Pleasanton City Council
February 4, 2025

USDD.CA_PLSTN.FS05.FSA.DWG design by

A B C D
4 3
2 1
4 2
1 A B C D
3 project building filename date

T H I S D O C U M E N T CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL A N D P R O P R I E T A R Y

INFORMATION WHICH IS

THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF US DIGITAL DESIGNS,
I N C . R EP R O D U C T I O N , DISTRIBUTION OR USE BY OTHERS, IN WHOLE OR IN

PART, IS NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
AUTHORIZATION FROM US DIGITAL DESIGNS, INC.

PoE = G2 ATX Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) ports 1...8 and G2 Expansion Module ports 1...12 A.n = G2 ATX Amplifier 1...4 EA.n = G2 External Amplifier 1...n CH.n = G2 Message Remote 2 Channel 1 or 2 2/16/2024 - 11:18AM

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
G2 I/O REMOTE

PUSH BUTTON - RED
G2 STROBE LIGHT

SPEAKER, WEATHER-PROOF SPEAKER, FLUSH MOUNT SPEAKER, METAL BOX G2 LED SPEAKER, FLUSH MOUNT G2 LED SPEAKER, METAL BOX

OEM TRANSFORMER
G2 HDTV REMOTE G2 COLOR

INDICATOR REMOTE
OEM FLAT PANEL MONITOR, XX", WITH MOUNT
G2 MESSAGE SIGN
(STANDARD 24")

VOLUME CONTROL
(CUSTOMER SUPPLIED)
G2 ROOM REMOTE 2

ARTICULATING ARM

MOUNT - LONG

ADAPTER PLATE DOUBLE

PUSH BUTTON - BLACK
G2 OMNIALERT STROBE SPEAKER
G2 MESSAGE SIGN
(MINI 12") G2 MESSAGE SIGN
(EXTENDED 36")

ADAPTER PLATE
SINGLE
G2 MESSAGE REMOTE 2
G2 ATX
STATION CONTROLLER G2 EXPANSION MODULE G2-UNINTERRUPTIBLE

POWER SUPPLY OEM AMPLIFIER

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
TVR
PB

BLACK PB

RED CIR
STR
ATX
I/O
T
UPS
AMP
MR2
EXP
RR2
S
S
S
ADS
MSE
MSML
MSS
MSM
VC
S
S
ADP
MSML
S
LAR
G2 LOCAL AREA REMOTE
FPD MOUNT FPM - XX" address

END-USER APPROVES STATION
DESIGN FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING QUOTE.

INSTALLER CONFIRMS DESIGN
ALIGNS WITH SITE CONDITIONS. (SPEAKER MOUNTING TYPE, ATX LOCATION ETC.)

SIGNATURE REQUIRED
G2 VIDEO DOOR

STATION
VDS LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON FIRE DEPT, CA (ALAMEDA COUNTY) LAPFS05 1200 OLD VINEYWARD RD, PLEASANTON DWK NOTES:

1. SEE ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL ROUGH-IN AND INSTALLATION DETAILS.

2. US DIGITAL DESIGNS DOES NOT SUPPLY BACK BOXES, CONDUITS, OR MOUNTING FASTENERS.

3. PHOENIX G2 SYSTEM IS ABLE TO SIGNAL OWNER-FURBISHED SYSTEMS, (EXHAUST, LIGHT, GAS SHUT OFF, ETC.) BUT USDD DOES NOT SUPPLY THESE SYSTEMS AND CANNOT WARRANT OR SUPPORT ANY OF THEIR PERFORMANCE BEYOND THE TRANSMISSION OF RELAY SIGNAL TO THEM.

4. US DIGITAL DESIGNS FIRE STATION ALERTING PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND FOR QUOTING PURPOSES ONLY. DRAWING MAY NOT BE TO SCALE.

INSTALLER NOTES:

1. INSTALLER TO VERIFY WALL AND CEILING TYPE TO DETERMINE NEED FOR FLUSH OR SURFACE MOUNT INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT SPECIFIED.

2. INSTALLER TO COORDINATE CONNECTION BETWEEN ATX STATION CONTROLLER’S LINE-LEVEL AUDIO OUTPUT AND (EXISTING) OWNER-FURBISHED HOUSE AUDIO SYSTEM (AMP). (IF APPLICABLE)

3. INSTALLER TO PROVIDE CAT6 & 18/4 CABLES FROM ATX CONTROLLER TO CUSTOMER'S STATION RADIO FOR BACKUP.

4. INSTALLER TO PROVIDE CAT6 CABLE FROM ATX CONTROLLER WAN OUTPUT TO CUSTOMER'S IN-STATION NETWORK.

5. INSTALLER TO COORDINATE CONNECTION BETWEEN EXISTING STATION LIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEM AND RELAY OUTPUT FROM ATX STATION CONTROLLER OR I/O REMOTE WITH OWNER. (IF APPLICABLE)

6. VOLUME CONTROL TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER OR INSTALLER IF SHOWN ON DRAWING.

7. INSTALLER TO VERIFY AND CONSIDER LOCATION(S) OF NETWORK AND RADIO CONNECTIONS.

S
TO MR2 BY ATX
TVR

TO ATX SWITCH ONLY
TO ATX SWITCH ONLY TVR CIR PoE
PoE
PoE
PoE
ADP

MSML MSS
MSS
PoE
PoE
A.1
PB

RED EMERGENCY ALERT
S
A.4
S
A.4

VDS VIDEO DOORBELL
ATX
UPS
MR2 MR2-A PoE
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
RR2
RR2 RR2
RR2
Count Name
1 G2 ATX STATION CONTROLLER
1 G2 COLOR INDICATOR REMOTE
2 G2 HDTV REMOTE
8 G2 LED SPEAKER (G2-LVL-HC-70)
1 G2 MESSAGE REMOTE 2
2 G2 MESSAGE SIGN STANDARD (MS-G2-S)
1 G2 MS ADAPTOR PLATE DOUBLE (AP-D)
1 G2 OMNISTROBE SPEAKER
1 G2 UPS (G2-UPS)
1 MS-MNT-ART-L
1 PUSH BUTTON (RED)
4 ROOM REMOTE 2 (RR-2)
2 SPEAKER WEATHER-PROOF
1 VIDEO DOOR STATION
Count Name
7 G2 PoE PORT REQUIRED
Attachment B

Item #5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 4, 2025
Library and Recreation
TITLE: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2291 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1428 TO UPDATE PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.08 TO ADDRESS UNAUTHORIZED

USES OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
The foregoing Ordinance No. 2291 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 21, 2025, by the following vote:

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

Absent: None
Abstain: None

ORDINANCE NO. 2291

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1428 TO UPDATE PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.08 TO ADDRESS UNAUTHORIZED USES OF PARK AND

RECREATION FACILITIES
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1428 repealing then existing Chapter 13.08, “Recreation Facilities” and adopting a revised Chapter

13.08, to be entitled “Parks and Recreation Facilities; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2125, which amended Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code to ban smoking in City parks, trails and adjacent parking lots; and
WHEREAS, there has been a rise in the amount of unauthorized field use by “travel” teams, private athletic trainings, and various sports clinics; and WHEREAS, there is a need to define “organized activity”; and WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify that organized activities require an approved use permit; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to include the director’s designee as an additional person able to issue permits; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to include select neighborhood parks to be used with an approved use permit; and
WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Commission at its November 14, 2024 meeting recommended that the City Council adopt staff’s recommendation to approve an ordinance amending various portions of Chapter 13.08 of the Municipal Code.

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

SECTION 1. Amendment. Ordinance No. 1428 is amended to update Chapter 13.08 of the City of Pleasanton’s Municipal Code, the specifics of which are included in Exhibit A, to address the unauthorized use of City park and recreation facilities.

SECTION 2. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court, such invalidity shall not affect any of the remaining parts.

SECTION 3. Publication. This ordinance, or a summary of this ordinance, shall be published once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in “The Valley Times,” a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Pleasanton, and the complete ordinance shall be posted for fifteen (15) days in the City Clerk’s office within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption.

Ordinance No. 2291

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton on January 21, 2025, by the following vote:

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

Absent: None
Abstain: None

______________________________
Jack Balch, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Ordinance No. 2291

Exhibit A
Municipal Code 13.08- PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
§ 13.08.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
"Daylight" means any time from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. "Director" means the director of community services of the city. "E-bike" or "electric bicycle" means a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. This includes Class 1, Class, 2 and Class 3 electric bicycles as defined in the California Vehicle Code Section 312.5. "Park and recreation facility" means any public park, pathway, trail, skateboard park, in-line skatepark, bicycle motocross (BMX) park, golf course, playground, athletic field, recreation center or recreation area, which facility the city owns, leases or controls, whether or not such facility is improved or unimproved and whether or not such facility is located within or without the territorial limits of the city.
"Skateboard park" means a facility designed specifically for riding skateboards with sculptured events such as ramps, jumps and bowls, and shall include any hard surface area within 40 feet of the skateboard park itself.
"Trails" mean multi-use paved trails for pedestrians and bicyclists, improved surface trails, and natural surface trails, as defined in the Pleasanton Trails Master Plan (2019). "Written permission of the director" means a permit issued by the city department of community services, which permit shall contain the following information: the name of the person or organization to whom the permit is issued; the name of the park and recreation facility and/or the identification of the activity to which the permit applies; the effective date(s) and times of the permit; and such other administrative information as may be necessary.
“Organized activity” means any number of people organized through a corporation, club, federation, union, association, or other group which sponsors or arranges any activity. (Ord. 1428 § 4, 1989; Ord. 1654 § 1, 1995; Ord. 1919 § 9, 2005; Ord. 1924 § 1, 2005; Ord. 2065 § 1, 2013; Ord.2247, 7/18/2023)
§ 13.08.090 Goods or services—Exhibitions, private lessons and classes.

No person shall: (a) sell any goods or services; (b) conduct or maintain any show, performance, concert, place of amusement or exhibition; (c) conduct private lessons or classes; or (d) hold, conduct, participate in, or attend any organized or structured activities, practices, or games without a written permit through the City rental process. This section shall not apply to sidewalk vendors as defined in Section 6.38.010 of this code.

Ordinance No. 2291

(Ord. 1428 § 4, 1989; Ord. 2065 § 1, 2013; Ord. 2093 § 1, 2014; Ord. 2191 § 4, 2019) § 13.08.140 Hours of operation.

A. A park and recreation facility shall be available to the public during daylight except: (1) for the use of pathways/sidewalks within the facility; (2) when there is posted conspicuously a sign limiting the daytime hours when such facility is available to the public; and (3) after daylight if and when the facility is lighted.

B. No person shall refuse or fail to leave a park and recreation facility upon being directed to leave: (1) by the director or the director's designee; or (2) by a peace officer.

C. No person shall be or remain in a park and recreation facility other than during daylight except as follows:

1. When the person is only using the sidewalk or pathway within the facility;

2. When the facility is posted conspicuously that the daytime hours that the facility is open to the public are limited to hours other than during daylight;

3. When the facility is lighted and the person is a participant or spectator at the event taking place at the lighted facility; or

4. When the director or the director's designee has given written permission.

D. The director, police chief or fire chief, or the designees, may close any park and recreation facility to the public when it is determined that such closure will protect the public health, safety and/or welfare or is necessary to protect such facility from misuse or destruction. If possible, notice thereof shall be posted in conspicuous locations in the affected facility.

E. No person shall be in the Century House or within the fenced area within the Bicentennial Park without the written permission of the director.

F. No person, group or organization (collectively the "renter") shall claim exclusive use of any or all of a park and recreation facility without having leased such park or recreation facility or received the written permit through the City rental process. With such lease or permission, the renter may exclude members of the public from that park or from that recreation facility, and the renter may also establish the renter's own reasonable rules of use during such period.

G. Organized activity in any park and recreational facility shall be permitted only as follows:

1. With approved permit through the City rental process; and a. Only in those sections of any community park planned for such use; or b. Only in neighborhood parks as assigned by a City permit or by bona fide neighborhood groups for neighborhood related activities. (Ord. 1428 § 4, 1989; Ord. 1474 § 1, 1990; Ord. 1659 § 1, 1995; Ord. 2120 § 1, 2015)

Item #6

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 4, 2025
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: APPROVE THE FINAL MAP, IMPROVEMENT PLANS, SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 8528 LOCATED AT 990 SYCAMORE ROAD

SUMMARY
PUD-135 (Vesting Tentative Map 8352), located at 990 Sycamore Road, will subdivide a 3.28- acre property into five lots for four new single-family homes and one existing single-family home. PUD-135 includes conditions of approval imposed by Pleasanton Ordinance No. 2210.

The conditions require the subdivider, 990 Sycamore Dev Co LLC, to convert a paved utility corridor between Sycamore Creek Way and Sycamore Road into a public trail. The public trail will continue across the Sycamore Road property frontage for eventual connection to the Spotorno Ranch Trail on Alisal Street to be built by another subdivider. The conditions also require the subdivider to improve a segment of Sycamore Creek that extends through the property.

Staff reviewed the final map, improvement plans, subdivision agreement, Trail Maintenance Agreement, and Creek Maintenance Agreement and found the documents to be in substantial conformance with the requirements of PUD-135 and therefore recommends approval of these documents. See Attachment 1 for a vicinity map.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the final map (see Attachment 2) and improvement plans for Tract 8528.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to record with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder an acceptance of all public right-of-way and easements offered for dedication on the final map.

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the subdivision agreement (see Attachment 3).

4. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Trail Maintenance Agreement (see Attachment 4) and a Creek Maintenance Agreement (see Attachment 5), thus transferring maintenance obligations for the public trail and Sycamore Creek segment to the lot owners.

BACKGROUND
The property zoning was originally designated as Planned Unit Development – Agricultural (PUD-A) in the North Sycamore Specific Plan (NSSP). On February 7, 2019, the original subdivider applied for a PUD development plan approval for a five-lot single-family residential development with proposed NSSP amendments, Growth Management Agreement, PUD rezoning, and on and off-site improvements.

On May 27, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2020-07, which determined

that the proposed NSSP amendments, PUD rezoning and subdivision were appropriate for the site. The application was then recommended to the City Council for approval.

On August 18, 2020, the City Council approved a Negative Declaration in conformance with CEQA (Resolution No. 201179), PUD-135 (Resolution No. 201180), Growth Management Agreement (Resolution No. 201181), and Vesting Tentative Map 8352 through adoption of Ordinance No. 2210.

DISCUSSION
Approval of a final map, when the map substantially complies with the conditions of the vesting tentative map, is a ministerial act by the City Council according to California Government Code Section 66474.1. The final map for Tract 8528 grants to the City the public service easements across the property frontages for the benefit of utility purveyors. The map also grants a public trail easement across the west and south sides of the property in conformance with the adopted Trails Master Plan (Appendix A, Figure A-5), and a storm drain easement across a portion of Sycamore Creek.

The subdivider has executed a subdivision agreement and provided surety bonds in conformance with California Government Code Section 66499 to guarantee the construction of improvements required by PUD-135. Submitted surety bonds ensure both the subdivider’s performance and the subdivider’s payment for labor and materials. The agreement also requires the subdivider to warranty the improvements for one year after completion.

The subdivider has also executed a Trail Maintenance Agreement and a Creek Maintenance Agreement that transfer maintenance obligations for the public trail and Sycamore Creek segment to the owners of the lots where these features reside. The agreements indemnify the City from claims. Should the lot owners fail to maintain the facilities, the City is granted a right to perform the maintenance at the expense of the owner(s).

Staff reviewed the final map, improvement plans, subdivision agreement, Trail Maintenance Agreement, and Creek Maintenance Agreement and found the documents to be in substantial conformance with the requirements of PUD-135 and, therefore, recommends approval of these documents.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is an administrative matter of City business.

OUTREACH
PUD-135 and Ordinance No. 2210 were subject to public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. Condition of Approval 36 requires the subdivider to notify neighbors within 300 feet of the project site prior to construction.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed subdivision will have a negligible financial impact on the City. Revenue from

increased property taxes and development fees are assumed to cover the cost of municipal services. The subdivider is responsible for the full cost of constructing the subdivision improvements. Future maintenance costs associated with the public trail and improved segment of Sycamore Creek will be borne by the lot owners.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Final Map for Tract 8528

3. Subdivision Agreement

4. Trail Maintenance Agreement

5. Creek Maintenance Agreement

VICINITY MAP
TRACT 8528

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT

LOCATION
PUBLIC
TRAIL

EASEMENT
2 STORM
DRAIN

EASEMENT
3 4
5 1

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 8528

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 8528, PLEASANTON,

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered at Pleasanton, California, this day of , 202_, by and between: 990SYCAMOREDEV CO. L.L.C. (the "Subdivider") and the CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal corporation, (the "City").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Subdivider has a tentative map for Tract Number 8528 and a Planned Unit Development (PUD-135), lying within the boundaries of the City; adopted by City Council on September 15, 2020; and
WHEREAS, all or a portion of the area of the tentative map is presented as a "final map", a copy of said map is on file in the office of the City Engineer, and by reference is included in this Agreement for all purposes as if attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, said tentative map and subdivision of land designates streets, easements and public ways for the City, and Subdivider proposes dedications to the City and the public as set forth in the final map; and
WHEREAS, as a condition precedent to accepting this offer of dedication by Subdivider, City requires the improvements of the public ways, installation or extension of certain City services at Subdivider's expense and certain protection for the City on behalf of the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the faithful performance of the promises, terms, conditions and covenants set forth herein by Subdivider and the approval of the map for recording by the City, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. The work and improvements required by this Agreement to be completed by Subdivider shall be completed within two (2) years from the above-mentioned date of this Agreement.

The City may extend the time for completion of improvements hereunder, upon good cause being shown by the Subdivider. Any such extension may be granted without notice to the Subdivider's surety, any extension so granted shall not relieve the surety's liability on the bond to secure the faithful performance of this Agreement.

2. Work. Subdivider will do or cause to be done and performed the following described work of improvements pursuant to plans and project bond estimates entitled:
a. Improvement Plans For Tract Map 8528, dated October 8, 2024, including any subsequent revisions to plans," as prepared by Alexander and Associates, Inc and approved by the City Engineer (12 sheets); and

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 8528

b. Construction Cost Estimates by Alexander and Associates, Inc dated 8/29/2024 (see Exhibit A).

3. Inspection. City shall inspect all of said work through an inspector employed by City at the cost and expense of Subdivider, and Subdivider shall pay City the cost of such inspection as fixed by Ordinance.

The City Engineer has tentatively fixed the inspection costs due upon execution of this Agreement as follows:
$19,688.46 for Plan Check
$ 26,395.40 for Construction Inspection

4. Soils Report. Subdivider shall adhere to the recommendations and requirements of the preliminary soils report as required by Section 66490 of the Government Code without expense to the City. Said information is contained in letters and reports by PRA Group Consulting Engineers (GB134/G425-01) dated June 6, 2019, and August 29, 2018, as well as a report by Purcell, Roades & Associates (12-222/7338-01) dated October 12, 2007.

5. Plans. All of said work shall be done and materials furnished in strict accordance with the approved plans for said tract filed with the City Engineer, and in accordance with the standard specifications and details of the City of Pleasanton. It is further understood that the work and materials shall be under the supervision of the City Engineer, and performed and installed to the City Engineer’s satisfaction.

6. Related Contracts and Proceedings. Any prior contracts between City and Subdivider and any prior approvals by Boards, Commissions or Council of City shall not be affected by the provisions of this Agreement unless specific modification is set forth herein.

7. Security. On signing this Agreement, the Subdivider shall present to the City and file with the City Clerk, improvement security as defined in Section 66499 of the Government Code. Said improvement security as approved by the City Attorney, shall consist of the following as determined by the City:
a. cash deposit made with the City, or
b. bonds by duly authorized corporate sureties admitted to conduct such business in California, or
c. instruments of credit from financial institutions subject to regulation by state or federal government, or
Security in the form of cash, letter of credit, or bond is required in the following three areas:
performance, labor and materials, and maintenance. The performance security shall be in the amount of 100% of the total estimated cost of the work for each stage of development, conditioned upon faithful performance of this Agreement. The labor and materials security shall be in the amount of 100% of the total estimated cost of the work for each stage of development. The maintenance security shall be in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the estimated value of the public improvements.

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 8528

The total estimated cost of the improvements is: $472,799.50 (See Exhibit A) Performance Security/Labor and Materials Security: In the event of any breach by Subdivider, City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by any method the City deems advisable. Said work shall be for the account and at the expense of the Subdivider. Subdivider shall be liable to the City for any excess costs or damages suffered by the City. The City shall release the faithful performance and labor and materials security forty-five days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion.

Maintenance and Defect Security: Subdivider shall be responsible for maintaining the improvements for a full year from the date of recordation of the Notice of Completion. Subdivider shall also be liable for defects in workmanship and materials on all of the above described improvements and shall maintain security for liability against such defects. The City shall release the maintenance security one year after the City Council’s acceptance of the project provided all warranty and maintenance work is acceptable to the City.

8. Financing. In the event City and the Subdivider enter a contract upon mutually agreeable terms providing an appropriate special assessment act for financing and improvement of streets and easements, the City may consent to the following:
a. The inclusion of this tract and other lands within said contracts, and b. The release of improvement security as defined in Section 66499 of the Government Code, where the assessment contract has filed surety bonds for said improvements.

9. Workers' Compensation. Before commencing work under this contract, Subdivider shall take out and maintain during the course of this Agreement such worker's compensation insurance as required by the laws of the State of California. If the Acting General Contractor is not the Subdivider, then the General Contractor will provide the City with said certificate of worker's compensation insurance prior to start of construction. On failing to do so, the City may procure such insurance for the Subdivider and the Subdivider shall pay the cost.

10. Hold Harmless Agreement. Subdivider hereby agrees to and shall hold City, its elective and appointive Boards, Commissions, officers, agents, and employees, harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims from property damage which may arise from Subdivider's contractors', subcontractors', agents', or employees' operation under this Agreement, whether such operations be by Subdivider or by any of Subdivider's contractors, subcontractors, or by any one or more persons directly employed by, or acting as agent for, Subdivider or any of Subdivider's contractors or subcontractors. Subdivider agrees to, and shall, defend City and its elective and appointive Boards, Commissions, officers, agents and employees from any suits or actions at law or equity for damages caused, or alleged to have been caused, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations. In addition to the above:
a. That City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Subdivider which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Subdivider, of any of the insurance policies described herein.

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 8528

b. That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by Subdivider shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations referred to in this Agreement, regardless of whether or not City has prepared, supplied or approved of, plans or specifications for the subdivision, or regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.

11. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Subdivider or its general contractor, shall maintain in full force and effect, at its own cost and expense, insurance coverages with insurers with an A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII. Subdivider, or its general contractor, shall have the obligation to furnish City, as additional insured, the minimum coverages identified below, or such greater or broader coverage for City, if available in the Contractor’s policies:
a. Provide a Certificate of Insurance issued to the City of Pleasanton from the Subdivider’s insurance carrier providing proof of Workers' Compensation and Policy Number. If the Acting General Contractor is not the Subdivider, then the General Contractor will also provide the City with the said Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance prior to start of construction. The duration of this insurance shall include the one year maintenance period. b. Provide a Certificate of Insurance from the Subdivider’s insurance carrier showing the amount of General Liability and Property Damage coverage with Insurance coverage of at least the following amounts:

GENERAL LIABILITY
General Bodily Injury $2,000,000 Per Occurrence
General Property Damage $2,000,000 Per Occurrence

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Bodily Injury $2,000,000 Per Person/ $2,000,000 Per Occurrence Property Damage $2,000,000 Per Occurrence or Combined Single Limit on Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability $2,000,000.
c. All insurance companies affording coverage to the Subdivider shall be required to add the City of Pleasanton as an "additional insured" under the insurance policy by endorsement for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, excluding workers’ compensation insurance. d. All insurance companies affording coverage to the Subdivider shall be insurance organizations authorized by the Insurance Commissioner of the State Department of Insurance to transact business of insurance in the State of California with a Best's rating of not less than A:VII. e. All insurance companies affording coverage shall provide thirty-day (30) written notice to the City of Pleasanton should the policy be canceled before the expiration date. For the purposes of this notice requirement, any material change in the policy prior to the expiration shall be considered a cancellation.

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 8528

f. Subdivider shall provide evidence of compliance with the insurance requirements listed above by providing a certificate of insurance, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, concurrently with the submittal of this Agreement.
g. Subdivider shall provide a substitute certificate of insurance no later than thirty (30) days prior to the policy expiration date. Failure by the Subdivider to provide such a substitution and extend the policy expiration date shall be considered a default by Subdivider and may subject the Subdivider to a Stop Work Notice until the Subdivider has cured the default. h. Subdivider shall provide insurance that is primary as respects the City, its officers, employees and volunteers.
i. Maintenance of insurance by the Subdivider as specified in this Agreement shall in no way be interpreted as relieving the Subdivider of any responsibility whatever and the Subdivider may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it deems necessary. j. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Subdivider. k. The insurer shall provide the amount of self-insured retention and City shall have the right to deny insurance coverage if it deems the self-insured retention exceeds reasonable deduction.

12. Streets. Use of any or all streets and improvements provided by Paragraph 2 shall, at all times prior to the final acceptance of said tract by the City, be at the sole and exclusive risk of Subdivider.

Issuance of any Occupancy Permits by City for a dwelling within the tract, at any state of development, shall not be construed to be an acceptance of improvements, or a final acceptance of said tract.

13. Street Lights. City shall, before or after acceptance of improvements, give a "turn-on" order to the power company for only those street lights that City deems necessary. Subdivider may at the Subdivider’s sole expense provide street lighting not deemed necessary by the City, by arranging for the power company to hold the City harmless from the cost thereof, and by paying the actual power cost for said street lighting so ordered. Subdivider shall give notice to the City three (3) weeks prior to the proposed occupancy of any dwelling unit(s).

14. Attorneys’ Fees. The prevailing party in any action or suit for the enforcement of rights under this Agreement, shall be entitled to payment of its reasonable attorneys’ fees as may be fixed by the court on account thereof.

15. Notices. All notices herein required shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:

City Manager
City of Pleasanton
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Notices required to be given to Subdivider shall be addressed as follows:

8528

SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
TRACT NO. 8528

ATTEST:
____________________________ [If Subdivider is a corporation, signatures must Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk comply with California Corporations Code §313] APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: __________________________
_____________________________ Signature
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
__________________________
Print name
Title: __________________________
Rev. 5-22

1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Kevin Michael Sweeney
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Pleasanton
Attention: City Clerk
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
990 Sycamore Dev Co. L.L.C
Atten: Kevin Michael Sweeney
P.O. Box 1900
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Space Above This Line For Recorder’s Use Only
Recording requested pursuant to
APN 948-16-2-15 Government Code Sections §27383 & §6103 (No Fee) Revenue & Taxation Code §11922 (Government Agency)

TRAIL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS TRAIL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated this ______ day of ________, 2025 BETWEEN the City of Pleasanton, a municipal corporation (the “City”) AND________________ , Owner of Lot 1 of Tract 8528, 990sycamoredev co. l.l.c., a California Limited Liability Company (the “Owner”).

BACKGROUND
A. Owner is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, State of California, commonly known as 990 Sycamore Road, Pleasanton, CA, and more particularly described as:

Lot 1 of Tract 8528 recorded ______________________
in Book _______ of Maps, Pages ____ to ____, inclusive, Alameda County Records (the “Property”).

Attachment 4

2 B. As a condition of approval for the development of this Property pursuant to City of Pleasanton Ordinance No. 2210, Planned Unit Development (PUD-135) Conditions Nos. 15, 16 and 17, the City requires that the Owner maintain a Public Trail Easement Area over a portion of the Property.

C. The Public Trail Easement Area subject to this Agreement is described as: (a) a 25- foot wide public trail easement along the southern border of the Property as shown on Tract 8528; and (b) the 25-foot wide easement over the Property described in the Easement Grant Deed dated September 14, 1987, recorded on September 28, 1987 as Record No. 87265829 of Alameda County Records.

D. The Owner is agreeable to providing the maintenance of the Public Trail Easement Area on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and agrees that this Agreement shall continue on with any new owners as a condition of the sale of the Property.

IN CONSIDERATION OF the matters described above and of the mutual benefits set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the City and the Owner (individually the “Party” and collectively the “Parties” to this Agreement) agree as follows:

1. Maintenance Provided. The Parties hereby agree that the Owner, or those contracted by the Owner on Owner’s behalf, will maintain the Public Trail Easement Area. Such maintenance shall include:
a. Maintenance of the asphalt surface on Dale Way.
b. Maintenance of the Public Trail Easement Area on the Property in its entirety including:
the asphalt surface on Dale Way, decomposed granite surface at Lot 1, fencing, and planting.
c. Removal of the accumulation and growth of grass, weeds, dirt, refuse and/or combustible trash within the Public Trail Easement Area in a manner approved by the LivermorePleasanton Fire Department.

Nothing within the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either Owner or City by imposing any standard of care respecting the maintenance of the Public Trail Easement Area different from the standard of care imposed by law.

2. Restrictions Acknowledged. The Owner further acknowledges the following restrictions with regard to the Public Trail Easement Area:
a. Owner shall not close or obstruct the Public Trail Easement Area in any way, except for authorized/permitted maintenance activities.
b. Owner shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for any work performed by a contractor when maintaining the Public Trail Easement Area.
c. Owner shall not utilize the Public Trail for private vehicle access to the Property or any other property that abuts the Public Trail Easement Area d. Owner shall not plant trees or vegetation that interfere with public use and access to the Public Trail Easement Area.

3 e. Owner shall not install surface improvements or park vehicles in any manner which obstructs access across the length of the Public Trail Easement Area on the Property.

3. Duration. This Agreement shall be a covenant which is to run with the Property and shall be binding upon the transferees, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County. Owner may apply to modify or terminate this Agreement at any time by written request of Owner and approval of the termination or modification by the City. Any City-approved modification or termination shall not be effective until approved in writing by the City and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County.

4. Failure to Perform Obligations. If, in the reasonable judgment of the City’s Director of Public Works or his or her designee, Owner has failed to maintain properly the Public Trail Easement Area as required by this Agreement, the City may perform such maintenance, at its option, after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Owner of such failure to maintain. City will make reasonable efforts to reach Owner by phone and email as well. Notices required hereunder shall be deemed effective two (2) days after mailing. If Owner has failed to maintain the Public Trail Easement Area after written notice and the lapse of thirty (30) days, the City may elect to perform, but is not required to perform, such maintenance, which shall be at the Owner’s sole expense and Owner, upon demand by the City, shall pay to the City all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in the performance of such maintenance. The City's remedy provided in this paragraph shall be in addition to any other rights and remedies the City may have at law or in equity.

If any maintenance, repair, or replacement of the Public Trail Easement Area needs immediate correction as a result of a public safety or health hazard, as reasonably determined by the Director of Public Works or his or her designee, and such maintenance is not performed, or cannot be performed, by Owner within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of such notice thereof, which notice will be sent by personal delivery to the Property address and City will make reasonable efforts to reach Owner by phone and email, the City may perform or cause to be performed such maintenance at Owner’s expense, and Owner, upon demand by the City, shall pay to the City all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in the performance of such maintenance.

5. Performance. The Parties agree to do everything necessary to ensure that the terms of this Agreement take effect.

6. Compensation. The Owner will not be compensated for Public Trail Easement Area maintenance; it is a requirement of ownership of the Property.

7. Reimbursement of Expense. The Owner will not be reimbursed for expenses incurred by the Owner in connection with providing the Public Trail maintenance set forth in this Agreement.

8. Capacity/Independent Contractor. In providing the Public Trail Easement Area maintenance under this Agreement it is expressly agreed that the Owner is acting independently

4 and not as an employee or agent of the City. The Owner and the City acknowledge that this Agreement does not create a partnership or joint venture between them.

9. Notice. All notices, requests, demands or other communications required or permitted by the terms of this Agreement will be given in writing and delivered to the Parties of the Agreement as follows:

City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Ave
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Attn: Director of Public Works
Property Owner of Lot 1 of Tract 8528
990 Sycamore Dev Co. L.L.C _ Sycamore Rd
(P.O. Box 1900 Pleasanton, CA 94566)
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 510.512.7011
Or to such other address as any Party may from time to time notify the other.

10. Indemnification. Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and agents from any loss, claims, liability, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, for personal injury or death, or property damage, arising out of or in connection with the activities of Owner or its agents in the performance of its maintenance obligations, or lack thereof, under this Agreement.

City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Owner from and against any and all demands, claims, losses, costs, lawsuits, liens, judgments, and liabilities of any kind (collectively, "Liabilities"), arising in any manner from injury to or death of any person or damage to or destruction of any property occurring in, on, or about the Public Trail Easement Area and relating to the public’s use of the Public Trail Easement Area as a public trail. This provision applies except to the extent that any damage or loss is the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Owner.

11. Legal Expenses. In the event that legal action is brought to enforce or interpret any term of this Agreement, the prevailing Party will be entitled to recover, in addition to any other damages or award, all reasonable legal costs and fees associated with the action.

12. Modification of Agreement. Any amendment or modification of this Agreement will only be binding if evidenced in writing signed by each Party or an authorized representative of each Party, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County.

13. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. No extension or variation of this Agreement will operate as a waiver of this provision.

5 14. Assignment. The Owner will not voluntarily, or by operation of law, assign or otherwise transfer its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, except when transfer occurs pursuant to a sale of the Property.

15. Agreement Hierarchy: It is agreed that this Agreement is intended to meet the obligations of PUD-135 as set forth in City of Pleasanton Ordinance No. 2210. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and Ordinance No. 2210, the terms of Ordinance No. 2210 shall prevail.

16. Titles/Headings. Headings are inserted for the convenience of the Parties only and are not to be considered when interpreting this Agreement.

17. Gender. Words in the singular mean and include the plural and vice versa. Words in the masculine mean and include the feminine and vice versa.

18. Governing Law. It is the intention of the Parties that this Agreement and their performance under this Agreement, and all suits and special proceedings under this Agreement, be construed in accordance with the governed, to the exclusion of the law of any other forum, by the laws of the State of California, without regard to the jurisdiction in which any action or special proceeding may be instituted. Any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

19. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part, all other provisions will nevertheless continue to be valid and enforceable with the invalid or unenforceable parts severed from the remainder of this Agreement.

20. Waiver. The waiver by either Party of a breach, default, delay or omission of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party will not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or other provisions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have duly affixed their signatures on this _______ day of _______, 2025.

CITY OF PLEASANTON OWNER: 990sycamoredevco. l.l.c., a California Limited Liability Company,
_______________________________ By: ______________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Signature
Kevin Michael Sweeney
ATTEST: Managing Member and authorized agent
{attach notary acknowledgment}
_______________________________

6 Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel Sodergren, City Attorney

1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Kevin Michael Sweeney
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Pleasanton
Attention: City Clerk
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
990 Sycamore Dev Co. L.L.C
Atten: Kevin Michael Sweeney
P.O. Box 1900
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Space Above This Line For Recorder’s Use Only
Recording requested pursuant to
APN 948-16-2-15 Government Code Sections §27383 & §6103 (No Fee) Revenue & Taxation Code §11922 (Government Agency)

CREEK MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS CREEK MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated this ______ day of ______, 2025 between the City of Pleasanton, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and 990 SYCAMORE DEV CO. L.L.C, a California limited liability corporation (the “Owner”).

BACKGROUND
A. The Owner owns real property commonly known as 990 Sycamore Road, City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, State of California, more particularly described as:

Lot 5 of Tract 8528 recorded on ____________________, in Book _____ of Maps, pages ______ to ______, inclusive,
Alameda County Records (the “Property”).

B. As a requirement for the development of the Property pursuant to City of Pleasanton Ordinance No. 2210, adopted September 15, 2020, Owner “shall be responsible for the maintenance and repairs of Sycamore Creek located on the Property as provided in Conditions of Approval Nos. 18 and 72 of Ordinance No. 2210 and as set forth in Tract Map 8528 and designated as a Storm Drain Easement (SDE) attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2 C. Owner is agreeable to providing the maintenance of Sycamore Creek on the Property on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and agrees that this Agreement shall run with the land and continue on with any new owners as a condition of the sale of the Property.

IN CONSIDERATION OF the matters described above and of the mutual benefits set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the City and the Owner (individually the “Party” and collectively the “Parties” to this Agreement) agree as follows:

1. Maintenance. The Parties hereby agree that the Owner, or those contracted by the Owner on Owner’s behalf, will provide maintenance of Sycamore Creek on the Property consisting of:
a) The Owner will provide maintenance of the Sycamore Creek within the boundaries of the Property.
b) Planting of trees and shrubs should not interfere with maintenance access to the Sycamore Creek. Tree species should be selected to reduce the possibility of root erosion of the Sycamore Creek.
c) No water should be allowed to flow over the Sycamore Creek , except that which is already occurring naturally with the existing topography. d) Owner must remove the accumulation and growth of grass, weeds, dirt, refuse and/or combustible trash in a manner approved by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department and according to the Urban Wildland Fire Management Plan approved in conjunction with Ordinance No. 2210.
e) Owner shall be responsible for complying with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations and for obtaining all required permits and/or authorizations when performing maintenance work pursuant to this Agreement. Owner shall not be held responsible for unreasonable delays caused by government agencies.

Nothing within the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement, or affect the legal liability of either Owner or City by imposing any standard of care respecting the maintenance of the Sycamore Creek different from the standard of care imposed by law.

2. Failure to Perform Obligations. If, in the reasonable judgment of the Director of Public Works or his or her designee, Owner has failed to maintain properly the Sycamore Creek as required by this Agreement, the City may perform such maintenance, at its option, after thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Owner of such failure to maintain. City will make reasonable efforts to reach owner by phone and email as well. Notices required hereunder shall be deemed effective two (2) days after mailing. In the event that Owner does not complete maintenance within thirty (30) days after notice, the City has the right, but not the obligation, to perform such maintenance, which shall be at the Owner’s sole expense and Owner, upon demand by the City, shall pay to the City all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in the performance of such maintenance. The City's remedy provided in this paragraph shall be in addition to any other rights and remedies the City may have at law or in equity.

3 If any maintenance of the Sycamore Creek needs immediate correction as a result of a public safety or health hazard, as reasonably determined by the Director of Public Works or his or her designee, and such maintenance is not performed, or cannot be performed, by Owner within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of such notice thereof, which notice will be sent by mail or personal delivery to the Property address, and City will make reasonable efforts to reach owner by phone and email, the City may perform or cause to be performed such maintenance at Owner’s expense, and Owner, upon demand by the City, shall pay to the City all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in the performance of such maintenance.

3. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement will begin on the recordation of this Agreement and will remain in full force and effect indefinitely, and shall run with the land.

Upon the sale of the Property, the new owners agree to abide by the terms of this Agreement.

4. Performance. The Parties agree to do everything necessary to ensure that the terms of this Agreement take effect.

5. No Compensation. The Owner will not be compensated by the City for any Sycamore Creek maintenance; it is a requirement of ownership of the Property.

6. Notice. All notices, requests, demands or other communications required or permitted by the terms of this Agreement will be given in writing and delivered to the Parties of the Agreement as follows:

City of Pleasanton 990 SYCAMORE DEV CO. L.L.C
200 Old Bernal Ave P.O. Box 1900
Pleasanton, CA 94566 Pleasanton, CA 94566
Attn: Director of Public Works Email: [email protected] Phone: 510.512.7011
Or to such other address as any Party may from time to time notify the other.

7. Indemnification. Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and agents from any loss, claims, liability, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, for personal injury or death, or property damage, arising out of or in connection with the activities of Owner or its employees or agents in the performance of its maintenance obligations, or lack thereof, under this Agreement.

8. Legal Expenses. In the event that legal action is brought to enforce or interpret any term of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover, in addition to any other damages or award, all reasonable legal costs and fees associated with the action.

9. Modification of Agreement. Any amendment or modification of this Agreement or additional obligation assumed by either Party in connection with this Agreement will only be binding if evidenced in writing signed by each Party or an authorized representative of each Party.

4 10. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. No extension or variation of this Agreement will operate as a waiver of this provision.

11. Assignment. The Owner will not voluntarily, or by operation of law, assign or otherwise transfer its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, except when transfer occurs pursuant to a sale of the Property.

12. Titles/Headings. Headings are inserted for the convenience of the Parties only and are not to be considered when interpreting this Agreement.

13. Gender. Words in the singular mean and include the plural and vice versa. Words in the masculine mean and include the feminine and vice versa.

14. Governing Law. It is the intention of the Parties that this Agreement and their performance under this Agreement, and all suits and special proceedings under this Agreement, be construed in accordance with the governed, to the exclusion of the law of any other forum, by the laws of California. The venue for any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be the appropriate court in Alameda County, California.

15. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part, all other provisions will nevertheless continue to be valid and enforceable with the invalid or unenforceable parts severed from the remainder of this Agreement.

16. Waiver. The waiver by either Party of a breach, default, delay or omission of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party will not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or other provisions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have duly affixed their signatures under hand and seal on this _______ day of _______, 2025.

CITY OF PLEASANTON OWNER: 990 Sycamore Dev Co. L.L.C, a California
Limited liability corporation
_______________________________ ______________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Kevin Michael Sweeney
Managing Member, and authorized agent
{attach notary acknowledgment}

5 ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel Sodergren, City Attorney

Item #7

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 4, 2025
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: APPROVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WOODARD & CURRAN, INC. FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $60,000 FOR THE NEAR-TERM WATER IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT, CIP NO. 24171, INCREASING THE TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TO $836,365, FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT, SURVEY, AND

DESIGN REVIEW SERVICES TO ADDRESS THE DISCOVERY OF

UNDOCUMENTED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES FOR THE NEAR-TERM WATER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CIP NO. 24171

SUMMARY
The additional engineering support during construction is necessary to address change order work for the Near-Term Water Improvements Project. Surveying is required to stake the revised alignment of the mainline on Sunol Boulevard to unforeseen utility conflicts. The design review services of the pre-packaged booster station are required to ensure the final boosterpump design is compatible with the overall design of Turnout 4, including both new and existing turnout components such as power, instrumentation, electrical services, lighting, controllers, sump pumps and automated valves. A second amendment to the professional services agreement with Woodard & Curran, Inc. will provide additional engineering support during construction, surveying services, and design review services of the pre-packaged booster pump station on the Near-Term Water Improvements Project, CIP No. 24171.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a second amendment to the professional services agreement with Woodard & Curran, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $60,000 for the Near-Term Water Improvements Project, CIP No. 24171, increasing the total contract amount to $836,365, for the Near-Term Water Improvements Project, CIP No. 24171

BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2023, the City Council authorized and approved various professional services agreements, including the agreement with Woodard & Curran, Inc., for a total of $666,365 for the design of Turnout 4, the booster pump station and 3,500 linear feet of 24-inch pipe on Stoneridge Drive.

On March 19, 2024, the City Council authorized the Director of Public Works, or authorized staff, to issue a contract amendment for Woodard & Curran, Inc. for additional design services and engineering support services during construction in the amount of $110,000, for a total amount of $776,365.

DISCUSSION
The Near-Term Water Improvements, CIP No. 24171, is currently under construction and approximately 40 percent complete. During construction, change order work was required to

address scope changes related to the discovery of undocumented underground utilities and other unforeseen conditions, requiring the revision of the mainline alignment on Sunol Boulevard. These changes necessitate additional engineering support during construction and the re-staking of the new mainline alignment.

On November 19, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager or their delegate(s) to enter into a purchase order with SHAPE Incorporated for the Turnout 4 pre-packaged booster pump station. The design of the pre-packaged booster pump station is currently in progress and will be submitted for review and approval in March 2025.

Since Woodard & Curran, Inc. is the project designer for all the turnout components and provided the design parameters and schematic layouts of the booster pump stations, its review of the pre-packaged booster pump station’s design submittals is essential. This review will ensure the final design of the booster pump station is compatible with all the new and existing turnout components including power, instrumentation, electrical services, lighting, controllers, sump pumps and automated valves.

The proposed second amendment to the agreement (Attachment 1) is for a not-to-exceed amount of $60,000, for a new total of $836,365 with a new term date of June 30, 2026.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Staff followed the City's Procurement Policy for purchasing procedures and previous City Council-approved provisions as these types of projects are routine matters of City business.

OUTREACH
Outreach was conducted via mail and social media at the start of construction for this project and continues to be updated to provide construction impacts as needed through social media and website postings.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment, Strategy 1 – Implement the Four-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to complete the design and construction of budgeted capital projects and Strategy 3 – Identifying funding and implement the recommendations from the Water Supply Alternative Study to resolve PFAS water quality issues.

FISCAL IMPACT
The anticipated total expenditure for this contract is $836,365, increasing the anticipated total expenditure of the Near-Term Water Improvements Project, CIP No. 24171, to $10,701,025.

This increase includes additional construction support, survey, and design review services. A reimbursement resolution was approved by the City Council on March 5, 2024, that allowed for the expenditures associated with this project to be reimbursed at a later date once the bond proceeds are available.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Woodard & Curran Inc. Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement

Second Amendment, 2024335 Page 1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Second Amendment to Agreement ("Second Amendment") is entered into this 4th day of February 2025 by the City of Pleasanton ("City") and Woodard & Curran, Inc. ("Consultant”).

Whereas, on August 15, 2023, the City and Consultant entered into a Design Professional Services Agreement for potable water pipeline and booster station design services ("Agreement"); and
Whereas, on March 19, 2024, the City and Consultant entered into a First Amendment to Agreement ("First Amendment") to extend the scope of work, compensation, and term.

Whereas, the parties desire to amend the Agreement, extending the scope of work, compensation, and term.

Now, therefore, in exchange for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of the Agreement, “Consultant’s Services” is amended to read:

Consultant shall diligently perform the services described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, attached to the Second Amendment and incorporated to the extent consistent with the original Agreement.

2. Section 4 of the Agreement, “Term” is amended to read:

The work as described in the attached Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall be completed by June 30, 2026.

3. Section 5 of the Agreement, “Compensation” is amended to read:

For the services to be rendered, City shall increase the compensation to the Consultant by $60,000, on a time and material cost basis, for the not-to-exceed total amount of $836,365, the scope of services has been expanded as defined in Exhibit A attached to the Second Amendment.

4. This amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.

5. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

In witness whereof, authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Second Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first above written.

Second Amendment, 2024335 Page 2

CITY OF PLEASANTON CONSULTANT

_____________________________ By: __________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Signature
__________________________
Print name
Title: __________________________
[If Contractor or Consultant is a corporation,
signatures must comply with California Corporations
Code §313]
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: __________________________
_____________________________ Signature
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
__________________________
Print name
Title: __________________________
Rev. 3/23

City of Pleasanton T4 Booster Pump Station and F1 Pipeline Amendment No. 2
November 26, 2024 Page 1 of 3
City of Pleasanton
T4 Booster Pump Station and F1 Pipeline
Amendment No. 2
January 15, 2025

As requested by the City of Pleasanton (City), the following is Woodard & Curran’s proposed scope of work for Amendment No. 2 to our executed Agreement with the City for the T4 Booster Pump Station and F1 Pipeline, dated August 15, 2023.

This Amendment No. 2 includes supplemental support required for the Near-term construction contract (F1 pipeline and pump station site) and support for review of the final design booster pump station equipment and structure to be provided by the pre-packaged booster pump station supplier. This amendment also includes additional survey staking services during construction for sub-consultant, Guida.

The additional and modified scope items are described below.

Amend Task 4: Engineering Services During Construction with the following:

Woodard & Curran will perform engineering services during construction as requested by the City. Services included are described in the following subtasks.

Task 4.1.1 –Additional Support for RFI and Submittal Reviews for Near-Term Contract (F1 Pipeline and Pump Station Site)
Woodard & Curran will provide additional engineering support during construction to assist the City with Requests for Information (RFIs), review or development of proposed change orders or consultation on requested substitutions. Woodard & Curran will also perform project management and team coordination services, including preparing monthly invoices and progress reports and communicating with the City regularly on project status.

Inclusions and Assumptions:
• Amendment includes budget to cover held costs over previous authorized hours which includes submittal reviews of Submittal 64, 65, 66, and 67 and responding to City Construction manager questions • Includes additional support to respond to questions for pump station site for the near-term contractor, which includes 12 hours of CAD designer time to respond questions or clarifications on layout. • Level of effort is limited to authorized hours shown in the fee spreadsheet (This assumes 24 hours for electrical review of submittals (totaling 6), and answers four (4) RFI provided by the City. • Woodard & Curran efforts will be on an as-requested basis from City.

Deliverables:
• Written responses to submittals using Woodard & Curran submittal review template (.pdf via email) • Written RFI responses using Woodard & Curran RFI response template (.pdf via email) • Written comments on proposed change orders (.pdf via email) • Draft and final contract change order documentation.
• Written responses to proposed substitutions (.pdf via email) • Monthly invoice and progress reports.

Task 4.3.1 –Supplemental Construction Survey Staking.

Woodard & Curran’s subconsultant Guida will provide the following scope of services:

City of Pleasanton T4 Booster Pump Station and F1 Pipeline Amendment No. 2
November 26, 2024 Page 2 of 3
• Additional Staking of the Sunol Pipeline (two days with two-man crew) Assumptions:
• City will provide access to the site during normal business hours (7a to 4p, Monday through Friday). • No permits of any kind will be required. If permits are required, they will be provided at no cost to Guida and Woodard & Curran.
• Traffic Control to be provided by City or its construction contractor. • Supplemental staking will be limited to two field days.

Exclusions:
• Traffic Control
• Monument preservation
• Corner Records or Records of Survey
Deliverables:
• As-staked sheets, plots and point files in .pdf format.

Task 4.4 –Review of Supplier Pump Station Package Final Design.

Woodard & Curran will provide review only of final design of the booster pump station package provided by others (To be provided by SHAPE) and associated equipment which will be limited to the following:

Assumptions:
• Review of final layout (pumps, building, electrical and scada equipment) • Review of Pre-fabricated enclosure (anchorage requirements-review of calculations) • Review of final mechanical, piping, valves and connection to pipeline • Electrical requirements and equipment panels
• Instrumentation and SCADA equipment (review of logic and control diagrams, panels) • Review of Intrusion alarms and security requirements. • Review of final lift station O&M manual (Provide by others) • Respond to questions (Includes response up to 8 RFI email responses) for each discipline for the City and Supplier
• Includes 12 hours of CAD designer to confirm layout of mechanical and structural items on the proposed pump station site and assist with answering questions and providing any clarifications.

Exclusions:
• No testing and start-up assistance included in scope of work • No field inspection services included in the scope of work Deliverables:
• Review comments will be provided via email or marked up submittals provided by the supplier.

Task 4.4.1 –Contingency
Woodard & Curran will provide as needed effort as contingency limited to 44 hours per the attached fee table when directed by the City of Pleasanton.

City of Pleasanton T4 Booster Pump Station and F1 Pipeline Amendment No. 2
November 26, 2024 Page 3 of 3
Task 4.4 Labor Estimate
Compensation
The total additional compensation budget for Engineering Services authorized under this Amendment No. 2 is $60,000 with contingency, as summarized below and in the attached fee spreadsheet. This amendment brings the total contract dollar amount to $836,365 from $776,365.

Task Description Amendment No. 2
Authorization

4.4 Engineering Services During Construction
(Amendment No. 2) $47,950

4.4.1 Additional As needed Support Contingency $12,050
Total $60,000
Schedule and Contract Completion.

This amendment extends the contract completion date to June 30, 2026.

Amendment No. 2
Mike M. Mirko M Kyle C Tom S Donna R Robert S Engineer 3 Steve J. Chris H. Total Hours W&C Labor Sub Fee 2 Total Amendment 2 Rates $335 $295 $285 $280 $280 $275 $250 $200 $120

4.1.1 Additional Support for RFI and Submittal Reviews for Near-Term Contract (F1 Pipeline and Pump Station Site) 8 4 8 4 16 12 1 53 13,360$ 13,360$

4.3.1 Supplemental Construction Survey Staking (two days) -$ 7,345$ 7,345$

4.4 Review of Supplier Pump Station Package Final Design 12 16 10 16 19 16 12 2 103 27,245$ 27,245$

4.4.1 Contingency (additional as needed support) 2 12 12 8 8 2 44 12,050$ 12,050$ Total Amendment No. 2 20 20 10 24 23 32 24 3 156 52,655$ 7,345$ 60,000$ 27,600$ 88,310$ 124,290$ 31,360$ 61,880$ 36,285$ 183,125$ 81,000$ 13,100$ 836,365 $ Notes 1) See Attached Worksheet for Labor Hours / Costs Breakdown. 2) Subconsultant markup is 10-percent for this project. 3) Direct cost is for printing, reproduction, and travel.Task Mike M. Mirko M Kyle C Tom S Donna R Robert S Engineer 3 Steve J. Chris H. Total Hours Review of final layout (pumps, building, electrical and scada equipment) 1 4 6 11Review of Pre-fabricated enclosure (anchorage requirements-review of calculations) 1 4 5Review of final mechanical, piping, valves and connection to pipeline 2 4 1 1 6 14Electrical requirements and equipment panels 1 4 4 4 13Instrumentation and SCADA equipment (review of logic and control diagrams,panels) 1 1 2 4 8 Review of Intrusion alarms and security requirements. 1 1 2 4Review of final lift station O&M manual (Provide by others) 1 4 1 4 6 16Respond to questions (up to 8 RFI email responses) for the City and Supplier 4 4 4 6 6 6 2 32 Total 12 16 10 16 19 16 12 2 103
Amendment Number 2 Labor Estimate for Task 4.4
Overall Project Total Cost (Includes Amendment 1&2)
Pleasanton - Fee Table - Amendment No. 2-1.15.2024.xlsx

Item #9

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 4, 2025
Finance
TITLE: CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 21, 2025 - PUBLIC HEARING: HOLD A PUBLIC

HEARING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE INCREASING OR ADDING NEW FEES FOR SPECIAL

EVENT AND SUPPORT SERVICES FEES, LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON FIRE

DEPARTMENT STANDBY SERVICES FEES, STORMWATER FACILITY

INSPECTION FEES, PLEASANTON PUBLIC LIBRARY FINES AND FEES, AND

CO-SPONSORED GROUP USE OF CITY FIELDS FEES

SUMMARY
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution (attachment 1) approving and updating various City fees and charges. Fees and charges updated through this action include:
• Special Event and Support Services Permit Fees
• Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) Standby Service Fees • Stormwater Facility Inspection Fees
• Pleasanton Public Library Fines and Fees
• Co-Sponsored Group Use of City Fields Fees.

RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving amendments to the Master Fee Schedule and updating various City fees and charges.

BACKGROUND
California cities impose fees for providing services and activities through provisions of the State Constitution. Agencies are allowed to set fees at rates providing fair and reasonable recovery of costs incurred in providing the services, minimizing or eliminating use of general tax revenues. City user fees and service charges are based on a variety of criteria including the change in the Consumer Price Index, fee studies, and the full cost for providing the service.

This ensures the fee levels are at or below the costs for providing the services.

DISCUSSION
The following discussion provides details on the proposed changes to the City’s current fee and service charge schedule.

Master Fee Schedule Changes
Special Event and Support Services Permit Fee
The City requires a permit for use of City property and right-of-way for community (or private) special events. Special events include parades, street fairs and festivals, concerts, car shows, and fund-raising marathons. Currently, the City’s Master Fee Schedule only lists a Special Event Application fee. The proposed additional fee is designed to fully recover costs by

including department costs to review, approve and support events (departments may provide staffing and equipment in supporting the event). The new Actual Cost Basis fee includes fully burdened hourly rates.

Multiple City department are involved in the review and assessment of support needs for different types of events. During the events, the same departments may also provide staffing and equipment.

Special Event and Support Services Permit Fee
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Special Event Application $250 for-profit
vendors/organizations
$75 non-profit
Vendors/organizations
$250
$75
Direct City Support /Special Events No Fee Actual Cost
Basis (potential multiple
departments involved with
direct costs)
Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Standby Service Fee The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department provides standby services during special events.

This schedule specifies hourly rates for support staff per engine company or individual and a schedule of apparatus/equipment rates. These rates are appropriate for the City and would ensure consistency between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore for similar services.

LPFD Standby Service Fee
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Truck Company (4 personnel rig) No Fee $632.76 per hour Engine Company (3-personnel rig) No Fee $529.83 per hour Paramedic – Rescue (2-person rig) No Fee $378.76 per hour Specialized Equipment No Fee Actual Cost
Supplies/Equipment Used No Fee Actual Cost
Battalion Chief No Fee $137.66 per hour
Fire Inspector No Fee $147.01 per hour

HazMat Inspector No Fee $148.89 per hour
Stormwater Facility Inspection Fee
Stormwater facility inspections are required in accordance with the NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. The Environmental Services Division inspections ensure the stormwater systems are functioning properly and identify any issues or potential problems.

Categories of businesses for inspections include Restaurant/Non-NOI (notice of intent) commercial facilities (food service establishments and research and development sites) and NOI business facilities (NOI businesses and automotive sites). Additional General Fund revenue from the inspection fees is projected to be $15,000 for a full year.

Stormwater Facility Inspection Fee
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Restaurant/Non-NOI Commercial Facility:

Initial Annual Inspection— No Correction
Issued
No Fee $58.15 per inspection
Restaurant/Non-NOI Commercial Facility:

Required Follow Inspection
No Fee $108.65 per inspection
NOI Business Facility: Initial Annual
Inspection—No Correction Issued
No Fee $116.30 per inspection
NOI Business Facility: Required Follow-Up
Inspection
No Fee $166.80 per inspection
Pleasanton Public Library Fines and Fees
Proposed Library fines and fees are recommended by the Library Commission to streamline the fee structure, enhance fee clarity, and eliminate outdated fees.

Pleasanton Public Library Fines and Fees
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Borrowing Privileges Suspended $20 No Charge
Photocopies (per page) $0.15 No Charge
Lost/Damaged Laptop* $1,550 No Charge
* Laptops will be billed for replacement like all other library materials, using the actual purchase price, which is cataloged in the library system with the item.

Co-Sponsored Group Use of City Fields Fee Change
The City maintains formal partnerships with a limited number of private non-profit youth sports

organizations that use the City’s sports fields with priority above other user groups (and historically without charge). These groups maintain a residency rate of at least 70% to stay in their co-sponsor status. Currently, the City charges these groups $18 per hour for field lights when used, but there is no additional fee for the rental/use of the field. Fees for this group in the existing Master Fee Schedule Section VIII. Recreation fall in category A and should recover 0-25% of actual costs.

At its November 14, 2024, meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission recommended the fees proposed for co-sponsor group use of fields, which fit within the current Master Fee Schedule (Commission agenda item materials are available
at https://pleasantonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/347/files/agenda/662.) No members of the cosponsor user groups spoke on this item at the commission meeting. If approved, the field fees will become effective in FY 2025/26, and additional General Fund revenue is projected to be $61,000.

Co-Sponsored Group Use of City Fields Fee
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Hourly Usage Fee— Natural Grass No Fee $3.75 per hour,
effective July 1, 2025
Hourly Usage Fee—Synthetic Turf No Fee $6.00 per hour (fee waived for most groups
per prior agreement).

Fee widely applicable
in FY 2026/27 effective
November 1, 2026
For the City Council’s additional reference, a comparison of league fees between Pleasanton co-sponsored sports groups and neighboring cities are also provided below.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Generating sufficient revenue and ensuring the City’s fiscal sustainability allows the City to continue providing services and programs benefiting all residents.

OUTREACH
Outreach for the co-sponsor field fees item has been ongoing during the past twelve months, beginning at the co-sponsor user group meetings in January 2024 and continuing throughout

the year. Additionally, this item was discussed at the November 14, 2024, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, where the commission developed the current recommendation for City Council consideration.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This item aligns with the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Funding Our Future by supporting financial health and sound fiscal policies.

FISCAL IMPACT
Establishing the amended and updated fees for the four services allows the City to recover costs currently being absorbed by City funds.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

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

1. Resolution

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON

APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE AND UPDATING

VARIOUS CITY FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule compiles City Council-approved fees for specific City services provided to residents and companies in the community; and WHEREAS, limited tax revenues support these services given the unique benefit to members of the public; and
WHEREAS, agencies are allowed to set fees at rates providing fair and reasonable recovery of costs incurred in providing the services, minimizing or eliminating the use of general tax revenues; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted an analysis to ensure these fees charged do not exceed the cost of providing services.

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

The Master Fee Schedule is amended as set forth in Exhibit A.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on January 21, 2025.

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 January 21, 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
ATTACHMENT 1

1 Exhibit A
Special Event and Support Services Permit Fee
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Special Event Application $250 for-profit
vendors/organizations
$75 non-profit
Vendors/organizations
$250
$75
Direct City Support /Special Events No Fee Actual Cost
Basis (potential
multiple departments
involved with direct
costs)
LPFD Standby Service Fee
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Truck Company (4 personnel rig) No Fee $632.76 per hour Engine Company (3-personnel rig) No Fee $529.83 per hour Paramedic – Rescue (2-person rig) No Fee $378.76 per hour Specialized Equipment No Fee Actual Cost
Supplies/Equipment Used No Fee Actual Cost
Battalion Chief No Fee $137.66 per hour
Fire Inspector No Fee $147.01 per hour
HazMat Inspector No Fee $148.89 per hour

2 Stormwater Facility Inspection Fee
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Restaurant/Non-NOI Commercial Facility:

Initial Annual Inspection— No Correction
Issued
No Fee $58.15 per inspection
Restaurant/Non-NOI Commercial Facility:

Required Follow Inspection
No Fee $108.65 per
inspection
NOI Business Facility: Initial Annual
Inspection—No Correction Issued
No Fee $116.30 per
inspection
NOI Business Facility: Required FollowUp Inspection
No Fee $166.80 per
inspection
Pleasanton Public Library Fines and Fees
Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Borrowing Privileges Suspended $20 No Charge
Photocopies (per page) $0.15 No Charge
Lost/Damaged Laptop* $1,550 No Charge
* Laptops will be billed for replacement like all other library materials, using the actual purchase price, which is cataloged in the library system with the item.

Co-Sponsored Group Use of City Fields Fee
The fees presented here are for information only. The Master Fee Schedule already covers these fees.

Fee Description Existing Fee Proposed Fee
Hourly Usage Fee— Natural Grass No Fee $3.75 per hour,
effective July 1, 2025
Hourly Usage Fee—Synthetic Turf No Fee $6.00 per hour (fee waived for most
groups per prior
agreement). Fee
widely applicable in
FY 2026/27 effective
November 1, 2026

Item #10

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 4, 2025
City Manager
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SPONSORSHIP POLICY FOR CITY

PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES

SUMMARY
With the City’s current structural financial deficit, there is a need to explore more revenuegeneration opportunities alongside cost-containment strategies. A sponsorship program allows individuals, corporations, and other organizations to invest in their community while preserving Pleasanton's character and values. After researching policies in similar California cities, staff recommends the adoption of the attached sponsorship policy.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution adopting a sponsorship policy for City programs and facilities.

BACKGROUND
As part of the 2024 Alameda County Leadership Program, the City sponsored a team project to research sponsorship policies in different cities throughout the United States. The project team included staff from various agencies in Alameda County, including the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore. The research highlighted many positive outcomes as well as a few cautions around developing sponsorship policies, finding that sponsorship opportunities varied widely from large-scale capital projects to smaller community programs. Leveraging the best practices learned through this research and the recently adopted City of Livermore Sponsorship Policy, staff drafted a Pleasanton sponsorship policy for City Council review (Attachment 1).

DISCUSSION
The proposed policy considers a wide range of opportunities, and provides guidance on soliciting sponsorships of financial and in-kind support from businesses, organizations, and private individuals. The policy also designates certain types of sponsorship as ineligible (for example, adult entertainment, sale of illegal substances, political advertising) and reserves to the City the right to decline any request for sponsorship if determined not to be in the best interest of the City.

The sponsorship policy follows the current approval thresholds for contracts and agreements, with those at or above $100,000 being reviewed and approved by the City Council and those below $100,000 being reviewed and approved by the City Manager (or designee where authorized).

Under the proposed agreement, sponsorships would be available in three broad categories:

1. Events and Program sponsorship - City-organized or co-organized events

2. Project sponsorship - Specific City-sanctioned project

3. Site sponsorship - Specific City facility, amenity, or feature.

Each sponsorship would have its own agreement, which would include:

1. A detailed description of the sponsor's and the City's obligations

2. A detailed description of benefits based on program sponsorship level, such as marketing opportunities (product promotion and temporary advertising) on City property and/or at events, free-of-charge booth space at City-sponsored events, City Council acknowledgment in public and/or mention on City publications

3. Authorization for the sponsor to promote its investment with the City and/or use of the City's logo on promotional materials

4. Conditions for termination of the agreement

5. Insurance requirement in accordance with City policy.

With the recommended policy, opportunities for sponsorship could range from large-scale capital projects, such as an all-abilities playground, to sponsoring a portion of the Hometown Holiday Parade, such as the tree-lighting ceremony, to hosting a season at the Firehouse Arts Center (FAC). For example, the current contract for the presenting series at the FAC is $110,000 and could be sponsored with naming rights for the season on the stage, brochures, and on-stage announcements. Benches, picnic tables, trees, meeting rooms, and more could also be considered for community sponsorship opportunities. These opportunities could generate new revenue for the City to support programs and operation and maintenance of City facilities. Under the recommended policy, any revenue generated through event or program sponsorships should contribute directly to offsetting event or program costs to the City.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Under the recommended sponsorship policy, the City actively seeks sponsors that assist the City in meeting community needs, protecting public interests in the short and long-term, providing opportunities that are open and accessible to all residents, and meeting the City’s vision, mission, values, and goals as outlined in the City’s ONE Pleasanton strategic plan.

Identifying new, ongoing sources of revenue to support City programs and facilities ensures the community continues to access and enjoy these assets and amenities.

OUTREACH
No outreach was done on this item.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The proposed sponsorship policy advances the ONE Pleasanton goal of Funding our Future by supporting financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, and cost containment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adopting this sponsorship policy. Future revenue opportunities could be realized through the adoption of this policy.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Heidi Murphy, Director of
Library and Recreation
Heidi Murphy, Director of Library and
Recreation
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution to Adopt the City of Pleasanton Sponsorship Policy

2. Presentation

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TO ADOPT A

SPONSORSHIP POLICY FOR CITY PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton provides programs, facilities, and events that enhance the community and advance the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks sponsorships from businesses, individuals, and other organizations to enhance and improve the quality of amenities and services through in-kind and direct financial support; and
WHEREAS, establishing criteria and processes regarding sponsorships will ensure consistent acknowledgment, review, and processing of sponsorship agreements.

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

SECTION 1. That it hereby adopts the Sponsorship Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on February 4, 2025.

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 4th day of February 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A
Sponsorship Policy
The City of Pleasanton establishes a Sponsorship Policy to provide guidance in soliciting sponsorships of financial and in-kind support from businesses, organizations, and private individuals.

Policy
The City of Pleasanton actively seeks sponsors that assist the City to:
a. Meet community needs
b. Protect public interests in the short and long-term
c. Provide opportunities that are open and accessible to all residents d. Meet the City’s vision, mission, values, and goals as outlined in the City’s ONE Pleasanton strategic plan.

Sponsorships may be financial (providing funds to the City) or in-kind (providing products and/or services to the City) in exchange for tangible and/or intangible benefits to the sponsor.

Financial and in-kind sponsorships are appropriate for three broad types of City activities and amenities:
a. Events and Program sponsorship - City-organized or co-organized events b. Project sponsorship - Specific City-sanctioned project c. Site sponsorship - Specific City facility, amenity, or feature.

Recognition and logo placement may be available through a sponsorship agreement as long as they are consistent with the City's House Style and Graphic Guidelines.

Sponsorship association with the City may not be utilized to the advantage of the sponsor in any competitive bidding, contract, or other City-related activity. The City shall strive to ensure all entities and individuals that meet the criteria defined below have equal opportunities to provide sponsorships.

Acceptance of a sponsorship does not imply endorsement of any individual, entity, or product by the City of Pleasanton.

Any revenue generated through event or program sponsorships should contribute directly to offsetting event or program costs to the City.

Definition of Terms
Sponsorship - Financial or in-kind gift from an entity or individual for a specific program, event, project, or site in exchange for tangible and/or intangible benefits to the sponsor, as designated by agreement. It does not include recognition of grants, unsolicited donations, or any exchange for funds, goods, or services not designated by a specific sponsorship agreement.

ATTACHMENT 1
Temporary advertising - Temporary display of corporate logos, branding, or advertising at a City event or on related materials associated with an event or program, as designated by agreement.

Events - Large-scale activities for the benefit of the public, organized by the City and held on City property, usually a single annual event or annual series.

Programs - Group of services or activities developed and implemented by City programming staff at City sites. It is not meant to include specific, individual classes but rather broad areas of support and services.

Projects - One-time City efforts, often with a product or defined end result.

Sites - Specific places varying in scale from individual features or areas to an entire park or facility.

Marketing benefits - Opportunities provided to the sponsor for temporary visibility of branding, products, name and/or logo on City property and/or materials.

Eligibility
The City reserves the right to decline any request for sponsorship if acceptance is determined not to be in the best interest of or would create a conflict of interest for the City. This includes events and programs that conflict with or duplicate events and programs already offered by the City.

Organizations and businesses generally ineligible for sponsorships include:
a. Entities whose revenue is substantially derived from the sale of illegal drugs, or illegal drug paraphernalia, firearms or weapons, tobacco products, gambling, or sexually explicit materials
b. Entities that promote an adult entertainment establishment as defined in Pleasanton Municipal Code chapter 18.114
c. Entities that act on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to any political candidate or ballot measure or advocate a political position, including those established for this purpose.

Nothing in this policy is intended to convert City events into public forums of general speech and/or public expression except as provided by law. To the extent any City event, site, project, or program is designed for a specific purpose or public message, such event, site, project, or program shall remain a non-public forum subject to the City's exclusive use and control. In cases where the City accepts sponsorship from a religious entity, the agreed-upon purpose shall neither promote religious messages nor advocate or promote religious beliefs.

ATTACHMENT 1
Solicitation of Sponsors
The City will actively seek sponsorship opportunities.
a. Site and project sponsorship opportunities will vary, and agreements are subject to the approval process.
b. Event and program sponsorship opportunities, including sponsorship levels and fees, may be tailored to each event and program. c. The City may hire a third party to solicit sponsors. d. The Mayor, City Council members, and appointed Board and Commission members are prohibited by law from soliciting sponsorships.

Sponsorship Agreements - Content
The City will enter into sponsorship agreements with sponsors. These Agreements will include, at a minimum, the following:
a. A detailed description of the sponsor's and the City's obligations b. A detailed description of benefits based on program sponsorship level, such as marketing opportunities (product promotion and temporary advertising) on City property and/or at events, free-of-charge booth space at events, City Council acknowledgment in public and/or mention on City publications
c. Authorization for the sponsor to promote its/their investment with the City and/or use of the City's logo on promotional materials
d. Conditions for termination of the Agreement
e. Insurance requirement in accordance with City policy.

Sponsorship Agreements - Review and Approval
Naming rights and sponsorship agreements of $100,000 or above, will first be reviewed by staff and then presented to the Council for approval.

Agreements with less than $100,000 proposed funding require City Manager (or designee) approval.

The following criteria shall be considered when reviewing potential sponsorships and benefits to the sponsor:
a. Compatibility of prospective sponsor's products, services, and marketing goals with the City's vision, mission, values, and goal b. Support of the City's current priorities, programs, and core services, as defined in the City's budget, strategic plan, or other planning documents c. Compatibility of sponsorship marketing/advertising with design standards or visual integrity of City facilities and/or events as defined

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.

in the City's Zoning Code, Municipal Code, and the City's Brand Guidelines.
d. Balance of tangible and intangible benefits between the sponsor and the City.

Sponsorship Policy for City Programs and
Facilities
Why Sponsorships?
Generate funding/resources through financial and in-kind donations to:

• Meet community needs
• Protect public interests in the short and long-term
• Provide opportunities that are open and accessible to all residents • Meet the City’s vision, mission, values, and goals as outlined in the City’s ONE Pleasanton strategic plan.

Event and
Program
Sponsorship
Project Sponsorship

Site/Facility
Sponsorship
Sponsorship Eligibility Exceptions:
• Entities whose revenue is substantially derived from the sale of illegal drugs, or illegal drug paraphernalia, firearms or weapons, tobacco products, gambling, or sexually explicit materials
• Entities that promote an adult entertainment establishment as defined in Pleasanton Municipal Code chapter 18.114
• Entities that act on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to any political candidate or ballot measure or advocate a political position, including those established for this purpose.

Sponsorship Agreement Key Factors
• Detailed description of the sponsor's and the City's obligations • Detailed description of benefits based on program sponsorship level • Authorization for the sponsor to promote its investment with the City and/or use of the City's logo on promotional materials
• Conditions for termination of the agreement
• Insurance requirement in accordance with City policy
Sponsorship Agreement Review Criteria
• Compatibility of prospective sponsor's products, services, and marketing goals with the City's vision, mission, values, and goal • Support of the City's current priorities, programs, and core services, as defined in the City's budget, strategic plan, or other planning documents • Compatibility of sponsorship marketing/advertising with design standards or visual integrity of City facilities and/or events as defined in the City's Zoning Code, Municipal Code, and the City's Brand Guidelines
• Balance of tangible and intangible benefits between the sponsor and the City.

Sponsorship Agreement Approval
• Naming rights and sponsorship agreements of $100,000 or above – City Council approval
• Agreements with less than $100,000 –
City Manager (or designee) approval
Questions, Comments & Feedback
Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution adopting a sponsorship
policy for City facilities and programs

Item #11

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 4, 2025
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: RECEIVE AN UPDATE TO THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT, CIP NO. 24460, AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KAYUGA SOLUTION, INC. IN THE NOT-TOEXCEED AMOUNT OF $175,000 FOR AN AGGREGATE PROJECT TOTAL OF $863,270

SUMMARY
The Asset Management Plan (AMP) will be an integrative planning program, incorporating the City’s various master plans and inventories for the overall management of public infrastructure.

The AMP will aid the City’s long-term strategy projections, the 10-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plans, and repair and replacement planning. Professional services for the development of the AMP were publicly advertised, competitively selected, and awarded to Kayuga Solution, Inc. by the City Council on April 16, 2024. The agreement was authorized for Phases 1 and 2 in the amount of $688,270 to develop the framework and to inventory the assets into an integrated program. Approval of an amendment to the professional services agreement to initiate Phase 3 in the amount of $175,000 will expand the AMP program for future needs planning, for an aggregate project total of $863,270, with the term extended to March 31, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept an update to the Asset Management Plan Project

2. Approve the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Kayuga Solution, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $175,000 for Phase 3 of the Asset Management Plan Project, CIP No. 24460, with a term of March 31, 2026

BACKGROUND
The City's ONE Pleasanton five-year strategic plan includes a City Council priority to develop an asset management plan and address comprehensive long-term planning for maintenance, renovation, repair, and/or replacement of infrastructure and public facilities to meet current and future needs. Staff identified a need to maintain the existing asset tracking programs (such as Streetsaver, MaintStar, and ArcGIS) utilized by various departments and integrate them into a single reporting and planning system platform. The Asset Management Plan Project, CIP No. 24460, was created to oversee the integration.

The entire multi-year AMP project is divided into three phases: Phase 1 develops a framework for discovery; Phase 2 implements software, collect inventories, and investigate conditions and expectations; and Phase 3 will expand the program for future needs planning. The City advertised a Request for Qualifications for all three phases and received Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) with sealed cost proposals. Based on ratings of the SOQs, consultants' presentations, and interview responses, staff identified Kayuga Solution, Inc. (Kayuga) as the

top qualified consultant and the City Council awarded Phases 1 and 2 of the project on April 16, 2024. The City Council also approved a third amendment in the amount of $61,730 to the agreement with GHD, Inc. to update MaintStar for better integration with the asset management software, and to train City staff on how to capture asset conditions and insert maintenance costs that can be used for better financial forecasting.

The AMP project had a department-wide kick-off meeting on May 22, 2024. Since then, Kayuga has been working with individual City departments to collect their assets and complete Phases 1 and 2. Kayuga will finish some departments by March 2025 and is on track to finish all departments through Phase 2 by August 2025. The framework for the AMP is in place, and when Phase 2 is completed, the City’s various public infrastructure inventories will be available with an assessment of condition, cost, criticality, and expectation of service.

DISCUSSION
Kayuga is using a cloud-based software called IRIS, which it developed, and is in use in other cities and agencies. The application will allow City departments to continue to use their existing asset tracking programs as their main point of entry, move existing spreadsheet data collected by departments into IRIS, standardize the asset hierarchy, and have a new integrated asset management system and planning tool.

Kayuga’s project approach is designed to address the City’s goals and objectives for an asset management plan one step at a time. There are six key steps of the project, with each step designed to build on the others to fulfill the goals and objectives:

1. Asset Management Roadmap: Focuses on reviewing existing state of asset management, identifying the data and functionality requirement gap, designing the integrated system, and developing a framework. The roadmap is required to ensure the City has a sound plan to achieve its asset management goals. Understanding the current state of asset management practices, including business processes, information system functionality requirements, and asset data gap, will help the City to prioritize the right projects, prevent duplication of work, and achieve asset management milestones early.

2. Establish the Asset Database Foundation: Inventories existing assets and condition assessments are performed to develop an asset register. This is a critical step for developing a defendable asset management decision-making platform.

3. Understand Asset Criticality: Estimates the probability of failure and the consequence of failure methodology and provides an additional filter for asset prioritization due to limited resources.

4. Determine the Desired Levels of Service: Documents the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement schedules necessary to meet the set levels of service.

5. Calculate the Cost of Ownership: Incorporates various asset management analyses (e.g., asset valuation, risk assessment, life cycle cost) that will help to understand the short- and long-term cost of ownership.

6. Understand Future Funding Needs: Performs various risk-based financial scenarios to help the City understand the financial investment required to sustain the delivery of services and how it will impact the current funding policy.

Throughout all steps and phases of the project, Kayuga emphasizes a “Communication and

Program Building” strategy that reinforces the importance of educating staff on asset management concepts and processes to build the in-house asset management program.

Additionally, the strategy assists with communicating the results to the public, decision makers, and other stakeholders.

The following chart shows the translation of the key steps into project tasks and phases.

Phases 1 and 2 have been budgeted, approved, and are currently being implemented. The tasks related to the proposed Phase 3 are shaded in the chart. The scope of service for Phase 3 tasks is provided in Attachment 1.

To expand the use of IRIS to the highest and best use for future needs planning, Phase 3 of the Asset Management Plan Project should be initiated. At the end of Phase 3, IRIS will identify replacement costs, guide future capital projects for renewal or replacement, and project budget needs. As with Phases 1 and 2, Phase 3 will progress through each department until there is a complete Citywide integrated asset management system. If approved, Kayuga Solution would start Phase 3 in May 2025, beginning with the departments that have completed Phase 2. Those departments would complete the IRIS asset planning tool in November 2025 and continue to provide communication and program-building assistance through February 2026. Starting Phase 3 concurrently with the other phases will shorten the delivery of the final project up to a year as the Phase 1 and 2 work is completed for each major asset class.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The asset management program supports the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) reduction in community greenhouse gas emissions and increasing buildings and energy resilience within the Buildings and Energy Strategy section by helping to identify assets that are nearing end-oflife and an opportunity for implementing the supporting actions outlined in Strategy BE-1, Advance the decarbonization of buildings, and BE-2, Improve energy consumption and efficiency.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT

Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment, Strategy 1 – Implement the four-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Strategy 2 – Develop an Asset Management Plan. The Asset Management Plan will promote the effective use of existing facilities and infrastructure through maintenance and repair to benefit the community with a focus on environmental stewardship and to address comprehensive long-term planning to meet current and future needs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Asset Management Plan Project, CIP No. 24460, is funded for a total of $1 million, as outlined in Attachment 2. The AMP Project expenditures with Kayuga Solution, Inc. and GHD, Inc., for Phases 1 and 2 total $750,000 from FY 2023/24. Phase 3 with Kayuga Solution will be funded from the remaining $250,000 in FY 2024/25.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. First Amendment to Agreement with Kayuga Solution, Inc.

2. Financial Expenditure Summary

3. Presentation

Contract #2024539
First Amendment, 2024539 Page 1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Agreement ("First Amendment") is entered into this 4th day of February 2025 by the City of Pleasanton ("City") and Kayuga Solution, Inc. ("Consultant”).

Whereas, on April 17, 2024, the City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement for asset management services and software.

Whereas, the parties desire to add additional services and increase the total compensation.

Now, therefore, in exchange for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of the Agreement “Consultant’s Services” is amended to add services described in the attached Exhibit A, for Phase 3 long-term planning within the integrated asset management program.

2. Section 3 of the Agreement “Term” is amended to read: “The Term of this Agreement shall run from April 17, 2024, to March 31, 2026.”

3. Section 4 of the Agreement “Compensation” is amended to read: “The total compensation for services and reimbursement for costs is increased by $175,000 for the additional services as described in Exhibit A of the First Amendment, for a total cost that shall not exceed $863,270 unless the parties agree pursuant to Section 7 of the Agreement.”

4. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.

5. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

In witness whereof, authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Second Amendment to the Agreement as of the date and year first above written.

CITY OF PLEASANTON CONSULTANT – Kayuga Solution, Inc.
_____________________________ __________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Colin Chung, President
ATTACHMENT 1

Contract #2024539
First Amendment, 2024539 Page 2
ATTEST: [If Consultant is a corporation, signatures must comply with California Corporations Code §313]:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk __________________________
Soomin Lee, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Exhibit A
Phase 3 Scope of Services
Project Approach
Kayuga’s project approach to the scope of work is illustrated below. The approach is designed to address the City’s goals and objectives one step at a time. The project approach highlights the six key steps of the project.

Each step is designed to build on the others to fulfill the goals and objectives established by the City. The six key steps are illustrated on the following figure.

Asset Management Roadmap focuses on reviewing existing state of asset management, identifying the data and functionality requirement gap, designing the integrated system, and developing a framework to achieve the overall asset management goals. The roadmap is required to ensure the City have a sound plan to achieve its asset management goals. Understanding the current state of asset management practices, including business processes, information system functionality requirements, and asset data gap, will help the City to prioritize the right projects, prevent duplication of work, and achieve asset management milestones early.

Establish the Asset Database Foundation is a critical step for developing a defendable asset management decision-making platform. Once the assets are inventoried and the work required (i.e., condition) is understood, the Understand Asset Criticality step provides an additional filter for asset prioritization due to limited resources. The Determine the Levels of Service step documents the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement schedules necessary to meet the set levels of service. Next, the Calculate the Cost of Ownership phase incorporates various asset management analyses (e.g., asset valuation, risk assessment, life cycle cost) that will help to understand the short and long-term cost of ownership. In Understand Future Funding Needs, various risk-based financial scenarios will be performed to help the City understand the financial investment required to sustain the delivery of services and how it will impact the current funding policy.

The last step, Communicate, reinforces the importance of educating staff on asset management concepts and processes to build the in-house asset management program, and of communicating the results to the public, decision makers, and other stakeholders. The infrastructure problem is not only a City staff problem; it is a public problem that needs to be understood and addressed by all.

The following section shows the translation of the key-steps into project tasks and their reference to RFQ scope of work. Phases 1 and 2 have been approved and budgeted. These phases’ tasks are currently being implemented. The tasks related to Phase 3 of are highlighted in green. The scope of service for these tasks is provided below.

Project Tasks RFQ Reference
Task 1 Asset Management Roadmap Phase 1
Task 2 Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment Phase 2 Task 3 Estimate Replacement Cost Phase 2
Task 4 Perform Risk Assessment Phase 2
Task 5 Determine the Desired Level of Service Phase 1
Task 6 Perform Life Cycle Cost and Cost of Ownership Analyses Phase 3 Task 7 Develop Asset Management Plan Phase 3
Task 8 Funding Scenario Analysis Phase 3
Task 9 Communication and Program Building Phase 1, 2, 3 Phase 3 Scope of Services
Task 6 Perform Life Cycle Cost and Cost of Ownership Analyses A key aspect of asset management is to plan ahead and understand the cost required to sustain services. To address this aspect, Kayuga will perform life cycle cost assessment for each asset in the asset register. The life cycle cost assessment estimates the cost required to perform maintenance, refurbishment, and/or replacement for each asset. Life cycle cost assessment can be performed for any designated planning horizon (e.g., 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years) requested by the City.

An important element of the life cycle cost process is the concept of management strategy. Kayuga will develop management strategies to characterize the life cycle behavior of all assets. These management strategies will include useful life as well as the timing and cost of maintenance and refurbishment activities.

These management strategies will be influenced by the City’s established levels of service. Kayuga will provide the City with a management strategy table and a renewal profile showing projected annual rehabilitation and replacement funding needs over the planning horizon. Kayuga will highlight the estimated budget required to maintain the assets.

Kayuga will utilize IRIS for life cycle cost calculation. IRIS will use the City’s asset register and management strategies to calculate a life cycle cost of ownership for each asset. IRIS will model financial requirements and average investment requirements for any planning horizon chosen by the City, and it will identify the following for each year:
• Assets requiring action
• Type of action required (maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement) • Estimated cost for each asset action
• Estimated total budget required for each year

The long-range financial needs will be viewable at any level in the asset hierarchy (e.g., by facility, by park, by asset). Where limited budget is a concern, IRIS will help the City prioritize the actions based on risk and provide a minimum life cycle cost. This ensures all investments are prioritized and provides a transparent and consistent way to communicate how effectively asset investments are beingmade.

The following figure shows an example ofthe Replacement and Rehabilitation (R&R) cost projection in IRIS.

Each bar in this graph can be clicked to show the list of assets and their associated attributes, type of activity (replacement or rehabilitation), and the associated costs.

Deliverables
• Management strategy database (.csv files)
• Configuration and data upload for management strategy database in IRIS • Configure the lifecycle cost analysis in IRIS
Task 7 Develop Asset Management Plan
With the completion of the risk, life-cycle cost, and cost of ownership analyses, Kayuga will document the project in an asset management plan. An asset management plan is a long-range planning document that provides a framework for understanding the assets an organization owns, services it provides, risks it assumes, and financial investments it requires. An asset management plan can help an organization move from reactive to proactive management of its physical and financial resources.

Deliverables
• Asset Management Plan report
Task 8 Funding Scenario Analysis
Working together with City staff, Kayuga will develop a funding scenario analysis to show the level of work backlog at different funding levels. Through this exercise, the City will be able to answer the next asset management question: How much funding is necessary to sustain the delivery of services? The results of the funding scenario analysis will be documented as an additional section in the Asset Management Plan. The chosen funding scenario will be used to develop the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

The CIP packages will be created based on the annual list of recommended replacement and rehabilitation projects, prioritized by their associated risk score, and bundled based on logical grouping (e.g., by park, by facility). The individual asset replacement and rehabilitation will be added to the CIP package until it reaches the maximum funding level for each year. The remaining unfunded activities will be rolled over to the following year.

Deliverables
• Funding scenario analysis configuration and analysis in IRIS • Inclusion of scenario analysis results in Asset Management Plan report

Task 9 Communication and Program Building
It critical to communicate the infrastructure needs not only to the decision-makers, but also to the citizens and stakeholders. The infrastructure problem is not only a City staff problem; it is a public problem that needs to be understood and addressed by all. With the completion of the risk, life-cycle cost, and cost of ownership analyses, Kayuga will document the project and provide presentations to City staff and the City Council.

Program Building focuses on establishing in-house asset management capabilities by bringing in asset management awareness, knowledge, and skills into the organization. Starting early and continuing to maintain staff engagement throughout the project duration can be achieved through workshops, on-the-job training (joining consultant in the field), general and targeted staff trainings, and creating customized dashboards to encourage the utilization of the asset management software.

Deliverables
• On-the-job training
• Trainings (business process, methodologies, software applications) • City Council Meetings/Presentations
• Internal and external dashboards
Cost Control and Budgeting Approach
To achieve efficiency and lower the costs, our approach includes the following:
• Our project delivery team is lean and highly efficient with experience delivering similar projects.

Engineers will be brought in as necessary based on specific project needs. • Field asset inventory and condition assessment will be performed at the same time. • The software has been fully developed and tested by other municipal clients and private agencies alike. The functionality has been tested and requires minimal configuration for the scope of work outlined in the RFQ.

Schedule
Kayuga’s proposed schedule for the Phase 3 Service is shown in the following image.

Budget
Kayuga’s proposed budget for the Phase 3 Service is shown in the following image.

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
6, 7, & 8 Expand program to identify replacement costs, life cycle master planning, capital projects for renewal or replacement, and long-range development planning. 9 Advise City on overlaying asset planning impact from upgrades such as code requirements, emergency resiliency, technology, and sustainability.

Tasks Description 2025 2026
Tasks Total Cost
6, 7, & 8 Expand program to identify replacement costs, life cycle master planning, capital projects for renewal or replacement, and long-range development planning. $ 100,000
Advise City on overlaying asset planning impact from upgrades such as code requirements, emergency resiliency, technology, and sustainability. $ 75,000 Total $ 175,000

ATTACHMENT 2
CIP NO. 24460
02/04/25
Project Funding to Date Amount Totals
2023-24 CIP Allocation (Fund 201 - Miscellaneous CIP) $750,000 2024-25 CIP Allocation (Fund 201 - Miscellaneous CIP) 250,000

TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING TO DATE
Project Expenditures to Date
GHD, Inc. - C#2022213 CMMS Workflow & Integration Consultant Services $697
Kayuga Solution, Inc. - C#2024539 Asset Management Plan Integration Review (Phase 1 & 2) 335,423
Total Expenditures
Anticipated Project Expenditures
GHD, Inc. - C#2022213 CMMS Workflow & Integration Consultant Services $61,034
Kayuga Solution, Inc. - C#2024539 Asset Management Plan Integration Review (Phase 1 & 2) 352,848
Kayuga Solution, Inc. - C#2024539 Amendment No. 1
Asset Management Plan Long-Term Planning (Phase 3) 175,000 Total Anticipated Expenditures

TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Funding Balance/ (Shortfall)
Project Balance $75,000

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
$336,119
$1,000,000
$588,881
$925,000

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITYWIDE PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW OF ASSET MANAGEMENT INTEGRATION February 4, 2024
1 ASSET

MANAGEMENT
GOAL
ƒ To manage assets to minimize the total cost of owning, operating, maintaining, and replacing those assets
while delivering the desired service level at acceptable level of risk

OBJECTIVES
ƒ Establish an asset data foundation for management
ƒ Continuously monitor asset condition
ƒ Predict asset failure and manage it before failure
ƒ Better align annual budget process with projected
infrastructure needs
ƒ Create a dynamic platform for managing assets
2

PROJECT APPROACH
Asset Management Questions

1. What assets do you own and manage?

2. Which assets are critical?

3. How should we manage the assets?

4. How much will it cost to sustain the delivery of
assets?

5. Are we on the right financial path?
Our Project Approach

1. Establish the Asset Database Foundation

2. Understand the Current Conditional State

3. Identify Asset Criticality

4. Understand the Desired Levels of Service

5. Calculate the Cost of Ownership

6. Understand Future Funding Needs

7. Communicate
3 BE PROACTIVE
4

CREATING A BALANCE
5 1. Understand our Data Gap

2. Improvement Roadmap

3. AM Education

1. Inventory Assets

2. Assess Condition

3. Identify Immediate Needs

4. Prioritize Based on Criticality

5. Establish Data Foundation

1. Future Investment Needs

2. Financial Impact Review

3. System Integration

4. Communication and
Program Building

PROJECT PHASES
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
6 Predict the Future
Collect Data
Assess Condition
Discover the Gap
About 80% Complete
About 50% Complete

PHASE 2 - WHAT DO WE OWN AND MANAGE?
ƒ Buildings (20,000+ assets, 95%)
ƒ 92 Buildings & 94 Structures
ƒ Civic Center
ƒ Library
ƒ Police Dept
ƒ Fire Dept
ƒ Recreation Facilities
ƒ Operations Service Center
ƒ Restrooms
ƒ Maintenance Sheds
ƒ Parks & Trails (4,800+ assets, 85%)
ƒ 40 parks (4,596 assets, 90%)
ƒ Play Structure
ƒ Bench
ƒ Lighting
ƒ Picnic Table
ƒ Sport Court
ƒ Sport Field
ƒ Signage
ƒ Trails (240 assets, 30%)
ƒ Utilities* (53,500+ assets, 93%)
ƒ Potable Water (52,200+ assets, 95%)
ƒ Distribution System
ƒ Mains, Valves, Hydrants, Meters, etc.
ƒ Facilities
ƒ Pump Stations, Wells, Tanks, etc.
ƒ Recycled Water (1,300+ assets, 85%)
ƒ Distribution System
ƒ Pipes, Valves, Hydrants, Meters, etc.
ƒ Facilities
ƒ Pump Station, Reservoir
City of Pleasanton (To Date 79,000+ assets)
ƒ Fleet (491 assets, 95%)
ƒ Passenger Vehicles
ƒ Light Duty Trucks
ƒ Heavy Duty Trucks
ƒ Emergency Vehicles
ƒ Heavy Equipment
ƒ Mowers
ƒ Trailers
ƒ Motorcycles
ƒ Callippe Golf Course (900+ assets, 95%)
ƒ Equipment (129 assets, 95%)
ƒ Mowers, Gators, Tractors, Etc.
ƒ Facilities (800+ assets, 95%)
ƒ Club House
ƒ Maintenance Facility
ƒ Pump House
7 * Condition information provided by master plans
WHAT DO WE OWN AND MANAGE?
ƒ Roadway
ƒ Pavement
ƒ Sidewalks
ƒ Street signs
ƒ Traffic Signals
ƒ Streetlights
ƒ Guardrails
ƒ Curb Ramps
ƒ Bridges
ƒ Vehicular
ƒ Pedestrian
ƒ Callippe
City of Pleasanton (Much More to Come)
8 ƒ Sound Walls / Fences
ƒ Cemetery
ƒ Urban Forestry
ƒ Public Art
ƒ Band Stand
ƒ And Many More…
ƒ Utilities
ƒ Sewer
ƒ Collection System
ƒ Facilities
ƒ Stormwater
ƒ Collection System
ƒ Facilities

EXAMPLE: PARKS (4,596 ASSETS)
Park Assets Classes
Lighting Barbecue Grill Grab Bars
Signage Plumbing Hand Dryer
Trash Receptacle Monument Pet Waste Station
Fencing Irrigation Controller Scoreboard
Picnic Table Backflow Preventer Sports Field
Play Structure Drinking Fountain Storage
Handrails Door Irrigation System
Gate Ceiling Netting
Concrete Pad Electrical Backstop
Bollard Floor Dedication Plaque
Walkway Bike Rack Bulletin Board
Shade Structure Ramp Stairway
Sports Fixtures Surfacing Bleachers
Wall Sports Court Roof
Sports Lighting Fitness Equipment Security Camera
Turf system Basketball Hoop Trail Marker
Playground Surfacing Pavement Hot Coal Bin
9 DEL PRADO PARK
ƒ 106 Assets
10

FOCUSING IN ON POOR CONDITION ASSETS
ƒ New/Excellent
ƒ Very Good
ƒ Good
ƒ Fair
ƒ Poor/Failed
11 DEL PRADO PARK
ƒ Not all assets are in good
condition
ƒ Excellent Æ 5 (4%)
ƒ Very Good Æ 14 (13%)
ƒ Good Æ 63 (60%)
ƒ Fair Æ 16 (15%)
ƒ Poor/Failed Æ 8 (8%)
12

CONDITION ASSESSMENT SCALE
13 New/Excellent
Very Good (No Action Required)
Good (Monitor, No Action Required)
Fair (Action Required Soon)
Poor/Failed (Action Required Now)
Action: Replacement, Refurbishment, or Maintenance

STATE OF THE ASSETS (ALL PARKS)
New/Excellent (3%)
Very Good (12%)
Good (74%)
Fair (9%)
Poor/Failed (2%)
14

PHASE 3 – PREDICTING THE FUTURE NEEDS
15 1. Understand our Data Gap

2. Improvement Roadmap

3. AM Training

1. Inventory Assets

2. Assess Condition

3. Identify Immediate Needs

4. Prioritize Based on Criticality

5. Establish Data Foundation

1. Future Investment Needs

2. Financial Impact Review

3. System Integration

4. Communication and
Program Building Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3

ASSET MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
Expert Systems
CIP Planning
Financial Planning
Risk Management
(e.g., CCTV, Street Saver)
ArcGIS
MaintStar
IRIS
Munis
16

IRIS - ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING SYSTEM
17 KEEPING A HISTORICAL LOG OF ACTIVITIES
ƒ Condition
ƒ Rehabilitation
ƒ Replacement
ƒ Mean time
between failures
18

PREDICTING THE

NEXT TIME OF

REPLACEMENT
ƒ Remaining Useful Life
ƒ Estimated Replacement Cost
19 UNDERSTANDING

THE FUTURE NEEDS
ƒ Plan for the future
ƒ Capital Projects
ƒ Sustainable Budget
20

PRIORITIZING THE LIMITED RESOURCES
CoF Sample Asset Classes
CoF - 5
Critical
• Play Structure
• Playground Surfacing
• Sports Court/Field
CoF - 4
• Irrigation Controller
• Gates
• Scoreboard
CoF - 3
• Bench
• Fencing
• Fitness Equipment
CoF - 2
• Trash Bin
• Signage
• BBQ Grill
CoF - 1
NonEssential
• Bike Rack
• Pet Waste Station
• Bollard
21 Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk

ASSET MANAGEMENT WORKFLOW
ƒ Move from Reactive to Predictive Management Practices Condition
Investigate
Plan
Prioritize CIP / R&R / O&M / Enterprise 22
Plan
e
Phase 3

CIP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
23 -$80M
$7M

UNDERSTAND THE FUNDING NEEDS
ƒ Scenarios: Funding Level vs. Work Backlog and Risk
24 -$80M
$10M
-$10M
$14M

FUTURE ACTIVITIES
25 Feb
2025
Dec
2025
Aug
2025
Phase 2
Phase 3
May
2025
Integrate Data with GIS and MainStar

PROJECT PHASES
26 1. Understand our Data Gap

2. Improvement Roadmap

3. AM Training

1. Inventory Assets

2. Assess Condition

3. Identify Immediate Needs

4. Prioritize Based on Criticality

5. Establish Data Foundation

1. Future Investment Needs

2. Financial Impact Review

3. System Integration

4. Communication and
Program Building Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Funded and Approved Budgeted and
Pending Approval

RECOMMENDATION
27 Approve the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Kayuga Solution, Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $175,000.

Item #12

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 4, 2025
Community Development
TITLE: RECEIVE UPDATE ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON TWO PROPERTIES IN EAST PLEASANTON, OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND 1)

PROVIDE DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN PLEASANTON; 2) PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON KEY ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE TWO PROJECTS; 3) APPROVE KEY TERMS

REGARDING PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE ARROYO LAGO PROJECT; AND 4) APPROVE KEY TERMS REGARDING PROCESSING OF

APPLICATIONS FOR THE EAST LAKES PROJECT

SUMMARY
In August, 2024, the City Council directed staff to continue discussions with USL/Steelwave and further research the potential annexation of the proposed Arroyo Lago and adjacent East Lakes residential projects in East Pleasanton. Both projects are currently the subject of active development applications in Alameda County. Since the August 2024 meeting, staff has prepared technical studies for the projects, including a fiscal impact analysis, infrastructure capacity analyses, and traffic analysis, and has had initial discussions with Alameda County staff. In the same period, 330 Land Company (the Arroyo Lago applicant) submitted a preliminary application to the City for Arroyo Lago with project revisions, primarily to address concerns raised by residents of the adjacent Village at Ironwood. USL/Steelwave (the landowner) submitted a preliminary application to the City for East Lakes projects (formerly Senior Residential) with two alternative project concepts for the site.

This agenda report and meeting presents the results of the above discussions and analysis and requests the City Council's direction on whether the applicants should proceed with formal applications to the City for annexation and development within Pleasanton. Staff also requests the City Council's direction on any needed changes to the proposed Arroyo Lago design and feedback on proposed age-restricted housing and inclusionary units in the East Lakes project.

Additionally, staff requests the City Council review and consider approval of key terms related to the two projects, including terms related to the application process for both projects (Attachments 1 and 2).

RECOMMENDATION
Receive update on residential development proposals on two properties in East Pleasanton, outside the City Limits and 1) Provide direction to proceed with applications for annexation and development in Pleasanton; 2) Provide feedback on key issues relative to the two projects; 3) Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the Arroyo Lago Project; and 4) Approve Key Terms regarding processing of applications for the East Lakes Project.

BACKGROUND
Proposed Projects
Under discussion are the following two sites and residential applications made to Alameda

County.
• Arroyo Lago Project. The 26.56-acre Arroyo Lago site is located immediately east of the City limits. This property is the subject of an active development application with Alameda County by 330 Land Company, for 194 single-family homes and 49 accessory dwelling units. The project is currently undergoing CEQA review, including publication of a Draft EIR on September 9, 2024 (see further discussion, below). • East Lakes Project. The property/project now titled “East Lakes,” is a 61.6-acre property to the east of the Arroyo Lago site. On June 4, 2024, USL Pleasanton Lakes submitted an application to Alameda County under SB 330 and pursuant to the provisions of Government Code 65589.5, more commonly referred to as the “Builders Remedy.” The application included a proposal for up to 569 age-restricted (senior) housing units on approximately 61.6 acres of vacant land, plus related site improvements and amenities.

Since then, on October 1, 2024, the applicant submitted a revised SB 330 Preliminary Application to Alameda County, reducing the unit count to 357 single-family, agerestricted homes and 88 age-restricted assisted living units, for a total of 445 units.

Since August 2024, the applicants have submitted to the City of Pleasanton modified project concepts for both sites, in response to City staff and neighbor’s comments on the projects.

Additional information and discussion of these alternative “City” plans, including requests for City Council direction, is provided later in this report.

August 24, 2024 City Council Meeting
On August 24, 2024, the City Council received an update on the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes development proposals (see August 24 City Council Agenda Report), including hearing the respective applicants’ interest in potentially considering the two applications for annexation and development in the city of Pleasanton. At this meeting, the City Council directed staff to continue discussions with the applicant, further analyze issues associated with potential annexation of the properties, and explore potential project revisions to the Arroyo Lago application to address concerns raised by residents of the adjacent Village at Ironwood and other nearby neighborhoods.

October 23, 2024 Applicant Meeting with Ironwood Community On October 23, 2024, the applicant hosted a meeting with the Ironwood community to discuss the Arroyo Lago project. At this meeting the applicant presented revised project plans and received resident feedback.

Arroyo Lago County DEIR and County Public Hearings for Approval As noted, Alameda County published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Arroyo Lago project on September 9, 2024. This Draft EIR can be viewed at www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/Arroyo-Lago/58240001-County-ofAlameda-Arroyo-Lago-Residential-Project-EIR.pdf The City provided an extensive comment letter on the Draft EIR during the EIR public comment period. Alameda County is currently in the process of reviewing and responding to comments on the Draft EIR. Per County staff, the Final EIR, including a formal response to comments received on the DEIR, is expected to be published in March 2025. Once the FEIR is

available, the County will be able to schedule public hearings to consider approval of the project with the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Alameda County Housing Element
In October 2024, Alameda County published a revised draft Housing Element that included both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes sites in its sites inventory as “pipeline projects.” On November 6, 2024, City staff submitted a letter about the sites inventory to the County, and then met with County staff on November 21, 2024, and further submitted a second letter, addressed to County staff and Board of Supervisors on November 26, 2024 (both letters are included in Attachment 7). In this communication, City staff raised various concerns about including the East Lakes site in the County’s Housing Element inventory, particularly in light of the significant environmental concerns around the proposed offsite wastewater treatment plant and provision of other public services. County staff considered City comments but elected to not modify the County inventory. On December 12, 2024, the Board of Supervisors adopted the County’s Housing Element, and on December 31, 2024, HCD issued a certification letter.

Technical Studies
The following technical studies have been or are being prepared to assist the City to review the proposed Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects:
• Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by EPS (Attachment 3) • Roadway Capacity Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers
• Water Capacity Analysis prepared by Akel Engineering Group • Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis prepared by Woodard and Curran Note that each of the studies was prepared under the direction of City staff, with the majority of costs for consultant services paid by the East Pleasanton applicants. Additional information on the key findings of the technical studies is provided in the Discussion section of this report. “City” Alternative Project Designs
The applicants have made clear their intent to continue processing both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects in Alameda County, pending any formal decision to proceed with annexation to Pleasanton. However, the applicants have expressed willingness to work with the City to modify the projects in conjunction with an annexation application, and after considering feedback from neighbors of the Arroyo Lago Project, and from City staff regarding both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, have submitted revised “City” versions of the two projects, outlined below.

Arroyo Lago
On December 3, 2024, 330 Land Company (the applicant) submitted to the City a preliminary review application for the Arroyo Lago project including the following modifications for a “City” project (Attachment 4 includes excerpted pages from the plan set submitted):
• Revised utilities and grading plan. The “City” project would connect to the municipal water and sewer system, eliminating the need for the privately operated wastewater treatment facility and other off-site water and sewer improvements proposed for the County project.
• Modified lotting and home designs for westerly lots. The “City” project also includes

changes to address concernsexpressed by Ironwood area residents. On all lots abutting the Village at Ironwood, two-story homes would be replaced by single-story homes. Lot sizes would be increased, and rear setbacks for all of these abutting lots would increase from 10 feet to 14 feet.
• The above changes result in a reduction in the total number of residential lots and homes by five, from 194 to 189. In addition to increasing lot sizes slightly, the site plan has been adjusted to allow for the change by narrowing the street section to eliminate on-street parking and the landscape strip on one side of Street D.

East Lakes “City” Project Alternatives
On December 11, 2024, City staff provided written comments that identify City expectations for the design of the East Lakes project (Attachment 5). Comments from the Planning Division address street design, the proposed commercial use, open space and amenities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, housing types and building design, landscaping, parking, and sustainability. The letter also addressed General Plan Circulation Element Program 7.4 to “discourage new gated communities” and Community Character Element Program 17.1 which calls for “neighborhoods open and accessible to one another.” Given these policies, City staff encouraged the applicant to consider a project that is not gated and with greater physical connections to surrounding developments and public uses.

In response, USL/Steelwave submitted two alternative East Lakes site plans for City consideration (Attachment 5). The alternatives/revised project concepts were developed by the applicant, following comments from City staff about how the project could better align with City policies and design standards (Attachment 6):
• Alternative 1 includes 697 units, with both market rates units (no age restriction) and age-restricted active adult units. Unit types include single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments. Residential uses occupy the entire property, including the northeast area.*
* The northeast area lies within the Livermore Airport Protection Area (APA), which is a boundary established by the City of Livermore, and later included in the Airport Land Use Plan, to minimize noise-related conflicts between residential land uses and airport operations. As part of a future, focused discussion of the two project alternatives that include development in the APA, staff will provide more detailed evaluation and recommendations regarding the necessary exception to the APA that would be required to permit residential development in this area.
• Alternative 2 includes 628 units with market-rate single-family homes and duets (no age restriction) and senior multifamily units. No residential uses are proposed in the northeast area.

DISCUSSION
The following sections outline key issues, information and considerations for the two residential project proposals and their potential development in Pleasanton.

Part 1: Issues Applicable to Annexation and Development of Both Projects in Pleasanton
The following sections discuss issues generally applicable to both the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects.

Based on the outcomes of the various analyses and review of various topics, staff recommends processing formal applications to annex both projects into Pleasanton.

Compared to development in the County, annexation provides the City with much improved, and positive, fiscal benefits; provides an opportunity to achieve beneficial RHNA reporting benefits; and eliminates the need for the privately operated wastewater treatment facility and spray fields included in the County project. While new infrastructure will be needed to support the development in Pleasanton, there does not appear to be any fundamental impediment to allowing connections to City utilities; furthermore, annexation provides the opportunity to create a long-term financing mechanism for the new infrastructure in East Pleasanton, whether through an agreement(s) between the major property owners who will principally benefit from the extension of roads and utilities and the City, or a the creation of a funding structure such as a Community Facilities District.

Fiscal Impacts
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) has prepared a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed East Pleasanton development projects, including Arroyo Lago and East Lakes (Attachment 6). At the applicant’s request, this analysis also includes data for a third project, the annexation and development with light industrial uses of “Parcel H”, located in the north part of the East Pleasanton Planning Area, south of Stoneridge Drive and Arroyo Mocho.

The fiscal impact analysis considers the following three development programs:
• Arroyo Lago: 189 single-family homes and 49 accessory dwelling units (238 total units) • East Lakes: 357 independent living age-restricted homes and 88 assisted living units (445 total units)
• Parcel H: 299,655 square feet of light industrial uses.

The analysis compares fiscal impacts of projects annexed and developed in the city, with those same projects developed in the county. For both city and county development scenarios, the analysis compares forecasts of City general fund revenues and expenditures to estimate net annual fiscal impacts to the City. Revenues are generated through property tax, sales tax, and other revenue sources. Expenditures are costs related to providing City services to the project, including public works (e.g., streets and infrastructure maintenance), police, fire and government services.

Key findings from the fiscal impact analysis include the following:
• If developed in the city, all three projects would have a net positive annual impact on the City’s general fund.
• For all three projects, the total net fiscal impact is estimated to be $903,000 annually if developed in the city. East Lakes has the greatest positive fiscal impact ($500,000), followed by Arroyo Lago ($289,000) and then Parcel H ($114,000). • If developed in the county, the three projects would have a net negative annual impact

on the City’s general fund of -$780,000 if developed in the County. The net fiscal impact of the East Lakes and Arroyo Lago projects, excluding Parcel H, is -$713,000 if developed in the county.

In addition to these annual revenues reported in the fiscal impact analysis, the applicants have indicated their interest in designating Pleasanton as the "point of sale" for construction materials, appliances and other goods associated with the new development. Sales tax revenues are based on taxable sales generated in the city and the Bradley-Burns 1% local sales tax rate. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) allows construction contractors with contracts valued at $5 million or more to obtain a sub-permit for the jobsite of the qualifying contract. This sub-permit enables the contractor to allocate sales tax directly to the local jurisdiction where the jobsite is located, rather than through the countywide pool. The ownership group has agreed to obtain such a sub-permit for the jobsite, ensuring that the City will collect a larger share of local sales/use tax than it would otherwise receive. These one-time/construction related revenues would be of additional fiscal benefit to the City.

The fiscal impact analysis findings are based on the specific development programs used for the analysis. As noted, the applicant has provided some alternative development concepts for the East Lakes property that include additional units and a shift of some units to be non-agerestricted. These alternatives would result in different fiscal impacts, based both on unit number and type. While detailed analysis of the alternatives has not been conducted, in general, EPS expects that increasing the number of units would provide a proportionately greater annual fiscal benefit to the City. City staff will share additional information on the fiscal impacts of the applicant’s City alternatives at a future City Council meeting.

Infrastructure Improvements
The City’s consultants have completed, or are completing, studies of water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure needed to serve East Pleasanton development. Costs for these studies, other than the traffic analysis, were paid by the project applicants. While the studies analyzed the proposed Arroyo Lago, East Lakes, and Parcel H projects, they also take into account new demands from other anticipated East Pleasanton development, including the Kiewit residential project and potential light-industrial development on the Amazon site, consistent with its existing City zoning.

At a high level, none of the studies identified deficiencies or constraints in the system such that development of these properties could not proceed or ultimately be served by City infrastructure. However, the projects will require new roads/road extensions, pedestrian facilities, water, sewer and storm drain infrastructure, and improvements/upgrades will be needed to existing streets and utilities infrastructure to ensure that the projects’ incremental demand can be accommodated.

Water
Akel Engineering Group has prepared a Draft East Pleasanton Annexation Hydraulic Analysis report. Based on the analysis, a new 12”-diameter water pipeline from the south end of El Charro Road near Stoneridge Drive to the east end of Busch Road will be needed to serve the projects. The installation of the pipeline is estimated to cost $4.4 million. As a starting point to understand a potential cost-sharing framework, the analysis divided this cost based on flows

needed to supply water for each project; a pro-rata share contribution from each project was calculated to assist owners in understanding the expected financial burden. The analysis assumes the City would not contribute funding, since the pipeline would be installed for the benefit of the new private development in East Pleasanton, rather than correcting an existing deficiency or serving other properties outside the study area. Phasing of the pipeline was also considered since it is assumed not all projects will be constructed at once. Whether phased or constructed in full, a complete pipeline is ultimately needed for operational redundancy and water quality. Cooperation between owners would be needed to construct the pipeline.

Wastewater:

Woodard & Curran prepared a Draft Sewer Impact Study that analyzes capacity in the City’s sanitary sewer collection network between the East Pleasanton annexation area and the Dublin San Ramon Services District treatment plant. The study identified three significant sewer network deficiencies that would require correction before the proposed projects could connect. From upstream to downstream the deficiencies include (1) undersized pipes on Kamp Drive and Begonia Court, south of Mohr Avenue; (2) undersized pipes on Palmer Drive, Cameron Avenue, Kamp Drive, and Stoneridge Drive north of Mohr Avenue; and (3) an undersized sewer siphon under Arroyo Mocho creek at Santa Rita Road.

Approximately 5,300 lineal feet of pipe requires upsizing within existing neighborhoods; the cost is currently being studied. Similar to the water analysis, a potential cost-sharing framework will be developed that divides the total cost based on flow contributions from each project. Phasing opportunities are limited since all scenarios require the upsizing of existing pipes. The study assumed no funding contribution from the City since all network deficiencies are caused by the new development. Cooperation between owners would be needed to address these network deficiencies in a coordinated and comprehensive way. The developer of the Kiewit property at 3300 Busch Road has already agreed to fund their estimated share of network upgrades.

Storm Drain
The projects rely on stormwater discharge to Cope Lake, one of the chain-of-lakes operated by Zone 7 Water Agency. The applicants claim to have historic drainage rights for this discharge. State of California regulations require stormwater to be treated to remove pollutants before discharge. In Zone 7’s comment letter to Alameda County for the Arroyo Lago DEIR, the manner of treatment was questioned. In addition to common pollutants, Zone 7 expressed concern over PFAS discharge into Cope Lake which it operates for groundwater basin recharge; it is assumed Zone 7 will continue to question this issue whether the projects are built under County jurisdiction or in the city after annexation. The City operates a pipe network on Busch Road for storm drainage, although no analysis has yet been conducted to evaluate capacity or feasibility for connection.

Traffic/Roadway Improvements
Staff expects that circulation and roadway improvements needed to serve the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, as well as other projected traffic growth in Pleasanton, will include:
• Busch Road: Two-lane roadway with roundabouts or four-plus lanes at intersection.

The Arroyo Lago and East Pleasanton projects will reserve additional right-of-way to accommodate a four-lane roadway, which is projected to be needed in the long term, per the City’s traffic model.

• Iron Horse Trail: A new east-west trail along the south side of Busch Road, and northsouth trail at El Charro Road connecting to the Iron Horse Trail and Arroyo Mocho Trail.
• Santa Rita Road at Valley Avenue: Third southbound left turn lane and second westbound left turn lane.
• El Charro Road: Four-lane roadway from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard.

To address the timing for construction of El Charro Road, the City requested Fehr and Peers complete an evaluation of the proposed developments in East Pleasanton and their effects on the circulation network using the City’s traffic model. The study’s purpose was to determine when El Charro Road will be necessary; that is, what increment of new traffic generated by East Pleasanton projects would cause the Valley Avenue/Santa Rita Road intersection to fall below LOS D.

The traffic study indicates that the Santa Rita corridor will be at capacity with the construction of the Kiewit project. The intersection of Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue, even after it is modified to include a third southbound left turn lane and a second westbound left turn lane, is LOS D falling to LOS E with the Kiewit project traffic. The addition of new trips with the Arroyo Lago and/or East Lakes projects further necessitates the construction of El Charro Road.

As described above, a significant concern with the construction of El Charro Road is whether it would induce new cut-through traffic. Figures 1 and 2 show the existing AM and PM cutthrough traffic patterns between I-580 and I-680, including the existing concentration of cutthrough traffic on Santa Rita Road, particularly in the morning peak time. Although the final results of the analysis are still being refined, the City's traffic engineer expects the construction of El Charro Road will have a neutral effect in terms of cut-through volume (i.e., the same number of cut-through trips will occur). However, the cut-through traffic will migrate from the congested corridor along Santa Rita Road, in favor of the new El Charro Road; this reduction of cut-through volumes on Santa Rita Road allows for greater mobility within the city.

Finally, with respect to El Charro Road, there has been discussion of whether El Charro is needed as a 4 lane roadway or if 2 lanes are sufficient. Additionally there has been discussion on where the extension would terminate, whether at Busch Road, or continuing further south to connect to Stanley Boulevard. This item will be further analyzed in the forthcoming traffic study, but based on previous analyses, and preliminary data from the current study shows minor improvements with a 2 lane El Charro but the Santa Rita corridor continues to fail.

Similarly, not connecting El Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard would reduce the beneficial effects of the extension in alleviating congestion along the Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue corridors. Construction of this southern segment will be more complex and costly, since the road needs to be designed with an undercrossing of the UPRR line. At the most direct connection point, there is limited distance between Stanley Boulevard and the railroad line, so the alignment and geometry of the intersection will need to be adjusted to ensure it is feasible.

Figure 1: AM Cut-Through Traffic Patterns
Figure 2: PM Cut-Through Traffic Patterns

Infrastructure Financing
As described above, there are significant new infrastructure needs associated with development of East Pleasanton properties. Design, construction, and maintenance of new infrastructure should be considered holistically so that it can be most efficiently constructed and managed into the future. For example, water and wastewater pipes should be sized to carry all future anticipated flows, and adequate right-of-way for roadways should be provided to accommodate all future needed lanes and intersection configurations. Developing a coordinated phasing plan and a financing strategy to construct and infrastructure improvements when they are needed and ensure they are adequately funded and maintained over the long term will be important.

The public infrastructure demanded by East Pleasanton projects falls into two major categories:
• Infrastructure within the boundaries of future subdivisions (on-site improvements), that principally serves the future residents of those subdivisions. Such improvements include internal project streets and sidewalks, water and sewer pipes connecting from external pipelines to serve individual residences, storm drainage facilities, and in some cases, parks or open space areas.
• Infrastructure located outside of the subdivision boundaries (off-site improvements), which may be necessary to serve the project or provide adequate systemwide capacity, but which also serve or benefit other projects in the vicinity, or the broader community.

The costs of installing on-site infrastructure to serve a project typically fall to the developer.

The City can also require the future residents of the subdivision to accept the long-term maintenance responsibility for some or all of these improvements. While, in the past, the City has accepted on-site infrastructure installed in a project as “public improvements” and assumed the long-term maintenance responsibility, absorbing all of these costs and burdens is now less feasible given available City resources, and there is greater interest in assigning long-term maintenance responsibilities to the future homeowners or an HOA.

For off-site improvements which also generally fall to the developer(s) benefitting from the improvements to install them, there is more complexity around how the construction and maintenance is managed and funded. Where it is private property owners that mutually benefit from new or expanded public infrastructure (as is the case for East Pleasanton developments), it is desirable and beneficial for developers to coordinate and share in those costs where possible.

The City may also be a participant in funding and financing a portion of costs for improvements that provide a public benefit beyond just that for the new development. For East Pleasanton, a key example is the construction of El Charro Road: although a portion of the need for El Charro Road relates directly to the East Pleasanton projects, the new roadway will also provide a more general circulation benefit, by alleviating cut-through traffic on Santa Rita Road and existing congested intersections.

The City has certain funding available to help support these sorts of improvements (e.g., Transportation Impact Fees) and can contribute funds for developer-installed improvements that offer benefit beyond the requirements of a project, whether in the form of impact fee

credits, or supplemental capital funds. As a public agency, the City is also empowered to create special funding districts and mechanisms to facilitate larger-scale infrastructure investments.

In light of these considerations, and the benefits of a coordinated infrastructure financing approach, staff recommends creating a mechanism for property owners benefiting from new public infrastructure to help finance this infrastructure. One possibility is to create a community facilities district (CFD) that would apply to properties in East Pleasanton. A CFD is a special taxing district that can issue municipal bonds to raise funds upfront for infrastructure projects. These bonds are repaid over time with revenues generated from special taxes or assessments levied on properties within the district. Tax rates for each property would be based on a pro-rata cost sharing formula that accounts for the fair share cost attributable to each property benefitting from the infrastructure. Neighboring jurisdictions, including Dublin and Livermore, have used CFDs to help finance larger-scale infrastructure for new development (particularly in similar “greenfield” areas).

Staff has begun to explore the process and requirements to form a CFD. Doing so would require participation/agreement among the benefitting property owners and the City, further study to determine the total infrastructure costs and fair-share allocations among properties and the City, and evaluation of the assessment capacity of future development. Staff has discussed infrastructure financing mechanisms with the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes applications but has not reached agreement on general terms, but plans to continue these discussions with the goal of reaching agreement. Staff also intends to engage with a specialist consultant to advise on the CFD process and may have the opportunity to provide a more indepth presentation or overview to City Council at a future date, if there is interest in this concept.

Calculating and apportioning the fair share costs of new infrastructure, determining eligibility for fee credits, etc., in these circumstances is a complex exercise requiring evaluation of total infrastructure needs and costs, calculation of the relative demand different properties place on that new infrastructure, and coordination of funding and phasing of construction to allow for reimbursement or cost-recovery to the entity which initially funded the improvements. Staff is beginning to develop the comprehensive picture of the infrastructure needs and costs, and will work with the applicants to refine and come to agreement on the related terms of future agreements to create equitable terms for the City and participating projects.

County Property Tax Sharing
When a city annexes unincorporated land from a county, the property tax revenues generated from that land must be redistributed to account for the shift in responsibility for providing local services. State law requires the city and county to negotiate a property tax revenue exchange agreement before the annexation is approved. The agreement specifies how the county's share of property tax revenue from the annexed area will be divided between the city and the county.

The City negotiated property tax-sharing agreements with the County for annexations of residential properties in 2010, 2013, and 2015. Each of these agreements follows the same tax-sharing formula, which establishes that the City receives a property tax revenue allocation equivalent to the average citywide share of property tax it receives each year, which is approximately 25 percent of the 1 percent property value-based tax rate received by the

County. This allocation is consistent with the County’s tax-sharing policy (adopted in 1995), the County’s model tax sharing agreement (adopted in 2000), and recent tax sharing agreements between the City of Livermore and the County. The City is currently negotiating a property tax-sharing agreement with Alameda County for the Merritt project, which staff expects will also match these prior agreements.

As discussed above, the fiscal impact analysis finds that the Arroyo Lago and Pleasanton Lakes projects would have a positive fiscal impact for the City. For this reason, staff anticipates it would be appropriate to use the standard property-tax sharing agreements for these projects; in other words, because the fiscal outcome to the City is positive, there is no “gap” that needs to be made up through a more aggressive tax-sharing agreement. While the City Council could direct staff to explore an alternative agreement with terms that are more favorable to the City (i.e., more than the 25 percent of 1 percent share), given County policy and past agreements, staff expects the County would be resistant to such an agreement.

A property tax-sharing agreement for the Arroyo Lago and East Pleasanton projects would be established after City approval of project entitlements; the County Board of Supervisors would also need to approve the agreement. After the Alameda County Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) approves the annexation, the properties would be incorporated into the City's tax rate area.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
If the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes properties are annexed into Pleasanton, the City will be required to negotiate an agreement with Alameda County to transfer a portion of the County’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) to Pleasanton.

The "City" Arroyo Lago project includes 189 market-rate homes and 49 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). If approved by the City as proposed, staff expects a RHNA transfer agreement with the County would increase the City’s RHNA by 189 above moderate units because these units are included in the County’s Housing Element sites inventory. The City would then “count” these units in future years’ Annual Planning Reports (APRs) to HCD, as building permits are issued for them. As the 49 ADUs are not in the County sites inventory, staff expects the RHNA transfer agreement would not increase the City’s RHNA for these ADUs. If there is no RHNA increase for the ADUs, the City can report these units in its APR without a corresponding increase to the City’s RHNA. This outcome would benefit Pleasanton with a surplus of units to help meet the City’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element.

For the East Lakes project, staff anticipates a more involved or complex RHNA transfer negotiation with the County. As described above, the County’s now adopted and certified Housing Element includes 445 “pipeline” units in its inventory for the East Lakes project, of which 20 percent (89) would be lower-income units. The City provided comments to the County expressing concern about including all East Lakes units in its inventory, and requested the County limit the East Lakes units to 178 above moderate units and 45 very low/low units (223 units total), or half of the proposed total (see Attachment 5). This change would benefit Pleasanton by enabling the City to report units in excess of 223 in its annual progress report without a corresponding increase to the City’s RHNA.

County staff considered City comments but elected to not modify the inventory. County staff has indicated they remain open to considering the City’s request again as part of inventoryPage 268 of 350

related changes to the County Housing Element planned for 2025. City staff plans to continue this discussion with County staff with the goal of reducing the East Lakes units below the 445 units currently included in the County sites inventory or otherwise achieving a more favorable outcome for Pleasanton.

East Pleasanton Policy Framework
The City currently lacks a comprehensive vision and policy framework for development in East Pleasanton. The City’s General Plan includes only a broad discussion of East Pleasanton, including existing conditions, and a general overview of planning considerations and potential land uses that could be suitable within the overall (1,000-acre plus) planning area, framed by the intent to develop a specific plan that would provide more detailed land use guidance. Land Use Element Program 6.1 calls for the City to initiate a specific plan process for the East Pleasanton area. The Draft East Pleasanton Specific Plan prepared in 2014 was not ultimately adopted by the City Council.

Given the General Plan’s direction, and with these pending residential applications, prospective interest from Amazon and other private owners in moving forward with development, extensive adjacent public lands and Zone 7 facilities, and longstanding interest in ensuring that East Pleasanton develops in a coordinated and cohesive manner, staff believes it would be beneficial to develop some type of policy framework for the area.

Staff recommends initiating a process to amend the General Plan to establish a vision and policy framework for East Pleasanton development. The process to prepare this General Plan amendment is proposed to be streamlined, with public input and direction provided through meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council, potentially augmented with some focused public workshops. This framework process would be independent from City review of the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, and for a project on the Amazon site, if in the near future a development application consistent with City zoning is submitted. Those applications would be allowed to proceed ahead of or concurrently with the process to develop framing General Plan policies (i.e., developing a General Plan policy framework would incorporate the projects, as proposed and/or modified as a result of nearterm City Council input, rather than pausing while the framework is developed).

New General Plan policies for East Pleasanton would signal to property owners the City’s long-term intentions for the area, guide City investments, and provide an opportunity to re-visit some of the key topics that were addressed in the 2015 Specific Plan effort, such as (but not necessarily limited to) open space / recreational opportunities, connectivity and interface of public and private land uses within the East Pleasanton Area, location of the solid waste transfer facility, and status of the Urban Growth Boundary. An effective set of policies will help to coordinate development and public improvements in East Pleasanton and meet the needs of current and future residents.

Part 2: Arroyo Lago Project Issues
The following discussion addresses issues unique to the proposed Arroyo Lago project:

Project Design
As noted, the applicant has submitted a “City” alternative project reflecting modifications in response to City and neighbor comments for the lots abutting the Village at Ironwood, including increasing lot sizes, increasing rear setbacks, and providing single-story homes

(Attachment 4); these changes also reduce the overall unit count from 194 to 189 units. The Arroyo Lago project has been in process with Alameda County for more than two years, and is nearing completion of the County entitlement process, with significant investment made in developing project plans, including CEQA review. Given this, the applicant has indicated that it is unwilling to consider substantial further changes for a City application that would result in major revisions to the site plan, number of units, home sizes, or unit types.

Since the property lacks City zoning, and would be processed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the City has latitude to determine the appropriate development standards for the project, and can offer flexibility regarding such standards. However, it is typical for the City to “benchmark” a PUD application to standards that would ordinarily apply to projects of similar type and density, to help evaluate the quality and acceptability of the project as a development within Pleasanton. To provide such benchmarking, staff reviewed the proposed Arroyo Lago project for conformance with the Objective Design Standards for Housing Development Sites, taking the standards for detached single-family projects for projects of more than 7 and up to 14 dwelling unit/acre range as the presumed applicable standard. Staff’s review found the project complies with most, but not all, ODS standards.

Given the unique status of the project, staff recommends accepting deviations from all non-compliant ODS standards except for the minimum 15-foot rear setback standard.

Staff recommends the City Council direct the applicant to modify the project to provide a minimum 15-foot rear setback for lots abutting the Ironwood community. Currently, the project provides a 14-foot rear setback; staff recommends the applicant increase the rear setback on these lots by one foot with the expectation that such modifications do no require significant redesign of the project.

Key Terms for Processing of the Arroyo Lago Application; Future Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement Terms
Moving forward with applications for annexation and development in the city will require considerable investment on the part of the applicants and the City, including preparing new plans and studies, undertaking additional CEQA review, and negotiating the various entitlements and agreements necessary as part of those applications. As such, the applicant seeks as much certainty as possible around the material aspects of the City’s review and consideration of those applications, while recognizing the current City Council cannot predetermine the outcomes or decisions of a future City Council, nor make a binding decision in the absence of comprehensive information and public input.

If the Council wishes to proceed with the Arroyo Lago application, staff will work with the applicant to prepare a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) for the City Council to consider with the project entitlements. A PADA is a legally binding contract between a City and a developer that sets forth the terms, conditions, and obligations for a development project.

Over the past several months, City staff and the applicant have discussed terms related to the processing of a City application and terms to include in the PADA. Staff and the applicant reached agreement on the application processing terms, provided as Attachment 1. Staff and the applicant have not yet reached agreement on a several key PADA terms, particularly terms that have financial implications for the City and the applicant, related to infrastructure improvements, development impact fees, and affordable housing.

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Arroyo Lago application processing terms provided in Attachment 1, and direct staff to continue discussions with the applicant on PADA terms, and bring these terms to the City Council for review and approval at a future date.

Part 3: East Lakes Project Issues
The following discussion addresses issues unique to the proposed Arroyo Lago project.

Age-Restricted Housing
As described in the Background section, the applicant has provided two “City” Alternatives for the East Lakes project (see Attachment 5). Staff has not yet analyzed these alternatives in detail and does not request City Council direction on a preferred alternative at this time.

However, staff does request City Council input on the extent to which the project should include age-restricted housing available only to older adults.

In both City alternatives, the applicant proposes a mix of market-rate units (no age restriction) and age-restricted units for older adults. Age-restricted units may be assisted living/memory care units (City Alternative 1) and/or active adult units (City Alternative 2). In contrast, the East Lakes County application proposes all units to be age-restricted with a combination of active adult and assisted living/memory care units. Another possibility, though not proposed by the applicant, is to provide all market-rate units with no age restriction.

Given that the applicant’s City alternatives include housing without age restrictions, staff discussed the proposed project with the Pleasanton Unified School District. School district staff indicated that, due to declining enrollment in the two elementary schools closest to East Pleasanton (Mohr and Alisal Elementary Schools), the District expects to have sufficient capacity for additional students generated from non-age-restricted housing within the East Lakes, if it were proposed.

As noted in the Background section, General Plan programs call for the City to “discourage new gated communities” with “neighborhoods open and accessible to one another.” The applicant has indicated that a perimeter gate is necessary for a project where all units are agerestricted. This change would allow the project to be better integrated, physically and visually with adjacent neighborhoods, allow for better connectivity through the site for all users, and allow for access to any publicly-accessible open space areas created within the 60+ acre site.

Furthermore, the project could offer a greater diversity of housing opportunities for different household types, and improve the potential for affordable units to be integrated into the project. For these reasons, staff recommends either a mix of market rate and agerestricted units (as proposed in the City Alternatives) or a project with all market-rate units.

Affordable Housing
The County East Lakes project would include on-site deed-restricted affordable units consistent with Builder’s Remedy requirements. For the “City” East Lakes project, the applicant has not yet finalized an affordable housing plan and has indicated it is exploring options to provide a dedicated affordable housing site, spread affordable units throughout the project, pay in lieu fees, or implement a combination of those options.

City staff and the applicant request City Council feedback on whether the East Lakes project should provide on-site inclusionary units or if the City would accept payment of the affordable housing fee in lieu of on-site inclusionary units.

Staff recommends that the East Lakes project construct on-site inclusionary units. Constructing units on-site would be consistent with the stated purpose of the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance (IZO). During the recent amendment of the IZO, the City Council affirmed its strong preference for market rate projects to construct affordable units, rather than pay fees.

East Lakes Application Process
If the City Council wishes to proceed with the East Lakes application, USL/Steelwave seeks certainty regarding the City entitlement process and schedule. Staff recommends the City Council approve terms in Attachment 2, which documents the City’s intended process for the East Lakes application, including required discretionary entitlements, CEQA review, and target schedule. Staff and USL/Steelwave are in agreement with all aspects of the anticipated East Lakes application process contained in Attachment 2. These terms only concern the application process; the details of the proposed project (e.g., site plan, number of units, type of units) will be addressed by the City Council at a future meeting. As with the Arroyo Lago terms, the East Lakes terms would be non-binding on future actions of the City Council.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes staff’s recommendations, as presented above:

Annexation and Development of the Two Projects in Pleasanton:

1. The City should accept and process development applications for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, due to the relative environmental and fiscal benefits of these projects developing in Pleasanton, and opportunity to achieve a coordinated approach to planning and provision of infrastructure.

2. Direct staff and the applicants to work collaboratively toward creating a mechanism for property owners benefiting from new public infrastructure to help finance the East Pleasanton infrastructure.

3. Direct staff to initiate a process to amend the General Plan, to incorporate a vision and expanded and updated policies for the East Pleasanton area.

Arroyo Lago Project:

4. Accept deviations from all non-compliant ODS standards except for the minimum 15-foot rear setback standard. Direct the applicant to modify the project to provide a minimum 15-foot rear setback for lots abutting the Ironwood community, with the expectation that such modifications do not require significant re-design of the project.

5. Approve the Key Terms as outlined in Attachment 1, with respect to the anticipated Arroyo Lago application process, including required discretionary entitlements, CEQA review, and schedule.

East Lakes Project:

6. Provide feedback to the applicant on whether age-restricted housing is desired in the proposed project.

7. Provide feedback that inclusionary units, consistent with City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, should be constructed on-site.

8. Approve the Key Terms as outlined in Attachment 2, with respect to the City’s intended process for the East Lakes application, including required discretionary entitlements, CEQA review, and schedule.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Annexing and developing these two properties within Pleasanton, if that is the ultimate outcome of the process, is supportive of the City's sustainability goals. Compared to the projects being developed in the unincorporated county, development within Pleasanton would allow the projects to connect to existing utilities, better mitigate their service impacts, and allow for key public services to be provided in closer proximity to the projects' residents. Annexing the properties would permit the City to apply standards for green building, inclusionary housing,to better achieve equity and sustainability goals.

OUTREACH
A courtesy notice of this meeting was sent to property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the two properties, to all properties within the Village at Ironwood, and to Alameda County. As of the date of this agenda report's publication one public comment had been received (Attachment 8), focused on environmental issues associated with the Arroyo Lago project.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs Strategy 9 to Advance the East Pleasanton Specific Plan, where possible, by helping to assert the City's interests and desires with respect to the two properties, including in the context of the broader East Pleasanton area.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact of the City Council's action at this meeting. The fiscal impact analysis prepared by EPS finds the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, if annexed into Pleasanton, would have net positive fiscal impact to the City. Terms of the processing agreements obligate the applicant to fund the costs of necessary technical studies, CEQA and professional services to support review of the applications.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Ellen Clark, Director of
Community Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Arroyo Lago Application Processing Terms

2. East Lakes Processing Agreement Terms

3. Fiscal Impact Assessment

4. Arroyo Lago City Alternative Plans (Excerpted Pages)

5. East Lakes Alternatives

6. City East Lakes Comments

7. Housing Element Comment Letters

8. Public Comments

9. Presentation 2-4-25 East Pleasanton Annexation

Arroyo Lago Application Processing Terms
The following terms will guide City processing of the Arroyo Lago application. These terms will not be incorporated in the pre-annexation and development agreement.

1. City Approvals. The Arroyo Lago project requires the following City approvals: (1) General Plan Amendment to designate the Property as Medium Density Residential; (2) Prezoning the property to Planned Unit Development-MDR pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter

18.68; (3) Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.68.110. (4) Vesting Tentative Map pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19.22 and the Subdivision Map Act; and (5) Other permits and approvals as determined necessary by the City.

2. Project Design. The proposed project design will be substantially consistent with the Arroyo Lago preliminary application received by the City on December 3, 2024, with the exception that the rear setback for all lots abutting the Village at Ironwood community will be increased to 15 feet if it is feasible without requiring a redesign of the entire project or architecture. City staff will work with the developer to modify the current street sections or areas of the site plan in attempt to increase the westerly property line rear setback to from 14 feet to 15 feet.

3. Application Costs. The developer will pay for all costs related to processing the project applications, including costs of technical studies, preparation of CEQA document(s), professional services, and additional third-party staff support if determined necessary by the City to provide staff capacity to meet requested processing deadlines.

4. Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement. The City and applicant intend to enter into Pre-annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) for the Arroyo Lago project. The PADA will be a legally binding contract between the City and applicant that sets forth the terms, conditions, and obligations for the development project. The City and applicant will enter into the PADA upon City Council approval of project entitlements, subject to mutuallyagreed upon terms.

5. CEQA. The City will complete environmental review of the Arroyo Lago project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To the extent allowed by CEQA, the City will utilize the Arroyo Lago Environmental Impact Report prepared by Alameda County as the basis for the City’s CEQA review. The applicant will provide the City with timely information and materials as needed to support the City’s CEQA review of the project.

6. Application Schedule. The City and applicant will work together to process the Arroyo Lago application with the goal of completing major milestones as specified in the following schedule:

Milestone Target Date
Applicant submits City application [1] February 5, 2025 City requests additional information needed to deem
application complete March 7, 2025
Applicant provides any additional requested information [2] April 7, 2025 ATTACHMENT 1

City completes initial CEQA review and determines if additional CEQA analysis is needed June 2025 [3]
Planning Commission hearing [4] August 2025 [5]
City Council hearing September 2025 [5]
Pre-annexation and Development Agreement effective date [6] November 2025 [5] Submit annexation application to LAFCO [6] December 2025 [5] LAFCO Hearing [6] [7] April 2026 [5]
Notes:
[1] Assumes the applicant fully responds to City Council direction provided February 4, 2024 and on March 1, 2025 submits a draft project description to be used for the City’s CEQA analysis.
[2] Assumes applicant provides all information and materials requested in City’s 30-day review letter.
[3] Assumes Alameda County certifies Arroyo Lago EIR in May 2025. [4] Assumes City CEQA document can be completed within three months after applicant submits City application.
[5] Subject to change if additional CEQA review required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
[6] Only if City approves project.
[7] LAFCO staff advises assuming hearing four months after annexation application submittal. City does not control LAFCO hearing schedule.

EAST LAKES APPLICATION PROCESS
The City of Pleasanton intends to process the East Lakes development applicant as described in this document.

City Discretionary Entitlements
The City anticipates that required discretionary entitlements for the East Lakes project will include the following:
• General Plan Amendment to designate the site Residential (specific designation(s) to align with proposed density).
• Prezoning the site as Planned Unit Development District pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 18.68
• Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan pursuant to Municipal Code Section

18.68.110.
• Tentative subdivision map
• Resolution to initiate annexation proceedings
The City also expects to enter into a pre-annexation and development agreement with the applicant for the project.

CEQA Review
The City will serve as the lead agency and will complete environmental review of the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act as follows:
• The City will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the project. • The applicant will provide complete and accurate project description information by the dates specified in the project schedule.
• The City will select a CEQA consultant from among its prequalified list to prepare the EIR, with applicant input based on proposed schedule and cost. The City will allow the applicant to review and comment on consultant proposals before selection. • The City will contract with and manage the work of the selected consultant. The City and applicant will consult and coordinate, as appropriate and consistent with relevant CEQA provisions, to ensure the timely and accurate preparation of draft and final project materials.
• If needed, the applicant will provide complete and accurate supplemental information needed for the CEQA analysis by dates mutually agreed upon by the City and the applicant. • The City aims to publish a draft EIR for the project within six months of finalizing the project description.

Schedule
The City aims to process entitlements for the project based on the schedule shown in Table 1. This schedule assumes that:
• The applicant prepares and submits a project description for the EIR with this initial application in March 2025
ATTACHMENT 2

• The EIR’s analysis is focused on a single land use scenario, with other scenarios evaluated as part of the alternatives analysis only.
• By May 2025, the applicant fully responds to all City requests for information and materials needed to finalize EIR project description
• Traffic counts for EIR are completed in May 2025
• Project description for EIR does not substantially change after May 2025, such that new or significantly amended technical analysis is required,
• The volume and nature of EIR comments allow for the CEQA consultant to prepare an administrative draft response to comments document within 60 days of the close of public comment period
Table 1: Schedule
Milestone Date
Applicant submits City application with complete draft project description for EIR March 2025
City selects CEQA consultant April 2025
City completes initial review and requests from applicant additional information and materials needed for EIR project description
April 2025
Developer provides all requested information needed to finalize EIR project description May 2025
City finalizes EIR project description May 2025
CEQA consultant collects traffic counts for EIR May 2025 City publishes CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) May 2025 City holds NOP Scoping Session with Planning Commission May 2025 Developer provides all requested information and materials needed by City to deem application complete May 2025
CEQA consultant submits Administrative Draft EIR to City September 2025 City provides Draft EIR comments to CEQA Consultant October 2025 CEQA consultant submits Screencheck Draft EIR to City November 2025 City Publishes Draft EIR December 2025
EIR Hearing with Planning Commission December 2025
EIR comment period ends (60 days) February 2026
CEQA consultant submits administrative draft Final EIR (with response to comments) to City April 2026
City provides final EIR comments to CEQA Consultant May 2026 CEQA consultant submits Screencheck Draft EIR to City June 2026 City publishes Final EIR June 2026
First Planning Commission Hearing July 2026
First City Council Hearing August 2026

Milestone Date
Developer submits annexation application to City for review September 2026 Developer submits annexation application to LAFCO August 2026 LAFCO annexation hearing October 2026

D RAFT M EMORANDUM
To: Ellen Clark, City of Pleasanton
From: Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
Subject: East Pleasanton Steelwave Fiscal Impact Analysis; EPS #241085 Date: January 22, 2025
This memorandum describes the methodology and results from an analysis of the impacts to the City of Pleasanton’s General Fund budget from the potential development and annexation of several projects proposed on sites currently located just outside the City. As proposed by Steelwave LLC (the Applicant), the projects include the development of three sites in unincorporated Alameda County, two of which are planned for residential development, and the third for light industrial.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared this Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) to inform the City about the budgetary implications of the various project components relative to a “no build” or “baseline” scenario as well as a scenario where development occurs without annexation. This FIA evaluates each project based on completion of construction and full stabilization (i.e., “buildout”). The analysis quantifies net effects on the City’s General Fund budget (i.e., both costs and revenues) based on data from sources including Pleasanton’s FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Budget and market assumptions provided by the applicant.

As shown in Summary Table 1, the three proposed projects envision 238 residential units on the Arroyo Lago site, 445 age-restricted residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial space on the East Lakes site, and almost 300,000 square feet of light industrial space on the Parcel H site. This analysis assumes that 49 of the residential units at the Arroyo Lago site will be attached ADUs, available for below market rate rents.

Additionally, this analysis assumes the East Lakes Project will provide inclusionary housing units on site.

ATTACHMENT 3

Draft Memorandum January 22, 2025
East Pleasanton Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 2 Summary Table 1: East Pleasanton Annexation Program Summary Key Findings
The following Key Findings highlight the net fiscal impact of the three proposed projects relative to baseline conditions both with and without annexation. Actual fiscal impacts will depend on a variety of factors that cannot be predicted with certainty, including future changes in City or State budgeting practices, the efficiency of various City departments in providing services, and other factors. The analysis presents impact estimates in constant 2024 dollars.

1. As proposed, all three project sites are expected to generate a positive annual net fiscal impact on the City of Pleasanton’s General Fund if annexed into the city.

In combination the proposed projects are anticipated to generate a total positive net fiscal surplus Pleasanton’s General Fund in the range of $903,000 each year at project buildout as shown in Summary Table 2. The projects are expected to generate annual General Fund revenues above and beyond the General Fund expenditures required to serve the development, thereby more than covering its costs and generating surplus revenues to enhance services and/or service levels citywide. Each individual project site is estimated to have a positive impact on its own, with the Arroyo Lago site estimated to generate approximately $289,000 in annual surplus, the East Lakes Project estimated to generate approximately $500,000 in annual surplus, and the Parcel H site estimated to generate approximately $114,000.

Item Program
Commercial (sq. ft.)
East Lakes - Retail 16,000
Parcel H - Light Industrial 299,655
Residential (units)
Arroyo Lago
Single Family 189
ADUs 49
Subtotal 238
East Lakes Project
Independent Living 357
Assisted Living 88
Subtotal 445
Source: Steelwave LLC

Draft Memorandum January 22, 2025
East Pleasanton Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 3 Summary Table 2: Summary of Annual Fiscal Impact (2024$)

2. The three projects are estimated to have a net negative impact on the City of Pleasanton’s General Fund if they proceed as is in the County and are not annexed by the City of Pleasanton. The proposed developments are estimated to have impacts on the City of Pleasanton’s budget, even if the Project is not annexed by the City, as shown in Summary Table 3. The residents and employees of these sites would likely use City facilities like roads, libraries, and parks, and contribute to calls for service to the Pleasanton Police Department. Even with the sales tax revenue generated by residents and employee spending, the project is estimated to generate a $778,000 annual deficit in the City of Pleasanton’s General Fund if it proceeds in Alameda County.

Summary Table 3: Fiscal Impact Comparison
Revenue /
Expense Category Arroyo Lago
East Lakes
Project Parcel H Total
Annual General Fund Revenues $1,040,000 $1,395,000 $265,000 $2,700,000 Annual General Fund Expenditures $751,000 $896,000 $151,000 $1,797,000 Net Annual Impact on General Fund $289,000 $500,000 $114,000 $903,000 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Item County Project City Project
General Fund Revenues
Property Tax $0 $2,306,000
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $0 $267,000
Sales Tax $94,000 $94,000
Business License Tax $0 $33,000
General Fund Revenue $94,000 $2,700,000
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $0 $119,000
Community Development $0 $45,000
Fire $0 $451,000
Library and Recreation $135,000 $135,000
Police $309,000 $617,000
Public Works $429,000 $429,000
Total General Fund Expenditures $873,000 $1,797,000
NET Annual General Revenues -$778,000 $903,000
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Draft Memorandum January 22, 2025
East Pleasanton Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 4

3. Property tax is estimated to represent the largest revenue source for Pleasanton General Fund. The proposed development program is estimated to generate a total assessed value (AV) of approximately $906 million, all of which would be considered new value to the City, since the project sites are currently located in the County. A substantial portion of the estimated General Fund revenues generated by the projects, including $2.3 million a year in property taxes and $267,000 annually in property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fees, are directly tied to the new assessed value generated by the projects.

4. Public Safety costs are expected to make up the largest additional expenditure impact on the City’s General Fund. Public Safety costs, which include Police and Fire, are estimated to make up 59 percent of the additional General Fund costs at approximately $1.1 million per year at project buildout. Public Works costs represent the next largest portion of estimated costs at approximately $429,000 per year.

Assumptions and Methodology
This section describes the methodology and calculations underlying the FIA estimates detailed in Summary Table 2 and Summary Table 3 above. The analysis evaluates the expected General Fund impacts of the proposed project if annexed, relative to if the projects move forward as is in Alameda County. The existing property sites are vacant land located in Alameda County and are estimated to have no impact on the City of Pleasanton’s General Fund, and therefore is not considered in these tables. The proposed projects may generate revenues for the City of Pleasanton outside of the General Fund, through one-time fees, which are not estimated in this analysis. The calculations and key assumptions used to estimate the impact on Pleasanton’s General Fund are described below, and the tables are attached to this memorandum. x Table 1 provides an overview of the project programs and assumptions related to new employment and calculates service population resulting from the projects.1 These assumptions were based on information provided by the applicant.

Additional tables that follow detail supporting calculations for the projects, including both General Fund revenue calculations and General Fund cost calculations.

General Fund Revenue Estimates
x Table 2 summarizes the City of Pleasanton’s General Fund revenues by line item and the associated estimating factors used in this FIA to quantify new revenues from development.

Some budget items are not estimated because certain City revenues and expenditures are not directly impacted by the existing development or proposed projects, such as Hotel / Motel Tax and Recreation Revenues, among others.
1 This analysis is focused on the City of Pleasanton’s General Fund and relies on cost estimates for the Mountain View “service population.” The service population is calculated as the number of residents plus 41% of employees, an industry-accepted approach to evaluating per capita demand for municipal services. The 41% weight applied to employees reflects their relatively lower demand for City public services compared to residents and is calculated in Appendix Table A-1.

Draft Memorandum January 22, 2025
East Pleasanton Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 5 x Table 3 documents assumptions related to the projected assessed value of the site under the proposed projects, based on market assumptions provided to EPS by Steelwave LLC as well as additional market research conducted by EPS. The values of the affordable residential units are calculated using assumptions aligned with Pleasanton’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. x Table 4 shows property tax and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF) calculations.

Based on examples of similar annexation projects, this analysis assumes that Pleasanton will receive an allocation of the base 1 percent property tax equal to the citywide average, which is 25 percent. Property tax in lieu of VLF revenue is based on the pro rata growth in City of Pleasanton assessed value attributable to the projects, over the existing Citywide assessed valuation basis.
x Table 5 documents the assumptions and calculations supporting household taxable retail spending potential. New households support retail sales with average expenditure expressed as a weighted sum of household taxable retail spending. The spending estimates differentiate between the single-family homes and ADUs in the Arroyo Lago project, and the market rate and below market rate independent and assisted living units at the East Lakes Project. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey tracks and reports household spending by income and those ratios are used in this analysis. x Table 6 relies on household spending derived in Table 5 to calculate sales tax revenue, and documents additional assumptions and calculations for employee and other on-site taxable spending. Key assumptions include:
o 50 percent of new residents’ spending is captured in Pleasanton, and o While the projects will likely generate taxable business-to-business sales as well, this possible sales tax revenue could vary substantially depending on specific commercial tenants and is excluded from this analysis.
o Pleasanton’s General Fund receives 0.95 percent of - taxable sales (i.e., the local Bradley-Burns Sales and Use Tax).
x Table 7 documents Pleasanton’s other General Fund revenue, which includes revenue from business licenses. Revenue is derived on a per-employee basis. x Table 8 summarizes the City of Pleasanton General Fund expenditures by line item and documents the assumptions and calculations to estimate new General Fund costs resulting from providing services to the projects. The FIA relies on a categorization of the likely budgetary response to changes in demand for services for each department, expressed for fiscal modeling purposes in terms of “fixed expenses” and “variable expenses” within the department budget. EPS uses a per-service-population cost approach to estimate department costs. The variable portion of each department budget is used to determine the per-servicepopulation cost, and per-service-population factors are multiplied by the projected increase in service population generated by the projects. The proposed projects are not expected to generate new capital and technology, overhead, debt service, and other non-departmental expenditure requirements for the General Fund. This analysis provides two sets of assumptions for the variable portion of each department budget, depending on whether the projects are located in the County or are annexed into the City. x Table 9 documents the population, employment, and service population assumptions underlying the FIA. The metrics are sourced directly from the California Department of

Draft Memorandum January 22, 2025
East Pleasanton Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis Page 6 Finance and the US Census Bureau (LEHD Program). EPS calculated Pleasanton’s service population by adjusting total employment by a factor of 0.41 to reflect the relatively lower municipal service burden attributable to local workers relative to residents.

Appendix Tables
Supporting data and calculations are presented in the appendix tables.

Appendix Table A-1 – Employee to Resident Ratio Calculation

Table 1
Project Service PopulationSteelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085Item Resident
Population Employment
Service
Population2
East Lakes Project
Commercial/Retail 16,000 SF 4,000 SF / Employee 4 2
Parcel H
Southeast - Office 12,000 SF 333 SF / Employee 36 15
East - Industrial 156,600 SF 1,000 SF / Employee 157 65West - Industrial 131,055 SF 1,000 SF / Employee 131 54 Commercial Use 328 136Residential UsesArroyo Lago
For Sale 189 DU 3.28 Residents / HH 620 620
ADU 49 DU 1.00 Residents / HH 49 49
East Lakes Project
Units 445 DU 1.69 Residents / HH 750 750
Residential Care Employment 0.13 Employees / Resident 94 47 Residential Subtotal 683 DU 1,419 1,466Project Service Population 1,419 328 1,602Less Existing Site Service Population 0 0Net Service Population 1,419 328 1,602 (2) Per-person employee burden on City service is weighted at 41 percent of resident burden.Sources: Steelwave LLC; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Development
Program
Resident or Worker Density
Assumptions1
(1) Employment and resident assumptions are based on information provided by Steelwave LLC.

Table 2
FY2024-2025 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item FY2024-25
Adopted General Fund
Property Taxes $92,942,000
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $9,039,000 % of Citywide Assessed Value Other Property Taxes1 $83,903,000 25.46% of base property tax rate (1%) Other Local Taxes $35,780,000
Sales Tax $25,130,000 0.95% of estimated taxable sales
Hotel / Motel Tax $4,900,000 not estimated
Business License Tax $5,750,000 $100.54 per employee
Other Revenues $22,516,775
Recreation Revenue $5,027,934 not estimated
Other Revenues $17,488,841 not estimated
Total Revenues $151,238,775
(1) Other Property Taxes includes Excess ERAF, which is determined by a separate formula.

Sources: City of Pleasanton Mid-term Budget 2024-2025; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Estimating Factors Applied to Calculate
Project Revenue

Table 3
Project Assessed ValueSteelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085Land Use Total AV at
Buildout (2024$)
Commercial Uses
Commercial/Retail 16,000 Square Feet per Sq.Ft. $0
Parcel H Industrial 299,655 Square Feet $264 per Sq.Ft. $79,200,000 Commercial Subtotal $79,200,000
Residential UsesArroyo Lago
Market Rate Units 189 DUs $1,850,000 per Unit $349,650,000 Below Market Rate Units2 49 DUs $0
Arroyo Lago Subtotal 238 DUs $349,650,000
East Lakes ProjectIndependent Living
Market Rate Units 303 DUs $1,450,000 per Unit $439,350,000 Below Market Rate Units3 54 DUs $695,682 per Unit $37,566,821 Assisted Living
Market Rate Units4 75 DUs $720,000 per Unit $54,000,000Below Market Rate Units3,5 13 DUs $0 East Lakes Subtotal 445 DUs $476,916,821Total Project Assessed Valuation $905,766,821 (1) Preliminary Assessed Value Factors provided by Steelwave LLC.

Program Assumptions
Assessed Value
Factor1
Sources: HCD 2024 Income Limits for Alameda County; Steelwave LLC; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.(2) The below market rate units at Arroyo Lago are assumed to be attached ADUs, and the assessed value is assumed to be part of market rate unit value.

Eligible for Tax Exemption
(5) The rents for the affordable assisted living units are anticipated to be set at 50-60% AMI, therefore the units are eligible for exemption.(3) Below market rate values are based on income limits included in the City of Pleasanton Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.(4) Valuation of the market rate assisted living units is estimated using professional assumptions utilized for similar product types.

Table 4
Property Tax and Property Tax In Lieu of VLF EstimateSteelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085Item County Project City ProjectProjected Assessed Value $905,766,821 $905,766,821Property Tax Revenue (1% Base Property Tax) $9,057,668 $9,057,668Allocation to County General Fund 24% 15% County General Fund Revenue $2,183,806 $1,377,629
Allocation to Pleasanton General Fund 0% 25%
Pleasanton General Fund Revenue $0 $2,305,740Property Tax In Lieu of VLFExisting Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF1 $9,039,000 $9,039,000Citywide Assessed Value2 $30,652,744,000 $30,652,744,000Project Net Assessed Value Increase3 0.00% 2.95%Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue4 $0 $267,096 (1) FY 2024-2025 Citywide VLF sourced from 2024-25 Budget.(2) Citywide assessed valuse sourced from CA Bureau of Equalization.(3) Calculated by dividing the net new assessed value by citywide assessed value.(4) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by percentage increase in net assessed value.Sources: City of Pleasanton FY 2024-25 Mid-Term Budget; Steelwave LLC; CA Bureau of Equalization; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Table 5
Household Income and Retail Spending PotentialSteelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085Item Estimate
(2024$)
Estimated Annual Household Income
Arroyo Lago
Single Family Homes 35% of income spent on housing $320,729ADUS Alameda County Income Limits $87,200 East Lakes Project1
Market Rate Independent Living 54% of income spent on housing $161,912BMR Independent Living2 Alameda County Income Limits $149,500Market Rate Assisted Living 54% of income spent on housing $132,498BMR Assisted Living Alameda County Income Limits $59,950 Household Taxable Retail Spending3
Arroyo Lago
Single Family Homes 14% of income $45,986ADUS 27% of income $23,762 East Lakes Project
Market Rate Independent Living 12% of income $20,210BMR Independent Living 12% of income $18,661Market Rate Assisted Living 12% of income $16,539BMR Assisted Living 12% of income $7,483 Weighted Average Household Spending3 $26,830
(2) Reflect income limits for a 2-person household.Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Assumptions
(3) The percentage of household income spent on taxable goods is sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ConsumerExpenditure Survey.(4) Household incomes are weighted based on the number of units.(1) This analysis assumes seniors spend a larger percent of their income on housing, based on US Bureau of LaborStatistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (Table 1300).

Table 6
Annual Sales Tax Revenue EstimateSteelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085Item County Project City ProjectHousehold Taxable Spending Number of Households 683 683
Annual Household Retail Spending $26,830 per household $18,324,765 $18,324,765 Percent of Retail Sales Captured in Pleasanton1 50% 50%Net New Retail Sales Captured in Pleasanton $9,162,382 $9,162,382 Employee Taxable Spending
Workers 328 328Annual Worker Retail Spending Potential2 $24.89 per work day $4,779 $4,779Taxable Spending in Pleasanton 50% of retail expenditures $782,912 $782,912 Less Existing Taxable Sales $0 $0Net New Taxable Retail Sales3 $9,945,294 $9,945,294Total Sales Tax Revenue 0.95% of taxable sales $94,480 $94,480 (1) Assumes 50% of household taxable spending occurs in the City of Pleasanton.

Assumptions / Factor
(2) International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) worker survey. Annual worker spending assumes 4 days in office per week over 48 weeks annually.

Sources: State Board of Equalization; US Bureau of Labor Statistics; International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(3) This analysis only considers the taxable spending occuring in physical retail locations in the City of Pleasanton and does not considerrevenue from online shopping.

Table 7
Business License Revenue EstimateSteelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085Item County Project City Project Employees Working in the City 0 328
Business License Tax $101 per employee $32,942
Total $0 $32,942
Sources: City of Pleasanton FY 2024-25 Mid-Term Budget; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Allocation Factor

Table 8
FY2024-25 Expenditure Budget Summary and Service Cost Estimating FactorsSteelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085Item FY 2024-2025
General Fund
Budget
Percent
Variable1
Per Capita
Expense
Total City
General Fund
Expenditures
Percent
Variable1
Per Capita
Expense
Total City General
Fund
Expenditures
Resident Population 75,960 1,419 1,419
Service Population 99,681 1,602 1,602
City General Fund ExpendituresGeneral Government $29,672,809 0% $0 $0 25% $74 $119,203Community Development $11,272,853 0% $0 $0 25% $28 $45,286Fire $28,084,507 0% $0 $0 100% $282 $451,289Library and Recreation $16,847,841 50% $85 $135,364 50% $85 $135,364Police $38,415,396 50% $193 $308,648 100% $385 $617,296 Public Works $29,636,099 90% $268 $428,599 90% $268 $428,599 Total Expenditures $153,929,505 $545 $872,611 $1,122 $1,797,036 (1) Percentage of costs that are service population-dependent, as opposed to fixed costs or costs recovered through fees or charges.Sources: City of Pleasanton FY 2024-25 Mid-Term Budget; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

County Project City Project

Table 9
Pleasanton Population, Employment, and Service Population Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item Amount Sources
Housing Units 29,820 DOF Jan 1, 2024 Estimate
Occupied Households 28,716 DOF Jan 1, 2024 Estimate
Population 75,960 DOF Jan 1, 2024 Estimate
Persons/Household 2.62 DOF Jan 1, 2024 Estimate
.

Employment 57,192 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimate
Service Population1 99,681 DOF 2024, ACS
Sources: OntheMap LEHD; State of California Department of Finance. (1) Daytime population is calculated by adding total residential population and 41 percent of total employment.

Appendix Table A-1
Employee to Resident Ratio Calculation
Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
#%
Employment Status of
Pleasanton Residents1 Formula: a = b *
75,960 b 1 c = b * c
Not in Labor Force 39,558 52.1% 100% 52.1%
Employed in the City 5,256 6.9% 50% 3.5%
Employed Outside of the City 31,146 41.0% 67% 27.5%
Total Residents 75,960 100.0% 83.1%
Residence Status of Pleasanton
Employees1 Formula: a = b *
57,192 b 1 c = b * c
Live in the City 5,256 9.2% 50% 4.6%
Live Outside the City 51,936 90.8% 33% 29.9%
Total Jobs 57,192 100.0% 34.5%
Employee to Resident Equivalency Factor 3 (34.5% / 83.1%) = 41% (3) Equals weighted average of residents divided by weighted average of employees.

Sources: LEHD OnTheMap 2022, CA Department of Finance, and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (2) Represents EPS estimate of how various types of residents and employees relate to each other in terms of demand for City Services.
(1) Distribution based on data from U.S. Census (OnTheMap 2022). Total residents are based on 2024 estimates provided by DOF in Table 10. Total jobs are based on 2022 estimates from U.S. Census (OnTheMap 2022).

Item
Existing
Weight2
Weighted
Average

Architecture + Planning
The Leamington Building
1814 Franklin Street
Suite 400Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
ATTACHMENT 4

A/C
PAD
Optional Covered Outdoor
Room
Optional Covered Outdoor
Room Optional Covered Outdoor
Room
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD

PRODUCT TYPE
Min. Lot Size

TRADITIONAL
50 X 80
Min. Front Setback to StructureMin. Front Setback to GarageMin. Rear Setback to LivingMin. Rear Setback to Covered Outdoor Patio
Max. Lot CoverageMax. Coverage S.F.
4,000 S.F.
10'18'
8'
5'
60%
2,400 S.F.

A
B
C
D
E

THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS PER THE

REGULATIONS BELOW
A
B
D
A
B
D
A
B
D
C
CC
Min. Side Setback to Structure
E
5'

E E E E E
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
330 LAND COMPANY, LLC
#
ARROYO LAGO - 50X80 LOTS
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA 2020-1091

SCHEMATIC DESIGN
AUGUST 17, 2022 A0.1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 0 4 812

A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD
A/C
PAD Optional Covered Outdoor
Patio Optional Covered Outdoor Patio Optional Covered Outdoor Patio Opt. Expanded Porch
Where 10' Side Yard
Condition Occurs A
B

PRODUCT TYPE
Min. Lot Size

COTTAGE
50 X 70
Min. Front Setback to StructureMin. Front Setback to GarageMin. Rear Setback to LivingMax. Lot CoverageMax. Coverage S.F. 3,500 S.F.
10'18'
10'
5'
60%
2,100 S.F.

A
B
C
DE

THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS PER THE

REGULATIONS BELOW
D
A
B
D
A
B
D
Min. Rear Setback to Opt.

Covered Outdoor Patio
C
CC
Min. Side Setback to Structure 5'
E

E E E E E
E
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com #
ARROYO LAGO - 50X70 LOTS
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA 2020-1091

SCHEMATIC DESIGN
AUGUST 17, 2022
330 LAND COMPANY, LLC A0.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 0 4 812

PRODUCT TYPE
Min. Lot Size

FARMHOUSE

59.5 X 95
Min. Front Setback to StructureMin. Front Setback to GarageMin. Rear Setback to LivingMax. Lot CoverageMax. Coverage S.F. 5,652.5 S.F.
10'18'
10'
60%
3,391.5 S.F.

A
B
C
D

THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS PER THE

REGULATIONS BELOW
A
B
A
B
CC
Min. Side Setback to Structure 5'
D D
D
A/C
PAD
D
A/C
PAD
Architecture + Planning
888.456.5849
ktgy.com
330 LAND COMPANY, LLC ARROYO LAGO - 59.5X95 LOTS
# 2020-1091

SCHEMATIC DESIGN
DECEMBER 2, 2024 A0.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 0 4 812

09-16-2022

PERSPECTIVE RENDERING
50X80 LOTS A0.4

09-16-2022

PERSPECTIVE RENDERING
50X70 LOTS A0.5

12/2/2024

PERSPECTIVE RENDERING

59.5'X95' LOTS

SINGLE-STORY
A0.6
NOTES:Landscape show for illustrative purposes only. See landscape drawings for specific selections.Color and materials shown for illustrative purposes only, see color and material boards for specific selections.

ARROYO LAGO PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 2022
0 30’ 60’ 120’
CONCEPT PLAN L-1
2 3
4 5
3 1
Park Enlargement see next pageOrnamental Fence at Trail EdgeStreet Trees Monument SignHydroseed
1 4 4 42 53
TREES
Lagerstroemia ‘Muskogee’Crape Myrtle
Pistachia chinensisChinese Pistache
Quercus spp.Native Oak Species
Rhaphiolepis ‘Majestic Beauty’Indian Hawthorn
Tilia cordataLittleleaf Linden
Ulmus parvifoliaChinese Elm
PC

ARROYO LAGO PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 2022
0 8’ 16’ 32’
PARK ENLARGEMENT PLAN L-2
24 3 3
5 6
5 1
1 1
Accent PavingEntry PlazaBermed LawnCenter Picnic Plaza with Shade Structure 12 6
6 3
3 4
4 5 Garden with Decomposed
Granite PathNatural Play Tot Lot

ARROYO LAGO PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 2022

PLANT AND MATERIAL PALETTE
Backless Bench Backed Bench
Picnic Table and Chairs

MATERIALS PALETTE
PAVING
Accent Paving at Crossing
Decomposed Granite

FENCING
Concrete Ornamental Fencing
Play Border
L-3
TREESSHRUB AND GROUNDCOVERS SITE FURNISHINGSCalamagrostis x a. ‘Karl Forester’Feather Reed GrassLagerstroemia ‘Muskogee’Crape Myrtle Pistachia chinensisChinese Pistache
Quercus spp.Native Oak Species
Dietes grandiflora ‘Variegata’
Fornight Iris
Coprosma kirkii ‘Variegata’Striped CoprosmaErigeron karvinskianusMexican Daisy Rhaphiolepis ‘Majestic Beauty’Indian Hawthorn
Tilia cordataLittleleaf Linden
Festuca maireiAtlas Fescue
Lavandula augustifoliaLavender
Lomandra logifolia ‘Breeze’Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush
Muhlenbergia capillarisPink Cloud Muhly Grass
Salvia l. ‘Santa Barbara’Mexican Bush Sage
Rosmarinus spp.Rosemary
Ulmus parvifoliaChinese Elm

X

X

'C



cÈ

dÈ

dÈ

eÈ
dÈ

f­È


 bÈ

Fz
&z@A1Zz?K&.1.z+KFM&+Qz
?zKQPzszrzz

zbnlz


Fz
@    


  &N>1S
N&Q1zP;J5A1
3&G;Bwz
KUNRz@K&.1/z6KF1Pz

zzrz
zzbnlz

 



/
&
M
M





M M

:;Mjuv


® (C




 M

¯¢È
hk#z\]^_\]\`z



°
°>È
 gÈ 

:M 


³´

Z
¸
ˆÁž€*È h
 C8M12343562373M= ¥È
!;M !MÂÃÄÅÈ  "M

   <=M M  


 


#M
9  z


  :z




ÆÈ #

*
F&z )C
$M"M
UNRz@K&.1.z6KF1Pz

 %M%M
))
szr
zAKRPzzbnlz



+C
#

.
<C3C

HM .M
'

 iÈ 
&+zQ=W1z&.UCzPG&AAzAKQz



UNRz6KF1Pzzbolz

.M






%M&M
)C)C


>?M

M

)C 6

(M


z


(M

 ,M

M
M <z ,C 





ÀÈ

C

)C



:

'M


M
)
* 7

%C



)C 8!


(M


 9
-M

:z±¤È
È

M
M 42
$50C =


F
M +





, 9" C


)C




#C




)M

/M



 ,


,

)C
+M



 -M
AAA
48:
8A4DÈ jÈ ²¼«¿
©¹·È

 





 








 
I
M
G

kÈqÈ ½ MpÈ
'34LO0')?2z
HV?T=
3'H;@[z
',z
>?C
xy!z
@C
1AB


&+R;W1z&.UDzP;J5A1
3(Iz
H
 6KF1Pzs
zYz
z?KQPzzcqmz
z



zz




z
z

ig % z7z
 KBLM AM0M
&+R;W1z&.UDzP;J5A1
3&F;Ez
6KFz1PzszYz
z?KQPz
zcqmz
 
£



3KNzP&A1z
PQKNZzQKXJz6KF1Pz
P8&A@KXzz*A.5Pzz
zbolz



E9D
JMzUQ?;zJ1z ;?@UPQN&Q1P
ztz&+zM&N+1Az4KNz
&33KN.&*@1z6KUP;J5z
-a

aa$"p








 
8KF1P
zPF&@@zAKQPz
fz szYz zzbnlz

 
  

edz
§¦
Ç
lÈ
C
-C


+È





 

















I }I‹rU‘È‹I‘U U‘
M }I‹rU‘È‹I’UÈ ƒ‹’`WI’ȉ™IQ‹I’
P }I‹rU‘È‹I’U \I‹Èƒ™‘`UI’
™M’ƒ’Is
Q IP‘mœWÈIQ™z ƒ™’`UI’ÈŠ™IQ‹I’
V# J[[„ŒRJNtVÈ~št“n[J~ou
‘ƒ‘IsÈ


I }I‹rU‘È‹I’UÈ U‘ÈPƒ™‹’Èaƒ}W
ƒ‹‘`U’
ƒ™‘`U’™M’ƒ˜v
M }I‹rW‘È‹I’WÈ ƒ‹’`WI‘
}I‹rU‘È‹I‘Uȏ}IswÈvƒ‘È1(Ÿ;(

1‘ƒ‹¡È‘ƒÈ`ƒ}WÈ’ ¡‡UÈ,ȏ¬¨µ¶º¾
1‘ƒ‹¡È‘ƒÈ`ƒ}UÈ’ ¡‡UÈ0ÈQªª»

™M’ƒ’Iw
P% }I‹rW‘È‹I’WÈ \I‹Èƒ™‘aWI‘
\Qȏ}IssÈsƒ’È1(Ÿ;(
È
™M‘ƒ‘IsÈ
}I‹rW’È‹I’Wȑƒ’IsÈ
Q IP‘mœWÈIQ™z ƒ™’`UI’ȉ™IQ‹I’
\Qȏ}IxvÈxƒ‘ÈPƒ™‹’
\QÈ\‹ƒ’ÈvƒIQWQÈ9(ȟÈE(Èwƒ‘

]SÈ\
’Èw
ISXSÈ 5BȟÈB9Èw
”

IP’oœUÈIQ™zȑƒ’Iv
Y& J^^†ŽTKOsYÈ›s•o^Kos
›‚m–È–†—JyÈ
,,!?È
00",È
(9!,È
1B!EÈ
-C#2È
2$)È
;( 0È
9(È9(È
,((È
BBÈ
,1BÈ,0EÈ
199È
19È19È
6E(È
06È
3FÈ
77È
.(@È
/((È
<F@È


, IssÈSWssm_șo’ÈI‹WȇI‹rWSÈI’È0ÈPI‹È‡W‹
™o‘È
‡‹oœI‘UÈ_I‹I_U
0 _™U’ȇI‹ro_ÈI™}UQÈI’È,ȇU‹È6ÈQUvwo_
™o ‘È09ȃ\ȑƒ’Ivȃ\\ȏ’‹UU’ȇI‹ro_
È
UœU{ÈQo’‹oM™‘USȑ`‹ƒ™_`ƒ™’'È
_™U’ȇI‹ro_ÈoÈI™}WQȒƒÈMWÈ}ƒ’|È
‡I‹IssUsÈ
ƒÈ‘‹WU’ȝm ‘`ȏƒ}UȇW‹‡WQoP™sI‹È‡I‹ro_ȇƒQÈ







IssȋUmQU‘oIwȏ‘‹UU‘ÈÈ
\UI‘™‹UGÈ
IÈ9È\’ȇsI’o_ȏ’‹o‡ÈMƒ‘`ȏoSWIÈ9È\’ȝmQUÈ}mÈmQWIsrÈMƒ‘aȏoQW 0I¡ÈQ‹oœUÈsIUÈI’È,,È\‘ȝoQU








‡I‹IssUsȇI‹ro_ÈMƒ‘aȏoSWÈ
,(,0È\’ȝoQUȏmQUIsrȃÈƒUȏoQUÈ\ƒ‹ÈQMw
‹ƒÈƒ\Ȓ‹UUÈƒ‹È‹IoÈ_I‹QUÈ








‡I‹IssUsȇI‹ro_ÈMƒ‘aȏoQUÈ







‡I‹IssUsȇIro_ȃWȏoQUȃ|È



0I¡ÈS‹mœXÈwIXÈI”È,(È\’ÈXI
9\’ȇsI’o_ȏ’‹o‡ÈUIP`ȏoQUÈ



0LÈQ‹mœWÈvIUÈI‘È,(È\’ÈWI
















ATTACHMENT 5

-MARKET RATE - NORTHWEST STRIP
-MARKET RATE- SOUTHWEST STRIP-SENIOR LIVING- NORTHEAST QUAD-MARKET RATE - SOUTH-EAST QUAD-MARKET RATE - FAR SOUTHEAST TOTAL

UNIT COUNTNET ACRES

04.406.904.024.605.1

45.0 3784
112120153
34 540
88 540
88 628
A. MARKET RATE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WEST COURT HOMES (50 X 72 LOT) DUET COURT HOMES (41 X 60 LOT) SOUTH-EAST ALLEY SMALL LOT HOMES SOUTH-EAST QUAD TOWNS SHALLOW SOUTH-EAST QUAD TOWNS DEEP FAR SOUTH-EAST HOMES (45 X 75 LOT)

SUB-TOTAL
B. SENIOR LIVING MULTI-FAMILY (N-EAST QUAD) ASSISTED & MEMORY CARE UNITS TOTAL MARKET RATE (A) TOTAL SENIOR LIVING MF (B) TOTAL UNITS

EAST LAKES
SENIOR MULTI-FAMILY &ASSISTED LIVING / MEMORY CARE FACILITY ASSISTED LIVING / MEMORY CARE FACILITY88 DUS / ~4 AC PARK, 1.3 AC

BUSCH ROAD

EL CHARRO RD (PRIVATE)

CHATHAM PL
APN-946-4634-001APN-946-4634-002
MARKET RATE DUET COURT HOMES NORTH (41 x 69 LOT): 32 dusMARKET RATE DUET COURT HOMES SOUTH (49 x 69 LOT): 52 dusWESTERN PROPERTY LINEMARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY COURT HOMES (50 x 72 LOT): 37 dus LINEAR PARK, 0.75 AC LINEAR PARK 0
ALUC (AIRPORT LAND COMMISSION) ZONE 7

STREET TYPE NOTES

LAND USES
ALL RESIDENTIAL STREETS ( ) FEATURE:-A 5 FT PLANTING STRIP BOTH SIDES-A 5 FT WIDE MIN SIDEWALK BOTH SIDES-2-WAY DRIVE LANES AT 11 FT WIDESTREET TYPE A (65FT MIN R.O.W.)PARALLEL PARKING BOTH SIDES10-12 FT WIDE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE FOR DOUBLE ROW OF TREES OR RAIN GARDEN.STREET TYPE B (58 FT R.O.W.)PARALLEL PARKING BOTH SIDESSTREET TYPE C (50 FT R.O.W.)PARALLEL PARKING ONE SIDE ONLYALLEYS2-WAY DRIVE LANES AT 10 FT EA.NARROW PLANTING STRIP EACH SIDECOURTS2-WAY DRIVE LANES AT 10 FT EA.

PARKING

1. ALL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE PARKED AT 2 CARS PER UNIT IN PRIVATE GARAGES. 2. SENIOR LIVING MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ARE PARKED AT 1 CAR PER UNIT.2. GUEST PARKING AT 1 PER 4 DUS (25% OFF STREET PARKING), IS EVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT IN THE FORM OF PARALLEL “ON STREET” PARKING AND SOME PERPENDICULAR PARKING.

BUSCH ROAD

EXTENSION
REMAINDER PARCEL;USES TO BE DETERMINED 14.22 AC
MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILHOMES, SMALL LOTS(45 X 75): 34 dusMARKET RATE SINGLE FAMILPARK, 1.16 AC(AMENITIES INCLUDE A CLUB HOUPICKLE BALL COURTS AND LAP PO MARKET-RATE 3-STORY TOWNHOMES (DEEP)32 BLDGS / 153 dus
MARKET-RATE 3-STORY TOWNHOMES (SHALLOW)31 BLDGS / 120 dus MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY ALLEY LOADED COMPACT LOTS (30 x 60): 112 dus CITY ALT 2

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520 · 200 Old Bernal Avenue www.cityofpleasantonca.gov Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
Planning Building & Safety Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5620 (925) 931-5630 (925) 931-5677 Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5487 Via Email:
[email protected]
December 11, 2024
Steven M. Dunn, Senior Managing Director
Steelwave LLC/USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P.
101 California St. Suite 800
San Francisco CA 94111
Subject: East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project
Dear Steve,
Note: This letter supersedes and replaces the East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project letter dated December 9, 2024.

This letter provides comments from the City of Pleasanton Planning Division, Traffic Division, and Public Works Departments on the proposed Senior Residential project in East Pleasanton. These comments aim to clearly identify City expectations for the proposed project as you prepare a revised “City Alternative” preliminary plan for City consideration.

Planning Division Comments
Planning Division comments are based on adopted City policies and standards found in the Objective Design Standards (ODS), the General Plan (GP), the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), the Trails Master Plan (TMP), the Climate Action Plan (CAP). Relevant City policies and standards are noted below in parenthesis following individual comments.

Internal Street Network
• Continue to avoid cul-de-sacs in new City alternative (ODS A4.8) • Continue to limit block lengths (150 feet ideally) in the City alternative. (ODS A1.9.b) • Consider including alleys to provide primary vehicle entry to individual lots, with garages and driveways located in the side or rear yards (ODS A7.c)
• Consider providing an internal street connection from homes east of El Charro to the main development area (ODS A1.9.d). If a street connection is infeasible, provide a bicycle and pedestrian connection.

Internal Street Design
Provide internal streetscape design consistent with ODS, as follows:
• Sidewalk width: minimum 6 feet (A3.1)
• Planting Strip: minimum 6 feet (A3.1)
Attachment 6

East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project Comments

December 11, 2024
• Street Trees: Average spacing of 25 feet with no individual spacing exceeding 40 feet (A3.4) • Plant high branching trees to form a canopy and provide shade (A4.a) • Lighting: Consistent with ODS A3.7
• Provide decorative paving and pedestrian street crossings (A1.4) Busch Road Streetscape Design
• Provide street trees in landscape strips with average spacing of 25 feet with no individual spacing exceeding 40 feet (ODS A3.4)
• Provide lighting consistent with ODS A3.7
• Minimize visibility of sound wall with berms and/or landscaping. (GP CCE 9.6, Policy 10).

Commercial Use
• Locate market/drug store closer to Busch Road and allow unrestricted public access (GP LUE 1.2,

1.5, CE 15, AQCC Policy 2)
• Maximize bicycle and pedestrian access/facilities (BPMP 2-2B, Goal 4) • Fully integrate commercial use into overall site design (not a side appendage). Design as a neighborhood focal point with visual and functional linkages to surrounding residential uses. (GP CCE 15.3)
• Create “outdoor rooms” with amenities, entries connecting to sidewalks and trails, defined pedestrian circulation, minimize visual prominence of parking (GP CCE 15.3) Open Space and Amenities
• In general, provide a greater number and variety of shared outdoor resident amenities. Reduce private open space and increase common open space (ODS Vision Statement, paragraph 2; A8 introduction)
• Integrate amenities throughout the development – not concentrated in one single location.

Distribute pocket parks, paseos, and similar smaller usable open spaces throughout the development. (ODS Vision Statement, paragraph 2; A8 introduction) • Provide a diversity of type of open spaces for a variety of functions including social gatherings, individual relaxation, and recreational activities. (ODS Vision Statement, paragraph 2; A8 introduction)
• Include improvements and amenities within usable open space, such as benches and tables, bar-becues, pedestrian lighting, generous landscaping. (ODS Vision Statement, paragraph 2; A8 introduction)
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
• In general, enhance pathways, trails, and bicycle routes with connections to internal and external destinations (existing and planned). (GP CE 7.3, Policy 22, Policy 23, CAP E3) • Provide connections to Iron Horse Trail via Busch Road, Arroyo Mocho Trail via El Charro and potential future public trails to the north in the Chain of Lakes area. (TMP Figure 3-2, ODS A1.c, GP CE 8.4, BPMP Policy 1-2, CAP E3)

East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project Comments

December 11, 2024
• Provide a north-side bicycle and pedestrian connection from Busch Road to Lake “I” (TMP Figure 3-2, CAP E3)
• Provide a publicly accessible bicycle and pedestrian connection from Arroyo Lago to the envisioned El Charro Trail. (TMP Figure 3-2, CAP E3)
• Provide pedestrian connections to the street abutting Arroyo Lago, maximum spacing 400 feet. (ODS A1.6).
• For all housing types (including duet clusters if proposed in City Alternative), provide pedestrian circulation from primary entry to adjacent sidewalk separate from vehicle drive aisles. (ODS A1.2, A1.3)
• Provide bicycle facility on Busch Road (GP CE 8.4, TMP Figure 3-2, CAP E3) • Provide bike/ped connection from interior of property to Busch Road every 250 feet or less. (GP CE 7.3)
Housing Types and Building Design
• Consider increasing the variety of housing types with attached and courtyard housing that replaces private rear yards with shared outdoor open space and amenities (ODS Vision Statement, paragraph 2; A8 introduction)
• Limit length of street frontage occupied by single housing type (e.g., north-south street parallel to El Charro Road. (CCE Policy 17)
• Integrate (harmonize) design of assisted living building with neighborhood homes so that it feels part of the neighborhood.
• Eliminate or reduce visual prominence of street-facing garages. (GP CCE Program 17.1) • For all home types, recess garages accessed from the street a minimum of 6’ behind the closest building mass fronting on the street. (ODS B2.5)
• Limit garages facing street to maximum widths specified in B1.4. • For all home types, locate front doors in a porch scaled to a minimum of 20% percent of the frontage width of the building (ODS B2.4). Include usable front porches. (GP CCE 17.1) Landscaping
• Provide enhanced landscaping at project entries to create a sense of arrival and place.

Parking
• Consider adding alleys to eliminate street-facing garage doors (ODS A7.c) • If street-facing garage doors are maintained, provide individual garage doors for 70 percent of units where multiple stall garages fronting a street (ODS A7.12) • Screen surface parking areas serving the senior multifamily from the sidewalk with landscaping and low walls (A7.2)
• Provide shade trees in surface parking lots consistent with ODS A7.7 and A7.8. • Provide location for weather-protected secured bike parking in multifamily dwellings (ODS A7.9, A7.10, A7.11)

East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project Comments

December 11, 2024
Sustainability
• Consider incorporating sustainable development features that exceed minimum requirements, such as including all-electric buildings, high energy efficiency buildings, battery energy storage, microgrid energy distribution, on-site renewable energy generation, water-efficient landscaping, rainwater capture system, water efficiency measures, and green stormwater infrastructure (CAP Section 3, GP AQCC Goal 2)
Gated Community
The Senior Residential project is proposed as a gated community. General Plan Circulation Element Program 7.4 calls for the City to “discourage new gated communities” and Community Character Element Program 17.1 calls for “neighborhoods open and accessible to one another.” Given these policies, City staff encourages you to consider a project that is not gated. In general, the City aims to achieve new neighborhoods that are physically interconnected with adjacent neighborhoods, retail and public uses, and not internally focused enclaves surrounded by soundwalls. One option is to include an entry-restricted area for a portion of the project (such as the assisted living building) with the remaining areas open to the general public. City staff also requests you to consider the following project revisions:
• Increase the number of publicly accessible street connections to the north/south street abutting the proposed Arroyo Lago project.
• Consider allowing for unrestricted non-resident vehicle access to development. • Allow for non-resident access to internal pathways and amenities. • Provide usable open space open to the general public that is connected to and accessible from surrounding areas. Integrate this space with the proposed commercial use to create a publicly accessible neighborhood focal point.

Traffic Division Comments
Busch Road Improvements
• Incorporate frontage improvements consistent with the Kiewit project, including 6’ landscape strip at curb, 6’ sidewalk on the north side, buffered bikes lanes both directions, 12’ travel lanes and 14’ mixed use path (10’ paved with 2’ DG buffers each side).

El Charro Road
• The EIR for the project will need to address the El Charro extension, including the necessity/timing of its construction and how it will be funded • We expect that the development of the properties in East Pleasanton will trigger the need to construct El Charro Road and that Santa Rita Road and Valley Avenue will be unable to carry the increase in volume from the East Pleasanton projects.
• The City’s Traffic Development Fee includes a cost allocation of 50 percent East Pleasanton Developers and 50 percent Traffic Impact Fee.
• We expect the project will be required to be included in a community facilities district created for El Charro Road construction.

East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project Comments

December 11, 2024
Public Works Department Comments
The City of Pleasanton operates water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utilities according to Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapters 14, 15 (including 9.30), and 9.14 respectively. Before connections to these utility services are permitted or extensions of these networks is allowed, the City requires confirmation that the proposed uses will not adversely impact the performance of the networks and/or the networks’ ability to remain in regulatory compliance. Let me discuss each utility individually:
• Water: The City’s water network is described in the Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan from May 2024 as authored by Akel Engineering Group. Although the subject project is not currently within Pleasanton’s jurisdictional boundary, a land use was evaluated as part of those properties titled “East Pleasanton” in the master plan (see Appendix B). The land use was based on gross assumptions from the City of Pleasanton’s 2023-2031 Housing Element and therefore should not be assumed accurate based on the current development proposal. Nonetheless, the master plan provides some useful insight. To fully understand the potential network impact, a new scenario must be built within the master plan’s computer model based on the specific land use proposed with the development. For network redundancy and water quality, a future water main connection between Busch Road and Stoneridge Drive should also be assumed. This scenario could be used to allocate costs for the future water main among the various properties within East Pleasanton based on their development potential.

In addition, California Senate Bill 610 as codified in California Water Code Sections 10910 et seq. requires ‘projects’ as defined in the statute proposing more than 500 dwelling units to prepare a water supply assessment. Although a water supply assessment was prepared as part of the 2023- 2031 Housing Element, the subject property was not included in the assessment. Any water supply assessment prepared as part of a complimentary development application in Alameda County would not apply in Pleasanton since the proposed water purveyor for development in the county is independent of the City. As such, a water supply assessment in accordance with Section 10910 will be needed based on the City’s ability to provide water for the development. • Sanitary Sewer: The City’s sanitary sewer network is described in the Sewer Capacity Evaluation Report dated November 2024 as authored by Woodard & Curran. Similar to the water network analysis, a land use for the subject property was assumed from the Housing Element. The evaluation report identified a needed project titled “Capacity Project 4” that is caused by future development (see Section 6.3.4 “Capacity Project 4 – Upsize Sewer in Kamp Drive and Stoneridge Drive”). The estimated cost of the project is $2,019,000. To fully understand the potential network impacts, a new scenario must be built within the evaluation report’s computer model based on the specific land use proposed with the development. This scenario could be used to allocate costs for the future project costs among the various properties within East Pleasanton based on their development potential. In the absence of the future project, connections to the network would violate the City’s performance standards.

East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project Comments

December 11, 2024
• Storm Drainage: The City currently has no capacity evaluation report for storm drainage and instead relies on project-specific analyses prepared in conformance with the Alameda County Hydrology and Hydraulic Manual dated 2018 as available from the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Stormwater discharge is also regulated by the State of California under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit known as the Municipal Regional Permit (Order WQ 2018-0007-EXEC), as well as the Construction General Permit (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ). These California regulations prohibit certain discharges of stormwater containing pollutants to waters of the United States.

Historically, the subject property drained north to Lake I as owned and operated by Zone 7 Water Agency. It is assumed that this drainage pattern will change with stormwater collected into a pipe network for discharge to a bioretention area that will then drain to Cope Lake. Cope Lake is also owned and operated by Zone 7 Water Agency. In their letter to Alameda County dated November 8, 2024, in response to the DEIR for the adjoining Arroyo Lago development, Zone 7 staff state the following:
“The project has stormwater being directed to a bioretention basin within the lower elevation portion adjacent to Cope Lake. Stormwater from the development is at risk of containing PFAS, pesticides, nitrates, TPH, among other contaminants. Engineered bioretention basins are not currently designed to remove PFAS. In addition, bioretention basins require continued maintenance and are not a one-time solution. The plan does not address the ongoing maintenance needs for standard treatment and does not address PFAS.” The letter continues, “Both Lake I and Cope Lake are closed to the public and there are no current plans to make these lakes accessible for…access.”
The application needs to address stormwater pollution issues as well as access to areas currently owned and operated by Zone 7 Water Agency if stormwater will be collected, concentrated, and then conveyed. The current proposal anticipates stormwater discharge in a manner that does not follow historic drainage patterns and that could violate regulations promulgated by the State of California and/or ownership rights held by Zone 7 Water Agency.

We look forward to discussing this further with you and look forward to receiving your City Alternative Plan for the site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Ellen Clark
Director of Community Development

East Pleasanton Senior Residential Project Comments

December 11, 2024

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520 · 200 Old Bernal Avenue www.cityofpleasantonca.gov Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
Planning Building & Safety Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5620 (925) 931-5630 (925) 931-5677 Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5487 Via Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
November 6, 2024
Liz McElligott, Assistant Planning Director
Alameda County Planning Department
224 W. Winton Avenue, Rm 111
Hayward, CA 94544
Subject: Alameda County Housing Element Draft 3.5
Dear Ms. McElligott,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Draft 3.5 of the Alameda County Housing Element, dated October 31, 2024. The City of Pleasanton has reviewed the Housing Element draft and has comments concerning two sites included in the County’s sites inventory: the proposed Arroyo Lago project at 3030 Mohr Avenue (APN 946-4634-1) and the adjacent proposed Senior Residential project (APN 946-4634-2). Both of these sites are located in unincorporated Alameda County but within the City of Pleasanton’s Planning Area and Urban Growth Boundary.

First, the City requests confirmation that the County has added the Senior Residential site to the Housing Element sites inventory. Figure B-36H in Appendix B (Sites Inventory and Methodology) shows the Senior Residential site as a mixed-income site currently in the development process and proposed for rezoning. However, this site is not listed in B-4 (Entitled and Proposed Projects) nor in Table B-53 (Vacant and Nonvacant Parcels Proposed for Rezoning). The City notes that the Senior Residential Site was not included in prior drafts of the County’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. If the County does intend to add this site to the sites inventory, the City requests clarification as to the number of assumed units by income level.

The City also notes a number of potential discrepancies related to the Senior Residential site:
• Housing Element Tables III-1 and III-2 (Residential Development Potential) both show 1,439 units in the “Entitled/Proposed” projects line, whereas Table B-4 shows 897 units listed – a difference of 667 units.
• Appendix F, Page F-13 discusses a 569-unit Builder’s Remedy project in Unincorporated East County.
• The Draft Sites Inventory tab on the County’s Housing Element Update webpage includes a link to the sites inventory Excel spreadsheet. This spreadsheet includes APN 946-4634-2 with 445 units (356 Above Moderate and 89 Very Low/Low Income units).

Attachment 7
Exhibit A

Alameda County Housing Element Draft 3.5

November 6, 2024
The City requests clarification regarding these discrepancies and that corrections to the draft Housing Element be made as needed.

In addition, the City is compelled to raise questions regarding the suitability of the Arroyo Lago and Senior Residential sites in the County’s sites inventory. As you are aware, the Draft EIR for the Arroyo Lago project is currently in circulation for public review. The proposed Arroyo Lago project, as analyzed in the EIR, would rely on privately constructed, operated, and maintained offsite infrastructure and utilities, including a wastewater treatment plant, a water storage and booster pump facility, a recycled water storage facility and an agricultural irrigation recycled water spray fields. The City of Pleasanton has significant concerns regarding the desirability of and environmental impacts from the proposed offsite infrastructure, as reflected in the numerous comments previously submitted to the County during the CEQA review process. The City has also expressed concerns about the project’s reliance on City streets and public services, without the ability to mitigate such issues through typical methods such as construction of improvements or payment of local impact fees or property taxes.

The Arroyo Lago Draft EIR includes an alternative for the Arroyo Lago property to be annexed into Pleasanton with the project approved by the City. With annexation into Pleasanton, the project would connect to City water and sewer systems and offsite infrastructure and utilities would not be needed, and would be able to more effectively mitigate impacts to City services. The Draft EIR analyzes environmental impacts of the annexation alternative and finds that the alternative “would result in fewer impacts as compared to the proposed project and would reduce a significant and unavoidable impact to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation.” (Arroyo Lago Draft EIR, page 6-24).

The Senior Residential site landowner has submitted a SB 330 Preliminary and Builders Remedy application that is currently pending with the County. While detailed project plans have not yet been submitted, the City understands that the Senior Residential site, if developed in the County, would require the same offsite infrastructure and utilities as the Arroyo Lago project. The City’s concern with these facilities for the Senior Residential Project are the same as, if not greater than, the Arroyo Lago project, given the larger overall size of this project.

The City has been in communication with Arroyo Lago and Senior Residential applicant about annexing both sites into Pleasanton; and at the direction of the City Council, our staff is conducting an evaluation of the pros and cons of annexation, working cooperatively with the applicant to review and discuss potential project modification to reflect annexation and connections to City utilities. However, we also understand the applicant is continuing to pursue their County applications and believes the development of their projects in Alameda County is feasible.

Given the environmental and other benefits of annexation, and applicant interest in this option, the City respectfully requests further discussion with the County on how these sites are described in the County’s Housing Element. The City believes that the County Housing Element should reflect preferred development scenarios for these sites consistent with both City and County land use policies.

The City recognizes the challenges associated with the County’s 6th Cycle Housing Element update and particularly this cycle’s increased RHNA. We wish to be a partner with you in our shared planning for growth and development in East Pleasanton and look forward to further discussion with the County regarding the development of these two sites.

Alameda County Housing Element Draft 3.5

November 6, 2024
Sincerely,
Ellen Clark
Director of Community Development
cc.

Albert Lopez, Director of Planning, Alameda County CDA
Olivia Ortiz, Planner III, Alameda County CDA
Gerry Beaudin, Pleasanton City Manager
Dan Sodergren, Pleasanton City Attorney

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520 · 200 Old Bernal Avenue www.cityofpleasantonca.gov Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802
Planning Building & Safety Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5620 (925) 931-5630 (925) 931-5677 Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5487 Via Email:
[email protected]
November 26, 2024
Albert Lopez, Planning Director
Alameda County Community Development Agency
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
Subject: Alameda County 6th Cycle Housing Element – East Pleasanton Sites Dear Albert,
Thank you, Director Rivera, and other Alameda County staff, for meeting with City of Pleasanton staff on November 21, 2024 to discuss the Alameda County Housing Element Update, and the two properties currently proposed for residential development in Alameda County, just east of the Pleasanton City Limit.

The City recognizes the challenges associated with identifying adequate sites to comply with state housing element law. The City supports the County in its efforts to complete the update process and receive HCD certification. As we have recently discussed, in August 2024, the City Council directed staff to study the potential pros and cons of developing and annexing East Pleasanton properties into the City of Pleasanton, and since then staff has commenced more detailed analysis and engaged in discussion with the property owner and developer on this topic.

While Pleasanton’s City Council has not yet provided formal direction as to the pursuit of annexation of these sites, City staff believes that, if these properties are to develop, annexation would likely provide the most beneficial outcomes in several respects, and would be most consistent with policy goals shared by the City and the County. Particularly, annexation minimizes environmental impacts; would result in the most efficient and effective provision of public services, including infrastructure and critical public safety services; would avoid the creation of new urbanized “islands” in the unincorporated County; and would support our shared, longstanding commitment to achieving logical and orderly patterns of growth in eastern Alameda County. The City has expressed some of its significant concerns about the potential environmental effects of the proposed Arroyo Lago development (and the related, compounding effects of development of the Senior Residential project) in recent comments on the Draft EIR, noting the conclusion of the County’s own environmental document that annexation represents the “environmentally superior alternative” for this project. Concerns have also been raised by other responsible agencies, including Zone 7, which has noted in its comments that the proposed onsite wastewater treatment plan and spray fields may conflict with water agency plans and policies.

Attachment 7
Exhibit B

Alameda County Housing Element Draft 3.5

November 26, 2024
However, more immediately, the City wishes to formally state its request and concerns about how the Senior Residential project, in particular, is represented in the County’s Draft Housing Element. With respect to the County’s forthcoming Housing Element, the City is aware of provisions of the Government Code 65584.07(d) related to transfer or reallocation of RHNA between the City and County with annexation, and would look forward to engaging with the County in that process if and when annexation proceeds.

As stated in the City’s November 6, 2024 comment letter, the City remains concerned that the County has included the Senior Residential / Builders Remedy project site (APN 946-4634-2) and the entire increment of proposed units for that project in the Housing Element sites inventory. As Pleasanton staff has previously noted, a 445-unit residential project constructed in unincorporated Alameda County, without connections to municipal water and sewer systems, would result in significant environmental impacts, potentially conflict with Zone 7’s plans and policies, and place demands on public safety and services that could not be efficiently met by the County Sheriff's Office or Alameda County Fire Department. We further note that, while the Builders Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act remove the ability of a local agency to deny a project based on inconsistency with zoning or the General Plan, they do not relieve a project from undertaking CEQA review or remove an agency’s ability to consider legitimate public health and safety concerns when making a project approval.

If the Arroyo Lago (APN 946-4634-1) and Senior Residential projects are developed, City staff believes it would be most beneficial for these properties to connect to municipal water and sewer services and be served by Pleasanton public safety and other services, which requires annexation into Pleasanton. The City is concerned that the updated County Housing Element, as currently drafted, creates barriers to this outcome.

The City further believes that it is unrealistic, even if the County were to overcome the above obstacles, that the entire complement of units could be feasibly developed in the remainder of the Housing Element period. To date, the Arroyo Lago project has taken almost two-and-a-half years to process and has yet to be brought before the County Board of Supervisors for approval. Considering the early proposal status of the much larger Senior Residential project (to date, only a preliminary application has been filed), the requirement to undertake a comprehensive EIR, secure regulatory permits, complete necessary geotechnical remediation, and prepare design and development plans for the complex off-site utilities in addition to the more typical improvement building plans, the City believes that no more than half of the project’s units are likely to be built by the end of the Housing Element period.

To address these concerns, the City respectfully requests the following changes to the County’s draft Housing Element:
• In Tables B-4 and B-53 in Appendix B (Sites Inventory Methodology), limit the Senior Residential Project to 178 above moderate units and 45 very low/low units (223 units total), which is half the assumed unit count in the current inventory. • Add to Section B.2.2 (Entitled and Proposed Developments) in Appendix B a discussion of the Arroyo Lago and Senior Residential properties and their potential annexation into Pleasanton, as

Alameda County Housing Element Draft 3.5

November 26, 2024
well as more comprehensive discussion of the necessary steps and entitlements for approval of these project in Alameda County.

The City does not request changes to the Arroyo Lago site’s inventory numbers as we recognize this site is zoned by the County for residential development, is substantially more advanced in its entitlement, and was included in prior drafts of the updated Housing Element. City staff understands the County needs to identify this site to meet the County’s RHNA. Likewise, the City recognizes the County may need to include some portion of the Senior Residential units in the inventory to satisfy HCD requirements. For that reason, the City proposes the County include in the inventory one-half of the total number of units identified in the pending Builder’s Remedy application for the site. Given the substantial buffer included in the current inventory (figures based on 11-18-2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report), which includes almost 600 excess above-moderate units than required to meet RHNA, 139 excess moderateincome units, and 270 excess low/very-low income units, this modest request can be accommodated without modifying the inventory for other sites, or altering HCD’s ability to certify the Housing Element.

As we discussed on November 21, it is important to the City that the County incorporate the requested revisions into the Housing Element prior to adoption and certification. The City believes these revisions are reasonable, relatively modest, and will not jeopardize HCD certification. The City requests these revisions in the spirit of partnership and cooperation as we work together to plan for responsible development in the East Pleasanton area.

Sincerely,
Ellen Clark
Director of Community Development
cc.

Sandra Rivera, Director, Alameda County CDA
Liz McElligott, Assistant Planning Director, Alameda County CDA Olivia Ortiz, Planner III, Alameda County CDA
Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Pamela Ott, Assistant City Manager
Dan Sodergren, City Attorney

January 28, 2025
To: Mayor Balch and City Council Members:

Subject: Feb 4 City Council Meeting re. annexation and update on Residential Development proposals The residents of East Pleasanton, particularly in the Ironwood communities which include the Village at Ironwood, the Estates, Gardens, and Classics, have been very vocal in 2024 in response to the Arroyo Lago development Draft EIR. I received copies of most letters from Alameda County (Aubrey Rose) who provided them as publicly available documents. I had help internally in organizing the Letters into the three categories below: (click or right-click to open the hyperlinks.) ● Comment letters from the Village at Ironwood Residents – Submitted by the Village (Click Here)
● Comment letters from other Community Residents –
Submitted by Others (Click Here)
• Comments from Legal and Government organizations –
Submitted by Organizations (Government, Law Firms, etc.) There was also a link to a video of the important Public Meeting held on October 29, 2024, on the Alameda County website, however it was taken down and should be back up according to the County.

I think that all of the comments to the proposed development should be included in your evaluation of the current plans for Arroyo Lago, as well as for many ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS and HEALTH ISSUES which are of concern for the current proposal for use of the unincorporated property. Some of these concerns might be ameliorated if the property is annexed by the City. However, traffic, noise, hazards, emergency services, public services, soil contamination, water quality, privacy concerns, etc. might or might not be impacted by annexation.

I look forward to receiving any information on aspects of annexation and property plans that are being considered. Please note that some of the present Draft EIR development plans, such as the water treatment plan for the proposed Arroyo Lago development, are clearly objectional. Also, there are numerous comments that are included in the links above which enumerate other concerning issues for the elderly Ironwood residential communities, as well as for the others.

Thank you for your consideration and review of this critical information that is provided here and in the links to the issues discussed in the referenced comment letters.

Sincerely,
Tom Grudkowski, PhD
(The Village at Ironwood resident)
Pleasanton, CA 94566
ATTACHMENT 8

1/30/2025
1 East Pleasanton Residential Projects
City Council Update and Direction on Potential
Annexation
City Council, February 4, 2025
Request
Receive update on residential development proposals on two properties in East Pleasanton, outside the City Limits and:
1) Provide direction to proceed with applications for annexation and development in Pleasanton
2) Provide feedback on key issues with respect to the two projects 3) Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the Arroyo Lago Project;
4) Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the East Lakes Project
1 2

1/30/2025
2 Residential Applications in Alameda County
• Arroyo Lago
• 26.6 acres
• Designated MDR in County
General Plan
• 194 residential units plus ADUs
• East Lakes
• 61.6 acre site
• Designated Large Parcel
Agriculture
• 445 senior residential units
proposed under “builders remedy”
East
Lakes
Progress Since August, 2024
• August 20 City Council Direction: Further analyze issues, pros and cons of annexation • Infrastructure and Fiscal • Design/Impacts to Village at Ironwood • RHNA
• Preliminary Technical Studies • Fiscal Impact Analysis • Water Infrastructure
• Sewer Infrastructure
• Traffic Analysis
• Review and Feedback to Applicant on Project Design
• Outreach to Alameda County Staff • RHNA and County Housing Element (County Housing Element Adopted & Certified, December 2024) • Arroyo Lago Draft EIR 3 4

1/30/2025
3 Discussion and Analysis: Issues
Applicable to Both Projects/East
Pleasanton Development Generally
Fiscal Impact Analysis (EPS) • Arroyo Lago, East Lakes and “Parcel H” Industrial • City General Fund revenues vs. expenditures if same project developed in City vs. County • Estimated Net Positive Revenue with
Annexation: $903,000/ Annually
• Arroyo Lago: $289,000
• East Lakes: $500,000
• Parcel H: $114,000
• Negative Fiscal Impact of -$778,000 in County
• Difference mostly attributable to increased property tax revenue, while expenditures are relatively comparable • On a pro-rata basis, fiscal benefit generally
increases with more units
• “Point of Sale” designation for construction would augment sales tax 5 6

1/30/2025
4 Infrastructure Studies: Approach
• Applicant funded, City directed studies
• Considered cumulative impact of Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects + other anticipated development in East Pleasanton (Kiewit, Amazon) • No substantial deficiencies or constraint to City system connections, with appropriate improvements
• New sewer, water infrastructure (pipes and downstream improvements), and roads (extensions and improvements) will be needed to support the new development • Current studies do not analyze water supply or sewer treatment capacity: • Related recent studies (e.g. Housing Element Water Supply Assessment, Housing Element Program EIR) suggest that water supply and WWTP capacity will be adequate
• Further analysis part of CEQA and project evaluation, considered as part of annexation approval
Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Water (Akel Engineering) • New 12” water pipeline required from south end of El Charro @ Stoneridge Dr, to Busch Road • Extended pipeline meets best engineering practice for operational redundancy and water quality
• Cooperation and cost sharing among properties served by the new pipeline (Assumes City would not be required to contribute funding)
Sewer (Woodard & Curran) • Upsizing of approximately 5,300 SF of existing downstream sewer pipe • Upsize existing sewer siphon under Arroyo Mocho @ Santa Rita • Cooperation and cost sharing among properties served by the new pipeline (Assumes City would not be required to contribute funding)
7 8

1/30/2025
5 Traffic Analysis (Fehr & Peers)
Needed improvements to address project traffic and other long-term increases in traffic volumes: • Busch Road Improvements: Two lanes with roundabouts, or four+ lanes at intersections. ROW reserved for future 4-lane width
• Santa Rita Road at Valley Ave: Add 3rd SB left-turn lane, and 2nd WB left turn lane
• El Charro Road: Extend El Charro from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Blvd, up to 4 lanes • Iron Horse Trail: New East-West trail on South Side of Busch; North-South Trail along El Charro to connect IHT to Arroyo Mocho Trail Traffic Analysis: El Charro Extension
• 2005-2025 General Plan includes El Charro
extension as a key future improvement: • Accommodate traffic from East Pleasanton growth and relieve other congestion
• Policy concern that new El Charro should not
induce/attract more cut-through traffic
• Santa Rita/Valley Avenue intersection most impacted
by East Pleasanton traffic
• Further study/traffic modeling underway to analyze: • Timing/triggers for the need to construct El Charro
• Effect of El Charro construction on existing and
future cut-through traffic
• Effect of extending El Charro to Stanley
9 10

1/30/2025
6 Traffic and Roadway Improvements: El Charro
Preliminary Findings: • Addition of Kiewit project traffic causes Valley/Santa Rita Intersection to drop below
LOS D, even with improvements; other project
traffic worsen this condition
• El Charro extension is a necessary improvement
to accommodate the new traffic from East
Pleasanton development • El Charro will neither solve, nor induce, cutthrough traffic, but benefits circulation by relocating trips from (congested) Santa Rita to the new El Charro
• Connecting El Charro south from Busch to
Stanley significantly improves congestion relief
at Valley/Santa Rita; but southern segment
adds considerable design complexity and cost
Existing AM
Cut-Through Patterns
Existing PM
Cut-Through Patterns
Infrastructure Financing
• Infrastructure design, construction, and maintenance should be approached comprehensively for efficiency and long-term sustainability • On-Site Infrastructure: Constructed by developer, City can determine whether it accepts long-term maintenance as part of public system
• Offsite Infrastructure: Improvements necessary to serve the project constructed by developer. Cost-sharing opportunity where improvements benefit multiple properties, or the broader City
• City may contribute to infrastructure that provides broader public benefits, such as alleviating traffic congestion
• City can use impact fees, capital funds, or special funding districts to help finance its share of infrastructure projects – or can fund projects up-front, with a reimbursement mechanism from benefitting private properties. 11 12

1/30/2025
7 Infrastructure Financing
Option - Community Facilities District (CFD): • Widely used mechanism by public agencies to finance shared infrastructure, via municipal
bonds repaid through special taxes on
benefiting properties. • Formation of a CFD may be an appropriate strategy for East Pleasanton infrastructure
• Staff recommends exploring this concept
further in collaboration with East Pleasanton
property owners: • Engage specialist CFD consultant • Continue study of infrastructure needs and costs
• Develop fair-share cost estimates and
agreements
County RHNA and Property Tax Sharing
RHNA: • With annexation, City and County required to negotiate “transfer” of RHNA • Benefits the City’s ability to meet housing targets if negotiated RHNA transfer from County is less than actual number of units that can be reported by City in future years APRs • December 2024, County Adopted and HCD Certified Housing Element • County “Pipeline” Inventory Assumes: • Arroyo Lago: 189 Above Moderate Units • East Lakes: 445 Units, of which 89 affordable/BMR • City submitted comments on Draft Housing Element, requesting adjustment to pipeline assumption for East Lakes – County declined to make changes • City will re-open discussion with County in 2025
Property Tax Sharing: • All recent past annexations have included a similar tax-sharing formula • Based on average City-wide share (for existing incorporated parcels): 25% of 1% Assessed Value
13 14

1/30/2025
8 General Plan Policy Framework
• Lack of overarching vision or policy framework for East Pleasanton development: General Plan defers to an intended future Specific Plan process
• Beneficial to develop a planning policy framework for East Pleasanton to ensure development occurs in a
cohesive/coordinated manner • Opportunity to address/revisit key policy items from 2015 Draft Specific Plan (e.g. open space recreation opportunities, PGS facility, UGB)
Recommendation: • Initiate Focused General Plan Amendments to incorporate vision and policies for 1,100-Acre East Pleasanton Area • Current applications not required to “pause” – project outcomes integrated/reflected in General Plan framework Recommendations Applicable to Both Projects/East
Pleasanton Development Generally
Based on the analysis and results of technical study, staff recommends that City Council should take the following actions:

1. Direct staff to accept and process development applications for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects.

2. Direct staff and the applicants to work collaboratively towards creating a mechanism for property owners benefiting from new public infrastructure, to help finance the East Pleasanton infrastructure.

3. Direct staff to initiate a process to amend the General Plan, to incorporate a vision and expanded and updated policies for the East Pleasanton area 15 16

1/30/2025
9 Discussion and Analysis:

Arroyo Lago Project
Arroyo Lago: Project Status
• County application in process for 2+ years
• County Draft EIR Circulated, FEIR in process
• County Planning Commission, Board of
Supervisors hearings in ~May 2025
• Applicant-proposed alternative “City” project in
response to City comments and neighbor
concerns
17 18

1/30/2025
10 Revised “City” Application: Arroyo Lago
• Connects to City Utilities
• Lots adjacent to Village at Ironwood: • Increased lot size (59.5’ x 95’ vs. 50’ x 80’) • Increased rear setback from 10 to 14 feet • Single Story homes • Reduced width of “Street D” (parking one side, reduce landscape buffer) • Unit count reduced (189 vs. 194 units) Arroyo Lago: Project Design
• Further substantial changes to site plan, home sizes, or number of units not acceptable to applicant • City can provide flexibility through PUD to deviate from typical standards • Staff finds deviations from City design standards acceptable, with the exception of rear setbacks from Village at Ironwood
Recommendation:

Accept project “City” alternative substantially as proposed, with modification to increase rear setback for lots abutting Village at Ironwood to 15 feet. 19 20

1/30/2025
11 Arroyo Lago: Key Terms
• Applicant intends to enter into a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) with the City • Request for Tonight’s Meeting: Approve Application Processing Terms • Scope of City Applications
• CEQA Review
• Target Schedule • City and Applicant in discussion about key PADA terms – return at a future meeting for Council review/approval Recommendation:

Approve application processing terms, as outlined in Attachment 1, and direct staff to continue discussion of PADA key terms with applicant Discussion and Analysis:

East Lakes Project
21 22

1/30/2025
12 East Lakes: Project Status
• County “Builders Remedy” Preliminary Application Submitted in June, 2024; Updated/Resubmitted October 2024
• City feedback to applicant on County project design for gated, age-restricted community
• General Plan policies seeks to avoid new gated communities and encourage “open and accessible neighborhoods” • Existing design lacks connectivity, relationship to other new neighborhoods, and misses opportunities for shared open space, multi-modal connections and amenities
• Applicant provided two alternative project concepts in response to staff comments Revised “City” Alternatives: East Lakes
Mixed Market Rate and Senior Housing
697 Units
• 490 Non-Age Restricted (Courtyard,
Townhome and Small Lot SFR) • 107 Age-Restricted / Active Adult • 100 Multi-Family/Affordable • Distributed open space
628 Units
• 540 Non-Age Restricted (Duets, Quads and Small Lot SFR • 88 Assisted Living/Memory Care
• Distributed open space
• No residential development in northeast area
23 24

1/30/2025
13 East Lakes: “City” Project Alternatives
• Staff has not completed in-depth review of alternatives • No direction sought on a preferred option, but City Council input sought on : • Whether a 100% age-restricted project is preferred • Affordable housing approach
Recommendation: • East Lakes project should provide either a mix of market rate and agerestricted units (as proposed in both City Alternatives) or a project with all market-rate units. • Affordable Inclusionary units, consistent with City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, should be constructed on-site.

East Lakes: Key Terms
• Applicant intends to enter into a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) with the City • City and Applicant in discussion about key PADA terms – return at a future meeting with key terms • Request for Tonight’s Meeting: Approve Application Processing Terms • Scope of City Applications
• CEQA Review
• Target Schedule
Recommendation:

Approve application processing terms (Attachment 2), and direct staff to continue discussion with applicant on PADA terms 25 26

1/30/2025
14 Summary of Recommendations
Recommendations: Overall Annexation and
Development in Pleasanton

1. City should accept and process development applications for the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, due to the relative environmental and fiscal benefits of these projects developing in Pleasanton, and opportunity to achieve a coordinated approach to planning and provision of infrastructure.

2. Direct staff and the applicants to work collaboratively toward creating a mechanism for property owners benefiting from new public infrastructure to help finance the East Pleasanton infrastructure.

3. Direct staff to initiate a process to amend the General Plan, to incorporate a vision and expanded and updated policies for the East Pleasanton area (applications may proceed concurrently with planning)
27 28

1/30/2025
15 Recommendations: Arroyo Lago

4. Accept deviations from all non-compliant ODS standards except for the minimum 15-foot rear setback standard. Direct the applicant to modify the project to provide a minimum 15-foot rear setback for lots abutting the Ironwood community, with the expectation that such modifications do not require significant re-design of the project.

5. Approve Key Terms in Attachment 1, with respect to the anticipated Arroyo Lago application process, including required discretionary entitlements, CEQA review, and schedule.

Recommendations: East Lakes

6. Provide feedback to the applicant on whether age-restricted housing is desired in the proposed project.

7. Provide feedback that inclusionary units, consistent with City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, should be constructed on-site.

8. Approve the Key Terms as outlined in Attachment 2, with respect to the City’s intended process for the East Lakes application, including required discretionary entitlements, CEQA review, and schedule.
29 30

1/30/2025
16 East Pleasanton Residential Projects
City Council Update and Direction on Potential
Annexation
City Council, February 4, 2025
31