Pleasanton City Council
December 17, 2024

DRAFT CIPPP-01

4. Environmental Sustainability & Conservation
Preserve Pleasanton’s environment, address climate change, and protect local resources Weighted Score: [0-13]
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 converting streetlights to LED technology and installing electric vehicle charging facilities.

Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
• Improve environmental sustainability
o Mitigation of health and environmental hazards
• Improve climate resilience, resource conservation
o Increased resiliency to the effects of climate hazards o Reduced potential hazards to the public property and the environment related to urgent conditions (like floods, fires, or other disasters) • Enhancements to air and water quality
o Comply with all legal state and federal regulatory requirements • Enhance historically significant structures and districts o Support for programs that focus on and preserve historical assets Ensuring alignment with preservation standards
o Supports activities that align with environmental preservation • Protect the city's historical legacy
o Projects that support all historical goals

5. Economic Prosperity
Foster conditions that promote local economic growth and generate cost savings Weighted Score: [0-13]
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.

DRAFT CIPPP-01

An example of a high-scoring project in this category is the Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone roadway and sidewalk improvements.

Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
• Support local economic growth
o Support for local startup and community-based projects • Improve access to economic opportunities
o Strengthen access to wealth-building opportunities
o Expand opportunities to financial opportunities
• Benefit local businesses
o Support for projects that increase benefits to local business • Provide significant paybacks in a set time frame
• Promote innovation
• Demonstrate cost savings, productivity improvements or strong return on investment

6. Asset Condition, Infrastructure Maintenance & Improvements Protect infrastructure investments to maintain quality of life Weighted Score: [0-20]
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 high-scoring project in this category is replacing outdated fire station roll-up doors that are no longer supported by available replacement parts.

Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
• Maintaining and repairing existing infrastructure
o Support for projects that avoid or minimize the risk to health, safety, and the environment associated with the infrastructure based on a condition assessment of the asset, or the lack of an asset, which may include the age, size, material, capacity, and history of failure of the infrastructure
o Projects that create a reduction in accidents, main breaks, sewer spills, or flooding • Ensure safety
o Enhance neglected assets, services, and response time in Public Safety • Reduce future costs

DRAFT CIPPP-01

o Support projects that reduce maintenance expenditures and delays that will result in significant future costs
• Prolong asset life
o Support for projects that improve the overall reliability of the capital asset and infrastructure system and extend the asset's useful life • Build or provide upgrades to city facilities and existing infrastructure o Support for projects that assist or supports the upgrade of city facilities and infrastructures
• Replacement or upgrade of critical infrastructure
o Improved structural integrity and reliability of infrastructure o Support for projects that serve areas with higher population densities and areas experiencing the most growth
Roles and Responsibilities
The Director of Public Works is responsible for overseeing 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 results of the CIPPP 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.

DRAFT CIPPP-01

Required Information for Project Intake
Project sponsors shall prioritize capital needs and projects from their Needs List using the factors listed below. This process provides general guidance and examples for each prioritization factor. Before utilizing these prioritization factors, each project sponsor shall gather and maintain the following information:

1. Identify the minimum level of service expected from the proposed projects, which will be used as a baseline for scoring

2. Operational and maintenance goals that are realistic and sustainable

3. Basic infrastructure and facility data sufficient to identify City asset deficits as required in the General Plan, community plans, master plans, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

4. Basic assessment data (AMP) sufficient to identify new assets needed to meet a service standard or existing assets needing improvement

5. A minimum of a five-year capital infrastructure planning outlook that is maintained and assessed annually

6. A database of needs with priority scoring system consistent among all other project sponsors

7. For assets currently in the Asset Management Plan (AMP), update and maintain the database of needs and prioritizations

8. Add additional asset categories to the AMP as datasets are available.

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 consisting of multiple departments that are key stakeholders in the CIP program. The Prioritization Committee will provide individual prioritization scores with the goal of representing 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 score.

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 will recommend a final list of both funded CIP projects and of 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 to City Council review. The purpose of this review and approval

DRAFT CIPPP-01

is to ensure overall alignment of the Five-Year CIP to the city 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 the enterprise fund. 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 for the enterprise fund. Therefore, enterprise-funded Capital Improvement Program projects (water and sewer) are excluded from the aforementioned 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.

DRAFT CIPPP-01

Additional Considerations
Revisions to this prioritization process are not intended to release or alter the City’s current obligations to complete specific CIP projects by specified deadlines, as may be imposed by court order or order of any federal, state, or local regulatory agency.

CIPPP Program Update
It is essential that the CIPPP be updated regularly to ensure that prioritization remains consistent with the City’s priorities and concerns. The CIPPP should 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.

Updates shall be based on other City-adopted plans such as the Climate Action Plan, adopted master plans, adopted specific plans, etc.

History
Adopted by Resolution xxx – 12/17/2024

DRAFT CIPPP-01

Appendix A
Annual Core CIP Projects
An Annual Project is based on a reoccurring program with fixed investment to ensure timely repair and replacement of aged infrastructures to minimize emergency unplanned projects. Not all assets should have an annual program, and assets the City must have in order to have the basic, core operation of the city should be considered for an annual program. Annual programs replace assets with the same or equivalent assets, with upgrades for code requirements, but it is not to increase capacity/size/change designs of the system. Annual programs are also set up when there is a known regulation with which the City must comply.

Guided by City Council approved plans such as Asset Management Plan(s), Water System Management Plan, Sewer System Master Plan, Urban Forest Master Plan, etc., a budget is recommended through the CIP cycle that aligns with the City’s biennial budget cycle.

Annual Transportation Program
XX503 Annual Street Resurfacing
This annual project involves resurfacing and reconstruction of various city streets with a new layer of asphalt. Street locations will be determined by the Pavement Management System (PMS) survey data. The project will include performing base repairs and crack sealing, replacement of existing traffic loop detectors, installation of traffic signal cameras, and reconstruction of pavement surface approaches to signalized intersections. Traffic striping will be updated to accommodate new bike lanes in accordance with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Pavement Management Program (last updated 2/2024) is recommended for $5 million annual expenditure over the next five years to maintain current PCI of 77.

XX504 Annual Slurry Seal
This annual project provides for the slurrying of various city streets with slurry seal. Actual locations will be determined after reviewing the Pavement Management System (PMS) survey data and field information analysis, which is completed on a biannual basis. Traffic striping will be updated to accommodate new bike lanes, where possible, in accordance with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Complete Streets Policy. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission recommends a minimum of 20 percent of roadway surface funding to be allocated to preventative maintenance treatments such as slurry seal; this is to capture the cost benefits of maintaining streets in good condition before they start reaching the exponential decline of the roadway.

Pavement Management Program (last updated 2/2024) is recommended for $1 million annual expenditure over the next five years to maintain current PCI of 77.

XX509 Annual Curb and Gutter & ADA Ramp
As part of the annual resurfacing of city streets, various sections of curb and gutter must be replaced

DRAFT CIPPP-01

along the streets scheduled for resurfacing or slurry seal to bring the roadway back to original grades. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires all intersection ramp areas to be improved to current standards when the street is resurfaced. The ADA standards were updated in 2024 and will require new ramps to be installed at most intersections. Curb and gutter replacement locations are determined through visual inspection by City staff.

To implement the recommended Pavement Management Program (last updated 2/2024), a minimum of $1 million dollars is needed to make the necessary curb and gutter and required ADA curb ramp updates.

XX512 Annual Sidewalk and ADA Ramp
This annual project provides for the replacement and rehabilitation of sidewalks and ADA ramps that have become potential tripping hazards to pedestrians or out of compliance in conformance with the ADA Transition Plan outside of the annual street resurfacing program. Due to the large volume of areas in need of repair and where grinding of the concrete is not a viable solution, the sidewalk must be removed and replaced by a construction contract. Repairs may include sidewalk grinding and ramping, replacement of sidewalk, integral curb and gutter, ADA access ramps, and the installation of tree-root or water barriers. Staff will determine the specific locations to be replaced through a sidewalk condition analysis.

XX532 Bi-Annual Traffic Signal Installation
This program utilizes TIFF funding, and projects will be programmed when TIFF funds are available. This biannual project will install traffic signals at high-priority locations identified by the Traffic Signal Priority List and within the General Plan. The funding levels will be based on available Traffic Impact Fees received.

XX541 Annual Safety Improvements at Various Intersections This program utilizes TIFF funding, and projects will be programmed when TIFF funds are available. This annual project will provide intersection improvements at various intersections identified by the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program or separately identified as improvements that can significantly enhance the intersection level of service during any single peak hour. The improvements are designed to enhance intersection operations and/or safety at critical intersections throughout the city and implement the Pleasanton Travel Action Plan.

Utilities
XX1833 Annual Water Distribution System Improvements
This annual project includes replacing and/or installing water mains (including at bridge and culvert crossings), valves, services, and other needed appurtenances. Locations will be determined from a priority list managed by the Public Works Department and in coordination with future street resurfacing locations.

XX278 Annual Sewer Collection System Improvements
This annual project will replace inadequate and deteriorated sanitary sewer mains and maintenance holes. Locations will be determined from a priority list managed by the Public Works Department

DRAFT CIPPP-01

and in areas of upcoming street resurfacing.

XX415 Annual Storm Repair/Replacement
This project will provide erosion control and other storm protection measures for City-owned property. The project includes the repair, replacement, or installation of new storm facilities to protect property from damage associated with storm activity, improve storm water quality, and reduce the work required to safely remove accumulated debris and silt. Work would either be performed by City staff or through contracted services. Locations will be determined from a priority list managed by the Public Works Department and in areas of upcoming street resurfacing.

Facilities
XXXXX Annual Facility Replacement
This annual project will replace deteriorated or failing building components to return the building to its original functional use. The projects will include roofing, HVAC replacement, doors, windows, exterior building repairs and parking lots.

CIP Program Updates and
Prioritization System Development

s
>KWD
Ed K& d,
/W WZ/KZ/d/d/KE WZK

s
>KWD
EdK&d,
/WWZ/KZ/d/d/KEWZK

s
>KWD
EdK&d,
/WWZ/KZ
>KWD
Ed K& d,
/W WZ/KZ/d/d/KE WZK
^^ KWD
Ed K& d,
/W WZ/KZ/d/d/KEWZK
^^ d/d/KE WZK
^^
Like many other Bay Area cities, Pleasanton has aging infrastructure and a significant backlog of deferred maintenance. Key facilities such as police and fire equipment, street and sidewalk pavement, recreational centers, library and community centers, parks, water and sewer pipes, and storm drain systems, all need repair or replacement.

The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) guides the City’s decisions regarding the construction, repair, and replacement of the City’s assets. ΨK^d^
W>
^EdKE/^,
Z

Categories ranged from 3 (small cities) to 10 (large cities) Pleasanton focused on 6 categories
tŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƚŚĞƌĐŝƚŝĞƐĚŽŝŶŐ͍ ĂƚĂƌĞŽƚŚĞƌĐŝƚŝĞƐĚŽŝŶŐ Ğ ŽƚŚĞƌ ĐŝƚŝĞƐ ĚŽŝŶŐ͍ ŝƚŝĞƐ ĚŽŝŶŐ͍ ĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ KƚŚĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞƌĂŐĞƐ tĂůŶƵƚ
ƌĞĞŬ ^ĂŶZĂŵŽŶ >ŝǀĞƌŵŽƌĞ ǀĞƌĂŐĞ ŝƚLJŽ Ĩ
WůĞĂƐĂŶƚŽŶ
ϭ ,ĞĂůƚŚ͕^ĂĨĞƚLJ͕ΘZĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ ϮϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϯϱ ϮϬ Ϯϱ ϯϬ ϯϬ Ϯϭ͘ϱ Ϯϭ Ϯ WĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŚŝƉƐ͕ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶΘ'ƌĂŶƚƐ ϮϬ ϭϱ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϮϬ ϮϬ ϯϱ ϮϬ ϭϴ͘ϰ ϮϬ ϯ
ƋƵŝƚĂďůĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϭϬ ϭϱ ϮϬ ϭϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ͳ ϮϬ ϭϯ͘ϭ ϭϯ ϰ
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJΘŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ ϭϭ ϭϱ ϮϬ ϭϬ ϮϬ ϮϬ ͲͲ ϭϯ͘ϵ ϭϯ ϱ
ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐWƌŽƐƉĞƌŝƚLJ ϭϴ ϭϱ ϮϬ ϮϬ ϮϬ Ϯϱ ͲͲ ϭϰ͘ϴ ϭϯ
ϲ ƐƐĞƚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞ͕Θ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ϯϭ ϮϬ ϮϬ ϮϬ ͲͲ ϯϱ ϯϬ ϭϴ͘ϯ ϮϬ dKd>͗ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ

CATEGORIES BASED ON

PLEASANTON'S PRIORITIES

PRIORITY CATEGORIES

1. Health, Safety & Regulatory Compliance [0 – 21]
Create a safer and healthier community for the residents and businesses of Pleasanton Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
x Overall emergency preparedness capabilities, protection of public health and safety x Compliance with legal, regulatory, mandated requirements, and consent decrees x Focus on improving the well-being of the public
x Prevents injury, harm to the public
x Comply with state and local regulatory agencies

2. Partnerships, Collaboration & Grants [0 – 20]
Engage in collaboration with the community and leveraging grant funding.

Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
x Involve partnerships with other agencies and communities to share the benefits of the project x Offer multiple benefits across other sectors and agencies x Leveraging external resources and opportunities
x Project is grant funded or opens the opportunity for future grant eligibility x Bundle opportunities and improve project readiness

3. Equitable Community Benefits [0 – 13]
Promote an inclusive and vibrant community for all
Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
x Advance equity by ensuring fair distribution of resources and services x Focusing on historically underserved or marginalized communities x Address disparities and inequalities
x Promotes inclusivity, cooperation, and have strong community support x Reduces negative impacts to groups and communities
x Foster positive effects to the overall well-being, quality of life, and engagement of communities
x Enhance public spaces, improve access to services, and foster inclusivity

4. Environmental Sustainability & Conservation [0 – 13] Preserve Pleasanton’s environment, address climate change, and protect local resources Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
x Improve environmental sustainability
x Improve climate resilience, resource conservation
x Enhancements to air and water quality
x Enhance historically significant structures and districts x Ensuring alignment with preservation standards
x Protect the city's historical legacy

5. Economic Prosperity [0 – 13]
Fostering conditions that promote local economic growth and generate cost savings Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
x Support local economic growth
x Improve access to economic opportunities
x Benefit local businesses
x Provides significant paybacks in a set time frame
x Promotes innovation
x Demonstrates cost savings, productivity improvements or strong return on investment

6. Asset Condition, Infrastructure Maintenance, [0 – 20] & Improvements
Protecting infrastructure investments to maintain quality of life Focus Factors (Projects that prioritize the following):
x Maintaining and repairing existing infrastructure
x Ensure safety
x Reduce future costs
x Prolong asset life
x Build or provide upgrades to city facilities and existing infrastructure x Replacement or upgrade of critical infrastructure
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐƉŽŶƐŽƌ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƐĂŶŝŶƚĂŬĞĨŽƌŵ
ΘƐĞůĨͲĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ
^ƉŽŶƐŽƌĂŶĚ/W
DĂŶĂŐĞƌƌĞǀŝĞǁΘ
ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶ
WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶƚĂŬĞĨŽƌŵ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶΘĨŝŶĂů
ƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ
WƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ
ƌĞǀŝĞǁƐ͕ĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞƐ͕Θ
ĂǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĐŽƌĞ
WƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞĚ/WƉƌŽũĞĐƚůŝƐƚ
ƌĂŶŬĞĚĂŶĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
ƐĐŽƌĞ
/WWƌŽũĞĐƚůŝƐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚ
ďLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌĂŶĚ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ
ĨƚĞƌϱLJĞĂƌƐŽŶƚŚĞ/W
ůŝƐƚ͕ĂůůƵŶͲĨƵŶĚĞĚͬŶŽ
ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐǁŝůů
ďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨƵŶĚƐĂŶĚ
ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ
&ŝŶĂů/WWƌŽũĞĐƚůŝƐƚŝƐ
ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚΘ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ
/ŶƚĂŬĞ
WƌŽũĞĐƚ
ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶ WƌŽũĞĐƚƉƉƌŽǀĂůͬĞŶŝĂů
ͬZĞͲƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ
KƉƚŝŵŝnjĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ
ƚƚƌŝďƵƚĞƐ
&ŝŶĂů
^ƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ
ĚũƵƐƚͬ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞ
ͬZĞͲƉƉůLJ
&ƵŶĚůůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
>ŝŵŝƚ^Ğƚ
• ϱͲLJĞĂƌƐƵŶƐĞƚ
/WWƌŽũĞĐƚ>ŝƐƚΘZĂŶŬŝŶŐ
>ŝƐƚ
ĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ
΀ďLJĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ΁
΀ďLJĞƉƚ͘Θ/WDŐƌ͘΁
΀ďLJĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ΁
΀ďLJWƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ΁
΀ďLJ
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐΘWƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ΁
΀ďLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐKĨĨŝĐĞΘĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ΁
΀ďLJ&ŝŶĂŶĐĞΘŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌ΁
΀ďLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌΘŽƵŶĐŝů΁
CIP Prioritization
Process Cycle
WŚĂƐĞϰ

/WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉƐ /WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉ /W WƌŽŐƌĂŵ ^ƚĞƉƐ
• Intake Process:
• Prepare clear scope, justification, cost
estimate and self-assessment scoring based
on prioritization criteria
• Deferred projects evaluated and resubmitted
• Optimize Project Attributes:
• Project sponsors and CIP manager
pre-application review and consultation
• Final Submission:
• Department heads review & approval
• Project sponsors make final submission
• Engineering packages project for
prioritization committee
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐƉŽŶƐŽƌ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƐĂŶŝŶƚĂŬĞĨŽƌŵ
ΘƐĞůĨͲĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ
^ƉŽŶƐŽƌĂŶĚ/W
DĂŶĂŐĞƌƌĞǀŝĞǁΘ
ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂƚŝŽŶ
WƌŽũĞĐƚŝŶƚĂŬĞĨŽƌŵ
ĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶΘĨŝŶĂů
ƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ
W,^
ϭ
/WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉƐ /WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉ W WƌŽŐƌĂŵ ^ƚĞƉƐ
• Project Evaluation:
• Prioritization Committee review, evaluate, and
award the project scores
• Projects scoring based on the 6 weighted
prioritization criteria to a maximum 100 points
• CIP Project List & Ranking:
• CIP Manager reviews list
• Prioritization Committee reviews list
• Final Ranked List
• Project Approval / Denial / Re-Assessment
• Based on available funding and resources
WƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ
ƌĞǀŝĞǁƐ͕ĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞƐ͕Θ
ĂǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĐŽƌĞ
W,^
^ϮΘϯ
WƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞĚ/WƉƌŽũĞĐƚůŝƐƚ
ƌĂŶŬĞĚĂŶĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
ƐĐŽƌĞ
/WWƌŽũĞĐƚůŝƐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚ
ďLJŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞƌĂŶĚ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ

/WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉƐ /WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉ /W WƌŽŐƌĂŵ ^ƚĞƉƐ
• Fund Allocation Limit Set
• All viable projects, regardless of score will be
entered into the CIP project list
• Complete source and use
• Budget by fund from Finance
• List Determined
• A limit line will be set based on the allocation of the available funds
• Final list of projects released to all stakeholders
• Leadership’s final evaluation of compiled list prior to acceptance
• Final Funded Project List
• City Council reviews and approves CIP
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨƵŶĚƐĂŶĚ
ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ
&ŝŶĂů/WWƌŽũĞĐƚůŝƐƚŝƐ
ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚΘ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ
W,^
^ϰΘϱ
• Project Cost Priority Ranking
• Project A $100,000 89
• Project B $1,250,000 86
• Project C $250,000 82
• Project D $750,000 79
• Project E $350,000 75
• Project F $600,000 71
• Project G $150,000 67
• Project H $350,000 62
• Project I $200,000 61
• Project J $500,000 59
ǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ƚĂĨĨ
ĨŽƌ/ŶͲ,ŽƵƐĞ
ĞƐŝŐŶ
ǀĂŝůĂďůĞ
ƵĚŐĞƚ
&ŝŶĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚ
ƵƚKĨĨ
&ŝŶĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚ
ƵƚKĨĨ
ĂƉŝƚĂů/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶĞĚďLJĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞďƵĚŐĞƚĂŶĚĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ ƐƚĂĨĨƚŝŵĞƚŽĚĞůŝǀĞƌƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚďLJƵƚŝůŝnjŝŶŐŝŶͲŚŽƵƐĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚĂĨĨ͘ WZK:
d^
>
d/KE^
KE&hE/E'

/WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉƐ /WWƌŽŐƌĂŵ^ƚĞƉ /W WƌŽŐƌĂŵ ^ƚĞƉƐ
• Adjust / Improve / Re-Apply
• Project sponsors are welcome to adjust/improve their
project application and submit for evaluation, scoring, and inclusion into the next 2-year CIP cycle
ĨƚĞƌϱLJĞĂƌƐŽŶƚŚĞ/W
ůŝƐƚ͕ĂůůƵŶͲĨƵŶĚĞĚͬŶŽ
ĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ
ǁŝůůďĞƌĞŵŽǀĞĚ
/WWWŶŶƵĂůŽƌĞ/WΘ
ŶƚĞƌƉƌŝƐĞ/W /WWW ŶŶƵĂů ŽƌĞ /W Θ
ŶƚĞƌƉƌŝ /WWWŶŶƵĂůŽƌĞ/WΘ
ŶƚĞƌƉƌŝƐĞ/W WWW ŶŶƵĂůŽƌĞ/WΘ
ŶƚĞƌƉƌŝƐĞ ƵĂů ŽƌĞ /W Θ
ŶƚĞƌƉƌŝƐĞ /W
Annual Core and Enterprise CIP Excluded from CIPPP
Annual Core Projects
• Routine to replace critical core assets at end of life • Dedicated funding (restricted funding)
• Safety-sensitive
• Regulation requirement
• Based on re-occurring program
Enterprise Funded Projects
• Water and Sewer
• Fully Enterprise funded
• Project defined prioritized by Master Plan(s)

Facilities - All city owned facilities that are not covered under other categories.

Miscellaneous - All other projects (except facilities) that are not included in other project types.

Parks - Any project within a city or regional park.

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
Sewer - Projects that are paid for out of the Sewer Enterprise Funds.

Storm - Projects that are paid for out of the Storm Enterprise Funds.

Water - Projects that are paid for out of the Water Enterprise Funds. /WƐƐĞƚĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ /WƐƐĞƚĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞ ƐƐĞƚĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐ ^ƵŶƐĞƚ ůĂƵƐĞ ^ƵŶƐĞƚůĂƵƐĞ ƵŶƐĞƚůĂƵƐĞ ŶƐĞƚ ůĂƵƐĞ
• Sunset Clause: After 5 years on the CIP list, all unfunded projects (projects below the funding line) or projects with no expenditures will be removed.
• Reserve projects reviewed every two years for removal and will remove all non-restricted funds after 4 years
• Previous deferred/unfunded projects to be removed from current CIP. New projects sheets can be submitted.

/WWWWƌŽŐƌĂŵhƉĚĂƚĞƐ /WWWWƌŽŐƌĂŵhƉĚĂƚĞ
• Beginning of new CIP cycle or within one year adoption of new ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan
• Changes and updates to the CIPPP will require additional City Council review and approval
• Updates will be based on plans such as, but not limited to the following:
¾ ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan
¾ Climate Action Plan
¾ Adopted Master Plans (such as Sewer, Water, Storm Drain, Landscape, Urban Tree, etc.) and Specific Plans (such as Downtown Specific Plan), etc.

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
January: Project Worksheet Development (Phase 1)
February: Prioritization Project Review (Phase 2)
March: Staff Recommended CIP List (Phases 3 – 4)
April: Budget Advisory Committee Review
May: City Council review of draft CIP and Budget (Phase 5) June: Adoption by City Council (Adoption – Phase 5)
^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞ

CIP Process Phases:

Phase 1: Project Intake Process
Phase 2: Project Review and Ranking Process
Phase 3: Recommendation of the Final Ranked Prioritization CIP List Phase 4: Resource Analysis and Loading
Phase 5: City Council Approval and Adoption of the Five-Year CIP

Item #15

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 17, 2024
Community Development
TITLE: A) ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE: (1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONING (P21-1173) OF TWO PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 2.3 ACRES IN

AREA FROM C-C (CENTRAL-COMMERCIAL) TO PUD-MU (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED-USE) DISTRICT; AND (2) A PUD-MU DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD-146) TO: (A) RETAIN THE TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME; (B) DEMOLISH THE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT,

BARONE'S RESTAURANT, AND ALL OTHER STRUCTURES AND SITE
MODIFICATIONS; AND (C) CONSTRUCT 14 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY

HOMES AND TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH A PUBLIC PLAZA AND

PARKING LOT, NEW PRIVATE STREET, AND RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS; AND

B) ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TRACT 8631) TO SUBDIVIDE THE 2.3 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS,

ONE COMMERCIAL LOT, AND THREE PRIVATE COMMON SPACE PARCELS LOCATED AT 475 AND 493 ST. JOHN STREET

SUMMARY
The subject application proposes redevelopment of the properties at 475 and 493 St. John Street in the downtown area. The project would retain and expand the existing two-story, single-family home, demolish all other structures and improvements, and create a mixed-use development to construct 14 detached two-and-a-half-story, single-family homes, two singlestory retail/commercial buildings with a plaza and parking lot, and related site improvements on the combined approximately 2.3-acre project site.

Consistent with the 2019 Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Update, Policy LD-P1.5, the redevelopment of the site is subject to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to rezone the project site and evaluate appropriate density and design. At the time of adoption of the DSP, the City Council discussed this property at length, noting a residential-only project is not desirable at this location and stating a redevelopment application should try to maintain the existing amount of commercial square footage on the site. As this agenda report outlines, the proposed project would meet the requirements of the General Plan and the DSP. Following the Planning Commission’s October 23, 2024, recommendation for approval, the environmental review documentation, consideration for mixed-use rezoning, PUD development plan, and Vesting Tentative Map are now recommended for the City Council's approval.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution adopting an addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Final

Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), finding the document satisfies the requirements of CEQA. (Attachment 1).

2. Introduce an ordinance making the PUD findings and approving the applications for: (1) Planned Unit Development rezoning (P21-1173) of two parcels totaling approximately

2.3 acres in area from C-C (Central-Commercial) to PUD-MU (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Use) District; and (2) A PUD-MU development plan (PUD-146) to:
(a) retain the two-story single-family home and construct a two-story addition to the north side of the home; (b) demolish the detached accessory dwelling unit, Barone's restaurant, and all other structures and site modifications; and (c) construct 14 detached single-family homes and two commercial buildings with a public plaza and parking lot, new private street, and related site improvements, subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval (Attachment 2).

3. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map (Tract 8631) (Attachment 3).

BACKGROUND
General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning
The Applicable General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Zoning regulations are summarized below. Compliance with these various policies is discussed in more detail in this report's Discussion section.

General Plan Designation. The project site has two General Plan designations:

Retail/Highway/Service Commercial Business and Professional Offices covering most of the site, and Public Health and Safety with Wildland Overlay, which is applicable to the area of the site occupied by the Arroyo del Valle and adjacent riparian area. The General Plan also identifies the site as being within a Specific Plan area. The General Plan Retail/Highway/Service Commercial Business and Professional Office designation does not preclude residential development if it contains a commercial component and mixed-use is identified as an allowable use under the retail/highway/service commercial land use designation. The portions of the site within Public Health and Safety with Wildland Overlay are to be retained as open space and are undevelopable.

Downtown Specific Plan Designation. The project site is within the DSP area and has two Specific Plan designations – Downtown Commercial and Open Space-Arroyo. The Arroyo del Valle portion of the project site has the DSP designation of Open Space-Arroyo and is undevelopable. Mixed-use is identified as an appropriate land use under the Downtown Commercial designation.

With respect to the Downtown Commercial designation, during the DSP update process the City Council considered redevelopment of the project site and adopted policy guidance for it in DSP (Policy LD-P.15). This policy states the site “may develop to a mixed-use project with approval of a PUD” and that “a residential-only is not desirable.” The DSP allows for residential development if it contains a commercial component; thus, a mixed-use project would be consistent with the DSP land use designations. The DSP includes further policies relating to new development; these are outlined and analyzed later in this report.

Zoning District. The project site is zoned C-C (Central-Commercial) and Downtown Revitalization district. While residential and commercial uses are permitted in the C-C district, pursuant to the Specific Plan, a mixed-use project would require the project site to be rezoned

to Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Use (PUD-MU).

Site and Area Description
The project site is located at the north end of Downtown on the north side of St. John Street, at the intersection with Peters Avenue. An approximately 4,742-square-foot, two-story singlefamily home, built in 1887, along with an approximately 1,004-square-foot detached, singlestory accessory dwelling unit, and restaurant parking lot are located at 493 St. John Street. An approximately 1,877-square-foot restaurant (Barone’s) and approximately 911-square-foot indoor event center, having a combined total of approximately 2,788 square feet are located at 475 St. John Street, along with an outdoor cabana and various small-scale ancillary structures.

The project site is approximately 2.3 acres, with two vehicular access drives from St. John Street. The site is generally square in shape and relatively flat, apart from the rear portion of the lot which has moderate to steep downward terrain into the Arroyo del Valle. There are mature trees and dense landscaping at the north end of the site, within the Arroyo del Valle, and mature trees mostly along the east and west sides and center of the project site.

The segment of St. John Street where the project site is located is between Main Street (east) and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks (west) and is in an area of mixed land uses, which is typical of the C-C Zoning District, including purpose-built residential, commercial and mixeduse buildings, as well as a number of buildings that have been converted over time from residential to commercial use.

The site is bordered to the north by City-owned open space land (contiguous to the Arroyo), east by the Pleasanton Hotel and Rose Hotel, south by offices and single-family residential homes (across St. John Street), and west by St. John Court townhomes. Residences are also located further southwest, and the US Bank is located further southeast, on the opposite side of St. John Street. Figure 1 shows the project site and adjoining land uses.

Figure 1: Project Site

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to rezone the approximately 2.3-acre project site from C-C (CentralCommercial) to PUD-MU (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Use) District. The project would retain the two-story single-family home and construct an approximately 1,360-square-foot twostory addition on its north side, demolish all remaining structures and site modifications, and construct: 14 detached two-and-a-half-story single-family homes; two, single-story commercial buildings totaling approximately 3,125 square feet combined, an approximately 1,568-squarefoot commercial plaza, new private street, a 13-space commercial parking lot, and related site improvements; and subdivide the approximately 2.3 acres into 15 single-family lots, one commercial lot, and three private common space parcels.

Site Design and Development
Figure 2 provides an overall view of the site plan layout for the proposed project. The designation of lots and parcels are as follows: Lots 1-14 to each single-family home, Lot 15 to the commercial development, Parcel A to the existing Barone’s home, Parcel B to the new private hammerhead street, Parcel C (located behind lots 8-14) will remain undevelopable and permanent open space maintained by the new residential subdivision’s association, and Parcel D (between Lots 11 and 12) is an access easement to Parcel C. The existing home (Parcel A) and commercial buildings and plaza (Lot 15) are situated to face St. John Street and the 14 new single-family homes will be located behind (north of) the existing home (Parcel A) and parking lot of the commercial buildings on the commercial lot (Lot 15).

The applicant is proposing a PUD development plan which establishes “as-built” development standards, meaning future development (i.e., additions) and/or accessory structures would not be permitted for Lots 1-14 as the setbacks, lot size, floor area ratio, and height would remain as-built. The Barone’s property (Parcel A) would be subject to the development standards of the R-1-10,000 Zoning District, and Lot 15 would be subject to the Mixed-Use-Downtown Zoning District of the PMC. No development or construction of any kind would be allowed on

or within the open space area and access easement (Parcels C and D).

Figure 2: Site Plan
Residential. As noted, the existing single-family residence would be maintained and expanded. The approximately 1,360 square foot addition to the north of the home will include a two-car garage and storage area on the ground floor and an attic/storage space on the second floor. A new private driveway to the new garage will be provided on the west side of the new private street. No other modifications are proposed to the existing home.

Lots 1 through 14 would be developed with detached two-and-a-half-story, single-family homes (the wall-to-wall separation between the new homes is one foot). The lots range in size from approximately 2,173 to 3,290 square feet. The single-family homes range in size from approximately 3,316 to 3,783 square feet and approximately 28 feet 5 inches to 30 feet 4 inches in height. Height is measured from average grade covered by the structure to the mean height between the roof ridge and eave.

Commercial. Lot 15 would be developed with two, single-story commercial buildings. Building A is approximately 1,300 square feet and approximately 19 feet in height and Building B is approximately 1,825 square feet and approximately 21 feet in height (measured from finished grade to the top of the parapets). An approximately 1,568-square-foot plaza with seating and a decorative iron entry archway will separate the two commercial buildings, and a 13-stall commercial parking lot will be constructed to the north (rear) of the commercial buildings. An approximately 139-square-foot restroom and approximately 211-square-foot commercial trash enclosure will be constructed between the parking lot and Building B.

Details of the addition to the existing home and new residential plan type and commercial square footages, building heights, and floor plans of designation spaces are provided in Exhibit B of Attachment 2.

Tree Removal and Landscaping/Fencing
The project site has approximately 51 trees of varying species; 34 of these are "heritage"- sized trees, based on the existing PMC's definitions. (Staff notes that amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance are underway, which would classify many of these trees as "protected trees" - however, the term heritage tree is used in this report, since the tree evaluation and arborist report were completed pursuant to the existing ordinance and its definitions.) The project would require removing 39 of the 51 trees, including the 34 heritage-size trees, due to direct or significant encroachment by the proposed project. Replanting of 36 new trees is proposed, primarily along the proposed private street and within the commercial parking lot.

Sheet C3.1 in Exhibit B of Attachment 2 shows which existing trees would be removed and those to be preserved.

Preliminary landscape plans and fencing details have been provided for the project. A variety of drought-tolerant and climate-appropriate trees, shrubs, and groundcover are proposed, most of which would be along the private street, in bioretention areas, and around the perimeters of the commercial lot. The rear yards of Lots 1-14 will have planter boxes to be maintained by the residents. Six-foot tall wood “good neighbor” fencing will be provided along the rear and side (where feasible) yards of the new single-family homes, including along the shared property line on the east (Rose Hotel) and west (St. John townhomes). Lots 8-14 will have open fencing along the northern rear (property line). No fencing will extend into or be constructed within approximately 20 feet of the undevelopable portion of the site (Parcel C).

See Exhibit B of Attachment 2 for a comprehensive view and list of all conceptual landscaping and fencing for the proposed project.

Parking
The new homes on Lots 1-14 will be constructed with two-car garages; an approximately 534- square-foot two-car garage, included in the proposed 1,360-square-foot addition to the Barone’s home, will be constructed on the north side of the Barone’s home. The new private street will provide 10 on-site parking spaces, and the commercial lot will have a 13-stall parking lot with six standard-size spaces, four compact spaces, two electric vehicle charging spaces, and one American with Disabilities Act-compliant space.

Grading and Drainage
Limited grading is proposed to accommodate building pads, streets and bioretention outside of the Arroyo/open space area. Grading for building pads is expected to reach approximately 6.5 feet below the surface and excavations for utility lines and stormwater infrastructure would reach as much as approximately 9 feet below the surface. Grading is estimated to result in approximately 4,200 cubic yards of material being exported from the site. All residences located at the north side of the property (Lots 8-14) would be set back approximately 20 feet from the top of the existing bank; there would be no grading or modifications to the bed, bank or channel of Arroyo del Valle.

Building Architecture/Design
Residential. The new single-family homes are designed to reflect architectural features found in other existing buildings along St. John Street and in Downtown. Most notably, the applicant is proposing traditional architecture such as entry porches, Juliet balconies on some units, large, recessed windows with grids on the front and back elevations, brick veneer and stucco materials, and composition hip roofs. The massing of the buildings is broken up using

projected or recessed building walls and dormer windows on the end units, which provide variation in the wall planes. The buildings would feature a stucco and brick combination, and composition roofing. Exhibit B of Attachment 2 provides illustrations of the general plan type for the new homes on Lots 1-14.

Existing Home. The project includes a two-story addition of approximately 1,360 square feet to the north (rear) of the existing Barone home. The first floor of the addition is an approximately 534-square-foot, two-car garage with an approximately 303-square-foot storage area. The second floor is an approximately 523-square-foot attic/storage space. The addition would be set back a minimum of approximately four feet from the new north (rear) property line, a minimum of approximately 12 feet 7 inches from the east (new private street) side property line, and approximately 34 feet 2 inches from the west side property line. The colors, materials, height, windows, and architectural style of the addition will match the existing home.

Exhibit B of Attachment 2 shows the existing and proposed elevations.

Commercial. The new commercial buildings, totaling approximately 3,125 square feet combined, will be designed to be in keeping with other commercial downtown buildings. The buildings will be constructed with natural color brick veneer and have brick wall bands and trim around the windows, large storefront doors and windows on the St. John Street elevations.

Building B will have a large glass facade facing the plaza to add variation to the design.

Transom windows are also incorporated over the glass doors and metal canopies on the south elevation of the buildings to further distinguish the commercial spaces. The commercial buildings are separated by an approximately 1,568-square-foot brick-paved plaza, which will provide seating, planters, and a decorative metal arch pedestrian entry.

Exhibit B of Attachment 2 provides full and focused streetscape views of St. John Street, plaza design, and building elevations.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 23, 2024, to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project. In addition to the applicant team, members of the public spoke, generally in support of the project. Written comments received commented specifically on maintaining the amount of commercial square-footage which exists today and having active uses at this location. While supportive of the project, members of the public also expressed concerns regarding existing traffic and parking conditions on St. John Street, traffic safety for residents exiting and entering the project, and whether more trees could be retained. In addition to those in attendance, staff provided the Planning Commission with comment letters (Attachment 6) from the public that were sent in prior to and after publication of the Planning Commission agenda report.

The Planning Commission’s comments were primarily focused on the amount of commercial square-footage, whether one larger building should be constructed in lieu of two smaller buildings, to encourage one tenant in lieu of multiple smaller tenant spaces, the feasibility of increasing the height of one of the commercial buildings for a restaurant rooftop component, and the type of commercial uses allowed, being interested in seeing active uses in this space such as restaurants and retail. After listening to public testimony and discussing the project, the Commission, on a 4-0 vote, recommended adoption of the addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan FEIR and approval of the PUD rezoning and development plan, and Vesting Tentative Map, without changes, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. While

not included as conditions, the Planning Commission requested:

1. The City Council review the proposed PUD-MU permitted and conditionally permitted uses and list specific allowable uses;

2. The developer consider adding a second story or roof deck to the commercial buildings, if feasible; and

3. The City Council consider adding a condition of approval for a maintenance agreement for the on-site common areas.

The Planning Commission’s action is outlined in the meeting minutes (Attachment 5).

Discussion of the various items suggested by Planning Commission is included in the project analysis, below.

DISCUSSION
General Plan Land Use and Policy Conformance
The Retail/Highway/Service Commercial Business and Professional Offices General Plan land use designation allows for mixed-use development; the allowable density range for mixed-use is 20+ Dwelling Units/Acre (DUA). Approximately 1.8 acres of the 2.3 total acres of the project site cannot be used for development. The project’s density of 6.5 DUA would be less than the maximum density allowed by the mixed-use land use designation, and consistent with the General Plan’s allowable density.

No development is proposed in the portion of the site designated Public Health and Safety with Wildland Overlay; the area will be retained as open space, privately owned by the new subdivision’s association. Public access will not be allowed, though an easement between Lots 11-12 is provided for maintenance access to this area. As proposed, the project is consistent with the General Plan designation.

General Plan Policies
The proposed redevelopment of the site complies with several General Plan policies and programs as outlined in the Planning Commission agenda report. The project, as proposed, is in keeping with General Plan policies that emphasize mixed-use development, such as Policy 12 and implementing Programs 12.3 and 12.4 (see Attachment 4).

Downtown Specific Plan
Downtown Specific Plan: Policy Direction for 475/493 St. John Street The owner-initiated request to include the project site’s redevelopment potential was made toward the end of the DSP update process in 2019. The City Council considered the redevelopment potential of the project site at two meetings (in April and May 2019), to provide policy direction on this and other components of the DSP, as well as at the public hearings for the project in August 2019. Minutes of the April 16, May 27 and August 20, 2019, City Council meetings are available upon request or online. In those discussions, the City Council suggested the project site allow for mixed-use as an effort to activate side streets off Main Street with commercial uses, consistent with other policy goals for the DSP.

Further, the City Council articulated its expectation for the project site to retain the same amount of commercial square-footage if the existing restaurant were demolished, and that residential would only be allowed behind or above a commercial building. In its 2019 policy

discussion about this site, at least some City Council members acknowledged the restaurant would not necessarily be replaced with an identical use. These concepts are also addressed in other policies of the DSP, including Policy LD-P.20 for the Downtown Commercial District. The City Council did not change the DSP land use designation for the project site, although adopted the updated DSP with a map annotation referencing the following DSP Land Use and Design Policy:

LD-P.15: 475/493 St. John is designated Downtown Commercial; The property may redevelop to a mixed-use project, which includes residential with approval of a PUD application, which will rezone the property and evaluate the appropriate density and design (a residential only project is not desirable). The existing residence is required to remain.

The existing house would remain, and redevelopment would require PUD development plan and rezoning approval.

Policy LD-P.15 does not specify the ultimate zoning for the site. In staff’s view, the most suitable zoning district in the Pleasanton Municipal Code is PUD-Mixed-Use (PUD-MU) for a mixed-use project.

Other key policies of the DSP, related to commercial and mixed land uses include Policy LD - P.5 and LD-P.20, both of which are intended to retain a commercial presence and viable commercial spaces along Main Street and adjacent mixed-use areas. The commercial buildings would have ground floor uses fronting St. John Street, both buildings would have a depth of approximately 52 feet and would not reduce the amount of commercial square footage over that which exists for the restaurant and indoor event area today - the existing square footage is approximately 2,788 and approximately 3,125 square feet (3,336 square feet inclusive of ancillary structures) is proposed. A 1,568 square foot plaza for outdoor seating will further expand the available area for commercial activity, promote pedestrian activity and further link St. John Street with Main Street. Apart from the existing Barone’s residence, the new residential development would be behind the commercial buildings and fully parked onsite. The mixed-use project would serve as a buffer and transition to adjacent residential developments. As proposed, the project conforms to the DSP policies noted.

Other DSP Policies
There are a number of other DSP policies relevant to the proposed project. These policies and the project’s conformance to them are discussed in more detail in the Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 4), with the conclusion that the project would conform to all relevant policies.

Historic Resources
The existing residence is listed as a historic resource in the General Plan because of its age; however, a recent historic resource evaluation prepared for the project site determined the existing single-family house, in addition to all other structures on-site, were not considered historic resources due to the numerous additions and modifications to the structures over the years. Additions to the primary single-family home almost completely surround the original home. However, the distinctive character and quality of the home were recognized by the City Council in its discussion of the site, and in prior actions of the City Council with respect to Downtown buildings, and consistent with Policy LD.P.15, it would be retained. The historic resource evaluation also determined the existing restaurant and other structures on the project

site are not historic resources, and as a result this policy would not apply, and their demolition is therefore supportable.

Zoning and Use Conformance
The subject site is zoned C-C (Central-Commercial), Downtown Revitalization District. The proposal seeks to rezone the property to Planned Unit Development – Mixed-Use (PUD-MU), which would allow for single-family residential and commercial uses on the subject site. The rezoning would permit or conditionally permit those uses listed in Section 18.32.030 and

18.32.040 (One-Family Residential) of the PMC (for the residential units) and permit or conditionally permit those uses listed in Section 18.46.030 (Mixed-Use-Downtown (MU-D)) of the PMC for the commercial buildings, with modifications as described below.

The MU-D land uses are used as the most appropriate set of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, based on the location and characteristics of the site. The site has been operating as a restaurant and event location for decades. As proposed, the project would allow additional commercial uses within two buildings in addition to providing a plaza for seating and outdoor use. The MU-D District uses are best suited for this project site since it is less restrictive than the MU-T District while at the same time allowing more limited/somewhat less intensive uses than permitted by the C-C District. The subject property provides a transition between Main Street’s commercial uses to the east and residential uses immediately to the west, and this transition/buffering between commercial and residential uses, including the residential uses to be located on-site.

A topic of discussion at the Planning Commission, and of one public comment, was whether the project should be limited to “active” commercial uses only, similar to the restrictions that apply to ground floor uses along Main Street.

The Planning Commission recommended the City Council review the proposed permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the MU-D District to encourage active/commercial uses. Staff deferred to those uses listed in the MU-D District to provide the property owner flexibility to tenant the space with a range of commercial uses. In reviewing the uses and parameters of the commercial site, it’s unlikely a use which requires a minor or conditional use permit would be able to meet the performance standards or criteria (i.e., parking or separation from residential zoning districts). Furthermore, it’s unlikely some permitted uses, such as educational and art uses with less than 20 participants, would be able to meet the parking requirements of the PMC at this site. Therefore, staff recommends the uses for the site be limited to:
• Emergency generators and related facilities
• Special downtown accessory entertainment
• Personal services – barbers; beauty salons; day spas; holistic healing centers; nail salons; hair removal and/or replacement; body art (defined in the PMS as tattoo, body piercing and/or permanent cosmetic services that is only provided to a client's face, ears, hands or feet); massage establishments; acupressure services; tailors; and other services of a similar nature (permitted)
• Restaurants and catering establishments (permitted)
• Retail (permitted) – firearm sales, liquor stores, convenience markets, tobacco stores, secondhand stores, and pawnshops are prohibited
• Microbreweries*

• Wineries*
• Bars and brew pubs*
* The following conditions would apply to Microbreweries, Wineries, Bars and Brewpubs: (1) The zoning administrator finds adequate parking is available for said use; (2) Menu service shall be available for patrons during the operation hours of the business; (3) Alcohol service and consumption in the outdoor plaza area is allowed only upon specific approval by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and shall be subject to all ABC requirements.

The business operator and their employees are responsible for supervising and controlling the activities of its customers in the outdoor plaza area, ensuring no disorderly behavior occurs in this area, that drinks are not taken outside the outdoor plaza area, and there are no more customers in the outdoor plaza area than there are seats. The inability of the business operator and their employees to perform in this manner shall because for review and revocation of this use as it pertains to the service of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor plaza area. (4) Approval of a temporary/minor conditional use permit shall be required prior to live music, DJ music, or dancing in the outdoor plaza area. (5) If the zoning administrator determines the use will be or is creating odor problems, an odor abatement device determined to be appropriate by the zoning administrator shall be installed within the exhaust ventilation system to mitigate brewery odors; (6) The applicant is in compliance with all applicable requirements of Chapter 9.04 (Noise Regulations) the Pleasanton Municipal Code; and (7) If operation of the use results in conflicts pertaining to parking, noise, odors, traffic, or other factors, the zoning administrator may modify or add conditions to mitigate such impacts, or may revoke the zoning certificate for the use.

These permitted uses would promote more opportunity for active uses, and staff has reflected this amended list of uses in the condition of approval in Attachment 2.

The Planning Commission requested exploring a second story/upstairs dining component to the commercial buildings as well. Rooftop or second-story dining could attract more visitors and generate additional revenue for the business, while offering a unique dining experience.

However, adding additional, usable, square footage would also require additional parking spaces and related infrastructure, require elevators for accessibility, and has the potential for generating more light and noise. The recently constructed building at 725 Main Street, which has a rooftop dining area, has been vacant for several years as it has been challenging to find a business that would take on operations of such a large space with the increased liability of a second floor for accessibility for staff and the patrons. Staff recommends the commercial buildings remain as designed given the site’s constraints of not being able to provide more parking on-site to accommodate the added square footage.

Development Standards
To allow flexibility in designing a project compatible with the site-specific features of a property, the PUD District standards do not specify minimum property development standards (e.g., setbacks, height, and FAR), with the expectation these will be established as part of the PUD.

Based on the characteristics of the site and the proposed project, the PMC standards for the Mixed-Use Downtown (MU-D) for the commercial development, and the R-1-6,500 district for the new residential development, and R-1-10,000 district for the existing residence, are the closest and most appropriate points of comparison.

Table 1 in the Planning Commission agenda report (Attachment 4) provides site development

requirements for the MU-D and R-1-6,500 zoning districts, and Table 2, in the same attachment, includes information on other residential development projects in the downtown, as a point of comparison for front yard setbacks and height.

Commercial Lot
The commercial development is consistent with the MU-D District, which has identical development standards to the properties in the C-C District (refer to Table 1 in the Planning Commission agenda report for comparison). The site development standards of the MU-D District allow structures to be built to the property lines on all sides of the subject lot and allow a maximum floor area ration (FAR) of 300 percent and a maximum height of approximately 46 feet (measured from finished grade to the midpoint of the roof).

Because it is separated from the residential portion of the project by the intervening parking lot, the commercial buildings are setback approximately 74 feet from the northern property line of the commercial lot. Building B has a zero-lot line on the east (Rose Hotel), both commercial buildings have a zero-lot line on the south (St. John Street), and Building A is set back approximately 2 feet from the western property line. The FAR for the buildings on the commercial lot is approximately 31.3 percent and the maximum height of the structures are approximately 19 and 21 feet, well below the maximum FAR and height allowed for the MU-D district.

Residential Lots
New Residential. With respect to the proposed project, the residential front, side, and rear yard setbacks vary for each lot, given their size and their orientation. The new lot sizes, ranging from 2,250 to 3,290 square feet, are significantly smaller than lots located in R-1-6,500 District (minimum lot size of 6,500 square foot), and the closest residential zoning district used for comparison. The new homes have the same general front and rear yard setbacks as homes in the R-1-6,500 District, although they have side yard setbacks which are smaller and a higher FAR given the width and area of the proposed lot sizes. However, the proposed new homes and their respective lots are in keeping with other similar approved PUDs in the downtown, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 in Attachment 4.

Existing Single-Family Home. The closest residential zoning district to use as a comparison, based on lot size and residential type, is the One-Family Residential zoning district, with a minimum lot size 10,000 square feet. Table 3 in Attachment 4 provides site development requirements for the R-1-10,000 zoning district compared to the existing Barone home with the proposed addition.

As noted, a PUD development plan allows flexibility in applying municipal code standards to achieve an innovative overall plan for project sites and the area. The applicant developed the current site plan with input from the Planning Commission during the work session and numerous discussions with staff before and after submitting the PUD application.

With respect to the proposed residential lots, while the lots would deviate from the R-1-6,500 standards, staff and the Planning Commission found the development standards to be appropriate. The applicant was considerate of the position of the buildings to provide adequate setbacks from the property lines and new street frontages and maximized the usability of the site. The applicant has opted to retain the existing residence on-site and has provided on-site

guest parking spaces for the residential development. Single-family home lots in the downtown are generally smaller in area, although they have houses which are similar in size to homes found in neighborhood subdivisions. While the subject site is relatively large, the Arroyo del Valle and adjacent riparian area occupy a significant portion of the northern part of the project site, which limits the allowable developable area. Due to these project constraints, smaller lot sizes with house sizes commonly used for new single-family home development make the floor area ratios for the new homes higher; however, the visual appearance of the new homes is in keeping with the Barone’s home and existing adjacent residential homes. Story poles have been erected on-site, where feasible, to demonstrate the overall size and height of the project.

Staff finds the proposed siting, massing, and size of the units are appropriate for this site and would result in an attractive development for this area of downtown. The buildings would be in keeping with the scale and massing of the surrounding homes on St. John Street and Peters Avenue. Further, staff is recommending conditions of approval prohibiting accessory structures and additions to the residential units.

Site Layout and Urban Design Features
As proposed, all residential units and the commercial parking lot would be accessible from the new private street, which allows the existing home and proposed commercial buildings to be oriented to face St. John Street and (with the new commercial buildings) retain an active and pedestrian-oriented frontage. New garages and driveway access would be located at the front of the new homes within the subdivision, but these would not be highly visible given the development’s layout. New internal sidewalks are proposed throughout the project for walkability, and entries, porches, and front doors face St. John Street or the private street. The existing driveway entrance is located and configured to provide adequate line-of-sight viewing distance for vehicles and to facilitate efficient ingress/egress to and from the proposed project site. The internal street meets City standards for emergency vehicle access and turn-around.

Adequate access would be provided to all structures for police, fire, and other emergency vehicles. Staff finds the site plan is appropriate and supports the overall configuration and site design.

Architecture and Design
The DSP states the design of new buildings should draw upon the primary exterior features of the downtown’s traditional design character in terms of architectural style and materials, colors, details of construction, height, floor area, bulk, massing, and setbacks, with the design of the new buildings not representing a significant departure from the existing neighborhood character.

The project’s color schemes are generally comprised of light cream earthtone colors, with darker accent colors, with stucco and stone veneer siding for the residential and natural color brick veneer for the commercial buildings. The color and materials within the project are consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines (DTDG) and are evocative of residential and commercial architecture seen throughout the Downtown, including in both historic buildings and newer construction. Window treatments (sills and trim) meet the guidelines’ suggestions for traditional details in such features. The applicant has provided architectural detailing and accent relief on the building elevations to break up the facades and provide visual relief, with traditional details included in window treatments and other architectural features. While attached and front-positioned garages are discouraged by the DTDG, the project’s site plan would mean that garages are not highly visible from St. John Sreet, and are partially belowPage 348 of 893

grade, to help minimize visual prominence.

The house plans and commercial design offer significant detailing and articulation, and the form/shape of the buildings is visually interesting. The materials and colors are attractive and will blend well with the surrounding developments based on similar finish schemes found on other existing residences and commercial buildings in the Downtown. The new residential buildings are two-and-a-half stories in height and the commercial buildings are one-story in height, which offer a transition from the three-story Rose Hotel and is consistent with the existing two-story Barone home and residences on St. John Street. The architectural styles are acceptable styles for Downtown and would be compatible with the eclectic style of homes and commercial buildings on neighboring streets and within the Downtown.

Overall, staff and the Planning Commission supported the architectural design, massing and detailing of the proposed residences and commercial structures.

Affordable Housing and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The proposed project includes retaining the home and constructing 14 single-family homes, which is below the threshold project size specified by the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (15 or more units) to require on-site affordable units to be provided. The project would therefore be subject to payment of the City’s Affordable Housing in-lieu fee, pursuant to PMC Chapter

17.40. Traffic and Circulation
The Downtown Specific Plan EIR analyzed traffic and circulation impacts with buildout of land uses permitted under the specific plan, including an increase of approximately 370 units across the entire Specific Plan area; these impacts were found to be less than significant from a traffic impact perspective. The plan proposes to add 14 units, which falls under the 370 units analyzed in the Specific Plan area. The proposed project is estimated to generate 58 additional trips during the weekdays, 99 additional trips on Saturday, and 25 additional trips on Sunday compared to the existing uses; this represents a relatively small increase in trips over existing uses at the site, well within the projections of the EIR, and at a level that would not substantially affect the level of service (LOS) of study intersections in the DSP area. Growth associated with the proposed project was captured in the DSP FEIR’s traffic and transportation analysis, and the project would not result in greater impacts to LOS than those identified in the DSP FEIR. The design of the new project driveway was reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer with respect to safe ingress/egress from the site for residents and commercial visitors, and by the Fire Marshal with respect to emergency vehicle access and determined to provide safe and adequate access.

Further, the proposed project would not modify the use of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on St. John Street or in the DSP area; therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

The City’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and addendum to the DSP FEIR and determined no additional traffic analysis would be required and agrees with the findings in the addendum. Finally, the project has been conditioned to pay the applicable City and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees.

Parking Standards

Single-family homes are required to have two parking spaces per unit (PMC Section

18.88.030), with at least one of the spaces covered in a garage or carport. The applicant is providing two covered spaces per single-family unit, including the existing Barone home, via two-car garages. The driveways for Lots 1-4, and 7-14 have slope percentages of 14 percent, and 15 percent for Lots 5 and 6, which is sufficient to access each lot’s respective two-car garage. The City encourages, and often requires, on-site guest parking for single-family or townhome projects when there isn’t on-street parking provided within the project. During the Planning Commission work session, one of the residents of the townhomes on the north side of St. John Street requested that additional parking be provided on-site. As proposed, the project includes 10 guest parking spaces along the new private street for the 14 residences. It is noted that most of the driveways do not meet the City standard for a driveway parking space (23 feet), and so these are not counted among the parking spaces or encouraged for such use.

In the MU district, a ratio of one parking space per 300 square feet is required for commercial uses. With approximately 3,125 total square feet of commercial space, 12 parking spaces would be required. The project’s 13-stall commercial parking lot would exceed the minimum parking requirements.

Tree Removal and Landscaping
A tree report has been prepared that specifies the species, size, health, and value of the existing trees on the site that exceed 6 inches in diameter. A total of 51 existing trees were identified, including 34 heritage-sized trees. The project proposes to remove a total of 39 existing trees, including the 34 heritage-size trees. The trees require removal due to direct or significant encroachment by the proposed project and/or related site modifications.

Landscape plans have been provided for the proposed project showing new planted areas around the private street and commercial lot. The landscape plans provide a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover on the project site. The new trees proposed for the project are a combination of 24-inch and 60-inch box-sized trees. Final planting plan details would be determined at the time of building permit review and be finalized in consultation with the City’s landscape srchitect to ensure an attractive landscape would also meet the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO). The City’s landscape architect has included conditions of approval to mitigate the off set for tree removal versus the new trees to be planted.

Staff finds that the proposed landscape plan is attractive and contains sufficient landscape area throughout the project site. Staff believes once finalized with the City’s landscape architect, the density and species of the new trees would be appropriate.

Other Topics
Other topics relevant to the project include grading and drainage, relationship to the arroyo, noise and vibration, green building, Climate Action Plan, and school impact fees. The project, as conditioned, would comply with applicable standards in each of these areas. More detailed analysis and conclusions for each of these topics can be found in the Planning Commission Agenda Report in Attachment 4.

Planned Unit Development Considerations
PMC Section 18.68.110 sets forth the purposes of the PUD District and considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan. These purposes and considerations are set

forth in the draft Resolution included as Exhibit A and includes whether the plan is in conformance with the City General Plan, in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and whether the plan would be compatible with developed properties in the vicinity. As described in Exhibit A and based on the information and analysis provided in this agenda report, staff recommends the City Council make the required findings to approve the PUD rezoning and development plan.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164, provide that an addendum may be prepared to a previously approved EIR when minor changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The previous DSP FEIR (State Clearinghouse Number #2001032014) remains relevant in light of proposed changes for the mixed-use project. The changes proposed in this action do not involve new significant environmental effects or increase the severity of previously identified impacts (Section 15162.) The FEIR as amended by the addendum is, therefore, determined to be adequate to serve as the CEQA compliance document for the project. A copy of the addendum is attached for review and consideration as Attachment 1.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
The proposed development is well-designed, would preserve an existing home on-site, provide additional commercial square footage with a public plaza and parking lot, and would be compatible with other residential and commercial uses in the Downtown. As such, staff recommends the rezoning, PUD development plan, and Vesting Tentative Map merit a favorable approval by the City Council, subject to the draft conditions in Exhibit A of Attachment 2.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The proposed project would increase housing and commercial opportunities by providing new market rate housing opportunities and retaining commercial square-footage, paying affordable housing fees, assisting in advancing sustainable land uses, provides a balance between jobs and housing, adhering to green building practices, and protecting the arroyo. The location of the project, within Downtown Pleasanton, offers opportunities for new residents to enjoy the downtown’s walkable environment and easy access to services and amenities without driving, meeting both equity and sustainability goals.

OUTREACH
Notice of this meeting was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, as shown in Attachment 7, and project identification signage has been posted on-site by the applicant. The applicant has provided letters of support from the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, Pleasanton Downtown Association, and Shelley Despotakis. Staff also received a letter from Linda Behers, Board member of the St. John Court Homeowners’ Association, regarding concerns related to traffic, parking, construction, and existing trees. The letters of support and Linda Behers' letter are included in Attachment 6. 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 Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs – Strategy 4, which aims to implement the updated

2024-2028 Economic Development Strategic Plan initiatives, including retail revitalization, ensuring the vibrancy of Pleasanton’s downtown, business retention and expansion, and workforce development. This project will redeveloping a commercial site which will contribute to the continue vibrancy of the downtown, drawing more uses and providing additional jobs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project would be responsible for the payment of Development Impact Fees, affordable housing fees, permit fees, and for the costs of various required utility or infrastructure improvements as set forth in the Draft Conditions of Approval. The project would incrementally increase the demand for City services, but in addition to payment of development impact fees, the project would also add ongoing property tax revenue and potentially sales tax revenue from the use of the commercial space.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Natalie Amos, Associate
Planner
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution - Addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan FEIR

2. Ordinance - Rezoning (P21-1173) and PUD Plan (PUD-176) w/ Draft Conditions of Approval (Exh. A), Project Plans (Exh. B), and Rezoning Map (Exh. C)

3. Resolution - Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 8631)

4. Planning Commission Agenda Report without attachments dated October 23, 2024

5. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated October 23, 2024

6. Public Comments

7. Location and Noticing Map

8. Presentation

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. ___

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON, ADOPTING THE SEPTEMBER 2024 ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN

SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), WHEREAS, at its meeting of December 17, 2024, the City Council received an addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan FEIR for the application of Robson Homes, LLC., for applications for: (1) Planned Unit Development rezoning (P21-1173) of two parcels totaling approximately 2.3 acres in area from Central-Commercial (C-C) to Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Use (PUD-MU) district; (2) Planned Unit Development plan approval to: (a) retain the two-story single-family home and construct a two-story addition to the north side of the home; (b) demolish the detached accessory dwelling unit, Barone's restaurant, and all other structures and site modifications; and (c) construct 14 detached single-family homes, and two commercial buildings with a public plaza and parking lot, new private street, and related site improvements; and (3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TRACT 8631) approval to subdivide the 2.3 acres into 15 single-family lots, one commercial lot, and three private common space parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Council received and reviewed the addendum, dated September 2024, and attached as Exhibit A, and received the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on December 17, 2024, at which time the public was given the opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed projects; and

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

PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:

Section 1. Findings for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

With respect to CEQA, the City Council finds it has independently reviewed and analyzed the September 2024 Addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“DSP FEIR”)(SCH# 2001032014) and has considered the information contained therein, prior to recommending approval of the Project. The City Council further adopts the Addendum to the DSP FEIR .

The City Council makes the following findings:

1. There have not been any substantial changes in the Project that require major revisions of the DSP FEIR because of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2 2. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the DSP FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and

3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the DSP FEIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: (a) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the DSP FEIR; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the DSP FEIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the DSP FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Based upon the evidence submitted, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council, based upon the substantial evidence in the entire record, adopts the September 2024 Addendum to the DSP FEIR (SCH# 2001032014) because only minor technical changes or additions are necessary (a change in use is proposed as allowed by the DSP, building height and floor area ratios are within the DSP requirements, and parking spaces exceed required parking under the DSP). None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred with respect to the proposed mixed-use project.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Pleasanton directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk, if the Project is approved.

Section 3. 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.

3 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

475 and 493 St. John Street
Mixed-Use Project
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown
Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
(SCH #2001032014)
prepared by
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, California 94566
Contact: Natalie Amos, Associate Planner, (925) 931-5613 prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2024

EXHIBIT A

Table of Contents
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report i Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 2 Project Location and Existing Conditions .......................................................................................3 3 Project Description .......................................................................................................................11

3.1 Summary of Proposed Changes........................................................................................14 4 Decision Not to Prepare Subsequent EIR .....................................................................................15 5 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project...................................17

5.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................18

5.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................19

5.3 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................25

5.4 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources..............................................................29

5.5 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................35

5.6 Geology and Seismicity .....................................................................................................39

5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................41

5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality..........................................................................45

5.9 Land Use, Population, and Housing ..................................................................................48

5.10 Noise .................................................................................................................................50

5.11 Public Facilities and Recreation ........................................................................................54

5.12 Traffic and Transportation ................................................................................................55

5.13 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................58

5.14 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................60

5.15 Impacts Not Potentially Significant in the Final EIR..........................................................60

5.16 Other CEQA Required Considerations ..............................................................................62 6 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................63 7 References and Preparers.............................................................................................................65

7.1 References ........................................................................................................................65

7.2 List of Preparers................................................................................................................66 Tables
Table 1 Changes to Previously Approved Project..........................................................................14 Table 2 DSP and Proposed Project Potential Growth....................................................................14 Table 3 Project Construction Emissions.........................................................................................20 Table 4 Project Operational Emissions..........................................................................................21 Table 5 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Measures of 2017 CAP...............................24 Table 6 Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................................................36 Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions.............................................................................................37 Table 8 Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase at Sensitive Receivers ............................51

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
ii
Table 9 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ......................................................52 Table 10 Existing and Estimated Daily Trip Generation...................................................................57 Table 11 Generated Solid Waste and Estimated Landfill Capacity..................................................59 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Project Site..........................................................................................................................5 Figure 3 Project Site Photographs ....................................................................................................6 Figure 4 Arroyo Del Valle ..................................................................................................................8 Figure 5 Proposed Project Layout...................................................................................................12 Appendices
Appendix A California Emissions Estimator Model Calculations Appendix B Historic Resources Evaluation
Appendix C Archaeological Resources Assessment
Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Subsurface Investigation Appendix F Roadway Construction Noise Model Results

Introduction
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 1 1 Introduction
This document is an Addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2001032014), which was prepared for the City of Pleasanton’s Downtown Specific Plan, hereinafter referred to as the “DSP.” The Final EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, was certified in May 2019 by the City of Pleasanton.

The 475 and 493 St. John’s Street Mixed-Use Project (hereinafter referred to as “the Barone’s project”) would involve changes to the previously approved DSP analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, some modifications and additions are necessary to the previously certified Final EIR for the DSP.

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, codified in Sections 15000 et seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15612 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Under Section 15162 (a), where an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that there are substantial changes in the project or circumstances or substantially important new information that will cause the project to have significant new impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state:
 The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (Section 15164 (a)).  An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration (Section 15164 (c)).  The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project (Section 15164 (d)).  A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence (Section 15164 (e)).

This addendum has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines. It describes the Barone’s project and compares its impacts to those identified in the Final EIR for the DSP. The analysis demonstrates that the Barone’s project does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
2 This page intentionally left blank.

Project Location and Existing Conditions
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3 2 Project Location and Existing Conditions
The project site is located at the north end of downtown Pleasanton at 475 and 493 St. John Street, which is within the DSP area analyzed in the Final EIR (see Figure 1). The project site consists of two parcels, both of which have frontages along St. John Street on their southern boundary and abut the Arroyo del Valle on their northern boundary, and combine to comprise approximately 2.3 acres (see Figure 2). Both parcels, 475 St. John Street (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 94-114-7) and 493 St.

John Street (APN 94-114-8) are developed. The project site currently includes one single-family residence (constructed in 1887), one single-story accessory dwelling unit, one restaurant (Barone’s), surface parking, an outdoor cabana entertainment area, and various structures ancillary to Barone’s restaurant operations. Some existing structures are shown in Figure 3, with accompanying captions.

The project site has approximately 51 trees of 18 different species, 34 of which are “Heritage Trees,” as defined by PMC Chapter 17.16.

The project site is bordered to the north by City-owned open space, to the east by the Pleasanton Hotel and Rose Hotel, to the south by offices and single-family residences across St. John Street, and to the west by the St. John Court townhomes. The open space to the north is the Arroyo del Valle and associated riparian vegetation, which is shown in Figure 4. The DSP describes the Arroyo del Valle as an unchannelized1 stream that flows east to west north of the project site and collects stormwater drainage. While the project site is relatively flat with a gentle downward slope to the south, there is a steep downward slope to the stream bed adjacent to the north boundary of the project site.

Transportation Access
Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 680 (I-680). The project site is served by regional transit including the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE); ACE’s Pleasanton station is located

0.6 miles southwest of the project site with an AM peak hour headway of 65 minutes and PM peak hour headway of 60 minutes. Several Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority bus stops are within 0.5 miles of the project site.
1 I.e., a channel that has not been modified to provide flood protection.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
4 Figure 1 Regional Location

Project Location and Existing Conditions
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 5 Figure 2 Project Site

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
6 Figure 3 Project Site Photographs
Photograph 1. Existing single-family residence at 493 St. John Street, looking north from St. John Street.

Photograph 2. Existing restaurant at 475 St. John Street and main driveway, looking north from St. John Street.

Project Location and Existing Conditions
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 7 Photograph 3. Surface parking and northern fence line at 493 St. John Street, looking northwest from interior of the project site.

Photograph 4. Gazebo and landscaped area in the northeast corner of 475 St. John Street, looking northeast.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
8 Figure 4 Arroyo Del Valle
Photograph 1. Northeast corner of 493 St. John Street, looking north through the chain-link fence separating the project site from Arroyo del Valle.

Photograph 2. Northern edge of 475 St. John Street, looking east along the property line between the project site (right, across the hedgerow) and Arroyo del Valle (to the left).

Project Location and Existing Conditions
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 9 General Plan Designation, Downtown Specific Plan Designation, and Zoning The project site has two General Plan designations: 1) Commercial and Offices (Retail/Highway/Service Commercial Business and Professional Offices); and 2) Public Health and Safety with a Wildland Overlay. The Commercial and Offices designation allows for retail, highway, service commercial, and business/professional offices with floor area ratios (FAR) not to exceed 300 percent for projects within the DSP area. The Public Health and Safety designation applies to land set aside for protection from geologic, topographic, fire, or other hazards, on which no new development is permitted. The Wildlands Overlay is used to identify wildlife corridors and valuable plant and wildlife habitat, like the Arroyo del Valle. Most of the project site (specifically the developed area) is designated as Commercial and Offices, while the northern portion abutting Arroyo del Valle is designated as Public Health and Safety with a Wildland Overlay.

The project site has two DSP designations: 1) Downtown Commercial and 2) Open Space Arroyo.

Downtown Commercial allows commercial uses on the ground floor with a range of uses allowed on upper floors and development intensities consistent with zoning discussed below. Ground floor residential may be located behind commercial development on properties elsewhere in the district subject to specific criteria (i.e., criteria of DSP Policy LD-P.15). Pursuant to Policy LD-P.15 of the DSP, the Downtown Commercial designation of the project site may redevelop to a residential mixed-use project with approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to rezone the property and evaluate appropriate density and design. Policy LD-P.15 also notes that a residential-only project is not desirable, and that the existing residence is required to remain. Open Space Arroyo refers to land set aside for the protection of public health and safety adjacent to the Arroyo del Valle. The project site is split between the two designations similar to under the General Plan, discussed above.

The entirety of the project site is zoned both Central Commercial (C-C) and Downtown Revitalization District. The purpose of C-C zoning is to maintain compactness and encourage more intensive development, while maintaining district efficiency; required development conditions of approval and permitted uses are mandated in Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Section 18.44. Pursuant to PMC sections 18.44.080B and 18.08.338, the C-C zoning designation allows mixed-use redevelopment that includes residential uses. The Downtown Revitalization District has a variety of purposes, specific to protecting and revitalizing the City’s downtown area; specific requirements are laid out in PMC Section 18.74.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
10 This page intentionally left blank.

Project Description
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 11 3 Project Description
The project applicant proposes a different land use than was designated in the DSP, specifically to construct and operate a mixed residential and commercial development. The characteristics of the proposed project and modifications to the uses envisioned in the DSP are listed in more detail in Table 1 in Section 3.1 below. The Barone’s project would involve demolition of all development on the site with the exception of the existing single-family residence, and construction of 14 detached two-story single-family residences and two commercial buildings of approximately 1,300 and 1,800 square feet, respectively. The project would also include the addition of an attached garage to the rear of the existing single-family residence and construction of a one-story, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) immediately north of the proposed attached garage. The project site would be accessed via a new private street and the two commercial buildings would be accessible via a new public courtyard. The private street would be accessed via St. John Street.

Pedestrian access to the project site would be provided via the existing sidewalks on St. John Street. The proposed project layout is shown in Figure 5.

The proposed residential buildings would be wood-framed structures on post-tensioned slab foundations. The single-family residences would be constructed with one of five floor plans of varying size. The floor plans, features, and areas are described below.  Plan 1 would include 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms comprising 3,316 square feet  Plan 2A would include 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms comprising 3,642 square feet  Plan 2B would include 4 bedrooms and 4.5 bathrooms comprising 3,783 square feet  Plan 3A would include 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms comprising 3,355 square feet  Plan 3B would include 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms comprising 3,401 square feet The building heights would range from 28 feet and 5 inches to 31 feet and 2 inches. Each residence would include office flex space and a two-car garage. No basements are proposed. Utilities would be constructed underground and would connect to existing utilities (potable water, sanitary sewage, and stormwater drainage) that currently serve St. John Street. The private street would be constructed at widths to accommodate emergency vehicle turning radii. In addition to garage parking, there would be 11 guest parking spaces on the private street and 2 EV-charging parking stalls for the commercial buildings.

The proposed commercial buildings would be constructed to the east of the proposed private street and west of the existing adjacent Rose Hotel, and would have frontages along St. John Street. An approximately 1,560 square foot plaza would be in between the two commercial buildings. Each building would be one story, with a maximum height of 23 feet. The total floor to area ratio on the commercial lot, including both buildings, attached restroom, and trash room, would be 0.28.

The proposed project would retain 12 existing trees and remove 39 existing trees, 34 of which are considered “Heritage trees” and would require a tree removal permit (PMC Chapter 17.16). The project would also include planting approximately 36 new trees, which would primarily be planted along the proposed private road and within the commercial parking lot. Erosion control with native plants, native grass mixes, and various shrubs would be planted throughout the project site. Plants would be drought tolerant, California native, Mediterranean species, or other appropriate species.

No invasive species as listed by the California Invasive Plant Council would be used.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
12 Figure 5 Proposed Project Layout
Source: Robson Homes
Residences along the Arroyo del Valle creek would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank (PMC Section 9.14.090) and would be a hardscape design with raised planters. Irrigation and stormwater would be collected and directed to onsite stormwater facilities which would include bioretention areas and silva cells. No water would be directly released into the creek. The project would result in 55,425 square feet of impervious surface and would result in a net decrease in impervious area within the project site. Approximately 44,763 square feet of pervious area would remain out of the total 2.3-acre project site.

Project Description
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 13 Green Building Features
The proposed project would include several sustainability features to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and meet City-wide sustainability goals. The project would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) as well as PMC Chapter 17.50, Green Building.

The project would be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver certified.

Pursuant to PMC Section 20.26.370, Section 5.106.13 added—All-electric buildings, the proposed residences would be all-electric and would have no natural gas or propane plumbing installed.

Electricity would be the sole source of energy for space and water heating. The residential portion of the proposed project would include a photovoltaic solar array on the roof of all houses pursuant to the California Energy Code. The proposed commercial buildings would use natural gas. Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system (HVAC) systems to be installed as part of the project would incorporate the lowest global warming potential refrigerants. The project would provide adequate recycling, compost, and landfill containers to meet Senate Bill 1383 and comply with PMC Chapter

9.20, Garbage. The project would incorporate water-efficiency measures, including efficient water fixtures and climate adapted plantings.

Construction
Construction would commence towards the end of 2024 or early 2025, which is within the DSP’s planning horizon of 2040. Overall construction of the Barone’s project would take approximately 26 months, including demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction would occur on all days, except for Sundays and holidays from approximately 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. (within PMC regulations). All structures on the project site would be demolished, except for the single-family residence, resulting in a total of 1,877 square feet of demolished buildings. Grading would likely result in approximately 4,200 cubic yards of material being exported from the site, and material would be hauled to the Pleasanton Landfill at 3110 Busch Road. All construction equipment would be staged onsite and several pieces of equipment would include the use of only Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines, as detailed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. The project would comply with PMC Chapter 9.21, Construction and Demolition Debris, and achieve recycling or reuse of at least 90 percent of Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete and at least 75 percent of the remaining construction and demolition debris.

Required Approvals
Prior to development the following discretionary approvals from the City would be required:
 PUD Mixed-Use application to rezone the two parcels from C-C to PUD-MU  Building Permit for addition and ADU on existing residential property Furthermore, while not anticipated, if the project were to result in alterations to the riparian corridor of Arroyo del Valle or discharge of stormwater into Arroyo del Valle, Waste Discharge Requirements from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) and a Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may be required. It is not expected that the project would result in the discharge of dredged or fill materials into Arroyo del Valle; accordingly, a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not anticipated to be required.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
14 3.1 Summary of Proposed Changes
Key differences between the DSP analyzed in the Final EIR and the Barone’s project that are relevant to the environmental analysis are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Changes to Previously Approved Project
Project Characteristic1 DSP (Allowable/Required) Barone’s Project (Proposed) Maximum Building Height
Existing Single-Family Residence to Remain 40 feet 30 feet (two stories) 14 Proposed Single-Family Residences 40 feet Maximum of 31 feet 2 inches 2 Proposed Commercial Buildings 40 feet 23 feet (one story) Total Residential Units Allowable with rezone to PUD
pursuant to DSP Policy LD-P.15
15 units
Existing Single-Family Residence to Remain Must remain, be remodeled, or enlarged
Remain as is (1 unit)
14 Proposed Single-Family Residences Mixed-use redevelopment with residential allowed with PUD
application approval
14 units
Floor Area Ratios
Residential 300 percent 51 percent
Non-Residential 300 percent 29 percent
Parking
Residential 28 spaces 53 spaces2
Non-Residential 10 spaces 14 spaces
sf = square feet
1While existing zoning does not allow residential, project characteristics are listed assuming one of the two project approvals occurs 2 Includes 2 covered private spaces per unit, 1 space per driveway of each unit, and 11 guest spaces along the proposed private street Potential growth associated with buildout of the DSP and development associated with the project are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 DSP and Proposed Project Potential Growth
Characteristic DSP Projected Growth Barone’s Project
Housing Units 370 14 + one Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Population2 1,000 40
Non-Residential SF 260,700 3,100
Jobs3 500 6
1 Potential Growth numbers shown in the DSP (Allowable/Required) column consist of growth projection numbers for the entire DSP area.
2 Assuming 2.83 people per household and housing vacancy rate of 3.6% (methodology used in the Final EIR) 3 Assuming 510 sf per retail job (methodology used in the Final EIR)

Decision Not to Prepare Subsequent EIR
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 15 4 Decision Not to Prepare Subsequent EIR
As outlined in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

The impact analysis that follows demonstrates that the Barone’s project would not introduce new, significant environmental impacts beyond those that have already been identified and characterized in the Final EIR and that there are no substantial changes in the project or circumstances or substantially important new information that would cause the project to have significant new impacts or substantially increase previously identified significant impacts. None of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would call for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred or would occur because of the Barone’s project. Therefore, this addendum is the appropriate level of environmental documentation to provide under CEQA. The City of Pleasanton will include this addendum, along with the Final EIR for the DSP, in its consideration of the Barone’s project.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
16 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 17 5 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Changes to the Original Project
This addendum evaluates the changes proposed under the Barone’s project compared to the DSP against the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 criteria, to determine whether a subsequent EIR is necessary for the Barone’s project. The existing environmental conditions on and around the project site are substantially the same under present conditions as those described in the Final EIR.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of environmental issues areas suggested for assessment in a CEQA analysis. The Final EIR addressed all of these environmental issue areas. The issue areas studied included the following:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources2
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources2
 Noise and Vibration
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation/Traffic
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities
 Wildfire3
To provide a thorough and conservative analysis of potential impacts associated with the Barone’s project, this addendum addresses all 20 environmental issue areas included in Appendix G of the current CEQA Guidelines.

Potential environmental impacts of the Barone’s project are analyzed to determine if they are consistent with the impact analysis provided in the Final EIR, and if additional mitigation measures are required to minimize or avoid further potential impacts. Where the following analysis identifies impacts, discussion of previously identified mitigation measures from the Final EIR and existing applicable policies and regulations are discussed, as relevant, with respect to mitigating potential impacts from the Barone’s project. Topics with the greatest potential for different impacts are addressed first, followed by briefer discussions of topics with minimal potential for different impacts, based on the scope and scale of the proposed project modifications. 2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources are discussed in Section 3.14, Impacts not Potentially Significant, of the DSP EIR.
3 Wildfire was discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the DSP EIR.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
18 5.1 Aesthetics
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The DSP identifies Arroyo del Valle as a scenic resource within the DSP area. The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, as there are limited scenic vistas in the DSP area and all development would be required to conform to applicable existing regulations, development standards, and design standards that address the preservation of public scenic vistas. Design standards, included in the Land Use and Design chapter of the DSP, include but are not limited to building design standards for businesses in the downtown area.

There are no designated State Scenic Highways in the DSP area, and accordingly development facilitated by the DSP would not damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. The Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the DSP area and its surroundings, as proposed development or redevelopment would be required to conform with DSP policies that preserve and enhance the character of the DSP area. Additionally, while new development under the DSP would add new sources of light and glare to the DSP area, existing and proposed policies and regulations would minimize impacts to day- and nighttime views of the DSP area. Overall, the Final EIR concluded that implementation of the DSP would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site is immediately south of Arroyo del Valle. Public views of Arroyo del Valle from St.

John Street are already limited by existing development and trees along the arroyo. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a public scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant. As identified in the Final EIR, there are no State Scenic Highways in the DSP area, and the project would not damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway.

There would be no impact.

Although the project applicant proposes a different land use than what was designated in the DSP and would alter the visual character of the site through the introduction of more intense development, the project would still be required to conform with DSP policies that aim to preserve and enhance the character of the downtown area. These policies include the Downtown Design Guidelines, which provide guidance for new construction and redevelopment in the DSP area. The Downtown Design Guidelines include guidance for the siting, construction, architectural style, and signage for businesses and residences in the downtown area to encourage new development to fit in with the established pattern of the downtown. Therefore, with compliance with existing policies, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the DSP area and its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the conclusions of the Final EIR, the project would add new sources of light and glare; however, the project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and already have sources of light and glare; further, new lighting included in the project would be required to conform with the Downtown Design Guidelines, which outline standards for allowable lighting and lighted signs in different districts of the downtown, require exterior lighting to be shielded and be compatible with residential surroundings, and call for the use of tinted windows in storefronts to reduce glare. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to light and glare.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 19 Overall, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to aesthetics, similar to the Final EIR for the DSP.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to aesthetics, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to those identified in the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased aesthetics impacts would occur compared to those discussed in the Final EIR.

5.2 Air Quality
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air Plan. The analysis therein demonstrated the DSP would support the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan, would include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan, and would not hinder implementation of any control measures. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would violate air quality standards, contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations, and would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment. The DSP would involve implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which would require development projects facilitated by the DSP to prepare a technical assessment that evaluates construction-related air quality impacts, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which would require development projects facilitated by the DSP to prepare a technical assessment that evaluates operation-related air quality impacts. However, even with implementation of these mitigation measures, development facilitated by the DSP would generate ozone and particulate matter, criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
In accordance with Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 of the DSP, a technical assessment of the project’s construction and operational air quality impacts is provided below.

Air Quality Standards

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction associated with the Barone’s project would generate short term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria air pollutants of primary concern within the project area include ozone (O3) precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitric oxide [NOx]) and particulate matter with diameter 10 microns or less and 2.5 microns or less (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction generated emissions are of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur,

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
20 but would be considered to result in a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Temporary generation of construction emissions would result from demolition, site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

The duration of construction activities associated with the Barone’s project is estimated to last approximately 26 months. Construction-generated emissions associated with the Barone’s project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.

CalEEMod uses project-specific information, including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses (e.g., residential, and commercial), and location, to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. Estimated average daily construction-generated emissions for the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Project Construction Emissions
Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day)

ROG NOX CO SOX
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
2025 2 20 23 <1 1 1
2026 2 13 15 <1 <1 <1
2027 <1 <1 <1 < <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds (average daily emissions) 54 54 N/A N/A 82 54 Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A No No
Lbs./day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide N/A = notapplicable (no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX); BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Source: See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A.

As shown in Table 3, construction-related emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds.

BAAQMD does not have quantitative thresholds for fugitive dust emissions during construction. The City requires implementation of a dust control plan, pursuant to the standard condition of approval (COA) included below, which would reduce fugitive dust during construction. The dust control plan may include Best Management Practices (BMPs from Table 5-2 of BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2023). The City also has a standard COA that would designate a “disturbance coordinator” in case of complaints regarding construction fugitive dust. Given that construction would be temporary, and the standard COAs would be implemented, impacts from fugitive dust would be less than significant. Therefore, although the DSP anticipated significant and unavoidable impacts for regional air pollutants, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 21 Standard Conditions of Approval
 Dust Control Plan: The applicant shall submit a written dust control plan or procedure with the first submittal of the grading and improvement plans to the Engineering Department subject to the review and approval of the Director of Engineering/City Engineer.  Disturbance Coordinator: The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise, dust, construction parking, etc. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require the implementation of reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted on the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign shall also list an emergency after-hours contact number for the disturbance coordinator, or designee.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operation of the Barone’s project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment) and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the Barone’s project site). Pursuant to PMC Section

20.26.370, Section 5.106.13 added—All-electric buildings, the proposed residences would not consume natural gas; therefore, energy source emissions would not be generated by the residences.

Emissions from the existing restaurant is subtracted from the Barone’s project operational emissions to determine the net increase of air quality emissions from the project. Table 4 summarizes the project’s maximum daily operational emissions by emission source.

Table 4 Project Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Sources ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Mobile <1 <1 3 1 <1 <1
Area 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Existing Emissions (1) (<1) (3) (1) (<1) (<1)
Net Project Emissions 1 0 <1 <1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Mobile <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Existing Emissions (<1) (<1) (1) (<1) (<1) (<1)
Total Project Emissions <1 0 <1 <1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 N/A 15 10 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
Lbs./day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxide N/A = notapplicable (no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX); BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

Source: Average daily and annual emissions. See Table 2.6 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated”. See CalEEMod worksheets in Appendix A. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
22 The DSP EIR anticipated operational emissions for ROG and PM2.5 would have a significant and unavoidable impact. However, as shown in Table 4, operational emissions of the project would not exceed BAAQMD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
The Barone’s project would generate approximately 239 daily vehicle trips during the weekday, 159 daily vehicle trips on Saturday, and 128 daily vehicle trips on Sunday. The trip generation rates for single family and commercial building developments were based on average trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 10th edition of the Trip Generation Manual (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2022). BAAQMD recommends comparing project’s attributes with the following screening criteria as a first step to evaluating whether the project would result in the generation of carbon monoxide concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of the Thresholds of Significance. The project would result in a less than significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations if:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

2. The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at the affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage).

As discussed further in Section 5.12, Traffic and Transportation, the project would result in a net decrease in vehicle trips compared to trips generated by existing land uses within the project site.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Alameda County Congestion Management Program. According to the City of Pleasanton Traffic Volume Map, the traffic volumes in 2020 near the project site have an existing traffic volume of 12,000 vehicles per day (City of Pleasanton 2020).

Therefore, the estimated 12,239 vehicle trips per day on the intersection of Saint John Street and Santa Rita Road would not exceed the thresholds of 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour as outlined in screening criteria 2 and 3 above. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact related to carbon monoxide concentrations. Sensitive Receptors and Substantial Pollutant Concentrations.

In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the State and federal governments as toxic air contaminants (TACs). The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emissions from heavy equipment operations. The Barone’s project construction would occur over approximately 26 months. The nearest sensitive receptors include the single-family residence located within the project site, and residences adjacent to the project site to the west. The Barone’s project would be consistent with the applicable Clean Air Plan requirements and control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. The Barone’s project would be required to comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 23 The project would incorporate advanced engine tiers into construction equipment, such as loaders, excavators, and rollers, which would be equipped with either Tier 3 or Tier 4 engines. Some construction equipment would be equipped with diesel particulate filter technology. In addition, pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 of the Final EIR, this analysis conducted project-specific analysis using CalEEMod and found construction emissions were well below BAAQMD’s regional thresholds. Therefore, construction health impacts would be less than significant.

CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). CARB guidelines recommend siting distances both for the development of sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources and for the addition of new TAC sources in proximity to existing sensitive land uses. The Barone’s project is not near potential sources of TAC emissions as listed above. In addition, single-family units and general commercial land uses are not considered land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions based on reviewing the air toxic sources listed in CARB’s guidelines. Therefore, the expected hazardous TACs generated on site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the proposed land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. The Barone’s project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or TACs. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

ODORS
The project would generate oil and diesel fuel odors during construction from equipment use. The odors would be limited to the construction period and would be intermittent and temporary.

Furthermore, these odors would dissipate rapidly with distance from in-use construction equipment. Accordingly, project construction would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

According to the BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines (2023), land uses associated with odor complaints to include, but not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The Barone’s project, single-family with commercial retail land uses, would not include any of these uses. Operational odor emissions would be limited to odors associated with vehicle engine exhaust and trash receptacles. Solid waste generated by the proposed on-site uses would be collected by a contracted waste hauler, ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to prevent the proliferation of odors. Operational odor impacts would be less than significant.

CONSISTENCY WITH BAAQMD CLEAN AIR PLAN
The California CAA requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the 2017 CAP. The 2017 CAP does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes control measures related to stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-GHG pollutants. A project that would not support the 2017 CAP’s goals would not be consistent with the 2017 CAP. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the CAP’s goals. As

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
24 shown in Table 3 and Table 4), the project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants with mitigation incorporated and thus would not conflict with the 2017 CAP’s goal to attain air quality standards. Furthermore, as shown in Table 5, the proposed project would include applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of such control measures. Therefore, project impacts related to consistency with the 2017 CAP would be less than significant.

Table 5 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Measures of 2017 CAP Control Measure Evaluation
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities.

Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent. The project would include bicycle parking spaces consistent with the latest Title 24 CALGreen Standards.

EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Work with local
governments to adopt additional energy-efficiency
policies and programs. Support local government
energy efficiency program via best practices, model
ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners
to develop messaging to decrease electricity demand
during peak times.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the energy efficiency standards of the latest Title 24 (including the California Energy Code and CALGreen).

The Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time. In addition, a photovoltaic (PV) solar array on the roof of all residences would be installed pursuant to the California Energy Code.

BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with partners such as KyotoUSA to identify energy-related improvements and
opportunities for on-site renewable energy systems in
school districts; investigate funding strategies to
implement upgrades. Identify barriers to effective local implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24) statewide
building energy code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement. Work with ABAG’s
BayREN program to make additional funding available
for energy-related projects in the buildings sector.

Engage with additional partners to target reducing
emissions from specific types of buildings.

Consistent. The proposed project would include a PV system consistent with the latest Title 24 Standards. The proposed residences would be all-electric and would have no natural gas or propane plumbing installed. The CALGreen standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time.

WR2: Support Water Conservation. Develop a list of
best practices that reduce water consumption and
increase on-site water recycling in new and existing
buildings; incorporate into local planning guidance.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with water conservation standards of CALGreen that are in effect at that time. The project would incorporate water-efficiency measures, including efficient water fixtures and climate adapted plantings.

Source: BAAQMD 2017
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to air quality, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. The DSP policies, applicable City COAs, and Mitigation Measures which were required for the original project, would remain applicable.

Conclusion
The DSP found air quality impacts to be significant and unavoidable. However, the Barone project impacts would be less than significant, and no significant new or substantially increased air quality impacts would occur compared to the original project.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 25

5.3 Biological Resources
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR recognizes that although the DSP area is mostly developed, it includes Arroyo del Valle, a westward flowing stream that originates in northeastern Santa Clara County and feeds into Lake Del Valle. The Final EIR identifies habitat of special status species located along Arroyo del Valle, including but not limited to habitat for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Chinook salmon, and western pond turtle. In other parts of the DSP area, special-status species including but not limited to Crotch bumble bee, western bumble bee, and Alameda whipsnake have been recorded. Because the DSP would discourage development along Arroyo del Valle, and DSP Policy LD-P.62 would require projects around Arroyo del Valle to implement measures to minimize potentially negative effects, the Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP would not have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species. Similarly, because the DSP included policies to support implementation of the Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan, the Final EIR concluded that the DSP would not result in substantial adverse effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.

The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, including portions of Arroyo del Valle, as development projects facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with existing regulations such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Pleasanton’s Watercourse Protection Ordinance. Additionally, the DSP includes policies that require developers of projects located along Arroyo del Valley to assess existing conditions and prepare channel/habitat restoration plans and wildlife and habitat monitoring programs. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that implementation of the DSP would not result in substantial adverse effects to resident or migratory wildlife and would not impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

Additionally, the Final EIR determined that the DSP would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, as the DSP would require developers to implement measures to protect existing trees and biological resources. The Final EIR also concluded that the DSP would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Overall, the Final EIR concluded that the DSP would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site is immediately south of and adjacent to Arroyo del Valle, and the project would include construction of residences in the northern portion of the project site along Arroyo del Valle.

The project site is within the Wildland Overlay of the City’s General Plan and has a DSP designation of Open Space Arroyo. Residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank, and the project would not include modifications to the bed, channel or banks of Arroyo del Valle.

During construction, the project would involve excavation and grading activities that could result in erosion and sedimentation within Arroyo del Valle. Potential spills from construction equipment could result in contamination of Arroyo del Valle, which would be a potentially substantial adverse effect on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. However, the project would be required to conform with the policies of the DSP, several of which aim to protect and enhance the condition of Arroyo del Valle. Applicable DSP policies include:

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
26 LD-P.66. Conservation of the Arroyo del Valle. Require developers of future projects involving land within and adjacent to the Arroyo del Valle to implement the following measures to minimize potentially negative impacts to the Arroyo:
 Coordinate with the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies and secure all required construction and grading permits.
 Conduct an assessment of existing conditions, including topography, waterline location, trees, and other major natural site features.
 Identify the existing plant and wildlife communities and species.  Prepare detailed channel/habitat restoration and enhancement plans for project impact areas that retain or enhance existing channel hydraulic capacity.  Prepare wildlife and habitat monitoring programs to ensure the long-term success of channel/habitat restoration and enhancement plans.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of construction and grading permits, as outlined in the policy above. Although it is not anticipated that the project would require ground disturbance within the riparian corridor of Arroyo del Valle, the project applicant would be required to prepare a channel/habitat restoration and enhancement plan if Arroyo del Valle or its riparian habitat are impacted by construction ground disturbance or stormwater discharge.

Additionally, state and federal wetland and waters protections such as Clean Water Act, PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code would also apply, and the appropriate authorizations would be required to be secured prior to construction in coordination with the environmental regulatory agencies. Further, as described further in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would disturb more than one acre of land and the project applicant would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Permit No. CAS612008).

As described therein, compliance with state regulations would avoid and minimize erosion and contamination to the extent feasible by requiring erosion and sediment controls and runoff water quality monitoring.

In operation, the proposed project would result in a net decrease in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, which would not generate additional stormwater runoff. Additionally, the project would involve irrigation of landscaped areas. Stormwater and irrigation water runoff into Arroyo del Valle could have an adverse effect on special status species, sensitive natural communities, and state and federally protected wetlands/waters. However, stormwater and irrigation water from the project site would be collected and directed to onsite bioretention areas and silva cells, and no water would be directly released into Arroyo del Valle. This project feature is consistent with Chapter 9.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control of the PMC; additionally, the project would be subject to the following DSP policy:

LD-P.67. Best Management Practices. Require developers and business owners to operate projects to minimize impacts to the Arroyo.
 Require the owners of new businesses that locate adjacent to the Arroyo to implement strategies to avoid trash and other waste from entering the Arroyo, including, covering trash cans so that wildlife cannot access them; properly disposing of food waste; and prohibiting dumping.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 27 Compliance with required stormwater controls and implementation of the above DSP policy would minimize stormwater runoff and pollution in Arroyo del Valle. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to special status species, habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands associated with Arroyo del Valle during operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would occur adjacent to Arroyo del Valle, which provides a corridor for movement of native fish and wildlife species, including special status species such as California redlegged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, and Chinook salmon. However, the project site is located within an urban setting with existing roads and development; the existing area to be developed adjacent to the creek is a paved parking lot with chain-link fencing; and the new residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with fish and wildlife movement compared with existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would involve removal of 39 trees on the project site, 34 of which are considered “Heritage trees” pursuant to PMC Chapter 17.16. The project applicant would be required to obtain a tree removal permit from the City. In addition, the project applicant would be required to comply with the following City standard COAs associated with tree removal:

Standard Conditions of Approval
 Tree Report. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the tree report prepared by Richard Gessner of March Consulting Arborists dated December 3, 2020. No tree trimming or pruning other than that specified in the tree report shall occur. The applicant shall arrange for the Project Arborist to conduct a field inspection prior to building permit issuance to ensure all recommendations have been properly implemented. The Project Arborist shall certify in writing all recommendations have been followed.
 Tree Removal Mitigation. Any trees approved to be removed by the City shall have its full value paid into the City’s Urban Forestry Fund. A credit for replanting trees shall be as follows:
 $200 credit for a 15-gallon size replacement tree;
 $400 credit for a 24-inch box size replacement tree; and  $800 credit for a 36-inch box size replacement tree.
 Tree Bond. Any tree affected by development/construction must be protected per the Municipal Code. The applicant shall post cash, letter of credit, or other security satisfactory to the Director of Engineering/City Engineer, for all Heritage Trees and any other significant tree as deemed by the City Landscape Architect. This bond or security will be for the value of the tree(s), up to a maximum of $100,000, and shall be held for a minimum of 1 year following acceptance of public improvements of completion of construction, whichever is later, and shall be forfeited if the trees are destroyed or substantially damaged. An arborist shall be onsite during any tree work (i.e. root pruning, trimming, setting up tree protection, etc.). The bond or security may be released early with a certification letter by the arborist confirming he/she was present during said tree work and work was performed in accordance with the arborist’s recommendations.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
28  Tree Protection Fencing. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall install temporary 6-foot tall chain-link fencing (or other fence type acceptable to the Landscape Architecture Division) outside of the existing tree drip lines. The location of the tree protection fencing shall be shown on the demolition plans (if applicable), grading, building, and/or landscape plans. The fencing shall remain in place until final landscape inspection by the Landscape Architecture Division. Removal of such fencing prior to approval may result in a “stop work order.”
 Project Plans. The following statements shall be printed on the demolition, grading and landscape plans where applicable to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of building permits:
 No existing tree may be trimmed or pruned without prior approval by the City Landscape Architect.
 Utilize best efforts to locate any new utility trenches outside of the existing canopy of the trees to be saved. If this is not feasible, the applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist acceptable to the City indicating trenching will not be detrimental to the health of the tree.
 Nothing may be stored within the dripline of the tree canopies. This includes equipment, oil, gas, chemicals, harmful materials, fill or storage.
 No oil, gasoline, chemicals, or other harmful materials shall be deposited or disposed within the dripline of the trees or in drainage channels, swales, or areas that may lead to the dripline.
 No sign, wires, or ropes shall be attached to the trees.  No stockpiling/storage of construction materials, fill, etc., shall take place underneath or within 5-feet of the dripline of the existing trees.
 No equipment or temporary structures shall be placed within or beneath the dripline of the existing trees.

With compliance with PMC Chapter 17.16 and City standard conditions of approval, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to biological resources, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. The DSP policies and applicable City COAs, which were required for the original project, would remain applicable.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to impacts identified in the Final EIR for the DSP, and no significant new or substantially increased biological resources impacts would occur compared to those identified for the DSP.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 29

5.4 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Historical Resources
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the DSP would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, as the DSP does not propose redevelopment of historic properties. Although future development and redevelopment facilitated by the DSP could affect historic resources, the DSP includes policies to protect historic buildings from demolition and that modifications to historic buildings closely reflect the existing architectural character of the building. With implementation of existing General Plan policies, state regulations, and DSP policies, the DSP would result in less than significant impacts to historical resources.

Archaeological Resources
The Final EIR states that implementation of the DSP could cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource during grading and excavation for projects facilitated by the DSP. However, existing General Plan policies would minimize or avoid impacts by requiring the protection and preservation of archaeological resources. The Final EIR determined that compliance with General Plan policies would reduce the DSP’s potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Paleontological Resources
The Final EIR states that there are no known fossil localities in the DSP area, but that there is potential for unknown paleontological resources to be discovered during development allowed under the DSP given the presence of fossils in the Livermore-Amador Valley region. The Final EIR concluded that the implementation program HP-I.7 in the DSP would ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Human Remains
The Final EIR states that human remains, particularly those interred outside of formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading and excavation activities of projects facilitated by the DSP. The discovery of human remains is regulated by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 7052. Accordingly, the Final EIR concludes that with compliance with these regulations, impacts of the DSP on human remains would be less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The Final EIR identifies that there are no previously recorded tribal cultural resources within or adjacent to the DSP area but acknowledges that there is moderate potential for discovery of tribal cultural resources along Arroyo del Valle and other parts of Pleasanton. As part of preparation of the DSP EIR, the City of Pleasanton sent notification letters to tribes affiliated with the DSP area pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The Final EIR notes that no tribes submitted a request for consultation. The Final EIR states that tribal cultural resources could be encountered during grading and excavation activities for projects facilitated by the DSP; however, the City’s General Plan contains policies that would serve to minimize or avoid impacts as they require protection and preservation of such resources. Additionally, the Final EIR states that future projects

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
30 would be required to comply with the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and incorporate tribal consultation into the CEQA environmental review process. The Final EIR concludes that with existing General Plan policies and state requirements, the impact of the DSP on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Overall, impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Historical Resources
The following analysis incorporates information from the Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared for the project by TreanorHL in February 2021. The HRE is included as Appendix B to this Addendum.

The project site is primarily occupied by a restaurant building, which was originally constructed prior to 1888 and incorporates small, recent additions on every building façade. A single-story, gable-roof building and four small single-story structures are adjacent to the restaurant building and dining area, and these structures were added to the site within the last two decades. The single-family residence within the project site, 493 St. John Street, was also constructed prior to 1888 and has experienced several modifications since its original construction, including window replacement, relocation of the main entrance, siding replacement, and several other small additions. The accessory dwelling unit associated with the house was constructed by 1943. Additionally, three prefabricated single-story accessory structures are associated with the house, all of which were added to the site within the last five years (Appendix B).

Due to their age, the restaurant building and the single-family residence required evaluation for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 1. These criteria pertain to properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history. The HRE determined that the restaurant and the single-family residence are not eligible for listing under other criteria of the NRHP or CRHR, and the other accessory structures on the site are not eligible for listing under any criteria of the NRHP or CRHR (Appendix B).

The HRE evaluated the integrity of the restaurant and the single-family residence to determine if the properties qualified for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion A and Criterion 1, respectively.

The HRE determined that although the restaurant building retains integrity for remaining in its original location, the property does not retain integrity of its original form and massing, its original scale, or its original use as a residential structure. Therefore, the HRE concludes the restaurant building does not retain sufficient integrity to be significant under Criterion A of the NRHP and Criterion 1 of the CRHR, and the property is not eligible for listing as a historic resource (Appendix B).

Similarly, although the single-family residence retains integrity for remaining in its original location, the residence has been substantially altered and does not retain integrity of its original architectural style, design and workmanship. Additionally, the residence does not retain integrity of setting due to surrounding new development. Therefore, the HRE concludes that the single-family residence does not retain sufficient integrity to be significant under Criterion A of the NRHP and Criterion 1 of the CRHR, and the property is not eligible for listing as a historic resource (Appendix B).

The project would involve demolition of the restaurant structure, while the single-family residence would remain on site. Because the restaurant does not qualify as a historic resource, its removal

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 31 would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Additionally, because the single-family residence does not qualify as a historic resource, development adjacent to the residence would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource by altering its setting. Impacts would be less than significant, similar to those discussed in the Final EIR for the DSP as a whole.

Archaeological Resources
The following analysis incorporates information from the Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA) prepared for the proposed project by Rincon Consultants, Inc., in October 2023. The ARA is included as Appendix C. The ARA included a records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, and of the NRHP, CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Built Environment Resources Directory, and the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.

Background and archival research undertaken as part of the ARA included a review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, geologic maps, soils maps, and previously conducted archaeological resource evaluation. The complete results of these searches are discussed in Appendix C. The ARA also included a pedestrian survey of the project site. Exposed ground surfaces were examined for artifacts, ecofacts, soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historical debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics).

The records search identified 10 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5 mile radius of the project, two of which are the studies of the restaurant building and single-family residence within the project site performed by TreanorHL and documented in the HRE (Appendix B).

No other previously conducted studies overlap with the project site, and none of these surveys identified archaeological resources (Appendix C). The geologic maps review identified that the project site has high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources due to underlying soil types and proximity to Arroyo del Valle. The field survey did not identify archaeological resources (Appendix C).

The ARA did not identify archaeological resources or archaeological deposits in the project site.

However, the lack of surface evidence of archaeological materials does not preclude their subsurface existence. Due to the project site’s geologic setting and its proximity to Arroyo Valle, there is a high potential for buried archaeological deposits to be extant within the project site.

Construction of the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, which would be significant impact.

Pleasanton’s General Plan includes Program 5.2, which requires new development to “follow the recommendations contained within archaeological and historical architecture studies regarding rehabilitation or preservation of archaeologically or historically significant structures and sites” (City of Pleasanton 2005).The ARA includes recommendations that would involve implementation of a worker environmental awareness program, archaeological monitoring during construction, and archaeological resource recovery protocol if resources are encountered during construction.

Accordingly, the project would involve implementation of the recommendations within the ARA as conditions of approval, and the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource with compliance with General Plan Program 5.2 and the recommendations made in the ARA. Impacts to archaeological resources would not be greater than those anticipated in the Final EIR. The recommended conditions of approval to implement Program

5.2 are as follows:

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
 Worker Environmental Awareness Program: Prior to the start of ground disturbance, the construction crew should participate in on-site training on the proper procedures to follow if cultural resources are uncovered during excavations, site preparation, or other related activities. This Worker Environmental Awareness Program should include a comprehensive discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law, samples or visuals of artifacts that might be found in the vicinity of the Project site, a discussion of what such artifacts may look like when partially buried or wholly buried and then freshly exposed, a discussion of what prehistoric and historic-period archaeological deposits look like at the surface and when exposed during construction, and instruction that employees are to halt work in the vicinity of a discovery (within 50 feet). This information should be provided in a kick-off meeting or with an informational brochure that outlines reporting procedures in the event of a discovery, which would be provided to all individuals working on-site.
 Archaeological Monitoring: Archaeological monitoring under the direction of an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be performed during permitted ground disturbing activities.

Activities that would require an archaeological monitor include mass grading and excavation with mechanical equipment. Based on the level of prior development within the project site, Rincon recommends that archaeological monitoring be initiated once ground disturbing activities such as rough grading encounter previously undisturbed soils. Undisturbed soils are expected to be encountered roughly 18 inches below the ground surface in landscaped areas or paved areas. Activities requiring the use of hand tools are not recommended for monitoring.

During monitoring, the monitors will examine the work areas for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., chipped stone tools and production debris, stone milling tools, ceramics), historicperiod debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), and/or soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden. Each monitor should maintain a daily log documenting ground disturbing activity, work locations, description, and provenience of any archaeological discoveries (if any), and any necessary action items for monitoring. Archaeological monitoring may be reduced or terminated at the discretion of the archaeologist in consultation with the City, as warranted by conditions such as encountering bedrock, the presence of fill soil, or negative findings during initial ground disturbance. If monitoring is reduced to spot-checking, spot-checking should occur when ground disturbance moves to a new location or when ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously excavated (unless those depths are within bedrock).
 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources: In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 33 impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance.

The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Paleontological Resources
Ground-disturbing construction activities in previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivity could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Significant impacts to paleontological resources include the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources or associated stratigraphic data.

The Barone’s project site is mapped as Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits by Helley and Graymer (1997). Holocene floodplain deposits consist of gray sandy or silty clay with occasional lenses of silt, sand, or gravel. Test borings conducted for the project’s geotechnical investigation encountered a 7-inch layer of asphalt and artificial fill, clay, and sandy silt from 7 inches to 12 feet, and clayey to gravelly sand from 12 to 48 feet (Geo-Logic Associates 2020). The description of the sediments from 7 inches to 12 feet, which are anticipated to be the only sediments impacted by Barone’s project construction, generally agrees with the description of Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits of Helley and Graymer (1997). Holocene-aged sediments are generally considered too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources, as described in the Society of Vertebrates Paleontology (SVP; 2010) guidelines. Therefore, Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits have low paleontological sensitivity.

Holocene-aged geologic units, such as Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits, may be underlain by older (i.e., 5,000 years old or more), higher-sensitivity sediments in the subsurface. The depth at which this transition to 5,000-year-old sediments occurs is unknown. Ground-disturbing construction activities for the Barone’s project will include grading for building pads and excavations for new utilities, sewer lines, and storm water infrastructure, that is expected to require up to 4,200 CY of excavated sediment. Grading for building pads is expected to reach as much as 5 feet below the surface. At this depth, it is unlikely that 5,000-year-old sediments will occur. Excavations for utility lines and stormwater infrastructure will reach as much as 9 feet below the surface. Although it is more likely that older, potentially paleontologically sensitive sediments will be encountered at this greater depth, the overall volume of such sediments would be small. Therefore, the potential impacts to paleontological resources as a result of the Barone’s project are the same as those identified in the Final EIR.

Human Remains
As discussed in the Final EIR, human remains could be disturbed during project grading and excavation activities. The discovery of human remains is regulated by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 7052. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD must complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access and provide recommendations as to the treatment of the remains to the landowner. With adherence to existing regulations, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
34 Tribal Cultural Resources
Rincon Consultants sent a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request to the Native American Heritage Commission. On August 27, 2023, the Native American Heritage Commission responded that the results of the search were negative (Appendix C). As described above, the City of Pleasanton did not receive requests for AB 52 consultation during preparation of the Final EIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21808.3.1, the lead agency of a project must begin Native American Consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. Because this project is analyzed as an addendum to the DSP Final EIR, AB 52 consultation for this project is not required.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
Historical Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to historical resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no mitigation measures are necessary. The recommendations included in the ARA (Appendix C), listed under Impacts of the Barone’s Project above, would be implemented as part of the project as conditions of approval pursuant to Program 5.2 of the City’s General Plan.

Paleontological Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to paleontological resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Implementation Plan HP-I.7 of the DSP would remain applicable.

Human Remains
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to human remains compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Historical Resources
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased historical resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased archaeological or tribal cultural resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 35 Paleontological Resources
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased paleontological resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Human Remains
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased impacts to human remains would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.5 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would directly or indirectly generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Final EIR concludes that construction emissions associated with buildout of the DSP would result in less than significant impacts as the air district for the project region, BAAQMD, has not established thresholds for construction-related GHG emissions. However, operation of development facilitated by the DSP would generate GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips, natural gas and electricity use, waste and wastewater generation, and landscaping activities. The DSP would comply with statewide GHG emissions reduction goals and include mitigation to reduce GHG emissions, and the Final DSP EIR includes Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which aims to reduce GHG emissions associated with new development.

However, development facilitated by the DSP would generate GHG emissions that would exceed the efficiency threshold that would indicate “substantial progress” toward the emissions reduction target of Executive Order S-3-05, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, although the DSP would not conflict with the City’s Climate Action Plan, DSP would conflict with state plans to reduce GHG emissions because it would result in GHG emissions that exceed the efficiency threshold and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Energy
The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction or operation.

Although the DSP would result in a net increase in energy consumption, the DSP includes several policies related to encouraging alternative transit, supporting sustainable land use patterns, and encouraging energy efficiency, and these policies would decrease the demand for energy on a per capita and per service population basis. Impacts would be less than significant. The Final EIR also determined that the DSP would not conflict with the California Building Code (CBC) Energy Efficiency Standards, state vehicle GHG emissions reductions targets, or other applicable energy conservation regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
36 Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Barone’s project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1. In accordance with Association of Environmental Professional’s (AEP) recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to determine the project’s annual GHG emissions (AEP 2016). Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions, energy emissions, area emissions, refrigerant emissions, water and waste emissions. The trip generation rates for single family and commercial land uses were based on average trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 10th edition of the Trip Generation Manual (CAPCOA 2022) Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption by appliances as well as for space and water heating. The project would add 3.0kilowatt PV systems for each of the 14 proposed single-family residences. It is assumed 12 kilowatts-hours per day would be generated per 3.0 kilowatt PV systems (Energy Matters 2023). Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. The thresholds of significance used to evaluate the significance of GHG emissions under the proposed project are consistent with the recently adopted City of Pleasanton Climate Action Plan (CAP) emission reduction targets. The CAP set a target of 4.1 MT of CO2e per capita by 2030. Analysis of the Barone’s project utilizes this target for evaluating the net change in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions.

The DSP EIR found GHG emissions would not achieve the 2040 efficiency threshold of 1.7 MT of CO2e and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As shown in Table 6, construction associated with the Barone’s project would generate 969 MT of CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period pursuant to AEP guidance, construction associated with the project would generate 32 MT of CO2e per year. As shown in Table 7, the Barone’s project would generate a net increase over the existing use of approximately 23 MT of CO2e per year during operation. Total emissions (amortized construction emissions plus annual operation emissions) would be 1.3 MT of CO2e per year per capita (conservatively rounded up to the nearest tenth). These emissions would not exceed the 4.1 MT of CO2e per year per capita goal developed to demonstrate consistency with the latest statelevel policies. Therefore, GHG impacts would be less than significant, and would be a reduced impact compared to DSP EIR findings.

Table 6 Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT of CO2e)
2025 592
2026 374
2027 3
Total 969
Amortized over 30 years 32
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling worksheets.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 37 Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction1 32
Operational 23
Mobile 144
Area <1
Energy 11
Water 3
Waste 4
Refrigerant <1
Existing (139)
Net Emissions 55
Emissions Per Capita 44 (41 residents and 6 employees)

1.3 City of Pleasanton CAP Numeric Threshold (MT of CO2e per Capita) 4.1 Exceed Threshold? No
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Amortized construction related GHG emissions over 30 years Source: See Appendix A for the CalEEMod worksheets
Plan Consistency
Several plans have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in Pleasanton and at the State level, including the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and the City of Pleasanton CAP. Similar to the DSP EIR, the Barone’s project would comply with applicable State and local energy efficiency, renewable energy, green building, water conservation, and solid waste diversion requirements for new construction.

The proposed residences would include all-electric appliances and would include a 3.0 kilowatt solar panel for each of the proposed single family residences. In addition, two electric vehicle parking charging stations would be installed for the commercial buildings. The project would also be located a quarter mile from existing transit and other commercial and residential land uses. The project would be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver certified. Pursuant to PMC Section 20.26.370, Section 5.106.13 added—All-electric buildings the proposed residences would be all-electric and would have no natural gas or propane plumbing installed.

As a result, the Barone’s project would be consistent with the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan goal to decarbonize buildings and electrify transportation, as well as consistent with the Pleasanton CAP threshold. In addition, the project would be consistent with Pleasanton’s Primary CAP 2.0 actions, such as BE-1 Advance the Decarbonization of Building, BE-3 Expand Use of Renewable Energy, TLU-1 Advance Vehicle decarbonization, and WR-1 Improve Water Supply & Increase Conservation.

Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable GHG emissions.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
38 Energy

CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the Barone’s project would result in short-term consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. Energy use during construction would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators.

Temporary grid power may also be needed for construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region. Similar to the manufacturers utilizing energy conservation methods to reduce costs, it is reasonable to assume contractors would avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary fuel consumption during construction to reduce construction costs. The project would comply with the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, which imposes limits on idling and restricts the use of older vehicles. This would reduce fuel consumption and lead to the use of fuel-efficient vehicles on the construction site. Construction equipment would be maintained to applicable standards, and construction activity and associated fuel consumption and energy use would be temporary and typical for construction sites. The CALGreen Building Standards Code includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and no impact would occur. Impacts would not be greater than those determined in the Final EIR.

OPERATION
Operational energy use would include use of transportation fuel. California requires that all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline, a cleaner formulation of gasoline that results in lower emissions of ozone, CO and other air pollutants when burned. The introduction of mixed commercial and residential land uses, close to one another, further promotes a higher-density mixed-use land use pattern that is intended to reduce vehicle trip lengths and subsequent transportation energy use.

In addition to transportation energy use, operation of the project would consume electricity for building heating and power, lighting, and water conveyance, among other operational requirements. The proposed project would increase the total amount of electricity consumed compared to the existing uses on the project site. In compliance with the PMC, the project would not utilize natural gas for the proposed residential uses. Project energy consumed would represent an incremental increase in energy usage compared to existing energy use in Pleasanton, and the project would implement energy-efficient components to reduce energy demand. Additionally, the project would meet CALGreen specific requirements for energy efficiency in new development and would incorporate Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance features. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and this impact would be less than significant.

Overall, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to energy.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 39 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to greenhouse gas emissions and energy compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and would be reduced compared to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR. Impacts related to energy would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR. No significant new or substantially increased greenhouse gas emissions or energy impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.6 Geology and Seismicity
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that although the DSP area does not overlie a known earthquake fault, the DSP area is within a seismically active region and would be subject to strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. However, development in the DSP area would be subject to several existing state and local regulations that require site-specific geological investigations and design elements to minimize susceptibility to seismic events. Development would be required to comply with Chapter 17.12.050 of PMC, which requires preparation of geotechnical investigation reports to characterize existing geologic hazards and risks. Additionally, several existing General Plan policies would restrict development in hazardous areas, sloped lots, and earthquake fault zones.

Due to the generally flat topography of the DSP area, there is a low probability of landslides.

Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that implementation of the DSP would not expose people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death associated with earthquake fault zones, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.

Development within the DSP area would be required to connect to existing wastewater infrastructure and would not utilize alternative wastewater disposal systems or septic tanks. The Final EIR determined that the DSP would have no impact related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The following analysis incorporates information from the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project by Geo-Logic Associates in June 2022. The Geotechnical Investigation is included as Appendix D. Section 1803.1.1.3 of the California Building Code (CBC) states that the building department of each locality (in this case the Pleasanton Building Division) must approve the soil investigation if it determines that the recommended action is likely to prevent structural damage in each dwelling. Further, as a condition of the building permit, the approved recommended action must be incorporated in the construction of each dwelling. Therefore, pursuant to the PMC and the CBC, the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D) would be incorporated into the design of the project and verified by the City prior to issuance of a building permit.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
40 As determined in the Final EIR for the DSP, the DSP area does not overlie a known earthquake fault or landslide hazards areas; therefore, the proposed project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or landslides. However, as discussed in the Final EIR, the DSP area is within a seismically active region, and the proposed project would be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Risks associated with ground shaking would be minimized by compliance with CBC engineering design and construction measures, which require foundations and other structural support features to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking. Although nothing can ensure that proposed structures do not fail under seismic stress, proper engineering can minimize the risk to life and property. Additionally, as described above, the project would be required to incorporate recommendations made in the Geotechnical Investigation. These recommendations would minimize the impacts of ground shaking, including but not limited to recommendations for subgrade preparation, materials for fill, compaction of fill, and foundation construction, and the impacts of localized erosion along Arroyo del Valle (Appendix D).

The Geotechnical Investigation identified that some subsurface soils at the project site are prone to liquefaction during seismic ground shaking. The Geotechnical Investigation recommends including post-tensioned slab foundations in proposed structures, which would accommodate settlement during liquefaction (Appendix D). Additionally, the Geotechnical Investigation includes other recommendations to reduce risks associated with liquefaction, including but not limited to soil moisture content control and selection of fill material. As described above, the project would be required to incorporate recommendations made in the Geotechnical Report, and risks associated with liquefaction would be minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, the project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant.

As described further in Section 4.8, Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality, the project site is greater than one acre and would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Compliance with the NPDES permit requires each qualifying development project to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require the development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Compliance with the Construction General Permit is reinforced through the PMC in Chapter 9.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Section 9.14.090(b)(3) of this chapter prohibits development within 20 feet of the top of a bank or within 30 feet of the creek centerline unless a written permit has been obtained from the Public Works Director. The project would be required to include recommendations made within the Geotechnical Investigation, including the installation of stitch piers along the top of the existing creek bank to retain the soil and surcharge forces from behind the piers. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and PMC would ensure that the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 41 The Geotechnical Investigation evaluated soils at the project site and determined that soils have low expansion potential (Appendix D). Additionally, as discussed previously, the project would be required to comply with the CBC and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, which would further minimize risk associated with expansive soils. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the Final EIR for the DSP, development in the DSP area would be required to connect to existing wastewater systems. The project would not involve use of a septic system or alternative wastewater systems, and there would be no impact.

Overall, with compliance with the CBC, PMC, and the recommendations made within the Geotechnical Investigation, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with geology and seismicity.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to geology and seismicity compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased geology and seismicity impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Because the DSP would facilitate the development of commercial uses, the Final EIR acknowledges that development could require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.

These materials would be subject to several federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the use, transportation, treatment, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials, and compliance with these regulations would minimize the potential for the DSP to result in a significant hazard to the public or environment related to hazardous materials. Similarly, because the DSP would not introduce land uses that would handle or emit large amounts of hazardous materials such as industrial land uses, the Final EIR concludes impacts related to the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The DSP would introduce a variety of land uses within 0.25 mile of three existing Pleasanton Unified School District schools, as well as multiple childcare centers. While construction and operation of projects facilitated by the DSP would involve the use of hazardous materials, they would be in small quantities and would not present a substantial risk to nearby schools and childcare centers. As discussed above, the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to several federal, state, and local regulations that would minimize the risk of hazardous emissions. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that compliance with existing regulations would minimize impacts to schools and childcare centers to a less than significant level.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
42 The Final EIR identified 11 sites in the DSP area which are located on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, one of which is active. The Final EIR concludes that compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to development on designated hazardous materials sites would minimize potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The Final EIR determined that there are no airports within two miles of the DSP area and development facilitated by the DSP would not be subject to safety hazards associated with an airport or private airstrip. Impacts would be less than significant.

The DSP area is subject to the emergency response and operation plans of Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton. The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would be subject to DSP policies regarding emergency access, as well as PMC design standards for new roads and buildings which would ensure adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that compliance with the DSP policies and the PMC would minimize impacts related to emergency evacuation or response to a less than significant level.

Because the DSP area is not adjacent to undeveloped lands or wildlands, the risk of wildfire is low and the Final EIR concluded that development facilitated by the DSP would not expose people ort structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The following analysis incorporates information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Subsurface Investigation (ESA) prepared for the project by Ramboll Consulting, Inc. In November 2020. The ESA is included as Appendix E. The ESA identified one recognized environmental condition within the project site, which consisted of areas of elevated lead in shallow soil. The top two feet of soil near current and former structures within the site contain concentrations of lead that exceed State regulatory screening criteria for residential land use but is below federal thresholds. Grading for building pads is expected to reach as much as three feet below the surface and excavations for utility lines and stormwater infrastructure would reach as much as nine feet below the surface. The ESA also identified a potential former underground storage tank within the project site; however, subsurface soil sampling did not identify fuel constituents or other contaminants that exceed screening criteria for residential land use, and no further investigation was recommended (Appendix E).

The project would result in the construction and operation of a new mixed-use development.

Project construction would include the temporary transport, storage, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, or project site soils containing elevated levels of lead. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. However, as discussed in the Final EIR, the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is subject to various federal, state, and local regulations designed to reduce risks associated with hazardous materials, including potential risks associated with upset or accident conditions. Such regulation includes U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Divisions 4 and 4.5).

Additionally, project construction would involve grading of soils potentially contaminated with lead and demolition of all structures on site except the existing single-family residence, and due to their age, these structures may contain asbestos. Demolition and grading could result in upset and

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 43 release of asbestos and lead into the environment. Demolition and construction would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which intends to control the emission of asbestos during demolition and construction activities. Rule 2 requires surveys for asbestos to be conducted prior to demolition activities that would disturb materials that might contain asbestos. BAAQMD also collects fees for demolition activities subject to this rule (BAAQMD 2018). Construction would also be required to comply with California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure does not exceed CalOSHA standards. Compliance with BAAQMD and State regulations would minimize the emission of asbestos during project demolition, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the Final EIR, the operation of residential and commercial uses would not require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, and likewise, the commercial and residential uses proposed as part of the project would not involve hazardous materials other than those used for typical household and landscape activities and vehicular operation. The minimal amounts of household hazardous wastes on-site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, given the presence of up to two feet of soils contaminated with lead on the project site, there would be the potential for future residents to be exposed to contaminated soils. City of Pleasanton General Plan Program 17.1 calls for environmental investigations to ensure that soils, groundwater, and buildings affected by hazard material releases from prior land uses, including lead, would not have the potential to affect the health and safety of future property owners or users. Since the environmental investigation (Phase I ESA and Subsurface Investigation, as included as Appendix E) found lead soil contamination, the City would apply a COA to implement this General Plan program. Suggested text for the implementing COA is presented below. With implementation of COAs as required by General Plan Program 17.1, this impact would be less than significant.

Condition of Approval
 Soil Remediation: Where soil is identified to be present within the construction envelope at the project site at chemical concentrations exceeding ESLs and/or hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to properly dispose of the contaminated soil. The qualified environmental consultant shall utilize the project site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified consultant shall provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate. Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls may require additional delineation of subsurface impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling. The City shall review and approve the project site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction. The project applicant shall review and implement the project site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and implement the remedial engineering controls prior to construction. The City shall review and approve the project site disposal recommendations and remedial engineering controls prior to issuing a grading permit.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
44 A search of the SWRCB GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database was conducted in September 2024. The project site is not within 0.25- mile of a cleanup site shown on the EnviroStor database (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2024). The project site is within 0.25-mile of seven cleanup sites shown on the GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2024). Five of the sites are listed as “completed – case closed,” which indicates that required remediation has occurred and the project is no longer a hazards or hazardous materials concern. The two active cleanup sites are dry cleaning facilities. These sites are 0.2 mile south of the project site, and the proposed project would not involve modifications to these cleanup sites. The ESA included an environmental regulatory database review, and determined there are no hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project site (Appendix E). Therefore, the project site would not be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and there would be no impact.

The nearest school to the project site is Amador Valley School, located approximately 0.25 mile north of the project site. Shining Light Preschool and several over childcare centers are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. As described above, the project would not involve the routine use of hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. Impacts would be less than significant.

The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is 3.7 miles northeast of the project site. The project site, like the DSP area, is not within the airport influence area of the airport (Alameda County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not require road closures and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. There would be no impact.

The project site is within a Local Responsibility Area for fire protection services, as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) is located 1.8 miles southwest of the project site (CAL FIRE 2020). Because the project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. No impact would occur.

Overall, project impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to hazards and hazardous materials compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased hazards and hazardous materials impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 45

5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR concluded that the DSP would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as development facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with the region’s NPDES permit, which includes preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) if applicable, and would also be required to comply with stormwater and erosion control standards outlined in the PMC. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR includes an analysis of groundwater supply and determined that development facilitated by the DSP would draw have a groundwater demand of 21 acre-feet per year (AFY), which represents 0.6 percent of the City’s reasonably available volume of groundwater. Additionally, the Final EIR determined that because the DSP area is already largely built out, development and redevelopment facilitated by the DSP would not increase the total impervious surface area of the DSP area and would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Development would be required to comply with several regional and local programs pertaining to stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, including the Alameda Countywide C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit, the Construction General Permit, and Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for sanitary sewer flows. With compliance with existing federal, state, and local programs, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would not result in substantial decreases in groundwater supply or substantial interference with groundwater recharge and impacts would be less than significant.

Because the DSP area is already largely built out, the Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the DSP area, including through the alteration of a stream or river. Individual projects would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP with erosion, stormwater control, and sediment control BMPs as required by the Construction General Permit to manage erosion, siltation, and flooding impacts during construction, in operation. If projects facilitated by the DSP result in a net increase in impervious area or are larger than one acre, they would be required to implement hydromodification management BMPs. The Final EIR concludes that compliance with state, regional, and local programs and regulations, development facilitated by the DSP would not result in substantial alterations to the existing drainage pattern of the DSP area and would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not substantially degrade water quality. Existing local ordinances in the PMC and DSP policies would minimize and control sources of water pollutants, and impacts related to substantial degradation of water quality would be less than significant.

The Final EIR concludes that because only a small portion of the DSP area is within a designated flood zone (areas adjacent to Arroyo del Valle), development facilitated by the DSP would not impede or redirect flood flows. Further, Policies LD-P.61, LD-P.62, and LD-P.63 would ensure conservation of the Arroyo Del Valle through design and best management practices. PMC Section

9.14.090 prohibits development within 20 feet of the top of a watercourse bank without a permit, which would minimize risks associated with flood hazards and redirection of flood flows. Similarly, because the DSP area is not proximate to the ocean or a large body of water subject to seiche, impacts related to inundation would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
46 Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site is immediately south of and adjacent to Arroyo del Valle, and the project would include construction of residences in the northern portion of the project site along Arroyo del Valle.

The project site is within the Wildland Overlay of the City’s General Plan and has a DSP designation of Open Space Arroyo. Residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank, and the project would not include modifications to the bed, bank or channel of Arroyo del Valle.

Construction of the proposed project would involve excavation activities that could result in erosion and sedimentation that could substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. As discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, the project site is greater than one acre and would be subject to the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) adopted by the SWRCB. Compliance with the NPDES permit requires each qualifying development project to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require the development of a SWPPP, which must describe the site, the project, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. The project applicant would be required to submit the SWPPP to the City for approval and to the SWRCB’s Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. In addition, the project applicant would be required to comply with the following Pleasanton standard conditions of approval:

Standard Conditions of Approval
 Erosion Control Measures For Subdivisions: The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan designed by a certified Qualified SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) Designer (QSD) for all projects disturbing 1 acre or more or by a California licensed civil engineer or California licensed landscape architect for all projects disturbing less than 1 acre of land, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. All cut and fill slopes shall be hydromulched/hydroseeded and stabilized immediately after the completion of grading work and in no case later than October 1, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. No grading shall occur between October 1 and April 30 unless erosion control measures are in place, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Such measures shall be maintained until the permanent landscaping is completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Notice of Termination for the coverage under the Construction General Permit, if applicable, is approved by the California State Water Resources Board.  Erosion Control and Hazard Mitigation Bond: The applicant shall submit a refundable cash deposit to the Engineering Division for erosion control and hazard mitigation in an amount determined by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a encroachment, grading or subdivision permit, whichever occurs first. The City will retain the cash deposit until all work is substantially complete, all areas are stabilized, and all hazards are mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
 Stormwater Treatment: The project creates and/or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) and shall comply with Section “C.3.b Regulated Projects” of the NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, and amendments, issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The improvements plans shall include the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by a California licensed civil engineer, indicating the

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 47 type and locations of stormwater treatment measures to be installed (numbered sequentially for identification purposes), and sizing calculations. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of an engineering or building permit, whichever occurs first.
 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: The applicant shall submit one hard copy and one PDF copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building or engineering permit, whichever occurs first. A hard copy of the City-accepted SWPPP shall be available at the project site until all work is complete and engineering and building permits have been finalized. A site specific SWPPP shall be combined with proper and timely installation of the Best Management Practices, thorough and frequent inspections, maintenance, and documentation. Failure to comply with the reviewed construction SWPPP may result in issuance of correction notices, citations, or a stop work order.
 Excess Soil And Soil Stockpiling: All excess soil from the site shall be off-hauled from the site and disposed of in a lawful manner. No temporary stockpiling of dirt on this site shall occur without specific review and approval by the Director of Community Development.

The DSP also includes policies, listed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which would minimize the impacts of construction on Arroyo del Valle. Compliance with existing DSP policies and state and local regulations would avoid or minimize erosion and contamination to the extent feasible by requiring erosion and sediment controls and runoff water quality monitoring. With compliance with these existing policies and regulations, the proposed project would not result in violations to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR includes an analysis of groundwater supply and estimated water demand for projects associated with envisioned land uses in the DSP area. The project site is currently designated for Downtown Commercial use, and the project would involve changing the site’s land use to allow for residential use. Although the project would involve different land uses than what originally envisioned in the DSP, the project would facilitate the development of residential and commercial uses, which is consistent with development envisioned by the DSP and accounted for in its water supply analysis. Therefore, the water demand associated with the proposed project has been accounted for in water supply estimates in the Final EIR. Additionally, the project would result in a net decrease in impervious surface area within the project site, and stormwater and irrigation runoff generated by the project would be collected and directed to onsite bioretention areas and modular suspended pavement systems (often referred to as “Silva cells”). Stormwater would be managed pursuant to Chapter 9.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the PMC, and no water would be directly released into Arroyo del Valle. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

According to flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the portion of the project site that borders Arroyo del Valle is within a Zone AE flood hazard zone, which includes areas subject to a one percent annual chance of a flood (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2023). Arroyo del Valle is also designated as a regulatory floodway, which means that the channel of the arroyo must be maintained so that flood waters may flow through the arroyo without increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. The project would not involve construction within the flood hazard zone and residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows.

Additionally, as a primarily residential development, the project would not involve storage of

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
48 hazardous materials in large quantities (see Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials); the project would not risk substantial release of pollutants due to project inundation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Although not discussed in the Final EIR, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a groundwater management plan. The project site overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Zone 7 Water Agency. As discussed above and further in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, the DSP area would have adequate water supply and would not result in a substantial decrease in groundwater supplies. The project has been accounted for in water demand estimates for the DSP area; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to hydrology, drainage, and water quality compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased hydrology, drainage, and water quality impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.9 Land Use, Population, and Housing
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not physically divide an established community, as the DSP would facilitate infill development of vacant land and redevelopment of existing properties in the urbanized downtown area of Pleasanton. The goals and policies of the DSP, as well as its land use plan, were drafted and designed to promote compatibility with existing land uses. The Final EIR concludes that impacts to physically dividing an established community would be less than significant. Additionally, the Final EIR determined that the DSP would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. The Final EIR estimated that the DSP would facilitate a 29 percent increase in the DSP area’s population by 2040, compared to 2018 population levels, which is equivalent to a 1.2 percent annual increase in DSP area population. The Final EIR determined that this 1.2 percent annual increase is consistent with population projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments, the California Department of Transportation, and the California Department of Finance. Therefore, the DSP would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.

Because the DSP is intended to redevelop underutilized properties within the DSP area, the Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would be unlikely to result in the displacement of significant numbers of existing residents or housing units. The DSP does not propose to convert established residential areas into non-residential land uses, and existing residential areas would

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 49 retain a residential land use designation. The Final EIR concludes that impacts related to displacement of people and housing would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial and Offices, and Public Health and Safety with a Wildland Overlay. The project site currently has a DSP land use designation of Downtown Commercial and Open Space Arroyo. The project site is currently zoned as Central Commercial and Downtown Revitalization District. The project would involve changing the zoning of the project site to a Planned Unit Development. As summarized in Table 1, the project would be generally consistent with the City’s Downtown Development Guidelines, but would require rezoning to allow for the construction of 14 residential units. With completion of a PUD mixed-use application and approval from the City, the project would not conflict with zoning requirements or the site’s zoning classification. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the overarching goals of the DSP. Chapter 4, Land Use and Design, of the DSP encourages developing the downtown area as a dynamic mixed use destination with commercial, residential and other mixed land uses, and Goal LD-G.1 of the Land Use and Design chapter encourages improving the downtown’s commercial and residential viability. Policy LD-P.15, Map Annotations, of the DSP also states that the project site (475/493 St. John Street) may redevelop to a mixed use project, which allows for residential with approval of a PUD application.

The project would not physically divide an established community. A physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, roadway, or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local roadway or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between communities. The project site is two contiguous private parcels; there are currently no means of access across the project site; and the project would not impair mobility or close an existing street. For these reasons, the project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.

The project would be required to conform with applicable existing General Plan and DSP policies and to comply with the PMC and Pleasanton standard conditions approval that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. These policies include but are not limited to General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element policies and DSP policies that pertain to enhancement and protection of Arroyo del Valle and other environmental resources within the DSP area, as well as PMC regulations and Pleasanton COAs that pertain to stormwater management, tree protection, cultural resources, and other environmental resources within the city. Therefore, the project would not conflict with policies adopted for this purpose and impacts would be less than significant.

The project would involve demolition of a single-story accessory dwelling unit. The existing singlefamily residence would remain, and no other residential structures are proposed for demolition.

Therefore, the project would not displace a significant number of people or housing units. The project would include construction of 14 attached single-family residences and one ADU. The average number of persons per household in Pleasanton is 2.62 (California Department of Finance 2024a); assuming each proposed residential unit is occupied by an average number of persons per household, and assuming a maximum growth scenario in which all residents would relocate to Pleasanton from elsewhere, the project would generate a population increase of approximately 37 people. As summarized in Table 1, the DSP is anticipated to facilitate an increase of 370 housing units and 1,000 people; the 15 housing units and 40 people associated with the proposed project would represent approximately 4 percent of the anticipated increase in housing units and

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
50 population. Therefore, the proposed project has been accounted for in population growth projections for the DSP, and the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

Although the project site is not currently designated for residential use under the DSP the addition of residential units would not result in exceedance of anticipated population. The average number of persons per household at present (2024), 2.62 persons, is lower than the estimate used in the Final DSP EIR (2.83 persons). Additionally, the Final EIR estimated the increased population against the city’s 2018 population, which was 78,244 people (California Department of Finance 2023b). The population of Pleasanton has since decreased, and the city has a current (2024) population of 75,960 people (California Department of Finance 2024). Therefore, although the DSP did not originally account for residential use at the project site, the project would not result in an increase in population beyond what was estimated in the DSP EIR. Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to land use and planning compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new or revised mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
There would be no impact, or impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased land use and planning impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.10 Noise
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that noise and vibration-related impacts from new development under the DSP EIR could be divided into short-term impacts (i.e., those impacts related to construction activities) and long-term impacts (i.e., those impacts related to major operational noise sources such as traffic and operational equipment). New development would comply with the construction noise standards and daytime construction hours permitted by the PMC and policies to minimize construction noise. Therefore, construction noise and vibration impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Final EIR stated that audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater, since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments.

Compliance with the policies and the noise reduction requirements and design features required under the City's General Plan Noise Element would ensure that implementation of the DSP would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that operational noise under the DSP EIR would generate noise associated with outdoor open space and mechanical equipment, such as rooftop-mounted HVAC equipment.

These impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City of Pleasanton’s exterior noise standards pursuant to PMC Section 9.04.030 and 9.04.040.

The Final EIR determined that traffic under the DSP EIR would generate new vehicle trips and incrementally increase traffic on area roadways that would increase roadway noise at nearby

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 51 residences. However, this increase would be imperceptible and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Traffic noise would be less than significant.

As identified in the Final EIR, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the DSP area. Therefore, implementation of the land use changes and policies consistent with the DSP EIR would have no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Construction Noise
Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located approximately 65 feet from the center of the project site to the nearest sensitive receivers but would typically be located at an average distance further away due to the nature of construction where equipment is mobile throughout the day. The nearest sensitive receivers include the -family residence on site, residences adjacent to the project site to the west, and residences across St. John Street to the south and across Arroyo del Valle to the north. Because construction would occur at different distances from the nearby sensitive receivers, construction analysis utilizes the distance to nearby sensitive from the center of the project site.

Table 8 identifies the construction noise levels at the closest sensitive receivers based on the combined use of the three loudest pieces of construction equipment during each phase of construction.

Table 8 Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase at Sensitive Receivers Leq dBA
Construction Activity
Phase
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
50 feet
Residences to the
southwest
65 feet
Residences to the
west
110 feet
Residences to the
south
270 feet
Commercial
to the east
110 feet
Demolition 81 79 74 66 74
Site Preparation 81 79 74 66 74
Grading 84 82 77 69 77
Building Construction 82 80 75 67 75
Paving 87 85 80 72 80
Notes: Calculations performed with the FHWA’s RCNM software are included in Appendix F.

Noise levels rounded to the nearest whole number.

The City Noise Ordinance allows for maximum sound pressure levels of 86 dBA at any point outside of the property plane. Therefore, noise generated by temporary construction work associated with the project would not exceed the maximum sound pressure levels. As shown in Table 8, construction noise could be as high as approximately 80 dBA Leq at the edge of the project site where paving is expected to occur closest to the nearby sensitive receivers to the west and south.

Therefore, construction noise levels with this equipment would not exceed the City of Pleasanton Noise Ordinance threshold of 86 dBA Leq at residential land uses. Therefore, construction noise levels would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
52 Groundborne Vibration
Operation of the project would not include substantial vibration sources. Thus, construction activities would have the greatest potential to generate ground-borne vibration affecting nearby receivers, especially during grading and paving of the project site. The greatest vibratory source during construction would be a vibratory roller. Neither blasting nor pile driving would be required for construction of the proposed project. Table 9 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the assessment of construction vibration (FTA 2018).

Table 9 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV
(in/sec) at
25 Feet
Vibration
Damage
(VdB) at
25 Feet
Single family
Residence at 493 St.

John Street
65 feet
Multi-family
residential to the
west
110 feet
Commercial to the
east
110 feet
PPV VdB PPV VdB PPV VdB PPV VdB
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94 0.050 75 0.023 82 0.023 75
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 0.021 68 0.010 75 0.010 68
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 0.018 67 0.008 74 0.008 67
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 0.001 39 0.000 46 0.000 39
Sources: FTA 2018
Project construction may require operation of vibratory equipment such as a vibratory roller within approximately 65 feet of the existing on-site residential building to the southwest of the project site along St. John Street from the center of construction activity. A vibratory roller would create approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV and 94 VdB at 25 feet (FTA 2018). This would equal a vibration level of 0.050 in/sec PPV and 82 VdB at a distance of 65 feet. This would be lower than the nonengineered timber and masonry building threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV and 94 VdB. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with the vibratory roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant.

The project would not generate significant stationary sources of vibration, such as manufacturing or heavy equipment operations. No operational vibration impact would occur.

Operational Noise

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be HVAC units for the residential and commercial buildings. There would be three HVAC units on each of the proposed commercial buildings within the project site. Specific planning data for the future HVAC systems are not available at this stage of project design; however, this analysis assumes the use of a typical HVAC system for commercial uses, which has a sound power level of 85 dBA that is equivalent to a sound pressure level (SPL) of 77 dBA at 3 feet. The unit used in this analysis is a 16.7-ton Carrier 38AUD25 split system condenser (see Appendix F for manufacturer’s specifications). The project would contain three HVAC units located in a rooftop mechanical area on each commercial building, which has a combined noise level of 82 dBA.

In addition, each residential unit is assumed to have one ground-mounted HVAC unit on each of the proposed residential buildings. For purposes of this analysis, a typical HVAC system for residential uses (2.5-ton Carrier 24ABA4030) was analyzed, which has a sound power level of 73 dBA that is

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 53 equivalent to sound pressure level (SPL) of 65 dBA at 3 feet (see Appendix F for manufacturer’s specifications).

Pursuant to PMC Section 9.04.030 and 9.04.040, project impacts would be significant if exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA at a residential property and 70 dBA at a commercial property at any point outside of the property plane. For purposes of this analysis, the closest three units to the sensitive receptor were analyzed. Rooftop mounted HVAC units would be located as close as 140 feet from the nearest residential property west of the project site, and 20 feet from the commercial properties east of the project. Combined noise levels of three HVAC units generated by rooftop HVACs would be approximately 47 dBA Leq at 140 feet and 66 dBA Leq at 20 feet, which would not exceed exterior daytime and nighttime noise standards of 60 dBA Leq for residential properties and 70 dBA Leq for commercial properties. Ground-mounted HVAC units on the proposed residential units would be located as close as 15 feet to the residential property to the west. Noise levels of a residential HVAC unit would be approximately 51 dBA Leq at 15 feet to the residential property to the west, which would not exceed the exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 60 dBA Leq at residential properties. In addition, this is a conservative analysis that does not consider possible mechanical equipment shielding or attenuated from the rooftop edges. Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment noise would be less than significant.

TRAFFIC NOISE
The Trip Generation Assessment prepared by the City of Pleasanton was used to estimate traffic noise associated with the project. Refer to Section 5.12, Traffic and Transportation, for the Trip Generation Assessment. As discussed in Section 5.12, Traffic and Transportation, and shown in Table 10, the net vehicle trips would decrease, given the removal of the existing restaurant currently occupying the project site The project would not make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or substantially change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes.

In order for a barely perceptible noise increase of at least 3 dBA to occur, the project would need to result in a doubling of traffic on the affected road segment. Given that vehicle trips generated on the project site would decrease as a result of the project (see Section 5.12, Traffic and Transportation), traffic noise on local roadways, such as St. John Street, would also decrease.

Therefore, the traffic noise from the project would not result in a noise level increase and traffic noise would be below the barely perceptible noise increase of 3 dBA and impacts would be less than significant.

Airport Noise
The project site remains outside the vicinity of an airport land use plan, public airport, or private airstrip, and no impact would occur.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to noise compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new or revised mitigation measures are necessary. The Final EIR would continue to apply to the Barone’s project. Operational and construction noise impacts would remain less than significant and would not require mitigation.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
54 Conclusion
Noise impacts during construction and operation would be less than significant, similar to the impacts determined in the Final EIR. No significant new or substantially increased noise impacts would occur compared to the original project.

5.11 Public Facilities and Recreation
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. The Final EIR reports that the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department does not foresee a need for new or expanded facilities to accommodate planned growth within the DSP area, and existing City policies and regulations would reduce the number of calls for fire protection services by minimizing fire risks. Therefore, the DSP would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities.

The City adopted the Pleasanton Civic Center/Library Master Plan in 2016, which outlines the City’s plan to construct a new civic center and library outside of the DSP area. The Final EIR reports that the Pleasanton Police Department does not foresee the need for new or expanded police protection facilities beyond those already planned to accommodate buildout of the DSP. Therefore, the DSP would not require new or physically altered fire facilities.

The Final EIR estimated that the DSP would facilitate an increase of 95 school-aged children.

Because the Pleasanton Unified School District anticipated a student population increase at the time the Final EIR was prepared, and because development in the DSP area would be required to pay a School Facility Impact Fee, the Final EIR concluded that impacts to school facilities would be less than significant, and the DSP would not require new or physically altered school facilities.

The DSP would include additional parkland, and the population increase facilitated by the DSP would not cause the City to fall below its target of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Therefore, the DSP would not require new or physically altered park and recreational facilities.

Overall, the DSP would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental or recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. The Final EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use, Population, and Housing, the proposed project would not induce a substantial, unplanned increase in population or housing units within the DSP area. The project’s anticipated increase in population and housing units was accounted for in the Final EIR for the DSP. As discussed in the Final EIR and summarized above, the DSP would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities or park and recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would also not require new or physically altered governmental facilities or park and recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 55 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to public facilities and recreation compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased public facilities and recreation impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.12 Traffic and Transportation
The Final EIR was prepared and certified prior to adoption of the final CEQA guidelines that would change the metric of transportation analyses under CEQA from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). LOS, a measure of traffic congestion, was replaced as the metric of transportation analyses by VMT pursuant to Senate Bill 743. While a preliminary assessment of VMT generated by the DSP was prepared, it was included in the Final EIR (Section 3.12, Traffic and Transportation) for informational purposes only.

Changes in regulations after approval of the original EIR do not constitute new information triggering a supplemental or subsequent EIR (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin [2013] 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320). Nor does it require a previously analyzed topics, such as the change from the LOS standard to the VMT standard for traffic, to be reassessed under the new requirements (Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach [2023] 93 Cal.App.5th 270, 280–281). In conformance with this standard, the following analysis is presented in terms of LOS to demonstrate consistency with the Final EIR. A brief VMT analysis is included for informational purposes only.

Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness of the circulation system, as vehicle traffic generated by the DSP would result in some intersections to operate at an unacceptable LOS standard. Additionally, queue lengths at several intersections were projected to exceed available vehicle storage at several intersections, which would be considered a significant impact. In terms of VMT, which the Final EIR considered for informational purposes only, the VMT per capita of the DSP area would slightly decrease as a result of the DSP due to goals and policies that would encourage alternative modes of transportation. The Final EIR included mitigation measures TRA-1 through TRA8, which would involve various modifications to area intersections (including but not limited to installing traffic signals, adding travel lanes or turn lanes, or extending turn lanes) to reduce impacts to LOS and vehicle queuing to a less than significant level. The Final EIR concluded that impacts to traffic and transportation would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures and the transit support policies of the DSP.

The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not conflict with an existing applicable congestion management program, or the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Congestion Management Plan. Vehicle traffic generated by the DSP would not cause study intersections on routes of regional significance operate below the standard of LOS E. Additionally, the Final EIR

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
56 concluded that the DSP would not result in a change to air traffic patterns and would not substantially increase hazards due to design features, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR states that emergency accessibility is typically assessed at the project level. Because the DSP includes goals and policies related to the provision of adequate emergency access and because emergency accessibility would be evaluated for individual projects, the DSP would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR states that the DSP is centered on a complete-streets approach, and includes goals and policies related to the performance and safety of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the DSP area. However, the bicycle facilities proposed by the DSP are inconsistent with those envisioned in the City’s 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Final EIR includes Mitigation Measure TRA-9, which would involve conducting a feasibility study for bicycle facilities in the DSP area. With this mitigation measure, the DSP would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, impacts to traffic and transportation would be less than significant with mitigation.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The proposed project would not modify or inhibit use of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on St. John Street and in the DSP area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

As discussed above, SB 743 and the subsequent amendment of the CEQA Guidelines was not incorporated into CEQA at the time the Final EIR was prepared and certified, and therefore this analysis is prepared in terms of LOS. As discussed in Section 5.9, Land Use, Population, and Housing of this Addendum, the project would generate a population increase of 14 housing units and up to approximately 37 people, and the DSP is anticipated to facilitate an increase of 370 housing units and 1,000 people. The 14 housing units and 37 people associated with the proposed project would represent approximately 4 percent of the anticipated increase in housing units and population associated with the DSP, and the proposed project is within the population growth projections for the DSP as analyzed in the EIR. Additionally, as shown in Table 10, the proposed project would generate a relatively small increase in trips over existing uses at the site, which would not substantially affect the LOS of study intersections in the DSP area. Accordingly, growth associated with the proposed project was captured in the Final EIR’s traffic and transportation analysis, and the project would not result in greater impacts to LOS than those identified in the Final EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 57 Table 10 Existing and Estimated Daily Trip Generation
Land Use
Average Rate Units/Area Total Trips1
Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday
Existing Conditions
Residential 7.20 8.76 7.17 2 units 14.4 17.5 14.3
Restaurant 83.8 90.0 72.0 1,877 sq ft 157 169 135
Total Trips 172 187 149
Proposed Project Conditions
Residential 7.20 8.76 7.17 16 units2 115 140 115
Downtown commercial 37.0 46.6 19.0 3,107 sq ft 115 145 59 Total 216 268 160
Proposed Project Difference Compared to Existing Conditions Residential +100 +123 +100
Commercial +115 +145 +60
Restaurant -157 -169 -135
Total Difference +58 +99 +25
Existing and estimated trips were calculated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
1 Total trips were calculated by multiplying the average rate for each land use by the units or the area for that land use (e.g., under Existing Conditions, 7.20 average weekday trips for residential land uses multiplied by 2 residential units is 14 total weekday trips for residential uses).
2 The 16 residential units on the project site include two residences to remain plus the 14 proposed units.

As shown above, the trip generation estimates indicate that the proposed project would result in a net increase of 58 weekday trips, 99 Saturday trips, and 25 Sunday trips compared to existing conditions. As explained above Table 10, this information is presented for informational purposes only; because the project would not result in greater impacts to LOS than those identified in the Final EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Vehicle access to the project site would be available via the existing driveway on St. John Street.

Residential, commercial, and emergency vehicles would be able to access and circulate through the project site via this driveway and the proposed internal driveway, which would provide access to each proposed residence and the parking lot of the proposed commercial building. The project driveway is designed to accommodate the turning radii of emergency vehicles, which would be verified by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, as a primarily residential, mixed-use project, the project would not require incompatible uses, such as farm equipment or other large vehicles, that would increase vehicle hazards at the project site. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant.

As described above, the project driveway is designed to accommodate the turning radii of emergency vehicles, which would be verified by the City prior to issuance of building permits.

Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
58 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to transportation and circulation, and no new or revised mitigation measures are necessary. The project would not include bicycle facilities or conflict with bicycle and pedestrian plans or infrastructure.

Conclusion
There would be no impact, or impacts would be less than significant and generally reduced compared to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased transportation impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.13 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not violate wastewater treatment requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) or the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Development facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with existing state and local regulations and policies related to wastewater treatment requirements, and growth facilitated by the DSP is accounted for in the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. The Final EIR concludes that impacts would be less than significant.

The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the DSP determined that Pleasanton’s existing potable water supplies would be sufficient for new demand generated by the DSP. Additionally, the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant was determined to have significant remaining capacity. Therefore, the DSP would not require new or expanded water or wastewater facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. Development facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with state, regional, and local requirements to capture, retain, and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The Final EIR concludes that impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that landfills that serve the DSP area have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the DSP’s solid waste disposal needs, and growth facilitated by the DSP would not result in the generation of solid waste that would exceed capacity or federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
As described in Section 4.9, Land Use, Population, and Housing, the project would not generate housing units or population growth that would exceed growth anticipated by the DSP and the Final EIR. The project would also include 3,100 square feet of commercial space; the Final EIR anticipated an increase of 260,700 square feet of non-residential space across the Specific Plan area, and the commercial uses included in the proposed project are accounted for in that estimate. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate housing, population, or commercial uses beyond what was evaluated in the Final EIR. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would be served by sufficient water supplies. Therefore, the

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 59 proposed project would have adequate water supply and would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded water facilities. Additionally, the project would have sufficient water supplies in normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is located in a developed area already served by existing water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. The proposed project would connect to existing infrastructure. Because the project is accounted for in development anticipated by the Final EIR, the project would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. During construction, the current CalGreen code would require that 65 percent of construction and demolition debris be diverted from landfills. Handling of debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to CalGreen requirements, compliance with which would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Operation of the project would generate an estimated 33 tons of solid waste per year. This estimation is based on solid waste generation rates provided by the California Department of Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), which estimates that residential uses generate 10 pounds of solid waste per dwelling unit per day and that commercial uses generate 13 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 square feet per day (CalRecycle 2021).4 Solid waste from the project site would be collected by Pleasanton Garbage Service and likely sent to the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. Table 11 shows the project’s estimated solid waste generation and the remaining capacity of this landfill.

Table 11 Generated Solid Waste and Estimated Landfill Capacity Project Solid Waste Generation
(tons/day)
Permitted Throughput of Vasco
(tons/day)
Remaining Capacity of Altamont
(cubic yards)

0.09 2,518 11,560,000
Source: CalRecycle 2019
Project generated waste would be less than 0.01 percent of Vasco Road Landfill’s allowable waste limit, and the landfill has adequate remaining capacity. Therefore, the project’s incremental increase in solid waste would not adversely affect solid waste facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to utilities and service systems compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. 4 The project would include 14 residences. 14 residences multiplied by 10 pounds of solid waste per day, multiplied by 365 days per year, equals 51,000 pounds of solid waste per year, or 25.5 tons per year. The project would include 3,100 square feet of commercial use. 13 pounds of solid waste per day, multiplied by 3.1 thousand square feet, multiplied by 365 days per year, equals 14,709 pounds of solid waste per year, or 7.4 tons per year. 25.5 tons plus 7.4 tons is approximately 33 tons of solid waste per year.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
60 Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased utilities and service systems impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.14 Wildfire
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR analyzed impacts related to wildfire in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site is within a Local Responsibility Area for fire protection services as designated by CAL FIRE, but is not in or near a state responsibility area or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest VHFHSZ is located 1.8 miles southwest of the project site (CAL FIRE 2020).

The project would not require roadway closures and would not introduce a significant number of new vehicles to area roadways. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and there would be no impact.

The project site is generally surrounded by urban development and is not adjacent to undeveloped lands or slopes that would be prone to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The project would not require the installation or maintenance of roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. Additionally, the project site is generally flat and surrounded by development and would not expose people or structures to flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire slope instability.

Because the project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs and is in an urbanized area, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. No impact would occur.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to wildfire compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
No significant new or substantially increased wildfire impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.15 Impacts Not Potentially Significant in the Final EIR The Final EIR considered agriculture and forestry resources and mineral resources in Section 3.14, Impacts not Potentially Significant, of the DSP EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 61 Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The DSP area does not contain lands that are designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, or Unique Farmland, and there are no areas zoned for agricultural use or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would have no impact on agricultural resources.

The DSP area supports tree cover but does not contain areas that represent forestry resources as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) or timber resources as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would have no impact to forestry resources.

Mineral Resources
The DSP area is located entirely within a developed urban area, and there are no identified mineral resources that would be affected or made unavailable by buildout of the DSP. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would have no impact to mineral resources.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As discussed in the Final EIR, the DSP area, including the project site, does not include Farmland, areas zoned for agricultural use, property enrolled in a Williamson Act contract, forestry resources, timber resources, or areas zoned for timber production. The project would have no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

Mineral Resources
As discussed in the Final EIR, the DSP area, including the project site, does not include areas known to contain mineral resources, and the project would not affect or make unavailable mineral resources. The project would have no impacts to mineral resources.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to agriculture and forestry resources or mineral resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased agriculture and forestry resources or mineral resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
62 5.16 Other CEQA Required Considerations
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Growth-Inducing Impacts
The Final EIR determined that although the DSP would result in a population increase, the anticipated population growth would be generally consistent with projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the residential development proposed under the DSP would assist the city in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goal. Ther Final EIR also determined that the DSP would not result in the need for new or expanded public facilities and services, and would not result in a jobs-to-housing ratio in downtown Pleasanton that would induce new residential growth.

Cumulative Impacts
The Final EIR includes an analysis of potential cumulative impacts that could occur if implementation of the DSP occurs concurrently with other regional growth and development. The Final EIR determined that the DSP would have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to water supply, but would not otherwise contribute considerably to cumulative impacts.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The Final EIR identified that implementation of the DSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and energy and GHG emissions. While the Final EIR concluded that impacts to transportation and traffic would be less than significant with mitigation, the Final EIR acknowledges that there is no guarantee that roadway modifications outlined in the traffic and transportation mitigation measures would be implemented. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes in this section that potential impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Significant Irreversible Environmental Change
The Final EIR acknowledges that implementation of the DSP would involve irretrievable commitments of non-renewable resources, such as water for water demand generated by buildout of the DSP and the commitment of energy sources and increased energy use. Additionally, the DSP would result in irreversible construction-related impacts, such as the consumption of nonrenewable building materials. Implementation of the DSP would also result in an irreversible increase in air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of development, and vehicle traffic generated by the DSP.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The proposed project would not substantially change the discussion and findings presented for the DSP in the Final EIR. The proposed project would not result in buildout beyond what is allowed by the DSP, as proposed land uses would be consistent with downtown land uses envisioned by the DSP. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in greater physical changes to the environment or more intense land uses than what is analyzed in the Final EIR. As described in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 above, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified Final EIR.

Therefore, the proposed project would also not result in new or more severe significant and unavoidable impacts, growth inducing effects, irreversible environmental effects, or energy effects beyond those previously discussed in the Final EIR.

Conclusion
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 63 6 Conclusion
As discussed in detail in the preceding sections, potential impacts associated with the Barone’s project are consistent with potential impacts characterized and mitigated for in the Final EIR.

Substantive revisions to the Final EIR are not necessary, because no new significant impacts or significant impacts of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur because of the Barone’s project. Thus, the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(3)(A) and (D) requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be met.

Based on the analysis contained herein, the following determinations are applicable:
 No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the Barone’s project.  No subsequent EIR is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.  This addendum is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the Barone’s project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), this addendum will be included in the public record for the Final EIR. Documents related to this addendum will be available at the City of Pleasanton Community Development Department, located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton, California 94566.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
64 This page intentionally left blank.

References and Preparers
Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 65 7 References and Preparers

7.1 References
Alameda, County of. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/LVK_ALUCP_082012_FULL.p df (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Finance. 2023a. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-andhousing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ (accessed September 2023).
______. 2023b. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2018. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed September 2023).
______. 2024. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ (accessed September 2024).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/9?siteID=8 (accessed September 2023).
______. 2021. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. EnviroStor database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60002757 (accessed September 2024).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd&extent=-121.94529102661183,36.5159779735144,-
121.90374897338809,36.53322138877889 (accessed September 2023).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

November. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2021. Transit Priority Areas, August 2021. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=370de9dc4d65402d992a769b f6ac8ef5 (accessed August 2023).

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project
66 Pleasanton, City of. 2005. 2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025 – Noise Element. https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23914 (Accessed September 2023).
______. 2005. Conservation and Open Space Element.
https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23910 (accessed October 2023).
______. 2019. Downtown Specific Plan – Draft Environmental Impact Report. February 1, 2019. https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34567 (Accessed September 2023).
______. 2023. Traffic Engineering Division. 2020 Traffic Counts. (Accessed September 2023). ______. 2023. City of Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 9.04 Noise Regulations. https://library.qcode.us/lib/pleasanton_ca/pub/municipal_code (Accessed September 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board. 2024. GeoTracker database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento# (accessed September 2024).

7.2 List of Preparers
Rincon prepared this addendum under contract to the City of Pleasanton. Persons and firms involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control include:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal-in-Charge
Jesse Voremberg, MS, Project Manager
Kayleigh Limbach, Environmental Planner
Bill Vosti, Technical Director
Aaron Rojas, Air Quality Analyst
Jesse McCandless, Noise Analyst
Alex Hunt, Natural Resources Director

Appendix A
California Emissions Estimator Model Calculations

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
1 / 92
Barone’s project Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
2 / 92

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
3 / 92

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
4 / 92

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
5 / 92

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
6 / 92

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated