SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – April 21, 2026
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #10: (1) Receive the annual Military Equipment Use Report for 2025; (2) introduce an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2238 to amend the Pleasanton Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy to add equipment to the Policy's Military Equipment Inventory; and (3) adopt a resolution accepting the annual Military Equipment Use Report for 2025 determining that the City's use of military equipment in 2025 complied with the standards of approval and renewing the Military Equipment Use Policy
1. How was the 481 meeting noticed, w hat was the attendance number, and any names of attendees?
A. This year, two (2) public meetings were held to expand the opportunity for community attendance. The first meeting was held on April 2, 2026, in the Library Community Room, with three (3) attendees. The second meeting was held on April 14, 2026, at the Pleasanton Police Department with one (1) attendee.
Meeting notifications were conducted via the monthly City Newsletter in March and on social media platforms. The Newsletter is distributed to over 18,000 residents, and the City’s social media platforms have a combined 30,000 followers. The April 2, 2026, meeting notification was also picked up by the Pleasanton Weekly and shared on their Community Events Calendar.
The City does not require or maintain a roster of attendees. This is not a practice that has been conducted in prior years.
2. Under equipment use, what were the 4 uses for the BATT (Ballistic Armored Tactical Transport)?
A. The ARV (Armored Rescue Vehicle) deployments were associated with the following events:
1) 3/8/25- Deployed ARV in response to an assault with a deadly weapon (stabbing) and a witness mentioning the suspect had a firearm and was barricaded inside the home.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 2) 3/9/25- Deployed ARV in response to a disturbance and subject who was reported to have a large rifle.
3) 6/22/25- Deployed ARV in respons e to a disturbance and a subject who reportedly was armed with a shotgun.
4) 8/15/25-Deployed ARV in response to a confirmed shooting/homicide.
Agenda Item #23: Receive an update on the Groundwater Supply Project and approve joint Project implementation with Zone 7 Water Agency
3. How does the report compare to the Brown & Caldwell report presented to the City Council on 10/17/2023?
A. Slides 8-10 of t he 4/21/26 presentation have been updated to reflect the comparison between the two reports.
The current cost-benefit analysis of implementing the new groundwater wells in the Bernal subbasin jointly with Zone 7 or independently has capital cost estimates of $27 million and $35 million (in 2026 dollars), respectively. These capital costs are within the range of the cost estimate for the same project from the Water Supply Assessment (WSA). For annualized costs, the WSA did a relative comparison that only quantified the "differential" annualized costs between the project alternatives. The current analysis does a more "totalized" estimate of annualized costs as it was necessary to properly compare implementing the project jointly with Zone 7 vs. independently.
Although the new annualized costs cannot be directly compared to the previous WSA study, there were no changes in assumptions that would impact the previous WSA analysis and findings.
Agenda Item #25: Introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 18.110 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, adopt a resolution adopting new policies related to applications for wireless facilities (macro towers, small cells, and modifications to existing facilities), and adopt a resolution updating the Master Fee Schedule by adding wireless application fee
4. Does the proposed ordinance and policy st ructure, which puts the majority of regulating standards into the three policies, versus the ordinance, provide adequate ability to the City to enforce the various standards? Should certain standards, such as noticing requirements, findings for denial, or distance from residential structures, be made more stringent?
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
3 A. Enforceability of Policies - As descr ibed in the Agenda Report, staff consulted with specialized legal counsel to recommend an appropriate and enforceable structure for the revised regulations. The three policies are fully enforceable and provide the City with the same regulatory authority with respect to the various standards included, as would be the case if the suggested language were added to the ordinance itself. Staff does not recommend any further revisions be made to the ordinance or policy in that regard.
B. Noticing Requirements, Findings fo r Denial, and Distance from Residential Structures - The comments suggest that these topic areas are missing or should be addressed more comprehensively in the ordinance or policy. Staff reviewed these suggestions, and noted that the policies comprehensively address these items, including:
Siting preferences and priorities, which require a demonstration of infeasibility for each less-preferred location to be proposed. Setbacks, design standards, hei ght limits, and placement. Requirement for the “least intrusiv e means” to provide required service (e.g. use of stealth techniques, use of the smallest and least visible equipment, design techniques, materials, and finishes that minimize visibility).
Requirements for alternative sites analysis.
For small cell facilities in the public right-of-way, preference for use of existing poles and structures, limiting new poles except where necessary, and concealing and limiting the height of poles.
Requirements for facilities within t he public right-of-way for bonding and removal of abandoned equipment.
Inclusion of “legal safeguard” language to ensure consistency with applicable state and federal laws.
Specific findings for approval for the different facility types in each policy.
Should the approving body not be able to make any one of the required findings, the application could be denied.
Since these items are already addressed in the proposed policy, no revisions are recommended for any of the above topic areas.
5. Should the following modification s be made to the proposed standards?
1) Small Cells, Increase Separation Requirement: Suggestion to require a minimum separation distance of 300 feet from the nearest other small cell facility [Proposed policy requires a 250-foot separation]
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
4 A. It’s important to note that the purpose of separation requirements is to address potential aesthetic impacts to neighboring uses (e.g., residential) since health concerns related to Radio Frequency (RF) are not considered a valid basis for denial of a wireless application so long as the RF meets the standards set forth by the FCC.
The City Council could consider amending the policy as suggested for aesthetic purposes. Doing so would likely reduce the number of small cells installed but would also potentially offer less robust wireless coverage. 2) Residential Protections:
Macro facilities: Suggestion to require a 500-foot separation from residential structures [Proposed Policy requires 100 feet] A. City Council could consider increasing the minimum separation beyond 100 feet due to aesthetic concerns, but staff does not recommend increasing the separation to 500 feet. As shown in Attachment 1, using the Vintage Hills neighborhood, which has extremely poor cell-phone coverage, as an example, a 500-foot radius would preclude siting a macro facility at either Vintage Hills Park or Vintage Hills School since almost any location on either site would be within 500 feet of a residential structure.
Increasing the residential structure separation from 100 to 200 feet (which would be in line with the existing Wireless Ordinance’s separation standard), would still provide options for locations within park and school sites such as the above two locations, but would be less flexible than the 100 feet distance suggested in the draft policy, and may preclude certain smaller sites and locations from being considered altogether. (See diagrams in Attachment 1.)
Small Cells: Suggested “maximizing” separation from residential structures, and disallowing facilities from being located within 100 feet if feasible.
A. The suggested approach does not differ substantially from the content of the draft small cell policy, which discourages/makes “least preferred” small cell sites located within 100 feet of residential structures. Therefore, no change is recommended. Staff also notes that the draft policy includes measures to protect or minimize impacts to residential uses, such as avoiding placing small cells in front of doors and windows and siting facilities between rather than directly in front of homes.
Additional Standards for Facilities in Residential Areas: Suggested wireless facilities should only be permitted if no other feasible location
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
5 exists, “least intrusive means” are used, ground-mounted equipment is screened, and front-yard placement should be prohibited unless no other feasible alternative exists.
A. Staff believes the proposed polic ies adequately address each of these areas, including requiring screening, adherence to front yard setback standards, and requiring use of least intrusive methods, in addition to the separation standards noted above. No additional changes to the policies are recommended with respect to residential areas or zoning districts.
3) Noticing: Suggestion to include the following public noticing requirements:
Macro Facilities – 1,000 feet [Proposed Policy requires 500 feet] Small Wireless Facilities – 500 feet [Proposed policy requires 300 feet] “Neighborhood meeting” be required for all macro wireless applications prior to decision.
A. Increasing the required noticing r adii as suggested would increase the cost of processing these applications, due to the costs and staff time to process and mail a greater number of notice cards.
1 A requirement to conduct a neighborhood meeting for all macro facilities would exceed the requirements of both the existing wireless ordinance and the proposed policies. In both cases, a public hearing or meeting is only required if requested by neighbors or interested parties in response to a mailed notice, not as an automatic requirement. Staff does not recommend adding this additional requirement, since the current procedures have proven effective in balancing opportunities for neighborhood notification and feedback, while avoiding the risk of missing critical shot-clock deadlines that could result in a project being “deemed approved” if violated.
6. Additional Public Comments Received from Brandon Baranco, AT&T Wireless.
Mr. Baranco raised concerns about the proposed ordinance and policies, including that it would jeopardize a project currently in design development and that the proposed deposit-based approach for third-party consulting services would contribute to shot-clock delays and result in unreasonable costs.
1 For example (based on a hypothetical cell site at 200 Old Bernal Avenue), a 300-foot radius mailing would go to approximately 40 owners and occupants; a 500-foot radius mailing would go to 161 owners and occupants; and a 1000-foot radius mailing would go to more than 800 owners and occupants)
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
6 A. Staff has reviewed the status of cu rrent and recently-approved small cell applications, and while there are two recently approved AT&T small cell sites, no active applications are on file with the City. The proposed ordinance and policies would not modify these already-approved applications. As noted by AT&T, the new policy does favor having carriers place small cell facilities on existing or replacement poles rather than adding new poles in the right of way that will only accommodate a small cell facility.
Staff is suggesting a $4,000 deposit for third-party-review by a wireless expert. The consultant’s current fee to review a typical application is $2,756. The applicant will be refunded for any remaining unspent amount.
Most agencies require a deposit to cover consultant costs.
Staff does not anticipate difficulty in meeting shot clock requirements with the noticing and appeals language that is in the proposed policies.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
7 ATTACHMENT 1
Vintage Hills Park: 500 foot and 200-foot radius from
approximate park center
Vintage Hills Park: 500 foot and 200-foot radius from
approximate park center
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
8 ATTACHMENT 1
Vintage Hills School:
500 foot and 200-foot radius from hypothetical
roof-mounted cell facility
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: Agenda item 10, PPD use of military equipment.
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 6:00:40 PM
For the record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell: 510-918-9993
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments Proclamation & Commendation Requests
City Council Meetings & Submit Public Comment
From:
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 at 5:52 PM
To: Jack Balch <[email protected]>; Jeff Nibert <[email protected]>; Julie Testa <[email protected]>; Craig Eicher <[email protected]>; Matt Gaidos <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda item 10, PPD use of military equipment.
I have attended 2 of the 3 past meetings regarding AB481.
PPD policy 709.8 states that at least one well publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting....
The agenda report states that on March 3, the community engagement meetings were noticed, to take place on April 2 and April 14.
One could argue that this notice was not well publicized; no mention in pleasanton weekly, no
mention in monthly e-mail from City, no mention at any City council meetings (from March 3), no yellow card in the mail.
John Bauer
South Pleasanton
Sent from AOL on Android
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: City Ordinances to address Pleasanton wireless coverage gaps Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 9:27:30 AM
For the Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell: 510-918-9993
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments Proclamation & Commendation Requests
City Council Meetings & Submit Public Comment
From: DAVID ZIMPFER
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2026 at 6:08 PM
To:
Jack Balch <[email protected]>; Matt Gaidos <[email protected]>; Jeff Nibert <[email protected]>; Julie Testa <[email protected]>; Craig Eicher <[email protected]> Subject: City Ordinances to address Pleasanton wireless coverage gaps Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I am writing to voice my concern about the Planning Commission's new ordinance proposal to improve wireless coverage throughout the city as referenced in the April 10 Pleasanton Weekly.
Like most city residents, I am all in favor of improving cell coverage. And as I understand from the PW article, the city's current ordinances are restrictive and outdated and have contributed to our coverage gap. While that may be, and while changes should probably be made, it seems, from the article, that the new ordinances would "remove most (existing) regulatory standards", and it further states that there "will no longer be any stipulation as to where these types of facilities will be located".
This seems to me a rather extreme countermeasure, it's like the pendulum is swinging from one side to another. I support change, but done sensibly and responsibly. Pleasanton still needs to have ordinances that govern such things as:
Zoning
Location Standards and Sites
Colocation and Site Sharing
Aesthetics and Heights
Safety and Setbacks
Public Notification and Right To Appeal/Public Hearings
Giving service providers a "green light" to install wireless facilities wherever they want is reckless and irresponsible. There are many examples of communities throughout the Bay Area that have excellent cell coverage administered by sensible ordinances.
Ordinances that address the items I reference above. As an example, many prohibit wireless facilities in, among others, residential zones, schools, and parks.
Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I appeal to your sensibility when the Commissioner brings this to the Council April 21 meeting.
Regards,
David Zimpfer
Submitted On: Apr 15, 2026, 10:28AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Ahmad
Last Name: Sheikholeslami
Email (this entry is disclosable if included)
Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 25
Comments Pleasanton Unified School District Letter
Upload File(s) Support for Proposed Amendments to Chapter l8.l l0 - Personal Wireless Service.pdf P
Pleasanton
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
925-462-5500
5758 W. Las Positas Blvd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
pleasantonusd.net
Morch 30,2026
City of Pleosonton
City Council
123 Moin Street
Pleosonton, CA 94566
Subject: Support for Proposed Amendments to Chopter l8.l l0 - Personol Wireless Service Focilities
Deor Honoroble Moyor ond Members of the City Council
On beholf of the Pleosonton Unified School District (PUSD), I om writing to express our support for the proposed omendments to Chopter l8.l l0 of the Pleosonton Municipol Code concerning personol wireless service focilities.
PUSD serves thousonds of students, fomilies, ond stoff ocross our community, ond we rely heovily on dependoble wireless connectivity to support both doily operotions ond emergency response. As noted in the City's stoff report, mony oreos of Pleosonton currently experience inodequote cellulor coveroge, which con negotively offecl communicotion, sofety, ond occess to criiicol informotion.
From o school district perspective, relioble wireless service is essentiol in severol key oreos . Student Sofety ond Emergency Response - During emergencies, including power outoges or noturol disosters, schools must be oble to communicote quickly with first responders, fomilies, ond stoff. The City's findings highlight thot limited coveroge con impoir the obility to receive olerts ond communicole during such events. . Continuity of Operotions - School sites increosingly depend on mobile connectivity for coordinotíon, tronsportotion, nutrition services, ond ofter-school progroms. Gops Ìn service con disrupt these essentiol functions.
. Community Access ond Equity - Mony students ond fomilies rely on mobile devices for occess to informoiion ond services. lmproved wireless infrostructure supports equitoble occess ocross neighborhoods.
P
Pleasanton
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
We understond thot the proposed ordinonce updotes ore intended to modernize on outdoted ond overly restrictive fromework lhot hos discouroged the siting of wireless focilities ond contributed io service gops ocross the City. The updoted opprooch oppropriotely bolonces the need for improved coveroge with locol control over siting, design, ond oesthetics, while mointoining complionce wilh evolving federol ond stote regulotions. lmportonily, we oppreciote thot the proposed policies continue to prioritize thoughtful plocement, oesthetic considerotions, ond community compotibility, including proximity to schools ond residentiol oreos, while still enobling necessory infrostructure improvements.
For lhese reosons, PUSD supports ihe City's efforts to odopt the proposed omendments ond ossocioted policies. Strengthening wireless infrostructure will enhonce public sofety, improve communicotion copobilities, ond better serve the needs of students, fomilies, ond the brooder Pleosonlon community.
Thonk you for your leodership ond considerotion
Sincerely,
Ahmod Sheikholeslomi
Assistont Superintendent of Business Services
Pleosonton Unified School District
s25-462-5500
5758 W. Las Positas Blvd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588
pleasantonusd.net
ú
Submitted On: Apr 17, 2026, 02:47PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Guy
Last Name: Blatt
Email (this entry is disclosable if included)
Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 22
Comments As a Pleasanton resident, I strongly support restoring and reopening the splash zone at Val Vista Park. For many families, this was one of the few free, safe, and local options for kids to cool off and stay active during hot summer months.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The continued closure, justified by past drought conditions, no longer aligns with current realities.
Meanwhile, neighboring communities like Dublin have continued to invest in and maintain similar amenities, highlighting a growing gap in what Pleasanton of fers its residents.
Reopening the splash zone is about more than recreation—it’s about supporting families, promoting community well-being, and ensuring equitable access to public spaces. I urge the City Council to prioritize repairs, provide a transparent timeline, and commit to maintaining this valuable asset moving forward.
Upload File(s) Petition to Val Vista Park.pdf
Submitted On: Apr 19, 2026, 02:51PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: T
odd
Last Name: Nelson
Email (this entry is disclosable if included) [email protected] Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 5
Comments I support the City signing the 10-year agreement for Measure B/BB, VRF, etc.
I believe that the new performance metric is less about reporting efficiency and more about aligning Pleasanton's improvements to the Alameda County HIN, CBN, and PSN. As a member of the ACTC bike/ped advisory committee, I knew about these networks and how they differed from the City's equivalent networks. BPTC was neither made aware of them nor allowed to contribute. Will these networks be considered in the new Bike/Ped Master Plan or TSAP?
I also believe that the Strategic Plan Alignment should include "Integrity". It's a core value of the ONE Pleasanton plan and refers to transparency and accountability. As stated in the "Outreach" section of the agenda report, this is key, but if you search our website, you'll struggle to find the evidence (it's there, but it's obscure). I've tried to understand how the City self-certifies projects for Measure B/BB. I believe there is room for improvement in community engagement with respect to Measure B/BB. Staff doesn't seem to want BPTC to recommend projects or help with prioritization - only to approve what Staff has already decided.
Nonetheless, this funding source is very important, and the City should sign this agreement.
From: Jack Balch
To: Pleasanton City Clerk
Cc: Gerry Beaudin
Subject: FW: Council Agenda Request: Pull and Meet to Discuss Item 25 (Wireless Facilities) Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 5:47:37 PM
For Public Record.
Jack Balch
Mayor
Cell: 510-918-9993
[email protected]
Need Assistance?
Find City Services | Report a Concern | Contact City Departments Proclamation & Commendation Requests
City Council Meetings & Submit Public Comment
From: BARANCO, BRANDON
Date: Monday, April 20, 2026 at 3:52 PM
To:
Ellen Clark <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Julie Harryman <[email protected]> Cc: Jack Balch <[email protected]>; BLACKSTONE, CAMMY ; FIGUEROA, JULIO C
Subject: Council Agenda Request: Pull and Meet to Discuss Item 25 (Wireless Facilities) Good afternoon City Manager Beaudin, Director Clark, and Assistant City Attorney Harryman,
My name is Brandon Baranco, and I am the AT&T external affairs manager for Alameda County.
I am writing to request Item 25:
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.110 OF THE PLEASANTON
MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW POLICES RELATED TO
APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES (MACRO TOWERS, SMALL CELLS, AND
MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES), AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPDATING
THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY ADDING WIRELESS APPLICATION FEES
Be pulled from tomorrow’s, April 21st, 2026, City Council agenda. We believe the ordinance has a worthwhile goal of moving the city in the right direction toward improving wireless coverage. While reviewing the ordinance, we flagged potential issues with the city’s ability to
meet the short clock timeframes, given the longer notice period. Additionally, requiring an expensive deposit for 3rd-party review of small cell applications could exceed cost-based rate justification and potentially create shot clock issues.
I also wanted to share that AT&T has also been working on a wireless solution on a new pole in Pleasanton, in line with the current ordinance, which prefers new poles over existing wood utility poles. AT&T has put significant time and resources into finding the right location and surveying for underground utilities to design the site.
The ordinance being considered
tomorrow would now flip a new pole into a less-preferred option, putting the current investment at risk.
Being able to discuss this and our other concerns would be greatly appreciated.
We respectfully request that item 25 be pulled to give us time to schedule an in-person or virtual meeting with city staff to discuss the ordinance and its impacts on current projects.
Thank you,
Brandon
Brandon Baranco, MPP
External & Legislative Affairs
Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Sanislaus
AT&T Inc.
430 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94108
p. 415.608.3437 | e. [email protected]
Keep your eyes on the road, not on your phone.
Take the pledge...It Can Wait.