Agenda packet, regular meeting — Pleasanton City Council, May 21, 2024 (part 4 of 5)

21 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1994-1, Oak Tree Farm Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Certificates Page
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1994-1, OAK TREE FARM CITY OF

PLEASANTON, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report and does hereby certify that this Engineer's Report and the Assessment have been prepared by me as directed by the City Council.

Adam M. Nelkie, City Engineer, License No. C78830
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on the _________day of______________, 2024.

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, on the ______________day of____________, 2024.

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a certified copy of the enclosed Engineer's Report, including Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Alameda, on the ______________day of_______________, 2024.

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:

Page 408 of 720 ends

22 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1994-1, Oak Tree Farm Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Assessment Diagram
The Maintenance District includes all properties within the Oak Tree Farm subdivision, as displayed on the following Assessment Diagram. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Maintenance District are those lines and dimensions as shown on the maps of the Assessor of Alameda County for Fiscal Year 2024-25, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Diagram and this Report.

Page 409 of 720 ends

23 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1994-1, Oak Tree Farm Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Assessment Roll FY 2024-25 - Oak Tree Farm LMD No. 1994-1

COLLECTION

ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S ASSESSMENT CHARGE
DIAGRAM NO. PARCEL NUMBER AMOUNT 0.017 TOTAL
Phase I
1 946-4585-001 465.75 7.91 473.66
2 946-4585-002 465.75 7.91 473.66
3 946-4585-003 465.75 7.91 473.66
4 946-4585-004 465.75 7.91 473.66
5 946-4585-005 465.75 7.91 473.66
6 946-4585-006 465.75 7.91 473.66
7 946-4585-007 465.75 7.91 473.66
8 946-4585-008 465.75 7.91 473.66
9 946-4585-009 465.75 7.91 473.66
10 946-4585-010 465.75 7.91 473.66
11 946-4585-046 465.75 7.91 473.66
12 946-4585-047 465.75 7.91 473.66
13 946-4585-013 465.75 7.91 473.66
14 946-4585-014 465.75 7.91 473.66
15 946-4585-015-01 465.75 7.91 473.66
16 946-4585-016 465.75 7.91 473.66
17 946-4585-017 465.75 7.91 473.66
18 946-4585-018 465.75 7.91 473.66
19 946-4585-019 465.75 7.91 473.66
20 946-4585-020 465.75 7.91 473.66
21 946-4585-021 465.75 7.91 473.66
22L1 946-4585-050 465.75 7.91 473.66
22L2 946-4585-051 465.75 7.91 473.66
22L3 946-4585-052 465.75 7.91 473.66
23 946-4585-023-05 465.75 7.91 473.66
Phase II
L1 946-4585-029 465.75 7.91 473.66
L2 946-4585-030 465.75 7.91 473.66
L3 946-4585-031 465.75 7.91 473.66
L4 946-4585-032 465.75 7.91 473.66
L5 946-4585-033 465.75 7.91 473.66
L6A 946-4585-048 465.75 7.91 473.66
L6B 946-4585-049 465.75 7.91 473.66
L7 946-4585-035 465.75 7.91 473.66
L8 946-4585-043 465.75 7.91 473.66
L9 946-4585-036 465.75 7.91 473.66
L10 946-4585-037 465.75 7.91 473.66
L11 946-4585-038 465.75 7.91 473.66
L12 946-4585-039 465.75 7.91 473.66
L13 946-4585-040 465.75 7.91 473.66
L14 946-4585-041 465.75 7.91 473.66

Page 410 of 720 ends

24 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1994-1, Oak Tree Farm Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 L15 946-4585-042 465.75 7.91 473.66
City 946-4585-044 465.75 n/a 465.75
42 TOTAL
ASSESSMENTS: $19,561.50 $324.31 $19,885.81

Page 411 of 720 ends

25 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1994-1, Oak Tree Farm Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25

Page 412 of 720 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON

DECLARING THE INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1995-1 MOLLER RANCH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/25; DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONTINNUE THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS; AND SETTING THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC

HEARING
WHEREAS, as required by Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council of the City of Pleasanton has described proposed improvements to be included for the determination of annual assessments levied for Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1 Moller Ranch, created under the Lighting & Landscape Act of 1972, and ordered the preparation of an Engineer’s Report to determine the annual levy of assessments for such District; and
WHEREAS, as required by Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Engineer has filed with the City Clerk a Preliminary Engineer’s Report for the Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1 Moller Ranch for Fiscal Year 2024/25.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:

SECTION 1. The City Engineer is designated by this Council as the Engineer of Work for Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch, during fiscal year 2024/25. The area of land to be assessed is located in the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County.

SECTION 2. The City Council intends to continue to levy and collect assessments within Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1 Moller Ranch, during fiscal year 2024/25.

SECTION 3. The improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as follows:

The maintenance and repair of designated landscaped areas, open space slopes, fuel transition zones (fire breaks), entry features, open space drainage ditches, irrigation systems, trees in the open space and designated landscaped areas, and the furnishing of water and power for irrigation systems, together with all appurtenant and incidental expenses within Tract 6617, City of Pleasanton.

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 413 of 720 ends

SECTION 4. In accordance with this resolution directing the filing of an annual report, SCI Consulting Group, Engineer of Work, has filed with the City Clerk the report required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. All interested persons are referred to that report for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the assessment district.

SECTION 5. On Tuesday, the 18th day of June 2024, at the hour of 7:00 pm, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the question of the levy of the proposed annual assessment. The Council meeting will be held in accordance with Government Code Section 54954(e). To improve access to public information, residents may access meetings remotely through the City’s website.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give the notice of hearing required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

SECTION 7. City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on May 21, 2024.

I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of May, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Page 414 of 720 ends

CITY OF PLEASANTON
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report
Fiscal Year 2024-25
May 2024
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, government code and article XIIID of the California Constitution

EXHIBIT A

Page 415 of 720 ends

ii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 (This page intentionally left blank)

Page 416 of 720 ends

i
City of Pleasanton
Mayor and City Council
Karla Brown, Mayor
Julie Testa, Vice Mayor
Valerie Arkin, Councilmember
Jack Balch, Councilmember
Jeff Nibert, Councilmember
City Manager
Gerry Beaudin
City Engineer
Adam Nelkie

Page 417 of 720 ends

ii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Table of Contents
PAGE NO.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch.............................................................. 1 Engineer’s Report and Continuation of Assessments........................................................................ 2 Legal Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 3 Plans & Specifications ........................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 5 Moller Ranch Description of Improvements ....................................................................................... 6 Recommended Capital Improvements............................................................................................... 7 Estimate of Cost and Budget – Fiscal Year 2024-25........................................................................ 8 Notes to Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 9 Method of Assessment Apportionment ..........................................................................................10 Method of Apportionment .................................................................................................................10 Discussion of Benefits ......................................................................................................................10 General vs. Special Benefits ............................................................................................................12 Calculating General Benefit and Special Benefit Paid from Other Funds .......................................13 Zones of Benefit................................................................................................................................17 Method of Assessment.....................................................................................................................18 Residential Properties ......................................................................................................................19 Other Properties ...............................................................................................................................19 The Assessment Rate does not Increase Annually .........................................................................19 Appeal of Assessments Levied to Property .....................................................................................19 Assessment Funds Must be Expended Within the Maintenance District Area................................20 Assessment........................................................................................................................................21 Certificates Page................................................................................................................................23 Assessment Diagram ........................................................................................................................24 Assessment Roll FY 2024-25 – Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1 Moller Ranch.....25

Page 418 of 720 ends

iii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Estimate of Costs and Revenues..................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 – Summary Cost Estimate – Moller Ranch LMD No. 1995-1 ..........................................20 Figure 3 – Assessment Roll FY 2024-25 – Moller Ranch LMD No. 1995-1 ...................................24

Page 419 of 720 ends

1 Introduction
Overview
The City of Pleasanton (“City”) is located in Alameda County, and covers an area of

24.3 square miles, with over 24,500 assessor parcels, and approximately 80,000 residents. The City currently has five Landscape Maintenance Districts (“Districts”) that provide services to a combined total of 680 parcels:
• 1984-1 Ponderosa (Del Prado) – 344 parcels
• 1993-1 Windsor – 90 parcels
• 1993-2 Bonde Ranch – 103 parcels
• 1994-1 Oak Tree Farm – 42 parcels
• 1995-1 Moller Ranch – 101 parcels
The five District’s benefit assessments were established prior to the approval of Proposition 218 in 1996. The purpose of these Districts is to provide funding for the installation, maintenance and servicing of local landscaping and lighting improvements (“Improvements”) within each District’s service area.

Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Assessment Background
The Moller Ranch Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1 (“District 1995-1” or “Maintenance District”) was formed in 1995 as a Condition of Approval for the Moller Ranch development, to fund certain landscape improvements within the Moller Ranch subdivision.

The development included a planned unit development with 99 residential dwelling parcels: 62 townhomes, 23 single-family production lots, and 14 single-family custom lots on approximately 35 acres of a 198-acre site located generally to the west/northwest of the Foothill Road/Muirwood Drive intersection. As part of a subsequent ordinance, the approval of the townhomes was modified to approve singlefamily homes. The subdivision also contains a City owned parcel that has a water tank, and a small parking lot parcel owned by the Moller Ranch Owner’s Association and managed by the City. The total number of parcels served by District 1995-1 at present time is 101 parcels.

The Moller Ranch Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1 purpose is to fund the maintenance of the existing Moller Ranch subdivision designated landscaped areas, open space slopes, fuel transition zones (fire breaks), entry features, open space drainage ditches, irrigation systems, lighting, trees in the open space and designated landscaped areas, groundcover and irrigation systems.

Page 420 of 720 ends

2 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 District 1995-1 is funded by the benefit assessment approved in 1995 (“Assessment”), and it does not receive any direct revenues from property taxes or any other funding sources.

The fiscal year 2024-25 assessments for District 1995-1 will remain at the same assessment rate of $570.06 per parcel per year. With a total of 101 parcels in the district (including two public parcels), fiscal year 2024-25 total assessment will be $57,557.00.

Over the years, operational costs and utility costs have increased, however the assessment revenues have remained the same. The fiscal year 2024-25 total assessment revenue will not be sufficient to fund the maintenance of all common areas, including water costs, county assessment fees, city administration fees, replacement of plantings, irrigation systems, fencing, lighting, and other district improvements. The Engineer’s Report projects that the City will need to reduce landscape maintenance and water use so that landscape maintenance and necessary capital improvement costs remain below assessments.

An increase in the annual assessment will be necessary in order to meet the maintenance standards of the district into the future. The city can no longer subsidize staff administration time or the consultant fees for a Proposition 218-compliant vote. The consultant fees for the Proposition 218-compliant vote will cost approximately $40,000 and will from of the reserve fund. Water costs, which require a significant portion of the LMD budget, increased thirty percent starting in calendar year 2024, are scheduled to be increased another twelve percent in 2025, and are projected to continue to increase in future years to pay for necessary infrastructure and treatment costs. The rate increases will have a significant impact to the LMD budget and continued cuts in maintenance will be required to pay for the increased water and maintenance costs.

The landscape will continue to decline well below the necessary maintenance standards of the district established by Ordinance 1503. This can open the district up to fines or litigation. To limit liability for the district, it will be necessary for the city to continue to pursue a Proposition 218-compliant vote, incurring significant consultant costs each time, until a sustainable assessment has been agreed to by property owners.

If additional funding from a new or increased assessment is not implemented, the City will be forced to continue to reduce maintenance and postpone facilities upgrades, resulting in a continuing deterioration of the grounds and facilities.

Engineer’s Report and Continuation of Assessments
Each year for which the assessments will be continued, the City Council must direct the preparation of an Engineer's Report, budgets, and proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. After the Engineer's Report is completed, the City Council may preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report and proposed assessments and establish

Page 421 of 720 ends

3 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 the date for a public hearing on the continuation of the assessments. This Report was prepared pursuant to the direction of the City Council.

This Engineer’s Report ("Report") was prepared to establish the budget for the continued maintenance, improvements, and services (“Improvements”) that would be funded by the proposed fiscal year 2024-25 assessments, determine the benefits received by property from the Improvements, and the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels within the Maintenance District. This Report and the proposed assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code ("Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (“Article”).

If the City Council approves this Engineer's Report and the continuation of the assessments by resolution, a notice of public hearing must be published in a local paper at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and establishing the date for a public hearing is used for this notice.

Following the minimum 10-day period after publishing the notice, a public hearing is held for the purpose of allowing public testimony about the proposed continuation of the assessments. This hearing is currently scheduled for June 18, 2024. At this hearing, the City Council would consider approval of a resolution confirming the continuation of the assessments for fiscal year 2024-25. If so confirmed and approved, the assessments would be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2024-25.

Legal Requirements
Proposition 218
The City of Pleasanton’s five Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Districts were formed prior to the passage of Proposition 218, “The Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996, and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. (Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property). Although these assessments are consistent with Proposition 218, the California judiciary has generally referred to pre-Proposition 218 assessments as “grandfathered assessments” and held them to a lower standard than post Proposition 218 assessments.

The existing Assessment Districts will be re-assessed consistent with the procedures and requirements imposed by Proposition 218, which describes several important requirements, including property-owner balloting and approval for the imposition of new or increased assessments.

This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution because the Improvements to be funded are clearly defined,

Page 422 of 720 ends

4 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 the Improvements are directly available to and directly benefit property in the Maintenance District, and the Improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the Maintenance District that would not be received in absence of the assessments.

Page 423 of 720 ends

5 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Plans & Specifications
Introduction
The work and Improvements to be undertaken by the City of Pleasanton within the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch, and the costs thereof paid from the levy of the annual assessments, provide special benefit to Assessor Parcels within the Maintenance District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein.

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets & Highways Code § 22525 et seq.), (the “Act”), defines improvement, maintenance, servicing, and incidental expenses as follows:
“Improvement” means one or any combination of the following:

The installation or planting of landscaping.

The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities.
installation or construction of public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to, traffic signals.
installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.

The installation of park or recreational improvements, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks, and drainage.

Lights, playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms.

The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing, and of any improvement authorized by subdivision (i).

The acquisition of land for park, recreational, or open-space purposes.

The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.

The acquisition or construction of any community center, municipal auditorium or hall, or similar public facility for the indoor presentation of performances, shows, stage productions, fairs, conventions, exhibitions, pageants, meetings, parties, or other group events, activities, or functions, whether those events, activities, or functions are public or private. “Maintain” or “maintenance” means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including:

Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury.

Page 424 of 720 ends

6 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste.

The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.
“Service” or “servicing” means the furnishing of:

Electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.

Water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
“Incidental expenses” include all of the following:

The costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment.

The costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices.

Compensation payable to the county for collection of assessments.

Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part.

Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements.

Any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5.

Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.

The City of Pleasanton’s work and Improvements (“Improvements”) for the property within the Maintenance District that is owned or maintained by the City of Pleasanton, are consistent with these definitions. Plans and specifications for these Improvements are filed with the City of Pleasanton Landscape Architect and are incorporated herein by reference.

Moller Ranch Description of Improvements
The improvements which are the subject of this Report are briefly described as follows:

The maintenance and repair of designated landscaped areas, open space slopes, fuel transition zones (fire breaks), entry features, open space drainage ditches, irrigation systems, lighting, trees in the open space and designated landscaped areas, and the furnishing of water and power for irrigation systems, together with all appurtenant and incidental expenses within Tract 6618, City of Pleasanton.

Page 425 of 720 ends

7 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Landscape plans and specifications for the improvements to this Landscape Maintenance District are those prepared by Greiner, Inc., dated December 1994. These plans and specifications have been filed separately with the Clerk of the Legislative body and are incorporated in this report by reference.

Recommended Capital Improvements
Some of the Improvements such as complete irrigation, plant replacement, lighting repair and fencing replacement in the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch, are overdue however the reserve fund balance is insufficient to do these tasks.

Portions of the irrigation system have been turned off due to numerous breaks and the irrigation system needs to be replaced. The sections turned off are to existing established plants that can tolerate minimal water, but a lack of water can have long term impacts to the health of the plants.

The City drafted a schedule of recommended capital improvement projects that need to be addressed, such as the replacement of the irrigation system and entry lighting improvements, and their respective estimated cost, as well as a planned replacement/renovation schedule. To fund the necessary capital improvements and maintain the District to a similar level to when the District was created staff estimates that the annual assessments would need to be increased from $570.06 to $700 - 800 depending on maintenance level. The City intends to begin efforts with the HOA and consultant to develop the level of maintenance and recommended capital improvements in 2025-26 to create a comprehensive maintenance and improvement plan and associated costs in preparation for a 2025-26 Proposition 218-compliant vote.

Page 426 of 720 ends

8 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Estimate of Cost and Budget – Fiscal Year 2024-25
The following budget shows the estimate of cost of the Improvements to be funded by the Maintenance District in Fiscal Year 2024-25.

Figure 1 – Estimate of Costs and Revenues
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch 2024-25 Estimate of Costs
Budget
Installation, Maintenance, and Servicing Costs
Landscaping (maintenance)
Basic landscape maintenance $24,360.00
Extra worki $25,000.00
Street and Decorative Lights
Operation and repair/replacement of lights and
maintenance of electrolier and conduit
$0.00
Water – All planting $17,000.00
Power – Irrigation controllers and entry lights $2,500.00 Fuel Transition Zones (Firebreaks) $6,400.00
Total for Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $75,260.00 Incidental and Administration Costsii
City of Pleasanton Assessment Administration $2,800.00
County Fees for Collection of Assessment
Proposition 218-compliant voting process
$943.47
$40,000.00
Total Incidental and Administrative Costs $48,743.47
Amount to/(from) Reserve Fundiii
Reserve/Long-term Replacement Fund for scheduled long-term replacement of various district improvements ($61,446.47) Total Costs $57,557.00
Budget Allocation to Property
Single Family
Number of Equivalent Assessment Total
Parcels/Units Units (SFE)iv Rate Assessmentv
101 101 $570.06 $57,557.00
Explanation of Annual Assessment Rate per Unit:
99 units @ $570.06 assessment per year (= $560.53 + $9.53 County Collection Fee)

Page 427 of 720 ends

9 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 2 units @ $560.53 assessment per year (City parcel, savings of $9.53*2 County Collection Fee) Notes to Estimate
i. Contingency to address maintenance that is not routine in nature, such as repair or replacement of broken irrigation valves and lines or pruning/removing failed trees or tree limbs. ii. Incidental and administration cost estimates include City staff hours dedicated to the administration of the assessment (including staff time to bid work, monitor contracts and contractors, respond to residents’ inquiries, etc.), county charges for inclusion of assessments on property tax bills, consultant fees for the Proposition 218-compliant vote, and other incidental costs. iii. At the time of this report a fund balance of approximately $273,000 remains for Landscape Maintenance District 1995-1. The projected 2024-25 expenses, if necessary capital improvements were made, are higher than the projected annual revenues. Therefore, the City will need to continue to hold on making those improvements until the reserve fund balance is sufficient. Reserve/replacement funds are held in an interestbearing account until needed for repairs to the irrigation system, landscaping or other District features. iv. The rate shown here is for a single-family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term Single Family Equivalent (SFE) and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment” and the sections following it in this report.
v. The Act requires that proceeds from the assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the Maintenance District. Moreover, funds raised by the assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carried over to the next Fiscal Year. The District may also establish a reserve fund for contingencies and special projects as well as a capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would either be placed in the reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' assessments. The Landscape Maintenance District 1995-1, Moller Ranch reserve/replacement funds are held in an interest-bearing account until needed for repairs to the masonry walls, entry signage, irrigation systems, lighting, landscaping or other District features.

Page 428 of 720 ends

10 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Method of Assessment Apportionment
Method of Apportionment
This section of the Engineer's Report includes an explanation of the benefits to be derived from the installation, maintenance and servicing of Improvements and landscaping for the Maintenance District and the methodology used to apportion the total assessment to the properties within the Maintenance District.

The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the relative special benefits to be derived by the properties in the Maintenance District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The assessment is apportioned to lots and parcels in proportion to the relative cost of the special benefits from the Improvements. Special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the Maintenance District using the following process:
i. Identification of all benefit factors derived from the Improvements. ii. Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general. iii. Determination of the relative special benefit per property type. iv. Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based upon special vs. general benefit, location, property type, property characteristics, improvements on property and other supporting attributes.

The parcels within the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch, consist of all Assessor Parcels within the boundaries as defined by the Assessment Diagram included within this Report and the Assessor Parcel Numbers listed within the included Assessment Roll. The method used for apportioning the assessments is based upon the proportional special benefits to be derived by the properties in the Maintenance District, over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The apportionment of special benefit is a two-step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the Improvements, and the second step is to allocate the assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.

Discussion of Benefits
The assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property. This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the Improvements."

Page 429 of 720 ends

11 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:
"No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." In this case, the 2008 Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. vs Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA”) decision provides enhanced clarity to the definition of special benefits to properties from similar public improvements in three distinct areas:
i. Proximity
ii. Expanded or improved access
iii. Views
The SVTA decision also clarifies that a special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel, and that indirect or derivative advantages resulting from the overall public benefits from a service or improvement are general benefits.

Proximity, improved access and views, in addition to the other special benefits listed herein further strengthen the basis of these assessments.

The following benefit categories summarize the types of special benefit to residential and other lots and parcels resulting from installation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, irrigation, sidewalks, signs, lights, and other improvements to be provided with the assessment proceeds. These categories of special benefits are derived from the statutes passed by the California Legislature and studies which describe the types of special benefit received by property from maintenance and improvements such as those provided by the City of Pleasanton, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch. These types of special benefit are summarized as follows:
i. Improved access to landscaped areas and other permanent public improvements ii. Proximity to improved landscaped areas and other permanent public improvement.
iii. Improved views.
iv. Extension of a property’s outdoor areas and landscaped areas for properties within close proximity to the Improvements.
v. Creation of individual lots for residential use that, in absence of the assessments, would not have been.

The above benefit factors, when applied to property in the Maintenance District, specifically increase the utility and usefulness of the property within the Maintenance District. For example, the assessments will provide funding to improve and maintain the public landscaping next to the parcels within the Maintenance District. Such improved and well-maintained landscaping enhances the overall quality, desirability, utility and safety of the properties.

Page 430 of 720 ends

12 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 General vs. Special Benefits
Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a benefit assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying for general benefits. Property may be assessed to fund improvements to the extent of the special benefits conferred by the Improvements; but general benefits are not assessable. Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefit is given in this section.

Article XIIID never defines the term “general benefit.” The definition of special benefit in Section 2(i) includes the statement that general enhancement of property value does not constitute special benefit. General benefit may be described as “an indirect, derivative advantage” resulting from the improvements. One infers from Article XIIID that all benefit is either general or special.

In other words:

Total
Benefit = General Benefit
+ Special
Benefit
There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for quantifying the amount of any general benefit that is identified.

In this Report, the general benefit is first identified, generously estimated, and then budgeted so that it is funded, as required by Proposition 218, by sources other than the Assessment.

A formula to estimate the general benefit is listed below:

General
Benefit =
Benefit to Real
Property Outside the
Assessment District
+
Benefit to Real Property Inside
the Assessment District that is
Indirect and Derivative
+
Benefit to
the Public
at Large
Special benefit, on the other hand, is defined in the California constitution as “a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large”. A special benefit is conferred to a property if the property “receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to setback landscaping).” In the Maintenance District, as noted, properties have close and unique proximity, views of and access to the Improvements, and uniquely improved utility and desirability from the Improvements, and other properties and the public at large do not receive such benefits because they do not have proximity, access to or views of the Improvements. Therefore, the overwhelming proportion of the benefits conferred to property is special, and only minimal general benefit is conferred on property outside the Maintenance District or to the public at large.

Page 431 of 720 ends

13 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 This Engineer’s Report includes a specific, quantified calculation of general benefits, as described below, that is based in part on the use by people outside of the Maintenance District. Moreover, the proportionality of the Assessments to the special benefits conferred on each parcel, based in large part on proximity, is established as well.

Calculating General Benefit and Special Benefit Paid from Other Funds In this section, the total general benefit, which must be paid from other non-assessment funds, is conservatively estimated, quantified, described, and separated, and then budgeted to absolutely ensure that it is funded by sources other than this assessment.

Benefit to Property Outside the Maintenance District = 5.4% In summary, real property located within the boundaries of the Maintenance District distinctly and directly benefit from closer proximity, access and views of the Improvements funded by the Assessments, the creation of developable parcels, and from the extension of usable land area provided by the assessments. The Improvements are specifically designed to serve local properties in the Maintenance District, not other properties nor the public at large.

The Maintenance District has been narrowly drawn to include those parcels that receive a direct advantage from the Improvements. The public at large and other properties outside the Maintenance District receive only limited benefits from the Improvements because they do not have proximity, good access or views of the Improvements. These are special benefits to property in the Maintenance District in much the same way that sewer and water facilities, sidewalks and paved streets enhance the utility and desirability of specific proximate properties and make them more functional to use, safer and easier to access.

Properties within the proposed Maintenance District receive almost all the special benefits from the Improvements because properties in the Maintenance District enjoy unique and close proximity and access to the Improvements that are enjoyed less by other properties or the public at large. The landscaping Improvements are specifically designed to benefit the properties in the Maintenance District.

Furthermore, there are multiple, proximate open space, landscaped areas, and other improvements outside of the Maintenance District, funded by other sources, that provide most of the open space and landscaping benefits to nearby parcels that are outside of the Maintenance District.

In other words, the landscaping Improvements maintained by the proposed Assessments specially benefit the properties within the Maintenance District, but other nearby improvements primarily benefit other proximate properties.

Nonetheless, there are certain properties that are outside the boundaries of the Maintenance District that may benefit from the landscape improvements. A total of no more than 8 proximate parcels have been identified that receive some

Page 432 of 720 ends

14 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 special benefit from the improvements including improved views, proximity and/or access, but do not receive extension of outdoor areas nor the special benefit of parcel creation. Since these adjacent properties only receive a 3 of the 5 major special benefits, a 60% factor is applied.

Total General Benefit to Properties Outside of the District = 5.4% Assumptions
10 parcels outside and adjacent to the District
101 parcels in the Maintenance District
Calculation
General Benefit to Property outside the Improvement District = (10 / (10 + 101)) * 60% = 5.4%
Although it can reasonably be argued that Improvements inside, but near the Maintenance District boundaries are offset by similar landscape improvements provided outside, we use the more generous approach of finding that 5.4% of the Improvements may be of benefit to property outside of the Maintenance District.

Benefit to Property Inside the District that is Indirect and Derivative = 0.0% The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property within the Maintenance District is particularly difficult to calculate. A solid argument can be presented that all benefit within the Maintenance District is special because the Improvements are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when compared with the unique proximity, access and views of the Improvements enjoyed by benefiting properties in the Maintenance District.

Nevertheless, the SVTA decision indicates that there may be general benefit “conferred on real property located in the district.” A measure of the general benefits to property within the Maintenance District is the percentage of land area within the Maintenance District that is publicly owned, open to the public, and used for regional purposes such as major roads, rail lines, hospitals, and other regional facilities because such properties, while physically within the Maintenance District, are used for regional purposes and could provide indirect benefits to the public at large. In this case, essentially 0% of the land area is used for such regional purposes.

Benefit to the Public at Large = 10%
The general benefit to the public at large can be estimated by the proportionate amount of time that the Maintenance District’s public landscaped areas and facilities are used and enjoyed by individuals who are not residents, employees, customers, or property owners in the Assessment Area. Based on surveys and research in which visitors to similar landscape, open space and parks, at various times of the day, evening, and week, were asked to look at a District map and to

Page 433 of 720 ends

15 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 identify whether they lived or worked within the City, less than 5% of the use of similar landscape, open space, parks or recreation areas is by the public at large.

When people outside the Maintenance District use landscape, open space, parks, or recreation areas, they diminish the availability of such facilities for people within the Maintenance District. Therefore, another 5% of general benefits are allocated for people within the Maintenance District. Combining these two elements of general benefit, we find that 10% of the benefits from the Improvements are general benefits to the public at large.

Total General Benefits to be Financially Contributed from Other Funds =

15.4%
Using a sum of these three measures of general benefit, we find that approximately 10.0% of the benefits conferred by the Improvements may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the Assessments.

General Benefit Calculation

5.4% (Outside the Maintenance District)
+ 0.0% (Inside the Maintenance District – indirect and derivative) + 10.0% (Public at Large)
= 15.4% (Total General Benefit)
Source of Financial Contributions from Other Funds to Satisfy the 15.4% Requirement
The general benefit contribution is paid in part from other “in-kind”, non-monetary contributions from the City in the form of infrastructure critical to the continued maintenance of the Maintenance District Improvements, as described below.

Also, general benefit contributions come from the “annuity” value of the improvements that were constructed by the developer.

The City of Pleasanton owns, maintains, rehabilitates, and replaces the curb and gutter along the border of the Maintenance District. This curb and gutter serve to support, contain, retain, manage irrigation flow and growth, and provide a boundary for the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Pleasanton toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the curb and gutter is conservatively estimated to be 10%, based upon the relative cost to construct and maintain this critical local infrastructure. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct and maintain the local curb and gutter, the budget would increase by at least 10%.

The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the Maintenance District. This system serves to prevent flooding and associated damage to the Improvements and manage urban runoff including local pollutants loading from the Improvements. The contribution from the City of

Page 434 of 720 ends

16 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Pleasanton toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated to be 10%, based upon the relative cost to construct and maintain this critical local infrastructure. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct and maintain the local storm drainage system, the budget would increase by at least 10%.

The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains local public streets throughout the Maintenance District. These public streets provide access to the Improvements for its enjoyment as well as efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City of Pleasanton toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the local public streets is conservatively estimated to be 10%, based upon the relative cost to construct and maintain this critical local infrastructure. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct and maintain the local public streets, the budget would increase by at least 10%.

The value of the initial Improvements constructed by the Developer can be quantified and monetized as an annuity to be amortized. Since the initial Improvements were performed and paid for by non-assessment funds, this “annuity” can be used to offset general benefit costs and is conservatively estimated to contribute 20%. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct all the Improvements, the annual budget would increase by at least 20%.

In other words, there is a 15.4% contribution needed to offset the general benefits conferred by the Improvements, and there is a 50% contribution from City of Pleasanton supporting local infrastructure, along with the amortized value of initial construction. This 50% contribution more than satisfies the general benefit requirements.

The estimates used above for the City of Pleasanton’s “in-kind”, non-monetary contributions for the maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of the curbs and gutters, storm drainage systems, local streets (the “supportive infrastructure”), and the value of the initial Improvements constructed by the Developer, are based on industry standards; typical and standard quantity ratios between this supportive infrastructure (including the City’s relative associated maintenance costs) and similar Improvements; and on the assessment Engineer’s professional experience on planning and working in such projects.

Page 435 of 720 ends

17 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Source of Contributions from Other Funds to Satisfy 15.4% Requirement City non-monetary contributions:

10.0% (Curb and gutter)
+ 10.0% (Storm drainage system)
+ 10.0% (Public roads)
+ 20.0% (Amoritized value of initial construction)
= 50.0% (Total General Benefit paid from Other Funds)
Zones of Benefit
The boundaries of the Assessment Area are carefully drawn to only include the properties that are proximate to the Improvements and that would materially benefit from the Improvements.

In SVTA, the court noted that even a local agency-wide assessment district is appropriate under the right conditions:
“Thus, if an assessment district is narrowly drawn, the fact that a benefit is conferred throughout the district does not make it general rather than special. In that circumstance, the characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to a park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g., general enhancement of the district's property values).”
The court therefore acknowledged the appropriateness of a District-wide assessment so long as each parcel receives a direct advantage from the assessment-funded improvement or service. As demonstrated in this Report, each parcel in the Maintenance District receives a direct advantage and special benefit from the Improvements.

In the Maintenance District, the advantage that each parcel receives from the Improvements is direct, and the boundaries are narrowly drawn to include only parcels that benefit from the Assessment. Therefore, the even spread of assessment throughout the narrowly drawn district is indeed consistent with the SVTA decision. The benefits from the Improvements within the Maintenance District do not vary further based on proximity of the parcels to the Improvements because the increased benefits of greater proximity to the Improvements are generally offset by a parallel increase in negative factors such as higher levels of traffic, noise, etc. that comes with increased proximity.

Page 436 of 720 ends

18 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Consequently, since all parcels in the Maintenance District have good access and proximity to the Improvements and the benefits to relatively closer proximity are offset by other factors, additional proximity is not considered to be a factor in determining benefit within the Maintenance District. Therefore, zones of benefit are not justified or needed within the Maintenance District.

Method of Assessment
As previously discussed, the Assessments provide comprehensive Improvements that clearly confers direct and special benefits to properties in the Maintenance District.

The allocation of special benefits to property is primarily based on the type of property and the size of property. These benefits can also partially be measured by the occupants on property in the Maintenance District because such parcel population density is a measure of the relative benefit a parcel receives from the Improvements. It should be noted that many other types of “traditional” assessments also use parcel population densities to apportion the assessments. For example, the assessments for sewer systems, roads and water systems are typically allocated based on the population density of the parcels assessed. Therefore, the apportionment of benefit is reasonably based on the type of parcel, the size of parcels and the population density of parcels.

A critical step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a single-family home, or, in other words, on the basis of Single-Family Equivalent (SFE) units. This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments.

For the purposes of this Engineer’s Report, all properties are designated an SFE value, which is each property’s relative benefit in relation to a single-family home on one parcel. In this case, the "benchmark" property is the single family detached dwelling which is one Single Family Equivalent unit or one SFE.

Finally, the special benefits to be derived from the Assessments will be conferred on property and are not based on a specific property owner’s use of the Improvements, a specific property owner’s occupancy of property, or the property owner’s demographic status such as age or number of dependents. The benefits derived to property are related to the average number of people who could potentially live on, work at, or otherwise could occupy a property, not how the property is currently used by the present owner. Therefore, the number of people who could, or potentially, live on, work at, or otherwise occupy a property is one indicator of the relative level of benefit received by a property.

In conclusion, the Assessment Engineer determined that the appropriate method of assessment apportionment should be based on the type of property, the relative size of the property, property location, its relative population, and its proximity to the landscaping and open space facilities. This method is further described below.

Page 437 of 720 ends

19 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Residential Properties
The Moller Ranch development is a residential single-family development project consisting of a total of 101 parcels, 99 single-family home parcels, and 2 public owned parcels used as a water tank and a parking area respectively. As such, each residential property receives similar benefit from the proposed Improvements.

Therefore, the Engineer has determined that the appropriate method of apportionment of the benefits derived by all parcels is on a dwelling unit or single-family residence basis. All improved properties, or properties proposed for development, are assigned one Single Family Equivalent unit or 1 SFE factor equal to the number of dwelling units developed or planned for the property.

Other Properties
Article XIIID stipulates that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the Assessment.

All properties that are specially benefited are assessed. Other publicly owned property that is used for purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional uses is benefited and assessed at the same rate as such privately owned property.

Miscellaneous, small, and other parcels such as roads, right-of-way parcels, and common areas typically do not generate significant numbers of employees, residents, customers, or guests, who would have access to or use the Improvements. These miscellaneous parcels therefore receive no benefit from the Improvements and are assessed an SFE benefit factor of 0 SFEs.

The Assessment Rate does not Increase Annually
It should also be noted that the Maintenance District assessment rates cannot be increased annually, and the total revenues remain the same year after year, assessing $570.06 per SFE or parcel, which is the maximum authorized assessment. To increase the annual assessment rate or to add an annual Consumer Price Index escalator to the assessment rate, approval of the property owners is required via a Proposition 218 assessment ballot proceeding.

Appeal of Assessments Levied to Property
Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on their property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment may file a written appeal with the City of Pleasanton City Engineer or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current Fiscal Year and applicable law. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City of Pleasanton City Engineer or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City of Pleasanton City Engineer or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate

Page 438 of 720 ends

20 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 changes shall be made to the Assessment Roll. If any such changes are approved after the Assessment Roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Engineer or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction.

Assessment Funds Must be Expended Within the Maintenance District Area The net available Assessment funds, after incidental, administrative, financing, and other costs, shall be expended exclusively for Improvements within the boundaries of the Maintenance District and appropriate incidental and administrative costs as defined in the Plans and Specifications section.

Page 439 of 720 ends

21 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Assessment
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton City Council directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Maintenance District, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Maintenance District; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act, Article XIIID of the California Constitution, and the order of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, hereby makes the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Maintenance District.

The amount to be paid for said Improvements and the expense incidental thereto, to be paid by the Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 is generally as follows:

Figure 2 – Summary Cost Estimate – Moller Ranch LMD No. 1995-1 Budget Item Budgeted
Cost
Installation, Maintenance, and Servicing Costs $75,260.00 Incidental and Administration Costs $43,743.47
Amount to/(from) Reserve Fund ($61,446.47)
Total Budget $57,557.00
As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the Maintenance District is hereto attached and incorporated herein by reference. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Maintenance District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within the Maintenance District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the Improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Estimate of Cost and Method of Assessment in the Report.

Page 440 of 720 ends

22 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 The Assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the Maintenance District in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the Improvements.

The Maintenance District’s assessment rate for fiscal year 2024-25 remains unchanged at the same assessment rate used last year of $570.06 per single-family equivalent (SFE) benefit unit.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as will be shown on the Assessor's Maps of Alameda County for the Fiscal Year 2024-25. For a more particular description of the property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County.

I hereby will place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 for each parcel or lot of land within the Maintenance District.

City Engineer/Engineer of Work
By:

Adam M. Nelkie, License No. C78830

Page 441 of 720 ends

23 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Certificates Page
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1995-1, MOLLER RANCH CITY OF

Adam M. Nelkie, City Engineer, License No. C78830
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on the _________day of______________, 2024.

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:

Page 442 of 720 ends

24 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Assessment Diagram
The Maintenance District includes all properties within the Moller Ranch subdivision, as displayed on the following Assessment Diagram. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Maintenance District are those lines and dimensions as shown on the maps of the Assessor of Alameda County for Fiscal Year 2024-25, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Diagram and this Report.

Page 443 of 720 ends

25 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 Assessment Roll FY 2024-25 - Moller Ranch LMD No. 1995-1

COLLECTION

ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S ASSESSMENT CHARGE
DIAGRAM NO. PARCEL NUMBER AMOUNT 0.017 TOTAL
1 941-1803-01 $560.53 $9.53 $570.06
2 941-1803-02 560.53 9.53 570.06
3 941-1803-03 560.53 9.53 570.06
4 941-1803-04 560.53 9.53 570.06
5 941-1803-05 560.53 9.53 570.06
6 941-1803-06 560.53 9.53 570.06
7 941-1803-07 560.53 9.53 570.06
8 941-1803-08 560.53 9.53 570.06
9 941-1803-09 560.53 9.53 570.06
10 941-1803-10 560.53 9.53 570.06
11 941-1803-11 560.53 9.53 570.06
12 941-1803-12 560.53 9.53 570.06
13 941-1803-13 560.53 9.53 570.06
14 941-1803-14 560.53 9.53 570.06
15 941-1803-15 560.53 9.53 570.06
16 941-1803-16 560.53 9.53 570.06
17 941-1803-17 560.53 9.53 570.06
18 941-1803-88 560.53 9.53 570.06
19 941-1803-87 560.53 9.53 570.06
20 941-1803-86 560.53 9.53 570.06
22 941-1803-85 560.53 9.53 570.06
22 941-1803-84 560.53 9.53 570.06
23 941-1803-83 560.53 9.53 570.06
24 941-1803-82 560.53 9.53 570.06
25 941-1803-81 560.53 9.53 570.06
26 941-1803-80 560.53 9.53 570.06
27 941-1803-79 560.53 9.53 570.06
28 941-1803-63 560.53 9.53 570.06
29 941-1803-64 560.53 9.53 570.06
30 941-1803-65 560.53 9.53 570.06
31 941-1803-66 560.53 9.53 570.06
32 941-1803-67 560.53 9.53 570.06
33 941-1803-68 560.53 9.53 570.06
34 941-1803-69 560.53 9.53 570.06
35 941-1803-70 560.53 9.53 570.06
36 941-1803-71 560.53 9.53 570.06
37 941-1803-72 560.53 9.53 570.06
38 941-1803-73 560.53 9.53 570.06
39 941-1803-74 560.53 9.53 570.06
40 941-1803-75 560.53 9.53 570.06
41 941-1803-76 560.53 9.53 570.06
42 941-1803-77 560.53 9.53 570.06
43 941-1803-78 560.53 9.53 570.06

Page 444 of 720 ends

26 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 44 941-1803-18 560.53 9.53 570.06
45 941-1803-19 560.53 9.53 570.06
46 941-1803-20 560.53 9.53 570.06
47 941-1803-21 560.53 9.53 570.06
48 941-1803-22 560.53 9.53 570.06
49 941-1803-23 560.53 9.53 570.06
50 941-1803-24 560.53 9.53 570.06
51 941-1803-25 560.53 9.53 570.06
52 941-1803-26 560.53 9.53 570.06
53 941-1803-27 560.53 9.53 570.06
54 941-1803-28 560.53 9.53 570.06
55 941-1803-29 560.53 9.53 570.06
56 941-1803-30 560.53 9.53 570.06
57 941-1803-43 560.53 9.53 570.06
58 941-1803-44 560.53 9.53 570.06
59 941-1803-45 560.53 9.53 570.06
60 941-1803-46 560.53 9.53 570.06
61 941-1803-47 560.53 9.53 570.06
62 941-1803-48 560.53 9.53 570.06
63 941-1803-49 560.53 9.53 570.06
64 941-1803-50 560.53 9.53 570.06
65 941-1803-51 560.53 9.53 570.06
66 941-1803-52 560.53 9.53 570.06
67 941-1803-53 560.53 9.53 570.06
68 941-1803-54 560.53 9.53 570.06
69 941-1803-55 560.53 9.53 570.06
70 941-1803-56 560.53 9.53 570.06
71 941-1803-57-1 560.53 9.53 570.06
72 941-1803-58 560.53 9.53 570.06
73 941-1803-59 560.53 9.53 570.06
74 941-1803-60 560.53 9.53 570.06
75 941-1803-41 560.53 9.53 570.06
76 941-1803-40 560.53 9.53 570.06
77 941-1803-39 560.53 9.53 570.06
78 941-1803-38 560.53 9.53 570.06
79 941-1803-37 560.53 9.53 570.06
80 941-1803-36 560.53 9.53 570.06
81 941-1803-35 560.53 9.53 570.06
82 941-1803-34 560.53 9.53 570.06
83 941-1803-33 560.53 9.53 570.06
84 941-1803-32 560.53 9.53 570.06
85 941-1803-31 560.53 9.53 570.06
86 941-1802-02 560.53 9.53 570.06
87 941-1802-04 560.53 9.53 570.06
88 941-1802-05 560.53 9.53 570.06
89 941-1802-06 560.53 9.53 570.06
90 941-1802-07 560.53 9.53 570.06
91 941-1802-08 560.53 9.53 570.06
92 941-1802-09 560.53 9.53 570.06
93 941-1802-10 560.53 9.53 570.06

Page 445 of 720 ends

27 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25 94 941-1802-11 560.53 9.53 570.06
95 941-1802-12 560.53 9.53 570.06
96 941-1802-13 560.53 9.53 570.06
97 941-1802-14 560.53 9.53 570.06
98 941-1802-15 560.53 9.53 570.06
99 941-1802-16 560.53 9.53 570.06
Lot H -
(City) 941-1803-62 560.53 n/a 560.53
Lot I -
(City) 941-1801-02 560.53 n/a 560.53
101
TOTAL
ASSESSMENTS: $56,613.53 $943.47 $57,557.00

Page 446 of 720 ends

28 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1995-1, Moller Ranch Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2024-25

Page 447 of 720 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

Item #16

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
May 21, 2024
Community Development
TITLE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF APPLICATION P23-0599

FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF 146 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH 38 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 5976 & 5994 WEST LAS

POSITAS BOULEVARD

SUMMARY
The project consists of demolishing two existing commercial buildings at 5976 & 5994 West Los Positas Boulevard to construct 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units, and with associated site improvements. The Hacienda PUD designates the subject site as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. The Planning Commission denied the project at its April 10, 2024, public hearing, based on the Hacienda PUD's designation of the subject site as Garden Office (OGPD). The Planning Commission's denial was appealed by the applicant on April 23, 2024, and is now presented to the City Council for its review.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission denial of applications for Design Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, filed as P23-0599.

BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2023, the applicant submitted an application for preliminary review pursuant to SB 330 (Attachment 2, Exhibit B). On July 24, 2023, the applicant submitted applications for Design Review and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Attachment 2, Exhibit C). On August 23, 2023, staff notified the applicant that the applications were incomplete (Attachment 2, Exhibit D). Staff also sent the applicant a courtesy letter on August 25, 2023, pointing out that the Hacienda PUD (Ordinance No. 2186) designates the subject site as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities (Attachment 2, Exhibit D). The courtesy letter also pointed out that it would be necessary for the applicant to submit an application for a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Modification to allow residential development as proposed.

The applicant resubmitted the applications on November 17, 2023, with additional materials, but without any application for the Major PUD Modification (Attachment 2, Exhibit E). On December 15, 2023, staff notified the applicant that the applications were complete. Staff also sent the applicant a second courtesy letter on December 18, 2023, notifying the applicant that, although the applications were deemed complete, a Major PUD Modification was still required for the project (Attachment 2, Exhibit F).

Page 448 of 720 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

On January 12, 2024, staff provided notification to the applicant that, pursuant to SB 330, their applications did not conform with City standards because the proposed project is inconsistent with the zoning of the parcel. (Attachment 2, Exhibit G). Also, on January 12, 2024, staff sent the applicant a third courtesy letter, again urging the applicant to submit an application for a Major PUD Modification (Attachment 2, Exhibit G). The courtesy letter also outlined a viable path forward to obtain such a Major PUD Modification, including providing the applicant with sample standards that could be adopted via the Major PUD Modification process and applied to the project.

Planning Commission Action and Appeal
The Planning Commission denied the project at its April 10, 2024, public hearing, on the basis that the Hacienda PUD designates the subject site as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. The applicant filed an appeal to the Planning Commission action in a letter dated April 23, 2024 (Attachment 3).

DISCUSSION
Site Area and Description
The approximately 7.29-acre project site is currently occupied by general office uses, including medical offices. Surrounding existing land uses include commercial uses (primarily general offices) that also include medical offices to the west, north, and east. A grocery store is located diagonally across Hopyard Road northwest, and the Arroyo Mocho trail is located at the project’s southern border.

Project Description
The project proposes demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements.

Figure 1: Site Plan (West Portion)

Page 449 of 720 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

Figure 2: Site Plan (East Portion)
Design Review Application
Under the City’s Design Review provisions (Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter

Zoning is a fundamental aspect of the public health, safety and general welfare of the city.

The subject property is located within the Hacienda business park (“Hacienda”) zoned PUDI/C-O (Planned Unit Development) – Industrial/Commercial and Office District and with the General Plan Designation of Mixed Use/Business Park. Development within Hacienda, which includes the subject property, is regulated by the Hacienda Design Guidelines, Hacienda’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, the Development Plan, and Pleasanton municipal codes and ordinances. The Hacienda PUD development plan includes a Land Use Plan (also shown in the Design Guidelines) that illustrates the variety and locations of land uses intended to occupy Hacienda, referred to as “planning districts.” The planning districts include Retail/Commercial Centers, Garden Office, Midrise Office, General Office, Research and Development, Light Manufacturing, High Density Residential, Mixed Office/Industrial, Mixed Commercial/Office/Industrial and Mixed Use.

Page 450 of 720 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

The General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development (see General Plan Page 2-23). Specifically, the General Plan states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.” In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject parcel/site (l\Lot 20) as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities.

Therefore, because the application for Design Review for residential development is not consistent with this General Plan policy and the zoning for the property, staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the application.

As mentioned above, the General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development (see General Plan Page 2-23). Specifically, the General Plan states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.” In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject parcel/site (Lot 20) as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. Therefore, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map application is not consistent with this General Plan policy.

Because the Vesting Tentative Tract Map application is not consistent with the General Plan policy, as referenced above, and the zoning for the property, staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the application.

Interpretation of SB 330

Page 451 of 720 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

The applicant’s legal counsel has sent the City a number of letters, taking the position that, based on a provision of SB 330 (Government Code, §65589.5(j)(4)), the project does not require a rezoning (Attachment 2, Exhibit H).

Section 65589.5(j)(4) states in relevant part that “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan” (Emphasis added). The applicant’s legal counsel appears to take the position that, because the project is consistent with the Mixed Use General Plan land use designation, the zoning exemption applies.

As staff notified the applicant in its December 18, 2023, courtesy letter, staff disagrees with this interpretation because the relevant question is whether the existing zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan – not whether the project is consistent with the General Plan.1 Here, the existing zoning for the subject parcel is clearly consistent with the General Plan.2

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects that the City rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines § 15270.)

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is recommended to uphold the denial of proposed applications.

OUTREACH
Notice of the application was sent to the surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site and published in the newspaper. The noticing map is included in Attachment 2, Exhibit I. At the time this report was published, staff has not received any public comments.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The recommended action supports the vision of the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan by reinforcing creating an excellent quality of life by directly supporting implementation of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to achieve and maintain a complete well-rounded community of desirable neighborhoods.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no financial impacts associated with the recommended action. 1 Snowball West Investments, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 96 Cal. App. 5th 1054. 2 The General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development (see General Plan Page 2-23). Specifically, the General Plan states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.” In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject parcel/site (l\Lot 20) as Garden Office (OGPD), which is consistent with the General Plan’s Mixed Use designation.

Page 452 of 720 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Diego Mora, Associate
Planner
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. April 10, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting with Exhibits Excerpt

3. Applicant Appeal Letter Dated April 23, 2024

Page 453 of 720 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY THE

APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR

A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF 146 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH 38 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 5976 & 5994 WEST LAS POSITAS BOULEVARD, AS FILED UNDER CASE NO. P23-0599
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2023, Kelley Rutchena, TTLC Pleasanton - Las Positas, LLC, applied for preliminary review pursuant to Senate Bill 330 for a housing development that includes the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements located at 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2023, Kelley Rutchena, TTLC Pleasanton - Las Positas, LLC, applied for Design Review and a Vesting Tentative Map for a housing development that includes the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements located at 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard; and WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development – Industrial/Commercial and Office) and the General Plan designation is Mixed Use/Business Park; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development per General Plan Page 2-25 stating: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.”; and
WHEREAS, the property is located within the Hacienda Business Park (“Hacienda”) zoned PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development – Industrial/Commercial and Office); and
WHEREAS, the property is lot 20 within Hacienda’s Land Use Plan, which is subject to the Garden Office District (“OGPD”); and
WHEREAS, Hacienda’s Land Use Plan permitted and conditionally permitted uses for a property in the Garden Office District are those specified in the O (“Office”) District, as set forth in Section 18.44.080 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC); and WHEREAS, Hacienda’s Land Use Plan for lot 20 does not permit residential development except for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities; and

Page 454 of 720 ends

WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, with a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission denied the applications for Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map (Case No. P23-0599); and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2024, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to the Pleasanton City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, the Pleasanton City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on this application and considered all public testimony, agenda reports, and related materials, and the recommendation of City staff; and WHEREAS, denial of a project is not an action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:

Section 1: The City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s decision denying the applications for Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map (Case No.

P23-0599) because the Hacienda PUD designates the subject site as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities.

Section 2: City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on May 21, 2024.

I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on May 21, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Page 455 of 720 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda Report
April 10, 2024
Item 5
SUBJECT: P23-0599
APPLICANT: Kelley Rutchena, TTLC Pleasanton - Las Positas, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: Tony Bullock, BMP LPOP LLC
PURPOSE: Application for Design Review and a Vesting Tentative Map for a housing development that includes the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements located at 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard.

LOCATION: 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard
GENERAL PLAN: Mixed Use/Business Park
ZONING: PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development – Industrial/Commercial and Office) District

HACIENDA PLANNING
ZONING: OGPD (Garden Office District)
EXHIBITS: A. Draft Resolution
B. SB 330 Application received on 1/26/23
C. Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map Application & Project Plans received on 7/24/23
D. City letters to applicant sent on 8/23/23 and 8/25/23 E. Applicant’s resubmittal received on 11/17/23
F. City letters to applicant sent on 12/15/23 and 12/18/23 G. City letters to applicant sent on 1/12/24
H. Letters from Applicant’s legal counsel Janurary 25, 2023, July 24, 2023, November 17, 2023, Janurary 31, 2024
I. Location and Notification Map

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying the applications for Design Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, filed as P23-0599.

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 456 of 720 ends

P23-0599, 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Blvd. Planning Commission 2 of 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project consists of an application for Design Review and a Vesting Tentative Map for a housing development that includes the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units, and with associated site improvements located at 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard. The Hacienda PUD designates the subject site as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the applications.

BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2023, the applicant submitted an application for preliminary review pursuant to SB 3301. (Exhibit B) On July 24, 2023, the applicant submitted applications for Design Review and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. (Exhibit C) On August 23, 2023, staff notified the applicant that the applications were incomplete. (Exhibit D) Staff also sent the applicant a courtesy letter on August 25, 2023, pointing out that the Hacienda PUD (Ordinance No. 2186) designates the subject site as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. (Exhibit D) The courtesy letter also pointed out that it would be necessary for the applicant to submit an application for a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Modification to allow residential development as proposed.

The applicant resubmitted the applications on November 17, 2023, with additional materials, but without any application for the Major PUD Modification. (Exhibit E) On December 15, 2023, staff notified the applicant that the applications were complete. Staff also sent the applicant a second courtesy letter on December 18, 2023, notifying the applicant that, although the applications were deemed complete, a Major PUD Modification was still required for the project. (Exhibit F)
On January 12, 2024, staff provided notification to the applicant that, pursuant to SB 330, their applications did not conform with City standards because the proposed project is inconsistent with the zoning of the parcel. (Exhibit G) Also, on January 12, 2024, staff sent the applicant a third courtesy letter, again urging the applicant to submit an application for a Major PUD Modification. (Exhibit G) The courtesy letter also outlined a viable path forward for obtaining such a Major PUD Modification, including providing the applicant with sample standards that could be adopted via the Major PUD Modification process and applied to the project.

SITE AREA AND DESCRIPTION
The approximately 7.29-acre project site is currently occupied by general office uses, including medical offices. Surrounding existing land uses include commercial uses (primarily general offices) that also include medical offices to the west, north, and east. A grocery store is located diagonally across Hopyard Road northwest, and the Arroyo Mocho trail is located at the project’s southern border. 1 SB 330 is also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code, §65589.5) SB 330 also amended other California laws, including the Housing Accountability Act and the Permit Streamlining Act.

Page 457 of 720 ends

P23-0599, 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Blvd. Planning Commission 3 of 8
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph
Figure 2: Street View From West Las Positas Blvd

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements.

Page 458 of 720 ends

P23-0599, 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Blvd. Planning Commission 4 of 8
Figure 3: Site Plan (West Portion)
Figure 4: Site Plan (East Portion)

Page 459 of 720 ends

P23-0599, 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Blvd. Planning Commission 5 of 8
Figure 5: Flat Style Front and Rear Elevations
Figure 6: Townhouse Style Front and Rear Elevations

Page 460 of 720 ends

P23-0599, 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Blvd. Planning Commission 6 of 8
Figure 7: Vesting Tentative Map

ANALYSIS
Design Review Application
Under the City’s Design Review provisions (Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter

18.20), the Planning Commission has the power and duty to make sure that projects conform to the goals and policies of the general plan, and relevant specific plan, and/or the purposes and objectives of the zoning district. (PMC § 18.20.020.) The Planning Commission must review applications to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the City's aesthetic values and the preservation of public health, safety and general welfare. (PMC § 18.20.030.) Zoning is a fundamental aspect of the public health, safety and general welfare of the City.2 The subject property is located within the Hacienda Business Park (“Hacienda”) zoned PUDI/C-O (Planned Unit Development) – Industrial/Commercial and Office District and with the General Plan Designation of Mixed Use/Business Park. Development within Hacienda, which includes the subject property, is regulated by the Hacienda Design Guidelines, Hacienda’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, the Development Plan, and Pleasanton municipal codes and ordinances. The Hacienda PUD development plan includes a Land Use Plan (also shown in the Design Guidelines) that illustrates the variety and locations of land uses intended to occupy Hacienda, referred to as “planning districts.” The planning districts include Retail/Commercial Centers, Garden Office, Midrise Office, General Office, Research and Development, Light Manufacturing, High Density Residential, Mixed Office/Industrial, Mixed Commercial/Office/Industrial and Mixed Use.

The subject property is Lot 20 within Hacienda’s Land Use Plan, which is subject to the Garden Office District (“OGPD”). Per the Land Use Plan, the permitted and conditionally permitted uses for a property in the Garden Office District are those specified in the O (“Office”) District, as set forth in Section 18.44.080 of the PMC. In PMC Table 18.44.080 Permitted and Conditional Uses, the only permitted and conditionally permitted residential uses are shown in Table 18.44.080 below: 2 See Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 477 Cal. 477, 495 (“Obviously, the purpose of comprehensive zoning is the attainment of unity in the construction and development of a city, along lines of reasonable regulations which tend to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community . . . .”)

Page 461 of 720 ends

P23-0599, 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Blvd. Planning Commission 7 of 8
The General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development (see General Plan starting at Page 2-24). Specifically, the General Plan states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.” In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject parcel/site (Lot 20) as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. (See General Plan Page 2-25.) Therefore, because the application for Design Review for residential development is not consistent with this General Plan policy and the zoning for the property, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application
The state’s Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410 et seq.) provides in relevant part that “[a] local agency shall disapprove a map for failure to meet or perform any of the requirements or conditions imposed by this division or local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto . . . .” (Government Code § 66473.) The Subdivision Map Act also provides in relevant part that “[a] legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans . . . .” (Government Code § 66474.)
As mentioned above, the General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development (see General Plan Page 2-23). Specifically, the General Plan states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.” In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject parcel/site (Lot 20) as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. Therefore, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map application is not consistent with this General Plan policy.

Additionally, the City’s Subdivision Ordinance provides in relevant part that “[n]o land shall be subdivided and developed for any purpose not contemplated or specifically authorized by the precise zoning ordinance of the city.” (PMC § 19.04.020.) Because the Vesting Tentative Tract Map application is not consistent with the General Plan policy, as referenced above, and the zoning for the property, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the application.

Page 462 of 720 ends

P23-0599, 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Blvd. Planning Commission 8 of 8
Interpretation of SB 330
The applicant’s legal counsel has sent the City a number of letters, taking the position that, based on a provision of SB 330 (Government Code, §65589.5(j)(4)), the project does not require a rezoning. (Exhibit H)
Section 65589.5(j)(4) states in relevant part that “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) The applicant’s legal counsel appears to take the position that, because the project is consistent with the Mixed Use General Plan land use designation, the zoning exemption applies.

As staff notified the applicant in its December 18, 2023 courtesy letter, staff disagrees with this interpretation because the relevant question is whether the existing zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan – not whether the project is consistent with the General Plan.3 Here, the existing zoning for the subject parcel is clearly consistent with the General Plan.4 Staff further disagrees with the assertion that the General Plan permits residential development of the type proposed, since the General Plan defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development; in this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates this particular property as OGPD, where the only residential use allowed is nursing homes and senior care/assisted living facilities.

PUBLIC NOTICE / PUBLIC COMMENT
Notice of the application was sent to the surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. At the time this report was published, staff had not received any public comments about the project. Any additional public comments received after publication of this report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CEQA does not apply to projects that the City rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines § 15270.)

CONCLUSION
The applications for Design Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map are inconsistent with relative General Plan provisions and the applicable PUD zoning for the site, as the applications propose general residential development where Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities are the only types of residential uses allowed.

Primary Author: Diego Mora, Associate Planner, 925-931-5618 or [email protected]. Reviewed/Approved By:

Dan Sodergren, City Attorney
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
3 Snowball West Investments, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 96 Cal. App. 5th 1054. 4 The General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development (see General Plan Page 2-23). Specifically, the General Plan states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.” In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject parcel/site (l\Lot 20) as Garden Office (OGPD), which is consistent with the General Plan’s Mixed Use designation.

Page 463 of 720 ends

RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON

DENYING APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR

A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF 146 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH 38 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 5976 & 5994 WEST LAS POSITAS BOULEVARD, AS FILED UNDER CASE NO. P23-0599
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2023, Kelley Rutchena, TTLC Pleasanton - Las Positas, LLC, applied for preliminary review pursuant to Senate Bill 330 for a housing development that includes the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multifamily residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements located at 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2023, Kelley Rutchena, TTLC Pleasanton - Las Positas, LLC, applied for Design Review and a Vesting Tentative Map for a housing development that includes the demolition of two existing commercial buildings and construction of 146 multifamily residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements located at 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, zoning for the property is PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development – Industrial/Commercial and Office) and the General Plan designation is Mixed Use/Business Park; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development per General Plan Page 2-25 stating: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.”; and
WHEREAS, the property is located within the Hacienda Business Park (“Hacienda”) zoned PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development – Industrial/Commercial and Office); and WHEREAS, the property is lot 20 within Hacienda’s Land Use Plan, which is subject to the Garden Office District (“OGPD”); and
WHEREAS, Hacienda’s Land Use Plan permitted and conditionally permitted uses for a property in the Garden Office District are those specified in the O (“Office”) District, as set forth in Section 18.44.080 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC); and WHEREAS, Hacienda’s Land Use Plan for lot 20 does not permit residential development except for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered relevant exhibits, recommendations of the City staff concerning this appeal, and received testimony from the applicant and interested parties; and

Page 464 of 720 ends

P23-0599 Planning Commission

Page 2 of 2 ends

WHEREAS, denial of a project is not an action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton, based on the entire record of proceedings, including the oral and written staff reports and all public comment and testimony:

Section 1:

The Planning Commission hereby denies Case No. P23-0599 to demolish two existing commercial buildings and construct 146 multi-family residential units with 38 accessory dwelling units with associated site improvements located at 5976 & 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard, on the basis that the proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan policy per General Plan page 2-23 and because the zoning for the property does not permit residential development except for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities.

Section 2:

This resolution shall become effective 15 days after its passage and adoption unless appealed prior to that time.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on April 10, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes: Commissioners
Noes: Commissioners

Absent: Commissioners
Abstain: Commissioners
ATTEST: _____________________________ ______________________________ Melinda Denis Matthew Gaidos Secretary, Planning Commission Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________
Julie Harryman
Assistant City Attorney

Page 465 of 720 ends

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 1 of 8 HOUSING CRISIS ACT of 2019 – SB 330

PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FORM

PURPOSE
This form serves as the preliminary application for
housing development projects seeking vesting rights
pursuant to SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

GENERAL INFORMATION
An applicant for a housing development project that
includes (1) residential units (2) a mix of commercial
and residential uses with two-thirds of the project’s
square footage used for residential purposes; or (3)
transitional or supportive housing, shall be deemed to
have submitted a preliminary application upon
provision of all of the information listed in this
Preliminary Application form and payment of the
permit processing fee to the agency from which
approval for the project is being sought.

After submitting this Preliminary Application to the
local agency, an applicant has 180 days to submit a
full application or the Preliminary Application will
expire.

Submittal Date Stamp*
1,2:
*1Submittal of all the information listed and
payment of the permit processing fee freezes
fees and development standards as of this date,
unless exceptions per Government Code §
65889.5(o) are triggered. *2Note: Record keeping pertaining to which standards and fees apply at date of submittal is
imperative, as penalties may apply for
imposing incorrect standards
Notes:

1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Coastal Act standards apply.

2. After submittal of all of the information required, if the development proponent revises the project to change the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, excluding any increase resulting from Density Bonus Law, the development proponent must resubmit the required information so that it reflects the revisions.

Page 466 of 720 ends

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 2 of 8

SITE INFORMATION

1. PROJECT LOCATION - The specific location, including parcel numbers, a legal description, and site address, if applicable.

Street Address ___________________________________Unit/Space Number Legal Description (Lot, Block, Tract) Attached? YES NO
Assessor Parcel Number(s) _____________________________________________________

2. EXISTING USES - The existing uses on the project site and identification of major physical alterations to the property on which the project is to be located.

3. SITE PLAN - A site plan showing the building(s) location on the property and approximate square footage of each building that is to be occupied.

Attached? YES NO

4. ELEVATIONS - Elevations showing design, color, material, and the massing and height of each building that is to be occupied.

Attached? YES NO

5. PROPOSED USES - The proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance.

Page 467 of 720 ends

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 3 of 8 a. RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT COUNT:

Please indicate the number of dwelling units proposed, including a breakdown of levels by affordability, set by each income category.

Number of Units
Market Rate
Managers Unit(s) – Market Rate
Extremely Low Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Total No. of Units
Total No. of Affordable Units
Total No. of Density Bonus Units
Other notes on units:

6. FLOOR AREA - Provide the proposed floor area and square footage of residential and nonresidential development, by building (attach relevant information by building and totals here):

Residential Nonresidential Total
Floor Area (Zoning)
Square Footage of
Construction

7. PARKING - The proposed number of parking spaces:

8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES, WAIVERS, CONCESSIONS and PARKING REDUCTIONS - Will the project proponent seek Density Bonus incentives, waivers, concessions, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915? YES NO
If “YES,” please describe:

Page 468 of 720 ends

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 4 of 8

9. SUBDIVISION – Will the project proponent seek any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a vesting or tentative map, or a condominium map? YES NO
If “YES,” please describe:

10.POLLUTANTS – Are there any proposed point sources of air or water pollutants? YES NO
If “YES,” please describe:

11.EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS – Provide the number of existing residential units on the project site that will be demolished and whether each existing unit is occupied or unoccupied. Provide attachment, if needed.

Occupied
Residential
Units
Unoccupied
Residential
Units
Total
Residential
Units
Existing
To Be Demolished

12. ADDITIONAL SITE CONDITIONS –
a. Whether a portion of the property is located within any of the following:
i. A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, pursuant to Section 51178? YES NO
ii. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993)?
YES NO
iii. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5, or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code?
YES NO

Page 469 of 720 ends

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 5 of 8 iv. A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency?
YES NO
v. A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter

12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2? YES NO
vi. A stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code?
YES NO
If “YES” to any, please describe:
b. Does the project site contain historic and/or cultural resources? YES NO
If “YES,” please describe:
c. Does the project site contain any species of special concern? YES NO
If “YES,” please describe:

Page 470 of 720 ends

Page 471 of 720 ends

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 7 of 8 Property Owner of Record Same as applicant Different from applicant Name (if different from applicant)
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code Telephone ___________________________ Email
Optional: Agent/Representative Name Company/Firm
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code Telephone ___________________________ Email
Optional: Other (Specify Architect, Engineer, CEQA Consultant, etc.) Name
Company/Firm
Address _________________________________________Unit/Space Number City ___________________________ State _______ Zip Code Telephone ___________________________ Email
Primary Contact for Project: Owner Applicant Agent/Representative Other

Page 472 of 720 ends

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) Preliminary Application Form (Revised April 9, 2020) Page 8 of 8

PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT
Before the application can be accepted, the owner of each property involved must provide a signature to verify the Preliminary Application is being filed with their knowledge. Staff will confirm ownership based on the records of the City Engineer or County Assessor. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCs or trusts, the agent for service of process or an officer of the ownership entity so authorized may sign as stipulated below.

Ownership Disclosure. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, LLC or trust, a disclosure identifying the agent for service or process or an officer of the ownership entity must be submitted. The disclosure must list the names and addresses of the principal owners (25 percent interest or greater). The signatory must appear in this list of names. A letter of authorization, as described below, may be submitted provided the signatory of the letter is included in the Ownership Disclosure. Include a copy of the current partnership agreement, corporate articles, or trust document as applicable.

Letter of Authorization (LOA). A LOA from a property owner granting someone else permission to sign the Preliminary Application form may be provided if the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, LLC or trust, or in rare circumstances when an individual property owner is unable to sign the Preliminary Application form. To be considered for acceptance, the LOA must indicate the name of the person being authorized to file, their relationship to the owner or project, the site address, a general description of the type of application being filed and must also include the language in items 1-3 below. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCs or trusts, the LOA must be signed by the authorized signatory as shown on the Ownership Disclosure or in the case of private ownership by the property owner. Proof of Ownership for the signatory of the LOA must be submitted with said letter.

Grant Deed. Provide Copy of the Grant Deed if the ownership of the property does not match local records. The Deed must correspond exactly with the ownership listed on the application.

Multiple Owners. If the property is owned by more than one individual (e.g., John and Jane Doe, or Mary Smith and Mark Jones) signatures are required of all owners.

1. I hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the herein previously described property located in _______________________________ which is involved in this Preliminary Application, or have been empowered to sign as the owner on behalf of a partnership, corporation, LLC, or trust as evidenced by the documents attached hereto.

2. I hereby consent to the filing of this Preliminary Application on my property for processing by the Department of ____________________________ for the sole purpose of vesting the proposed housing project subject to the Planning and Zoning ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect on the date that this Preliminary Application is deemed complete.

3. Further, I understand that this Preliminary Application will be terminated and vesting will be forfeited if the housing development project is revised such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction increases or decreases by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, and/or an application requesting approval of an entitlement is not filed with ____________________ within 180 days of the date that the Preliminary Application is deemed complete.

4. By my signature below, I certify that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

Signature Signature
Printed Name Printed Name
Date Date

Page 473 of 720 ends

202 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Application No(s).: ______________________________________ Date Filed:

I. CHECK TYPE OF APPLICATION(S):

Administrative Design Review ($3 )
Appeal (of Case_______________) ($3 )
Beekeeping ($ 4)
Condominium Conversion ($3, )
Design Review
Minor up to $25,000 value ($3 )
Major over $25,000 value ($2, )
Environmental (CEQA) Fees
Staff review of Consultant Work
(25% of consultant costs)
EIR ($3, 39.25)
Env. Doc - CRP ($1, 0 .25)
Mit./Negative Declaration ($2, .00)
County Clerk Processing Fee ($50)
General Plan Amendment ($ , )
Growth Management ($1,0 )
Home Occupation/Cottage Foods
Non-exempt – no hearing ($13 )
Non-exempt – with hearing ($3 )
Lot-Line Adjustment ($5 )
Outdoor Dining/Display ($1 )
Over-height Fence Permit ($3 )
PC Determination ($ )
Preliminary Review
No Hearing ($0)
With Hearing ($1, )
PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Residential
1 unit ($ )
2-5 units ($ )
6-15 units ($ )
16+ units ($ )
Commercial
0-20,000 sq ft ($ )
20,001-60,000 sq ft ($ )
60,001-100,000 sq ft ($ )
100,001+ sq ft ($ )
PUD Modifications
Minorexisting residential ($13 )
Major ($2, )
Sign Design Review ($4 )
Specific Plan/Specific Plan Amend.
(25% of consultant costs – min. $2,592)
Small Wireless Facility
Public ROW ($3,779)
Private Property ($3,552)
Pole Lic. Agreement ($ )
Subdivision Map
Conditional ($ )
Minor Conditional ($6 )
Pets ($2 )
Temporary Conditional ($1 )
Administrative Temporary ($3 )
Williamson Act ($ )
Other_____________________
_
II. GENERAL DATA REQUIRED
A. Name of Applicant (Please Print):

B. Address or Location of Property:

C. Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):

D. Site Area (acres/sq. ft.):

E. Current Zoning: _____________________________ F. Proposed Zoning:

G. Existing Use of Property:

H. Description of Proposal:
(Continue on separate sheet if necessary)
(Refer to the appropriate “Informational Handouts” for required submittal information that must accompany this application.) (Continued on reverse)
(1/3/202 )
Community Development Department | Planning Division
200 Old Bernal Avenue | P.O. Box 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566 925-931-5600 | [email protected]
Reasonable Accommodation ($3 )
($ )
($ )
Tent
Minor S
Use Permits
($ )
Developed Res Lot ($6 )

Page 474 of 720 ends

Page 475 of 720 ends

Page 476 of 720 ends

Page 477 of 720 ends

Page 478 of 720 ends

Page 479 of 720 ends

Page 480 of 720 ends

Page 481 of 720 ends

Page 482 of 720 ends

Page 483 of 720 ends

Page 484 of 720 ends

Page 485 of 720 ends

Page 486 of 720 ends

Page 487 of 720 ends

Page 488 of 720 ends

Page 489 of 720 ends

Page 490 of 720 ends

Page 491 of 720 ends

Page 492 of 720 ends

Page 493 of 720 ends

Page 494 of 720 ends

Page 495 of 720 ends

Page 496 of 720 ends

Page 497 of 720 ends

Page 498 of 720 ends

Page 499 of 720 ends

Page 500 of 720 ends

Page 501 of 720 ends

Page 502 of 720 ends

Page 503 of 720 ends

Page 504 of 720 ends

Page 505 of 720 ends

Page 506 of 720 ends

Page 507 of 720 ends

Page 508 of 720 ends

Page 509 of 720 ends

Page 510 of 720 ends

Page 511 of 720 ends

Page 512 of 720 ends

Page 513 of 720 ends

Page 514 of 720 ends

Page 515 of 720 ends

Page 516 of 720 ends

Page 517 of 720 ends

Page 518 of 720 ends

Page 519 of 720 ends

Page 520 of 720 ends

Page 521 of 720 ends

Page 522 of 720 ends

Page 523 of 720 ends

Page 524 of 720 ends

Page 525 of 720 ends

Page 526 of 720 ends

Page 527 of 720 ends

Page 528 of 720 ends

Page 529 of 720 ends

Page 530 of 720 ends

Page 531 of 720 ends

Page 532 of 720 ends

Page 533 of 720 ends

Page 534 of 720 ends

Page 535 of 720 ends

Page 536 of 720 ends

Page 537 of 720 ends

Page 538 of 720 ends

Page 539 of 720 ends

Page 540 of 720 ends

Page 541 of 720 ends

Page 542 of 720 ends

Page 543 of 720 ends

Page 544 of 720 ends

Page 545 of 720 ends

Thank you for submitting to the City of Pleasanton (City) Design Review and Tentative Tract Map applications, which were received by the City on July 24, 2023, for a housing development project consisting of 146 residential units and 38 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) ( at the above-referenced site. This letter is intended to acknowledge the City's receipt of your applications under Government Code § 65941.1 and provide guidance for your submittal.

Upon review of the submitted material, staff has deemed your application incomplete. The following are missing submittal requirements:

Missing:
1) Application Fees: Please see invoice attached.
2) Green Building and Climate Measures: A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Compliance Checklist is required for all additions and new construction to indicate compliance with the (attached).
3) Noise Study: Provide a noise study showing compliance with General Plan and zoning Code standards, prepared by a qualified individual or firm as determined by the City. 4) Health Risk Assessment and Air Quality Analysis: Provide health risk assessment and air quality analysis consistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District screening thresholds and criteria. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planningandresearch/ceqa/tools/2020_02_20-screening-approach-flow-chart-pdf.pdf?la=en. 5) Water and Sewer Study: Projects proposing ten or more residential units, or 25,000 square feet or more of non-residential space, shall submit a water and sewer study to determine if sufficient capacity is available. Please contact Project Planner for guidance on how to proceed with study. 6) TITLE ENCUMBRANCES. Referring to the preliminary title report by First American Title, the following encumbrances shall be shown on the plans with appropriate descriptors (easement name, dimensions, and recording information):

Page 546 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0599

Page 2 ends

August 23, 2023

1310\01\3398025.1
a. Exception 4: City Council Resolution No. 85-464 recorded as 85-241017 on 10-01- -wide PSE along the Hopyard Road property frontage.

The vacated area is approximately half the width of the original PSE although the width varies along its length.
b. Exception 7: Private Grant Deed with Rider recorded as 85-196802 on 9-20-1985 that references in Article 4.3 a Development Agreement between the owner and City recorded on 1-06-1984 as Instrument 84-003542. More research will be needed to retrieve this agreement from the file and to ascertain whether it influences the proposed development.
c. Exception 8: Access Easement to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District recorded as 86-000583 on 1-02-1986. Although this easement is shown on Sheet C1, it nonetheless conflicts with proposed Buildings 1, 2, and 13. The District will need to vacate this easement in order for these buildings to be constructed, and will likely request equivalent access through the developed property. I would suggest that the area between Buildings 14 and 15 could serve this purpose, although the applicant should discuss this issue directly with District personnel. The applicant shall provide evidence that ACFC&WCD will relinquish rights across conflicting portions of their access easement. In the absence of this evidence, the development cannot be constructed as proposed.
d. Exception 9: Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the Hacienda -08-2013.

Section 3.2.1 of the document requires preliminary development plans to be submitted to a committee of the association prior to submittal to the City. The applicant shall provide evidence of said submittal to the association committee. Section 11.4 of the document indicates that the association has the right to de-annex the property if the City approves a plan for residential development. The applicant shall provide evidence that the preliminary development plans have been submitted to a committee of the Hacienda 7) CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT: This application will be subject to a Construction General Permit according to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit. The general permit is applicable to development sites that disturb one or more acres of land surface. The applicant will be required to register the project with the State Water lti-Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website. A Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) must be responsible for permit compliance. The SMARTS system will generate a Waste Dischargers Identification (WDID) number, which must be printed on the grading and/or erosion control plans.
8) Tentative Subdivision Map. Section 19.20.080 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code lists required information for a tentative map submittal. The following adjustments are necessary on the tentative map:

Page 547 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0599

Page 3 ends

August 23, 2023

1310\01\3398025.1
a. Subsection A(19) requires a schematic diagram showing the proposed water system.

Sheet C6 shows a proposed water system that relies on two domestic master water meters for the development. Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 14.04.050(C) states, Connections to the water system shall occur as follows: For separate houses unit icipal
Code. Sheet C6 shall be modified to show one water meter for each of the proposed 146 dwelling units. The accessory dwelling units can be connected to its associated primary dwelling unit.
b. Subsection A(15) requires the locations of easements to be shown. While Sheet C2 illustrates the various proposed easements, the Public Service Easements (PSEs) shall be expanded to include locations where water meters and sanitary sewer cleanouts will be installed such that the delineation between the public utilities and private service laterals is will defined.
9) Traffic Analysis: Projects proposing ten or more residential units shall submit a traffic impact analysis prepared by a certified traffic engineer that demonstrates compliance with General Plan
Project Planner for guidance on how to proceed with study.

CEQA: will be reviewed once a
completed application is received. Prior to initiating environmental review, you will be contacted with a scope of work and peer review agreement.

Once your application is ready to be submitted, please resubmit all project documents through the online Planning portal. We look forward to you addressing the areas of incompleteness described in this letter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (925) 931-5618 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Diego Mora
Assistant Planner
Attachments: Invoice, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Compliance Checklist, Design Review Handout.

Cc:

Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager

Page 548 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0599

Page 4 ends

August 23, 2023

1310\01\3398025.1
Steve Hernandez, Housing Division Program Manager
Julie Harryman, Assistant City Attorney

Page 549 of 720 ends

Thank you for submitting to the City of Pleasanton (City) Design Review and Tentative Tract Map applications, which were received by the City on July 24, 2023, for a housing development project consisting of 146 residential units and 38 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) (the “Project”) at the above-referenced site. As you know, the applications were deemed to be incomplete. This letter is a courtesy notification that this project will also be required to submit an application for a Major PUD Modification.

The subject property is located within the Hacienda Business Park (“Hacienda”) zoned PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development) – Industrial/Commercial and Office District and with the General Plan Designation of Mixed Use/Business Park. Development within the business park, which includes the subject property, is regulated by the Hacienda Design Guidelines, Hacienda’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, the Development Plan, and Pleasanton municipal codes and Ordinances. The PUD District development plan includes a Land Use Plan (also shown in the Design Guidelines) that illustrates the variety and locations of land uses intended to occupy Hacienda, referred to as “Planning Districts”. The planning districts include Retail/Commercial Centers, Garden Office, Midrise Office, General Office, Research and Development, Light Manufacturing, High Density Residential, Mixed Office/Industrial, Mixed Commercial/Office/Industrial and Mixed Use.

The subject property is lot 20 within Hacienda’s Land Use Plan, which is subject to the Garden Office District (“OGPD”). Per the Land Use Plan, the permitted and conditionally permitted uses for a property in the Garden Office District are those specified in the O (“Office”) District, as set forth in Section 18.44.080 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC).

The General Plan's Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planned Unit Development (see General Plan Page 2-23)1. In this instance, the Hacienda PUD designates the subject 1 Specifically, the General Plan states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan”

Page 550 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0599

Page 2 ends

August 25, 2023 parcel/site (lot 20) as Garden Office (OGPD), which does not permit residential development except Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. As such, it would be necessary to submit an application for a Major PUD Modification to allow a residential development as proposed. Please refer to information regarding the Planned Unit Development Modification application process.

Once your application is ready to be submitted, please resubmit all project documents through the online Planning portal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (925) 931-5618 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Diego Mora
Assistant Planner
Cc:

Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager

Page 551 of 720 ends

Page 552 of 720 ends

Page 553 of 720 ends

Page 554 of 720 ends

Page 555 of 720 ends

Page 556 of 720 ends

Page 557 of 720 ends

Page 558 of 720 ends

Page 559 of 720 ends

Page 560 of 720 ends

Page 561 of 720 ends

Page 562 of 720 ends

Page 563 of 720 ends

Page 564 of 720 ends

Page 565 of 720 ends

Page 566 of 720 ends

Page 567 of 720 ends

Page 568 of 720 ends

Page 569 of 720 ends

Page 570 of 720 ends

Page 571 of 720 ends

Page 572 of 720 ends

Page 573 of 720 ends

Page 574 of 720 ends

Page 575 of 720 ends

Page 576 of 720 ends

Page 577 of 720 ends

Page 578 of 720 ends

Page 579 of 720 ends

Page 580 of 720 ends

Page 581 of 720 ends

Page 582 of 720 ends

Page 583 of 720 ends

Page 584 of 720 ends

Page 585 of 720 ends

Page 586 of 720 ends

Page 587 of 720 ends

Page 588 of 720 ends

Page 589 of 720 ends

Page 590 of 720 ends

Page 591 of 720 ends

Page 592 of 720 ends

Page 593 of 720 ends

Page 594 of 720 ends

Page 595 of 720 ends

Page 596 of 720 ends

Page 597 of 720 ends

Page 598 of 720 ends

Page 599 of 720 ends

Page 600 of 720 ends

Page 601 of 720 ends

Page 602 of 720 ends

Page 603 of 720 ends

Page 604 of 720 ends

Page 605 of 720 ends

Page 606 of 720 ends

Page 607 of 720 ends

Page 608 of 720 ends

Page 609 of 720 ends

Page 610 of 720 ends

Page 611 of 720 ends

Page 612 of 720 ends

Page 613 of 720 ends

Page 614 of 720 ends

Page 615 of 720 ends

Page 616 of 720 ends

Page 617 of 720 ends

Page 618 of 720 ends

Page 619 of 720 ends

Page 620 of 720 ends

Page 621 of 720 ends

Page 622 of 720 ends

Thank you for your applications for the above-noted Design Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, originally submitted on July 24, 2023, for which you supplemented with additional materials on November 17, 2023. Staff has reviewed the submitted information, and the submittal is found to be complete.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (925) 931-5618 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner
Cc:

Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager
Steve Hernandez, Housing Division Program Manager
Dan Sodergren, City Attorney

Page 623 of 720 ends

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Planning Building & Safety Engineering Traffic Inspection 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 157 Main Street (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5680 Fax:931-5483 Fax:931-5478 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5484 1310\01\3398025.1
December 18, 2023
SENT VIA E-MAIL:
[email protected]
Kelley Rutchena
The True Life Companies
12647 Alcosta Blvd, Ste 470
San Ramon, CA 94583
Subject: P23-0599, SB 330 Application – Residential Project 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton
Dear Ms. Rutchena,
By separate letter, dated December 15, 2023, the City provided you with a completeness letter for the application you submitted on July 24 and resubmitted on November 17, 2023, with additional materials. This letter is a courtesy letter similar to the letter that we sent on August 25, 2023.

As laid out in greater detail in our prior letter, the General Plan’s Mixed Use designation references and defers to the applicable Planning Unit Development at pages 2-23 which states: “The location of specific land uses in areas designated Mixed Use is determined by the associated PUD zoning or specific plan.” Here, for parcel/site 20, which is within Hacienda’s Land Use Plan, the site is subject to the Garden Office District (OGPD) which does not permit residential development other than for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities.

Your legal counsel has taken the position that, based on Government Code section 65589.5(j)(4), your project does not require a rezoning. Section 65589.5(j)(4) states in relevant part that “a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan.” (Emphasis added.) Your legal counsel appears to take the position that, because the project is consistent with the Mixed Use General Plan land use designation, the zoning exemption applies.

However, we respectfully disagree with this interpretation because the relevant question is whether the existing zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan – not whether the project is consistent with the General Plan. (See Snowball West Investments, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles). Here, the existing zoning for the subject parcel is clearly consistent with the General Plan.

Again, we urge you to submit an application for a Major PUD Modification for your project. Staff has been working with Hacienda to adopt objective standards for Hacienda parcels that are consistent with and similar to the standards the City has already adopted for sites of comparable size, scale, and

Page 624 of 720 ends

density during the Housing Element process. Staff believes that such standards could be adopted via the PUD Major Modification process and applied to your residential project. Had this site been included in the Housing Element process, we believe these standards would have been applied to this site.

The City would be happy to meet with you to discuss this possibility.

Sincerely,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner
Cc:

Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager
Steve Hernandez, Housing Division Program Manager
Dan Sodergren, City Attorney
Bryan Wenter, Attorney for True Life Companies

Page 625 of 720 ends

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Planning Building & Safety Engineering Traffic Inspection 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 157 Main Street (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5680 Fax:931-5483 Fax:931-5478 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5484 1310\01\3398025.1
January 12, 2024
SENT VIA E-MAIL:
[email protected]
Kelley Rutchena
The True Life Companies
12647 Alcosta Blvd, Ste 470
San Ramon, CA 94583
Subject: P23-0599, SB 330 Application – Residential Project 5976 & 5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton
Dear Ms. Rutchena,
We are in receipt of the application that you submitted on July 24, 2023, and November 17, 2023, related to your proposed project at 5976-5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard in Pleasanton and staff has reviewed your letter for conformance with City requirements.

As explained in previous letters, (dated August 25, December 15, and December 18, 2023), your proposed project is inconsistent with the zoning of the parcel. The site is subject to the Garden Office District (OGPD) zoning designation, which does not permit residential development, other than for Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Facilities. Because your application proposes residential development that is not allowed under the OGPD zoning designation, your project is not in conformance with the zoning---and it is not feasible for the City to apply commercial standards to a residential project in order to give you detailed comments.

By separate letter, we set forth a path to advance a PUD Modification application to permit residential uses on the proposed project site.

Sincerely,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner
Cc:

Page 626 of 720 ends

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Planning Building & Safety Engineering Traffic Inspection 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 157 Main Street (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5680 Fax:931-5483 Fax:931-5478 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5484 1310\01\3398025.1
January 12, 2024
SENT VIA E-MAIL:
[email protected]
Kelley Rutchena
The True Life Companies
12647 Alcosta Boulevard, Suite 470
San Ramon, CA 94583
January 12, 2024
Subject: P23-0599, SB 330 Application – Residential Project 5976-5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton
Dear Ms. Rutchena:

Thank you for your application for the above-noted Housing Element Site Compliance Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map, submitted on July 24, 2023 and November 17, 2023 respectively. In a separate letter, also dated January 12, 2024, the City made the determination that your project is inconsistent with the applicable zoning, and therefore cannot be approved as proposed.

As indicated in our December 18, 2023 courtesy letter, we urge you to submit an application for a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Modification for your project. Staff has been working with Hacienda to adopt objective standards for Hacienda parcels that are consistent with and similar to the standards the City has already adopted for sites of comparable size, scale, and density during the Housing Element process. Staff believes that such standards could be adopted via the PUD Major Modification process and applied to your residential project. This site could have been a candidate site considered for inclusion in the 6th Cycle Housing Element; had it been, the City’s Objective Design Standards for Housing Sites, adopted on January 26, 2023 (Revised May 2, 2023), would have been applied.

Accordingly, as a courtesy, staff has completed an initial analysis of your project against the City’s Objective Design Standards for Housing Sites, available on the City’s website. The analysis is included as Attachment A to this letter, reflecting input from the City’s Planning, Traffic Engineering, Landscape, Engineering, and Environmental Services Divisions, as well as the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department. Note that in some instances, insufficient detail or specificity was provided in your plans to allow for full evaluation of the project’s compliance to a particular standard; the comments indicate where that is the case.

Page 627 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 2 ends

January 12, 2024
The City of Pleasanton encourages housing projects and looks forward to discussing with you an appropriate path to advance a PUD Modification application.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at (925) 931-5618 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Diego Mora
Associate Planner
Attachments:

A. Objective Design Standards Conformance Analysis

1. Engineering Division Memo pdf

2. Sight Distance Triangles pdf
Cc:

Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Julie Harryman, Assistant City Attorney
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager
Steve Hernandez, Housing Division Program Manager

Page 628 of 720 ends

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Planning Building & Safety Engineering Traffic Inspection 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 200 Old Bernal Ave. 157 Main Street (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5650 (925) 931-5680 Fax:931-5483 Fax:931-5478 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5479 Fax:931-5484 1310\01\3398025.1
Attachment A
Subject: P23-0599, SB 330 Application – Residential Project 5976-5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton
The following evaluation of consistency with the Objective Design Standards, and with other City and agency standards, has been provided as a courtesy. Comments are subject to revision if the project is substantially modified from the current application.

Department/Division Comments
Planning Division - Should you have any questions regarding Planning Division comments noted below, please contact Diego Mora, Associate Planner, ([email protected]) at 925-931- 5618.

1. CEQA: The project will be subject to CEQA. The scope of the CEQA review will be determined based on the nature of the application; but, given the project’s inconsistency with zoning, is likely to require, at a minimum, preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Compliance with Objective Design Standards (ODS)

2. C.1.h (p.15): Maximum height is not accurately shown per Pleasanton Municipal Code

18.84.149, which states that the height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the natural grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, of the ground covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure including parapet or to the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height between eaves and ridges for a hip, gable, or gambrel roof. Please clarify how the maximum height is in conformance with 36-feet.

3. C.1.j (p.15): To verify dimensions, please label location with dimensions in garage floor plans.

4. 3.a (p.15): Illustrate and provide calculation of how the project meets the Open Space requirements and label dimension to verify compliance with A8.2.

5. A1.1 (p.21): Clarify how the labeled streets are designed similar to “Public Streets” in the Site Circulation and Building Orientation Diagrams. As illustrated, proposed internal streets do not conform with regards to sidewalk dimensions, landscaping/street-trees, and pedestrian-scale lighting.

6. A1.2 (P.21):

7. A1.3 (p.21): A minimum four-foot-wide planting strip is not provided along surface parking areas and drive aisles - incorporate planting strip accordingly.

Page 629 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 2 ends

January 12, 2024

8. A1.4 (p.21): Requires sidewalks built to be a minimum width of five feet and comply with Section A3, A4, and A6 (sidewalks within paseos require 6-foot min wide). Please revise plans to provide a minimum five-foot-wide sidewalk accordingly.

9. A1.5 (p.21): Provide private residents access to the public trails: Arroyo Mocho at Hopyard and along Tassajara Canal.

10. A1.6 (p.21): Demonstrate how and where pedestrian or bicycle connections are provided to adjacent neighborhoods.

11. A1.7 (p.21): Provide calculation and illustrate conformance to ODS standard or demonstrate infeasibility.

12. A2.3.b (p.24): Provide calculation and illustrate conformance to ODS standard.

13. A2.6 (p.24): Exterior storage/utility space is shown at the end of units which face Public Streets and active open spaces – revise into conformance.

14. A2.7 (p25): For staff to verify conformance with standards, please provide calculations per Figure 5.

15. A3.1.b. (p.27): Internal streets do meet standards per Figure 7. Street A (next to bld. 5) shall provide a 10-foot setback from property line – label setback and revise accordingly.

16. A3.4/ A4.5 (p.28): Provide measurements for staff to verify conformance.

17. A3.6/A4.3 (p.28): Requires parallel parking at a minimum of percent of each internal street length. Provide spaces and calculation.

18. A3.7/A4.6 (p.28): Provide length of poles to verify conformance to 16’ to 18’ tall standard.

19. A3.10/A.4.10 (p.28): Pedestrian-scaled lighting is not provided along all public streets per section A10 standards.

20. A4.8 (p.30): Provide calculation demonstrating conformance to 20% of the total number of internal street segments terminate in a dead end or turn around. Plans show two dead ends (adjacent to buildings 13 & 5).

21. A4.9 (p.30): Individual unit garages are prohibited from fronting internal streets.

22. A6.1.a (p.32): Provide calculation and illustrate conformance to ODS standard.

23. A6.5 (p.32): Provide measurements for staff to verify conformance.

24. A6.6 (p.32): Provide specification sheet of proposed pedestrian lighting.

25. A6.7 (p.33): Provide calculation and illustrate conformance to ODS standard.

26. A6.8 (p.33): Please add planned names for paseos.

27. A6.9 (p.33): Provide calculation that demonstrates conformance.

28. A7.1 (p.34): Parking is proposed at the front of buildings 6,7, and 8 – please revise into conformance.

29. A7.2 (p.34): Surface parking is required to be screened from the back of the sidewalk by a buffer per the ODS.

30. A7.3 (p.34): Provide calculation demonstrating conformance. The current layout would appear to be more than 25 percent of garage openings and surface parking fronting internal streets.

31. A7.6 (p.35): Provide parking management plan.

Page 630 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 3 ends

January 12, 2024

32. A7.9 (p.35): Label and illustrate of bike parking in parking garages or show location of secured bike parking per ODS (117 Class 1 weather-protected and secured bike parking spaces required).

Include total number of garage bike storage spaces proposed for the project on sheet A01.

33. A7.10 (p.36): Bicycle racks shall be proportionally dispersed – please include rack at Plaza A.

34. A8.2.e (p.37): Provide calculation and reference sheet that demonstrates conformance.

35. A8.4 (p.37): Provide porch dimensions for all floor plans to verify conformance.

36. A9.2 (p.39): Provide a Bay Friendly Scorecard.

37. A9.5 (p.39): Provide calculation and reference sheet that demonstrates conformance.

38. A10.1.a (p.40): Demonstrate/provide maximum backlight Uplight Glare rating of B3 U0 G1.

39. A10.1.c (pg. 40): Provide footcandles across property lines to verify conformance.

40. A10.2 (p.40): Provide manufacture data to comply with California Energy Commission (reference appendix JA-8) or provide minimum color rendering index of 90, color temperature, R9 value of 50 or higher and L70 life expectancy (shall exceed 25,000 hours).

41. A10.4 (p.40): Provide height of pedestrian-scale lighting proposed.

42. A10.5 (p.40): Surface parking areas shown footcandles below required minimum 0.2 footcandles.

43. A11.3 (p.42): Illustrate and label location of all mechanical equipment, including screening details.

44. A11.4 (p.42): Clarify if utility providers will require direct access.

45. A11.c (p.43): Illustrate and label all utilities and mechanical equipment for staff to verify with ODS.

46. B1.1 (p.44): ODS requires a setback at the uppermost story of 6-feetin depth minimum along buildings fronting public streets (e.g. Hopyard & W. Las Positas) and publicly-accessible open spaces (buildings adjacent to proposed plazas). Provide calculation demonstrating setback extending 80% of the building façade length (exclusive of Massing Break width).

47. B1.2 (p.44): Provide building length on site plans for staff to verify conformance.

48. B3.1 (p.48): Provide specific measurements for all types of windows on sheet A47 that demonstrates conformance with ODS.

49. B3.2 (p.48): Provide each building perimeter length for staff to verify conformance.

50. B3.3 (p.48): Provide sun shading on windows for 50% of south facing elevations (buildings 13 – 16) per ODS.

51. B4.2 (p.49): Provide calculation demonstrating conformance for each building.

52. B4.3 (p.49): Verify that no rooftop equipment is proposed. If rooftop equipment is proposed, illustrate on roof plans and demonstrate conformance to ODS standard.

53. B5.1 (p.50) Sheets A11, A14, A15, and A17 illustrate change of material not at inside corners primarily at the side elevations (rear elevation on sheet A15) – please revise to be in conformance.

54. B5.2 (p.50): Include as a note in sheet elevation sheets and specify proposed material of trims and architectural moldings on architectural elevations.

Page 631 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 4 ends

January 12, 2024 55. B5.a (p.50): Proposed elevations do not provided facades that achieve a three-part horizontal division as noted per ODS. Revise or clarify how proposed facades conform to ODS.

56. B8 (p.55): Verify no signage is proposed with project.

General Comments on plan sheets:

57. Sheet A01: Provide Floor Area Ratio (include calculation) per Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) 18.08.195. Note: Stairs are counted at each floor.

58. Include garage interior dimension measurement in all floor plans.

59. Sheet A01: Revise Gross Density to 20.02 DUA.

60. Include porch dimensions on all floor plans and square footage.

61. Label the use of the outdoor storage areas and if associated with a particular unit – see sheets A12, A15, A26, A29, A33, A40, and A44.

62. Clarify in all elevations for each type of building the color scheme proposed from those listed in sheet A48.

63. Label the material and color for the proposed garages, tower, and outdoor storage for all building types.

64. Per Sheet A03, buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5 consist of the tower feature at the corner of structure.

Per Sheet A01 building 1 is 8 units, building 2 is 22 units, building 4 is 10 units, and building 5 is 8 units. The roof plans for these buildings do not include the tower feature – revise roof plans to match the unity type building accordingly. If needed, provide floor and roof plans per building rather than building unit type.

65. Sheet A47: Provide color of parapet cap.

66. Sheet A47: Provide window recessed measurement.

67. Sheet 48: Provide towner details.

68. Sheet C4: Provide building separation between building 3 and 4.

69. Sheet ALR: Provide specification sheets for proposed lighting and include lighting type in sheet L-2.2.

70. Sheet L2-2: Label color of pergola.

71. Sheet L-2.2: Label maximum height of pergola.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IZO) Conformance/Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA)

72. Per PMC Section 17.44.040(A) for all new multiple-family residential projects of 15 units or more, at least 15 percent of the project’s dwelling units shall be affordable to very low, and/or low income households with such units provided on-site. For all new single-family residential projects of 15 units or more, at least 20 percent of the project’s dwelling units shall be affordable to very low, low, and/or moderate income households provided on site. Such units shall also meet the affordability requirements set forth in the ODS, in terms of affordability levels and bedroom mix, as applicable.

Please provide a detailed affordable housing proposal. Pursuant to the IZO, an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) must be entered into by the City and the project owner. The

Page 632 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 5 ends

January 12, 2024 agreement shall record the method and terms by which a project owner shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. The approval and/or recordation of this agreement shall take place prior to final map approval or, where a map is not being processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for such lots or units. Per PMC Section 17.44.090 the Affordable Housing Agreement will be reviewed by both the Housing Commission and City Council.

Additionally, please indicate which units are proposed to be affordable units on the site plan, how many bedrooms are in each of those units, which units are proposed for very-low income households and which units are proposed for low-income households, as well as the amount of any expected monthly or annual association fees that will be assessed for each such unit.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Compliance Checklist (revise checklist accordingly):

73. LEED Neighborhood: Per the Pleasanton Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0) Strategy TLU-3 Action P.11 “Promote LEED Neighborhood Development”, the project shall incorporate elements of LEED ND. Complete LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development Plan Project Checklist to illustrate which elements the project is incorporating.

74. Solar: Per the Pleasanton Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0) Strategy BE-3 Action P.4 “Require solar power and storage on new construction, if feasible”, the project shall incorporate solar. Illustrate location of solar.

75. Energy Storage System: Per CAP 2.0 Strategy BE-3Action P4 the project must provide a form of energy storage system. Please incorporate into plan and label accordingly.

76. EV Charging: Per CAP 2.0 15-percent of dwelling units shall provide one Level 2 EVCS space and 85-percent of dwelling units shall provide one Level 2 EV ready space. Please incorporate into plan and label accordingly

77. Bicycle Amenities: Per Cap 2.0 Strategy TLU-2 Action P8, the project shall provide, for multifamily, one short term bicycle parking space for every 3 units (minimum of two spaces); and one long-term space (e.g., lockers, shared/locked cages, etc.) for every 3 units. Please incorporate into plan and label accordingly
Traffic Engineering Division - Should you have any questions regarding Traffic Engineering Department comments noted below, please contact Matt Nelson, Associate Traffic Engineer, ([email protected]) at 925-931-5671.

78. ODS A1.4, requires internal sidewalks to be a minimum of 5' wide and sidewalks within paseos to be a minimum of 6' wide. Sidewalks shown on VTM sheet C10 and Civil sheet C2 show 4' sidewalks, which does not meet ODS standards.

79. ODS A1.5 requires developments adjacent to public trails to provide access for residents. The plans do not show this ODS standard.

80. The traffic analysis provided by the consultant does not appropriately analyze VMT. To be consistent with the HE the VMT used shall be the Alameda County average per resident which is 17.6. The threshold for the project is then 85 percent of that, or 15.0.

Page 633 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 6 ends

January 12, 2024 81. ODS A3.6, requires parallel parking on a minimum of 50% of internal streets. The plans do not meet this standard.

82. ODS A4.9 states individual unit garages are prohibited from fronting internal streets. Streets A & D on the plans show several garages fronting it.

83. ODS A6.2 states paseos shall have a pathway at least 6' wide. The paseos are shown to be 5' wide, which does not meet the ODS standards.

84. The applicant or responsible party shall pay any traffic impact fees for the development as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. This fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.

85. The plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan check shall include improvement plans for this development that contain signage and striping details. Said improvement plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to building permit issuance.

86. The applicant shall show sight distance triangles at the project driveway and internal roadway intersections (see attached pdf).

87. The proposed sidewalks along WLP shall be moved up to the corners of Street B/WLP and Street C/WLP to improve pedestrian line of sight for vehicles.

88. Improvements along WLP shall conform to the WLP Bike and Ped Corridor Improvement plan.

89. Applicant shall work with Landscape Architect regarding the adjacent Arroyo Mocho Trail to meet the Trails Master Plan.

90. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements/repairs of the existing sidewalks along Hopyard Rd and WLP.

Landscape Division - Should you have any questions regarding Landscape Architecture Department comments noted below, please contact Mr. Matt Gruber, Landscape Architect ([email protected]) at 925-931-5672.

91. Provide trail connections to the Arroyo Mocho trail at Hopyard, a new trail connection along the Tassajara Canal at West las Positas, from the development to the trail, and provide Zone 7 maintenance access to the trail/maintenance road.

Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department - Should you have any questions regarding Fire Department comments noted below, please Ryan Rucker, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall ([email protected]) at 925- 454-2330.

92. Note: The Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building/civil drawings for conceptual on-site fire mains and fire hydrant locations only. Plan check comments and approval DO NOT include: 1.) Installation of the on-site fire mains and fire hydrants. Specific installation drawings submitted by the licensed underground fire protection contractor shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval; and 2.) Backflow prevention or connections to the public water mains.

Page 634 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 7 ends

January 12, 2024 Engineering Division - Should you have any questions regarding Engineering Division comments noted below, please contact Michael Stella, P.E./QSD, Senior Civil Engineer, ([email protected]) at 925-931-5656.

93. See attached memo dated December 29, 2023.

Environmental Services Division - Should you have any questions regarding Environmental Services division comments noted below, please contact Rita Di Candia, Environmental Services Manager ([email protected]) at 925-931-5513.

Note to applicant:

94. RECYCLED WATER USE REQUIREMENT: This site is currently connected to the city’s recycled water distribution system for irrigation purposes. The irrigation system must be designed in accordance with the City’s Recycled Water Use Guidelines and Recycled Water Irrigation Standards, per PMC Section 14.06. Specifically, sections 3.3-3.6 of the Guidelines reference construction on recycled water sites. The site currently has a single recycled water irrigation meter supplying water to the irrigation system for the entire site - 5976 & 5994 W.

Las Positas Blvd.

95. RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION PROCESS: Once the City approves the design application, and the applicant obtains the required permits and begins construction. The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that the City conduct on-site inspections during the construction phase to ensure that the materials, installation, and procedures are in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and all applicable regulations. City staff, agents of the City, as well as those of the city or county with jurisdiction, shall have unrestricted access at reasonable hours to conduct site inspections during all phases of construction to all constructed facilities. Purple recycled water materials must be used at all times and open trench inspections must be completed of all new piping installations prior to being buried. Cross Connection Testing may also be required after the completion of construction.

96. Project will be required to install full trash capture systems in storm water drain inlets in compliance with the City's Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R2- 2022-0018, Provision C.10). Selected Full Trash Capture Device(s) (FTCD) must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board, and following installation receive regular maintenance/cleaning with record keeping.

97. Advanced notification of underground plumbing modifications at this parcel to the Recycled Water Program (925-931-5515) is required with a minimum of 48-hours advanced notice.

Information of the nature of the work is required to identify if open trench inspection is

Page 635 of 720 ends

Kelley Rutchena, True Life Companies, P23-0559

Page 8 ends

January 12, 2024
necessary to ensure separation of the potable and recycled water supplies. A cross connection test will be required following irrigation/plumbing modifications.

Attachments:

1. Engineering Memo pdf

2. Sight distance triangles pdf

Page 636 of 720 ends

MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 29, 2023
TO: Diego Mora, Assistant Planner
Community Development Department
FROM: Michael Stella, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected] Public Works Department
SUBJECT: P23-0599 (formerly P23-0011, APN# 941-2760-5), Parcel 20 of PM 3858 5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard (TTLC Management, Inc.) Housing Site Compliance Review
Having reviewed the application materials, the Public Works Department offers our formal application comments as follows. Please forward our comments to the applicant and request formal responses to each. Once the comments have been resolved, I will forward our Conditions of Approval.

Application materials reviewed:

1. Architectural plans by SDG Architects (50 sheets) dated 11-17-2023

2. Civil plans by CBG (2 sheets) dated 11-17-2023

3. Vesting Tentative Map by CBG Engineers (10 sheets) dated 11-17-2023

4. Landscape concept by R3 Studios (9 sheets) dated 11-17-2023

5. Miller Starr Regalia letters (2 pages and 6 pages) both dated 7-24-2023

6. True Life Companies letter (4 pages) dated 11-16-2023

7. Preliminary Title Report by First American Title Company dated 6-23-2023 (Order No. 0131-626810ala)

8. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded as 2013-124373 on 4-08-2023

9. Third Amendment to CC&Rs recorded as 2023-035637 on 3-29-2023

10. Geotechnical Investigation (Draft) by Cornerstone Earth Group dated 12-20-2022 (Project No. 648-30-1)

11. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (Draft) by Cornerstone Earth Group dated 12-13- 2022 (Project No. 648-30-3)

12. Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan by CBG Engineers dated 11-17-2023 (40 pages)

13. Pleasanton Garbage Service letter dated 7-11-2023 (1 page)

14. Photometric Plot by Associated Lighting Representatives dated 6-26-2023 (1 sheet)

15. Preliminary Arborist Report by HortScience dated 12-29-2022

Page 637 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 2 P23-0599

16. Technical Memorandum by TJKM dated 11-02-2023 (6 pages)

17. Various email communication between CBG and Zone 7 Water Agency concerning ACF&WCD easements
Reference materials:

A. Amended Parcel Map 3858 recorded on 11-03-1986 (167 PM 1) B. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0317G
Comments:
1) TITLE ENCUMBRANCES. Referring to the preliminary title report by First American Title, the following issues associated with existing encumbrances shall be addressed:
a) Exception 4 refers to easements offered to the City on Parcel Map 3858 and accepted by the document recorded as 82-123017 on 8-13-1982. Notes on Sheets C2 and C3 of the Vesting Tentative Map indicate that the Public Service Easement across the property frontages will be quitclaimed/abandoned in favor of narrower PSEs to be offered on a Final Map. The process for vacating public easements is prescribed in California Streets & Highways Code §8300 et seq. The City assesses a fee to conduct this process. The process involves notifying all interested parties of the petition received from the applicant. The City Council will then conduct a public hearing.

The Council then has the discretion to adopt a resolution of vacation (including a resolution that includes conditions) or deny the petition based on testimony at the hearing. The applicant shall be prepared to modify the development if the petition is denied, assuming the vacation is a required to implement the development as currently presented.
b) Exception 6 refers to a Slope Easement granted to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District recorded as 84-059951 on 3-28-1984. Notes on Sheets C2 and C3 of the Vesting Tentative Map indicate that this easement will be quitclaimed/abandoned. The applicant shall provide evidence that ACFC&WCD has agreed to relinquish rights across their slope easement. Otherwise, the notes shall be removed.
c) Exception 8 refers to an Access Easement granted to Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District recorded as 86-000583 on 1-02-1986. Although this easement is shown on Sheets C2 and C3 of the Vesting Tentative Map, it nonetheless conflicts with proposed buildings on Parcels 1, 2, and 13. The District will need to vacate this easement in order for these buildings to be constructed, and will likely request equivalent access through the developed property. Although the applicant submitted documentation of discussion with District staff, the applicant shall provide evidence that ACFC&WCD has agreed to relinquish rights across conflicting portions of their access easement. In the absence of this evidence, the development cannot be constructed as proposed.

Page 638 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 3 P23-0599
2) SANITARY SEWER NETWORK: The City operates a sanitary sewer pipe network on West Las Positas Boulevard
is illustrated on Sewer\Storm Drain System Facilities network maps (B3D1 and B3D2) available The sanitary sewer system is shown in green.

Sewer treatment is provided at a facility owned and operated by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Fees are due to both the City of Pleasanton and DSRSD upon connection to the pipe network, with credits offered for prior uses. Said fee amounts appear Pleasanton, refer to Pleasanton Municipal Code Title 15. computer model
is operated by a consultant retained by the City. The consultant will run the scenario and then issue a report with their findings. The applicant shall fund this effort and address any discovered network deficiencies that are directly attributable to the development. 3) CLEAN WATER PROGRAM (HYDROMODIFICATION PROJECTS): Because the project creates and/or replaces more than 43,560 square feet (1.00 acre) of impervious surface, increases impervious surface over pre-project conditions, and is located in a susceptible area, it is considered a Hydromodification (HM) Project according to Provision C.3.g of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Said permit regulates stormwater runoff in Pleasanton. The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program developed a C.3 Guidance Manual to assist applicants in addressing these regulations. The Guidance Manual is available for download at:
https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/businesses/development.html According to the submitted Preliminary
A BAHM model can be shared with the City upon request as part of the project entitlement documents
a requirement of the Program according to the Guidance Manual. Said document must be submitted for review.

Referring to Sheet C7 of the Vesting Tentative Map, pervious pavement is proposed for Streets A, B, and C, yet the calculations submitted within the Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan suggest that these areas were modeled as impervious. If the streets will be conventionally paved and thus impervious, Sheet C7 shall be updated to reflect this. If pervious pavement is desired within the development, the applicant shall refer to Section 8.6 Guidance Manual. The manual suggests that pervious pavement only b vehicle loading and lightly trafficked areas
pervious pavement for areas to be used both for primary emergency vehicle access, trash collection vehicle access, and for Alameda County Flood Control heavy equipment access to the adjoining flood control channels is not recommended.

Page 639 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 4 P23-0599
The drainage network relies on various pumps to lift water from the buried pipe network to the at-surface bio basins. The bioretention detail on Sheet C7 includes a discharge pipe from each pump that will not fully evacuate water from the buried pipe network, thus promoting vector propagation. Section G.1.1 of the Guidance Manual specifically requires the pipe network to completely drain within 72 hours of a storm event. The bioretention area detail must be modified to illustrate how complete evacuation of the pipe network will be accomplished.

Referring to Sheet C5 of the Vesting Tentative Map, the proposed ACFC access will drain directly to the adjoining flood control channel without treatment, not DMA 2 as suggested on Sheet C7. The Program requires stormwater runoff from all areas of the site be treated.

The design shall be revised to address this issue.
4) WATER SERVICE. The property is currently served by three water meters as listed below:
a) recycled water meter (Account 1836, Meter #16060787) b)
c)
If a different type of water service is requested, the applicant shall terminate the applicable meters when new water services are requested.

Page 640 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 5 P23-0599
The City operates both potable and recycled water networks on West Las Positas Boulevard as well as a potable water network on Hopyard Road across the frontages of the subject potable network is illustrated on Water System Facilities network maps (B3D1 and B3D2) available at the City offices. The system is shown in light blue. The recycled water network is shown on as-built plans also available from the City offices.

The City purchases potable water wholesale from Zone 7 Water Agency and recycled water from Dublin San Ramon Services District. Fees are due to both the City of Pleasanton and these agencies for new connections to the pipe network. Said fee amounts appear in the refer to Pleasanton Municipal Code Title 14.
and volume must be confirmed by running a scenario within the Water Master Plan computer model operated by a City-hire consultant. The consultant will run the scenario and then issue a report with their findings. The applicant shall fund this effort and address any discovered network deficiencies that are directly attributable to the development.

Referring to Sheet C6 of the Vesting Tentative Map, the existing service laterals shown on West Las Positas Boulevard are not entirely consistent with City records. City records show near the east end.
existing service laterals whenever possible to avoid trenching in the public road. If new service laterals are desired, then the existing service laterals must be decommissioned at the main with the valves removed. Whether existing or new, the service laterals shall be fitted with backflow prevention devices at the property line.
water for landscape irrigation. Use of recycled water for this purpose is mandated by Pleasanton Municipal Code §14.20.040. Sheet C6 shall be amended to show this service lateral as the point-of-connection for all proposed landscape irrigation. 5) TRANSIT SERVICE. The Livermoreoperates a bus turnout on West Las Positas Boulevard along the property frontage. The turnout serves the Hacienda 54 and School Service 609 routes. The applicant shall confer with LAVTA about any needed changes or enhancements to the bus turnout and related transit amenities to serve the proposed development.
6) FRONTAGE SIDEWALK NETWORK. The public sidewalk that fronts the property along the south side of West Las Positas Boulevard and the east side of Hopyard Road shall be evaluated for damage as well as compliance with current disabled access regulations. If the damage could be hazardous to pedestrians (e.g. lifted or severely cracked panels), or if disabled access is obstructed or otherwise deficient, the applicant shall repair or replace those segments as part of the development project.

Page 641 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 6 P23-0599
7) GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. The submitted geotechnical investigation identified three significant issues that must be addressed in the design and construction of improvements. These issues include:
a) Sections 3.2, 5.1.2, and 6.3: Undocumented Fill. The limits of over excavation and recompaction to address undocumented fill shall be indicated on grading plans for the development.
b) Sections 3.2.1, 5.1.1, and 6.6: Plasticity/Expansion Potential. The report offers three recommendations for addressing highly expansive soils as described in Sections 6.6.1 cted on the grading
plans for the development.
c) Section 5.1.4 and Appendix C: Soil Corrosion Potential. The report by JDH Corrosion Consultants dated 12-12-2022 (Appendix C of the geotechnical investigation) concluded that on-site soils are corrosive to buried ferrous metals. The design of pressure pipe systems shall include appropriate coatings and cathodic protection. 8)
Moni is
purportedly no longer in active use. Monitoring wells, if not properly destroyed, can serve records have been
searched for information about the well. If the well has been property destroyed, then evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City. If no information about the well is found, then a note shall be provided on the plans informing the contractor about the requirements for legal well destruction.
9) WESTERN VEHICLE DRIVEWAY SIGNAGE. The northbound Street B approach to West Las Positas Boulevard shall include an MUTCD R3-
existing median island will prevent left and through movements. 10) PEDESTRIAN NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS. Referring to Sheet C4 of the Vesting Tentative Map, the following improvements are recommended for the proposed pedestrian network:
a) The pedestrian connections at the Streets B and C intersection with West Las Positas Boulevard should be modified for pedestrian safety by directing those on foot to the crossing locations at the public sidewalk. The illustration below describes this recommended modification.

Page 642 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 7 P23-0599
b) The internal walkway network should have connections to the public sidewalk for convenient access to destinations both north and west. The illustrations below describe these recommended modifications.

Page 643 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 8 P23-0599
11) ENGINEERING DIVISION FEES FOR SERVICE: The Engineering Division assesses fees for services including plan-check, permit issuance, and inspection according to the assessed by the Community Development Department (including Planning and Building Division fees). The applicant is responsible for payment of all Engineering Division fees prior to services rendered or permit issuance, whichever is first. 12) CITY ENGINEER SIGNATURE BLOCK: The following signature block shall be is for work within the street right-of-way and public utility systems within Public Services Easements unless otherwise noted. Approval of these plans does not release the developer of the responsibility for the correction of mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein.

If during the course of construction of the improvements public interest requires a modification or a departure from the specification and details of the City of Pleasanton or these plans, the City Engineer shall have the authority to require such modification or departure and to specify the manner in which same is to be made. Approved as to design only based upon information submitted hereon this [DAY] of [MONTH], [YEAR]. [NAME PROVIDED BY CITY], P.E., City Engineer, [DATE]
13) DESIGN PER CITY STANDARDS: All public improvements shall be designed in Specifications and Details in effect at the time of issuance of the permit(s). Said standards are available for download at:
http://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/engineering/standard.asp (Address this condition prior to plan approval)
14)
geotechnical investigation, as prepared by a California-licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist, shall be incorporated into the design of the improvements and/or explicitly noted on the plans. The author(s) of the geotechnical investigation shall

Page 644 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 9 P23-0599
certify on the plans that the design complies with their recommendations. During construction, the applicant must follow all recommendations. 15) SUBDIVISION MAPS: The subdivision of land is governed by Pleasanton Municipal Code Title 19, as well as the California Government Code §§66410-66499.85 (Subdivision Map Act). All maps are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Recordation - sized mylar copy of the recorded map returned to the City.

P.E., City Engineer of the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, State of California, do NAM
on Sheet 1 thereof and that the [PARCEL OR TRACT] map was presented to me as provided by local ordinance. This map conforms with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and of any local ordinances applicable at the time of approval of the tentative map, and the subdivision as shown is substantially the same as it appeared on the tentative map, if any, and any approved alterations thereof. The name of the subdivider is as shown on
Adam Nelkie, P.E., Registration No. 78830, City Engineer, City of Pleasanton, County of 16)
the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, State of California, do hereby state that this sheets, this statement being on Sheet [NUMBER] thereof, was presented to said Council of the City of Pleasanton, as provided by law at a regular meeting held on the [DAY] day of [MONTH], [YEAR] and that said Council of the City of Pleasanton did thereupon by motion duly passed and adopted at said meeting, approved said map and accepted on behalf of the public all parcels of land and easements as offered for dedication to the City of Pleasanton for public use in conformity with the terms of the offer of dedication. The whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this [DAY] day of [MONTH], [YEAR]. Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk, City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, State of California 17) SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: Public improvements required as part of the subdivision must be either completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to map approval, or guaranteed by a Subdivision Agreement. The agreement requires the applicant to post financial security in the form of either a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bonds in amounts equivalent to the value of the public improvements. If surety bonds are utilized, the form of the bond language shall be consistent with California Government Code §66499.1 for faithful performance and §66499.2 for labor and materials.

The amounts of the bonds shall be 100% of the total estimated value of the public

Page 645 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 10 P23-0599
improvements consistent with §66499.3. In addition, the City requires a warranty bond (often referred to as a maintenance bond) for 10% of the estimated value. The warranty bond shall be active for one-year following formal acceptance of the improvements. All submitted securities are subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. In addition, final maps and the associated Subdivision Agreement are subject to approval by the City Council.
18) CITY SURVEYOR: The City utilizes the services of an outside consultant to certify the technical accuracy of subdivision maps as City Land Surveyor pursuant to California Government Code §66451.1. In order to provide this service, the consultant will submit a proposal to the City for the estimated cost of the work. The estimate will be presented to adopted Master Fee Schedule. Review of the subdivision map cannot commence until the applicant has submitted payment to the City for these costs. If the ultimate fee at the conclusion of the work is less than this payment, the applicant will be refunded the difference. If the ultimate fee is more than this payment, then the applicant shall submit payment for the difference before the consultant certifies the map.

PROVIDED BY CITY], P.L.S, Acting City Surveyor for the City of Pleasanton, Alameda

NAME/NUMB
19) DEDICATIONS TO THE CITY: Dedications to the City shall conform to the following standards whether dedicated on a subdivision map or by recorded separate instrument:

Public Service Easements (PSE) shall be granted to the City in accordance with Pleasanton Municipal Code §19.24.190 and 19.36.110. PSEs shall be offered as an easement for public purposes including but not limited to installation, construction, access, and maintenance of all public services facilities above and below the ground surface including poles, wires, conduits, vaults, cabinets, sanitary sewers, storm drains, gas lines, and water lines as well as all those public utilities and appurtenances thereto as subject to regulation under Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 13.04. Consistent with California Government 20) DATUM FOR VERTICAL CONTROL: Vertical control surveying for all improvements to be constructed shall be based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Any benchmarks used that relied on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) shall be converted to NAVD 88 when presented on plans. The location of the benchmark and source of data must also be disclosed on the plans. 21) SURVEY MONUMENTS FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL: Final maps shall include sufficient durable survey monuments to allow the subdivision to be retraced in conformance with Pleasanton Municipal Code §19.24.220. Setting of monuments shall be in accordance with California Government Code §66495-66498. The surveyor shall

Page 646 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 11 P23-0599
give notice to the City Engineer when final monuments have been set, and when payment for said work has been received from the subdivider.
22)
in accordance with the Alameda County Hydrology and Hydraulics Manual published by the Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District. Said manual is available for download at:
https://acfloodcontrol.org/the-work-we-do/the-work-we-do-hydrology-manual/ The City is located in Zone 7, and its storm drain pipe network is considered a secondary designed in accordance with the manual. Calculations submitted for review/approval shall available in the manual. The calculations shall demonstrate adequate freeboard given the design storm event assuming all bioretention areas are overflowing. Said calculations shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California-licensed civil engineer. 23) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM DESIGN STANDARDS: All permanent connections to Any required water pressure and/or flow needed by the applicant beyond that available from the network at the point-of-connection must be provided by the applicant as a private improvement on the customer side of the meter or backflow prevention device. All extensions or upgrades to the potable water network shall be designed to satisfy the following minimum standards:
a) Minimum number of valves:
i) 3 at cross intersections
ii)
iii) 500 feet maximum spacing
iv) 1 valve at each fire hydrant lateral
b) Minimum number of fire hydrants (subject to approval by Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) Fire Marshal:
i) 1 hydrant within 250 feet of any existing or proposed structure ii) 2 hydrants within 500 feet of any commercial, multi-family residential, industrial, or school building
c) Minimum pipe size: 8-inch diameter
d) Minimum depth of cover over pipe: 42 inches
e) Blowoff requirements:
i) At all dead ends whether temporary or permanent
ii) At all low points in the line
f) Maximum flow velocity: 10 feet per second (fps)
g) Minimum pressures:
i) 40 psi (peak hour demand)
ii) 20 psi (maximum day demand plus fire flows)

Page 647 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 12 P23-0599
24)
recycled water system shall conform to Pleasanton Municipal Code §14.06.020 et seq. and Chapter 14.20. All new development within the recycled water use area shall use recycled water for landscape irrigation unless granted an exemption from the City Engineer.

Tertiary treated recycled water comes from the Dublin San Ramon Services District wastewater treatment plant in conformance with Title 22, Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations. The recycled water is intended for landscape irrigation, and cannot be used in ways that may threaten public health.
25) UTILITY ENCLOSURES: Proposed utility enclosures including vaults, meter boxes, splice boxes, and pedestals shall be installed in the public right-of-way, in a public service easement (PSE), or in a utility company specific easement. The locations for utility enclosures shall be considered in the following order of preference: (1) PSE area behind public sidewalk; (2) parkstrip area between the roadway curb & gutter and the sidewalk; (3) within the public sidewalk set flush to grade; (4) within driveway approach areas set flush to the surface with traffic-rated lids. In no case shall an above-ground pedestal or utility cabinet obstruct sight-line visibility for vehicle drivers at intersections or driveways.

Above-ground pedestals or utility cabinets are preferred within the side-yard area of a corner residential lot rather than the front-yard. Deviations from this standard must be approved by the City Engineer.
26) DRY UTILITIES (ELECTRICITY, CATV, TELECOM): All dry utilities including electricity, telecommunications, cable television, street lights, alarm systems, etc. required to serve the project shall be installed underground from the point-of-connection at the allowed without prior approval of the City Engineer.
27) -of-way, City
easements, or City-owned property shall be subject to an Encroachment Permit as defined in Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 13.04. All encroachment permit work is subject to adopted City of Pleasanton Standard Specifications and Details, and shall be performed by properly-licensed contractors as determined by the City Engineer. Said contractors must provide evidence of proper licensure, insurance and City-issued Business License upon application for a permit.
28) HAUL ROUTE: Deliveries to and from the project site shall conform to the Commercial Vehicle Regulations included in Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 11.48. Vehicles with gross weights exceeding 3 tons but less than 8 tons are prohibited on any City roadway other than those designated a Commercial Vehicle Route unless a Transportation Permit has first been obtained. Said Commercial Vehicle Routes include First Street, Stanley Boulevard, and Sunol Boulevard. In addition to weight restrictions, vehicles that exceed 96 inches in width and/or 60 feet in length are also required to obtain a Transportation Permit. For information about Transportation Permits call 925-931-5677. 29) CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT: This application is subject to a Construction General Permit according to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

Page 648 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 13 P23-0599
System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002. The general permit is applicable to development sites that disturb one or more acres of land surface. The applicant will be -Application
and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website. A Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) must be responsible for permit compliance. The SMARTS system will generate a Waste Dischargers Identification (WDID) number, which must be printed on the grading and/or erosion control plans. 30) TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL: Work in the public right-of-way or publiclyaccessible easement areas require submittal, review, approval, and implementation of a temporary traffic control plan. The plan shall be in writing and subject to review and approval
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), with specific emphasis on Part 6 Any alterations to pedestrian paths of travel must conform to current standards for the disabled. Any walking member of the public with a visual impairment (cane or guide dog) must be escorted through the construction zone. 31) HIGH VISIBILITY SAFETY APPAREL: All workers on foot who are exposed to the hazard of vehicular traffic shall wear warning garments such as vests, jackets, or shirts manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) 107-2004 Performance Class 2, high visibility safety apparel and headwear, or any updates adopted by Cal OSHA. During hours of darkness, warning garments shall be retroreflective with visibility from a minimum 1,000 feet.
32) EXCAVATION SAFETY: All excavations must be performed in conformance with California Government Code Section 4216 et seq. No excavation shall occur until proper notice is provided to Underground Service Alert (usanorth811.org) by calling either 811 or 800-642-2444 at least 72-hours prior to the work so buried utilities can be marked. All excavations shall be covered or barricaded to prevent entry when work is inactive. Open excavations in the public right-of-way must be covered by skid-resistant steel plates that are firmly affixed to the surface with leading edges ramped. Excavations 5-feet and deeper require a protective system as defined by Cal-OSHA. If a shoring system or trench boxes will be utilized as the protective system, said system shall either be manufactured and installed according to manufacturer recommendations, or designed by a registered professional engineer and installed according to approved plans. No excavation shall be performed atop or adjacent to a high-risk facility until authorized by the owner of the facility. High-risk facilities are defined as gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid pipelines as regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (US DOT PHMSA).
33) POLLUTANT REDUCTION IN STORMWATER: At no time during construction of the project shall pollutants be allowed to enter, clog, or contaminate storm drain pipe networks or open stormwater channels in violation of Pleasanton Municipal Code §9.14.080 et seq.

The applicant shall contain all trash and debris for proper disposal to authorized landfills or recyclers. Erosion control features shall be deployed during the rainy season that

Page 649 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 14 P23-0599
extends from October 1st to April 15th each year, or any time rain is forecast outside of this period. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be strictly followed. Street sweepers must be employed if soil or debris is tracked onto the public roads from vehicles exiting the site. Standard BMPs are available from the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Caltrans, and others. Notes and/or illustrations shall be added to the plans that describe the BMPs to be utilized during construction. The use of manufactured erosion control woven blankets and straw wattles that utilize plastic monofilament netting is specifically prohibited. 34) SWPPP REPORTING: Copies of any monitoring and/or sampling reports required by the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and submitted by the Legally Responsible e
City of Pleasanton inspector assigned to the project. The LRP shall also submit to the City a copy of the required Annual Report no later than September 1st of each year that construction is active or when erosion control features have been deployed. The report must include a summary of all sampling and analysis performed (Risk Levels 2 and 3 only), a log of all inspections performed including Rain Event Action Plans (REAP), a summary of any required corrective actions taken, and a summary of any violations. 35) DUST CONTROL: Dust control measures must be employed during all phases of construction to prevent airborne nuisance to neighboring properties. All stockpiles or unused materials that can create dust shall be covered or removed. Exposed soil areas shall be routinely watered until surfacing materials or landscaping is installed. Use of dust palliatives shall conform to Caltrans Standard Specification Section 18. Any damage caused by airborne dust to neighboring properties shall be cleaned with costs paid by the applicant. If the applicant fails the address dust as directed by the City, the City shall have the right to enter the property to effectuate the correction, with all costs paid by the . 36) PROPERTY NUISANCE: At no time during construction of the project shall the condition of the property become a nuisance as defined in Pleasanton Municipal Code §9.28.020.

The City shall have the right to inspect the property for conditions that violate the code standard. If a nuisance is found, the applicant shall immediately submit a plan of correction. Depending on the severity of the nuisance, the City may suspend all construction work until the condition is corrected. Any of the following conditions shall be considered severe: Leaking chemicals that can cause environmental damage; open excavations or any excavation deeper than 4 feet that lacks proper shoring; unsecured materials that can fall to the ground causing damage or injury; open or exposed utilities that could cause electrical shock or contamination of sewer, potable water systems, groundwater wells, or storm drainage networks. If the applicant fails the address the nuisance as directed by the City, the City shall have the right to enter the property to effectuate the correction, with all costs paid by the applicant or levied as a lien against the 37) NOISE: Construction noise is regulated under Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 9.04.

Noise is prohibited outside of the hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm daily except Sundays and

Page 650 of 720 ends

5976-5994 West Las Positas Boulevard Page 15 P23-0599
holidays when noise is prohibited outside the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm. Noise is defined as a level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or 86 dBA at any point beyond the boundary of the property under construction. If the applicant fails the address the noise as directed by the City, the City shall have the right to enter the property to effectuate the property. Exceptions to these regulations require a special permit granted by the City for circumstances when strict compliance would be impractical or unreasonable, and contingent upon proper noticing to surrounding property owners that includes the dates and times when noise levels will be exceeded and the specific reasons why an exception to the regulation has been granted.
38) DROUGHT RESTRICTIONS: If the City Council declares a drought during a time when this development is under construction, as described in §9.30.010 et seq. of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the applicant shall utilize only recycled water under Stage 1 or greater restrictions for all non-potable construction-related water needs. Recycled water is temporary hydrant meter from the Operations Service Center located at 3333 Busch Road.

The applicant is responsible for all water costs based on current billing rates. 39) GEOTECHNICAL FINAL REPORT: At the conclusion of construction, the applicant shall submit to the City a final report from the Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist testifying to the successful completion of all material testing and/or observation work performed. The final report must provide assurance that all recommendations had been strictly followed. The applicant shall bear all costs associated with this condition.
40)
Systems (GIS) staff publishes digital maps that enable first responders to efficiently navigate to locations where calls for service have been requested. The maps are also shared with agencies and departments that provide other critical services to residents such as mail delivery. To keep these maps current, the City requires as-built plan or map information to be submitted by the applicant in a format that integrates with ArcGIS by ESRI. The https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/gis.asp
41) DAMAGE TO EXISTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS: The applicant shall repair damage to existing public or private improvements on and near the project site 42) The Public Works Department reserves the right to offer new or amended comments if/when more information becomes available.

Page 651 of 720 ends

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520 · 200 Old Bernal Avenue www.cityofpleasantonca.gov Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
Planning Building & Safety Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5620 (925) 931-5630 (925) 931-5677 Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5487 Keeping vision triangles free of obstruction promotes safety by providing drivers a better view of pedestrians and vehicular traffic while exiting a driveway or approaching a corner. The driveway visibility triangle is determined by measuring 15 feet along the back of sidewalk and edge of curb from the point where the driveway and sidewalk meet. Connecting the two lines form the driveway vision triangle. Any structures or vegetation (including fences, buildings, landscaping and signage) higher than 3 feet or lower than 7 feet will obstruct the driveway visibility triangle.

Page 652 of 720 ends

Page 653 of 720 ends

Page 654 of 720 ends

Page 655 of 720 ends

Page 656 of 720 ends

Page 657 of 720 ends

TRLI-58837\2808093.1
1331 N. California Blvd.

Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www.msrlegal.com
Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
Direct Dial: 925 941 3268
[email protected]
Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
July 24, 2023

VIA EMAIL
Melinda Denis
Planning and Permit Center Manager
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Email: mailto:
[email protected]
Re: Formal Application
5976 and 5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton
Dear Ms. Denis:

Our client, TTLC Pleasanton – Las Positas, LLC (“TTLC”), filed a Preliminary Application for a proposed 146-unit housing development project (“Project”) at 5976 and 5994 West Las Positas Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Number 941-2760-5 (“Project Site”), in the City of Pleasanton (“City”), on January 26, 2023. As required by Senate Bill 330, we hereby timely file a Formal Application for the Project pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d)). The Formal Application is also filed pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Zoning Laws generally, and in particular Government Code sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5.

I. Project Description
The Project’s 146 residential units would be constructed within three-story townhomes located in 16 separate buildings, for a density of 20.02 du/ac on the approximately 7.29-acre Project Site. As shown on the site plan, the Project would contain a mix of unit types including flats, townhomes, and “zipper-towns,” hybrid units, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The ADUs will be provided on the ground floor of Buildings 6,7,8,9 and 10. All units will include covered 2-car tandem or side-by-side parking garages (a total of 292 garage spaces). In addition, a total of 55 uncovered guest parking spaces would be provided, for a total of 347 parking spaces. Approximately 11,676 square feet would be provided for private open space and 36,590 square feet of common open space. Access to the Project Site would be provided through two, 26-foot-wide driveways from West Las Positas

Page 658 of 720 ends

Melinda Denis
July 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

TRLI-58837\2808093.1
Boulevard. In compliance with Pleasanton’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the Project would provide 22 moderate-income units, which represents 15% of the total dwelling units. Because the Project is providing on-site affordable units, the Project qualifies for the benefits provided under the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §§ 65915-65918) such as incentives, concessions, waivers, and reductions in parking requirements, as further described below.

The Project Site is currently developed with two multi-tenant office buildings that would be demolished to construct the proposed Project. The Project Site is located within the Hacienda Business Park, an approximately 854-acre business park that includes a mix of commercial, office, research and development, retail, single-family and multi-family residential uses, as well as the Hart Middle School, and which is in close proximity to the BART station. (General Plan, p. 2-11, 2-12.) II. Housing Accountability Act
As a brief reminder to the City, the Project is protected by the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5; “HAA”), a housing production statute that seeks “to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects . . . . (§ 65589.5(a)(2)(K)). Moreover, the HAA expresses the state’s policy that this statute “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L)).

As relevant here, subdivision (j) of the HAA directs that a decision to disapprove or reduce the density of a project that complies with “applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards” must be based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the project would have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” and (2) that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid this adverse impact. (Gov't Code § 65589.5(j)(1)). The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” to mean “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Gov't Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)).

Section 65589.5(j) thus requires cities to determine whether a project complies with the applicable, objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards.

The HAA defines the term “objective” to mean “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8)). Cities must make this determination based on a “reasonable person” standard. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4)).

Page 659 of 720 ends

Melinda Denis
July 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

TRLI-58837\2808093.1
Accordingly, if a project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design standards in the eyes of a reasonable person, the project cannot be disapproved or conditioned on a lower density unless, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, it would have a "specific, adverse impact" upon public health or safety and there is no feasible way to mitigate that impact. If a city’s disapproval or conditional approval is challenged in court, the burden is on the City to prove its decision conformed to all the conditions specified in the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.6).

The courts have explained that the HAA’s findings constitute the “only” grounds for a lawful disapproval of a housing development project. (North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica (N.D.Cal. 2002) 234 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1059-60, disapproved on other grounds in North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica (2008) 526 F.3d 478; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715-16). Moreover, the HAA creates such a “substantial limitation" on the government's discretion to deny a permit that it amounts to a constitutionally protected property interest. (North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, supra, 234 F.Supp.2d at 1059).

A. Pleasanton General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Hacienda PUD The Project Site is designated Mixed Use / Business Park in the Pleasanton General Plan, which allows for the development of residential uses. Sites designated as Mixed Use/Business Park may use the density ranges for Mixed Use sites (e.g. 20+ du/acre) where they “include uses that are authorized by the Mixed Use land designation.” (General Plan, Table 2-3.) The Mixed Use designation, in turn, “allows any combination of business park, office, retail, hotel and other commercial uses, community facilities, research and development, and residential uses . . . on a single site, or on adjacent sites where the uses are integrated and include a functional interrelationship and a coherent physical design.” (General Plan, p. 2-23.) The General Plan refers in several places to the need for a PUD, specific plan, or development agreement. (See e.g., id.) The Project is consistent with the General Plan, as the Mixed Use land use designation objectively allows for residential uses, including single uses on a given site. We note that the standard in the General Plan pertaining to the uses being “integrated and include[ing] a functional interrelationship and a coherent physical design,” (among others) are subjective and therefore do not apply to this Project based on the protections afforded under the HAA as described above. (§ 65589.5(j)(4).) We would also note that because the Hacienda Business Park is substantially built out, the existing condition already includes a variety of uses. The General Plan’s mandate that any residential project on a single site obtain either a PUD (or a Development Agreement), likewise, cannot be applied to qualifying housing development projects as that would result in the application of a subjective discretionary review process that is lacking in any objective standards in violation of the HAA, as further described below.

Page 660 of 720 ends

Melinda Denis
July 24, 2023

Page 4 ends

TRLI-58837\2808093.1
The City’s zoning map identifies the Project Site as “PUD – I/C-O,” which corresponds to Industrial/Commercial/Office. The Hacienda PUD and associated Design Guidelines identify the Project Site as “Garden Office (OGPD).” (See Hacienda Design Guidelines, Figure 2-1.) We understand that the Hacienda PUD was originally approved in June of 1982 and has since been amended several times, the most recent being in 2018. The Hacienda Design Guidelines appear to have been amended through 2019. The PUD standards in the Pleasanton Municipal Code (Chapter 18.68), in addition to the adopted Hacienda PUD and associated Design Guidelines, each comprise a set of subjective standards and have not been updated to acknowledge or otherwise respond to the legislative amendments adopted since 2019 pertaining to housing development projects specifically. Indeed, section 18.68.030, pertaining to permitted uses under a PUD, sets forth subjective criteria requiring subjective judgment and lacking any uniformly verifiable external or uniform benchmark or criterion. Instead, it provides that any use in the PUD district “which is compatible with the purposes of this title, the neighborhood and general vicinity of the proposed project, and in keeping with protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare” may be permitted. (Pleasanton Municipal Code (“PMC”), § 18.68.030.) The PUD zoning standards— which are akin to the requirement for a specific plan and as a legislative approval similarly require approval via ordinance—are subjective standards. For this reason, the Project cannot be required to comply with the PUD standards and restrictions nor may TTLC be forced to obtain an amendment to the Hacienda PUD because such a process would involve application of the subjective criteria in Chapter 18.68 and the existing subjective standards in the Hacienda PUD.

Moreover, under the language of Section 65589.5(j)(4), because the Project Site’s PUD zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan, the City cannot force TTLC to obtain a rezoning of the Project Site so long as the Project is consistent with the objective requirements of the General Plan, as it is. The Hacienda PUD provides that the OGPD designation allows for those permitted and conditionally permitted uses as specified in the O (Office) District, as set forth in Section 18.44.080 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. That section appears to allow only one type of residential use—nursing homes and senior care/assisted living facilities. (See Table

18.44.080 [O district uses].) As a result, while residential uses are allowed under the General Plan Mixed Use land designation with densities above 20 units/acre, the Project Site’s PUD zoning prohibits almost all forms of residential uses. Because the Project “is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan,” the City cannot require TTLC to rezone the Project Site through a PUD amendment or otherwise. (§ 65589.5(j)(4) (emphasis added).)
III. Density Bonus Law
As briefly noted above, in addition to the HAA, the Project is also protected by the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §§ 65915-65918; “DBL”), a housing production statute that intended to work harmoniously with the HAA and is required to be

Page 661 of 720 ends

Melinda Denis
July 24, 2023

Page 5 ends

TRLI-58837\2808093.1
interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units. (Gov. Code § 65915(r)). The Project is eligible for and seeking a density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards under the DBL (Gov. Code §§ 65915(b), (d), and (e)). In particular, the Project is seeking waivers or reductions of all of the following Objective Design Standards, which are necessary to allow development of the Project at its proposed and allowed density:

A3.3 – Locate all electric transformers in underground vaults or in electrical rooms within the building.1
B1.2 – Pedestrian circulation shall be required to be separated from the following areas by a minimum four-foot-wide planting strip.

B1.3 – Pedestrian circulation dimensional standards.

B2.2 – A minimum 75 percent of the frontage along public streets.

B3.3 – Garage doors shall be recessed at least two feet from the building streetwall along an alley
B4.2 – Where paseos are provided, the pathways in a paseo shall be at least six feet wide when intended for pedestrians only and at least eight feet wide when intended for pedestrians as well as bicyclists.

B7.6 – A minimum six-foot landscape buffer shall be provided between buildings and walkways and between buildings and parking lots.

B7.c – Stormwater treatment adjacent to walking surfaces should provide a ground surface within six inches of sidewalk grade, or a six foot buffer strip at the grade of the walking surface.

B9.2 – The following mechanical equipment, services and utilities shall be screened with vision barriers at a height of at least four feet; or 12 inches above the maximum height of any equipment contained or equipment contained or stored within; whichever is greater. All utility equipment visible from and located within 30 feet of a public right of way… Any mechanical equipment located at grade, exceeding two feet in height, and located within 15 feet of a public right of way, designated open space, pedestrian connection, or internal street; including, but not limited to air conditioning condensers, ventilator fans, chillers, and permanently installed generators.

Unit 2 garage is undersized at 18’-11”x20’x2”
1 PG&E does not allow subsurface transformers.

Page 662 of 720 ends

Melinda Denis
July 24, 2023

Page 6 ends

TRLI-58837\2808093.1
IV. Conclusion
TTLC is excited to work in cooperation with the City of Pleasanton in providing much needed housing to the community pursuant to critical state laws that are designed to facilitate housing production. We would be happy to discuss the Project or this Formal Application with you at any time.

Sincerely,

MILLER STARR REGALIA
Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
BWW/kli
cc: Kelley Rutchena, Senior Project Manager

Page 663 of 720 ends

TRLI-58837\2872807.2
1331 N. California Blvd.

Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www.msrlegal.com
Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
Direct Dial: 925 941 3268
[email protected]
Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
November 17, 2023

VIA E-MAIL
Diego Mora
Assistant Planner
City of Pleasanton
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: P23-0599, SB 330 Application – Residential Project
5976-5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Pleasanton
Dear Mr. Mora:

We write in connection with TTLC’s response to the City’s August 23, 2023 letter deeming the application for the above-referenced housing development project incomplete. In particular, write again to address your letter of August 25, 2023 asserting that the project must seek and obtain a Major PUD Modification. We addressed this issue numerous times, including in letters dated September 1, 2023 and October 6, 2023. While we are confident the project does not require any rezoning for all of the reasons we have stated, including that the zoning for the project site does not allow the residential development the General Plan objectively does allow, which means that for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan, we are disappointed that the City has not acknowledged receipt of our correspondence on this important subject, much less provided any response. We believe the HAA and other applicable state housing laws call for more than simply ignoring us.

In any event, as we have also said and as TTLC’s substantive response to the City’s August 23 incompleteness determination makes clear, we are continuing to move forward with this project and look forward to working with the City as it proceeds.

Page 664 of 720 ends

Diego Mora
November 17, 2023

Page 2 ends

TRLI-58837\2872807.2
Sincerely,

MILLER STARR REGALIA
Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
BWW/kli
cc: Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager
Kelley Rutchena, Senior Project Manager, Due Diligence & Entitlements

Page 665 of 720 ends

TRLI-58837\2893396.3
1331 N. California Blvd.

This letter is in response to your letter of December 18, 2023 relying on Snowball West Investments L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, 96 Cal.App.5th 1054 (2023) to continue urging my client, TTLC Pleasanton-Las Positas, LLC (TTLC), to seek a Major PUD Modification for its housing development project at 5976-5994 W. Las Positas Boulevard in Pleasanton. Although your letter does not state whether the City is refusing to process the project, as proposed, without a Major PUD Modification, I would urge the City to continue processing the application as the Snowball case is poorly reasoned, incorrect, and distinguishable.

Snowball involved a 215-unit housing development project on a 58-acre site in the City of Los Angeles. The site has a general plan land use designation of Low Medium I Residential and Low Residential, and is zoned RA-1 (Residential Agricultural) and A1-1 (Agricultural). The general plan lists a variety of zones that are consistent, but the existing zones are not listed. Snowball argued that because the current zoning is not expressly listed in the general plan the zoning is “inconsistent” with the general plan for purposes of subdivision (j)(4) of the HAA (Gov. Code § 65589.5; “HAA”). The city contended that even though the project site zones are not expressly listed in the general plan, they are incorporated by reference because a footnote in the general plan makes all listed corresponding zones, as well as those that are “more restrictive,” consistent with applicable planning requirements. The court of appeal agreed with the city that the zoning is consistent based on the language of the general plan, and therefore subdivision (j)(4) does not exempt Snowball’s project from the requirement of a zoning change.

Page 666 of 720 ends

Diego Mora
January 31, 2024

Page 2 ends

TRLI-58837\2893396.3
Moreover, the Court held that Snowball did not even demonstrate that the HAA applied to its project.

Snowball is poorly reasoned and incorrect for a number of reasons, most importantly because Snowball dealt only with the first sentence in subdivision (j)(4), when there are two sentences and they work together. The entirety of subdivision (j)(4) is as follows:

For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2),1 the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
(Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(4)).

Aside from the fact that Los Angeles’ zoning practice is uncommon and idiosyncratic, the first sentence depends on zoning inconsistency but the second sentence does not. In contrast to the first sentence, the second sentence requires cities to apply the standards and criteria of the zoning favorable to facilitate and accommodate the housing project at its allowed and proposed density. The second sentence thus plainly reinforces the idea, rejected by the court, that the general plan density controls, not the zoning, even if the zoning is consistent with the plan.

Ignoring the second sentence violates basic rules of statutory construction requiring statutes to be read as a whole. It also violates rules requiring statutes to be interpreted so as to effectuate the Legislature’s intent. The HAA is the state’s most important housing production law, and it establishes “the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L)). Moreover, ignoring the second sentence violates basic land use law in California, which has long held that the general plan is the constitution for development and the zoning is required to be consistent with the plan. (Gov. Code § 65860; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 52 Cal.3d 531 (1992)). Thus, even without the HAA the zoning should not be elevated above the general plan.
1 Paragraph (2), which is not relevant to this memorandum, is Gov. Code section 65589.5(j)(2), which requires that an agency make a timely consistency determination once a given housing development project application is deemed complete.

Page 667 of 720 ends

Diego Mora
January 31, 2024

Page 3 ends

TRLI-58837\2893396.3
Despite the errors in Snowball, the circumstances there—where Los Angeles’ general plan declares all “more restrictive” zones consistent with applicable planning requirements and the underlying project site zoning does allow residential uses but only at a lower density than allowed in the plan—are unlike those in Pleasanton, where the Mixed Use designation provides for an objective residential density of 20+ dwelling units per acre (General Plan Table 2-3) and the zoning for the project site does not allow residential uses of the type allowed in the plan, much less at the density allowed in the plan. The OGPD zoning is thus plainly inconsistent with the Mixed Use land use designation, which allows the project’s residential uses.

Moreover, unlike in Los Angeles, Pleasanton’s General Plan does not make this zoning consistent either for purposes of Government Code section 65860 or section 65589.5(j)(4).

Accordingly, again, there is no doubt that the HAA applies to the project and that it is fully protected by subsection (j)(4) and for that reason alone the City may not lawfully require a Major PUD Modification or any other form of rezoning. The purpose of subsection (j)(4) is to prevent case-by-case rezonings of precisely the type the City is attempting to require here in the form of a Major PUD Modification, and nothing in Snowball changes the application of subsection (j)(4) as we have consistently described it with respect to the project.

Moreover, Snowball did not address the application of the HAA’s reasonable standard as set forth in Government Code section 65589.5(f)(4). As you know, the HAA is predicated on housing projects complying with “applicable” and “objective” development standards and criteria, and a city may not lawfully disapprove a project that meets applicable, objective standards and criteria unless it makes the HAA’s mandatory health and safety findings.

Importantly, the HAA defines the term “objective” narrowly. A standard is only objective if it both (1) involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official AND (2) is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8)). Moreover, as set forth in subsection (f)(4)—which Snowball did not address—the HAA requires that a housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4)).

The project here is consistent with the objective 20+ du/ac residential density requirement of the City’s Mixed Use general plan land use designation, as a plain reading of the City’s own plan language confirms. Moreover, a reasonable person could conclude that the project is consistent, the City has not contended otherwise, and Snowball says nothing about this critically important provision of the HAA. As explained in California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San

Page 668 of 720 ends

Diego Mora
January 31, 2024

Page 4 ends

TRLI-58837\2893396.3
Mateo, 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 837 (2021): “[I]nstead of asking . . . ‘whether the City’s findings are supported by substantial evidence’ [citation omitted], we inquire whether there is ‘substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project’ complies with pertinent standards. [Citation omitted]. As the public entity that disapproved the project, the City bears the burden of proof that its decision conformed to the HAA. [Citation omitted].” The bottom line is that Snowball is readily distinguishable from the circumstances in Pleasanton and thus provides no useful or controlling authority here. As you may know, TTLC is leading the Bay Area in total approved projects successfully using subsection (j)(4), SB 330, and Density Bonus Law. Among others, TTLC successfully processed two projects in the City of Sunnyvale where the land use regulations, involving a general plan allowing housing and zoning that did not, were identical to those in Pleasanton. While, we look forward to continuing to process the project pursuant to the pro-housing mandates of state housing law, if City staff continue to insist the project requires a Major PUD Amendment then TTLC will challenge that determination as needed.

Sincerely,

MILLER STARR REGALIA
Bryan W. Wenter, AICP
BWW/kli
cc: Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager
Kelley Rutchena, Director of Entitlements, Bay Area and Sacramento

Page 669 of 720 ends

3,076.3 © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US Feet 3,076.3 Legend Notes Notes This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 1,538.16 0 1: 18,458 Map Print Title Fire Station School Park Parcels 5976 & 5994 WEST LAS POSITAS BOULEVARD

Page 670 of 720 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 671 of 720 ends

Page 672 of 720 ends

Page 673 of 720 ends

Page 674 of 720 ends

Page 675 of 720 ends

Page 1 of 13 ends

Item #17

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
May 21, 2024
Finance
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 MID-TERM

UPDATE FOR OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET

SUMMARY
This report presents the Mid-Term Update that recommends adjustments to the FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget adopted by the Council on June 6, 2023. The recommended adjustments affect the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Projects Funds. Recommended Mid-Term Budget adjustments are based on current information and projections related to various tax revenues, accompanied by updated funding need analysis for various expenditure budget items since the adoption of the FY 2024/25 Budget.

For this Mid-Term Budget cycle, the largest proposed expenditure adjustments are related to utility, legal, and personnel costs. Electricity, water, and recycled water costs are all projected to increase more than previously estimated based on recent rate increases along with more up-to-date usage projections. Costs associated with the City’s legal claims and related obligations have been going up. Personnel cost increases stem from salary adjustments, as well as necessary adjustments based on the most recent pension actuarial reports from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

The proposed budget adjustments include approximately $2.50 million in non-personnel and personnel cost reductions that were identified as part of the City’s cost containment strategy to address the expected financial challenges. These cost savings help to reduce the increased operating costs mentioned above. Reduced non-personnel costs include contract services, equipment, operating supplies, and materials; personnel reductions include freezing a number of vacant positions. While these cost reductions will likely have minimal impacts on the service the City provides to the community, they will nevertheless have some impact on staff’s ability to provide the same level of quality service and to more fully implement the City Council's policy direction in some areas. Notably, the proposed amendments also reflect the use of Rainy Day Fund (capital improvement funding set aside during the early stages of the pandemic) to help balance the FY 2024/25 budget.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution accepting the fiscal year 2024/25 mid-term update for operating and capital budget.

BACKGROUND
The City follows a three-step operating budget process that begins with the approval of a twoyear Budget (Budget); then after the first year of the Budget, the adoption of a Mid-Term Budget, and the adoption of Mid-Year Budget adjustments at the mid-point of each of the two years of the Budget. As part of the Mid-Term Budget adjustment process, staff examines

Page 676 of 720 ends

Page 2 of 13 ends

recent years' actual expenditures and revenues, as well as current fiscal year actuals to project estimated budget needs for the coming fiscal year. Additionally, Finance staff routinely monitors various local and regional economic indicators and works with consultants to review and update estimates for the City’s major revenue sources. Given the fiscal challenges the City faces with an ongoing, structural budget gap in the General Fund, this Mid-Term budget adjustment process also included a comprehensive assessment of all City programs and services, based on which various budget reductions in every department were implemented.

Without new revenue alternatives, additional and more extensive service cuts and reductions will be necessary starting in FY 2025/26.

DISCUSSION
General Fund Overview
As shown in Table 1 below, recommended adjustments consist of decreasing revenues by $0.20 million and increasing expenditures by $1.97 million. It should be noted that an increase to the expenditure budget was initially greater than $1.97 million, but various reduction measures, including freezing positions, have been implemented. These reductions are described in detail in the General Fund Expenditures section below. To close the resulting deficit based on adjustments to revenues and expenditures, staff recommends utilizing approximately $2.17 million from the Rainy Day Fund and removing the previously budgeted transfer of $0.20 million to the Miscellaneous CIP Fund, as well as using $0.31 million in program reserves to balance the General Fund budget. The Rainy Day Fund is not included in the table below; the fund balance for the Rainy Day Fund is projected to reduce to $0.45 million at the end of FY 2024/25 with the recommended use of $2.17 million in addition to $2.00 million that is already included in the adopted budget. It should be noted that $0.47 million of $2.17 million will be transferred to the Miscellaneous CIP Fund to pay the City’s share of the Foothill High School Southbound Left Turn capital project managed by the Pleasanton Unified School District.

Table 1. General Fund Overview
General Fund Revenues
As presented in Table 2 below, General Fund revenues are estimated to decrease by approximately $0.20 million based on revised projections from evaluating more current revenue trends and economic data, as well as year-to-date actual revenues. A decrease in Sales Tax is the primary reason for the overall net decrease.

Highlighted major revenue adjustments include:
• An increase of $1.47 million in Property Tax based on continued resilience in the local housing market. While reduced sales activities due to low inventory remain a concern, given the overall housing shortage in the Tri-Valley along with high demand, it is anticipated the local housing market will continue to remain positive in the near term

Page 677 of 720 ends

Page 3 of 13 ends

devoid of any major economic downturn or recession. Updated projections include an increase of approximately $1.29 million in Secured Property Tax, $0.32 million in Unsecured Property Tax, and $0.08 million in the Property Tax portion of the Vehicle License Fees. These increases are offset by a decrease of approximately $0.22 million to Homeowners Tax Exemptions and Delinquent Taxes. Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source.
• A decrease of more than $2.64 million in Sales Tax largely due to a delay in opening of a new Costco along with slowing consumer spending seen in select spending categories based on the most recent projection from the City’s consultant. Sales Tax revenue estimates included in the adopted budget assumed a new Costco beginning operation in the fourth quarter of FY 2023/24 (i.e., spring 2024); it is now estimated the store will open in the second quarter of FY 2024/25 (i.e., fall 2024). Sales Tax is the City’s second largest revenue source.
• An increase of $0.65 million in Business License Tax due to projected increase in gross receipts, as the adopted budget estimate is conservative. • A decrease of $0.30 million in Documentary Transfer Tax due to the decline in home sales. With elevated mortgage rates combined with a very low inventory of properties for sale in the city, sales activities are expected to remain sluggish. • An increase of $0.16 million in Transient Occupancy Tax as the Tri-Valley area continues to recover from the pandemic.
• An increase of $0.11 million in Recreation Fee revenues based on continued demand for various programs and classes offered to the community. • An increase of $0.32 million in Other Revenues, including interest income and reimbursements.

Table 2. General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
As presented in Table 3 below, General Fund expenditures are projected to increase by approximately $1.97 million. The most significant adjustments are increases to personnel costs, insurance claims and legal costs, and utility budget categories, including electricity, water, and recycled water based on increased usage, as well as rate increases.

Page 678 of 720 ends

Page 4 of 13 ends

Freezing a position is slightly different than deleting a position; freezing a position involves removing all budgeted dollars, but the FTE count remains the same. So while the FTE count is not impacted, staff’s recommendation to freeze these six positions is essentially equivalent to budgetarily reducing the FTE count by 6.0. Consistent with the City administration’s ongoing effort to keep costs under control, this Mid-Term Budget does not include any new permanent positions.

Page 679 of 720 ends

Page 5 of 13 ends

below. Please note that similar to personnel cost reduction efforts, staff examined all nonpersonnel budget categories and implemented reductions whenever possible to keep costs under control.
• Transportation and Training – A net decrease of approximately $0.09 million mostly due to reduced travel and training budget offset by a small increase in maintenance costs due to aging vehicles.
• Repairs and Maintenance – A net decrease of approximately $0.88 million based on reduced General Fund contribution of $0.73 million to the Park & Median Replacement Internal Service Fund due to reallocation of the City’s tree maintenance contract to the General Fund. An additional decrease of $0.15 million to various contracts for general repairs and maintenance is recommended as part of reduction efforts. • Materials and Supplies – A net increase of approximately $0.77 million based on a series of adjustments. As mentioned, the City’s tree maintenance contract with $0.73 million budget is moving from the Parks & Median Replacement Internal Service Fund to the General Fund. Also highlighted previously, adjustments to utility costs are the largest non-personnel budget category due to a combination of rate increases as well as more up-to-date projections based on year-to-date actual usage information.

Increases for electricity, water, and recycled water budgets in the General Fund are $0.59 million, $0.38 million, and $0.04 million, respectively, for a total of $1.01 million.

Other than the noted budget increases, departments with increasing budget in the Materials and Supplies category are:
• $0.41 million increase for the City Attorney’s Office primarily due to additional contribution to the City’s General Liability Insurance Fund based on increased legal and related claim costs
• $0.27 million increase for Fire mostly due to various one-time costs, including budget for upcoming labor negotiation, legal costs, financial system consultant, cost allocation plan, and insurance pool analysis
• $0.10 million increase for City Clerk’s Office due to one-time election-related costs.

These increases are offset by decreases to the following departments’ budgets:
• $0.27 million decrease for Community Development primarily based on decreased contract budget for plan check and building permit review services • $0.23 million decrease for Public Works based on a series of decreases to contracts, supplies, and equipment budget
• $0.21 million decrease for Information Technology based on reductions to several service contracts and budget for mobile devices
• $0.17 million decrease for Police primarily based on removal of budget to implement a new public safety software that enables real-time data integration and operations management, along with reductions to several supplies and equipment and professional services budget
• $0.10 million decrease for Library & Recreation based on a series of decreases to professional and service contracts

Page 680 of 720 ends

Page 6 of 13 ends

• $0.08 million decrease for Finance based on reduced professional service contract budget
• $0.02 million decrease for City Manager’s Office and Human Resources collectively • $0.72 million decrease for Non-Departmental primarily based on reduced contingency budget which was used to partially offset personnel cost increases. • Capital Outlay and Debt Services – A net increase of $0.18 million based on reappropriation of the mobile library vehicle budget for $0.28 million offset by decreases to budget for the air drone program and other reductions to machinery and equipment budget in Public Works and Police totaling $0.10 million.

General Fund Reserves and Fund Balance
Projected total General Fund reserves at the end of FY 2024/25 are $49.47 million, with the unrestricted General Fund reserve at $29.57 million. The City’s current reserve policy requires a minimum reserve between 16.7 and 25.0 percent of operating expenses, with a target of

20.0 percent. The unrestricted General Fund reserve of $29.57 million equals 19.2 percent of the MidTerm General Fund operating expenses.

Table 5. General Fund Reserves
Enterprise Funds
Water Operations and Maintenance Fund
As shown in Table 6 below, recommended changes to the Water Operations and Maintenance Fund include an increase of $4.28 million in revenues, an increase of net transfers by $0.42 million, and a decrease of $0.12 million in operating expenses. The result of these adjustments is an increase in net income by $5.24 million and an estimated ending fund balance of $11.51 million which equals 32.0 percent of the total FY 2024/25 operating expenses, which is 2.0 percent above the recommended minimum of 30.0 percent. The City’s reserve policy requires reserves to stay between 30.0 and 40.0 percent with a target of 35.0 percent. The City Council approved a two-year rate increase at the November 7, 2023 meeting. Projected additional revenues based on these rate increases, combined with keeping the operating budget minimal, were critical in the City securing an AA rating from the S&P recently for the 2024 Water Revenue Bonds, which is scheduled to be issued in June 2024 to fund critical water infrastructure and capacity improvement projects. Obtaining a high rating positions the City to lower borrowing costs to fund major capital needs.

Page 681 of 720 ends

Page 7 of 13 ends

Table 6. Water Operations and Maintenance Fund Overview Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund
As shown in Table 7 below, recommended changes to the Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund include increasing revenues and expenditures by $0.86 million and $0.71 million, respectively. The result of this adjustment is an estimated ending fund balance of $7.28 million which equals 40.2 percent of FY 2024/25 operating expenses. The City’s policy requires reserves equal to a minimum of 30.0 percent, a maximum of 40.0 percent and a target of 35.0 percent.

Page 682 of 720 ends

Page 8 of 13 ends

Page 683 of 720 ends

Page 9 of 13 ends

reduced personnel costs; and
• An increase of revenue and expenditure by $0.03 million and $0.02 million, respectively, in the Urban Forestry Fund to reflect updated revenue and contract costs.

Additionally, adjustments to the City’s Landscape Management District and Geological Hazard Abatement District Funds are included based on proposed FY 2024/25 rates and estimated expenditures. For full details, please refer to the FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Budget Adjustment Summary table in the Operating Budget Tables section.

Capital Fund Overview
The FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Capital Budget totals approximately $39.72 million, an increase of $25.54 million from $14.18 million in the adopted Budget. All the projects are funded by revenues traditionally earmarked for the City’s Capital Improvement Program. CIP Table 1 below highlights all the proposed Mid-Term adjustments by project category, as well as changes to non-capital expenditures, such as transfers and capital project staffing costs.

Additional details are included in the List of Currently Funded Capital Projects & Recommended Adjustments in the Capital Budget Tables section.

CIP Table 1: FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Adjustments by Category New Proposed Projects
As described in CIP Table 2 below, four new projects, totaling approximately $6.92 million, are recommended to be added to the Mid-Term Capital Budget.

CIP Table 2: List of New Capital Projects

Page 684 of 720 ends

Page 10 of 13 ends

Page 685 of 720 ends

Page 11 of 13 ends

Existing Project Adjustments
As described in CIP Table 3 below, approximately $18.62 million is recommended to be added to existing capital projects for a Mid-Term total of $20.84 million. Additionally, $0.75 million in estimated capital project management expenses are recommended to be added. These expenses for capital project management are staffing costs that have been traditionally recorded at year-end, but to more accurately reflect overall costs in Water and Sewer Capital Funds staff recommends budgeting these costs as part of the annual budget process going forward. The $1.05 million in project reductions is due to budgeted revenues in restricted funds, including impact fee capital funds, not meeting expectations and revised estimates not sufficient to support adopted project budgets.

CIP Table 3: Existing Project Adjustments to the Mid-Term CIP FY 2024/25

Page 686 of 720 ends

Page 12 of 13 ends

Revenue Adjustments by Source
As described in CIP Table 4 below, the FY 2024/25 CIP Mid-Term Revenue by Source of approximately $33.24 million includes recommended adjustments of approximately $17.96 million, consisting of increasing General Funds Contribution by $0.47 million, $6.00 million of new grant funds, $13.77 million Transfers from Other Funds, and reductions of $2.20 million in other categories. In the City and Non-City Development Fees category, staff is estimating that the Capital Facilities Impact Fees, Traffic Impact Fees, and Tri-Valley Transportation fees will collectively be $2.06 million less than the adopted budget. In the Gas Tax, Measure B, BB & Highway Funds category, there is an estimated reduction for Gas Tax of approximately $0.21 million based on revised revenue projections from the League of California Cities, which uses the California Department of Finance’s latest numbers.

CIP Table 4: Revenue by Source Mid-Term CIP FY 2024/25
Below is the summary of recommended Mid-Term adjustments for FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget:
• The FY 2024/25 General Fund revenue budget will decrease by $0.20 million; the General Fund expenditure budget will increase by $1.97 million. • All Other Operating Fund budgets for FY 2024/25 will increase revenues by $6.39 million; and increase expenditures by $1.65 million.
• The FY 2024/25 Capital revenue budget will increase by $17.96 million; the Capital project budget will increase by $25.54 million.

For additional details, please refer to the Operating Budget Tables and Capital Budget Tables sections in the attached FY2024/25 Mid-Term Update Operating and Capital Budget provided in Attachment 2.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is a routine matter of City business.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Funding our Future to support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost

Page 687 of 720 ends

Page 13 of 13 ends

recovery, increased revenue, and cost containment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Operating Budget update includes adjustments to several funds including the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Funds.

Below is the summary of recommended mid-term adjustments to the FY 2024/25 Operating and Capital Budget:
• The FY 2024/25 General Fund revenue budget will decrease by $0.20 million; the General Fund expenditure budget will increase by $1.97 million. • All Other Operating Fund budgets for FY 2024/25 will increase revenues by $6.39 million and increase expenditures by $1.65 million.
• The FY 2024/25 Capital revenue budget will increase by $17.96 million; the Capital project budget will increase by $25.54 million.

For details, please refer to the attached FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Update Operating and Capital Budget report (Attachment 2).

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Susan Hsieh, Director of
Finance
Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution adopting FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Budget

2. Resolution Exhibit A: FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Update Operating and Capital Budget

Page 688 of 720 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON,

ADOPTING THE MID-TERM OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR FY 2024/25
WHEREAS, the City adopted the FY 2023/24 – FY 2024/25 Two-Year Operating and Capital Budget on June 6, 2023; and
WHEREAS, it is fiscally prudent to review the Two-Year Operating and Capital Budget to refine revenue projections and expenditures; and
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on May 21, 2024, staff presented a report detailing the recommended Mid-Term Operating and Capital Budget adjustments for FY 2024/25.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:

SECTION 1: Adopts the Mid-Term Operating and Capital Budget adjustments for FY 2024/25 as presented in the attached report, FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Update Operating and Capital Budget.

SECTION 2: Authorizes revenue, transfer and expenditure adjustments to the FY 2024/25 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget.

SECTION 4: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on May 21, 2024.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Page 689 of 720 ends

City of Pleasanton, CA
FY202ʧ/2ʨ ˀ˜˗ʠˇ˘˥ˠˈˣ˗˔˧˘
Operating ʙʶ˔ˣ˜˧˔˟Budget

Page 690 of 720 ends

Table of Contents
FY 2024/25 MID-TERM BUDGET ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY
Summary Report ........................................................................................................... 2

OPERATING BUDGET TABLES
FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Budget Adjustment Summary ............................................... 15 Estimated Changes in Fund Balances ...................................................................... 16 Summary of Revenues and Expenditures - Citywide ............................................... 18 General Fund Operating Budget Summary - Revenues ........................................... 19 General Fund Operating Budget Summary - Expenditures ..................................... 19 General Fund Transfer Summary ............................................................................... 20

CAPITAL BUDGET TABLES
CIP Fund Balance Summary - All Funds ................................................................... 21 CIP Budget Summary By Projects ............................................................................... 22

Page 691 of 720 ends

Page 2 of 23 ends

Notably, the proposed amendments also reflect the use of Rainy Day Fund (capital improvement funding set aside during the early stages of the pandemic) to help balance the FY 2024/25 budget.

BACKGROUND
The City follows a three-step operating budget process that begins with the approval of a two-year Budget (Budget); then after the first year of the Budget, the adoption of a Mid-Term Budget, and the adoption of Mid-Year Budget adjustments at the mid-point of each of the two years of the Budget. As part of the Mid-Term Budget adjustment process, staff examines recent years' actual expenditures and revenues, as well as current fiscal year actuals to project estimated budget needs for the coming fiscal year.

Additionally, Finance staff routinely monitors various local and regional economic indicators and works with consultants to review and update estimates for the City’s major revenue sources. Given the fiscal challenges the City faces with an ongoing, structural budget gap in the General Fund, this Mid-Term budget adjustment process also included a comprehensive assessment of all City programs and services, based on which various budget reductions in every department were implemented. Without new revenue alternatives, additional and more extensive service cuts and reductions will be necessary starting in FY 2025/26.

Page 692 of 720 ends

Page 3 of 23 ends

Highlighted major revenue adjustments include:
x An increase of $1.47 million in Property Tax based on continued resilience in the local housing market. While reduced sales activities due to low inventory remain a concern, given the overall housing shortage in the Tri-Valley along with high demand, it is anticipated the local housing market will continue to remain positive in the near term devoid of any major economic downturn or recession. Updated projections include an increase of approximately $1.29 million in Secured Property Tax, $0.32 million in Unsecured Property Tax, and $0.08 million in the Property Tax portion of the Vehicle License Fees. These increases are offset by a decrease of approximately $0.22 million to Homeowners Tax Exemptions and Delinquent Taxes. Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source. x A decrease of more than $2.64 million in Sales Tax largely due to a delay in opening of a new Costco along with slowing consumer spending seen in select spending categories based on the most recent projection from the City’s FY 2023 FY 2024 Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Actual Modified Budget Budget Adjustments Budget
Revenues $151,149,404 $146,441,627 $151,442,025 ($203,250) $151,238,775 Net Transfers (8,975,623) 465,052 496,152 1,891,050 2,387,202 Use of Program Reserves - 1,180,572 30,000 280,000 310,000 Expenditures (133,540,446) (148,079,541) (151,963,438) (1,966,067) (153,929,505) Difference $8,633,335 $7,710 $4,739 $1,733 $6,472
FY 2025

Page 693 of 720 ends

Page 4 of 23 ends

consultant. Sales Tax revenue estimates included in the adopted budget assumed a new Costco beginning operation in the fourth quarter of FY 2023/24 (i.e., spring 2024); it is now estimated the store will open in the second quarter of FY 2024/25 (i.e., fall 2024). Sales Tax is the City’s second largest revenue source.
x An increase of $0.65 million in Business License Tax due to projected increase in gross receipts, as the adopted budget estimate is conservative. x A decrease of $0.30 million in Documentary Transfer Tax due to the decline in home sales. With elevated mortgage rates combined with a very low inventory of properties for sale in the city, sales activities are expected to remain sluggish. x An increase of $0.16 million in Transient Occupancy Tax as the Tri-Valley area continues to recover from the pandemic.
x An increase of $0.11 million in Recreation Fee revenues based on continued demand for various programs and classes offered to the community. x An increase of $0.32 million in Other Revenues, including interest income and reimbursements.

Table 3. General Fund Expenditures
Personnel Expenses
An increase of approximately $1.99 million is due to a number of factors, including higher than anticipated salary adjustments for negotiated employee contracts and rising pension obligations based on CalPERS not achieving its 6.8 percent investment return FY 2023 FY 2024 Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Revenues Actual Modified Budget Budget Adjustments Budget Property Taxes $86,075,776 $90,116,000 $91,475,000 $1,467,000 $92,942,000 Sales & Use Taxes 26,183,661 24,532,400 27,768,400 (2,638,400) 25,130,000 Other Taxes 15,498,864 14,222,000 14,750,000 532,000 15,282,000 Development Services Fees 6,388,776 4,548,500 4,858,500 - 4,858,500 Recreation Fees 4,197,090 4,607,457 4,914,484 113,450 5,027,934 Other Revenues 12,805,237 8,415,270 7,675,641 322,700 7,998,341 Total $151,149,404 $146,441,627 $151,442,025 ($203,250) $151,238,775 FY 2025
FY 2023 FY 2024 Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Expenditure Categories Actual Modified Budget Budget Adjustments Budget Personnel $94,110,681 $105,511,427 $108,471,827 $1,991,220 $110,463,047 Transportation & Training 1,750,740 1,865,165 1,838,953 (87,800) 1,751,153 Repairs & Maintenance 8,167,740 6,856,688 6,975,994 (884,010) 6,091,984 Materials & Supplies 27,199,195 33,095,261 34,234,114 766,277 35,000,391 Capital Outlay 1,829,159 746,000 437,550 180,380 617,930 Debt Services 482,932 5,000 5,000 - 5,000
Total Expenditures $133,540,446 $148,079,541 $151,963,438 $1,966,067 $153,929,505 FY 2025

Page 694 of 720 ends

Page 5 of 23 ends

target. As noted previously, the overall increase was initially higher, but several reduction measures, including personnel adjustments as shown in Table 4 below, were implemented including freezing six vacant positions. These actions have resulted in decreasing personnel costs in the General Fund by approximately $1.06 million and reducing the full-time equivalent (FTE) count by 0.4. Freezing a position is slightly different than deleting a position; freezing a position involves removing all budgeted dollars, but the FTE count remains the same. So while the FTE count is not impacted, staff’s recommendation to freeze these six positions is essentially equivalent to budgetarily reducing the FTE count by 6.0. Consistent with the City administration’s ongoing effort to keep costs under control, this Mid-Term Budget does not include any new permanent positions.

Table 4. Position Change Summary
Non-personnel Expenses
The non-personnel expenses identified in Table 3 above (all expense categories other than Personnel) are projected to decrease by a net total of $0.03 million as described in more detail below. Please note that similar to personnel cost reduction efforts, staff examined all non- personnel budget categories and implemented reductions whenever possible to keep costs under control.
x Transportation and Training – A net decrease of approximately $0.09 million mostly due to reduced travel and training budget offset by a small increase in maintenance costs due to aging vehicles.
x Repairs and Maintenance – A net decrease of approximately $0.88 million based on reduced General Fund contribution of $0.73 million to the Park & Median Replacement Internal Service Fund due to reallocation of the City’s tree maintenance contract to the General Fund. An additional decrease of $0.15 million to various contracts for general repairs and maintenance is recommended as part of reduction efforts.
x Materials and Supplies – A net increase of approximately $0.77 million based on a series of adjustments. As mentioned, the City’s tree maintenance contract Impacted General Fund
Proposed Adjustment Department General Fund Non-General Fund Fiscal Impact Freeze Chief Diversity Officer CMO - - ($165,094)
Freeze Sustainability Manager CDD - - (155,991)
Freeze Police Evidence Clerk PD - - (103,654)
Freeze Office Assistant CMO - - (138,870)
Freeze Recreation Coordinator L&R - - (159,764)
Freeze Recreation Supervisor L&R - - (212,501)
Reclassify Supervising Sr
Accountant to Sr Accountant Finance - - (20,921)
Move Management Analyst from City
Manager's Office to Public Works
and fund with Non-General Fund PW / CMO (0.40) 0.40 (108,063) Move Emergency Services Manager
from Public Works to City Manager's
Office CMO / PW - - -
City Manager's Office to Public
Works PW / CMO - - -
Total (0.40) 0.40 ($1,064,858)
FTE Impact

Page 695 of 720 ends

Page 6 of 23 ends

with $0.73 million budget is moving from the Parks & Median Replacement Internal Service Fund to the General Fund. Also highlighted previously, adjustments to utility costs are the largest non-personnel budget category due to a combination of rate increases as well as more up-to-date projections based on year-to-date actual usage information. Increases for electricity, water, and recycled water budgets in the General Fund are $0.59 million, $0.38 million, and $0.04 million, respectively, for a total of $1.01 million.

Other than the noted budget increases, departments with increasing budget in the Materials and Supplies category are:
x $0.41 million increase for the City Attorney’s Office primarily due to additional contribution to the City’s General Liability Insurance Fund based on increased legal and related claim costs
x $0.27 million increase for Fire mostly due to various one-time costs, including budget for upcoming labor negotiation, legal costs, financial system consultant, cost allocation plan, and insurance pool analysis
x $0.10 million increase for City Clerk’s Office due to one-time election-related costs.

These increases are offset by decreases to the following departments’ budgets:
x $0.27 million decrease for Community Development primarily based on decreased contract budget for plan check and building permit review services x $0.23 million decrease for Public Works based on a series of decreases to contracts, supplies, and equipment budget
x $0.21 million decrease for Information Technology based on reductions to several service contracts and budget for mobile devices x $0.17 million decrease for Police primarily based on removal of budget to implement a new public safety software that enables real-time data integration and operations management, along with reductions to several supplies and equipment and professional services budget
x $0.10 million decrease for Library & Recreation based on a series of decreases to professional and service contracts
x $0.08 million decrease for Finance based on reduced professional service contract budget
x $0.02 million decrease for City Manager’s Office and Human Resources collectively
x $0.72 million decrease for Non-Departmental primarily based on reduced contingency budget which was used to partially offset personnel cost increases. x Capital Outlay and Debt Services – A net increase of $0.18 million based on reappropriation of the mobile library vehicle budget for $0.28 million offset by decreases to budget for the air drone program and other reductions to machinery and equipment budget in Public Works and Police totaling $0.10 million.

Page 696 of 720 ends

Page 7 of 23 ends

policy requires a minimum reserve between 16.7 and 25.0 percent of operating expenses, with a target of 20.0 percent. The unrestricted General Fund reserve of $29.57 million equals 19.2 percent of the Mid-Term General Fund operating expenses.

30.0 and 40.0 percent with a target of 35.0 percent. The City Council approved a twoyear rate increase at the November 7, 2023 meeting. Projected additional revenues based on these rate increases, combined with keeping the operating budget minimal, were critical in the City securing an AA rating from the S&P recently for the 2024 Water Revenue Bonds, which is scheduled to be issued in June 2024 to fund critical water infrastructure and capacity improvement projects. Obtaining a high rating positions the City to lower borrowing costs to fund major capital needs.

Table 6. Water Operations and Maintenance Fund Overview

Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund
As shown in Table 7 below, recommended changes to the Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund include increasing revenues and expenditures by $0.86 million and $0.71 million, respectively. The result of this adjustment is an estimated ending fund FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2025
General Fund Ending Approved Projected Ending Recommendeded Projected Ending Fund Balance Fund Balance Adjustments Fund Balance Adjustments Fund Balance Unrestricted General Fund Reserve $29,559,876 $7,710 $29,567,586 $6,472 $29,574,058 COVID Response & Recovery 399,150 (80,000) 319,150 (30,000) 289,150 Crisis Response Program 400,000 (400,000) - - -
Mobile Outreach Vehicle 280,000 (280,000) 280,000 (280,000) - Strategic Plan Implementation Reserve 800,000 (420,572) 379,428 - 379,428 Emergency Reserve 500,000 - 500,000 - 500,000
Restricted General Fund Reserve 18,725,569 - 18,725,569 - 18,725,569 Total $50,664,595 ($1,172,862) $49,771,733 ($303,528) $49,468,205 FY 2024 Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Water/Recycled Water (O&M) Modified Budget Budget Adjustments Budget Beginning Balance $7,372,000 $6,272,727 $6,272,727
Revenues 34,501,564 37,757,041 $4,277,957 42,034,998
Net Transfers (1,049,252) (375,622) (415,263) (790,885) Expenses
Zone 7 Purchased Water (22,110,000) (23,310,000) - (23,310,000) All other expenses (12,441,585) (12,816,702) 124,436 (12,692,266) Total Expenses (34,551,585) (36,126,702) 124,436 (36,002,266) Net Income (1,099,273) 1,254,717 3,987,130 5,241,847
Ending Balance $6,272,727 $7,527,444 $11,514,574
FY 2025

Page 697 of 720 ends

Page 8 of 23 ends

balance of $7.28 million which equals 40.2 percent of FY 2024/25 operating expenses.

The City’s policy requires reserves equal to a minimum of 30.0 percent, a maximum of

40.0 percent and a target of 35.0 percent.

Table 7. Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund Overview Repair and Replacement Funds
As shown in Table 8 below, there is an overall decrease in the expenditure by $0.06 million and an increase in the revenue budget by $0.10 million FY 2024 Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Sewer (O&M) Modified Budget Budget Adjustments Budget
Beginning Balance $7,605,048 $7,197,131 $7,197,131
Revenues 16,529,500 17,222,500 $862,310 18,084,810
Net Transfers 1,134,000 135,000 - 135,000
Expenses
DSRSD (11,330,000) (11,300,000) (370,000) (11,670,000)
All other expenses (6,741,417) (6,123,410) (341,496) (6,464,906) Total Expenses (18,071,417) (17,423,410) (711,496) (18,134,906) Net Income (407,917) (65,910) 150,814 84,904
Ending Balance $7,197,131 $7,131,221 $7,282,035
FY 2025

Page 698 of 720 ends

Page 9 of 23 ends

Table 8. Repair and Replacement Fund Changes
Special Revenue Funds
Recommended changes to special revenue funds include increasing revenue estimates by $0.85 million and expenditure estimates by $0.37 million collectively. Changes include:
x An increase of revenue and expenditure by $0.05 million in the Bernal Donations Fund based on estimated donation
x An increase of $0.30 million in the Community Development Block Grant Fund based on new grants awarded to local organizations
x A revenue decrease of $0.07 million and an expenditure increase of $0.01 million in the HOME Program Fund based on estimated federal grant funding and grant award totals
x An expenditure decrease of $0.12 million in the Lower Income Housing Fund x A revenue increase by $0.04 million and an expenditure decrease by $0.12 million, respectively, in the Operating Grants Fund based on latest grant funding and projected spending estimates
x An increase of revenue and expenditure by $0.80 million and $0.19 million, respectively, in the Pleasanton Garbage Service Rate Reserve Fund based on new rate and grant revenues and added personnel costs
Adopted Recommended Mid-Term
Budget Adjustments Budget
Expenditure Adjustment
Vehicle Replacement $971,000 ($300,000) $671,000
Police Repair & Replacement 724,850 148,500 873,350
Fire Apparatus Replacement - 277,833 277,833
Equipment Replacement 275,000 175,000 450,000
Golf Repair & Replacement 345,000 100,000 445,000
Park & Median Renovation 1,025,000 (730,000) 295,000
General Liability Insurance 4,648,050 264,373 4,912,423 Total $7,988,900 ($64,294) $7,924,606
Revenue Adjustment
Park & Median Renovation $1,118,000 ($730,000) $388,000 General Liability Insurance 4,122,050 830,950 4,953,000 Total $5,240,050 $100,950 $5,341,000
Increased legal and related claims
budget offset by reduction in general
liability insurance premiums
Reduced contribution based on the tree
maintenance contract moving to the
General Fund
Increased contribution from the General
Fund based on additional legal and
claims spending in FY 2024, as well as
projected funding need in FY 2025
Repair & Replacement Fund
FY 2025
Explanation
Removal of the tree maintenance
contract budget
Reduced based on vehicles being
purchased and no longer leased, as well
as deferring the purchase of paratransit
bus
Additional funding needed to switch to
hybrid police interceptor vehicles
Loan payment budget for the 5-year fire
engine lease-purchase option in FY 2024
Replacing a bobcat equipment due to
CARB compliance regulations
Renovations to bunkers and tees at
various holes

Page 699 of 720 ends

Page 10 of 23 ends

x A decrease of $0.05 million in the Recycled & Wate management Fund based on reduced personnel costs; and
x An increase of revenue and expenditure by $0.03 million and $0.02 million, respectively, in the Urban Forestry Fund to reflect updated revenue and contract costs.

CIP Table 1 below highlights all the proposed Mid-Term adjustments by project category, as well as changes to non-capital expenditures, such as transfers and capital project staffing costs. Additional details are included in the List of Currently Funded Capital Projects & Recommended Adjustments in the Capital Budget Tables section.

Category
Adopted
Budget
Recommended
Adjustments
Mid-Term
Budget
Facilities $200,000 $300,000 $500,000
Miscellaneous 375,000 1,130,000 1,505,000
Parks 1,300,000 50,000 1,350,000
Sewer 1,500,000 - 1,500,000
Storm Drain 1,215,000 13,379,543 14,594,543
Transportation & Streets 8,540,000 5,881,599 14,421,599 Water 1,050,000 4,800,000 5,850,000
Capital Project Total $14,180,000 $25,541,142 $39,721,142 Other Expenditures 3,434,894 13,846,740 17,281,634
Capital & Other Expenditure Total $17,614,894 $39,387,882 $57,002,776 FY 2025

Page 700 of 720 ends

Pleasanton City CouncilMay 21, 2024

Pleasanton City Council
May 21, 2024