: January 21, 2026
SUBJECT: Update on the Regional Groundwater Facilities Improvement Project – Phase I Feasibility Study Results
SUMMARY:
• To support the Mission to deliver safe, reliable, efficient, and sustainable water, Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) partnered with the City of Pleasanton to evaluate the feasibility of a Joint Regional Groundwater Facilities Project (the joint project) in the Bernal subbasin. This action supports Strategic Plan Goal B – Reliable Water Supply and Infrastructure, Goal C – Safe Water, and Goal D – Groundwater Management. It is also to implement Strategic Plan Initiative #5 – Develop a diversified water supply plan and implement supported projects and programs, Initiative #9 – Implement the PFAS Management Strategy, and Initiative #11 - Manage the Groundwater Sustainability Agency and implement the Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
• Zone 7 has been exploring the Bernal subbasin to recover the groundwater production capacity, which has been reduced due to out-of-commission wells and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) treatment process, and to meet projected future demands. The City of Pleasanton is also planning to install new groundwater wells to recover its annual groundwater pumping quota of 3,500 acre-feet. • If feasible, installing additional groundwater wells in the Bernal subbasin will enable Zone 7 to become more resilient to multi-year droughts by providing additional groundwater supply, operational flexibility, and redundancy, thereby increasing water supply reliability. The project could be upsized to accommodate Pleasanton’s groundwater pumping quota. • Developing a joint project with the City of Pleasanton will be mutually beneficial, as it will enable both parties to achieve significant cost savings through economies of scale, minimize the impact on the local community and environment, and gain operational efficiencies through centralized treatment.
• Zone 7’s existing infrastructure, including the distribution system and the water treatment facilities at Hopyard well field, can be upgraded to make integrating new production wells to the existing system more cost-effective and efficient without the need to construct a new (non-PFAs) groundwater treatment facility. Groundwater treatment typically includes the addition of standard disinfectants.

• Phase I of the project, the feasibility study, has involved installing up to three test wells on the City of Pleasanton’s property to assess potential yields at these locations and analyze groundwater quality. It also involved analyzing PFAS mobilization using the newly developed groundwater flow model and developing a basis of design for the transmission pipeline and water treatment facility upgrades at the Hopyard well field. Preliminary results were presented to the Board at the June 18, 2025, meeting. • The feasibility study and the Basis of Design Report (BODR) were completed on December 31, 2025. The City of Pleasanton and Zone 7 Staff will analyze the study findings and the BODR to determine the optimal number and locations of wells, pipelines, and facility upgrades, roles and responsibilities, and terms of cost-sharing, construction, and O&M agreements.
• At the January 21 Board meeting, the findings of the Feasibility Study will be presented.

The discussion at the January 21 Board meeting will not include next steps. That discussion would occur after staff from Zone 7 and Pleasanton have fully reviewed the Feasibility Study and have worked together to recommend next steps.

FUNDING:

No funding is requested at this time.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Information only.

1 Zone 7 Board Meeting
January 21, 202
0222222222222
02222222222226
The Regional Groundwater Facilities Project
Regional G
Phase I
al G
I
I –
l G
–
roundwater Facilities Proj
r
Gr
G
– Feasibility Study Results
2 # 11
Manage the Groundwater Sustainability
Agency and implement the Groundwater
Sustainability Plan
# חImplement the PFAs Management
Strategy
# ד
Develop a diversified water supply plan
and implement supported projects and
programs
Supporting Strategic Goals and Initiatives
Initiatives
Strategic
Goals

3 • Project Workflow
• Project Overview
• Feasibility Study Results
• Basis of Design Report
• Q&A
Topics of Discussion
3 Project Workflow
4 Agreements
Awarding
Contracts
Drilling
Yield
Testing and
WQ
Analysis
Modeling
Analysis
Exploratory
Findings
Report
Basis of
Design
Report
Feasibility
Report
Aug 2024 Oct 2024 Dec 2024 June 2025 Aug 2025 Nov 2025 Nov 2025 Dec 2025

Scope of Work
• Drilled exploratory bore holes and constructed three test wells at:

1. Del Prado Park

2. Pleasanton Tennis & Community Park

3. Hansen Park
• Conducted Yield and Water Quality Testing at all sites • Ran Model Scenarios to analyze sustainability and PFAS mobilization • Feasibility Study
• Basis of Design
5 6
6

Summary of Findings
7 Well Potential
Pumping
Rate
(MGD)
Estimated
Production
Rates**
(Acre-feet/year)
Title 22
Drinking Water
Regulations
PFOS/PFOA Model Results
Sustainability
(WQ and
pumping)
Del Prado 1.87 - 2.74 1,570 - 2,300 ND
Tennis Park 4.90 - 7.34 4,115 - 6,170 ND
Hansen 4.90 - 6.05 4,115 - 5,080 ND*
*PFHxS: Composite: 2.5 ppt; MCL = 10 ppt (parts per trillion); Response Level = 10 ppt; Notification Level = 3 ppt
** These rates are based on 75%
June 2025
Feasibility Study: Purpose and Scope
• Evaluate feasibility of a joint City of Pleasanton & Zone 7 regional groundwater supply project
• Identify a project capable of producing total 7,000 AFY under drought conditions
¾ Includes City GPQ of 3,500 AFY
• Define project alternatives consistent with Zone 7 and City objectives with project evaluation criteria
• Conduct comparative evaluation and ranking of alternatives using agreed-upon scoring and weighting criteria

June 2025
Feasibility Study: Project Alternatives Evaluated
• Alternative 1:

Tennis Park
• Alternative 2:

Tennis + Hansen Parks
• Alternative 3:

Tennis + Del Prado Parks
• Alternative 4:

Tennis + Hansen + Del Prado Parks
• Project alternatives evaluated
using consistent technical,
cost, and sustainability criteria
June 2025
Feasibility Study: Project Alternatives Evaluation Criteria • Two pass/fail criteria:
¾ Ability to produce 7,000 AFY during drought years
¾ Compliance with Zone 7 groundwater sustainability criteria • Six weighted evaluation criteria:
¾ Capital cost
¾ Operations and maintenance cost
¾ Operational flexibility and resilience
¾ Implementation schedule
¾ Community and environmental impacts
¾ Water quality and treatment risk
• Scoring framework developed collaboratively with Zone 7 and City staff.

June 2025
Feasibility Study: Project Alternative Evaluation Results • All project alternatives meet groundwater sustainability criteria. Alternatives 1 and 3 do not meet minimum 7,000 AFY drought year target. • AFY estimates assume 18-hour daily operation (75% reliability) and are planning- level values subject to confirmation during production well drilling and testing. • Basis of Design Report (BODR) prepared by Carollo Engineers to establish the conceptual and planning-level design framework for the recommended project alternative
June 2025
Tennis and Hansen Park Well Project Overview
Key Elements
• Tennis Park Well
• Hansen Park Well
• New pipeline (3,970 LF)
• Improvements to
Hopyard Chloramination
Facility

June 2025
Tennis Park Well Facility Overview
13 Key Design Considerations
• Confirm well/building
location
• Engage City parks
• Determine landscape
improvements
• Site fencing is not
required
• Site access roadway
June 2025 14
Key Design Considerations
• Confirm well/building
location
• Engage City parks
• Determine landscape
improvements
• Site fencing is not
required
• Site access roadway
Hansen Park Well Facility Overview

June 2025 15
Summary
• New chloramination
facility building (30’W x
50’L)
• 2,000-gallon ammonia
storage
• 6,000-gallon sodium
hypochlorite storage
• Partial retrofit of existing
facility
• Design/construction
provisions to keep HCF
operational through
construction
Hopyard Chloramination Facility Upgrades
June 2025
Estimated Project Cost (AACE Level 4)
16

Summary
• Project is feasible
• The preferred alternative is two wells in Tennis and Hansen Parks • The project is estimated to produce over 8,200 AFY in a drought • The project cost is estimated at $42.3 million
• City of Pleasanton and Zone 7 Staff to analyze study findings and BODR to determine next steps
• Recommendations to the Board in a future meeting
17 Questions?
18

1 Regional Groundwater Facilities Project Phase 1-
Feasibility Study Update
February 3, 2026
Timeline and Project Progress at a Glance
OCT 2023
Council
approved:

Development of
new
groundwater
wells in the
Bernal subbasin
JUNE 2024
Council Approved:

Agreement to
perform Phase 1-
Feasibility Review
on a joint project
City of Pleasanton
Cost Share NTE
$1,000,000
NOV 2024
Council Approved:

Amendment 1 for
additional scope.

City of Pleasanton
Cost Share NTE
$1,283,231
DEC 2025
Zone 7 completed:

1. Install three test
wells

2. Yield and water
quality testing and
verification

3. Groundwater
modeling for
sustainability and
PFAs mobilization
analysis.

4. Feasibility Study

5. Basis of Design
DEC 2024
State Waterboard
awarded
$1,000,000 grant
to Pleasanton to
reimburse the City
for the Feasibility
Study effort.

SEPT 2022
Council decision:

Place all wells
out of service
due to PFAs
detection level.

Wells go off line
effective Nov
2022
OCT 2022
Council
approved:

Initiation of
Water Supply
Alternatives
Study

2 3
2024 WSMP and 2025 Water Rate Study estimated groundwater supply improvements at $27 million (in 2024 dollars) Pleasanton’s Goals1.Seek replacement of Wells 5, 6 and 82.Recover 3,500 acre-feet of groundwater production quota3.Improve water supply reliability, quality and sustainability4.Reduce overall water supply and distribution costs5.Improve management of water quality and ability to meet future regulations4

3 Summary of Technical Feasibility Study by LSCE5
Zone 7 Groundwater Testing and Modeling Results6

4 7 Treatment for all 4 alternatives would occur at Zone 7 Hopyard Treatment Facilities

81.Ability to produce 7,000 AFY during drought year 2.Comply with Zone 7 groundwater sustainability criteriaRegional Feasibility Mandatory CriteriaRegional Feasibility Scoring Criteria1.Capital Cost2.Operations and Maintenance Cost3.Operational flexibility and resilience4.Implementation Schedule5.Community and environmental impacts6.Water quality and treatment risk

5 9
Regional Project Feasibility Study Summary10•Project is determined to be feasible•Highest scoring alternative is two wells in Hansen and Tennis Community Parks•The project is estimated to produce over 8,200 AFY in a drought•The total project cost is estimated at $42.3 million (NOT including Pleasanton required infrastructure costs)

6 Pleasanton Next Step11
Next Steps•Analyze study findings and Basis of Design Report (BODR)•Discussion with Zone 7 on draft Terms and Conditions for a joint project•City’s independent evaluation of cost and benefits of independent project vs. joint regional project•Pleasanton staff return to a future City Council meeting: target March/ April 2026•Present results of independent evaluation and options comparison•Provide recommendation to City Council•Seek City Council direction to select an option and proceed with Phase II-Design and Phase III-Construction12

7 Questions and Answers13

Item #6

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

February 3, 2026
City Manager

TITLE: RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND PROVIDE

DIRECTION ON A POTENTIAL TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT) MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 2026 BALLOT

SUMMARY
Following City Council direction on August 19, 2025, staff conducted stakeholder engagement with Pleasanton hotel operators and regional partners to assess the feasibility of a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate increase on the November 2026 ballot. Pleasanton's current TOT rate of 8 percent has remained unchanged since 1983 and is among the lowest in Alameda County.

Engagement with hotel operators and partners revealed no opposition to a potential rate increase, with feedback ranging from neutral to supportive. Operators generally accepted that a rate adjustment is reasonable given the current market and Pleasanton's competitive position. One theme that emerged was a preference for phased implementation to smooth impact on guest rates.

Staff also engaged with neighboring jurisdictions to explore opportunities for regional coordination. Staff recommends Pleasanton proceed with ballot measure development for a TOT increase for the November 2026 ballot on its own timeline while remaining open to alignment with regional partners.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Direct staff to proceed with development of a Transient Occupancy Tax ballot measure for the November 2026 election;

2. Provide direction on a target rate of 12 percent, with phased implementation (10 percent effective July 1, 2027; 12 percent effective July 1, 2028); and

3. Authorize staff to return with draft ballot language for City Council consideration.

BACKGROUND
Structural Budget Deficit and Revenue Options
The City of Pleasanton faces a projected structural budget deficit based on the budget adopted for the 2025-27 budget cycle. On August 19, 2025, the City Council received a staff presentation that outlined several potential new or expanded revenue options. The City Council directed staff to focus on a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase to bolster an existing revenue source and to begin stakeholder engagement.

Transient Occupancy Tax Overview
TOT is a tax on the rental of hotel and motel rooms where stays are limited to 30 days or less.

The tax is collected by lodging operators from guests and remitted to the City. Pleasanton's TOT rate of 8 percent was established in 1983 and has not been adjusted since. In FY 2024/25, the City received $5.3 million in TOT revenue. $5.5 million is budgeted for FY 2025/26 and $5.6 million is budgeted for FY 2026/27. For the first half of FY 2024/25, the City received over $1.7 million in revenue.

Pleasanton's 8 percent TOT rate is tied with Dublin and Livermore for the lowest in Alameda County, where rates range from 8 to 14 percent. Most other Alameda County cities charge between 10 and 14 percent, with five cities (Oakland, Alameda, Newark, Hayward, and San Leandro) at 14 percent. Pleasanton's rate has not changed in over 40 years, while several neighboring cities have increased their rates recently. Based on current occupancy levels, a 2- percentage-point increase to 10 percent would generate an estimated $1.4 million in additional annual revenue, while a 4-percentage-point increase to 12 percent would generate approximately $2.8 million per year. Like several other sources of revenue the City relies on, economic upswings and downswings make TOT volatile.

Hotel tax accounts for 3.4 percent of the FY 2025/26 General Fund budgeted revenues and transfers from other funds. It was 3.0 percent for FY 2024/25, 3.4 percent for FY 2023/24, and

3.2 percent for FY 2022/23.

Statewide Context

TOT measures have historically performed well at the ballot. According to CaliforniaCityFinance's November 2024 Election Results report (Attachment 1), TOT measures achieved an 82 percent passage rate statewide. As a tax primarily paid by visitors rather than residents, TOT increases tend to generate less local opposition than taxes with direct resident or property owner impact.

DISCUSSION
Stakeholder Engagement Results

Staff conducted outreach and a series of listening sessions with hotel operators during November and December 2025, representing a cross-section of Pleasanton's lodging market, including full-service properties, select-service and extended stay hotels, independent operators, and budget/economy properties. Staff reached out to representatives of all hotels in Pleasanton, offering the opportunity to meet with staff, although not all hoteliers attended.

Key themes from stakeholder engagement include:
• No opposition to a rate increase. No operator expressed intent to actively oppose a TOT measure. Feedback ranged from neutral acceptance to acknowledgment that the market can accommodate a higher rate.
• Market capacity exists. Operators and industry representatives confirmed that Pleasanton's current rate is well below regional comparables, and that the market could absorb an increase to 12 percent without significant competitive disadvantage. • Preference for phased implementation. Some operators preferred incremental rate changes over a single large adjustment, citing concerns about guest perception. • Limited active engagement expected. Most operators indicated they would not

actively campaign for or against the measure and would not oppose it.

Staff also engaged with Visit Tri-Valley (VTV), the regional tourism marketing organization. The cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and Dublin, and the town of Danville, provide funding for VTV through tourism assessments collected from hotel guests. The rate is currently $4.0 per paid occupied room per night, less any applicable exemptions. The funding to VTV was $2.9 million for FY 2024/25, $2.8 million for FY 2023/24, and $2.8 million for FY 2022/23. VTV uses the funding for marketing campaigns, community outreach, and sales initiatives.

VTV expressed interest in receiving additional funding. Specifically, VTV would like to see some of the new TOT revenue (collected by the cities and Town of Danville) be "passed through" to fund a potential future regional event venue. Staff has communicated that dedicating new revenue in Pleasanton is not feasible or recommended by staff at this time for several reasons. Specifically, the City of Pleasanton needs to address its operating budget to fund core services and maintain its quality of life for residents, as well as tactical concerns related to a tax increase for a specific purpose, resulting in the vote threshold moving to two- thirds from the 50 percent + 1 required for an increase associated with general city needs.

Regional Coordination

Staff engaged with counterparts in neighboring jurisdictions to explore opportunities for a coordinated regional approach. Dublin has expressed interest in a TOT adjustment, and staff will continue to coordinate as those discussions develop.

Staff recommends that Pleasanton proceed with ballot measure development on its own timeline while remaining open to coordination with regional partners as their processes advance.

Rate Options and Phased Implementation

Based on stakeholder feedback and regional analysis, staff recommend a target rate of 12 percent with phased implementation over two years. This approach addresses operator preferences while maximizing long-term revenue generation. Under this approach, voters would approve a single measure authorizing a 12 percent rate, with implementation occurring in two steps:
• Phase 1 (July 1, 2027): Rate increases from 8 percent to 10 percent • Phase 2 (July 1, 2028): Rate increases from 10 percent to 12 percent

This phased approach requires only one ballot measure and one voter approval, streamlining the process while achieving the full 12 percent rate.

As an alternative, the City Council could seek a 10 percent increase now and return later for an additional increase. However, this approach would require two campaigns (and incur related costs), two votes, and delay full revenue realization. Or the City Council could move forward with implementing the full 12 percent increase at one time, minimizing administrative burden but creating a higher up-front impact on rates.

General Tax Requirement

Staff recommends that any TOT measure be structured as a general tax, with the revenue deposited into the City's General Fund without a specific purpose dedication. Under California law, a general tax requires only a simple majority (50 percent + 1) for approval, while a special tax dedicated to specific purposes requires a two-thirds supermajority.

Next Steps and Timeline

If the City Council provides direction to proceed, staff will undertake the following:
• Develop draft ballot language for City Council review • Continue coordination with regional partners
• Develop community education materials
• Return to Council for final approval and November 2026 ballot placement by June 2026

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
A TOT increase has limited direct local implications, as the tax is paid primarily by visitors rather than local residents and property owners. Unlike a sales tax or parcel tax, the TOT does not impose a financial burden on Pleasanton households, including lower-income residents.

General Fund revenue generated by a TOT increase would support City services that benefit all residents, including public safety, parks and recreation, infrastructure maintenance, and other community priorities.

OUTREACH
Staff conducted targeted stakeholder engagement with the following groups:
• Pleasanton hotel operators across multiple market segments • Visit Tri-Valley
• Staff in neighboring Tri-Valley jurisdictions

If the City Council directs staff to proceed, additional community outreach will be conducted, including public information about the ballot measure, opportunities for public comment, and educational materials explaining the measure's purpose and impact.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This item aligns with the City of Pleasanton Five-Year Strategic Plan (FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28), specifically:
• Funding Our Future: Fiscal Sustainability, Strategy 1: Develop a long-term strategy for funding operations and maintenance needs to ensure reliability of community-owned facilities and infrastructure and continuity of City services. • Funding Our Future: Fiscal Sustainability, Strategy 2: Identify expanded and new

revenue sources to address significant infrastructure needs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this staff report is limited to staff time already budgeted for this initiative.

If approved by voters, the projected annual revenue from a TOT increase (based on current TOT levels) would be:
• Approximately $1.4 million in additional annual revenue (10 percent rate) • Approximately $2.8 million in additional annual revenue (cumulative/12 percent rate)

These projections are based on current TOT collections and assume stable hotel occupancy.

Actual revenue will vary based on market conditions.

Alameda County’s costs for a consolidated general election are estimated at a rate of between $5 to $7 per registered voter, effective as of July 10, 2025. A ballot measure would be mailed to all registered voters in the city of Pleasanton. As of the writing of this report, the cost is estimated to be approximately $242,040 to $338,856 for the November 2026 general municipal election.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Aarón Zavala, Assistant to
the City Manager
Melinda Denis, Deputy
Director of Community and
Economic Development
Alexa Jeffress, Assistant City Manager
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024

2. Presentation

CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Local Revenue Measure Results
November 2024
There were over 700 measures on local ballots in California for the November 5, 2024 election including 539 local tax and bond measures. Well over half of these measures (293) were school tax or bond measures. A third (180) were proposed by or for cities. There were also 22 county and 44 special district measures. Among the measures were 285 general obligation bonds, 267 for schools.

There were 119 measures to increase or extend local sales taxes, 77 parcel taxes, and 28 lodging occupancy tax increases.

Schools
Special Districts
Counties
Cities
December 6, 2024 Final
Schools
Cities, counties,
special districts

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 2 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Overall Passage Rates
With final tallies completed, 410 of the 539 tax and bond measures passed. The overall (preliminary) 76% passage rate is within the range of the last few election cycles. With about 10 million ballots counted on election night, 388 measures were passing. But as an additional 6 million ballots were tabulated, some results shifted.

This is the largest number of local tax and bond measures passed at one election in California history. It was also the largest number proposed. This high number reflects a rebound from voter’s fiscal anxiety coming through the Covid-19 pandemic. It does not necessarily indicate a trend. At this same election, Californians approved Proposition 2, a $10 billion education school bond that will provide matching funds for many local school projects. In March 2020, as the pandemic emerged, voters defeated a $15 billion state bond proposal and most local school construction bonds. In the lingering anxiety from the pandemic, local agencies have been reluctant to go to voters with tax and bond measures since.

Total Pass Passing%
City General Tax (Majority Vote) 141 121 86%
County General Tax (Majority Vote) 9 7 78%
City Initiative Special Tax -MajorityVote* 11 4 36%
County Init. Special Tax -Majority Vote* 6 5 83%
City SpecialTax or G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 28 17 61%
County Spec.Tax, G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 7 3 43%
SpecDistrict Tax, G.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 44 24 55%
School ParcelTax (2/3 vote) 26 24 92%
School Bond 2/3 vote 1 1 100%
School Bond 55% vote 266 204 77%
Total 539 410 76%
The City/County of San Francisco is counted as a city
Local Revenue Measures November 2024

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 3 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Measure Outcome by Category
Most school bond measures are designed to meet the tax rate limits in the California Constitution for approval with 55 percent of voters. 205 of 267 school bond measures passed (including one two- thirds vote measure), a 77 percent passage rate that is typical of elections prior to the pandemic in 2022.

Majority-vote general purpose tax measures, mostly sales tax increases were common and did well. Two- thirds vote special taxes and non-school bonds not so well.

Passing and Failing Measures by Type November 2024.

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 4 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School Measures
There were 267 school bond measures this election, all but one requiring 55% voter approval.

Pleasant View Elementary School District’s Measure J exceeds the tax rate limits stipulated in Proposition 39 (2000) to be passed with 55% approval. It still passed with more than the two-thirds approval it needed. Voters approved $45.4 billion of local school construction bonds of the $50 billion proposed from $9 billion for Los Angeles Unified School District, $790 million for San Francisco Unified School District, and $3.5 billion for San Diego Community College District. The Kingsburg High School (Fresno) and Elverta (Sacramento) measures each failed by just three votes. Weed Elementary (Siskiyou) failed by four votes.

School Tax and Bond Measures - November 2024.

School Bonds 

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
55% Vote
Bond
2/3 Vote
Bond
2/3 Vote
Parcel Tax*
Percent Passing
Since 2001 36%
100% (1/1)
77% (204/266)
Since 2001 79%
Since 2001 68%
92% (24/26)
School District County Measure Amount Tax Rate YES%
Earlimart Elementary SD Tulare H 8,500,000 $ $30/$100k 81.6% PASS San Ysidro SD SFID#1 San Diego MM 12,900,000 $ $30/$100k 78.0% PASS Merced Community College D Merced P 46,000,000 $ $17/$100k 76.8% PASS Local Public Schools Funding Authority (JPLos Angeles LP 89,000,000 $ $16/$100k 76.8% PASS Delano Union Elementary SD Kern J 41,800,000 $ $25/$100k 76.4% PASS Palm Springs Unified SD Riverside S 465,000,000 $ $40/$100k 74.8% PASS Paramount Unified SD Los Angeles Q 190,000,000 $ $60/$100k 74.6% PASS Greenfield Unified SD Kern L 25,000,000 $ $30/$100k 74.6% PASS Sacramento City Unified SD Sacramento D 543,000,000 $ $35/$100k 74.1% PASS San Francisco Unified SD San Francisco A 790,000,000 $ $13/$100k 72.9% PASS Pacific Grove Unified SD Monterey B 78,000,000 $ $32/$100k 72.9% PASS Los Nietos SD Los Angeles RU 28,500,000 $ $30/$100k 72.7% PASS Orchard SD Santa Clara GG 30,000,000 $ $12/$100k 72.5% PASS Albany Unified SD Alameda L 63,800,000 $ $60/$100k 72.2% PASS Los Nietos SD Los Angeles ST 26,500,000 $ $28/$100k 72.1% PASS San Marino Unified SD Los Angeles M 200,000,000 $ $60/$100k 71.8% PASS Pleasant View Elementary SD Tulare J 3,000,000 $ $59/$100k 71.6% PASS Keyes Union SD Stanislaus U 8,500,000 $ $29/$100k 71.3% PASS Pittsburg Unified SD Contra Costa P 140,000,000 $ $60/$100k 71.2% PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 5 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

School District County Measure Amount Tax Rate YES%g
Menlo Park City SD San Mateo U 123,600,000 $ $19/$100k 70.7% PASS Bayshore Elementary SD San Mateo HH 12,500,000 $ $30/$100k 70.6% PASS Pomona Unified SD Los Angeles UU 385,000,000 $ $60/$100k 70.6% PASS Mount Pleasant Elementary SD - renovationSanta Clara T 24,000,000 $ $26/$100k 70.5% PASS Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified SD Sonoma BB 91,500,000 $ $35/$100k 70.4% PASS Perris Elementary SD Riverside H 38,000,000 $ $30/$100k 70.3% PASS Mount Pleasant Elementary SD - STEAM Santa Clara S 28,000,000 $ $29/$100k 70.1% PASS Moreno Valley Unified SD Riverside X 240,000,000 $ $40/$100k 69.7% PASS Long Beach Community College D Los Angeles AC 990,000,000 $ $25/$100k 69.3% PASS Glendale Community CD Los Angeles GCC 600,000,000 $ $25/$100k 69.2% PASS Weav er Union SD Merced K 20,000,000 $ $28/$100k 69.0% PASS Parlier Unified SD Fresno P 14,100,000 $ $60/$100k 69.0% PASS Santa Ana Unified SD Orange I 355,000,000 $ $30/$100k 68.9% PASS Colton Joint Unified SD SanBernardino
Riverside BB 225,000,000$ $40/$100k 68.6% PASS
Modesto City Elementary SD Stanislaus X 85,000,000 $ $29/$100k 68.5% PASS Compton Community CD Los Angeles CC 200,000,000 $ $20/$100k 68.5% PASS Victor Valley Union High SD - upgrades San Bernardino X 180,000,00 0$ $23/$100k 68.2% PASS Heber Elementary SD Imperial H 4,000,000 $ $29/$100k 68.1% PASS Los Angeles Unified SD Los Angeles US 9,000,000,000 $ $25/$100k 68.0% PASS Mission Union Elementary SD Monterey N 1,500,000 $ $30/$100k 67.9% PASS Riv erbank Unified SD Stanislaus E 21,600,000 $ $53/$100k 67.7% PASS Whittier City SD Los Angeles W 99,000,000 $ $30/$100k 67.7% PASS Newark Unified SD Alameda O 205,000,000 $ $50/$100k 67.6% PASS South Bay Union SD - Repair San Diego QQ 58,000,000 $ $30/$100k 67.6% PASS Buena Park SD Orange M 84,000,000 $ $30/$100k 67.5% PASS New Haven Unified SD Alameda N 272,000,000 $ $60/$100k 67.5% PASS Redondo Beach Unified SD Los Angeles S 278,000,000 $ $30/$100k 67.5% PASS Bonny Doon Elementary SD Santa Cruz L 7, 000,000$ $30/$100k 67.5% PASS Buttonwillow Unified SD Kern I 4,000,000 $ $15/$100k 67.5% PASS Victor Valley Union High SD - overcrowdinSan Bernardino A 180,000,000$ $23/$100k 67.5% PASS Roseland SD Sonoma M 12,000,000 $ $30/$100k 67.3% PASS Petaluma Elementary SD Sonoma Z 70,000,000 $ $30/$100k 67.0% PASS Anaheim Union High SD Orange K 496,000,000 $ $30/$100k 66.9% PASS Folsom Cordov a SD SFID#4 Elementary Sacramento R 144,000,000$ $60/$100k 66.9% PASS San Jacinto Unified SD Riverside C 78,000,000 $ $60/$100k 66.9% PASS Tustin Unified SD Orange J 261,000,000 $ $30/$100k 66.9% PASS Sierra Unified SD Fresno U 24,150,000 $ $45/$100k 66.9% PASS Manhattan Beach Unified SD Los Angeles RLS 200,000,000 $ $32/$100k 66.7% PASS Lancaster SD Los Angeles LS 122,100,000 $ $30/$100k 66.7% PASS San Lorenzo Unified SD Alameda Q 195,000,000 $ $60/$100k 66.5% PASS Fontana Unified SD San Bernardino I 408,000,000 $ $52/$100k 66.4% PASS Jurupa Unified SD Riverside V 180,000,000 $ $40/$100k 66.4% PASS Los Gatos Union SD Santa Clara CC 163,000,000 $ $30/$100k 66.4% PASS Ceres Unified SD Stanislaus Y 114,000,000 $ $60/$100k 66.4% PASS Folsom Cordov a SD SFID#4 Middle/High Sacramento S 144,000,000$ $60/$100k 66.3% PASS San Gabriel Unified SD Los Angeles SG 178,000,000 $ $44/$100k 66.3% PASS Santa Barbara Community CD Santa Barbara P 198,000,000 $ 8.50/$100 k 66.2% PASS South Bay Union SD - STEAM San Diego PP 67,000,000 $ $30/$100k 66.0% PASS King City Union SD - rennovations Monterey K 19,800,000 $ $26/$100k 65.8% PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 6 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School District County Measure Amount Tax Rate YES%
King City Union SD - safety/tech Monterey L 21,600,000 $ $29/$100k 65.8% PASS Merced City SD Merced O 80,000,000 $ $30/$100k 65.8% PASS Tamalpais Union High SD Marin B 289,000,000 $ $18/$100k 65.8% PASS Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified SD Fresno Madera F 25, 000,000$ $60/$100k 65.6% PASS La Habra City SD Orange O 73,000,000 $ $25/$100k 65.5% PASS Bishop Elementary SD Inyo S 14,200,000 $ $18/$100k 65.4% PASS Pasadena Unified SD Los Angeles R 900,000,000 $ $59/$100k 65.3% PASS Owens Unified SD Inyo T 7,500,000 $ $49/$100k 65.2% PASS Rio Hondo Community College D Los Angeles RH 442,200,000 $ $25/$100k 65.1% PASS Belmont-RedwoodShores SD San Mateo P 171,000,000 $ $29/$100k 65.1% PASS Wasco Union High SD Kern D 35,400,000 $ $30/$100k 64.9% PASS Healdsburg Unified SD SFID#1 Sonoma R 49,500,000 $ $29/$100k 64.8% PASS Campbell Union High SD Santa Clara P 474,000,000 $ $24/$100k 64.7% PASS San Jose Unified SD Santa Clara R 1,150,000,000 $ $60/$100k 64.7% PASS Brea Olinda Unified SD Orange H 160,000,000 $ $39/$100k 64.6% PASS East Whittier City SD Los Angeles C 97, 000,000$ $30/$100k 64.5% PASS Salida Union SD Stanislaus Q 16,000,000 $ $19/$100k 64.5% PASS Lemon Grove SD San Diego EE 30,000,000 $ $25/$100k 64.5% PASS Fresno Unified SD Fresno H 500,000,000 $ $60/$100k 64.5% PASS Banning Unified SD Riverside O 74,000,000 $ $51/$100k 64.4% PASS Stanislaus Union SD Stanislaus R 45,000,000 $ $29/$100k 64.3% PASS Fremont Unified SD Alameda M 919,000,000 $ $49/$100k 64.3% PASS Denair Unified SD Stanislaus Z 34,300,000 $ $60/$100k 64.2% PASS Central Unified SD Fresno X 109,000,000 $ $50/$100k 64.2% PASS Bishop Union High SD Inyo Mono R 46,300,000 $ $52/$100k 64.1% PASS Monterey Penninsula Unified SD Monterey A 340,000,000 $ $50/$100k 63.9% PASS San Ysidro SD SFID#2 improvement San Diego KK 68,500,000 $ $30/$100k 63.9% PASS Antelope Valley Joint Union High SD LosAngeles Kern AVH / C 398,000,000$ $20/$100 k 63.8% PASS Siskiyou Union High SD Siskiyou Z 22,000,000 $ $29/$100k 63.8% PASS Mountain View SD - SFID#3 San Bernardino H 56,000,000 $ $26/$100k 63.8% PASS Chualar Union SD Monterey J 5,600,000 $ $30/$100k 63.7% PASS Tracy Unified SD San Joaquin O 190,000,000 $ $50/$100k 63.7% PASS El Monte Elementary SD Los Angeles ME 105,000,000 $ $30/$100k 63.7% PASS Burbank Unified SD Los Angeles ABC 458,205,000 $ $41/$100k 63.7% PASS Chico Unified SD Butte C 239,000,000 $ $60/$100k 63.6% PASS San Ysidro SD SFID#2 safety San Diego LL 66,500,000 $ $30/$100k 63.4% PASS Warner Unified SD San Diego TT 3,800,000 $ $38/$100k 63.4% PASS Pollock Pines Elementary SD El Dorado P 11,500,000 $ $30/$100k 63.0% PASS Santa Monica - Malibu Unified SD Los Angeles QS 495,000,000 $ $30/$100k 62.9% PASS Petaluma Joint Union High SD Sonoma Marin AA 159,000,000 $ $30/$100k 62.9% PASS Salinas Union High SD Monterey G 115,000,000 $ $19/$100k 62.9% PASS Dinuba Unified SD Tulare Fresno D 42, 000,000$ $60/$100k 62.7% PASS Soledad Unified SD Monterey E 42,000,000 $ $60/$100k 62.6% PASS Lemon Grove SD San Diego CC 30,000,000 $ $25/$100k 62.5% PASS Lynwood Unified SD Los Angeles U 200,000,000 $ $32/$100k 62.4% PASS Cottonwood Union SD Shasta E 21,700,000 $ $30/$100k 62.4% PASS Sebastopol Union SD Sonoma N 24,000,000 $ $29/$100k 62.4% PASS Santa Maria-Bonita SD Santa Barbara K 77,000,000 $ $30/$100k 62.3% PASS Armona Elementary SD Kings A 9,000,000 $ $29/$100k 62.3% PASS Santa Monica - Malibu Unified SD Los Angeles MM 395,000,000 $ $40/$100 k 62.3% PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 7 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School District County Measure Amount Tax Rate YES%
Hermosa Beach City SD Los Angeles HV 28,700,000 $ $13/$100k 62.1% PASS South Monterey County Joint Union High Monterey SanBenito H 35,00 0,000$ $30/$100k 61.8% PASS South Monterey County Joint Union High Monterey SanBenito I 35,00 0,000$ $30/$100k 61.8% PASS Chula Vista Elementary SD San Diego AA 360,000,000 $ $29/$100k 61.7% PASS Lone Pine Unified SD Inyo U 7,500,000 $ $27/$100k 61.7% PASS West Hills Community CD - Dist#2 Fresno Monterey
SanBenito C 19,000,000$ $24/$100k 61.6% PASS
Newman-Crows Landing Unified SD - repaStanislaus T 27,000,000 $ $43/$100k 61.4% PASS Arcadia Unified SD Los Angeles AS 358,000,000 $ $60/$100k 61.3% PASS Lake Tahoe Unified SD El Dorado U 127,000,000 $ $35/$100k 61.2% PASS Fullerton SD Orange N 262,000,000 $ $30/$100k 61.2% PASS Sweeetwater Union High SD San Diego RR 647,000,000 $ $30/$100k 61.1% PASS Sierra Sands Unified SD Kern SanBernardino AA 42,000,000 $ $60/$100k 61.1% PASS Cupertino Union SD Santa Clara Z 347,000,000 $ $21/$100k 61.1% PASS Redlands Unified SD San Bernardino D 500,000,000 $ $45/$100k 61.0% PASS Rim of the World Unified SD San Bernardino E 71,000,000 $ $30/$100k 60.9% PASS Cabrillo Unified SD San Mateo K 153,400,000 $ $55/$100k 60.9% PASS McKinleyville Union SD Humboldt N 18,500,000 $ $29/$100k 60.9% PASS San Juan Unified SD Sacramento P 950,000,000 $ $60/$100k 60.9% PASS Tulare Joint Union High SD Tulare Kings E 80,000,000 $ $29/$100k 60.9% PASS Millbrae Elementary SD San Mateo J 95,000,000 $ $30/$100k 60.8% PASS Corning Union Elementary School Tehama J 13,700,000 $ $29/$100k 60.7% PASS Elk Grove Unified SD Sacramento N 542,000,000 $ $34/$100k 60.7% PASS Fruitvale SD Kern K 36,000,000 $ $30/$100k 60.7% PASS San Diego Community College D San Diego HH 3,500,000,000 $ $25/$100k 60.6% PASS Hughson Unified SD Stanislaus B 46,000,000 $ $60/$100k 60.5% PASS Kentfield SD Marin E 48,000,000 $ $29/$100k 60.4% PASS Bellevue Union SD Sonoma P 38,500,000 $ $30/$100k 60.4% PASS Morongo Unified SD San Bernardino C 88,300,000 $ $36/$100k 60.4% PASS Lake Elsinore Unified SD Riverside T 198,000,000 $ $28/$100k 60.3% PASS Konocti Unified SD Lake S 50,000,000 $ $60/$100k 60.0% PASS Lompoc Unified SD Santa Barbara M 160,000,000 $ $50/$100k 59.7% PASS Laton Joint Unified SD Fresno Kings L 9,700,000 $ $57/$100k 59.6% PASS Nuview Union SD Riv erside K 15,000,000 $ $30/$100k 59.5% PASS Shasta Union High SD Shasta M 56,600,000 $ $14/$100k 59.5% PASS Newman-Crows Landing Unified SD - clas Stanislaus S 30,000,000 $ $45/$100k 59.4% PASS Hope SD Santa Barbara Y 40,300,000 $ $18/$100k 59.4% PASS San Joaquin Delta Community CD SFID#1SanJoaquin Alameda Sacramento K 598,000,000$ $16/$100k 59.2% PASS
Southwestern Community College D San Diego SW 800,000,000 $ $25/$100k 59.0% PASS Romoland SD Riv erside I 58,455,000 $ $30/$100k 58.9% PASS Maxwell Unified SD Colusa A 9,100,000 $ $60/$100k 58.8% PASS Shaffer Elementary SD Lassen W 2,000,000 $ $30/$100k 58.8% PASS Aromas-San Juan Unified SD SanBenito Monterey
SantaCruz D 44,000,000$ $55/$100k 58.7% PASS
Williams Unified SD Colusa B 23,000,000 $ $60/$100 k 58.6% PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 8 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

School District County Measure Amount Tax Rate YES%
Cascade Union Elementary SD Shasta I 16,500,000 $ $28/$100k 58.6% PASS Travis Unified SD Solano R 65,000,000 $ $60/$100k 58.3% PASS Black Oak Min Unified SD El Dorado A 12,700,000 $ $40/$100k 58.2% PASS Oakdale Joint Unified SD Stanislaus SanJoa quin G 105,500,000$ $58/$100k 58.2% PASS Riverside Community College D Riverside CC 954,000,000 $ $19/$100k 58.1% PASS Hanford Elementary SD Kings U 23,000,000 $ $18/$100k 58.1% PASS Colusa Unified SD Colusa C 13,800,000 $ $60/$100k 58.0% PASS Wright SD Sonoma X 29,200,000 $ $30/$100k 58.0% PASS Southern Kern Unified SD Kern H 59,000,000 $ $60/$100k 58.0% PASS Snowline Joint Unified SD SanBernardino
LosAngeles J 70,600,000$ $40/$100k 57.9% PASS
San Marcos Unified SD San Diego JJ 324,000,000 $ $40/$100k 57.8% PASS Bella Vista Elementary SD Shasta G 4,400,000 $ $29/$100k 57.7% PASS Clov is Unified SD Fresno A 400,000,000 $ $50/$100k 57.6% PASS Sanger Unified SD Fresno M 175,000,000 $ $60/$100k 57.6% PASS Durham Unified SD Butte B 24,500,000 $ $60/$100k 57.6% PASS Galt Joint Union SD Sacramento
SanJoaquin H 27,000,000$ $30/$100k 57.6% PASS
Fullerton Jount Union High SD Orange LosAngeles L 284,000,000 $ $21/$100k 57.5% PASS Delhi Unified SD Merced J 17,000,000 $ $60/$100k 57.5% PASS Palos Verdes Penninsula Unified SD Los Angeles SOS 297,800,000 $ $29/$100k 57.4% PASS Encinitas Union SD San Diego Z 158,300,000 $ $19/$100k 56.9% PASS Lassen View Elementary School Tehama K 3,500,000 $ $30/$100k 56.8% PASS Thermalito Union Elementary SD Butte D 6,800,000 $ $30/$100k 56.8% PASS Biggs Unified SD Butte A 16,500,000 $ $60/$100k 56.7% PASS Cutten SD Humboldt K 5,000,000 $ $30/$100k 56.7% PASS Oxnard Union High SD Ventura E 285,000,000 $ $18/$100k 56.7% PASS Atascadero Unified SD San Luis Obispo B 110,000,000 $ $46/$100k 56.6% PASS Lowell Joint SD LosAngeles Orange P 54,000,000 $ $30/$100k 56.5% PASS Piner-Olivet Union SD Sonoma K 29,500,000 $ $30/$100k 56.3% PASS Soquel Elementary SD Santa Cruz P 73,000,000 $ $30/$100k 56.3% PASS Menefee Union SD Riv erside R 205,000,000 $ $30/$100k 56.2% PASS Los Altos SD Santa Clara EE 350,000,000 $ $30/$100k 56.2% PASS Burton Elementary SD Tulare G 7,100,000 $ $18/$100k 56.2% PASS Briggs Elementary SD Ventura G 4,900,000 $ $30/$100k 56.0% PASS Brawley Elementary SD Imperial L 20,000,000 $ $30/$100k 55.9% PASS State Center CCD Fresno Madera Kin gs Q 698,000,000$ $20/$100k 55.9% PASS Martinez Unified SD Contra Costa O 90,000,000 $ $38/$100k 55.8% PASS Templeton Unified SD San Luis Obispo D 52,300,000 $ $60/$100k 55.7% PASS Mt San Antonio Community College D Los Angeles V 750,000,000 $ $15/$100k 55.6% PASS College of the Redwoods CCD Humboldt DelNorte
Trinity I 120,000,000$ $25/$100k 55.5% PASS
Mammoth Unified SD Mono J 70,000,000 $ $37/$100k 55.5% PASS Lucia Mar SD San Luis Obispo H 143,220,000 $ $20/$100k 55.3% PASS Scotts Valley SD Santa Cruz O 85,000,000 $ $49/$100k 55.3% PASS Gateway Unified SD Shasta J 65,000,000 $ $49/$100k 55.1% PASS Bryon Union SD Contra Costa R 24,000,000 $ $18/$100k 55.1% PASS Kingsburg Joint Union High SD Fresno Tulare Kings K 20,000,000 $ $23/$100k 54.9% FAIL Elverta Joint Elementary SD Sacramento Placer J 4,300,000 $ $29/$100k 54.8% FAIL Weed Union Elementary SD Siskiyou Y 6,500,000 $ $30/$100k 54.8% FAIL Pajaro Valley Unified SD SantaCruz Montere y M 315,000,000$ $60/$100 k 54.7% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 9 – D ecember 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
School District County Measure Amount Tax Rate YES%
Ferndale Unified SD Humboldt J 9,800,000 $ $60/$100k 54.4% FAIL Imperial Unified SD Imperial K 70,000,000 $ $52/$100k 54.4% FAIL Oroville City Elementary SD Butte E 18,000,000 $ $21/$100k 53.8% FAIL Santa Maria Joint Union High SD Santa Barbara J 194,000,000 $ $24/$100k 53.4% FAIL Washington Union Elementary SD Monterey P 18,200,000 $ $19/$100k 53.3% FAIL Ripon Unified SD San Joaquin J 32,000,000 $ $30/$100k 53.1% FAIL Beaumont Unified SD Riverside E 148,000,000 $ $28/$100k 53.1% FAIL Alta Loma SD San Bernardino G 71,000,000 $ $30/$100k 53.1% FAIL Waterford Unified SD Stanislaus W 14,000,000 $ $43/$100k 52.9% FAIL Placer Union High SD SFID#3 Placer H 21,000,000 $ $30/$100k 52.8% FAIL Santa Paula Unified SD - high school Ventura N 36,000,000 $ $24/$100k 52.6% FAIL Kelseyville Unified SD Lake R 36,000,000 $ $56/$100k 52.5% FAIL Columbia Elementary SD Shasta K 12,900,000 $ $30/$100k 52.4% FAIL Santee SD San Diego NN 30,620,000 $ $12/$100k 52.4% FAIL Red Bluff Jt Union High SD Tehama Shasta L 33,600,000 $ $30/$100k 52.2% FAIL College SD Santa Barbara L 18,000,000 $ $19/$100k 52.1% FAIL Napa Valley Unified SD SFID#1 Napa B(sch) 230,000,000 $ $22/$100k 52.0% FAIL Santa Paula Unified SD - middle school Ventura M 28,400,000 $ $34/$100k 51.9% FAIL Ducor Elementary SD Tulare M 2,900,000 $ $30/$100k 51.9% FAIL Junction Elementary SD Shasta H 6,100,000 $ $23/$100k 51.3% FAIL Red Bluff Union Elementary Tehama M 19,000,000 $ $30/$100k 51.2% FAIL Pacheco Union SD SFID#1 Shasta N 14,500,000 $ $30/$100k 51.2% FAIL Sutter Union High SD Sutter C 13,800,000 $ $25/$100k 51.2% FAIL Rancho Santiago Community CD Orange G 720,000,000 $ $25/$100k 51.0% FAIL Ackerman Charter SD Placer G 4,000,000 $ $27/$100k 51.0% FAIL Spreckels Union SD Monterey O 27,000,000 $ $30/$100k 51.0% FAIL Woodland Joint Unified SD Yolo Sutter P 160,000,000 $ $58/$100k 50.8% FAIL San Benito High SD - upgrades SanBenito SantaClara M 70,000,000 $ $19/$100k 50.7% FAIL Exeter Unified SD Tulare I 26,600,000 $ $45/$100k 50.5% FAIL Arcohe Union SD Sacramento M 5,800,000 $ $30/$100k 50.4% FAIL Windsor Unified SD Sonoma V 98,000,000 $ $48/$100k 50.3% FAIL Loomis Union SD Placer E 48,000,000 $ $27/$100k 50.2% FAIL Escalon Unified SD San Joaquin L 27,700,000 $ $29/$100k 50.0% FAIL Rosedale Unified SD Kern M 52,000,000 $ $19/$100k 50.0% FAIL Valley Center - Pauma Unified SD San Diego SS 84,600,000 $ $54/$100k 50.0% FAIL Fallbrook Union High SD San Diego BB 56,000,000 $ $24/$100k 49.8% FAIL San Benito High SD - vocational SanBenito SantaClara L 70,000,000 $ $19/$100k 49.7% FAIL Sequoia Union Elementary SD Tulare L 3,400,000 $ $30/$100k 49.7% FAIL Pleasant Ridge Elementary SD Nevada D 25,000,000 $ $30/$100k 49.2% FAIL Saugus Union SD Los Angeles N 187,000,000 $ $30/$100k 48.8% FAIL Del Norte Unified SD Del Norte H 59,000,000 $ $59/$100k 48.5% FAIL Pacheco Union SD SFID#2 Shasta O 14,700,000 $ $30/$100k 48.1% FAIL Live Oak SD Santa Cruz N 45,000,000 $ $30/$100k 48.1% FAIL Bonsall Unified SD San Diego V 59,000,000 $ $40/$100k 48.0% FAIL Vacaville Unified SD Solano E 317,000,000 $ $48/$100k 48.0% FAIL Summerville Union High SD Tuolumne B 13,000,000 $ $17/$100k 47.9% FAIL Cajon Valley Union SD San Diego W 280,000,000 $ $27/$100k 47.7% FAIL Paradise Unified SD Butte G 43,000,000 $ $50/$100k 46.4% FAIL Ramona Unified SD San Diego GG 26,700,000 $ $59/$100 k 45.5% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 10 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

School Parcel Taxes 
There were 26 school parcel tax measures including 17 extensions. All but two passed.

School District County Measure Amount Tax Rate YES%
Wheatland Union HSD -SFID#1 Yuba B 19,700,000 $ $27/$100k 44.3% FAIL Plumas Lake Elementary SD - STEAM Yuba E 18,000,000 $ $30/$100k 44.2% FAIL Plumas Lake Elementary SD - health/athletYuba F 18,000,000 $ $30/$100k 43.9% FAIL Plumas Lake Elementary SD - classrooms Yuba D 18,000,000 $ $30/$100k 43.3% FAIL Wheatland Union HSD -SFID#2 Yuba A 9,000,000 $ $28/$100k 41.9% FAIL Wheatland Union HSD -SFID#1 Yuba C 20,300,000 $ $27/$100k 40.2% FAIL Dehesa SD San Diego Y 3,300,000 $ $25/$100k 39.7% FAIL Alpine Union SD San Diego U 6,300,000 $ $30/$100k 39.4% FAIL Hilmar Unified SD Merce d M 43,000,000$ $56/$100 k 31.2% FAIL School Parcel Taxes - 2/3 voter approval
Agency Name County Title Rate Sunset YES% NO%
Culver City Unified SD Los Angeles O $189/parcel extend 8yrs 83.4% 16.6% PASS Arcata Elementary SD Humboldt G $69/parcel extend 8yrs 82.5% 17.5% PASS Sunnyvale SD Santa Clara Y $59/parcel extend 8yrs 82.2% 17.8% PASS Piedmont Unified SD Alameda P $0.50/sf extend 8yrs 81.1% 18.9% PASS Local Classroom Funding
Authority* Los Angeles CL 2¢+/SqFt resid,

7.5¢+/SqFt other extend none 78.3% 21.7% PASS
Ravenswood City SD San Mateo S $434+/parcel extend 8yrs 78.1% 21.9% PASS Franklin-McKinley SD Santa Clara W $192/parcel extend 9yrs 77.4% 22.6% PASS Moreland SD Santa Clara U $142/parcel extend 8yrs 77.2% 22.8% PASS Woodside Elementary SD San Mateo Y $367+/parcel extend 12yrs 75.6% 24.4% PASS Mountain View Whisman SD Santa Clara AA $0.15/sf
cap:$1750 extend 8yrs 75.3% 24.7% PASS
Jefferson Union High SD San Mateo Z $95/parcel extend 10yrs 74.8% 25.2% PASS San Ramon Unified SD Contra Costa Q $144/parcel extend 9yrs 74.8% 25.2% PASS Eastside Union High SD Santa Clara N $49/parcel new 5yrs 72.9% 27.1% PASS San Bruno Park SD San Mateo X $68/parcel new 8yrs 72.8% 27.2% PASS Bolinas-Stinson Union SD Marin C $390+/parcel new 5yrs 72.0% 28.0% PASS Burlingame SD San Mateo GG 14¢/sf new 8yrs 71.9% 28.1% PASS Milpitas Unified SD Santa Clara Q $119/parcel new 8yrs 71.3% 28.7% PASS Union SD Santa Clara V $148/parcel extend 7yrs 70.5% 29.5% PASS Sausalito Marin City SD Marin G 15¢/sf new 8yrs 70.1% 29.9% PASS Pacifica SD San Mateo EE $98+/parcel new 8yrs 69.9% 30.1% PASS Cabrillo USD San Mateo N $198/parcel extend 8yrs 69.6% 30.4% PASS Evergreen Elementary SD Santa Clara X $125/parcel extend 7yrs 69.5% 30.5% PASS Pasadena Unified SD Los Angeles EE $90/parcel new 8yrs 69.4% 30.6% PASS Lakeside Joint SD SantaCruz
SantaClara HH $647/parcel extend 8yrs 67.0% 33.0% PASS Ventura Unified SD Ventura H $59/parcel extend 8yrs 66.5% 33.5% FAIL Waugh SD Sonoma L $89/parcel new 4yrs 62.7% 37.3% FAIL *JPA: Centinela V y UHSD, Wiseburn SD, Hawthorne SD, L awndale SD, L ennox SD

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 11 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
City, County and Special District Measures
Most non-school majority vote general tax measures are passed, meeting or surpassing the success of these sorts of measures compared to prior general elections. Of the 150 majority vote general tax measures, only 22 failed. As usual, special taxes, earmarked for specific purposes, did not fare as well.

Local Add-On Sales Taxes (Transaction and Use Taxes) 
Voters in 91 cities and four counties (two unincorporated areas, two countywide) considered adding or extending general purpose majority vote add-on sales tax rates ranging from 0.25 percent to 1.75 percent. Eighty-one passed.

City County Measure Rate Annual $ incr/ext Sunset YES%
Yucca Valley San Bernardino Measure Y 1/2cent 3,000,000$ extend none 83.2% PASS Hayward Alameda Measure K1 1/2cent 20,000,000$ extend 20yrs 83.1% PASS West Hollywood Los Angeles Measure W H 1/4cent 5,000,000$ preempti none 82.0% PASS La Mesa San Diego Measure L 3/4cent 12,000,000$ extend 20yrs 81.4% PASS El Cerrito Contra Costa Measure G 1cent 4,000,000 $ extend none 80.9% PASS Milpitas Santa Clara Measure J 1/4cent 7,000,000$ extend 8yrs 80.2% PASS Colma San Mateo Measure A A 1/2cent 2,300,000$ new none 79.2% PASS Point Arena Mendocino Measure X 7/8cent 90,000$ increase none 78.8% PASS Desert Hot Springs Riverside Measure P 1cent 2,400,000$ new none 78.4% PASS Mill Valley Marin Measure L 1cent 4,200,000$ new 10yrs 77.3% PASS Marysville Yuba Measure G 1cent 3,900,000$ extend none 75.0% PASS Escalon San Joaquin Measure P 1cent 900,000$ new none 74.4% PASS Moreno Valley Riverside Measure U 1cent 30,000,000$ extend none 74.2% PASS Cathedral City Riverside Measure W 1/2cent 5,000,000$ increase none 73.5% PASS Chula Vista San Diego Measure P 1/2cent 37,000,000$ extend 10yrs 73.4% PASS Sebastopol Sonom a Measure U 1/2cent 1,500,000$ increase 12yrs 72.1% PASS Suisun City Solano Measure S 1.75cent 6,766,000$ increase/ 15yrs 72.1% PASS Campbell Santa Clara Measure K 1/2cent 7,000,000$ increase none 72.1% PASS Buena Park Orange Measure R 1cent 20,000,000$ new none 71.7% PASS Lemon Grove San Diego Measure T 1cent 5,957,000$ new 10yrs 71.6% PASS City, County, Special District Tax and Bond Measures – November 2024 56% (44/79)
85% (128/150)
53% (9/17)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Special Tax 2/3
Voter Measures
Initiative Special
Tax (Majority
Vote)
General Tax
Majority Vote
Measures*
Percent Passing
Since 2001 76%
Since 2001 49%

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 12 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

City County Measure Rate Annual $ incr/ext Sunset YES%
Loomis Placer Measure C 1/4cent 925,000$ extend none 71.4% PASS Palm Springs Riverside Measure J 1cent 22,000,000$ extend none 70.9% PASS Atascadero San Luis Obispo Measure L 1/2cent 3,000,000$ extend none 70.6% PASS Oceanside San Diego Measure X 1/2cent 19,000,000$ extend 10yrs 69.7% PASS La Habra Orange Measure V 1cent 15,600,000$ increase/ none 68.9% PASS Artesia Los Angeles Measure AA A 3/4cent 2,500,000$ new none 68.4% PASS Fort Bragg Mendocino Measure T 3/8cent 800,000$ increase none 68.3% PASS Ridgecrest Ker n Measure V 1cent 6,500,000$ extend none 68.3% PASS Seal Beach Orange Measure GG 1/2cent 3,000,000$ increase none 68.3% PASS El Cajon San Diego Measure J 1/2cent 13,000,000$ extend 20yrs 68.0% PASS Irwindale Los Angeles Measure IR 1/4cent 1,000,000$ preempti none 67.9% PASS Pinole Contra Costa Measure I 1/2cent 2,500,000$ increase none 67.9% PASS County of Butte Measure H 1cent 44,000,000$ new none 67.7% PASS Azusa Los Angeles Measure ZZ 1/4cent 2,500,000$ preempti none 67.5% PASS Lemoore Kings Measure S 1cent 3,850,000$ new none 67.5% PASS Capitola Santa Cruz Measure Y by 1/4 to 1/2cent 2,200,000$ increase 10yrs 67.5% PASS Trinidad Humboldt Measure L 3/4cent ??? extend 4yrs 67.4% PASS Downey Los Angeles Measure D 1/4cent 6,000,000$ increase none 67.3% PASS Sutter Creek Amador Measure P 1cent 579,000$ new none 67.1% PASS Clovis Fresno Measure Y 1cent 28,000,000$ new none 66.9% PASS Orland Glenn Measure J 1/2cent 1,500,000$ increase none 66.8% PASS Palm Desert Riverside Measure G 1cent 25,000,000$ new none 65.5% PASS Brawley Imperial Measure J 1cent 3,800,000$ new none 65.5% PASS Arcata Humboldt Measure H 3/4cent 2,600,000$ increase none 65.2% PASS Lafayette Contra Costa Measure H 1/2cent 2,400,000$ new 7yrs 65.1% PASS Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo Measure E 1cent 6,000,000$ increase 10yrs 65.0% PASS Apple Valley San Bernardino Measure P 1cent 9,000,000$ new none 64.3% PASS Davis Yolo Measure Q 1cent 11,000,000$ increase none 64.2% PASS Rio Vista Solano Measure K 1cent 1,729,000$ increase 5yrs 64.0% PASS Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Measure I 1/2cent 15,600,000$ increase none 63.4% PASS County of Humboldt Measure O 1cent 24,000,000$ increase none 63.4% PASS Half Moon Bay San Mateo Measure R 1/2cent 2,000,000$ new none 63.2% PASS California City Kern Measure N 1cent 700,000$ new none 62.9% PASS Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo Measure F 1cent 4,000,000$ increase 12yrs 62.5% PASS South El Monte Los Angeles Measure SE M 1/4cent 1,600,000$ preempti none 62.3% PASS Hanford Kings Measure H 1cent 19,200,000$ new none 62.3% PASS Escondido San Diego Measure I 1cent 28,000,000$ new 20yrs 61.1% PASS San Marcos San Diego Measure Q 1cent 20,000,000$ new 10yrs 60.4% PASS Winters Yolo Measure S 1cent 1,200,000$ new none 60.3% PASS Willows Glen n Measure I 1 ½ cent 2,300,000$ new 15yrs 60.1% PASS Yucaipa San Bernardino Measure S 1cent 6,000,000$ new none 60.0% PASS Santa Paula Ventura Measure R 1cent 4,500,000$ increase none 60.0% PASS Sonoma Sonoma Measure T 1/2cent 3,000,000$ increase none 58.5% PASS Novato Mari n Measure M 3/4cent 10,300,000$ increase none 57.9% PASS Glendora Los Angeles Measure Z 1/4cent 3,000,000$ preempti none 57.7% PASS Truckee Nevada Measure E 1/2cent 3,500,000$ increase 15yrs 57.5% PASS Manhattan Beach Los Angeles Measure M M 1/2cent 5,000,000$ new none 57.4% PASS Cloverdale Sonoma Measure DD 3/4cent 1,600,000$ new none 57.0% PASS San Ramon Contra Costa Measure N 1cent 16,000,000$ new 10yrs 55.8% PASS Napa Napa Measure G 1cent 22,000,000$ new none 55.8% PASS El Monte Los Angeles Measure EM by 1/4¢ to 3/4¢ 3,500,000 $ increase none 55.2% PASS Palmdale Los Angeles Measure PD 1/4cent -$ preempti none 55.0% PASS El Paso de Robles San Luis Obispo Measure I 1/2cent 5,500,000$ extend none 54.4% PASS PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 13 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

There were sixteen add-on sales tax measures earmarked for spec ific purposes including five extensions of previously approved rates. The five extensions pa ssed. All increases failed except a new one percent police/fire/EMX tax in Livingston.

City County Measure Rate Annual $ incr/ext Sunset YES%
Dixon Solano Measure J 1cent 3,000,000$ new none 54.0% PASS Maricopa Ker n Measure W 1cent ??? new 10yrs 53.4% PASS West Sacramento Yolo Measure O 1cent 20,000,000$ increase none 53.3% PASS County of Monterey - Uninc Measure A A 1cent 29,000,000$ new none 53.3% PASS Yreka Siskiyo u Measure V 1cent 2,400,000$ increase none 53.2% PASS Lancaster Los Angeles Measure Y M max* ?? preempti none 52.2% PASS Fontana San Bernardino Measure T 1cent 46,000,000$ new none 51.5% PASS Manteca San Joaqui n Measure Q 3/4cent 13,000,000$ increase 20yrs 50.6% PASS San Diego San Diego Measure E 1cent 400,000,000$ new none 49.7% FAIL Yuba City Sutter Measure D 1cent 17,500,000$ new none 49.1% FAIL Orange Orange Measure Z 1/2cent 19,000,000$ new 10yrs 48.9% FAIL Coalinga Fresno Measure J 1cent 850,000$ extend 14yrs 48.2% FAIL Grand Terrace San Bernardino Measure M 1cent 1,000,000$ new none 48.2% FAIL Encinitas San Diego Measure K 1cent 15,400,000$ new 10yrs 48.1% FAIL Woodland Yo lo Me as ure U by 1cent to 1.75 16,500,000$ increase 8yrs 46.9% FAIL Pleasanton A lameda Measure PP 1/2cent 10,000,000$ new 10yrs 45.8% FAIL Gonzales Montere y Measure S by 0.5 to 1.5cent 800,000$ increase none 44.6% FAIL King City Monterey Measure T by 0.5 to 1.5cent 1,200,000$ increase 12yrs 43.9% FAIL County of Tuolumne - Uninc Measure Z 1cent 6,200,000$ new 20yrs 43.0% FAIL Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure HB 3/4cent 3,000,000$ new 20yrs 42.6% FAIL Fortuna Humboldt Measure P by 3/4¢ to 1.5¢ 1,800,000$ increase 8yrs 41.7% FAIL Upland San Bernardino Measure N 1cent 20,000,000$ new ??? 34.8% FAIL Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax). Specific Use. 2/3 Vote.

Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%
Yucca Valley San BernardinoMeasure Z 1/2cent sewer 82.2% PASS Chowchilla Madera Measure N 1cent police fire EMS 81.5% PASS Sanger Fresno Measure R 3/4cent police/fire 75.0% PASS
County of Napa (NapaVy Transp) Measure U 1/2cent transportation 72.8% PASS Livingston Merced Measure L 1cent police fire EMS 70.7% PASS Sonoma County Library District Measure W 1/8cent libraries 68.1% PASS South Placer JPA (Lincoln,
Rocklin, Roseville) Placer Measure B 1/2cent roads 63.8% FAIL Red Bluff Tehama Measure R 3/4cent roads 65.8% FAIL
San Clemente Orange Measure BB 1/2cent beaches 64.6% FAIL Gilroy Santa Clara Measure C 1/4cent police fire 60.5% FAIL Williams Colusa Measure W 1/2cent 80%roads
10%parks 10%fire 58.7% FAIL
County of Merced Merced Measure R 1/2cent public safety 56.0% FAIL Mount Shasta Siskiyou Measure B 1cent police fire 49.3% FAIL County of Plumas Plumas Measure D 3/4cent sheriff 49.2% FAIL County of Lassen - Uninc Measure V 1cent public safety 46.1% FAIL County of Amador - Uninc Measure Q 3/4cent roads 43.2% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 14 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
There were also eight special sales tax measures qualified through citizen initiative. Under recent court rulings, these measures require majority voter approval for passage. Canyon Lake’s measure was also a cannabis tax increase with restrictions on the spending for public safety services. It failed.

Madera County’s transportation sales tax is an extension of an existing rate.

Utility User Taxes 
Voters in Long Beach expanded their utility user tax to businesses but voters in McFarland rejected a new utility user tax there.

Property Transfer Taxes 
Only charter cities may adopt property transfer taxes which are in lieu of the state statutory documentary transfer tax applicable in general law cities. Voters in the charter cities of Mountain View and Berkeley approved increases on taxes on transfers of real estate.

Property Transfer Tax measures in Saint Helena and Benicia were dependent on voter approval of those cities establishing city charters. Both failed.

Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax). Initiative Special. Majority Vote.

Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%
County of Sonoma INIT Measure I 1/4cent childcare 62.8% PASS Benicia INIT Solano Measure F 1/2cent roads 61.8% PASS
County of Los Angeles INIT Measure A by 1/4¢ to 1/2¢ homelessness 57.8% PASS County of Madera INIT Measure T 1/2cent transportation 51.5% PASS Canyon Lake INIT Riverside Measure Z 3/4cent police fire EMS 49.8% FAIL County of San Diego INIT Measure G 1/2cent transportation 49.5% FAIL Santee INIT San Diego Measure S 1/2cent fire EMS 47.7% FAIL Folsom INIT Sacramento Measure G 1cent
20%police,20%fire,
14%parks,15%street,
15%EcDev,15%CIP

37.8% FAIL
Utility User Taxes. General Use. Majority Vote.

City County Rate Annual $ Sunset YES%
Long Beach Los Angeles Measure LB 5% on gas 15,000,000$ expand none 81.7% PASS McFarland Kern Measure P 5% gas, electr,
video, telecom 750,000$ - none 36.1% FAIL City County Rate Annual $ Sunset YES%
Mountain View Santa Clara Measure G to $15/$1k
>$6mAV 9,500,000$ none 72.3% PASS
Berkeley Alameda Measure W 2.5% if >$1.6m,
3% if >$1.9m, 4,000,000$ none 60.9% PASS
Benicia Solano Measure H 0.4%, 0.6%
>$2m, 0.8% 850,000$ none 41.8% FAIL
Saint Helena Napa Measure A2 1.5%-3% >$3m 5,300,000$ none 41.0% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 15 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Transient (Lodging) Occupancy Taxes 
There were 28 measures to increase Transient (Lodging) Occupancy Taxes (TOT), all for general purposes (majority approval). Twenty-three passed. Avenal’s unusual multi-tax measure failed (hotel occupancy tax, vacancy tax and business tax).

Agency Name County Rate Annual $ Sunset YES%
Menlo Park San Mateo Measure CC b y 3.5% to 15.5% 3 ,600,000$ none 83.7% PASS Fort Bragg Mendocino Measure U b y 2% to 14% 400 ,000$ none 81.5% PASS Newark Alameda Measure LL b y 4% to 14% 2 ,100,000$ none 80.4% PASS Pacifica San Mateo Measure M b y 3% to 15% 720 ,000$ none 77.1% PASS Del Rey Oaks Monterey Measure R b y 4% to 14% 60 ,000$ none 76.4% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure LG b y 1% to 13% 500 ,000$ none 76.2% PASS Hemet Riverside Measure N b y 2% to 12% 200 ,000$ none 75.9% PASS Carpenteria Santa Barbara Measure B b y 3% to 15% 750 ,000$ none 75.6% PASS Dunsmuir Siskiyou Measure A b y 2% to 12% 60 ,000$ none 72.6% PASS Del Mar San Diego Measure M to short term
rentals 775,000$ none 71.5% PASS
County of Alpine Measure G b y 4% to 14% 400 ,000$ none 68.8% PASS Fairfield Solano Measure M by 2% to 12% 600,000 $ none 67.9% PASS Santa Rosa Sonoma Measure FF b y 2% to 11% 1 ,200,000$ none 67.6% PASS Solvang Santa Barbara Measure E b y 2% to 14% 1 ,000,000$ none 67.2% PASS County of Santa Barbara - Uninc Measure H b y 2% to 14% 3 ,000,000$ none 67.1% PASS Auburn Placer Measure F b y 2% to 10% 162 ,000$ none 65.5% PASS Mammoth Lakes Mono Measure L b y 2% to 15% 4 ,000,000$ none 63.8% PASS County of Mono - Uninc Measure K b y 3% to 15% 1 ,100,000$ none 60.6% PASS Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino Measure Q by 2% to 12% 1 ,000,000$ none 57.8% PASS McFarland Kern Measure O b y 6% to 12% 500 ,000$ none 56.3% PASS Buellton Santa Barbara Measure D b y 2% to 14% 600 ,000$ 25 yrs 54.2% PASS Hollister San Benito Measure V b y 4% to 12% 300 ,000$ none 52.6% PASS Coachella Riverside Measure Y b y 4% to 13% 350 ,000$ none 52.1% PASS Mission Viejo Orange Measure Y b y 4% to 12% 670 ,000$ none 46.7% FAIL Avenal Kings Measure B TOT by 9% to 15%,
vacancy tax, BLT 84,000$ none 44.1% FAIL
County of San Bernardino - uninc Measure K by 4% to 11% 9,400,00 0$ none 43.4% FAIL Ukiah Mendocino Measure W b y 3% to 13% ??? none 42.0% FAIL Turlock Stanislaus Measure C b y 5% to 14% 1 ,100,000$ none 37.6% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 16 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Business Operations Taxes 
Thirteen cities proposed general revisions and updates of their business operations taxes. Berkeley and Santa Cruz voters approved taxes on sugary beverages. These are majority vote general purpose taxes.

The City of Albany proposed a tax on the business of renting residential property with a tax rate of

0.36% of gross receipts for renting four or fewer units and 1% of gross receipts for renting five or more units. Proceeds were to be dedicated “to fund local tenant rental assistance programs, residential rental code enforcement, legal assistance for tenants and landlords, and to support rental providers to avoid financial hardship.” The measure failed.

San Francisco voters approved initiative Measure L, a tax on transportation network companies and autonomous vehicle businesses with the tax revenue dedicated to public transportation.

Agency Name County Rate Annual $ Sunset YES%
Belmont San Mateo Measure DD various 1,300,000 $ none 83.7% PASS Redwood City San Mateo Measure BB head tax 7,000,000 $ none 82.6% PASS Union City Alameda Measure QQ various gr rcpts 3,500,000 $ none 81.6% PASS Berkeley Alameda Measure Z 1¢/oz sugar
beverage 1,150,000$ none 79.9% PASS
South San Francisco San Mateo Measure W various 2,600,000 $ none 79.7% PASS Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure F various 3,000,000 $ none 78.3% PASS Paramount Los Angeles Measure LR various 350,000 $ none 77.1% PASS Foster City San Mateo Measure V various 1,400,000 $ none 75.4% PASS Scotts Valley Santa Cruz Measure X $90/busn, v arious 1,100,000$ none 72.1% PASS Monterey Park Los Angeles Measure BE $75min 1,200,000 $ none 70.5% PASS Fairfield Solano Measure L various 1,000,000 $ none 70.0% PASS San Francisco San Francisco Measure M various 50,000,000 $ none 69.2% PASS Santa Rosa Sonoma Measure EE various 3,000,000 $ none 64.6% PASS Adelanto San Bernardino Measure R various 1,200,000 $ 63.9% PASS Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Measure Z 2¢/oz sugar
beverage 1,300,000$ none 52.4% PASS
Business Opertions Tax (other than Cannabis). Specific Use. 2/3 Vote.

Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%
Albany Alameda Measure R 0.36% gr rcpts renter assistance 44.9% FAIL Business Opertions Tax. Initiative Special. Majority Vote.

Agency Name Amount Purpose YES%
San Francisco INIT Measure L
• 1% on taxable gross receipts between $500,000.01 and
$1 million • 2.5% on taxable gross receipts between
$1,000,000.01 and $2.5 million • 3.5% on taxable gross
receipts between $2,500,000.01 million and $25 million •

4.5% on taxable gross recei pts over $25 million
public
transportation 56.2% PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 17 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Cannabis – Local Excise Taxes 
There were five measures taxing cannabis, all majority general purpose and all passing. Canyon Lake’s Measure Z sales tax initiative also included a cannabis tax with proceeds earmarked for law enforcement. It failed. The others, placed on the ballot by their local agencies rather than citizen initiative, passed.

Parking Taxes 
Voters in Santa Monica approved a tax on patrons of private parking lots to fund general city services. Oakland voters also approved extending their existing parking tax to fund law enforcement services as a part of a parcel tax extension (see parcel taxes).

Vehicle Registration Taxes 
Voters in Calaveras County approved a ten year extension of that county’s abandoned vehicle abatement tax. The tax is a $1 per vehicle registration tax, $2 on commercial vehicles. State law requires the proceeds from such a tax to be used for abandoned vehicle abatement.

Agency Name County Rate Annual $ Sunset YES%
San Pablo Contra Costa Measure M 7%grRcpt, $10/sf 2,200,000$ none 73.8% PASS Needles San Bernardino Measure O 5%grRcpts ??? ??? 73.1% PASS Visalia Tulare Measure O 10%grRcpts, 500,000$ none 71.3% PASS County of Stanislaus - uninc Measure P 8%grRcpt, $8/sf 1,700,000$ none 67.2% PASS Duarte Los An geles Measure QQ 10%grRcpts 2,526,250$ none 52.1% PASS Parking Tax. General Use. Majority Vote.

City County Rate Annual $ Sunset YES%
Santa Monica Los Angeles Measure K 8% 6,700,000 $ none 74.3% PASS Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Tax (Fees prior to Prop26 of 2010). 2/3 Vote.

Agency Name Amount Purpose sunse YES%
County of Calaveras Measure C $1/veh
$3/commVeh Abandoned vehicles 10yrs 74.2% PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 18 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
General Obligation Bonds 
There were 18 non-school general obligation bond measures totaling $2.4 billion. Nine passed, authorizing $1.6 billion in public facility construction and renovation bonds. If state Proposition 5 had passed on this election, lowering the approval threshold for these sorts of bonds to 55 percent, all but one of these bond measures would have passed. Proposition 5 failed.

Agency Name County Amount Use Tax Rate YES%
Cambria Community Health
Care District San Luis Obisp Measure C 5,900,000$ hospital $7.90/$100k 76.8% PASS Keyes Fire Protection
District Stanislaus Measure H 7,000,000$ fire $29/$100k 74.3% PASS Fulton-ElCamino Recreation
and Park District Sacramento Measure Q 24,000,000$ parks/recreation $19/$100k 73.9% PASS Pasadena Los Angeles Measure PL 195,000,000 $ library $29/$100k 72.4% PASS San Bruno San Mateo Measure Q 102,000,000 $ streets/roads/fire $30/$100k 71.6% PASS Redondo Beach Los Angeles Measure FP 93,350,000 $ fire /police $17/$100k 71.4% PASS San Francisco San Francisco Measure B 390,000,000 $
hospitals, pedestrian
safety projects,
homeless shelters
$4/$100k 71.2% PASS
Santa Clara Santa Clara Measure I 400,000,000 $ various $19/$100k 69.4% PASS Sacramento Metro Fire
District
Sacramento
Placer Measure O 415,000,000$ fire $19/$100k 69.1% PASS Pleasant Hill Recreation and
Park District Contra Costa Measure S 77,000,000$ parks/recreation $19/$100k 64.5% FAIL Orangevale Recreation and
Park District Sacramento Measure L 24,000,000$ parks/recreation $16/$100k 62.8% FAIL Fairfax Marin Measure J 18,000,000 $ streets/roads $30/$100k 62.0% FAIL Scotts Valley Fire
Protection District Santa Cruz Measure S 24,500,000$ fire $17/$100k 61.8% FAIL McFarland Recreation and
Park District Kern Measure S 15,000,000$ parks/recreation $23/$100k 60.3% FAIL Marina Monterey Measure U 50,000,000 $ fire /police $54.74/$100 k 60.0% FAIL Sunnyvale Santa Clara Measure E 290,000,000$ library $27.47/$100 k 59.3% FAIL Central Fire District Santa Cruz Measure R 221,000,000$ fire $29/$100k 57.5% FAIL Beach Cities Health District Los Angeles Measure BC 30,000,000$ hospital $30/$100k 47.5% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 19 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Parcel Taxes – Non-School 
There were 42 parcel tax measures for a variety of public services. Twenty-eight passed.

Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%
King of the Mountain Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure H by $300 to
$550/parcel roads 86.7% PASS
Emerald Meadows Zone of
Benefit El Dorado Measure K $375+/parcel drainage, lighting, landscape 85.5% PASS
Penninsula Community
Services District Humboldt Measure E $155/SFDU fire 83.2% PASS Stinson Beach Fire Protection DMarin Measure R 42¢/sf fire EMS 81.8% PASS Mountains Recreation and
Conservation Authority Div1 Los Angeles Measure H $65/parcel habitat/wildlife 80.9% PASS Thornton Fire Protection Distr i San Joaquin Measure S 8¢/sf fire EMS 79.0% PASS Berkeley Alameda Measure X by $0.06 to
$0.34/sf library 78.6% PASS
Beyers Lane Community
Service District Nevada Measure F by $100 to
$300/parcel roads 77.8% PASS
San Marino Los Angeles Measure SM police, fire, EMS 76.6% PASS Berkeley Alameda Measure Y by $0.0442 to
$0.2652/sf parks, landscaping 75.2% PASS
Mountains Recreation and
Conservation Authority Div2 Los Angeles Measure GG $38/parcel habitat/wildlife 75.0% PASS Davis Library Community
Facilities District Yolo Measure T by $24.50 to
$49/DU library 74.4% PASS
Sacramento Sacramento Measure E $54.50/DU library 74.2% PASS Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles Measure SFS 7+¢/sf
commercial roads 73.7% PASS
Kneeland Fire Protection
District Humboldt Measure D $180/SFDU fire 73.7% PASS
Burney Fire Protection
District Shasta Measure F $75/SFDU fire 72.8% PASS
Mammoth Lakes Fire
Protection District Mono Measure M $98/parcel fire 72.4% PASS Hickok Road Communidyt
Services District El Dorado Measure T by $200+ to
$400+ roads 72.4% PASS
Bear Valley Sommunity
Healthcare District
San
Bernardino Measure U $45/parcel hospital 72.2% PASS
Zayante Fire Protection
District Santa Cruz Measure T by $222 to
$290/DU fire 71.7% PASS
Middle River Community
Services District Calaveras Measure E by $100 to
$200/parcel roads 71.4% PASS

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 20 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%
Oakland Alameda Measure MM $99+/SFDU fire prevention 71.2% PASS Greater Hayfork Valley Park
and Recreation District Trinity Measure M by $20 to
$30/parcel park recreation 70.8% PASS
Oakland Alameda Measure NN $198/SFDU,
10% Parking police 70.8% PASS
Albany Alameda Measure C $0.017+/sf sidewalks &
pathways 70.5% PASS
Ryan Ranch Zone of Benefit El Dorado Measure E $1000/parcel roads 69.3% PASS Puente Hills Habitat
Preservation Authority Los Angeles Measure PH 1+¢/sf habitat/wildlife 68.1% PASS Tulelake Multi-County Fire
Protection District
Modoc
Siskiyou Measure U $75/parcel fire 66.9% PASS
Walnut Drive Zone of Benefit El Dorado Measure C by $360 to $685/parcel roads 66.2% FAIL
West Stanislaus County Fire
Protection District Stanislaus Measure V $125/DU fire 65.9% FAIL Westside Community Health
Care District
Stanislaus
Merced Measure A $69+/parcel EMS 63.5% FAIL
River Pines Zone of Benefit El Dorado Measure B by $225 to $500/parcel roads 63.0% FAIL
Ukiah Valley Fier District Mendocino Measure V $33.50+/DU fire 62. 3% FAIL North County Public
Recreation District Monterey Measure EE $82/parcel parks, recereation 58.6% FAIL Albion Little River Fire
Protection District Mendocino Measure S by $225 to
$300+/D U fire 56.7% FAIL
Pilot View Zone of Benefit El Dorado Measure G $400/parcel roads 4 5.9% FAIL Broadmoor Police Protection DSan Mateo Measure I in ordinance police 44.6% FAIL Foresthill Fire Protection Dist r Placer Measure D $268+/parcel fire EMS 44.0% FAIL Blanchard Estates Zone of BeneEl Dorado Measure J $1000/parcel road, drainage, landscape 40.0% FAIL
South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Measure N $3k/DU,
$6k+/DU roads, housing 29.3% FAIL
Sundown Estates Zone of BenefEl Dorado Measure M by $250 to $350/DU drainage 18.8% FAIL
Calvary Meadows Zone of BeneEl Dorado Measure L by $240 to $350/DU drainage 0.0% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 21 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
There were also eight citizen initiative parcel tax measures. Four passed.

Other measures of Note
 Measures to impose term limits passed easily in ten cities and a school district. La Palma voters approved a measure to modify their term limit rules.
 There were 17 measures to convert elected city clerk or treasu rer positions to appointed (by city council or manager). Eleven passed. Voters in Siskiyou County declined a proposal to appoint, rather than elect, their County Auditor-Controller.
 Bellflower becomes a charter city but Saint Helena and Benecia voters said ‘No’ when also offered property transfer tax measures.
 Voters in Stockton, forgetting one of the lessons of bankruptc y, approved a provision for binding arbitration for police and fire labor agreements in their city charter.  A ballot-box-budgeting initiative in Pomona passed that requir es ten percent of general revenues be dedicated to children and youth.
 Richmond approved rank choice voting.
 A water rate repeal referendum failed in San Lorenzo Water Dis trict, but passed in Grover Beach. Voters in the Riverpark community of Oxnard strongly rejected a measure to repeal various city taxes.  Rent control failed in Larkspur and San Anselmo (Marin County) but passed in Santa Ana.  An initiative in Ojai to require the city to allow pickleball at city hall courts passed narrowly.

Agency Name County Amount Purpose YES%
Berkeley INIT Alameda Measure FF $0.17+/sf street, sidewalk, pathw ay 60.9% PASS County of Santa Cruz INIT Measure Q $87/parcel water beaches wild fire 60.2% PASS County of Los Angeles INIT Measure E 6¢+/sf fire 55.1% PASS San Rafael INIT Marin Measure P 14.5¢/sf Library /
CommunityCenter 52.0% PASS
Berkeley INIT Alameda Measure EE $0.13+/sf street, sidewalk, pathw ay 45.6% FAIL Sierra Madre INIT Los Angeles Measure PS $480+/SDU police fire EMS 44.9% FAIL National City - INIT San Diego Measure R various roads parks 33.7% FAIL Berkeley INIT Alameda Measure GG $2.9647+/therm building decarboni zation 31.0% FAIL

Local Revenue Measure Results November 2024 – 22 – December 6, 2024 Final

CaliforniaCityFinance.com

************
For more information: Michael Coleman 530-758-3952. [email protected] mjgc rev 6Dec2024 17:50
Appointed City Clerk / City Treasurer / etc.

City County YES% NO%
San Carlos San Mateo Measure L appoint Treasurer 74.5% 25.5% PASS Plymouth Amador Measure O appoint clerk 67.4% 32.6% PASS Plymouth Amador Measure M appoint treasurer 67.4% 32.6% PASS Maywood Los Angeles Measure MC appoint clerk 66.7% 33.3% PASS Maywood Los Angeles Measure T appoint treasurer 65.6% 34.4% PASS Compton Los Angeles Measure CA appoint city attorney 58.7% 41.3% PASS Firebaugh Fresno Measure W appoint treasurer 57.8% 42.2% PASS Red Bluff Tehama Measure P appoint clerk & treasurer 56.6% 43.4% PASS Firebaugh Fresno Measure V appoint clerk 56.4% 43.6% PASS Tehama Tehama Measure N appoint clerk & treasurer 56.1% 43.9% PASS Corning Tehama Measure O appoint clerk & treasurer 51.5% 48.5% PASS Atascadero San Luis Obispo Measure M appoint Treasurer 49.0% 51.0% FAIL Calipatria Imperial Measure I appoint treasurer 44.6% 55.4% FAIL Calipatria Imperial Measure M appoint clerk 44.3% 55.7% FAIL Ione Amador Measure L appoint clerk 43.4% 56.6% FAIL
Fairfax Marin Measure H appoint clerk 40.0% 60.0% FAIL
County of Siskiyou Siskiyou Measure W appoint auditor-controller 33.1% 66.9% FAIL Oroville Butte Measure J appoint treasurer 27.2% 72.9% FAIL

Revenue Measure Update - Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT)
February 3, 2026
Background
•City facing an ongoing annual structural budget deficit •August 2025: Council directed staff to explore TOT and engage stakeholders
•Tonight: Report back on engagement and seek direction to proceed

Pleasanton’s Position: Regional Comparison
City Rate Updated Notes
Alameda 14% 2023
Hayward 14% Aug. 2025 72% Approval
Newark 14% Jan. 2025 80% Approval
Oakland 14% 2009
San Leandro 14% 2016
Union City 13.86% 2024 Annual adjustments
Berkeley 12%* 1991 *Plus 3% TID
Emeryville 12% 2002
Albany 10% 1958
Fremont 10% 2009
Dublin 8% 1982
Livermore 8% 1983
Pleasanton 8% 1983
Key Takeaways
•5 of 13 cities at 14%
•10 of 13 cities at 10% or higher
•Tri-Valley has lowest rates in
county
•Pleasanton rate unchanged
since 1983
•Recent increases: Newark
(Jan. 2025), Hayward (Aug.
2025) – both passed with
strong margins
What We Heard
•No opposition to a rate increase
•Feedback ranged from neutral to supportive
•Market capacity exists for 12%
•Operators confirmed Pleasanton rate is well below
comparables
•Preference for phased implementation
•Incremental changes preferred over single large adjustment •Limited active engagement expected
•Operators would not actively campaign for or against
•Visit Try-Valley
•Understands City’s financial situation; interested in additional funding

Recommended Approach
Target rate of 12% with phased implementation:
•Phase 1 (July 1, 2027): 8% → 10% | +$1.4M Annually
•Phase 2 (July 1, 2028): 10% → 12% | +2.8M Annually (cumulative) Why this approach:
•Single ballot measure, single voter approval
•Addresses operator preference for gradual implementation •Achieves full revenue potential without returning to voters •Estimated election cost: $242,040 - $338,856
Next Steps
If Council provides direction to proceed:
•Develop draft ballot language for Council review
•Continue coordination with regional partners
•Develop community education materials
•Return to Council for final approval by June 2026

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Direct staff to proceed with development of a TOT ballot measure for the November 2026 election

2. Provide direction on a target rate of 12%, with phased implementation (10% effective July 1, 2027; 12% effective July 1, 2028)

3. Authorize staff to return with draft ballot language for Council consideration

Item #7

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

February 3, 2026
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: CONSIDER DEVELOPING A POLICY FOR EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT-

RELATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND RE-ZONING REQUESTS

SUMMARY
The City receives periodic inquiries from developers about potential re-zoning of property to allow for a change in use, with the volume and frequency of such requests increasing in the past year. Such approvals require legislative action (modifications to the General Plan and/or zoning), and are discretionary on the part of the City. There is currently no policy in place regarding whether or how the City should accept and process these types of applications, which typically require a significant investment of time and effort on the part of an applicant and the City to process. This agenda report provides background and recommends developing a policy to address these applications, which would provide a structured framework for early City Council review and direction on specific proposals, based on an evaluation of the merits, benefits and impacts of proposed projects and availability of staff resources.

RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to develop a policy for evaluation of development-related General Plan amendments and re-zoning requests.

BACKGROUND
The City of Pleasanton periodically receives requests by property owners and developers to consider re-zoning of properties – most frequently for rezoning from non-residential to residential use, although on occasion for modification of zoning or annexation and pre-zoning of property for commercial use. There has been an increase in the frequency of these types of requests in the past one to two years, particularly since COVID, with the shift aligned with a significant downturn in demand for office space in Pleasanton and the Tri-Valley.

Pleasanton has a large inventory of 40- to 50-year-old office buildings, most built during an era of substantial investment and expansion of Pleasanton’s office and business parks. With recent economic shifts, particularly the increased prevalence of work-from-home, many of these buildings have seen higher vacancy rates, prompting owners to consider whether to invest substantial sums in building updates and new amenities to compete with newer office space on the market. Repurposing these sites for other uses appears to be an attractive alternative for owners, prompting inquiries about the City’s interest or potential support for re- zoning.

The City does not have an established policy or process for whether or how these types of requests should be considered, placing staff in a difficult position when approached by prospective developers. Outside the mandates of the Housing Element and certain State laws, discretionary re-zoning remains a policy choice for the City Council, not staff.

This report proposes the City Council adopt a policy framework for consideration of such requests, based on the potential merits of proactively considering potential re-zones. Staff's recommendation is to create a structured process that would allow for periodic early consideration of whether potential re-zone projects should be allowed to move forward to submit a formal development application.

Past Approaches
In the last ten years or so, re-zone requests have generally been considered on a relatively limited basis: either through collective re-zoning of several properties as part of a plan update, or outside of these updates through the Council-adopted two-year work plan.

In recent years, the 8-year Housing Element cycle has been the primary vehicle for consideration of residential re-zoning, based on the State’s requirements to identify and zone for housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the most recent Housing Element process, 19 sites were identified and re-zoned through an evaluation process that considered conformity to Housing Element law (sites selection criteria, densities suitable to contribute to the lower- and moderate-income inventory), as well as location (e.g. transit proximity, clustering/distributions), neighborhood compatibility, and other factors. The creation of the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone (JDEDZ) was the most recent example of a large-scale commercial re-zoning effort.

Outside these types of broader rezonings, past City Councils relied on the two-year work plan process to receive and consider requests to rezone property. No clear criteria were established to evaluate such requests, although factors such as project type, density and location, staff workload, and developer presentations on the benefits or qualities of specific projects were discussed during the work plan process.

The most recent work plan process was revised to take a more systematic approach, focusing on the implementation of the 5-Year Strategic Plan and related City Council-identified priorities.

In addition to advancing key policy goals of the City Council (e.g. Economic Development, financial sustainability), the work plan reflects the constraints of limited staff and financial resources by prioritizing the most important efforts, alongside items that must be completed based on regulatory requirements, past or ongoing project investments, or because they are urgent or time-sensitive. Only one site-specific re-zone, for the Zaheri (auto-mall) property was included in the project prioritization, as a "Tier 1" - Active Priority.

Regulatory Context
Several recent state laws have limited the scope and degree of discretion given to local jurisdictions, particularly when reviewing residential projects located on sites already zoned for housing, and generally limiting such review to confirming conformance with objective development standards. Once zoned, projects have the ability to use State Density Bonus Law to request concessions and waivers of those standards when found to be a constraint to development at zoned densities. In general, commercial projects are subject to far fewer legislative constraints, and the City can exercise greater discretion at various approval steps, whether through a commercial rezoning or requirements to process a subsequent Conditional Use Permit, although such conditions or requirements need to be reasonable and tied to identified project impacts.

A proactive decision to offer discretionary rezoning, whether for a commercial or residential

project, can provide the City with much greater ability to shape and define a project, negotiate community benefits, and achieve greater certainty in project outcomes. These types of legislative approvals provide the City with discretion to approve, modify, or impose conditions of approval in conjunction with these applications and any associated development. The City can also negotiate Development Agreements that secure vesting for the applicant, often in exchange for community benefits to the City, and to collaboratively work with the developer to shape the development and deliver a high-quality project.

DISCUSSION
Based on the above considerations, and amount of active interest in re-zoning / redesignating properties, staff believes it would be beneficial to create a structured process for considering development-related General Plan amendment and re-zone requests in the near term.

The recommended approach would create an early input and review process, during which the City Council would have the opportunity to evaluate initial proposals for developer-initiated land use requests, and authorize submittal of a formal application. It is recommended that this process be applied to both residential and commercial re-zone requests, since it may be problematic to single out residential-only applications as needing special approval to move forward, rather than re-zone requests more generally.

The process is recommended to include:
• At least a once-yearly intake and review process, which would be intended to allow one or more development proposals to be reviewed and provided early feedback at the same time by City Council in a workshop format. Conceptually, this process could be aligned with the budget cycle, whether the 2-year update, mid-term or mid-year assessment, or more flexibly based on timing of developer interest / proposals.

• A standardized set of required application materials, including:
o Project description/narrative describing existing and proposed land use/zoning; proposed land uses.
o A project site plan, elevations/architectural concept and project narrative o Initial technical studies (e.g. a preliminary Traffic Impact Assessment if deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer, assessment of utility capacity, environmental constraints report)
o Statement and assessment of any proposed community benefits o Affordable Housing approach (for residential projects) o Economic and Fiscal Evaluation

• An assessment of staff capacity/resources, and recommendation for use of third-party resources if appropriate, with any direct costs paid by the applicant.

At the early input workshop, the City Council would have the opportunity to:
• Authorize the submittal of a formal planning application • Authorize submittal of a planning application but defer submission and processing until a specified date
• Decline to authorize submitting the application, in which case the applicant would be

required to wait a specified period before re-submitting a substantially similar application.

It is important to emphasize that in no case would an early City Council authorization to submit an application constitute an approval or entitlement, since such approval could only be required to be granted following the comprehensive project and CEQA review.

Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to draft a formal policy reflecting this approach for consideration and adoption at a future meeting, inclusive of any additional input from City Council on the process and its parameters. Staff also recommends developing proposed application fees for processing of such applications based on the estimated actual cost of staff time to process them, for inclusion in the Master Fee Schedule.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Through legislative approvals, the City has the opportunity to review projects to ensure they meet equity and sustainability goals, whether ensuring such projects include affordable housing, incorporating green building measures, or locating in areas close to transit and services.

OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, since this is a routine item of City business.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
While not directly called out as a Strategy, this item advances Strategic Plan Goal A. Funding our Future, since it provides a path for developers seeking to advance re-zoning and re-use of existing properties for potentially more economically viable and fiscally sustainable uses.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. However, as outlined above, the fiscal impacts and/or benefits of re-zoning actions would be important analysis to consider as part of any decision by City Council to accept an application. Establishing appropriate fees / cost recovery for staff or professional services needed to support these discretionary applications is proposed as part of staff's recommendation.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Ellen Clark, Director of
Community and Economic
Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Presentation - 2.3.26 - Rezone Requests Process

Attachment 1
1 Policy for Evaluation of Development-Related
Rezoning & General Plan Amendment Requests
City Council
February 3, 2026
Background
• Frequent requests from property
owners/developers interested in
re-zoning, especially post COVID
• Choice between substantial
investment or re-purposing sites
for new uses
• Staff lacks clear direction or a
policy approach to address these
inquiries
• City Council has the authority and
discretion to approve re-zone
requests
Total Vacancy: 16.8%; Class A: 20.0%; Class B: 16.5%
Source: Colliers International
Q3 Office Report | Tri-Valley/Pleasanton
1 2

1/26/2026
2 BackgroundPrior Mechanisms for Approval of Rezones•Plan Updates – Larger Scale Rezones of Multiple Properties•6thCycle Housing Element Update (19 residential properties)•Johson Drive EDZ – ~40 acres of commercial re-zoning, 12 parcels•2-Year Work Plan Process (through FY 2023-2025)•Ad-hoc, based on developer proposals and City Council interest•No clear criteria •Current 2-Year Work Plan based on Strategic Plan and City Council prioritization process•Focus on master planning (Stoneridge, East Pleasanton) for larger areas•One re-zone project (Zaheri Property) identified as an “Active Priority” Background•State law limits scope and discretion in residential project approvals on properties already zoned for housing•Objective standards only, with limited basis for modification or denial•State density bonus law allows for waivers/reductions of standards•Commercial projects are less constrained (e.g. Conditional Use Permit can provide discretion), but conditions need to be proportionate, bear a nexus to project-specific findings for approval•Rezoning and General Plan Amendment approvals are discretionary:•Consider more economically viable or sustainable uses, versus potentially declining value•Work collaboratively to shape a project•Negotiate community benefits•Negotiate Development Agreements to provide greater certainty around development outcomes 3 4

1/26/2026
3 Staff RecommendationStaff recommends City Council adopt an early review process for discretionary rezone requests•Minimum of once-yearly intake and review (one or more proposals) in workshop format•Standardized application materials:•City Council Workshop Direction:•Authorize immediate submittal of formal application(s)•Authorize submittal at a specified future date•Decline to authorize submittal•Authorization to submit only – no entitlement or guarantee of approval•Affordable housing approach•Economic and Fiscal Evaluation•Assessment of Staff Capacity, including any needed third-party support•Project plans and narrative •Initial technical studies•Statement of proposed community benefits Requested ActionStaff Recommends City Council provide direction to staff to:•Draft a policy for early review and direction on discretionary property re-zone requests, including additional input from City Council, for future consideration and adoption•Develop proposed fees for processing early review applications for inclusion in the Master Fee Schedule5 6

1/26/2026
4 Policy for Evaluation of Development-Related Rezoning & General Plan Amendment RequestsCity CouncilFebruary 3, 20267