earned on the fund shall also be deposited therein and shall only be expended for the purposes set forth in this section.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.090. Refunds.
Refunds may be made where:
A. Development has ceased, the building permit has expired and no extensions have been granted, or if granted, the extension(s) has expired; as to a development for which the fee required under this chapter has been collected; provided that the claim for such a refund is filed no later than six months after the expiration date of the building permit, or any extension thereof as may have been approved by the city, as the case may be; or B. A refund is specifically authorized by resolution of the city council adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d). Such amounts shall be refunded by the city to the thencurrent record owners of the development on a prorated basis. The city may effect such refunding by direct payment, or by providing credit towards future capital facilities fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of Government Code Section 66001. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.100. Appeals.
A developer may appeal to the city council any determination made pursuant to this chapter.
All appeals shall be in a form prescribed by the community development director and shall be filed within 15 days of the date of mailing to the developer any written notice of the applicable determination. Any appeal not filed within such period shall be deemed waived. The city council shall set the matter for hearing within 45 days of the date of receipt by the city clerk of the notice of the appeal.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019) § 3.22.110. Expiration of fee.
The fees required by this chapter shall expire when the public facilities are completed and all debt service related to such public improvements are paid and satisfied. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.120. Supplementary provisions.
It is the intent of the city council that the fees required by this chapter shall be supplementary to the fees, dedications or conditions imposed upon development pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and other state laws and city ordinances, policies or conditions which may authorize the imposition of fees, dedications or conditions thereon.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.130. Severability.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any person, association, corporation or to any property as to whom or which it is beyond the power of the city to impose the fee provided in this chapter. If any sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter, or any fee imposed upon
any person or entity is found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, such unconstitutionality, illegality or invalidity shall affect only such sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter, and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, sentences, clauses, sections or other parts of this chapter, or its effect on other persons or entities. It is declared to be the intention of the city council that this chapter would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter had not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this chapter. To this end, the provisions of this chapter are severable.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
CHAPTER 3.26
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE
§ 3.26.010. Purpose.
The city council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development under the general plan will result in adverse impacts to traffic circulation. To prevent these undesirable consequences, transportation improvements must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the city. The city council acknowledges that the demand for transportation improvements is shared by existing as well as new development. The proposed transportation development fee (formerly the traffic development fee) apportions the cost of the necessary transportation improvements and reconstruction among the different categories of new and existing users according to the reasonably estimated peak hour trip demand that each group of users places upon transportation improvements.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.020. Terms and definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated in this section:
"Average trip cost" means the cost per peak hour trip as determined in accordance with Section
3.26.040(A) of this chapter.
"Circulation element" means the text and maps in the circulation element of the city's general plan, as amended.
"Developer" means an individual or entity submitting an application for a building permit or other entitlement for development.
"Development" means:
1. New residential unit(s), including conversion of or addition to an existing unit to that results in greater than one unit.
2. New commercial, office, and industrial development.
3. Additions to existing commercial, office, and industrial development greater than 200 gross square feet.
4. Conversion or change in use of an existing structure which individually or cumulatively increases the peak hour trips rate by 10 or more trips. "Future growth" means the total amount of potential new development in the city permitted under the general plan. Future growth is expressed in terms of gross square footage for commercial, office, and industrial development, and in terms of the number of dwelling units for residential developmentdevelopment, and the residential and employee population associated with such new development.
"Gross floor area" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 18.08.195 of this code. "Land use category" means any of the following specified land uses:
1. Residential:
a. Single-family detached;
b. Single-family attached (no more than two units townhouse); c. Multi-family (three or more unitsapartment, condominium); d. Accessory dwelling or junior dwelling unit.
2. Office.
3. Commercial/retail.
4. Industrial/warehouse.
5. Lodging
4.6. Other
“Master fee schedule” means the document providing the current list of fees and charges for services and permits approved by the city council, which is on file with the city clerk. "Net transportation improvement costs" means costs determined in accordance with Section
3.26.040(A)(1) of this chapter.
"Peak hour trip" means a one-way vehicle trip measured during the hour of peak traffic volume occurring between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
"Peak hour trip rate" means the average number of peak hour trips generated by a land use category per unit or per square foot of development, as established by the city's traffic manager engineer in accordance with Section 3.26.040(A) of this chapter. "Transportation improvements" means those improvements necessary to complete the major street and interchange improvements and renovations identified in the circulation element, the Pleasanton Development Fee Nexus Study adopted by the city council and as may be amended from time to time,dated September 202418, and capital improvement program (CIP), as may be amended from time to time by the city council, including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians, landscaping, drainage facilities, traffic signals, street lighting, rights- of-way, bicycle paths, bridges, grade separation, and other improvements in connection therewith, which are not otherwise provided by, or required of, direct development requirements pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code. Transportation improvements shall also include architectural, administrative, engineering, legal, planning, environmental, inspection, construction management and other services required in connection with the implementation of this chapter and the construction of the foregoing improvements.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2161 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019) § 3.26.030. Applicability.
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, , this chapter applies to, and the transportation development fee required under this chapter is payable with respect to, each development within the city for which a building permit or other entitlement for development is issued on or after the effective date of the fee as adopted in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk).
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.040. Rate of fee.
The rate of the transportation development fee shall be calculated in accordance with the
procedure set forth in this section and shall be established and adjusted by resolution of the city council and set forth in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk) as follows:
A. Establishment of the Rate. The city council shall establish the rate of the transportation development fee by dividing the net transportation improvement costs attributable to new growth by the total additional peak hour trips generated by future growth. The city council may review and make adjustments to the net transportation improvement costs and peak hour trips as necessary. The net transportation improvements and total peak hour trips shall be determined as follows:
1. Net Transportation Improvement Costs.
a. The city council shall determine the transportation improvements which are necessary to implement the circulation element of the general plan and reduce the adverse impacts caused by the increased traffic volume generated by future growth.
For purposes of determining the amount of the net transportation improvement costs, the city council shall not include the cost of transportation improvements required directly of development pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code.
Such direct development requirements, improvements, and dedications in addition to or in lieu thereof, shall continue to be imposed in accordance with Titles 18, 19 and 20 of this code, as appropriate, in addition to the transportation development fees imposed pursuant to this chapter. In addition, the city council shall take into account the similarly situated transportation improvements provided and funded by the North Pleasanton Improvement District #3 ("NPID-3") in determining the net transportation improvements requiring funding, and the rate of the fee for properties within the NPID-3.
b. The city council shall make a reasonable estimate of the total costs necessary to construct, renovate, or provide the transportation improvements. c. The city council shall estimate the current and anticipated funding available to satisfy the costs of constructing and implementing the transportation improvements. In determining the amount of funding available, the city council shall include funding from other governmental entities to the extent the receipt by the city of such funding is reasonable, and city revenues appropriated for construction or implementation or transportation improvements, if any. d. The city council shall attribute the need for the transportation improvements between new development and existing development.
e. The city council shall determine the difference, if any, between the estimated costs of the construction and implementation of the transportation improvements and the estimated funding available therefor. The extent to which the cost of such construction and implementation exceeds the funds available, or expected to be available, therefor shall be the "net transportation improvement costs."
2. Total Peak Hour Trips.
a. The total gross square footage or dwelling unit count, as the case may be, of potential new development within each land use category as projected to occur during the period of build-out under the general plan shall be multiplied by the peak hour rate for each land use category established pursuant to Section 3.26.020
of this chapter.
b. The peak hour trips generated by potential new development within each land use category as determined pursuant to subsection (A)(2)(a) of this section shall be added together to determine the total additional peak hour trips created by new development which the city's transportation system must accommodate upon buildout under the general plan.
B. Annual Adjustment of the Rate. The transportation development fee rate shall be subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1st of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco—Bay Area. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.050. Amount of fee.
A. The amount of the transportation development fee shall be determined by the building division or planning division prior to issuance of the building permit or other entitlement or approval for development if a building permit is not required, based on the land use categories identified in section 3.26.020, multiplied by based upon the gross square footage or number of residential units as specified in the master fee schedule based upon the type and number of residential units, or upon the amount of gross square footage for commercial, office/retail, and industrial/warehouse development, and the corresponding rate set forth in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk). .If the development does not fit within the land use categories identified in 3.26.020 or the land use has a trip rate that is significantly different than any of the land use categories, the “other” land use category shall be used. The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the number of PM trips generated by the development by the trip rate established in 3.26.040(A)
1. If a developer is not satisfied with the calculation of the fee by the building division or planning division, he or she may request that the traffic engineer review the peak hour trips generated and/or community development director review the gross square footage and land use category to determine the fee in accordance with this chapter. The traffic engineer and/or community development director shall calculate the fee within 30 days of the submission of a written request for review, and receipt of all materials necessary to determine the amount of the fee.
2. Because the fee for commercial uses has been established based upon an average for several types of commercial uses, the developer may only petition for a review of the commercial transportation development fee to be charged to its development based upon a peak hour trip rate which is substantially different from that established by the city's traffic engineer pursuant to Section 3.26.020 of this chapter. Such application shall include a traffic study contracted for by the city, and paid for by the developer, or such other reports and analyses in lieu thereof as the city traffic engineer determines are sufficient to establish the peak hour trip rate applicable to the development. The developer may also submit additional information which the city traffic engineer shall consider insofar as he or she determines it to be relevant in establishing the peak hour trip rate applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, information contained in the trip generation manual adopted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The city traffic engineer, based upon his or her review and consideration of the information provided in the foregoing studies, reports, or analyses, and such other information as he or she may deem relevant, may approve a peak hour trip rate for the
development which is different than that set forth in Section 3.26.020 of this chapter.
B. For development consisting of an addition, extension, or enlargement of an existing structure, the transportation development fee shall be paid only on any additional dwelling units or additional gross floor area resulting from such addition, extension, or enlargement.
C. For development consisting of a conversion or change in use of an existing structure which increases the peak hour trip rate otherwise applicable to such existing structure, the transportation development fee shall equal the fee applicable to the entire new structure minus the fee otherwise applicable to the existing structure.
D. The amount of the transportation development fee determined in accordance with subsection A of this section, shall be reduced by the amount of any credits authorized by Section
3.26.070 of this chapter.
E. The amount of the fee shall be reviewed periodically, but not less than every eight years or more frequently if specified by state law. at least every four years. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.060. Payment of fee.
A. The full amount of the fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. For those instances where a developer receives an entitlement for development, but is not required to seek a building permit from the city, the transportation development fee shall be payable within 30 days of final action on the development entitlement or approval.
B. No city official may issue a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or certify a final inspection, as the case may b, for a development until the transportation development fee, with respect to such development required by this chapter, is paid in accordance with this section.
B.C. If the developer has appealed the determination of the fee, and such appeal is pending at the time he or she applies for a building permit, the developer must pay the transportation development fee to receive a building permit, but may do so under protest. If the developer's appeal is successful, and the fee is subsequently reduced, the developer shall be refunded the difference within 30 days.
C.D.The city shall not accept prepayments of the transportation development fee, unless prepayment is authorized in a development agreement or other agreement. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.070. Credits.
When a developer constructs a transportation improvement not otherwise required by Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code, the developer's transportation development fee shall be reduced as provided in this section. The details of any credit provided shall be reflected in an agreement between the city and the developer, which shall be recorded against the property.
A. Eligibility.
1. To be eligible for credit, each of the following must be satisfied:
a. The construction for which credit is given must be a transportation improvement which would otherwise be constructed by the city using transportation
development fee funds.
b. The transportation improvement must appear on the city council approved 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan or Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Long-Term Improvement Plan for list of transportation development fee improvements, as said list plans may be amended from time to time.
c. The land on which the work is done must be owned by the city, or offered for dedication to the city through a recorded document.
d. The developer shall have improvement plans for the work approved by the city engineer and shall provide a bond, cash deposit or other type of security as required by the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Pleasanton’s Subdivision Ordinance, have provided the requiredany security as required by the Subdivision Ordinance or other applicable provision of the Pleasanton Municipal Code before beginning construction.
e. The developer and the city must enter into a written subdivision or other agreement.
e. The developer and the city must enter into a written subdivision or other agreement.
2. The developer and the city shall enter into a written subdivision or other agreement with respect to the credit, which shall be recorded against the property. The agreement shall include the amount of the credit which will be given (or for unusual projects, the exact method of calculating the credit), when the credit will be given, and to which lots it will apply.
B. Calculation of Credit.
1. General.
a. The community development director, or designee, ("director") shall calculate the amount of credit to be given based upon the approved improvement plans and using cost estimates (which are based on recent city project bids for similar work).
The cost of right-of-way to be purchased shall be based upon an appraisal done by a licensed appraiser at city expense.
b. For nonstandard improvements, the credit shall be calculated based on information provided by the developer (such as bids or other documents verifying costs) for the community development director's review and approval.
c. The calculation of costs shall be based only on work which is eligible for credit under subsection A of this section. No credit shall be given for the cost of constructing improvements otherwise required by direct development pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code. The amount of credit includes construction costs and the cost of engineering.
2. Assessment Districts, Benefit Area and Community Facilities Districts. If development occurs within an assessment district, fee benefit area, community facilities district, or otherwise is subject to an assessment, fee or special tax collected specifically to defray the costs of providing or constructing transportation circulation improvements, the
amount of credit is equal to that portion of the estimated construction cost of the transportation circulation improvements included in the assessments, fees or special taxes which will be contributed by the development.
C. Reimbursement When Credit Exceeds Fee. When the amount of credit exceeds the amount of the developer's transportation development fee, the developer may be eligible for reimbursement of costs under Section 3.26.080 of this chapter.
D. How and When Credit is Given.
1. If a developer is eligible for credit, the community development director shall calculate the credit pursuant to subsection B of this section, and determine the number of residential units, or office, commercial/retail, or industrial/warehouse square footage for which developer shall receive a credit. Developer shall draw down this credit as he or she receives building permits. No interest shall accrue on the amount of the credit.
For a residential subdivision, the lots or units to which the credit will apply shall be precisely identified; and the entitlement to the credit recorded in the office of the county recorder if the developer desires to sell, transfer, or assign the lots prior to obtaining a building permit.
E. Appeal. Any determination of the community development director under this section is subject to appeal by the developer to the city council pursuant to Section 3.26.120 of this chapter.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019) § 3.26.080. Reimbursements.
A. General.
1. If the credit for improvements due under Section 3.26.070 of this chapter exceeds the required transportation development fee for development, the developer is eligible for reimbursement from the transportation development fee fund.
2. To be eligible for reimbursement, the following must be satisfied:
a. The developer is eligible for credit under Section 3.26.070 of this chapter; and b. The credit due exceeds the required transportation development fee.
B. Development or Other Agreement. The terms of a written development or other agreement regarding reimbursement for transportation improvements shall supersede the terms of this section.
C. Time and Manner of Reimbursement.
1. The community development director shall determine the exact amount of reimbursement at the time the improvements are accepted by the city.
2. Until repaid, the reimbursement amount shall accrue simple interest commencing upon acceptance of the improvements by the city. Simple interest shall accrue each year on January 1st in an amount equal to the percentage change to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco—Bay Area. Reimbursement payments will be applied first to interest and then to principal.
3. The total amount of reimbursement, net of credits, shall be set one time upon acceptance of the transportation improvements. The annual percentage amount of reimbursement shall be set one time, upon acceptance of the transportation improvements, by establishing a percentage equal to: the percentage value of the reimbursement amount compared to the value of all transportation improvements; such set percentage shall then be multiplied by the total of all transportation development fees collected in the preceding year to produce a pro rata payment for each year.
Example: The total transportation improvements to be funded by the transportation development fee in year one cost $50,000,000.00; developer builds an improvement valued at $10,000,000.00 and is entitled to a $5,000,000.00 reimbursement. Developer's reimbursement amount is 10 percent of the cost of all improvements, so developer is entitled to 10 percent of the transportation development fees collected each year, irrespective of whether the value of the total transportation c improvements increases or decreases in subsequent years (e.g., if $5,000,000.00 in transportation fees are collected in year two, the developer is entitled to 10 percent or $500,000.00, and interest accrues on the remaining $4,500,000.00). Developer should receive full reimbursement, with interest, upon build-out, subject to adjustments as provided in subsection (C)(4) of this section.
4. In the event that the amount to be reimbursed to developers pursuant to this section, or pursuant to a development or other agreement, exceeds the amount of transportation development fees received by the city in the preceding calendar year, the city council shall take action to apportion the available fee revenue to developers entitled to reimbursement pursuant to this section in a manner which the council determines is reasonable for that calendar year.
5. The city council may elect, in its absolute discretion, to provide reimbursement at a faster rate than provided in this section, based upon fees collected and available.
6. The reimbursement shall be paid one time each calendar year.
7. The right to reimbursement shall not run with the land, but shall be personal to the developer. The developer may assign his or her right to reimbursement to another by filing a written notarized assignment with the city clerk. It is the developer's or assignee's responsibility to keep the city clerk advised of a current address. If the city cannot locate a developer or assignee to send a reimbursement payment after reasonable diligence, the amount of the reimbursement for that year is forfeited, and the unclaimed funds shall be returned to the transportation development fee fund. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019) § 3.26.090. Exemptions.
Unless a development or other agreement provides otherwise, the following projects shall be exempt, in whole or in part, from the transportation development fee otherwise required by this chapter:
A. Residential development consisting of the repair or replacement, on a one-to-one basis, of dwelling units, including expansion that does not result in the creation of additional dwelling units.
B. Commercial or industrial/warehouse development consisting of the repair or replacement of
structures, provided, that such repair or replacement does not result in any conversion or change in land use which increases the peak hour trip rate applicable to the previous structure, or any enlargement of gross floor area beyond that of the previous structure.
C. Additions, extensions or enlargements of an existing commercial, office/retail, or light industrial/warehouse structure which, in any calendar year, do not increase the gross floor area of the structure by 200 square feet or more.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.100. Use of funds.
The fees paid pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall, except for temporary investments, be placed in a separate fund in a manner to avoid commingling of the fees with other revenues or funds of the city, and shall be used solely for the purpose of acquiring and constructing the transportation improvements identified by the city councilas defined in Section 3.26.020. Any interest income earned on the fund shall also be deposited therein and shall only be expended for the purposes set forth in this section.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.110. Refunds.
Refunds may be made where:
A. Development has ceased, the building permit has expired and no extensions have been granted, or if granted, the extensions have expired; as to a development for which the fee required under this chapter has been collected; provided that the claim for such a refund is filed no later than six months after the expiration date of the building permit, or any extension thereof as may have been approved by the city; or
B. A refund is specifically authorized by resolution of the city council adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d). Such amounts shall be refunded by the city to the thencurrent record owners of the development on a prorated basis. The city may effect such refunding by direct payment, or by providing credit towards future transportation improvements fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of Government Code Section 66001.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.120. Appeals.
A developer may appeal to the city council any final administrative determination made pursuant to this chapter, after exhausting all other appeals provided in this chapter, and payment of the fee for a planning appeal as set forth in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk).
All appeals to the city council shall be in a form prescribed by the city clerk and shall be filed within 15 days of the date of mailing to the developer any written notice of the applicable final administrative determination. Any appeal not filed within such period shall be deemed waived.
The city clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the city council within 45 days of the date of receipt by the city clerk of the notice of the appeal. In making its determination on the appeal, the city council shall follow the standards set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.130. Expiration of fee.
The fees required by this chapter shall expire when the transportation improvements are completed and all debt service and reimbursements related to such transportation improvements are paid and satisfied.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.140. Supplementary provisions.
It is the intent of the city council that the fees required by this chapter shall be supplementary to the fees, dedications or conditions imposed upon development pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and other state laws and city ordinances or policies which may authorize the imposition of fees, dedications or conditions thereon.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.26.150. Severability.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any person, association, corporation or to any property as to whom or which it is beyond the power of the city to impose the fee provided in this chapter. If any sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter, or any fee imposed upon any person or entity is found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, such unconstitutionality, illegality or invalidity shall affect only such sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter, and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, sentences, clauses, sections or other parts of this chapter, or its effect on other persons or entities. It is declared to be the intention of the city council that this chapter would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter had not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this chapter. To this end, the provisions of this chapter are severable.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
CHAPTER 14.04
REGULATION OF WATER SYSTEM AND WATER SERVICE FEES
§ 14.04.010. Definitions.
Whenever in this chapter the words or phrases defined in this section are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions (unless in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall clearly impart a different meaning):
"Applicant" means any prospective consumer applying for water service. "Consumer" means any person, firm, company, corporation, partnership, association, the city, any public corporation, political subdivision, city, county, district, the state of California or the United States of America, or any department or agency of any thereof, billed for water furnished by the water system. The singular in each case shall include the plural. "Department" means the department of public works of the city. "Developer" means any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association or governmental agency other than the city that installs any parts of or connects any services to any point in the city water system for the purpose of extracting water from the city water system. "Director" means the operations services director of the city or other person designated by the city manager to perform the services or make the determinations permitted or required under this chapter to be made by the director.
"Distribution main" means an intermediate main serving more than one developer or neighborhood, normally larger than eight inches and smaller than 16 inches and to which service lines may be attached.
"Dwelling unit" means any single-family dwelling of one or more rooms suitable for residential occupancy by any number of persons living together as a single family, including single-family dwelling units, and each group of rooms constituting a dwelling unit for a single family in any multiple-dwelling structure.
"Finance department" means the finance department of the city. "In-tract main" means a water main within the physical boundaries of a lot or subdivision. "Local main" means a water line serving a single developer or neighborhood, normally eight inches or smaller, but may include larger sizes, to which all service lines are attached. “Master meter” means one meter that is subsequently connected to multiple submeters. "Meter" means a city-installed water meter.
"Mixed-use residential and commercial structure" means a structure containing two or more dwelling units (but excepting low-income housing, housing at a place of education, long-term care facilities, time-share property and residential care facilities for the elderly, as defined in California Water Code Section 537(a), as amended).
"Multiunit residential structure" means a structure containing two or more dwelling units (but excepting low-income housing, housing at a place of education, long-term care facilities, timeshare property and residential care facilities for the elderly, as defined in California Water Code Section 537(a), as amended).
"Perimeter main" means a water main in a street or right-of-way on or about the border of a lot or
subdivision which is or may be shared by two or more developers. "Premises" means any lot, piece or parcel of land or any building or other structure or any part of any building or structure having a connection with the water system. "Service, commercial" means the furnishing of water to premises where the consumer is engaged in a trade or business.
"Service connection" means any connection on private property to a service line for the purpose of extracting water from the city water system.
"Service, domestic" means the furnishing of water for household residential purposes, including water used for sprinkling lawns, gardens and shrubbery, for watering livestock, for washing vehicles and for other similar and customary purposes.
"Service, industrial" means the furnishing of water to premises for use by a consumer in manufacturing or processing activities.
"Service line" means the supply line extending from the local or distributing main to the property line and includes the meter.
"Service, metered" means the furnishing of water by measured quantities. "Service, municipal" means furnishing water for municipal or other public use. "Submeter" or "submetering" means a property-owner installed device to measure water supplied for the exclusive use of the particular dwelling unit installed after a city-installed meter; which is in compliance with California Civil Code Sections 1954.201 through 1954.219, as amended. "Transmission main" means any of the larger mains shown on the city master plan, or otherwise designated by the city, and which shall not normally have any service line directly attached. "Valley floor zone" means that area within or without the city roughly between the elevations of 315 to 430 feet and served or capable of being served by gravity from the main storage facilities of the city water system located at elevations approximately 485 to 535 feet. "Water" means water furnished by the water system.
"Water facilities" means all of the necessary component parts of a water system including pipe, fittings, valves and hydrants.
"Water main extension" means a water main connecting a developer's lot or subdivision with a nonadjacent water main and which benefits or will benefit lands on one or both sides of the main that are not part of the developer's lot or subdivision. "Water main extensions" are also sometimes referred to as "off-tract mains."
"Water service" means the services, facilities and water furnished or available to premises by the water system.
"Water system" means the existing municipal water system of the city, together with the improvements thereto, as described in the following measure, including works and facilities for the storage, transmission and distribution of water, including pumping plants, lift stations, reservoirs and water storage facilities, water mains, pipelines, pipes, meters, pumps, equipment, and other works, properties or structures necessary or convenient for improvements to the existing municipal water system, together with such additions, extensions, betterments or improvements thereto as may be made from time to time:
MEASURE (A) (Water System Improvements—Revenue Bonds) Shall the city of Pleasanton issue revenue bonds in the principal amount of $750,000 pursuant to the Revenue Bond Law of 1941, to provide funds for the acquisition, construction, improvement and financing of the following enterprise, to wit: Improvements to the existing municipal water system of the city of Pleasanton, comprising works and facilities for the storage, transmission and distribution of water, including pumping plants, lift stations, reservoirs and water storage facilities, water mains, pipelines, pipes, meters, pumps, equipment, and other works, properties or structures necessary or convenient for improvements to the existing municipal water system for the city of Pleasanton?
Which measure was duly approved by the voters of the city at a special revenue bond election duly called and held in the city on October 5, 1965.
(Prior code § 2-16.01; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2171 § 2, 2017) § 14.04.020. General provisions.
A. The city will endeavor to supply water at the curb or property line in adequate quantities and at proper working pressures to meet the reasonable needs and requirements of consumers.
B. Whenever water is furnished for human consumption, the city will endeavor to supply at all times a safe and potable water.
C. All water supplied consumers will be supplied by metered service, and will be measured by means of suitable standard water meters. A cubic foot will be the unit of measurement for metered service.
D. All water rates and charges shall become effective immediately, as to all premises then connected to the water system. All such rates and charges shall become effective against all premises not then connected to the water system immediately upon such connection.
E. No water and no services or facilities of the water system shall be furnished to any consumer or to any person free of charge; provided, however, that the city may without charge use water for park irrigation, street cleaning, firefighting and testing, maintenance and repairing the water system, and for similar municipal purposes.
F. Except by special agreement with the city or city-authorized submetering, no consumer shall resell any water furnished by the city through the water system.
G. The city will exercise reasonable diligence to provide continuous and adequate water service to consumers and to avoid any shortage or interruption of delivery of water, but cannot guarantee complete freedom from interruption. The department shall have the right to suspend water service temporarily to make necessary repairs or improvements to the water system. In each case of temporary suspension of service, the department will notify the consumers affected as soon as circumstances permit and will prosecute the work of repair or improvement with due diligence and with the least possible inconvenience to consumers.
H. During any period of threatened or actual water shortage the city shall have the right to apportion its available water supply among consumers in such manner as appears most equitable under the circumstances then prevailing and with due regard to public health and
safety.
I. The city shall not be liable for interruption, shortage or insufficiency of water supply or water pressure or any loss or damage occasioned thereby.
(Prior code § 2-16.02)
§ 14.04.030. Operation of water system.
A. The department of public works shall have jurisdiction, supervision and control of the water system and of the construction of all improvements, additions, extensions and betterments thereto hereafter constructed or acquired, and shall operate and maintain the water system and all improvements, additions, extensions and betterments thereto.
B. Subject to the general control of the council and the city manager of the city, the water system shall be under the direct supervision of the director.
C. The department, under the supervision of the director, shall supervise all connections to the water system, and the finance department shall collect or cause to be collected all water bills and charges and all connection and other fees provided for in this chapter, and the directors of both departments, respectively, are charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and the director of the finance department shall keep or cause to be kept an accurate accounting and records showing the source, amount and disposition of all funds received from the water system under this chapter.
D. The city shall cause to be issued and shall maintain in good standing a surety bond conditioned upon the full and prompt deposit by the director of the finance department and all other employees of the finance department of all revenues from the water system. (Prior code § 2-16.03)
§ 14.04.040. Service area.
The territory served by the water system of the city shall be all territory now within the boundaries of the city and, at the discretion of the council, any other territory as the city may determine. (Prior code § 2-16.04)
§ 14.04.050. Connections to water system.
A. Any person whose premises are not connected with the water system upon the date of the adoption of Ordinance 478, March 28, 1967, shall connect such premises or cause such premises to be connected with the water system only after first obtaining a permit to do so from the director and upon payment of the applicable connection charges provided in Chapter
14.08, Water Connections; provided, however, that there shall be no charge for connecting premises for which a service connection has already been installed to the water system, except as this chapter expressly otherwise provides.
Any consumer connecting to the water system on an intermittent or temporary basis, including, but not limited to, use of fire hydrants or blow-offs for construction water, flushing lines, or similar purposes, shall connect to the water system only after first obtaining a permit to do so from the director; there shall be no connection charge pursuant to Chapter 14.08,
Water Connections, but there shall be a charge pursuant to Section 14.04.070.
B. Each applicant for water service may be required to sign, on a form provided by the department, an application which shall set forth:
1. Date and place of application;
2. Location of premises to be served;
3. Date applicant will be ready for service;
4. Whether the premises have been heretofore supplied with water from the water system;
5. Purpose for which service is to be used;
6. Address to which bills are to be mailed or delivered;
7. Whether applicant is owner or tenant of, or agent for, the premises;
8. Such other information as the department may reasonably require.
The application is only a written request for service and does not bind the applicant to take service for a period of time longer than that upon which the rates and minimum charges of the applicable rate schedule are based; neither does it bind the city to serve, except under reasonable conditions.
Two or more parties who join in one application for service shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of bills and shall be billed by means of single periodic bills.
C. Connections to the water system shall occur as follows:
1. For separate houses, including single-family homes, condominiums and townhouses, through a separate service connection to each dwelling unit;. For condominiums and townhouses, the director is authorized to allow service using a master meter.
2. For multiunit residential structures, or mixed-use residential and commercial structures, on the same parcel, either:
a. Through separate service connections to each dwelling unit, or b. Through a single connection with subsequent submetering to each dwelling unit;
3. For buildings or business quarters on the same parcel or on adjoining parcels under a single control or management by either of the following methods, as the director shall elect:
a. Through separate service connections to each such building or business quarter, or b. Through a single service connection to supply all of such buildings and business quarters, and in which case one monthly minimum charge shall be applied for each such occupied building or business quarter, and the responsibility for payment of charges for all water furnished shall be assumed by the consumer having such control or management. Credit for such vacant units which are not metered
separately but together with the occupied units shall be computed by deducting one monthly minimum charge for each vacant unit from the original total monthly bill for all of the units.
D. In order to assist in monitoring sewage flows and water conservation, all applicants for service connections shall provide a separate meter and water system for irrigation purposes when an applicant's site qualifies under the City of Pleasanton's Landscape Ordinance thresholds for separate domestic and irrigation metering depending on the size of the irrigated areas, or as otherwise determined in the reasonable discretion of the director for submetered or separately metered sites, and may provide separate meter and water systems for other water consumptive uses which do not have the potential to generate flows to the sewerage system. Any such meter shall be installed in a manner and location satisfactory to the director. Upon request by the applicant, the director may waive, at his or her sole discretion, this requirement if he or she finds that the volume of irrigation water would be minimal and the cost of a separate meter and water system would be disproportionately uneconomical relative to sewer user charges to be saved.
E. If, in the opinion of the city, it is doubtful if satisfactory water service can be given, due to location or elevation of the premises, then the city may require a written release from liability for any damage or inconvenience that may occur by reason of insufficient pressure or inadequate volume of water or intermittent supply. The release shall, without further notice from the city, remain in effect for all consumers taking water through the service, until changes, extensions, or betterments may be made to the distribution system by the city.
F. Failure by any person or any consumer to file his or her application containing the information required by this chapter shall constitute a violation of this chapter. No application shall be conclusive as to the matters therein set forth nor shall the filing of any application preclude the city from collecting from the consumer responsible for payment (as provided in this chapter) by appropriate action such sum as is actually due and payable for water service under the provisions of this chapter. Each application shall be subject to verification by the director. Any person who takes possession of and uses water from the water system without having made application for service pursuant to this chapter shall be held liable for the full amount of the service rendered.
G. The city may require a written contract with any consumer as a condition precedent to water service in any case where unusual quantities of water or construction of special facilities are or will be required; provided, however, that any such contract shall not modify the rate structure provided in this chapter.
H. No rent or other charge shall be paid by the city for any meter or other facilities located on a consumer's premises.
I. All service connections, meters, main extensions and installations paid for by applicants, and all other facilities furnished by the department or the city, whether located wholly or partially on public or private property, shall be and remain the property of the city, and the department shall have the right to repair, replace and maintain the same and the right to remove the same upon discontinuance of service.
J. The city shall not be responsible for the installation or maintenance of any water lines beyond
the end of its service connection or meter.
(Prior code § 2-16.05; Ord. 1073 § 1, 1983; Ord. 1175 § 2, 1985; Ord. 2171 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2179 § 2, 2018)
§ 14.04.060. Use of water service.
A. The director or other duly authorized agent of the department shall have at all reasonable times the right of ingress to and egress from any consumer's premises for any purpose properly relating to the furnishing of water to the consumer. Any inspection work or recommendation made by the department or its agents in connection with plumbing or appliances or any use of water on the consumer's premises, either as a result of a complaint or otherwise, will be made without charge. No agent or employee of the department or the city shall accept any personal compensation from a consumer or applicant for any services rendered.
B. Consumers making any material change in the size, character or extent of the utilizing equipment or operations for which the city is supplying water service shall immediately give the department written notice of the extent and nature of the change and, if necessary, amend their application.
C. When a consumer receiving service at the water system main or service connection must by means of a pump of any kind elevate or increase the pressure of the water received, the pump shall not be attached to any pipe directly connected to the main or service pipe. Such pumping or boosting of pressure shall be done from a sump, cistern, or storage tank which may be served by, but not directly connected with, the water system distribution facilities.
D. Quick closing or opening valves shall not be installed on any consumer's pipes which are directly attached to the water system mains or service pipes. A consumer whose operation requires the use of a quick opening or closing valve must operate such device from a tank, cistern, pump or other facility which may be served by but not directly connected with the water system distribution mains or service pipes.
E. The city will not be responsible for any loss or damage caused by any negligence or unlawful action of any consumer or any other person in installing, maintaining, supplying, or using any appliances, facilities or equipment for which water or water service is furnished by the city. Each consumer shall be held responsible for damage to the city's meters and other property comprising any part of the water system resulting from use or operation of appliances or facilities on such consumer's premises including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, damage caused by steam, hot water or chemicals.
F. It is a violation of this chapter for any person to tamper with any of the property comprising the water system.
G. It is a violation of this chapter for any person or consumer to waste water obtained from the water system. As used in this subsection, the term "waste" means:
1. Use of potable water between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to irrigate grass, lawns, groundcover, shrubbery, crops, vegetation, and trees, with the exception of hand watering and drip irrigation;
2. The application of potable water to outdoor landscaping in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots or structures;
3. Use of potable water to irrigate outdoor landscaping during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall;
4. Use of potable water to wash down sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots, open ground or other hard surface areas by the direct application of water thereto, unless needed for health or safety reasons;
5. Use of potable water in non-recirculating decorative ponds, fountains and other water features, with the exception of child water-play features;
6. Allowing potable water to escape from breaks within the person or consumer's plumbing system for more than eight hours after the person or consumer is notified or discovers the break.
7. Use of potable water for outdoor landscaping through a dedicated irrigation meter within the city's recycled water use area unless otherwise exempted by the director of operations and water utilities for existing water customers, or city engineer for new development.
(Prior code § 2-16.06; Ord. 2093 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2097 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2118 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2176 § 2, 2018)
§ 14.04.070. Water rates and charges.
There is levied and assessed upon all consumers and premises connected with the water system a service charge based upon the size of the city-installed water meter to the premises and a charge based upon the amount of water flow through the city-installed meter, both of which charges shall be paid. The amount of the service charge and the charge for water used shall be in accordance with the amount specified in the resolution establishing various fees and charges for municipal services of the city. The city shall only read city-installed water meters, and not property-owner installed submeters.
(Prior code § 2-16.07; Ord. 1973 § 2, 1983; Ord. 2171 § 2, 2017) § 14.04.075. Security deposits.
A. For a new residential applicant, whether the applicant is the property owner or a tenant of a residential unit that is not master metered, the finance director may require from the applicant a security deposit in an amount not to exceed twice the average periodic (i.e., bimonthly) bill.
B. For a new residential applicant for a building that is master metered, the finance director may require from the property owner a security deposit in an amount not to exceed an estimated 12 months' average bills.
C. For a new nonresidential applicant, whether the applicant is the property owner or the tenant, the finance director may require from the applicant a security deposit in an amount not to exceed an estimated 12 months' average bills.
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 14.04.075 § 14.04.090
D. Where the new residential applicant is a tenant in a residence that is not master metered, the finance director shall not require, as a condition of the new applicant's establishing an account and receiving service, that the account be established in the property owner's name unless the property owner consents through a written agreement.
E. Where the new residential applicant is a tenant in a residence where the account for the previous tenant has outstanding charges and/or penalties, the finance director shall not require the new applicant to pay those charges/penalties as a condition of establishing an account and receiving service unless the new applicant was an adult living in the residence when the charges/penalties accrued.
F. If a portion or all of a bill is not paid, the security deposit shall be applied to satisfy the bill.
Any charges/penalties not satisfied from the security deposit may be collected by the city as provided in Section 14.04.130 of this chapter.
(Prior code § 2-16.08; Ord. 1127 § 1, 1984; Ord. 1703 § 1, 1997) § 14.04.080. Rates outside city limits.
The charges for water furnished or available to premises outside the boundaries of the city shall be in amounts equal to the charges which would be applicable if the premises were located within the city. (Unnumbered prior code section)
§ 14.04.090. Collection of water charges.
A. All water charges shall be billed to the owner of the premises upon which charges herein fixed are levied and assessed or to the person who requested connection to the water system, or his or her successor in interest, or to any person requesting that such bill be charged to him or her.
1. In the event water usage is recorded on a meter for which no connection has been requested, the owner of the premises shall be responsible for all such water charges; unless it is demonstrated to the city's reasonable satisfaction that during the period of such water usage that the premises was occupied by person(s) or legal entity who had requested that service at the premises be terminated as provided in Section 14.04.120.
B. All water charges shall become due and payable at the operations services department on the date of payment specified thereon and shall become delinquent on the day following the current billing due date, except that closing bills, where service is discontinued, will be due and payable on date of presentation, and collection will be made at time of presentation. All bills for water charges will be rendered by the city monthly or bimonthly and will be issued by the operation services department. Meters will be read at regular intervals for the preparation of regular metered service bills and as required for the preparation of opening bills, closing bills and special bills. Each meter will be read separately. It may not always be possible to read meters regularly on the same day of each period. Should a monthly billing period contain less than 27 days or more than 33 days, a pro rata correction in the bill will be made. Proportionate adjustments will be made when other billing periods are used.
C. Opening bills, closing bills, monthly bills rendered for a period of less than 27 days or more than 33 days, and other bills requiring proration, will be computed in accordance with the
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 14.04.090 § 14.04.110
applicable schedule, but the amount of the fixed charge or minimum charge specified therein will be prorated on the basis of the ratio of the number of days in the period to the number of days in the average billing period, based on an average month of 30.4 days. Should the total period of service be less than one month, no proration will be made, and no bill shall be less than the specified monthly fixed charge or minimum charge.
D. On each bill for water service rendered by the city to its consumers will be printed substantially the following language:
This bill is due upon receipt and is delinquent if not paid on the day after the current billing due date. If delinquent, service may be discontinued and penalties assessed. A cash deposit and reconnection charge may be required to reestablish service. See Municipal Code §14.04.090.
E. The city manager, in consultation with the director of operation services, is authorized to administratively adopt, and amend as needed, a policy setting penalty amounts to be levied on past due and/or unpaid utility bills, as well as a process to waive such penalty amounts. (Prior code § 2-16.09; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2244 § 2, 2023) § 14.04.100. Temporary service.
A. The city will, if no undue hardship to its existing consumers will result therefrom, furnish temporary service under the following conditions:
1. The applicant will be required to pay to the city, in advance, the estimated net cost of installing and removing the facilities necessary to furnish the service; and
2. Where duration of service is to be less than one month, the applicant may also be required to deposit cash equal to the estimated bill, subject to adjustment and refund or repayment in accordance with actual bill rendered upon discontinuance of service; or
3. Where the duration of service is to exceed one month, the applicant may also be required to establish his or her credit in the manner prescribed for permanent service in Section
14.04.070.
B. In the event a temporary service becomes permanent, the city will refund to the temporary consumer the amount paid for a temporary service installation upon payment of the applicable connection fee provided for in Chapter 14.08. (Prior code § 2-16.10)
§ 14.04.110. Refusal to serve.
A. The city may refuse an application for service under the following conditions:
1. If the applicant fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter; or
2. If in the judgment of the director the intended use of the service is of such a nature that it would be detrimental or injurious to the water service furnished by the city to other consumers; or
3. If in the judgment of the director the intended use of the service is dangerous or unsafe
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 14.04.110 § 14.04.130
or of such a nature that satisfactory service cannot be rendered; or
4. If in the judgment of the director the intended use of the service would result in a negligent or wasteful use of water which would affect the city's water service.
B. The city shall have the right to refuse water service to any premises if necessary to protect itself against fraud or abuse.
C. If service has theretofore been discontinued for fraudulent use, service will not be rendered until the director has determined that all conditions of fraudulent use or practice have been corrected.
D. When an applicant is refused service under the provisions of this section, the director shall inform him or her of the reason for the refusal to serve him or her and of his or her right of appeal under this chapter.
(Prior code § 2-16.11)
§ 14.04.120. Discontinuance of service.
Any consumer may have his or her water service discontinued by giving notice to the department requesting discontinuance not less than two days prior to the requested date of discontinuance.
Each such consumer shall pay all water charges up to and including the date of discontinuance stated in such notice. In any case where such notice is not given, the consumer shall be required to pay for water service until two days after the department has knowledge that the consumer has vacated the premises or otherwise discontinued water service. The city shall make a reconnection charge for restoring water service to any consumer whose water service has been discontinued at his or her request. Such charge shall be as set forth in the master fee schedule. (Prior code § 2-16.12; Ord. 2019 § 1, 2011)
§ 14.04.130. Enforcement measures.
A. A consumer's water service may be discontinued for nonpayment of a bill for water service furnished if the bill is not paid within 60 days after it has become delinquent. A consumer's water service may also be discontinued for nonpayment of a bill for water service furnished at a previous or different location served by the city, if such bill is not paid within 60 days after it has become delinquent. No service will be discontinued under this subsection until at least five days after deposit by written notice from the director to such consumer in the United States Post Office of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, addressed to the person to whom notice is given and stating the city's intention to discontinue service. The city may also provide additional notice about discontinuance of water service by telephone contact, and/or a door hanger with written notice on the main entrance of the building where water service is furnished.
B. The city may discontinue service without notice to any premises where a consumer's installation for utilizing the service is found by the director to be dangerous or unsafe or where the use of water on such premises is found by the director to be detrimental or injurious to the water service furnished by the city to other consumers, or where the director finds that negligent or wasteful use of water exists on any premises which affects the city's water service. The city shall have the right to discontinue water service to any premises if necessary
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 14.04.130 § 14.04.140
to protect itself against fraud or abuse.
C. In the event of violation of any terms of this chapter (except subsections A and B of this section), the department may disconnect the premises to which such violation relates from the water system after first notifying in writing the person causing, allowing or committing such violation, specifying the violation and, if applicable, the time after which (upon the failure of such person to prevent or rectify the violation) the director will exercise his or her authority to disconnect the premises from the water system; provided, that such time shall not be less than five days after the deposit of such notice in the United States Post Office at Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, addressed to the person to whom notice is given; provided, however, that in the event such violation results in a public hazard or menace, then the director may enter upon the premises without notice and do such things and expend such sums as may be necessary to abate such hazard, and the reasonable value of the things done and the amounts expended in so doing shall be a charge upon the person so in violation.
D. Upon failure of any consumer billed or the owner of any premises to pay any water service charge subsequent to delinquency, the following action shall be taken by the city or the director to enforce such payment:
1. In each case where any bill for water service remains unpaid after such bill becomes delinquent, and remains unpaid for 60 days thereafter the director shall: (a) disconnect the premises from the water system for nonpayment of water bills; and (b) cause an action at law to be brought on behalf of the city against the person responsible for payment of such bill to recover the amount of such bill and the costs of such action.
2. For situations involving significant unpaid amounts which have been delinquent for a long period of time involving accounts where service was requested by the property owner, the director may impose a lien on the property for the unpaid amount plus penalties as provided in California Government Code Section 43008.
E. Whenever any premises have been disconnected from the water system for any violation of this chapter, such premises shall not be reconnected to the water system until all delinquent charges have been paid, together with applicable charges as provided in the master fee schedule, and until a security deposit is established pursuant to Section 14.04.075. When any person's premises have been disconnected from the water system under the provisions of this subsection, the director shall inform him or her of the reason for the disconnection and of his or her right of appeal under this chapter.
F. Notwithstanding the measures described above, the city manager, in consultation with the director of operation services, is authorized to administratively adopt, and amend as needed, a policy for discontinuance of residential water service for non-payment as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 116900 et seq. (the Water Shutoff Protection Act).
The provisions of such administrative policy shall supersede any conflicting provisions of this chapter.
(Prior code § 2-16.13; Ord. 2019 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2093 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2216 § 2, 2021)
§ 14.04.140. Meter tests and adjustment of bills.
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 14.04.140 § 14.04.140
A. Tests On Consumer's Request.
1. A consumer may, on not less than one week's notice, request that the city test the meter serving consumer's premises. Where the accuracy of the record of the water meter is questioned by the consumer, such meter may be removed by the city at the consumer's request, and shall be tested using a third-party meter testing agency selected by the city.
Testing shall be in accordance with then current American Water Works Association M6 Water Meters standard practice.
2. Before testing any meter, the consumer requesting the test shall make a deposit with the city in the amount of the estimated cost for the city to remove, replace and have tested the meter in question.
3. A report showing the results of the meter test will be furnished to the consumer within 15 days after completion of the test. If consumer disagrees with the report's findings, consumer may pay for a second test and report using a different third-party meter testing agency selected by the city.
B. Adjustment of Bills for Meter Error or Leaks.
1. Fast Meters. If the test discloses an error against the consumer of more than two percent of the meter's registry, the excess consumption on the three previous readings shall be credited to the consumer's meter account. The city shall bear the entire expense of the test, and the deposit required by this chapter shall be returned to consumer.
2. Slow Meters. When, upon test, a meter is found to be registering more than three percent slow, the city may bill the consumer for the amount of the undercharged water based upon corrected meter readings for the period the meter was in service but not exceeding the previous three readings. The consumer who has requested the test shall pay for the meter test and labor to remove the old meter and reinstall an accurate meter. The city shall provide a cost estimate to the consumer prior to any work being done.
3. Nonregistering Meters. A nonregistering meter is a meter which has lost the ability to measure water flowing through it. The main indicator of this condition is the flow registering device fails to increment was water passes through the meter. The city may bill the consumer for water consumed while the meter was nonregistering but for a period not exceeding six months at the minimum monthly meter rate, or upon an estimate of the consumption based upon the consumer's prior use during the same season of the year if conditions were unchanged, or upon an estimate based upon a reasonable comparison with the use of other consumers during the same period, receiving the same class of service under similar circumstances and conditions.
4. Leaks. The city manager may adopt an administrative policy, "Credit to Utility Bill After Repair of Certain Water Leaks Policy," for utility bill adjustments after a consumer repairs a water leak which was not readily discernable and is beyond the control of the consumer.
5. General. When it is found that the error in a meter is due to some cause, the date of which can be fixed, the overcharge or the undercharge will be computed back to, but not beyond, such date.
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 14.04.140 § 14.04.170
(Prior code § 2-16.14; Ord. 2167 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2239 § 2, 2022) § 14.04.150. Notices.
A. Notices from the city to any consumer will be given in writing, either delivered to the consumer or mailed to his or her last known address, except that where conditions warrant or in any emergency the city may give verbal notice by telephone or in person.
B. Notices from a consumer to the city may be given by the consumer or his or her authorized representative verbally or in writing at the office of the department or to an employee or agent of the department who is authorized to receive notices or complaints, or may be sent by mail to the department office.
(Prior code § 2-16.15)
§ 14.04.160. Appeals.
A. Any person who shall have a right to appeal as provided in any section of this chapter or who shall be dissatisfied with any determination hereinafter made under this chapter by the department or the director may, at any time within 30 days after such determination, appeal to the city manager by giving written notice to the director and to the city manager, setting forth the determination with which such person is dissatisfied. After review and determination by the city manager, any person who shall then be dissatisfied with such determination may, at any time within 30 days after such determination, appeal to the council by giving written notice to the city manager and to the city clerk, setting forth the determination with which such person is dissatisfied. The council may, at any time, upon its own motion appeal from any determination made by the director or the city manager under this chapter. In the event of any such appeal to the council, the city manager shall transmit to the council a report upon the matter appealed. The council shall cause notice to be given, at least 10 days prior to the time fixed for such hearing, to all persons affected by such appeal, of the time and place fixed by the council for hearing such appeal. The council shall direct the city clerk to mail a written notice, postage prepaid, to all such persons whose addresses are known to the council.
B. Pending decision upon any appeal relative to the amount of any charge under this chapter, the person making such appeal shall pay such charge. After the appeal is heard, the council shall order refunded to the person making such appeal such amount, if any, as the council shall determine should be refunded.
(Prior code § 2-16.16)
§ 14.04.170. Disposition of revenues.
All revenues received by the finance department or the city under this chapter, excepting all connection charges provided for in Chapter 14.08, and all refundable deposits made to establish credit, shall be deposited within a reasonable time after receipt thereof in a depository bank of the city, and said sums, together with any interest earned thereon, shall on or before the first business day of each calendar month next succeeding the calendar month in which such revenues shall have been collected, be deposited by the city in the manner and for the purposes provided and with the fiscal agent designated, in or pursuant to that certain resolution adopted by the council on March
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 14.04.170 § 14.04.170
27, 1967, entitled:
Resolution Providing for the Issuance of $750,000 Principal Amount of City of Pleasanton 1967 Water Revenue Bonds and of $400,000 Principal Amount of Series A Bonds of Said Issue, and Prescribing the Terms, Conditions and Form of Said Series A Bonds. (Prior code § 2-16.17)
Item #17
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
November 19, 2024
Community Development
TITLE: RECEIVE PRESENTATION ON DRAFT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDIES AND
PROVIDE INPUT ON RECOMMENDED CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE,
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE, COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE, AND SEWER AND WATER CONNECTION FEE
AMOUNTS
SUMMARY
This study session presents drafts of two separate nexus/fee update studies that support:
Update of the City’s existing Capital Facilities Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee (for housing), and Affordable Housing Fee, and Update of the Sewer and Water Connection Fees. Staff is seeking City Council input and direction on the studies, including the levels at which the various fees should be set.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation on Draft Impact Fee Nexus Studies and provide input on recommended Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, Affordable Housing Fee, and Sewer and Water Connection Fee amounts.
BACKGROUND
Since early 2024, City staff and a professional services team lead by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) have been undertaking work to update the City’s Development Impact Fees and Affordable Housing Fees, and to update the existing Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO).
Related to the IZO update, amendments are also proposed to PMC Chapter 17.40 - Affordable Housing Fee, Chapter 18.38 – Housing Opportunity Zone District, and the Objective Design Standards for Housing Element Sites to align with the amendments to the IZO and other clarifying changes. As a separate effort, the City, working with Raftelis, is also completing a study to update the local water and wastewater (sewer) Connection fees.
The City Council held two workshops (May 7 and August 20, 2024) as part of the study process, with the latter focused on the update of the IZO.
At the May 7 meeting, the City Council reviewed and discussed the results of the initial analysis completed by EPS and Raftelis, including an evaluation of potential changes to the affordable housing inclusionary rate, along with other initial findings and recommendations with respect to impact fees more generally. The analysis found that new growth and the cost of infrastructure and facilities to serve it could justify significantly higher impact fees. However, the report notes there are trade-offs to be considered – in particular, setting fees at a very high level could have the negative consequence of discouraging, or making infeasible, new development or investment in the city – which could have longer-term fiscal impacts.
Regarding the water and wastewater connection fees, the initial analysis found that the City’s ATTACHMENT 3
fees are substantially lower than neighboring agencies’ due to the length of time since the last fee updates, and it was staff’s recommendation, supported by the City Council, to accept the maximum rate increase identified in the draft study.
At the August 20 meeting, the City Council provided direction on several aspects of the IZO, including the inclusionary rate, which the City Council supported setting at 15% for all project types (single-family and multi-family), with recommended target affordability levels for each project type. These recommendations are reflected in the Draft Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, which the City Council reviewed on October 15, and is presented to the City Council for adoption at this November 19 meeting as a separate agenda item.
DISCUSSION
Regulatory Requirements
State law, specifically Government Code 66000 et. seq. (also known as AB 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act) and the more recently adopted AB 602, includes various requirements with respect to the development and implementation of fee programs. Note that AB 1600 and AB 602 relate specifically to development impact fees, (i.e., in Pleasanton, the Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) and Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), as well as the Commercial Linkage Fee (fee charged to commercial development to mitigate housing impacts)). The nexus studies have been completed in accordance with all statutory requirements.
Among the requirements of AB 602 is for impact fees to be charged on a per square foot basis, unless analysis can otherwise show that a different methodology is appropriate. Under AB 602 (Government Code Section 66019.A), water, wastewater and similar utility-related fees are not required to be calculated on a per square foot basis.
The City’s affordable housing fees are a separate category of fee, related to the City’s inclusionary zoning requirements. As such, they are not “mitigation fees” subject to the requirements of AB1600/AB 602; rather, they are authorized under the general police powers given to local agencies to regulate the development and use of property. However, it is best practice for such in-lieu fees to be calculated based on a clear and defensible methodology, and for the inclusionary rate to be considered in the context of development feasibility to ensure it does not present an impediment to residential development.
Calculation of Maximum Fee Amounts
The largest part of the fee study is dedicated to outlining the methodology and calculation of various fees. It is noted the studies provide a calculation of the maximum allowable fee that the City can charge based on the nexus requirements of AB1600, or for the commercial linkage and affordable housing fee, that is otherwise supported based on the analysis. As described later in this report, as a policy matter, the City can elect to set the fee levels at, or below, the maximum amount justified by the study.
Development Impact Fees and Affordable Housing Fee Study EPS has prepared the Draft Fee Update and Nexus Study – City of Pleasanton Development Impact, Commercial Linkage and Housing In-Lieu Fee, which includes the necessary background, analysis, and documentation to support the adoption of updated fees. (Attachment 1)
The study addresses three main categories of fees:
1. Development Impact Fees, which include the City’s Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) and Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), and which offset the cost of new and expanded public facilities and infrastructure to meet the demands of new residents and employees associated with new development.
2. A Commercial Linkage Fee with respect to housing, which is intended to offset or capture the impact of new commercial development on the demand for affordable housing, in the form of contributing new employees and related housing demand.
3. An Affordable Housing Fee, also known as an “inclusionary in-lieu fee,” is levied for residential projects that are not required to build on-site affordable housing units, or that may be permitted by the City to pay fees “in-lieu” of constructing units on-site.
Capital Facilities and Transportation Impact Fees
The study outlines the methodology, assumptions and other input used to calculate the CFF and DIF, including the following basic steps:
• Estimates of projected future population and employment growth, amounting to a future estimated “service population” of residents and employees of approximately 128,510, an increase of approximately 29,167 over today’s service population (99,343). This increase in service population represents 22.7% of the service population total at the time of buildout.
• Evaluation of the necessary infrastructure and capital improvements to serve the future service population, exclusive of water and sewer improvements that are part of a separate fee study (see below).
• Cost estimates of these infrastructure and capital improvements, based on information provided by City staff and other research.
• The allocation of costs between existing and future development, and between residential and commercial uses to derive a cost per resident and per employee. • Multiplication of those costs per resident or employee, by the future service population.
With respect to capital facilities and infrastructure, the study uses a “service level” approach that determines facility improvements primarily by calculating the City’s existing service levels and extrapolating the future needs based on the available facilities today. Certain specialized facilities, such as the aquatic center and cemetery have unique characteristics that mean the service level model works less well; those facilities costs are called out separately. The study also accounts for those facilities planned or included in the City’s 5-year CIP, as well as various infrastructure master plans and similar documents. It is noted that AB 602 requires jurisdictions to adopt a "capital improvement plan" as part of the nexus study process. As outlined in the nexus study, the report includes the “Pleasanton DIF Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan (Pleasanton DIF CIP)”, which is included in the report as Appendix Table A1. The Pleasanton DIF CIP is specific to the nexus study, and correlates with, but does not supersede, the City’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (5-Year CIP) Rather than listing every project that may be funded by fees, the nexus study identifies a set of facility categories, within which eligible projects must fit. This approach provides the City with the most adaptability to deploy impact fees based on its priorities and needs over coming years, while providing enough definition to guide the legal use of those fees pursuant to AB
1600. As noted, impact fees can only be used to meet the proportion of facilities costs associated with new development; based on the future service population, this amounts to
22.7% of those facilities costs. This proportion is reflected throughout the impact fee calculations.
A summary of the maximum fee amounts derived from the study is provided in Table 1, below.
Note that these fees are shown on a per unit basis for residential development, to provide an easier “apples to apples” comparison with current fee amounts. A separate calculation is applied to translate this into a per square foot amount, for single-family and multi-family development (see Tables 25 and 26 in Attachment A).
It is further noted the fee includes a 2% Administrative Charge. This charge supports the costs for the City to collect, report on, and administer the fee, and helps to address the cost of this and future updates of the fee (see Fiscal Impact Analysis section, below).
Table 1: Capital Facilities and Transportation Fee, Maximum Amounts Capital Facilities Fee Transportation Impact
Fee
Land Use Current
Amount
Maximum
Amount1
Current
Amount
Maximum
Amount1
Total Max.
Fee
Residential (per unit)
Single-Family $20,483 $29,677 $11,642 $20,565 $50,243
Multi-Family $14,593 $21,016 $7,158 $11,158 $32,174
Non-Residential (per square foot, except Lodging)
Office (per sq.ft) $2.97 $13.41 $18.17 $31.50 $44.92
Commercial/Retail
(per sq.ft)
$2.16 $9.15 $26.71 $48.35 $57.50
Industrial (per
sq.ft)2
$0.95 to
$2.38
$4.02 $10.99 $17.94 $21.96
Lodging (per $1,173 $671 $7,675 $12,908 $13,579
room)
Other Uses (per
trip)
N/A N/A $11,642 $21,449 $21,449
1. Includes 2% administrative charge
2. Existing City fee schedule includes Warehouse ($0.95/sq.ft.), Light Manufacturing ($0.95), and Research & Development ($2.38 sq. ft) land use categories. These fees are proposed to be consolidated into a single “Industrial” land use category.
As shown in Table 2, below, the residential fees include a per square foot charge applicable to most units (between 824 square feet - 4,500 square feet for single-family and between 417 square feet - 1,600 square feet for multi-family). Fees are capped on a per unit basis with a ceiling and floor for large and small projects, respectively, due to nexus considerations (i.e., it is more difficult to demonstrate that units above or below a certain size have proportionally higher / lower impacts).
Table 2: Maximum Capital Facilities and Transportation Fee (Combined), Per Square Foot
Unit Type Fee per Square Foot
$20.10 per square foot (Units 824-4,500
square feet)
Minimum Fee (Units 824 square feet or less:
$16,567
Single-Family
Maximum Fee: Units 4,500 square feet or
more: $90,437
$35.95 per square foot
Minimum Fee (Units 417 sq.ft or less):
$14,982 per unit
Multi-Family
Maximum Fee (Units 1,600 square feet or
more): $57,517 per unit
Commercial Linkage Fee for Affordable Housing
The Commercial Linkage Fee represents the fee charged to commercial projects (i.e., office, retail, industrial developments) to offset or mitigate the demand they generate for new affordable units.
EPS’ analysis, contained in Chapter 5 of the study, uses projections of the estimated worker households at different affordability levels associated with new development, based on the occupational category and wage distribution of those households. Then the study estimates the “affordability gap” between market-rate units to accommodate those households, and the subsidy necessary to provide housing at affordability commensurate with those households’ needs. The aggregate subsidy is divided among the projected square footage of new nonresidential development, to determine the commercial linkage fee on a per square foot basis.
The maximum fee amounts resulting from this calculation are summarized in Table 3, below.
Table 3: Commercial Linkage Fee, Maximum Amounts
Land Use Category Current Fee Amount Maximum Justifiable fee (per Square Foot)
Commercial/Retail $5.38 $578.73
Office $8.98 $142.42
Lodging $3.71 $72.86
Industrial $14.91 $143.39
As shown, the fee amounts are considerable, and far exceed the feasible amounts that could be paid by new commercial development – this imbalance is a common result in these types of analyses. As such, and as discussed in more detail below, it will be necessary to set the fee at a fraction of the maximum.
Affordable/Inclusionary Housing Fee
The Affordable Housing Fee is applied to small residential projects, below the size threshold to require on-site inclusionary units, and to larger projects subject to the inclusionary requirement, but for which the City may grant approval to pay fees in lieu of on-site construction. Chapter 7 of the study provides the detailed analysis for calculation of the fee.
The maximum justifiable amount of this fee is established based on the cost otherwise incurred to subsidize construction of affordable units on-site, in the proportion and at the affordability levels specified in the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, as proposed to be revised.
Following the Draft IZO update, the study uses an inclusionary rate of 15% for all housing types, including ownership and rental projects. As suggested by City Council, the IZO establishes target incomes at 50% and 60% AMI for rental projects, and 120% AMI for ownership projects.
To calculate the maximum supportable fee, EPS developed prototype projects (single-family detached, townhome and multifamily apartments) to model overall development costs, and market-rate and affordable home values to understand the subsidy necessary for the affordable units. Each maximum justifiable in-lieu fee is summarized in Table 4, below:
Table 4: Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee, Maximum Amounts Unit Type Current Fee
Amount (per unit)
Current Fee
Amount (per
square foot
equivalent)1
Maximum Fee (per
square foot)
Single-Family
Detached
$52,203 $17.40 $84.24
Townhome $51,077 $25.54 $42.10
Multi-Family
(Condominiums)
$51,077 $63.84 $54.87
Multi-Family
(Rental)
$51,077 $63.84 $69.19
1. Assumes Single Family Detached unit is 3,000 sq.ft, townhome is 2,000 square feet, and multi-family condos and rental units are 800 square feet
Water and Wastewater Connection Fees
Raftelis has prepared the Draft Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study, which includes the necessary background, analysis and documentation to support the adoption of updated fees. (Attachment 2)
The study addresses the water and wastewater connection fees which covers the cost for new and expanded water and sewer infrastructure (pipes, tanks, pump stations, etc.) to meet the demands of new residents and employees. The analysis breaks down the demands and costs for new development into a base rate for a single-family residential (SFR) home and then scales the rates in comparison to the base capacity/demand. For water, the base rate is based on the smallest meter offered by the City which is a 5/8” meter which accommodates the typical SFR home.
For wastewater, the base rate is based on SFR home unit and then scaled by equivalent dwelling units (EDU) ratios for different customer classifications. The EDU converts the wastewater demands from a SFR home to various customer classifications based on per square foot basis and incorporates a factor to adjust for the strength of the wastewater. The EDUs were previously established by the City and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which operates the facility that treats the wastewater conveyed to it through the City-operated sewer system.
Tables 5 and 6 indicate the maximum justifiable connection fee amounts, for water and wastewater, respectively.
Table 5: Water Connection Fees (See Attachment 2, Tables 8 and 9 for full list of water connection fees
Meter Size Meter
Capacity
Current Fee 2024 Update
Maximum Allowable
Percent Change
5/8" 25 $1,200 $2,721.29 227%
3/4" 35 $1,800 $3,809.81 212%
1" 55 $3,000 $5,986.84 200%
1.5" 120 $6,000 $13,062.20 218%
Table 6: Wastewater Connection Fees by Equivalent Dwelling Unit (See Attachment 2, Table 10 for full list of wastewater connection fees)
EDU
Ratio
Factor Current
Fee
2024 Update
Maximum
Allowable
Percent
Change
Single Family
Residential (SFR) 1 unit $500 $556.24 111%
Secondary
Dwelling Unit 0.004
square
foot $2 $2.22 111%
Townhome/Duplex 1 per unit $500 $556.24 111%
Condominium 0.75 per unit $375 $417.18 111%
Apartment/Mobile
Home 0.66 per unit $330 $367.12 111%
Recommendations and Alternatives for Development Impact Fees, Commercial Linkage Fees and Housing In-Lieu Fees
Table 7 summarizes each of the fees, and the maximum supportable fee levels, for the CFF, TIF, Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee (Affordable Housing Fee).
Table 7: Summary of Development Impact Fees and Housing Fees – Maximum Amounts Policy Considerations
As outlined above, the fee study indicates that increases to the majority of the City’s fees can be justified based on the analysis. In some cases, the fee increases, if charged at the maximum rates justified, could be substantial and, in the aggregate, could cause projects to become financially infeasible, based on reasonable development expectations regarding returns on investment. As such, it could negatively impact the City’s ability to see longer-term returns of property tax and sales tax revenue that come with new investment or affect the ability to meet other policy goals such as achieving Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) targets.
Alternatively, the City could choose to actively seek to support certain types of investments or land uses, by setting fees somewhat lower, making the overall prospect of developing in
Pleasanton relatively more attractive as a location for new commercial and/or residential development.
If the City Council agrees it is prudent not to set some or all fees at the maximum, then there are policy decisions to be made about which specific fees should be reduced. For example, as a matter of policy, the City Council could decide it is preferable to collect more TIF by setting it at or close to the maximum supportable amount; however, doing so would require a reduction in another fee category, such as the CFF or commercial linkage fee for affordable housing, to keep the fee burden within the feasible range.
To help frame the recommendations and alternatives, EPS developed estimates of the capacity of various types of residential development to absorb fee increases, while remaining financially feasible. In cases where the aggregate increases in fees would exceed this fee burden capacity, options are provided for City Council consideration with respect to fee adjustments.
As a second point of reference, and with the assumption that Pleasanton wishes to remain somewhat comparable or competitive with peer jurisdictions, EPS summarized the average fee burden charged by our peer jurisdictions in those same development categories where feasible. This analysis resulted in a series of alternatives for City Council consideration, for each of the major land use categories.
Residential: Single-Family Detached Fee Alternatives
Two alternatives are proposed, summarized below and with the resultant fee amounts shown in Table 8.
Alternative 1: Adopt all fees at the maximum level supported by the fee and nexus studies.
Alternative 2: (Recommended)
• Charge the CFF and TIF at the maximum level; and
• Set the Affordable Housing Fee in-lieu at $42.10 per square foot, equivalent to the maximum fee for townhome units.
Table 8: Single-Family Detached: Fee Alternatives
Alternative 1
(Maximum Fee Amounts)
Alternative 2: Reduce In-Lieu
Housing Fee
(Recommended)
Fee
(Per Sq. Ft.)
Fee
(Per Unit)
Fee
(Per Sq. Ft.)
Fee
(Per Unit)
Capital Facilities
Fee
$11.87 $35,613 $11.87 $35,613
Transportation Fee $8.23 $24,678 $8.23 $24,678
Affordable Housing
Fee
$84.25 $252,750 $42.10 $125,300
Total Fee Burden $124.44 $313,041 $62.20 $186,591
Estimated Fee
Burden “Capacity”
$228,280
Peer Jurisdictions:
Average Fee
Burden
$162,890
Staff recommends Alternative 2, which discounts the affordable housing in-lieu fee to a level that is within the feasible burden, and similar to the total fee burden charged by peer jurisdictions.
While this may have the consequence of encouraging more projects to seek to “fee out” of their on-site affordable requirement, the City Council would have the discretion to approve such requests, and even if such requests were approved, it would not have a significant effect on affordable housing production. At the same time, this alternative would reduce burden on smaller residential projects that qualify to pay the fee per the IZO. These small projects, that usually involve one or a handful of single-family units on infill sites, are predominantly built by individuals and small investors, and comprise the largest share of remaining new single-family home construction in Pleasanton.
Residential – Townhomes: Alternative
It is recommended the City adopt CFF, TIF and Affordable Housing Fees at the maximum level supported by the study for townhome projects. No other alternatives are proposed for this fee category. See Table 9
The total fee burden is within the estimated capacity for this type of development, meaning it can support the increased fees as recommended and justified by the fee study. Note that the peer cities comparable average is not provided for townhomes, because staff found that different jurisdictions classify and/or group townhomes differently, with some putting them into the same category as detached SFR, and others grouping them with attached units such as apartments.
Table 9: Residential Townhomes – Fee Recommendation
Recommendation: Adopt Maximum Fees
Fee (Per Sq. Ft.) Estimated Fee (Per
Unit)1
Capital Facilities Fee $11.87 $23,742
Transportation Fee $8.23 $16,452
Affordable Housing Fee $42.10 $84,200
Total Fee Burden $62.20 $124,394
Estimated Fee Burden “Capacity” $118,096
1. Representative fee, for a typical 2,000 sq. ft. townhome unit Residential – Multi-family (Rental Apartments and Condominiums): Alternatives As previously noted, market conditions for the construction of multi-family projects are extremely challenging at present. Based on EPS’ analysis, under current conditions there is no capacity to increase fees, since development costs, in general, including fees under today’s rates, cannot produce financially feasible projects. With this in mind, two alternatives are proposed, with Alternative 2 having two sub-options:
Alternative 1: Retain aggregate local fees (Impact Fees and Affordable Housing Fees) for multi-family development at approximately the same level as today ($92.00 per square foot) Alternative 2: Reduce aggregate fees to match the average of comparable peer cities, that is approximately $78.00 per square foot, or $62,500 per unit (peer jurisdictions are Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek).
In this alternative, the reductions could be achieved, depending on the policy priorities of the City Council by either:
• Option 2A: Lowering the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee • Option 2B: Lowering the CFF and TIF.
The alternatives are illustrated in Table 10, below:
Table 10: Residential Multi-Family – Fee Alternatives
Alternative 1
Retain Existing
Aggregate Fee Level
Alternative 2
Lower Aggregate Fee to Regional Average
Alternative 2A
Reduce Affordable
Housing Fee,
Maximize CFF and
TIF
Alternative 2B
Reduce CFF and TIF,
Maximize Housing
Fee
Fee
(Per Sq.
Ft)
Fee
(Per
Unit)*
Fee
(Per Sq.
Ft.)
Fee
(Per
Unit)*
Fee
(Per
Sq. Ft.)
Fee
(Per Unit)*
Capital Facilities
Fee
$23.48 $18,785 $23.48 $18,785 $5.86 $4,685
Transportation Fee $12.47 $9,973 $12.47 $9,973 $3.11 $2,488 Affordable Housing
Fee
$56.05 $44,841 $42.21 $33,766 $69.19 $55,352
Total Fee Burden $92.00 $73,600 $78.16 $62,525 $78.16 $62,525 Estimated Fee
Burden “Capacity”
$0
Peer Jurisdictions:
Average Fee
Burden per Unit
$62,525
Staff recommends Alternative 2A, to reduce the Affordable Housing In-lieu fee, and charge the TIF and CFF at the maximum supportable, with the aggregate fees at the average of peer jurisdictions.
While this may encourage more projects to seek to “fee out” of their on-site affordable housing requirements, doing so would be at the discretion of City Council, with no obligation to approve such requests. At the same time, heavily discounting the CFF and TIF will impede the City’s ability to provide new transportation and capital facilities infrastructure to meet the needs of
this new development, which will constitute the largest share of new growth in Pleasanton in coming years. To the extent multi-family development is viable anywhere in the Tri-Valley, Pleasanton’s fees will be on a par with peer jurisdictions.
In conjunction with Option 2A, as a secondary recommendation, and as discussed at the August 2024 meeting, the City Council could consider offering near-term relief to residential multi-family projects by allowing multi-family projects to “fee out” of up to 33% of their inclusionary requirement (without additional City Council approval), for a period of up to two years following the effective date of the IZO’s adoption.
This strategy would recognize the challenges of the current market, and interest in promoting multi-family development to help meet the City’s RHNA. As currently proposed, the fee would represent a lower cost than the cost to construct on-site, providing some financial relief for these projects, while still having them mitigate the majority of their affordable housing demands on-site. The disadvantage of this approach is that it would potentially reduce the number of deed-restricted affordable housing units constructed during the initial period.
Non-Residential Fees
For non-residential development, for simplicity, the alternatives are presented using the “Office” land use category only, rather than providing a multitude of scenarios for each commercial land use type. The Office category serves as an appropriate proxy because nonresidential impact fees are usually derived using similar per unit demand factors (e.g., trips or employees per square foot) that vary proportionally by land use category (e.g., the relationship between office and industrial fees are roughly similar by City).
That said, some cities provide policy-based fee discounts to incentivize certain types or locations of development (e.g., for retail or near transit). The recommendation for Office would be carried forward to other non-residential uses in a proportionate manner, unless the City Council wanted to explore alternatives that would (for example) discount fees for one type of use compared to another.
It is further noted that the maximum Commercial Linkage fee for affordable housing, justified by the study, is well above any feasible level. Therefore, the alternatives provided below assume the existing commercial linkage fee per square foot as the baseline, with changes up or down from this level.
Three alternatives are presented, and illustrated in Table 11:
Alternative 1: Increase CFF and TIF to Maximum Supportable. This alternative would set the CFF and TIF fee at the maximum supportable by the Nexus Study; that is $13.41, and $31.50 per square foot, respectively. The Commercial Linkage Fee would remain at its current rate ($3.71). The aggregate fee would total $48.62 per square foot.
Alternative 2: Retain the total aggregate existing fee, inclusive of the CFF, TIF and Commercial Linkage Fee of $30.12/square foot. In order to retain the existing fee, the TIF and CFF would be set to equal one another (at $13.41 per square foot) and the remaining fee amount (i.e., $3.29) would be allocated to the Commercial Linkage fee.
Alternative 3: Lower the total aggregate fee to $22.78, reflective of the average fee burden
across peer jurisdictions (Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Walnut Creek). In order to lower the overall fee burden, each fee amount from Option 1 would be further reduced by about 24%.
Table 11: Non-Residential – Fee Alternatives
Staff recommends the City Council adopt Option 3, which would bring the aggregate multifamily fee down to be more in line with that of the average of peer jurisdictions and ensure that Pleasanton remains regionally competitive as a location for commercial investment.
To the extent commercial development is financially viable anywhere in the Tri-Valley or within peer cities, Pleasanton’s fees will be on a par with peer jurisdictions. Setting the fee higher than this level is not recommended, because it would make Pleasanton less competitive as a location to do business in the region, potentially affecting long-term investment and property and sales tax revenue.
Applicability of Updated Fees to Projects in Process
With respect to projects in process and with active applications, it is recommended City Council adopt a policy regarding applicability of the new fees to such projects. While some projects are “vested” to the existing fees pursuant to State law (e.g. SB 330, Subdivision Map Act), it would be beneficial to provide clarity to current applicants as to the fees to which they will be subject. Attachment 3 provides a draft recommended policy with respect to projects in process – this is modeled on a similar policy adopted with the 2018 update, and generally proposes that the following types projects will still be subject to the existing fee, after the new fees are adopted:
• Projects not subject to legislative approval (i.e. not requiring a zoning or General Plan amendment, or subject to annexation), if “deemed complete” by the effective date of the fees
• Projects subject to legislative approval, if “deemed complete, or have been in process for three months or more, or accomplished other milestones constituting a significant financial investment, such as initiation of a CEQA process, or conducting a City Council or Planning Commission work session, by the effective date Alternative 1
Increase CFF
and TIF to
Maximum
Allowable
Alternative 2
Match Existing
Aggregate Fee
Alternative 3
Discount Fee to
Match Peer Cities
Average
Fee per Sq. Ft. Fee Per Sq. Ft. Fee Per Sq. Ft.
Capital Facilities Fees $13.41 $13.41 $10.15
Transportation Fees $31.50 $13.41 $10.15
Commercial Linkage
Fee
$3.71 $3.29 $2.49
Total Fee Burden $48.72 $30.12 $22.78
Peer Jurisdictions:
Average Fee Burden per
Sq. Ft
$22.78
• Project with a Building Permit application deemed substantially complete by the effective date.
These provisions would not supersede or replace vesting conferred by provisions of State law or an existing Development Agreement, would still apply any annual cost adjustments as reflected in the Pleasanton Municipal Code, and would not preclude the City and a developer from negotiating fees as part of a development agreement or similar mechanism.
Summary of Recommendations
For convenient reference, the various fees and the alternatives are summarized below:
Topic Summary of Alternatives and Staff
Recommendation
1. Sewer and Water Connection Fees, All
Connection Types
No Alternatives proposed
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Sewer and
Water connection fees at Maximum Levels
2. Single Family Detached, TIF, CFF and
Affordable Housing Fees
Alternative 1: Adopt maximum fee levels
Alternative 2: Reduce Single Family
Detached Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee
amount to $42.10 per square foot to match
Townhomes
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Alternative 2
3. Residential Townhomes, TIF, CFF and
Affordable Housing Fees
No Alternatives proposed
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt CFF, TIF and
AH In-Lieu Fees at Maximum Levels
4. Residential – Multifamily Apartments
and Condominiums, TIF, CFF and
Affordable Housing Fees
Alternative 1:Maintain existing aggregate fee
level
• Alternative 2: Reduce aggregate fee
level to the average of peer
jurisdictions
o Option 2A: Focus reductions
on Affordable Housing In-Lieu
Fee, with secondary
recommendation for 2 year “fee
out” option for up to 30% of
inclusionary units
o Option 2B: Focus reductions
on CFF and TIF
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt Alternative
2A
5. Commercial, TIF, CFF and Affordable
Housing Linkage Fee
Alternative 1: Increase CFF and TIF to
Maximum Allowable
Alternative 2: Maintain existing aggregate
fee level
Alternative 3: Reduce aggregate fee level to
the average of peer jurisdictions
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Alternative 3,
to set commercial impact fees at the
average of peer jurisdictions
6.Policy for Applicability of Updated Fees RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Policy as outlined in Attachment 3, which would
provide exceptions for development
projects that are in process
Next Steps
Based on City Council direction, staff will update and prepare final drafts of the two fee studies, and the PMC and ODS Amendments for formal review and adoption in December. The City Council will also consider adopting the new Capital Facilities, Transportation, Commercial Linkage, Water and Wastewater Connection, and Affordable Housing Fees.
Pursuant to State Law, fees become effective 60 calendar days after adoption. Therefore, if the second reading of the ordinances for adoption are held on January 7, 2025, the fees would become effective on March 8, 2025.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The adoption of the amendments to the various fees are not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because the amendments do not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; the amendments create government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project. As projects are developed and proposed for implementation, the environmental impacts of such facilities would be evaluated in accordance with CEQA
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Adopting the updated fees helps to advance equity and sustainability goals by ensuring that new development contributes to the necessary facilities and infrastructure, including upgrading buildings and facilities to meet energy efficiency standards, and expanding facilities to meet the needs of all segments of the community. Updating affordable housing fees will help to increase the inventory of below-market rate units by collecting fees that support the City’s affordable housing programs and production.
OUTREACH
Notice of this meeting was placed in the Valley Times, and interested parties requesting
notification were also sent notices, as were developers whose email contact information is maintained by the City.
Staff presented the key findings of the fee update to meetings of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development and Government Relations (EDGR) Committee, and the City’s Economic Vitality Commitee, at meetings in October.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Completion of these updates is consistent with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan and with the 6th Cycle Housing Element:
ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan.Goal A – Funding Our Future: Strategy 7: Conduct an analysis and update development fees to keep pace with new development costs.
Housing Element Program 2.1:Continue to implement the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and actively pursue strategies to improve its effectiveness in producing affordable housing units in conjunction with new development. The following actions will be undertaken by the City:
• Study the following amendments to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and adopt such amendments provided they are not found to be an undue constraint on the production of housing:
o An increase to the proportion of inclusionary units required in multi-family projects to be up to 20 percent, rather than the current 15 percent requirement.
Identification of a target mix of affordable units (including proportions of very-low, low- and moderate-income units), with the potential for an alternative mix of affordability to be proposed and approved if it would better meet other housing policy objectives to do so. For example, if the project provided deeper affordability, and/or resulted in the production of units suitable for special needs groups such as seniors or persons with mental or physical disabilities. Target affordability mix and unit size standards, including a required proportion of larger (three or more bedroom) lower-income units, may be implemented through Objective Design Standards (Program 4.2) or the amended Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
Housing Element Program 2.2: Require new commercial development to pay the LowerIncome Housing Fee established by City Ordinance and adopted by the City, or to otherwise mitigate demand for new employee housing as allowed by the Pleasanton Municipal Code (e.g., through construction of units or dedication of land). Regularly evaluate the amount of these fees to ensure that they: (1) remain commensurate with the needs generated by the development; (2) are established at a level proportionate with the actual cost to provide new housing; and (3) are in conformance with State law while ensuring that Pleasanton remains locally and regionally competitive in attracting new commercial investment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting the fees would have a neutral or beneficial fiscal impact, since it would better align proposed fees levied on new development with the capital facilities, infrastructure and housing
needs of the community, as documented in the EPS and Raftelis Fee studies. The TIF and CFF are proposed to include a 2% administrative charge, which is permissible to address the administrative costs of preparing, revising and updating the Nexus Studies; as these fees are received, they may be used to reimburse the General Fund for the cost to prepare the current Nexus Studies and future updates. The total amount authorized by City Council for the 2024 Nexus Study update is $203,928.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Ellen Clark, Director of
Community Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Nexus Study - City of Pleasanton Development Impact Fee and Affordable Housing Impact Fee
2. Draft Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study
3. Draft Policy Regarding Applicability of Updated Fees to Projects in Process
4. Presentation Slides
2025 CITY COUNCIL
SUBCOMMITTEE AND REGIONAL BOARD ASSIGNMENTS
December 17, 2024
VICE MAYOR ‐ Jeff Nibert
MEMBERSHIP MEMBER(S) ALTERNATE
Alameda County Liaison Committee 2 members Balch/Testa
Audit Committee 2 members Balch/Eicher
Dublin Liaison Committee 2 members Balch/Nibert
Dublin San Ramon Services District Liaison Committee 2 members Eicher/Testa East Bay Regional Park District Liaison Committee 2 members Eicher/Gaidos Alameda County Fair Liaison Committee 2 members Eicher/Testa Legislative Advocacy Committee 2 members Gaidos/Testa
LPFD Joint Powers Authority 2 members Balch/Eicher
Livermore Liaison Committee 2 members Balch/Eicher
PUSD Liaison Committee 2 members/1 alt Balch/Gaidos Nibert Waste and Recycling Committee 2 members Eicher/Gaidos
Zone 7 Liaison Committee 2 members Balch/Gaidos
LOCAL & REGIONAL BOARDS, COMMITTEES
Alameda County Mayors' Conference mayor/vice mayor Balch/Nibert Alameda County Transportation Commission 1 member/1 alt Balch Eicher Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District 1 member Nibert Alameda County Waste Management Authority 1 member/1 alt Gaidos Eicher Altamont Landfill Community Monitor Committee 1 member Nibert Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee 1 member/1 alt Nibert Eicher Association of Bay Area Governments (Gen'l Assembly) 1 member/1 alt Gaidos Nibert Ava 1 member/1 alt Balch Nibert
iGate Board 1 member/1 alt Testa Gaidos
Innovation TriValley 1 member Testa
League of California Cities ‐East Bay Division 1 member/1 alt Eicher Nibert Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority 2 members/1 alt Eicher/Testa Nibert Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency 2 members/1 alt Gaidos/Nibert Testa Tri‐Valley‐San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority 1 member Nibert Tri‐Valley Transportation Council 1 member/1 alt Testa Eicher
COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES
ATTACHMENT 1
Item #5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
City Clerk
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING THE 2025 CALENDAR YEAR CITY COUNCIL
MEETING SCHEDULE
SUMMARY
The Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 2.04.010 states that the City Council shall establish the dates and times of its regular meetings. A regular meeting schedule for the 2025 calendar year will assist in managing City Council meeting agendas and inform the public of planned public meetings.
The proposed 2025 calendar year schedule has 20 meeting dates. Regular meetings start at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution setting the 2025 calendar year City Council meeting schedule with 20 regular meetings.
BACKGROUND
From 2017 through 2024, the City held 19 or 20 regularly scheduled meetings per year. For the 2025 calendar year, it is proposed the City Council set 20 regular meeting dates.
DISCUSSION
Typically, regular meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. Regular meetings start at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The first meeting of April and August is not scheduled due to Pleasanton Unified School District's spring break schedule and National Night Out, respectively. The first meeting of January and September are also not scheduled due to proximity to City-observed holidays. It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution setting the 2025 calendar year schedule (Attachment 1). Setting this calendar does not preclude scheduling additional special meetings.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This schedule does not impact City-observed holidays.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this is an administrative matter to conduct City business.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable, as this item is a routine item of City business.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution setting 2025 Council meeting calendar
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON SETTING THE 2025 CALENDAR YEAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.04.010 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code allows the City Council to establish dates of its regular meetings by resolution; and WHEREAS, at its December 17, 2024, meeting, the City Council reviewed and considered the 2025 calendar year meeting schedule.
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 2025 City Council regular meeting schedule is set as follows:
January 21 July 1
February 4 July 15
February 18 August 19
March 4 September 16
March 18 October 7
April 15 October 21
May 6 November 4
May 20 November 18
June 3 December 2
June 17 December 16
SECTION 2. All regular meetings of the City Council shall start at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on December 17, 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 17th day of December 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Item #6
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Community Development
TITLE: ACTIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNING
COMMISSION
P24-0702, Jill Buck
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct an approximately 730-square-foot detached covered patio structure at 2529 Via Espada.
Approved. (8 days)
P24-0719, Navin Veerapal
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct an approximately 1,062-square-foot, second-story addition to an existing residence located at 7620 Fair Oaks Drive.
Project Information:
Existing floor area: 1,668 square feet
Total floor area with addition: 2,730 square feet
Lot size: 7,230 square feet
Existing floor area ratio: 23.07 percent
Total floor area ratio with addition: 37.76 percent
Approved. (8 days)
P24-0721, Nico Echeverria Landscape / Nico Echeverria
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct an approximately 520-square-foot, 13'6" tall, detached patio cover in the southeast (rear) of the property located at 1332 Montrose Place.
Approved. (10 days)
P24-0673, Meenu Gochhwal / Ashish Choudhary
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct a detached, approximately 1,056-square-foot pergola on a raised platform with an approximate total height of 12-feet and 6-inches towards the rear at 2207 Martin Avenue.
Approved. (28 days)
P24-0634, Adam DeLeon / Backyard Unlimited
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct a detached, approximately 192-square-foot pavilion with an approximate height of 11-feet and 3- inches located at 1873 Paseo Del Cajon.
Approved. (9 days)
P24-0724, Neil Ginty / Dwelling Lab
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to add two windows on the second story (one facing west and one facing east) of the existing two-story residence located 4447 Sandalwood Drive.
Approved. (8 days)
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Melinda Denis
Zoning Administrator
Ellen Clark
Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin
City Manager
Item #7
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Community Development
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AWARD OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,450 FOR THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 PROJECT AND APPROVE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS TO CIP NO. 24461
SUMMARY
The U.S Department of Energy is distributing funds to local governments through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) to assist in implementing strategies that reduce energy use, reduce fossil fuel emissions, and improve energy efficiency. The City applied for and was awarded $140,450 in federal grant funds through the EECBG. With City Council adoption of the resolution accepting this grant, the City Manager is authorized to receive $140,450 from the U.S Department of Energy and allocate the funding to the Climate Action Plan 2.0 Project, CIP No. 24461. The funds will be used toward electrifying the municipal fleet, as required by separate regulatory mandates of the California Air Resources Board.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept award of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funding in the amount of $140,450 for the Climate Action Plan 2.0 Project and approve budget amendments to allocate the funds to CIP No. 24461.
BACKGROUND
The City was eligible to apply for either a grant or voucher with the U.S Department of Energy to receive funds to implement strategies that reduce energy use, reduce fossil fuel emissions, and improve energy efficiency through the EECBG. The grant option was geared toward cities eligible for large sums of money and allows a broad range of project types, although it comes with significant reporting and administrative requirements. The voucher option had fewer allowable activities but came with simplified reporting and administrative requirements.
Allowable activities under the voucher program include technical assistance (e.g., policy design, building retrofit planning, etc.) and equipment rebates (e.g., electric vehicle charging infrastructure, heat pumps, etc.). The City applied for the voucher program, specifically an equipment voucher for fleet electrification, which can be used for vehicles or infrastructure to support fleet electrification.
The City’s voucher application was approved on July 2, 2024 (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
Emissions from on- and off-road transportation account for 64 percent of Pleasanton’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The adopted Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0) includes
several strategies to reduce transportation emissions, including electrifying the municipal fleet (Action P5).
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations require all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California to be zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. Further, CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation requires that 50 percent of municipal fleet vehicles purchased be ZEVs; this requirement increases to 100 percent in 2027. For Pleasanton to comply with the regulations and electrify the municipal fleet, the City needs to install electric charging infrastructure.
The City’s adopted FY2023/24-2026/27 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes a $2,000,000 line item for CAP implementation, specifically to install the necessary infrastructure to electrify the City’s fleet. There is currently $1,000,000 budgeted in CIP No. 24461, and this grant funding will augment the CIP budget to help meet the funding gap.
Staff is recommending City Council approval to allocate the U.S. Department of Energy funds to the existing CIP for CAP implementation (Attachment 1). Specifically, the funds will be used to install electric vehicle charging stations at five different locations at the City's Operations Services Center at 3333 Busch Road, to be used by multiple City divisions. The installation includes adding and updating electrical subpanels, conduits, breakers, wiring, and charging station mounting. With City Council approval to accept the funding, the project will proceed in 2025.
Once the charging infrastructure is installed, as older vehicles are replaced and new vehicles are purchased or leased, the City will be enabled to transition to ZEVs as required by CARB.
To fully equip facilities with chargers sufficient to transition the City’s fleet, additional chargers will need to be installed in the future; however, the EECBG funds are expected to fully fund the above-mentioned scope without the need to utilize the General Fund CIP budget at this time.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Approval of this item advances the City’s CAP 2.0 and aligns with Action P5 tp electrify the municipal fleet as it will enable the City to purchase ZEVs which will reduce the City’s emissions footprint and improve air quality.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted specifically for this grant, as this item is a routine matter of City business. However, ample outreach was conducted during the CAP 2.0 process which included the electrification of the municipal fleet over the coming several years.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goals of Investing in Our Environment, Strategy 6—Continue to Implement priority items from the Climate Action Plan
2.0 to lead by example in environmental sustainability, and Strategy 1—Implement the fouryear Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to complete the design and construction of budgeted capital projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City’s EECBG voucher total was approved for $140,450 which will bolster the City’s
funding for CIP No. 24461 to implement electric vehicle charging infrastructure. There is no matching requirement or any added financial contribution from the City, other than minimal staff time required to administer and report on grant expenditures.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Megan Campbell, Associate
Planner
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Accept the EECBG Funds for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
2. EECBG Funds Approval
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AWARD OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $140,450 FOR THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 PROJECT AND APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS TO CIP NO. 24461
WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requires all new passenger vehicles sold in California to be zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035; WHEREAS, CARB also requires 50 percent of all municipal fleet vehicles purchased to be ZEV by 2024 and 100 percent of all municipal fleet vehicles purchased must be ZEVs by 2027;
WHEREAS, the City’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory in 2017 identifies transportation as the leading source of emissions in Pleasanton; WHEREAS, the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) includes strategies to reduce transportation emissions, including transitioning the municipal fleet to all-electric in the next decade; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Energy approved Pleasanton’s voucher application for $140,450, which will be allocated to CIP No. 24461 and used for municipal fleet electrification.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. Authorizes the City Manager to accept the U.S. Department of Energy funds in the amount of $140,450, which will be allocated to CIP No. 24461 and used for municipal fleet electrification, and execute all necessary documents required by the grant program.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
Resolution No.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on December 17, 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 17th day of December 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
From: EECBG Vouchers
To: Megan Campbell; Jennifer Miller
Cc: EECBG Vouchers
Subject: U.S. Department of Energy EECBG Program Voucher Application Preapproval - Pleasanton Date: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 12:07:01 PM
Attachments: FARC 6.17.24.pdf
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
Congratulations! The U.S. Department of Energy has approved your Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program Equipment Rebate Voucher application. This email serves as the official notice that you may now proceed with equipment purchase and installation.
Attached is a copy of the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist (FARC) with information about required reporting documents and how to upload them.
If you need additional assistance or have any questions, please contact us at [email protected] and reference your application number below.
Application Number: IA-0000000763
Thank you,
EECBG Voucher Team
U.S. Department of Energy EECBG Program Vouchers
[email protected]
doerebates.my.site.com/eecbgvouchers
ATTACHMENT 2
8 # State/Territory Entity Name Level of
Government Allocation
254 CA Palm Desert City $118,040
255 CA Palm Springs City $76,770
256 CA Palmdale City $197,390
257 CA Palo Alto City $141,790
258 CA Paramount City $114,940
259 CA Pasadena City $193,560
260 CA Perris City $134,320
261 CA Petaluma City $121,440
262 CA Pico Rivera City $120,010
263 CA Pittsburg City $128,250
264 CA Placentia City $112,350
265 CA Pleasanton City $140,450
266 CA Pomona City $188,070
267 CA Porterville City $121,930
268 CA Poway City $76,830
269 CA Rancho Cordova City $138,900
270 CA Rancho Cucamonga City $207,660
271 CA Rancho Palos Verdes City $76,370
272 CA Rancho Santa Margarita City $76,570
273 CA Redding City $149,160
274 CA Redlands City $133,300
275 CA Redondo Beach City $127,820
276 CA Redwood City City $142,550
277 CA Rialto City $151,580
278 CA Richmond City $160,550
279 CA Riverside City $325,070
280 CA Rocklin City $127,710
281 CA Rohnert Park City $76,440
282 CA Rosemead City $113,300
283 CA Roseville City $190,900
284 CA Sacramento City $493,300
285 CA Salinas City $195,530
286 CA San Bernardino City $249,590
287 CA San Bruno City $76,430
288 CA San Buenaventura (Ventura) City $161,680
289 CA San Clemente City $123,390
290 CA San Diego City $1,185,290
291 CA San Francisco City $796,610
Item #8
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Finance
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES SUBJECT TO AB 1600 AND SB 1693 ARE UNEXPENDED AFTER FIVE
YEARS AND THE FUNDS ARE COMMITTED TO PARTICULAR PROJECTS
SUMMARY
As required by AB 1600 and SB 1693, this annual report has been prepared showing the status of development impact fees held as of June 30, 2024. The attached resolution finds that certain development impact fees have been held for five or more years and identifies the projects and the City’s commitment thereto for the City’s retention of the funds. This report also contains the annual information on water and sewer connection fees as required by SB 1760.
Staff provided the required public meeting notice on December 2, 2024, and made this report available 15 days in advance of the City Council meeting, as required by law.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution finding that certain development impact fees subject to AB 1600 and SB 1693 are unexpended after five years and the funds are committed to particular projects.
BACKGROUND
Beginning in 1984, public entities were required to provide an annual accounting concerning the collection and use of all development impact fees. Effective January 1, 1989, AB 1600 (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) established new accounting guidelines regarding the imposition and use of development impact fees. Effective January 1, 1997, SB 1693 made certain changes to AB 1600 and clarified and expanded the responsibilities of local agencies.
In February 1998, SB 1760 further clarified the development impact fees that are subject to AB 1600 and excluded water and sewer connection fees from the requirements to expend these fees within five years. While not required, water and sewer connection fees are included in this report in order to provide the information on the receipt and utilization of these funds.
One of the mandated accounting guidelines, as stated in Government Code Section 66006(a), provides that a local agency shall establish separate capital facility accounts for each improvement funded by development impact fees. Any interest income earned by funds in such an account shall also be deposited in that account. Each local agency is required within 180 days after the financial year is closed (for the City this is December 31) to make available to the public the following information for each separate account: (1) the account’s beginning and ending balance; (2) the amount of fees, interest, and other income in the account; (3) the amount of expenditure for each public facility or improvement made from the account; (4) the total percentage of the cost of the improvement that was funded with the fees; (5) the date construction will commence if sufficient funds have been collected; (6) a description of any interfund transfers or loans made from an account; and (7) the amount of refunds made from the account. Attachment 2 and 3 provide this information for funds held on June 30, 2024.
Attachment 4 provides the Master Fee Schedule for the development impact fees that are subject to AB 1600, SB 1693 and SB 1760.
In addition, Government Code 66006 Section (b)(2) requires the report to be included on the agenda at a public meeting not less than 15 days after the information was made available to the interested parties. Staff provided the notice of public meeting to interested parties who had filed a written request with the City.
DISCUSSION
The City uses fund accounting to segregate development impact fees subject to AB 1600 and SB 1760 from other City funds. Interest income is allocated to each individual fund based on its own cash balance.
Funds Subject to AB 1600
The City utilizes the following funds to track development related revenues subject to AB 1600:
Public Facilities Fund (Fund 203) – This fund is utilized to account for the Public Facilities fee. Facilities projects and equipment required to service new development are funded from this fee. When a project serves both new and existing development, only the portion related to new development is charged against this fund; the other portions of the project are funded by other sources, such as the General Fund. Fund balance, other revenues, expenditures, and fund transfers for fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24 are detailed in Attachment 2.
Park Development Fund (Fund 222) – This fund is utilized to account for the receipt of Park Dedication In-Lieu fees collected through December 2019. These fees are used to offset the cost of park acquisition; this fund also receives a portion of Public Facilities fees to be used to offset the cost of community park development. Fund balance, revenues, expenditures, and fund transfers for fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24 are detailed in Attachment 2.
Traffic Impact Fund (Fund 212) – This fund is utilized to account for the receipt of Traffic Impact fees. When a project serves both new and existing development, only the portion related to new development is charged against this fund; the other portions of the project are funded by other sources, such as gas tax revenues or the General Fund. Fund balance, revenues, expenditures, and fund transfers for fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24 are detailed in Attachment 2.
Tri-Valley Transportation Fund (Fund 214) – This fund is utilized to account for the receipt of Tri-Valley Transportation fees. The City, as a member of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), collects a fee from developers to finance projects to reduce traffic-related impacts caused by future developments. The City forwards 80% of the receipts to the TVTC to be utilized for regional traffic projects and retains 20% for City-related traffic projects. In addition, the City receives advances/reimbursements for City-related work performed on specific TVTC sponsored projects. The City acts as a project sponsor for some TVTC projects; in this capacity, the City receives pass-thru funds from TVTC and remits them to the appropriate agency in charge of the project. Fund balance, revenues, expenditures, and fund transfers for fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24 are detailed in Attachment 2.
Downtown Parking-In-Lieu Fund (Fund 104) – This fund is utilized to account for the receipt of Parking-In-Lieu fees for the Downtown Revitalization District (District). When development
within the District is not able to accommodate all of its required parking onsite, the fee is collected to purchase land and to construct public parking lots. Fund balance, revenues, expenditures, and fund transfers for fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24 are detailed in Attachment 2.
Lower Income Housing Fund (Fund 122) – This fund is utilized to account for the receipt of Lower Income Housing fees and their disbursement for lower income housing programs, services, and/or projects. Fund balance, revenues, expenditures, and fund transfers for fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24 are detailed in Attachment 2 for information only, as Lower Income Housing fees are not subject to AB 1600.
Unexpended Funds After Five Years
Government Code section 66001(d) requires that five years after collecting a development fee subject to AB 1600 and SB 1693, a local agency shall make findings that year and every five years thereafter, with respect to any portion of the fee remaining unexpended. The findings must identify the purpose for which the fee is to be used and demonstrate a nexus between the fee and the purpose for which it was originally charged. The findings must also identify all sources and amounts of funding for completion of the improvement and the approximate date that the improvement will be fully funded. After five years, a local agency is also required to refund the unexpended portion of the fee, and any accrued interest, for which a need cannot be demonstrated; however, when a city makes appropriate findings, including that the purpose for the developer impact fee remains, the city may retain the fee.
Staff reviewed development impact fees collected five or more years ago and has determined that all funds held for more than five years are necessary to complete identified projects, as shown below by fund. The percent funded by the impact fees was established in the nexus study that established the relevant fee. As required by AB 1600 and SB 1693, this annual report has been prepared showing the status of development impact fees held as of June 30, 2024, and incorporated into a resolution (Attachment 1) for the City Council's adoption.
Public Facilities Fund (Fund 203)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $0 Funds are 100% expended as accounted for in Attachment 2.
Park Development Fund (Fund 222)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $6,326,003 Funds are committed to the following project:
• New Community Park Site Acquisition Reserve – Project #03728 Description: This project involves identifying and procuring potential sites to construct a new community park in the northeast area of the city and establishing a reserve to eventually acquire an appropriate site of approximately 30 to 40 acres of contiguous land. Amenities could include youth area with various play equipment, a picnic area, open field play space, an exercise course, restrooms, pathways, and landscaping. The exact type and mix of uses for this site will be determined through a Park Master Plan process, managed by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project cost: $3,501,477
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• General Trail Improvement and Development – Project #01737 Description: This project provides ongoing funding for specific trail development/improvement projects throughout the city. Projects would be recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by the City Council, and may include walking/hiking, bicycling, and/or equestrian uses. Projects being considered include the Downtown Trail, Vineyard Avenue Corridor Trail, Arroyo del Valle to Shadow Cliffs, Alamo Canal Extension and the Iron Horse Trail.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project Cost: $504,497
Source of funding: Park Development Fund and Park CIP-General Fund % funded by development impact fees: Park Development Fee (82%) and Park CIPGeneral Fund (18%) • Lions Wayside Park Improvement – Project #06716
Description: Funding for an existing project to design and construct a new park consistent with the Lions Wayside and Delucchi Parks Master Plan, incorporating the newly acquired properties at 4363 and 4377 First Street into the design process.
Approximate project completion date: 2025
Project Cost: $1,789,090
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Pleasanton Tennis/Community Park LED Light – Project #16733 Description: The Tennis and Community Park tennis court LED light conversion project, CIP No. 16733, will convert the existing tennis court lights that are HPS lights to LED lights and the Tennis and Community Park Volleyball Court LED light project, CIP No. 21775, will provide night lighting to the existing volleyball courts.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project Cost: $120,000
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Design Inclusionary/All Access Play – Project #20773
Description: This funding will be used to begin the design of ADA access and an allabilities playground to foster more connections and opportunities for young families. The design process will involve community outreach to seek input to determine best location, size, and amenities to be included in the playground. Design and construction will follow and may require additional funding to be prioritized and allocated in future years.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project Cost: $283,485 available
Note: Estimated project cost to be much higher
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Tennis/Community Park Court Lighting – Project #21775 Description: This project involves the construction of new LED lighting for the courts at the Pleasanton Tennis and Community Park.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project Cost: $250,000
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Cemetery Storm Repairs & Renovations – Project #23668 Description: The winter 2022/23 storms caused significant damage to the cemetery, including downed trees and damage to the storage area, that required significant repair to have an operating cemetery.
Approximate project completion date: 2024
Project Cost: $101,655
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
Traffic Impact Fund (212)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $6,286,024 Funds are committed to the following project:
• Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone – Project #18531 Description: This project design and construct the transportation improvements associated with the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone: Traffic Signals on Johnson (Commerce Drive and Owens Drive North); Stoneridge and Johnson left turns; Stoneridge Drive and 680 northbound on ramp widening; and Johnson Drive widening.
Approximate project completion date: 2024
Project cost: $11,585,865
Source of funding: Traffic Impact Fees (55%) and Grant Funding (45%) % funded by development impact fees: 55%
Tri-Valley Transportation Fund (214)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $1,919,319 Funds are committed to the following project:
• Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Reserve – Project #01541 Description: This project establishes a reserve fund for various regional projects to help mitigate traffic congestion in the Tri-Valley area. These funds represent a portion of the costs and are the City’s 20% set-aside portion of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees (TVTDF) collected in the City of Pleasanton. The Tri-Valley projects include the following: I-580/I-680 flyover and hook ramps, State Route 84/I-580 corridor improvements from I-580 to I-680, Isabel Route 84/I-680 Interchange, I-680 auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road, West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station, I-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road, I-680 HOV lanes from State Route 84 to the top of Sunol Grade, I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications, Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements, Vasco Road Safety Improvements, and Express Bus Service. In addition to these projects, the TVTC has approved 11 additional projects which include the El Charro Road extension in Pleasanton.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project cost: $2,100,000
Source of funding: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee % funded by development impact fees: 100%
Downtown Parking-In-Lieu Fund (104)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $695,443 Funds are committed to the following project:
• Expand Parking on Downtown Transportation Corridor (Phase II) Description: A public parking lot on the transportation corridor between Abbie Street and Neal Street. The project replaces an existing gravel parking lot that has a one-way drive isle. The new parking lot will be similar to the Firehouse Arts Center parking lot with a two-way drive isle, ninety-degree parking on each side, walk path and landscaping. The project requires drainage improvements, stormwater treatment facilities, curb, gutter, new asphalt and striping.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project cost: $4,000,000
Source of funding: Downtown Parking In-Lieu and General Fund CIP % funded by development impact fees: TBD
Lower Income Housing Fund (Fund 122)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $4,752,678 • The Lower Income Housing Fee, not subject to AB 1600 requirement, will continue to be collected to provide services and programs for lower income households, including Rapid Re-Housing Program, Housing Rehabilitation Program, First-Time Homebuyer Program, Down Payment Assistance Loan Program and others, in partnership with a number of local, non-profit organizations. Additionally, any potential affordable housing related projects are continuing to be explored.
Funds Subject to AB 1760
The City utilizes the following funds to track development related revenues subject to AB 1760:
Water and Sewer Expansion Funds (Funds 422 and 432) – These funds are utilized to account for water and sewer connection fees. When a project serves both new and existing development, only the portion related to new development is charged against these funds; the other portions of the project are funded by other sources, such as revenue from the rate payer funded Repair and Replacement Funds (Replacement Funds). The Replacement Funds are accounted for separately (Funds 422 and 432). Fund balance, revenues, expenditures and transfers for Funds 422 and 432 for fiscal years 2019/20 through 2023/24 are detailed in Attachment 3.
The following is a summary by fund of the projects that the City is committed to complete in coming years with available water and sewer connection fees:
Water Expansion Fund (422)
• City Ground Water Supply – Project #24174
Description: The project includes the City constructing its own wells and required distribution piping to tie into system, or joint wells with Zone 7 and upsizing distribution piping so it can be received from turnouts, re-establishing the City’s 3500 acre-feet groundwater allotment.
Approximate project completion date: Ongoing
Project cost: $26,500,000
Source of funding: Water Expansion Fees (14%); Water Replacement Fund (86%) % funded by development impact fees: 14%
Sewer Expansion Fund (432)
• Sewer Capacity Evaluation – Project #16245
Description: This project is a general capacity study of the City’s sewer collection system to confirm proper sizing of sewer piping, pump stations and other facilities. The findings will be integrated into the Sewer System Management Plan, and include focused evaluations of East Amador Trunk Sewer, East Amador Relief Sewer, East Pleasanton Specific Plan, Ruby Hill, and Commerce Circle service areas. Integration with the Vineyard service area evaluation will be included. This project will create a hydraulic model of the sewer system which will be updated to reflect changes and evaluate adequacy of proposed changes to the system.
Approximate project completion date: 2025
Project cost: $700,000
Source of funding: Sewer Connection Fees (25%); Sewer Replacement Fund (75%) % funded by development impact fees: 25%
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This action ensures that impact fee revenues collected continue to be utilized for various capital projects to improve or enhance the City's infrastructure and facilities.
OUTREACH
Notice of this meeting was posted on a local newspaper at least 15 days prior to the December 17, 2024, City Council meeting. Public comments received after publication of this report will be forwarded to the City Council.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Funding Our Future, Strategy 2 - Identifying expanded and new revenue sources to address significant infrastructure needs.
FISCAL IMPACT
AB 1600 requires the development impact fees held by the City that meet the criteria described in this report be refunded if the findings in the attached resolution are not adopted.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Chris Yi, Financial Services
Manager
Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Development Impact Fee Funds Subject to AB 1600
3. Development Impact Fee Funds Subject to AB 1760
4. Development Fee Schedule
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON, FINDING THAT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES SUBJECT TO AB 1600 AND SB 1693 ARE UNEXPENDED AFTER FIVE YEARS AND THE FUNDS ARE
COMMITTED TO PARTICULAR PROJECTS
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001(d), effective January 1, 1989, requires the City (a) to make findings once each fiscal year with respect to any portion of a fee remaining unexpended in its account five or more years after deposit of the fee, (b) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, (c) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing and (d) to designate the approximate date the expected funding will be deposited; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 (b)(2), the information was made available to the public on December 2, 2024; and a public meeting was held on December 17, 2024; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the development impact fees collected from June 30, 2019 to determine if any such development fees still remain unexpended; and WHEREAS, staff has found that development impact fees collected for this period remain unexpended and the City is committed to use these unexpended amounts for construction of capital improvements as follows:
Unexpended Amounts by Fund:
Park Development Fund
Traffic Impact Fee
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
$ 6,326,003
6,286,024
1,919,319
Downtown Parking-In-Lieu 695,443
Total Fees Subject to AB 1600 $ 15,226,789
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. That there are development impact fees remaining unexpended but these fees are committed to constructing improvements identified in subsection D below that will implement goals and objectives of the City's General Plan; SECTION 2. That the City's objective to mitigate the impacts caused by the development of residential, commercial, and industrial land will be assisted by the purchase of the equipment or construction of the improvements;
SECTION 3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose of each of the developer fees and the purpose for which it is charged and committed as stated below in subsection D.
SECTION 4. That the amount of the development impact fees collected, the cash balance (including interest earnings) as of June 30, 2024 for each fee held for five years or more, the purpose the fee is committed, additional sources of funding and the expected date that funding will be available are as follows:
Park Development Fund (Fund 222)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $6,326,003 Funds are committed to the following project:
• New Community Park Site Acquisition Reserve – Project #03728 Description: This project involves identifying and procuring potential sites to construct a new community park in the northeast area of the City and establishing a reserve to eventually acquire an appropriate site of approximately 30 to 40 acres of contiguous land. Amenities could include youth area with various play equipment, a picnic area, open field play space, an exercise course, restrooms, pathways, and landscaping. The exact type and mix of uses for this site will be determined through a Park Master Plan process, managed by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Approximate project completion date: On-Going
Project cost: $3,501,477
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• General Trail Improvement and Development – Project #01737 Description: This project provides ongoing funding for specific trail development/improvement projects throughout the City. Projects would be recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by the City Council, and may include walking/hiking, bicycling, and/or equestrian uses.
Projects being considered include the Downtown Trail, Vineyard Avenue Corridor Trail, Arroyo del Valle to Shadow Cliffs, Alamo Canal Extension and the Iron Horse Trail.
Approximate project completion date: On-Going
Project Cost: $504,497
Source of funding: Park Development Fund and Park CIP-General Fund % funded by development impact fees: Park Development Fee (82%) and Park CIP-General Fund (18%)
• Lions Wayside Park Improvement – Project #06716
Description: Funding for an existing project to design and construct a new park consistent with the Lions Wayside and Delucchi Parks Master Plan, incorporating the newly acquired properties at 4363 and 4377 First Street into the design process.
Approximate project completion date: 2025
Project Cost: $1,789,090
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Pleasanton Tennis/Community Park LED Light – Project #16733 Description: The Tennis and Community Park tennis court LED light conversion project, CIP No. 16733, will convert the existing tennis court lights that are HPS lights to LED lights and the Tennis and Community Park Volleyball Court LED light project, CIP No. 21775, will provide night lighting to the existing volleyball courts.
Approximate project completion date: On-Going
Project Cost: $120,000
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Design Inclusionary/All Access Play – Project #20773
Description: This funding will be used to begin the design of ADA access and an all abilities playground to foster more connections and opportunities for young families. The design process will involve community outreach to seek input to determine best location, size, and amenities to be included in the playground.
Design and construction will follow and may require additional funding to be prioritized and allocated in future years.
Approximate project completion date: On-Going
Project Cost: $283,485 available
Note: Estimated project cost to be much higher
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Tennis/Community Park Court Lighting – Project #21775 Description: This project involves the construction of new LED lighting for the courts at the Pleasanton Tennis and Community Park.
Approximate project completion date: On-Going
Project Cost: $250,000
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
• Cemetery Storm Repairs & Renovations – Project #23668 Description: The Winter 2022/23 storms caused significant damage to the cemetery, including downed trees and damage to the storage area, that required significant repair in order to have an operating cemetery.
Approximate project completion date: 2024
Project Cost: $101,655
Source of funding: Park Development Fund
% funded by development impact fees: 100%
Traffic Impact Fund (212)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $6,286,024 Funds are committed to the following project:
• Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone – Project #18531 Description: This project design and construct the transportation improvements associated with the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone: Traffic Signals on Johnson (Commerce Drive and Owens Drive North); Stoneridge and Johnson left turns; Stoneridge Drive and 680 northbound on ramp widening; and Johnson Drive widening.
Approximate project completion date: 2024
Project cost: $11,585,865
Source of funding: Traffic Impact Fees (55%) and Grant Funding (45%) % funded by development impact fees: 55%
Tri-Valley Transportation Fund (214)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $1,919,319 Funds are committed to the following project:
• Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Reserve – Project #01541 Description: This project establishes a reserve fund for various regional projects to help mitigate traffic congestion in the Tri-Valley area. These funds represent a portion of the costs and are the City’s 20% set-aside portion of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees (TVTDF) collected in the City of Pleasanton.
The Tri-Valley projects include the following: I-580/I-680 flyover and hook ramps, State Route 84/I-580 corridor improvements from I-580 to I-680, Isabel Route 84/I-680 Interchange, I-680 auxiliary lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road, West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station, I-580 HOV lanes from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road, I-680 HOV lanes from State Route 84 to the top of Sunol Grade, I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Modifications, Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements, Vasco Road Safety Improvements, and Express Bus Service. In addition to these projects, the TVTC has approved 11 additional projects which includes the El Charro Road extension in Pleasanton.
Approximate project completion date: On-Going
Project cost: $2,100,000
Source of funding: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee % funded by development impact fees: 100%
Downtown Parking-In-Lieu Fund (104)
Amount collected in previous fiscal years subject to 5-year limitation: $695,443 Funds are committed to the following project:
• Expand Parking on Downtown Transportation Corridor (Phase II) Description: A public parking lot on the transportation corridor between Abbie Street and Neal Street. The project replaces an existing gravel parking lot that has a one-way drive isle. The new parking lot will be similar to the Firehouse Arts Center parking lot with a two-way drive isle, ninety-degree parking on each side, walk path and landscaping. The project requires drainage improvements, stormwater treatment facilities, curb, gutter, new asphalt and striping.
Approximate project completion date: On-Going
Project cost: $4,000,000
Source of funding: Downtown Parking In-Lieu and General Fund CIP % funded by development impact fees: TBD
SECTION 5. That the 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 December 17, 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 December 17, 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel Sodergren, City Attorney
Development Impact Fees Subject to AB1600 Attachment 2
Capital Facilities Fund 203
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures - Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 6,542,424 $ 6,258,265 $ 3,568,430 $ 712,766 $ 649,404
REVENUE
Capital Facilities Fees 650,722 509,720 169,942 423,911 1,300,930 Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) 216,758 (1,186) (104,712) 37,628 60,351 TOTAL REVENUE 867,480 508,534 65,230 461,539 1,361,281
TRANSERS
Transfers Out* (1,107,829) (1,210,000) -
TOTAL TRANSFERS (1,107,829) (1,210,000) - - -
EXPENDITURES
Animal Shelter Leases #94451 15,532 12,968 15,037
Annual Court Resurfacing #20744 7,630 396
Design of Aquatic Center 50 Meter Pool Deck & Replaster, #22781 13,894 Design Fire Station#2 Improvement #18424 9,375
Landscape Median Construction & Renov #06451 9,038 4,230 5,326 Library Lighting, #23493 4,954 5,057
Library Roof Replacement, #14408 430,000
LPFD Fire Stations 3 - Design and Construct #17423 11,273 1,966,363 2,905,858 Police Department Training Facility, #22482 51,000
Remove City Hall Modular Buildings, #21463 20,823
MCC Replacement & Temporary Power Station, #24374 5,937 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 43,810 1,988,369 2,920,894 524,901 16,715 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 6,258,265 $ 3,568,430 $ 712,766 $ 649,404 $ 1,993,970 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600
$ 6,542,424 Beginning Fund Balance, 7/1/19
(2,317,829) Transfers Out*
(5,494,689) Total Expenditures
$ (1,270,093) All Fees Subject to AB1600 Have Been Spent as of 6/30/24 * Transfers Out to Fund 222 Parks share of Capital Facilities Fees ($1,107,829 in 2019/20 & $1,210,000 in 2020/21).
Development Impact Fees Subject to AB1600
Park Development Fund 222
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures - Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 11,809,991 $ 10,201,084 $ 10,370,514 $ 9,577,545 $ 8,984,812
REVENUE
Park Dedication In Lieu Fees - - - - -
Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) 301,900 24,364 (498,206) (38,988) 452,679 TOTAL REVENUE 301,900 24,364 (498,206) (38,988) 452,679
TRANSFERS
Transfers In* 1,107,829 1,210,000
Transfers Out** (272,274)
TOTAL TRANSFERS 835,555 1,210,000 - - -
EXPENDITURES
Alviso Adobe Strategic Plan Implementation, #18725 42,745 190,101 Amador Theatre Facility Assessment #17714 24,357
Bocce Ball Courts #16725 32,954 1,936
Cemetery Storm Repair, #23668 85,050 32,295
Design Inclusionary All Access Playground #20773 39,631 76,883 Design Skate Park #20774 28,607 86,906 130,121 154,367
General Trail Improvement And Development, #01737 2,031 Library Office Remodel #17750 1,033,353 168,411
Lions Wayside and Delucchi Parks #06716 232,558 101,593 66,618 17,025 159,376 Mountain Bike Trail #20771 330 49,083 27,918 276,537 14,292 Pioneer Cemetery South Hill Improvement #21765 715,913
Pioneer Masterplan Implementation #16446 76,616 (71,347) 12,082 234 1,480 Replace Concession Stand #17747 364,635 3,190
Softball Field House/Booth Renovation #17746 1,005,916 27,917 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,746,362 1,064,934 294,763 553,745 551,910 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 10,201,084 $ 10,370,514 $ 9,577,545 $ 8,984,812 $ 8,885,580
REVISED ENDING FUND BALANCE
*Transfers In from Fund 203 Capital Facilities Fund - Parks share of Public Facilities Fees ($1,107,829 in FY20 & $1,210,000 in FY21), **Transfers Out to Fund 403 Cemetary Capital Improvement for Pleasanton Pioneer Cemetery related capital projects.
Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600
$ 11,809,991 Beginning Fund Balance, 7/1/19
(272,274) Transfers Out*
(5,211,714) Total Expenditures
$ 6,326,003 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600 at 6/30/24
Development Impact Fees Subject to AB1600
Traffic Impact Fund 212
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures - Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 10,068,869 $ 10,299,661 $ 10,108,108 $ 8,914,956 $ 9,498,406
REVENUE
Traffic Impact Fees 452,113 40,490 691,052 950,639 691,035 Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) & Others 304,603 24,859 (486,829) (50,622) 402,352 TOTAL REVENUE 756,716 65,349 204,224 900,016 1,093,388
TRANSFERS
Transfers In* 810,826 -
TOTAL TRANSFERS - 810,826 - - -
EXPENDITURES
Bi-Annual Traffic Signal Installation #17532, #23532 4,750 4,136 352,055 153,229 84,546 Hopyard Road and Owens Drive Intersection Impr #15525 6,265 I-680 Sunol Boulevard Improvement #15551 223,266 562,270 510,041 161,659 390,706 Intersection Improvements #15541, #17541, #20541, #20569 52,474 325,762 9,526 Johnson Dr Econ Development Zone #18531 297 275,912 1,679 Nevada Street Improvements #20565 53,312 152,912
Right of Way Traffic to Caltrans #16506 91,446 44,839 25,553 Signal Detection Upgrade #17568 147,723 77,112 71,376
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 525,924 1,067,728 1,397,375 316,567 475,252 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 10,299,661 $ 10,108,108 $ 8,914,956 $ 9,498,406 $ 10,116,542
REVISED ENDING FUND BALANCE
*Transfer in are funds related to Bernal Property ($810,826) in FY21 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600
$ 10,068,869 Beginning Fund Balance, 7/1/19
(3,782,845) Total Expenditures
$ 6,286,024 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600 at 6/30/24
Development Impact Fees Subject to AB1600
Tri-Valley Transportation Fund 214
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures - Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 1,919,319 $ 2,031,255 $ 2,076,524 $ 2,086,048 $ 2,133,792
REVENUE
Tri-Valley Transportation Fees 52,205 38,638 114,609 68,435 76,572 Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) 59,731 6,631 (105,085) (20,691) 97,285 TOTAL REVENUE 111,936 45,269 9,524 47,743 173,857
EXPENDITURES
*Refund of Permit Fees - #99999
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - - - - -
ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 2,031,255 $ 2,076,524 $ 2,086,048 $ 2,133,792 $ 2,307,649 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600
$ 1,919,319 Beginning Fund Balance, 7/1/19
- *Refund of Permit Fees
$ 1,919,319 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600 at 6/30/24
Development Impact Fees Subject to AB1600
Downtown Parking-In-Lieu Fund 104
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures - Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 695,443 $ 716,421 $ 718,640 $ 682,936 $ 679,751
REVENUE
Parking-In-Lieu Fees - - - - -
Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) 20,978 2,219 (35,703) (3,186) 30,129 TOTAL REVENUE 20,978 2,219 (35,703) (3,186) 30,129
TRANSFERS
Transfers In
TOTAL TRANSFERS - - - - -
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - - - - -
ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 716,421 $ 718,640 $ 682,936 $ 679,751 $ 709,879 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600
$ 695,443 Beginning Fund Balance, 7/1/19
- Total Expenditures
$ 695,443 Unexpended Fees Subject to AB1600 at 6/30/24
Development Impact Fees (For Information Only)
Lower Income Housing Fund 122
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures - Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 9,900,276 $ 10,357,205 $ 11,160,053 $ 11,845,472 $ 13,109,774
REVENUE
Lower Income Housing Fees 486,444 837,895 1,289,543 1,571,955 333,208 Loan Proceeds 37,415 70,291 82,859 142,172 37,268
Miscellaneous Revenues 581,093 1,050,998 987,592 751,997 1,073,620 Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) 307,947 33,796 (606,079) (113,941) 521,757 TOTAL REVENUE 1,412,899 1,992,980 1,753,915 2,352,183 1,965,853
TRANSFERS
Transfers Out 20,189
TOTAL TRANSFERS $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 20,189
EXPENDITURES
1st Time Home Buyer Program #16927, #21904 46,735 40,572 35,100 25,000 30,000 Centro Legal De La Raza - Housing - #22904 59,245 40,000 36,597 City Down Payment Assistance - #14918 90,000
Comm Resources-Independent Living -#11870 13,705 19,501 15,000 15,000 15,000 Coronavirus (COVID-19) #20903 5,322
Echo Housing - #11853 61,631 46,427 56,081 55,458 63,356 Emergency Rental Assistance Program #20904 250,000 450,000 Goodness Village - Tiny Home Comm, # 11868 40,000 57,720 Housing Case Mgmt Scholarships - #11867 41,087 41,308 33,827 39,361 38,500 Housing Loan Expense 58,824
Housing Rehab #11858 569 460 477 447 498
Housing Rehabilitation Program #17903 3,455 37,922 178,383 57,061 35,000 Leap Grant Housing #21801 221,039
Miscellaneous Housing Expenditures - #99999 121,337 122,772 230,133 113,040 116,266 Overhead - Administrative Expense - #99999 387,129 396,170 425,249 350,769 373,547 Tri-Valley Reach - #11866 25,000 35,000 35,000 40,707 40,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 955,970 1,190,132 1,068,495 1,087,881 865,308 ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 10,357,205 $ 11,160,053 $ 11,845,472 $ 13,109,774 $ 14,230,508 *Transfers Out to Fund 121 for $20,189 related to GASB 87 adjustments in FY24 Unexpended Fees
$ 9,900,276 Beginning Fund Balance, 7/1/19
20,189 Transfers Out*
(5,167,787) Total Expenditures
$ 4,752,678 Fees collected prior to FY19 not yet spent
Water Connection Fees Subject to SB1760 Attachment 3
Water Expansion Fund 422
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures ‐ Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 4,077,864 3,981,279 $ 3,963,132 $ 3,806,242 $ 3,817,925 $
REVENUE
Water Connection Fees 262,800 161,860 65,160 109,200 26,900 Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) 122,584 12,371 (198,431) (23,983) 172,560 TOTAL REVENUE 174,231 385,384 (133,271) 85,217 199,460
TRANSFERS
- -
TOTAL TRANSFERS - -
EXPENDITURES
Bi-Annual Water Quality Improvement Project #17100 259,127 44,215 Del Valle Parkway Water Main Extension - #94115 203,109 Foothill and Sycamore RCD # 20156 25,936
Overhead Charge for Inspection/Engineering - #99999 21,511 12,559 1,471 12,757 Water Capacity Evaluation #18134 8,161 29,080 22,149 34,841 4,195 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 288,963 288,799 23,620 73,534 4,195
ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 3,963,132 4,077,864 $ 3,806,242 $ 3,817,925 $ 4,013,189 $ Effective September 21, 1998, the California Senate adopted Bill No. 1760, an amendment of California Government Code Section 66013, requires disclosing the following information regarding development fees and charges within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year:
Sewer Connection Fees Subject to SB1760
Sewer Expansion Fund 432
Fund Balance, Fees Collected, Interest Earned, Transfers and Project Expenditures ‐ Five Year History 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 3,038,704 2,905,821 $ 3,070,940 $ 2,946,504 $ 2,928,622 $
REVENUE
Sewer Connection Fees 43,661 22,584 36,852 77,496 55,951 Interest (includes GASB31 interest adjustment) 89,222 9,652 (154,184) (16,717) 132,895 TOTAL REVENUE 32,236 132,883 (117,332) 60,778 188,846
EXPENDITURES
Overhead Charge for Inspection/Engineering - #99999 2,307 23,247 27,726 Sewer Capacity Evaluation - #16245 4,797 55,413 75,181
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - - 7,104 78,661 102,907
ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 3,070,940 3,038,704 $ 2,946,504 $ 2,928,622 $ 3,014,561 $ Effective September 21, 1998, the California Senate adopted Bill No. 1760, an amendment of California Government Code Section 66013, requires disclosing the following information regarding development fees and charges within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year:
CITY OF PLEASANTON Attachment 4
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
A. Capital Facilities Fee (includes Quimby Act)
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single-family detached $20,480
Single-family attached (Townhouse) $14,593
Multi-family (Apartment, Condominium) $14,593
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) e.g. In-law, Aupair, etc Less than 749 sq. ft. $0
750 sq ft or greater ADU, whether attached or detached to a detached single-family dwelling 750- 1,000 sq ft $5,120
> 1,000 sq ft $10,240
750- 1,000 sq ft $3,647
> 1,000 sq ft $7,296
Non-Residential (per square foot)
Office $2.97
Research & Development $2.38
Light Manufacturing $0.95
Service/Commercial $2.16
Warehouse $0.95
Retail $2.16
Restaurant $2.16
Hotel/Motel (per Room) $1,173
B. Affordable Housing Fee
Applicable to all new construction and non-residential additions exceeding 200 sq ft.
Residential Single-family detached (over 1,500 sq ft) $52,203 (per dwelling unit) Single-family detached (1,500 sq ft or less) $51,077 Multi-family (Apartment, Condominium) $51,077
Accessory Dwelling Unit( In-law, Aupair, etc..) $0
Non-Residential Retail $5.38
(per square foot) Hotel/Motel $3.71
Office $8.98
Industrial $14.91
Applicable to all new construction and non-residential additions exceeding 200 sq ft.
Due at the time building permit is issued
PMC 3.22.040 Subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area. 750 sq ft or greater ADU, whether attached or detached to an attached single-family (e.g Town home) or multifamily (apartment or condominium) dwelling PMC 17.40.070, Subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year, based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) f or the San Francisco/Oakland region.
C. Transportation Development Fee
Applicable to all new construction and non-residential additions exceeding 200 sq ft.
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single-family detached $11,642
Single-family attached (Townhouse) $11,642
Multi-family (Apartment, Condominium) $7,158
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) e.g. In-law, Au Pair, etc 749 sq ft or less ADU to either single or multi-family dwelling $0 750- 1,000 sq ft $2,910
> 1,000 sq ft $5,821
750- 1,000 sq ft $1,790
> 1,000 sq ft $3,579
Non-Residential (per square foot)
Office $18.17
Commercial/Retail $26.71
Industrial $10.99
Research & Development $13.69
Hotel/Motel (per Room) $7,675.76
D. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
-
-
Residential Single-family detached $6,946.01
(per dwelling unit) Single-family attached (Townhouse) $6,946.01 Multi-family (Apartment, Condominium) $4,095.33
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU Aupair, SDU etc.) $0
Affordable Housing Units $0
Non-residential Office, per square foot of gross floor area $9.28 Retail, per square foot of gross floor area $5.92
Industrial, per square foot of gross floor area $5.23
Other Uses, per average am/pm peak hour trip $6,424.02
750 sq ft or greater ADU whether attached or detached to a detached single-family, or to an attached singlefamily dwelling (townhouse) 750 sq ft or greater ADU whether attached or detached to attached multi-family dwellin(s) other than a townhome (e.g. apartment or condominium)
PMC 3.26.040 Subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area.
Subject to an annual adjustment (by the TVTC) on Jul 1 of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area
Collected for Tri-Valley Transportation Council to fund traffic mitigation improvements in the TVDA
E. Downtown Revitalization District Parking In-Lieu Fee -
-
Per parking space $24,678.00
F. Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone (JDEDZ) Transportation Fee Retail, per square foot
Retail-Parcel 4 $33.27
Retail-Parcel 7 $33.27
Retail-Parcel 8 $33.27
Retail-Parcel 1 $36.58
Retail-Parcel 6b $38.96
Retail-Parcel 11 $42.78
Retail-Parcel 9 $44.84
Office, per square foot $16.09
Hotel, per square foot $16.60
G. Water Connection Fees - City
$460 $1,200
$690 $1,800
$1,150 $3,000
$2,300 $6,000
$3,680 $9,600
$5,290 $13,800
$7,360 $19,200
$8,050 $21,000
$23,000 $60,000
$46,000 $120,000
$80,500 $210,000
$126,500 $330,000
Due at time building permit is issued.
PMC 3.44.040 Subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area.
PMC 18.88.120 When development within the Downtown Revitalization District is not able to accommodate all of its required parking onsite the following fee will be collected by the City to purchase land for and to construct public parking lots.
Subject to annual inflation adjustment on April 1 of any year in which the fee has not been recalculated, based on the annual change in ENR Construction Cost Index.
For each single family house, or any other use that is determined by the City Engineer or the Engineer's duly appointed representative to have a water demand equivalent to that of a single-family house, for normal domesticAmounts DO NOT include water meter installation fees, which are revised periodically
based on current costs for labor & materials as
authorized in Section B "Water Meter &
Installation Fees".
Meter Size
N.
Pleasanton
Improvemen
t Dist 2B
All Other Service
Connections
5/8 inch (displacement type)
3/4 inch (displacement type)
1 inch (displacement type)
1.5 inch (displacement type)
2" (displacement type)
2" Mueller MVR
2" (OMNI C2)
3 inch (OMNI C2)
4 inch (OMNI C2)
6 inch (OMNI C2)
8 inch (OMNI C2)
10 inch (OMNI C2)
For any larger service connection, the City Engineer or his duly appointed representative will determine the charge; or a battery of meters may be used at the City Engineer's option.
Any change in use or addition requiring greater capacity will require the payment of additional fees at the rates established herein as a condition of continued service.
H. Recycled Water Connection Fees
1.00 $19,299
1.50 $28,949
2.50 $48,253
5.00 $96,497
16.00 $308,789
16.00 $308,789
2" (displacement type) 8.00 $154,395
16.00 $308,789
20.00 $385,987
I. Local Sewer Connection Fees
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Dwelling Unit per house
Auxiliary (Secondary) Dwelling Unit per Square Foot
Townhome, Townhouse, Duet, Duplex per unit
Condominium per unit
Apartment, Mobile Home per unit
REGULAR (low strength wastewater)
Auditoriums per seat
Auto body shops/ Auto dealers per square foot
Banks, Financial Offices per square foot
Barber shops/ Beauty shops per square foot
Bars, Cocktail lounges, taverns (w/o dining) per square foot Bowling alleys per square foot
Car washes per square foot
Churches per seat
Delicatessen per square foot
Dental Clinic per square foot
Dry Cleaners per square foot
Gas Stations per square foot
General Retail/ Commercial per square foot
Gyms, Health Clubs per square foot
Hospital per bed
Hotels, Motels (no dining facilities) per room
Institutional (Resident) per bed
Laundries, coin-operated per machine
Laundries, full service (commercial) per square foot
Market - Dry Goods per square foot
Pleasanton Local Fee
$500.00
$2.00
$500.00
Res 15-777, Adjusted annually beginning 1
January 2017 by Engineering News Record
(ENR) Construction Cost Index.
Meter Size
Meter
Equivalent
Recycled Water
Connection Fee
5/8 inch
3/4 inch
1 inch
1.5 inch (displacement type)
1.5 inch (OMNI C2)
1.5 inch (OMNI T2)
2" (OMNI C2)
2" (OMNI T2) (1)
$0.14
$0.68
$0.80
$0.70
$3.86
$375.00
$330.00
$4.55
$0.25
$0.11
$0.95
$568.18
$295.45
$227.27
$11.36
$1.61
$2.05
$1.02
$1.07
$295.45
$2.27
$0.43
Medical Clinic per square foot
Medical/ Dental Complex per square foot
Office Buildings per square foot
REGULAR (low strength wastewater) continued
Parks/ Rec
Country Club per person
Picnic Park per person
Pool per person
Tennis Courts, w/ toilet & shower per court
Plant Nursery per square foot
Printers per square foot
Public Agencies per square foot
Recreational vehicle R.V. Park per RV
Schools (excluding cafeteria)
W/o showers per student
With showers per student
Theaters per seat
Veterinary Hospital per square foot
Warehouse/distribution per square foot
REGULAR (medium strength wastewater)
Banquet Facilities - intermittent use per square foot
Business with cafeteria per square foot
Cafeteria per square foot
Hotels/Motels with dining facilities per square foot
Restaurant, Fast Food per square foot
Restaurant, Full Service per square foot
School with cafeteria per square foot
REGULAR (high strength wastewater)
Bakeries/ Donut Shops/ Ice Cream Shops per square foot
Car washes w/ steam cleaning per square foot
Markets with garbage disposals per square foot
Mortuaries per square foot
INDUSTRIAL (other):
Wastewater Flow gallons per day
lbs per day
SS (Suspended
Solids) lbs per day
$0.11
Pleasanton Local Fee
$159.09
$0.84
$0.50
$0.11
$272.72
$34.09
$45.45
$22.73
$22.73
$227.27
$0.18
$0.32
$1.36
$1.23
$1.36
$1.36
$1.23
$4.55
$0.77
$0.07
$0.61
$0.43
All other non-residential users or special use (users with above-normal discharge of flow, BOD, and SS) shall be assessed a connection fee on a case-by-case basis based on average day peak month flow, BOD, and SS to be discharged to the sewer system as follows:
n/a
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) n/a
$1.36
$1.41
$0.91
$3.86
n/a
J. DSRSD Regional Wastewater Capacity Charges
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Dwelling Unit
Condominiums
Apartments
Accessory Dwelling Unit per Square Foot
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Flow per gpd
BOD per lb/day
Apartment, Mobile Home per lb/day
$1,720.78
$905.49
$10,065.00
$9.75
$71.17
DSRSD
*effective 07/01/24
$15,250.00
$11,438.00
Item #9
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Human Resources
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING COMPENSATION FOR
TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES AND AMENDING THE TEMPORARY,
PART-TIME/SEASONAL CLASSIFICATION SALARY STRUCTURE
SUMMARY
Compensation for temporary employees is established by the City of Pleasanton and reflected in the City’s publicly posted Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification Salary Structure. A copy of the current salary structure is provided as Attachment 1. Effective January 1, 2025, California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.50 per hour. Staff is recommending wage adjustments (as provided in Attachment 2) to comply with the state-mandated increase in minimum wage.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving compensation for temporary/seasonal employees and amending the temporary, part-time/seasonal classification salary structure (Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
The City employs up to 450 temporary employees throughout the year. These positions are generally part-time, non-benefitted, and have an average schedule of eight to 30 hours per week. The state minimum wage increase has prompted the recommendation before the Council.
DISCUSSION
The minimum wage in California will increase from $16.00 to $16.50 per hour, effective January 1, 2025. Adjusting wages to comply with the minimum wage is mandatory. The proposed Temporary, Part-Time Seasonal Classification Salary Structure will accommodate the minimum wage adjustments.
This report reviews the recommended classifications and compensation structure changes for the City’s temporary employees. As a union does not represent these employees, staff seeks Council approval of these adjustments.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Compliance with state minimum wage ensures that impacted temporary part-time seasonal employees are receiving pay consistent with state requirements.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is a routine matter of City business.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
It is not applicable, as this item is a routine matter of City business.
FISCAL IMPACT
Because this recommendation adjusts hourly wages for approximately ten employees, it has no significant fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Sandra Williams,
Management Analyst
Xaviera Scoggins, Director of Human
Resources & Labor Relations
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Current Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification Salary Structure, effective January 1, 2024
2. Proposed Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification Salary Structure, effective January 1, 2025
3. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton Setting Compensation and Amending the Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification Salary
Program/Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 $ 16.30 $ 17.12 $ 17.97 $ 18.87 $ 19.81
Maintenance Divisions
$ 19.75 $ 20.74 $ 21.77 $ 22.86 $ 24.01
Apprentice/Intern Program
$ 15.00 $ 15.80 $ 16.59 $ 17.42 $ 18.29
Community Services
Recreation Leader II $ 16.30 $ 17.12 $ 17.97 $ 18.87 $ 19.81 Recreation Leader III $ 18.87 $ 19.81 $ 20.80 $ 21.84 $ 22.93 Seasonal Senior Rec Leader $ 22.93 $ 24.08 $ 25.28 $ 26.55 $ 27.88 Preschool Aide $ 16.30 $ 17.12 $ 17.97 $ 18.87 $ 19.81
$ 20.80 $ 21.84 $ 22.93 $ 24.08 $ 25.28
$ 16.55 $ 17.38 $ 18.25 $ 19.16 $ 20.12
Lifeguard II $ 21.12 $ 22.18 $ 23.29 $ 24.45 $ 25.67
Water Safety Instructor $ 16.55 $ 17.38 $ 18.25 $ 19.16 $ 20.12 $ 19.16 $ 20.12 $ 21.12 $ 22.18 $ 23.29
Assistant Pool Manager $ 24.45 $ 25.67 $ 26.96 $ 28.30 $ 29.72 Police Services
Police Officer - Per Diem
Police Dispatcher - Per Diem $ 35.35 $ 37.12 $ 38.98 $ 40.93 $ 42.98 Police Records Clerk - Per Diem $ 28.45 $ 29.87 $ 31.37 $ 32.94 $ 34.59 City Wide Programs
Sr. Clerical Assistant
Temporary Health Screener
*hourly range
Eligibility for Apprentice/Intern Program: must be enrolled in high school (or summer following graduation) or college; possess skills and abilities in an administrative or technical area that is required of the assignment; may receive college credit, degree-required work experience, or internship for completion.
Program Specialist $40.01 - $100.00*
Clerical Assistant $16.00 - $20.00*
$20.01 - $30.00*
$25.00
Police Recruit $33.00 - $35.00*
Police Cadet $16.00 - $20.00*
Program Assistant $16.00 - $40.00*
Retired Annuitant $16.00 - $150.18*
$50.37 - $61.19*
Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification
Salary Structure - Effective January 1, 2024
Library Services
Library Page
Maintenance Aide
Apprentice/Intern
Preschool Teacher
Lifeguard I
Lifeguard/Instructor
Attachment 1
Program/Classification Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 $ 16.50 $ 17.12 $ 17.97 $ 18.87 $ 19.81
Maintenance Divisions
$ 19.75 $ 20.74 $ 21.77 $ 22.86 $ 24.01
Apprentice/Intern Program
$ 15.00 $ 15.80 $ 16.59 $ 17.42 $ 18.29
Community Services
Recreation Leader II $ 16.50 $ 17.12 $ 17.97 $ 18.87 $ 19.81 Recreation Leader III $ 18.87 $ 19.81 $ 20.80 $ 21.84 $ 22.93 Seasonal Senior Rec Leader $ 22.93 $ 24.08 $ 25.28 $ 26.55 $ 27.88 Preschool Aide $ 16.50 $ 17.12 $ 17.97 $ 18.87 $ 19.81
$ 20.80 $ 21.84 $ 22.93 $ 24.08 $ 25.28
$ 16.55 $ 17.38 $ 18.25 $ 19.16 $ 20.12
Lifeguard II $ 21.12 $ 22.18 $ 23.29 $ 24.45 $ 25.67
Water Safety Instructor $ 16.55 $ 17.38 $ 18.25 $ 19.16 $ 20.12 $ 19.16 $ 20.12 $ 21.12 $ 22.18 $ 23.29
Assistant Pool Manager $ 24.45 $ 25.67 $ 26.96 $ 28.30 $ 29.72 Police Services
Police Officer - Per Diem
Police Dispatcher - Per Diem $ 35.35 $ 37.12 $ 38.98 $ 40.93 $ 42.98 Police Records Clerk - Per Diem $ 28.45 $ 29.87 $ 31.37 $ 32.94 $ 34.59 City Wide Programs
Sr. Clerical Assistant
Temporary Health Screener
*hourly range
$50.37 - $68.78*
Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification
Salary Structure - Effective January 1, 2025
Library Services
Library Page
Maintenance Aide
Apprentice/Intern
Preschool Teacher
Lifeguard I
Lifeguard/Instructor
Police Recruit $33.00 - $35.00*
Police Cadet $16.50 - $20.00*
Retired Annuitant $16.50 - $159.57*
$20.01 - $30.00*
$25.00
Eligibility for Apprentice/Intern Program: must be enrolled in high school (or summer following graduation) or college; possess skills and abilities in an administrative or technical area that is required of the assignment; may receive college credit, degree-required work experience, or internship for completion.
Program Assistant $16.50 - $40.00*
Program Specialist $40.01 - $100.00*
Clerical Assistant $16.50 - $20.00*
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
APPROVING COMPENSATION FOR TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES AND
AMENDING THE TEMPORARY, PART-TIME/SEASONAL CLASSIFICATION SALARY
STRUCTURE
WHEREAS, compensation for the City’s temporary employees is set forth in the City’s Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification Salary Structure; and WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to increase the minimum wage for each Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal classification to comply with California’s minimum wage increase; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to amend the temporary classifications as necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. Amends the Temporary, Part-time/Seasonal Classification Salary Structure effective January 1, 2025, for temporary employees as provided in Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. 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 December 17, 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 17th day of December 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Attachment 3
Item #10
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Library and Recreation
TITLE: ACCEPT THE DONATION OF THE PUBLIC ARTWORK HOPE AND PROMISE
MURAL AND FRAME
SUMMARY
The Hope and Promise mural depicts the story of Pleasanton’s Rotary Club International.
Painted on ultraviolet (UV)/graffiti-resistant marine-grade plywood measuring 6 feet tall by 4 feet wide, it will be mounted on a free-standing metal frame. The artwork was commissioned by the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council (PCAC) and, in partnership with the Rotary Club of Pleasanton and Nancy and Gary Harrington, is offered as a donation to the City. The Civic Arts Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission have reviewed the piece and recommend accepting it for placement at Rotary Park.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the donation of the public artwork Hope and Promise mural and frame.
BACKGROUND
The Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council (PCAC) commissioned local artist Leta Eydelberg to create a mural celebrating the story of the Rotary Club of Pleasanton, highlighting its key projects and initiatives. The mural was funded by two grants from the Rotary Club. PCAC approached the City with a request to donate the mural as public artwork, proposing its installation in a freestanding frame at Rotary Park at the north end of downtown. Nancy and Gary Harrington have committed to funding its installation. In accordance with the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC), Chapter 13.16 Art in Public Places, Civic Arts and Parks and Recreation commissioners reviewed the proposed donation in consultation with City departments and provided a recommendation of acceptance.
PMC Chapter 13.16 Art in Public Places outlines the process for gifts and loans of public art displayed in public places:
A. The Civic Arts Commission shall review any proposed donation or loan of public art for artistic merit, site appropriateness, liability questions, and installation and maintenance costs and considerations. The review shall include consultations with all affected city departments.
B. Upon completion of its review the Civic Arts Commission shall make its recommendation for acceptance or rejection of the offer to the city council.
C. A donor who wishes to make an offer of a gift of public art shall provide for review:
1. Documented materials for the artwork being offered for donation, including photographs, slides, renderings, descriptions of size, weight, medium, title, year of creation, and a resume of the artist, if possible.
2. Documentation establishing the donor as the clear and unencumbered title holder of the
artwork.
3. A release letter by the donor should the city decide to deaccess the artwork in the future.
D. The city will acknowledge receipt of the donated artwork without valuation for tax purposes.
The donor must find other means of establishing the value of the artwork. (Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
Public Art Selection Subcommittee Review
The Public Art Selection Subcommittee (PASS), composed of City commissioners and staff, supports the Art in Public Places process and meets on an as-needed basis to review and discuss proposed public art donations.
PASS members convened on March 24, 2023, with members of the Civic Art and Parks and Recreation Commissions, along with City staff, to receive an information presentation from PCAC and discuss the piece based on the considerations outlined in the PMC for proposed donations, which include artistic merit, location, installation, and maintenance. It is not unusual for a project to take time to complete the process following the PASS meeting. In this instance, funding needed to be secured for the installation of the piece before the project could proceed.
Information about the Artwork
Local artist Leta Eydelberg, an acrylic muralist and storyteller, created Hope and Promise, a mural celebrating the story of the Rotary Club of Pleasanton. Using the universal symbol of life, a tree, Eydelberg infused the artwork with elements that reflect Rotary’s contributions to the local community and the world. The branches symbolize hope and promise, while other imagery highlights key Rotary initiatives such as the Wheelchair Program, Disaster Response Fund, and the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Project. Painted on marine-grade plywood with UV- and graffiti-resistant paint, the 6-foot-tall by 4-foot-wide mural will be installed in a freestanding metal frame once approved.
Artistic Merit
At the PASS meeting, members provided input on the artistic merit of the mural. Overall, there was positive feedback on the artistic merit of the piece. A PASS member suggested adding definitions on the back of the mural to explain the meaning of these symbols.
Location, Installation and Maintenance
PASS members evaluated three potential locations within Rotary Park for the mural, prioritizing visibility from the street. Concerns were raised about the mural's height being obscured by the park's arbor or entrance banners, with a preference for placement near the sidewalk and corner rather than the trail path. The Parks Maintenance Supervisor noted the need to assess electrical and irrigation systems, requiring a thorough evaluation by City staff to recommend the location and installation.
Discussions also addressed the freestanding metal frame, emphasizing wind stability and safety as critical factors. City staff collaborated with PCAC and the donors to refine the installation design, reduce costs, and ensure safety, and provide guidance for necessary adjustments. If approved, the final frame design will be completed in coordination with the City.
Civic Arts Commission Recommendation
Accept Donation of Hope and Promise Mural and Frame
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation
Accept Donation of Hope and Promise Mural and Frame
DISCUSSION
Staff is recommending acceptance of the donation of the public artwork, Hope and Promise mural and frame, for installation in Rotary Park. The Hope and Promise mural would be installed as a temporary piece due to its construction and value. The estimated value of the mural is $4,000. With 46 permanent works in the City of Pleasanton’s public art collection, each piece averages approximately $22,000 in value, and permanent pieces are constructed of materials designed for longevity and community use. The frame will be a permanent fixture, designed to allow the artwork to be replaced when it reaches the end of its lifespan.
In accordance with the PMC process for gifts and loans of public art displayed in public places, the City will secure documentation establishing the donor as the clear and unencumbered titleholder of the artwork and will obtain a release letter from the donor for the City to deaccess the artwork in the future. Additionally, the City will collaborate with PCAC and the Rotary Club of Pleasanton to develop plans for the maintenance and eventual replacement of the artwork at the end of its lifespan, incorporating these details into the formal documentation.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The public art program strives to align art projects with funding and staffing resources, as well as to identify projects that celebrate diversity and would be enjoyed by all residents and visitors in Pleasanton.
OUTREACH
Staff received input and recommendations from the Civic Arts and Parks and Recreation Commissions in developing this recommendation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This action advances the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Investing in Our Environment: Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Sustainability, Strategy 7 – Continue to invest in parks, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure, and public art.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Hope and Promise Mural and frame is a proposed donation made in collaboration with Nancy and Gary Harrington, the Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council (PCAC), and the Rotary Club of Pleasanton. The Harringtons will donate installation costs, with the construction of the metal frame coordinated through a partnership between PCAC and the City, funded by a grant from the Rotary Club of Pleasanton. Ongoing maintenance will only be required in the event of vandalism and will be funded through the City’s General Fund for Maintenance and Conservation in the Civic Arts Admin account 00150400-430107.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Rachel Prater, Recreation
Manager
Heidi Murphy, Director of Library and
Recreation
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Art in Public Places
2. Hope and Promise image and location
CHAPTER 13.16
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
§ 13.16.010. Statement of philosophy.
As a community matures, the community turns toward the greater rewards it can provide for its citizens. Typically, a community will turn toward increased cultural activities.
Pleasanton is maturing and becoming more aware of the value of its cultural environment, particularly public art, for its citizens to enjoy.
As stated by the National Endowment for the Arts, "Our need to make, experience, and comprehend art is as profound as the need to speak. It is through art that we can understand ourselves and our potential...and it is through art that we will be understood and remembered by those who will come after us."
Therefore, the city accepts a responsibility for expanding experience with public art. (Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
§ 13.16.020. Purpose and goals.
(Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
§ 13.16.030. Definitions.
"Annual public art projects plan" means a prioritized list of public art projects with budgets. "Art in public places" means any visual work of art displayed for two weeks or more on city property in an open city-owned area, on the exterior of any city-owned facility, public areas, A. The purpose of this art in public places chapter is to promote the acquisition, construction and installment of works of public art in Pleasanton that will foster creativity, engender civic pride, encourage a sense of community, and enrich the lives of our citizens.
B. Major goals of this chapter include the creation of a civic arts commission to:
1. Review and recommend action on public art projects;
2. Encourage commercial, office, and residential projects to incorporate art within the project design;
3. Promote art within the city;
4. Work with artists and the Pleasanton cultural arts council;
5. Oversee the development of a city of Pleasanton cultural plan;
6. Recommend policies and action regarding the city of Pleasanton's civic arts program;
7. Guide the future direction of cultural enhancement of the city; and
8. Develop facility needs, including the exploration of the need for a performing/visual arts center and gallery.
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 13.16.010 § 13.16.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/PL4988 on 2024-09-18 Attachment 1
lobbies or public assembly areas, or on any non-city property if the work is installed, financed, either wholly or in part, with city funds, or grants procured by the city. "City capital project" means any capital improvement project paid for, wholly or in part, by the city of Pleasanton to construct or remodel a building, decorative or commemorative structure, park, street, sidewalk, parking facility or utility or any portion thereof, within the city limits. "Civic arts commission" means a qualified citizen committee as established by Chapter 2.39 of this code to provide recommendations regarding the administration of the city's civic arts program and the art in public places program, and to recommend scope of projects, artworks and artists for the public art program.
"Public art" means original visual works of art which are accessible to the public and/or public employees, including, but not limited to:
"Paintings" of all media, including both portable and permanently affixed works such as murals.
1. "Sculpture" which may be in the round, bas-relief, high relief, mobile, fountain, kinetic, electronic, etc., in any material or combination of materials, including sound and performance.
2. "Other visual media" including, but not limited to, prints, drawings, stained glass, calligraphy, mosaics, photography, film, video, ceramics, fibre and textiles.
3. "Other works" of a wide range of materials, disciplines and media which are of specific duration, including installation and performance arts, and which are documented for public accessibility after the life of the piece has ended.
4. "Functional art works" 5. which possess practical, functional qualities as well as aesthetic ones. "Collaborative design projects" 6. which involve artists and other design professionals.
The following items are not to be considered public art works for the purposes of this chapter:
Directional elements such as super graphics, signage, or color coding except where these elements are an integral part of the original art works. a.
Art objects which are mass-produced from a standard design such as playground equipment, commercially produced fountains, flags, or banners. b.
c. Unsigned or mass-produced reproductions of original artworks.
Decorative, ornamental, or functional elements which are designed by the building architect as opposed to an artist commissioned for the purpose of creating artwork. d.
Landscape architecture and landscape gardening except where these elements are designed by an artist and are an integral part of the artworks by an artist. e.
f. Services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain the artwork over time. g. Performing arts events which would normally be considered a part of the
7. City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 13.16.030 § 13.16.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/PL4988 on 2024-09-18 Attachment 1
"Public art collection" means any public art owned by the city of Pleasanton. "Public art administration appropriation" means any appropriation from the general fund for educational activities and administration of the public art program. "Public art fund" means a separate account for the acquisition, construction and installation of public art.
"Public art in private places" means artworks located and financed by private developers within public view or access.
"Public art maintenance appropriation" means any appropriation from the general fund for regular routine maintenance of the city public art collection.
"Public art restoration and conservation fund" means a separate account established by the city for the extraordinary restoration and conservation of artworks in the city public art collection. (Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
§ 13.16.040. Uses of funds and appropriations.
(Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
§ 13.16.050. Public art in private places program.
traditional performing arts, i.e., dramatic and theatrical productions, musicals, dance, ballet, music recitals and concerts, etc.
A. Uses of Public Art Fund. Monies from the public art fund shall be used in accordance with the public art project plan and may be used for expenses connected with artists' design concepts, acquisition, purchase, commissioning, placement, installation, rental, lease, exhibition, and/or display of artworks. Artworks may be permanent or temporary, may be integral to the architecture, or may be incorporated into the city construction project.
B. Uses of the Public Art Restoration and Conservation Fund. Monies from the public art restoration and conservation fund shall be used in accordance with the annual public art projects plan. Monies from the public art restoration and conservation fund shall be used for the extraordinary restoration and conservation needs of the city public art collection.
C. Public Art Maintenance Appropriation. The city's general fund operating budget may include an annual appropriation to cover the routine, regular cleaning and maintenance needs of the city public art collection.
D. Public Art Administration Appropriation. The city's general fund operating budget may include an annual appropriation to cover the administration and educational programs of the art in public places program.
A. The city strongly encourages private individuals or corporations to participate in the public art in private places program by placing original works of art in publicly accessible areas in new commercial, office or industrial developments.
B. The public art in private places program is optional to developers with commercial, office or industrial projects in the city of Pleasanton. During the development review process, developers of major new projects are encouraged to provide appropriate art, commensurate City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 13.16.030 § 13.16.050
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/PL4988 on 2024-09-18 Attachment 1
(Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009)
§ 13.16.060. Not-for-profit sector public art projects. with the scale of the proposed building(s), which would complement and enhance their projects. The civic arts commission shall review and make recommendations regarding any public art which is proposed as part of a development.
C. Developers may choose to:
1. Acquire and install original works of art in publicly accessible areas of their developments.
2. Make a cash contribution for a city-sponsored public art project; make a sponsorship matching contribution for a work of art, if the city approves; or
3. Make a cash contribution to the city's art in public places fund.
D. It is not intended that an agreement on the part of a developer to provide artwork will slow or delay processing the development application. During the development review process, an applicant may indicate a willingness to provide such artwork, or may provide a conceptual drawing of the artwork; however, the proposed artwork shall not be reviewed by the civic arts commission until after the project has received all necessary discretionary approvals, except if the proposed artwork were an integral part of the building or site design. In this case, as soon as it is identified that such artwork is proposed to be included as part of a development project, the civic arts commission would be called to review the artwork portion of the project as soon as is practical. A special meeting of the commission may be called to keep the development project on schedule.
E. The civic arts commission will be available to developers, the community development department and other affected city departments to provide policy guidelines, advice, expertise and assistance for public art in private places projects.
A. The city strongly encourages private and public not-for-profit foundations, service clubs, and arts and cultural organizations to propose and fund art in public places.
B. Organizations may choose to:
1. Propose and fund a specific project, approved by the civic arts commission;
2. Make a cash contribution to a specific city-sponsored public art project;
3. Make a cash contribution to the city's art in public places fund; or
4. Match a grant for the acquisition of a public art project.
C. Organizations proposing a specific project should provide a one-time contribution for installation and long-term maintenance and conservation of the artwork.
D. The civic arts commission should work closely with the organization and affected city departments in order to provide policy guidelines, and expertise regarding any proposed project.
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 13.16.050 § 13.16.060
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/PL4988 on 2024-09-18 Attachment 1
(Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
§ 13.16.070. Gifts and loans of public art.
(Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
§ 13.16.080. Gifts of state.
Periodically the city, through its mayor, city council, or various agencies, receives gifts of public art from official representatives of other cities, states, and governmental agencies. All such "gifts of state" shall be referred to the civic arts commission for its recommendation as to site appropriateness, installation, maintenance, long-term conservation and funding requirements.
Upon the review of these considerations and the overall circumstances of the gift, the commission shall make a recommendation to the city council as follows:
(Ord. 1676 § 1, 1996)
E. The civic arts commission shall review any proposed project as to artistic merit, site appropriateness, installation, maintenance, long-term conservation and funding requirements.
F. Upon completion of the review, the civic arts commission shall make its recommendation to the city council regarding the acceptance or rejection of the proposal.
A. The civic arts commission shall review any proposed donation or loan of public art for artistic merit, site appropriateness, liability questions, and installation and maintenance costs and considerations. The review shall include consultations with all affected city departments.
B. Upon completion of its review the civic arts commission shall make its recommendation for acceptance or rejection of the offer to the city council.
C. A donor who wishes to make an offer of a gift of public art shall provide for review:
1. Documented materials for the artwork being offered for donation including photographs, slides, renderings, descriptions of size, weight, medium, title, year of creation, and a resume of the artist, if possible;
2. Documentation establishing the donor as the clear and unencumbered title holder of the artwork.
3. A release letter by the donor should the city decide to deaccess the artwork in the future.
D. The city will acknowledge receipt of the donated artwork without valuation for tax purposes.
The donor must find other means of establishing the value of the artwork.
1. Install the public art at a commission-recommended site;
2. Store the public art until more favorable conditions arise for its installation; or
3. Decline the public art.
City of Pleasanton, CA
§ 13.16.060 § 13.16.080
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/PL4988 on 2024-09-18 Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Item #12
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
City Manager
TITLE: APPROVE THE FY 2025/26 AND FY 2026/27 BUDGET ENGAGEMENT PLAN
SUMMARY
The City operates on a two-year budget cycle. Prior to July 1 of every odd numbered year, the City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed two-year budget for the subsequent two fiscal years. The City’s biennial budget includes revenue and expenditure projections and consists of two primary components: the Operating Budget and the Capital Budget. This report provides the City Council and the community with an overview of the budget development timeline and recommends approval of the proposed public engagement plan for the upcoming fiscal years (FY) 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 budget development process.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 budget engagement plan.
BACKGROUND
The City is confronting significant fiscal challenges, with a projected structural deficit averaging $13 million annually over the next eight years, starting in fiscal year 2025/26. Contributing factors include rising personnel and pension costs, inflation, and declining revenues from retail activity and hotel taxes, which have not rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the City faces a substantial capital and infrastructure funding gap, with an estimated $900 million needed over the next decade for maintaining and upgrading community assets such as streets, parks, and public facilities.
The City’s budget serves as a strategic financial plan for operating and capital resource allocations. City funds are used to provide a wide variety of services and programs to residents and businesses. These services include Public Safety (Police, Fire, and Emergency Services), Operations Services, Water, Sewer, City Planning, Building and Safety, Code Enforcement, Housing, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Library, and Transit. Funds are also used to develop and maintain city infrastructure.
In designing the budget process, the City follows the four principles established by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), as presented below. These guiding principles ensure a well-integrated process is in place, all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input on the City’s budget priorities, and a budget is developed reflecting the needs and values of the community.
Four Principles of the Budget Process
1. Establish Broad Goals to Guide Government Decision-Making A government should have broad goals that provide overall direction for the government and serve as a basis for decision-making.
2. Develop Approaches to Achieve Goals
A government should have specific policies, plans, programs, and management strategies to define how it will achieve its long-term goals.
3. Develop a Budget Consistent with Approaches to Achieve Goals A financial plan and budget that moves toward achievement of goals, within the constraints of available resources, should be prepared and adopted.
4. Evaluate Performance and Make Adjustments
Program and financial performance should be continually evaluated, and adjustments made, to encourage progress toward achieving goals.
In early 2023, the City engaged Civic Makers, a Bay Area-based strategic consulting firm, to support community engagement efforts for the city budget and strategic planning process. The engagement activities focused on enhancing participatory governance to ensure future City budgets align with the community's needs and values. Community members were provided with various engagement opportunities, including a survey, focus groups, a virtual meeting, a town hall, and several pop-up workshops. The process focused on inclusive engagement in different formats, including bilingual focus groups in Spanish and Mandarin, to remove barriers to participation and engage with different aspects of Pleasanton’s diverse community. Overall, the City engaged with more than 1,900 community members through that process.
DISCUSSION
Budget Development Calendar
The budget development process includes multiple key areas and deliverables as described below. Staff has prepared a budget development calendar (Attachment 1) that specifies the budget preparation timeline with key dates and milestones, including important public engagement events such as a City Council priority setting session and budget workshop. The budget calendar is a tool to keep track of deadlines and ensure public participation.
Between January and June 2025, staff will develop key budget documents to present to the City Council for discussion and direction. In light of the City’s financial challenges, in-depth discussions about the City’s long-term financial sustainability and cost/service reductions will be a critical part of the upcoming two-year budget development process.
Key Areas and Deliverables:
• Community Engagement
• Budget Advisory Committee
• Commission/Committee Engagement
• FY 2025-27 Baseline Budget Presentation
• General Fund Long-Term Financial Forecast
• FY 2025-27 Proposed Operating Budget and Capital Budget • FY 2025-27 Budget Workshop(s)
• FY 2025-27 Budget Adoption
Public Engagement Plan
The City has planned various tools for public engagement during the upcoming budget cycle.
These tools are designed to complement scheduled City Council meetings and budget workshops, ensuring the public gains a clearer understanding of the budget development process and has multiple opportunities to provide input.
To achieve these goals, staff has prepared a comprehensive engagement strategy, consisting of one town hall, two pop-up events, and an online engagement tool, with support from Civic Makers, at a total not to exceed amount of $50,000. This approach is projected to reach the largest audience, estimated to be between 2,000-3,000 participants, and ensure a diverse sample of community input. By engaging Civic Makers, the City secures access to consultant hours, which complements staff involvement, striking a balance between external expertise and internal capacity. Civic Makers specialize in community engagement and can leverage their proven methodologies to get maximum participation in Pleasanton as it has demonstrated with its prior work in the city and in surrounding communities, such as Hayward, Alameda, Berkeley, San Jose, and San Francisco. Investment in broader outreach may foster trust and increased transparency in the budgeting process, while ensuring that all voices are represented, including communities most impacted by potential service reductions. Staff is also exploring the use of a statistically valid survey tool to complement the qualitative engagement data.The tool will measure public opinion and satisfaction on topics such as community priorities, programming preferences, and infrastructure needs. By collecting statistically valid data, the City can ensure its decisions reflect community interests.
Staff has developed an extensive communications plan that will leverage social media platforms, newsletters, a dedicated website landing page, and other collateral to disseminate information broadly to residents and businesses. Staff is also proposing formation of a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) to provide insights and recommendations on community priorities and strategies for achieving a balanced budget. The BAC will complement the traditional budget approach and provide critical insights to help the City Manager address constraints on City finances, while also increasing transparency and providing additional opportunity for engagement with key community stakeholders. A separate agenda report regarding the formation of the BAC will be on the December 17, 2024, City Council agenda.
Together, these efforts are geared toward gathering timely and comprehensive community feedback, which will be incorporated into the budget process to reflect the priorities and needs of the community.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the recommended action include:
Alternative A: Traditional Budget Process
As an alternative, staff could simply follow the prior budget development process, with several council meetings and workshops and no additional community engagement or BAC. A traditional approach to the budget process consists of a series of City Council meetings and one to two budget workshops. These traditional budget process milestones are captured in the budget calendar, and include:
• February 18, 2025 City Council Meeting: FY 2024/25 mid-year budget and FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 baseline budget and long-range financial forecast presentations
• May–June 2025 Budget Workshop(s): proposed biennial budget and 5-year CIP • June 2025 City Council Meeting: operating and capital budget adoption This approach would save City funding by not engaging a consultant but would lose the benefit of engagement with the broader community who typically do not attend City Council meetings, which could have equity impacts. This additional community engagement is particularly critical in the current budget cycle, which is likely to include program and service cuts that could impact specific interest groups or marginalized communities. This approach would also eliminate the BAC, which would save staff time and associated internal costs, but would lose the opportunity for BAC members to collaborate with the City Manager to offer insights and recommendations on City program priorities and strategies.
Alternative B: Budget Advisory Committee Only
Another alternative is to only establish a Budget Advisory Committee, with no additional community engagement. The proposed BAC will represent key community stakeholders, enhancing and deepening public engagement in the budget development process. Retaining the BAC will preserve some elements of increased transparency and public engagement in compliance with the Brown Act beyond the traditional budget development approach outlined in Alternative A. However, without the recommended additional community engagement there is a risk of engaging with less diverse community members, and losing the benefit of input from a broad portion of the community.
Alternative C: Community Engagement Only
Staff could eliminate the BAC and focus only on community engagement efforts. This alternative would significantly reduce staff efforts to administer the BAC but would lose the benefit of the insights of a community committee. To deliver the full proposed scope of a town hall, two pop-ups and an online engagement tool, a consultant contract of up to $50,000 would still be needed to complete the engagement work in the time remaining, although the full contract authorization may not be used as additional staff time could be freed up by the elimination of the BAC. The consultant contract could also be eliminated entirely, in which case the scope of engagement could be reduced to a single town hall, to preserve some level of inperson community engagement. This would eliminate the online budget tool and other live events, such as pop-ups, which could save some consultant funds, but would minimize the reach and effectiveness of the engagement. A purely staff-led option would also lose the significant benefits of the consultant expertise in engagement design and data analysis.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The budget engagement plan aligns with the City's values of inclusion and sustainability by actively engaging diverse community representatives in addressing fiscal challenges to ensure recommendations reflect the broader community's needs. This approach is consistent with the City's ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan Goal E. Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs. Additionally, the budget engagement work will support long-term financial sustainability, consistent with Goal A. Funding Our Future by identifying cost-effective solutions for maintaining high-quality services and infrastructure.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is a routine matter of City business.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The budget engagement plan supports the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goals of Funding Our Future by addressing long-term financial challenges, Optimizing our Organization through community engagement in collaborative planning and information sharing to improve service delivery, and Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs by leveraging input from community representatives and conducting effective planning to promote a livable and economically vibrant community.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no new fiscal impact associated with receiving this update and recommendation on the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 budget engagement plan. There is current budget for up to $50,000 for budget engagement options under Misc. Non-departmental in Professional Services (00199100-430101).
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Sharon Petrehn,
Management Analyst
Alexa Jeffress, Deputy City Manager Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Budget Calendar
2. Presentation - Budget Engagement Plan
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT Attachment 1
FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Budget Development Calendar
Date Event
December 2024 City Council Meetings:
• Approve Budget Community Engagement Plan
• Approve the Formation of the Budget Advisory Committee • Review and Approve the Capital Improvement Program
Prioritization Program
January 2025 Special City Council Meeting: Budget Development Workshop City Council Retreat: Strategic Plan Priority Setting
January to March 2025 Launch Online Budget Engagement Tool Community Budget Engagement - Pop Up and Town Hall Events Budget Advisory Committee Meetings
January to March 2025 Budget Planning and Development
2/18/2025 City Council Meeting: FY 2024/25 Mid-Year Budget 2/18/2025 City Council Meeting: FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Baseline Budget and Long-range Financial Forecast Presentation
3/4/2025 City Council Meeting: Outcome of Budget Engagement Efforts April 2025 Budget Presentation to Budget Advisory Committee May 2025 Budget Workshop: Proposed FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Budget and 5-year CIP
June 2025 City Council Meeting: FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Operating and Capital Budget Adoption
Fiscal Year 2025/26 – 2026/27 Budget
Development Calendar
December 17, 2024
Key Financial Challenges
• City faces significant fiscal challenges in both the operating and capital budgets
oForecasted General Fund structural deficit
¾$13M in projected average annual deficit
¾$ 22M in projected average annual deficit (recession scenario) oSignificant infrastructure funding gap
¾$900M for both the General Fund and Enterprise Funds over 10 years
o Unfunded retiree medical and pension liabilities
¾Over $200M
2
Budget Development Timeline
• Upcoming two-year budget for fiscal years 2025/26 and 2026/27 3 Budget Development Categories
4 Community Engagement Budget Advisory
Committee
Budget Development City Council
Community Engagement
Outreach Types
Online Tool
Pop-up Events
Town Hall
Statistically Valid
Survey Tool
5 Budget Advisory Committee (BAC)
• Why a BAC?
• %XLOGVRQH[LVWLQJSXEOLFHQJDJHPHQW
• Provides a diverse and transparent forum for budget UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV • Strengthens alignment with community priorities and fiscal responsibility • The BAC’s mission:
• Develop an understanding of the City’s budget and financial issues • Provide input to the City Manager on community priorities and strategies for program delivery to ensure a long-term balanced budget
• Collaborate with the City Manager to formulate recommendations for City Council approval in June 2025
6
25/26 – 26/27 Proposed Budget Development Timeline
7 ¾ December 17, 2024 - City Council Meeting
• Review and Approve Community Budget Outreach Plan
• Approve the Formation of the Budget Advisory Committee • Review and Approve the Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Program ¾ January 2025
• Special Meeting: City Council Budget Development Workshop • City Council Retreat: Strategic Plan Priority Setting ¾ January to March 2025 – Community Engagement Events
• Launch Online Budget Engagement Tool (Jan)
• Pop Up and Town Hall Events (Jan-Feb)
• Budget Advisory Committee Meetings (Jan – March)
25/26 – 26/27 Proposed Budget Development Timeline
8 ¾ February – June Tentative City Council Meeting Dates • 2/18/2025 - FY 2024/25 Mid-Year Budget
• 2/18/2025 - FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Baseline Budget and Long-range Financial Forecast Presentation
• 3/4/2025 - Outcome of Budget Engagement Efforts
• May 2025 - Budget Workshop: Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-year CIP • June 2025 - Operating and Capital Budget Adoption
Staff Recommendation
• Approve a comprehensive engagement
strategy for the Fiscal Year 2025/26 and
2026/27 City budget, consisting of a
Budget Advisory Committee and a
community engagement plan that includes
one town hall, two pop-up events, and an
online engagement tool.
9 Alternatives
A: Traditional
Budget Process
B: Budget Advisory
Committee Only
C: Community
Engagement Only
10
Item #13
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
City Manager
TITLE: APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
APPOINT MEMBERS
SUMMARY
A Budget Advisory Committee is being established to assist the City Manager in developing the City's 2025-26 and 2026-27 budget for City Council approval in June 2025. Given significant fiscal challenges in both operating and capital budgets, the Budget Advisory Committee will provide critical insights to help the City Manager address constraints on City finances. This committee will also serve as a mechanism for increased transparency and public engagement in compliance with the Brown Act.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the creation of a Budget Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives as outlined in this report, and appoint the members as identified at the December 17, 2024, City Council meeting
BACKGROUND
The City is confronting significant fiscal challenges, with a projected structural deficit averaging $13 million annually over the next eight years, starting in fiscal year 2025-26. Contributing factors include rising personnel and pension costs, inflation, and declining revenues from retail activity and hotel taxes, which have not rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the City faces a substantial capital and infrastructure funding gap, with an estimated $900 million needed over the next decade for maintaining and upgrading community assets such as streets, parks, and public facilities.
The City Council placed Measure PP (Pleasanton Essential Services Protection Measure)—a proposed half-cent sales tax increase—on the November 5, 2024, ballot to generate approximately $10 million annually for essential services. The measure did not pass, receiving
45.82% of votes in favor and 54.18% against. This result means the City must explore alternative solutions to address the budget shortfall and maintain high-quality municipal services. To assist in this process, and presuming that the City Council has approved moving forward with establishing a Budget Advisory Committee as part of a separate City Council agenda item discussion, the City is creating a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) to provide insights and recommendations on community priorities and strategies for achieving a balanced budget.
This initiative aligns with the City's ongoing efforts to enhance public engagement in the budget development process, as outlined in the Approve the Fiscal Years 2025/26 and 2026/27 Budget Engagement Plan report also on the City Council's December 17, 2024, agenda. The BAC will operate under the provisions of the Brown Act, ensuring transparency and compliance with open meeting requirements.
DISCUSSION
Cities are required to adopt balanced budgets, with ongoing revenues matching ongoing expenditures. To date, the City has implemented various departmental cost-reduction measures, mostly with minimal service impacts on residents and businesses. However, future budget cuts necessary to achieve a balanced budget may adversely affect community programs. The Budget Advisory Committee will provide critical insights to help the City Manager address constraints on City finances during the development of the next biennial budget.
Purpose
The BAC’s mission is to:
• Develop an understanding of the City’s budget and financial issues • Provide input to the City Manager on community priorities and strategies for program delivery to ensure a long-term balanced budget
• Collaborate with the City Manager to formulate recommendations for City Council approval in June 2025.
The BAC’s work will include:
• Reviewing the City’s General Fund budget, department programs, and infrastructure needs
• Discussing expenditure reduction strategies and brainstorming cost-saving measures • Providing insight and recommendations on community priorities and cost/service reduction strategies
• Gathering timely and comprehensive community feedback, which will be incorporated into the budget process to reflect the priorities and needs of the broader community • Developing recommendations for operating budget reductions and capital project funding strategies.
Timeline
The BAC will convene a minimum of three meetings between January and March 2025, with flexibility for additional meetings if necessary. These meetings will be scheduled to align with the City’s overall budget development calendar to ensure that the BAC’s recommendations are timely and relevant for consideration in the proposed biennial budgets. Topics of focus during the meetings will include understanding the City’s fiscal challenges, identifying cost-saving opportunities, and formulating actionable recommendations. At the end of the budget development process, the BAC members may be asked to continue to advise the City Manager on related fiscal initiatives that support the delivery of services and programs to the community.
Composition
The BAC will consist of 11 members representing key community stakeholders, including:
• 1 representative appointed by the Mayor
• 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 1
• 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 2 • 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 3 • 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 4 • 1 representative from the Pleasanton Police Officers' Association (PPOA) • 1 representative from the Pleasanton City Employees Association (PCEA/AFSCME) • 1 representative from either the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF Local 1974) or the Battalion Chief’s Unit
• 1 representative from the Management/Confidential Employee Unit • 2 at-large members selected by the City Manager.
Given that the City's work to develop the biennial budget will begin in January 2025, at the December 17, 2024, City Council meeting, the Mayor and each Councilmember will nominate a community member to serve on the BAC. At that time, the City Manager will confirm the labor and management unit representatives, as well as the selection of the at-large community members. With the identification of the fully comprised BAC, the City Council will formally approve the creation of a Budget Advisory Committee and appoint the identified members.
Brown Act Compliance
The BAC will operate in full compliance with the Brown Act, ensuring transparency in all proceedings. Meetings will be open to the public, agendas will be posted in advance, and members of the public will have the opportunity to participate. This adherence to the Brown Act underscores the City’s commitment to accountability and inclusive public engagement in the budget development process.
By involving diverse stakeholders through the BAC, the City aims to address fiscal challenges transparently and collaboratively, while maintaining the high standard of municipal services valued by the Pleasanton community.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The Budget Advisory Committee aligns with the City's values of inclusion and sustainability by actively engaging diverse community representatives in addressing fiscal challenges to ensure recommendations reflect the broader community's needs. This approach is consistent with the City's ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs.
Additionally, the BAC's work will support long-term financial sustainability by identifying costeffective solutions for maintaining high-quality services and infrastructure.
OUTREACH
This agenda item pertains to the establishment of the Budget Advisory Committee. However, the BAC will operate under the Brown Act, ensuring transparency and providing opportunities for public participation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The creation of the Budget Advisory Committee supports the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goals of Funding Our Future by addressing long-term financial challenges, Optimizing our Organization through community engagement in collaborative planning and information sharing to improve service delivery, and Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs by leveraging input from community representatives and conducting effective planning to promote
a livable and economically vibrant community. Through this initiative, the City advances its commitment to providing reliable services and infrastructure while reflecting the values of service, integrity, inclusion and innovation as outlined in ONE Pleasanton.
FISCAL IMPACT
The establishment of the Budget Advisory Committee will require significant staff time to provide administrative and technical support, including scheduling meetings, preparing agendas, documenting meeting minutes, and disseminating materials. These efforts are anticipated to be absorbed within existing staff resources and will not result in direct fiscal impacts.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Aarón Zavala, Assistant to
the City Manager
Pamela Ott, Assistant City Manager Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Presentation - Budget Advisory Committee
Approve Establishment of a Budget Advisory
Committee (BAC) and Appoint Members
December 17, 2024
Context
• Biennial Budget Cycle
• Community Engagement Plan
• Why a BAC?
• Builds on existing public
engagement
• Provides a diverse and
transparent forum for budget
recommendations
• Strengthens alignment with
community priorities and
fiscal responsibility
Mission of a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC)
Learn
• Develop an
understanding of
the City’s budget
and financial
issues
Engage
• Provide input to
the City Manager
on community
priorities and
strategies for
program delivery
to ensure a longterm balanced
budget
Collaborate
• Collaborate with
the City Manager
to formulate
recommendation
s for City Council
approval in June
2025
BAC Composition
• Total Members: 11
• Membership Composition:
• 5 Community Representatives
• 1 appointed by each Mayor and
each Councilmember
• 4 Labor and Management
Representatives
• 2 At-Large Members identified by
City Manager
BAC Responsibilities
Review the City’s
General Fund
budget, department
programs, and
infrastructure needs
Discuss expenditure
reduction strategies
and brainstorm costsaving measures
Provide insight and
recommendations
on community
priorities and
cost/service
reduction strategies
Gather timely and
comprehensive
community
feedback, which will
be incorporated into
the budget process
to reflect the
priorities and needs
of the broader
community
Developing
recommendations
for operating budget
reductions and
capital project
funding strategies
Timeline December 2024 – BAC
Appointment
January – March 2025 – BAC
Meetings
April 2025 – Recommendations
to City Manager
June 2025 – Adoption of
Budget
Beyond June 2025 – Potential
continuation of BAC
Recommendation
At December 17 meeting City Council:
1. Establish a Budget Advisory Committee
2. Appoint members to the BAC
Item #14
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: ADOPT A CIP PROCESS AND PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY
SUMMARY
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) guides the City’s long-term, strategic decision-making regarding the construction, repair, and replacement of the City’s assets, including facility buildings, parks, streets, miscellaneous City facilities, stormwater, water, and sewer systems.
The Capital Improvement Program is essential for strategic infrastructure planning, ensuring reliable asset management, financial efficiency, regulatory compliance, and risk mitigation; it supports community development, aligns projects with organizational goals, enhances operational efficiency, and fosters transparency with stakeholders.
A CIP prioritization process using a systematic approach to rank projects is intended to help the City allocate resources effectively and make data-driven decisions on capital investments.
A CIP Process and Prioritization (CIPPP) strategy that aligns with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan and community input is an essential step in ensuring resources are effectively allocated to the most critical projects, helping to address urgent needs, optimize funding, and meet regulatory deadlines, while acknowledging local priorities. The proposed prioritization evaluation is developed around six key categories, each with a weighted scoring system, to assess the relative importance of various projects. The process also establishes procedures for excluding annual core and enterprise-funded programs from prioritization and introduces a sunset clause to remove outdated or stalled projects from the CIP. Notably, the CIP prioritization aligns with Pleasanton's broader strategic goals, particularly in sustainability and environmental impacts, ensuring necessary capital investments and supporting the City’s longterm vision for growth and improvement. The adopted CIPPP strategy and guidelines will be used to establish the City’s future Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the CIP Process and Prioritization (CIPPP) strategy
2. Approve a list of Annual Core Capital Improvement Program Projects
3. Approve excluding CIP prioritization strategies on the “Annual Core Capital Improvement Program Projects” and enterprise-funded Capital Improvement Program (water and sewer)
BACKGROUND
With the City facing financial challenges and constrained staff resources, it is critical to have a structured, well-defined, and organized strategy that is data-driven and aligned with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan and other relevant quantitative and qualitative community input. A well-defined CIP process and project prioritization strategy will assist the City with decisionmaking regarding resource allocation. The proposed methodology for prioritization is intended to guide an objective process, removing subjectivity when making decisions on investments to
maintain all City assets.
Pleasanton adopts a new five-year CIP on a two-year cycle and may modify the program annually by City Council action or through mid-term CIP budget adjustments. The approved and adopted CIP Process and Prioritization Strategy will establish guidelines for the City in developing the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
DISCUSSION
To deliver on the multiple strategies outlined in ONE and growing infrastructure needs at a time of increased budget constraints, a strategic approach is needed to guide the selection of projects for the development of the CIP to ensure they meet community priorities and goals within the available funding capacity.
The Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Process (CIPPP) strategy was developed through research on Bay Area cities facing similar challenges, including aging infrastructure, continuous growth, and limited budgets and funding sources. The study included a total of eight cities, including the Tri-Valley cities, to identify best practices in evaluation categories, prioritization processes, and the weighting factors used in their strategies. The evaluation revealed that the number of prioritization categories varied, ranging from three in smaller cities to ten in larger cities with more complex needs. The study helps form a weighted score system on the prioritization categories that reflects the most common challenges in the cities. Across the eight cities, common prioritization themes included public health and safety, regulatory compliance, infrastructure needs, grant opportunities, and initiatives that promote economic and business growth.
Prioritization Categories
As proposed, the Pleasanton CIPPP incorporates six key categories, each with a weighted score based on “focus factors” to help establish a consistent scoring system. The scores in each category address the priorities in ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan and are aligned with staff studies on similar cities’ CIP scoring methods. The importance of the categories is denoted by the number of possible points a project can score under each category; the combined total weighted scores of all six categories equal 100 points. Details of the categories and weighted factors are outlined in Attachment 1 and described below:
Weighted scoring for each prioritization category recognizes that each category serves distinct needs and priorities emphasized in the One Pleasanton Strategic Plan and the Community Surveys. The weighted scores were compared with reviewed programs and are in alignment with other agencies' weighted scores.
Category 1 weighted score was allocated 21 maximum points, which is one additional point compared to the other highest-scoring categories to reflect the community’s top prioritization in the community survey for public health and safety. In addition, it acknowledges the need to comply with state and federal requirements to ensure it does not impact funding and grant opportunities.
1. Health, Safety & Regulatory Compliance
This category emphasizes projects that enhance emergency preparedness, protect public health and safety, ensure compliance with legal and regulatory mandates, and address consent decrees. Projects in this category aim to improve public well-being, prevent injury or harm, and meet the requirements of state and local regulatory agencies. An example of a high-scoring project in this category is replacing a fire station to accommodate new fire trucks, ensuring improved emergency response capabilities.
Categories 2 and 6 are allocated 20 maximum points to prioritize projects that collaborate and have partnerships or grant funds that leverage existing funding. In addition, it highlights the importance of maintaining investments in the existing infrastructure to provide the necessary capital improvement to prevent higher replacement costs in the future.
2. Partnerships, Collaboration & Grants
This category prioritizes projects that leverage grant funding or create opportunities for future grants. It also focuses on initiatives that benefit broader community groups and populations. Examples of high-scoring projects in this category are the Regional Groundwater Facilities Project in partnership with Zone 7 and the West Las Positas Multimodal Reconstruction Project, where nearly half the project cost is supported by state funding.
6. Asset Condition, Infrastructure Maintenance & Improvements This category emphasizes projects that preserve and enhance City infrastructure to ensure the delivery of high-quality services, maintain safe operations, and meet current code requirements and population growth demands. These projects also focus on reducing overall maintenance costs and extending the lifespan of assets. An example of a highscoring project in this category is replacing outdated fire station roll-up doors that are no longer supported by available replacement parts.
The remaining categories are weighted equally at a maximum of 13 points to include strategies important to Pleasanton while differentiating from other significant factors like safety, grants, and asset needs. The scores reflect the shared community goals of an inclusive community that acknowledges its historic character, protects the environment, and conserves resources, as well as the importance of building a thriving local economy that raises revenue and provides employment opportunities.
3. Equitable Community Benefits
This category focuses on projects that enhance public spaces, improve access to services, and address community needs while promoting fair distribution of resources to historically underserved or marginalized communities. These initiatives aim to reduce disparities, foster inclusivity, and encourage community cooperation and building. An example of a highscoring project in this category is developing an all-inclusive park/playground.
4. Environmental Sustainability & Conservation
This category prioritizes projects that improve environmental sustainability and climate resilience, enhance resource conservation, and contribute to better air and water quality. It also includes projects that preserve historically significant structures and districts, ensuring alignment with preservation standards and protecting the City’s historical legacy. Examples of high-scoring projects in this category are the conversion of streetlights to LED technology and installing electric vehicle charging facilities.
5. Economic Prosperity
This category focuses on projects that drive local economic growth by improving access to economic opportunities, benefiting local businesses, and providing significant returns on investment. It also includes projects that demonstrate cost savings, productivity improvements, or strong paybacks within a defined timeframe. An example of a highscoring project in this category is the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone roadway and sidewalk improvements.
Roles and Responsibilities - Implementation & Operations The Director of Public Works oversees the prioritization process of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ensure the Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Process (CIPPP) is executed in the City’s best interest. This includes ensuring the process is objective, impartial, and aligns with the approved and adopted guidelines and that the development of the City’s Five-Year CIP adheres to these guidelines.
The Public Works Engineering Division leads and manages the implementation of the approved and adopted guidelines, supporting and guiding stakeholders during the CIPPP, ensuring the guidelines are being followed and that the CIP is implemented in a timely
manner. The Engineering Division will also establish the City’s Five-Year CIP in accordance with the CIPPP results and will implement the approved CIP after the City Council approves the recommended program.
CIP and the Prioritization Process
The CIPPP involves multiple phases:
Phase 1: Project Intake Process
This process begins with a call for project recommendations from various City departments and stakeholders. The project intake process is open to all departments, including standing City commissions and committees. The representative from each department/division will develop project worksheets to clearly identify the scope of work and estimated budget and complete a self-assessment of the recommended project. Projects may be derived from adopted master plans (Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan, Parks Master Plan, Asset Management Plan, Pavement Management Plan, etc.), strategic plans (ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan, Economic Development Strategic Plan, etc.), specific plans (Downtown Specific Plan, Stoneridge Community Park Plan), and asset programs.
The projects list is not a comprehensive list of all the City’s needs, but a list of priorities put forth by each department/division during the development of the Five-Year CIP.
Phase 2: Project Review and Ranking Process
The list of projects submitted by City departments/divisions will be reviewed by a balanced internal/staff Prioritization Committee, which consists of multiple departments that are key stakeholders in the CIP program. The Prioritization Committee will provide individual prioritization scores to represent the best interest of the City’s overall needs and demands.
Once the committee reviews and scores all the submitted projects according to the six categories of the CIPPP prioritization method, the projects will be ranked from the highest to the lowest.
Phase 3: Recommendation of the Final Ranked Prioritization CIP List The prioritized list is compiled by the Public Works Engineering Division, reviewed by the Director of Public Works for process compliance, and checked before being submitted to the City Manager for review and approval of the initial ranked and prioritized project list.
Phase 4: Resource Analysis and Loading
The City Manager's reviewed list is then evaluated by the Public Works Engineering Division and the Finance Department to identify eligible funding sources, available funding, available grants, staff resources, and professional services resources to implement the prioritized project list. Following this, the Public Works Engineering Division shall recommend a final list of funded and unfunded CIP projects to be included in the Five-Year CIP to the Director of Public Works and the City Manager for approval before submitting it to City Council review.
This review and approval aim to ensure the Five-Year CIP’s overall alignment with the City’s strategic goals and objectives.
The cut-off line between funded and unfunded projects is based on the available budget allocated for the City’s capital improvement program every year. Due to the nature of restricted and non-restricted funds, the size of projects, and their respective resource needs, some projects below the cut-off line may move up the ranked and prioritized projects list. Any
request for changes in the ranking of the projects in the final ranked and prioritized project list must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Engineering Division's City Engineer and must comply with the CIPPP guidelines.
Phase 5: City Council Approval and Adoption of the Five-Year CIP With the approval of the Director of Public Works and the City Manager, the Public Works Engineering Division shall incorporate and establish the Five-Year CIP Program and seek City Council approval and adoption of the funded CIP projects list, the unfunded CIP projects list and the Five-Year CIP that will be delivered in the next CIP cycle.
Annual Core Capital Improvement Projects
The Annual Core Capital Improvement Program focuses on routine projects to replace critical City assets at the end of their service life. These safety-sensitive assets or those essential to core operations are funded to ensure timely repair and replacement, minimizing unplanned emergencies and meeting regulatory requirements. As recurring programs with fixed investments, these projects are excluded from the general prioritization process. For the City’s Five-Year CIP, detailed scopes and deliverables are defined for each approved annual core program project. Undefined projects will be defunded, with the funds redirected to the general CIP prioritization process. The recommended list of Annual Core Capital Improvement Program projects is outlined in Appendix A of Attachment 1.
Enterprise Funded Capital Improvement Program
The City’s water and sewer systems are supported strictly through enterprise funds. The Capital Improvement Program of the enterprise-funded program is defined and prioritized through the Water System Management Plan and the Sewer System Management Plan - both of which are approved and adopted by the City Council - and the City’s commitment and responsibility to sustain the enterprise fund. Therefore, enterprise-funded Capital Improvement Program projects (water and sewer) are excluded from the general prioritization program.
Sunset Clause for Projects
The CIPPP proposes a “sunset” clause for projects that do not progress within two CIP cycles (four years), automatically removing them from the CIP unless City Council has approved established reserves. Reserve projects, often partially funded through restricted sources like Developer Impact Fees, will be reviewed biennially, with unrestricted funds reallocated after four years. Unfunded projects are recommended for removal but can be resubmitted with updated scopes and priority assessments during the development of a new Five-Year CIP cycle.
CIPPP Program Updates
It is essential that the CIPPP be updated regularly to ensure that prioritization remains consistent with the City’s priorities and concerns. Staff recommends that the CIPPP be reviewed and updated as necessary at the beginning of the new CIP cycle or within one year of the adoption of an updated ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan, whichever comes first.
Changes and updates to the CIPPP require City Council review and approval.
CIPPP Implementation Schedule
December City Council adopts CIPPP with exclusion of Annual Core CIP and Enterprise CIP, and approves list of Annual Core CIP and its dedicated allocated funding Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Program
January Project Worksheet Development (Phase 1)
February Prioritization Project Review (Phase 2)
March Staff Recommended CIP List (Phases 3 – 4)
April Budget Advisory Committee (or other public input, if BAC is not established) May City Council review of Proposed Capital Budget & CIP (Phase 5) June Adoption by City Council (Adoption - Phase 5)
ALTERNATIVE
Alternatively, the City could continue to use its prior CIP project intake and selection process wherein the individual Mayor and City Council members, City commissions and committees, staff, and the community populate a list of current and desired projects for the City Council’s review; projects that receive a majority vote of the City Council are included in the CIP and planned/programmed based on available financial and staff resources. This approach is not recommended for several reasons, including investments that do not meet the City’s shortterm and long-term infrastructure needs, decisions that might unintentionally perpetuate inequities in infrastructure or service delivery across the city, and projects that may not best meet the current needs of the community.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Process establishes an equitable and sustainable way to prioritize capital improvement projects. Categories include focus factors that align with the Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) goals and environmentally sustainable practices will be required as part of projects to maximize project scoring capabilities.
OUTREACH
The CIPPP program was developed based on the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan, which included an extensive outreach program along with other qualitative and quantitative community input.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The CIP prioritization criteria provide essential guidelines for decision-making for capital improvement projects, ensuring these projects are aligned with the broader goals of the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan. The integration of all six prioritization criteria is driven by the strategy that calls for the implementation of the city's four-year Capital Improvement Program with the goal of Investing in Our Environment. This strategy serves as the core mechanism that ensures capital improvement projects are not only well-planned but also address the City's priorities in areas such as sustainability, infrastructure, and public facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of this process does not have a direct fiscal impact but will provide City Council direction for the development and implementation of the Capital Improvement Program, which will have a long-term financial impact on the overall maintenance and condition of the City’s infrastructure.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. CIP Process and Prioritization (CIPPP) Strategy
2. Presentation - CIP Prioritization
DRAFT CIPPP-01
SUBJECT: CIP Process and Prioritization (CIPPP) Strategy EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17, 2024
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Defined
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) guides the City’s long-term, strategic decisionmaking regarding the construction, repair, and replacement of the City’s assets, including facility buildings, parks, streets, miscellaneous City facilities, stormwater, water, and sewer systems. The Capital Improvement Program is essential for strategic infrastructure planning, ensuring reliable asset management, financial efficiency, regulatory compliance, and risk mitigation; it supports community development, aligns projects with organizational goals, enhances operational efficiency, and fosters transparency with stakeholders.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is defined as the City’s financial plan for the construction of the City’s capital improvements. Capital improvements are the addition of a permanent structure, structural change, or the restoration of the City’s assets that will either enhance the asset’s overall value, prolong its useful life, or adapt it to new uses. The City’s assets span a wide variety of categories, including streets and related right-of-way features; stormwater and drainage systems; water and sewer systems; public buildings such as the library, parks, recreational and community centers; and public safety facilities such as police and fire stations. Capital investments are necessary for the construction of all parts of the City’s infrastructure.
The Importance of Infrastructure
The importance of quality infrastructure cannot be overstated. Without functioning infrastructure, the City’s economic prosperity cannot be sustained. The quality of neighborhood infrastructure will directly determine the livability of the City’s neighborhoods. The community’s health, safety, and natural environment depend on available and quality infrastructure. Decisions about capital investments affect the availability and quality of most government services, as well as many private services. Infrastructure connects residents to opportunities for employment, healthcare, and education via extensive transportation, power, water, and telecommunication networks. Ongoing investments will enhance the quality of life for every neighborhood. In addition to legal mandates, the prioritization of CIP projects should also consider social, economic, and geographic factors.
Purpose of this Prioritization Process
A CIP prioritization process using a systematic approach to rank projects is intended to help the City allocate resources effectively and make data-driven decisions on capital investments.
A CIP Process and Prioritization (CIPPP) strategy that aligns with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan and community input is an essential step in ensuring resources are effectively allocated to the most critical projects, helping to address urgent needs, optimize funding, and meet regulatory deadlines, while acknowledging local priorities. The proposed prioritization evaluation is developed around six key categories, each with a weighted scoring system, to assess the relative importance of various projects. The process also establishes procedures for
DRAFT CIPPP-01
excluding annual core and enterprise-funded programs from prioritization and introduces a sunset clause to remove outdated or stalled projects from the CIP. Importantly, the CIP prioritization aligns with Pleasanton's broader strategic goals, particularly in sustainability and environmental impacts, ensuring necessary capital investments and supporting the City’s longterm vision for growth and improvement. The adopted CIPPP strategy and guidelines will be used to establish the City’s future Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (5-Year CIP)
Pleasanton adopts a Five-Year CIP that has a “call” for projects at a two-year cycle and modifies the program throughout the year through City Council actions and the Mid-Term CIP Update.
With the approved CIP Prioritization strategy, the city will establish an upcoming Five-Year CIP following the process outlined in this document.
Project Funding
Restricted Funds: Projects within restricted funding categories will compete only with projects within the same funding category. Prioritization within these restricted funding categories will occur in accordance with this CIP prioritization process except Water and Wastewater Program.
The following is a partial listing of restricted funding categories:
a. State and Federal Funds
b. Development Impact Fees
c. Enterprise Funds (Golf, Cemetery, Wastewater, Storm and Water) d. Grants.
Enterprise-funded programs with an approved Master Plan are excluded from the CIP prioritization process. The Water and Sewer CIP programs are guided by its Master Plans.
These projects will not compete for other general funds.
Unrestricted Funds: Projects that are not within a restricted funding category or use a combination of either restricted or non-restricted funding will compete for general fund or bond proceeds in accordance with this CIP prioritization process. Although capital needs from the restricted funds or revenue-producing departments are often separate from the General Fund, the capital investments of all City departments should be planned together to allow better coordination of capital projects in specific parts of the city over time and ensure equitable use of resources. Citywide coordination of capital project planning can increase the costeffectiveness of the City's capital programs by allowing more efficient infrastructure investments.
Asset Categories
To ensure that the comparison is conducted between similar types of projects, the needs, and CIP projects will be separated into categories according to the predominant type of asset and
DRAFT CIPPP-01
funding sources in the project. Project categories will include the following asset categories:
1. Facilities – All City-owned facilities that are not covered under other categories.
This would include Exterior lighting within the campus, parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, etc.
Typical Funds: 203, 201
2. Miscellaneous – All other projects (except facilities) that are not included in other project types.
This would include Soundwalls outside of the street right of way, decorative lighting (the gas tax excludes decorative lighting), Citywide programs/projects, etc.
Typical Funds: 201, 204, 222
3. Parks – Any project within a city or regional park.
These would include Pathway, parking lots, lighting, buildings within a park, landscape projects in and around City facilities, and projects from the Trails Master Plan.
Typical Funds: 129, 201, 203, 221, 222, 223
4. Transportation – New or improved assets that increase transportation options and functionality of local roadways, streets, sidewalks, and public transportation and projects within the City Right of Way.
These would include: Streets Program, sidewalks, and ADA curb ramps, bridges, pedestrian/bike-related projects within the street right of way; typically includes projects from Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan, soundwalls, streetlights, traffic signals, intersection improvements, roadway marking, and signs.
Typical Funds: 160, 162, 165, 166, 167, 170, 172, 173, 202, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217
5. Sewer – Projects that are paid for out of the Sewer Enterprise Funds.
This would include all sewer-related projects, including pipes, lift stations, regional wastewater treatment commitments (DSRSD/LAVMA), tanks, and work at project sites such as access roads, fencing, lighting, and buildings.
Typical Funds: 241, 431, 432
6. Storm – Projects that are paid for out of the Storm Enterprise Funds.
This would include all storm-related projects, including clean water program projects, and work at project sites such as access roads, fencing, lighting, and buildings.
Typical Funds: 441 - (Majority of funding from general fund 201 at this time)
7. Water – Projects that are paid for out of the Water Enterprise Funds.
This would include: All potable and recycled water related projects, pipes, pump stations, tanks and includes work at project sites such as access roads, fencing, lighting, buildings.
Typical Funds: (insert connection fees), 422, 426
Prioritization Categories
DRAFT CIPPP-01
The Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Process (CIPPP) strategy was developed through research of Bay Area cities facing similar challenges, including aging infrastructure, continuous growth, and limited budgets and funding sources. The study included a total of eight cities, including the Tri-Valley cities, to identify best practices in evaluation categories, prioritization processes, and the weighting factors used in their strategies.
The study revealed that the number of prioritization categories varied, ranging from three in smaller cities to ten in larger cities with more complex needs. Across the eight cities, common prioritization themes included public health and safety, regulatory compliance, infrastructure needs, grant opportunities, and initiatives that promote economic and business growth.
In alignment with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan and key priorities identified in qualitative and quantitative community input, staff developed six categories for project prioritization, along with corresponding score weights. Weighted scoring for each prioritization category is in recognition that each of the categories serves distinct needs and priorities. The weighted scores were compared with reviewed programs and are in alignment with other agencies’ weighted scores.
The categories and weighted focus factor details are outlined below:
CIP Prioritization Categories and Weighing System
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consists of six (6) prioritization categories supported by focus factors based on the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan. • The six prioritization categories are based on the City Council priorities presented in the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan.
• Each prioritization category has a descriptive phrase and an identifying icon and is supported by focus factors.
DRAFT CIPPP-01
• Weighted scoring for each prioritization category is in recognition that each of the categories serves distinct needs and priorities emphasized in the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan and through community input.
• Each prioritization category is assigned a maximum weighted score. The combined total weighted scores of all six categories equal 100 points. • The importance of the categories is denoted by the number of possible points a project can score under each category. Depending on the project sponsor’s stated project attributes using the supporting focus factors, a stated weighted point value set by the sponsor may be awarded to the project by the reviewing committee, should reviewers agree with the sponsor’s supporting statements.
Prioritization Categories
1. Health, Safety & Regulatory Compliance
Create a safer and healthier community for the residents and businesses of Pleasanton Weighted Score: [0-21]
This category's weighted score was allocated 21 maximum points, which is one additional point compared to the other highest-scoring categories to reflect the community’s top prioritization in the community survey for public health and safety. In addition, it acknowledges the need to comply with state and federal requirements to ensure it does not impact funding and grant opportunities.
This category emphasizes projects that enhance emergency preparedness, protect public health and safety, ensure compliance with legal and regulatory mandates, and address consent decrees.
Projects in this category aim to improve public well-being, prevent injury or harm, and meet the requirements of state and local regulatory agencies.
An example of a high-scoring project in this category is the replacement of a fire station to accommodate new fire trucks, ensuring improved emergency response capabilities.
Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
• Overall emergency preparedness capabilities
o Reduced emergency response times to minimum operational standards • Protection of public health and safety
o Distinguishing health disparities and safety disparities • Compliance with legal, regulatory, mandated requirements, and consent decrees o Projects that focus on meeting current regulations
o Promoting safety and healthy lifestyle activities
DRAFT CIPPP-01
• Focus on improving the well-being of the public
o Incorporating a project’s impact on personal safety and violence reduction o Focus on improving the public’s overall mental and physical state of well-being o Promote positive public health and safety activities
• Prevents injury or harm to the public
o Safety-minded initiatives
o Activities and project goals that prevent harm and protect the safety of the public o Safety improvements toward eliminating fatalities and severe injuries related to mobility
• Compliance with state and local regulatory agencies
o Project goals that support adherence to current regulatory agency rules o Promotes or encourages public support
2. Partnerships, Collaboration & Grants
Engage in collaboration with the community and leverage grant funding Weighted Score: [0-20]
This category prioritizes projects that leverage grant funding or create opportunities for future grants. It also focuses on initiatives that deliver benefits to broader community groups and populations.
Examples of high-scoring projects in this category are the Regional Groundwater Facilities Project in partnership with Zone 7, and the West Las Positas Multimodal Reconstruction Project where nearly half the project cost is supported by state funding.
Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
• Involve partnerships with other agencies and communities to share the benefits of the project o Support for projects that combine development efforts to increase the benefits to larger community groups and populations
• Offer multiple benefits across other sectors and agencies o Support for projects with multiple benefits to more communities • Leveraging external resources and opportunities
o Support projects with external funding sources or opens the opportunity • Project is grant funded or opens the opportunity for future grant eligibility o Unlocks the possibility of future grant consideration o Facilitates eligibility for future grants through partnerships • Bundle opportunities and improve project readiness
o Align opportunities to improve project planning
o Unite groups with similarly goals to accelerate project readiness
DRAFT CIPPP-01
3. Equitable Community Benefits
Promote an inclusive and vibrant community for all
Weighted Score: [0-13]
This category focuses on projects that enhance public spaces, improve access to services, and address community needs while promoting fair distribution of resources to historically underserved or marginalized communities. These initiatives aim to reduce disparities, foster inclusivity, and encourage community cooperation and building.
An example of a high-scoring project in this category is the development of an all-inclusive park/playground.
Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
• Enhance public spaces, improve access to services, and address community needs o ADA access to all parks, community facilities, and public spaces • Advance equity by ensuring fair distribution of resources and services o Supports or enhances public service delivery and/or the allocation of resources. • Focusing on historically underserved or marginalized communities o Prioritizing disadvantaged communities
o Support for the elderly and disabled communities
• Address disparities and inequalities
o Promote inclusion
o Reduces or avoids negative impacts on the community when infrastructure is out of service
• Promotes inclusivity, cooperation, and have strong community support o Provide support for the encouragement of diversity, equity and inclusion o Improves access for people of all ages and abilities
• Reduces negative impacts to groups and communities
o Support community engagement
o Encourages group and community public safety programs • Foster positive effects to the overall well-being, quality of life, and engagement of communities
o Support for projects that prevent displacement, increase rates of homeownership and affordable housing, reduce residential vacancy levels, raise rates of self-employment, and increase presence of community building organizations