City Council meeting supplemental material 7-16-24 — Pleasanton City Council, July 16, 2024

City Council Minutes Page 1 of 6 June 4, 2024

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Tuesday, June 4, 2024
7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at the hour of 7:10 p.m. from the Council Chamber located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue.

Councilmember Arkin provided opening remarks.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Brown

Absent: None

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Sodergren stated there was no reportable action.

AGENDA AMENDMENTS
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmembers Balch and Arkin removed item 8 from the consent calendar for further discussion.

MOTION: It was m/s by Arkin/Testa to approve the consent calendar except for item 8.

Motion passed by the following vote:

City Manager

1. Approve minutes of the April 30, 2024 City and PUSD joint meeting, May 7, 2024 Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Te sta, Mayor Brown Noes: None

Absent: None

REVISED
City Council Minutes Page 2 of 6 June 4, 2024
Joint Powers Financing Authority meeting, and May 7, 2024 City Council workshop and regular meetings
Recommendation: Approve minutes of the April 30, 2024 City and PUSD joint meeting, May 7, 2024 Joint Powers Financing Authority meeting, and May 7, 2024 City Council workshop and regular meetings

2. Adopt a Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 5, 2024; a Resolution Requesting Consolidation with the Statewide General Election; and a Resolution Pertaining to the Submission of Candidate Statements
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-037 calling a General Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 5, 2024; Resolution No. 2024-038 requesting consolidation with the Statewide General Election; and Resolution No. 2024-039 pertaining to the submission of candidate statements.

Community Development

3. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission Recommendation: Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission.

4. Adopt Ordinance No. 2280 approving the application for a planned unit development (PUD) development plan to establish development standards and construct a 1,117-square-foot addition to the front, a 65-square-foot attached front covered porch, and a 160-square-foot attached rear covered porch to an existing single-family residence located at 544 Sycamore Road, as filed under Case No.

PUD-149
Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 2280 approving the application for a planned unit development (PUD) development plan to establish development standards and construct a 1,117-square-foot addition to the front, a 65-square-foot attached front covered porch, and a 160-square-foot attached rear covered porch to an existing single-family residence located at 544 Sycamore Road, as filed under Case No. PUD-149.

5. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute First Amendments to the on- call Professional Services Agreements with FirstCarbon Solutions and Rincon Consulting, extending the term of the Agreements for one year, through June 30, 2025
Recommendation: Appro
ve and authorize the City Manager to execute First
Amendments to the on-call Professional Services Agreements with FirstCarbon Solutions and Rincon Consulting, extending the term of the Agreements for one year, through June 30, 2025.

City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 June 4, 2024

6. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Subscription Services Agreement and Order Form for the Accela SaaS Multi-Solution User Service, with aggregate annual payments totaling $1,481,846 over a seven-year term, and approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Statement of Work Agreement for implementation of this cloud-based service, for a one-time cost not to exceed $90,850, which includes 15 percent contingency Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Subscription Services Agreement, Order Form, and Statement of Work with Accela for a one-time implementation cost of $79,000, plus an additional contingency amount of 15 percent for additional unforeseen costs associated with the implementation (total not to exceed amount of $90,850), and an initial term of seven years at a total aggregate cost of $1,481,846 over the seven-year period.

7. Continued from May 21, 2024 - Adopt a resolution approving the Ridge View Commons Senior Rental Housing Complex's Amended and Restated Loan Agreement, Ground Lease and Regulatory Agreement, and authorize the City Manager to execute all documents, including subordination agreements, and take all steps necessary to refinancing and renovation of Ridge View Commons Recommendation: Adop
t Resolution No. 2024-040 to:

1. Approve an Amended and Restated Ground Lease, an omnibus Assignment and Amendment to Loan Documents, an Amended and Restated Promissory Note, a Leasehold Deed of Trust, and a Regulatory Agreement, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute each such document substantially in the forms attached to the Resolution, with such modifications as may be approved by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney.

2. Allow subordination of the City's Leasehold Deed of Trust to deeds of trust and regulatory agreements to be executed for the benefit of the project construction lender and required in connection with the bond financing for the project; and

3. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute such additional documents and to take all steps necessary to implement the transactions described in this Agenda Report and the Resolution.

Library and Recreation
Item 8 pulled from Consent Calendar.

Public Works

9. Introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance updating Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 9.14, to conform with obligations specified in the City's Municipal Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 June 4, 2024
Recommendation: Introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance No. 2281 updating Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 9.14, to conform with obligations specified in the City's Municipal Regional National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

10. Recognition of Pleasanton Community Academy graduates Mayor Brown presented the recognition of the graduates.

11. Presentation of a proclamation declaring June as Pride Month Councilmember Arkin presented the proclamation to recipient Donalyn Harris with Tri-Valley PFLAG.

The Mayor opened public comment. The following individual provided comment:

Charles Henze. Mayor Brown closed public comment.

12. Presentation of a proclamation declaring June 7, 2024 as National Gun Violence Awareness Day
Councilmember Arkin presented the proclamation to recipient Anne with Valley Moms Against Violence.

13. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda Mayor Brown opened public comment. The following individuals provided comment:

Knut Ojermark, Krishna Chidambaram, Milli Patel, Eva Ruparel.

Mayor Brown closed the public comment.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS

14. Presentation of Community Survey and Public Engagement Results to Further Explore the Feasibility of a Revenue Measure
Recommendation: Receive a presentation of community survey and public engagement results to further explore the feasibility of a revenue measure.

Presentation by Susan Hsieh, Finance Director, and Pamela Ott, Assistant City Manager.

Mayor Brown opened public comment. The following individuals provided City Council Minutes Page 5 of 6 June 4, 2024
comment: Brian Jewell, Jason Hunter, Megan Campbell, Seema Chawla.

Mayor Brown closed the public comment.

15. Introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance approving the Sixth Amendment to the Development Agreement for the Stoneridge Shopping Center, located at 1008 through 1700 Stoneridge Mall Road, governing a previously-approved approximately 362,790 square-foot shopping center expansion to extend the term for six months, with potential additional extensions of either 18 months or two years, and a further potential extension of two years thereafter, subject to the completion of performance standards as set forth in the proposed amendment
Recommendation:

1. Find the proposed sixth amendment to the Stoneridge Shopping Center Development Agreement to be exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

2. Introduce Ordinance No. 2282 approving the Sixth Amendment to the Development Agreement to extend the term for six months with potential additional extensions of the term and direct the City Manager to execute the same.

Presentation by Ellen Clark, Community Development Director.

Mayor Brown opened public comment.

Comments were provided by Cecily Barclay for the project applicant Simon Group.

The following individuals provided comment: Jerry Hunt, Kameron Klotz.

Rebuttal comments were provided by Cecily Barclay for the project applicant, Simon Group.

Mayor Brown closed the public comment.

It was moved by Councilmember Arkin to approve a $50,000 payment at 3 months by September 30, 2024, with additional obligation that a contract for a parking consultant be in place by the end of the 3 month period. Motion failed for lack of second.

MOTION: It was m/s by Testa/Nibert to approve the item as recommended. Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes:

Coun
cilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Brown
Noes:

None

Absent:

None
Mayor Brown called a recess at 10:06 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m.

City Council Minutes Page 6 of 6 June 4, 2024

16. Receive an Update on the First Year of Implementation of the Five-year Citywide Strategic Plan
Recommendation: Receive an Update on the First Year of Implementation of the Five-year Citywide Strategic Plan.

Presentation by Alexa, Jeffress, Deputy City Manager.

Mayor Brown opened public comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Brown closed the public comment.

8. Adopt an Updated Resolution for Access to Augustin Bernal Park through Golden Eagle Estates and Rescind Resolution No. 93-44
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-041 for access to Augustin Bernal Park through Golden Eagle Estates and rescind Resolution No. 93-44.

MOTION: It was m/s by Brown/Testa to adopt the resolution as recommended and to include the following modifications: provide an annual residency pass for youth, add a $10 per week fee for non-resident passes, update the Management Plan section 3(a)(i) to read "Pleasanton School Student Identification Card" and request from Golden Eagle Estates an earlier opening access time of 7:00 a.m. described in section 2(a).

Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes:

Coun
cilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Brown
Noes: None

Absent:

None

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
Councilmember Balch requested an update by memorandum on the progress of economic development in the city, including city businesses and internal operations such as business permits. The City Manager agreed to provide a future update.

Mayor Brown requested, and by majority consensus, the Council agreed to a future discussion to consider changing the start time of regular City Council meetings to begin at 6:00 p.m.

COUNCIL REPORTS

City Councilmembers reported on regional and local meetings attended.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brown adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
______________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
PL £ASANTON~

MEMORANDUM
Date: July 12, 2024
To:

From:

Mayor and City Council
Gerry Beaudin, City Manager ~
Mike Tassano, Deputy Director of Community Development, Transportation Re: Agenda Item 23, PUD-147, P22-1089, Tract 8522, Merritt At the June 26, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the above-referenced Merritt property development applications were reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to support staff's recommendation to forward the project to the City Council for review. Included in the Planning Commission's recommendation was a request for staff to complete a supplemental evaluation of access to Foothill Road and consider the construction of a traffic signal on Foothill Road or an alternate improvement to assist with the access to Foothill Road. The Commission's concerns related to the speed of the vehicles on Foothill Road and the ability for the senior residents of the project to safely exit the proposed development.

This memorandum provides the additional analysis requested by the Planning Commission and is provided as a supplemental memorandum since the analysis had not been completed at the time of publication of the City Council agenda packet. • Merritt Property Supplemental Site Access Evaluation
Project Details
The proposed project includes 111 age restricted single family homes, with residents limited to adults 55 and older. The point of access to and from the development is on Foothill Road.

Foothill Road is a 2-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 mph.

The proposed project will widen Foothill Road along the 800-foot project frontage and along an additional 1,000 feet to provide a wider section from Muirwood Drive south to Foothill Knolls Drive (~1,800 feet of improvements). These improvements will include an additional 27 feet of usable roadway which will be used to create new left turn pockets and new buffered bike lanes. A six-foot sidewalk will also be constructed on the east side of Foothill Road; this sidewalk extension is located outside of the previously mentioned 27-foot roadway widening area.

2 of 7

Traffic Speed and Volume
Foothill Road has a daily volume of 8,000 to 12,000 vehicles per day depending on the day of the week and levels of I-680 freeway congestion, which can result in vehicles using Foothill Road as a cut-through route. Traffic volume on Foothill Road is heaviest during the AM and PM commute hours as well as during the 3:00 PM school release time. During these times the volume is normally directionally distributed. As an example, the AM peak hour can have 800 southbound vehicles and 400 northbound vehicles in an hour.

When directional vehicle volumes exceed 650 vehicles per hour, the number of gaps in traffic that can be used to access Foothill Road begins to decline. 650 vehicles per hour results in an average spacing of 5.5 seconds per vehicle; 5.5 seconds is the typical spacing needed between vehicles to allow for left turns onto Foothill Road. As directional volumes increase, the spacing between vehicles is reduced. As directional volumes approach 1,000-1,200 vehicles, the line of vehicles becomes nearly continuous and gaps in traffic are infrequent.

Data collected prior to the pandemic showed that from 7 AM to 9 AM the southbound volumes exceeded 1,000 vehicles per hour. Northbound maximum hourly volumes approached, but did not exceed, 650 vehicles (maximum northbound volume was also from 8 AM to 9 AM). During these busier morning hours, the left turn access onto Foothill Road may require a driver to wait several minutes to find an adequate gap in traffic.

Annual data collection in spring 2024 shows similar AM volumes to the pre-pandemic traffic counts, with the afternoon school and PM commute volumes remaining below the 650-vehicle directional volume.

The project trip generation table below compares the vehicle trip generation of an age- restricted senior adult housing project to the vehicle trip generation of a non-age-restricted single family home development. Notably, senior housing projects generate fewer trips than traditional single family home developments. In addition to the lower trip rate, seniors tend to choose to drive outside of the busy peak hours and their peak hour trip rates are also lower than traditional single family home developments.

The expected volume generated by the proposed development is 647 daily trips. The AM peak hour (7 AM to 8 AM) and PM peak hour (5 PM to 6 PM) have 42 and 48 trips respectively.

These volumes differ slightly from what is shown in the staff report. The staff report volumes used the ITE average trip generation rate, but in this supplemental analysis, the ITE fitted curve equation was used, which provides a more conservative estimate given the proposed development size.

The AM peak hour has the highest volume on Foothill Road and the highest volume of vehicles leaving the development with 28 vehicles exiting between 7 AM and 8 AM. The modeling assumes that half of the vehicles will turn right, and half will turn left, giving a total of 14 vehicles wanting to make the left turn during the busiest hour of the day (one vehicle every 4-5 minutes).

3 of 7

Traffic speed data on Foothill Road is collected on a regular basis. Over the last 15 years, the speed has been consistent with 85% of drivers driving at or below 45 mph and 99% of vehicles driving below 55 mph.

Sight Distance
The sight distance to the south is 630 feet. This distance is measured from the proposed project driveway to the point where a vehicle is first visible as it comes around the curve at Puri Court.

The approximate sight distance to the north is 550 feet. This distance is measured from the proposed project driveway to the top of the vertical curve located at Equus Court. The sight distance looking to the north may improve with the project, as the trees lining the roadway will be removed, which could add 30-40 feet of sight distance.

• Stopping Sight Distance
1 for a vehicle traveling at 45 mph is 360 feet.
• Intersection Sight Distance2 for 45 mph is 500 feet.

Thus, the visibility to the north and the south meets the required intersection sight distance of 500 feet.

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population evaluated intersection sight distance for ages 55-80 years old. The handbook provides greater detail on intersection sight distance and the concept of gap acceptance for older drivers, in particular suggesting that older drivers need a larger gap between vehicles to feel comfortable making left turns. It notes that for the average driver, an acceptable gap in vehicles is 5.5 seconds, meaning that a typical driver wanting to turn left onto a roadway will want 5.5 seconds between vehicles. This time between vehicles progresses linearly with age, and older drivers (75+) may need up to 8 seconds to have a comfortable gap for left turns.

Although field observations conducted by the FHWA identifies a metric of 5.5 seconds, the accepted standard for intersection sight distance evaluation uses a larger 7 second gap. This larger gap provides easier access for larger vehicles (delivery vehicles) and older drivers that exercise caution and turn at a slower speed.

1 This value is used for drivers on Foothill Road to recognize an object in the roadway and come to a stop before striking it. 2 This number is used to determine the distance needed for a vehicle exiting a side street to look left, right and left again to make a left turn onto Foothill Road.

4 of 7

It should also be noted that some reports have shown that older drivers are willing to take a standard 5.5 second gap, but that older drivers have a more difficult time recognizing the speed of oncoming vehicles and can misjudge the gap. This difficulty in speed recognition can result in older drivers choosing to wait for greater space between vehicles to feel comfortable making the turn.

For typical roadway users, 500 feet of sight distance is required to see, evaluate and use a gap in traffic to enter the roadway. This value equates to what is comfortable for drivers around age 65; younger drivers require less than 500 feet. For older drivers (75+) the sight distance needed increases slightly to 530 feet.

For the Merritt project, the intersection sight distance looking to the south (630 feet) is adequate for documented traffic speeds on Foothill of 45 mph and 55 mph. Older drivers should not have difficulty entering the roadway looking to the south, as it provides an ability to see a vehicles that are 8 seconds away.

The intersection sight distance looking to the north is 550 feet. This provides visibility beyond the required 500 feet of sight distance for 45 mph, but limited sight distance at 55 mph. The typical driver will be able to evaluate the gaps in traffic to turn on to Foothill Road. Older drivers may choose to wait until no southbound vehicle is present before making the turn, as the 550 feet of sight distance is right at the gap acceptance time for older drivers.

Accident Data
In the past 20 years, there have been 7 crashes along the project frontage. Most of these crashes are the result of vehicles driving off the road, which are shown in the table as “hit object.”

Year Direction Type Age Time
2004 SB DUI 54 3:00 AM
2007 SB Hit Object 18 11:00 PM
2011 NB Rear end 29 3:00 PM
2012 NB Hit Object 43 12:30 AM
2014 NB Hit Object 16 9:00 PM
2021 NB Hit Object –
reading texts
16 8:00 AM
2022 SB Rear end 16 3:45 PM

The review of the adjacent residential intersections shows 7 crashes in the past 20 years.

None of the crashes involved a vehicle making a left turn from the side street. The Muirwood Drive South crashes, while both shown as broadside crashes, don’t necessarily call out a pattern, as they are almost 15 years apart. Puri Court’s crashes are like the crashes along the project frontage with the crash type “hit object.” These two crashes are 10+ years apart.

Foothill Knolls did have two rear end crashes in successive years, but in opposite directions.

5 of 7

Year Location Type Age Time
2007 Muirwood Broadside veh/bike
SBLT vs SB bike
Driver 16
Bike 37
9 AM
Sunday
2021 Muirwood Broadside veh/ped
SBLT vs NB ped
Driver 54
Ped 16
8:20 AM
Tuesday
2004 Puri Court Hit Object -NB 16 8:10 AM
2017 Puri Court Hit Object ? 11:15 PM
2008 Ft. Knolls Sideswipe veh/bike
NBRT vs NB bike
? 8:45 AM
Wednesday
2019 Ft. Knolls Rear end SB 19 10:00 AM
Wednesday
2020 Ft. Knolls Rear end NB 17 7:00 AM
Tuesday

Traffic Signal
The State of California provides a series of warrants that are used as a guide to determine when a traffic signal is needed, primarily based on intersection volume. Typically, traffic signals are installed when volumes are consistent throughout the day and large enough to cause excessive delays in access. The two primary warrants 3included 8-hour volume and 4-hour volume. The 8-hour warrant requires that the main street volume be consistently above 500 vehicles per hour and the side street must also be above 150 vehicles per hour. The 4-hour warrant has a sliding scale that reduces the required side street volume depending on the main street volume but has a minimum threshold of 100 side street vehicles per hour.

Foothill Road meets the volume requirements for both the 4-hour and 8-hour warrants, but the proposed development is not expected to exceed 28 vehicles leaving the development in the peak hour (and only 14 of those are left turns). This volume is too low to satisfy any of the traffic signal warrants.

Discussion
The project will widen Foothill Road, adding six-foot bike lanes with two-foot buffers to each side of the roadway. The project will provide additional widening to create left turn pockets into the proposed project site and the proposed project on Equus Court to the west. The added roadway width should reduce the most prevalent type of crashes (“run off the road”) on Foothill Road, since the widening will allow drivers to correct for inattentive driving before hitting an object.

The proposed design of the widened section of Foothill Road meets the minimum design requirements for sight distance to access Foothill Road. As described above, the FHWA handbook on roadway design for aging population suggests that sight distance greater than what is available would allow for easier access for seniors, particularly if vehicles are traveling above the posted limit.

3 There are 9 separate traffic signal warrants developed by Caltrans. Most traffic signals are installed based on the 4 -hour and 8-hour warrant. These are the primary warrants, with the other warrants having a specific purpose like proximity to railroad or part of a coordinated network.

6 of 7

When looking to the north, a vehicle exiting the proposed project will be able to see a southbound vehicle for 5.5 to 7 seconds. While this time is sufficient for most drivers to feel comfortable making the left turn, drivers in the 75+ category may not feel that they can see a vehicle long enough to comfortably make the left turn.

Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Improvements to Senior Driver Comfort Levels As noted, the traffic volumes, sight distances and other factors do not suggest that a safety issue would be caused for residents of the project or other drivers. However, recognizing that seniors may require a higher level of comfort to feel confident making left turns from the project, staff evaluated options for improving those conditions.

Further improve sight distance
Increasing the sight distance when looking to the north would provide a longer window of visibility and allow older drivers to better assess the available gaps in traffic. The increase in sight distance, however, would require Foothill Road to be reconstructed so that the vertical curve that is limiting sight distance is reduced. This would require significant earthwork, grading and roadway reconstruction. Foothill Road reconstruction to eliminate the vertical curve to increase sight distance is not recommended.

Reduce speed
Speed data collected along the project frontage shows that the overwhelming number of drivers (85%) drive at or below the 45-mph posted limit, and that nearly all drivers (99%) drive below 55 mph. The sight distance to both the north and south is adequate but is at the margin of comfort for the small proportion of vehicles that drive above the posted speed limit. These southbound drivers that travel above the speed limit could be a surprise to left turn vehicles entering Foothill Road. Installation of a radar speed sign in the southbound direction is recommended to control southbound vehicle speeds. A radar speed sign in the northbound direction would also improve the space between vehicles and allow for a larger window of acceptable gaps for vehicles exiting the proposed project.

Install traffic signal
It is not recommended that a signal be installed at the project site entrance. The trip generation data suggests a maximum of 14 vehicles per hour wanting to make the left turn onto Foothill Road. This volume is not enough to warrant the installation of a traffic signal.

A better location for a traffic signal would be at Muirwood Drive South intersection. While this intersection also falls short of the required side street volume, the volume is closer to the warrant threshold. The installation of a traffic signal at Muirwood Drive South would provide the option to drivers having trouble making a left turn from the proposed project driveway to turn right to travel north on Foothill then right on Muirwood Drive South, make a U-turn and then use the signalized left turn lane. While this is a longer route for those motorists, the traffic signal at this location would provide access and a protected left turn to a greater number of vehicles, including non-project vehicles turning from Muirwood Drive on to Foothill Road.

Recommendation
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends the following:

7 of 7

• Require proposed project to install radar speed sign in both the northbound and southbound direction to slow traffic to increase the time between vehicles. • Upon completion of construction, staff will re-evaluate the sight distance and delay for motorists in the AM and PM peak hours. If the left turn delay average is found to be greater than 4 minutes per vehicle, the Traffic Engineer will elevate the priority of the Muirwood Drive South signal on the signal priority list. The left turn exit volume will be added to the Muirwood Drive South volume and engineering judgement will be used to provide additional points in the signal priority matrix. A signal at Muirwood Drive South will provide an alternate method to gain access to southbound Foothill Road.

Date:

To:

From:

Subject:

PLEASANTON.

MEMORANDUM
July 12, 2024
Mayor and City Council
Gerry Beaudin, City Manager {3;7
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Agenda Item 23, PUD-147, P22-1089, Tract 8522, Merritt, Conditions of Approval
This memo provides proposed text changes to the project Conditions of Approval (COAs), specifically subsection f. and COAs Nos. 2, 34, 35, and 41, which are attached to the City Council Agenda Report Packet as Exhibit A to Attachment 3.

The proposed edits, shown in redline in the following pages, clarify various COAs and align them to the Development Agreement and findings for the various approvals, including, but not limited to: (a) the circumstances in which the PUD approval could expire; (b) timing for collection of fees in accordance with the provisions of the project's Development Agreement (DA); and (c) the environmental compliance requirements prescribed by the projects CEQA Section 15183 Consistency Checklist and/or the Housing Element Update FEIR.

EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

P22-1089, PUD-147, Tract 8522, and P24-0378
4131 Foothill Road (APN 941-0950-003-03), 4141 Foothill Road (APN 941-0950-003-01), APN 941-0950-003-11, and APN 941- 0950-003-12
July 16, 2024

f. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by First Carbon Solutions, dated February 1, 2024, and included as Appendix D of the CEQA Section 15183 Consistency Checklist (Appendix D contains sensitive information pertaining to cultural resources and has been withheld from public distribution pursuant to Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993.).

2. EXPIRATION – RESIDENTIAL PUD: The PUD development plan shall lapse upon the later of: (a) termination or expiration of the project Development Agreement or (b) expiration of the project Vesting Tentative Map; provided, however, if a final map in accordance with the DA from the effective date of this ordinance unless a final or parcel map, as applicable, is approved. If a final or parcel map is approved, the PUD development plan approval shall lapse when the final or parcel map approval expires. If the map is recorded before the Vesting Tentative Map final or parcel map expires, then the PUD development approval shall not lapse. Project Specific Condition

34. CULTURAL RESOURCES/HUMAN REMAINS: If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indication of cultural resources are found once the project construction is underway, all work shall stop within 20-meters (66 feet) of the find. A qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for an immediate evaluation of the find prior to resuming groundbreaking construction activities within 20 meters of the find. If the find is determined to be an important archaeological resource, the resource shall be either avoided, if feasible, or recovered consistent with the requirements of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. In the event that human remains are discovered during grading and construction of the project, work shall stop immediately. There shall be no disposition of such human remains, other than in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Section 5097.98, and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. These code provisions require notification of the County Coroner, who may then notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who in turn must notify the persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American for appropriate disposition of the remains. A similar note shall appear on the building permit and/or improvement plans.

To provide archaeological and tribal cultural resources training for those participating in construction, an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards for archaeology shall attend the pre-construction meeting with the contractors to provide Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all construction personnel who will be engaging in ground disturbing activities. The training shall include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the proposed project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities, along with visual aids/appropriate examples of those resources; applicable federal, State, and local statutes governing the protection of archaeological resources; and the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly assessed. A sign-in sheet shall be circulated and returned to the lead agency as confirmation the training has taken place.

In addition, a qualified Archaeologist shall be present to monitor during the clearing and grubbing phases of ground disturbance to check for inadvertent exposure of cultural materials. In the event exposed soils indicate that cultural materials may be present, this may be followed by regular or periodic archaeological monitoring as determined by the Archaeologist. Project Specific Condition

35. FEES: As detailed in Unless otherwise specified by the project Development Agreement, the applicant shall pay any and all fees to which the property may be subject, prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, or prior to recordation of the final map, whichever is applicable. The type and amount of the fees shall be those in effect at the time the permit is issued. Project Specific Condition

41. MITIGATION MEASURES/IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: As indicated in the project’s Section 15183 Checklist, several mitigation measures identified in the Housing Element Update FEIR are applicable to the proposed project:
• MM AIR-1a
• MM AIR-1b
• MM BIO-1
• MM GEO-6
• MM HAZ-2
• MM NOI-1
• MM TRANS 2

The following measures from the Housing Element Update FEIR shall be implemented:

• MM AIR-1a: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever is sooner, the project applicant for a potential site for rezoning shall submit an air quality construction plan detailing the proposed air quality construction measures related to the project such as construction phasing, construction equipment, and dust control measures, and such plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Air quality construction measures shall include Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in 2017, and, where construction-related emissions would exceed the applicable thresholds, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures, as recommended by the BAAQMD, shall be implemented to reduce emissions to acceptable levels. The air quality construction plan shall be included on all grading, utility, building, landscaping, and improvement plans during all phases of construction and for access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.

• MM AIR-1b. The following measures pertain to project sites where residences would be located within distances where the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) or the California Air Resources Board (ARB) recommends not siting residential uses due to exposures to toxic air contaminants (TACs). For example, the current 2005 ARB Land Use Book recommends that agencies avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Indoor Air Quality: In accordance with the recommendations of the BAAQMD, appropriate measures (refer to Section 5 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) shall be incorporated into building design in order to reduce the potential health risk due to exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs, including, but not limited to:

(a) Locate sensitive receptors as far as possible within each project site from any freeways, major roadways or other non-permitted TAC sources (e.g., loading docks, parking lots). [The project Vesting Tentative Map and project PUD comply with and implement this requirement.]

(b) Incorporate tiered plantings of trees (such as redwood, deodar cedar, live oak, and/or oleander) to the maximum extent feasible between the sources of pollution and sensitive receptors. [The project Landscaping Plans in the PUD Development Plan comply with and implement this requirement.]

(c) Install, operate and maintain in good working order a central heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system or other air take system in the building, or in each residential unit, that meets or exceeds an efficiency standard of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Values (MERV) 13, including the following features:
installation of high-efficiency filter and/or carbon filter to filter particulates and other chemical matter from the building (either high-efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filters or ASHRAE 85 percent supply filters).

(d) Retain a qualified HVAC consultant or Home Energy Rating System (HERS) rater during the design phase of the project to locate air ventilation and the HVAC system intakes based on exposure modeling from pollutant sources; install indoor air quality monitoring in buildings.

(e) Applicants shall ensure that HVAC systems and air ventilation systems are maintained, repaired, or replaced on an ongoing and as-needed basis. If the project includes for-sale units, then the applicant shall prepare two operation and maintenance manuals for the HVAC systems and the filters: one manual shall be included in the recorded Conditions Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that shall be recorded, and the manual shall be distributed to building maintenance staff; the other manual shall be written for homeowners’ with operating instructions and maintenance and replacement schedule for the HVAC system and filters, and that manual shall be distributed to owners. Project Specific Condition.

• MM GEO-6: A professional paleontologist, approved by the City of Pleasanton, shall conduct a site-specific paleontological resources survey on the potential sites for rezoning

If any of the potential sites for rezoning are found to be underlain by older Quaternary deposits, or any other soil with the potential to contain vertebrate fossils due to their high paleontological sensitivity for significant resources, applicants, owners and/or sponsors of all future development or construction projects shall be required to perform or provide paleontological monitoring, if recommended by the qualified paleontologist. Should significant paleontological resources (e.g., bones, teeth, well-preserved plant elements) be unearthed by a future project construction crew, project activities shall be diverted at least 15 feet from the discovered paleontological resources until a professional paleontologist has assessed such discovered resources and, if deemed significant, such resources shall be salvaged in a timely manner. The applicant/owner/sponsor of said project shall be responsible for diverting project work and providing the assessment including retaining a professional paleontologist for such purpose. Collected fossils shall be deposited by the applicant/owner/sponsor in an appropriate repository (e.g., University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), California Academy of Sciences) where the collection shall be properly curated and made available for future research.

In addition, in accordance with the FEIR Mitigation Measures, additional site-specific technical studies were completed, the results of which are documented in the Section 15183 Checklist. The project shall implement the following project-specific requirements, pursuant to the respective FEIR Mitigation Measures listed, and in accordance with the technical studies. For the remaining Mitigation Measures listed above, the technical studies and Section 15183 Checklist conclude that no further study or project-specific implementation is needed:

A. Project-Specific Implementation Measures for Compliance with MM Bio-1:
• General Avoidance and Minimization Measures Included in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) – The EACCS contains the following general avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the effects on focal species. These measures are taken from Table 3-2: of the EACCS (ICF 2010). o Employees and contractors performing construction activities will receive environmental sensitivity training. Training will include review of environmental laws and Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) that must be followed by all personnel to reduce or avoid effects on covered species during construction activities.
o Environmental tailboard trainings will take place on an as‐needed basis in the field. The environmental tailboard trainings will include a brief review of the biology of the covered species and guidelines that must be followed by all personnel to reduce or avoid negative effects to these species during construction activities. Directors, Managers, Superintendents, and the crew foremen and forewomen will be responsible for ensuring that crewmembers comply with the guidelines.
o Contracts with contractors, construction management firms, and subcontractors will obligate all contractors to comply with these requirements, and AMMs. o The following will not be allowed at or near work sites for covered activities: trash dumping, firearms, open fires (such as barbecues) not required by the activity, hunting, and pets (except for safety in remote locations). o Vehicles and equipment will be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas to the extent practicable.
o Off-road vehicle travel will be minimized.
o Vehicles will not exceed a speed limit of 15 mph on unpaved roads within natural land‐cover types, or during off‐road travel.
o Vehicles or equipment will not be refueled within 100 feet of a wetland, stream, or other waterway unless a bermed and lined refueling area is constructed. o Vehicles shall be washed only at approved areas. No washing of vehicles shall occur at job sites.
o To discourage the introduction and establishment of invasive plant species, seed mixtures/straw used within natural vegetation will be either rice straw or weed‐free straw.
o Pipes, culverts and similar materials greater than four inches in diameter, will be stored so as to prevent covered wildlife species from using these as temporary refuges, and these materials will be inspected each morning for the presence of animals prior to being moved.
o Erosion control measures will be implemented to reduce sedimentation in wetland habitat occupied by covered animal and plant species when activities are the source of potential erosion problems. Plastic mono‐filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material containing netting shall not be used at the project. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackified hydroseeding compounds.
o Stockpiling of material will occur such that direct effects to covered species are avoided. Stockpiling of material in riparian areas will occur outside of the top of bank, and preferably outside of the outer riparian dripline and will not exceed 30 days.
o Grading will be restricted to the minimum area necessary. o Prior to ground disturbing activities in sensitive habitats, project construction boundaries and access areas will be flagged and temporarily fenced during construction to reduce the potential for vehicles and equipment to stray into adjacent habitats.
o Significant earth moving‐activities will not be conducted in riparian areas within 24 hours of predicted storms or after major storms (defined as 1‐inch of rain or more).
o Trenches will be backfilled as soon as possible. Open trenches will be searched each day prior to construction to ensure no covered species are trapped. Earthen escape ramps will be installed at intervals prescribed by a qualified biologist.

• Species Specific Avoidance and Minimization Measures – The EACCS also includes species-specific AMMs. The species-specific AMMs for burrowing owls are described below. These measures are taken from Table 3-3 of the EACCS (ICF 2010).

BIRD-2: Burrowing Owl
o If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area work will be conducted outside of the nesting season (March 15 to September 1). o If an active nest is identified near a proposed work area and work cannot be conducted outside of the nesting season, a no‐activity zone will be established by a qualified biologist. The no‐activity zone will be large enough to avoid nest abandonment and will at a minimum be 250‐feet radius from the nest. This buffer is based on the recommended guidelines described in the “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” by the CDFW (2012).
o If burrowing owls are present at the site during the non‐breeding period, a qualified biologist will establish a no‐activity zone of at least 150 feet. o If an effective no‐activity zone cannot be established in either case, an experienced burrowing owl biologist will develop a site‐specific plan (i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of theowls, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background activities) to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Authorization – If any impacts are to occur to Corps jurisdictional wetlands or waters, then a Section 404 Nationwide or Individual permit will be required.

• State Authorization – If any impacts are to occur to wetlands or waters subject to CDFW or RWQCB jurisdiction (Waters of the State), then a Section 401 permit will be required, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required.

• On-Site Wetland/Waters Mitigation – If work proposed on the Property includes impacts to Corps or State jurisdictional features, then on-site mitigation will be implemented. The proposed Project currently includes the design of on-site mitigation to be provided at a 2:1 ratio. The mitigation features will be constructed in portions of the Property currently identified as upland areas. This on-site mitigation would reduce project impacts to jurisdictional features to “less than significant”.

• Rare Plant Survey – While special-status plants are not likely to occur on the Property, a rare plant survey of the Property in accordance with CDFW and CNPS guidelines should be within one year of the start of construction to ensure that impacts to special-status plants are less than significant. The survey should be scheduled to coincide with the identified blooming or identification periods for those species having potential to occur (April through June). Any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species that are observed should be identified and mapped. If any of these species are found, consultation with the USFWS and/or CDFW may be required regarding appropriate mitigation. Mitigation will likely include avoidance of the population or collection and redistribution of seeds.

• Pre-Construction Avian Survey – If Project construction-related activities take place during the nesting season (February through August), preconstruction surveys for all nesting birds (including waterfowl, passerines, raptors, and other birds) within and adjacent to (within 1,000 feet) the Property should be conducted by a competent biologist 14 days prior to the commencement of the tree removal or site grading activities. Surveys should focus on areas where birds are likely to nest, including trees, shrubs, grasslands, rock faces, stream banks, or under eves of structures. If any bird listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is found to be nesting within the project site or within the area of influence, an adequate protective buffer zone should be established by a qualified biologist to protect the nesting site. This buffer shall be a minimum of 75 feet from the project activities for small passerine birds, and a minimum of 250 feet for raptors. The distance shall be determined by a competent biologist based on the site conditions (topography, if the nest is in a line of sight of the construction and the sensitivity of the birds nesting). The nest site(s) shall be monitored by a competent biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. Once the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones (typically by August), the project can proceed without further regard to the nest site(s).

Active nests, including those in the process of being constructed shall not be disturbed. Surveys shall be repeated in areas where Project activities lapse for a period of 7 days or more.

• Burrowing Owl Surveys – A burrowing owl pre-construction survey should take place before any construction activities commence. Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl or its sign at or near a burrow entrance is observed within the last three years. If a burrowing owl or sign is present on the Property three additional protocol level surveys will be initiated. Once these surveys have been completed to identify the owl’s location, disturbance buffers should be placed around each active burrow. No disturbance should occur within 250 feet of occupied burrows during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) and/or within 160 feet of occupied burrows during non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31). Pre-construction surveys shall be completed 14 days prior to initiating activities.

• Special-status Bats Surveys – For all Project activities planned in or adjacent to potential bat roosting habitat, such as structures and/or involving woody vegetation modification or removal of any and all trees, a qualified biologist shall conduct daytime and evening acoustic surveys in addition to extensive visual surveys of potential habitat for special-status bats at least 7 days prior to initiation of Project activities. If bats are found on-site, a qualified biologist shall identify the species, estimated quantity present, roost type, and roost status, but shall avoid disturbing bats during surveys. A qualified biologist shall also create a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan if special-status bat species are detected prior to the start of Project activities. The Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include: (1) an assessment of all Project impacts to special-status bats, including noise disturbance during construction; (2) effective avoidance and minimization measures to protect special-status bats; (3) and compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to special-status bats or their nesting/roosting habitat. If structures, trees, or other refugia equivalents are slated for limbing, removal, or modification, the Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include the following measures:

• To ensure that special-status bats have left potential roosting refugia, work shall occur over the course of two days. On the first day, smaller limbs or items from the identified trees or structures shall be brushed back or modified in the late afternoon. This disturbance should cause any potential roosting bats to seek other roosts during their nighttime foraging. The remainder of the refugia item can then be further limbed or removed as needed on the second day as late in the afternoon as feasible. If bats are found injured, or if bat mortality occurs during the course of tree work, a qualified biologist shall record the species impacted, and the number of individuals documented.

• Tree limbing, modification, removal, or work on structural refugia shall not be performed under any of the following conditions: during any precipitation events, when ambient temperatures are below 4.5 degrees Celsius, when windspeeds exceed 11 miles per hour, and/or any other condition which may lead to bats seeking refuge.

• If special-status bats are found utilizing a tree, structure, or equivalent for roosting, the Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include permanent artificial roosting habitat installations that shall be adjacent to, and sufficient for, the species observed and associated ecology thereof. Effective buffer zones for the installation and monitoring of the artificial roosts shall be determined and established by a qualified biologist.

• Erosion Control – Grading and excavation activities could expose soil to increased rates of erosion during construction periods. During construction, runoff from the Property could adversely affect aquatic life within the adjacent water features. Surface water runoff could remove particles of fill or excavated soil from the site, or could erode soil down-gradient, if the flow were not controlled. Deposition of eroded material in adjacent water features could increase turbidity, thereby endangering aquatic life, and reducing wildlife habitat. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to aquatic organisms would be avoided or minimized. Mitigation measures may include best management practices (BMP’s) such as hay bales, silt fencing, placement of straw mulch and hydro seeding of exposed soils after construction as identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

B. Project-Specific Implementation Measures for Compliance with MM NOI-1:
• To the maximum extent practical, the following measures should be incorporated into the project construction operations:
o Noise-generating construction activities shall not occur within the hours identified in Noise Ordinance Section 9.04.100.
o Locate stationary construction equipment as far from adjacent occupied buildings as possible.
o All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal-combustion engines shall be equipped with manufacturers-recommended mufflers and be maintained in good working condition.
o All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project site that are regulated for noise output by a federal, state, or local agency shall comply with such regulations while in the course of project activity.
o All construction equipment must meet California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV0) noise standards and shall be equipped with muffling devices. o Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of pneumatic or internal- combustion-powered equipment, where feasible.
o Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. o Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences, and outdoor recreation areas, are avoided as much as possible
o Project area and site access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.
o Nearby residences shall be notified of construction schedules so that arrangements can be made, if desired, to limit their exposure to short-term increases in ambient noise levels.
o Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The telephone number of the noise during disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and shall be provided to the City of Pleasanton. Copies of the construction schedule

• The following measures should be incorporated into the building facade construction:
o For the seven (7) lots located nearest to Interstate 680, the north-, east-, and south-facing upper-floor building facades should maintain minimum window assembly STC ratings of 32. Figure 2 [in the Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc., dated “Received” on December 27, 2022], illustrates the facades requiring improved STC rated windows. o Standard residential construction practices (wood or stucco siding, STC-27 windows, door weather-stripping, exterior wall insulation, composition plywood roof) would be adequate for the remainder of the development. o Mechanical ventilation (air conditioning) should be provided for all residences in this development to allow the occupants to close doors and windows as desired to achieve compliance with the applicable interior noise level criteria. Project Specific Condition

END

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

1 Responses to City Council Agenda Items – July 16, 2024

Regular Meeting

Agenda Item #7

1. How much did we pay last year?
A. We paid $100,445 for production services and artist contracts (out of the $110,000 budgeted annually in the Firehouse Professional Services account).

2. Did the Bankhead/Chris Carter propose?
A. Yes. Livermore Valley Arts (LVA) submitted for their production services costs only - totaling $25,000 annually for 18 shows = $1,389 for each show. See chart below.

LVA did not include the payment of artist contracts in their proposal or interview discussion. (This includes direct payments to performers, lodging, special food requests, travel costs, liability insurance). The cost of the artist payments alone are $92,000 annually which is the bulk of the annual contract cost.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

2 Agenda Item #23

1. Request for Traffic Analysis.

A. A supplemental memo from the City Traffic Engineer will be available as supplemental material, providing additional analysis of driver safety accessing Foothill Drive, particularly for drivers making left turns. The analysis concludes there would be no safety issues, since adequate sight distances would exist to allow safe turning movements – the analysis considered actual traffic volumes, speeds, and accident data for this segment of Foothill, as well as factoring in driver behavior for senior drivers specifically.

However, the analysis acknowledges that senior drivers may seek a higher level of comfort than younger drivers when waiting for an appropriate gap to make turns, which could cause them to wait longer to turn left. The analysis recommends the following condition of approval be added: 1) Require the applicant to install speed radar signs on Foothill to help control speeds and 2) Once the project is constructed, City to conduct monitoring of driver turn delays, and if that delay is excessive, at the discretion of the City, use Traffic Impact Fees to install a traffic signal at Muirwood/Foothill. [Note that this location is recommended to both benefit the higher volume of side-street traffic turning on to Foothill, and provide an alternative for project traffic to detour via Muirwood to take advantage of the signal to make a protected turn.

The memo does not recommend installation of the signal at the project entry, because the low number of left turns (approximately 14 left turns in the peak hour) does not warrant installation of a signal.]

2. Request for information regarding RHNA credits and why approval of application is before confirmation of receiving full RHNA credit.

A. The Council’s action is to authorize the submittal of an annexation request to LAFCO (rather than approval of the annexation, which is an action of the LAFCO Board). The annexation proceedings are the formal process through which negotiations around tax sharing and the RHNA apportionment will occur. Ultimately, the Council will need to review and approve the tax sharing and RHNA apportionment proposals, as will the County Board of Supervisors.

Based on conversations with County staff, there is no reason to believe the County will seek to claim substantial, if any, RHNA credit for this site. Without annexation, and particularly without the ability to connect to City utilities, the development capacity of this site within the County is extremely low. The County has not in the past “counted” this site in its RHNA inventory, and it does not appear in the June 2024 Alameda County Draft 6 th Cycle Housing
Element. While staff is confident a suitable agreement will be reached, per the procedures outlined in the Government Code, if the County and City cannot

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

3 come to agreement, the apportionment is adjudicated by ABAG/MTC, and staff believes that the bases outlined above will support most, if not all, of the units to be able to be counted against the City’s RHNA rather than the County’s.

3. Are there low income or affordable units, or ADUs?
A. The project proposes 18 moderate-income deed restricted units, and to provide a minimum of up to four ADUs. As has been discussed for other applications, the IZO allows for inclusionary units to be provided in the very low, low OR moderate-income categories, and also allows payment of in-lieu fees. Staff is supportive of the proposal for the following reasons:
• The moderate-income sales price reflects a substantial discount below the market-rate price for a similar unit type. The City’s outside consultant (Bay Area Affordable Homeowners Alliance, BAAHA) and Housing Manager have recommended that 2 and 3 Bedroom townhome units are most effectively priced at 120% AMI, since that pricing reflects a steep discount from the market-rate unit price (sales price of ~$470,000 at 120% AMI versus close to $800,000 median sales price for market-rate units – this latter number is likely conservative because new units typically command significantly higher prices.) In addition, it can be more difficult to find qualified buyers within low-income households, because it can be challenging for such households to meet the various financial qualifications to secure a mortgage.
• Although only four ADUs are required to be provided, the project’s market rate unit designs include several options for homebuyers that would add an ADU or self-contained in-law suite. Thus, it is likely that more than 4 ADUs would ultimately be built. While staff feels that the proposed approach is appropriate, the Council could request the applicant construct more ADUs as part of the project.

4. Please provide links to the Geologic reports and information on the nearby fault zone and related geologic hazards.

A. The geology report entitled Updated Design Level Geotechnical Investigation is located within Attachment 6 of the agenda report. Specifically, the report starts on page 281 of 656 of that attachment. The information regarding the fault zone is found on pages 287-288 of the attachment.

Additional information and analysis regarding geology, seismicity, and soils, for the project is provided in the CEQA Section 15183 Consistency Checklist, included in Attachment 1, and hyperlinked here (see pages 106 to 117 of the linked attachment):

https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/weblink/0/doc/308898/Page1.aspx .

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

4 In brief, the report and CEQA review found that, although a portion of the site is located within a designated Fault Zone, there are no faults located within the site itself. The project would be required to comply with Building Code standards and other standards that address seismic hazards and risk more generally, and per the Housing Element EIR, impacts related to geologic hazards were found to be less than significant. Per the checklist analysis, based on the geology report, no site- or project-specific hazards were found with respect to seismic or other related geotechnical hazard that were unique to the site and not analyzed in the Housing Element EIR; only one mitigation measure, MM GEO-6, related to paleontological resources, was found to be applicable to the project. This mitigation measure has been included in the recommended project Conditions of Approval (COAs). COA 68 (Geotechnical Recommendations); COA 69 (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act) and COA 94 (Geotechnical Final Report) address appropriate geotechnical design to address on-site soils and geotechnical conditions.

Based on the above-referenced analysis and conditions of approval, staff concludes that all geotechnical hazards will be properly addressed.

Submitted On:

Jul 14, 2024, 12:46AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Sanket
Last Name:

Patle
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
5 Comments
Please find attached document.

Upload File(s)
City_Council_240716_Item_5.pdf
Dear Pleasanton City Council, I hope this message ﬁnds you in good spirits. I'm reaching out to share my genuine excitement and support for the proposed residential project at 3450 Mohr Ave. Having attended the planning commission meeting, I can conﬁdently say that the process was managed with utmost fairness and integrity, it was clear to see that the applicant stepped aside to ensure an unbiased discussion. As a resident of Pleasanton, living a stone's throw away from the proposed site, I ﬁrmly believe this project symbolizes what our community has been longing for—thoughtful and harmonious development that respects the essence of our neighborhood. This stands in contrast to larger, more imposing projects we've seen, reﬂecting a deep understanding of our local context and values. The design proposed for this development promises to be a ﬁtting addition to our area, maintaining the unique charm and character we cherish. With these points in mind, I strongly encourage the approval of this development. Additionally, I suggest initiating conversations with the developer about the feasibility of incorporating more housing units into the project. Such a move could address our community's housing needs eOectively while paying homage to the character of our existing neighborhood. Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter. I am keenly looking forward to the positive impact this development will have on our community, striking a balance between honoring our heritage and welcoming the future. Sincerely, Sanket Patle.

Submitted On:

Jul 11, 2024, 03:06PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Tanuj
Last Name:

Sharma
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
#5
Comments
Dear Honorable Councilmembers,
I am reaching out to express my wholehearted support for the proposed development at 3450 Mohr Ave.

As a resident of the nearby neighborhood, I frequently enjoy walks along the Martin Ave trail and past this particular property. Upon receiving a mailer regarding the application, I felt compelled to voice my support both directly to your esteemed council and during the Planning meeting.

For years, the significant vacant lot at the forefront of this property has stood out unfavorably against the well-maintained aesthetic of our community, largely due to overgrown and untamed vegetation. It is with great enthusiasm that I've observed recent improvements to the lot, signifying a promising change and a much-improved landscape for our neighborhood.

As a parent of young children, the prospect of additional residential developments at this site is particularly exciting. The project not only promises to enhance the visual appeal of our area but, more importantly, addresses an urgent need for family-friendly housing within our community. The potential for more families to establish roots on what is currently an underutilized plot of land is an inspiring vision. Furthermore, with the school bus stop conveniently located at the corner of Mohr and Martin, I am optimistic that the new residents will greatly appreciate the ease of access to local schools like Harvest Park or Amador, fostering a more connected and less car- dependent community.

The strategic location of this development, with its close proximity to schools, parks, and trails, is ideal for fostering a nurturing environment for families. It supports a lifestyle that values outdoor activities, community engagement, and sustainable transportation options. I am hopeful that the development of the remaining lots will proceed swiftly, bringing to fruition a well-rounded community space that prioritizes family life and environmental sustainability.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter. I am eager to see how this development will positively impact our community and am available for further discussion should you require more input from local residents.

Sincerely,
Tanuj Sharma
Submitted On:

Jul 16, 2024, 08:40AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Kellene
Last Name:

Cousins
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
Item 22
Comments
To Mayor Brown and City Council Members,
As you prepare to vote on the resolution to put forward the measure
on the local
half cent sales tax for the voters approval, I wish to
commend you and City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, and Staff for all the work you have done to both study the complex budget projections and make the difficult decisions about steps to keep the City of Pleasanton solvent. After many months of addressing the pending financial deficit with reductions in all areas, except for those mandated by the state, it is clear that Pleasanton needs to raise significant resources to cover these unfunded costs over the next 10 years.

I appreciate those of you who are letting the voters decide now that you have worked so diligently to meet this crisis head on and not postpone this action. Mr. Beaudin and Staff have been very transparent and informative about the City’s budget concerns and the proposed solutions over the past many months. Staff members have been engaging the community
in City sponsored workshops, at
meetings with private groups and in people’s private homes for several months. I learned much from directly speaking with Staff who are the most well informed about the complexities of the City’s budget about the next steps needed to meet the crisis as soon as possible in the upcoming election cycle.

Taking into consideration the budget complexities and the unforeseen economic impacts on revenue facing Pleasanton, I applaud your willingness to make
decision that aren’t based on
political aspirations but allow for the voters to decide if the sales tax is the best solution. Like so many surrounding communities who face similar budget deficits, I believe the sales tax option is the best and most impactful way to maintain the quality of life and services we have come to expect in our town.

Thank you for your many hours of dedicated service to our wonderful community.

Kellene Cousins

Submitted On:

Jul 10, 2024, 04:55PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Lorna
Last Name:

Peterson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
22 Comments
We are strongly opposed to the proposed half-cent sales tax increase.

We urge the
City Council to NOT include this ballot measure on the November ballot.

Let's wait to see how sales tax revenue from the new Costco store and the occupancy tax revenue from the two new hotels on Johnson Drive increase city funds before we are locked into a "small" tax increase that will make Pleasanton's sales tax close to 11%! Submitted On:

Jul 15, 2024, 09:04PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Todd
Last Name:

Nelson
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
18 Comments
I understand that the WLP roadway reconstruction is extremely expensive. I also understand that certain grant funding can only be used for bike/ped infrastructure. It's not clear to me how roadway reconstruction and bike/ped expenses will be kept separate. My comment on this item is primarily to question the "priority matrix" in the agenda report for item #18.

In the 2010 Master Plan, parts of WLP were identified as priorities for bike/ped improvements, notably from Owens to Santa Rita and from Santa Rita to Fairlands. Those weren't completed. In 2018, the WLP corridor was identified and much of the community's focus was again from Owens to Santa Rita to Fairlands. This was a clear priority. The collision history also indicated that these sections had significant safety concerns. At the time, Toole was the consultant. We all came to a consensus on a design.

Then staff changed consultants and the new one drew up a new plan. I recall being told that the new design reflected what the community really wanted - unlike Toole's design. I don't know what this was based on; we were just told. The corridor project was originally broken into four sections to be implemented over six phases, if I recall correctly. The section from Owens to Santa Rita and was last, in contrast with BPTC's preference, and Fairlands was excluded.

This new agenda report prioritizes nine sections of WLP - this is new segmentation.

The priority matrix has a column for "Bike & Ped" importance. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the bike/ped community was involved. The "gap" in bike lanes exists from Hacienda to Santa Rita.

The biggest "safety" concern, if I recall correctly, is from Owens to Santa Rita. The "presence of schools" needs to be defined because we've always talked about the entire corridor being a route to school. Since the bollards were installed from Hopyard to Hacienda (Phase 1), it's hard to argue as strongly for their "safety" concern given the financial situation, but Owens to Santa Rita remains high. If Owens is "10" then Hopyard to Willow and Willow to Hacienda would be less than "5" - in my opinion, today.

The priority matrix also has a "grant funding" column. It implies that most of WLP is ineligible for grant funding - "0" or "10" and Stoneridge to Owens is "5". Based on my interaction with staff and with both MTC and ACTC, the grantors are quite liberal in their funding decisions for the City of Pleasanton. Per the report, "grant funding is based on implementing a multimodal concept from Hopyard Road to the Iron-Horse Trail (near Owens Drive). These funds can only be utilized toward bike and pedestrian
improvements." I don't know why this is true or why it cannot be amended. Also, since this applies only to the bike/ped
improvements, why does it have such a pronounced impact on the roadway reconstruction priority?
It would be informative for City Council to see a breakdown of eligibility by grant source. Are they all identical, as implied? Wouldn't some grants apply equally to the Owens to Santa Rita section as they do to the Hopyard to Willow section? Is the City not in a position to negotiate?
The community has expressed priority for Owens to Santa Rita and Santa Rita to Fairlands for at least 15 years. There is a sentence, "...to complete ... the entire corridor if funding becomes available" which makes me worry that these sections will not be addressed in my lifetime.

Submitted On:

Jul 15, 2024, 10:02PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Sandra
Last Name:

Yamaoda
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
22 Comments
Half Cent tax increase for the ballot - I believe the City Manager and Director of Finance have done an excellent job of suggesting reductions to the City's budget and the half cent tax increase should be submitted for the upcoming budget.

Submitted On:

Jul 11, 2024, 10:42PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Sonali
Last Name:

Jain
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
#5
Comments
Dear City Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed development at 3450 Mohr Ave. This project will align with existing developments on Martin Ave and Trenary Drive, reflecting the ongoing growth in our neighborhood.

As a local resident, I fully endorse the lot split and residential development, confident it will enhance our community by creating construction jobs and stimulating the local economy through increased patronage of businesses and services.

The development is strategically located near schools and public transport, ensuring it integrates seamlessly with our neighborhood’s infrastructure.

I urge the Council to approve this project, contributing to job creation, economic growth, and community improvement.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Sonali
Submitted On:

Jul 16, 2024, 08:17AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Atul
Last Name:

Waghmare
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
5 Comments
Hey Councilmembers,
Just wanted to drop a line about the proposed development on 3450 Mohr Ave - I'm all for it! I live nearby and often walk past this spot.

Not gonna lie, it's been an eyesore for a while now. But with the recent improvements, things are looking up and I can't wait to see it get even better.

As a parent, I'm stoked about the idea of more family homes in the area. Plus, the location is awesome - right next to schools, parks, and trails. It's a win-win for everyone. It would create a more connected, less car-dependent community.

Looking forward to seeing this project come to life. Thanks for listening and feel free to reach out if you need more info from us locals.

Cheers!
Atul
Submitted On:

Jul 13, 2024, 09:27PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

SATYESH
Last Name:

JAISWAL
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
July 15, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
5 Comments
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for the proposed development at 3450 Mohr Ave, a project I learned about through a recent postcard notice. As a resident, I've watched this vacant lot for years and firmly believe its development will not only enhance our neighborhood's aesthetics but also its vitality.

The thoughtful approach to this project, including the preservation and extension of the existing structure, ensures it complements our community's style without compromising our unique character.

Unlike larger developments, this proposal promises visual harmony and respects the area's architectural integrity.

Moreover, activating this currently underutilized space will improve safety and foster a stronger sense of community, offering a safer environment for children and encouraging a healthier lifestyle for everyone.

I also voiced a similar opinion in person at the planning meeting and agree with their conclusion. I am enthusiastic about the potential benefits of this development and its alignment with principles of neighborhood harmony and growth.

Thank you!
Best,
Satyesh
Submitted On:

Jul 16, 2024, 10:00AM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Emelie
Last Name:

Rogers
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
22 Tax
Comments
I will vote against a sales tax increase and will encourage my community to vote against the measure.

A citizens' committee
should be formed to address the 5% reduction needed to meet the city's obligations.

Last month's City Council meeting was inadequate
to address my concerns. Scare tactics were used to increase support such as reductions in police and fire services.

This council
is short-sighted in it's approach.

Citizens have lost faith in the
Council and their judgement.

Submitted On:

Jul 15, 2024, 02:22PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Jocelyn
Last Name:

Combs
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
22 Comments
Dear Mayor Brown and Councilmembers,
Please do not move ahead with putting the half cent sales tax increase on the ballot.

I believe there is more due diligence we can and should do.

It may be necessary, but I don’t believe the case has been made that it is necessary, and why it is necessary.

Please set up a citizens task force in an open and transparent process to review our options and make recommendations to the Council.

If it is on the ballot I will campaign against it and vote against it.

Jocelyn Combs
Submitted On:

Jul 13, 2024, 11:25PM PDT
City Council Regular Meeting -
Submit your written public
comment
City of Pleasanton
Full Name
First Name:

Pramod
Last Name:

Koyyada
Email (this entry is disclosable
if included)
[email protected]
City Council Meeting Date
July 16, 2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting at 7 PM
Agenda Item Number
5 Comments
Dear City Council,
As a longtime resident, I support the proposed development for our neighborhood. It aligns with the existing style, preserving our unique character and enhancing community aesthetics.

The plans focus on single-family homes, diversifying with options like townhomes could be beneficial. The development will also enhance security, particularly at the current dead intersection which was filled with overgrown vegetation and made that area uninviting.

I see this development as an opportunity to further neighborhood harmony. Your consideration of these views is appreciated.

I also appreciate the community engagement by the city.

Best Regards,
Pramod Koyyada

2 2. Traffic
Traffic during school hours is already excessive and when GPS tells drivers to avoid 680 and take Foothill Road, it compounds our inability to even get out of our development. In addition, in the event of an emergency, which is likely to be more frequent in a senior community, there is a greater likelihood that fire/police response time would be increased due to traffic congestion. I am not suggesting a traffic signal, as it would make matters worse, but there has to be some way to mitigate the congestion during school and commute hours.

3. Power Grid and Outages
Adding additional homes to the PG&E power grid will no doubt increase frequency of power outages. We have had three outages in the last five weeks. The outage on July 2nd was potentially life-threatening due to its 13-hour duration.

Many adults over 55 require CPAP breathing machines which would be an issue during an overnight outage, and it could be potentially life threatening at any time for those who rely on oxygen concentrators.

Details on the three outages below:

1. June 25th - Power failure impacted 1831 customers, and outage lasted 2 ½ hours.

2. July 2nd - Power failure impacted 1831 customers, with outage lasting 13 hours.

Notification was received 90 minutes after the power went off.

3. July 11th - Power failure impacted 3048 customers, with outage lasting 4 hours.

This power failure impacted the west side of 680 along Foothill Blvd. between Bernal and Stoneridge

Drive

Suggestion
Foothill Knolls and Laguna Oaks have underground wires, while many other areas do not. Based on an email I received from PG&E, it appears that overhead wires may have been the issue in the recent outages. I am assuming that the Merritt development will also have underground wires. Possibly the developer for Merritt Properties could arrange with PG&E to have the three developments placed into a separate grid to ensure that they are not impacted by the outages stemming from above ground wiring and poles.

Photo # 3 attached, shows where the Foothill Road wires go underground for the Laguna Oaks and Foothill Knolls developments.

Julie, Sheila and I plan to attend the July 16th meeting and I am copying Eric so others can see my comments. If you would like me to express my concerns during the meeting, I would be happy to do so. I am also willing to contact the developer if you can supply me with his contact information. Personally, as I noted above, I would like to see this development proceed but think there are some issues needing attention first.

Respectfully,
Terrence (TJ) McGrath
P.S. Last year PGE approved a $235 million employee bonus plan. Patti Page (CEO) makes $1.4 million a year and her recent bonus was $17 million. The CPUC opened the door last week to a 2025 PG&E rate increase as well. 3 From:

To: Jocelyn Kwong
Cc: Jack Balch
Subject: Increase TRUST then Increase TAXES
Date: Sunday, July 14, 2024 12:29:46 PM
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
Jocelyn Kwong – Jack Balch was kind enough to point out that my original message below might not reach all of the intended recipients and suggested I send it to you for further distribution.

To the Pleasanton City Council and Gerry Beaudin,

In addition to the original message below I’d like to add that it might be instinctive to take a defensive posture and explain away the examples I listed in my original message. I believe long term, productive solutions can result when leaders accept the perceptions of their audience rather than tell that audience they are simply wrong or unaware of the details, issues, etc.

An extra 50 cents for every $100 spent will hardly make a difference with the above average income levels in the city of Pleasanton. The reason you all are facing so much resistance to an increase in our city’s sales tax rate is not because we are all looking for a quick fix as Gerry puts it, but rather the vast majority of Pleasanton residents simply do not TRUST this city council.

From the perspective of Pleasanton residents, you all have hoped the problem would resolve itself while the city’s revenue streams deteriorated. Here are just a few that remind Pleasanton residents of that every day we leave our homes.

1. Retail vacancy rates, combined with the lack of sales tax producing tenants. a. How much square footage in the mall remains vacant that could have ordinarily been used to generate more sale tax revenue? b. How many vacancies do we have in downtown?
c. How may non sales tax producing tenants such as banks and real estate offices do we have in downtown?

2. Costco and Matt Sullivan
a. How much money did Matt Sullivan waste with his protests that focused on the needs of a few and not what Pleasanton residents want and voted for

TWICE?
b. How much sales tax revenue did we lose because of the delays in opening one of the most successful retail operations in the world?

3. Surrounding Communities with the same sales tax rate a. Dublin has the same sales tax rate and is in the middle of building a whole new high school and we can no longer afford to build a skate park? b. Livermore has the same sales tax rate with a high school that is 25 years older than Amador and looks 75 years younger.

How about taxing landlords who let their properties sit vacant or lease to tenants that contribute nothing to sales tax revenue in a valuable retail location? Perhaps we can stop paying for bright green barriers that do a better job of protecting weeds than bikers.

Pleasanton residents are not looking for a quick fix, nor are we ignorant to the challenges our deteriorating city faces, we see it every day. We want a city council that we can trust, that reflects not only the needs of our community but also the diversity of its residents.

By voting on a sales tax increase, YOU are asking us to give YOU more money…people don’t give money to people they don’t trust, it’s just that simple.

The other solutions brought to you by Pleasanton residents WILL fix the problem…the lack of TRUST problem. THEN you will have success getting us to support an extra 50 cents for every $100 we spend.

Gavin Shea
Pleasanton Resident sine 2003

Pleasanton City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Pleasanton City Council
July 16, 2024