Agenda packet, regular meeting — Pleasanton City Council, January 9, 2025 (part 1 of 5)

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, January 9, 2025
7:00 PM
City Council Chamber
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566

The meeting will be held in-person, broadcast live on Channel 29 and at https://www.tri- valleytv.org and streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCityofPleasanton.

Public participation: It is requested that members of the public wishing to address the City Council submit a speaker card. When public comment is opened on an agenda item, individuals may speak once per agenda item.

To submit written public comment regarding an open session item on this meeting agenda visit https://forms.cityofpleasantonca.gov/f/writtenpubliccomment. Comments will be accepted by the City Clerk’s Office until 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting.

In Person at Council Chamber:
• Submit a physical speaker card to the City Clerk at the meeting. When your name is called, please provide comment at the podium.

CALL TO ORDER
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Remarks by Councilmember Eicher
• Roll Call
Resolution No. 2025-001
Ordinance No. 2290

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

AGENDA AMENDMENTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and may be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered separately.

City Manager

1. Approve meeting minutes of December 3, 2024 and December 17, 2024 Community Development

2. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission

3. Adopt Ordinance No. 2289 approving amendments to Chapters 3.22 – Capital

Page 1 of 638 ends

City Council Agenda Page 2 of 3 January 9, 2025

Facilities Fee, 3.26 – Transportation Development Fee, and 14.04 – Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fees of the Pleasanton Municipal Code

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

4. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda – Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS
If necessary to ensure completion of the following items, the Mayor may alter time limits.

5. Approve the revised FY 2025/27 budget development and engagement plan

6. Continued from December 17, 2024 - Approve the establishment of a Budget Advisory Committee and appoint members

7. Continued from December 17, 2024 - 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

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL

COUNCIL REPORTS
Brief reports on conferences, seminars, and meetings attended by the Council

ADJOURNMENT

Notice
Under Government Code §54957.5, any writings/documents regarding an open session item on this agenda and items received by the City Clerk’s Office by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet will be available for public inspection on the City’s website https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/ and also at the Pleasanton Library located at 400 Old Bernal Ave., Pleasanton, CA 94566.

Page 2 of 638 ends

City Council Agenda Page 3 of 3 January 9, 2025

There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders, which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting, regardless of whether it is a regular or special meeting.

Accessible Public Meetings
The City of Pleasanton can provide special assistance for persons with disabilities to participate in public meetings. To make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation (e.g., an assistive listening device), please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 123 Main Street, Pleasanton, CA 94566 or (925) 931-5027 at the earliest possible time. If you need translation or interpretation assistance, please provide at least two working days’ notice prior to the meeting date.

Page 3 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 1 of 1 December 3, 2024

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Tuesday, December 3, 2024
6:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the closed session meeting to order at the hour of 6:00 p.m. from the City Council Conference Room located at 200 Old Bernal Ave.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None.

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

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS per Gov't Code §54957.6:

Agency designated representatives: Mary Egan (Municipal Resource Group) Unrepresented employee: City Manager

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
______________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
Item #1

Page 4 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 1 of 6 December 3, 2024

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Tuesday, December 3, 2024
7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m. from the Council Chamber located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue.

Councilmember Balch provided opening remarks.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - None.

AGENDA AMENDMENTS
City Attorney Sodergren provided an oral summary regarding item 1 City Manager's employment contract to state that it is an amendment to the City Manager’s employment contract to increase the severance pay and benefits from six to twelve months. There is also an amendment to item 1 to amend the proposed First Amendment to the City Manager's Employment Contract, Section 14 the second sentence is amended to read as follows: "This paragraph will not apply if the City terminates this Contract for conduct which is a felony, or which is a serious violation of the City's harassment policy or other established rule or regulation as set forth in the City's Human Resources and Administrative Policy Guide." Councilmember Testa requested to remove Item 1 on the consent calendar for further discussion.

Mayor Brown moved item 1 to be heard before item 11 under the Public Hearings and Other Matters section of the agenda.

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

Page 5 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 2 of 6 December 3, 2024
Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa*, Mayor Brown* Noes: None

Absent: None
Vice Mayor Testa voted "no" on item 5.

Mayor Brown voted "no" on item 8.

City Council
Item 1 was pulled for further discussion.

City Manager

2. Approve meeting minutes of November 19, 2024
Recommendation: Approve meeting minutes of November 19, 2024.

Community Development

3. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission Recomme
ndation: Approve actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission.

4. Adopt a resolution approving an application for the California Senate District 7 Accessory Dwelling Unit Accelerator Grant funding in the amount of $192,043.18, and authorize the City Manager to accept the award and make appropriate budget amendments in the Miscellaneous Operating Grants Fund
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-073 to approve an application for the California Senate District 7 Accessory Dwelling Unit Accelerator Grant funding in the amount of $192,043.18, and authorize the City Manager to accept the award and make appropriate budget amendments in the Miscellaneous Operating Grants Fund.

5. Adopt Ordinance No. 2287 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton approving amendments to Chapters 17.40 (Affordable Housing Fee),

17.44 (Inclusionary Zoning), and 18.38 (Housing Opportunity Zone District) of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, as filed under case P24-0334 Recomme
ndation: Adopt Ordinance No. 2287 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton approving amendments to Chapters 17.40 (Affordable Housing Fee), 17.44 (Inclusionary Zoning), and 18.38 (Housing Opportunity Zone District) of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, as filed under case P24-0334.

MOTION: It was m/s by Nibert/Arkin to approve the consent calendar as recommended.

Motion passed by the following vote:

Page 6 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 3 of 6 December 3, 2024

6. Accept the monthly disbursement and investment report for October 2024 Recommendation: Accept claim disbursements in the amount of $21,671,295 and the investment report for the month of October 2024.

Fire

7. Accept the recommendation of the Board of Directors for the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department's Joint Powers Authority (LPFD) and adopt a resolution authorizing LPFD to give notice of its withdrawal from the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA) and to explore alternate liability coverage Recommendation: Accept the recommendation of the Board of Directors for the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department's Joint Powers Authority (LPFD) and adopt Resolution No. 2024-074 authorizing LPFD to give notice of its withdrawal from the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority (CJPRMA) and to explore alternate liability coverage.

Library and Recreation

8. Approve the Second Amendment to the Operator Agreement with Black Tie Transportation for Pleasanton Paratransit Services in an amount not to exceed $334,656 from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025 Recomme
ndation: Approve the Second Amendment to the Operator Agreement with Black Tie Transportation for Pleasanton Paratransit Services in an amount not to exceed $334,656 from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025.

Public Works

9. Approve an additional construction contingency of $250,600 for a total project contingency amount of $377,600 to construct Bid Alternatives 1-4 for the Lions Wayside and Delucchi Parks Renovations project, CIP No. 06716 Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager, or authorized staff, to approve and execute contract change orders for an additional $250,600, for a total project contingency amount of $377,600, for the bid alternate work and unforeseen yet necessary related work.

Finance

Page 7 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 4 of 6 December 3, 2024

10. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda Mayor Brown opened public comment. The following individuals provided comment: Linda Garbarino, Kelly Cousins, Jean Pullen, Christine Bourg, Nick Arkin, Kunwar Sunny Gulati.

Mayor Brown closed the public comment.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS

1. Continued from November 19, 2024 - Approve the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Contract of City Manager Gerry Beaudin to provide for twelve months severance pay/benefits
Recomme
ndation: Approve the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Contract of City Manager Gerry Beaudin to provide for twelve months severance pay/benefits.

City Manager Beaudin recused from the meeting as the item is for his employment contract.

Mayor Brown opened public comment. The following individuals provided comment: Jan Batcheller, Vin Pohray, Linda Garbarino, Kelly Cousins, Sandy Yamaoda, Vivek Mohan, Denise Colvin.

Mayor Brown
closed the public comment.

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

Ayes:

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

Coun
cilmember Balch

Absent:

None
City Manag
er Beaudin returned to the meeting at 8:14 p.m.

11. Adopt a resolution certifying an exception to the 180-day waiting period to appoint retired annuitant Joseph Testa to serve as Interim Fire Chief pursuant to Government Code sections 7522.56 and 21224
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-075 waiving the 180-day waiting period to appoint retired annuitant Joseph Testa to serve as Interim Fire Chief during the recruitment and selection process for the permanent appointment of the City’s next Fire Chief. This limited-duration assignment is recommended to be effective December 10, 2024, pursuant to Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224, at an hourly rate of $137.03, consistent with the salary schedule for the fire chief. The Interim Fire Chief will

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Page 8 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 5 of 6 December 3, 2024
serve through the recruitment process and appointment of a permanent fire chief, which is anticipated to be completed no later than August 31, 2025.

Presentation by Xaviera Scoggins, Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations.

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

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

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None

Absent: None

12. Receive biannual update regarding Police Department operations, services and activities
Recommendation: Receive biannual update regarding Police Department operations, services and activities.

Presentation by Gina Anderson, Interim Police Chief.

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

Mayor Brown called a recess at 9:31 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:38 p.m.

13. Introduce an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 regarding Tree Preservation
Recommendation: Introduce Ordinance No. 2288 amending and replacing Chapter

17.16 of the Municipal Code regarding tree preservation.

Presentation by Matt Gruber, Landscape Architect and Adam Nelkie, Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

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

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

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Brown Noes: None

Absent: None

Page 9 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 6 of 6 December 3, 2024

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
None.

COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers reported on regional and local meetings attended.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brown adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
______________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

Page 10 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 1 of 7 December 17, 2024

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m. from the Council Chamber located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None.

SPECIAL CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
MOTION: It was m/s by Nibert/Arkin to approve the consent calendar as recommended including accepting the revision to item 3 as provided in supplemental materials correcting the Transportation Development Fee for "Other" Non-Residential Uses to a rate of $6,863 per vehicle trip. Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Testa*, Mayor Brown Noes: None

Absent: None
Councilmember Testa voted "no" on item 3.

1. Adopt a resolution declaring results of the General Municipal Election held November 5, 2024, for officers and ballot measure
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-076 reciting the facts of the General Municipal Election held on November 5, 2024 declaring the results and such other matters as provided by law.

2. Adopt Ordinance No. 2288 amending Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 regarding Tree Preservation
Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 2288 amending Municipal Code Chapter

17.16 regarding Tree Preservation.

3. Adopt 1) a resolution approving and adopting the Nexus Studies prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., dated November 25, 2024, and by Raftelis, dated October 17, 2024, to update the City’s Development Impact Fees; and amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to increase the City’s Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Development Fee (also referred to as the Transportation

Page 11 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 2 of 7 December 17, 2024
Development Fee), Commercial Linkage Fee, Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee, and Water and Wastewater Connection Fees; and 2) introduce an ordinance amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 3.22 – Capital Facilities Fee, Chapter

3.26 – Transportation Development Fee, and Chapter 14.04 – Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fee to align with the Nexus Studies and make other technical updates and corrections
Recommendation: Adopt 1) Resolution No. 2024-077 approving and adopting the Nexus Studies prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., dated November 25, 2024, and by Raftelis, dated October 17, 2024, to update the City’s Development Impact Fees; and amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to increase the City’s Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Development Fee (also referred to as the Transportation Development Fee), Commercial Linkage Fee, Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee, and Water and Wastewater Connection Fees; and 2) introduce Ordinance No. 2289 amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 3.22 – Capital Facilities Fee, Chapter 3.26 – Transportation Development Fee, and Chapter 14.04 – Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fee to align with the Nexus Studies and make other technical updates and corrections.

RECOGNITION AND REMARKS
• Councilmember Valerie Arkin
• Mayor Karla Brown
Donna Brown representing Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan's office and Senator Steve Glazer's office provided remarks.

Ashley Strasburg representing Alameda County Supervisors David Haubert and Nate Miley provided remarks.

Karishma Khatri representing Assemblymember Liz Ortega's office provided remarks.

Mayor Brown opened public comment. The following individuals provided comment:

Nancy Krakauer, Paulette Goodrich, Vicki Hubbard, Jay Maille, Carol Brachua, Carol Cohen, Jay Galvin, Rita Galvin, Jackie Tarin-Rankl, Joanne Hall, Sandy Yamaoda, Matthew Gray, Fred Carter, Joan Nibert, TJ McGrath, Matthew Gray, Fred Carter, Joan Nibert, TJ McGrath, Ron Baskett, Laurene Green, Wendy Kimsey, Kelly Mokashi, Jan Coleman Knight, Andrew Turnbull, Brian Arkin, Ramesh Immadi.

Mayor Brown closed the public comment.

Members of the City Council provided remarks.

Councilmember Valerie Arkin provided remarks.

Mayor Karla Brown provided remarks.

Mayor Brown called a recess at 8:47 p.m.

Mayor Balch reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m.

Page 12 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 3 of 7 December 17, 2024

OATH OF OFFICE
Mayor-elect Jack Balch was sworn in by City Clerk Jocelyn Kwong.

Councilmember-elect Craig Eicher was sworn in by his son, Joshua.

Councilmember-elect Matthew B. Gaidos was sworn in by his dad, Arnie Gaidos.

REMARKS
Councilmember Craig Eicher provided remarks.

Councilmember Matt Gaidos provided remarks.

Mayor Jack Balch provided remarks.

ROLL CALL

Present: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Balch

Absent: None.

AGENDA AMENDMENTS
Councilmember Testa continued item 15 and Mayor Balch continued item 13 to the next regular City Council meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Nibert removed item 4 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

MOTION: It was m/s by Testa/Nibert to approve the consent calendar as recommended with the exception of item 4 and 5, and to include revisions to the resolution in item 8 replacing the two references to "Section D" to instead state "Section 4". Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Balch Noes: None

Absent: None
City Council

4. Item 4 was pulled from the Consent Calendar.

City Manager

5. Adopt a resolution setting the 2025 calendar year City Council meeting schedule Recommendation: Adop
t Resolution No. 2024-078 setting the 2025 calendar year City Council meeting schedule with 20 regular meetings.

Page 13 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 4 of 7 December 17, 2024
MOTION: It was m/s by Testa/Gaidos to approve the item with modifications to remove the meeting on July 1, 2025, and to include a meeting on January 9, 2025. Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Balch Noes: None

Absent: None
Community Development

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

7. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept award of the U.S.

Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funding in the amount of $140,450 for the Climate Action Plan 2.0 Project and approve budget amendments to allocate the funds to CIP No. 24461 Recomme
ndation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-079 authorizing the City Manager to accept award of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funding in the amount of $140,450 for the Climate Action Plan 2.0 Project and approve budget amendments to allocate the funds to CIP No. 24461.

Finance

8. Adopt a resolution finding that certain development impact fees subject to AB 1600 and SB 1693 are unexpended after five years and the funds are committed to particular projects
Recomme
ndation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-080 finding that certain development impact fees subject to AB 1600 and SB 1693 are unexpended after five years and the funds are committed to particular projects.

Human Resources

9. Adopt a resolution approving compensation for temporary/seasonal employees and amending the temporary, part-time/seasonal classification salary structure Recomme
ndation: Adopt Resolution No. 2024-081 approving compensation for temporary/seasonal employees and amending the temporary, part-time/seasonal classification salary structure (Attachment 3).

Page 14 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 5 of 7 December 17, 2024
Library and Recreation

10. Accept the donation of the public artwork Hope and Promise mural and frame Recommendation: Accept the don
ation of the public artwork Hope and Promise
mural and frame.

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

11. Public Comment regarding items not listed on the agenda Mayor Brown opened public comment. The following individuals provided comment: Bill Wheeler, John Bauer.

Mayor Brown closed the public comment.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS

12. Approve the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 budget engagement plan Recommendation: Approve the FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 budget engagement plan consisting of a Budget Advisory Committee and a community engagement plan that includes one town hall, two pop-up events, and an online engagement tool.

Presentation by Alexa Jeffress, Deputy City Manager.

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

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

SUBSTITUTE MOTION: It was m/s by Balch/Gaidos to table the item until the January 9, 2025 meeting with direction to provide additional alternatives. Motion passed by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Mayor Balch
Noes: Councilmembers Nibert, Testa

Absent: None

Page 15 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 6 of 7 December 17, 2024

13. Approve the establishment of a Budget Advisory Committee and appoint members Item continued.

14. Adopt a CIP Process and Prioritization Strategy
Recommendation:

1. Adopt the CIP Process and Prioritization (CIPPP) strategy

2. Approve a list of Annual Core Capital Improvement Program Projects

3. Approve excluding CIP prioritization strategies on the “Annual Core Capital Improvement Program Projects” and enterprise-funded Capital Improvement Program (water and sewer)
Mayor Balch opened public comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

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

Ayes: Councilmembers Eich er, Gaidos, Nibert, Testa, Mayor Balch Noes: None

Absent: None

15. 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 Item continued.

4. Ratify Mayor's appointment of a Vice Mayor and City Council assignments to various boards and commissions for calendar year 2025
Recommendation: Ratify the Mayor's appointment of Jeff Nibert as Vice Mayor and City

Page 16 of 638 ends

City Council Minutes Page 7 of 7 December 17, 2024
Council's assignments to various boards and commissions for calendar year 2025.

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

Ayes: Councilmembers Eicher, Gaidos, Mayor Balch
Noes: Councilmembers Nibert, Testa

Absent: None

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
None.

COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers reported on regional and local meetings attended.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Balch adjourned the meeting at 12:40 a.m.
______________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

Page 17 of 638 ends

Item #2

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
January 9, 2025
Community Development
TITLE: ACTIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNING

COMMISSION
P24-0565, Vikrum Deol / Deol Data Corporation
Application for Non-Exempt Home Occupation approval to conduct online sales of wine and beer with on-site storage within the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday with no on-site direct sales to customers at a residence located at 3749 W. Ruby Hill Drive.

Approved. (20 days)
P24-0725, Anmol Garcha
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct an approximately 440-square-foot arbor in the rear yard of 583 Dolores Place.

Approved. (13 days)
P24-0738, Ross and Natasha Gottlieb
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct an approximately 240-square-foot sunroom with a maximum height of 10'-3" on the side of an existing residence located at 4581 Black Avenue.

Project Information:

Existing floor area: 2,087 square feet
Total floor area with addition: 2,327 square feet
Lot size: 8,100 square feet
Existing floor area ratio: 25.77 percent
Total floor area ratio with addition: 28.73 percent
Approved. (7 days)

Page 18 of 638 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

P24-0726, Rudy Parra / Parra Builders, Inc.

Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct a single-story, approximately 605-square-foot addition to the front of an existing residence located at 1511 Loganberry Way.

Project Information:

Existing floor area: 1,520 square feet
Total floor area with addition: 2,125 square feet
Lot size: 7,405 square feet
Existing floor area ratio: 20.53 percent
Total floor area ratio with addition: 28.7 percent
Approved. (10 days)
PUD-91-11-04M, Amanda Waler
Application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Minor Modification to PUD-91-11-04M, to modify PUD-91-11 to allow for the removal and replacement of 13 trees along Persimmon Way.

Approved. (13 days)
Planning Commission, December 11, 2024
Commissioners Present: Anurag Jain, Ken Morgan, Brandon Pace, Stephanie Wedge and Chair Gaidos
Commissioners Absent: Vivek Mohan
P24-0370, Fei Xiang Bilingual School, 6663 Owens Drive
Application for Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a preschool with a maximum of 93 students at an existing building located at 6663 Owens Drive.

Action Recommended: Adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-18 approving the application.

Action Taken: Adopted Resolution No. PC-2024-18, as recommended.

Vote: 5-0

Page 19 of 638 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

P24-0670, -0671 & -0672, Patti Nelson and Eric Price for Philz Coffee, 1803 Santa Rita Road
Applications for Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Sign Design Review to operate a drive-through restaurant within an existing commercial building with an existing drive-through located at 1803 Santa Rita Road.

Action Recommended: Adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-19 approving the application.

Action Taken: Adopted Resolution No. PC-2024-19, as recommended.

Vote: 5-0
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Melinda Denis
Zoning Administrator
Ellen Clark
Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin
City Manager

Page 20 of 638 ends

Item #3

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

January 9, 2025
Community Development

TITLE: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 228 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 3.22 – CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE, 3.26 – TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE, AND

14.04 – REGULATION OF WATER SYSTEM AND WATER SERVICE FEES OF THE

PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE

The foregoing Ordinance No. 228 9 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on December 17, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Mayor Brown
Noes: Councilmember Testa

Absent: None
Abstain: None

Page 21 of 638 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 2289

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 3.22 – CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE, 3.26 – TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE, AND 14.04 – REGULATION OF WATER

SYSTEM AND WATER SERVICE FEES OF THE PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, on November 3, 1998, the City Council of the City of Pleasanton adopted Ordinance 1764, adding Chapter 3.22 - Public Facilities Fee to the Pleasanton Municipal Code; and which chapter and fee was retitled in 2019 to the Capital Facilities Fee; and

WHEREAS, on November 3, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1 765, adding Chapter 3.26 - Traffic Development Fee to the Pleasanton Municipal Code ; and which chapter and fee was retitled in 2019 to Transportation Development Fee; and

WHEREAS, on August 8, 1966, the City Council adopted Ordinance 466 to establish connection charges for connection to the City of Pleasanton water system and related policies related to the extension of the system and developers obligations thereto; and which provisions have been amended and updated over time, and incorporated into the Pleasanton Municipal Code as part of Chapter 14.04 - Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fees; and

WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a comprehensive update of the Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Development Fee, and Sewer and Water Connection Fee, as detailed in the Fee Update and Nexus Study for the City of Pleasanton Development Impact Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee, and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee prepared by Economic and Planning Systems, and the City of Pleasanton Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study prepared by Raftelis; and

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the City Council adopted the above-referenced nexus studies and amendments to the various fees; and

WHEREAS, amendments to Chapters 3.22, 3.26, and 14.04 are necessary to align with the studies and to incorporate various technical amendments to provide consistency between the chapters, and clarify and update various administrative provisions of the various fees.

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

SECTION 1. Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The City Council finds the adoption of this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because there is no potential for it to result in a physical change in the environment, either directly or indirectly, in that the various amendments pertain to administrative provisions of existing impact fees and metering of water connections . Additionally, it is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possi bility of a significant effect on the environment and contains no provisions that will directly or indirectly result in a physical change in the environment.

SECTION 2. Approves the amendments to Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapters

3.22 – Capital Facilities Fee; 3.26 – Transportation Development Fee; and 14.04 - Regulation of Water System and Water Service Fees, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Page 22 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 3. Consistency. The ordinance is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Pleasanton Municipal Code.

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its passage.

SECTION 5. The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based on can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 123 Main Street, Pleasanton California.

SECTION 6. If any part of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any remaining parts.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton on December 17, 2024, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers Arkin, Balch, Nibert, Mayor Brown
Noes: Councilmember Testa

Absent: None
Abstain: None

______________________________
Jack Balch, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Page 23 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289 Exhibit A
CHAPTER 3.22

CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE
§ 3.22.010. Purpose.

The city council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development under the general plan will result in unacceptable decreases in public services. To prevent these undesirable consequences, public facilities must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the city. The city council acknowledges that the demand for public facilities is shared by new development as well as by existing development. The proposed capital facilities fee (formerly known as the public facilities fee) apportions the cost of the necessary public improvements among the different categories of new and existing users according to the reasonably estimated demand that each group of users places upon public facilities. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.020. Terms and definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated in this section:
"Developer" means an individual or entity submitting an application for a building permit or other entitlement for development.
"Development" means:

1. New residential unit(s), including conversion of or addition to an existing unit that results in greater than one unit.

2. New commercial, office, and industrial development.

3. Additions to existing commercial, office and industrial development greater than 200 gross square feet.
"Future growth" means the total amount of potential new development in the city permitted under the general plan. Future growth is expressed in terms of gross square footage for industrial and commercial development, the number of dwelling units for residential development, and the residential and employee population associated with such new development. "Gross floor area" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 18.08.195 of this code. "Land use category" means any of the following specified land uses:

1. Residential:
a. Single-family detached;
b. Single-family attached (townhouse);
c. Multi-family (apartment, condominium);
d. Accessory dwelling or junior dwelling unit.

2. Office.

3. Commercial/retail.

4. Industrial/warehouse.

Page 24 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

5. Lodging

6. Other

“Master fee schedule” means the document providing the current list of fees and charges for services and permits approved by the city council, which is on file with the city clerk. "Public facilities" means those improvements necessary to provide public safety, community facilities, park improvements and general municipal facilities identified in the Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Nexus Study adopted by the city council and as amended from time to time , and other improvements in connection therewith, , which are not otherwise provided by, or required of, development within the city pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code. Public facilities shall also include architectural, administrative, engineering, legal, planning, environmental, inspection, construction management and other services required in connection with the implementation of this chapter and the construction of the foregoing improvements. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.22.030. Applicability.

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, this chapter applies to, and the capital facilities fee required under this chapter is payable with respect to each development within the city for which a building permit or other entitlement for development is issued on or after the effective date of the fee as adopted in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk).
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.040. Amount of fee.

A. The amount of the capital facilities fee shall be determined by the building division or planning division prior to issuance of the building permit or other entitlement or approval for development if a building permit is not required . Calculation of the fee shall be based upon the applicable rate for each land use categor y identified in section 3.22.020 and specified in the master fee schedule , multiplied by the gross square footage or number of units in the development, as specified in the master fee schedule.

B. In the event a developer is not satisfied with the calculation of the fee by the building division or planning division, he or she may request that the type of land use and the amount of the capital facilities fee required of the development be determined by the community development director.

C. The developer shall be notified in writing of the community development director's determination about the type of land use and the capital facilities fee applicable to the development. Such determination shall be made within 30 days of the community development director's receipt of the request and any other additional materials reasonably requested to assist in making the determination. The developer may appeal the determination of the community development director to the city council in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.22.100 of this chapter.

D. The amount of the fee shall be subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1st of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San

Page 25 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

Francisco—Bay Area.

E. The amount of the fee shall be reviewed periodically, but not less than every eight years or more frequently if specified by state law.

F. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019) § 3.22.050. Payment of fee.

A. The full amount of the fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. For those instances where a developer receives an entitlement or approval for development, but is not required to seek a building permit from the city, the capital facilities fee shall be payable within 30 days of final action on the development entitlement or approval.

B. No city official may issue a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or certify a final inspection for a development until the capital facilities fee, with respect to such development required by this chapter, is paid in accordance with this section.

C. If the developer has appealed the determination of the fee, and such appeal is pending at the time he or she applies for a building permit, the developer must pay the capital facilities fee to receive a building permit, but may do so under protest. If the developer's appeal is successful, and the fee is subsequently reduced, the developer shall be refunded the difference within 30 days.

D. The city shall not accept prepayments of the capital facilities fee, unless prepayment is authorized in a development agreement or other agreement.

(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.060. Credits.

If the developer desires to construct a public facility, the developer and the city may enter into an agreement regarding a credit against capital facilities fees due , as provided in this section . The City shall require such agreement to be recorded against the property.

A. Eligibility.

1. To be eligible for credit, each of the following must be satisfied:
a. The construction for which credit is given must be a public facility which would otherwise be constructed by the city using capital facilities funds. b. The public improvement must appear in the city council adopted 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan or Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Long -Term Capital Improvement Plan for public facilities or improvements, as such plans may be amended from time to time.
c. The land on which the work is done must be owned by the city, offered for dedication to the city through a recorded document , or be owned by or offered for dedication to a public agency that would offer general public access to the facility or land.
d. The developer shall have improvement plans for the work approved by the city engineer

Page 26 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

and shall provide a bond, cash depo sit or other type of security as required by the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Pleasanton’s Subdivision Ordinance or other applicable provision of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, before beginning construction.

2. The developer and the city shall enter into a written subdivision or other agreement with respect to the credit, which shall be recorded against the property. The agreement shall include the amount of the credit which will be given (or for unusual projects, the exact method of calculating the credit), when the credit will be given, and to which lots it will apply.

§ 3.22.070. Reimbursements.

A. General.

1. If the credit for improvements due under Section 3.2 2.060 of this chapter exceeds the required capital facilities fee for development, the developer is eligible for reimbursement from the capital facilities fund.

2. To be eligible for reimbursement, the following must be satisfied:
a. The developer is eligible for credit under Section 3.22.060 of this chapter; and b. The credit due exceeds the required capital facilities fee.

B. Development or Other Agreement. The terms of a written development or other agreement regarding reimbursement for public facilities shall supersede the terms of this section.

C. Time and Manner of Reimbursement.

1. The community development director shall determine the exact amount of reimbursement at the time the improvements are accepted by the city.

2. Until repaid, the reimbursement amount shall accrue simple interest commencing upon acceptance of the improvements by the city. Simple interest shall accrue each year on January 1st in an amount equal to the percentage change to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco —Bay Area. Reimbursement payments will be applied first to interest and then to principal.

3. The total amount of reimbursement, net of credits, shall be set one time upon acceptance of the improvements. The annual percentage amount of reimbursement shall be set one time, upon acceptance of the improvements, by establishing a percentage equal to: the percentage value of the reimbursement amount compared to the value of all eligible improvements; such set percentage shall then be multiplied by the total of all capital facilities fees collected in the preceding year to produce a pro rata payment for each year.

4. In the event that the amount to be reimbursed to developers pursuant to this section, or pursuant to a development or other agreement, exceeds the amount of capital facilities fees received by the city in the preceding calendar year, the city council shall take action to apportion the available fee revenue to developers entitled to reimbursement pursuant to this section in a manner which the council determines is reasonable for that calendar year.

Page 27 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

5. The city council may elect, in its absolute discretion, to provide reimbursement at a faster rate than provided in this section, based upon fees collected and available.

6. The reimbursement shall be paid one time each calendar year.

7. The right to reimbursement shall not run with the land, but shall be personal to the developer. The developer may assign his or her right to reimbursement to another by filing a written notarized assignment with the city clerk. It is the developer's or assignee's responsibility to keep the city clerk advised of a current address. If the city cannot locate a developer or assignee to send a reimbursement payment after reasonable diligence, the amount of the reimbursement for that year is forfeited, and the unclaimed funds shall be returned to the capital facilities fee fund.

B. Calculation of Credit.

1. General.
a. The community development director, or designee, ("director") shall calculate the amount of credit to be given based upon the approved improvement plans and using cost estimates (which are based on recent city project bids for similar work).

The cost of any right-of-way to be purchased shall be based upon an appraisal done by a licensed appraiser, approved by the city, at the developer’s expense, with said costs eligible for credit.
b. For nonstandard improvements, the credit shall be calculated based on information provided by the developer (such as bids or other documents verifying costs) for the community development director's review and approval.
c. The calculation of costs shall be based only on work which is eligible for credit under subsection A of this section. No credit shall be given for the cost of constructing improvements otherwise required by direct development pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code. The amount of credit includes construction costs and the cost of engineering.

2. Assessment Districts, Benefit Area and Community Facilities Districts. If development occurs within an assessment district, fee benefit area, community facilities district, or otherwise is subject to an assessment, fee or special tax collected specifically to defray the costs of providing or constructing public facilities, the amount of credit is equal to that portion of the estimated construction cost of the public facilities included in the assessments, fees or special taxes which will be contributed by the development.

C. Reimbursement When Credit Exceeds Fee. When the amount of credit exceeds the amount of the developer's capital facilities fee, the developer may be eligible for reimbursement of costs under Section 3.22.090 of this chapter.

D. How and When Credit is Given.

1. If a developer is eligible for credit, the community development director shall calculate the credit pursuant to subsection B of this section, and determine the number of residential units or residential square footage , or office, commercial/retail, or industrial/warehouse square footage for which developer shall receive a credit. No

Page 28 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

interest shall accrue on the amount of the credit.

2. For a residential subdivision, the lots or units to which the credit will apply shall be precisely identified; and the entitlement to the credit recorded in the office of the county recorder if the developer desires to sell, transfer, or assign the lots prior to obtaining a building permit.

E. Appeal. Any determination of the community development director under this section is subject to appeal by the developer to the city council pursuant to Section 3.2 2.100 of this chapter.

(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.070. Exemptions.

Unless a development agreement or other agreement provides otherwise, the following projects shall be exempt, in whole or in part, from the capital facilities fee otherwise required by this chapter:

A. Residential development consisting of the repair or replacement, on a one -to-one basis, of dwelling units, including expansion that does not result in the creation of additional dwelling units.

B. Commercial, office or industrial development consisting of the repair or replacement of structures, provided, that such repair or replacement does not result in any conversion or change in land use, or any enlargement of gross floor area beyond that of the previous structure.

C. Additions, extensions or enlargements of an existing commercial, office/retail, or light industrial/warehouse structure which, in any calendar year, do not increase the gross floor area of the structure by 200 square feet or more.

(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.080. Use of funds.

The fees paid pursuant to this chapter shall, except for temporary investments, be placed in a separate fund in a manner to avoid commingling of the fees with other revenues or funds of the city, and shall be used solely for the purpose of acquiring and constructing the public facilities identified by the city council in the city's capital improvement program as described in Section

3.22.060.A.1.b. Any interest income earned on the fund shall also be deposited therein and shall only be expended for the purposes set forth in this section. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.090. Refunds.

Refunds may be made where:

A. Development has ceased, the building permit has expired and no extensions have been granted, or if granted, the extension(s) has expired; as to a development for which the fee required under this chapter has been collected; provided that the claim for such a refund is

Page 29 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

filed no later than six months after the expiration date of the building permit, or any extension thereof as may have been approved by the city, as the case may be; or B. A refund is specifically authorized by resolution of the city council adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d). Such amounts shall be refunded by the city to the then- current record owners of the development on a prorated basis. The city may effect such refunding by direct payment, or by providing credit towards future capital facilities fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of Government Code Section 66001. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.100. Appeals.

A developer may appeal to the city council any determination made pursuant to this chapter.

All appeals shall be in a form prescribed by the community development director and shall be filed within 15 days of the date of mailing to the developer any written notice of the applicable determination. Any appeal not filed within such period shall be deemed waived. The city council shall set the matter for hearing within 45 days of the date of receipt by the city clerk of the notice of the appeal.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.22.110. Expiration of fee.

The fees required by this chapter shall expire when the public facilities are completed and all debt service related to such public improvements are paid and satisfied. (Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.120. Supplementary provisions.

It is the intent of the city council that the fees required by this chapter shall be supplementary to the fees, dedications or conditions imposed upon development pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and other state laws and city ordinances, policies or conditions which may authorize the imposition of fees, dedications or conditions thereon.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)
§ 3.22.130. Severability.

The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any person, association, corporation or to any property as to whom or which it is beyond the power of the city to impose the fee provided in this chapter. If any sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter, or any fee imposed upon any person or entity is found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, such unconstitutionality, illegality or invalidity shall affect only such sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter, and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, sentences, clauses, sections or other parts of this chapter, or its effect on other persons or entities. It is declared to be the intention of the city council that this chapter would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid sentence, clause, section or part of this chapter had not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this chapter. To this end, the provisions of this chapter are severable.
(Ord. 1764 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

Page 30 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

CHAPTER 3.26

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE

§ 3.26.010. Purpose.

The city council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development under the general plan will result in adverse impacts to traffic circulation. To prevent these undesirable consequences, transportation improvements must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the city. The city council acknowledges that the demand for transportation improvements is shared by existing as well as new development. The proposed transportation development fee (formerly the traffic development fee) apportions the cost of the necessary transportation improvements and reconstruction among the different categories of new and existing users according to the reasonably estimated peak hour trip demand that each group of users places upon transportation improvements.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.020. Terms and definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated in this section:
"Average trip cost" means the cost per peak hour trip as determined in accordance with Section

3.26.040(A) of this chapter.
"Circulation element" means the text and maps in the circulation element of the city's general plan, as amended.
"Developer" means an individual or entity submitting an application for a building permit or other entitlement for development.
"Development" means:

1. New residential unit(s), including conversion of or addition to an existing unit that results in greater than one unit.

2. New commercial, office, and industrial development.

3. Additions to existing commercial, office, and industrial development greater than 200 gross square feet.

4. Conversion or change in use of an existing structure which individually or cumulatively increases the peak hour trips by 10 or more.
"Future growth" means the total amount of potential new development in the city permitted under the general plan. Future growth is expressed in terms of gross square footage for commercial, office, and industrial development, the number of dwelling units for residential development, and the residential and employee population associated with such new development. "Gross floor area" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 18.08.195 of this code. "Land use category" means any of the following specified land uses:

1. Residential:
a. Single-family detached;

Page 31 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

b. Single-family attached (townhouse);
c. Multi-family (apartment, condominium);
d. Accessory dwelling or junior dwelling unit.

2. Office.

3. Commercial/retail.

4. Industrial/warehouse.

5. Lodging

6. Other
“Master fee schedule” means the document providing the current list of fees and charges for services and permits approved by the city council, which is on file with the city clerk. "Net transportation improvement costs" means costs determined in accordance with Section

3.26.040(A)(1) of this chapter.
"Peak hour trip" means a one -way vehicle trip measured during the hour of peak traffic volume occurring between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
"Peak hour trip rate" means the average number of peak hour trips generated by a land use category per unit or per square foot of development, as established by the city's traffic engineer in accordance with Section 3.26.040(A) of this chapter.
"Transportation improvements" means those improvements necessary to complete the major street and interchange improvements and renovations identified in the circulation element, the Pleasanton Development Fee Nexus Study adopted by the city council and as may be amended from time to time ,, and capital improvement program (CIP), as may be amended from time to time by the city council, including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, medians, landscaping, drainage facilities, traffic signals, street lighting, rights- of-way, bicycle paths, bridges, grade separation, and other improvements in connection therewith, which are not otherwise provided by, or required of, direct development requirements pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code.

Transportation improvements shall also include architectural, administrative, engineering, legal, planning, environmental , inspection, construction management and other services required in connection with the implementation of this chapter and the construction of the foregoing improvements.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2161 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.030. Applicability.

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter , this chapter applies to, and the transportation development fee required under this chapter is payable with respect to, each development within the city for which a building permit or other entitlement for development is issued on or after the effective date of the fee as adopted in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk).
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.040. Rate of fee.

The rate of the transportation development fee shall be calculated in accordance with the

Page 32 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

procedure set forth in this section and shall be established and adjusted by resolution of the city council and set forth in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk) as follows:

A. Establishment of the Rate. The city council shall establish the rate of the transportation development fee by dividing the net transportation improvement costs attributable to new growth by the total additional peak hour trips generated by future growth. The city council may review and make adjustments to the net transportation improvement costs and peak hour trips as necessary. The net transportation improvements and total peak hour trips shall be determined as follows:

1. Net Transportation Improvement Costs.
a. The city council shall determine the transportation improvements which are necessary to implement the circulation element of the general plan and reduce the adverse impacts caused by the increased traffic volume generated by future growth.

For purposes of determining the amount of the net transportation improvement costs, the city council shall not include the cost of transportation improvements required directly of development pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code.

Such direct development requirements, improvements, and dedications in addition to or in lieu thereof, shall continue to be imposed in accordance with Titles 18, 19 and 20 of this code, as appropriate, in addition to the transportation development fees imposed pursuant to this chapter.
b. The city council shall make a reasonable estimate of the total costs necessary to construct, renovate, or provide the transportation improvements. c. The city council shall estimate the current and anticipated funding available to satisfy the costs of constructing and implementing the transportation improvements. In determining the amount of funding available, the city council shall include funding from other governmental entities to the extent the receipt by the city of such funding is reasonable, and city revenues appropriated for construction or implementation or transportation improvements, if any. d. The city council shall attribute the need for the transportation improvements between new development and existing development.
e. The city council shall determine the difference, if any, between the estimated costs of the construction and implementation of the transportation improvements and the estimated funding available therefor. The extent to which the cost of such construction and implementation exceeds the funds available, or expected to be available, therefor shall be the "net transportation improvement costs."

2. Total Peak Hour Trips.
a. The total gross square footage or dwelling unit count, as the case may be, of potential new development within each land use category as projected to occur during the period of build -out under the general plan shall be multiplied by the peak hour rate for each land use category established pursuant to Section 3.26.020 of this chapter.
b. The peak hour trips generated by potential new development within each land use category as determined pursuant to subsection (A)(2)(a) of this section shall be added together to determine the total additional peak hour trips created by new

Page 33 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

development which the city's transportation system must accommodate upon build- out under the general plan.

B. Annual Adjustment of the Rate. The transportation development fee rate shall be subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1st of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco—Bay Area. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.050. Amount of fee.

A. The amount of the transportation development fee shall be determined by the building division or planning division prior to issuance of the building permit or other entitlement or approval for development if a building permit is not required , based on the land use categories identified in section 3.26.020, multiplied by the gross square footage or number of residential units as specified in the master fee schedule and the corresponding rate set forth in the master fee schedule. If the development does not fit within the land use categories identified in 3.26.020 or the land use has a trip rate that is significantly different than any of the land use categories, the “other” land use category shall be used. The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the number of PM trips generated by the development by the trip rate established in 3.26.040(A)

1. If a developer is not satisfied with the calculation of the fee by the building division or planning division, he or she may request that the traffic engineer review the peak hour trips generated and/or community development director review the gross square footage and land use category to determine the fee in accordance with this chapter. The traffic engineer and/or community development director shall calculate the fee within 30 days of the submission of a written request for review, and receipt of all materials necessary to determine the amount of the fee.

2. Because the fee for commercial uses has been established based upon an average for several types of commercial uses, the developer may only petition for a review of the commercial transportation development fee to be charged to its development based upon a peak hour trip rate which is substantially different from that established by the city's traffic engineer pursuant to Section 3.26.020 of this chapter. Such application shall include a traffic study contracted by the city, and paid for by the developer, or such other reports and analyses in lieu thereof as the city traffic engineer determines are sufficient to establish the peak hour trip rate applicable to the development. The developer may also submit additional information which the city traffic engineer shall consider insofar as he or she determines it to be relevant in establishing the peak hour trip rate applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, information contained in the trip generation manual adopted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The city traffic engineer, based upon his or her review and consideration of the information provided in the foregoing studies, reports, or analyses, and such other information as he or she may deem relevant, may approve a peak hour trip rate for the development which is different than that set forth in Section 3.26.020 of this chapter.

B. For development consisting of an addition, extension, or enlargement of an existing structure, the transportation development fee shall be paid only on any additional dwelling units or additional gross floor area resulting from such addition, extension, or enlargement.

C. For development consisting of a conversion or change in use of an existing structure which increases the peak hour trip rate otherwise applicable to such existing structure, the

Page 34 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

transportation development fee shall equal the fee applicable to the entire new structure minus the fee otherwise applicable to the existing structure.

D. The amount of the transportation development fee determined in accordance with subsection A of this section, shall be reduced by the amount of any credits authorized by Section

3.26.070 of this chapter.

E. The amount of the fee shall be reviewed periodically, but not less than every eight years or more frequently if specified by state law. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.060. Payment of fee.

A. The full amount of the fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. For those instances where a developer receives an entitlement for development, but is not required to seek a building permit from the city, the transportation development fee shall be payable within 30 days of final action on the development entitlement or approval.

B. No city official may issue a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or certify a final inspection,, for a development until the transportation development fee, with respect to such development required by this chapter, is paid in accordance with this section.

C. If the developer has appealed the determination of the fee, and such appeal is pending at the time he or she applies for a building permit, the developer must pay the transportation development fee to receive a building permit, but may do so under protest. If the developer's appeal is successful, and the fee is subsequently reduced, the developer shall be refunded the difference within 30 days.

D. The city shall not accept prepayments of the transportation development fee, unless prepayment is authorized in a development agreement or other agreement. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.070. Credits.

When a developer constructs a transportation improvement not otherwise required by Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code, the developer's transportation development fee shall be reduced as provided in this section. The details of any credit provided shall be reflected in an agreement between the city and the developer, which shall be recorded against the property.

A. Eligibility.

1. To be eligible for credit, each of the following must be satisfied:
a. The construction for which credit is given must be a transportation improvement which would otherwise be constructed by the city using transportation development fee funds.
b. The transportation improvement must appear on the city council approved 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan or Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Long -Term Improvement Plan for transportation improvements, as said plans may be amended from time to time.
c. The land on which the work is done must be owned by the city, or offered for

Page 35 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

dedication to the city through a recorded document.
d. The developer shall have improvement plans for the work approved by the city engineer and shall provide a bond, cash deposit or other type of security as required by the Subdivision Map Act, the City of Pleasanton’s Subdivision Ordinance, or other applicable provision of the Pl easanton Municipal Code before beginning construction.
e. .

B. Calculation of Credit.

The cost of right-of-way to be purchased shall be based upon an appraisal done by a licensed appraiser at city expense.
b. For nonstandard improvements, the credit shall be calculated based on information provided by the developer (such as bids or other documents verifying costs) for the community development director's review and approval.
c. The calculation of costs shall be based only on work which is eligible for credit under subsection A of this section. No credit shall be given for the cost of constructing improvements otherwise required by direct development pursuant to Titles 18, 19, and 20 of this code. The amount of credit includes construction costs and the cost of engineering.

2. Assessment Districts, Benefit Area and Community Facilities Districts. If development occurs within an assessment district, fee benefit area, community facilities district, or otherwise is subject to an assessment, fee or special tax collected specifically to defray the costs of providing or constructing transportation circulation improvements, the amount of credit is equal to that portion of the estimated construction cost of the transportation circulation improvements included in the assessments, fees or special taxes which will be contributed by the development.

C. Reimbursement When Credit Exceeds Fee. When the amount of credit exceeds the amount of the developer's transportation development fee, the developer may be eligible for reimbursement of costs under Section 3.26.080 of this chapter.

D. How and When Credit is Given.

1. If a developer is eligible for credit, the community development director shall calculate the credit pursuant to subsection B of this section, and determine the number of residential units, or office, commercial/retail, or industrial/warehouse square footage for

Page 36 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

which developer shall receive a credit. No interest shall accrue on the amount of the credit.

For a residential subdivision, the lots or units to which the credit will apply shall be precisely identified; and the entitlement to the credit recorded in the office of the county recorder if the developer desires to sell, transfer, or assign the lots prior to obtaining a building permit.

E. Appeal. Any determination of the community development director under this section is subject to appeal by the developer to the city council pursuant to Section 3.26.120 of this chapter.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.080. Reimbursements.

A. General.

1. If the credit for improvements due under Section 3.26.070 of this chapter exceeds the required transportation development fee for development, the developer is eligible for reimbursement from the transportation development fee fund.

2. To be eligible for reimbursement, the following must be satisfied:
a. The developer is eligible for credit under Section 3.26.070 of this chapter; and b. The credit due exceeds the required transportation development fee.

B. Development or Other Agreement. The terms of a written development or other agreement regarding reimbursement for transportation improvements shall supersede the terms of this section.

C. Time and Manner of Reimbursement.

1. The community development director shall determine the exact amount of reimbursement at the time the improvements are accepted by the city.

3. The total amount of reimbursement, net of credits, shall be set one time upon acceptance of the transportation improvements. The annual percentage amount of reimbursement shall be set one time, upon acceptance of the transportation improvements, by establishing a percentage equal to: the percentage value of the reimbursement amount compared to the value of all transportation improvements; such set percentage shall then be multiplied by the total of all transportation development fees collected in the preceding year to produce a pro rata payment for each year.

Example: The total transportation improvements to be funded by the transportation development fee in year one cost $50,000,000.00; developer builds an improvement valued at $10,000,000.00 and is entitled to a $5,000,000.00 reimbursement. Developer's reimbursement amount is 10 percent of the cost of all improvements, so developer

Page 37 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

is entitled to 10 percent of the transportation development fees collected each year, irrespective of whether the value of the total transportation c improvements increases or decreases in subsequent years (e.g., if $5,000,000.00 in transportation fees are collected in year two, the developer is entitled to 10 percent or $500,000.00, and interest accrues on the remaining $4,500,000.00). Developer should receive full reimbursement, with interest, upon build-out, subject to adjustments as provided in subsection (C)(4) of this section.

4. In the event that the amount to be reimbursed to developers pursuant to this section, or pursuant to a development or other agreement, exceeds the amount of transportation development fees received by the city in the preceding calendar year, the city council shall take action to apportion the available fee revenue to developers entitled to reimbursement pursuant to this section in a manner which the council determines is reasonable for that calendar year.

5. The city council may elect, in its absolute discretion, to provide reimbursement at a faster rate than provided in this section, based upon fees collected and available.

6. The reimbursement shall be paid one time each calendar year.

§ 3.26.090. Exemptions.

Unless a development or other agreement provides otherwise, the following projects shall be exempt, in whole or in part, from the transportation development fee otherwise required by this chapter:

A. Residential development consisting of the repair or replacement, on a one -to-one basis, of dwelling units , including expansion that does not result in the creation of additional dwelling units.

B. Commercial or industrial/warehouse development consisting of the repair or replacement of structures, provided, that such repair or replacement does not result in any conversion or change in land use which increases the peak hour trip rate applicable to the previous structure, or any enlargement of gross floor area beyond that of the previous structure.

§ 3.26.100. Use of funds.

The fees paid pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall, except for temporary investments,

Page 38 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

be placed in a separate fund in a manner to avoid commingling of the fees with other revenues or funds of the city, and shall be used solely for the purpose of acquiring and constructing the transportation improvements as defined in Section 3.26. 020. Any interest income earned on the fund shall also be deposited therein and shall only be expended for the purposes set forth in this section.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.110. Refunds.

Refunds may be made where:

A. Development has ceased, the building permit has expired and no extensions have been granted, or if granted, the extensions have expired; as to a development for which the fee required under this chapter has been collected; provided that the claim for such a refund is filed no later than six months after the expiration date of the building permit, or any extension thereof as may have been approved by the city; or
B. A refund is specifically authorized by resolution of the city council adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d). Such amounts shall be refunded by the city to the then- current record owners of the development on a prorated basis. The city may effect such refunding by direct payment, or by providing credit towards future transportation improvements fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of Government Code Section 66001.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.120. Appeals.

A developer may appeal to the city council any final administrative determination made pursuant to this chapter, after exhausting all other appeals provided in this chapter, and payment of the fee for a planning appeal as set forth in the master fee schedule (on file in the office of the city clerk).

All appeals to the city council shall be in a form prescribed by the city clerk and shall be filed within 15 days of the date of mailing to the developer any written notice of the applicable final administrative determination. Any appeal not filed within such period shall be deemed waived.

The city clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the city council within 45 days of the date of receipt by the city clerk of the notice of the appeal. In making its determination on the appeal, the city council shall follow the standards set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.130. Expiration of fee.

The fees required by this chapter shall expire when the transportation improvements are completed and all debt service and reimbursements related to such transportation improvements are paid and satisfied.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.140. Supplementary provisions.

It is the intent of the city council that the fees required by this chapter shall be supplementary to the fees, dedications or conditions imposed upon development pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and other state laws and city ordinances or policies which may authorize the imposition of fees, dedications or conditions

Page 39 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

thereon.
(Ord. 1765 § 2, 1998; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019)

§ 3.26.150. Severability.

Page 40 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

CHAPTER 14.04

REGULATION OF WATER SYSTEM AND WATER SERVICE FEES
§ 14.04.010. Definitions.

Whenever in this chapter the words or phrases defined in this section are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions (unless in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall clearly impart a different meaning):
"Applicant" means any prospective consumer applying for water service. "Consumer" means any person, firm, company, corporation, partnership, association, the city, any public corporation, political subdivision, city, county, district, the state of California or the United States of America, or any department or agency of any thereof, billed for water furnished by the water system. The singular in each case shall include the plural. "Department" means the department of public works of the city. "Developer" means any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association or governmental agency other than the city that installs any parts of or connects any services to any point in the city water system for the purpose of extracting water from the city water system. "Director" means the operations services director of the city or other person designated by the city manager to perform the services or make the determinations permitted or required under this chapter to be made by the director.
"Distribution main" means an intermediate main serving more than one developer or neighborhood, normally larger than eight inches and smaller than 16 inches and to which service lines may be attached.
"Dwelling unit" means any single -family dwelling of one or more rooms suitable for residential occupancy by any number of persons living together as a single family, including single-family dwelling units, and each group of rooms constituting a dwelling unit for a single family in any multiple-dwelling structure.
"Finance department" means the finance department of the city. "In-tract main" means a water main within the physical boundaries of a lot or subdivision. "Local main" means a water line serving a single developer or neighborhood, normally eight inches or smaller, but may include larger sizes, to which all service lines are attached. “Master meter” means one meter that is subsequently connected to multiple submeters. "Meter" means a city-installed water meter.
"Mixed-use residential and commercial structure" means a structure containing two or more dwelling units (but excepting low-income housing, housing at a place of education, long-term care facilities, time-share property and residential care facilities for the elderly, as defined in California Water Code Section 537(a), as amended).
"Multiunit residential structure" means a structure containing two or more dwelling units (but excepting low-income housing, housing at a place of education, long -term care facilities, time - share property and residential care facilities for the elderly, as defined in California Water Code Section 537(a), as amended).
"Perimeter main" means a water main in a street or right-of-way on or about the border of a lot or

Page 41 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

subdivision which is or may be shared by two or more developers. "Premises" means any lot, piece or parcel of land or any building or other structure or any part of any building or structure having a connection with the water system. "Service, commercial" means the furnishing of water to premises where the consumer is engaged in a trade or business.
"Service connection" means any connection on private property to a service line for the purpose of extracting water from the city water system.
"Service, domestic" means the furnishing of water for household residential purposes, including water used for sprinkling lawns, gardens and shrubbery, for watering livestock, for washing vehicles and for other similar and customary purposes.
"Service, industrial" means the furnishing of water to premises for use by a consumer in manufacturing or processing activities.
"Service line" means the supply line extending from the local or distributing main to the property line and includes the meter.
"Service, metered" means the furnishing of water by measured quantities. "Service, municipal" means furnishing water for municipal or other public use. "Submeter" or "submetering" means a property-owner installed device to measure water supplied for the exclusive use of the particular dwelling unit installed after a city -installed meter; which is in compliance with California Civil Code Sections 1954.201 through 1954.219, as amended. "Transmission main" means any of the larger mains shown on the city master plan, or otherwise designated by the city, and which shall not normally have any service line directly attached. "Valley floor zone" means that area within or without the city roughly between the elevations of 315 to 430 feet and served or capable of being served by gravity from the main storage facilities of the city water system located at elevations approximately 485 to 535 feet. "Water" means water furnished by the water system.
"Water facilities" means all of the necessary component parts of a water system including pipe, fittings, valves and hydrants.
"Water main extension" means a water main connecting a developer's lot or subdivision with a nonadjacent water main and which benefits or will benefit lands on one or both sides of the main that are not part of the developer's lot or subdivision. "Water main extensions" are also sometimes referred to as "off-tract mains."
"Water service" means the services, facilities and water furnished or available to premises by the water system.
"Water system" means the existing municipal water system of the city, together with the improvements thereto, including works and facilities for the storage, transmission and distribution of water, including pumping plants, lift stations, reservoirs and water storage facilities, water mains, pipelines, pipes, meters, pumps, equipment, and other works, properties or structures necessary or convenient for improvements to the existing municipal water system, together with such additions, extensions, betterments or improvements thereto as may be made from time to time.
(Prior code § 2-16.01; Ord. 2000 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2171 § 2, 2017)

Page 42 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

§ 14.04.020. General provisions.

A. The city will endeavor to supply water at the curb or property line in adequate quantities and at proper working pressures to meet the reasonable needs and requirements of consumers.

B. Whenever water is furnished for human consumption, the city will endeavor to supply at all times a safe and potable water.

C. All water supplied consumers will be supplied by metered service and will be measured by means of suitable standard water meters. A cubic foot will be the unit of measurement for metered service.

D. All water rates and charges shall become effective immediately, as to all premises then connected to the water system. All such rates and charges shall become effective against all premises not then connected to the water system immediately upon such connection.

E. No water and no services or facilities of the water system shall be furnished to any consumer or to any person free of charge; provided, however, that the city may without charge use water for park irrigation, street cleaning, firefighting and testing, maintenance and repairing the water system, and for similar municipal purposes.

F. Except by special agreement with the city or city -authorized submetering , no consumer shall resell any water furnished by the city through the water system.

G. The city will exercise reasonable diligence to provide continuous and adequate water service to consumers and to avoid any shortage or interruption of delivery of water but cannot guarantee complete freedom from interruption. The department shall have the right to suspend water service temporarily to make necessary repairs or improvements to the water system. In each case of temporary suspension of service , the department will notify the consumers affected as soon as circumstances permit and will prosecute the work of repair or improvement with due diligence and with the least possible inconvenience to consumers.

H. During any period of threatened or actual water shortage the city shall have the right to apportion its available water supply among consumers in such manner as appears most equitable under the circumstances then prevailing and with due regard to public health and safety.

I. The city shall not be liable for interruption, shortage or insufficiency of water supply or water pressure or any loss or damage occasioned thereby.
(Prior code § 2-16.02)
§ 14.04.030. Operation of water system.

A. The department of public works shall have jurisdiction, supervision and control of the water system and of the construction of all improvements, additions, extensions and betterments thereto hereafter constructed or acquired, and shall operate and maintain the water system and all improvements, additions, extensions and betterments thereto.

B. Subject to the general control of the council and the city manager of the city, the water system shall be under the direct supervision of the director.

C. The department, under the supervision of the director, shall supervise all connections to the water system, and the finance department shall collect or cause to be collected all water bills

Page 43 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

and charges and all connection and other fees provided for in this chapter, and the directors of both departments, respectively, are charged with the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and the director of the finance department shall keep or cause to be kept an accurate accounting and records showing the source, amount and disposition of all funds received from the water system under this chapter.

D. The city shall cause to be issued and shall maintain in good standing a surety bond conditioned upon the full and prompt deposit by the director of the finance department and all other employees of the finance department of all revenues from the water system. (Prior code § 2-16.03)
§ 14.04.040. Service area.

The territory served by the water system of the city shall be all territory now within the boundaries of the city and, at the discretion of the council, any other territory as the city may determine. (Prior code § 2-16.04)
§ 14.04.050. Connections to water system.

A. Any person whose premises are not connected with the water system upon the date of the adoption of Ordinance 478, March 28, 1967, shall connect such premises or cause such premises to be connected with the water system only after first obtaining a permit to do so from the director and upon payment of the applicable connection charges provided in Chapter

14.08, Water Connections; provided, however, that there shall be no charge for connecting premises for which a service connection has already been installed to the water system, except as this chapter expressly otherwise provides.

Any consumer connecting to the water system on an intermittent or temporary basis, including, but not limited to, use of fire hydrants or blow-offs for construction water, flushing lines, or similar purposes, shall connect to the water system only after first obtaining a permit to do so from the director; there shall be no connection charge pursuant to Chapter 14.08, Water Connections, but there shall be a charge pursuant to Section 14.04.070.

B. Each applicant for water service may be required to sign, on a form provided by the department, an application which shall set forth:

1. Date and place of application;

2. Location of premises to be served;

3. Date applicant will be ready for service;

4. Whether the premises have been heretofore supplied with water from the water system;

5. Purpose for which service is to be used;

6. Address to which bills are to be mailed or delivered;

7. Whether applicant is owner or tenant of, or agent for, the premises;

8. Such other information as the department may reasonably require.

The application is only a written request for service and does not bind the applicant to take

Page 44 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

service for a period of time longer than that upon which the rates and minimum charges of the applicable rate schedule are based; neither does it bind the city to serve, except under reasonable conditions.

Two or more parties who join in one application for service shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of bills and shall be billed by means of single periodic bills.

C. Connections to the water system shall occur as follows:

1. For separate houses, including single -family homes, condominiums and townhouses, through a separate service connection to each dwelling unit . For condominiums and townhouses, the director is authorized to allow service using a master meter.

2. For multiunit residential structures, or mixed-use residential and commercial structures, on the same parcel, either:
a. Through separate service connections to each dwelling unit, or b. Through a single connection with subsequent submetering to each dwelling unit;

3. For buildings or business quarters on the same parcel or on adjoining parcels under a single control or management by either of the following methods, as the director shall elect:
a. Through separate service connections to each such building or business quarter, or b. Through a single service connection to supply all of such buildings and business quarters, and in which case one monthly minimum charge shall be applied for each such occupied building or business quarter, and the responsibility for payment of charges for all water furnished shall be assumed by the consumer having such control or management. Credit for such vacant units which are not metered separately but together with the occupied units shall be computed by deducting one monthly minimum charge for each vacant unit from the original total monthly bill for all of the units.

D. In order to assist in monitoring sewage flows and water conservation, all applicants for service connections shall provide a separate meter and water system for irrigation purposes when an applicant's site qualifies under the City of Pleasanton's Landscape Ordinance thresholds for separate domestic and irrigation metering depending on the size of the irrigated areas, or as otherwise determined in the reasonable discretion of the director for submetered or separately metered sites, and may provide separate meter and water systems for other water consumptive uses which do not have the potential to generate flows to the sewerage system. Any such meter shall be installed in a manner and location satisfactory to the director. Upon request by the applicant, the director may waive, at his or her sole discretion, this requirement if he or she finds that the volume of irrigation water would be minimal and the cost of a separate meter and water system would be disproportionately uneconomical relative to sewer user charges to be saved.

E. If, in the opinion of the city, it is doubtful if satisfactory water service can be given, due to location or elevation of the premises, then the city may require a written release from liability for any damage or inconvenience that may occur by reason of insufficient pressure or inadequate volume of water or intermittent supply. The release shall, without further notice from the city, remain in effect for all consumers taking water through the service, until

Page 45 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

changes, extensions, or betterments may be made to the distribution system by the city.

F. Failure by any person or any consumer to file his or her application containing the information required by this chapter shall constitute a violation of this chapter. No application shall be conclusive as to the matters therein set forth nor shall the filing of any application preclude the city from collecting from the consumer responsible for payment (as provided in this chapter) by appropriate action such sum as is actually due and payable for water service under the provisions of this chapter. Each application shall be subject to verification by the director. Any person who takes possession of and uses water from the water system without having made application for service pursuant to this chapter shall be held liable for the full amount of the service rendered.

G. The city may require a written contract with any consumer as a condition precedent to water service in any case where unusual quantities of water or construction of special facilities are or will be required; provided, however, that any such contract shall not modify the rate structure provided in this chapter.

H. No rent or other charge shall be paid by the city for any meter or other facilities located on a consumer's premises.

I. All service connections, meters, main extensions and installations paid for by applicants, and all other facilities furnished by the department or the city, whether located wholly or partially on public or private property, shall be and remain the property of the city, and the department shall have the right to repair, replace and maintain the same and the right to remove the same upon discontinuance of service.

J. The city shall not be responsible for the installation or maintenance of any water lines beyond the end of its service connection or meter.
(Prior code § 2-16.05; Ord. 1073 § 1, 1983; Ord. 1175 § 2, 1985; Ord. 2171 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2179 § 2, 2018)
§ 14.04.060. Use of water service.

A. The director or other duly authorized agent of the department shall have at all reasonable times the right of ingress to and egress from any consumer's premises for any purpose properly relating to the furnishing of water to the consumer. Any inspection work or recommendation made by the department or its agents in connection with plumbing or appliances or any use of water on the consumer's premises, either as a result of a complaint or otherwise, will be made without charge. No agent or employee of the department or the city shall accept any personal compensation from a consumer or applicant for any services rendered.

B. Consumers making any material change in the size, character or extent of the utilizing equipment or operations for which the city is supplying water service shall immediately give the department written notice of the extent and nature of the change and, if necessary, amend their application.

C. When a consumer receiving service at the water system main or service connection must by means of a pump of any kind elevate or increase the pressure of the water received, the pump shall not be attached to any pipe directly connected to the main or service pipe. Such pumping or boosting of pressure shall be done from a sump, cistern, or storage tank which may be served by, but not directly connected with, the water system distribution facilities.

Page 46 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

D. Quick closing or opening valves shall not be installed on any consumer's pipes which are directly attached to the water system mains or service pipes. A consumer whose operation requires the use of a quick opening or closing valve must operate such device from a tank, cistern, pump or other facility which may be served by but not directly connected with the water system distribution mains or service pipes.

E. The city will not be responsible for any loss or damage caused by any negligence or unlawful action of any consumer or any other person in installing, maintaining, supplying, or using any appliances, facilities or equipment for which water or water service is furnished by the city. Each consumer shall be held responsible for damage to the city's meters and other property comprising any part of the water system resulting from use or operation of appliances or facilities on such consumer's premises including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, damage caused by steam, hot water or chemicals.

F. It is a violation of this chapter for any person to tamper with any of the property comprising the water system.

G. It is a violation of this chapter for any person or consumer to waste water obtained from the water system. As used in this subsection, the term "waste" means:

1. Use of potable water between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to irrigate grass, lawns, groundcover, shrubbery, crops, vegetation, and trees, with the exception of hand watering and drip irrigation;

2. The application of potable water to outdoor landscaping in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non -irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots or structures;

3. Use of potable water to irrigate outdoor landscaping during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall;

4. Use of potable water to wash down sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots, open ground or other hard surface areas by the direct application of water thereto, unless needed for health or safety reasons;

5. Use of potable water in non -recirculating decorative ponds, fountains and other water features, with the exception of child water-play features;

6. Allowing potable water to escape from breaks within the person or consumer's plumbing system for more than eight hours after the person or consumer is notified or discovers the break.

7. Use of potable water for outdoor landscaping through a dedicated irrigation meter within the city's recycled water use area unless otherwise exempted by the director of operations and water utilities for existing water customers, or city engineer for new development.
(Prior code § 2-16.06; Ord. 2093 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2097 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2118 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2176 § 2, 2018)
§ 14.04.070. Water rates and charges.

There is levied and assessed upon all consumers and premises connected with the water system a service charge based upon the size of the city -installed water meter to the premises and a charge

Page 47 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

based upon the amount of water flow through the city-installed meter, both of which charges shall be paid. The amount of the service charge and the charge for water used shall be in accordance with the amount specified in the resolution establishing various fees and charges for municipal services of the city. The city shall only read city -installed water meters, and not property -owner installed submeters.
(Prior code § 2-16.07; Ord. 1973 § 2, 1983; Ord. 2171 § 2, 2017) § 14.04.075. Security deposits.

A. For a new residential applicant, whether the applicant is the property owner or a tenant of a residential unit that is not master metered, the finance director may require from the applicant a security deposit in an amount not to exceed twice the average periodic (i.e., bimonthly) bill.

B. For a new residential applicant for a building that is master metered, the finance director may require from the property owner a security deposit in an amount not to exceed an estimated 12 months' average bills.

C. For a new nonresidential applicant, whether the applicant is the property owner or the tenant, the finance director may require from the applicant a security deposit in an amount not to exceed an estimated 12 months' average bills.

D. Where the new residential applicant is a tenant in a residence that is not master metered, the finance director shall not require, as a condition of the new applicant's establishing an account and receiving service, that the account be established in the property owner's name unless the property owner consents through a written agreement.

E. Where the new residential applicant is a tenant in a residence where the account for the previous tenant has outstanding charges and/or penalties, the finance director shall not require the new applicant to pay those charges/penalties as a condition of establishing an account and receiving service unless the new applicant was an adult living in the residence when the charges/penalties accrued.

F. If a portion or all of a bill is not paid, the security deposit shall be applied to satisfy the bill.

Any charges/penalties not satisfied from the security deposit may be collected by the city as provided in Section 14.04.130 of this chapter.
(Prior code § 2-16.08; Ord. 1127 § 1, 1984; Ord. 1703 § 1, 1997) § 14.04.080. Rates outside city limits.

The charges for water furnished or available to premises outside the boundaries of the city shall be in amounts equal to the charges which would be applicable if the premises were located within the city. (Unnumbered prior code section)
§ 14.04.090. Collection of water charges.

A. All water charges shall be billed to the owner of the premises upon which charges herein fixed are levied and assessed or to the person who requested connection to the water system, or his or her successor in interest, or to any person requesting that such bill be charged to him or her.

1. In the event water usage is recorded on a meter for which no connection has been requested, the owner of the premises shall be responsible for all such water charges; unless it is demonstrated to the city's reasonable satisfaction that during the period of

Page 48 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

such water usage that the premises was occupied by person(s) or legal entity who had requested that service at the premises be terminated as provided in Section 14.04.120.

B. All water charges shall become due and payable at the operations services department on the date of payment specified thereon and shall become delinquent on the day following the current billing due date, except that closing bills, where service is discontinued, will be due and payable on date of presentation, and collection will be made at time of presentation. All bills for water charges will be rendered by the city monthly or bimonthly and will be issued by the operation services department. Meters will be read at regular intervals for the preparation of regular metered service bills and as required for the preparation of opening bills, closing bills and special bills. Each meter will be read separately. It may not always be possible to read meters regularly on the same day of each period. Should a monthly billing period contain less than 27 days or more than 33 days, a pro rata correction in the bill will be made. Proportionate adjustments will be made when other billing periods are used.

C. Opening bills, closing bills, monthly bills rendered for a period of less than 27 days or more than 33 days, and other bills requiring proration, will be computed in accordance with the applicable schedule, but the amount of the fixed charge or minimum charge specified therein will be prorated on the basis of the ratio of the number of days in the period to the number of days in the average billing period, based on an average month of 30.4 days. Should the total period of service be less than one month, no proration will be made, and no bill shall be less than the specified monthly fixed charge or minimum charge.

D. On each bill for water service rendered by the city to its consumers will be printed substantially the following language:

This bill is due upon receipt and is delinquent if not paid on the day after the current billing due date. If delinquent, service may be discontinued and penalties assessed. A cash deposit and reconnection charge may be required to reestablish service. See Municipal Code §14.04.090.

E. The city manager, in consultation with the director of operation services, is authorized to administratively adopt, and amend as needed, a policy setting penalty amounts to be levied on past due and/or unpaid utility bills, as well as a process to waive such penalty amounts. (Prior code § 2-16.09; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2244 § 2, 2023) § 14.04.100. Temporary service.

A. The city will, if no undue hardship to its existing consumers will result therefrom, furnish temporary service under the following conditions:

1. The applicant will be required to pay to the city, in advance, the estimated net cost of installing and removing the facilities necessary to furnish the service; and

2. Where duration of service is to be less than one month, the applicant may also be required to deposit cash equal to the estimated bill, subject to adjustment and refund or repayment in accordance with actual bill rendered upon discontinuance of service; or

3. Where the duration of service is to exceed one month, the applicant may also be required to establish his or her credit in the manner prescribed for permanent service in Section

14.04.070.

B. In the event a temporary service becomes permanent, the city will refund to the temporary

Page 49 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

consumer the amount paid for a temporary service installation upon payment of the applicable connection fee provided for in Chapter 14.08. (Prior code § 2-16.10)
§ 14.04.110. Refusal to serve.

A. The city may refuse an application for service under the following conditions:

1. If the applicant fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter; or

2. If in the judgment of the director the intended use of the service is of such a nature that it would be detrimental or injurious to the water service furnished by the city to other consumers; or

3. If in the judgment of the director the intended use of the service is dangerous or unsafe or of such a nature that satisfactory service cannot be rendered; or

4. If in the judgment of the director the intended use of the service would result in a negligent or wasteful use of water which would affect the city's water service.

B. The city shall have the right to refuse water service to any premises if necessary to protect itself against fraud or abuse.

C. If service has theretofore been discontinued for fraudulent use, service will not be rendered until the director has determined that all conditions of fraudulent use or practice have been corrected.

D. When an applicant is refused service under the provisions of this section, the director shall inform him or her of the reason for the refusal to serve him or her and of his or her right of appeal under this chapter.
(Prior code § 2-16.11)
§ 14.04.120. Discontinuance of service.

Any consumer may have his or her water service discontinued by giving notice to the department requesting discontinuance not less than two days prior to the requested date of discontinuance.

Each such consumer shall pay all water charges up to and including the date of discontinuance stated in such notice. In any case where such notice is not given, the consumer shall be required to pay for water service until two days after the department has knowledge that the consumer has vacated the premises or otherwise discontinued water service. The city shall make a reconnection charge for restoring water service to any consumer whose water service has been discontinued at his or her request. Such charge shall be as set forth in the master fee schedule. (Prior code § 2-16.12; Ord. 2019 § 1, 2011)
§ 14.04.130. Enforcement measures.

A. A consumer's water service may be discontinued for nonpayment of a bill for water service furnished if the bill is not paid within 60 days after it has become delinquent. A consumer's water service may also be discontinued for nonpayment of a bill for water service furnished at a previous or different location served by the city, if such bill is not paid within 60 days after it has become delinquent. No service will be discontinued under this subsection until at least five days after deposit by written notice from the directo r to such consumer in the United States Post Office of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, addressed to the

Page 50 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

person to whom notice is given and stating the city's intention to discontinue service. The city may also provide additional notice about discontinuance of water service by telephone contact, and/or a door hanger with written notice on the main entrance of the building where water service is furnished.

B. The city may discontinue service without notice to any premises where a consumer's installation for utilizing the service is found by the director to be dangerous or unsafe or where the use of water on such premises is found by the director to be detrimental or injurious to the water service furnished by the city to other consumers, or where the director finds that negligent or wasteful use of water exists on any premises which affects the city's water service. The city shall have the right to discontinue water service to any premises if necessary to protect itself against fraud or abuse.

C. In the event of violation of any terms of this chapter (except subsections A and B of this section), the department may disconnect the premises to which such violation relates from the water system after first notifying in writing the person causing, allowing or committing such violation, specifying the violation and, if applicable, the time after which (upon the failure of such person to prevent or rectify the violation) the director will exercise his or her authority to disconnect the premises from the water system; provided, that such time shall not be less than five days after the deposit of such notice in the United States Post Office at Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, addressed to the person to whom notice is given; provided, however, that in the event such violation results in a public hazard or menace, then the director may enter upon the premises without notice and do such things and expend such sums as may be necessary to abate such hazard, and the reasonable value of the things done and the amounts expended in so doing shall be a charge upon the person so in violation.

D. Upon failure of any consumer billed or the owner of any premises to pay any water service charge subsequent to delinquency, the following action shall be taken by the city or the director to enforce such payment:

1. In each case where any bill for water service remains unpaid after such bill becomes delinquent, and remains unpaid for 60 days thereafter the director shall: (a) disconnect the premises from the water system for nonpayment of water bills; and (b) cause an action at law to be brought on behalf of the city against the person responsible for payment of such bill to recover the amount of such bill and the costs of such action.

2. For situations involving significant unpaid amounts which have been delinquent for a long period of time involving accounts where service was requested by the property owner, the director may impose a lien on the property for the unpaid amount plus penalties as provided in California Government Code Section 43008.

E. Whenever any premises have been disconnected from the water system for any violation of this chapter, such premises shall not be reconnected to the water system until all delinquent charges have been paid, together with applicable charges as provided in the master fee schedule, and until a security deposit is established pursuant to Section 14.04.075. When any person's premises have been disconnected from the water system under the provisions of this subsection, the director shall inform him or her of the reason for the disconnection and of his or her right of appeal under this chapter.

F. Notwithstanding the measures described above, the city manager, in consultation with the director of operation services, is authorized to administratively adopt, and amend as needed, a policy for discontinuance of residential water service for non -payment as required by

Page 51 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

California Health and Safety Code Section 116900 et seq. (the Water Shutoff Protection Act).

The provisions of such administrative policy shall supersede any conflicting provisions of this chapter.
(Prior code § 2-16.13; Ord. 2019 § 1, 2011; Ord. 2093 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2192 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2216 § 2, 2021)
§ 14.04.140. Meter tests and adjustment of bills.

A. Tests On Consumer's Request.

1. A consumer may, on not less than one week's notice, request that the city test the meter serving consumer's premises. Where the accuracy of the record of the water meter is questioned by the consumer, such meter may be removed by the city at the consumer's request and shall be tested using a third-party meter testing agency selected by the city.

Testing shall be in accordance with then current American Water Works Association M6 Water Meters standard practice.

2. Before testing any meter, the consumer requesting the test shall make a deposit with the city in the amount of the estimated cost for the city to remove, replace and have tested the meter in question.

3. A report showing the results of the meter test will be furnished to the consumer within 15 days after completion of the test. If consumer disagrees with the report's findings, consumer may pay for a second test and report using a different third-party meter testing agency selected by the city.

B. Adjustment of Bills for Meter Error or Leaks.

1. Fast Meters. If the test discloses an error against the consumer of more than two percent of the meter's registry, the excess consumption on the three previous readings shall be credited to the consumer's meter account. The city shall bear the entire expense of the test, and the deposit required by this chapter shall be returned to consumer.

2. Slow Meters. When, upon test, a meter is found to be registering more than three percent slow, the city may bill the consumer for the amount of the undercharged water based upon corrected meter readings for the period the meter was in service but not exceeding the previous three readings. The consumer who has requested the test shall pay for the meter test and labor to remove the old meter and reinstall an accurate meter. The city shall provide a cost estimate to the consumer prior to any work being done.

3. Nonregistering Meters. A nonregistering meter is a meter which has lost the ability to measure water flowing through it. The main indicator of this condition is the flow registering device fails to increment was water passes through the meter. The city may bill the consumer for water consumed while the meter was nonregistering but for a period not exceeding six months at the minimum monthly meter rate, or upon an estimate of the consumption based upon the consumer's prior use during the same season of the year if conditions were unchanged, or upon an estimate based upon a reasonable comparison with the use of other consumers during the same period, receiving the same class of service under similar circumstances and conditions.

4. Leaks. The city manager may adopt an administrative policy, "Credit to Utility Bill After Repair of Certain Water Leaks Policy," for utility bill adjustments after a consumer repairs a water leak which was not readily discernable and is beyond the

Page 52 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

control of the consumer.

5. General. When it is found that the error in a meter is due to some cause, the date of which can be fixed, the overcharge or the undercharge will be computed back to, but not beyond, such date.
(Prior code § 2-16.14; Ord. 2167 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2239 § 2, 2022) § 14.04.150. Notices.

A. Notices from the city to any consumer will be given in writing, either delivered to the consumer or mailed to his or her last known address, except that where conditions warrant or in any emergency the city may give verbal notice by telephone or in person.

B. Notices from a consumer to the city may be given by the consumer or his or her authorized representative verbally or in writing at the office of the department or to an employee or agent of the department who is authorized to receive notices or complaints or may be sent by mail to the department office.
(Prior code § 2-16.15)
§ 14.04.160. Appeals.

A. Any person who shall have a right to appeal as provided in any section of this chapter or who shall be dissatisfied with any determination hereinafter made under this chapter by the department or the director may, at any time within 30 days after such determination, appeal to the city manager by giving written notice to the director and to the city manager, setting forth the determination with which such person is dissatisfied. After review and determination by the city manager, any person who shall then be dissatisfied with such determination may, at any time within 30 days after such determination, appeal to the council by giving written notice to the city manager and to the city clerk, setting forth the determination with which such person is dissatisfied. The council may, at any time, upon its own motion appeal from any determination made by the director or the city manager under this chapter. In the event of any such appeal to the council, the city manager shall transmit to the council a report upon the matter appealed. The council shall cause notice to be given, at least 10 days prior to the time fixed for such hearing, to all persons affected by such appeal, of the time and place fixed by the council for hearing such appeal. The council shall direct the city clerk to mail a written notice, postage prepaid, to all such persons whose addresses are known to the council.

B. Pending decision upon any appeal relative to the amount of any charge under this chapter, the person making such appeal shall pay such charge. After the appeal is heard, the council shall order refunded to the person making such appeal such amount, if any, as the council shall determine should be refunded.
(Prior code § 2-16.16)
§ 14.04.170. Disposition of revenues.

All revenues received by the finance department or the city under this chapter, excepting all connection charges provided for in Chapter 14.08, and all refundable deposits made to establish credit, shall be deposited within a reasonable time after receipt thereof in a depository bank of the city, and said sums, together with any interest earned thereon, shall on or before the first business day of each calendar month next succeeding the calendar month in which such revenues shall have

Page 53 of 638 ends

Ordinance No. 2289

been collected, be deposited by the city in the manner and for the purposes provided and with the fiscal agent designated, in or pursuant to that certain resolution adopted by the council on March 27, 1967, entitled:

Resolution Providing for the Issuance of $750,000 Principal Amount of City of Pleasanton 1967 Water Revenue Bonds and of $400,000 Principal Amount of Series A Bonds of Said Issue, and Prescribing the Terms, Conditions and Form of Said Series A Bonds. (Prior code § 2-16.17)

Page 54 of 638 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

Item #5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

January 9, 2025
City Manager

TITLE: APPROVE THE REVISED FY 2025/27 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND

ENGAGEMENT PLAN

SUMMARY
The City operates on a two-year budget cycle. Prior to July 1 of every odd numbered year, the City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed two-year budget for the subsequent two fiscal years. The City’s biennial budget includes revenue and expenditure projections and consists of two primary components: the Operating Budget and the Capital Budget. Public engagement is an important part of the budget development process to ensure that the voices of Pleasanton’s diverse community members are reflected in the final budget. On December 17, 2024, staff presented the original version of this report to the City Council and received direction to return on January 9, 2025, with a revised recommendation that reflects City Council input. This revised report provides the City Council and the community with an overview of the updated budget development timeline and recommends approval of the revised public engagement plan for the upcoming FY 2025/27 budget development process.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the FY 2025/27 budget engagement plan.

BACKGROUND
The City is confronting significant fiscal challenges, with a projected structural deficit averaging $13 million annually over the next eight years, starting in FY 2025/26. Contributing factors include rising personnel and pension costs, inflation, and declining revenues from retail activity and hotel taxes, which have not rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the City faces a substantial capital and infrastructure funding gap, with an estimated $900 million needed over the next decade for maintaining community assets such as streets, traffic signal, street lights, parks, and public facilities (i.e., library, senior center, aquatics center, fire stations, police station, and dozens more).

The City’s budget serves as a strategic financial plan for operating and capital resource allocations. City funds are used to provide a wide variety of services and programs to residents and businesses. These services include Public Safety (Police, Fire, and Emergency Services), Operations Services, Water, Sewer, City Planning, Building and Safety, Code Enforcement, Housing, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Library, and Transit. Funds are also used to develop and maintain city infrastructure.

In designing the budget process, the City follows the four high-level principles established by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), as presented below. These guiding principles ensure a well-integrated process is in place, all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input on the City’s budget priorities, and a budget is developed reflecting the needs and values of the community.

Page 55 of 638 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

Four Principles of the Budget Process

1. Establish Broad Goals to Guide Government Decision-Making A government should have broad goals that provide overall direction for the government and serve as a basis for decision-making.

2. Develop Approaches to Achieve Goals
A government should have specific policies, plans, programs, and management strategies to define how it will achieve its long-term goals.

3. Develop a Budget Consistent with Approaches to Achieve Goals A financial plan and budget that moves toward achievement of goals, within the constraints of available resources, should be prepared and adopted.

4. Evaluate Performance and Make Adjustments
Program and financial performance should be continually evaluated, and adjustments made, to encourage progress toward achieving goals.

In early 2023, the City engaged Civic Makers, a Bay Area-based strategic consulting firm, to support community engagement efforts for the City budget and strategic planning process. The engagement activities focused on enhancing participatory governance to ensure future City budgets align with the community's needs and values. Community members were provided with various engagement opportunities, including a survey, focus groups, a virtual meeting, a town hall, and several pop-up workshops. The process focused on inclusive engagement in different formats, including bilingual focus groups in Spanish and Mandarin, to remove barriers to participation and engage with different segments of Pleasanton’s diverse community.

Overall, the City engaged with more than 1,900 community members through that process.

In December 2024, staff presented a comprehensive budget development community engagement strategy, consisting of one town hall, two pop-up events, and an online engagement tool, with support from Civic Makers at a total not to exceed amount of $50,000.

This approach was projected to reach the largest audience, estimated between 2,000-3,000 participants, and ensure a diverse sample of community input. By engaging Civic Makers the City secures access to consultant hours, which complements staff involvement, striking a balance between external expertise and internal capacity. Civic Makers specializes in community engagement and can leverage its proven methodologies to get maximum participation in Pleasanton as it has demonstrated with its prior work in the city and in surrounding communities, such as Hayward, Alameda, Berkeley, San Jose, and San Francisco. Investment in broader outreach will be designed to foster trust and increased transparency in the budgeting process, while ensuring that all voices are represented including communities most impacted by potential service reductions. Staff also explored the use of a statistically valid survey tool to complement the qualitative engagement data; this will be utilized in support of other communications efforts.

DISCUSSION
Budget Development Calendar
The budget development process includes multiple key areas and deliverables as described below. Staff has prepared a budget development calendar (Attachment 1) that specifies the budget preparation timeline with key dates and milestones, including important public

Page 56 of 638 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

engagement events such as a City Council priority setting session and budget workshops. The budget calendar is a tool to keep track of deadlines and ensure public participation.

Between January and June 2025, staff will develop key budget documents to present to the City Council for discussion and direction. In light of the City’s financial challenges, in-depth discussions about the City’s long-term financial sustainability and cost/service reductions will be a critical part of the upcoming two-year budget development process.

Key Areas and Deliverables:
• Community Engagement
• Budget Advisory Committee
• Commission/Committee Engagement
• FY 2025/27 Baseline Budget Presentation
• General Fund Long-Term Financial Forecast
• FY 2025/27 Proposed Operating Budget and Capital Budget • FY 2025/27 Budget Workshop(s)
• FY 2025/27 Budget Adoption

Public Engagement Plan
The City has planned various tools for public engagement during the upcoming budget cycle.

These tools are designed to complement scheduled City Council meetings and budget workshops, ensuring the public gains a clearer understanding of the budget development process and has multiple opportunities to provide input.

Staff has developed an extensive communications plan that will leverage social media platforms, newsletters, a dedicated website landing page, and other collateral to disseminate information broadly to residents and businesses. Staff is also recommending the City Council establish a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) to provide insights and recommendations on community priorities and strategies for achieving a balanced budget. The BAC will complement the traditional budget approach and provide critical insights to help the City Manager address constraints on City finances, while also increasing transparency and providing additional opportunity for engagement with key community stakeholders. A separate agenda report regarding the formation of the BAC was continued from the December 17, 2024, City Council agenda, to be heard following this item on January 9, 2025.

Revised Staff Recommendation
After hearing from the City Council, staff is now recommending a modified community engagement plan that includes one town hall, two additional City Council budget workshops (one on January 9, 2025, preceding this regular City Council meeting and one in March 2025), and an online engagement tool. Staff has also retained the recommendation for the BAC, with the adjusted expectation that, although the BAC is unlikely to be able to meet more than two to three times before the FY 2025/27 budget is finalized in April, the BAC would likely continue as an advisory body beyond the development and adoption of the current two-year budget and will provide valuable community stakeholder insight and input on a longer-term basis.

In response to City Council feedback, staff has removed the recommendation for pop-up events and budget-related surveys, to address the City Council’s concerns about potentially

Page 57 of 638 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

gathering data that is duplicative with past engagements or not accurately representative of the community. Staff still recommends the development of an online budget engagement tool to complement the communications plan and website, as an online tool will provide opportunities to include translation and broader marketing and access for community members who may not be able to attend an in-person town hall or City Council meeting, thus increasing equitable engagement for more of Pleasanton’s diverse community.

There was also discussion at the December 17, 2024, City Council meeting about the potential creation of an ad hoc City Council subcommittee consisting of two City Council members, to further inform the budget development process. Formation of an ad hoc Council subcommittee is within the purview of the City Council but would raise three specific concerns in the context of the budget development process:

1. Ad hoc Council subcommittees are designed to allow two members of the City Council to work more closely with staff to formulate options and/or recommendations to the full Council. In this case, creating a two-step process may not be workable with the time available;

2. Creating and staffing a new ad hoc Council subcommittee would require the redirection of limited resources away from budget development; and

3. The potential ad hoc Council subcommittee meetings could be taking place at the same time as negotiations with several labor groups, with multiple meetings happening in parallel.

Due to these considerations, and the interest expressed by several City Council members in being able to participate in budget development discussions as a full body, staff is recommending two additional budget workshops with the full City Council on January 9, 2025, and another in March 2025, in lieu of an ad hoc subcommittee with only two City Council members, to avoid the concerns listed above and allow for fuller participation and input. These workshops would be fully noticed and open to the public, providing even more opportunities for civic participation and awareness.

ALTERNATIVES
The following are revised alternatives that reflect the updated recommendation as well as input from the City Council at the December 17, 2024, meeting:

Alternative A: Traditional Budget Process
As an alternative, staff could follow the prior budget development process with several City Council meetings and workshops and no additional community engagement, ad hoc committee or BAC. In this revised alternative, staff could still offer the two additional budget workshops in January and March 2025. These traditional budget process milestones are captured in the revised budget calendar (Attachment 1) and include:
• January 9, 2025 – City Council Budget Workshop #1
• February 18, 2025 – City Council Meeting: FY 2024/25 mid-year budget and FY 2025/27 baseline budget and long-range financial forecast presentations • March 2025 – City Council Budget Workshop #2
• May-June 2025 – Budget Workshop(s) #3 and (possible) #4; proposed biennial budget and 5-year CIP
• June 2025 – City Council Meeting: operating and capital budget adoption

Page 58 of 638 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

This approach would save City funding by not engaging a consultant but would lose the benefit of engagement with the broader community who typically do not attend City Council meetings, which could have equity impacts. This additional community engagement is particularly critical in the current budget cycle, which is likely to include program and service cuts that could impact specific interest groups or marginalized communities. This approach would also eliminate the BAC, which would save staff time and associated internal costs, but would lose the opportunity for BAC members to collaborate with the City Manager to offer insights and recommendations on City program priorities and strategies.

Alternative B: Budget Advisory Committee Only
Another alternative is to only establish a Budget Advisory Committee, with no additional community engagement or ad hoc City Council subcommittee. The proposed BAC will represent key community stakeholders, enhancing and deepening public engagement in the budget development process. Retaining the BAC will preserve some elements of increased transparency and public engagement in compliance with the Brown Act beyond the traditional budget development approach outlined in Alternative A. However, without the recommended additional community engagement there
is a risk of engaging with less diverse community members and losing the benefit of input from a broad portion of the community.

Alternative C: Ad Hoc Subcommittee Only
As discussed above, another option is the creation of an ad hoc City Council subcommittee consisting of two City Council members, to inform the budget development process. If this alternative were selected, staff would need to redirect the resources that would otherwise be used for the BAC to staff these meetings and eliminate the recommended additional City Council workshop. If only the ad hoc subcommittee was included, the process would lose the benefit of the fuller participation and input provided by the public workshops with the City Council and potentially the stakeholder input from the BAC and would raise questions regarding timing and potential conflict with labor negotiations, as discussed above.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The budget engagement plan aligns with the City's values of inclusion and sustainability by actively engaging diverse community representatives in addressing fiscal challenges to ensure recommendations reflect the broader community's needs. This approach is consistent with the City's ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan Goal E. Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs. Additionally, the budget engagement work will support long-term financial sustainability, consistent with Goal A. Funding Our Future by identifying cost-effective solutions for maintaining high-quality services and infrastructure.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The budget engagement plan supports the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goals of Funding Our Future by addressing long-term financial challenges, Optimizing our Organization through community engagement in collaborative planning and information sharing to improve service delivery, and Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs by leveraging input from community representatives and conducting effective planning to promote a livable and

Page 59 of 638 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

economically vibrant community.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no new fiscal impact associated with receiving this update and recommendation on the FY 2025/27 budget engagement plan. There is current budget for up to $50,000 for budget engagement options under Misc. Non-departmental in Professional Services (00199100- 430101).

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Sharon Petrehn,
Management Analyst
Alexa Jeffress, Deputy City Manager

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Budget Calendar - revised January 9, 2025

2. Presentation Budget Engagement Plan - revised January 9, 2025

Page 60 of 638 ends

Attachment 1
FY 2025-27 Budget Development Calendar
Date Event
December 2024 City Council Meetings:
x Review and Approve the Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Program
January 2025 Special City Council Meeting: Budget Development Workshop City Council Meeting: Approve Budget Community Engagement Plan City Council Meeting: Approve the Formation of the Budget Advisory Committee City Council Retreat: Strategic Plan Priority Setting
January to March 2025 Launch Online Budget Engagement Tool Community Budget Engagement - Pop Up and Town Hall Events Budget Budget Advisory Committee Meetings
January to March 2025 Budget Planning and Development
February 18 2025 City Council Meeting: FY 2024/25 Mid-Year Budget February 18 2025 City Council Meeting: FY 2025-27 Baseline Budget and Long-range Financial Forecast Presentation
March 2025 City Council Meeting: Outcome of Budget Engagement Efforts City Council Budget Development Workshop #2
April 2025 Budget Presentation to Budget Advisory Committee May 2025 Budget Workshop: Proposed FY 2025-27 Budget and 5-year CIP June 2025 City C ouncil Meeting: FY 2025-27 Operating and Capital Budget Adoption

Page 61 of 638 ends

Fiscal Year 2025-27 Revised Budget
Development Calendar & Engagement Plan
January 9, 2025
Key Financial Challenges
• City faces significant fiscal challenges in both the operating and capital budgets
o Forecasted General Fund structural deficit
¾$13M in projected average annual deficit
¾$ 22M in projected average annual deficit (recession scenario) o Significant infrastructure funding gap
¾$900M for both the General Fund and Enterprise Funds over 10 years
o Unfunded retiree medical and pension liabilities
¾Over $200M
2

Page 62 of 638 ends

Budget Development Timeline
• Upcoming two-year budget for fiscal years 2025/26 and 2026/27 3 Budget Development Categories
4 Community Engagement Budget Advisory
Committee
Budget Development City Council

Page 63 of 638 ends

Community Engagement - Revised
Outreach Types
Online Tool
Pop-up Events
Town Hall
Statistically Valid
Survey Tool
Additional City
Council Workshops
5 Budget Advisory Committee (BAC)
•Why a BAC?
• %XLOGVRQH[LVWLQJSXEOLFHQJDJHPHQW
• Provides a diverse and transparent forum for budget UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV • Strengthens alignment with community priorities and fiscal responsibility •The BAC’s mission:
• Develop an understanding of the City’s budget and financial issues • Provide input to the City Manager on community priorities and strategies for program delivery to ensure a long-term balanced budget
• Collaborate with the City Manager to formulate recommendations for City Council approval in June 2025
6

Page 64 of 638 ends

25/26 – 26/27 Proposed Budget Development Timeline
7 ¾ December 17, 2024 - City Council Meeting
• Review and Approve the Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Program ¾ January 2025
• Special Meeting: City Council Budget Development Workshop • Review and Approve Community Budget Outreach Plan
• Approve the Formation of the Budget Advisory Committee • City Council Retreat: Strategic Plan Priority Setting ¾ January to March 2025 – Community Engagement Events
• Launch Online Budget Engagement Tool (Jan)
• Town Hall (Jan-Feb)
• Budget Advisory Committee Meetings (Jan – March)
25/26 – 26/27 Proposed Budget Development Timeline
8 ¾ February – June Tentative City Council Meeting Dates • 2/18/2025 - FY 2024/25 Mid-Year Budget
• 2/18/2025 - FY 2025/26 and FY 2026/27 Baseline Budget and Long-range Financial Forecast Presentation
• 3/4/2025 - Outcome of Budget Engagement Efforts
• March 2025 – Proposed Additional City Council Budget Workshop #2 • May 2025 - Budget Workshop: Proposed Biennial Budget and 5-year CIP • June 2025 - Operating and Capital Budget Adoption

Page 65 of 638 ends

Revised Staff Recommendation
•Approve a modified community
engagement strategy for the Fiscal Year
2025-27 City budget, consisting of a
Budget Advisory Committee and one
town hall, two additional City Council
budget workshops (one on January 9,
2025, preceding this regular City Council
meeting and one in February/March
2025), and an online engagement tool.
9 Alternatives
A: Traditional
Budget Process
B: Budget Advisory
Committee Only
C: Ad Hoc
Subcommittee Only
10

Page 66 of 638 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

Item #6

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

January 9, 2025
City Manager

TITLE: CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17, 2024 - APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT

OF A BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPOINT MEMBERS

SUMMARY
A Budget Advisory Committee is being established to assist the City Manager in developing the City's 2025-26 and 2026-27 budget for City Council approval in June 2025. Given significant fiscal challenges in both operating and capital budgets, the Budget Advisory Committee will provide critical insights to help the City Manager address constraints on City finances. This committee will also serve as a mechanism for increased transparency and public engagement in compliance with the Brown Act.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the creation of a Budget Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives as outlined in this report, and appoint the members as identified at the December 17, 2024, City Council meeting

BACKGROUND
The City is confronting significant fiscal challenges, with a projected structural deficit averaging $13 million annually over the next eight years, starting in fiscal year 2025-26. Contributing factors include rising personnel and pension costs, inflation, and declining revenues from retail activity and hotel taxes, which have not rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the City faces a substantial capital and infrastructure funding gap, with an estimated $900 million needed over the next decade for maintaining and upgrading community assets such as streets, parks, and public facilities.

The City Council placed Measure PP (Pleasanton Essential Services Protection Measure)—a proposed half-cent sales tax increase—on the November 5, 2024, ballot to generate approximately $10 million annually for essential services. The measure did not pass, receiving

45.82% of votes in favor and 54.18% against. This result means the City must explore alternative solutions to address the budget shortfall and maintain high-quality municipal services. To assist in this process, and presuming that the City Council has approved moving forward with establishing a Budget Advisory Committee as part of a separate City Council agenda item discussion, the City is creating a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) to provide insights and recommendations on community priorities and strategies for achieving a balanced budget.

This initiative aligns with the City's ongoing efforts to enhance public engagement in the budget development process, as outlined in the Approve the Fiscal Years 2025/26 and 2026/27 Budget Engagement Plan report also on the City Council's December 17, 2024, agenda. The BAC will operate under the provisions of the Brown Act, ensuring transparency and compliance with open meeting requirements.

Page 67 of 638 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION
Cities are required to adopt balanced budgets, with ongoing revenues matching ongoing expenditures. To date, the City has implemented various departmental cost-reduction measures, mostly with minimal service impacts on residents and businesses. However, future budget cuts necessary to achieve a balanced budget may adversely affect community programs. The Budget Advisory Committee will provide critical insights to help the City Manager address constraints on City finances during the development of the next biennial budget.

Purpose
The BAC’s mission is to:
• Develop an understanding of the City’s budget and financial issues • Provide input to the City Manager on community priorities and strategies for program delivery to ensure a long-term balanced budget
• Collaborate with the City Manager to formulate recommendations for City Council approval in June 2025.

The BAC’s work will include:
• Reviewing the City’s General Fund budget, department programs, and infrastructure needs
• Discussing expenditure reduction strategies and brainstorming cost-saving measures • Providing insight and recommendations on community priorities and cost/service reduction strategies
• Gathering timely and comprehensive community feedback, which will be incorporated into the budget process to reflect the priorities and needs of the broader community • Developing recommendations for operating budget reductions and capital project funding strategies.

Timeline
The BAC will convene a minimum of three meetings between January and March 2025, with flexibility for additional meetings if necessary. These meetings will be scheduled to align with the City’s overall budget development calendar to ensure that the BAC’s recommendations are timely and relevant for consideration in the proposed biennial budgets. Topics of focus during the meetings will include understanding the City’s fiscal challenges, identifying cost-saving opportunities, and formulating actionable recommendations. At the end of the budget development process, the BAC members may be asked to continue to advise the City Manager on related fiscal initiatives that support the delivery of services and programs to the community.

Composition
The BAC will consist of 11 members representing key community stakeholders, including:
• 1 representative appointed by the Mayor
• 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 1

Page 68 of 638 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

• 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 2 • 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 3 • 1 representative appointed by the Councilmember representing District 4 • 1 representative from the Pleasanton Police Officers' Association (PPOA) • 1 representative from the Pleasanton City Employees Association (PCEA/AFSCME) • 1 representative from either the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF Local 1974) or the Battalion Chief’s Unit
• 1 representative from the Management/Confidential Employee Unit • 2 at-large members selected by the City Manager.

Given that the City's work to develop the biennial budget will begin in January 2025, at the December 17, 2024, City Council meeting, the Mayor and each Councilmember will nominate a community member to serve on the BAC. At that time, the City Manager will confirm the labor and management unit representatives, as well as the selection of the at-large community members. With the identification of the fully comprised BAC, the City Council will formally approve the creation of a Budget Advisory Committee and appoint the identified members.

Brown Act Compliance
The BAC will operate in full compliance with the Brown Act, ensuring transparency in all proceedings. Meetings will be open to the public, agendas will be posted in advance, and members of the public will have the opportunity to participate. This adherence to the Brown Act underscores the City’s commitment to accountability and inclusive public engagement in the budget development process.

By involving diverse stakeholders through the BAC, the City aims to address fiscal challenges transparently and collaboratively, while maintaining the high standard of municipal services valued by the Pleasanton community.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The Budget Advisory Committee aligns with the City's values of inclusion and sustainability by actively engaging diverse community representatives in addressing fiscal challenges to ensure recommendations reflect the broader community's needs. This approach is consistent with the City's ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs.

Additionally, the BAC's work will support long-term financial sustainability by identifying cost- effective solutions for maintaining high-quality services and infrastructure.

OUTREACH
This agenda item pertains to the establishment of the Budget Advisory Committee. However, the BAC will operate under the Brown Act, ensuring transparency and providing opportunities for public participation.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The creation of the Budget Advisory Committee supports the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goals of Funding Our Future by addressing long-term financial challenges, Optimizing our Organization through community engagement in collaborative planning and information sharing to improve service delivery, and Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs by leveraging input from community representatives and conducting effective planning to promote

Page 69 of 638 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

a livable and economically vibrant community. Through this initiative, the City advances its commitment to providing reliable services and infrastructure while reflecting the values of service, integrity, inclusion and innovation as outlined in ONE Pleasanton.

FISCAL IMPACT
The establishment of the Budget Advisory Committee will require significant staff time to provide administrative and technical support, including scheduling meetings, preparing agendas, documenting meeting minutes, and disseminating materials. These efforts are anticipated to be absorbed within existing staff resources and will not result in direct fiscal impacts.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Aarón Zavala, Assistant to
the City Manager
Pamela Ott, Assistant City Manager

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Presentation - Budget Advisory Committee

Page 70 of 638 ends

Approve Establishment of a Budget Advisory
Committee (BAC) and Appoint Members
December 17, 2024
Context
•Biennial Budget Cycle
•Community Engagement Plan
•Why a BAC?
•Builds on existing public
engagement
•Provides a diverse and
transparent forum for budget
recommendations
•Strengthens alignment with
community priorities and
fiscal responsibility

Page 71 of 638 ends

Mission of a Budget Advisory Committee (BAC)
Learn
• Develop an
understanding of
the City’s budget
and financial
issues
Engage
• Provide input to
the City Manager
on community
priorities and
strategies for
program delivery
to ensure a long-
term balanced
budget
Collab-
orate
• Collaborate with
the City Manager
to formulate
recommendation
s for City Council
approval in June
2025
BAC Composition
•Total Members: 11
•Membership Composition:
•5 Community Representatives
•1 appointed by each Mayor and
each Councilmember
•4 Labor and Management
Representatives
•2 At-Large Members identified by
City Manager

Page 72 of 638 ends

BAC Responsibilities
Review the City’s
General Fund
budget, department
programs, and
infrastructure needs
Discuss expenditure
reduction strategies
and brainstorm cost-
saving measures
Provide insight and
recommendations
on community
priorities and
cost/service
reduction strategies
Gather timely and
comprehensive
community
feedback, which will
be incorporated into
the budget process
to reflect the
priorities and needs
of the broader
community
Developing
recommendations
for operating budget
reductions and
capital project
funding strategies
Timeline
December 2024 – BAC
Appointment
January – March 2025 – BAC
Meetings
April 2025 – Recommendations
to City Manager
June 2025 – Adoption of
Budget
Beyond June 2025 – Potential
continuation of BAC

Page 73 of 638 ends

Recommendation
At December 17 meeting City Council:

1. Establish a Budget Advisory Committee

2. Appoint members to the BAC

Page 74 of 638 ends

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 2, 2025

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Ellen Clark, Community Development Director

Subject: January 9, 2025, Agenda, Item No. 7: Ordinance and Resolutions for Approval of Planned Unit Development, PUD Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map for 475 and 493 St. John Street

At its December 17, 2024, regular meeting, the above-referenced item was continued to the City Council meeting on January 9, 2025. Prior to the December 17 meeting additional information was requested on several topics. This supplemental memo addresses those items.

1: Roadway Network and Circulation, Including Extension of Peters Avenue through the subject site to connect to Del Valle Parkway
Staff is unaware of any past formal plans or proposals to connect Peters Avenue directly to Del Valle Parkway. However, as described below, past General Plans have included alternative circulation concepts involving various streets in the north part of downtown.

Regarding circulation concepts in the vicinity of the project that have been part of past planning documents:

• The 1996 General Plan Circulation Element included a future roadway concept for the extension of both Peters Avenue and Ray Street to allow the two streets to connect west of Main Street.

The goal of the extension was to eliminate the intersection of Main Street at St. John Street, which would improve the circulation on the north side of the downtown. In the mid-1990s the property where the Rose Hotel now sits was put up for sale (it was a St. Vincent DePaul thrift store), and, although the City Council contemplated the purchase of the property, it was ultimately purchased by the Madden family. The City negotiated with the Maddens regarding obtaining the necessary rights-of-way for the extensions. Those efforts were unsuccessful, and overall costs were deemed prohibitive. With the construction of the Rose Hotel in the early 2000s, the option to eliminate the St. John Street intersection was abandoned. In 2005, the General Plan was updated to remove the extension concept.

• The 1996 General Plan also included some concepts for extending Del Valle Parkway.

However, those were focused on connecting to current Nevada Street (formerly also named Del Valle Parkway). This extension was completed with the Irby Ranch project.

• The 1986 General Plan included eliminating the two off-set intersections on Main Street created by Del Valle Parkway and Stanley Boulevard (commonly referred to as “Old Stanley”). This concept focused on discontinuing the use of Old Stanley and rerouting it to Vervais Avenue.

This was ultimately not pursued.

Page 75 of 638 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

The dashed lines in the image below show the proposed new roadways in the 1996 General Plan.

Staff Evaluation of a New Extension:

In general, connecting Peters Avenue directly to Del Valle Parkway is unlikely to provide a benefit from a circulation perspective. The level of service at Main and Ray/St. John drops to LOS E for short times in both the afternoon and evening. This is from a combination of southbound Main Street traffic at school release time (3:00 pm) and northbound Main Street traffic at 5:00 pm.

Providing a parallel route for southbound traffic from Del Valle Parkway directly to Peters Avenue would give the appearance of providing benefit to Main Street at 3:00 pm. However, this route would be an unlikely choice for drivers. The pedestrian volume at Main Street and Del Valle Parkway makes the southbound right extremely difficult and slow at 3:00 pm and this delay would likely limit the number of vehicles diverted from Main Street.

At 5:00 pm, the northbound volume on Main Street challenges the capacity of the Ray/St. John intersection. Diverting some of this northbound traffic to Peters and then up to Del Valle would shift the congestion point from Ray/St. John to Del Valle/Stanley. The extension would only shift the congestion forward a few hundred feet, and congestion would remain on Main Street beyond Ray/St. John.

The actual construction of this extension would face significant challenges. The creek channel is a significant physical barrier requiring a new bridge, and Del Valle Parkway’s undercrossing of the Union Pacific Railroad line would present a substantial geometric problem with respect to creating a feasible

Page 76 of 638 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

road connection. The Peters extension would need to span the creek with a bridge and then drop more than 20 feet to an intersection near the bottom of the underpass.

A more cost-effective and beneficial improvement would be the alignment of Ray Street and St. John Street as contemplated in previous General Plans, but this is not a project that would be feasible with the project application under consideration at this time.

2: Tree Removal and Preservation, including Preservation of the Mature Oak on Site Staff’s review of the site plan for this project began with the goal of retaining as many of the high-value trees as possible, such as the oak in question, while also creating a high-quality development with character befitting the location. As the review progressed, other design constraints and considerations, such as the retention of the Barone home, inclusion of required commercial space and parking, and setbacks required for the Arroyo, became more evident and placed additional restrictions on the site.

Currently, the project applicant is proposing to remove 38 trees, with 31 of those trees being heritage- sized trees; a total of 13 trees would be retained, with four of them being heritage-sized trees (see sheet C3.1 in Exhibit B of Attachment 2). Of the trees proposed for removal, many are relatively “low value” based on size, species, and overall tree health. However, there are several high-value trees, in good health, proposed among those for removal, including the mature oak tree located on the property.

With lower-density projects, such as Lund Ranch and other recent developments, it can be typically easier to modify the design to retain trees; on smaller, infill sites such as this, and at the proposed housing density, saving the high-value trees typically requires design modification and/or a reduction in the number of units and/or lot sizes, which ultimately impacts the project’s feasibility.

Instead, the City requires mitigation planting and a mitigation payment for the removed trees to support enhancing the urban forest in other high-need areas. The trees proposed for removal are valued at over $150,000; the City will receive a payment minus any credits for trees planted on-site. A recommended Condition of Approval requires planting more trees than currently shown on the plans. (Please refer to Conditions of Approval Nos. 105, 106, and 114 in Exhibit A of Attachment 2). Although the proposed trees will not make up for the removal of the mature trees in terms of the character and environment they provide today, the funds provided will be used by the City to plant more native and climate- appropriate trees throughout the community, which will ultimately provide a greater benefit to a more significant number of people. In any project, the goal is to balance the various needs and challenges to create a product that will ultimately benefit the community. While in an ideal world the mature oak and all healthy mature trees could be retained, this is not feasible while accommodating the proposed project. In staff’s view, and as allowed by the Municipal Code, the project provides adequate mitigation for the tree loss.

3: Public Access to the Arroyo
There is no public access easement or other public right to access the Arroyo across the site today.

During project review, staff explored options and opportunities with the applicant to provide public access to the Arroyo, since this concept has been of interest to the City Council in recent years and is reflected in some Downtown Specific Plan policies. However, conditions on this site were found to present significant constraints - steep slopes/slope stability, and lack of connectivity north and south means that there would be limited functionality for any public access and required creek setbacks would limit the ability to construct paths or walkways, or install pedestrian amenities. The applicant has also expressed concerns about liability that would be caused by allowing the public to access the creek.

Additionally, there would be long-term maintenance costs and liability that could come with improvements. Nearby HOAs have been burdened with significant costs to maintain failing infrastructure in the Arroyo. Given these challenges, the project is not proposing to allow access to the Arroyo by either the public or the project’s homeowners. Parcel/Lot D, between Lots 11 and 12, is provided to allow maintenance personnel access to the creek only (i.e., Zone 7 and/or City personnel).

Page 77 of 638 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

Condition of Approval No. 54 includes language for restrictive access and installing a locked gate to prevent entry by unauthorized individuals.

4: Commercial Land Uses
As described on pages 10-11 of the December 17, 2024, Agenda Report, it is proposed that a tailored set of commercial land uses to be permitted or conditionally permitted at the site, with uses being somewhat more restrictive than would typically be allowed within the Mixed Use-Downtown (MU-D) district. Key permitted or conditionally permitted uses would include:

• Personal services – e.g. barbers; beauty salons; day spas; holistic healing centers (permitted) • Restaurants and catering establishments (permitted)
• Retail (permitted) – firearm sales, liquor stores, convenience markets, tobacco stores, secondhand stores, and pawnshops are prohibited
• Microbreweries (permitted)*
• Wineries (permitted)*
• Bars and brew pubs (permitted)*
• Educational uses, arts and craft studios, recreational and sports facilities with up to 20 students • Veterinarian with no boarding/overnight accommodation • Theaters and Auditoriums (permitted)
• Game Arcades (conditionally permitted)
• Farmers Market (conditionally permitted)
• Special downtown accessory entertainment uses (permitted, except those operating outside specified hours)

This list would exclude the following notable uses:
• Offices, including professional and medical offices
• Financial institutions, such as banks
• Educational uses, arts and craft studios, recreational and sports facilities with more than 20 students
• Lodging (including Hotels, Motels and Bed and Breakfast Inns) • Adult Entertainment

* Microbreweries, Wineries and Bars/Brewpubs are subject to special conditions as provided in the PMC

Please see Attachment A for a comprehensive list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Uses ordinarily allowed in the MU-D district, but disallowed for the project site, are shown in strikeout text.

5: Economic and Community Benefits
Fiscal Benefits: Staff did not conduct a detailed review of the relative fiscal benefits of different types of development on this site. The City Council, in adopting the Downtown Specific Plan, established that a mixed-use project (i.e., comprising residential and commercial uses) would be appropriate at this location, and the proposed project is consistent with the DSP’s policy. Based on staff and Planning Commission review, the amount of proposed commercial development, now including two commercial building totaling 3,125 square feet, plus a 1,568-square-foot plaza, was significantly increased from the applicant’s original proposal. The initial proposal was also modified to reduce the total number of residential units. This proposal reflects a market-viable mix of commercial and residential uses that also meets the policy requirements of DSP Policy LD-P.15.

More broadly, it is the case that both commercial and residential development can yield positive fiscal benefits. The change and intensification of use would result in a substantial increase in assessed value

Page 78 of 638 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

over that which exists today, as each of the residential and commercial lots are improved and transferred to new owners; these improved parcels will contribute ongoing property tax revenues in years to come. The commercial lot will also continue to generate a combination of property tax and sales tax going forward. For property taxes, as an order of magnitude comparison, the existing Barone home/lot, and restaurant/lot have respective current assessed values of approximately $880,000 and $1.12 Million today, according to the public Alameda County Assessors records. Even assuming the new commercial lot/buildings and Barone’s home retained the same assessed value as today, each of the 14 new homes is likely to have an assessed value well over $1 million; this would reflect at least a 14-fold increase over current assessed values and property tax returns to the City.

While it would be possible to calculate relative fiscal benefits of an entirely commercial project, versus the current mixed-use proposal, doing so would require an assumption to be made about the amount of commercial, versus residential development, that could be feasibly supported on this site. It is unlikely, given the current retail and office market, that there would be adequate demand to support construction of a large scale, 100% commercial development, on this site. The mixed residential and commercial development is likely to reflect the “highest and best” use of the land, and therefore the highest likely fiscal benefit to the City compared to another hypothetical development scenario.

Impact Fees and Other Benefits
Staff has not yet prepared a detailed estimate of impact fees for the project. Because the commercial square footage proposed is approximately equal to the amount on the site today (and for which impact fee credit is given), it is assumed that impact fees would be assessed only on the increment of new residential units being added (the 14 additional units). Based on the December 2024 fee schedule, estimated Capital Facilities, Transportation Impact, and Affordable Housing Fees would amount to approximately $85,500 per unit, or a total of approximately $1.12 million. This does not include other fees such as Water and Sewer Connection Fees, Tri-Valley Transportation Council Fees, Engineering and Building Permit Fees, Impervious Surface Fees, etc.

Additional community benefits have not been sought from this project, since it is consistent (in fact, below) the mid-point residential density allowable for this site. The proposed project also meets the policy requirements of the Specific Plan with respect to provision of commercial space, parking, and other similar amenities. The project would enhance the character and environment of the Downtown with new commercial buildings and plaza, retention of the Barone home, and infill of compatibly-scaled residential uses on the property.

6: Noise and Activity Disclosures
As described in the Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 4, Page 29 of 32) there is the potential for new and existing commercial uses to create sources of noise and nuisance to the new residential uses. The Downtown Specific Plan includes Policy LD.P.3 (Right to do Business) that requires new residential uses to include a disclosure of potential noise and operational impacts.

Condition of Approval 45(e) includes a requirement for such disclosure, among other disclosures and restrictions for the new residences.

Page 79 of 638 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

Attachment A: Summary of Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses for PUD-146

Note: Uses typically permitted or conditionally permitted in the MU-D District, but not permitted in PUD- 146 are indicated in Strikeout text

Permitted Uses
Adult entertainment Music/dance studios (<20 students) Art galleries (<20 students) Newsstands
Art/craft studios (<20 students) Office
Bars and Brew Pubs1
Commercial radio/TV aerials, ants., & trans.
towers
Personal services
Emergency standby generator Rec./sports facilities (<20 students) Financial institutions Restaurants/catering establishments Food trucks Retail2
Government facilities, no outdoor storage Schools and colleges (<20 students) Interior decorating shops Special downtown accessory entertainment uses Laundries and dry cleaners Theaters and auditoriums
Low barrier navigation center Veterinarian (no boarding/overnight) Medical offices Wholesale establishments w/o stock
Microbreweries1 Wineries1

1. Permitted subject to conditions specified in PMC 18.44.080, Footnote 16

2. Firearm sales, liquor stores, convenience markets, tobacco stores, secondhand stores, and pawnshops are prohibited

Temporary, Minor, and Conditionally Permitted Uses
Art galleries (>21 students) Parking public utility and service Bed and breakfast inns Private clubs/lodges CUP
Bowling alleys, pool halls, and indoor bocce court
CUP
Outdoor art and craft shows TCUP
Circuses, carnivals, and other transient
amusement
Radio and TV broadcasting studios CUP
Community/conference centers Rec./sports facilities (>21 students) Farmer’s markets TCUP Recycling collection facilities, small Game arcades TCUP Schools and colleges (>21 students)
Hotels and motels CUP Seasonal sales lots TCUP
Medium electricity generator facilities Special downtown accessory entertainment uses not meeting hours TCUP
Meeting halls CUP Music/dance studios (>21 students)

Page 80 of 638 ends

Page 1 of 17 ends

Item #7

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

January 9, 2025
Community Development

TITLE: CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17, 2024 - 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 single- story 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

Page 81 of 638 ends

Page 2 of 17 ends

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

Page 82 of 638 ends

Page 3 of 17 ends

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 single- family home, built in 1887, along with an approximately 1,004-square-foot detached, single- story 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 mixed- use 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

Page 83 of 638 ends

Page 4 of 17 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to rezone the approximately 2.3-acre project site from C-C (Central- Commercial) 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 two- story 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-square- foot 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

Page 84 of 638 ends

Page 5 of 17 ends

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.

Page 85 of 638 ends

Page 6 of 17 ends

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

Page 86 of 638 ends

Page 7 of 17 ends

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

Page 87 of 638 ends

Page 8 of 17 ends

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

Page 88 of 638 ends

Page 9 of 17 ends

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 on- site. 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

Page 89 of 638 ends

Page 10 of 17 ends

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*

Page 90 of 638 ends

Page 11 of 17 ends

• 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

Page 91 of 638 ends

Page 12 of 17 ends

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

Page 92 of 638 ends

Page 13 of 17 ends

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 below-

Page 93 of 638 ends

Page 14 of 17 ends

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

Page 94 of 638 ends

Page 15 of 17 ends

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

Page 95 of 638 ends

Page 16 of 17 ends

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

Page 96 of 638 ends

Page 17 of 17 ends

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

Page 97 of 638 ends

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;

Page 98 of 638 ends

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.

Page 99 of 638 ends

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

Page 100 of 638 ends

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

Page 101 of 638 ends

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

Page 102 of 638 ends

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

Page 103 of 638 ends

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.

Page 104 of 638 ends

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

2 This page intentionally left blank.

Page 105 of 638 ends

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.

Page 106 of 638 ends

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

4 Figure 1 Regional Location

Page 107 of 638 ends

Project Location and Existing Conditions

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

Page 108 of 638 ends

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.

Page 109 of 638 ends

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.

Page 110 of 638 ends

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).

Page 111 of 638 ends

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.

Page 112 of 638 ends

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

10 This page intentionally left blank.

Page 113 of 638 ends

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.  P
lan 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.

Page 114 of 638 ends

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.

Page 115 of 638 ends

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.

Page 116 of 638 ends

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 2Includes 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
1Potential Growth numbers shown in the DSP (Allowable/Required) column consist of growth projection numbers for the entire DSP area.
2Assuming 2.83 people per household and housing vacancy rate of 3.6% (methodology used in the Final EIR) 3Assuming 510 sf per retail job (methodology used in the Final EIR)

Page 117 of 638 ends

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.

Page 118 of 638 ends

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

16 This page intentionally left blank.

Page 119 of 638 ends

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.

Page 120 of 638 ends

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.

Page 121 of 638 ends

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 (O
3) 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,

Page 122 of 638 ends

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 = not applicable (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.

Page 123 of 638 ends

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.

PERATIONAL 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 = not applicable (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.

Page 124 of 638 ends

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.

Page 125 of 638 ends

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.

O
DORS
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.

ONSISTENCY 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

Page 126 of 638 ends

Pleasanton City CouncilJanuary 9, 2025

Pleasanton City Council
January 9, 2025