IX. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP AND
OTHER JURISDICTIONAL POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
The Specific Plan Area is subject to various policies and regulations as set forth within the Plan as well as with the City's General Plan and other City regulations . Planning for the future land use and development of the Plan Area also requires consideration of County policies established for adjacent unincorporated areas, and policies of other regulatory agencies. Plans and policies relevant to the Specific Plan Area are summarized below.
A. CITY OF PLEASANTON GENERAL PLAN
The Pleasanton General Plan is the primary City planning document with which all other City ordinances, regulations, policies, and programs must be consistent. The key General Plan policies and programs which relate to the Specific Plan are presented below. These are to be implemented equally along with other applicable General Plan provisions for individual development projects within the Plan Area.
Key General Plan Policies and Programs
Numerous General Plan policies and programs apply directly to the Specific Plan Project.
Those which will have a key influence on the Plan are presented below.
1. Land Use Element
Policy 2: Develop new housing in infill and peripheral areas which is adjacent to existing residential development.
Program 2.1: Zone vacant infill sites at densities to encourage development while respecting the character of surrounding uses.
Policy 8: Provide a diversity of community facilities to maintain and improve service levels for existing and future residents.
Program 8.2: Cooperate with the School District to enhance the quality of education, anticipate and construct school facilities as they become needed, and maximize joint use of school buildings and City parks and playgrounds.
Policy 9: Provide each major residential area with high quality neighborhood facilities including a park and other amenities, and encourage the location of an elementary school.
110
Program 9 .1: Adopt specific plans for developing large landholdings to identify facility needs and establish development guidelines.
Policy 10: Preserve open space areas for the protection of public health and safety, the provision of recreational opportunities, use for agriculture and grazing, the production of natural resources, the preservation of wildlands, and the physical separation of Pleasanton from neighboring communities.
Program 10 .1: Preserve open space by way of fee purchase, conservation and scenic easements, transfer of development rights, Williamson Act contracts, open space zoning categories, etc.
Program 11.4: Encourage lower intensity uses immediately inside the UGB, as necessary, to prevent potential land use conflicts with outlying non-urban uses.
Policy 12: Preserve scenic hillside and ridge views of the Pleasanton, Main, and Southeast Hills.
Program 13.7: Use design features in new development and redeveloped areas to encourage transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access, such as connections between activity centers and residential areas, and road design that accommodates transit vehicles.
Policy 17: Encourage development in locations which would complete or install planned public facility systems.
Program 17 .2: Invest in public facilities and amenities that support the infill of development.
2. Circulation Element
Program 1.1: Require new developments to pay for their fair share of planned roadway improvement costs.
Program 1.2: Support the use of assessment districts to equitably spread the cost of new roadways and improvements and to facilitate installation of improvements prior to their being needed.
Program 3.3 : Prohibit private access to major arterials.
Program 4.1: Provide setbacks, landscaping, soundwalls, and other methods to protect adjacent land uses from safety, noise, and air quality impacts associated with traffic on arterials.
111
Program 5.2: Provide more than one access road (including emergency vehicle routes) to new developments, and discourage cut-through traffic by appropriate use of traffic controls (e.g., cul-de-sacs, stop signs, landscaped barriers, etc.) Program 5. 3: Discourage the development of further gated communities which inhibit the sense of greater community and make City utility and emergency services more difficult to provide.
Program 5. 5: Design new streets and alterations of existing streets to preserve the character and safety of existing residential neighborhoods.
Program 6.3: Separate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, whenever feasible, especially on routes to schools.
Program 6.4: Provide bike lanes on collector streets, where feasible.
Program 6.5: Particular sensitivity should be given to new development on streets which are projected to carry more than 2,000 average daily trips, and with existing houses which front such streets.
Program 6. 7: Require the installation of bus turnouts and shelters along planned transit routes.
Policy 15: Create and maintain a safe, convenient, and effective bicycle system which encourages increased bicycle use.
Program 15.3: Integrate bicycle lanes or separate bikeways into street projects, wherever feasible.
Policy 16: Create and maintain a safe and convenient pedestrian system which encourages walking as an alternative to driving.
Program 16.1: Require developers to finance and install sidewalks and pedestrian pathways in future developments.
Program 16.2: Develop a pedestrian and equestrian trail system which connects all major portions of the Planning Area.
Program 16.3: Cooperate with East Bay Regional Parks District in completing a regional trail system and with Zone 7 in completing its Arroyo Management Plan.
112
3. Housing Element
Program 11.4: Use the Growth Management Program to ensure that residential development does not occur unless adequate infrastructure is present to ensure that the City's quality of life and level of services are maintained.
4. Public Safety Element
Policy 2: Investigate the potential for seismic hazards during the development review process, and implement soil engineering and construction standards which minimize potential danger from earthquakes.
Policy 5: Investigate the potential for geologic hazards as part of the development review process, and maintain this information for the public record.
Policy 6: Restrict new development of sites with structures intended for human occupancy in any landslide prone area and indicated as "Moderate" through "High" hazard for any geologic zone.
Program 8.2: Require new development to pay for fire safety improvement needs generated by the new development.
Policy 10: Strive to respond to all fire calls within five minutes.
Program 11. 1 : Require developers to finance and construct necessary water facilities for their projects when they develop.
Program 11.2: Require that all new developments be provided with sufficient fire flow facilities at the time of development at least at the level specified by the Fire Chief.
Policy 13: Require fire mitigation measures in new developments proposed, and require additional mitigation for those developments outside of the five-minute response time zones as determined by the Fire Chief.
Program 13.2: Require automatic fire sprinklers in all structures required in the Uniform Building Code in addition to all structures of 8,000 square feet and greater and all structures located in fire hazard areas.
Program 13. 3: Ensure that all buildings be accessible to fire vehicles and fire fighting equipment.
Program 13.5: Require a greater degree of fire resistivity in roof covering for buildings within hazardous areas.
113
5. Program 13.8: Require fire breaks, green areas/ "wetblankets," and/or greater building setbacks adjacent to unmaintained open space areas.
Policy 17: Ensure that hazardous materials and potential contamination are remediated prior to development.
Program 17 .1: Require a site specific soils report for new development where there is a history of prior industrial or agricultural land use activities.
Public Facilities Element
Policy 1: Phase construction of permanent City sewer, water, and storm drainage improvements as a condition of new development to maintain City service standards.
Program 1. 1: Coordinate developer financing with the City's Capital Improvement Program to ensure adequate capacity for future growth.
Policy 2: Secure sewage capacity through all available means for residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Program 2.1: Require new development to pay its fair share of the City's planned sewer system improvements including treatment, distribution, reuse, and export facilities.
Program 4 .1: Require new development to pay for its fair share of the City's water system master plan improvements.
Program 4.4: Maintain water pressure at sufficient levels to serve residential, commercial, industrial, and fire flow requirements as determined by the City Engineer.
Program 4.5: Require the installation of water conservation devices and drought-tolerant landscaping in appropriate locations.
Program 5 .1: Require new development to pay its fair share of the storm drainage system improvement costs.
Program 5.4: Require new development to improve local storm drainage systems to accept appropriate design year flows resulting from new development, as determined by the City Engineer.
Program 6.1: Require new development to pay its fair share of the flood control improvement costs included in Zone 7' s Master Plan.
114
6. Program 6.2: Ensure that detention basins are designed to allow for public amenities, recreation, natural habitat, and agriculture, where feasible.
Program 8.2: Underground local serving electrical transmission and distribution lines in residential and commercial areas where feasible.
Program 8.5: Require new development to pay its fair share to underground distribution facilities fronting the development and total costs within the development.
Program 10 .1: Work with the School District to locate school sites to preserve the quality of life of existing and new neighborhoods.
Program 10.2: Encourage limited elementary school enrollment size (up to 650 students) to maintain neighborhood character and promote more personalized education.
Program 17. 4: Encourage the use of site planning and design techniques to minimize impacts to water quality, including minimizing land disturbance, minimizing impervious surfaces, clustering development, preserving open space, and maintaining riparian areas with buffer zones to reduce runoff into waterways.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 1: Preserve and enhance natural wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors.
Program 1. 3: Preserve and enhance the resource value of wetlands through project development design measures. These measures should be based in part on a jurisdictional wetlands delineation in accordance with current Army Corps of Engineers criteria, for projects which are known to have or that may have wetlands present within their boundaries.
Policy 2: Preserve heritage trees throughout the Planning Area.
Policy 3: Preserve and enhance stream beds and channels in a natural state, except where needed for flood and erosion control.
Program 3.4: Design projects adjacent to the arroyos to protect habitat areas.
Program 4.4: Preserve large blocks of open space land by encouraging the clustering of development.
Program 4. 7: Develop zoning districts with open space uses appropriate for the adopted Open Space categories listed on the General Plan Map and which implement the policies and programs of the General Plan. 115
Program 4.8: Encourage public accessibility to appropriate open space land.
Policy 5: Preserve as permanent Open Space all areas of outstanding scenic qualities or areas which provide extraordinary views of natural and man-made objects.
Program 7 .1: Ensure that Sand and Gravel Harvesting areas are reclaimed and reused according to the Specific Plan for the Livermore-Amador Valley Quarry Area Reclamation.
Program 7.2: Design developments adjacent to sand and gravel harvesting areas to include a protective buffer zone, similar to that on the east side of Martin Avenue, particularly north of Busch Road and along the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Area.
Program 8.4: Protect agricultural activities through the City Right-to-Fann Ordinance, and by creating buffer areas between agricultural and urban land to reduce potential use conflict.
Policy 9: Protect the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater in the Planning Area.
Policy 10: Promote the conservation of water resources.
Policy 11: Provide sufficient parkland and recreation opporturutles to accommodate existing and future needs of residents, workers, and visitors.
Program 11. 7: Provide community parks with adequate parking facilities to the greatest extent possible.
Program 11. 9: Pursue opportunities for joint use of City and school recreational facilities including sports fields and gymnasiums. Utilize school parking lots as much as possible to avoid impacts on neighborhoods.
Policy 12: Promote the development of bicycle, equestrian, and hiking trails throughout the Planning Area.
Program 12.1: Develop a system of bicycle, equestrian, and hiking trails in accordance with Figure Ill-9 of the Circulation Element.
Program 12.2: Promote the connection of public places through the extension of bike and pedestrian trails.
116
Program 12.5: Encourage developers to dedicate public access easements in private open space areas to facilitate the system of trails in Pleasanton as shown on Figure III-9 of the Circulation Element.
7. Noise Element
Policy 1: Require new projects to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards.
Program 1.1: Use the "normally acceptable" noise levels for new land uses as established in the "Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines" contained in Table VIII-3, including the descriptions in the text.
Program 1.2: Use noise guidelines and contours to determine the need for noise studies and require new developments to conduct or pay for noise attenuation features as a condition of approving new projects.
Policy 3: Ensure that noise does not exceed interior noise levels of 45 Ldn for residential uses and those levels specified in noise studies for other uses.
Program 5 .1: Locate noise-sensitive uses away from noise sources unless mitigation measures are included in development plans.
Program 7 .1: Require earth berms, setbacks, sound walls, and other noise reduction techniques as conditions of development approval. Sound walls should be used only in cases where other techniques are not feasible.
8. Air Quality Element
9. Program 4. 3: Encourage pedestrian-oriented developments which provide options for non-motorized transit to outside primary destination points such as parks, schools, and shopping centers.
Community Character Element
Program 8.2: Land use planning in areas adjacent to City entries should be particularly sensitive to aesthetic considerations.
Policy 16: Require the design of new residential development in hillside areas to complement the natural appearance of the open space.
Goal 6: To enhance the special visual quality of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Area.
117
Policy 17: Preserve the natural appearance of hillsides, promote a wine country architectural and landscape design character, and enhance the natural riparian appearance along the Arroyo del Valle.
Program 17 .1: Adopt design standards for the Vineyard A venue Corridor Area.
10. Subre~onal Plannine Element
Program 5.1: Actively support and participate in the South Livermore Valley Agricultural Land Trust.
Program 8.2: Strongly encourage the use of detention basins by developers to reduce peak stormwater runoff during statistically significant rainfall events, with a goal of no net peak flow runoff increase.
Program 9.4: Support the development of a subregional network of trails for bicycles, pedestrians, and equestrians.
B. SPECIFIC PLAN COMPLIANCE
Following adoption of this Specific Plan, no Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan, subdivision, use permit, or other entitlement for use, and no public improvement shall be authorized for construction within the Plan Area which is not in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan.
C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING COMPLIANCE
Specific Plan implementation requires the adoption of City Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning for all land within the Plan Area. PUD zoning is necessary in order to ensure that the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan and Specific Plan are effectively implemented while accommodating innovation and special consideration for site-specific constraints and opportunities.
Following City Council approval of the Specific Plan, the Plan Area will be "rezoned" to the following PUD Districts:
• PUD-MDR (Medium Density Residential)
• PUD-LDR (Low Density Residential)
• PUD-SRR (Semi-Rural Residential)
• PUD-HR (Hillside Residential)
• PUD-OS (Open Space)
• PUD-V (Vineyard)
• PUD-CP (Community Park)
• PUD-PI (Public and Institutional - Elementary School) 118
D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
All residential development within the Specific Plan Area shall be subject to growth management approval in accordance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance.
E. ALAMEDA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
Three Alameda County General Plan policies and one goal relate directly to the Specific Plan.
These call for the protection of the County agricultural and quarry lands lying beyond the Specific Plan Area, and read as follows:
Policy 77: The County shall require buffers between those areas designated for agricultural use and new non-agricultural uses within agricultural areas or abutting lots. The size, configuration, and design of buffers shall be determined based on the characteristics of the project site and the intensity of the adjacent agricultural uses, and if applicable, the anticipated timing of future urbanization of adjacent agricultural land where such agricultural land is included in a phased growth plan.
The buffer shall be located on the lot for which a permit is sought and shall provide for the protection of the maximum amount of arable, pasture, and grazing land feasible.
Policy 78: The County shall require that, where conflicts between a new use and existing use are anticipated, the burden of mitigating the conflicts be the responsibility of the new use.
Policy 79: The County shall enforce the provisions of the Alameda County Right-to-Farm Ordinance on all lands within and adjacent to agricultural areas.
Goal (Quarries and Regionally Significant Aggregate Resource Areas): To recognize the regional value of the County's construction aggregate resources and to ensure compatibility between quarry operations and surrounding land uses.
F. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) may assert jurisdiction for drainage, bridge, and road improvements within the Specific Plan Area under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' jurisdiction over non-tidal waters extends to the "ordinary high water mark" of creeks, streams, and rivers, plus possible adjacent wetland areas. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 119
The Corps shall be consulted prior to any construction activity within the jurisdictional limits of wetlands or within the bed and bank of any "waters of the United States." Corps involvement in the Specific Plan Area will be determined based upon its discretion regarding the total acreage of "waters of the United States" and wetlands proposed for development improvements.
G. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
The State Department of Fish and Game regulates activities that affect streambeds and other wetland areas in California . The Project developers shall consult with the State Department of Fish and Game and obtain a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement, if applicable, before any construction work begins that will affect streambeds or other wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Department. This shall include creek channel improvements, road construction near creeks, bridges, etc.
H. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
The discharge of storm water from detention basins may require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The developers of projects containing detention basins shall consult with the Board and, if necessary, obtain a permit prior to construction or restoration of detention basins.
120
© Latitude Geographics Group Ltd.
9,646.8
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US Feet9,646.8
Notes
Notes
Legend
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
4,823.400
1: 57,881
ATTACHMENT 2
Fire Station
Park
Parcels
Zoning
A
C-C
C-F
C-N
C-R (m)
C-R (p)
C-S
COP
HPD
I-G-40
I-P
MU-D
MU-T
O
P
PUD
PUD-A
PUD-A-OS
PUD-A/MDR
PUD-A/OS
PUD-A/OS/LDR
PUD-A/RDR
PUD-C
PUD-C-C
PUD-C-N
PUD-C-O
PUD-C-S
Item #6
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 18, 2025
Finance
TITLE: ACCEPT THE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2024
SUMMARY
Attached is the City of Pleasanton monthly disbursement and investment report for December 2024.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept claim disbursements in the amount of $21,578,672 and the investment report for the month of December 2024.
BACKGROUND
The City's Investment Policy requires the Director of Finance to submit a monthly transaction report to the City Council within 60 days of the end of the reporting period in accordance with California Government Code Section 53607.
The Investment Policy also requires the Director of Finance to submit a quarterly report to the City Council on the status of the City's investment portfolio no later than 45 days after the end of each month. This report shall include the types of investments, the amount of money invested with various institutions, purchase and maturity dates, and yield on investments. The Director of Finance certifies that the investment portfolio complies with the investment policy and will meet cash flow needs for the next six months. This report also includes check and electronic payment information for December 2024.
DISCUSSION
Investments
The book value of the City of Pleasanton primary investment portfolio increased by $14.0 million from $226.8 million to $240.8 million during the quarter ending December 31, 2024.
This increase was mainly due to revenue from property tax. The fiscal year-to-date effective rate of return on the portfolio was 1.74 percent. The average days to maturity (ADM) decreased from 428 days on September 30, 2024, to 345 days on December 31, 2024.
The City's investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) book value increased to $52.9 million from $39.3 million last quarter ending September 30, 2024. The quarterly LAIF apportionment interest rate was 4.62 percent with an ADM of 252 days. The average monthly effective yield was 4.43 percent in December, 4.48 percent in November, and 4.52 percent in October.
During the quarter, the medium-term note with Toyota Motor Credit Corp matured on October 7, 2024, for approximately $1.6 million, including interest. The Certificate of Deposit with Fremont Bank matured and was reinvested. As of December 31, 2024, approximately 65.9
percent of the total portfolio consisted of federal agency securities, while the LAIF investment was 22.6 percent of the portfolio, Corporate Notes accounted for 9.2 percent of the portfolio, Treasury Securities 1.2 percent, Government Money Market 0.4 percent, Supranationals 0.4 percent, and Certificates of Deposit 0.2 percent.
• Fair Market Value of total portfolio - $233,198,089
• Fiscal year-to-date effective rate of return - 1.74 percent • Weighted average days to maturity – 345 days
• Fiscal year-to-date net interest earnings - $2,011,676
Asset Composition
Sector Allocation
As of December 31, 2024, the effective rate of return is 1.74 percent.
The effective fiscal year rate of return on the portfolio was 1.74 percent, a decrease of 0.13 percent from 1.87 percent from last quarter and an increase of 0.25 percent from 1.49 percent reported at the same time last year.
As reported previously, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has been raising interest rates since March 2022 but halted rate increases in July 2023. In 2022, the Fed raised rates seven times for a total of 425 basis points, and in 2023 the Fed raised another 100 basis points in total, with federal funds rate in a range of 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent, the highest levels in 25 years, resulting in even higher comparative market rates. Most of the securities in the City’s investment portfolio were purchased before the rate hikes, and the overall investment return is expected to be lower than the market rates in the near term. As securities mature and funds are reinvested, the City will be able to achieve higher investment returns. The Fed is expected to keep the rate steady at 4.25 percent - 4.5 percent, pausing its rate-cutting cycle after three consecutive reductions in 2024.
As of December 31, 2024, the entire portfolio, exclusive of money market accounts and LAIF was held in third-party safekeeping for the benefit of the City of Pleasanton at Bank of New York Mellon. Bank of New York Mellon is a contractual agent for the City.
As of December 31, 2024, all investments in the portfolio are authorized by State of California Government Section 53600 et. Seq. and the City's investment policy.
Securities rated below "AA-/AA3"
Note that the medium term note with 3M Company is rated at A by Moody's and rated at BBB+ by S&P. A rating of A indicates the investment grade is very high and a rating of BBB+ indicates the investment grade is good. When this investment was purchased in 2019, it met the A rating category required by the City's investment policy. This investment is scheduled to mature in February 2025. Staff has been monitoring this investment and will take action, such as selling the security before maturity, if warranted.
Purchases and Maturities
Four securities were purchased during the quarter by Chandler Investment, and one security matured in October and one certificate of deposit matured in December and was renewed.
Staff continued to be conservative on investment. Staff will continue to monitor cash inflows and outflows, taking into consideration anticipated construction costs for large capital projects and unexpected events.
Section 115 Trust Fund
In June 2018, the City Council approved the investment of $28.0 million of various reserves into a Section 115 Trust Fund to help smooth the pension liabilities which are expected to grow in the long run. The investment is made into two separate portfolios, the first for $6.7 million into a Conservative portfolio which is available to pay the annual unfunded liabilities if necessary, and the second for $21.3 million into a long-term Capital Growth portfolio.
In February 2020, the City Council authorized Finance staff to deposit to, and withdraw from, the Conservative portfolio an additional amount up to the total annual required CalPERS payment. In March and June 2020, two additional $5.0 million contributions were deposited into the Conservative portfolio for a total of $16.7 million deposited into the Conservative portfolio.
As presented in the chart below, the Conservative portfolio balance was $20.2 million at the end of December 31, 2024, remaining steady from the prior quarter. The Conservative portfolio investment return for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, was 0.08 percent, and the five-year annualized return was 3.64 percent.
The second portfolio (Capital Growth) addresses the longer-term pension liabilities with an initial investment of $21.3 million. The focus of this portfolio is to earn a higher rate of return over the next 10 years or so before the City needs to draw upon it.
The Capital Growth portfolio balance was $33.3 million at the end of December 31, 2024, a decrease of $0.4 million from the prior quarter. The Capital Growth portfolio quarterly
investment return was -1.21 percent, and the five-year annualized return was 7.40 percent.
The two portfolios total $53.5 million, which are held by a third party for the benefit of the City of Pleasanton at US Bank. US Bank is the contractual agent for PARS trust investments that are managed by PFM Asset Management (formerly Highmark Capital Management).
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is a routine administrative matter of City business.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is a routine administrative matter of City business.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable, as this item is a routine administrative matter of City business.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Cindy Wei Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. December 2024 Disbursements and Investment Report
DECEMBER 2024 DISBURSEMENTS
CHECK REGISTER*
DATE CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
12/2/2024 65911-65912 251,526$
12/5/2024 65913-66021 5,721,952
12/12/2024 66028-66189,66191-66192 3,605,939
12/19/2024 66211-66337 970,807
12/27/2024 66340-66483 1,146,572
11,696,796$
ACH PAYMENTS
DATE CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT
12/5/2024 66022-66027 303,645$
12/12/2024 66193-66210 4,062,563
12/19/2024 66338-66339 74,983
12/27/2024 66484-66499 279,442
Payroll & Tax related ACH Payments 1,324,054
6,044,687$
WIRE TRANSFERS AMOUNT
-$
PAYROLL TRANSFERS
DATE AMOUNT
12/11/2024 1,965,600 $
12/23/2024 1,842,841
12/26/2024 28,748
3,837,189$
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 21,578,672$
* Detailed registers available upon request.
$233,198,089
1.74%
345
*Based on Market value
Total Market Value
Effective Rate of Return
Portfolio Snapshot
Average Days to Maturity
Portfolio Characteristics
December 31, 2024
0.2%22.6%0.4%9.2%1.2%0.6%65.3%0.4%Sector Allocation
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
LAIF
Government Money Market
Medium Term Notes
Treasury Securities - Coupon
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
Supranationals
- 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000 140,000,0000-1 Yrs 1-2 Yrs 2-3 Yrs 3-4 Yrs 4-5 Yrs45%53%2%0% 0%Maturity Distribution22.6%0.2%0.4%2.5%73.0%0.4%0.9%Assigned Credit Ratings of InvestmentsLAIFFDICDRYFUSAAAAAABBB
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Portfolio Management
December 31, 2024
City of Pleasanton
Portfolio Summary
% of
Portfolio
Book
ValueInvestments
Market
Value
Par
Value
Days to
MaturityTerm
YTM
360 Equiv.
YTM
365 Equiv.
Certificates of Deposit - Bank 482,414.16 2330.20 4.18290482,414.16482,414.16 4.240 LAIF 52,891,833.25 121.97 4.419152,696,981.9652,891,833.25 4.480 Gov't Money Market 885,846.79 10.37 4.0541885,846.79885,846.79 4.110 Medium Term Notes 22,602,681.95 1,8089.39 1.52432021,563,165.0022,000,000.00 1.545 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 2,995,657.09 1,8251.24 1.2627192,836,800.003,000,000.00 1.280 Treasury Securities - Coupon 1,493,232.43 8700.62 3.8288581,494,847.501,500,000.00 3.881 Federal Agency Issues - Callable 158,420,440.80 1,82265.80 0.903454152,284,063.35158,630,000.00 0.916 Supranationals 980,200.00 1,7040.41 0.922421953,970.001,000,000.00 0.935 240,752,306.47 100.00%
Investments
233,198,088.76240,390,094.20 1,405 345 1.775 1.799
Current Year
December 31
320,662.83
Fiscal Year To Date
2,011,675.95
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
225,183,251.16 229,205,570.02
1.74%1.68%
Total Earnings Month Ending
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, this report includes all investments in the cash management program, is in accordance with the City's current investment policy dated June 18, 2024 and will meet the City's cash flow needs for the next six months. Market value amounts are from Bank of New York Mellon (safekeeping bank) month-end statements. Book value amounts include premiums or discounts and are adjusted at year end on the general ledger. __________________________________________________ ____________________
SUSAN HSIEH, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
Portfolio PLST
CC
Reporting period 12/01/2024-12/31/2024
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
2/11/2025
YTM
365
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
3.540Fremont Bank1093-4 232,414.16 232,414.16 03/21/20253.54012/21/2024 232,414.16 3.492SYS-1094 79
4.890United Business Bank1091-2 250,000.00 250,000.00 04/11/20254.89004/11/2024 250,000.00 4.823SYS 1091 100 482,414.16 4.182482,414.16482,414.16480,856.64Subtotal and Average 4.240 90 LAIF
4.480LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND5 52,891,833.25 52,891,833.25 4.48052,696,981.96 4.419SYS5 1 52,891,833.25 4.41952,696,981.9652,891,833.2537,440,220.35Subtotal and Average 4.480 1 Gov't Money Market
4.110Dryfus Govt Cash Mgmt 6727-1 403,990.82 403,990.82 4.11008/23/2024 403,990.82 4.054X9USDCRGO 1
4.110Dryfus Govt Cash Mgmt 6727-2 481,855.97 481,855.97 4.11012/05/2024 481,855.97 4.054X9USDCRGO 1 885,846.79 4.054885,846.79885,846.792,317,897.85Subtotal and Average 4.110 1 Medium Term Notes
1.965Apple Inc.6049 1,000,000.00 1,037,212.20 01/13/20252.75001/13/2020 999,440.00 1.938037833DF4 12
1.8233M Company6053 2,000,000.00 2,016,869.48 02/14/20252.00002/14/2020 1,993,240.00 1.79888579YBH3 44
1.690EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION6056 3,000,000.00 3,145,587.00 03/06/20252.70903/11/2020 2,990,460.00 1.66730231GAF9 64
1.821Truist Bank6058 2,000,000.00 1,969,486.00 03/10/20251.50003/13/2020 1,987,340.00 1.79689788JAA7 68
1.777EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION6064 2,000,000.00 2,113,800.00 03/19/20252.99204/20/2020 1,993,780.00 1.75330231GBH4 77
1.090Toyota Motor Credit Corp6067 3,000,000.00 2,959,140.00 01/09/20260.80003/09/2021 2,890,680.00 1.07589236THW8 373
0.732Apple Inc.6065 2,000,000.00 1,996,860.00 02/08/20260.70002/08/2021 1,921,680.00 0.722037833EB2 403
0.981Apple Inc.6066 3,000,000.00 3,331,380.00 02/23/20263.25002/23/2021 2,963,820.00 0.967037833BY5 418
1.100JPMorgan Chase Bank NA6068 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/22/20261.10006/22/2021 2,812,140.00 1.08546632FSCO 537
5.162MORGAN STANLEY6069 500,000.00 517,122.08 07/20/20295.44912/20/2024 505,540.00 5.09161747YFF7 1,661
5.077JPMorgan Chase & CO6070 500,000.00 515,225.19 07/24/20295.29912/20/2024 505,045.00 5.00746647PDU7 1,665 22,602,681.95 1.52421,563,165.0022,000,000.0021,969,952.98Subtotal and Average 1.545 320 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
1.280FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK3576 3,000,000.00 2,995,657.09 12/21/20261.25012/22/2021 2,836,800.00 1.2623130AQF65 719 2,995,657.09 1.2622,836,800.003,000,000.002,995,657.09Subtotal and Average 1.280 719 Treasury Securities - Coupon
3.433U S TREASURY2357 750,000.00 747,421.88 10/31/20264.12512/20/2024 748,245.00 3.38691282CLS8 668
4.331U S TREASURY2356 750,000.00 745,810.55 11/15/20274.12512/20/2024 746,602.50 4.27191282CLX7 1,048 1,493,232.43 3.8281,494,847.501,500,000.00578,025.46Subtotal and Average 3.881 858 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
YTM
365
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
0.707FREDDIE MAC4535 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.00 06/23/20250.70006/23/2020 2,948,070.00 0.6973134GVZ68 173
0.715FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK4537 3,000,000.00 2,997,750.00 06/30/20250.70007/06/2020 2,947,020.00 0.7063133ELQ49 180
0.707FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN4538 3,250,000.00 3,248,862.50 07/14/20250.70007/14/2020 3,187,892.50 0.6973136G4YH0 194
0.710FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN4541 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 07/22/20250.71007/22/2020 2,940,480.00 0.7003136G4A45 202
0.620FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4544 3,000,000.00 2,997,000.00 08/27/20250.60008/27/2020 2,929,560.00 0.6123130AJZ36 238
0.657FREDDIE MAC4545 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.00 09/09/20250.65009/09/2020 2,926,680.00 0.6483134GWA55 251
0.550FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK4548 3,340,000.00 3,336,660.00 09/29/20250.53010/05/2020 3,249,051.80 0.5433133EMBJ0 271
0.550FREDDIE MAC4547 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 09/30/20250.55009/30/2020 2,918,340.00 0.5423134GWW93 272
0.566FREDDIE MAC4549 3,000,000.00 2,997,600.00 09/30/20250.55010/07/2020 2,918,520.00 0.5593134GWWT9 272
0.600FREDDIE MAC4550 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 10/28/20250.60010/28/2020 2,910,900.00 0.5923134GW3F1 300
0.595FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4553 3,000,000.00 2,996,250.00 11/25/20250.57011/25/2020 2,901,630.00 0.5873130AKGD2 328
0.600FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN4552 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 11/25/20250.60011/25/2020 2,901,810.00 0.5923135GA3W9 328
0.620FREDDIE MAC4554 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 12/01/20250.62012/01/2020 2,902,770.00 0.6123134GXDM3 334
0.625FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4555 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 01/22/20260.62501/22/2021 2,887,500.00 0.6163130AKQ74 386
0.650FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4557 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 01/28/20260.65001/28/2021 2,886,480.00 0.6413130AKRN8 392
0.550FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN4556 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 01/28/20260.55001/28/2021 2,880,660.00 0.5423135G06R9 392
0.110FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4558 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/12/20260.60002/12/2021 2,880,600.00 0.1093130AKXQ4 407
0.625FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4560 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/17/20260.62502/17/2021 2,879,820.00 0.6163130AL3S1 412
0.650FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4561 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/24/20260.65002/24/2021 2,878,620.00 0.6413130AL5X8 419
0.616FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4562 3,125,000.00 3,122,500.00 02/24/20260.60002/24/2021 2,998,750.00 0.6083130AKXJ0 419
0.750FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4563 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/24/20260.75002/24/2021 2,881,950.00 0.7403130ALCV4 419
0.650FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4559 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/26/20260.65002/26/2021 2,878,020.00 0.6413130AKZ25 421
0.922FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4572 3,000,000.00 2,989,560.00 02/26/20260.85003/15/2021 2,884,680.00 0.9093130ALGR9 421
0.947FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4574 3,000,000.00 2,985,960.00 02/26/20260.85003/18/2021 2,884,680.00 0.9343130ALGR9 421
0.971FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4577 3,000,000.00 2,982,510.00 02/26/20260.85003/22/2021 2,884,680.00 0.9583130ALGR9 421
1.000FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4579 3,000,000.00 2,978,517.00 02/26/20260.85003/31/2021 2,884,680.00 0.9863130ALGR9 421
0.800FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4565 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/16/20260.80003/16/2021 2,877,450.00 0.7893130ALDN1 439
0.875FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4569 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/23/20260.87503/23/2021 2,878,110.00 0.8633130ALGC2 446
0.959FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4576 3,000,000.00 2,987,700.00 03/23/20260.87503/23/2021 2,878,110.00 0.9463130ALGC2 446
1.050FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK4575 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/25/20261.05003/25/2021 2,875,500.00 1.0363133EMUK6 448
1.000FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4571 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/30/20261.00003/30/2021 2,880,570.00 0.9863130ALMM3 453
0.993FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4578 3,000,000.00 2,998,050.00 03/30/20260.98003/30/2021 2,879,850.00 0.9803130ALNT7 453
1.026FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4581 3,000,000.00 2,996,250.00 03/30/20261.00004/05/2021 2,880,570.00 1.0123130ALMM3 453
1.051FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4580 3,000,000.00 2,995,500.00 04/15/20261.02004/15/2021 2,878,740.00 1.0363130ALUC6 469
1.020FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4585 2,795,000.00 2,795,000.00 05/19/20261.02005/20/2021 2,672,942.35 1.0063130AMCL4 503
1.010FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4587 3,000,000.00 2,998,500.00 05/26/20261.00005/26/2021 2,865,210.00 0.9963130AMH62 510
0.987FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4588 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.00 05/26/20260.98005/26/2021 2,864,400.00 0.9743130AMGW6 510
0.901FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4590 2,750,000.00 2,746,562.50 05/26/20260.87506/02/2021 2,621,822.50 0.8883130AMHB1 510 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Stated
RateMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
1.000FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4591 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 05/26/20261.00006/02/2021 1,432,605.00 0.9863130AMH62 510
0.921FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK4595 3,000,000.00 2,997,000.00 06/15/20260.90006/24/2021 2,854,350.00 0.9083133EMH21 530
1.030FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4592 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/30/20261.03006/30/2021 2,857,440.00 1.0163130AMSL7 545
1.070FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4594 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/30/20261.07006/30/2021 2,859,150.00 1.0553130AMYA4 545
1.000FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4596 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 06/30/20261.00006/30/2021 1,428,075.00 0.9863130AN2Q2 545
1.025FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4597 3,000,000.00 2,999,250.00 07/14/20261.02007/14/2021 2,853,150.00 1.0113130AMWK4 559
1.033FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4598 3,000,000.00 2,983,500.00 09/30/20260.92009/30/2021 2,830,260.00 1.0193130AP2P9 637
1.085FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4599 3,000,000.00 2,997,750.00 10/14/20261.07010/14/2021 2,833,740.00 1.0713130APC94 651
1.421FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4600 530,000.00 526,947.20 11/24/20261.30012/09/2021 500,669.80 1.4013130APU78 692
1.421FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4601 1,840,000.00 1,829,401.60 11/24/20261.30012/09/2021 1,738,174.40 1.4013130APUR4 692
1.459FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4602 3,000,000.00 2,988,000.00 12/01/20261.37512/09/2021 2,836,320.00 1.4393130APVC6 699
1.425FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4605 3,000,000.00 2,999,250.00 12/29/20261.42001/03/2022 2,832,450.00 1.4063130AQG80 727
1.541FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4606 3,000,000.00 2,982,750.00 12/29/20261.42001/10/2022 2,832,450.00 1.5193130AQG80 727
1.370FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4603 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 12/30/20261.37012/30/2021 2,829,510.00 1.3513130AQEC3 728
1.385FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4604 3,000,000.00 2,998,500.00 12/30/20261.37512/30/2021 2,829,810.00 1.3663130AQEF6 728
1.926FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4607 3,000,000.00 2,975,010.00 01/28/20271.75002/08/2022 2,847,060.00 1.9003130AQLD3 757
2.112FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK4608 3,000,000.00 2,995,500.00 02/25/20272.08003/08/2022 2,861,730.00 2.0833130AQW66 785 158,420,440.80 0.903152,284,063.35158,630,000.00158,420,440.80Subtotal and Average 0.916 454 Supranationals
0.935International Finance Corp7000 1,000,000.00 980,200.00 02/26/20260.50006/28/2021 953,970.00 0.92245950VPS9 421 980,200.00 0.922953,970.001,000,000.00980,200.00Subtotal and Average 0.935 421
1.775225,183,251.16 240,390,094.20 1.799 345233,198,088.76 240,752,306.47Total and Average Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
YTM
365
Par Value Book Value
Stated
RateMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details - Cash
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Days to
Maturity
YTM
360CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
0.00 1.775225,183,251.16 240,390,094.20 1.799 345
0Average Balance
233,198,088.76 240,752,306.47Total Cash and Investments Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.11
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Accrued
InterestMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details with Earnings - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
Days To
Maturity
Unrealized
Gain/Loss
Current
Rate YTM
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
FREMON1093-4 232,414.16 232,414.16 03/21/202512/21/2024 232,414.16SYS-1094 247.95 0.003.5403.540 79 VCB1091-2 250,000.00 250,000.00 04/11/202504/11/2024 250,000.00SYS 1091 8,875.68 0.004.8904.890 100 482,414.16482,414.16482,414.16480,856.64Subtotal and Average 9,123.63 0.0090 4.2404.240 LAIF
LAIF5 52,891,833.25 52,891,833.2552,696,981.96SYS5 296,141.91 -194,851.294.4804.480 1 52,891,833.2552,696,981.9652,891,833.2537,440,220.35Subtotal and Average 296,141.91 -194,851.291 4.4804.480 Gov't Money Market
DRYFUS7-1 403,990.82 403,990.8208/23/2024 403,990.82X9USDCRGO 2,455.42 0.004.1104.110 1 DRYFUS7-2 481,855.97 481,855.9712/05/2024 481,855.97X9USDCRGO 6,835.35 0.004.1104.110 1 885,846.79885,846.79885,846.792,317,897.85Subtotal and Average 9,290.77 0.001 4.1104.110 Medium Term Notes
APPL6049 1,000,000.00 1,037,212.20 01/13/202501/13/2020 999,440.00037833DF4 12,833.33 -37,772.201.9642.750 12 3M6053 2,000,000.00 2,016,869.48 02/14/202502/14/2020 1,993,240.0088579YBH3 15,222.22 -23,629.481.8222.000 44 XOM6056 3,000,000.00 3,145,587.00 03/06/202503/11/2020 2,990,460.0030231GAF9 25,961.25 -155,127.001.6892.709 64 TRU6058 2,000,000.00 1,969,486.00 03/10/202503/13/2020 1,987,340.0089788JAA7 9,250.00 17,854.001.8211.500 68 XOM6064 2,000,000.00 2,113,800.00 03/19/202504/20/2020 1,993,780.0030231GBH4 16,954.67 -120,020.001.7772.992 77 TOYOTA6067 3,000,000.00 2,959,140.00 01/09/202603/09/2021 2,890,680.0089236THW8 11,466.66 -68,460.001.0900.800 373 APPL6065 2,000,000.00 1,996,860.00 02/08/202602/08/2021 1,921,680.00037833EB2 5,561.11 -75,180.000.7320.700 403 APPL6066 3,000,000.00 3,331,380.00 02/23/202602/23/2021 2,963,820.00037833BY5 34,666.67 -367,560.000.9803.250 418 JP6068 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/22/202606/22/2021 2,812,140.0046632FSCO 825.00 -187,860.001.1001.100 537 MS6069 500,000.00 517,122.08 07/20/202912/20/2024 505,540.0061747YFF7 12,184.57 -11,582.085.1615.449 1661 JPMCC6070 500,000.00 515,225.19 07/24/202912/20/2024 505,045.0046647PDU7 11,554.76 -10,180.195.0765.299 1665 22,602,681.9521,563,165.0022,000,000.0021,969,952.98Subtotal and Average 156,480.24 -1,039,516.95320 1.5452.129 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
FHLB3576 3,000,000.00 2,995,657.09 12/21/202612/22/2021 2,836,800.003130AQF65 1,041.66 -158,857.091.2801.250 719 2,995,657.092,836,800.003,000,000.002,995,657.09Subtotal and Average 1,041.66 -158,857.09719 1.2801.250 Treasury Securities - Coupon
UST2357 750,000.00 747,421.88 10/31/202612/20/2024 748,245.0091282CLS8 5,269.57 823.123.4334.125 668 UST2356 750,000.00 745,810.55 11/15/202712/20/2024 746,602.5091282CLX7 4,016.75 791.954.3304.125 1048 1,493,232.431,494,847.501,500,000.00578,025.46Subtotal and Average 9,286.32 1,615.07858 3.8814.125 Federal Agency Issues - Callable
FHLMC4535 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.00 06/23/202506/23/2020 2,948,070.003134GVZ68 3,616.67 -50,880.000.7070.700 173 FFCB4537 3,000,000.00 2,997,750.00 06/30/202507/06/2020 2,947,020.003133ELQ49 3,208.33 -50,730.000.7150.700 180 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM8) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Accrued
InterestMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details with Earnings - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
Days To
Maturity
Unrealized
Gain/Loss
Current
Rate YTM
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
FNMA4538 3,250,000.00 3,248,862.50 07/14/202507/14/2020 3,187,892.503136G4YH0 10,553.47 -60,970.000.7070.700 194 FNMA4541 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 07/22/202507/22/2020 2,940,480.003136G4A45 9,407.50 -59,520.000.7100.710 202 FHLB4544 3,000,000.00 2,997,000.00 08/27/202508/27/2020 2,929,560.003130AJZ36 6,200.00 -67,440.000.6200.600 238 FHLMC4545 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.00 09/09/202509/09/2020 2,926,680.003134GWA55 6,066.67 -72,270.000.6570.650 251 FFCB4548 3,340,000.00 3,336,660.00 09/29/202510/05/2020 3,249,051.803133EMBJ0 4,523.84 -87,608.200.5500.530 271 FHLMC4547 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 09/30/202509/30/2020 2,918,340.003134GWW93 4,170.83 -81,660.000.5500.550 272 FHLMC4549 3,000,000.00 2,997,600.00 09/30/202510/07/2020 2,918,520.003134GWWT9 4,170.83 -79,080.000.5660.550 272 FHLMC4550 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 10/28/202510/28/2020 2,910,900.003134GW3F1 3,150.00 -89,100.000.6000.600 300 FHLB4553 3,000,000.00 2,996,250.00 11/25/202511/25/2020 2,901,630.003130AKGD2 1,710.00 -94,620.000.5950.570 328 FNMA4552 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 11/25/202511/25/2020 2,901,810.003135GA3W9 1,800.00 -98,190.000.6000.600 328 FHLMC4554 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 12/01/202512/01/2020 2,902,770.003134GXDM3 1,550.00 -97,230.000.6200.620 334 FHLB4555 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 01/22/202601/22/2021 2,887,500.003130AKQ74 8,281.25 -112,500.000.6250.625 386 FHLB4557 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 01/28/202601/28/2021 2,886,480.003130AKRN8 8,287.50 -113,520.000.6500.650 392 FNMA4556 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 01/28/202601/28/2021 2,880,660.003135G06R9 7,012.50 -119,340.000.5500.550 392 FHLB4558 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/12/202602/12/2021 2,880,600.003130AKXQ4 6,950.00 -119,400.000.1100.600 407 FHLB4560 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/17/202602/17/2021 2,879,820.003130AL3S1 6,979.17 -120,180.000.6250.625 412 FHLB4561 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/24/202602/24/2021 2,878,620.003130AL5X8 6,879.17 -121,380.000.6500.650 419 FHLB4562 3,125,000.00 3,122,500.00 02/24/202602/24/2021 2,998,750.003130AKXJ0 6,614.58 -123,750.000.6160.600 419 FHLB4563 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/24/202602/24/2021 2,881,950.003130ALCV4 7,937.50 -118,050.000.7500.750 419 FHLB4559 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 02/26/202602/26/2021 2,878,020.003130AKZ25 6,770.83 -121,980.000.6500.650 421 FHLB4572 3,000,000.00 2,989,560.00 02/26/202603/15/2021 2,884,680.003130ALGR9 8,854.17 -104,880.000.9220.850 421 FHLB4574 3,000,000.00 2,985,960.00 02/26/202603/18/2021 2,884,680.003130ALGR9 8,854.17 -101,280.000.9470.850 421 FHLB4577 3,000,000.00 2,982,510.00 02/26/202603/22/2021 2,884,680.003130ALGR9 8,854.17 -97,830.000.9710.850 421 FHLB4579 3,000,000.00 2,978,517.00 02/26/202603/31/2021 2,884,680.003130ALGR9 8,854.17 -93,837.001.0000.850 421 FHLB4565 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/16/202603/16/2021 2,877,450.003130ALDN1 7,000.00 -122,550.000.8000.800 439 FHLB4569 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/23/202603/23/2021 2,878,110.003130ALGC2 7,145.83 -121,890.000.8750.875 446 FHLB4576 3,000,000.00 2,987,700.00 03/23/202603/23/2021 2,878,110.003130ALGC2 7,145.83 -109,590.000.9590.875 446 FFCB4575 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/25/202603/25/2021 2,875,500.003133EMUK6 8,400.00 -124,500.001.0501.050 448 FHLB4571 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 03/30/202603/30/2021 2,880,570.003130ALMM3 7,583.33 -119,430.001.0001.000 453 FHLB4578 3,000,000.00 2,998,050.00 03/30/202603/30/2021 2,879,850.003130ALNT7 7,431.67 -118,200.000.9930.980 453 FHLB4581 3,000,000.00 2,996,250.00 03/30/202604/05/2021 2,880,570.003130ALMM3 7,583.33 -115,680.001.0251.000 453 FHLB4580 3,000,000.00 2,995,500.00 04/15/202604/15/2021 2,878,740.003130ALUC6 6,460.00 -116,760.001.0501.020 469 FHLB4585 2,795,000.00 2,795,000.00 05/19/202605/20/2021 2,672,942.353130AMCL4 3,326.05 -122,057.651.0191.020 503 FHLB4587 3,000,000.00 2,998,500.00 05/26/202605/26/2021 2,865,210.003130AMH62 2,916.67 -133,290.001.0101.000 510 FHLB4588 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.00 05/26/202605/26/2021 2,864,400.003130AMGW6 2,858.33 -134,550.000.9870.980 510 FHLB4590 2,750,000.00 2,746,562.50 05/26/202606/02/2021 2,621,822.503130AMHB1 2,339.41 -124,740.000.9000.875 510 FHLB4591 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 05/26/202606/02/2021 1,432,605.003130AMH62 1,458.33 -67,395.000.9991.000 510 FFCB4595 3,000,000.00 2,997,000.00 06/15/202606/24/2021 2,854,350.003133EMH21 1,200.00 -142,650.000.9200.900 530 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM8) 7.3.11
Par Value Book Value
Maturity
Date
Accrued
InterestMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details with Earnings - Investments
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
Days To
Maturity
Unrealized
Gain/Loss
Current
Rate YTM
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
FHLB4592 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/30/202606/30/2021 2,857,440.003130AMSL7 85.83 -142,560.001.0301.030 545 FHLB4594 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 06/30/202606/30/2021 2,859,150.003130AMYA4 89.17 -140,850.001.0701.070 545 FHLB4596 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 06/30/202606/30/2021 1,428,075.003130AN2Q2 41.67 -71,925.001.0001.000 545 FHLB4597 3,000,000.00 2,999,250.00 07/14/202607/14/2021 2,853,150.003130AMWK4 14,195.00 -146,100.001.0251.020 559 FHLB4598 3,000,000.00 2,983,500.00 09/30/202609/30/2021 2,830,260.003130AP2P9 6,976.67 -153,240.001.0330.920 637 FHLB4599 3,000,000.00 2,997,750.00 10/14/202610/14/2021 2,833,740.003130APC94 6,865.83 -164,010.001.0851.070 651 FHLB4600 530,000.00 526,947.20 11/24/202612/09/2021 500,669.803130APU78 708.14 -26,277.401.4201.300 692 FHLB4601 1,840,000.00 1,829,401.60 11/24/202612/09/2021 1,738,174.403130APUR4 2,458.44 -91,227.201.4201.300 692 FHLB4602 3,000,000.00 2,988,000.00 12/01/202612/09/2021 2,836,320.003130APVC6 3,437.50 -151,680.001.4581.375 699 FHLB4605 3,000,000.00 2,999,250.00 12/29/202601/03/2022 2,832,450.003130AQG80 236.67 -166,800.001.4251.420 727 FHLB4606 3,000,000.00 2,982,750.00 12/29/202601/10/2022 2,832,450.003130AQG80 236.67 -150,300.001.5401.420 727 FHLB4603 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 12/30/202612/30/2021 2,829,510.003130AQEC3 20,664.17 -170,490.001.3701.370 728 FHLB4604 3,000,000.00 2,998,500.00 12/30/202612/30/2021 2,829,810.003130AQEF6 20,739.58 -168,690.001.3851.375 728 FHLB4607 3,000,000.00 2,975,010.00 01/28/202702/08/2022 2,847,060.003130AQLD3 22,312.50 -127,950.001.9261.750 757 FHLB4608 3,000,000.00 2,995,500.00 02/25/202703/08/2022 2,861,730.003130AQW66 21,840.00 -133,770.002.1112.080 785 158,420,440.80152,284,063.35158,630,000.00158,420,440.80Subtotal and Average 354,993.94 -6,136,377.45454 0.9160.898 Supranationals
IFC7000 1,000,000.00 980,200.00 02/26/202606/28/2021 953,970.0045950VPS9 1,736.11 -26,230.000.9350.500 421 980,200.00953,970.001,000,000.00980,200.00Subtotal and Average 1,736.11 -26,230.00421 0.9350.500 240,390,094.20 233,198,088.76 240,752,306.47 1.842 345 1.799 838,094.58 -7,554,217.71225,183,251.16Total and Average Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM8) 7.3.11
Par Value Book Value
Accrued
InterestMarket Value
December 31, 2024
Portfolio Details with Earnings - Cash
Average
BalanceIssuer
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
CUSIP Investment #
Purchase
Date
Days To
Maturity
Unrealized
Gain/Loss
Current
Rate YTM
240,390,094.20 233,198,088.76 240,752,306.47 1.842 345 1.799 838,094.58 -7,554,217.71
0.00 225,183,251.16
Average Balance
Total Cash and Investments
Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM8) 7.3.11
Par Value
Stated
Rate
December 31, 2024
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
CITY OF PLEASANTON
S&P
YTM
Moody'sCUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
FREMON1093-4 232,414.16 232,414.163.54003/21/2025SYS-1094 12/21/2024 232,414.163.540 VCB1091-2 250,000.00 250,000.004.89004/11/2025SYS 1091 04/11/2024 250,000.004.890 482,414.16Certificates of Deposit - Bank Totals 482,414.160.004.240482,414.16 LAIF
LAIF5 52,891,833.25 52,891,833.254.480SYS5 52,891,833.254.480 52,891,833.25LAIF Totals 52,891,833.250.004.48052,891,833.25 Gov't Money Market
DRYFUS7-1 403,990.82 403,990.824.110X9USDCRGO 08/23/2024 403,990.824.110 DRYFUS7-2 481,855.97 481,855.974.110X9USDCRGO 12/05/2024 481,855.974.110 885,846.79Gov't Money Market Totals 885,846.790.004.110885,846.79 Medium Term Notes
APPL6049 1,000,000.00 1,037,212.202.75001/13/2025037833DF4 Aaa01/13/2020 1,037,212.20AA1.965 3M6053 2,000,000.00 2,016,869.482.00002/14/202588579YBH3 A02/14/2020 2,016,869.48BBB1.823 XOM6056 3,000,000.00 3,145,587.002.70903/06/202530231GAF9 Aa Received03/11/2020 3,145,587.00AA1.690 TRU6058 2,000,000.00 1,969,486.001.50003/10/202589788JAA7 A Received03/13/2020 1,969,486.00A1.821 XOM6064 2,000,000.00 2,113,800.002.99203/19/202530231GBH4 Aa Received04/20/2020 2,113,800.00AA1.777 TOYOTA6067 3,000,000.00 2,959,140.000.80001/09/202689236THW8 A Received03/09/2021 2,959,140.00A1.090 APPL6065 2,000,000.00 1,996,860.000.70002/08/2026037833EB2 Aaa02/08/2021 1,996,860.00AA0.732 APPL6066 3,000,000.00 3,331,380.003.25002/23/2026037833BY5 Aaa02/23/2021 3,331,380.00AA0.981 JP6068 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.10006/22/202646632FSCO Aa06/22/2021 3,000,000.00AA1.100 MS6069 500,000.00 517,122.085.44907/20/202961747YFF7 A 11,352.0812/20/2024 505,770.00A5.162 JPMCC6070 500,000.00 515,225.195.29907/24/202946647PDU7 A 10,745.1912/20/2024 504,480.00A5.077 22,602,681.95Medium Term Notes Totals 22,580,584.6822,097.271.54522,000,000.00 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
FHLB3576 3,000,000.00 2,995,657.091.25012/21/20263130AQF65 Aaa12/22/2021 2,995,657.09AA1.280 2,995,657.09Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Totals 2,995,657.090.001.2803,000,000.00 Treasury Securities - Coupon
UST2357 750,000.00 747,421.884.12510/31/202691282CLS8 Aaa12/20/2024 747,421.88AA3.433 UST2356 750,000.00 745,810.554.12511/15/202791282CLX7 Aaa12/20/2024 745,810.55AA4.331 1,493,232.43Treasury Securities - Coupon Totals 1,493,232.430.003.8811,500,000.00 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
Par Value
Stated
Rate
December 31, 2024
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
CITY OF PLEASANTON
S&P
YTM
Moody'sCUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
FHLMC4535 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.000.70006/23/20253134GVZ68 Aaa06/23/2020 2,998,950.00AA0.707 FFCB4537 3,000,000.00 2,997,750.000.70006/30/20253133ELQ49 Aaa Received07/06/2020 2,997,750.00AA0.715 FNMA4538 3,250,000.00 3,248,862.500.70007/14/20253136G4YH0 07/14/2020 3,248,862.50AA0.707 FNMA4541 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.71007/22/20253136G4A45 Aaa07/22/2020 3,000,000.00AA0.710 FHLB4544 3,000,000.00 2,997,000.000.60008/27/20253130AJZ36 Aaa08/27/2020 2,997,000.00AA0.620 FHLMC4545 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.000.65009/09/20253134GWA55 Aaa09/09/2020 2,998,950.00AA0.657 FFCB4548 3,340,000.00 3,336,660.000.53009/29/20253133EMBJ0 Aaa Received10/05/2020 3,336,660.00AA0.550 FHLMC4547 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.55009/30/20253134GWW93 Aaa09/30/2020 3,000,000.00AA0.550 FHLMC4549 3,000,000.00 2,997,600.000.55009/30/20253134GWWT9 Aaa Received10/07/2020 2,997,600.000.566 FHLMC4550 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.60010/28/20253134GW3F1 Aaa10/28/2020 3,000,000.000.600 FHLB4553 3,000,000.00 2,996,250.000.57011/25/20253130AKGD2 Aaa11/25/2020 2,996,250.00AA0.595 FNMA4552 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.60011/25/20253135GA3W9 Aaa11/25/2020 3,000,000.00AA0.600 FHLMC4554 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.62012/01/20253134GXDM3 Aaa12/01/2020 3,000,000.000.620 FHLB4555 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.62501/22/20263130AKQ74 Aaa01/22/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.625 FHLB4557 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.65001/28/20263130AKRN8 Aaa01/28/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.650 FNMA4556 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.55001/28/20263135G06R9 Aaa01/28/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.550 FHLB4558 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.60002/12/20263130AKXQ4 Aaa02/12/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.110 FHLB4560 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.62502/17/20263130AL3S1 Aaa02/17/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.625 FHLB4561 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.65002/24/20263130AL5X8 Aaa02/24/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.650 FHLB4562 3,125,000.00 3,122,500.000.60002/24/20263130AKXJ0 02/24/2021 3,122,500.00AA0.616 FHLB4563 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.75002/24/20263130ALCV4 02/24/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.750 FHLB4559 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.65002/26/20263130AKZ25 Aaa02/26/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.650 FHLB4572 3,000,000.00 2,989,560.000.85002/26/20263130ALGR9 Aaa Received03/15/2021 2,989,560.00AA0.922 FHLB4574 3,000,000.00 2,985,960.000.85002/26/20263130ALGR9 Aaa Received03/18/2021 2,985,960.00AA0.947 FHLB4577 3,000,000.00 2,982,510.000.85002/26/20263130ALGR9 Aaa Received03/22/2021 2,982,510.00AA0.971 FHLB4579 3,000,000.00 2,978,517.000.85002/26/20263130ALGR9 Aaa Received03/31/2021 2,978,517.00AA1.000 FHLB4565 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.80003/16/20263130ALDN1 Aaa03/16/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.800 FHLB4569 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.000.87503/23/20263130ALGC2 Aaa03/23/2021 3,000,000.00AA0.875 FHLB4576 3,000,000.00 2,987,700.000.87503/23/20263130ALGC2 Aaa03/23/2021 2,987,700.00AA0.959 FFCB4575 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.05003/25/20263133EMUK6 Aaa03/25/2021 3,000,000.00AA1.050 FHLB4571 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.00003/30/20263130ALMM3 Aaa03/30/2021 3,000,000.00AA1.000 FHLB4578 3,000,000.00 2,998,050.000.98003/30/20263130ALNT7 Aaa03/30/2021 2,998,050.00AA0.993 FHLB4581 3,000,000.00 2,996,250.001.00003/30/20263130ALMM3 Aaa Received04/05/2021 2,996,250.00AA1.026 FHLB4580 3,000,000.00 2,995,500.001.02004/15/20263130ALUC6 Aaa04/15/2021 2,995,500.00AA1.051 FHLB4585 2,795,000.00 2,795,000.001.02005/19/20263130AMCL4 Aaa Received05/20/2021 2,795,000.00AA1.020 FHLB4587 3,000,000.00 2,998,500.001.00005/26/20263130AMH62 Aaa05/26/2021 2,998,500.00AA1.010 FHLB4588 3,000,000.00 2,998,950.000.98005/26/20263130AMGW6 Aaa05/26/2021 2,998,950.00AA0.987 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Par Value
Stated
Rate
December 31, 2024
Investment Status Report - Investments
Portfolio Management
Book Value
Maturity
Date
Current
Principal
CITY OF PLEASANTON
S&P
YTM
Moody'sCUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Accrued Interest
At Purchase
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
FHLB4590 2,750,000.00 2,746,562.500.87505/26/20263130AMHB1 Aaa Received06/02/2021 2,746,562.50AA0.901 FHLB4591 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.001.00005/26/20263130AMH62 Aaa Received06/02/2021 1,500,000.00AA1.000 FFCB4595 3,000,000.00 2,997,000.000.90006/15/20263133EMH21 Aaa Received06/24/2021 2,997,000.00AA0.921 FHLB4592 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.03006/30/20263130AMSL7 Aaa06/30/2021 3,000,000.00AA1.030 FHLB4594 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.07006/30/20263130AMYA4 Aaa06/30/2021 3,000,000.00AA1.070 FHLB4596 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.001.00006/30/20263130AN2Q2 Aaa06/30/2021 1,500,000.00AA1.000 FHLB4597 3,000,000.00 2,999,250.001.02007/14/20263130AMWK4 Aaa07/14/2021 2,999,250.00AA1.025 FHLB4598 3,000,000.00 2,983,500.000.92009/30/20263130AP2P9 Aaa09/30/2021 2,983,500.00AA1.033 FHLB4599 3,000,000.00 2,997,750.001.07010/14/20263130APC94 Aaa10/14/2021 2,997,750.00AA1.085 FHLB4600 530,000.00 526,947.201.30011/24/20263130APU78 Aaa Received12/09/2021 526,947.20AA1.421 FHLB4601 1,840,000.00 1,829,401.601.30011/24/20263130APUR4 Aaa Received12/09/2021 1,829,401.60AA1.421 FHLB4602 3,000,000.00 2,988,000.001.37512/01/20263130APVC6 Aaa Received12/09/2021 2,988,000.00AA1.459 FHLB4605 3,000,000.00 2,999,250.001.42012/29/20263130AQG80 Aaa Received01/03/2022 2,999,250.00AA1.425 FHLB4606 3,000,000.00 2,982,750.001.42012/29/20263130AQG80 Aaa Received01/10/2022 2,982,750.00AA1.541 FHLB4603 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.001.37012/30/20263130AQEC3 Aaa12/30/2021 3,000,000.00AA1.370 FHLB4604 3,000,000.00 2,998,500.001.37512/30/20263130AQEF6 Aaa12/30/2021 2,998,500.00AA1.385 FHLB4607 3,000,000.00 2,975,010.001.75001/28/20273130AQLD3 Aaa Received02/08/2022 2,975,010.00AA1.926 FHLB4608 3,000,000.00 2,995,500.002.08002/25/20273130AQW66 Aaa Received03/08/2022 2,995,500.00AA2.112 158,420,440.80Federal Agency Issues - Callable Totals 158,420,440.800.000.916158,630,000.00 Supranationals
IFC7000 1,000,000.00 980,200.000.50002/26/202645950VPS9 Aaa Received06/28/2021 980,200.00AAA0.935 980,200.00Supranationals Totals 980,200.000.000.9351,000,000.00 240,752,306.47Investment Totals 240,730,209.2022,097.27240,390,094.20 1.799 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PMS) 7.3.11
Stated
Rate
Transaction
Date
December 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024
Activity By Type
Balance
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchases
or Deposits
Redemptions
or Withdrawals
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
Fremont Bank1093-3 0.004.170 12/21/2024 230,000.00SYS-1093 Fremont Bank1093-4 232,414.163.540 12/21/2024 0.00SYS-1094 230,000.00 482,414.16Subtotal 232,414.16
LAIF (Monthly Summary)
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND5 28,000,000.004.480 5,000,000.00SYS5 5,000,000.00 52,891,833.25Subtotal 28,000,000.00
Gov't Money Market (Monthly Summary)
Dryfus Govt Cash Mgmt 6727-1 572,676.864.110 3,401,175.00X9USDCRGO Dryfus Govt Cash Mgmt 6727-2 3,014,700.004.110 2,532,844.03X9USDCRGO 5,934,019.03 885,846.79Subtotal 3,587,376.86
Medium Term Notes
JPMorgan Chase & CO6070 504,480.005.299 12/20/2024 0.0046647PDU7 MORGAN STANLEY6069 505,770.005.449 12/20/2024 0.0061747YFF7
0.00 22,602,681.95Subtotal 1,010,250.00
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
2,995,657.09Subtotal
Treasury Securities - Coupon
U S TREASURY2356 745,810.554.125 12/20/2024 0.0091282CLX7 U S TREASURY2357 747,421.884.125 12/20/2024 0.0091282CLS8
0.00 1,493,232.43Subtotal 1,493,232.43
Federal Agency Issues - Callable
158,420,440.80Subtotal
Supranationals
980,200.00Subtotal
240,752,306.47Total 11,164,019.0334,323,273.45
Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM3) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
December 2023 through December 2024
Activity Summary
Month
Portfolio Management
End Year
Number of
Securities
Average
Balance
360
Equivalent
365
Equivalent
Managed
Pool
Rate
Average
Term
Average
Days to Maturity
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Number
of Investments
Purchased
Number
of Investments
Redeemed
Yield to Maturity
230,337,361.67December 2023 74 1,386 5941.688 1.711 3.929 0 0 247,834,511.04January 2024 74 1,403 5801.679 1.702 4.012 0 1 243,504,467.82February 2024 73 1,426 5661.665 1.688 4.122 0 0 240,078,438.89March 2024 73 1,444 5491.665 1.688 4.272 0 0 254,330,644.64April 2024 75 1,305 4751.915 1.942 4.272 2 2 263,538,122.69May 2024 73 1,301 4561.926 1.953 4.332 0 1 260,556,724.84June 2024 72 1,326 4431.920 1.946 4.480 0 0 249,460,826.05July 2024 72 1,469 4661.649 1.672 4.480 0 0 232,025,539.32August 2024 73 1,467 4431.645 1.668 4.480 1 1 229,828,688.26September 2024 73 1,490 4281.599 1.621 4.480 1 2 220,883,480.07October 2024 71 1,541 4201.495 1.516 4.480 0 1 217,493,941.37November 2024 70 1,540 3941.493 1.514 4.480 0 0 225,183,251.16December 2024 76 1,405 3451.775 1.799 4.480 6 1 Average 239,590,722.92 1.701% 1.725% 4.331 1 1 1,423 47473 Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM4) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
December 2023 through December 2024
Distribution of Investments By Type
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
AverageJanuaryDecember February
2023 2024 by Period
AprilMarch May
2024 2024
JulyJune August
2024 2024
September November
2024 2024
December
2024Security Type
October
2024202420242024
0.2 0.20.2Certificates of Deposit - Bank 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2% Certificates of Deposit - S & L
22.7 21.523.6LAIF 28.1 28.320.5 19.0 19.127.0 13.8 13.717.3 22.0 21.3% Fidelity - Government Fund
Gov't Money Market 0.1 1.4 1.50.7 0.4 0.3%
Managed Pool Accounts -4
Passbook/Checking Accounts
11.2 11.411.4Medium Term Notes 10.4 9.711.5 11.0 10.59.9 9.9 9.910.2 9.4 10.5% Bankers Acceptances
Commercial Paper - Discount
1.2 1.21.2Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 1.1 1.11.3 1.3 1.31.2 1.4 1.41.3 1.2 1.3% Federal Agency Issues - Discount
Treasury Securities - Coupon 0.6 0.1%
Treasury Securities - Discount
64.3 65.463.3Federal Agency Issues - Callable 59.8 60.366.2 68.1 68.461.4 72.9 72.869.8 65.8 66.0%
0.4 0.40.4Supranationals 0.4 0.40.4 0.4 0.40.4 0.5 0.50.4 0.4 0.4% Miscellaneous Securities - Discount
Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM5) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
December 31, 2024
Interest Earnings Summary
Month EndingDecember 31 Fiscal Year To Date
Portfolio Management
CITY OF PLEASANTON
CD/Coupon/Discount Investments:
177,389.16Interest Collected
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period
532,612.64
( 518,989.94)
1,069,862.77
532,604.33
( 605,322.56)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 22,097.27) ( 22,097.27) Interest Earned during Period
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses
Earnings during Periods
168,914.59
0.00 975,047.27
35,819.60
168,914.59 1,010,866.87
Pass Through Securities:
0.00Interest Collected
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period
0.00 ( 0.00)
0.00 0.00
( 0.00)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period
Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses
Earnings during Periods
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Cash/Checking Accounts:
11,226.86Interest Collected
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period
305,432.68
( 164,911.30)
1,417,667.32
305,432.68
( 722,290.92)
Interest Earned during Period 151,748.24 1,000,809.08
Total Interest Earned during Period
Total Capital Gains or Losses
Total Earnings during Period
320,662.83
0.00 1,975,856.35
35,819.60
320,662.83 2,011,675.95
Portfolio PLST
CC
Run Date: 02/11/2025 - 12:27 PM (PRF_PM6) 7.3.11
Report Ver. 7.3.11
CITY OF PLEASANTON
PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 12/1/2024 to 12/31/2024
Susan Hsieh
Director of Finance
City of Pleasanton
123 Main Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Account Summary
Source 12/1/2024 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 12/31/2024 PENSION - Short Term 1075 $20,274,197.32 $0.00 -$103,447.21 $5,763.81 $0.00 $0.00 $20,164,986.30 PENSION - Long Term 1076 $34,554,055.35 $0.00 -$1,240,452.49 $9,978.92 $0.00 $0.00 $33,303,623.94 Totals $54,828,252.67 $0.00 -$1,343,899.70 $15,742.73 $0.00 $0.00 $53,468,610.24 Investment Selection
Source
PENSION - Short Term
PENSION - Long Term
Investment Objective
Source
PENSION - Short Term
PENSION - Long Term
Investment Return
Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years PENSION - Short Term -0.51% 0.08% 6.77% 2.97% 3.64% - 6/21/2018 PENSION - Long Term -3.59% -1.21% 12.64% 3.18% 7.40% - 6/21/2018 Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees Annualized Return
Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change.
Individual Custom Account
Account Report for the Period
Balance as of
City of Pleasanton
Balance as of
Individual Custom Account
City of Pleasanton - Capital Growth
Plan's Inception Date
Item #7
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 18, 2025
Public Works - Operations Division
TITLE: APPROVE AN AMENDMENT WITH VISTA UNIVERSAL, INC. FOR AN INCREASE OF $300,000 FOR STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025, BRINGING THE TOTAL CONTRACT CAPACITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025 TO $600,000 AND THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO $1,200,000
SUMMARY
In 2023, Vista Universal, Inc. was selected as the most responsive bidder through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the maintenance of the City’s streetlights, pathway, and parking lot lights. The term of the current three-year agreement with Vista Universal, Inc. is September 1, 2023, to June 30, 2026, with an option to extend the agreement for two additional one-year terms with allowable cost increases based on the Local Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The proposed increase will add funds to the Operation Repair and Replacement (R&R-519) program for the replacement of copper wire and equipment, replacement of poles due to unexpected theft and traffic-related incidents, and add funds from the Hacienda Business Park Owners Association Special Maintenance District program account for Hacienda's upcoming pole replacement projects.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and authorize the City Manager to enter an amendment with Vista Universal Inc. for an increase of $300,000 for Fiscal Year 2024/25, for a total contract capacity for Fiscal Year 2024/25 of $600,000, and an increase in total cumulative compensation to $1,200,000.
BACKGROUND
The City maintains more than 8,100 streetlights, pathways, and parking lot lights. The maintenance of the streetlights, pathways, and parking lot lights includes night checks of arterial roadways, replacement of photocells or fixtures, ultrasonic pole testing, pole painting, and emergency response to pole knockdowns. In August 2023, the City entered into an agreement with Vista Universal, Inc. for $300,000 annually, with a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $900,000 for these services.
DISCUSSION
The proposed first amendment to the agreement with Vista Universal brings the total contract capacity for this fiscal year to $600,000 and the total cumulative compensation amount to $1,200,000. Specifically, the additional funding is focused on three key areas:
Copper Wire Theft Mitigation ($50,000)
In 2024, the City experienced multiple incidents of copper wire theft at community parks, where
wiring was stolen from pathway lights, and light pole covers were tampered with and damaged.
The estimated cost to repair the damage and replace stolen materials is $25,000. An additional $25,000 is proposed for potential future theft-related repairs, for an amendment of an additional $50,000 for FY 2024/25. Funding for this item is available in the Traffic Operating Budget (00140201).
Streetlight Pole Replacements – R&R-519 ($150,000)
In 2024, additional LED streetlight replacements were identified as necessary. Staff recommends increasing the contract capacity by $150,000 to support the Repair and Replacement-519 program in FY 2024/25. This program funds the replacement of deteriorated streetlight poles to prevent failures, ensure service reliability, and maintain the structural integrity and safety of the City’s streetlight infrastructure. Funding for this initiative is available in the Internal Service Fund – Streetlight Replacement (51940135).
Hacienda Streetlight Replacements ($100,000)
The City has an existing agreement with Hacienda, previously approved by the City Council, allowing the procurement of materials through the City's contract, with full reimbursement by Hacienda. As part of its upcoming streetlight replacement project in FY 2025/26, Hacienda Business Park Association Special Maintenance District (12840103), with full reimbursement from Hacienda estimated at $100,000. Hacienda staff has been involved with, and is supportive of, this proposed amendment.
This additional funding addresses several important factors, including: ensuring the City’s lighting infrastructure remains secure, functional, and well-maintained while leveraging available funding sources efficiently; enhancing the City's ability to address unforeseen conditions; supporting the additional request from Hacienda, ensuring continued compliance with federal and state regulations; and maintaining operational efficiency, while proactively address aging infrastructure, enhancing public safety, and aligning with sustainability goals.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The replacement of fluorescent light fixtures with LED lighting supports the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the “Materials & Consumption Strategy MC-2: Enhance sustainable production and reduce consumption.” Eliminating fluorescent bulbs also removes mercury vapor hazards, reducing environmental and public health risks.
OUTREACH
No community outreach was conducted, as this item is a routine matter of City business. City and Hacienda staff communicated on the additional contract capacity to support the Hacienda streetlights replacement.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment: Strategy 7—Continue to invest in parks, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure, and public art to improve traffic safety, promote climate resilience, and increase equitable access to cultural and recreational opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the agreement is already allocated in the Internal Service Fund – Streetlight Replacement (51940135) for $150,000, Traffic Operating Budget (00140201) for $50,000 and Hacienda Business Park Owners Association Special Maintenance District (12840103) for $100,000. The proposed amendment with Vista Universal, Inc. will increase the contract capacity for Fiscal Year 2024/25 to $600,000 and the total cumulative compensation amount to $1,200,000.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Tamara Baptista, Assistant
Dir. of Public Works -
Operations & Maintenance
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. First Amendment to Agreement with Vista Universal, Inc.
Contract #2024259
First Amendment Page 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Agreement ("First Amendment") is entered into this ______ day of February 2025, by the City of Pleasanton ("City") and Vista Universal, Inc. ("Contractor”).
Whereas, on August 22, 2023, the City and Contractor entered into a Maintenance and Trade Services Agreement for Streetlights, Parking Lots and Pathway Lights maintenance, emergency repair, and replacement services as identified in RFP 23.402 ("Agreement"); and
Whereas, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to increase the cumulative not to exceed amount for the term of this Agreement from $900,000 to $1,200,000 for streetlight pole replacements.
Now, therefore, in exchange for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 3 of the Agreement (Compensation) is amended to provide for an increase in the Cumulative Compensation Amount, shall be increased to $600,000 for Fiscal Year 2024/25, which bring the total Cumulative Compensation Amount to $1,200,000 for the first three years of the term of the Agreement.
2. This First 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.
3. 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 First Amendment to the Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PLEASANTON CONTRACTOR – Vista Universal, Inc.
_____________________________ By: __________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Signature
__________________________
Print name
ATTEST: Title: __________________________
_____________________________ [If Contractor is a corporation, signatures must comply Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerkwith California Corporations Code §313]
Contract #2024259
First Amendment Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: __________________________
_____________________________ Signature
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney __________________________ Print name
Title: __________________________
Item #9
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 18, 2025
Community Development
TITLE: CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 4, 2025 - 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
Continued from February 4, 2025 - 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, age- restricted 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-of- Alameda-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-age- restricted. 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 north- south 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 cut- through traffic patterns between I-580 and I-680, including the existing concentration of cut- through 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 in- depth 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 inventory-
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 near- term 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 re- design 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 pre- determine 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 age- restricted. 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 age- restricted 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 mutually- agreed 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 Anal ysis; 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 combina
tion the proposed projects are anticipated to generate a total positive net fiscal surp
lus Pleasanton’s General Fund in the range of $903,000 each year at project buildout as shown in Su
mmary Table 2. The projects are expected to generate annual General Fund revenu
es above and beyond the General Fund expenditures required to serve the developme
nt, 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 o
wn, with the Arroyo Lago site estimated to generate
approxima
tely $289,000 in annual surplus, the East Lakes Project estimated to generate approxima
tely $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 t
o 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 Pleasa
nton’s budget, even if the Project is not annexed by the City, as shown in Summary T
able 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 De
partment. Even with the sales tax revenue generated by residents and employee spe
nding, the project is estimated to generate a $778,000 annual deficit in the City of Plea
santon’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 pro
posed development program is estimated to generate a total assessed value (AV) of approx
imately $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 th
e estimated General Fund revenues generated by the projects, including $2.3 million a yea
r in property taxes and $267,000 annually in property tax in-lieu of vehicle lic
ense 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 t
he City’s General Fund. Public Safety costs, which include Police and Fire, are est
imated to make up 59 percent of the additional General Fund costs at approximately $1.1 mill
ion per year at project buildout. Public Works costs represent the next largest portion of est
imated 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-service- population 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 Population
Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item
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 65 West - Industrial 131,055 SF 1,000 SF / Employee 131 54 Commercial Use 328 136
Residential Uses
Arroyo 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 1,466
Project Service Population 1,419 328 1,602
Less Existing Site Service Population 0 0
Net Service Population 1,419 328 1,602
(2) Per-person employee burden on City service is w eighted 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 prov ided 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 $151,238,775
(1) Other Property Taxes includes Excess ERAF, w hich is determined by a separate formula.
Sources: City of Pleasanton Mid-term Budget 2024-2025; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Estimating Factors Applied to Calculate
Project Revenue
Table 3
Project Assessed Value
Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Land Use
Total AV at
Buildout (2024$)
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 Uses
Arroyo 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 Project
Independent 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 $54,000,000 Below Market Rate Units3,5 13 DUs $0
East Lakes Subtotal 445 DUs $476,916,821
Total 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 v alue is assumed to be part of market rate unit value.
Eligible for Tax Exemption
(5) The rents for the affordable assisted living units are antici pated to be s et at 50-60% AMI, therefore the units are eligible for exemption. (3) Below market rate values are based on income limits in cluded in the City of Pleasanton Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. (4) Valuation of the market rate assisted liv ing units is estimated using professional assumptions utilized for similar product types.
Table 4
Property Tax and Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Estimate
Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item County Project City Project
Projected Assessed Value $905,766,821 $905,766,821
Property Tax Revenue (1% Base Property Tax) $9,057,668 $9,057,668 Allocation 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 $2,305,740
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF
Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF1 $9,039,000 $9,039,000 Citywide Assessed Value2 $30,652,744,000 $30,652,744,000 Project Net Assessed Value Increase3 0.00% 2.95%
Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue4 $0 $267,096
(1) FY 2024-2025 Citywide VLF sourced from 2024-25 Budget. (2) Citywide assessed valuse sourced from CA Bureau of Equaliz ation. (3) Calculated by dividing the net new assessed value by citywide assessed value. (4) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by percentage increase in net assessed value.
Sources: City of Pleasanton FY 2024-25 Mid-Term Budget; Steelwave LLC; CA Bureau of Equalization; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Table 5
Household Income and Retail Spending Potential
Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item
Estimate
(2024$)
Estimated Annual Household Income
Arroyo Lago
Single Family Homes 35% of income spent on housing $320,729 ADUS Alameda County Income Limits $87,200
East Lakes Project1
Market Rate Independent Living 54% of income spent on housing $161,912 BMR Independent Living2 Alameda County Income Limits $149,500 Market Rate Assisted Living 54% of income spent on housing $132,498 BMR Assisted Living Alameda County Income Limits $59,950 Household Taxable Retail Spending3
Arroyo Lago
Single Family Homes 14% of income $45,986
ADUS 27% of income $23,762
East Lakes Project
Market Rate Independent Living 12% of income $20,210
BMR Independent Living 12% of income $18,661
Market Rate Assisted Living 12% of income $16,539
BMR 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 Sy stems, Inc.
Assumptions
(3) The percentage of household income spent on taxable goods is s ourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure 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 Labor Statistics Consumer Ex
penditure Survey (Table 1300).
Table 6
Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimate
Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item County Project City Project
Household 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 328 328
Annual Worker Retail Spending Potential2 $24.89 per work day $4,779 $4,779 Taxable Spending in Pleasanton 50% of retail expenditures $782,912 $782,912 Less Existing Taxable Sales $0 $0
Net New Taxable Retail Sales3 $9,945,294 $9,945,294
Total 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 phy sical retail locations in the City of Pleasanton and does not consider revenue from online shopping.
Table 7
Business License Revenue Estimate
Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item 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 Factors Steelwave LLC Annexation FIA; EPS #241085
Item
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 Expenditures
General Government $29,672,809 0% $0 $0 25% $74 $119,203 Community Development $11,272,853 0% $0 $0 25% $28 $45,286 Fire $28,084,507 0% $0 $0 100% $282 $451,289
Library and Recreation $16,847,841 50% $85 $135,364 50% $85 $135,364 Police $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 fix ed 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 employ
ment.
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 div ided 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 (OnT heMap 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 400
Oakland, 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 Structure
Min. Front Setback to Garage
Min. Rear Setback to Living
Min. Rear Setback to Covered
Outdoor Patio
Max. Lot Coverage
Max. 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
C
C
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 A0.1DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
048 1 2
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 Structure
Min. Front Setback to Garage
Min. Rear Setback to Living
Max. Lot Coverage
Max. Coverage S.F.
3,500 S.F.
10'
18'
10'
5'
60%
2,100 S.F.
A
B
C
D
E
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
C
C
5'Min. Side Setback to Structure
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
A0.2DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
048 1 2
PRODUCT TYPE
Min. Lot Size
FARMHOUSE
59.5 X 95
Min. Front Setback to Structure
Min. Front Setback to Garage
Min. Rear Setback to Living
Max. Lot Coverage
Max. 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
C
C
5'Min. Side Setback to Structure
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 A0.3DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
048 1 2
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 page
Ornamental Fence at T rail Edge
Street T rees
Monument Sign
Hydroseed
1 4 4 4
2 5
3 TREES
Lagerstroemia ‘Muskogee’
Crape Myrtle
Pistachia chinensis
Chinese Pistache
Quercus spp.
Native Oak Species
Rhaphiolepis ‘Majestic Beauty’
Indian Hawthorn
Tilia cordata
Littleleaf Linden
Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese Elm
P
C
ARROYO LAGO PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 2022
0 8’ 16’ 32’
PARK ENLARGEMENT PLAN
L-2
2 4
3 3
5 6
5 1
1 1
Accent Paving
Entry Plaza
Bermed Lawn
Center Picnic Plaza with
Shade Structure
1 2
6 6
3 3
4 4
5 Garden with Decomposed
Granite Path
Natural Play T ot 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
Ornamental FencingConcrete
Play Border
L-3
TREES
SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVERS SITE FURNISHINGS
Calamagrostis x a. ‘Karl Forester’
Feather Reed GrassLagerstroemia ‘Muskogee’
Crape Myrtle
Pistachia chinensis
Chinese Pistache
Quercus spp.
Native Oak Species
Dietes grandiflora ‘Variegata’
Fornight Iris
Coprosma kirkii ‘Variegata’
Striped CoprosmaErigeron karvinskianus
Mexican Daisy
Rhaphiolepis ‘Majestic Beauty’
Indian Hawthorn
Tilia cordata
Littleleaf Linden
Festuca mairei
Atlas Fescue
Lavandula augustifolia
Lavender
Lomandra logifolia ‘Breeze’
Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush
Muhlenbergia capillaris
Pink Cloud Muhly Grass
Salvia l. ‘Santa Barbara’
Mexican Bush Sage
Rosmarinus spp.
Rosemary
Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese Elm
X
X
'C
cÈ
dÈ
dÈ
eÈ
dÈ
fÈ
bÈ
Fz
&z@A1Zz?K&.1.z+KFM&+Qz
?zKQPzsz rz z
zbnlz
Fz
@
&N>1S
N&Q1zP;J5A1
3&G;Bwz
KUNRz@K&.1/z6KF1Pz
zzrz
zzbnlz
/
&
M
M
M M
:;
M juv
® (C
M
¯¢È
hk#z\]^_\]\`z
°°>È gÈ
:M
³´Z¸Á*È h
C8M12343562373M= ¥È
!;M !M ÂÃÄÅÈ "M
<=M M
#M9z
:z
ÆÈ #
*
F&z)C
$M"M UNRz@K&.1.z6KF1P z
%M%M
))
szr
zAKRP zzbnlz
+C
#
.
<C 3C HM .M
'
iÈ
&+zQ=W1z&.UCzPG&AAzAKQz
UNRz6KF1Pz zbolz
.M
%M&M
)C)C
>?M
M
)C6
(M
z
(M
,M
M
M<z ,C
ÀÈ
C
)C
:
'M
M
)
*7
%C
)C8!
(M
9
-M
:z±¤È
È
M
M42
$50C =
F
M +
,9" C
)C
#C
)M
/M
,
,
)C
+M
-M
AAA
48:
8A4DÈjȲ¼«¿
©¹·È
I
M
GM
kÈqÈ ½pÈ
'34LO0')?2z
HV?T=
3'H;@[z
',z
>?C
xy!z
@C
1AB
&+R;W1z&.UDzP;J5A1
3(Iz
H
6KF1Pzs
zYz
z?KQP zzcqmz
z
z
z
z
z
ig % z7z
KBLM AM0M
&+R;W1z&.UDzP;J5A1
3&F;Ez
6KFz1PzszYz
z?KQP z
zcqmz
£
3 KNzP&A1z
PQKNZzQKXJz 6KF1Pz
P8&A@KXzz*A.5Pzz
zbolz
E9DJMz UQ?;z J1z ;?@UPQN&Q1P
ztz&+zM&N+1Az4KNz
&33 KN. &*@1z6KUP;J5z
-a
aa$"p
8KF1P
zPF&@@zAKQPz
fz szYz zz bnlz
edz
§¦ÇlÈ
C
-C
+È
I }IrUÈIU U
M }IrUÈIUÈ `WIÈIQI
P }IrUÈIU \IÈ`UI
MIs
Q IPmWÈ IQz `UIÈIQI
V# J[[RJNtVÈ~tn[J~ou
IsÈ
I }IrUÈ IUÈ UÈPÈa}W
`U
`U
Mv
M }IrWÈIWÈ `WI
}IrUÈIUÈ}IswÈvÈ1(;(
1¡ÈÈ`}WÈ¡UÈ,Ȭ¨µ¶º¾
1¡ÈÈ`}UÈ¡UÈ0ÈQªª»
MIw
P% }IrWÈIWÈ \IÈaWI
\QÈ }IssÈsÈ1(;(
È
MIsÈ
}IrWÈIWÈ IsÈ
Q IPmWÈ IQz `UIÈIQI
\QÈ}IxvÈxÈP
\QÈ\ÈvIQWQÈ9(ÈÈE(Èw
]SÈ\
Èw
ISXSÈ 5BÈÈB9Èw
IPoUÈIQzÈIv
Y& J^^TKOsYÈso^Kos
mÈJyÈ
,,!?È
00",È
(9!,È
1B!EÈ
-C#2È
2$)È
;( 0È
9(È
9(È
,((È
BBÈ
,1BÈ
,0EÈ
199È
19È
19È
6E(È
06È
3FÈ
77È
.(@È
/((È
<F@È
, IssÈSWssm_ÈoÈIWÈIrWSÈIÈ0ÈPIÈW
oÈ
oIUÈ_II_U
0 _UÈIro_ÈI}UQÈIÈ,ÈUÈ6ÈQUvwo_
oÈ09È\ÈIvÈ \\ÈUUÈIro_
È
UU{ÈQooM USÈ`_`'È
_UÈIro_ÈoÈI}WQÈÈMWÈ}|È
IIssUsÈÈWUÈm`È}UÈ
WWQoPsIÈIro_ÈQÈ
IssÈUmQUoIwÈUUÈÈ
\UIUGÈ
IÈ9È\ÈsIo_ÈoÈM`ÈoSW
IÈ9È\ÈmQUÈ}mÈmQWIsrÈMaÈoQW
0I¡ÈQoUÈsIUÈIÈ,,È\ÈoQU
IIssUsÈIro_ÈMaÈoSWÈ
,(,0È\ÈoQUÈmQUIsrÈÈUÈoQUÈ\ÈQMw
È\ÈUUÈÈIoÈ_IQU È
IIssUsÈIro_ÈMaÈoQUÈ
IIssUsÈIro_ÈWÈoQUÈ|È
0I¡ÈSmXÈwIXÈIÈ,(È\ÈXI
9\ÈsI o_ÈoÈUIP`ÈoQUÈ
0LÈQmWÈvIUÈIÈ,(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 COUNT
NET ACRES
04.4 06.9
04.0 24.6
05.1 45.0
37 84
112
120
153
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 FACILITYASSISTED LIVING / MEMORY CARE FACILITY 88 DUS / ~4 AC
PARK, 1.3 AC
BUSCH ROAD
EL CHARRO RD (PRIVATE)
CHATHAM PL
APN-946-4634-001
APN-946-4634-002
MARKET RATE DUET COURT
HOMES NORTH
(41 x 69 LOT): 32 dus
MARKET RATE DUET COURT
HOMES SOUTH
(49 x 69 LOT): 52 dus
WESTERN PROPERTY LINE
MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY
COURT HOMES (50 x 72 LOT):
37 dus
LINEAR PARK, 0.75 ACLINEAR 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 WIDE
STREET TYPE A (65FT MIN R.O.W.)
PARALLEL PARKING BOTH SIDES
10-12 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 SIDES
STREET TYPE C (50 FT R.O.W.)
PARALLEL PARKING ONE SIDE ONLY
ALLEYS
2-WAY DRIVE LANES AT 10 FT EA.
NARROW PLANTING STRIP EACH SIDE
COURTS
2-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
LLLLLLLMARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMIL
HOMES, SMALL LOTS
(45 X 75): 34 dus
LLMARKET RATE SINGLE FAMIL
PARK, 1.16 AC
OUUUUO(AMENITIES INCLUDE A CLUB HO
POPOPOPPPPICKLE BALL COURTS AND LAP P
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-be- cues, 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, micro- grid 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]
N
ovember 6, 2024
L
iz McElligott, Assistant Planning Director
Alameda County Planning Department
224 W. Winton Avenue, Rm 111
Hayward, CA 94544
S
ubject: Alameda County Housing Element Draft 3.5
D
ear Ms. McElligott,
T
hank 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.
F
irst, 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 6
th 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.
T
he 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.
I
n 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.
T
he 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).
T
he 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.
T
he 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.
Gi
ven 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.
T
he 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
S
incerely,
E
llen 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]
N
ovember 26, 2024
A
lbert Lopez, Planning Director
Alameda County Community Development Agency
224 West Winton Avenue, Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
S
ubject: Alameda County 6th Cycle Housing Element – East Pleasanton Sites D
ear Albert,
T
hank 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.
T
he 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.
Wh
ile 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 moderate- income 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 ProjectsCity Council Update and Direction on Potential AnnexationCity Council, February 4, 2025 RequestReceive 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 Pleasanton2)Provide feedback on key issues with respect to the two projects3)Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the Arroyo Lago Project;4)Approve key terms regarding processing of applications for the East Lakes Project1 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 InfrastructureWater (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 3rdSB left-turn lane, and 2ndWB 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 CharroPreliminary 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, cut-through traffic, but benefits circulation by re-locating 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 PatternsExisting PMCut-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 FinancingOption - 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 SharingRHNA:•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 2025Property 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 GenerallyBased 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 IronwoodRecommendation: 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/approvalRecommendation: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 Project21
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 LakesMixed 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 space628 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 age-restricted 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 Pleasanton1. 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 Lago4. 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 Lakes6. 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 ProjectsCity Council Update and Direction on Potential AnnexationCity Council, February 4, 202531
Item #10
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 18, 2025
Finance
TITLE: ACCEPT THE FY 2024/25 MID-YEAR BUDGET UPDATE REPORT AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FY 2024/25 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
SUMMARY
The FY 2024/25 Mid-Year Budget Update report provides the revenue and expenditure summary for the General Fund and details proposed budget adjustments in various funds, including the General Fund, Water Fund, Internal Service Fund, Special Revenue Funds, and Capital Project Funds. The report examines revenues and expenditures from the prior year and recommends adjustments to the budget based on the latest information and projections related to various tax revenues and expenditure budget items.
Staff examined all revenue sources based on more up-to-date information and proposed adjustments as appropriate. Proposed expenditure adjustments reflect a collection of necessary budget updates and have been kept to a minimum whenever possible.
Attachment 2 outlines the recommended adjustments to various funds and their financial impact on each fund. The discussion section of this report also summarizes the recommended adjustments and their respective impacts on the budget and fund balances.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution approving Mid-Year adjustments to the FY 2024/25 Budget.
BACKGROUND
The City follows a multi-step operating budget process starting with the approval of a two-year budget, adoption of a Mid-Term Budget after the first year, and the adoption of Mid-Year Budget adjustments during each of the two years of the budget. This report is the Mid-Year Budget report for the second year of the biennial budget that recommends adjustments to the FY 2024/25 Mid-Term Budget adopted by the City Council on May 21, 2024.
For this Mid-Year Budget cycle, the largest proposed expenditure adjustments in the General Fund are due to the water utility costs and implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements related to leases and subscription-based information technology arrangements. Water costs are projected to increase more than previously estimated based on rate increases and more up-to-date usage projections. Details on proposed adjustments can be found in the Discussion section of this report, and a complete summary of the adjustments for all funds is included in Attachment 2.
Staff regularly monitors expenditures, cautiously forecasts revenues, and recommends addressing changes whenever appropriate to maintain a balanced budget. The Mid-Year Budget report helps staff address budget variances in a timely manner.
DISCUSSION
General Fund Overview
As described below, staff recommends increasing revenue and expenditure totals by $2.64 million and $0.55 million, respectively, and decreasing the net transfer total by $2.09 million.
Adjustments to the net transfer include decreasing the transfer from the Capital Reserve Fund by $1.09 million based on revenue adjustments, increasing the transfer to the Miscellaneous Capital Fund by $1.00 million to address deferred maintenance needs, and a minor clean-up involving the transfer of $1,365 from the Asset Forfeiture Agency Fund based on court closed cases. Notably, even with a transfer decrease of $1.09 million, the overall budgeted transfer from the Capital Reserve Fund (formerly called the Rainy Day Reserve) to the General Fund in FY 2024/25 is still $3.08 million.
As a result of these changes, along with the use of $0.31 million in program reserves, staff expects the General Fund will have a year-end revenue over expenditure net total of $6,832 as shown in table 1 below.
Table 1. General Fund Overview
General Fund Revenues
As presented in Table 2 below, General Fund revenues are estimated to increase by $2.64 million based on revised projections including current revenue trends as well as mid-year actual revenues. This net increase is primarily due to increases in Property Tax, Hotel & Motel Tax, and newly classified lease revenue related to implementation of GASB 87 and GASB 96.
Major revenue adjustments are highlighted in Table 2 below:
• An increase of $0.98 million in Property Tax revenue. This increase is largely due to a higher Supplemental Property Tax estimate, an increase of $0.70 million from reappraisal of property from change of ownership or completion of major new construction. Property Tax is the City’s largest revenue source at 61.0 percent of total revenue.
• A decrease of $0.20 million in Sales Tax revenue. Even with the new Costco store opening in late November 2024, the overall sales tax number is expected to decrease slightly compared to the budgeted number based on the latest analysis and projection from the City’s consultant. Sales Tax is the City’s second largest revenue source at
16.2 percent of total revenue.
• An increase of $0.72 million in Other Taxes. An increase of $0.46 million in Hotel & Motel Tax (Transient Occupancy Tax) is recommended as the Tri-Valley area continues recovering from the pandemic. Notably, the adjusted total of $5.36 million is still more than $1.00 million less than the pre-pandemic high. An increase of $0.26 million in total adjustments to franchise taxes is recommended based on an analysis of recent
revenue numbers.
• An increase of $1.13 million in Other Revenues from newly classified lease revenue related to the implementation of GASB 87 & 96, credit card service fee revenue, and interest income. GASB requires recording revenues from third-party contracts related to leases, software and other technology acquisitions.
Table 2. General Fund Revenues
General Fund Expenditures
As presented in Table 3 below, General Fund expenditures are projected to increase slightly by $0.55 million. The most significant adjustments are based on the implementation of GASB 87 & 96 and the water budget due to increased usage and rate increases.
Table 3. General Fund Expenditures
Personnel Expenses – There is only one adjustment in this category to capture costs associated with reclassifying the Lead Building Inspector to the Senior Building Inspector in the Community Development Department. This reclassification would result in providing the Building and Safety Division additional supervisory and technical capacity that is necessary as larger and more complex development projects begin to break ground.
Funds set aside for annual salary changes based on cost-of-living adjustments and performance reviews for the Management and Confidential employee group are recommended to be removed, with no salary adjustments planned in FY 2024/25.
The Mid-Year Budget does not include any new permanent positions.
Non-Personnel Expenses– Non-personnel expenses identified in Table 3 above (all expense
categories other than Personnel) are projected to increase by a net total of $0.54 million as described in more detail below.
• Materials and Supplies – The net decrease of $0.99 million is due a series of adjustments. As highlighted earlier, adjustments to utility costs are the largest non- personnel budget category due to rate increases as well as more up-to-date projections based on year-to-date actual usage information. An increase of $0.34 million to the water usage budget in the General Fund is recommended. Non-utility budget adjustments include 1) $0.15 million decrease in the Community Development Department budget to offset costs for the building inspector reclassification previously mentioned and decreases to software costs and credit card service fees; 2) $0.01 million decrease in professional services budget in the Public Works Department; 3) $1.17 million decrease to the Non-Departmental budget based on removal of aforementioned funds for salary adjustments and an increase in payment to Costco based on earlier opening and subsequent revenue sharing obligations. • Capital Outlay and Debt Services – A net increase of $1.53 million is based on adjustments necessary to implement GASB 87 & 96.
General Fund Reserves and Fund Balance – Projected total General Fund reserves at the end of FY 2024/25 are $53.60 million, with the unrestricted General Fund reserve at $32.44 million. The City’s current reserve policy requires a minimum reserve between 16.7 and 25.0 percent of operating expenses, with a target of 20.0 percent. The unrestricted General Fund reserve of $32.44 million equals 21.0 percent of the General Fund operating expenses.
Table 4. General Fund Reserves
Enterprise Funds
Water Operations and Maintenance Fund – As shown in Table 5 below, recommended changes to the Water Operations and Maintenance Fund include a decrease of $1.14 million in revenues and an increase of $0.24 million in operating expenses. The result of these adjustments is a decrease in net income by $1.48 million and an estimated ending fund balance of $11.25 million, which equals 31.1 percent of the total FY 2024/25 operating expenses. The City’s reserve policy requires reserves to stay between 30.0 and 40.0 percent with a target of 35.0 percent.
Based on year-to-date actual sales numbers and a projected year-end total, as well as
accounting for the new rate effective January 1, 2025, staff recommends increasing the water sales revenue budget by $0.19 million and decreasing the recycled water sales revenue budget by $1.43 million. Other changes include adding $0.10 million in new revenue based on the credit card convenience fee, which went into effect on January 1, 2025.
Minor expenditure adjustments are recommended with increases to repair & maintenance contracts and bank fees. With a handful of water capital projects planned in the current calendar year and additional capital projects on the horizon based on the recently completed Water System Management Plan, it is anticipated the Water and Recycled Water Operating Fund will need to resume contributing funds to its respective capital funds. As part of the biennial budget development, a comprehensive assessment of the Water and Recycled Water Operating Fund will be performed and presented to the City Council in May/June 2025.
Table 5. Water Operations and Maintenance Fund Overview
Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund – As shown in Table 6 below, recommended changes to the Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund include increasing machinery equipment and vehicle purchase expenditures by $0.08 million based on higher purchase costs. The result of this adjustment is an estimated ending fund balance of $8.73 million which equals 47.9 percent of FY 2024/25 operating expenses. The City’s policy requires reserves equal to a minimum of 30.0 percent, a maximum of 40.0 percent and a target of 35.0 percent.
Similar to the Water and Recycled Water Operating Fund, a comprehensive assessment of the Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund will be performed and presented to the City Council in May/June 2025.
Table 6. Sewer Operations and Maintenance Fund Overview
Special Revenue Funds
Recommended changes to special revenue funds include 1) increasing expenditure by $0.26 million in the Measure D Fund to account for the Waste & Recycling Manager position the City Council approved on August 20, 2024; 2) increasing revenue by $0.07 million in the Miscellaneous Operating Grants Fund based on higher Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant funding and increasing expenditure by $0.45 million, consisting of $0.38 million carryover of remaining funds from FY 2023/24 for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant and $0.07 million expenditure based on additional OTS grant funding; 3) increasing revenue by $0.01 million based on higher Community Oriented Policing Services grant in the Law Enforcement Services Fund and increasing expenditure by $1.51 million, consisting of $1.33 million for the command center and crime scene investigation vehicles that have been delivered and $0.18 million to fund the police radio information management system; 4) increasing revenue by $0.23 million in the Lower Income Housing Fund to reflect necessary GASB 87 adjustments and increasing expenditure by $0.10 million to adjust contract and professional services budget; and 5) increasing revenue by $1.33 million in the Pleasanton Garbage Service Rate Reserve Fund to reflect the vehicle mitigation impact fee revenue and adding a transfer of $1.19 million to the Street CIP – General Fund to fund the City’s street resurfacing capital projects.
Capital Funds
Recommended changes include net transfer adjustments in the Street CIP – General Fund, a transfer of $1.19 million in vehicle impact mitigation fee revenue from the Pleasanton Garbage Service Rate Reserve Fund. As mentioned previously, this fund will be used for the City’s street resurfacing capital projects. The Water Replacement CIP Fund will see an increase in net transfer by $4.90 million, with a transfer of $4.80 million from the Water Debt Service Fund to offset capital project expenditures budgeted in FY 2024/25 and a cancelation of $0.10 million transfer to the Water Operating Fund. Besides the $4.80 million, $13.0 million in transfers out is also added to the Water Debt Service Fund to correspond to the 2024 Water Revenue Bond proceeds budgeted in the Water Replacement CIP Fund to fund capital projects.
Repair and Replacement Funds
Changes are recommended in the Vehicle Replacement fund, increasing the budget by $0.24 million collectively to account for higher than anticipated vehicle leasing costs and funds
needed to buy out older outfitted vehicles that are leased.
The summary of recommended mid-year adjustments is:
• The FY 2024/25 General Fund revenue budget will increase by $2,637,265; the General Fund expenditure budget will increase by $546,270; General Fund net transfer budget will decrease by $2,090,635.
• All Other Funds budgets for FY 2024/25 will increase revenues by $499,031; decrease net transfers by $10,943,915; and increase expenditures by $2,871,351.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is an administrative matter of City business.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is an administrative matter of City business.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Funding Our Future, which is focused on fiscal sustainability.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended adjustments to various funds and the financial impact to each fund are outlined in Attachment 2. The discussion section of this report also summarizes the recommended adjustments and their respective impacts to the budget and fund balances.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Chris Yi, Financial Services
Manager
Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Attachment 1 - Resolution
2. Exhibit A to Resolution - Budget Adjustment Summary
3. Attachment 2 - FY25 Mid-Year Budget Review Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON, ACCEPTING THE FY 2024/25 MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT AND APPROVING THE FY 2024/25 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, staff periodically presents to the City Council reports regarding the financial condition of the City along with any recommendations for budget amendments and technical corrective actions needed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the FY 2024/25 Budget (“Budget”) on May 21, 2024 and
WHEREAS, staff prepared Mid-Year Budget update that includes recommended amendments to the Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1.Allocate the $6,832 General Fund surplus to the Unrestricted General Fund Reserve.
SECTION 2. It amends the Budget as outlined in Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on February 18, 2025.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on February 18, 2025, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
FY 2024/25 BUDGET - MID YEAR ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY
NET NET NET
BUDGET RECOMMENDED MID-YEAR BUDGET RECOMMENDED MID-YEAR BUDGET RECOMMENDED MID-YEAR
REVENUES REVENUES REVENUES TRANSFERS TRANSFERS TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND 151,238,775$ 2,637,265$ 153,876,040$ 2,387,202$ (2,090,635)$ 296,567$ (153,929,505)$ (546,270)$ (154,475,775)$ Capital Reserve Fund -$ -$ -$ (4,172,000)$ 1,092,000$ (3,080,000)$ -$ -$ -$
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water / Recycled Water 42,034,998$ (1,140,569)$ 40,894,429$ (790,885)$ (100,000)$ (890,885)$ (36,002,266)$ (236,825)$ (36,239,091)$ Water Debt Service -$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$ (17,834,550)$ (16,634,550)$ (1,200,000)$ -$ (1,200,000)$ Sewer 18,084,810$ -$ 18,084,810$ 135,000$ -$ 135,000$ (18,134,906)$ (75,000)$ (18,209,906)$ Subtotal 60,119,808$ (1,140,569)$ 58,979,239$ 544,115$ (17,934,550)$ (17,390,435)$ (55,337,172)$ (311,825)$ (55,648,997)$
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Vehicle Replacement 599,000$ -$ 599,000$ -$ -$ -$ (671,000)$ (240,000)$ (911,000)$ Subtotal 599,000$ -$ 599,000$ -$ -$ -$ (671,000)$ (240,000)$ (911,000)$
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Measure D 240,000$ -$ 240,000$ -$ -$ -$ (399,098)$ (256,543)$ (655,641)$ Miscellaneous Operating Grants 494,993$ 72,000$ 566,993$ -$ -$ -$ (494,993)$ (451,359)$ (946,352)$ Law Enforcement Services 199,000$ 10,000$ 209,000$ -$ -$ -$ (50,000)$ (1,508,491)$ (1,558,491)$ Lower Income Housing 2,380,000$ 228,200$ 2,608,200$ -$ -$ -$ (611,991)$ (103,133)$ (715,124)$ Pleasanton Garbage Service Rate 800,000$ 1,329,400$ 2,129,400$ -$ (1,193,760)$ (1,193,760)$ (851,349)$ -$ (851,349)$ Subtotal 4,113,993$ 1,639,600$ 5,753,593$ -$ (1,193,760)$ (1,193,760)$ (2,407,431)$ (2,319,526)$ (4,726,957)$
CAPITAL FUNDS
Miscellaneous CIP - General 124,400$ -$ 124,400$ 2,471,578$ 1,000,000$ 3,471,578$ 27,352,249$ -$ 27,352,249$ Street CIP - General 102,000$ -$ 102,000$ -$ 1,193,760$ 1,193,760$ (5,521,716)$ -$ (5,521,716)$ Water Replacement CIP 100,000$ -$ 100,000$ 12,989,637$ 4,900,000$ 17,889,637$ (17,278,464)$ -$ (17,278,464)$ Subtotal 326,400$ -$ 326,400$ 15,461,215$ 7,093,760$ 22,554,975$ 4,552,069$ -$ 4,552,069$
PRIVATE PURPOSE TRUST FUNDS
Asset Forfeiture Agency -$ -$ -$ -$ (1,365)$ (1,365)$ -$ -$ -$ Subtotal -$ -$ -$ -$ (1,365)$ (1,365)$ -$ -$ -$ Total 216,397,976 3,136,296 219,534,272 14,220,532 (13,034,550) 1,185,982 (207,793,039) (3,417,621) (211,210,659) Exhibit A
2/8/2025
1 FY 2024/25 Mid-Year Budget ReviewCity Council MeetingFebruary 18, 2024 Agenda1. Overview2. Mid-Year Highlights 3. Proposed Budget Adjustments4. Questions and Answers2 1 2
2/8/2025
2 Purpose of Mid-Year Update3
Review financial performanceReview
Update revenue and expenditure projectionsUpdate
Analyze reserve to ensure compliance with financial policyAnalyze Economic Outlook•The U.S. economy is expected to continue growing, but there are uncertainties•Key Economic Factors:•Inflation •Interest rates•Consumer spending•Trade tensions4 3 4
2/8/2025
3 Budget Overview•General Fund: Revenues will increase by $2.6MNet transfer will decrease by $2.1MExpenditures will increase by $0.5M•All Other Funds:Revenues will increase by $0.5MNet transfers will decrease by $10.9MExpenditures will increase by $2.9M5 General Fund – Highlights(Budget is balanced with $3.1M in Capital Reserve)Revenues and Transfers In:•Increase in property tax, hotel tax, and revenue associated with GASB implementation•Decrease in sales tax revenue•Decrease in transfer from the Capital Reserve FundExpenditures and Transfers Out:•Increase in water utility costs and capital outlay and debt services•Decrease in the budget set aside for salary adjustments•Increase in contribution to the capital improvement program6 5 6
2/8/2025
4 Enterprise Funds - Highlights•Decrease in recycled water revenue•Increase in transfers out in the Water Debt Service Fund and increase in transfers in in the Water Capital Fund•Increase in other expenditures7 Other Funds - Highlights•Special Revenue Funds•Budget new vehicle mitigation impact fee and transfer to the Street CIP Fund•Budget for PD command and crime scene investigation vehicles and radio information management system •Capital Projects Funds•Budget additional contributions from the General Fund and the Garbage Reserve Fund•Internal Service Funds•Budget for higher than expected vehicle leased and outfitting costs 8 7 8
2/8/2025
5 General Fund Overview•$3.1M in Capital Reserve is used to balance the budget (one-time money)•Capital contribution is below the $5M minimum goal•Revenue is projected to increase by 1.4% from FY 2023/24•Expenditure is projected to increase by 8.4% from FY 2023/249FY 2024 Revised Recommended Mid-YearA ctual Budget A djustments BudgetRevenues 151,750,238 151,238,775 2,637,265 $153,876,040Net Transfers (7,608,441) 2,387,202 (2,090,635) 296,567 Use of Program Reserves 900,572 310,000 - 310,000 Expenditures (142,496,475) (153,929,505) (546,270) (154,475,775) Difference $2,545,893 $6,472 $360 $6,832FY 2025 General Fund - Proposed Revised Budget
10 9
10
2/8/2025
6 General Fund - Major Adjustments11Recommended AdjustmentDescriptionRevenues & Transfers In$0.9M • Property Tax-$0.2M • Sales Tax$0.7M• Hotel Tax and Franchise Fees$1.1M• Other Revenues-$1.1M• Transfer from Capital Reserve FundExpenditures & Transfers Out$0.3M• Water Utility Costs-$1.1M• Salary Adjustments$1.5M• Capital Outlay and Debt Services$1.0M• Transfer to Capital Improvement Program Enterprise Funds - Major Adjustments•Water Fund reserve is below the 35% reserve target and the reserve is expected to re-build over time•Water Fund is lack of funding for capital investments•Sewer Fund meets the reserve target but is lack of funding for capital investments12Recommended AdjustmentDescriptionFund-$1.1M • Recycle Water Service ChargesWater$17.8M• Transfer to fund capital projects (2024 Water Bond proceeds) 11 12
2/8/2025
7 Other Funds - Major Adjustments13Recommended AdjustmentDescriptionFunds$1.3M• Vehicle Mitigation Impact Fee (new revenue) Special Revenue$1.1M• Transfer to Street CIP Fund$1.5M• Budget for PD command and crime scene investigation vehicles and radio information management system $1.1M• Transfer from Garbage Reserve Fund to fund street resurfacing projectsCapital Projects$1.0M• Transfer from General Fund$4.9M• Transfer from Water Debt Service Fund (bond proceeds) Looking ForwardFebruary 2025- Peer Review Presentation- 2025-27 Baseline Budget PresentationFebruary-June 2024- Community Engagement- Budget Advisory Committee Meetings - Budget DevelopmentMay-June 2024- Proposed Budget Presentation - Budget Adoption14 13 14
2/8/2025
8 Recommendation•Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Mid-Year Budget Report and approve the proposed budget amendments15 Thank You!
15 16
Item #11
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 18, 2025
Finance
TITLE: ACCEPT THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE CITY OF
PLEASANTON INCLUDING THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL
REPORT AND OTHER RELATED AUDIT REPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024
SUMMARY
Each year, the City is required to prepare audited financial statements in addition to several related reports which the City Council reviews and formally accepts. Those reports are attached to this agenda report.
The City received an unmodified opinion on the financial statements from its auditors The Pun Group (TPG).
RECOMMENDATION
AUDIT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Audit Committee (Mayor Balch and Councilmember Eicher) are scheduled to review these reports on February 11, 2025; their comments and recommendations will be reported to the City Council at the February 18, 2025, meeting. A representative from TPG will attend the meeting and present the audit process and results to the Audit Committee, and staff will present the FY 2023/24 financial performance. There were findings/recommendations resulting from the FY 2023/24 audit, as discussed below, but the changes have no impact on the City’s spendable resources.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the audited financial statements including the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and related audit related reports for FY 2023/24.
BACKGROUND
The City's independent auditors, TPG, completed the audit of the City's financial transactions and internal controls for FY 2023/24. The following reports were prepared by the City and audited by the independent auditors:
• Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is the overall financial report for the entire City organization and provides information about the financial results of operations and numerous required disclosures. This report contains the Independent Auditors’ Report, which is prepared by the auditors based on their examination of the City’s financial transactions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024. • Alameda County Transportation Commission Measure B Program Independent Auditors’ Reports and Financial Statements is required by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). Measure B funds, the one-half cent sales tax approved by Alameda County voters, provides funding for transportation related
projects.
• Alameda County Transportation Commission Measure BB Program Independent Auditors’ Reports and Financial Statements is required by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). Measure BB funds, an additional one-half cent sales tax approved by Alameda County voters in November 2014, provides funding for transportation related projects.
• Alameda County Transportation Commission Measure F Program Independent Auditors’ Reports and Financial Statements is required by the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC). Under Measure F, approved by Alameda County voters in November 2010, the City receives a portion of the proceeds of the $10 per year vehicle registration fee for funding transportation related projects. • The Single Audit Report is the report required by the federal government. This report contains a schedule of Federal Financial Assistance summarizing federal grant activity for the fiscal year. Any non-federal entity with federal expenditures in excess of $750,000 is required to have a single audit conducted in accordance with Uniform Guidance.
• The Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control, included in the above Single Audit Report, provides a review of the City’s internal controls, based on the audits of the ACFR, federal grants, and Measures B, BB and F financial reports. If the auditor identifies deficiencies, they make recommendations to improve internal controls. The auditors’ findings and recommendations are included as part of this report. • Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures to Appropriations Limit Schedule is required by the State of California in Section 1.5 of Article XIII-B of the California Constitution. Article XIII-B of the California Constitution limits the amount that governmental agencies can annually appropriate from proceeds of taxes.
• The Auditors’ Communications Letter includes the auditor’s letter communicating their responsibilities in performing the audit and, if any, significant findings and issues detected during the course of the audit. The report references the City of Pleasanton Management Representation Letter communicating management’s opinion of the City’s financial condition, internal controls, and adherence with laws and regulations. • The Popular Annual Financial Report extracts information from the annual comprehensive financial report to produce financial reports specifically designed to be accessible and easily understandable to the public and other interested parties without a background in public finance.
DISCUSSION
ACFR Preparation Guidelines and Contents
The City’s ACFR is prepared in accordance with the guidelines and standards established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The ACFR includes the following major sections and information:
Introductory Section
• Letter of Transmittal – provides information about the City’s profile, economic conditions and outlook, and major initiatives and accomplishments.
Financial Section (the key section of the ACFR)
• Independent Auditors’ Report – report card on the fair presentation of the City’s financial statements.
• Management’s Discussion and Analysis – provides an overview of the City’s activities and financial performance.
• Basic Financial Statements – present the City’s financial results and conditions. The key reports include balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement.
1. Government-wide Financial Statements – provide a broad overview of the City’s finances, in a manner like private-sector businesses.
2. Fund Financial Statements – focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources. Useful information in determining what financial resources are available in the near future to finance the City’s programs.
3. Notes to Financial Statements – an integral part of the financial statements that provides additional information pertaining to City operations.
4. Supplementary Information – includes budgetary comparison schedules and pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) plans. • Statistical Tables (current and historical information – up to10 years)
1. Financial Trends
2. Revenue Capacity Information
3. Debt Capacity Information
4. Demographic and Economic Information
5. Operating Information
Financial Highlights
Refer to the MD&A section of the ACFR for a detailed discussion on the City’s financial performance and position. Financial highlights for the year ended June 30, 2024, are:
• The City’s total net position increased by $12.1 million in FY 2023/24 of which $16.1 million is governmental activities, primarily due to revenues exceeding expenses offset by a decrease of $4.0 million in business-type activities, primarily due to increased expenses in the Water, Sewer, and Golf Funds.
• Property tax revenues, the largest revenue source for the General Fund increased by $4.2 million from the prior fiscal year, or 4.8 percent, and sales tax revenues, the second largest revenue source for the General Fund, decreased by $1.6 million, or 6.1 percent, largely due to several sales tax categories, including autos and transportation and general consumer goods, which did not perform as expected. • The City’s governmental funds reported ending fund balances of $188.6, an increase of $21.1 million from FY 2022/23 to FY 2023/24 as revenues exceeded expenditures and prior period adjustments recorded. This is due to the City’s conservative financial planning and cost-savings strategies implemented during the year. Certain revenues collected in FY 2023/24 will be used to support projects in future fiscal years. In addition, the City recorded the prior period adjustments due to reclassifying the unavailable revenue to fund balance and uncollectible amounts recorded. • The General Fund’s fund balance at fiscal year-end was $62.0 million, of which $33.9
million is unassigned, $19.5 million is restricted for the PARS Section 115 Pension Trust Fund, $8.1 million is committed for the COVID Response and Recovery Program, the Mobile Outreach Vehicle Program, the Strategic Plan implementation, the Emergency and Rainy Day Reserves, and $0.5 million is non-spendable. The $62.0 million fund balance is a $4.7 million increase over the fund balance at the end of FY 2022/23.
Enterprise Financial Highlights
• The Water Fund’s net position decreased by $2.3 million. Operating revenues of $34.0 million and operating expenses of $38.4 million (an increase of $5.0 million and $4.2 million from the prior fiscal year) resulted in an operating loss of $4.5 million, which includes non-capitalizable related expenses. Miscellaneous revenue remained constant between fiscal years at $0.8 million, while charges for user services increased by $5.0 million due to a rate increase (effective January 1, 2024). The increase in operating expenses was mainly attributable to a $4.3 million increase in water purchase costs compared to the prior fiscal year from Zone 7. The purchase cost for recycled water increased by $0.2 million compared to the prior fiscal year. • The Sewer Fund’s net position decreased by $0.3 million in FY 2023/24. Operating revenues of $16.8 million and operating expenses of $19.7 million (an increase of $1.2 million and $0.2 million, respectively, from the prior fiscal year) resulted in an operating loss of $2.9 million, including capital-related expenses. The $1.2 million increase in operating revenues is mostly due to a rate increase, as well as higher than anticipated utilization of sewer services. The $0.2 million increase in operating expenses was primarily attributable to increased repairs and maintenance costs.
Auditor’s Communications with Those Charged with Governance Professional auditing standards require the auditors to communicate in writing to management and those charged with governance. TPG issued the Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control and the Auditor’s Communication Letter; these are attached. The Report on Internal Control and audit findings/recommendations are included as part of the Single Audit Report, as noted above. TPG considered the City’s internal controls over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures.
The audit findings/recommendations were related to the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statements relevant to fund balance reporting (GASB 54), leases (GASB 87), and fiduciary activities (GASB 84). Necessary adjustments were recorded in FY 2023/24 to reclassify certain transactions or restate fund balance/net position to align with GASB pronouncements.
TPG recommended that unavailable revenue/liability recorded in certain governmental funds to defer long-term loans receivable be reported as restricted fund balance.
We appreciate TPG’s interpretation of GASB 54, reflecting a different view from the City’s prior audit firms. Due to the contingent nature of some of the loan repayments such as long-term loans with nonprofit organizations, it is appropriate to write off those loans while reclassifying certain loans from unavailable revenue/liability to restricted fund balance when repayments are expected. Collectively, these adjustments have no net impact on the resources that are
available in the City’s various loan programs, as restricted fund balances are not spendable resources until the City receives the repayments from the borrowers.
With the recent implementation of GASB 87, the City continues to review and evaluate leases on a regular basis and identify items such as leased vehicles that are considered to be leases.
Adjustments have been recorded to properly reflect the assets and liabilities. This was also mentioned in TPG’s audit findings/recommendations.
The City maintains certain records for the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) in the custodial funds. According to GASB 84, a liability in its custodial funds is only required to be reported when a demand for the resources has been made or when no further action, approval, or condition is required to be taken or met by the beneficiary to release the assets.
For presentation purposes, since the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) financial statements report the claims payable, there is concurrent that reporting of the liability in the City’s custodian funds is not necessary. This change has no impact on the City’s financial position.
Analysis and assessment of the FY 2023/24 operating results and fund balances are important steps to the mid-year budget review process. Staff will be presenting the FY 2024/25 mid-year budget to the City Council for consideration at the February 18, 2025, meeting, at the same meeting at which the ACFR is presented.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is a routine administrative matter of City businesses.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is a routine administrative matter of City businesses.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable, as this item is a routine administrative matter of City businesses.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact in accepting the FY 2023/24 audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and other related reports.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Susan Hsieh, Director of
Finance
Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. FY24 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
2. FY24 Measure B Financial Statements
3. FY24 Measure BB Financial Statements
4. FY24 Measure F Financial Statements
5. FY24 Single Audit and Independent Auditors' Reports
6. FY24 Appropriations Limit Schedule
7. FY24 Auditors' Communications Letter
8. FY24 Popular Annual Financial Report
9. FY24 ACFR Presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT WITH REPORTS ON AUDIT BY INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024 Prepared by: Finance Department
City of Pleasanton Annual Comprehensive Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 2024 Table of Contents i
Page INTRODUCTORY SECTION (Unaudited) Letter of Transmittal ....................................................................................................................................................... v GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting .................................................................. xv Elected Officials and Executive Management ............................................................................................................. xvi Organization Chart ..................................................................................................................................................... xvii Regional Map ............................................................................................................................................................ xviii FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements ............................................................... 1 Managements Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) (Unaudited) ........................... 5 Basic Financial Statements: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................................................ 32 Statement of Activities .................................................................................................................................... 34 Fund Financial Statements: Governmental Funds Financial Statements: Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................................ 40 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position .......................................................................... 43 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances .................................................... 44 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities ........................................................................................ 46 Proprietary Funds Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position ......................................................................................................................... 48 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ............................................................. 52 Statement of Cash Flows ........................................................................................................................... 54 Fiduciary Funds Financial Statements: Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ......................................................................................................... 61 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ...................................................................................... 62 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ............................................................................................................. 69
City of Pleasanton Annual Comprehensive Financial ReportFor the Year Ended June 30, 2024 Table of Contents (Continued) ii
Page FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited): Budgetary Comparison Schedule: General Fund ................................................................................................................................................. 135 Lower Income Housing Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................ 136 Miscellaneous Grants Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................ 137 Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedule ................................................................................................... 139 Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios: Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Miscellaneous Plan .......................................... 140 Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Safety (Fire) Plan ............................................. 142 Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability: Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan - Safety (Police) Plan ............................... 144 Schedule of Plan Contributions - Pensions: Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Miscellaneous Plan .......................................... 146 Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Safety (Fire) Plan ............................................. 148 Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan - Safety (Police) Plan ............................... 150 Schedule of Changes in Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios: City of Pleasanton Retiree Healthcare Plan - Agent Multiple-Employer Plan .............................................. 152 Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department Retiree Healthcare Plan - Agent Multiple-Employer Plan ............. 154 Schedule of OPEB Contributions: City of Pleasanton Retiree Healthcare Plan - Agent Multiple-Employer Plan .............................................. 156 Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department Retiree Healthcare Plan - Agent Multiple-Employer Plan ............. 158 Supplementary Information: Schedule of Revenues, Expenditure, and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual: Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Programs Capital Projects Fund ......................................................... 163 Nonmajor Governmental Funds: Combining Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................. 169 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances ..................................... 179 Schedules of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Budget and Actual: D.A.R.E Trust Special Revenue Fund .................................................................................................... 189 Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund .................................................................................................. 190 CBD Parking In-Lieu Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................... 191 Resource Management Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................................... 192 Miscellaneous Donations Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................... 193 Landscape and Lighting Districts Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................... 194 Landscape Maintenance N.P.I.D. Special Revenue Fund ....................................................................... 195 Geologic Hazard Assessment Districts Special Revenue Fund .............................................................. 196 Measure B Transportation Improvements Special Revenue Fund .......................................................... 197 Gas Tax Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................................. 198 HOME Program Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................................. 199 Abandoned Vehicle Special Revenue Fund .................................................................................... 200
City of Pleasanton Annual Comprehensive Financial ReportFor the Year Ended June 30, 2024 Table of Contents (Continued) iii
Page Supplementary Information (Continued): Nonmajor Governmental Funds (Continued): Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual (Continued): Urban Forestry Program Special Revenue Fund ..................................................................................... 201 HBPOA Maintenance District Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................ 202 Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund .............................................................. 203 Downtown Economic Loan Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................ 204 Community Access Television Special Revenue Fund .......................................................................... 205 Marilyn Murphy Kane Trail Reserve Special Revenue Fund ................................................................. 206 Specific Plans Special Revenue Fund ..................................................................................................... 207 Measure F Vehicle Registration Fees Special Revenue Fund ................................................................. 208 Measure BB Transportation Improvements Special Revenue Fund ....................................................... 209 AB1379 CASp Certification and Training Special Revenue Fund ......................................................... 210 Business Support Program Special Revenue Fund ................................................................................. 211 Pleasanton Garbage Service Rate Reserve Special Revenue Fund ......................................................... 212 Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone Special Revenue Fund .................................................... 213 Opioid Settlements Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................. 214 CIP for Downtown & North Pleasanton Capital Projects Fund .............................................................. 215 Public Facilities Capital Projects Fund ................................................................................................... 216 Park Development Capital Projects Fund ............................................................................................... 217 Park Capital Improvement Program Capital Project Fund ...................................................................... 218 Street Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund .................................................................. 219 Traffic Impact Capital Projects Fund ...................................................................................................... 220 Budgeted Developer Projects Capital Projects Fund .............................................................................. 221 Assessment District Construction Capital Projects Fund ........................................................................ 222 Tri-Valley Transportation Capital Projects Fund .................................................................................... 223 Nonmajor Enterprise Funds: Combining Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................... 227 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position ................................................ 228 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................ 229 All Internal Service Funds: Combining Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................... 232 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position ................................................ 234 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................ 236 Custodial Funds: Combining Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................... 242 Combining Statement of Change in Fiduciary Net Position ......................................................................... 244
City of Pleasanton Annual Comprehensive Financial ReportFor the Year Ended June 30, 2024 Table of Contents (Continued) iv
STATISTICAL SECTION (Unaudited) Description of Statistical Section Contents ................................................................................................................ 249 Financial Trends: Net Position by Component ................................................................................................................................. 252 Changes in Net Position ....................................................................................................................................... 254 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds ............................................................................................................... 258 Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds .............................................................................................. 260 Revenue Capacity: Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property ...................................................................... 265 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates ........................................................................................................ 266 Principal Property Taxpayers ............................................................................................................................... 268 Property Tax Levies and Collections ................................................................................................................... 269 Debt Capacity: Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type .................................................................................................................... 272 Ratios of Net General Bonded Debt Outstanding ............................................................................................... 274 Direct and Overlapping Debt ............................................................................................................................... 275 Legal Debt Margin ............................................................................................................................................... 276 Pledged-Revenue Coverage for the Water Fund .................................................................................................. 278 Demographic and Economic Information: Demographic and Economic Statistics ................................................................................................................. 281 Principal Employers ............................................................................................................................................. 282 Full-Time, Part-Time and Limited Term Employees by Function ...................................................................... 283 Operating Information: Operating Indicators by Function ......................................................................................................................... 286 Capital Asset Statistics by Function ..................................................................................................................... 288