|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Vicki LaBarge
At the May 6 Pleasanton City Council meeting, the Gulf gas station signage at the corner of First and Vineyard was once again on the agenda — for the third time. The amount of time and taxpayer money being spent on this single issue is baffling, especially when there are far more pressing matters facing our city.
One moment that stood out was Councilmember Julie Testa’s comment that “many community members shared that they were not comfortable and didn’t like it,” referring to the signage. Yet no specifics were offered about how many residents expressed those views, or how that input was gathered.
As a longtime Pleasanton resident and active user, moderator and admin across several Pleasanton-focused social media platforms, I decided to look into the conversation myself. What I found does not reflect widespread concern.
Prior to the meeting, two posts about the signage appeared on Nextdoor — both authored by the same resident. One had comments turned off shortly after a former mayor responded, and the only reply supported her.
The second post allowed comments and drew more engagement. The majority of those comments did not criticize the signage itself, but rather questioned why so much council time was being spent on the issue. Phrases like “waste of time and money”, “there are worse eyesores” and “ridiculous discussion” were common.
I also asked about the signage in the “Pleasanton Rants & Raves” Facebook group. Most commenters were indifferent or supportive of the sign. Some questioned the process, suggesting that if the sign was properly permitted, the city — not the business owner — should pay for any required changes.
After the May 6 meeting, another resident posted about the signage on Nextdoor. Again, the tone was consistent: confusion and frustration over why the issue was still unresolved. Many supported the sign or simply didn’t find it objectionable.
Because the item was continued again, I ran a poll on Nextdoor. Out of 94 respondents (out of approximately 1,500 viewers):
- 74% had no issue with the signage
- 21% didn’t care
- 5% were opposed
While informal, these numbers reflect the broader tone on social media: this is not a major concern for most Pleasanton residents.
This situation also points to a deeper issue — the subjectivity of the General Plan. When something like signage can become a prolonged, costly debate based on personal preferences, it exposes a need for clearer, more objective standards.
As Pleasanton grows, we should work toward a General Plan that reflects community values without leaving so much room for interpretation. Doing so would support fairness, reduce confusion and avoid unnecessary conflict.
Given the lack of public outcry, I respectfully ask Councilmember Testa to clarify the source and scale of the feedback she cited. Public statements made during council meetings should be grounded in verifiable, representative data — especially when they influence perception or policy. Vague references to “many community members” risk misrepresenting community sentiment.
And to the entire City Council: please move on. The business followed the rules, the signage is not offensive, and our community has far more important issues that deserve your time and attention. Let’s stop wasting public resources on a matter that most residents either support — or simply don’t care about.
Editor’s note: Vicki LaBarge, a 41-year Pleasanton resident and a moderator of several local social forums, follows city issues with a focus on fairness and common sense.
