SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – June 16, 2026
Regular Meeting
Agenda Item #5: Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Design Professional Services Agreement with Kier and Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc., in the amount of $925,411 for the development, evaluation, and creation of a precise roadway alignment for El Charro Road (CIP 27501), and approve the related budget amendments
1. When was the policy direction provided by City Council to proceed with the precise roadway alignment project?
A. Development of El Charro Road is a critical part of the circulation network envisioned in the General Plan. While the City Council did not provide specific direction to proceed with the contract in Item #5, it is a necessary and appropriate step towards efforts to build El Charro Road. The majority of the City Council has continued to endorse the concept, including during the most recent discussions around East Pleasanton development and the East Pleasanton Policy Framework at workshops in 2024 and 2025. The necessity of constructing El Charro, to both serve new development and relieve existing congestion, continues to be supported by technical analysis. In addition, applicants have continued to make progress on projects in East Pleasanton that abut the future El Charro Road, including the East Lakes residential development and the Amazon project. Defining the precise alignment for El Charro is necessary for both projects to move forward with design development and for the City to advance its efforts to develop cost estimates and capital improvement plans for the future roadway.
Agenda Item #12: Adopt a resolution approving rates for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection for fiscal year 2026/27 as required by the Franchise Agreement between the City and Pleasanton Garbage Service, Inc.
2. Typically, our Waste & Recycling subcommittee reviews the PGS rates before coming to full council. I don’t see that mentioned in the staff report. Did our Council subcommittee meet and discuss the proposed increase and City consultant's findings about the variance between what PGS proposed and what the Consultant could verify?
A. Yes. The Waste and Recycling Council Subcommittee met on April 30, 2026, to review and discuss the proposed rate adjustments, including the variances identified during the City’s review and the special rate requests submitted by Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS). Representatives from PGS attended the meeting and participated in the discussion. The City’s consultant, HF&H,
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
2 presented its findings and explained the basis for the recommended adjustments.
3. I’ve been reading of CPI closer to the 4% and greater, which is closer to the PGS proposed rate increase of 4.59%. With the sustained findings of the 2.23%, did PGS agree with the findings once explained per the contract or did they disagree?
A. PGS was provided the City’s rate review findings prior to the Waste and Recycling Subcommittee meeting. After reviewing the consultant’s analysis and the contractual rate adjustment methodology, PGS did not take exception to the findings and did not dispute the recommended 2.23% rate adjustment.
4. The tonnage amounts difference appears to be a notable variance, why would there by such a variance between our records and theirs (given they’re the source of all of them)?
A. The tonnage variance reflects approximately 1,452 additional tons of material, representing an estimated cost impact of approximately $177,000, which has been included in the proposed rate calculation. PGS explained that the variance resulted from timing differences between operational reporting periods and the reports initially provided for the rate review. To evaluate the discrepancy, the City reviewed additional supporting documentation and was able to reconcile the reported tonnages. While the City’s consultant found the additional tonnage and associated costs to be reasonable, the information was not independently verified through third-party scale house records or audit-level documentation. This variance was discussed in the presentation to the Waste and Recycling Subcommittee.
5. The special rate review items appear to be a notable driver in the variance between PGS and the City. Do we anticipate this will drive a compounded increase in next year’s rate increase due to the non-inclusion in the current year’s
2.23% staff?
A. The special rate request items will be further evaluated as part of next year’s rate review process. Because the request was submitted late and required additional supporting documentation, staff did not have sufficient time to fully verify the eligibility, reasonableness, and accuracy of the requested costs.
Over the coming year, staff will work with PGS to review the supporting information, determine which costs are allowable under the franchise agreement, and verify the appropriate amounts for future consideration. While some verified costs could be considered in a future rate adjustment, any potential impact would be subject to review under the franchise agreement and would not automatically result in a compounded increase.
Submitted On: Jun 15, 2026, 02:27PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Patrick
Last Name: May
Email (this entry is disclosable if included) [email protected] Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 20
Comments I support the planning staff's finding in regards to the new Shell sign and I applaud Julie Testa for her consistent commitment to, as she wrote in her statement, "preserving the qualities that make Pleasanton an exceptional and welcoming community for all.”
Thank-you for your consideration.
Submitted On: Jun 15, 2026, 08:47PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: Kelly
Last Name: Cousins
Email (this entry is disclosable if included) [email protected] Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm
Agenda Item Number #20
Comments Subject: Protecting Pleasanton’s Character Starts with Following the General Plan Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I urge you to vote No on Agenda Item #20.
This proposal is about more than signage at one gas station. It is about whether Pleasanton will continue to follow the design principles established in the voter-approved General Plan and dictates of the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed Shell franchise-style branding at this key gateway location does not reflect the community’s vision for attractive, context-sensitive design that enhances and reinforces our historic downtown character.
The staff report acknowledges that the proposal is not fully consistent with General Plan policies regarding prominent branding and color treatments. Approving this exception could set a precedent that weakens the City’s adopted design standards and encourages similar requests in the future.
Pleasanton residents expect growth and investment to occur within the framework established by our planning documents. I respectfully ask you to uphold those standards, preserve the integrity of the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan, and vote No on this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kelly Cousins
Submitted On: Jun 16, 2026, 10:46AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: John
Last Name: Carroll
Email (this entry is disclosable if included)
Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 20
Comments It is my understanding that City planning staff concluded that the proposed franchise-style signage is inconsistent with adopted policies encouraging attractive, context-sensitive design and discouraging prominent franchise branding in key Downtown locations.
Please demand the Shell applicant to modify their signage to better reflect the standards that would be more appropriate for our community.
I want to thank City Staff for their diligent and outstanding work in trying to preserve our community by upholding the guidelines provided in our General Plan.
Our City Staff recommendations should not be ignored or disregarded for the benefit of the applicant. Tell the applicant to go back to the drawing board and create signage that is better conforming to our General Plan standards.
Once we allow one applicant to have an exception to our General Plan standards we enter onto a slippery slope where others will try to abuse our guidelines. Please take a stand to follow our General Plan guidelines, and preserve our community for the next generation.
Please do not allow yet another Chamber of Commerce show of clowns deter you from your duty to follow the General Plan guidelines!
Submitted On: Jun 16, 2026, 11:40AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting - Submit your
written public comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name First Name: John
Last Name: Carroll
Email (this entry is disclosable if included)
Meeting type Regular Meeting - 7 pm
Agenda Item Number 5
Comments Please do NOT Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Design Professional Services Agreement with Kier and Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc., in the amount of $925,411 for the development, evaluation, and creation of a precise roadway alignment for El Charro Road (CIP 27501), and approve the related budget amendment
Almost a million dollars for road alignment design services for a road that has not even been approved yet.
I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse here. Spending this kind of money in advance of potential development when Pleasanton is deep financial trouble is irresponsible.
Development is normally paid for by the developer and not by the city. Please allow any and all costs related to El Charro Road development be placed with Steel Wave and other associated developers.
Please do NOT approve any work for a road that has not yet been approved by the City.