Pleasanton City Council
March 5, 2024

trees, such as Italian Cypress, and many palm trees.
• The minimum qualifying circumference of a “heritage tree” is lowered from 55 inches to 47 inches to be more consistent with industry standards and ordinances of similar cities. • Adding definitions for certain terms.
• Consolidating and reorganizing the text for the Heritage Tree Board of Appeal duties. • Adding text that allows for the removal of trees, such as the Blue Gum Eucalyptus tree, when they pose a threat to structures in high-fire-risk zones. • Adding text to allow for the removal of trees that are considered to be the greatest nuisance trees (invasive, structural, or safety issues), including Alianthus altissima (Tree of Heaven), Eucalyptus globulus (Blue Gum Eucalyptus) Ligustrum spp. (Privet), Morus alba (Mulberry), and Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm). • Adding a cost to appeal the Director’s decision with money returned to the appellant if the Heritage Tree Board overturns the Director’s decision. • Modifying the penalty for unlawfully removing or effectively removing a heritage tree so that the penalty is based on the circumference of the trunk rather than a flat $5,000.

A more detailed breakdown of the changes is included in Attachment 1; the complete amendments are shown in Attachment 2; and a matrix comparing other cities with similar urban forests is shown in Attachment 3.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The creation of the Urban Forest Master Plan was specified under the Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) action items. The urban forestry goal of the CAP 2.0 is to increase tree canopy and native habitat to reduce and store carbon emissions, reduce the impacts of climate change, and create a healthier environment. Modification to the City’s municipal code was specified in the CAP 2.0 to require climate-adapted plantings, facilitate tree planting throughout the city, and discourage tree removal. The proposed amendments to Chapter 17.16 of the Municipal Code achieve the CAP 2.0 goals by including climate change adaptation accommodations and requirements and remaining focused on protecting the health of the city's urban forest.

The public outreach regarding the Urban Forest Master Plan and tree preservation ordinance update will also help to educate the community about the importance of the urban forest.

OUTREACH
The creation of the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) is rooted in an extensive public outreach process so that the plan represents the desires and needs of the community regarding the urban forest. The public outreach process began in August 2023 and is expected to continue with multiple opportunities for the public, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council to provide input.

To encourage public input, staff created a website dedicated to the UFMP process (www.ptowntrees.com) which contains information regarding the UFMP, survey results, and past and future outreach events. Eventually, the site will also contain the draft UFMP, an interactive map showing city tree types and locations, and the final UFMP.

The first public outreach events, which focused on informing the public about the UFMP and

encouraged residents to take the survey, occurred in August and September 2023 at the Pleasanton Farmers Market, at the August Concert in the Park, and the August Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.

The survey regarding the UFMP was open from the beginning of August to the end of October 2023 and included an invitation for Pleasanton Unified School District students to participate.

The consultant interviewed various City divisions involved in the heritage tree process (including the City Attorney’s Office, Streets, Engineering, Parks, Planning, and Building & Safety Inspection) as well as interviewed representatives managing Hacienda business park.

The survey for the UFMP was opened to the public to obtain input from residents regarding:
• The importance of the urban forest to residents
• Perceived threats to our urban forest
• Where residents would like to see more trees
• Resident support for planting and maintaining trees
• Management of the urban forest by the City
• What people know/think about the protection of trees
• Statistics regarding the respondents (age, owner vs. renter, neighborhood, etc.).

The responses to the survey are shown in Attachment 4. Some key takeaways from the survey results are:
• The majority of residents are supportive of efforts to protect the city's urban forest • The majority of residents are willing to help maintain and improve the health of the urban forest
• Residents are concerned with the impacts that climate change and drought are having on the urban forest
• The majority of residents are aware that the City protects heritage trees and supports tree preservation
• Many residents support exempting certain trees from the tree preservation ordinance.

Staff addressed this by removing the height requirement; thus, removing many palm trees, Italian Cypress, and other quickly growing tall trees that have narrow trunks; excluding invasive trees; and adding text regarding trees in high fire severity • The City needs to find a better way to reach out to and involve the youth. The survey was shared with the school district and sent out to students and parents via the school’s social media platforms, but it did not generate many responses from youth and young adults.

Due to the underrepresentation of youth and young adults in the first survey, staff modified the survey so the questions were more relevant to those groups. The updated survey was opened in early February 2024, shared with the school district and its various environmental clubs, advertised to the City’s youth programs, posted at the Pleasanton Library, and presented to the Youth Commission on February 14, 2024.

Next Steps
The ordinance amendments are planned for the City Council meeting on April 16, 2024. Upon

the adoption of the ordinance, the Tree Preservation Ordinance task will be complete unless it is determined through the UFMP process that further amendments are beneficial.

Staff will also be working with Dudek throughout 2024 to:
• March: Finalize the tree inventory & create first draft of the canopy cover analysis • March – July: Develop first draft of the UFMP
• August – September: Conduct additional public outreach • November/December: Adopt UFMP

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The public outreach for and creation of the UFMP and the amendment to the municipal code's tree preservation chapter helps achieve all five key ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goals. The UFMP strategizes a 25-year plan to maintain, protect, and improve the city's urban forest, including the costs associated with maintenance. The amended municipal code provides more clarity regarding tree removal penalties and costs, which provides a funding mechanism for tree planting projects and will help maintain the fiscal sustainability of the forest.The UFMP and the amended ordinance should lead to more efficient use of staff time, are investments in our environment's health, and help to protect the City from extreme weather events and climate change. The benefits of our healthy urban forest will serve residents for generations to come.

FISCAL IMPACT
Preparation of the Urban Forest Master Plan Project is fully funded through the UFMP Capital Improvement Project, CIP No. 22773. There is no fiscal impact from the review of the public outreach and a limited fiscal impact from amending the tree preservation chapter of the Municipal Code.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Matthew Gruber, Landscape
Architect
Adam Nelkie, Acting Director, Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Summary of Proposed Tree Preservation Updates

2. Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 Tree Preservation

3. Ordinance Comparison Matrix

4. Urban Forest Master Plan Survey Results

NOVEMBER 2023 1
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON

SUMMARY OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
The following sections outline the proposed changes to the municipal code.

Chapter 17.16 Tree Preservation
Section 17.16.006 Definitions
The following definitions were added or updated in this section:

Heritage Tree

1.Language was added to specify what height the circumference measurement of the tree should be taken:

4.5 ft or 54 inches above ground level. Changed minimum circumference diameter requirement from 55 to 47 inches.

2.Clarified language on where to measure circumference of multi-trunked tree: at 54 inches if measuring two largest trunks or below split in trunk.

3.The height criterion, listed as “any tree of 35 ft in height or more”, was removed from this list.

4.Removed language stating “any tree of particular historical significance specifically designated by official action.”

5.Clarified and added more specific language regarding what constitutes a “stand of trees”. This includes any stand consisting of five or more trees on one parcel, each of which is greater than 36 inches in circumference.

Terms (items B through N) under the Definitions were rearranged to be in alphabetical order.

New terms added to Definitions list include:
•“Application”, “Approved Consulting Arborist”, “City”, “Dripline”, “Effectively Remove”, “Emergency”, “Multi- trunk Tree”, “Pruning”, and “Trunk”.

Terms removed from Definitions
•"Significant Impact”
Other Definition updates:

Consulting Arborist
•“Consulting Arborist” - Removed the term “Certified” from this definition and expanded definition to include being qualified either through ISA or ASCA.
•“Director” - Definition changed from “community development director” to “Director of the Department that oversees tree removals”.
•“Topping” - Changed definition to more closely match the International Society of Arboriculture definition.

Section 17.16.009 Exceptions
This section has been removed from the Ordinance.

CITY OF PLESANTON

SUMMARY OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
[NOVEMBER 2023] 2
Section 17.16.010 Permit - Required
Language modified in section A to say “No person shall remove, or effectively remove any heritage tree…”, instead of “No person shall remove, destroy or disfigure any heritage tree…” Language modified in section B to remove the word “fines and” from the sentence, “Pruning which … varies from these guidelines shall be subject to fines and penalties as provided in Section 17.16.110.” Section 17.16.020 Permit - Procedure
Language modified in section B to clarify that when an applicant submits an application, the property owner gives permission to the “city designee” to access the property. •Item B1: language was added to clarify whether or not the heritage tree is currently causing damage to property or presents an elevated risk to people or structures. The second half of the section starting with “danger of falling…” was removed.
•Item B2: “Whether the tree has significant impact on the property” was removed and replaced with “Whether the Heritage Tree presents an elevated level of risk to people, including due to high fire risk zones, and no reasonable mitigation efforts can be taken to preserve the Heritage Tree” •Added new Item B3, which states: “Whether the heritage tree(s) is causing damage to the property, structures, infrastructure, or has outgrown its planting space, and no reasonable mitigation efforts can be taken to repair damage and preserve the tree(s)”
•Added new language to Item B5 (formerly B4) to include consideration of the effect removal would have upon “meeting goals and objectives”, “forest sustainability”, and “canopy cover” of the area. •Removed Item B6 (now B7) regarding “Good forestry practices…” and replaced with language that states “Whether the tree is listed as a highly or moderately invasive plant by the California Invasive Plant Council (CalIPC).”
Item C replaced with what was previously Section 17.16.030B and simplified and moved to Item D Section 17.16.025 Significant Impact – Heritage tree board of appeals hearing This section has been removed from the Ordinance.

Section 17.16.030 Action by Director - Findings
This section has been removed from the Ordinance.

Modified and moved item A to Section 17.16.020 B, Items 1 through 7 to reduce confusion and eliminate redundancy.

Moved item B to Section 17.16.020 C.

CITY OF PLESANTON

SUMMARY OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
[NOVEMBER 2023] 3
Section 17.16.040 Appeals
Section title changed to remove the words “not involving new development” Added new item B regarding cost of the appeal which states: “The cost of the appeal shall be the same as the cost to appeal a Planning decision as listed in the current City of Pleasanton Master Fee Schedule and shall be refunded if the appeal is successful.”
Modified and relocated item D to new Section 17.16.045 Heritage Tree Board of Appeals Section 17.16.043 Heritage Tree Board of Appeals - Established Section removed and relcoated to new Secton 17.16.045 Heritage Tree Board of appeals.

Language was added to call this board the “Heritage Tree Board” which “shall” consist of two planning commissioners and one park and recreation commissioner appointed by their respective commissions. Language was added to the second sentence to clarify that the Board shall elect a chairperson “from among the three commissioners.”
Section 17.16.046 Heritage Tree Board of Appeals - Duties Section removed and relocated to new Secton 17.16.045 Heritage Tree Board of appeals.

Language was added to Item A regarding the 60-day time period in which a hearing will be held to say, “(or later if agreed to by the Director and the Applicant)”.

Section 17.16.050 New property development
Under Item A1, in the second sentence, the term “existing trees” was replaced with “trees that may be affected by the new development”.

Under Item A2a, the word “may” was replaced with “shall” and in the last sentence, the words “subject to the director’s approval” was replaced with “an approved consulting arborist.” Under Item A3, the words “forwarded to the director who shall indicate in writing”, was replaced with “included in the plan submittal at which stage the Director will comment on…” and in the last sentence, the words “the staff report” was replaced with “the plan set.”
Under Item A4, language was removed from the first sentence including references to a “site landscaping plan review” by the director and replaced with reference to “the tree report”. In the second sentence, language was added to include “that additional trees be preserved” if there is “sufficient” evidence, as referenced “in the report or based on a site visit”, and language was removed referring to evidence being “submitted to it (the City)” for a reason “due to special site grading or other unusual characteristics associated with the property.” Under the first sentence of Item B, the word “certified” was replaced with “an approved” consulting arborist.

CITY OF PLESANTON

SUMMARY OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
[NOVEMBER 2023] 4
The second half of Item B was split into Items B1 and B2.

Under the new Item B2, the word “applicant” was replaced with “property owner” and language was added to this item to specify that the “Director may make the developer responsible for the survival of replacement trees for a longer period should the trees show signs of decline or if impacts were observed during construction and the City may subject owner to penalties for any decline in tree health for one year after final inspection, or the extension period.”
Under Item C, the $5,000 penal sum was replaced with “$100 for each inch circumference of the trees trunk (when measured 54” above grade)”, and the maximum penal sum was increased from $100,000 to $200,000.

The following sentences were added to the end of the section: “The Director may require an additional time-period beyond one year should the trees show signs of decline or if impacts were observed during construction. Such requirement would be in writing.”
Section 17.16.060 Emergency action
The words “or prune” was removed from the first sentence and a definition of “Emergency” was added to the

17.16.006 Definitions section.

Section 17.16.070 Protection of existing trees
Section was deleted and relevant items were redistributed to other sections of the ordinance.

Section 17.16.080 Pruning and maintenance
Section was deleted and relevant items were redistributed to other sections of the ordinance.

Section 17.16.090 Public utilities
Under Item A, the language “obtain permission from the director...” was replaced with, “notify the City and obtain an encroachment permit.”
Section 17.16.100 Insurance requirements
Language was added to specify that any person pruning heritage trees within the city “…shall be licensed with the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) with a C-49 Tree and Palm contractor or equivalent license and shall carry insurance as required by the CSLB.”
Section 17.16.110 Penalties
This section title and all relevant similar language in Item B was altered to remove the word “fines”, so it now just says “penalties”. The word “destroys” in the first sentence was replaced with “effectively removes”. Language was

CITY OF PLESANTON

SUMMARY OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
[NOVEMBER 2023] 5
removed from this section regarding inadequate planted material to appraise the tree, and penalties for someone who unlawfully disfigures a heritage tree.

Item A was modified to include a civil penalty for unlawful removal or effective removal of a Heritage Tree to be $100 for each inch of circumference of the tree’s trunk when measured at 54” above grade (or measured at the height of the remaining trunk if less than 54 inches.

Item D was added stating that “The failure of a person to timely plant a replacement tree(s), or water and care for such replacement tree(s) until establishment, shall be subject to penalties for the value of the original tree(s) removed, as provided in Subsection A, above, as reasonably determined by the Director.”

ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.16 TREE PRESERVATION WHEREAS, City Council prioritized the preparation of the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) and approved the project, CIP No. 22773, as part of the FY2021/22 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council requested that staff amend municipal code Chapter 17.16 Tree Preservation to improve the process and clarify the language as part of the UFMP process; and
WHEREAS, the UFMP was recommended to provide a management plan for the urban forest for the next 25 years, update the city tree inventory, and obtain public input; and WHEREAS, the UFMP addresses a Climate Action Plan 2.0 goal to increase tree canopy and native habitat to reduce and store carbon emissions, reduce the impacts of climate change, and create a healthier environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Finds that the proposed amendments to the Pleasanton Municipal Code have no possibility to have a significant effect on the environment per Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) §15061(b)(3).

SECTION 2. Amends Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 Tree Preservation, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.

SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in “The Valley Times,” a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Pleasanton, and the complete ordinance shall be posted for fifteen (15) days in the City Clerk’s office within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
______________________________
Karla Brown, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Exhibit A
Chapter 17.16 TREE PRESERVATION
•17.16.003 Purpose and intent.
•17.16.006 Definitions.
•17.16.010 Permit—Required.
•17.16.020 Permit—Procedure.
•17.16.040 Appeals
•17.16.045 Heritage Tree Board of Appeals
•17.16.050 New property development.
•17.16.060 Emergency action.
•17.16.070 Protection of existing trees.
•17.16.080 Pruning and maintenance.
•17.16.090 Public utilities.
•17.16.100 Insurance requirements.
•17.16.110 Penalties.
•17.16.120 Additional provisions.

17.16.003 Purpose and intent.

The City recognizes that preservation of trees enhances the natural scenic beauty, sustains the long-term potential increase in property values which encourages quality development, maintains the ecology, moderates the effect of extreme temperatures, prevents the erosion of topsoil, helps create an identity and quality, which enhances the attractiveness of the city to visitors and increases the oxygen output of the area which is needed to combat air pollution. For these reasons the city council finds that to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the city while at the same time recognizing individual rights to develop and maintain private property in a manner which will not be prejudicial to the public interest, it is necessary to enact regulations controlling the removal and preservation of heritage trees within the city. The city council also recognizes that under certain circumstances heritage trees may properly be removed.

Those circumstances include: where heritage trees are dangerous; are dead or diseased; are so situated on undeveloped land that their preservation would preclude reasonable development; are so abundant their removal would not destroy the area’s natural beauty or ecology or cause erosion; or have a significant impact on the property. It is the intent of this chapter to preserve as many heritage trees as possible throughout the city through staff review and the development review process.

17.16.006 Definitions.

For the purpose of this chapter, certain words and terms used in this chapter are defined as follows:

A. “Heritage Tree” means a tree of any species or origin which meets any of the following:

1. Any single-trunked tree with a trunk circumference of 47 inches or more measured four and one-half feet above ground level (54 inches).

2. Any multi-trunked tree of which the two largest trunks have a combined circumference of 47 inches or more measured four and one-half feet above ground level (54 inches), or as measured below the split to have a trunk circumference of 47 inches or more.

3. A stand of trees, consisting of a grouping of five or more trees on one parcel, each of which is greater than 36 inches in circumference measured at 54” above ground level, and the nature of which makes each dependent upon the other for survival or the area’s natural beauty.

The following species of trees are exempt from this ordinance and shall not be considered a heritage tree: Alianthus altissima (Tree of Heaven), Eucalyptus globulus (Blue Gum Eucalyptus) Ligustrum spp. (Privet), Morus alba (Mulberry), and Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm).

B. “Applicant” means the owner of improved property who is submitting an application to remove a Heritage Tree located upon said property. Only the property owner may apply to remove a Heritage Tree.

C. “Application” means the Application for Heritage Tree Removal form.

D. “Approved Consulting Arborist” means a consulting arborist who is approved by the Director for having the minimum qualifications to provide tree reports satisfactory to the City for planning and developments purposes.

E. “Consulting Arborist” means an individual in the profession of arboriculture who, through experience, education, and related training, possesses the competence to provide a tree report, risk assessment, tree survey and appraisal of tree values as well as supervise the care and maintenance of trees; and who is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and/or is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists.

F. “City” means the City of Pleasanton acting by and through its authorized representatives.

G. “Director” means the Director of the City department that oversees tree removals or the Director’s designated representative.

H. “Dripline” means the outermost circumference of the tree or trees’ canopy, from which water drips onto the ground. The 'dripline' is taken to include the area that lies within that circumference.

I. “Effectively Remove” means actions that foreseeably lead to the death of a Heritage Tree or permanent damage to its health. Effective removal actions include, but are not limited to:

a. Any extreme root or branch pruning that is not consistent with standard arboriculture practices for a healthy tree;
b. Removal of the bark around the circumference of the tree (girdling); c. Compaction of soil within the dripline;
d. Introduction of harmful chemicals;
e. Introduction of harmful foreign objects into tree or root system; f. Introduction of pests or disease;
g. Unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree; and trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the dripline.

J. “Emergency” means a sudden, serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services. An emergency tree situation typically means: a tree failure that is active and in progress, such as a broken but still attached branch; a partially uprooted tree; or a split fork or bifurcated main stem, that meets the “extreme” or “high” risk characteristics as defined by the International Society of Arboriculture.

K. “Multi-trunk tree” means a tree having more than one major supporting stem or trunk growing from a single root mass located at ground level or just above the trunk flare, capable of naturally exceeding ten feet in height at maturity. Multi-trunk tree does not include suckering growth or subordinate root sprouts.

L. “Pruning” means the selective removal of plant parts to meet specific goals and objectives, including but not limited to: safety and risk reduction; clearance; growth control; and to enhance performance or function by developing and preserving tree structure and health or preserving or improving wildlife habitat.

M. “Topping” means the indiscriminate cutting of tree branches to stubs or lateral branches that are not large enough to assume the terminal role (the central stem of the tree ).

N. “Trunk” means the primary structural woody part of the tree beginning at and including the trunk flare and extending up into the crown from which scaffold branches grow.

17.16.010 Permit—Required.

A. No person shall remove, or Effectively Remove, any Heritage Tree growing within the city without a permit except as provided in this chapter.

B. Normal maintenance and pruning of a Heritage Tree shall not require a permit but shall in all cases be in conformance with the guidelines in Section 17.16.080. Pruning which, in the reasonable opinion of the Director, varies from these guidelines shall be subject to penalties as provided in Section 17.16.110 of this chapter.

17.16.020 Permit—Procedure.

A. Except as provided in Section 17.16.050 of this chapter, any person desiring to remove any Heritage Tree in the city shall submit an application to the Director on a form provided by city. Said application shall contain the number, species, size and location of Heritage Trees to be removed and a brief statement of the reason for removal as well as any other pertinent information. The permit, if granted, shall entitle the Applicant to remove only the Heritage Tree(s) designated by permit.

B. When an Applicant submits an Application, the Applicant agrees to allow the Director to access the property to inspect the Heritage Tree(s) and the surrounding area to ascertain the following:

1. The condition of the Heritage Tree with respect to disease, general health, structural defects, and public nuisance (leaf drop and release of seed pods or fruit is not a public nuisance);

2. Whether the Heritage Tree presents an elevated level of risk to people, including due to high-fire-risk zones, and no reasonable mitigation efforts can be taken to preserve the Heritage Tree;

3. Whether the Heritage Tree is causing damage to the property, structures, or infrastructure, or has outgrown its planting space, and no reasonable mitigation efforts can be taken to repair damage and preserve the Heritage Tree(s);

4. The necessity to remove any Heritage Tree in order to construct any proposed improvements to allow for the economic enjoyment of the property; i.e., trees are so situated on a parcel that their preservation would preclude reasonable development;

5. The number of existing trees in the neighborhood or surrounding improved areas and the effect removal would have upon meeting the goals and objectives of urban forest sustainability, canopy cover, public health, safety, general welfare of residents and upon the property values and beauty of the area;

6. The topography of the land upon which the Heritage Tree is situated and the effect of removal thereof upon erosion, soil retention and diversion or flow of surface waters; C. The Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the determination to approve or deny the Applicant’s request for a removal permit (and the basis for the denial if the application is denied).

D. As a condition of granting a permit for removal, the Director may require that the Applicant plant climate-appropriate replacement tree(s) and irrigate for the establishment of such tree(s). The Director may also require that the replacement tree(s) is/are an approved recommended species by the City and shall determine the size of the tree(s) and the timeline for planting the tree(s).

17.16.040 Appeals

A. The Director’s decision to deny an application to remove a Heritage Tree may be appealed only by the Applicant. Such appeal must be signed by the Applicant and submitted in writing to the City Clerk within 20 days of the date of the Director’s written decision and shall briefly state the basis for appeal and relevant facts supporting the appeal.

B. The cost of the appeal shall be the same as the cost to appeal a Planning decision as listed in the current City of Pleasanton Master Fee Schedule and shall be refunded if the appeal is successful.

C. Appeals shall be heard by the Heritage Tree Board of Appeals.

D. The Director shall set a date for the hearing and shall mail notice of the hearing to the Applicant and all properties within 300 feet of the Applicant’s property. The Director shall submit a report to the Heritage Tree Board of Appeals along with any recommendations.

17.16.045 Heritage Tree Board of Appeals
A. The Heritage Tree Board shall consist of two planning commissioners and one parks and recreation commissioner (which are appointed by their respective commissions to serve on the Board). Every two years, the Board shall select a chairperson from among the three commissioners. The Director shall be an ex officio member of said board and shall serve as secretary.

B. The Heritage Board of Appeals shall:

1. Hold a hearing within 60 days after the city’s receipt of appeal (or later if agreed to by the Director and the Applicant) to hear information from any department of the city, the Applicant who filed the appeal, and any interested parties.

2. The Board shall consider all information presented and shall make a decision at the hearing (unless the hearing is continued) upholding, reversing, or modifying the Director’s decision, or by taking any action which is consistent with this Chapter. The decision of the Board on any such appeal shall be final and conclusive.

17.16.050 New property development.

A. Any person desiring to remove one or more trees (including trees that are not Heritage Trees) on any property in the city that is related to the development of such property requiring city approval or where any tree may be affected by a proposed development shall include in the application to the appropriate city reviewing body as part of the regular application, the following:

1. Depending on the scope of the development, the Director may require the Applicant to provide a tree survey plan that includes all trees that may be affected by the new development.

The survey, noting all trees six inches in diameter and greater, shall specify the precise location of trunk and dripline, size, health and species of all trees that will be affected by the new development on the property with a special notation of those classified as a Heritage Tree;

2. Depending on the scope of the development, the Director may require the Applicant to provide a tree report by an Approved Consulting Arborist. The tree report, based on the findings of the tree survey plan and other necessary information, shall be used to determine the health of existing trees, the effects of the proposed development upon the trees, recommendations for any special precautions necessary for their preservation and shall also indicate which trees are proposed for removal;
a. The Director shall require that the tree report include an appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees affected by the development. The appraisal of each tree shall recognize the location of the tree in the proposed development. The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal” under the auspices of the International Society of Arboriculture. The appraisal shall be performed at the Applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be completed by an Approved Consulting Arborist;

3. The tree survey plan and tree report shall be included in the plan submittal, at which stage the Director will comment on which trees are recommended for preservation using the same standards set forth in Section 17.16.020 of this chapter. This report shall be made part of the plan set provided to the City reviewing body upon its consideration of the application for new property development;

4. The city reviewing body shall endeavor to preserve all trees recommended for preservation in the tree report. The City reviewing body may determine that any of the trees recommended for preservation should be removed, or that additional trees be preserved if there is sufficient evidence in the report, or based on a site visit, that the preservation of the tree(s) would significantly preclude reasonable development of the property; a. If trees are approved for removal, mitigation may include, but is not limited to:
(i) replacement planting with particular tree species, sizes, and numbers; (ii) payment towards the city’s urban forestry fund for the appraised value of all trees removed from the site less the cost of installed trees, as reasonably determined by the Director;

5. Approval of final site or landscape plans by the appropriate city reviewing body indicating which trees are to be removed shall constitute the approval and permit for the purpose of this chapter.

B. Depending on the scope of the development, the Director may require that prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements or final inspection, the developer shall submit to the Director a final tree report to be performed by an Approved Consulting Arborist. This report shall consider all trees that were to remain within the development. The report shall note the trees’ health in relation to the initially reported condition of the trees and shall note any changes in the trees’ numbers or physical conditions.

1. The Applicant will then be responsible for the loss of any tree not previously approved for removal. For trees which were not previously approved for removal but were in fact removed

during construction, the developer shall pay a penalty in the amount equal to the appraised value of the subject tree.

2. The property owner is responsible for the health and survival of the trees not approved for removal within the development for a period of one year following the final inspection. The Director may make the developer responsible for survival of trees for a longer period should the trees show signs of decline or if impacts were observed during construction; and such extension period shall be in writing.

C. Prior to the issuance of any permit allowing construction to begin, the Applicant shall post cash, bond, or other security satisfactory to the Director, in the penal sum of the greater of either $100 for each inch of circumference of the tree’s trunk (when measured 54 inches above grade) or the appraised value for each tree required to be preserved (whichever is greater), up to a maximum of $200,000 total. The cash, bond, or other security shall be retained for a period of one year following acceptance of the public improvements for the development or final inspection, as applicable, and shall be forfeited in an amount equal to the greater of either $100 per each inch of circumference of the tree’s trunk (when measured 54 inches above grade), or the appraised value of the tree as a civil penalty in the event that a tree or trees required to be preserved are removed or Effectively Removed. The Director may allow for an early release of all or a portion of such cash, bond, or other security in the Director’s reasonable discretion. The Director may require the retention of the security for an additional time period beyond one year should the trees show signs of decline or if impacts were observed during construction. Such a requirement would be set forth in writing.

D. An Applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within the dripline of existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified consulting arborist.

E. Any decision by a city reviewing body under this section may be appealed to City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.144.

17.16.060 Emergency action.

A person may remove a Heritage Tree without a permit if there is an Emergency, as defined in section 17.16.006. In such event, the Director shall be notified at the earliest opportunity in order to confirm the Emergency. If the Director determines that the situation was not an emergency requiring immediate action, the person removing or damaging the Heritage Tree shall be subject to penalties set forth in Section 17.16.110 of this chapter.

17.16.070 Protection of existing trees.

All persons shall comply with the following precautions:

A. The current version of the City Standard Details and Specifications for tree protection.

B. If the project involves new development with an arborist’s report, the applicant must follow the recommendations for tree protection in the arborist’s report as approved by city staff.

C. Retain the services of an Approved Consulting Arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The Approved Consulting Arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved (for example, when work occurs within the dripline of trees to be preserved).

D. The Director shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a tree during construction so that proper treatment as recommended by the Consulting Arborist may be administered.

17.16.080 Pruning and maintenance.

All pruning of Heritage Trees shall be performed under the supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, in accordance with pruning guidelines, established by ISA Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning, current edition and any special conditions as determined by the Director.

17.16.090 Public utilities.

A. Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a Heritage Tree shall notify the City and obtain an encroachment permit before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to the Heritage Tree.

B. The Director shall inspect said pruning work to ensure that appropriate pruning practices are followed. The public utility shall follow pruning practices conforming to the International Society of Arboriculture pruning standards to promote the well-being of the tree. Topping shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by the Director. The Director shall stop any tree pruning performed by a utility if said practices are not being followed.

17.16.100 Insurance requirements.

Any person engaged in the business of pruning a Heritage Tree within the city shall be licensed with the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) with a C-49 Tree and Palm contractor or equivalent license and shall carry insurance as required by the CSLB.

17.16.110 Penalties.

A. Any person who unlawfully removes or Effectively Removes a Heritage Tree shall pay a civil penalty of $100 for each inch of circumference of the tree’s trunk when measured 54 inches above grade (or measured at the height of the remaining trunk if less than 54 inches), or the appraised value of the tree (whichever is higher). However, the Director may determine that the circumstances dictate issuing a penalty of a lesser amount. The appraised value of the tree(s) shall be determined by the Director in accordance with the “Guide for Plant Appraisal” pursuant to the International Society of Arboriculture. The property owner who hired such person shall be responsible for payment of the penalty unless the hired person pays the penalty. The collection of

penalties may be enforced through the use of a collection agency or by civil action brought by the City.

B. The amount of penalty imposed as described in subsection A, may be appealed by the person subject to such penalty by submitting a written appeal to the city clerk within 20 days of the date of the imposition of such penalty, and shall state the facts and grounds for the appeal and be signed by the appellant. Such appeal will be heard by the Heritage Tree Board of Appeals as provided in Section 17.16.045.

C. The cost of replacement plant material may be considered as partial payment of any penalty under this chapter.

D. The failure of a person to timely plant a replacement tree(s), or water and care for such replacement tree(s) until establishment, shall be subject to penalties for the value of the original tree(s) removed, as provided in Subsection A, above, as reasonably determined by the Director.

17.16.120 Additional provisions.

The provisions of this chapter shall supplement but not supplant other provisions of this code relating to the preservation of trees.

/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /6 /2 /7 /8 /2 /7 /9 /i255 /11 /5 /7 /7 /i255 /12 /1 /13 /7 /i255 /0 /5 /1 /2 /7 /5 /1 /14 /i255 /i255 /15 /15 /16/17 /18 /19/20/21/22 /21 /23 /i255 /19 /22 /i255 /25 /23 /21 /19 /26 /22 /i255 /i255 /27 /21 /18 /28 /29 /22/0 /1 /5 /8 /30/31/32/7 /5 /7 /33 /8 /7/i255/4 /7 /5/31/1/2 /i255 /4 /5 /6 /8 /7 /34 /34 /35 /36 /37 /38 /39 /40 /39 /41 /42 /37 /43 /44 /38 /45 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42/44/48 /49 /50/51/48 /52 /53 /54 /52 /51 /35 /36 /37 /38 /39 /40 /39 /41 /42 /37 /43 /44 /38 /45 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42/44/48 /50/51/48 /55 /52 /54 /49 /51 /56 /57 /39 /47 /40 /41 /47 /i255 /41 /38 /47 /58 /59 /44 /i255 /60 /40 /39 /37 /44 /41 /40 /61 /42 /i255 /40 /36 /41 /62 /38 /47 /42 /41 /47 /63 /i255 /i255 /64/38/41 /62 /42 /60 /60 /42 /54 /65 /57 /57/66/62/40 /58 /67 /40 /36 /37 /43 /41 /40 /54 /68 /57 /69 /70 /i255 /52 /49 /71 /54 /52 /50 /72 /54 /73 /55 /71 /50 /74 /47 /36 /42 /42 /47 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42/44/40 /39 /58 /i255 /75 /76/77/40 /39 /58 /78 /42 /68 /38 /44 /47 /42 /36 /i255 /79 /57 /36 /i255 /40 /39 /i255 /42 /43 /80 /42 /36/64/38/47 /i255 /80 /57 /36 /47 /40 /60 /i255 /40 /41 /41 /57 /81 /39 /47 /40 /39 /58 /i255 /75 /76/77/40 /39 /58
/82 /40 /47 /38 /69 /42 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /44 /42 /42 /i255 /57 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /44 /62 /42 /42 /47/85/48 /73/51/48 /49 /55 /54 /53 /51 /76 /38 /68 /i255 /86 /42 /40 /79 /i255/87/40/61 /60 /42 /i255 /84 /88 /41 /42 /36 /i255/64/40/41 /36 /57 /61 /62 /58 /60 /60 /81/64/85 /56 /40 /60 /38 /79 /57 /36 /39 /38 /40 /i255 /89 /39 /41 /42 /39 /44 /42 /i255 /56 /42 /37 /40 /36 /i255 /84 /56 /40 /60 /57 /41 /42 /37 /36 /81 /44 /i255 /37 /42 /41 /81 /36 /36 /42 /39 /44 /85 /56 /57 /40 /44 /47 /i255 /86 /38 /69 /42 /i255 /35 /40 /65 /i255 /84 /90 /81 /42 /36 /41 /81 /44 /i255 /40 /68 /36 /38 /79 /57 /60 /38 /40 /85 /i255 /91 /40 /60 /60 /42 /58 /i255 /35 /40 /65 /i255 /84 /90 /81 /42 /36 /41 /81 /44 /i255 /60 /57 /92 /40 /47 /40 /85 /56 /40 /60 /38 /79 /57 /36 /39 /38 /40 /i255 /76 /60 /40 /41 /65 /i255 /35 /40 /65 /i255 /84 /90 /81 /42 /36 /41 /81 /44 /i255 /65 /42 /60 /60 /57 /68 /68 /38 /38 /85 /i255 /76 /60 /81 /42 /i255 /35 /40 /65 /i255 /84 /90 /81 /42 /36 /41 /81 /44 /i255 /37 /57 /81 /68 /60 /40 /44 /38 /38 /85 /56 /57 /40 /44 /47 /i255 /78 /42 /37 /67 /57 /57 /37 /i255 /84 /74 /42 /93 /81 /57 /38 /40 /i255 /44 /42/64/61/42 /36 /69 /38 /36 /42 /39 /44/85/48 /49 /50/51/48 /52 /53 /54 /52 /51 /35 /36 /37 /38 /39 /40 /39 /41 /42 /37 /43 /44 /38 /45 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42/44/48 /49 /52/51/48 /73 /94 /54 /49 /51 /77 /42 /36 /38 /47 /40 /68 /42 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /74 /42 /42 /i255 /57 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /44 /62 /42 /42 /47 /85 /74 /47 /36 /42 /42 /47 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44
/77 /42 /36 /38 /47 /40 /68 /42 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /74 /42 /42 /i255 /57 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /44 /62 /42 /42 /47 /85/48 /49 /52/51/48 /73 /94 /54 /49 /51 /95/i255 /49 /55 /51
/48 /49 /55 /51
/88 /69 /42 /36 /40 /68 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /42 /96 /41 /60 /81 /37 /42 /44 /i255 /51 /40 /39 /58 /i255 /75 /76 /77 /51 /85 /63/49 /55 /54/71/72 /94 /54 /94 /74 /81 /92/64/38/47 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /60 /38 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /i255 /69 /38 /40 /i255 /42 /43 /61 /42 /36/64/38/47 /i255 /61 /57 /36 /47 /40 /60 /78 /42 /61 /60 /40 /41 /42/64/42/39 /47 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /92 /42 /i255 /37 /42 /47 /42 /36/64/38/39 /42 /37 /i255 /92 /58 /i255 /60 /40 /39 /37 /44 /41 /40 /61 /42 /i255 /40 /36 /41 /62 /38 /47 /42 /41 /47 /i255 /40 /39 /37 /i255 /41 /38 /47 /58 /54 /i255 /97 /42 /39 /42 /36 /40 /60 /i255 /61 /36 /57 /69 /38 /44 /38 /57 /39 /44 /i255 /36 /42 /93 /81 /38 /36 /42 /i255 /47 /62 /40 /47 /i255 /36 /42 /61 /60 /40 /41 /42/64/42/39 /47 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42 /i255 /38 /44 /i255 /44 /38/64/38/60 /40 /36 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /47 /62 /42 /i255 /36 /42/64/57/69 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42 /i255 /38 /39 /i255 /44 /61 /42 /41 /38 /42 /44 /98 /i255 /75 /76 /77 /98 /i255 /40 /42 /44 /47 /62 /42 /47 /38 /41 /i255 /69 /40 /60 /81 /42 /98 /i255 /40 /39 /37 /i255/64/57/39 /42 /47 /40 /36 /58 /i255 /69 /40 /60 /81 /42 /54
/56 /57 /39 /47 /40 /41 /47 /i255 /40 /39 /i255 /40 /61 /36 /57 /69 /42 /37 /i255 /56 /38 /47 /58 /i255 /57 /79 /i255 /99 /36 /42/64/57/39 /47 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42 /i255 /41 /57 /39 /47 /36 /40 /41 /47 /57 /36 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /60 /58 /i255 /79 /57 /36 /i255 /47 /62 /42 /i255 /61 /42 /36/64/38/47 /i255 /79 /57 /36 /i255 /58 /57 /81 /54 /i255 /83 /62 /42 /i255 /41 /38 /47 /58 /i255 /67 /38 /60 /60 /i255 /39 /57 /47 /i255 /40 /41 /41 /42 /61 /47 /i255 /47 /62 /42 /i255 /61 /42 /36/64/38/47 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /60 /38 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /i255 /81 /39 /60 /42 /44 /44 /i255 /38 /47 /i255 /38 /44 /i255 /44 /81 /92/64/38/47 /47 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /62 /36 /57 /81 /68 /62 /i255 /57 /39 /42 /i255 /57 /79 /i255 /47 /62 /42 /38 /36 /i255 /37 /42 /44 /38 /68 /39 /40 /47 /42 /37 /i255 /41 /57 /39 /47 /36 /40 /41 /47 /57 /36 /44 /54 /74 /81 /92/64/38/47 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /60 /38 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39/48 /73 /73 /54 /71 /i255 /51 /57 /39 /42 /i255 /52 /43 /68 /40 /60 /60 /57 /39
/100 /14 /3 /101 /14 /5 /9 /78 /42 /61 /60 /40 /41 /42/64/42/39 /47 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /92 /42 /i255 /44 /38/64/38/60 /40 /36 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /36 /42/64/57/69 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42 /i255 /38 /39 /i255 /69 /40 /60 /81 /42 /98 /i255 /44 /38 /45 /42 /98 /i255 /40 /39 /37 /i255 /65 /38 /39 /37 /54 /i255 /99 /81 /36 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /41 /57 /39 /44 /38 /37 /42 /36 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /92 /42 /i255/64/40/37 /42 /i255 /92 /58 /i255 /41 /38 /47 /58 /59 /44 /i255 /60 /40 /39 /37 /44 /41 /40 /61 /42 /i255 /40 /36 /41 /62 /38 /47 /42 /41 /47 /54 /74 /81 /92/64/38/47 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /60 /38 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /i255 /92 /58 /i255 /42 /43/64/40/38 /60 /38 /39 /68 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /41 /38 /47 /58 /54 /40 /39 /58 /i255 /75 /76 /77
/83 /36 /42 /42 /i255 /36 /42 /61 /60 /40 /41 /42/64/42/39 /47 /i255 /68 /81 /38 /37 /42 /60 /38 /39 /42 /44 /i255 /69 /40 /36 /58 /i255 /40 /39 /37 /i255 /40 /36 /42 /i255 /37 /42 /47 /42 /36/64/38/39 /42 /37 /i255 /92 /58 /i255 /81 /36 /92 /40 /39 /i255 /79 /57 /36 /42 /44 /47 /42 /36 /54 /i255
/48 /72 /53 /54 /49 /51
/40 /39 /58 /i255 /75 /76 /77
/78 /42 /61 /60 /40 /41 /42/64/42/39 /47 /i255/64/81/44 /47 /i255 /92 /42 /i255 /38 /39 /i255 /40 /41 /41 /57 /36 /37 /40 /39 /41 /42 /i255 /67 /38 /47 /62 /i255 /47 /62 /42 /i255 /88 /37/64/38/39 /38 /44 /47 /36 /40 /47 /38 /69 /42 /i255 /97 /81 /38 /37 /42 /60 /38 /39 /42 /44 /i255 /57 /36 /i255 /61 /40 /58 /i255 /40 /39 /i255 /38 /39 /43 /60 /38 /42 /81 /i255 /79 /42 /42 /54 /i255 /80 /42 /36/64/38/47 /44 /i255 /79 /57 /36 /i255 /78 /42/64/57/69 /40 /60 /i255/64/40/58 /i255 /41 /57 /39 /47 /40 /38 /39 /i255 /37 /38 /36 /42 /41 /47 /38 /57 /39 /i255 /57 /39 /i255 /60 /57 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /i255 /40 /39 /37 /i255 /44 /61 /42 /41 /38 /42 /44 /54 /i255 /78 /42 /61 /60 /40 /39 /47 /i255 /60 /38 /44 /47 /63 /i255 /62 /47 /47 /61 /44 /63 /102 /102 /67 /67 /67 /54 /41 /38 /47 /58 /57 /79 /44 /40 /39/64/40/47 /42 /57 /54 /57 /36 /68 /102 /75 /57 /41 /81/64/42/39 /47 /56 /42 /39 /47 /42 /36 /102 /91 /38 /42 /67 /102 /53 /53 /94 /49 /49 /102 /35 /79 /79 /38 /41 /38 /40 /60 /43 /78 /42 /61 /60 /40 /39 /47 /43 /86 /38 /44 /47 /48 /72 /49 /54 /73 /51
/88 /61 /61 /60 /58 /i255 /57 /39 /60 /38 /39 /42 /i255 /79 /57 /36 /i255 /40 /i255 /61 /42 /36/64/38/47 /i255 /92 /58 /i255 /44 /81 /92/64/38/47 /47 /38 /39 /68 /i255 /40 /i255 /41 /57/64/61/60 /42 /47 /42 /37 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /i255/103/57/36 /65 /i255 /88 /61 /61 /60 /38 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /54 /4 /14 /104 /6 /i255 /105 /104 /2 /6
/48 /49 /49 /54 /52 /51
/12/14 /33 /i255/106/14/2 /7 /6
/35 /40 /65 /i255 /84 /90 /81 /42 /36 /41 /81 /44 /i255 /44 /61 /61 /54/85/48 /49 /71 /51 /12/14 /33 /2 /14 /i255 /0 /5 /30 /13
/56 /57/64/61/60 /42 /47 /42 /i255 /57 /39 /60 /38 /39 /42 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /60 /38 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /98 /i255 /41 /38 /47 /58 /i255 /40 /36 /92 /57 /36 /38 /44 /47 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /42 /69 /40 /60 /81 /40 /47 /42 /i255 /36 /42 /93 /81 /42 /44 /47
/88 /39 /58
/48 /49 /50 /54 /50 /51
/48 /52 /52 /51
/39 /102 /40/72 /52 /i255 /79 /47 /i255 /38 /39 /i255 /62 /42 /38 /68 /62 /47 /82 /40 /47 /38 /69 /42 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /44 /42 /42 /i255 /57 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /44 /62 /42 /42 /47/85/48 /49 /71 /51 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /60 /57 /41 /40 /47 /42 /37 /i255 /57 /39 /i255 /81 /39 /37 /42 /36 /37 /42 /69 /42 /60 /57 /61 /42 /37 /i255 /35 /78 /i255 /37 /42 /69 /42 /60 /57 /61 /42 /37 /i255 /60 /57 /47 /44 /48 /53 /51
/48 /72 /49 /54 /73 /51
/78 /42 /61 /60 /40 /41 /42/64/42/39 /47 /i255 /44 /47 /40 /39 /37 /40 /36 /37 /44 /i255 /39 /57 /47 /i255 /44 /61 /42 /41 /38 /79 /38 /42 /37 /98 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /92 /42 /i255 /37 /42 /47 /42 /36/64/38/39 /42 /37 /i255 /92 /58 /i255 /40 /36 /92 /57 /36 /38 /44 /47 /54/35 /36 /37 /38 /39 /40 /39 /41 /42 /43 /44 /38 /45 /42 /37 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42 /44/48 /107/51/48 /55 /50 /54 /72 /51 /77 /42 /36 /38 /47 /40 /68 /42 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /74 /42 /42 /i255 /57 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /44 /62 /42 /42 /47/85/48 /49 /73 /51 /57 /39 /42 /i255 /49 /43 /68 /40 /60 /60 /57 /39
/4/104 /7 /14 /34 /14 /33 /2 /6 /33/77 /42 /36 /38 /47 /40 /68 /42 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /74 /42 /42 /i255 /57 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /44 /62 /42 /42 /47 /85/78 /42 /61 /60 /40 /41 /42/64/42/39 /47 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42 /i255 /47 /57 /i255 /92 /42 /i255 /37 /42 /47 /42 /36/64/38/39 /42 /37 /i255 /92 /58 /i255 /37 /38 /36 /42 /41 /47 /57 /36 /i255 /81 /61 /57 /39 /i255 /68 /36 /40 /39 /47 /38 /39 /68 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /36 /57 /69 /40 /60 /i255 /57 /79 /i255 /47 /36 /42 /42 /i255 /36 /42/64/57/69 /40 /60 /54 /i255 /74 /81 /92/64/38/47 /i255 /40 /61 /61 /60 /38 /41 /40 /47 /38 /57 /39 /48 /49 /94 /54 /52 /51
/11 /5 /7 /7 /i255 /108 /7 /109 /104 /14 /8 /7/31/7/33 /2 /110/106/1/2 /14 /2 /1 /6 /33 /111 /5 /7/31/6/33 /2
/86 /40 /39 /37/64/40/36 /65 /i255 /83 /36 /42 /42 /44 /i255 /84 /44 /42 /42 /i255 /57 /47 /62 /42 /36 /i255 /44 /62 /42 /42 /47 /85/88 /39 /58 /i255 /75 /76 /77 /112/14/104 /33 /30 /2 /i255 /0 /5 /7 /7 /113
/114/115/115/114/116/117/118/119/120/1153

/0/1/2/3 /4/5/6/1/7/8/9/10/i255/0/12/13/14/i255/15/1/6/16/17 /14/18/12/19/9/10/i255/8/14/20/18/1/2/i255/10/1/6/16/21/20/13/1/6/9/6/7/14/i255/22/1/12/10/9/2/1/12/6/i255/23/14/6/9/10/2/3 /24/25/26/25/27/i255/29/30/31/32/27/33/34/i255/30/35/36/32/27/i255/33/37/i255/33/38/30/i255/32/29/29/39/32/25/40/30/41/i255/26/32/27/36/30/i255/37/42/i255/33/38/30/i255/39/30/43/37/26/30/41/i255/33/39/30/30/44/i255/45/42/i255/26/32/27/36/30/i255/46/32/31/31/37/33/i255 /47/30/i255/41/30/33/30/39/43/25/31/30/41/48/i255/33/38/30/i255/29/30/31/32/27/33/34/i255/40/38/32/27/27/i255/47/30/i255/49/50/51/51/51/44/i255/23/10/14/9/52/9/6/2/12/6 /23/14/20/18/1/2/i255/53/14/14
/49/51/i255
/53/20/14/18/12/6/2
/54/9/10/6/5/2/i255/0/20/14/14/16
/55/9/6/2/9/i255/0/20/5/56
/49/57/51/50/i255
/49/58/59/51/i255/32/29/29/27/25/46/32/33/25/37/31/i255/42/30/30/60/9/3/61/9/20/13 /23/9/10/12/i255/62/10/2/12
/55/9/6/i255/4/9/2/14/12
/63/37/i255/47/30/i255/41/25/40/46/27/37/40/30/41/i255/47/34/i255/38/25/39/30/41/i255/46/37/31/33/39/32/46/33/37/39/44 /26/25/37/27/32/33/37/39/i255/42/25/31/32/31/46/25/32/27/27/34/i255/39/30/40/29/37/31/40/25/47/27/30/i255/42/37/39/i255/39/30/29/27/32/46/30/43/30/31/33/i255/33/39/30/30 /42/25/31/30/40/i255/32/31/41/i255/29/30/31/32/27/33/25/30/40/i255/33/37/i255/47/30/i255/32/29/29/39/32/25/40/30/41/i255/47/34/i255/45/64/65 /49/50/51/i255/42/25/39/40/33/i255/33/39/30/30/48/i255/49/57/51/i255/29/30/39/i255/32/41/41/25/33/25/37/31/32/27 /32/i255/42/25/31/30/i255/37/42/i255/31/37/33/i255/27/30/40/40/i255/33/38/32/31/i255/42/25/26/30/i255/38/36/31/41/39/30/41/i255/41/37/27/27/32/39/40/i255/42/37/39/i255/32/i255/42/25/39/40/33/i255/37/42/42/30/31/40/30/i255/32/31/41/i255/25/31/i255/41/37/36/47/27/25/31/66/i255 /25/31/46/39/30/43/30/31/33/40/i255/42/37/39/i255/30/32/46/38/i255/40/36/46/46/30/40/40/25/26/30/i255/37/42/42/30/31/40/30 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/46/37/41/30/27/25/47/39/32/39/34/44/32/43/27/30/66/32/27/44/46/37/43/68/46/37/41/30/40/68/29/32/27/37 /32/27/33/37/68/27/32/33/30/40/33/68/29/32/27/37/32/27/33/37/69/46/32/68/51/70/51/70/51/70 /71/50/59/72/58/73/74/75/69/24/38/32/29/33/30/39/76/44/77/51 /33/39/30/30/70/29/30/39/43/25/33/70/32/29/29/27/25/46/32/33/25/37/31/69/42/25/27/27/70/25/31/70 /42/37/39/43/46/29/32/44/29/41/42/i255/78/46/25/33/34/37/42/29/32/27/37/32/27/33/37/44/37/39/66/79 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/46/25/33/34/37/42/40/32/31/43/32/33/30/37/44/37/39 /66/68/72/72/81/77/68/82/30/39/25/33/32/66/30/70/63/39/30/30/70/32/31/41/70 /64/33/39/30/30/33/70/63/39/30/30/70/83/30/39/43/25/33/40 /64/33/39/30/30/33/i255/33/39/30/30/40/67/i255/49/77/51/51/i255/29/30/39/i255/25/31/46/38/i255/37/42/i255/41/32/43/32/66/30 /64/33/37/29/i255/80/37/39/84/70/i255/33/30/43/29/37/39/32/39/34/i255/43/37/39/32/33/37/39/25/36/43/i255/78/85/i255/50/34/30/32/39/40/79 /24/25/26/25/27/i255/29/30/31/32/27/33/34/67/i255/49/77/51/48/51/51/51/i255/29/30/39/i255/33/39/30/30/i255/37/39/i255/33/80/25/46/30/i255/33/38/30/i255/39/30/29/39/37/41/36/46/33/25/37/31/i255/46/37/40/33/i255/37/42/i255/30/32/46/38/i255/33/39/30/30/i255 /78/80/38/25/46/38/30/26/30/39/i255/25/40/i255/38/25/66/38/30/39/79 /49/58/58/72/i255/29/30/39/i255/39/30/43/37/26/32/27/i255/78/29/39/37/33/30/46/33/30/41/79 /49/57/59/i255/39/30/46/37/39/41/i255/43/32/31/32/66/30/43/30/31/33/i255/42/30/30 /49/77/72/71/i255/29/30/39/i255/39/30/43/37/26/32/27/i255/78/36/31/29/39/37/33/30/46/33/30/41/79 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/27/32/80/44/46/25/33/34/37/42/40/32/31/43/32/33/30/37/44/37/39/66/68/36/40/68/46/32/68/46/25/33/25/30/40/68 /40/32/31/70/43/32/33/30/37/68/46/37/41/30/68/77/72/44/58/51/44/77/50/51/73/78/42/79 /82/30/39/25/33/32/66/30/i255/32/31/41/i255/64/33/39/30/30/33/i255/63/39/30/30/40/i255/39/30/43/37/26/30/41/i255/80/25/33/38/37/36/33/i255/32/i255/26/32/27/25/41/i255/33/39/30/30/i255/86/30/43/37/26/32/27/i255/29/30/39/43/25/33/i255/40/38/32/27/27/i255 /47/30/i255/39/30/29/27/32/46/30/41/i255/80/25/33/38/i255/37/31/30/i255/58/76/87/i255/47/37/88/i255/33/39/30/30/i255/37/39/i255/33/38/30/i255/30/35/36/25/26/32/27/30/31/33 /24/25/26/25/27/i255/29/30/31/32/27/33/34/i255/37/42/i255/36/29/i255/33/37/i255/49/77/51/48/51/51/51/i255/29/30/39/i255/29/32/39/33/25/46/25/29/32/31/33/i255/29/30/39/i255/33/39/30/30/i255/42/37/39/i255/40/36/46/38/i255/25/27/27/30/66/32/27/i255/32/46/33/i255/32/31/41/i255 /33/38/30/i255/46/25/26/25/27/i255/29/30/31/32/27/33/34/i255/32/43/37/36/31/33/i255/80/25/27/27/i255/47/30/i255/41/30/33/30/39/43/25/31/30/41/i255/47/32/40/30/41/i255/36/29/37/31/i255/33/38/30/i255/30/66/39/30/66/25/37/36/40/31/30/40/40/i255/37/42/i255 /33/38/30/i255/46/37/31/41/36/46/33
/49/77/51/51/i255/33/39/30/30/i255/29/30/39/43/25/33/i255/42/30/30/48/i255/32/31/41/i255/32/i255/39/30/42/36/31/41/32/47/27/30/i255/33/39/30/30/i255 /39/30/29/27/32/31/33/i255/41/30/29/37/40/25/33/i255/78/49/58/76/72/i255/70/i255/49/81/58/51/79 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/80/32/27/31/36/33/70 /46/39/30/30/84/44/37/39/66/68/41/30/29/32/39/33/43/30/31/33/40/68/29/36/47/27/25/46/70 /80/37/39/84/40/68/30/31/66/25/31/30/30/39/25/31/66/70
/40/30/39/26/25/46/30/40/68/41/30/26/30/27/37/29/43/30/31/33/70 /30/31/66/25/31/30/30/39/25/31/66/68/33/39/30/30/70/39/30/43/37/26/32/27/70 /29/30/39/43/25/33
/32/31/34/i255/37/33/38/30/39/i255/41/30/32/41/i255/33/39/30/30/48/i255/37/31/30/i255/38/36/31/41/39/30/41/i255/41/37/27/27/32/39/40/i255/78/49/77/51/51/44/51/51/79/i255/42/37/39/i255/30/32/46/38/i255/25/31/46/38/i255/37/42/i255 /46/25/39/46/36/43/42/30/39/30/31/46/30/i255/37/42/i255/33/38/30/i255/33/39/30/30/89/40/i255/40/33/30/43 /38/30/32/27/33/38/34/i255/33/39/30/30/40/67/i255/32/i255/46/25/26/25/27/i255/29/30/31/32/27/33/34/i255/37/42/i255/33/38/39/30/30/i255/78/72/79/i255/33/25/43/30/40/i255/33/38/30/i255/41/32/43/32/66/30/i255/46/32/36/40/30/41/i255/33/37/i255/33/38/30/i255/33/39/30/30/48/i255 /37/39/i255/37/31/30/i255/33/38/37/36/40/32/31/41/i255/41/37/27/27/32/39/40/i255/78/49/77/48/51/51/51/44/51/51 /32/31/34/i255/38/25/66/38/27/34/i255/29/39/37/33/30/46/33/30/41/i255/41/30/32/41/i255/33/39/30/30/48/i255/33/80/37/i255/38/36/31/41/39/30/41/i255/41/37/27/27/32/39/40/i255/78/49/57/51/51/44/51/51/79/i255/42/37/39/i255/30/32/46/38/i255/25/31/46/38/i255 /37/42/i255/46/25/39/46/36/43/42/30/39/30/31/46/30/i255/37/42/i255/33/38/30/i255/33/39/30/30/89/40/i255/40/33/30/43 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/46/37/41/30/29/36/47/27/25/40/38/25/31/66/44/46/37/43/68/24/65/68/90/32/27/31/36 /33/24/39/30/30/84/68/38/33/43/27/68/90/32/27/31/36/33/24/39/30/30/84/51/72/68/90/32/27/31/36/33/24/39/30/30/84/51/72 /51/76/44/38/33/43/27/73/67/91/67/33/30/88/33/92/72/93/57/75/76/44/51/72/93/57/51/63/39/30/30/93/57/51/86/30/43 /37/26/32/27/93/57/51/83/30/39/43/25/33/93/57/51/86/30/35/36/25/39/30/41/44/94/33/30/88/33/92/95/37/93/57/51/29 /30/39/40/37/31/93/57/51/40/38/32/27/27/93/57/51/46/36/33/93/57/51/41/37/80/31/48/29/30/39/43/25/33/93/57/24 /93/57/51/30/88/46/30/29/33/93/57/51/32/40/93/57/51/29/39/37/26/25/41/30/41/93/57/51/38/30/39/30/25/31/44 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/27/25/47/39/32/39/34/44/35/46/37/41/30/44/36/40/68/27/25/47/68/29/27/30/32/40/32/31/33/37/31/69/46/32/68/29 /36/47/68/43/36/31/25/46/25/29/32/27/69/46/37/41/30/68/25/33/30/43/68/33/25/33/27/30/69/77/81/70 /46/38/32/29/33/30/39/69/77/81/69/77/71
/38/33/33/29/67/68/68/32/41/43/25/31/44/46/25/33/34/37/42/29/27/30/32/40/32/31/33/37/31/46 /32/44/66/37/26/68/41/37/46/36/43/30/31/33/40/68/27/32/31/41/40/46/32/29/30/68/82/30 /39/25/33/32/66/30/93/57/51/63/39/30/30/93/57/51/65/29/29/27/25/46/32/33/25/37/31/93 /57/51/78/64/25/31/66/27/30/93/57/51/96/32/43/25/27/34/93/57/51/86/30/40/25/41/30/31 /33/25/32/27/79/93/57/51/57/77/44/29/41/42/i255
/38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/46/37/41/30/29/36/47/27/25/40/38/25/31/66/44/46/37/43/68/24/65/68/64/32/31/33/32 /24/39/36/97/68/38/33/43/27/68/64/32/31/33/32/24/39/36/97/51/59/68/64/32/31/33/32/24/39/36/97/51/59/50/71/44/38/33/43/27 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/46/25/33/34/37/42/40/32/31/33/32/46/39/36/97/44/46/37 /43/68/38/37/43/30/68/40/38/37/80/29/36/47/27/25/40/38/30/41/41/37/46/36/43 /30/31/33/68/71/76/71/72/77/68/71/72/71/50/58/57/51/51/57/71/59/50/81/51/51/51 /51/51
/38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/38/32/34/80/32/39/41/70 /46/32/44/66/37/26/68/40/25/33/30/40/68/41/30/42/32/36/27/33/68/42/25/27/30/40/68/41/37/46/36/43/30/31/33/40/68/65/39/33/25/46/27/30/70 /77/50/69/63/39/30/30/83/39/30/40/30/39/26/32/33/25/37/31/44/29/41/42 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/38/32/34/80/32/39/41/70 /46/32/44/66/37/26/68/40/30/39/26/25/46/30/40/68/29/30/39/43/25/33/40/68/33/39/30/30/70 /39/30/43/37/26/32/27/29/39/36/31/25/31/66/70/29/30/39/43/25/33 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/46/37/41/30/29/36/47/27/25/40/38/25/31/66/44/46/37/43/68/24/65/68/96/39/30/43/37 /31/33/68/73/98/68/38/33/43/27/68/96/39/30/43/37/31/33/77/57/68/96/39/30/43/37/31/33/77/57/72/51/44/38/33/43/27 /38/33/33/29/40/67/68/68/80/80/80/44/42/39/30/43/37/31/33/44/66/37/26/68/29/30/39/43 /25/33/40/68/33/39/30/30/70/29/30/39/43/25/33/68/29/39/37/29/30/39/33/34/70/37/80/31/30/39/70 /33/39/30/30/70/29/30/39/43/25/33/70/32/29/29/27/25/46/32/33/25/37/31 /86/30/40/33/25/33/36/33/25/37/31/i255/42/30/30/40/i255/33/37/i255/42/32/27/27/i255/37/31/i255/26/25/37/27/32/33/37/39 /63/80/37/i255/38/36/31/41/39/30/41/i255/42/25/42/33/34/i255/41/37/27/27/32/39/40/i255/42/37/39/i255/33/38/30/i255/42/25/39/40/33/i255/37/42/42/30/31/40/30 /i255/64/30/26/30/31/i255/38/36/31/41/39/30/41/i255/42/25/42/33/34/i255/41/37/27/27/32/39/40/i255/42/37/39/i255/33/38/30/i255/40/30/46/37/31/41/i255/37/42/42/30/31/40/30 /99/31/30/i255/33/38/37/36/40/32/31/41/i255/41/37/27/27/32/39/40/i255/42/37/39/i255/33/38/30/i255/33/38/25/39/41/i255/32/31/41/i255/40/36/47/40/30/35/36/30/31/33/i255/37/42/42/30/31/40/30/40

NOVEMBER 2023 1
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF PLEASANTON –URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10-31-2023
The survey for the Urban Forest Master Plan was focused on getting input from residents regarding:
The importance of the urban forest
Threats to our urban forest
Where residents would like to see more trees
Resident support for planting and maintaining trees
Management of the urban forest by the City
What people know/think about the protection of trees
Statistics regarding the respondents (age, owner vs. renter, neighborhood, etc.)

A summary of the findings of the survey are that:
Over 600 people took the survey during the 3-month period it was open The benefits residents most appreciate regarding the urban forest are:
oShade/cooling (90%)
oEnvironmental benefits (improved air quality, water, pollution) (81%) oAesthetics (73%)
oHabitat for wildlife (62%)
Residents are most concerned about the impacts of the drought (69%) and rising temperatures (45%) on the urban forest
Residents would like the City to prioritize planting more native and pollinator-friendly trees (42%), would like more trees planted each year (38%), and would like increased maintenance of dead, dying, and diseased trees (29%)
The majority of residents support planting street trees (87%) The locations residents would like to see more trees planted is our streets and sidewalks (50%), parks (39%), biking and walking trails (34%), neighborhoods (27%, parking lots (23%), and schools (21%).
44% of residents would be willing to plant or maintain a tree on their property and even more (64%) would be willing to do so if they received financial or maintenance assistance The majority of residents would be willing to help improve the urban forest More residents would be willing to plant a tree if they received recommendations for trees that are less likely to damage property, if watering trees didn’t cost as much, or if they had maintenance assistance
46% of residents that took the survey agree that the City effectively protects its trees, 32% were neutral, and 15% felt that the City does not effectively protect its trees The majority (75%) of residents knew that the City protected trees The majority (75%) of residents support the current level of tree protection, but some (17%) would like increased protection while others (22%) think certain trees should not be protected. 7% of residents feel that any tree should be allowed to be removed The majority (78%) of residents were aware that there is a penalty for unlawfully removing a heritage tree

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 2
33% of residents had experience with the City regarding tree removal. Of those people, 40% had a positive experience, 23% had a negative experience, and 37% were neutral The majority (58%) of residents either did not have an opinion regarding which trees should be exempt or felt that all trees should be protected. 32% of residents felt that certain trees should not be protected, with Eucalyptus, Redwood, Invasive trees, and Liquidambars topping the list
94% of respondents lived in Pleasanton while another 25% lived and worked in Pleasanton
91% of respondents were homeowners
The greatest representation of people that took the survey (32%) live near downtown The majority of people that took the survey (81%) were 45 or older. The youth population was greatly under-represented.
The majority of residents were highly educated with at least a bachelors degree (82%) The most effective way of getting people to take the survey was via email Full survey results are listed below:

1. Of the following options, select the most important benefits that trees provide in your neighborhood (select all that apply).

Tree Benefit Category (full description):

Most important
benefits of trees
according to
respondents
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Shade / cooling neighborhoods and homes 545 90%
Improving the environment (such as air quality, water, pollution) 486 81% Aesthetics or appearance 443 73%
Habitat for wildlife 373 62%
Carbon storage to mitigate climate change 349 58%
Protecting human health (physical and mental) 322 53%
Living privacy screen/natural fence 312 52%
Improving property value 263 44%
Other (please specify) 16 3%
Did not answer question 5 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 3
Question 1: Of the following options, select the most important benefits that trees provide in your neighborhood – “Other” Responses
Other Responses Count
Protecting against soil erosion through soil stabilization 3 Noise Abatement 3
Better Quality of Life 3
Increased oxygen 2
Promote bikeable and walkable community, and promote safety by slowing down drivers 2 Stormwater Abatement 1
Provide food 1
Provide good material for compost (for deciduous trees in the fall) 1 Notification of Seasons 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 4

2. Of the following options, select the threats facing trees in your neighborhood (select all that apply) Neighborhood Tree Threat Category (full description):

Top threats facing
trees according to
respondents
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Drought/water restrictions 416 69%
Increased temperature 274 45%
Pests and diseases 260 43%
Storms 241 40%
Removal due to property development 193 32%
Unlawful Removals 124 21%
Invasive Plant Species 97 16%
Other (please specify) 67 11%
Did not answer question 14 2%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 5
Question 2: Of the following options, select the threats facing trees in your neighborhood – “Other” Responses Other Responses Count
Improper tree trimming or lack of tree trimming, poor tree management 18 Aging, dead or dying trees 12
Wrong species of trees planted for the area 3
Water quality, chemicals in irrigation water or recycled water 3 The City /Pleasanton parks dept (not enforcing ordinance, improper trimming, not replacing dead trees etc) 2
Fallen Foliage unsafe 1
Fire risk 1
Above ground powerlines 1
Human encroachment and restrictive planting spaces 1
Constraints of time and money to water and maintain trees 1 Lawful removals that seem unnecessary. 1
Kids racing electric bikes through nature areas (Kottinger) and causing erosion. 1 Lack of plantable areas for trees 1
Fake turf leading to increased ground temperatures 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 6

3. Pleasanton's Urban Forest Master Plan will be a comprehensive guide for the City's tree management for the next 25 years. What would you like to see the City prioritize? Preferences for City Priorities in UFMP (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected the following
UFMP Prioritization
category:

Measures in the
UFMP update that
respondents would
like to see
prioritized
Plant native trees that enhance native pollinators and
wildlife habitats 252 42%
Increase the number of trees planted each year. 229 38% Increase urban forest safety by removing dead, dying, or otherwise hazardous trees. 177 29%
Better maintain and preserve existing trees. 171 28%
Other (Please specify in the space below) 45 7%
Diversify the urban forest by planting uncommon tree
species 40 7%
Provide opportunities and educational resources for
community members relating to trees 33 5%
Reduce the risk of invasive pests and diseases. 32 5%
Did not answer question 5 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 7
Question 3: Pleasanton's Urban Forest Master Plan will be a comprehensive guide for the City's tree management for the next 25 years. What would you like to see the City prioritize? – “Other” Responses Other Responses Count
Remove Eucalyptus trees that pose a fire or fallen limb risk 6 Provide financial incentives or assistance to property owners for maintaining trees or removing dead or diseased trees 4
Reduce or get rid of tree permit requirements for removing trees on private property 4 Better tree pruning and maintenance 3
Replace dead and dying trees 3
Don’t plan trees that produce lots of pollen 3
Equity of tree coverage 2
Hold people who remove trees illegally accountable 2
Plant fruit bearing trees and harvest for local food 2
Create and preserve adequate planting space 1
Plant more native shrubs 1
Right species right place 1
Keep dead or dying trees that don't present a risk for wildlife habitat 1 Put power lines underground 1
Proactively mitigate wildfire threats 1
Heat Mitigation 1
Rewild our hills, maybe even buy ranch spaces to rewild the area. 1 Create exemptions for tree removal when related to property line 1 Reduce or get rid of tree permit requirements for removing trees that pose a hazard 1 Add more rules around trees and development 1
Make rules around trees clearer 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 8

4. Does your neighborhood have planted street trees (street trees- any tree that is planted in the public right-of-way near and along the roadways which shade sidewalks and grow over the road)? Feelings on Planted City Trees Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes, and I support having them. 393 65%
Yes, but I wish we didn't. 24 4%
No, but I wish we did. 131 22%
No and I prefer not having them 44 7%
Did not answer question 11 2%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 9

5. Where would you like to see more trees planted in Pleasanton? Where respondents would like trees planted
category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option out
of total participants
Sidewalks and streets 303 50%
Parks 235 39%
Biking and walking paths 203 34%
Neighborhoods 162 27%
Parking Lots 136 23%
Schools 125 21%
New developments 122 20%
Commercial Areas 106 18%
Front yards 90 15%
Apartment Communities 38 6%
Other (please specify in the space below) 34 6%
I would NOT like to see more trees in Pleasanton 23 4%
Back yards 14 2%
Did not answer question 2 0.3%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 10
Question 5: Where would you like to see more trees planted in Pleasanton? – “Other” Responses Other Responses Count
Better management of existing trees 6
Everywhere 4
Content with existing trees 2
HOA managed open space 1
Near freeways 1
Downtown/Main St. 2
More trees are not needed, but meaningful management of existing trees. 1 The new sports complex off Bernal is very bare looking, it’s a bit of an eyesore coming off the freeway, heading to our Downtown. 1
I would like to see the street trees that had to be removed on Second Street, replaced by the City. This would preserve the old town look of Second Street! 1 Where the roots won't impact roads, bike lanes, sidewalks and parks. 1 Valley Ave between Busch and Stanley and also Valley Ave from sports park roundabouts to Richert Lumber 1
Stoner Drive along the treatment fields and the sidewalks 1 In places that can accommodate and lack shade trees 1
Where they are needed as recommended by an actual arborist. 1 Marilyn Kane trail 1
If a building was built without an understanding of direct solar gain through windows that heats up a building and then the use of air conditioning, encourage trees on south and west sides of buildings. 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 11

6. Where should the City of Pleasanton plant more trees?

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 12

7. Would you be willing to plant, maintain, and care for a tree on your property? Feelings on Planted City Trees Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes. 268 44%
Yes, but ONLY if the City provides financial support or rebates for watering the tree. 83 14%
Yes, but ONLY if the tree itself is free and planted by volunteers. 35 6%
No, I do not want to plant more trees on my property. 160 27% Not applicable (I do not own a yard or land to plant on). 46 8% Did not answer question 6 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 13

8. Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in? Activities that respondents would do Category (full
description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Plant a tree on your private property. 266 44%
Attend a tree education workshop (in person or virtual). 235 39% Volunteer or help organize a community tree planting event. 167 28% Help the City promote the Urban Forest program through
community outreach and social media 136 23%
Volunteer to provide basic tree care in your neighborhood (watering and weeding). 123 20%
Encourage your landlord to allow tree planting on a property you rent. 27 4%
Other (please specify below) 38 6%
I am not interested in helping to support the City's urban forest program. 67 11%
Did not answer question 38 6%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 14
Question 8: Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in? – “Other” Responses Other Responses Count
Old age or personal health prevents active involvement 4 Volunteer to plant trees 3
Voluntarily planting trees on their own property 2
Help identify/send photos of damaged, diseased or hazardous trees 2 Help consult and advise on tree decisions - for those with credentials 2 Advocate for native trees such as Oaks, which are being removed by developers 1 Assist with grant writing for the City 1
Donate money 1
Community Garden opportunities 1
Clean out storm drains that get blocked in winter 1
Volunteer to remove dead and non-native trees and plant native trees along Arroyo Del Valle. 1
Landscape freeway ramps 1
Brainstorm ways to improve water situation 1
Be an engaged citizen 1
In the interest of shrub awareness for carbon sequestration, I’m happy to show mature, successful examples on my property. I’ll also share seeds. 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 15

9. Would you be willing to water a newly planted tree for up to three years on or near your property? Feelings on Planted City Trees Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes. 212 35%
Yes, if the City provided an incentive such as a rebate program. 139 23%
Yes, and I would water a tree even if it increases my out-of- pocket costs. 100 17%
Other (please specify below) 60 10%
No, the cost is prohibitive. 59 10%
Did not answer question 9 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 16
Question 9: Would you be willing to water a newly planted tree for up to three years on or near your property? - “Other” Responses
Other Responses Count
I already have many trees on my property, no room for additional trees 15 I cannot physically deal with this due to age or health condition 8 I live in an apartment, or rent 3
I do not live in Pleasanton 2
Time commitment, sustained maintenance 2
The trees I am requesting to be replaced already have a watering system. 1 No access to outdoor water at my apt complex 1
Could only assist with weed pulling and brush removal around native trees 1 Need additional information on costs and time commitment needed to care for a tree 1
I already volunteer to maintain the Sensory Garden by the Senior Center 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 17

10. What factors would make you more inclined to plant a tree on your property? Factors that would make respondents more inclined to
plant a tree on their property Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Tree species suggestions that do not damage sewer pipes/ sidewalks/ driveways. 262 43%
Lower water costs to water trees. 232 38%
Assistance with cost to maintain and trim trees. 225 37% Pruning assistance to reduce risk of damage by falling
branches. 223 37%
Less mess caused by leaves, fruit, or bark. 111 18%
I am not inclined to plant a tree on my property. 103 17% Did not answer question 33 5%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 18

11. Please select your level of agreement with the following statement: “I think Pleasanton effectively protects its trees.”
Level of agreement on statement: "Pleasanton effectively protects its trees" Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Strongly agree 36 6%
Agree 242 40%
Neutral 193 32%
Disagree 61 10%
Strongly disagree 29 5%
Did not answer question 42 7%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 19

12. Did you know that the City of Pleasanton designates and protects all trees with a circumference of 55 inches and/or height over 35 feet as ‘Heritage Trees’?
Level of knowledge that the City of Pleasanton designates and protects all trees with a circumference of 55 inches and/or height over 35 feet as ‘Heritage Trees’?
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes, I was aware of the Heritage Tree designation and the size requirements. 332 55%
Yes, I knew Pleasanton protected trees generally. 121 20% No, I did not know that a tree had to be a certain size to be protected. 70 12%
No, I did not know that any trees were protected in
Pleasanton. 74 12%
Did not answer question 6 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 20

13. Do you support this level of protection for Heritage Trees? Level of support for protection of Heritage Trees category (full description):

Number of
survey
respondents
who selected
this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this
option out of total
participants
Yes, I support the protection of Heritage Trees. 198 33% Yes, and I would support decreasing the size requirement to protect more trees (for example, trees with above 45 inches in circumference or 30 inches in height would be protected). 104 17%
Yes, I support tree protection, but believe certain species should not be protected. 135 22%
Yes, I support tree protection, but think the size requirements should be limited to the circumference measurement because measuring the height is too difficult. 16 3%
No, I think tree removal should be allowed with a systematic process for certain trees. 98 16%
No, I think any tree should be allowed to be removed. 41 7% Did not answer question 11 2%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 21

14. Did you know that there is a penalty for removing Heritage Trees without a permit? Level of knowledge that there are penalties for removing Heritage trees without a permit Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes. 466 77%
Yes, I have personally received this penalty or know someone who has. 9 1%
No, I did not know about penalties for Heritage Trees in Pleasanton. 73 12%
No, I did not know there were any regulations or policies around trees. 46 8%
Did not answer question 9 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 22

15. Have you had experience with the city regarding tree removal? Level of experience with the city regarding tree
removal Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes 74 12%
Yes, and it was a good experience. 81 13%
Yes, and it was a bad experience. 47 8%
No 311 52%
No, and I don't want to. 28 5%
No, but I know about the process. 52 9%
Did not answer question 10 2%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 23

16. Do you support exemptions in the ordinance for certain tree species? Level of support for exemptions in the ordinance for
certain tree species Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes, I do not want to protect the following species: 190 32% No, I want the ordinance to continue to protect all trees, regardless of species. 89 15%
I’m not sure. 261 43%
Other (please specify): 45 7%
Did not answer question 18 3%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 24
Question 16: Do you support exemptions in the ordinance for certain tree species? - “Other” Responses Other Responses
Number of survey respondents who
listed this tree as other species to be
exempt
Eucalyptus 85
Redwood 35
Liquid Amber/Sweetgum 16
Non-native, invasive 31
Pine 12
Palms 11
Acacia 6
Tree of Heaven 6
Bradford Pear 5
Cypress 5
Privet 3
Poplars 2
Anything that is not endangered and is not safety hazard. 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 25

17. Do you live or work in the City of Pleasanton?
Do you live or work in City of Pleasanton Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Live 415 69%
Live, Work 153 25%
Work 18 3%
Neither 10 2%
Did not answer question 7 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 26

18. Which best describes your current housing situation? Current housing situation Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Homeowner 546 91%
Renter 45 7%
Did not answer question 12 2%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 27

19. What neighborhood do you live in?
Neighborhood
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Amador Estates 2 0.3%
Autumn Glen 1 0.2%
Belvedere 1 0.2%
Bridle Creek 1 0.2%
California Reflections 1 0.2%
California Summerset 2 0.3%
Canyon Oaks 1 0.2%
Carriage Gardens 2 0.3%
Charter Oaks 1 0.2%
Country Fair 5 0.8%
Danbury Park 5 0.8%
Del Prado 18 3.0%
Diamond Collection 1 0.2%
Downtown Pleasanton Area 195 32.3%
Fairlands Terrace 3 0.5%
Foothill Farms 1 0.2%
Foothill Knolls 2 0.3%
Foothill Rd Custom Homes 6 1.0%
Foxborough Estates 3 0.5%
Golden Eagle 5 0.8%
Grey Eagle Estates 1 0.2%
Happy Valley Area 2 0.3%
Heritage Valley 1 0.2%
Highland Oaks 6 1.0%
Jensen Tract 4 0.7%
Kottinger Ranch 5 0.8%
Laguna Oaks 5 0.8%
Mission Park 7 1.2%
Mohr Park 5 0.8%
Mohr Park Estates 1 0.2%
Moller Ranch 2 0.3%
Muirwood Meadows 1 0.2%
Nolan Farms 2 0.3%
Oak Hill 5 0.8%
Olde Towne 1 0.2%
Parkside 3 0.5%
Pheasant Crossing 1 0.2%
Pheasant Ridge 6 1.0%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 28
Pleasanton Heights 21 3.5%
Pleasanton Hills 3 0.5%
Pleasanton Meadows 16 2.7%
Pleasanton Valley 61 10.1%
Ponderosa 12 2.0%
Ruby Hills 3 0.5%
Shadow Cliffs 3 0.5%
Springwood Meadows 2 0.3%
St John Place 4 0.7%
Stoneridge 7 1.2%
Stoneridge Orchard 1 0.2%
Stoneridge Park 2 0.3%
Stoneridge Place 1 0.2%
The Classics by Ponderosa 1 0.2%
The Estates of Ponderosa 1 0.2%
The Gates 8 1.3%
Val Vista 23 3.8%
Valencia 2 0.3%
Valley Trails 13 2.2%
Ventana Hills 4 0.7%
Vineyard Hills 1 0.2%
Vintage at Country Fair 1 0.2%
Vintage Heights 1 0.2%
Vintage Hills 17 2.8%
Vintage Hills II 2 0.3%
Walnut Glen Estates 3 0.5%
Walnut Hills 1 0.2%
Willow West 1 0.2%
Windsor 1 0.2%
Does not live in Pleasanton 28 4.6%
Did not answer 45 7.5%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 29

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 30

20. Which of the following age groups are you a part of? Age Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Under 18 9 1%
18-24 6 1%
25-34 21 3%
35-44 64 11%
45-54 134 22%
55-64 152 25%
65+ 208 34%
Did not answer question 9 1%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 31

21. What is the highest level of education you have attained? Highest level of education Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Graduate 276 46%
Bachelor 218 36%
Associates 28 5%
Some college but no degree 53 9%
High school diploma 6 1%
No high school diploma 7 1%
Did not answer question 15 2%

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN SURVEY RESULTS 10/31/2023 NOVEMBER 2023 32

22. How did you hear about this survey?
Where did participant hear about survey Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Social Media 0 0%
Farmer's Market 25 4%
Other Public Event 7 1%
Email 246 41%
Friends or Family 40 7%
Other - not specified 65 15%
Other - Pleasanton Patch/Weekly 22 4%
Other - Newspaper 2 0%
Other - Local News 2 0%
Other - City Staff 1 0%
Did not answer question 193 32%
Other Responses Count
Pleasanton Patch/Weekly 22
Newspaper 2
Local News 2
City Staff 1

Item #16

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

March 5, 2024
Public Works - Engineering Division

TITLE: REVIEW OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT COMPLETED BY AMS

CONSULTING FOR THE BI-ANNUAL EVALUATION/RECLASSIFICATION OF STREET SURFACES PROJECT, CIP NO. 21521

SUMMARY
The City maintains a Pavement Management Program (PMP) which is updated every two years as mandated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to be eligible for local and grant funding to actively manage the City's $306-million-dollar street pavement asset.

The City received a grant from MTC to update the 2023 PMP, and the results are presented in the 2023/24 Pavement Management Report (see Attachment 1). The City’s street network pavement is the largest capital asset the City owns and is considered to be in “good to excellent” condition. The 2023 PMP report lowered the road network’s average by two points to a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 77 and increased the backlog of work from the 2021 PMP report’s by $10 million, from $22 million to $32 million, which is an unexpected decrease in the street network’s health. The PMP report identifies that the current average expenditure of approximately $4 million, plus $750,000 in concrete costs, will result in a continued decrease in pavement conditions over time. Increased construction costs, constrained funding, changes in regulations, and implementation of pedestrian improvements within the road network are having significant impacts on keeping up with the recommended maintenance.

The continued decline of the streets’ PCI rating will eventually lead to an exponential increase in the overall long-term cost of maintaining the street network.

RECOMMENDATION
Review the Pavement Management Report completed by AMS Consulting for the bi-annual evaluation/reclassification of Street Surfaces Project, CIP No. 21521

BACKGROUND
Pavement Management Program/System
In 1982, MTC completed a study of local road and street maintenance needs and revenue shortfalls in the San Francisco Bay Area. MTC developed the computer-based pavement asset management system (also known as “Street Saver”) to help Bay Area cities and counties better maintain their local streets and roads; the City began utilizing Street Saver in the late 1980s. The MTC requires all local agencies to have a pavement management program certified by the MTC every two years to qualify for regional funding. The program addresses the pavement only and does not include curb and gutter, sidewalks, curb ramps, or bridges.

The PMP must inventory all public roads within the jurisdiction limits, assess each road segment's pavement condition, identify pavement segments that need maintenance, and determine the budget needs for the recommended maintenance. The road assessments are conducted by consultants hired directly by the City or through a grant program administered

by MTC. The City was selected for a grant for Round 24 of the Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP), and MTC selected AMS Consulting to perform the City’s 2023 PMP update.

The PMP program divides the City’s paved portion of the street network into 1,341 segments based on the construction of the roadway. Each segment is inspected in the field every two years and given a PCI rating that ranges from 0 (failed) to 100 (new), which are allocated into one of five condition categories as shown in Table 1 below. In addition to the PCI rating, the cost of the backlog of work is determined, with backlog defined as the cost of a project recommended for treatment in the first year but deferred to the following year(s) due to funding constraints.

Table 1: Overview of City’s Current Pavement Condition
(Table ES-1 in Attachment 1, page 4)

The pavement condition degrades on a reverse exponential curve as shown in Figure 1 below.

It is most cost-effective to maintain the streets in “good to excellent” condition. As the PCI decreases, the cost to maintain the system increases exponentially. The theoretical ideal PCI is 87, which is the point at which the network is most cost-effectively maintained.

Figure 1: Pavement Life Expectancy
(Figure 1 in Attachment 1, page 11)

The City of Pleasanton’s street network is composed of 507 lane miles (one 9- to-13-foot lane) and covers over 46 million square feet of paved roadway divided into three functional classifications based on the volume of traffic for which the roadway is designed. As shown in Table 2 below, Residential/Local streets are typically in front of homes within the city’s neighborhoods; collector streets are typically one lane in each direction and are the wider streets entering and exiting the neighborhoods and around Hacienda pusiness park; and arterial streets are larger multi-lane streets like Santa Rita Road, Owens Drive, and First Street to which the collector streets connect to move traffic efficiently around the city.

Table 2: City Network Summary Statistics

The City completes roadway maintenance yearly, using the PMP program recommendations and engineering analysis to develop a work plan for three annual projects: the Annual Curb and Gutter Replacement, the Annual Street Resurfacing and Preventative Maintenance, and the Annual Slurry Seal. The Annual Curb and Gutter Replacement project replaces deficient curb and gutters and updates/installs American with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps that are required by law. The Annual Street Resurfacing and Preventative Maintenance project resurfaces various roadways by overlaying the existing pavement with a new layer of asphalt concrete. The Annual Slurry Seal project slurry seals a different set of roadways. The resurfacing project is considered a street reconstruction/rehabilitation project, while the slurry seal project is a preventative maintenance project; these projects are designed to maintain the City’s roadway pavement condition. The attached 2023/2024 Payment Management Report recommends that a breakdown of 80 percent of funding be expended toward resurfacing and 20 percent expended on preventative maintenance.

The maintenance cycle for the City road network is based on the classification of the street.

Generally, the roadway goes through a cycle of two preventative maintenance treatments (slurry seal) that typically last six to eight years. Then, it is followed by a resurfacing project that typically lasts 12-15 years. A street can generally receive two full cycles that last from 70 (arterial streets) to 90 (residential streets) years before being reconstructed to lower the 4-plus inches of asphalt added as part of the resurfacing process. A large portion of the streets in Pleasanton are in their second cycle of maintenance and will soon require reconstruction efforts. This is reflected in the growing backlog of work identified in the attached report.

The City funds the three annual maintenance projects with a current budget of $5.75 million for FY 2023/24 from the General Fund, Gas Tax, Senate Bill 1 (SB-1), and local measures including Measure B/BB Local Streets and Roads and Measure F Vehicle Registration Fee

(VRF). In addition, for the past 15 years, the City has received grant funding of nearly$1 million dollars every few years from federal stimulus programs like the American Recovery Act, and local grant funding under the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) that consolidated many smaller local grant programs. Changes in the OBAG program removed the direct payment based on population, used in Cycles I and II, to a grant application targeting goals established by the program; the City of Pleasanton does not score as competitively as other communities under these application goals.

DISCUSSION
The City’s street network pavement, valued at $306 million (excluding concrete such as curb and gutter and sidewalks, bridges, and traffic signals and signs), is the largest capital asset the City owns. The 2023 PMP report lowered the network average by two points to a PCI of 77 and increased the backlog of work by $10 million from $22 million to $32 million from the 2021 PMP report, an unexpected decrease in the network’s health. Pleasanton’s streets still rank in “good to excellent” condition and are above the average San Francisco Bay Area road rating of PCI 67. A reduction in PCI rating and an increase in the backlog of work is a commonality across all Bay Area communities. Figure 2 compares the local agencies, with only Dublin and Livermore having higher PCI than Pleasanton; the rating is reflective of the newer streets from more recent development in Dublin and the increased funding for Livermore’s street network in the past few years.

Figure 2: Local Agency PCI Comparison
(Figure 6 in Attachment 1, page 17)

The PMP report includes six standard budget scenarios for the next five years to provide valuable “what-if” information based on various funding levels. The scenarios are listed in Table 3 below and are as follows:

Scenario 1 is the current budget programmed in the CIP, Scenario 2 is the cost to maintain a constant PCI of 77, Scenario 3 is to increase the PCI 5 points to 82, Scenario 4 is the cost to improve the network to the ideal PCI of 87, Scenario 5 is to maintain a constant backlog of $32 million, and Scenario 6 is if no funding would take place. The results indicate that at current funding levels the PCI is expected to drop an additional 2 points and increase the backlog to $46 million after five years. Of note, the table does not include the costs for concrete improvements, which are a necessary part of the street maintenance program.

Table 3: Scenarios
(Table ES-2 in Attachment 1, page 6)

The City’s street network PCI has been slowly declining over the last 10 years (as shown in Table 4 below) but was sustaining the backlog of work at the expended funding levels. The costs in the PMP report identified a significant increase of $2 million required, for a total of $6 million, for the Annual Street Resurfacing and Annual Slurry Seal to maintain the current PCI. In addition, the annual costs for necessary concrete improvements are dramatically increasing.

Table 4: Historic Pavement Expenditures & PCI

Year PCI Total Cost $ in
Million
Rehab. Unit
Cost *
Slurry
Seal Unit
Cost*
2014 77 $3.47 $2.19 $0.30
2015 80 $3.24 $2.39 $0.20
2016 80 $3.10 $2.20 $0.22
2017 80 $4.73 $2.37 $0.22
2018 81 $4.82 $2.68 $0.49
2019 80 $5.01 $3.39 $0.49
2020 80 $7.75 $3.00 $0.33
2021 79 $4.54 $2.73 $0.31
2022 78 $4.72 $3.55 $0.55
2023 77
(*) Unit Cost Per Square Foot of Pavement. Concrete work is included under Pavement Rehabilitation

Figure 3: Historical Pavement Expenditures versus PCI

The 2021 PMP projected that with the 2021 budget the network would maintain a PCI of 79 with an increased backlog of $23 million at the end of 2025. There are several reasons why the network is not performing as previously projected, and costs are expected to increase.

1. Construction costs have significantly increased. Since the pandemic, construction costs have risen higher than inflation due to an increase in both materials and labor, which means that the City's network only received approximately 80 percent of planned treatments.

Figure 4: Historical Unit Cost Per Square Foot

Figure 4 also includes the costs for concrete improvements under the resurfacing unit costs.

2. Funding has not increased to keep up with increased costs. Gas Tax has steadily declined over the past decade, with SB-1 passed to help stabilize the GAS Tax transportation funding.

Measure B/BB Local Streets and Roads, and VRF saw declines during the pandemic and starting to rebound. The City's General Fund Budget has not been routinely used toward the three annual projects. Changes in routine grant programs limit the potential for future OBAG funding. The last grant funds received were in 2017 and 2020 with the amounts of $238,000 and $1,095,000 from OBAG 1 and 2, respectively.

3. Concrete improvements have significantly increased, and costs are expected to rise. The City’s street trees, often planted behind the back of the curb, are starting to mature and touch the back of the curb in some areas, and roots have significant impacts on the curb and gutter.

The City is required by law to install/update ADA curb ramps when the streets are resurfaced.

Recent changes to ADA law will require the installation of directional ramps at intersections, requiring new ramps to be installed at most intersections; the cost impacts of this are now being analyzed.

4. Implementation of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, Complete Streets and Vision Zero plans increase the traffic markings to create safer roadway areas. These improvements include buffered bike lanes, green bike lanes, bulb-outs, bollards, and additional lanes of striping.

The goal of the PMP program is to maintain or improve the street network to reach a PCI 87;

however, the City street network is anticipated to decrease at the current budgeted levels. The PMP report will be further evaluated as staff develops future Capital Improvement Project (CIP) programs and recommends increasing expenditures to maintain the current PCI. Staff will continue to seek grant opportunities to increase funding.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The PMP program helps ensure that the City’s streets are maintained most efficiently, reducing vehicle emissions and working toward Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0) Transportation & Land Use strategies.

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 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. In addition, the PMP is a key part of the asset management plan for the City’s transportation infrastructure and advances Strategy 2 – Develop an Asset Management Plan to address comprehensive long-term planning for maintenance, renovation, repair and/or replacement of the infrastructure and public facilities to meet current and future needs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for PMP update and pavement management report is $64,800. The City received $59,800 from MTC through the Round 24 P-TAP grant from MTC with a local match by the City of $15,000. The local match of $15,000 was funded out of the Bi-Annual Evaluation and Classification of Streets, CIP No. 21521.

The current budgeted level of expenditure is anticipated to lead to a decrease in the City’s road network that will eventually lead to an exponential increase in the overall long-term cost of maintaining the street network.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Huy Ho, Associate Engineer Adam Nelkie, Acting Director, Public Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. 2023/2024 Pavement Management Report

Page | 1

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

2023/2024 Pavement Management Report
Final Report (2/13/2024)

Pavement Management Technical
Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 24
Prepared By:

AMS Consulting
5627 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 320
Pleasanton, CA 94588

Page | 2

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. .............. 4 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. .................... 7 What is a Pavement Management System (PMS)? .......................................................................... 7 Why is a Pavement Management System important? ..................................................................... 8 Scope .............................................................................................................................. ................... 8 CURRENT STATE OF ROADS ........................................................................................................ .......... 10 Road Network............................................................................................................................... ... 10 Arterial ...................................................................................................................... ................... 10 Collector ..................................................................................................................... .................. 10 Residential/Local ............................................................................................................. ............. 11 Pavement Condition Assessment .................................................................................................... 12 Historical Pavement Condition Trends............................................................................................ 15 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ..................................................................................................... 16 Local PCI Comparison ...................................................................................................................... 17 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies ................................................................................... 18 Pavement Needs for Optimal PCI .................................................................................................... 23 BUDGET SCENARIOS .............................................................................................................. ............... 25 Scenario 1 – Current Budget............................................................................................................ 27 Scenario 2 – Constant PCI ................................................................................................................ 29 Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase ...................................................................................................... 31 Scenario 4 – Unconstrained Funding ............................................................................................... 33 Scenario 5 – Constant Deferred Maintenance ................................................................................ 35 Scenario 6 – No Funding .................................................................................................................. 37 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... ................... 39 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... ..................... 44

TABLES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES 1 – Overview of City’s Current Pavement Condition ................................................................ 4 Table ES 2 – Summary of different funding levels (Scenarios) ............................................................... 6

FIGURES
Figure 1. Pavement Life Expectancy ............................................................................................ ......... 11 Figure 2. Sample of Pavement Distress Types ................................................................................... ... 13 Figure 3. Sample of PCI Condition Categories .................................................................................. .... 14

Page | 3

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Figure 4. Historical Pavement Condition Trends (2023) ....................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Street-by-Street Map of Pavement Condition Index (2023) .................................................. 16 Figure 6. Local Agency PCI Comparison ......................................................................................... ....... 17 Figure 7. Standard Deterioration Curve ........................................................................................ ....... 19 Figure 8. Scenario 1. Current Budget PCI and Backlog ......................................................................... 27 Figure 9. Scenario 1. Current Budget PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary ........................... 28 Figure 10. Scenario 2. Constant PCI and Backlog .................................................................................. 29 Figure 11. Scenario 2. Constant PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary ................................... 30 Figure 12. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase and Backlog ........................................................................ 31 Figure 13. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary.................... 32 Figure 14. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding PCI and Backlog .......................................................... 33 Figure 15. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary .................. 34 Figure 16. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance and Backlog .................................................. 35 Figure 17. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary .............................................................................................................................. ............................... 36 Figure 18. Scenario 6. No Funding PCI and Backlog ............................................................................. 37 Figure 19. Scenario 6. No Funding PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary ............................... 38 Figure 20. 5-Year Scenario PCI Summary ........................................................................................ ..... 41 Figure 21. 5-Year Scenario Backlog Summary .................................................................................... .. 42

TABLES
Table 1. City Network Summary Statistics ...................................................................................... ...... 12 Table 2. Current Pavement Condition Categories ................................................................................ 18 Table 3. Maintenance Strategies for Arterial, Collector, and Residential Streets. ................................ 23 Table 4. 5-Year Needs Breakdown for Optimal PCI .............................................................................. 24 Table 5. Scenario Summary ..................................................................................................... ............. 26 Table 6. Scenario 1. Current Budget Summary ..................................................................................... 27 Table 7. Scenario 1. Current Budget - 2028 Condition Category Summary .......................................... 28 Table 8. Scenario 2. Constant PCI Summary ..................................................................................... .... 29 Table 9. Scenario 2. Constant PCI - 2028 Condition Category Summary .............................................. 30 Table 10. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase Summary ............................................................................. 31 Table 11. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase - 2028 Condition Category Summary ................................... 32 Table 12. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding Summary ...................................................................... 33 Table 13. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding - 2028 Condition Category Summary ........................... 34 Table 14. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance Summary ........................................................ 35 Table 15. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance - 2028 Condition Category Summary ............. 36 Table 16. Scenario 6. No Funding Summary ...................................................................................... ... 37 Table 17. Scenario 6. No Funding - 2028 Condition Category Summary .............................................. 38 Table 18. Scenario Summary PCI Conditions at the end of 2028 ......................................................... 43

Page | 4

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Pleasanton’s street network is 209.34 centerline miles long and covers approximately 46.2 million square feet of pavement 1. This network is an essential asset and is among the most valuable assets maintained by the City. This asset is worth $306 million to replace 2. Through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP), the City completed a comprehensive pa vement management update that included field inspections and an update of the City’s pavement management software. With the most recent inspection information and treatments, the City’s overall Pavement Co ndition Index (PCI) is 77, classified as “ Good to Excellent” for MTC standards. The PCI is a numerical rati ng from 0 – 100, with 0 being a failed street and 100 being a brand new pavement. 71.5% of the City’s roads have a PCI of 70 and above and are classified in the “Good to Excellent” category (Table ES 1).

Table ES 1 – Overview of City’s Current Pavement Condition Current Condition Categories Current
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100) 71.5%
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69) 23.0%
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49) 5.4%
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24) 0.1%

An adequately designed asphalt street typically lasts twenty years without total reconstruction.

However, if conditions change, such as higher daily traffic usage, then reconstruction of the pavement may be warranted sooner. Extending the life of the pavement with pavement preservation, as opposed to the replacement of pavement, is the goal of a pavement management program.

1 This report does not include city-owned parking lots. The parking lot study was done separately from P-TAP. In total (including parking lots), the City has 215.4 centerline miles, 519.61 lane miles, and 1.72 square miles of pavement. 2 The valuation is assessed by the assumption of replacing the entire street network with a new street valued in today’s dollar.

Page | 5

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Six budget scenarios were evaluated as part of the P-TAP update. AMS used the MTC StreetSaver pavement management software to run various budget scenarios. Based on a series of assumptions, StreetSaver allocates available funds across the street network, recommends improvements, and forecasts future PCI values if recommendations are implemented.

The six funding scenarios detailed ( Table ES 2 ) below are five-year projections and provide valuable “what-if” information on expected PCI and backlo g values that may occu r at different funding constraints. Backlog is the cost of a project recommended for treatment in the first year but deferred to the following years due to funding constraints. The following scenarios were analyzed and detailed below. The City’s current Backlog is $31.7 million.

Scenario 1 – Current Budget

 Average funding of $4.1M per year for maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI decreases to 75 at the end of five years.
 Backlog increases from $31.7M to $46.7M at the end of five years.  71.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
 Average funding of $6.1M per year for maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI remains constant at 77 at the end of five years.
 Backlog Increases from $31.7M to $36.1M at the end of five years.  75.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
 Average funding of $10.5M per year for maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI increases to 82 PCI at the end of five years.
 Backlog decreases from $31.7M to $20.4M at the end of five years.  88.9% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 4 – Unconstrained Funding
 Average funding of $14.9M per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI will increase to 87 at the end of five years.
 Backlog decreases from $31.7M to $1.1M at the end of five years.  98.5% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Page | 6

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

Scenario 5 – Constant Deferred Maintenance
 Average funding of $7.2M per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI will increase to 78 at the end of five years.
 Backlog remains constant at $31.7M at the end of five years.  77.8% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 6 – No Funding
 Average funding of $0 per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI decreases to 70 at the end of five years.
 Backlog increases from $31.7M to $60.2M at the end of five years.  60.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Table ES 2 – Summary of different funding levels (Scenarios)

Scenario 1.

Current
Budget
Scenario 2.

Constant PCI
Scenario 3.

Plus 5 PCI
Increase
Scenario 4.

Unconstrained
Funding
Scenario 5.

Constant
Deferred
Maintenance
Scenario 6.

No Funding
Average Yearly Budget $4,090,000 $6,115,824 $10,537,257 $14,903,943 $7,150,940 $0 Total Budget for 5 Years $20,450,000 $30,579,120 $52,686,284 $74,519,715 $35,754,700 $0 Current PCI 77 77 77 77 77 77
Current Backlog $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 Current % in 'Good' condition 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% PCI after 5 years (change) 75 (-2) 77 (0) 82 (+5) 87 (+10) 78 (+1) 70 (-7) Backlog after 5 years $46,732,406 $36,071,136 $20,363,078 $1,090,991 $31,709,185 $60,156,996 % 'Good' in 5 years 71.2 76.9 90.2 98.5 77.8 60.2
% 'Fair' in 5 years 16.3 12.8 3.5 0.9 13.8 23.2
% 'Poor' in 5 years 11.3 9.4 5.4 0.4 7.6 15.3
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.8 1.3

Page | 7

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

INTRODUCTION

Paved streets in the City of Pleasanton are among the many assets every resident, visitor, and business uses. A good street network enhances public safety, promotes mobility, and enables economic activity.

The City is responsible for 209.34 centerline miles of roads or 507.51 lane miles3. This asset comprises

46.2 million square feet of asphalt concrete and is valued at $306 million to replace.

The MTC P-TAP program selected AMS Consulting (AMS) as the City’s Pavement Management Consultant. The program helps Local San Franci sco Bay Area agencies update their pavement management program through inspection surveys and reporting. The program is designed to help agencies stretch their pavement expenditures by:

 Implementing, updating, and maintaining pavement management databases; and  Providing updated pavement condition data of the network and each street segment.

What is a Pavement Management System (PMS)?
Pavement Management is the systematic process used to oversee the city ’s paved surfaces by measuring the condition and tracking the maintenance and rehabilitation of pavement sections. Area, zones, and functional classifications can organize these pavement sections. Effective pavement management strategies include condition assessment, life-cycle cost analysis, and budget projections to identify pavement segments needing maintenance or repair.

The City uses the MTC Pavement Management System, StreetSaver, to track and analyze the pavement condition and to develop the City’s annual street maintenance/rehabilitation program. The StreetSaver system is an online program used by all 109 cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay Area region and over 300 other public and private organizations nationwide and internationally. The StreetSaver

3 Lane mile equals 5,280 linear feet multiplied by the number of lanes.

Page | 8

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 online program helps agencies and organizations make informed decisions about their pavement assets.

Please note that the pavement management software is a network-level support tool for planning and budgeting purposes. StreetSaver’s recommendation does not bind the City and is not a substitute for sound engineering judgment. Pavement management projects can be manua lly added or removed from StreetSaver’s recommended sections sele cted for treatment based on other special considerations.

Why is a Pavement Management System important?
The City’s paved surfaces are a vital asset to the community. It is essential that this asset is preserved and maintained. The pavement management pr ogram balances pavement maintenance and rehabilitation of existing surfaces. The most cost -effective way to correct any paved surface problem is to address issues when they first appear. That is why funds are targeted to paved areas or sections rated in fair or good condition for preventative maintenance 4. Without maintenance, these paved asphalt concrete surfaces would quickly deteriorate and be more expensive to fix in the future.

Scope
As part of the P-TAP Round 24 grant, AMS was resp onsible for inspecting Arterial, Collector, and Residential/Local streets. A Pave ment Condition Index (PCI) score was assigned for each pavement section, which gives a numerical indication of the pavement's current condition.

The condition assessment results are used to determine the remaining useful life and develop ongoing major maintenance strategies. Cost analysis also provides the City with an understanding of its short-

4 Preventative maintenance is a planned activity, unlike pavement repair. Pavement repair is used to eliminate pavement distress such as a large pothole. Preventative maintenance is generally cyclic in nature and is intended to stop distresses before they occur.

Page | 9

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 term pavement needs. This information projects the annual costs for maintenance and rehabilitation5 to bring the overall network PCI to optimal conditi ons. Optimal conditions are when an agency has addressed all of its backlog needs. Backlog needs are defined as street segments identified in the needs assessment of the PMS requiring repair but not funded due to insufficient funding. Optimal conditions for the City of Pleasanton have a network PCI that ranges from 85 to 87.

5 Rehabilitation is pavement treatment to restore serviceability and extend the service life of the road. This may include partial recycling of the existing pavement or other work necessary to return an existing pavement to a condition of functional adequacy.

Page | 10

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

CURRENT STATE OF ROADS

Road Network6
The City’s road network is classified into three functional classifications:

Arterial
These roadways provide high mobility while allowi ng direct access to abutting properties. These roadways serve major activity centers in an urban setting and have the highest volume and longest trip demand within a City. They interconnect other ma jor corridors to accommodate trips entering and exiting the City. These roads also serve the need for “intra-area” travel between the business district and outlying Residential areas. An example of an Arterial in Pleasanton is Hopyard Rd.

Also, Arterials primarily serve intra-urban or Local tr avel, carrying traffic from Collector streets to and from other parts of the City and limited access roadways. Access to properties bordering these streets is subordinate to the primary function of moving tra ffic. The typical design speed on an Arterial is 45 miles per hour, and it has two to four lanes, except in the case of some principal Arterials, which have six lanes. Parking is generally not provided on Arterials.

Collector
The primary function of Collector Streets is a combination of access and mobility. These streets provide links between Local streets and Arterials. They are designed to serve neighborhood traffic rather than cross-town traffic, including trips between adjacent neighborhoods. The design speed for Collectors is typically 35 miles per hour. On-street parking is usually provided.

6 These roads are consistent with the City’s General Plan.

Page | 11

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Residential/Local
Unlike other categories, Local roads are not intended fo r long-distance travel except at the origin or destination end of a trip. These roads are typically cl assified by default after identifying Arterial and Collector streets. Local roads provide the highest level of accessibility and carry no through traffic movement. The primary function of local streets is access to adjacent land uses. Parking is usually offered along Local roads, and speed limits are typically 25 miles per hour.

Each street is not built the same and, therefore, does not share the same deterioration curves or have the same life expectancy. Figure 1 exemplifies the City’s current life expectancy for pavement. The useful life for an Arterial is much shorter than that of a Residential street due to the amount of traffic.

Figure 1. Pavement Life Expectancy

The City of Pleasanton owns and manages 209.34 centerline miles of pavement. Table 1 is a summary of the City’s road network.

Page | 12

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Table 1. City Network Summary Statistics
Functional
Classification
Total
Sections
Total
Center
Miles
Total Lane
Miles
Total Area
(SF) PCI
Arterial 95 28.62 116.39 10,053,533 70
Collector 289 72.99 175.55 16,502,206 77
Residential/Local 957 107.73 215.57 19,659,972 81
1,341.00 209.34 507.51 46,215,711

Pavement Condition Assessment

A pavement surface assessment is completed by identifying surface distresses within each pavement management section. Inspection s entail evaluating a representative sample (10% of the area), identifying different pavement su rface distresses (8 distress type s), measuring severities (low, medium, and heavy), and quantifying them. Figure 2 is an example of eight different surface distress types. Inspectors use StreetSaver as a tool to ca lculate the condition of each management section.

StreetSaver is an industry-standard (modified AS TM 6433) software used to generate a pavement rating known as a PCI (Pavement Co ndition Index). A PCI rating is a numerical value between 0 and 100, with 0 being a failed road and 100 being a brand-new street (Figure 3). The PCI is calculated using the StreetSaver system algorithms that MTC developed.

Page | 13

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Figure 2. Sample of Pavement Distress Types

Page | 14

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Figure 3. Sample of PCI Condition Categories

A. Stoneridge Dr – Gibraltar to West Las Positas (92 PCI) B. Dublin Canyon – Foothill to 1221 west of Foothill (78 PCI) C. Stoneridge Dr – Las Positas to Arroyo (59 PCI)
D. Hopyard Rd – Stoneridge to West Las Positas (47 PCI) E. Owens Dr – Hopyward to Johnson (32 PCI)
F. Johnson Ct – Owens to Parking Lot (25 PCI)

Page | 15

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Historical Pavement Condition Trends

Figure 4. shows the network pavement condition and annual expenditures over the last five years.

Results demonstrate that the overall network PCI has been trending downwards. The PCI decrease is due to rising construction costs and state and federal mandates that require agencies to update ADA curb ramps when pavements have been altered. Certain types of resurfacing treatments are considered an alteration: Mill and Overlay, Hot In-Place Recycling, Microsurfacing/Thin Lift Overlay, Addition of a New Layer of Asphalt, Asphalt and Concrete of Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, and New Construction7.

Figure 4. Historical Pavement Condition Trends (2023)

7 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/lpp/lpp16-04.pdf

Page | 16

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

After the 2023 pavement management update and re cent pavement projects, the City’s overall network PCI is 77 PCI. The overal l network condition is a weight ed average PCI equal to each management section PCI multiplied by its area and divided by the network's total area.

Figure 5 is a street-by-street map of the Pavement Condition Index.

Figure 5. Street-by-Street Map of Pavement Condition Index (2023)

Current Condition Categories
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100)
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69)
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49)
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24)

Page | 17

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Local PCI Comparison

Figure 6 is a PCI comparison with Local agencies in Alameda County. Results for network PCIs were obtained from the MTC Vital Signs website. MTC results show that the City’s overall network PCI is 10 points above the San Francisco Bay Area average PCI.

Figure 6. Local Agency PCI Comparison

Page | 18

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Table 2 shows the City’s current road network pavement condition categories. Approximately 71.5% of the City’s road network has a PCI of 70 or better.

Table 2. Current Pavement Condition Categories
Current Condition Categories Current
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100) 71.5%
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69) 23.0%
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49) 5.4%
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24) 0.1%

Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies

The City’s current maintenance activities vary from project to project; each maintenance activity is based on the section’s functional classification (Arterial, Collector, and Residential), surface type, and PCI. Figure 7 illustrates a general pavement life cycle curve. The curve shows that pavements deteriorate only 40 percent in quality in the firs t 75 percent of their life; this deterioration subsequently accelerates rapidly, resulting in another 40 percent drop in quality in the next 12 percent of life. Therefore, investing in preventative maintenance in streets classified as “Good Condition” (70 and above) can save the city a significant amount of money in rehabilitation and reconstruction8 costs in the future. Depending on the condition of the existing street, the appropriate roadway rehabilitation treatment method will be selected to regain strength to the existing pavement. Types of pavement rehabilitation are described below. MTC recommends that the City continue its preventative maintenance efforts to utilize the recommended cost-effective treatments such as crack and slurry seals. City staff has reviewed th e maintenance strategies, and AMS has updated the StreetSaver pavement management system. Part of the update was to review and revise the system unit costs. These unit costs are used to calculate total funding and budget need calculation. These

8 Reconstruction is equivalent to a new pavement structure where it involves removal and replacement of the existing pavement structure.

Page | 19

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 unit costs are “total project construction costs” that include but are not limited to construction, third- party testing & inspection, tree trimming, striping, and traffic loop/camera detector installation.

Figure 7. Standard Deterioration Curve

Below are the treatments for the City’s maintenance strategies:

Seal Crack Treatment
9- Preventative Maintenance Treatment
Surface Cracks are inevitable distresses and are on e of the first signs of distress at the pavement surface. If neglected over time, this distress can gr ow into a heavy crack and possibly a pothole if left untreated. Crack Sealing is a cost-effective treatmen t for cracks greater than 1/8”. This treatment slows the deterioration and can extend pavement life by three to five years. This treatment is triggered every five years for Arterials and every four years for Collectors and Residential streets.

9 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/crack_seal

Page | 20

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Slurry Seals10- Preventative Maintenance Treatment
A slurry seal is a surface treatment with mixtures containing asphalt emulsion, graded aggregates, fillers, water, and other additives to control the break and set time of the mixes. These treatments are designed to extend the life of asphalt pavements in good condition by providing skid resistance, restricting moisture intrusion, protecting the st ructure from further oxidation and raveling, and restoring a uniform black appearance . The slurry seal provides quick construction times and minimal disruption to the traveling public and can extend the lif e of the pavement by five to seven years. The City addresses load-related distress before applying a slurry seal. The City’s maintenance strategy for slurry seal and slurry seal with base failure repair is triggered to occur ever y eight years. Arterial, Collectors, and Residential street s have a maximum of two (2) sl urry seals before the system recommends a restoration treatment that warrants an AC Overlay with Fabric (1.5”).

AC Overlay - Rehabilitation Treatment
Also known as “Mill and Fill,” this treatment targets pavement at risk to fair condition without signs of load-related distress. The treatment generally involv es grinding the edges of existing pavement and placing a new layer of asphalt concrete (AC) on top of the existing pavement. Asphalt concrete, or Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), is a mixture of asphalt oil, crushed rock, gravel, and sand.

AC Overlay with Pavement Fabric - Rehabilitation Treatment This treatment targets streets in fair to good condition with signs of load-related distress. The treatment generally involves grinding the edges of the existing pavement and placing a layer of paving mat/fabric on it before applying a new surface course of asphalt concrete over the top of the existing pavement. A paving mat is an engineered pavement interlayer to create a mo isture-resistant barrier and retard reflective cracking, which helps prolong the pavement service life.

10 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/slurry_seal

Page | 21

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Mill and AC Overlay/ AC Overlay with SAMI - Rehabilitation Treatment This treatment targets streets in at-risk to fair co ndition with signs of load -related distresses with necessary profile grade adjustment. The treatment consists of cold milling (also known as cold plane/grinding) the existing surface to a pre-dete rmined depth with specialized milling equipment to provide properly required grades. A new layer of asphalt concrete is then placed after the completion of the milling operation.

SAMI stands for Stress Absorbing Membrane Interl ayer (SAMI). This interlayer provides increased flexibility and reduces the likelihood of surface reflective cracking.

AC Overlay with Rubberized Chip Seal - Rehabilitation Treatment This treatment targets streets in poor conditions th at need to be rehabilitated. This construction method involves grinding the edges of the existi ng pavement, placing a 3/8” layer of asphalt-rubber binder and aggregate pre-coated with paving asphalt (called rubberized chip seal), and then placing a new surface course of 1.5” to 1.75” thick of asphalt concrete over the newly established chip seal layer.

Cold-in-Place Recycling (CIPR)
11- Rehabilitation Treatment
CIPR is a cost-effective, long-lasting, greener alternative to conventional maintenance and rehabilitation techniques. Cold In-place Recycling (CIR) is a process that cold mills and recycles the top 2-5 inches of asphalt using a continuous train operat ion. By reusing existing material, CIR significantly reduces trucking, time, and natural resources to substantially lower project costs. Generally, any road candidate for mill & fill is a candidate for CIR. This treatment adds fifteen to twenty years of service life with a combined appropriate wearing course. Th is treatment is typically 20%-50% less expensive than conventional maintenance and reconstruction methods. Still, it re quires a lot of upfront coordination with various utility agencies to ensure that no utility facilities are within the 2-5 inches of existing asphalt that will be milled.

11 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/cold_in_place_recycling

Page | 22

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Full-Depth-Reclamation (FDR)12 – Deep Rehabilitation
FDR is a cost-effective, long-lasting, greener al ternative to deep rehab ilitation or removal and replacement techniques. Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) is an engineered rehabilitation technique. The entire thickness of the asphalt pavement and a pr edetermined portion of th e underlying materials (base, subbase, and subgrade) is uniformly pul verized and blended to provide an upgraded, homogeneous material. The reclaimed materials may be improved and strengthened by using Mechanical, Chemical, or Bituminous stabilization. FDR isn't only for roads in poor condition; it is also a viable design process for increasi ng pavement's structural capacity in good condition but requires a lot of upfront coordination with various utility agen cies to ensure that ther e are no utility facilities within the existing asphalt and underlying materials that will be pulverized.

Reconstruction
Pavement reconstruction is a treatment that is needed when a road has reached the end of its design life, or the pavement has severe cr oss-section deficiencies due to tr affic or environmental factors.

These roads typically have a PCI of 25 and below; reconstruction is required to restore the service life.

Reconstruction is equivalent to a new pavement that involves rebuilding the pavement layers from the ground up to replace the pavement. This treatmen t is the most expensive compared to the other treatments in the maintenance strategy.

12 https://roadresource.org/treatment_resources/full_depth_reclamation

Page | 23

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Table 3 shows the City’s current maintenance strategies for Arterial, Collector, and Residential streets, with Arterial roads having the highest priority, followed by Collector and then Residential.

Arterial streets have the highest priority due to the high traffic volume.

Table 3. Maintenance Strategies for Arterial, Collector, and Residential Streets.

Pavement Needs for Optimal PCI
The pavement management program develops a maintenance strategy to improve the road network's overall condition to an optimal PCI (85-87 PCI range). The overall weighted average PCI is 77 PCI, which is within the “Good Category.” This scenario answers the mo st common question, “If the City had all the money in the world, what would it cost to update the road network?” Table 4 below represents the 5-year breakdown to get the road network in to optimal conditions and address the backlog.

Currently, the City’s backlog is approximately $31. 7 million. The backlog is derived from the work scheduled in prior years but deferred due to insufficient funding resources. Please note that the cost of the needs has been front-loaded. The front-lo aded costs are due to the pavement management system's need to bring the entire pavement ne twork to optimal conditions and maintain those Functional
Class
Surface
Type
PCI
Range Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment
Cost
/Square
Yard
Years
between
Crack
Seal
Years
between
Surface
Seals
# of
Surface
Seals
before
Overlay
70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $0.46 5 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $5.70 8 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Restoration Treatmen tAC OVERLAY 1.5" $25.42 2 50 - 69 Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (Non-Load Related) AC OVERLAY W FABRIC 1.75 I N $26.04 50 - 69 Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair(Load Related) OVERLAY W FABRIC $28.52 25 - 49 Condition IV - Poor OVERLAY with SAMI $40.57
0 - 25 Condition V - Failed to Very Poor RECONSTRUCT SURFACE AC $99.14 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $0.46 4 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $5.70 8 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Restoration Treatmen tAC OVERLAY 1.5" $23.56 2 50 - 69 Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (Non-Load Related) AC OVERLAY 1_75 INCHES $24.80 50 - 69 Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair(Load Related) OVERLAY 1.75" W/FABRIC $26.11 25 - 49 Condition IV - Poor OVERLAY with SAMI $36.71
0 - 25 Condition V - Failed to Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE A C $63.10 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $0.46 3 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $5.70 8 70 - 100 Condition I - Good to Excellent Restoration Treatmen tAC OVERLAY 1.5" $23.56 2 50 - 69 Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (Non-Load Related) AC OVERLAY 1_75 INCHES $24.18 50 - 69 Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair(Load Related) AC OVERLAY W FABRIC 1.75 I N $25.42
25 - 49 Condition IV - Poor OVERLAY with SAMI $36.71
0 - 25 Condition V - Failed to Very Poor RECONSTRUCT STRUCTURE A C $60.96 AC
Arterial
Collector
Residential
AC
AC

Page | 24

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 conditions for the next five years. To keep the PCI at optimal levels, the City must spend approximately $74.5 million by the end of 2028. The pavement management software is more cost-effective to repair the street in the first year rather than waiting to fix it in the subsequent years. Generally speaking, roads appear to be in good condition for a long ti me; however, when roads fail, they fail quickly, and repair costs can increase if the recommended mainte nance treatments are deferred. Should the City not invest in maintenance or rehabilitation treatments on streets for the next five years, the overall network PCI will decrease to 70.

Table 4. 5-Year Needs Breakdown for Optimal PCI
13 City Needs
Year PM Rehab Cost Total PCI
Treated
PCI
Untreated
2024 $6,914,840 $24,794,225 $31,709,065 86 77
2025 $2,766,890 $9,920,202 $12,687,092 86 76
2026 $795,536 $7,568,442 $8,363,978 86 74
2027 $2,257,720 $7,228,645 $9,486,365 86 72
2028 $2,663,845 $9,609,373 $12,273,218 87 70
$15,398,831 $59,120,887 $74,519,718

13 The results of the budget needs analysis use a 3% interest and inflation factor. These costs are in today’s dollars, using pre-Covid unit costs and accounts for annual 3% interest and inflation.

Page | 25

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

BUDGET SCENARIOS
After inspecting the City’s roadway conditions a nd evaluating the maintenance and rehabilitation needs, the next step in developing a cost-effectiv e maintenance and rehabilitation strategy is to run “what-if” scenarios. The advantage of a pavement management program such as StreetSaver is the ability to forecast the treatments and conditions ba sed on budget constraints or predict future costs based on targeted network PCI goals. The following scenarios have been analyzed:

Scenario 1 – Current Budget
 Average funding of $4.1M per year for maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI decreases to 75 at the end of five years.
 Backlog increases from $31.7M to $46.7M at the end of five years.  71.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
 Average funding of $6.1M per year for maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI remains constant at 77 at the end of five years.
 Backlog INcreases from $31.7M to $36.1M at the end of five years.  75.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
 Average funding of $10.5M per year for maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI increases to 82 PCI at the end of five years.
 Backlog decreases from $31.7M to $20.4M at the end of five years.  88.9% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 4 – Unconstrained Funding
 Average funding of $14.9M per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI will increase to 87 at the end of five years.
 Backlog decreases from $31.7M to $1.1M at the end of five years.  98.5% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Scenario 5 – Constant Deferred Maintenance
 Average funding of $7.2M per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI increases to 78 at the end of five years.
 Backlog remains constant at $31.7M at the end of five years.  77.8% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Page | 26

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Scenario 6 – No Funding
 Average funding of $0 per year on maintenance and rehabilitation.  PCI decreases to 70 at the end of five years.
 Backlog increases from $31.7M to $60.2M at the end of five years.  60.2% of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70.

Table 5. Scenario Summary

Scenario 1.

Current
Budget
Scenario 2.

Constant PCI
Scenario 3.

Plus 5 PCI
Increase
Scenario 4.

Unconstrained
Funding
Scenario 5.

Constant
Deferred
Maintenance
Scenario 6.

No Funding
Average Yearly Budget $4,090,000 $6,115,824 $10,537,257 $14,903,943 $7,150,940 $0 Total Budget for 5 Years $20,450,000 $30,579,120 $52,686,284 $74,519,715 $35,754,700 $0 Current PCI 77 77 77 77 77 77
Current Backlog $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 $31,709,065 Current % in 'Good' condition 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% 71.50% PCI after 5 years (change) 75 (-2) 77 (0) 82 (+5) 87 (+10) 78 (+1) 70 (-7) Backlog after 5 years $46,732,406 $36,071,136 $20,363,078 $1,090,991 $31,709,185 $60,156,996 % 'Good' in 5 years 71.2 76.9 90.2 98.5 77.8 60.2
% 'Fair' in 5 years 16.3 12.8 3.5 0.9 13.8 23.2
% 'Poor' in 5 years 11.3 9.4 5.4 0.4 7.6 15.3
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.8 1.3

Page | 27

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Scenario 1 – Current Budget
The City’s current budget is approximately $4.1 million annually or $20.5 million at the end of five years. Implementing this budget scenario (Figure 8, Table 6) shows that the PCI will decrease to 75 by the end of 2028, while the backlog will increase to $46.7 million.

Figure 8. Scenario 1. Current Budget PCI and Backlog

Table 6. Scenario 1. Current Budget Summary

Scenario 1. Current Budget
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2024 $4,200,000 $27,509,526 79
2025 $4,000,000 $34,834,776 78
2026 $3,950,000 $36,145,690 77
2027 $4,100,000 $41,212,701 76
2028 $4,200,000 $46,732,406 75

Page | 28

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Approximately 71.2% (Table 7) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI at the end of 2028 (Condition Category I).

Table 7. Scenario 1. Current Budget - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Scenario 1.

Current
Budget
% Change
at the end
of 5 years
% 'Good' in 5 years 71.2 -0.3
% 'Fair' in 5 years 16.3 -6.7
% 'Poor' in 5 years 11.3 5.9
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 1.2 1.1

Figure 9 is a projected PCI map for 2028 if the “Current Budget” is implemented.

Figure 9. Scenario 1. Current Budget PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Current Condition Categories
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100)
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69)
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49)
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24)

Page | 29

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Scenario 2 – Constant PCI
This scenario ( Figure 10, Table 8) analyzes the cost to sustain the ov erall network PCI at 77. Results show that it would cost approximately $6.1 millio n annually or $30.6 million fo r five years. This iteration indicates that the backlog will increase to $36.1 million by the end of the year 2028.

Figure 10. Scenario 2. Constant PCI and Backlog

Table 8. Scenario 2. Constant PCI Summary
Scenario 2. Constant PCI
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2024 $0 $31,709,065 77
2025 $5,440,514 $36,220,587 77
2026 $8,653,353 $32,613,096 77
2027 $7,331,429 $34,071,136 77
2028 $9,153,824 $36,071,136 77

Page | 30

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Approximately 75.2% (Table 9) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI at the end of 2028 (Condition Category I).

Table 9. Scenario 2. Constant PCI - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Scenario 2.

Constant
PCI
% Change
at the end
of 5 years
% 'Good' in 5 years 75.2 3.7
% 'Fair' in 5 years 14.9 -8.1
% 'Poor' in 5 years 9 3.6
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 0.9 0.8

Figure 11 is a projected PCI map 2028 if the “Constant PCI” scenario is implemented.

Figure 11. Scenario 2. Constant PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Current Condition Categories
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100)
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69)
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49)
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24)

Page | 31

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Scenario 3 – Plus 5 PCI Increase
Figure 12, Table 10 represents the costs and impacts of increasing the overall network by 5 points (82 PCI). Implementing this scenario would cost approximately $10.5 million annually or about $52.7 million by the end of five years. In addition, this scenario decreases the backlog to $20.4 million at the end of the five years.

Figure 12. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase and Backlog

Table 10. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase Summary

Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2024 $17,369,507 $14,340,181 82
2025 $9,154,646 $17,934,766 82
2026 $8,314,112 $17,939,166 82
2027 $9,187,899 $17,693,598 82
2028 $8,660,120 $20,363,078 82

Page | 32

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Approximately 88.9% (Table 11) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI at the end of 2028 (Condition Category I).

Table 11. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Scenario 3.

Plus 5 PCI
Increase
% Change
at the end
of 5 years
% 'Good' in 5 years 88.9 17.4
% 'Fair' in 5 years 4.3 -18.7
% 'Poor' in 5 years 5.8 0.4
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 1 0.9

Figure 13 shows a projected PCI map for 2028 if the “Plus 5 PCI Increase” scenario is implemented.

Figure 13. Scenario 3. Plus 5 PCI Increase PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Current Condition Categories
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100)
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69)
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49)
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24)

Page | 33

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Scenario 4 – Unconstrained Funding
Figure 14, Table 12, represents the costs and impacts of im plementing an unconstrained budget.

Results show that it would bring the City’s network to optimal conditions and cost approximately $14.9M annually or $74.5 million for five years. Implementing this scenario would increase the overall network PCI to 87, while the backlog would decrea se from $31.7 million to $1. 1 million by the end of 2028.

Figure 14. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding PCI and Backlog

Table 12. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding Summary

Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2024 $14,903,943 $16,805,379 81
2025 $14,903,943 $14,364,805 83
2026 $14,903,943 $8,367,168 84
2027 $14,903,943 $3,091,444 86
2028 $14,903,943 $1,090,991 87

Page | 34

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Approximately 98.5% (Table 13) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI at the end of 2028 (Condition Category I).

Table 13. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Scenario 4.

Unconstrained
Funding
% Change
at the end
of 5 years
% 'Good' in 5 years 98.5 27.0
% 'Fair' in 5 years 0.9 -22.1
% 'Poor' in 5 years 0.4 -5.0
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 0.2 0.1

Figure 15 is a projected PCI map for 2028 if the “Unconstrained Funding” scenario is implemented.

Figure 15. Scenario 4. Unconstrained Funding Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Current Condition Categories
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100)
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69)
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49)
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24)

Page | 35

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Scenario 5 – Constant Deferred Maintenance
Figure 16, Table 14, represents the costs and impacts of implementing a Constant Deferred Maintenance scenario. Implementing this scenario would cost approximately $17.2 million annually or about $35.8 million by the end of five years. Results show an increase in the overall network PCI to 78, while the backlog would remain constant at $31.7M by the end of 2028.

Figure 16. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance and Backlog

Table 14. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance Summary Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2024 $0 $31,709,065 77
2025 $9,951,000 $31,709,307 78
2026 $6,240,000 $31,709,515 78
2027 $9,191,700 $31,709,068 78
2028 $10,372,000 $31,709,185 78

Page | 36

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Approximately 77.8% (Table 15) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI at the end of 2028 (Condition Category I).

Table 15. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Scenario 5.

Constant
Deferred
Maintenance
% Change
at the end
of 5 years
% 'Good' in 5 years 77.8 6.3
% 'Fair' in 5 years 13.8 -9.2
% 'Poor' in 5 years 7.6 2.2
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 0.8 0.7

Figure 17 is a projected PCI map 2028 if the “Constant Deferred Maintenance” scenario is implemented.

Figure 17. Scenario 5. Constant Deferred Maintenance PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Current Condition Categories
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100)
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69)
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49)
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24)

Page | 37

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Scenario 6 – No Funding
Figure 18, Table 16, represents the costs and impacts of implementing an unfunded scenario. Implementing this scenario would decrease the overall network PCI to 70, while the backlog would increase from $31.7 million to about $60.2 million by the end of 2028.

Figure 18. Scenario 6. No Funding PCI and Backlog

Table 16. Scenario 6. No Funding Summary
Scenario 6. No Funding
Year Budget Backlog PCI
2024 $0 $31,709,065 77
2025 $0 $41,660,067 76
2026 $0 $44,901,550 74
2027 $0 $52,793,682 72
2028 $0 $60,156,996 70

Page | 38

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Approximately 60.2% (Table 17) of City streets will have a PCI equal to or greater than 70 PCI at the end of 2028 (Condition Category I).

Table 17. Scenario 6. No Funding - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Scenario 6.

No Funding
% Change
at the end
of 5 years
% 'Good' in 5 years 60.2 -11.3
% 'Fair' in 5 years 23.2 0.2
% 'Poor' in 5 years 15.3 9.9
% 'Very Poor' in 5 years 1.3 1.2

Figure 19 is a projected PCI map for 2028 if the “No Funding” scenario is implemented.

Figure 19. Scenario 6. No Funding PCI Map - 2028 Condition Category Summary

Current Condition Categories
Condition I - Good to Excellent (PCI 70 - 100)
Condition II/III - At Risk to Fair (PCI 50 - 69)
Condition IV - Poor (PCI 25 - 49)
Condition V - Failed to Very Poor (PCI 0 - 24)

Page | 39

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

CONCLUSIONS
The City of Pleasanton currently has 209.34 centerline miles of paved roads or 507.51 lane miles. This asset comprises approximately 46.2 million square feet of pavement and is worth roughly $306 million to replace. After updating the City’s pavement management system with inspections and recent maintenance and rehabilitation treatments, the Ci ty’s overall network condition is 77 PCI.

Approximately 71.5% of the City’s road network has a PCI of 70 or better. The City’s current backlog is about $31.7 million.

The first option the City should consider is implem enting the “Unconstrained Funding Scenario.” This scenario requires an average budget of $14.9 million annually or $74.5 million for five years. The effects of this budget increase the network PCI to 87 ( Figure 20), while the backlog decreases to $1.1 million (Figure 21) at the end of five years. 98.5% of City streets will have a PCI of 70 and above (Table 18).

The second option is implementing the “Plus 5 PCI Increase Scenario.” Results show that the network increased to 82 in five years (Figure 20). This budget would cost $10.5 million annually or $52.7 million over five years. The backlog decreases to $20.4 million (Figure 21). This action will result in 88.9% of city streets having a PCI of 70 and above (Table 18).

The third option is implementing the “Constant De ferred Maintenance Scenario.” Results from this scenario show that the overall network PCI increases to 78 ( Figure 20 ) while the backlog remains constant at $31.7 million ( Figure 21). This scenario would cost $7. 2 million annually or $35.8 million for five years. Approximately 77.8% of the City’s pavement will have a 70 or better (Table 18).

The fourth option is using the “Constant PCI Scenario.” This scenario averages $6.9 million annually or $34.7 million over five years. Results show that the network remains constant at 77 PCI ( Figure 20).

The backlog for this scenario increases to $36.1 million ( Figure 21). 75.2% of City streets will have a PCI of 70 or better (Table 18).

Page | 40

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 The fifth option is implementing the “Current Budget Scenario.” Results from this scenario show that the overall network PCI decreases to 75 at the end of five years (Figure 20) while the backlog increases to about $46.7 million (Figure 21). This scenario would cost $4.1 million annually or $20.5 million for five years. Approximately 71.2% of the City’s pavement will have a 70 or better (Table 18).

The sixth and least recommended action compared to the other options evaluated is the “No Funding scenario.” This iteration does not use any funds to maintain or rehabilitate pavements. Implementing this scenario will result in a PCI drop to 70 ( Figure 20) and an increase in th e backlog to $60.2 million (Figure 21). Approximately 60.2% of City streets will have a PCI of 70 and above (Table 18).

Page | 41

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24 Figure 20. 5-Year Scenario PCI Summary

Page | 42

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

Figure 21. 5-Year Scenario Backlog Summary

Page | 43

Pavement Management Technical Assistance (P-TAP) Round 24

Table 18. Scenario Summary PCI Conditions at the end of 2028

Scenario 1.

Current
Budget
Scenario 2.

Constant
PCI
Scenario 3.

Plus 5 PCI
Increase
Scenario 4.

Unconstrained
Funding
Scenario 5.

Constant
Deferred
Maintenance
Scenario 6.

No Funding
% 'Good' in 5 years 71.2 76.9 90.2 98.5 77.8 60.2
% 'Fair' in 5 years 16.3 12.8 3.5 0.9 13.8 23.2
% 'Poor' in 5 years 11.3 9.4 5.4 0.4 7.6 15.3
% 'Very Poor' in 5
years 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.8 1.3