Pleasanton City Council
March 18, 2025

28 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
($90,900/year). In fiscal year 2023-2024, the City spent $67.62 per public tree, so for every dollar ($1) that the City’s urban forestry program spends to maintain and manage public
trees, the community receives an equivalent of $1.24 dollars in environmental benefits, showing that investment in the urban forest yields a positive return for community members.

Trees and Property Values
In addition to the environmental and other quality of life benefits that Pleasanton’s trees provide including shade, reducing the urban heat island effect, habitat for wildlife, and improving public health (O’Brien et al., 2022), trees have also been shown to have a positive effect on
property values.

A study that analyzed multiple research papers on
trees and residential property values found that trees
could increase the value of a home anywhere from
two percent (homes with mature backyard trees) to
fifteen percent (in neighborhoods with good mature
tree cover), compared to homes and neighborhoods
with fewer trees (Wolf 2007).

The trend shows that in most cases, the more trees there are in a neighborhood, the greater the increase in property values. Highlighting these environmental and economic
benefits is one method to encourage residents and
business owners to participate in urban forest programs.

Table 1-4. Financial Value of City-Managed Trees
V alue Description Asset Amount Per- T ree V alue
Carbon Storage
(10.92 tons)  Amount of Carbon held in trees  $21,200/annual  $0.91 Structural T ree replacement cost  $99,400,000  $4,266
Functional Value based on the services trees perform  $90,900  $3.90 Sources: City of Pleasanton Tree Inventory (Dudek 2024); i-Tree Eco (USFS 2020).

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 29

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

1.4.4 Urban Forest Management

1.4.4.1 Staff
The City uses a combination of in-house employees and
external contractors to manage and maintain City trees.

The primary work of the current tree maintenance contractor is focused on street tree pruning (62% of contracted work) and removals (10% of contracted work). In addition to
maintaining parks facilities, City Parks staff are responsible for pruning trees in the City parks, debris cleanup, and for the planting and watering of new public trees in streets and parks, On the planning side, the City’s Landscape
Architect division, is responsible for implementing the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, reviewing and approving
tree removal permits, and providing review on tree-related aspects of development plans.

Whatever mix of staffing and contractor work the City
chooses to employ must be sufficient and effective for
accomplishing the City’s urban forestry goals. Because
Pleasanton does not currently have any full-time positions dedicated solely to tree management, this has led to more reactive tree management that contributes to the City falling short of its replanting goals each year. This suggests the City needs additional full-time staff, such as a dedicated Urban Forestry team discussed in Key Finding 5, or additional contracted labor to meet its urban forestry goals.

30 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
Public T rees Public & Private T rees Private T rees

STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Figure 1-8 provides an overview of the City Departments, contractors, and utilities that are responsible for maintaining and managing Pleasanton’s urban forest .

Figure 1-8. City Departments, Contractors and Utilities Responsible for Managing the Urban Forest Community Development Department
Planning Division

URBAN FOREST

RESPONSIBILITIES
» Review new
development plans
and ensure tree and
landscaping standards
are met
PGE

TREE-RELATED

RESPONSIBILITIES
» Inspect trees for line
clearance and utility
fire safe
Landscape Architecture Division

URBAN FOREST

RESPONSIBILITIES
» Implement and Enforce
T ree Preservation
Ordinance
» Review and approve
tree removal permits
» Review development
plans – tree species
» Lead the creation of the
UFMP
» Public outreach,
education, and
communication on
UFMP
Streets Division

URBAN FOREST

RESPONSIBILITIES
» Inspection of trees and
roots to determine
cause tied to sidewalk
uplift/offsets
» Oversee and conduct
root pruning and
tree removals for
sidewalk repairs. T ree
removals, if necessary,
are determined and
managed by the Parks
Division
Parks Division

URBAN FOREST

RESPONSIBILITIES
» Pruning of City park and
street trees
» Planting new City trees
(Parks and Streets)
» Watering newly planted
City trees
» Responsible for
implementing Urban
Forest Master Plan
(UFMP)
» Oversee public
tree operations and
contracted work
City Contractors

CONTRACTED

TREE WORK
» Pruning
» Removals
» Debris cleanup
PGE Contractors

CONTRACTED

TREE WORK
» Line clearance under
PGE utilities and tree
removal for gas lines
Public Works Department

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 31

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

1.4.4.2 Budget
The City’s urban forest funding has been increasing over the past six years to meet rising costs and the growing needs of maintaining a healthy urban forest. The six-year averages per maintenance activity is broken down by line item in Table 1-7. The most recent fiscal year 2023–2024 spending on the City’s Urban Forest program was $1,604,187, which covered all projected urban forest maintenance and emergency work from storm events. The six-year running average does not meet the projected funding requirements if the City is to meet its future canopy cover goal of achieving 25% cover in all residential neighborhoods. Achieving this goal will require the City to fill over 1100 vacant tree sites over the next 25 years and invest more staff time and resources into tree establishment care, public outreach and education, and grant writing. See section 1.4.5 for a more detailed breakdown on the projected future budget needed to meet Pleasanton urban forestry goals.

The sources of the program budget are presented in Table 1-8. Most of Pleasanton’s funding comes from the General Fund, with the remaining funding coming from the Urban Forestry Fund. The Urban Forestry Fund is funded through contributions from development projects within the City.

The Urban Forestry Fund in Table 1-8 is an average of the last three years.

The General Fund amount in Table 1-8 was determined by taking the six- year average total on urban forest expenditures presented in Table 1-7, rounded to the nearest thousand dollar, and subtracting the three-year average Urban Forestry Fund total. Table 1-9 represents a comparison of the Pleasanton urban forest program budget using the most recent fiscal year (2023-2024) with other municipalities of a similar population and those located in Northern California.

32 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
Table 1-5. Six Y ear Average of Urban Forest Expenditures by Department Staff and Contractor Urban Forest T ask Contractor
Services
Department
Staff T otals Annual Service Data
Pruning $483,745 $91,273 $575,018 3,455 T rees Pruned
Removals $67,834 $71,919 $139,753 226 T rees Removed
Management Activities $16,150 $176,062 $192,212 11.6% of management time is spent on City managed trees
Storm Cleanup/
Emergency Work $28,464  - $28,464 Metrics contained within T rees Pruned and T rees Removed data above
Downed T ree Cleanup - $83,741 $83,741 Metrics contained within T rees Pruned and T rees Removed data above
Planting - $61,771 $61,771 151 T rees Planted
Establishment Care - $17,982 $17,982 254 T rees Watered Other Expenses $108,975 $108,975
To t a l $705,168 $502,748 $1,207,916
Table 1-6. Funding Sources for Pleasanton’s Urban Forestry Program Funding Source Amount Percent of T otal
General Fund $1,168,000 97%
Urban Forestry fund $40,000 3%

STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 33

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 1-7. Comparison of Municipal Urban Forest Management Funding California City Population Annual Urban
Forest Budget
Number of Public
Managed T rees
T ree Budget Allocation
per T ree
Pleasanton 74,653 $1,530,107 23,348 $65.53
Comparison with Other Northern California Municipal Program Chico 130,178 $1,443,653 34,874 $41.40
Dublin 72,060 $900,000 14,000 $64.29
Napa 79,039 $1,299,900 50,000 $26.00
Rancho Cordova 73,147 $329,000 3,910 $84.14
Sacramento 501,334 $6.7 million 100,000 $67.00
San Francisco 874,961 $19 million 236,000 $80.51
San Ramon 84,929 $669,248 45,606 $14.68

34 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Annual Tree Service Data
Average annual service data from the past 5 years relating to tree maintenance and assessment are depicted in Table 1-8.

Pleasanton currently plants around 151 trees each year and removes 226 trees per year resulting in an average net loss of 75 trees per year.

Table 1-8. Average Annual Tree Service Data
T ree Planting Establishment Care T ree Pruning T ree Removal Urban Wood Reuse An average of 150
trees are planted
annually.

Around 250 trees are
watered annually.

The City currently
operates a 5-year pruning
cycle, with approximately
3,455 trees pruned per
year.

Approximately
225 trees are
removed per year.

The City uses some of the mulch
generated from tree work as
landscaping material for city parks
and medians but does not distribute
mulch to residents.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 35

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

1.4.5 Funding Pleasanton’s
Future Urban Forest Goals
Determining How to Achieve
the City’s Canopy Cover Goal
Pleasanton’s total canopy is currently averaging
approximately 25% within the City’s urban boundary.

While this is considered above average for a city that was historically in a grassland setting (Nowak and Greenfield 2020), the canopy cover is not evenly distributed and falls below 25% in 26 of the 77 residential neighborhoods
(See Figure 2-3 in the Technical Assessment). Instead
of setting a city-wide goal to increase canopy cover,
Pleasanton plans to focus its resources into those areas with lower canopy cover and has set a goal to achieve
25% canopy cover across all neighborhoods over the next 25-years. While this may seem like a small feat, it in fact is a huge undertaking. This section summarizes a management
pathway that the City can take to achieve the goal of
reaching 25% canopy cover in all residential neighborhoods over the next 25 years.

Management Pathway and
Projected Budget Summary
To achieve the City’s canopy cover goal, approximately
6,300 new trees will need to be planted within those
26 residential neighborhoods that are lacking the target canopy cover level (See Table 2-6 in the Technical
Assessment). The City is proposing to achieve the canopy cover goal through a mixed private and public approach
over the next 25 years which includes the following:
ƒ Filling all 1,106 vacant tree sites in the targeted
neighborhoods (44 trees per year)
ƒ Identifying or potentially creating and planting up to 2,076 new tree sites in targeted neighborhoods (83 trees per year)
ƒ Giving out up to 2,500 trees to residents to be planted in the targeted neighborhoods (100 trees per year)
ƒ Developers planting a total of 625 new trees through
the permit requirements of their development projects in targeted neighborhoods (25 trees per year)
This budget model also accounts for the City maintaining its standard tree services such as removing and replanting an average of 175 dead trees per year, watering and
structurally pruning newly planted trees as part of a
three-year establishment program and pruning an average of 4,670 mature trees per year to maintain a five-year
pruning cycle.

36 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Based on these assumptions, the City would need
to spend an estimated $61.6 million over the 25-
year timeline, ranging from roughly $1.2 million
annually at year one to $3.2 million annually at
year 25, to achieve the canopy goal (Figure 1-9).

While the year one projection is roughly equal in
cost to the current average annual spending on
the urban forestry program, as more trees are
planted and needing to be maintained, the year
25 funding needed represents an estimated
difference of over $1.2 million from the City’s
current budget, even when considering a
three percent inflation adjustment. This would
necessitate that the City identify potential
future funding sources (Appendix E) to
supplement the current urban forest program
funding or consider alternate strategies, such
as decreasing the establishment program to
only one year or having the community take a
larger role in the canopy cover goal.

HERE IS A BREAKDOWN

OF THE OVERALL PROPOSED

PLANTING EFFORT ,
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS:
• 100 trees given away by City
to the community
• 25 trees planted by developers
and businesses
• 44 trees planted in existing
vacant sites by the City
• 83 trees planted in newly
identified or created sites
by the City
• 175 trees removed and
replaced by the City
The planting efforts described in this section
total from approximately 420 to 430 trees
planted annually on both public and private land
throughout the City of Pleasanton.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 37

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Figure 1-9. Estimated Cost for achieving City's 25% Neighborhood Canopy Cover Goal with a Mixed Private / Public Approach

U.S. Dollars
/gid00004/gid00042/gid00046/gid00047/gid00001/gid00017/gid00045/gid00042/gid00037/gid00032/gid00030/gid00047/gid00036/gid00042/gid00041/gid00001/gid00047/gid00042/gid00001/gid00040/gid00032/gid00032/gid00047/gid00001/gid00133/gid00136/gid00332/gid00001/gid00004/gid00028/gid00041/gid00042/gid00043/gid00052/gid00001/gid00008/gid00042/gid00028/gid00039/gid00001/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00021/gid00028/gid00045/gid00034/gid00032/gid00047/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001 /gid00015/gid00032/gid00036/gid00034/gid00035/gid00029/gid00042/gid00045/gid00035/gid00042/gid00042/gid00031/gid00046/gid00001/gid00050/gid00036/gid00047/gid00035/gid00001/gid00014/gid00036/gid00051/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00017/gid00045/gid00036/gid00049/gid00028/gid00047/gid00032/gid00001/gid00193/gid00001/gid00017/gid00048/gid00029/gid00039/gid00036/gid00030/gid00001/gid00002/gid00043/gid00043/gid00045/gid00042/gid00028/gid00030/gid00035 1 5 10 15 20 25
/gid00026/gid00032/gid00028/gid00045/gid00046
Annual Budget Needed to Achieve
Urban Forest Goal
Current Urban Forest Budget
with 3% Annual Inflation
$1,244,234 $2,046,179 $2,296,558 $2,567,265 $2,898,549 $3,248,415 $1,207,916 $1,352,866 $1,534,053 $1,715,241 $1,896,428 $2,077,616 /gid00342/gid00136/gid00131/gid00131/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00342/gid00132/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00342/gid00132/gid00164/gid00136/gid00131/gid00131/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00342/gid00133/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00342/gid00133/gid00164/gid00136/gid00131/gid00131/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00342/gid00134/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00342/gid00134/gid00164/gid00136/gid00131/gid00131/gid00164/gid00131/gid00131/gid00131 /gid00342/gid00131

38 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

1.4.6 Highlights
of Pleasanton’s Trees
The City of Pleasanton has many areas with prominent tree canopy, and the following section highlights those areas to illustrate the differences in how different key areas are managed for the different types of urban forests.

1.4.6.1 Callippe Preserve Golf Course
The Callippe Preserve Golf Course located in the southern edge of the City contains 952 trees and is surrounded
by open space and hiking trails. The golf course is a very different landscape than the other parks maintained by
the City.

How it’s Managed
The Callippe Preserve Golf Course is managed and
maintained by a franchisee, CourseCo, Inc., under an
Operator Agreement with the City. To protect this delicate ecosystem, the City responsibly sources its water from
groundwater and the South Bay Aqueduct and from
seasonal runoff collected in the pond at the bottom
of the course. By focusing on water conservation and
management, the City ensures the preservation of natural resources and support the ongoing health of our local
wildlife. Trees are an integral part of the golf course and not only add to the aesthetics of the course but also present challenges to golfers along with separating fairways and guiding the direction of the golfer’s shots. The trees on the course are primarily pruned on an as needed basis
when they interfere with the playability of a hole or grow low enough to interfere with irrigation or cart paths. Dead trees are removed on a routine basis. Tree maintenance is carried out on an annual or biennial basis by a contractor, although minor pruning may be done by maintenance staff.

Many of the trees planted during the construction of
the course in 2004-2006 have failed to thrive and are
relatively small for their age and species. This could be due to soil conditions and/or poor initial nursery stock.

The course was also planted with many cottonwood trees
(Populus fremontii ) when constructed. This species of
tree is somewhat short lived in general and is not drought tolerant. Multiple drought cycles and age have taken a toll on the cottonwoods, and many will require removal in the future. As the golf course approached 25 years of service a concerted effort will be needed to plan for the removal and replacement of trees on the course while considering course design. When replanting, special effort should
be given to the selection of nursery stock, planting hole preparation, and establishment.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 39

STATUS AN FOREST
Callippe Preserve Golf Course
Value to the Landscape:

Callippe Preserve Golf Course is more
than just a place to play golf—it’s a
sanctuary for local wildlife. The City
shows dedication to environmental
stewardship through the course
design, which creates vital habitats
for a variety of wildlife species.

These habitats not only add to the
course’s natural beauty but also help
maintain the area’s ecological balance.

There are many native habitat areas
throughout the course, often following
the contours of seasonal creeks
and drainages. The golf course is
designated as a Certified Audubon
Cooperative Sanctuary by Audubon
International. To reach certification,
a golf course must demonstrate that
they are maintaining a high degree
of environmental quality in a number
of areas including environmental
planning, wildlife and habitat
management, outreach and education,
chemical use reduction and safety,
water conservation, and water quality
management.

STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
40 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

1.4.6.2 Ken Mercer Sports Park
The Ken Mercer Sports Park located in the center of Pleasanton at 5800 Parkside Drive and is one of the largest parks in Pleasanton at 102 acres. The park has 76.5 acres of turf grass and contains 1,577 trees. The park is the flagship of the park system and is the home of many of the City’s youth sports groups. The park is a regional draw for several large softball, baseball and soccer tournaments hosted at the park each year. It also features a youth cricket pitch to support the emerging sport of cricket in the Bay Area.

How it’s Managed
The park is maintained by Parks Division staff while the programming of the use of the park is overseen by the Library and Recreation Department. The crew maintaining the park is comprised of six full time staff and three part time staff, all of which are supported by a Parks Supervisor. Major maintenance activities include turfgrass management, irrigation inspections and repairs, ball field maintenance and preparation, tree work, playground maintenance and repair, and general landscape maintenance.

Value to the Landscape:

The Ken Mercer Sport Park is a great community asset. The park is not only the hub for organized youth athletics in the city but also a recreation destination for walking, jogging, and pick-up games. The many tournaments held at the park draw teams from around the region and west coast and the park is an unofficial ambassador for Pleasanton for those traveling to Pleasanton for the first time. The residents of Pleasanton are passionate about the park and have a vested interest in its maintenance and future success.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 41

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Ken Mercer Sports Park

42 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST

1.4.6.3 Downtown Mainstreet Trees
Main Street is the central thoroughfare through downtown Pleasanton and is important in representing the City’s character to both residents and visitors. The stretch of Main Street from Bernal Avenue to Del Valle Parkway contains 168 trees.

How it’s Managed
The trees that line Main Street are pruned every two to three years or as needed if specific issues arise. The predominate species of tree on Main Street is the Purple Robe Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Purple Robe’), which were planted in large numbers when the streetscape was revitalized several years ago. The locust trees were chosen for their fast growth, upright growth habit, and flowers. In recent years many of the locust trees have been removed due to decline and structural defects. A new tree species list specific for Main Street planting was created to guide the future tree replacements along this vital commercial corridor. The new tree species selected were chosen for their dependable track record in the City and for their size and growth habits. A variety of tree sizes were included to accommodate the often-constricted planting locations. Newly planted trees along Main Street are regularly watered during the first three years of establishment.

Value to the Landscape:

The trees that line Main Street help to create a welcoming feel and soften the look and feel of the street. The trees also define that you are entering a well-cared for commercial district. The shade provided by the trees is welcomed by visitors as they walk around visiting shops and restaurants. The importance of the shade provided by the street trees has increased in the past several years with the post COVID-19 Pandemic expansion of outdoor dining and the closure of Main Street to vehicles on designated weekends from May through September.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 43

ST A TUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Downtown Mainstreet

44 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Master Plan 2 CONTEXT

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 45

CONTEXT

2.1 History
Figure 2-1. 1880 Habitat map overlay showing where the historic marsh complex existed before the City was developed Pre-Founding
Pleasanton rests in the scenic Tri-Valley area of Alameda County, north of San Jose and east of San Francisco.

Pleasanton is surrounded by the East Bay hills to the west, Altamont Hills to the east, and Diablo Range to the north and south. Historically, the Pleasanton area was located on a vast marsh complex surrounded by seasonal wetlands
(see Figure 2-1) that supported a mix of open water ponds, freshwater marsh, and dense willow thickets, which provided habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna species.

46 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

CONTEXT
Founding and Development
In the mid-1800s, as agriculture took over, some marsh and wetlands were drained via a series of modified channels.

The City was officially founded in 1894 and was a thriving community by 1900. By 1912, few wetlands remained in the Pleasanton area. Most trees grew along edges of the canals and written accounts document that most remnant oaks
visible on historical aerial photographs (Figure 2-2) occur at such low densities that the area was best classified as grassland (SFEI 2013).The City likely lost additional trees growing in the grasslands as these areas were converted to ranching, dairy farms, hop fields, and vineyards. In the 1930s sand and gravel mining became an important and profitable industry, which likely would have impacted riparian trees and vegetation. Pleasanton experienced a large population boom in the 1960s and 1970s, resulting in a conversion of much of the agricultural land to residential and commercial land uses, and beginning the establishment of the City’s urban forest.

Another important event was the construction of the 850- acre Hacienda, a large business park, in the 1980s, which was built on old swampland, and established many trees in this important economic center of Pleasanton.

Figure 2-2. Historic photograph of Pleasanton showing scattered oaks and other trees Source: San Francisco Estuary Institute, 2013

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 47

CONTEXT
Creation and Updates to the Tree Preservation Ordinance The City of Pleasanton began prioritizing tree preservation when they created and adopted its first Tree Preservation Ordinance (Ordinance) in 1971. The Ordinance recognizes certain trees as “Heritage Trees” and protects them from removal, destruction or disfigurement on both public and private property. The Ordinance is responsible for protecting all trees in Pleasanton, regardless of species and is the primary reason that Pleasanton enjoys a mature canopy
in many of its neighborhoods. Cited as one of the reasons Pleasantonians love their town, big trees have the Tree Preservation Ordinance to thank for protecting them over generations of change in the city.

Figure 2-3. Paired aerial images from 1939 and 2009 showing the substantial land use transformation within Pleasanton.

Source: San Francisco Estuary Institute, 20131 2
miles
0 1 2
miles
0 1939
2009
1 2
miles
0 1 2
miles
0 1939
2009
12 miles
0

48 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

CONTEXT
The Ordinance has been updated a number of times since it was first adopted. In 1995, requirements were added to have pruning of Heritage trees be in accordance with ISA standards, and the penalty for removing a heritage tree without a permit was also modified to include the appraised value of the tree.

In February of 1998, the permitted reasons for removal of a heritage tree were broadened and the penalty for unpermitted removal was further refined so that applicants weren’t charged more than the appraised value of the tree, when those trees were appraised at a value less than $5,000 per tree. A month later in March of 1998, the Heritage Tree Board of Appeals was added to the Ordinance so that a staff decision regarding the denial of a tree removal permit could be challenged by the applicant without being required to appeal to City Council. A number of changes to the Ordinance were also made between 2011 and 2021, which are summarized in Table 2-1 below:

Table 2-1. Updates to the Pleasanton Tree Preservation Ordinance From 2011 to 2021 Date Contractor Services
March 2011 Modified to state only the property owner, or the property owner’s representative, can apply for removal of a heritage tree located on their property. Also provided minor clarifications to appeals process.

May 2015 Language changed to protect all heritage trees, not just native tree species, and provided staff some discretion regarding fines for illegal heritage tree removal.

August 2017
Clarified that denial of an application to remove a heritage tree can be appealed to the appeal board even when not associated with new development. Clarified tree removal requirements for new developments. Amended the appeal process to clarify rules associated with certified consulting arborists, noticing, mitigation, and penalties. Clarified the pruning guidelines
May 2018 Removed the requirement for formal written findings supporting the appeal board’s decisions. Allowed appeals of penalties associated with illegal tree removal/pruning to be heard by the appeal board May 2019
Clarified that leaf drop is not a nuisance and does not justify removal. Updated the appeal board hearing procedure.

Provided discretion whether a tree report be required for new developments. Increased the bond amount paid by developers to ensure tree preservation as required by conditions of entitlement.

June 2021 Required tree planting somewhere on property when a heritage tree removal application is approved.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 49

CONTEXT
As the many updates above show, the municipal code for
the Ordinance has been modified on a routine basis, with most modifications designed to improve and provide clarity to the process. The City has enforced the Ordinance since its adoption through joint efforts by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. It is the responsibility of these staff to properly manage and enforce the municipal code chapter equitably for each property owner no matter the circumstances. Staff strives to provide a transparent and consistent process regarding tree removal and penalties.

Updates to the municipal code chapter are presented to City Council for approval as staff comes across unique situations and/or learns how to better handle the process. City staff are currently working on updating the Tree Preservation Ordinance again to provide additional protections for native trees, improve the clarity of the overall ordinance, and align penalties and fees more closely with neighboring cities.

Pleasanton Today
Pleasanton currently holds the title as a Tree City USA, an honorary recognition by the Arbor Day Foundation, as trees continue to make up an important part of its overall character and provide many environmental benefits to its residents. While 25% city-wide canopy cover is a great
achievement, the City needs to increase canopy cover in all census tracts to 25% and eventually reach 30% city-wide canopy cover in order to meet its CAP 2.0 goals

50 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

CONTEXT

2.2 Developing the
Pleasanton Urban
Forest Master Plan
The City of Pleasanton began the process of developing
the UFMP in March of 2023. The City Landscape Architect, Landscape Architect Assistant, and Parks Division Manager were the main staff responsible for overseeing the UFMP’s development and provided important insights into the City’s urban forestry practices, as well as the specific City standard documents and other data sets that were crucial for analysis.

These City staff also coordinated with internal and external stakeholders, and co-hosted community engagement
events which shed light on the community’s interactions and perspective around City trees. The following sections detail the analysis, community engagement activities, and processes involved in developing the UFMP:

2.2.1 Urban Forest
Inventory and Analysis
Public Tree Inventory
Between June 2023 and March 2024, tree inventory data
was collected for all City-managed trees, including along city sidewalks, medians, parks, City facilities, and the Callippe Preserve Golf Course. An accurate inventory helps determine the current condition and associated benefits of City trees and inform management recommendations.

Canopy Cover Analysis
High-resolution aerial imagery and LiDAR data from 2022 were developed into a land classification layer to determine the City’s canopy cover. Canopy cover was then processed for the years 2012, 2018, and 2022 to identify total area covered by tree canopy from both City trees and private property trees over time. This analysis determined if the City’s tree canopy is increasing, decreasing or remaining the same, and informed the canopy cover goals for the City of Pleasanton. See Appendix Q for the full methodology on the Land Cover Classification and Canopy Change Analysis

2.2.2 Analysis of Budget,
Current Plans, Policies,
and Ordinances
A comprehensive review was conducted of Pleasanton’s
urban forestry program and related plans, policies, and ordinances to better understand the effectiveness of City tree management. This review included analyses of urban forest funding, staffing policy and procedure manuals,
municipal plans, tree ordinances, design guidelines, and planning documents. Knowing and understanding the

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 51

CONTEXT
baseline conditions of these documents provides a guide for monitoring present achievements to compare to future urban forestry practices and goals.

Funding and Staffing
City staff interviews, contractor interviews and a
comprehensive analysis of work records were used to
discover trends, gaps, and high-cost areas that informed the Funding Pleasanton’s Future Urban Forest Goals Analysis discussed in Section 1.4.6.

Policies and Ordinances
The Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 Tree Preservation (Tree Preservation Ordinance) was reviewed and updated as part of the UFMP process. The updated ordinance clarifies tree protections, tree replacement requirements, fees, and the overall tree removal permit process, and aligns with ISA Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Planning
The City of Pleasanton’s General Plan, Climate Action Plan

2.0, Downtown Parks and Trails Master Plan, Pleasanton
Downtown Design Guidelines, and Pleasanton best
management practice details for tree planting, care, and pruning were reviewed for the development process. The
UFMP directly supports these plans and provides updated urban forestry and tree-related information that should be incorporated as these plans are updated.

2.2.3 Department and
Interested Party Interviews
City staff from various departments and the Hacienda general manager, who manages the largest amount of commercial
private property in the city, were interviewed to further inform the urban forest analyses (Table 2-2). Gathering input from various groups that impact urban forestry illuminated the core values of the community and informed key development processes of the UFMP. The City Departments, their position, and other interviewees are listed below, and a summary of the responses can be found in Appendix G.

Table 2-2. Department and Interested Party Interview Participants Department Position
Public Works
• Streets and Signs supervisor,
Engineering T echnician I
• Engineering T echnician
• T raffic Engineer
• Public Works Inspector
• Parks Division
Landscape Architect Office • Landscape Architect
Claims and Liability • Assistant City Attorney
Public Works - Utilities • Utilities Supervisor
Community Development • Associate Planner
Business Representative • Hacienda General Manager
Interview questions included the following:
• What are the various tree and urban forest-related functions of your role?
• How does your Department/Office/business interface with City departments that manage trees?
• What are the most common issues with trees that you deal with or see in your Department?
• What are the greatest challenges/opportunities facing the City’s urban forest?
• How do you envision the City’s urban forest in 25 years? 52 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

CONTEXT
Community
Engagement Summary
What we learned
Pleasanton residents expressed a deep
appreciation for trees and the many benefits
they provide. One of their main concerns lies in
the persistent infrastructure conflicts caused
by tree roots. This underscores the critical
need for thoughtful infrastructure design and
repairs, species selection, and strategic spacing
in future planting efforts to avoid sidewalk
uplift and underground utility problems.

Providing the community with educational
resources about infrastructure conflicts, why
they occur, and how they can be avoided
will be beneficial in increasing community
advocacy for maintaining and increasing
Pleasanton’s urban tree canopy while
bolstering UFMP implementation.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 53

CONTEXT

2.2.4 Community Engagement
Community outreach was a key step in understanding and amplifying the voices of Pleasanton’s community. Initiated in the Summer of 2023, community members were engaged in outreach efforts that included the following activities and educational materials:
ƒ Two Online Pleasanton Tree Surveys which were distributed at engagement events using a QR code. The results are presented in Appendix H. (686 responses total)
ƒ Tabling at community events including farmers markets and summer concerts with educational material describing tree benefits ƒ Engaging the Pleasanton Youth Commission to gather ideas on effective engagement methods for youth
ƒ Pleasanton UFMP website (ptowntrees.org), detailing project updates, educational materials, public meeting notifications, and other community resources
ƒ Social media outreach through the City of Pleasanton’s channels ƒ An Urban Forest Summit to inform the community on the status of Urban Forest Management Plan, preliminary tree inventory and canopy cover analysis results, and community perspectives on the urban forest and Pleasanton’s UFMP Vision Statement (approximately 50 attendees). ƒ Working Group (3 meetings, 8 members)
Working Group
Meetings
The consultant team, seven key City
staff, and one business leader formed
a working group and met three times
during the plan development process.

These three meetings provided an
opportunity for the consultant team
to relay key findings to the working
group, get feedback on the draft plan,
and discuss and prioritize strategies
and actions for addressing current
issues and achieving Pleasanton’s
future urban forestry goals. The result
was the creation of the UFMP’s vision
statement, guiding principles, and
the strategic, implementation and
monitoring plans, which can be found
in the next section..

54 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Master Plan 3 THE PLAN

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 55
Pleasanton’s urban forest is a well-managed,
vital resource providing social, economic,
and environmental benefits which contribute
to the community’s quality of life, value,
character, and beauty.

VISION

THE PLAN

56 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

THE PLAN
The Guiding Principles were created by the
Working Group as themes that reflect the overall
vision for Pleasanton’s urban forest and help to
direct the goals and objectives of the UFMP.

Guiding Principles

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 57

THE PLAN
Table 3-1. Guiding Principles and Strategies
Guiding Principles
Guiding Principle Purpose / Strategy
A resilient community
Proper species selection (right tree, right place) is fundamental to creating a thriving urban forest that can better withstand extreme heat and unpredictable weather conditions as well as threats from pests and diseases.

A community invested in
preserving and growing
the Urban Forest
Educating residents about the value that trees provide and the importance of protecting them through the tree preservation ordinance. Encouraging all members of the community to take a more active role in protecting, preserving, and growing the urban forest.

City trees are funded and
managed to maximize the
benefits for the public
The urban forest program needs to have consistent sufficient financial investment and staffing for the City to effectively manage its trees for the benefit of the public.

Integrate trees from
the start
Prioritize the inclusion of trees and green spaces in the initial planning and design stages of every development project to maximize environmental benefits and reduce infrastructure conflicts.

T rees should be considered essential infrastructure, not an afterthought. 1 2
3 4

58 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

THE PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1:

A Resilient Community
GOAL Action No. Action TIME FRAME

1.1 - Achieve urban
forest sustainability
indicators of age,
distribution, health
condition, and relative
performance index
(RPI) by 2049.

1.1A
Every 5 years, complete an analysis of the tree inventory using iT ree to calculate GHG emissions reductions from the city’s tree inventory in alignment with CAP initiatives.

Ongoing /
Every 5 years

1.1B
Implement phased removal and replacement of undesirable species. As trees age and require replacement, replace with climate appropriate species identified by the Recommended Species List with the goal of planting the right tree in the right place.

Long (25 years)

1.2 - Residents will
prioritize drought
tolerant, climate
and size appropriate
species when planting
on private property.

1.2A
Create and distribute informational materials with
recommended drought tolerant and other climate appropriate species for private property to hand out and commonly
attended public events, in addition to having resources on the City’s website. Review private development plans to ensure properly sized trees are specified.

Short (5 years)
The goals and actions below were created by the Working Group as specific, measurable strategies for achieving the City’s vision for the urban forest. They are organized by the four Guiding Principles.

Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient Community 1

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 59

THE PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1:

A Resilient Community
GOAL Action No. Action TIME FRAME

1.3 - Maintain and
grow a healthy
and diverse urban
forest to bring the
canopy cover in each
neighborhood to 25%
by 2049.

1.3A
Annually plant 40 to 50 trees (in addition to planting
replacement trees for any removals) on city-owned land and right of way.

Ongoing / Annually

1.3B Provide a three-year establishment care period for all newly planted trees. Ongoing / Annually

1.3C
Prioritize City tree planting and establishment care resources to neighborhoods with the lowest canopy cover and highest tree priority planting index scores as established in the UFMP.

Achieve 25% canopy cover in all Pleasanton neighborhoods by 2049.

Long (25 years)

1.3D
Fill at least 1,100 of the 4,000 City-managed vacant tree planting sites to create more tree-lined streets throughout Pleasanton by 2049. Assess all City managed properties to identify new viable tree planting locations and incorporate new viable sites into tree inventory.

Long (25 years)
Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient Community 1

60 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

THE PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 2:

A community invested in preserving and growing the Urban Forest GOAL Action No. Action TIME FRAME

2.1— By 2035,
engage at least
50% of residents
through outreach
and informational
efforts on the City’s
UFMP and updated
T ree Preservation
Ordinance that is
representative of all
residential types and
demographics within
the City.
2 .1A
Host a table with information about the benefits of the City's Urban Forest at an Arbor Day or Earth Day each year. Inform residents how they can get involved in the Urban Forest.

Ongoing / Annually
2 .1B
Maintain an information webpage for education on the City's trees, and host urban forest data like canopy cover, tree inventory statistics, current legislation and annual trees planted and removed.

Ongoing / Annually
2 .1C
Develop guidelines and educational materials for planting and siting of trees to sequester carbon and highlight other benefits like reduced energy costs in support of the Climate Action Plan 2.0.

Short (5 years)
2 .1D
Host 3 workshops over the next 5 years to inform and educate residents on the updated T ree Preservation Ordinance with a target reach at least 1,000 people.

Short (5 years)
2 .1E
Provide educational information to commercial property owners on the benefits of trees for businesses to encourage commercial property owners to plant and maintain trees.

Short (5 years)
2 .1F Create a map that identifies the Heritage trees throughout the City.

Medium
(10 to 15 years)
Table 3-3. Guiding Principle No. 2: A community invested in preserving and growing the Urban Forest 2

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 61

THE PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 2:

A community invested in preserving and growing the Urban Forest GOAL Action No. Action TIME FRAME

2.2 – Pleasanton
has established
volunteer groups,
HOAs and nonprofit
organizations that
strive to improve and
maintain the urban
forest on private
property.

2.2A
The City will aim to purchase and give away up to 100 trees/ seedlings per year to community members with tree planting and care information resources at tree giveaway events.

Ongoing / Annually

2.2B
Host a shade tree giveaway event each year, in partnership with a utility or conservation district (Zone 7 Water Agency, PGE, or Alameda County Resource Conservation District, etc.) for an annual tree giveaway.

Short (5 years) then
Ongoing / Annually

2.2C Partner with a non-profit to increase tree planting on private property. Short (5 years)

2.2D Implement a rewards or acknowledgement program for commercial properties with exemplary tree cover. Short (5 years)

2.2E Reach out to HOAs, school districts and volunteer groups about opportunities to plant and maintain trees on private property.

Medium
(10 to 15 years)
Table 3-3. Guiding Principle No. 2: A community invested in preserving and growing the Urban Forest 2

62 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

THE PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 3:

City trees are funded and managed to maximize the benefits for the public GOAL Action No. Action TIME FRAME
3 — Develop the
financial and human
resources necessary
to effectively manage
the urban forest and
implement the UFMP.
3A Allocate adequate funding for the urban forest program over the next 10 years to achieve the plan goals. Ongoing /Monthly 3B Maintain an updated inventory to reflect plantings, removals, pruning, and other maintenance. Ongoing /Monthly
3C
Explore the capacity of current positions or create an Urban Forest Division that’s overseen by an Urban Forest Manager who is an arborist to coordinate with all City departments in implementation of the UFMP, urban forestry programming, and community
engagement efforts (finding and applying for grants, educating public, coordinating with non-profits).

Short (5 years)
3D
Explore potential partnerships with non-profits and community- based organizations (CBOs )to apply for grant funding (Workforce development, etc).

Short (5 years)
3E Explore ways to more proactively manage tree risk. Short (5 years) 3F
Explore developing an in-lieu fee program under the T ree Preservation Ordinance where permit applicants can pay into a mitigation fund designated for urban forest management when there is no suitable location for a mitigation/replacement tree on the applicant’s property.

Short (5 years)
3G Expand reuse of urban wood for mulch on public land (See CAP goal E12).

Medium
(10 to 15 years)
Table 3-4. Guiding Principle No. 3: City trees are funded and managed to maximize the benefits for the public 3

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 63

THE PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 4:

Integrate trees from the start
GOAL Action No. Action TIME FRAME
4 — T rees are
included in the
beginning of the
planning process to
improve landscaped
settings and
habitat, maximize
environmental
benefits, and reduce
infrastructure
conflicts. Achieve a
25% increase in trees
preserved through the
development process
after 10 years.
4A
Establish objective standards and streamlined procedures to review development plans, in the early stages of a project, for tree protection and planting, and mitigation measures/fees as necessary.

Short (5 years)
4B
Discuss with the development community, increasing the landscape and hardscape shade requirements for developers from the current standard of 20% to 30% (Section 5.106.12.2 and Section

5.106.12.3).

Short (5 years)
4C Update the City's T ree Ordinance to include stop work orders for tree removal violations on commercial development projects.

Medium
(10 to 15 years)
Table 3-5. Guiding Principle No. 4: Integrate trees from the start 4

64 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Master Plan 4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 65

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
The Implementation Plan below organizes the actions from the Strategic Plan into a prioritized list broken down by ongoing actions, high-priority short term actions to be completed in the first five years, medium term actions to be completed between years six through fifteen, and long-term actions to be completed between years 16 and 25.

TABLE KEY:

COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000) ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

1.3A
Annually plant 40 to 50 trees (in addition to
planting replacement trees for any removals)
on City-owned land and right-of-ways
$$ Parks Number of new trees and replacement
trees planted each year

1.3B Provide a three-year establishment care period
for all newly planted trees. $$$ Parks Number of trees provided with a three- year establishment care period.
2 .1A
Host a table with information about the
benefits of the City's Urban Forest at an Arbor
Day or Earth Day each year. Inform residents
how they can get involved in the Urban Forest.
$
Landscape
Architecture /
Parks
Number of residents from different
demographics who attended
information events
Ongoing Actions

66 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
2 .1B
Maintain a webpage for community input on
the City's trees, and host an interactive map,
urban forest data like canopy cover, tree
inventory statistics, current legislation and
annual trees planted and removed.
$ Landscape
Architecture
Website regularly updated and
checked for community input

2.2A
The City will aim to purchase and give away up
to 100 trees per year with tree planting and care
information resources at tree giveaway events.
$$$ Landscape
Architecture Number of trees given away annually
3A
Allocate adequate funding for the urban forest
program over the next 10 years to achieve the
plan goals.
$$$
Landscape
Architecture
/ Parks/City
Council and
Management
Annual funding should include additional
resources for tree maintenance, arborist
review for planning and development;
implementation of the updated tree
ordinance, and an expanded tree planting
program over and above current funding
levels. Funding may also go to a new
position for an Urban Forest Manager.
3B
Maintain an updated inventory to reflect
plantings, removals, pruning, and other
maintenance.
$$
Landscape
Architecture /
Parks
City's tree inventory updated on a
yearly basis at minimum.

Ongoing Actions

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 67

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

1.1A
Every 5 years, complete an analysis of the
tree inventory using iT ree to calculate GHG
emissions reductions from the city’s tree
inventory in alignment with CAP initiatives.
$ Landscape
Architecture
Results from analysis reported every 5
years

1.2A
In addition to having resources on the City's
website, create and distribute informational
materials with recommended drought tolerant
and other climate appropriate species for
private property to hand out and commonly
attended public events.
$ Landscape
Architecture
Number of new drought tolerant
species planted on private property.
2 .1C
Develop guidelines and educational materials
for planting and siting of trees to sequester
carbon and highlight other benefits like
reduced energy costs in support of the Climate
Action Plan 2.0
$ Landscape
Architecture Materials developed and distributed
2 .1D
Host 3 workshops over the next 5 years to
inform and educate residents on the updated
T ree Preservation Ordinance with a target to
reach at least 1000 people.
$ Landscape
Architecture
Number of residents who attended
information events
Y ears 1–5 / High Priority Short Term Actions

68 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
2 .1E
Provide educational information to commercial
property owners on the benefits of trees for
businesses to encourage commercial property
owners to plant and maintain trees.
$
Landscape
Architecture
& Commercial
Property
Owners
Informational materials developed
and number of commercial property
owners reached.

2.2B
Host a shade tree giveaway event each year,
in partnership with a utility or conservation
district (EBMUD, Zone 7 Water Agency,
PGE, or Alameda County other Resource
Conservation District, etc.) for an annual
tree giveaway.
$$ Landscape
Architecture
T ree giveaway events hosted,
or number of trees given away.

Promotion of appropriate species to
plant under utilities

2.2C Partner with a non-profit to increase tree
planting on private property $ Landscape
Architecture Number of non-profits partnered with

2.2D
Implement a rewards or acknowledgement
program for commercial properties with
exemplary tree cover.
$$ Landscape
Architecture
Establishment of rewards/
acknowledgement program,
and number of rewards/
acknowledgements given
Y ears 1–5 / High Priority Short Term Actions

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 69

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
3C
Explore the capacity of current positions or
create an Urban Forest T eam that's overseen
by a dedicated Urban Forest Manager who is
a certified arborist to coordinate with all City
departments in implementation of the UFMP,
urban forestry programming, and community
engagement efforts. (Finding and applying for
grants, educating public, coordinating with
non-profits)
$$$ Landscape
Architecture
The Urban Forest Manager position
will be responsible for internal City
coordination and external engagement
with the community on tree management
activities. The Urban Forest Manager will
ensure progress towards the vision and
goals of the UFMP, including increased
public engagement, seeking grant and
other funding, and developing ongoing
partnerships with interested parties
like non-profit organizations, the school
district, and large landowners for urban
forest efforts. This position should be
placed in Public Works, which currently
manages program budget and tree
maintenance contractors
3D
Explore potential partnerships with non-profits
and CBOs to apply for grant funding
(e.g. Living Arroyos).
$ Landscape
Architecture
Number of dollars of funding secured, or
partnerships built with other non-profits
3E The City will explore ways to more proactively
manage tree risk. $$
Landscape
Architecture /
Parks
Number of trees assessed for risk
annually. No backlog of tree maintenance
requests at the end of each month.

Y ears 1–5 / High Priority Short Term Actions

70 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
Y ears 1–5 / High Priority Short Term Actions
ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
3F
Explore developing an in-lieu fee program
under the T ree Preservation Ordinance where
permit applicants can pay into a mitigation
fund designated for urban forest management
when there is no suitable location for a
mitigation/replacement tree on the applicant’s
property.
$$ Landscape
Architecture
Adoption of an in-lieu fee program
under the T ree Preservation Ordinance
4A
Establish objective standards and streamlined
procedures to review development plans,
in the early stages of a project, for tree
protection and planting, and mitigation
measures/fees as necessary.
$ Landscape
Architecture
Objective standards developed for plan
review process
4B
Discuss with the development community,
increasing the landscape and hardscape shade
requirements for developers from the current
standard of 20% to 30% (Section 5.106.12.2 and
Section 5.106.12.3).
$ Landscape
Architecture
Number of meetings hosted with the
development community.
4C
Update the City's T ree Ordinance to include
stop work orders for tree removal violations on
all development projects.
$ Landscape
Architecture
Updated Ordinance and enforcement
of stop work orders for violations

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 71

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
2 .1F Create a map that identifies the Heritage trees
throughout the City. $$ Landscape
Architecture Map developed and updated quarterly

2.2E
Reach out to HOAs, school districts, and
volunteer groups about opportunities to plant
and maintain trees on private property.
$ Landscape
Architecture
Number of HOAs, school districts, and
volunteer groups contacted / Number
of trees planted on private property
through these voluntary efforts.
3G Expand reuse of urban wood for mulch on
public land (See CAP goal E12). $$
Landscape
Architecture /
Parks
Increased use of urban wood mulch on
public land
Y ears 6–15 / Medium Term Actions

72 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN
Y ears 16–25 / Long Term Actions
ACTION
NO. ACTION COST RESPONSIBLE

PARTY METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

1.1B
Implement phased removal and replacement of
undesirable species. As trees age and require
replacement, replace with climate appropriate
species identified by the Recommended
Species List with the goal of planting the right
tree in the right place.
$$$
Landscape
Architecture /
Parks
Achieve a City-managed tree inventory
comprising no more than 105% of one
species, 210% of one genus with the
exception of native species.

1.3C
Prioritize City tree planting and establishment
care resources to neighborhoods/census tracts
with the lowest canopy cover and highest tree
priority planting index scores as established in
the UFMP. Achieve a 25% canopy cover in all
census tracts by 2049.
$$ Parks
Percent increase in canopy cover in
the census tracts with the highest
tree priority planting index scores.

Measure city-wide and Census tract
canopy cover every 5 years using the
latest published U.S. Forest Service
canopy cover data. https:/ /data.
fs.usda.gov/geodata/rastergateway/
treecanopycover/

1.3D
Fill at least 1,100 of the 4,000 City-managed
viable tree planting sites and identify to
create more tree-lined streets throughout
Pleasanton. Assess all City managed properties
to identify new viable tree planting locations
and incorporate new viable sites into tree
inventory.
$$$ Parks Number of vacant viable tree planting
sites filled.

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 73

IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN

74 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

MONITORING PLAN
5 MONITORING PLAN

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 75

MONITORING PLAN

5.1 Assessing Our Progress
The City needs a way to track actions completed within
the Implementation Plan to measure the progress it
makes towards its urban forest goals. The Community
Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool was created by the
Vibrant Cities Lab just for this purpose. Vibrant Cities Lab is a collaboration of partners which includes the United States Forest Service, American Forests, and the National Association of Regional Councils, and serves as an o nline hub of urban forest and tree research, best practices, and planning tools (http://vibrantcitieslab.com). The Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool is based on research of urban forest sustainability and establishes criteria and indicators to measure urban forest sustainability. The tool is used as an assessment to define the City’s current state of a specific area of urban forest sustainability. The user decides what the City’s current state of the metric is, and then sets where the goal metric should be. Each metric is assigned a point value, and the City is assigned a “Total Current Score” and a “Gap Score,” or how far off the current state is from the desired goal. A city that has a gap score between 20 to 40 is not far from achieving the goals of its urban forest program. Conversely, gap scores of 40+ indicates that a City is still implementing programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest.

Pleasanton’s first assessment was conducted on September 8, 2024, by City staff and the consultant team. Table 5-1 reflects the results from the first assessment, which set the baseline for the City’s “Total Current Score” at its pre-UFMP metrics.

Staff used Vibrant Cities Lab’s rating descriptions to determine Pleasanton’s status (prior to the UFMP process) for the various categories and then chose the goals they want to achieve in each category to determine the gap between the two ratings.

Based on the first assessment, the City has a current rating of 17, with a gap score of 78. The City’s UFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab
Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool and be
retaken each year to track, measure, and highlight progress.

The assessment can also be used to demonstrate successes and justify additional funding asks to City Council. After the completion of this UFMP, several of the responses that had significant gaps such as the lack of a UFMP (5) and an urban tree canopy assessment (5), will have already been achieved.

76 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

MONITORING PLAN
Table 5-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Pre-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Canopy cover
The existing canopy cover for entire
municipality is 75%-100% of the desired
canopy.
2 The existing canopy is >75%-100% of desired
– at individual neighborhood level as well as
overall municipality.
4 2
Inventory Complete or sample-based inventory of
publicly owned trees. 1 Inventory guides planning, management decisions. 2 1
Assessment
Methodology
Low-resolution and/or point-based
sampling of canopy cover using aerial
photographs or satellite imagery, for
example i- T ree Canopy.
2 Complete, detailed, and spatially explicit,
high-resolution Urban T ree Canopy (UTC)
assessment based on enhanced data (such as
LIDAR) – accompanied by comprehensive set
of goals by land use and other parameters;
all utilized effectively to drive urban forest
and green infrastructure policy and practice
municipality-wide and at neighborhood or
smaller management level.
4 2
Publicly owned
trees
Complete tree inventory that includes
detailed tree condition ratings. 2 Complete GIS tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition and risk ratings. 4 2
Publicly owned
natural areas
Level and type of public use
documented. 2 Ecological structure and function of all natural areas assessed and documented. 3 1
Private property
trees
Aerial, point-based assessment –
capturing extent and location. 1 Bottom-up sample-based assessment, as well as basic aerial view 4 3

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 77

MONITORING PLAN
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Relative
performance
index by species
No information. -1
All of the six most common species have higher
RPI scores than the average of all species in
the community
4 5
Use of native
vegetation
No coordinated focus on native
vegetation. -1 Use of native species is encouraged on a project-appropriate basis in all areas; 2
Align municipal
departments
Municipal departments/agencies
recognize potential conflicts and reach
out to urban forest managers on an ad
hoc basis – and vice versa.
1 Invasive species are recognized and
discouraged on public and private lands 4
Engage
residents in
planning and
implementation
Little or no citizen involvement or
neighborhood action. -1
Municipal policy implemented by formal
interdepartmental/ interagency working teams
on all municipal projects.

Environmental
equity
Planting and outreach includes attention
to low canopy neighborhoods or areas. 1
Proactive outreach and coordination efforts
by municipality and NGO partners resulting in
widespread citizen involvement and structured
engagement among diverse neighborhood
groups.
4 Trees
acknowledged as
vital community
resource
T rees generally recognized as important
and beneficial. 1 Equitable planting and outreach at the neighborhood level is guided by strong 4 5
Table 5-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Pre-UFMP)

78 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

MONITORING PLAN
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Engage
large private
landowners and
institutions
Large private landholders are generally
uninformed about urban forest issues
and opportunities.
-1 Resident involvement in low canopy/high need
areas. Residents participate actively in 4
All utilities
work with
municipality,
employ best
management
practices
Utilities take actions impacting urban
forest with no municipal coordination. 1 Identifying needs for their neighborhoods, planning, implementation and monitoring 4
Green industry
embraces goals,
high standards
Little or no cooperation among
segments of green industry or
awareness of municipality-wide urban
forest goals and objectives.
-1
Urban forest recognized as vital to the
community’s environmental, social, and
economic well-being.
3 Develop
urban forest
management
plan
No urban forest management plan -1
T ree management plans developed with input
from community, and public access to the
property’s forest resource.
4 3
Cooperative
planning
with other
municipalities
Municipalities have no interaction with
each other or the broader region. No
regional planning or coordination on
urban forestry.
-1 Utilities are included in informal municipal
teams that communicate regularly and 3 5
Table 5-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Pre-UFMP)

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 79

MONITORING PLAN
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Forestry plan
integrated into
other municipal
plans
Urban forestry plan mentions how it
could meet other municipal objectives
or inform other planning efforts.
-1 Collaborate on a project-specific basis. 2
Urban forestry
program
capacity
T eam has capacity in terms of trained
staff and equipment to achieve
many of the goals of the urban forest
management plan.
2 Shared vision and goals and extensive
committed partnerships in place. Solid
adherence to high professional standards, and
commitment to credentialing and continuing
education.
2 Municipality-
wide urban
forestry funding
Ad hoc funding for emergency, reactive
management. 1
New or recent urban forest and green
infrastructure management plan which
targets public tree planting sites, protection
and maintenance based on assessment of
anticipated benefits ranging from stormwater
to heat island mitigation, public health, etc.
4 5
Growing site
suitability
Appropriate tree species are considered
in site selection 1 Some urban forest planning and cooperation across municipalities and regional agencies. 4 4
T ree
establishment
and
maintenance
Some tree planting and establishment
occurs, but with limited overall
municipality-wide planning and post-
planting care.
-1 Once completed, urban forestry planning team
works with other agencies to align 2 3
Table 5-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Pre-UFMP)

80 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

MONITORING PLAN
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Management of
publicly owned
natural areas
Only reactive management to facilitate
public use, e.g. hazard abatement, trail
maintenance.
1 Current and future objectives. 4
Policies that
foster good
urban forestry
on private lands
Strong tree protection ordinance
focused on maintaining mature trees
with effective procedures.
1 T eam has capacity and will in the future
work to achieve all goals of the urban forest
management plan, to maintain the resource
over time, and adapt management as
circumstances change.
2 T ree protection
policy and
enforcement
Policies include construction standards
for on-site tree protection, establishment
and maintenance. Conforms to
and references ANSI Standards for
arboricultural practices (A300), safety
(Z133), and nursery stock (Z60.1), as well
as applicable ISA BMPs.
3 Sustained, long-term funding from multiple
municipal, regional, and/or state agencies,
along with private sources to implement a
comprehensive urban forest management plan
and provide for maintenance and adaptive
management as circumstances change.
2 2
Monitoring
Monitoring is infrequent and reactive
to reported changes in tree health, site
condition.
1 Municipality-wide guidelines for the
improvement of planting site conditions and
selection of suitable species.
4 3
Table 5-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Pre-UFMP)

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 81

MONITORING PLAN
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
T ree risk
management
Citizens and city staff report tree safety
issues to the forestry department or
manager (e.g., 3-1-1 system, online form,
etc.). System tracks the time between
damage report and mitigation action.
1 Comprehensive tree establishment plan
provides concrete guidance on most of the
following criteria: site selection, size, age
class, diversity of species, native plant choice,
planting protocols, and young tree care.
4 1
Urban wood and
green waste
utilization
While most green waste does not go
to landfill, uses are limited to chips or
mulch.
1 Management plan in place for each publicly
owned natural area to facilitate appropriate
public use.
4 5
Management of
publicly owned
natural areas
Only reactive management to facilitate
public use, e.g. hazard abatement, trail
maintenance.
1 Policies regarding stormwater, site and
subdivision planning, zoning and other issues
that affect private forests are included in
management plan.
4 1
Policies that
foster good
urban forestry
on private lands
Strong tree protection ordinance
focused on maintaining mature trees
with effective procedures.
1 Integrated municipality-wide policies and
practices to protect public and private trees,
consistently enforced and with penalties
sufficient to deter violations.
2 1
T ree protection
policy and
enforcement
Policies include construction standards
for on-site tree protection, establishment
and maintenance. Conforms to
and references ANSI Standards for
arboricultural practices (A300), safety
(Z133), and nursery stock (Z60.1), as well
as applicable ISA BMPs.
3 Monitoring adheres to the standards and
protocols established by the Urban T ree
Growth and Longevity network.
4 1
Table 5-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Pre-UFMP)

82 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN

MONITORING PLAN
Table 5-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Pre-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Monitoring
Monitoring is infrequent and reactive
to reported changes in tree health, site
condition.
1 Includes "better" but with TRAQ-qualified
contractors on city projects. Educate tree care
companies and public about importance of
TRAQ qualifications.
4 3
T ree risk
management
Citizens and city staff report tree safety
issues to the forestry department or
manager (e.g., 3-1-1 system, online
form, etc.). System tracks the time
between damage report and mitigation
action.
1 Comprehensive plan and processes in place to
utilize all green waste one way or another, to
the fullest extent possible.
4 3
Urban wood and
green waste
utilization
While most green waste does not go
to landfill, uses are limited to chips or
mulch.
1 Comprehensive plan and processes in place to
utilize all green waste one way or another, to
the fullest extent possible.
4 3
T otal Current Score 17 T otal Goal Rating 95
T otal Gap Score 78

CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | 83

MONITORING PLAN

Urban Forest Master Plan
Parks and Recreation Commission
Tuesday, March 18, 2025
What is an Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP)?
Guiding document designed to:
• Provide a strategic roadmap for City to manage, preserve, and grow the tree canopy on both public and private lands • Create a shared vision for the future of Pleasanton’s urban forest, ensuring it provides maximum, long-term
benefits to the community

Why Does the City Need a UFMP?

1. Alignment with CAP and Strategic Plan goals

2. Understand the status of the current urban forest

3. Identify gaps & areas for improvement in the City’s current urban forest management program

4. Create measurable goals & strategies for urban forest over the next 25 years

5. Updated Tree Preservation Ordinance
Vision
Pleasanton's urban forest is a well-managed, vital
resource providing social, economic, and environmental
benefits which contribute to the community's quality of life, value, character, and beauty.

Guiding Principles
Themes for the UFMP, reflect the Vision and help direct UFMP goals

1. A resilient community

2. A community invested in preser ving and growing the Urban Forest

3. City trees are funded and managed to maximize the benefits for the public

4. Integrate trees from the start
*Guiding Principles were created by the UF Working Group and informed by community input
Key Findings
Canopy Cover Has Increased
Trees on Private Property are critical
Increase Species Diversity
Canopy cover increased citywide from 18.5% to 25.3% from 2012 – 2022 Majority of the urban forest canopy cover at 70%
City will need to engage private community and provide resources to residents to meet future UF goals
Need to plant climate adapted trees for a more resilient urban forest

Key Findings
Funding for UF management is
approx. $1.2 million annually
and is expected to rise
Additional Funding Needed
Dedicated Urban Forestry
Team recommended
A dedicated team to manage
both public and private trees will
help balance workloads and
improve likelihood of successful
UFMP implementation
Implementation and Monitoring Plan
Years 1-5 High Priority / Short Term Actions
- Develop/distribute education materials on tree planting/care, host workshops - Create annual tree giveaway for priority neighborhoods - Create UF Team with dedicated UF Manager
Years 6-15 Medium Term Actions
- Outreach to school districts, HOAs, volunteer groups for tree planting opportunities Years 16-25 Long Term Actions
- Phased removal/replacement of old, undesirable species w/ climate approp. species - Fill at least 1,100 vacant tree sites in priority neighborhoods

Strategic Plan Alignment
Recommendations on engagement and education to the community Technical Assessment

1. Management

2. Status of the Urban Forest

3. Canopy Cover and Equity

4. Analysis of Current Plans, Policies, and Ordinances

5. Community Engagement

Environmental & Economic Benefits of the
City’s Public Trees
Property
Value
Increase
Condition
2%
Mature yard trees
(greater than 9-inch DBH)
3-5% Trees in front yard
landscaping
6-9% Good tree cover in a
neighborhood
10-15% Mature trees in high-
income neighborhoods
Study found tree cover on the west and south sides of houses reduced summertime electricity use by 5.2%
London plane tree planted on the west side of a house can reduce C emissions from summertime electricity use by avg of 31% over time (Source: Wolf 2007)
(Source: Donovan and Butry 2009)
Canopy Cover and Equity
25% Canopy Cover citywide, uneven distribution
Neighborhood-focused canopy goal
Avg Tree Equity Score (81/100)

Appendices
A: Wildfire Section
B: FAQs
C: Recommended Tree Species List
D: i-Tree Report
E: Funding Sources
F: Land Cover Classification and Canopy Cover Analysis Methodology G: City Staff Interviews
H: Survey Results
I: Recommendations
J: Arboriculture BMPs
K: Infrastructure Conflicts and Sidewalk Solutions
L: Tree Maintenance Responsibilities
M: City Document Review
Increased wildfire risk along the west side
and south side.

State and local regs. have specific tree
mgmt. requirements in higher fire risk areas:
- Trimming for add. clearance from buildings/
utilities, & prompt removal of dead trees.
&RVWVWRFRPSO\FDQEHFRQVLGHUDEOHHVS
tree removal:
-
City has secured $1M grant for fuel load
reduction work
Wildfire Section

Resources for City and
Private Property Owners
Illustrated Guidelines for:
• Tree Spacing
• Planting / Establishment
• Pruning
• Tree Protection
• Infrastructure Conflicts
• and More
BMPs/Standards/Infrastructure Conflicts
Next Steps

1. April – Incorporate Staff, Commission, and Council Feedback

2. May/June - Present Final UFMP Draft to City Council for Adoption

Urban Forest Master Plan
Questions and Comments

Item #18

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

March 18, 2025
Community Development

TITLE: REVIEW AND PROVIDE INITIAL INPUT ON APPLICANT-PROPOSED EAST

LAKES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN EAST PLEASANTON

SUMMARY
The applicant for the proposed East Lakes residential development has submitted a preferred plan with a total of 697 units, which includes a mix of housing types and unit sizes, includes both for-sale and rental units, and provides both age-restricted units and units available to all households. The preferred plan also includes on-site inclusionary units in a clustered multi- family project. City staff and the applicant seek City Council feedback on this preferred plan before the applicant submits a formal application and the City initiates environmental and other reviews.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Provide direction on whether the applicant should proceed with residential uses in the Livermore Airport Protection Area (APA);

2. Provide feedback on the total number of dwelling units and proportion of age-restricted units;

3. Provide feedback on the proposal to construct all inclusionary units on-site as multifamily apartments and to cluster these units in one area of the site;

4. Provide feedback on the perimeter gate to control access into the age-restricted portion of the project; and

5. Provide any other feedback to the applicant on their preferred plan.

BACKGROUND
On February 18, 2025, the City Council received an update on the proposed Arroyo Lago and East Lakes residential projects in East Pleasanton. At this meeting, City staff requested City Council direction on whether the City should accept and process applications for annexation and development of both projects into Pleasanton. For the East Lakes project, the City Council considered two alternative plans with different site plans and unit types and mix. Staff did not request City Council direction on a preferred plan, but did request input on the extent to which the East Lakes project should include age-restricted housing available only to older adults.

At the same meeting, the City Council directed City staff to accept and process applications for both projects for annexation and development in Pleasanton. For the East Lakes project, a City Council majority supported a mix of age-restricted units and units available to all households. A City Council majority also agreed the City should consider allowing, for the East Lakes project, fee payment in-lieu of on-site construction for a portion of the inclusionary units required by the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.

Applicant's Preferred Plan
Following the February 18 meeting, the East Lakes applicant submitted a preferred plan and project narrative for the East Lakes project (Attachment 1). The narrative states that the project aims to create “a vibrant new community featuring a variety of housing types and community amenities” with “a range of ownership and rental opportunities appealing to first-time home buyers through retirees.”

The applicant’s preferred plan is the same as City Alternative 1 shared with the City Council on February 18, 2025. As summarized below in Table 1, the preferred plan includes a total of 697 units with 85 percent available to all households (not age-restricted) and 15 percent age- restricted to seniors. The plan includes a variety of housing types, including detached single- family homes (“court homes” and “alley loaded homes”), attached townhomes, and multifamily apartments.

The plan proposes 100 on-site inclusionary units (equivalent to a 16.75 percent inclusionary rate) clustered in three multifamily apartment buildings on an approximately 3-acre site. The applicant has not yet determined if these inclusionary units would be age-restricted or not. If so, the proportion of senior vs. non-senior noted above would change.

Table 1: Preferred Plan Unit Allocation
Units Percentage
Non-Age Restricted Units
Court homes (detached single-family) 135 19.4%
Alley-loaded homes (detached single-
family)
88 12.6%
Townhomes 267 38.3%
Affordable Multifamily (rental) 100 14.3%
Subtotal non-age restricted units 590 84.6%
Age Restricted Units
Court homes (detached single-family) 24 3.4%
Conventional homes (detached single-
family)
83 11.9%
Subtotal age-restricted units 107 15.4%
Total Units 697

Building heights range from one to three stories. Proposed unit sizes (excluding garages) are:
• Market-rate single-family homes: 2,000 – 2,850 sq. ft. • Market-rate townhomes: 1,300 – 2,150 sq. ft.
• Age-restricted homes: 1,200 – 2,100 sq. ft.

• Affordable multifamily units: 600 – 1,050 sq. ft.

All dwelling units are parked at two spaces per unit in private garages. The project would provide guest and other generally-available parking spaces at a ratio of at least one space per four units, provided mostly as parallel on-street parking with some perpendicular parking pods.

Vehicle access to the site is from Busch Road, the future El Charro Road, and a new north- south street east of the proposed Arroyo Lago project. A network of new internal streets, alleys, paseos, bike paths, and pedestrian pathways provides internal connections within the site. Internal streets would feature a 5-foot planting strip on both sides, 5-foot minimum sidewalks on both sides, and 11-foot vehicle drive lanes, as well as on-street parallel parking spaces. Usable open space includes two parks (approximately 0.77 and 0.85 acres) and an interconnected system of paseos and small outdoor spaces.

The age-restricted homes in the southeast quadrant (northwest of Busch/El Charro Roads) are proposed to be gated with access restricted to residents and their guests. The park in this area would contain recreational amenities and be owned and maintained by the HOA for exclusive use by the age-restricted community. If the multifamily apartments are age-restricted, those would be located within the gated community. If not, they would be outside the gates with their own on-site recreational amenities.

The applicant is in the process of preparing more detailed project plans to illustrate the proposed open space and pedestrian network, and other details of the proposal. These plans will be shared as supplemental materials prior to the March 18, 2025, meeting and presented at the meeting.

DISCUSSION
The East Lakes applicant intends to submit a formal project application within the next two- three months, generally formulated around this preferred plan.

As discussed below, City staff requests preliminary City Council input on the following issues prior to receiving the formal East Lakes application:
• Residential development in the Livermore Airport Protection Area • Total unit count and proportion of age-restricted housing • Clustering of the on-site inclusionary units
• The gated age-restricted project area
• Any other issues important to the high-level project concept.

City Council input on these issues will help establish a project description to analyze in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to form the basis of the City’s project design and technical review. Providing preliminary direction on the above scope of issues does not commit the City to any specific course of action on the project (i.e., providing direction is not binding on a future City Council decision, and does not constitute a “pre-approval” of a specific project).

The City Council will take action on the project after full consideration of the EIR findings, staff analysis, and public comments received during the project entitlement and public hearing process.

Livermore Airport Protection Area
The East Lakes property is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Livermore Airport. Proposed development on the property would be reviewed by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and is subject to the requirements of the Livermore Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

As shown on the preferred plan (Attachment 1) and in Figure 1, the northeast corner of the East Lakes site is in the Livermore Airport Protection Area (APA). The APA was established in 1993 by the City of Livermore to prevent new noise-sensitive residential uses from encroaching closer to the airport, and was subsequently incorporated as a planning boundary in the ALUCP.

Figure 1: Livermore Airport Planning Boundaries (as shown in the 2005 Pleasanton General Plan)

existing residential land uses, are prohibited within the APA.” The applicant’s preferred plan includes residential uses in the APA. For this reason, City staff expects that the ALUC would find the project noncompliant with the ALUCP, based on the language on ALUCP page 3-1.

While the ALUC has the authority to review and determine proposed land use consistency within the APA, the ALUC does not control local land use entitlements for the lands within the

airport influence area. Procedures in the ALUCP (pursuant to State law) permit the City Council to override the ALUC to allow new residential uses in the APA. To do so, a two-thirds City Council majority (i.e., in the case of 5 voting members, 4 of the 5 members) would need to find the project consistent with state airport land use compatibility law. Specifically, the City Council would need to find the approval consistent with PUC Section 21670a.2, as follows: “It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”

Alternatively, the City could also allow residential uses in the East Lakes APA by securing an amendment to the ALUCP, approved by the Alameda County ALUC, to allow new residential uses in this area.

Staff notes that, with respect to potential bases to support an override of the ALUC, the APA is not a zone established for the purpose of ensuring airport safety, which is separately regulated through a series of safety/land use compatibility zones, but rather to reduce the potential for airport-related noise exposure and related complaints and concerns. There are several facts that suggest an override of a consistency determination may be supportable, if it is validated by noise and other site-specific analysis:
• The Livermore APA is more restrictive than the outer airport safety zone (Zone 7), which does permit residential uses. Zone 7 lies between Zone 6 and the Airport Influence Area boundary.
• The East Lakes site is outside the 55 CNEL Noise Contour area as depicted in the ALUCP. The City’s Noise Ordinance establishes 60 dBA noise limit as acceptable for residential uses.

• The City of Livermore has recently approved residential uses in the APA, in locations closer to the airport than the East Lakes site, including nearly 1,500 units as part of the Isabel Neighborhood Specific Plan.

The applicant has indicated their strong preference for an East Lakes plan with residential development in the APA. Although an alternative design that places residential uses outside the zone may be feasible, it would likely include fewer units and would involve a number of compromises in the site design. For example, open space would be less dispersed throughout the site with open space clustered in the APA, and internal street connectivity would be reduced since the developable area of the site would be more of an “L” shape versus a rectangle.

Staff requests City Council feedback on whether the applicant should proceed with a project with residential uses in the Livermore APA. Staff recommends the proposed project include residential uses in the APA for further analysis to be prepared during the City’s project review process. The City will prepare additional technical studies and analysis for City Council review when considering an ALUC override and project approval.

Based on the outcome of these studies and analysis, the City Council could require project revisions to remove residential uses from the APA. Alternatively, the applicant could revise the

project now to remove residential uses from the APA; this change would reduce the number and mix of units and require significant changes to the circulation plan and general site layout.

Unit Count and Proportion of Senior Housing
As noted, the applicant’s preferred plan includes 697 units, which results in a gross density of

10.75 units per acre. Table 2 compares this total proposed unit count with the applicant’s second alternative shared on February 18, 2025, and the pending Builder’s Remedy project in the county. Table 2 also compares the percentage of age-restricted units in the preferred plan with the second alternative and the county application.

Table 2: Proposed Unit Comparison
Preferred Plan Alternative 2 County Proposal Unit Type
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
Not Age-
Restricted
590 85% 540 86% 0 0%
Age Restricted 107 15% 88 14% 445 100%
Total 697 628 445

Staff requests City Council feedback on the total number of units in the applicant’s preferred plan. For the purpose of initiating project review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff recommends proceeding with a project description reflecting the greatest density that the City may be willing to accept on the site. Through the project and CEQA review process, the City will identify potential impacts from this density and require mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval to eliminate or reduce these impacts. If necessary, mitigation measures or the final project approvals may include reducing the number of project units.

The City Council should note that the East Lakes project needs to include a sufficient number of units to finance the infrastructure needed to support the project. If the project includes too few units, financing needed infrastructure (including El Charro Road) becomes infeasible as the per unit cost is too high. City staff is currently in the process of preparing cost estimates for El Charro Road and other area-wide infrastructure improvements. This cost information will be used to help prepare an East Pleasanton infrastructure financing plan to be considered by the City Council as part of the East Lakes project review. Staff will also share additional analysis on the East Lakes unit count needed to reasonably absorb infrastructure costs at future meetings.

Finally, if the environmental and other reviews continue to support a larger project, staff notes it would generate more units to be counted toward the RHNA, including a number in excess of what was counted in the Alameda County 6th Cycle Housing Element: this would be to the City’s advantage.

Staff also requests City Council feedback on the proportion of age-restricted units in the applicant’s preferred plan. As shown in Table 2, in the applicant’s preferred plan, 85 percent of the total proposed units would be available to all households (not age restricted)

and 15 percent would be age-restricted to seniors. The applicant’s preferred plan includes considerably fewer age-restricted units than the County's entirely senior residential proposal.

At the February 18, 2025, meeting a City Council majority supported a mix of age-restricted and non-age-restricted, housing, but did not indicate a preferred percentage of each.

With respect to total unit count, City Council members have previously raised concerns about various project impacts, some of which directly pertain to the total unit count and percentage of age-restricted units; these issues include traffic and school capacity. Other concerns raised relate to development in general, including geotechnical suitability, and hazardous materials.

Traffic
Regarding traffic, the City’s consultant prepared a study to analyze the impacts of new traffic generated by East Pleasanton development on key roads and intersections, and looking in particular at the triggers for, and effects of, construction of an extension of El Charro Road. As outlined in the Supplemental Memorandum distributed for the February 18 City Council meeting, the Kiewit project would trigger the need for El Charro Road to avoid unacceptable congestion at Santa Rita Road/Valley Avenue; future developments including Arroyo Lago, East Lakes, and a project on the Amazon property would further contribute to this need. The study concluded that, with buildout of all projects, a 4-lane El Charro Road from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard would be needed to fully address future traffic volumes and impacts to the existing network.

The traffic study looked at the smaller County-proposed 445-unit Senior project in its evaluation for the East Lakes site. It is acknowledged that increasing the number of units, and increasing the proportion of non-senior units, would also increase overall traffic generation.

With the mix of uses in the preferred plan, the PM peak hour traffic would increase by around 45% (equivalent approximately 140 additional PM peak hour trips). While staff is working to update the study to reflect the applicant’s preferred project, in the City Traffic Engineer’s opinion the study’s findings are unlikely to change such that El Charro would still be a required improvement. In its preferred -lane configuration, El Charro would have adequate capacity to accommodate a larger increment of project traffic. Furthermore, as noted above, increasing the number of units would help to support the funding of this costly improvement, by helping to spread the costs across an increased unit count to create a more feasible cost-burden per unit.

School Capacity
Regarding schools, in an initial discussion with City staff, PUSD staff indicated that due to declining enrollment, the District expects to have sufficient capacity for additional students generated from the applicant’s preferred plan. However, residential development in East Pleasanton could create challenges for elementary school boundaries due to projected future enrollment at individual schools. Mohr Elementary would have the greatest capacity to absorb students from new East Pleasanton development. Improved vehicle and bicycle/pedestrian connections from East Pleasanton to Mohr Elementary would be necessary to provide convenient school access while minimizing traffic impacts. Staff will continue to work with PUSD to provide a thorough assessment of impacts to schools at all levels (elementary, middle and high schools), which considers the projected impact of new students generated by the project.

Geotechnical Suitability and Hazardous Materials
City Council members have also raised concerns about geotechnical and hazardous materials

issues that could limit development potential in East Pleasanton. The Draft EIR prepared for the Arroyo Lago project found that the project site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that various measures and recommendations would be implemented. The EIR for the East Lakes project will be required to separately analyze potential geotechnical impacts from proposed development and identify mitigation measures as needed to reduce these impacts. Similarly, Phase 1 hazardous materials reports and any relevant findings related to other regulatory agencies’ designation or monitoring of the site would be further elaborated and subject to City review, to ensure the site is developable and does not pose unacceptable adverse health risks.

Inclusionary Units
The City of Pleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) in Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 establishes affordable housing requirements for new residential development in Pleasanton.

Under the IZO, as amended in December 2024, residential development projects with 10 or more units must provide at least 15 percent of the project’s units as affordable to lower-income households (inclusionary units). IZO provisions most relevant to the East Lakes projects include:
• Clustering Inclusionary Units: The IZO generally requires inclusionary units to be dispersed throughout the project, with some provisions to allow for limited clustering of those units (e.g., by attaching smaller duplex or apartment units). Clustering units into a single area of the site is permitted in conjunction with a tax-credit financed project; other unit types may be grouped into smaller clusters that are themselves distributed in the project. The City Council may also allow further clustering as part of an Alternative Compliance request/approval. It is noted that, on a practical level, an apartment project will have minimum size (typically between 70-120 units) in order to be competitive for tax-credit financing and feasible to construct.

• Tenure and Affordability: Generally, apartment units are expected to provide rental housing; townhomes and clustered single family units will typically provide ownership opportunities, since it can be challenging to manage distributed rental units. Per the IZO, affordable rental units are to be deed-restricted at up to 50 or 60% AMI, and for- sale units up to 120% AMI.

• On-site Preference: The IZO establishes a strong City preference for inclusionary units to be constructed on-site and in conjunction with market rate units within the same project.

• Alternative Means of Compliance: The IZO allows alternatives to on-site inclusionary units with (from most to least preferred): 1) alternative configurations, unit types or clustering of units on site; 2) constructing units off-site; 3) dedicating land for an affordable housing project; and 4) paying the affordable housing fee. The City Council may approve an alternative means of compliance only upon finding that it is not feasible or desirable to accommodate the inclusionary units on-site or that special circumstances justify payment of fees over provision of units.

• Affordable Housing Fee: To approve payment of the affordable housing fee in lieu of on-site inclusionary units, the City Council must find that all other alternative compliance means are infeasible, and that “greater benefit would accrue to the City with respect to

furthering affordable housing and the ability to provide housing affordable to all segments of the community through payment of the fee, versus requiring construction of the units on-site.” The affordable housing in-lieu fee amount was recently established by City Council as part of the broader impact fee update, and will escalate annually by the Construction Cost Index. The City must use collected affordable housing fees to implement the City’s housing element and other City policies and programs specifically related to affordable housing.

The applicant’s preferred plan includes 597 total market-rate units, and under the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance the developer is required to construct 89 inclusionary units (15 percent of 597). As an alternative means of compliance, the City could allow the developer to pay the affordable housing fee. The City’s affordable housing fee is currently $42.21 per square foot of single-family (detached and attached) homes. Using expected unit sizes provided by the applicant, staff calculates the affordable housing fee for the entire project to be approximately $52 million. This number would be adjusted if the project proposed to partially mitigate its impact on-site, and partially through payment of fees.

The applicant’s preferred plan would construct all inclusionary units on-site. The plan includes 100 affordable multifamily rental apartments clustered in three buildings within a 3-acre portion of the site. Unit sizes range from 600 to 1,060 square feet with one-, two- and three-bedroom options. The affordable housing area is located adjacent to El Charro Road and a new internal street; it also abuts the age-restricted single-family homes and a park to the west and south.

Additionally, the applicant notes that a tax-credit funded project would be required to provide some dedicated on-site amenities and open space for residents.

Staff requests feedback on whether the City Council supports the applicant’s preferred plan to cluster the 100 affordable multifamily apartments in one area. As noted above, the IZO states a preference to disperse inclusionary units throughout the project so as not to concentrate these units in one area of the project. However, the IZO does allow a tax credit- funded apartment project to consist entirely of clustered units. Because the East Lakes project would be a PUD, the City has the ability to determine the preferred approach to clustering and could request or require the units to be more dispersed. As noted, if the affordable units are clustered multi-family apartments, they will be rental units.

A further consideration is whether the City Council would like to see some affordable ownership opportunities created within the East Lake project. This would reduce the number of affordable rental units and replace these with owner-occupied affordable units. The applicant has noted that if the affordable multifamily apartment comprises fewer than 70 units, it may not be competitive for tax credit financing or feasible to construct.

Staff requests City Council feedback on the applicant’s preferred plan to construct all inclusionary units on site. At the February 18, 2025, meeting a City Council majority supported allowing for a portion of the project’s inclusionary housing requirement to be satisfied through the payment of fees. One member of the City Council suggested that project fees could be used to construct affordable units in an alternative location closer to transit and services. Accepting payment of fees in lieu of on-site construction would require the City Council to find that “Greater benefit would accrue to the City with respect to furthering affordable housing and the ability to provide housing affordable to all segments of the

community through payment of the fee, versus requiring construction of the units on-site.”

Staff further notes that allowing the project to partially “fee out” of its inclusionary requirement would reduce the yield of affordable units to be counted toward the City’s RHNA, notwithstanding the potential that the fees generated could support production of these units elsewhere in the city, albeit potentially over a much longer-term, since such project would need to be located, entitled and constructed in order to yield the offsite units.

Gated Community
The applicant’s preferred plan includes controlled access to the age-restricted community in the southeast quadrant of the site, with a perimeter gate restricting access to residents and their guests. Access to amenities in this area, including the park, would be similarly restricted.

The applicant has indicated that controlled access to the age-restricted community is necessary for security and privacy and the marketability of age-restricted units.

Staff requests City Council feedback on whether the City should permit controlled access to the age-restricted area of the project. The City’s 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.” Staff notes that the City has recently approved gated senior communities, including the 111-unit Merrit project on Foothill Boulevard. Staff also notes that the applicant's preferred plan includes a perimeter gate for only a portion of the project sites, whereas the County proposal restricts access to the entire development. Nonetheless, allowing any portion of the project to be gated does go against the General Plan policy, and to some degree presents the same issues and concerns about connectivity and integration into the broader neighborhood as were previously cited for the County (senior only) project.

Other Issues
As noted above, the applicant intends to submit a formal East Lakes application within the next two-three months. This application will establish a project description for the EIR and will be the project reviewed and analyzed by staff. Given this, staff requests City Council feedback on any other issues the Council considers important to the high-level project concept.

This may include issues related to site access, circulation, open space, recreational amenities, landscaping, and home design. City staff and the applicant will use this feedback to help guide further revisions and details added to the proposed project.

Summary of Requested City Council Input and Recommendations Staff requests City Council feedback on the following items; where staff also has a related recommendation, it is noted below:

1. Should the applicant’s application include residential uses in the Livermore Airport Protection Area?

Staff recommendation: The proposed project should include residential uses in the APA, with further analysis to be prepared during the City’s project review to allow the City Council to determine if findings for override of an ALUC non-compliance determination can be made.

2. What should be the maximum total number of units in the applicant’s preferred plan?

Staff Recommendation: For the purpose of initiating project review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff recommends proceeding with a project description reflecting the greatest density that the City may be willing to accept on the site.

3. Does City Council support the applicant’s proposed proportion (approximately 15%) of age-restricted units in the preferred plan?

Staff Recommendation: Staff has no specific recommendation on this item.

4. Does the City Council support the Preferred Plan’s affordable housing approach? a) Clustering of the affordable multifamily apartments in one area of the site (versus more dispersed, for-sale deed restricted units)?

Staff recommendation: Staff has no specific recommendation on this item. While the IZO generally requires dispersal of inclusionary units, it does permit a tax-credit funded multi-family project to be clustered. If the units are not fully clustered, they will likely be provided as deed- restricted, 120% (or below) AMI for-sale units.

b) Constructing all inclusionary units on site (versus providing a combination of inclusionary units (less than 15%) and affordable housing fees)?

c) If a combination of on-site units and fees, what is the minimum number of units that should be provided on-site?

Staff Recommendation: Staff notes that the IZO strongly supports provision of all inclusionary units on site; however, the City Council indicated majority support for potentially allowing for partial mitigation through payment of affordable housing fees. The City Council is requested to affirm this direction, and provide guidance on the minimum number of units that should still be constructed on-site.

5. Does the City Council support allowing the age-restricted subarea of the project to be gated/controlled access?

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends disallowing the senior portion of the project to be gated, consistent with the General Plan’s policy to discourage gated communities.

6. Does the Council have any other feedback on the applicant’s preferred project?

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends City Council provide any additional comments or feedback on the preferred project.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Annexing and developing the East Lakes project is supportive of the City's sustainability goals.

Compared to projects being developed in the unincorporated county, development within Pleasanton would allow the project 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 property would permit the City to apply standards for green building and 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 and Ironwood neighborhoods, and to Alameda County.

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
The City Council's action has no direct fiscal impact. However, the fiscal impact analysis prepared by EPS finds that the Arroyo Lago and East Lakes projects, if annexed into Pleasanton, would have a net positive fiscal impact on the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs of processing the application for annexation, including the costs of third-party technical support and CEQA review.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Ellen Clark, Director of
Community Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. East Lakes Applicant Preferred Project Narrative and Site Plan

2. Presentation_Item 18_East Lakes Residential

DRAFT
East Lakes Pleasanton
City Plan Project Description

02.28.2025

USL Pleasanton Lakes, L.P., c/o Steelwave, LLC, proposes to develop approximately 62 gross acres of land in unincorporated Alameda County into a vibrant new community featuring a variety of housing types and community amenities. The vision for the project is to provide a range of ownership and rental opportunities appealing to first-time home buyers through retirees. The for- sale market rate, active adult and affordable rental homes will offer Pleasanton residents a wide range of price points and create the opportunity for missing middle housing in Pleasanton.

The design of East Lakes is contemplated as a series of distinct sub-neighborhoods. Access is provided by two points from Busch Street and two from existing private El Charro Road. A network of internal streets are the veins of the project and are planned to carry pedestrian traffic, landscaping, street furniture, in addition to auto traffic within and across sub- neighborhoods. They feature on-street parking, tree lined sidewalks, planting strips, street lighting and front entries to many of the dwelling units. Paseos further provide pedestrian connectivity and link the various parks sprinkled throughout the site. The multiple open spaces and parks are a critical design element to create a walkable, connected neighborhood.

Inspired by the character of successful existing Pleasanton neighborhoods, the architecture will be commensurate with high quality design. The one, two and three-story housing types are compatible in scale and character and integral to the feeling created in each neighborhood.

Along with the variety of housing types, the exterior styles and finishes will be appropriately diverse. Each design is thoughtfully placed to create the new neighborhoods of East Lakes.

ATTACHMENT 1

City Preferred Plan - Alt 1 Summary

Market Rate For-Sale (490)
• 2 story Court Homes 50 x 70 lots, varied sizes 135 o 2500 – 2850 SF
• 3 story Alley Load Homes 30 x 60 lots, varies 88 o 2000 - 2750 SF
• 3 story Alley Load Townhomes w/side by side garages 138 o 1850 - 2150 SF
• 3 story Alley Load Townhomes w/limited use of tandem garages 129 o 1300 – 2000 SF

Active Adult (107)
• 1 story Court Homes 24
o 1200 - 1500 SF
• 1 story Conventional Homes, varied lot sizes 83
o 1800 – 2100 SF

Affordable Rental (100)
• 3 story multi-family, stacked flats
Leasing Office and Amenity
o One, two and three bedroom 600 to 1050 SF

STREET TYPE NOTES

BUSCH ROAD

CHATHAM PL

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY

COURT LOADED HOMES
(50 x 80)

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY
COURT LOADED HOMES:
(50 x 80 LOTS)

ACTIVE ADULT SMALL LOT

COURT HOMES

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY

ALLEY LOADED COMPACT
LOTS (30 x 60)

EL CHARRO RD
8 34
MARKET-RATE 3-STORY TOWNHOMES
(DEEP)
MARKET-RATE 3-STORY TOWNHOMES
(SHALLOW)
~3 AC PARCEL FOR

AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY
HOUSING: 100 DU’S (~15%)

ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT GATED

COMMUNITY
PARK

33.5K SF

0.77 AC
PARK
37K SF

0.85 AC
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 MARKET RATE AND ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT
DWELLING UNITS ARE PARKED AT 2 CARS PER UNIT IN
PRIVATE GARAGES.

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.

ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY

ALLEY ALLEY
ALLEY
ALLEY
APN-946-4634-001
APN-946-4634-002

EAST LAKES

LAND USES
A. MARKET RATE - WEST
B. MARKET RATE - NORTHEAST QUADRANT
C. MARKET RATE - FAR SOUTHEAST

SUBTOTAL
D. ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT - SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
TOTAL

UNIT COUNT

NET ACRES

11.7 22.1

05.1 38.9

21.3 60.2
50 50
100
35 35
490
88 138
129
355
24 39
44 107
697
A. MARKET RATE - WEST COURT HOMES

NORTH-WEST

SOUTH-WEST

SUB-TOTAL
B. MARKET RATE - NORTH-EAST
SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOTS (30X60)
3-STORY TOWNHOMES TYPE 1 (Shallow)
3-STORY TOWNHOMES TYPE 2 (Deep)

SUB-TOTAL
D. ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT - SOUTHEAST QUADRANT

SFD SMALL LOT COURTS
SFD FRONT LOADED (50 X 90 LOTS)
SFD FRONT LOADED (48 X 85 LOTS)

ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT TOTAL

TOTAL UNITS
C. MARKET RATE - FAR SOUTHEAST
SFD SMALL LOTS (30X60)

SUB-TOTAL
MARKET RATE TOTAL (A+B+C)

ACCESS ROAD
ALLEY

MARKET-RATE SINGLE-FAMILY

HOMES, SMALL LOTS
(45 X 75)

ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES (48 X 85 LOTS)

ACTIVE SENIOR ADULT SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES (50 X 90 LOTS)

BUSCH ROAD

EXTENSION

EL CHARRO RD (PRIVATE)
MARCH 11, 2025MARCH 11, 2025
MARCH 11, 2025MARCH 11, 2025
CITY ALT 1 PREFERREDCITY ALT 1 PREFERRED

3/11/2025
1 East Pleasanton Residential ProjectApplicant-Preferred AlternativeCity Council, March 18, 2025 RequestReceive presentation on applicant-preferred East Lakes Residential Project, and provide input on:1.Development within the Airport Protection Area2.Total number of dwelling units and proportion of age-restricted units;3.Affordable Housing Approach4.Gated Senior Component5.Other Feedback1 2

3/11/2025
2 East Lakes: Project Status•County “Builders Remedy” Preliminary Application Submitted in June,2024; Updated/Resubmitted October 2024•445 Age-Restricted Units•February 18, 2025 City Council Meeting•Direction to proceed with annexation applications for Arroyo Lago and East Lakes•Two alternative “City Plans” plans for East Lakes•Majority City Council preference for:•Mixed age-restricted/non-age-restricted project•Mix of on-site affordable housing and some in-lieu fees•No direction on unit count or preferred site plan option Applicant Preferred Alternative
697 Units•490 Non-Age Restricted (Courtyard, Townhome and Small Lot SFR)•107 Age-Restricted / Active Adult•100 Multi-Family Affordable Units (16.75%)•Distributed Open Space•0.77 ac. and 0.85 ac. parks•Pocket parks & paseos•Includes residential in APA 3 4

3/11/2025
3 1. Residential Development in APAAirport Protection Area:•Established by Livermore in 1993, incorporated into Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)•Noise protection boundary - avoid new and intensified residential uses for which airport noise may be a nuisance•Airport safety separately regulated by Safety Zones 1-7 •ALUC determines conformance with ALUCP, but not a land use permitting agency•Procedures allow local jurisdiction override of ALUC determination, based on findings (3/5 vote required) Airport Planning Boundaries
Approximate APA Boundary5
6

3/11/2025
4 1. Residential Development in APA (Ctd.)•Applicant preferred site plan includes development in the APA, and would require City Council override of ALUC determination•APA is more restrictive than outermost Airport Safety Zone for residential•East Lakes site outside of 55 CNEL noise contour per ALUCP•Livermore has approved residential as part of Isabel Neighborhood Plan, also within APAStaff Recommendation:Allow preferred plan to proceed through project and CEQA review. Council final determination as to APA based on project-specific analysis 2 & 3. Unit Count, Proportion of Senior Units•Higher unit count could be beneficial in terms of RHNA, and support for infrastructure improvements (cost sharing)•CEQA and Project Analysis will provide additional analysis to help determine final supportable unit count and mix•Staff Recommendation: Allow largest potentially supportable project to proceed through CEQA & Project Review. No recommendation on senior mix)County ProposalAlternative 2Preferred PlanUnit TypePercentUnitsPercentUnitsPercentUnits0%086%54085%590Not Age-Restricted 100%44514%8815%107Age Restricted 445628697Total 7 8

3/11/2025
5 4. Affordable Housing Approach•100 clustered multi-family apartments (=16.7% of market-rate units)•Likely to be multi-family, 60% AMI and below rental units •2/28 Meeting: City Council indicated support for partial fee mitigation

4. Affordable Housing Approach (Ctd.)Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance:•Requires 15% Affordable (89 affordable units)•Strong preference for on-site, with payment of fee as “least preferred” option •If fees paid for all units: ~$52.7 Million•Favors dispersal of units, with exception for tax-credit financed multi-family•Allows for affordable for-sale (up to 120% AMI), or rental (50% and 60% AMI)•Threshold viability for multi-family project: approx. 70 unitsStaff Recommendation: City Council should provide input on:•Clustered multi-family rental vs. distributed for-sale (or a mix)?•All units on site vs. partial “fee out” (and if so, what proportion) 9 10

3/11/2025
6 5. Gated Senior Component•107 Age-Restricted Units•Proposed to include gated perimeter•General Plan Program 7.4 to discourage gated communities•City has approved limited gated communities in the past, most often for senior projects Summary of Recommendations11
12

3/11/2025
7 Recommendations1.Should the applicant’s application include residential uses in the Livermore Airport Protection Area? Recommendation: Proposed project may include residential uses in the APA, with further analysis prepared to inform future City Council determination as to potential override of an ALUC non-compliance determination2.What should be the maximum total number of units in the applicant’s preferred plan?Recommendation: Proceed with a project description reflecting the greatest density that the City may be willing to accept on the site for the purposes of CEQA and Project Review3.Does City Council support the applicant’s proposed proportion(approx.15%) of age-restricted units in the preferred plan?No staff recommendation Recommendations4.Does the City Council support the Preferred Plan’s affordable housing approach?a) Clustering of the affordable multifamily apartments in one area of the site vs. more dispersed, for-sale deed restricted units?b) Constructing all inclusionary units on site, vs. combination of inclusionary units and affordable housing fees?c) If a combination of on-site units and fees, what is the minimum number of on-site affordable units? Recommendation: •Clustering vs. Dispersed (No specific recommendation)•On-Site vs. In-lieu Fees: Affirm prior direction to allow a combination of units and fees, and provide direction on proportion of AH units on-site. 13 14

3/11/2025
8 Recommendations5.Does the City Council support allowing the age-restricted subarea of the project to be gated/controlled access? Recommendation: Do not allow any portion of the site to be gated/controlled.6.Other Comments or Direction? East Pleasanton Residential ProjectApplicant-Preferred AlternativeCity Council, March 18, 202515 16

Item #19

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

March 18, 2025
City Manager

TITLE: PROVIDE DIRECTION ON FUNDING OF THE 2025 COMMITTEE AND

COMMISSION RECOGNITION EVENT

SUMMARY
The City hosts an annual event to recognize City commissioners and committee members.

This year, in light of the City's current fiscal challenges, the City Council requested a discussion to reconsider funding this annual event to reduce costs toward achieving a balanced budget.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on funding of the 2025 Committee and Commission Recognition event.

BACKGROUND
At the March 4, 2025, City Council meeting, Councilmember Testa introduced a request under the Matters Initiated portion of the meeting agenda to reconsider funding for the upcoming Committee and Commission recognition event, currently scheduled for April 17, 2025, in light of the City's current fiscal challenges. By majority consensus, the City Council agreed to consider the item at a future City Council meeting.

DISCUSSION
For many years, the City has hosted an annual event to recognize City commissioners' and committee members' service to the City. This event has historically consisted of a dinner and presentations, with associated costs consisting of venue rental, audiovisual production, catering, postage, and additional materials and supplies. The original budget for the 2025 Committee and Commission Recognition event was $39,500.

In consideration of the City's current fiscal challenges, staff had already reduced the total celebration budget for 2025 to $11,500 and planned a smaller event at a City-owned facility— Callippe Preserve Golf Course—with a more limited invitation list to contain expenses.

As an alternative to this event and to reduce costs even further, the City could host a pre- meeting reception before the April 15 City Council meeting at a total estimated cost of approximately $500. All committee and commission members would be invited to attend the reception to join the City Council in acknowledging their work over the past year and recognizing outgoing commission and committee members.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Reducing costs for non-essential City events supports the City's efforts toward fiscal sustainability.

OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this is a matter initiated by the City Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Reducing costs aligns with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Funding Our Future to support long-term fiscal sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the annual Commission and Committee Recognition event is budgeted under Community Promotions, account number 00199200-430101.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Alexa Jeffress, Deputy City
Manager
Alexa Jeffress, Deputy City Manager

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

None