Pleasanton City Council
November 18, 2025

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, November 18, 2025
7:00 PM
City Council Chamber
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566

The meeting will be held in-person, broadcast live on Channel 29 and streamed live for viewing at the following links TV30 https://www.tri-valleytv.org, the City's website in the Meetings portal (a red dot will indicate a live meeting) https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/, and the City's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCityofPleasanton.

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

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

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

CALL TO ORDER
• Welcome and Pledge of Allegiance - Cm. Gaidos
• Roll Call
Resolution No. 2025-061
Ordinance No. 2302

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

AGENDA AMENDMENTS

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

City Manager

1. Approve meeting minutes of October 21, 2025

2. Adopt a resolution setting the 2026 calendar year City Council meeting schedule Community and Economic Development

3. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission

City Council Agenda Page 2 of 3 November 18, 2025

4. Review modifications to the installed monument sign and proposed canopy, and adopt a resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Sign Design Review Application (P24-0731) to install new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street with modifications to the previously approved monument sign

5. Adopt resolutions concurring with the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee's recommended determination that expenditures totaling $271,803 in Altamont Open Space Funds for consulting services are consistent with the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement Public Works

6. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a purchase order with Belkorp AG, LLC for the purchase of one John Deere 9009A Terraincut Rough Mower in an amount not to exceed $129,161, inclusive of a 15 percent contingency

7. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a purchase order with Peterson CAT for the purchase of one Caterpillar 255 Compact Track Loader in an amount not to exceed $200,022,inclusive of a 15 percent contingency

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

8. Presentation of a commendation to Pleasanton Military Families for their years of service to the Pleasanton community

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

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

10. Receive an update on the outcome of stakeholder engagement and facility feasibility and cost analysis, and direct staff to meet and confer with Pleasanton Garbage Service to negotiate a three to five-year extension of the current franchise agreement for solid waste management services in Pleasanton and bring a recommendation back to City Council no later than July 2026

11. Receive a report on the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Concept Plan and provide direction on preliminary site re-use options

12. Adopt the following resolutions:

a. Adopt a resolution to accept the FY 2024/25 year-end operating budget report, approve budget amendments in multiple funds, and designate the General Fund balance

City Council Agenda Page 3 of 3 November 18, 2025

b. Adopt a resolution to accept the FY 2024/25 Year-end Financial and Program Delivery Report for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL

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

ADJOURNMENT

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

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

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

Item #1

CALL TO ORDER

CITY OF PLEASANTON

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
7:00 PM
Mayor Balch called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at the hour of 7:00 p.m. from the Council Chamber located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no report out due to cancellation of the closed session meeting.

AGENDA AMENDMENTS
City Manager Beaudin removed item 13 from the agenda. Councilmember Gaidos continued item 2 to the next regular City Council meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Balch opened public comment. The following individuals provided comment:

Denise Alvarez and Jicky Thomas.

Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

MOTION: It was m/s by Nibert/Gaidos to approve the consent calendar as recommended except for items 2 and 13. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

Absent: None
City Manager

1. Approve meeting minutes of September 16, 2025
Recommendation: Approve meeting minutes of September 16, 2025.

City Council Minutes

October 21, 2025

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Citygate Associates, LLC for a comprehensive citywide organizational assessment in a not-to-exceed amount of $249,982
Item continued to next regular meeting.

Community and Economic Development

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

4. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the County of Alameda to allow the exchange of property tax revenue associated with the annexation of the Merritt Property into the City of Pleasanton, as filed under Case No. P22-1089
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-059 authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the County of Alameda to allow the exchange of property tax revenue associated with the annexation of the Merritt Property into the City of Pleasanton, as filed under Case No. P22-1089.

5. Adopt Ordinance No. 2299 an ordinance amending Title 20 and Title 18 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code to adopt by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Parts 1-12, including the 2024 International Building, Existing Building, Residential, Fire, Wildland-Urban Interface, Property Maintenance, and Swimming Pool and Spa Codes; the 2024 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; the 2023 National Electrical Code and the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code
Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 2299 an ordinance amending Title 20 and Title 18 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code to adopt by reference the 2025 Edition of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Parts 1-12, including the 2024 International Building, Existing Building, Residential, Fire, Wildland-Urban Interface, Property Maintenance, and Swimming Pool and Spa Codes; the 2024 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; the 2023 National Electrical Code and the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code.

6. Adopt Ordinance No. 2300 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton amending Chapter 18.106 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, to comply with State law [P25-0026]
Recommendation: Adopt Ordinance No. 2300 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton amending Chapter 18.106 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, to comply with State law [P25-0026].

City Council Minutes

October 21, 2025
Fire

7. Adopt a resolution accepting the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2024 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with FEMA to use the funds for three Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) to advance to the rank of Firefighter Paramedics Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-060.

1. Authorizing the City Manager, on behalf of and for the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department JPA (LPFD) in his capacity as a Joint Executive Director for LPFD, to execute any agreements and accept a $472,006 grant from FEMA.

2. Authorizing appropriation of $519,207 including the $472,006 FEMA grant and $47,201 for the required match in LPFD's fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 Operating Fund budget for the purpose of advancing EMTs to Firefighter Paramedics.

Public Works

8. Accept the public improvements performed by Silicon Valley Paving, Inc. for the Annual Court Resurfacing Projects at Fairlands Park and Tennis and Community Park, CIP No. 24744 and 25744, and authorize the return of the remaining project balance
Recommendation:

1. Accept the project as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the Alameda County Recorder.

2. Authorize release of the retention in the amount of $20,904 to Silicon Valley Paving, Inc. 30 days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion.

3. Authorize the remaining court resurfacing project balance of $164,453 to be returned back to the Park CIP – General Fund (Fund 221).

9. Approve plans and specifications, review bids, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a construction contract with B and D Excavation and Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,665,540 for the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437, and approve various budget transfers
Recommendation:

1. Accept the request for relief from and withdrawal of the bid from Integra Services, Inc., and reject the remaining bids for the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437, with a bid date of July 9, 2025.

City Council Minutes

October 21, 2025

2. Approve plans and specifications, review bids, and award the construction contract for the project to B and D Excavation and Construction, Inc. of Santa Rosa, CA, for the low bid amount of $2,665,540, including the base bid amount of $1,973,700, Alternative A bid amount of $508,310, and Alternative B bid amount of $183,530 for the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437, with bid date of September 4, 2025.

3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into the construction agreement.

4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to approve and execute contract change orders for a project contingency amount not to exceed $399,831 (approximately 15 percent of the contract) for unforeseen yet necessary related work.

5. Transfer $190,242 from the Annual Soundwall Repair & Replacement, CIP No. 22416 (Fund 201), to the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437.

6. Transfer $225,000 from the Annual Soundwall Repair & Replacement, CIP No. 22416 (Fund 203), to the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437.

7. Transfer $100,000 from the Annual Soundwall Repair & Replacement, CIP No. 23416 (Fund 201), to the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437.

8. Transfer $125,000 from the Annual Soundwall Repair & Replacement, CIP No. 24416 (Fund 201), to the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437.

9. Transfer $95,860 from the Annual Soundwall Repair & Replacement, CIP No. 25416 (Fund 201), to the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437.

10. Transfer $1,137,689 from the Deferred Maintenance Asset Management Plan, CIP No. 26489 (Fund 201), to the Valley Avenue Soundwall Repair Project, CIP No. 18437.

10. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a purchase order with Rush Enterprises for two Ford F-350 trucks and with National Auto Fleet for two Ford F-150 Lightning electric vehicles for a total of four vehicles at an amount not to exceed $415,978, inclusive of a 15 percent contingency from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (Fund 510)
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a purchase order with Rush Enterprises for two Ford F-350 trucks and with National Auto Fleet for two Ford F-150 Lightning electric vehicles for a total amount not to exceed $415,978, inclusive of a 15 percent contingency from the Vehicle Replacement Fund (Fund 510).

11. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement with KL LB BUY 5, LLC and an agreement for completion of the improvements with Tri-Point Homes Holdings, Inc. for Tract 8672, located at 3200 Hopyard Road

City Council Minutes

October 21, 2025
Recommendation:

1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into the subdivision improvement agreement with KL LB BUY 5 LLC (see Attachment 1) and the companion agreement for completion of improvements with Tri-Pointe Homes Holdings, Inc. that transfers the property owner’s duties and obligations to the contractor.

2. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the final map (see Attachment 2) and improvement plans for Tract 8672.

3. Authorize the City Clerk to record the final map with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder, including the acceptance of a public service easement for utility services, as well as an easement for emergency vehicle access, both offered for dedication to the City on the final map.

12. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with WSP USA in the amount of $182,721 for construction management and inspection support services for Phase I Constructability Review and Bid Support, and to enter into a third amendment to the professional services agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for an additional $222,173.44 for a new total of $2,995,689.59 to complete the 100 percent design for the West Las Positas Multimodal Reconstruction Project, CIP No. 11514, and approve $1.7 million in budget amendments to the Miscellaneous CIP Grants Fund (Fund 162) Recommendation:

1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional service agreement with WSP USA of Oakland, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $182,721 for Phase I: Constructability Review and Bid Support Services for the West Las Positas Multimodal Reconstruction Project, CIP No. 11514.

2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into third amendment to the professional services agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for the not-to-exceed amount of $222,173.44, for a total amount of $2,995,689.59 to complete the 100 percent design of the West Las Positas Multimodal Reconstruction Project, CIP No. 11514.

3. Approve $1.7 million in budget amendments (revenues and expenditures) from the Federal “Safe Routes to School” grant from the Alameda County Transportation Commission to the Miscellaneous CIP Grants (Fund 162) for the West Las Positas Boulevard Multimodal Reconstruction Project, CIP No. 11514.

13. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a maintenance and trade services agreement with Midland Construction for $414,444 for the Bernal Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Stockpile Removal, CIP No. 26580, and authorize a contingency of $132,000 for a total budget of $546,444, and approve budget amendments to the Gas Tax and Streets CIP General Funds (Funds 160 and 211)

City Council Minutes

October 21, 2025
Item 13 was removed from the agenda.

MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

14. Presentation of BART updates by Director Hernandez
Presentation by Director Hernandez.

15. Business Anniversary Recognition
Lisa Adamos, Economic Development Manager, introduced the businesses celebrating anniversaries.

16. Presentation of a Proclamation recognizing October 2025 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Councilmember Testa presented the proclamation to the recipient, Maitri.

17. Presentation of a Proclamation recognizing October 20, 2025 as Diwali Councilmember Testa presented the proclamation to the recipient, the Association of Indo-Americans.

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

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

Gene Fahey.

Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

Mayor Balch called a recess at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:18 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS

19. Approve updates to the Utility Discount Billing Program Recommendation: Approve updates to the Utility Billing Discount Program, effective March 1, 2026, to:

1. Apply the discount to Pleasanton’s and Zone 7’s fixed and variable charges for water, and Pleasanton’s fixed charges for sewer.

2. Reduce the maximum water usage to receive the discount to 24-hundred cubic feet (ccf).

3. Cap the maximum total discount program budget at $425,000, funded by General Fund allocation.

City Council Minutes

October 21, 2025

4. Maintain the requirement for proof of residency for discount eligibility.

5. Continue discount applications to low-income facilities and senior facilities, and residents in facilities with a shared master meter.

6. Adopt a 30% utility bill discount to qualified low-income customers under the PG&E CARE Program.

Presentation by Siew-Chin Yeong, Public Works Director.

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

Vicki LaBarge and Grace Scerri.

Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

MOTION: It was m/s by Eicher/Balch to approve the item as recommended and provided direction to evaluate the feasibility for enrollment windows in addition to the single point in time schedule. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

Absent: None

20. Consider and provide direction on the key terms of a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement between the City of Pleasanton and 330 Land Company, LLC, for the proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Development at 3030 Mohr Avenue (APN 946-4634-1)
Recommendation: Consider and provide direction on the key terms of a Pre- Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) between the City of Pleasanton and 330 Land Company, LLC, for the proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Development at 3030 Mohr Avenue (APN 946-4634-1).

Presentation by Ellen Clark, Community Development Director.

The project applicant, represented by Steve Dunn and Steve Reilly, provided comments.

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

Arne Olson, Kelly Cousins, Sandra Yamaoda, Cliff McDonald, Bob Watson, Pam Alpert, and Linda Kelly. Mayor Balch closed the public comment.

The project applicant, represented by Steve Dunn and Steve Reilly, provided rebuttal remarks.

At 10:43 p.m., it was m/s by Gaidos/Nibert and by unanimous vote of the City Council, to continue item 21 on the agenda to the next regular City Council meeting.

City Council Minutes

October 21, 2025
By majority consensus, the City Council provided direction to support the PADA terms items 1-9 as proposed, including the public benefit contribution for El Charro Road.

21. Approve the Long-Term Sewer Capital Improvement Plan Item continued to the next regular meeting.

MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCIL
None.

COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers reported on regional and local meetings attended.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Balch adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m.

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

Item #2

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
City Clerk

TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION SETTING THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR CITY COUNCIL

MEETING SCHEDULE

SUMMARY
The Pleasanton Municipal Code Chapter 2.04.010 states that the City Council shall establish the dates and times of its regular meetings. A regular meeting schedule for the 2026 calendar year will assist in managing City Council meeting agendas and inform the public of planned public meetings.

The proposed 2026 calendar year schedule has 19 meeting dates. Regular meetings start at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution setting the 2026 calendar year City Council meeting schedule.

BACKGROUND
The City generally holds 19 or 20 regularly scheduled meetings per year. For the 2026 calendar year, it is proposed that the City Council set 19 regular meeting dates.

DISCUSSION
Typically, regular meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. Regular meetings start at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The first meeting of January is not scheduled due to proximity to City-observed holidays. Meetings in April, August and November are not scheduled to align with Pleasanton Unified School District breaks, National Night Out/ summer holidays and Election Day. It is recommended that the Council adopt the resolution setting the 2026 calendar year schedule (Attachment 1). Setting this calendar does not preclude scheduling additional special meetings.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This schedule does not impact City-observed holidays.

OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this is an administrative matter to conduct City business.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable, as this item is a routine item of City business.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk Alexa Jeffress, Assistant City Manager

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Resolution setting the 2026 City Council meeting calendar

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON SETTING THE 2026 CALENDAR YEAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE

WHEREAS, Chapter 2.04.010 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code allows the City Council to establish dates of its regular meetings by resolution; and

WHEREAS, at its November 18, 2025, meeting, the City Council reviewed and considered the 2026 calendar year meeting schedule.

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

SECTION 1. The 2026 City Council regular meeting schedule is set as follows:

January 20 July 7
February 3 July 21
February 17 September 1
March 3 September 15
March 17 October 6
April 21 October 20
May 5 November 17
May 19 December 1
June 2 December 15
June 16

SECTION 2. All regular meetings of the City Council shall start at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on November 18, 2025.

I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Item #3

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: ACTIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PLANNING

COMMISSION

P25-0399, Michael Martin
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct an approximately 12-foot-tall, 441-square-foot gazebo in the rear of 4673 Black Avenue.

Project Information:

Existing floor area: 2,087 square feet
Total floor area with addition:2,087 square feet
Lot size: 7,150 square feet
Existing floor area ratio: 29.19 percent
Total floor area ratio with addition: 29.19 percent

Approved. (10 days)

P25-0440, Dave Ayres
Application for Administrative Design Review approval to construct an approximately 276-square-foot single-story rear addition and an attached approximately 200-square- foot rear covered patio located at 3987 Payne Road.

Project Information:

Existing floor area: 1,357 square feet
Total floor area with addition: 1,633 square feet
Lot size: 6,200 square feet
Existing floor area ratio: 21.89 percent
Total floor area ratio with addition: 26.34 percent

Approved. (10 days)

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Eric Luchini
Zoning Administrator

Ellen Clark
Director of Community and
Economic Development

Gerry Beaudin
City Manager

Item #4

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: REVIEW MODIFICATIONS TO THE INSTALLED MONUMENT SIGN AND

PROPOSED CANOPY, AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S APPROVAL OF A SIGN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (P24-0731) TO INSTALL NEW MONUMENT, WALL, CANOPY, AND PUMP

SIGNAGE AS PART OF A GAS STATION REBRANDING FOR GULF GAS STATION LOCATED AT 4212 FIRST STREET WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MONUMENT SIGN

SUMMARY
On March 4, 2025, the City Council requested review of a Zoning Administrator (ZA) Sign Design Review (SDR) approval to allow the installation of new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf gas station located at 4212 First Street (former Shell gas station). On April 15, 2025, the City Council considered the SDR application and after hearing comments and deliberating, continued the item to the May 6, 2025, with a request for staff to provide supplemental information. At the continued public hearing, there was not City Council majority support for either approval or denial of the proposed signage in its entirety. The City Council indicated support for the proposed wall and pump signage, and by 5-0 vote directed the applicant to modify and reinstall the monument sign within certain parameters; and directed staff to reinspect the revised monument sign, once installed, for conformance with the ZA-approved height limitations and return to the City Council for action on all components of the SDR application, including the canopy signage.

Staff has since inspected the modified monument sign and found it to be conforming with the expected parameters; staff recommends approval of the overall SDR, inclusive of the canopy signage as installed.

RECOMMENDATION
Review modifications to the installed monument sign and proposed canopy, and adopt a resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Sign Design Review Application (P24-0731) to install new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street with modifications to the previously approved monument sign and Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND
On January 30, 2025, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) approved a Sign Design Review (SDR) application for the installation of new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for the Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street. In accordance with Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) procedures, a report of the ZA action was provided to the City Council at its March 4, 2025 meeting. A Councilmember requested review of the ZA decision, citing concerns with the installed canopy and monument signage, which were installed prior to the formal effective date of the ZA’s approval.

On April 15, 2025, the City Council considered the above-referenced SDR. After hearing the staff presentation and opening the public hearing, including comments from the applicant, and initial questions and deliberation, the City Council continued the item to the May 6, 2025, meeting, requesting staff to:
• Provide additional information on the timeline for the SDR approval and subsequent actions with respect to permitting and installation of the signage • Conduct an inspection of installed signage to determine its compliance with the ZA approved plans
• Work with the applicant to find opportunities to modify/improve the signage.

Staff provided the requested additional information to the City Council via a Supplemental Memorandum (Attachment 2) to the April 15, 2025, Agenda Report. (Attachment 3), including applicant-proposed modifications to the monument sign.

At the continued public hearing on May 6, 2025, the City Council further considered and deliberated based on the information provided in the April 15 Agenda Report and Supplemental Memorandum, and additional detail provided by staff and the applicant. At the conclusion of the City Council's deliberations, there was not City Council majority support for either approval or denial of the proposed signage in its entirety. Instead, by a 5-0 vote the City Council:

1) Approved proposed modifications to the monument sign as illustrated in the supplemental memorandum. This action would result in the applicant removing and modifying the unpermitted and non-compliant monument sign with the following changes:
• Retain the existing brick base and side surrounds “as is” • Modify the height of the sign to comply with the ZA-approved height limitations (flush with the top of the brick side surrounds, see Attachment 3) • Change the frame and panel colors from orange to white to be more consistent with a 2024 Gulf Gas station monument sign approved in Dublin.

2) Directed staff to continue review of the canopy design to a future meeting following completion of work to modify the monument sign.

3) Approved all other elements of the application, excluding the monument sign and canopy.

Per the City Council's direction, and following installation of the modified monument sign, staff is returning the item to City Council for review of the two elements noted.

DISCUSSION
Revised Monument Sign
Staff reinspected the revised monument sign on both October 21 and 22, 2025 (during the day and in the evening). The revised monument sign conforms to the height limitations established by the ZA approval. Additionally, the revised monument sign has been redesigned according to the parameters specified above and as shown in the images below.

Canopy Signage
As noted, there was not majority support among the City Council either for approval of the canopy signage as installed, or for requiring revision and redesign of that element of the SDR.

Councilmembers with concerns about the signage cited provisions of General Plan Policies 15 and 16, and Program 15.3, which calls for the City to encourage signs that are designed with higher quality materials, use attractive colors, and minimize franchise colors and branding.

Staff noted that the General Plan and Sign Ordinance do not include quantified standards for the amount of branded signage that is permissible to include, meaning that a decision about appropriateness of a sign design is to some degree subjective, with the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the sign being based on various factors including location, all elements of the sign proposal, comparison to the previously installed signage when a business is undergoing re- branding, nature of nearby gas station signage, among other factors. It is noted that there are examples throughout Pleasanton of signs with both more and fewer branded elements than the Gulf Gas station.

Accordingly, staff continues to support the Zoning Administrator’s prior determination, and as was the case at the May 6, 2025, meeting, to support approval of the canopy signage and overall SDR, based on the project-specific analysis previously provided. The improvements to the revised monument signage, which reduces the amount of branded signage, further support this recommendation. However, it is ultimately up to a majority of the City Council to determine if the signage is appropriate as proposed, and the City Council could decide to deny the application, or specify additional design changes or amendments to the canopy signage.

For reference, images of the canopy signage (day and evening) as proposed and installed, are included in Attachment 5.

Finally, going forward, and recognizing the somewhat unique circumstance of this application, staff would emphasize that this decision should not be considered to set a precedent.

Applications will continue to be reviewed in light of the full range of site- and project-specific conditions and circumstances, some of which are outlined above,particularly with respect to evaluation of conformance to the above-referenced General Plan policies.

As proposed and conditioned, the Zoning Administrator found the proposed SDR is in keeping with other similar gas station signage design concepts throughout the City, would be

compatible with, and would not detrimentally affect, the existing adjacent/nearby uses or residences. Conditions of approval have been included which will ensure that the safety and general welfare of the surrounding area, and the City in general, is maintained. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council uphold the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the project, as modified and conditioned.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The action supports the City’s goal of encouraging the revitalization of existing and underutilized retail sites, especially within the downtown, as well as to assist in the retention of existing businesses.

OUTREACH
Notice of this meeting was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within 1,000 feet of the site, as shown in Attachment 3. At the time of this report’s publication, no public comments have been received.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton citywide strategic goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs, Strategy 4, which aims to implement the updated 2024- 2028 Economic Development Strategic Plan initiatives, including retail revitalization, ensuring the vibrancy of Pleasanton’s downtown, business retention and expansion, and workforce development. This project would provide new signage as part of the rebranding (and future façade remodel) of a former Shell gas station to a Gulf gas station supporting the Strategic Plan efforts of retail revitalization, ensuring vibrancy of Pleasanton’s downtown, and business retention.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed project would be responsible for the payment of fees as set forth in the Conditions of Approval. No fiscal impacts to the City or public services are anticipated.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Eric Luchini, Senior Planner Ellen Clark, Director of Community and Economic Development

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - CC Resolution

2. Attachment 2 - May 6, 2025 Memorandum to City Council

3. Attachment 3 - April 15, 2025 PC Agenda Report and Attachments Electronic Link

4. Attachment 4 - Zoning Administrator Approval Letter

5. Attachment 5 - Canopy Signage Images (Day and Night)

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S APPROVAL OF A SIGN DESIGN

REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEW MONUMENT, WALL,

CANOPY, AND PUMP SIGNAGE AS PART OF A GAS STATION REBRANDING FOR GULF GAS STATION LOCATED AT 4212 FIRST STREET, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (FILED UNDER CASE NO. P24-0731)

WHEREAS, on December 3, 2024, Guy Houston, on behalf of the owners of Gulf gas station submitted a Sign Design Review application to install new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding process from the former Shell to the new Gulf gas station located at 4212 First Street; and
WHEREAS, the Property is designated Retail/Highway/Service Commercial Business and Professional Offices in the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned C-F (Freeway Commercial); and

WHEREAS, the Property is designated Downtown Commercial in the Downtown Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, on January 30 th, 2025, the Zoning Administrator approved the Sign Design Review application, filed under case no. P24-0731; and

WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, a member of the City Council requested that the application and approval of the Zoning Administrator be reviewed by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, the determination by the Zoning Administrator, all public comments and testimony, and findings; and

WHEREAS, on April 15, 2025, the City Council continued the item to May 6, 2025; and

WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, the determination by the Zoning Administrator, all public comments and testimony, and findings; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2025, the City Council continued the item to a date uncertain and provided direction to staff and the applicant; and

WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, the determination by the Zoning Administrator, all public comments and testimony, and findings.

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

Section 1. Prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public meeting, the City Council reviewed written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

Section 2. The City Council finds that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, (Existing Facilities), since the project only includes removal and replacement of existing signage with new signage.

Therefore, no additional environmental review is required.

Section 3. The City Council has considered the findings made in the Zoning Administrator’s approval letter dated January 30, 2025, and subject to conditions of approval, adopts those same findings as their own findings as part of this resolution. Based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Sign Design Review application is consistent with the City's General Plan, the Pleasanton Municipal Code and the City’s Guidelines and approves the Sign Design Review Application (Case No. P24-0731). The Zoning Administrator’s decision as set forth in January 30, 2025, approval letter, subject to conditions of approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, is hereby affirmed.

Section 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on November 18, 2025.

I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on November 18, 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

EXHIBIT A

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

P24-0731
4212 First Street
November 18, 2025

The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this approval, that (s)he is required to satisfy and maintain compliance with the conditions of approval below. Where approval by the Director of Community Development, Planning Division, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, City Attorney, Chief Building and Safety Official, Fire Department or other City staff is required, review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations, and accepted practices related to the approval. In addition to complying with the conditions below, the applicant is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws that pertain to this project whether or not specifically noted herein.

This approval is granted for Sign Design Review (SDR) to allow the installation of new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf gas station (former Shell gas station) located on Assessor Parcel No(s). 094-0095-025- 03 at 4212 First Street. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project materials listed below:

a. Revised Project plans, Exhibit B, prepared by Big Red Rooster Flow for Gulf gas station, dated “Received” on ___, 2025, and kept on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department.

The project materials listed above are collectively the “Approved Plans”.

THIS APPROVAL IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. APPROVAL AND REVISIONS: The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the “Approved Plans”, except as modified by the following conditions. Minor changes to the plans may be allowed subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development if found to be in substantial conformance with the approved exhibits. Planning Division approval is required before any changes are implemented in site design, grading, architectural design, house colors or materials, green building measures, landscape material, etc.

2. EXPIRATION – DESIGN REVIEW: This design review approval shall lapse 1 year from the effective date of approval unless a building permit is issued and construction has commenced and is diligently pursued towards completion, or the City has approved a time extension.

3. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CHECKLIST: The applicant shall submit a “Conditions of Approval Checklist” indicating all conditions in Exhibit A have been satisfied, incorporated into the building permit plans or improvements plans, and/or addressed. Said checklist shall be incorporated as one of the first four plan sheets of all building permit and engineering permit plan submittals for review by the City prior to issuance of permits.

4. APPEAL PERIOD: The building permit submittal will only be accepted after completion of the appeal period provided in the Municipal Code unless the applicant submits a signed statement acknowledging the plan check fees may be forfeited in the event the approval is overturned on appeal, or the design is significantly changed as a result of the appeal. In no case will a building permit be issued prior to the expiration of the appeal period.

5. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION: To the extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall hold harmless, defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), and indemnify the City, its City Council, its officers, commissions, employee and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and/or the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including without limitation, reimbursing the City its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.

PLANNING DIVISION – 925-931-5600

Site Development and Building Design

6. FINAL INSPECTION: Final inspection by the Planning Division is required prior to installation. Prior to final inspection, if applicable, all existing building signs shall be removed and all wall surfaces, including, but not limited to any holes in the wall resulting from its removal shall be patched, repaired, and/or replaced to match the existing wall color and texture to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. (Project Specific Condition)

7. CANOPY ILLUMINATION. All canopy signage and lighting (except under canopy lighting) shall be remotely turned off daily by 10:00 p.m. Canopy signage and lighting shall not be turned on daily prior to 7:00 a.m. (Project Specific Condition)

8. There shall be no additional signage on the subject property without prior approval from the City. (Project Specific Condition)

Construction Practices and Noticing

9. WORK HOURS: All demolition and construction activities, inspections, plan checking, material delivery, staff assignment or coordination, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be allowed on State or Federal Holidays or Sundays. The Director of Community Development may allow earlier “start times” or later “stop times” for specific construction activities, e.g., concrete pouring. All construction equipment shall meet Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) noise standards and shall be equipped with muffling devices. Prior to construction, the hours of construction shall be posted on site.

10. DISTURBANCE COORDINATOR: The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints regarding construction noise, dust, construction parking, etc. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require the implementation of reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted on the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign shall also list an emergency after- hours contact number for the disturbance coordinator, or designee.

Fees

11. FEES: The applicant shall pay any and all fees to which the property may be subject, prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, or prior to recordation of the final map, whichever is applicable. The type and amount of the fees shall be those in effect at the time the permit is issued.

12. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES – COMMERCIAL: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay the required commercial development school impact fee as prescribed by State law and as adopted by the Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD).

END

1 MEMORANDUM
D
ate: May 6, 2025
T
o: Mayor and City Council
Fr
om: Gerry Beaudin, City Manager
Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Re
: Agenda Item 18, review of the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Sign Design Review Application (P24-0731) to install new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street
On April 15, 2025, the City Council considered the above-referenced Sign Design Review (SDR) application for installation of new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street. After hearing the staff presentation and opening the public hearing, including comments from the applicant, and initial questions and deliberation, the City Council continued the item to May 6, 2025, meeting, requesting staff to:
• P rovide additional information on the timeline for the SDR approval and subsequent actions with respect to permitting and installation of the signage • C onduct an inspection of installed signage to determine its compliance with t he Zoni
ng Administrator (ZA) approved plans
• W ork with the applicant to find opportunities to modify/improve the signage.

T
his memorandum provides supplemental information with respect to the above three items. The April 15 Agenda Report is included as Attachment 2.

G
ulf Gas Station Sign Design Review Approval and Post-Approval Permitting Timeline The following outlines the entire timeline for project approval, and post -approval actions:
• O ctober/November 2024 – Guy Houston (Applicant), on behalf of the owners of Gulf Gas Station, makes first contact with staff for feedback on initial signage concept • D ecember 3, 2024 – Sign Design Review application submitted • D ecember 19, 2024 – Sign Design Review application deemed incomplete Attachment 2

2 • December 20, 2024, to January 28, 2025 – Staff and the applicant meet approximately four to five times to review possible sign design options, lighting options, etc.

• January 30, 2025 – Sign Design Review application deemed complete

• January 30, 2025 – Sign Design Review application approval letter issued with an effective date of March 5, 2025 (Attachment 3)

• January 31, 2025 – Applicant, with submittal of an “at risk” plan check appeal waiver form, submits the approved Sign Design Review signage package to the Building Division for plan check1

• February 18, 2025 – Planning Division completes its plan check, approving the Sign Design Review signage package, with a note provided within the electronic permitting system for the Building Division to hold issuance of any permits until the stated effective date of March 5, 2025

• February 20, 2025 – Building Division completes its plan check, approving the Sign Design Review signage package, with a note provided within the electronic permitting system for the Building Division to hold issuance of any permits until the stated effective date of March 5, 2025

• February 21, 2025 – Building Division notifies applicant plan check is complete and provides information related to final steps to obtain permits (final paperwork, fees, etc.) but that permits are on hold until the stated effective date of March 5, 2025

• February 22, 2025, to March 3, 2025—While the exact installation date is unknown, staff observes that the applicant installed the new wall, canopy, and pump signage without permits and before the effective date of March 5, 2025.

• March 4, 2025 – City Council requests to review the Zoning Administrator approval of the Sign Design Review application at the next available meeting

• March 7, 2025 – Unaware of the City Council request, Building Division, after being contacted by applicant, meets with applicant to complete final steps and issues the Sign Design Review signage package construction permits

• March 8, 2025, to April 14, 2025 – While the exact installation date is unknown, staff observes that the applicant has installed the monument signage with permits and after the effective date of March 5, 2025 (first day permits can be issued)

• April 15, 2025 – City Council hearing for review of Zoning Administrator approval of the Sign Design Review application (Continued to May 6, 2025)

1 The “At Risk” waiver allows for applicants to prepare and submit plans for Building Permit review during the City’s specified appeal and call-up periods, with an explicit acknowledgement that the approval is not effective until such periods have elapsed, since an approval could be subject to denial \or modification if appealed or called up

3 Staff inspection of installed Gulf Gas Station signage package On April 17, 2025, staff conducted an on-site inspection to compare the installed signage package against the approved Zoning Administrator signage package. The results of that inspection are:

• Wall, Canopy, Pump Signage – In compliance
o Signage design and colors comply
o Signage dimensions comply

• Monument Sign – Not in compliance
o Sign design and colors comply
o Brick base and side surrounds comply
o Sign height does not comply (see Photo 1 below)
 Approved monument sign height exceeds the height of previous monument sign (protrudes above the height of the existing brick surround), which was explicitly not allowed per the ZA approval.

As a result, the installed monument sign is required to be changed so the signage panel does not exceed the height of the existing brick surround.

Photo 1 – Out of Compliance Monument Sign

4 Applicant Proposed Signage Modifications
Staff met with the applicant on-site and had subsequent discussions with the applicant regarding opportunities for modifications of the sign design, particularly the potential to reduce the amount of branded color elements on the canopy and monument sign.

• Wall, Canopy, Pump Signage – Applicant proposes no modifications

• Monument Sign –Applicant proposes modifications as follows:
o Remove installed non-compliant sign
o Retain existing brick base and side surrounds “as is” o Install a new monument sign to comply with Zoning Administrator approval height limitations (flush with top of brick side surrounds)
o Change frame and panel colors from orange to white (see design sample from City of Dublin location below – approved in 2024) – (Note: a “Circle K” is not proposed at the project site.)

Staff is supportive of this proposed change to the monument signage, since it would substantially reduce the amount of branded color elements on the sign, limited to the Gulf logo.

Beyond the monument sign, the applicant has stated that they are unwilling to modify the wall, canopy, and pump signage, based on their compliance with the Zoning Administrator’s approval.

Staff Recommendation
As noted, staff is supportive of the proposed modifications to the monument sign, and recommends the City Council approve the gas station signage with this revision.

A Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator’s approval, subject to the revisions above (primarily the monument sign), and with conditions of approval is attached as Attachment 1. Note, the date of plan submittal will be added when the formally amended sign package is submitted and verified.

Optional Further Revision: As an option, the City Council could consider directing the applicant to make further revisions to the canopy signage design, since the amount and use of branded color elements was raised as a concern by some City Council members, although there was not clear direction or consensus Circle K signage not
proposed

5 on this point.

If a majority of City Council supported a further revision, staff would recommend adding a new Condition of Approval #6, to the Resolution, with following conditions renumbered accordingly, as follows:

6. CANOPY SIGNAGE: The applicant shall revise the project plans for the gas station canopy, so as to eliminate the majority of the branded color panel elements of the design and limit branding to use of the Gulf “disc” logo or Word Mark, the latter which may be on a branded color background, on up to three sides of the canopy. Such elements, inclusive of any colored background, shall occupy no more than 25 percent of the area of each respective face of the canopy, and the remainder of the canopy fascia to be a neutral color such as white, grey, or tan.

This condition would accommodate key elements of the existing proposed design, reflecting the approximate dimensions proposed, while eliminating “excess” or additional branded color elements. The applicant has noted that revising the canopy signage would require refabrication of the entire sign, at considerable cost, and therefore continues to request that changes be limited to modification of the monument sign only.

Attachments –

1. Draft Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator’s approval of Case No. P24- 0731, subject to the Conditions of Approval

2. April 15, 2025, City Council Agenda Report, including project plans. (See Digital Link to City Council agenda report and attachments from April 15, 2025, for other attachments (Page 193))
https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/weblink/0/doc/310326/Page1.aspx

3. Zoning Administrator approval letter dated January 30, 2025

1 MEMORANDUM

Date: May 6, 2025

To: Mayor and City Council

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

Re: Agenda Item 18: Review of the Zoning Administrator’s Approval of a Sign Design Review Application (P24-0731) to install new monument, wall, canopy, and pump signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street – Supplemental Information

This memorandum transmits images of existing gas stations in Pleasanton, which were requested to be shared by Councilmember Testa, with respect to Agenda Item 18.

2

3

Attachment 3

April 15, 2025, City Council Agenda Report, including project plans. (See Digital Link to City Council agenda report and attachments from April 15, 2025, for other attachments (Page 193))

https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/weblink/0/doc/310326/Page1.aspx

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 520 · 200 Old Bernal Avenue www.cityofpleasantonca.gov Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 Planning Building & Safety Code Enforcement Permit Center Traffic Engineering (925) 931-5600 (925) 931-5300 (925) 931-5620 (925) 931-5630 (925) 931-5677 Fax: 931-5483 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5478 Fax: 931-5487 January 30, 2025
VI
A Email:
[email protected]
G
uy Houston
California Gold Advocacy Group
6300 Village Parkway
Suite 200
Dublin, CA 94568
S
ubject: P24-0732, Gas Station Monument, Wall, Canopy Signage 4212 First Street
E
ffective Date: March 5, 2025
D
ear Guy:

T
he City of Pleasanton has completed its Sign Design Review procedure for your proposal to install new monument, wall, and canopy signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station located at 4212 First Street.

Y
our application has been approved, subject to the following conditions:

1. T
he proposed signage shall conform substantially to the elevation drawings/photos, and related materials, Exhibit B, marked “Received January 29, 2025,” on file at the Planning Division. Minor changes to the project may be approved by the Director of Community Development if found to be in substantial conformance with this approval.

2. A
Planning Division final inspection shall be required. Prior to final inspection, if applicable, all existing building signs shall be removed and all wall surfaces, including, but not limited to any holes in the wall resulting from its removal shall be patched, repaired, and/or replaced to match the existing wall color and texture to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.

3. A
ll canopy signage and lighting (except under canopy lighting) shall be remotely turned off daily by 10:00 p.m. Canopy signage and lighting shall not be turned on daily prior to 7:00 a.m. (Project Specific Condition)
Attachment 4

Guy Houston, California Gold Advocacy Group – P24-0732

January 30, 2025

4. There shall be no additional signage on the subject property without prior approval from the City.

5. To the extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, boards, commissions, employees, and agents from and against any claim (including claims for attorney’s fees), action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void the approval of the project or any permit authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.

Any interested party may file an appeal of this approval within 15 days of the date of approval.

Further, per Pleasanton Municipal Code section 18.144.010, the City Council may elect to review this action within 15 days following the date of approval, or at its next regular meeting (March 4, 2025), whichever is later. Therefore, approval of the Sign Design Review will become effective on March 5, 2024, unless appealed prior to that time.

You may apply for a building permit after completion of the Sign Design Review procedure’s appeal period or, if you wish to apply for a building permit before the end of the appeal period, upon submittal of a signed Waiver Form to the Planning Division. The waiver acknowledges that plan check fees may be forfeited if the approval is overturned, or the design is significantly changed as a result of an appeal. In no case will a building permit be issued before the end of the appeal period.

The Building and Safety Division only accepts electronic submittals through their online portal system (Electronic Building Plan Check Submittals
). If you need assistance submitting online,
have questions regarding building permit fees or the building permit process, please contact the Building and Safety Division at (925) 931-5300 /
[email protected].

Sign Design Review approval shall lapse and become void one year following the effective date of project approval, unless prior to the expiration of one year, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or an extension has been approved by the City.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at (925) 931-5612.

Sincerely,

Eric Luchini
Senior Planner

Enclosure/s: Building Permit Questionnaire

CC: File

A COPY OF THIS LETTER AND A COMPLETED BUILDING PERMIT

QUESTIONNAIRE (ATTACHED) MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THE PLAN CHECK

PACKAGE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION WHEN APPLYING FOR BUILDING PERMITS ONLINE.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 2025

BUILDING PERMIT QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire needs to be completed and included with the plan check package submitted to the Building and Safety Division when filing for a building permit online for the project described below. Its purpose is to ensure the plans are checked in a timely manner and the project is built according to the approved plans. We appreciate your cooperation and if you have any questions, please contact the Planning Division at (925) 931-5600 / [email protected].

1. Applicant’s Name and Address:

Guy Houston, California Gold Advocacy Group, 6300 Village Parkway, Suite 200, Dublin, CA 94568

2. P24-0732, Project Address: 4212 First Street

3. Description of the project for which a permit is being requested:

Install new monument, wall, and canopy signage as part of a gas station rebranding for Gulf Gas Station

4. Do you certify that the plans submitted for issuance of building permits conform in every respect to the approved plans and to all conditions of approval? ___YES ___NO

5. If the answer to question No. 6 is ‘NO,’ please list every item on the building permit plans which differs from the approved plans or conditions of approval. Use the reverse side or attach additional sheets if necessary. All changes to the approved plans should be clouded with delta numbers (∆).

I hereby attest the above is true and correct. I understand that failure to correctly answer these questions may result in a delay of issuance of building permits and if changes are discovered after the permit is issued, I am responsible for revising the project to conform to the plans approved through the Planning Division.

_____________________ _________________________________ Date Signature

_________________________________
Phone Number

_________________________________
Email

Attachment 5

Canopy Signage Images (day and night)

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Item #5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS CONCURRING WITH THE ALTAMONT LANDFILL AND

RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION THAT EXPENDITURES TOTALING $271,803

IN ALTAMONT OPEN SPACE FUNDS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ARE

CONSISTENT WITH THE ALTAMONT LANDFILL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

SUMMARY
The Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee (ALOSC, or Committee) recommended approval to authorize expenditure of funds up to $246,803 over the course of a three-year project (2025-2027) for consulting services with the University of California – Davis (UC Davis) for development of a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) method and web-tool, and recommended approval of $25,000 to the Tri-Valley Conservancy (TVC) for research and development of a conservation study in eastern Alameda County. Pursuant to the terms of the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement, which governs collection and expenditure of settlement funds, concurrence with the ALOSC's recommendation by the governing bodies of the County and participating cities, including Pleasanton, is required to expend the proposed funds.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolutions concurring with the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee's recommended determination that expenditures totaling $271,803 in Altamont Open Space Funds for consulting services are consistent with the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement

BACKGROUND
The Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee (ALOSC) consists of four members: one appointed by the Board of Supervisors, one appointed by the Livermore City Council, one appointed by the Pleasanton City Council, and one appointed by the Sierra Club. The current City of Pleasanton representative is Councilmember Jeff Nibert. As part of the settlement of litigation over the expansion of the Altamont Landfill, the parties to the litigation agreement (Alameda County, Waste Management of Alameda County, the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and various environmental groups) agreed the County would impose a fee totaling $0.75 per ton at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility for open space acquisition. Eighty percent of the Open Space Fee is designated for open space expenditures in the eastern portion of East County, and 20 percent is for expenditures in the western portion of East County.

Subsection 7.4.7 of the Settlement Agreement states that by approval of a majority of the members of the Open Space Committee, and concurrence by the County and Cities, up to five percent of the funds received in any given year may be expended for the services of independent consultants to aid the ALOSC in carrying out its duties to identify open space

areas in need of protection and to make plans for their acquisition. As of July 18, 2025, the total amount available in the open space fund for the eastern area was $21,998,732, and the total amount available for the western area was $3,366,874, for a total of $25,365,606 in Open Space Committee funds. Five percent of the funds would amount to $1,268,280.30.

DISCUSSION
UC Davis Expenditure
On May 16, 2025, the Open Space Committee approved moving forward with a three-year consulting agreement (2025–2027) with UC Davis for the development of a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) methodology and an associated web-based tool, as outlined in the attached scope of work (Attachment 1). The total cost of the project is not to exceed $246,803, with an annual billing estimate of approximately $82,000.

The project aims to enhance the Committee’s ability to prioritize land conservation efforts by incorporating data related to wildlife activity, habitat potential, and regional habitat connectivity, including connections across major transportation corridors. The web tool to be developed will provide additional support for the Committee’s funding decisions related to land and conservation easement acquisitions.

On July 18, 2025, the Committee recommended approval of $25,000 to the Tri-Valley Conservancy to conduct a study assessing the ecological, agricultural, and recreational values of lands located in unincorporated eastern Alameda County, generally for the area east of Greenville Road between Interstate 580 and the South Bay Aqueduct (Attachment 2). The study will include a literature review, aerial imagery analysis, and on-site surveys to identify occurrences of special-status species, sensitive vegetation communities, wildlife corridors, and trail opportunities, as well as to compare existing and proposed land uses. The results will inform both near-term grant-making decisions and long-range planning, aligning with the goals of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) and the Settlement Agreement.

As the Open Space Committee does not hold contracting authority, the City of Livermore will serve as the contracting agency for these contracts. In accordance with Section 7.4.7 of the Settlement Agreement, the proposed expenditure must also be approved by the Board of Supervisors and each participating city council. The City of Livermore and the Alameda Board of Supervisors concurred with the expenditure of funds during their September meetings.

Expenditures for both contracts would total $271,803 and would not exceed the five percent of Open Space funds ($1,268,280.30) allotted for contract services.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Advancing the Committee's land conservation efforts in Eastern Alameda supports the preservation of open space that enhances environmental sustianability in the region.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable, as this item is a routine matter of City business.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City of Pleasanton associated with the expenditures. The source of all funding will be from the Altamont Settlement Agreement Open Space account.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Natalie Amos, Associate
Planner
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Resolution for UC Davis Contract Services

2. Resolution for Tri-Valley Conservancy Contract Services

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON,

APPROVING THE ALTAMONT LANDFILL AND RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY

OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXPENDITURE FOR CONSULTANT

SERVICES WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS

WHEREAS, as part of the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement among the County of Alameda, the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, the Sierra Club, the Northern California Recycling Association (NCRA), and Altamont Landowners Against Rural Mismanagement and Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc.(dated November 30, 1999), hereafter referred to as Settlement Agreement; provides for collection of a per ton fee from the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility for impacts on the communities due to expansion of the landfill, and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the County convened the Altamont Landfill Open Space Advisory Committee consisting of one member appointed by the Board of Supervisors, one member appointed by the Livermore City Council, one member appointed by the Pleasanton City Council, and one member appointed by the Sierra Club; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement states that by approval of a majority of the members of the Advisory Committee and concurrence by the County and Cities, up to five percent of the funds received in any given year may be expended for the services of independent consultants to aid the Open Space Advisory Committee in carrying out its duties to identify open space areas in need of protection and to make plans for their acquisition; and

WHEREAS, on May 16, 2025, the voting members of the Open Space Advisory Committee from both the east and west acquisition priority areas voted unanimously to authorize expenditure of funds for a three-year consulting agreement (2025-2027) with the University of California – Davis (UC Davis) for development of a Payment for Ecosystems Services method and web-tool, as outlined in Exhibit A, with the total cost of the project not to exceed $246,803, with annual billing estimated at approximately $82,000; and WHEREAS, the additional expenditure remains within the five percent of funds received annually allowed by the Settlement Agreement for such expenditures; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, concurrence by the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is necessary to fund the proposed allocation from the Open Space Fund.

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

SECTION 1. The Pleasanton City Council does find the recommendation of the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee to approve an expenditure not to exceed $271,803 for services provided by UC Davis is consistent with the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on November 18, 2025.

I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of November 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

EXHIBIT A
1 Ms. Elizabeth McElligott, Assistant Director,
Alameda County CommunityDevelopment Department
Attention: Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Members May 8, 2025

Dear Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee Members,

We hope this message finds you all well. The UC Davis Road Ecology Center has worked productively with the ALOSC since 2019 on ways to improve wildlife habitat and connectivity in your study area. Based on suggestions from Committee members, we would like to submit a request for fundingfor $246,803 to develop a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) method (Phase I) and web-tool (Phase II) to assist with ALOSC’s decision-making about land and easement acquisition. The proposed study area encompasses primarily the eastern geographic areas of ALOSC interest and secondarily a portion of the western area, as defined in Section 7.3.1 ofthe Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement. Our timeline for Phase I will begin in October, 2025 (or whenever contracting is finalized) and conclude in September, 2026. Our timeframe for Phase II would immediately follow completion of Phase I, October, 2026, and be completed by September, 2027. The research will help meet the goal of supporting the ALOSC’s prioritization of lands for protection based on wildlife presence/activity, potential habitat, and habitat connectivity including across area freeways. The ALOSC will utilize this information, as appropriate, to support initial strategies for potential land acquisition in fee title or conservation easement to enable native wildlife (plants and animals) survival and movement throughout the Settlement area.

Phase I: We will begin the project by communicating with landowners and landowner/resource representative organizations (e.g., Alameda County RCD, Natural Resources Conservation Service, California Rangeland Trust). We will then conduct an extensive review of the peer-reviewed and technical literature describing methods for valuing and paying for ecosystem services, focusing on wildlife habitat benefits. We will include global literature, but focus primarily on methods published in and for California. From this literature base, we will develop a model method suitable for valuing ecosystem services and paying for these services in Alameda County. There are several possible systems of analysis that we will consider. We will discuss approaches for valuation of non-market goods, such as stated preference and revealed preference methods. From the range of published

EXHIBIT A
2 methods we identify, we will describe a method suitable for ALOSC to use in valuing wildlife-ecosystem services and thus justify paying for these services. We will vet this method with local and regional experts in valuation and payment systems for wildlife habitat and with the ALOSC and its constituent governments.

We will finalize a proposed method for valuing and paying for wildlife ecosystem services.

Phase II: Following completion of Phase I, we will implement the method in the web-based spatial decision-support tool developed by UCANR for ALOSC (https://geoportal.ucanr.edu/alosac/). We will connect the method to new and existing spatial datasets used in the web-tool. For example, using previous UCD work for ALOSC, we will update assumptions made about actual and potential movement of wildlife through the settlement area, including across I-580. We will also make connections between this work and enhancement of wildlife crossing across I-580 through existing and new crossing structures. We will work with UCANR to develop an add-in to their web-tool that calculates values and payments for wildlife ecosystem services for individual parcels. We will vet draft versions of the web-tool with regional experts, including ALOSC, to make sure it is both understandable and useful to support financial decisions. Finally, we will develop a suggested workflow for parcel-specific data collection, appraisal/evaluation, calculated value/payment, mechanism for payment for wildlife ecosystem services, and mechanism for long term maintenance and monitoring.

We look forward to continuing work with the ALOSC on this vital research. We believe that this project will improve financial decisions intended to protect wildlife habitat and movement primarily through the Diablo Range and secondarily the East Bay Hills.

Thank you in advance for the opportunity to submit a Research request. We look forward to consulting regularly with the ALOSC to discuss progress andto receive feedback. A detailed Scope of Work and Budget are provided in the following section.

Sincerely,

Fraser Shilling, PhD
University of California
Road Ecology Center

EXHIBIT A
3 EXHIBIT A

University California, Davis, & University of California, ANR, Natasha Batista (Stanford University), O’Herron & Company (Meeting Facilitators)

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Altamont Landfill Open Space Committee (ALOSC) is interested in basing their land acquisition and/or conservation easement purchases on scientific research and findings related to the presence and movement of native wildlife (plant and animal) species throughout the Settlement area. There are several existing approaches for evaluating the contribution of environmental systems to human well-being in an economic framework. Some approaches measure the value of “ecosystem services” provided while others capture the value individuals may have for natural systems exclusive of actual use.

This information will support ALOSC decision making about lands to be acquired in fee title or permanent easement, in cooperation with privateor public landowners interested in preserving all or portions of their property.

SCOPE OF WORK

Phase I
We will begin the project by communicating with landowners and landowner/resource representative organizations (e.g., Alameda County RCD, Natural Resource Conservation Service, California Rangeland Trust). We will then conduct an extensive review of the peer-reviewed and technical literature describing methods for valuing and paying for ecosystem services, focusing on wildlife habitat benefits. From this literature base, we will develop a model method suitable for valuing ecosystem services and paying for these services in Alameda County. From the range of published methods we identify, we will describe a method suitable for ALOSC to use in valuing wildlife-ecosystem services and thus justify paying for these services. We will vet this method with local and regional experts in valuation and payment systems for wildlife habitat and with ALOSC and its constituent governments. We will finalize a proposed method for valuing and paying for wildlife ecosystem services.

EXHIBIT A
4 Task 1: Landowner and ALOSC Communication
The Team will contact select local, rural landowners and key groups representing rural lands (e.g., (e.g., ranchers attending the Conservation Easement workshops funded by the ALOSC). These contacts are not intended to be exhaustive, but instead to have conversations about the approach we are taking and the kinds of outcomes we expect. In a workshop setting, we will ask rural landowner interests about methods they have available to them (e.g., NRCS’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and their ideas about how to make an effective payment for wildlife ecosystem services method for ALOSC.

Deliverable: Summary notes from a workshop with rural landowner interests; Identification of potential fatal flaws and good ways forward.

Task 2: Method Development
The Team will develop the scientific, legislative and logistical basis for a PES approach for ALOSC. This will include literature searches (both peer-reviewed and technical literature), developing a model approach, describing payment mechanisms, and differentiating between initial valuation and long-term maintenance costs. The model approach will be developed in spreadsheet and GIS formats so that it can be tested with example calculations. Careful notation will be made of the decisions made during development to help with review and reporting.

Deliverables: Draft method for Payment for Wildlife Ecosystem Services; Draft technical memo describing basis for approach and approach itself

Task 3: Method Vetting and Confirmation
The Team will present the method to the ALOSC and other stakeholders at one ALOSC meeting and one workshop with landowner-stakeholders. The purpose of the meeting will be to get feedback on both the basis and the outputs of the method. A final model method will be developed following this feedback and presented to the ALOSC at the end of Phase I.

Deliverables: Presentation to the ALOSC and 1 workshop; collection of feedback; final model and method and technical memo.

EXHIBIT A
5 Phase II
Following completion of Phase I, we will implement the payment for wildlife ecosystem service method in the web-based spatial decision-support tool developed by UCANR for ALOSC ( https://geoportal.ucanr.edu/alosac). We will connect the method to new and existing spatial datasets used in the web-tool. For example, using previous UCD work for ALOSC, we will update assumptions made about actual and potential movement of wildlife through the settlement area, including across I-580. We will also make connections between this work and enhancement of wildlife crossing across I-580 through existing and new crossing structures. We will work with UCANR to develop an add-in to their web-tool that calculates values and payments for wildlife ecosystem services for individual parcels. We will vett draft versions of the web-tool with regional experts, including ALOSC, to make sure it is both understandable and useful to support financial decisions. Finally, we will develop a suggested workflow for parcel-specific data collection, appraisal/evaluation, calculated value/payment, mechanism for payment for wildlife ecosystem services, and mechanism for long term maintenance and monitoring.

Task 4: Calculation of Parcel Wildlife Ecosystem Services We will use the method developed in Phase I and the most recent, available spatial datasets representing wildlife ecosystem services to estimate parcel- specific values for these services. For example, California Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently working on a new set of wildlife habitat prediction models, due to be released sometime in the first half of 2025. These maps, combined with other wildlife data, can be used to estimate total ecosystem value per parcel.

Deliverable: Calculation of parcel values using the payment for wildlife ecosystem services method from Phase I.

Task 5: Draft and Final Deployment within Parcel Prioritization Tool

Using the information from Task 4, we will deploy the parcel-specific services and equivalent value information in the UCANR parcel prioritization tool. Once deployed, we will vet the draft tool with ALOSC and landowner-stakeholders to determine how well this information is received and ways to make it

EXHIBIT A
6 understandable and palatable. We will use feedback to develop a final deployment of the Payment for Wildlife Ecosystem Services method in the parcel prioritization tool.

Deliverable: Deployment of draft web-tool; Presentation to ALOSC and 1 landowner workshop for feedback; Final web-deployment of the Payment for Wildlife Ecosystem Services method

Task 6: Suggested Long-Term Workflow and Implementation In order to maintain useability of the information we develop, we will propose a workflow to keep information up to date and to help make decisions. This will include recommended frequency for updating input data, tracking use of the information to make decisions, and feedback from users about ways the system could be improved for actual decisions.

Deliverable: Long-term workflow recommendations

Quarterly Reporting
On a quarterly basis, UCD will provide remote/in-person or remote-only, respectively, oral reports to the ALOSC. These will include oral summaries of progress in carrying out each Task and will culminate in a final oral and written project report at the end of the project term.

Project Deliverables
1) (Quarterly?) Progress reports to the ALOSC after the project begins. 2) Spatial datasets corresponding to the services and payment calculations from Phases I and II.
3) A Technical Report summarizing the project. The final technical report will be presented to the ALOSC at the termination of the project.

Timeline
The Project Team will begin project research as soon as requested funds are

EXHIBIT A
7 allocated and contractual agreements have been signed. The total project period is estimated to take place over the 24 months between October 1, 2025 and September 30, 2027. A timeline of proposed activities is shown in the table below. (Each numbered column represents a month, starting with the month the contract is finalized. Scheduled periods of activity are shown with colored shading.)

Task 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2
3 4
5 6
Phase II Budget Chart
The total amounts in each line item will be distributed in a roughly 80%:20% pattern between the eastern and western ends of the study area, respectively.

ITEM DESCRIPTION Total ($)
UCD Project management and oversight 32,441
UCD technical analyst 99,738
Natasha Batista (Stanford) 40,000
O’Herron & Company (Meeting Facilitators) 23,600
UCANR 38,980
Travel 2,000
UCD Indirect 10,044
TOTAL 246,803

ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON,

APPROVING THE ALTAMONT LANDFILL AND RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY

OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXPENDITURE FOR CONSULTANT

SERVICES WITH THE TRI-VALLEY CONSERVANCY

WHEREAS, as part of the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement among the County of Alameda, the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, the Sierra Club, the Northern California Recycling Association (NCRA), and Altamont Landowners Against Rural Mismanagement and Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc.(dated November 30, 1999), hereafter referred to as Settlement Agreement; provides for collection of a per ton fee from the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility for impacts on the communities due to expansion of the landfill, and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the County convened the Altamont Landfill Open Space Advisory Committee consisting of one member appointed by the Board of Supervisors, one member appointed by the Livermore City Council, one member appointed by the Pleasanton City Council, and one member appointed by the Sierra Club; and

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement states that by approval of a majority of the members of the Advisory Committee and concurrence by the County and Cities, up to five percent of the funds received in any given year may be expended for the services of independent consultants to aid the Open Space Advisory Committee in carrying out its duties to identify open space areas in need of protection and to make plans for their acquisition; and

WHEREAS, on July 18, 2025, the voting members of the Open Space Advisory Committee from both the east and west acquisition priority areas voted unanimously to authorize expenditure of funds of $25,000 to the Tri-Valley Conservancy (TVC) to conduct a study assessing the ecological, agricultural, and recreational values of lands located in unincorporated eastern Alameda County, as outlined in Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the additional expenditure remains within the five percent of funds received annually allowed by the Settlement Agreement for such expenditures; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, concurrence by the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore, and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is necessary to fund the proposed allocation from the Open Space Fund.

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

SECTION 1. The Pleasanton City Council does find the recommendation of the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility Open Space Advisory Committee to approve an expenditure not to exceed $25,000 for services provided by the TVC with the Altamont Landfill Settlement Agreement.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

ATTACHMENT 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on November 18, 2025.

I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 18 day of November, 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

Dated: _______________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
224 W. Winton Ave., Room 111
Hayward, CA 94544
phone 510.670.5400
fax 510.785.8793
www.acgov.org/cda

EXHIBIT A

ALAMEDA COUNTY
Community Development Agency
Application for Grant Funding
Alameda County Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund

GRANTEE INFORMATION
Name of Applicant Requesting Funding (Project Sponsor): Tri-Valley Conservancy Project Manager or Contact Person: Rebecca Spector, Executive Director Mailing Address:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

Is the Applicant a Non-profit or 501(c)(3) organization:

Federal Tax Identification Number:

LANDOWNER INFORMATION
Name of Landowner: Various
Mailing Address:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

Fax Number:

Yes ☐ No
Fax Number:

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: East of Greenville Conservation Study
Project Location: An 1,100-acre area east of Greenville Road outside of the City of Livermore in Alameda County, California Jurisdiction in which property is located: Alameda County Land use designation and zoning applicable to the property: Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA); Agriculture (A), Planned Development (PD)
ALAMEDA COUNTY | Community Development Agency | PLANNING DEPARTMENT Grant Funding Application | ALTAMONT 1

EXHIBIT A
PROJEСТ ОВJECTIVE
The City of Livermore General Plan Update process considered the possibility of incorporating the area east of Greenville Road up to the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) between I-580 to the north and the intersection of the SBA with Greenville Road to the south. To provide a resource and public guidance document, Tri-Valley Conservancy (TVC) has commissioned a conservation values study to evaluate the conservation values in this unincorporated area of Alameda County. Monk & Associates, a biologicalfirm with significant experience in the area, is conducting the study. Their work provides developers (e.g., housing developers, commercial developers, and pipeline companies) with the ability to develop their lands yet at the same time protect other lands in the vicinity that support special-status species and sensitive communities in perpetuity.

The Critical Conservation Resources to be evaluated in the East of Greenville Conservation Study include: sensitive vegetation communities; wetlands and waterways; special-status botanical occurrences and habitat; special-status wildlife occurrences and habitat; potential wildlife corridors; potential trail corridors; agricultural lands; land use designations; existing protected lands; and proposed development lands. From Monk & Associates literature review, aerial photo interpretation, and on-site survey, a description ofplant communities/wildlife habitats, existing land uses, and the potential presence for special-status plant and animal species and/or their habitats in the study area will be evaluated and discussed. The purpose of this work is to identify the best and most efficient use of all lands evaluated. This study is intended to provide a framework document to assist decision-makers and the public on the existing values in the area and appropriate land uses in the area.

Funding Requested: $25,000
Total Project Cost (including in-kind contributions): $60,000 Itemized Project Expenses, including transaction costs:
(Include all project expenses; indicate those that would be paid for with Altamont funds.

Itemized Expenses Requested funding with
this proposal
Funded by another
(Identify the source)
$20,000- Tri-Valley Conservanсу1. Consultant Cost $25,000 $10,000- Friends of Livermore
$5,000- City of Livermore (applied)
Please Note: This project is not an acquisition, but an area study to evaluate resources for conservation.

Proposed funding date: November 2025
Estimated completion date of project: December 2025
Is the property currently under a Williamson Act contract? If yes, has a notice of non-renewal been filed?
If yes, when does the contract expire?
Are there other easements or deed restrictions on the property (e.g., conservation easements, access roads, utility lines, pipelines, etc.)? Are other easements currently being negotiated? Who will hold fee title to the land or hold the easement? N/A ☐ Yes ☐ No
☐Yes ☐ No
☐Yes ☐ No
☐ Yes ☐ No
If yes, provide name and contact information of the appropriate representative:

Is that entity aware of this project?
ALAMEDA COUNTY | Community Development Agency | PLANNING DEPARTMENT Grant Funding Application | ALTAMONT 2

ALAMEDA COUNTY | Community Development Agency | PLANNING DEPARTMENT Grant Funding Application | ALTAMONT 3 Signature of Applicant: Date:

July 7, 2025

EXHIBIT A

ALAMEDA COUNTY | Community Development Agency | PLANNING DEPARTMENT Grant Funding Application | ALTAMONT 4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Describe how the project meets the ALOSC funding criteria.

1. Significant Native Biodiversity Value
The study will identify native biodiversity value through field visits, aerial photography, and historical records. This area has been identified as a hotspot for species requiring compensatory mitigation and is listed as essential to the biodiversity of the Conservation Lands Network. The area has several large identified vernal pools and wetlands that support local native species. The study will be able to identify all relevant native biodiversity to be prioritized for preservation.

2. Significant Visual and/or Non-motorized Recreational Value Trails have been planned or envisioned in the East of Greenville area in several visioning and planning documents for Alameda County, EBRPD, LARPD, and the City of Livermore. This includes routes along the South Bay Aqueduct and through the East of Greenville area to service the Murray Township. The study will provide recommendations for the most important corridors to have for recreational access.

3. Strategic Value in Land Protection
The Tri-Valley Conservancy within its capacity, is partnering with local stakeholders to conduct a conservation values study of the East of Greenville to determine the ecological, agricultural and recreational resources that may need to be mitigated or preserved with the development of this area. TVC has previously conducted a Natural Resources Conservation Study in North Livermore in 2009 which analyzed the conservation values of the region, as well as methods of conservation. This document has been instrumental in prioritizing the resources and values in North Livermore that are the highest priority for conservation. We are looking to provide a similar resource with this study.

4. Additional Funding Sources
Tri-Valley Conservancy is engaging in a collaborative stakeholder effort and is sourcing funding from parties involved.

5. Willing Sellers
TVC is interfacing with landowners and stakeholders throughout this process to ensure their continued engagement and involvement in the study process.

Describe how the property will be operated and maintained (e.g., if donated to the East Bay Regional Park District, an agreement showing that EBRPD is willing to accept and maintain the property; if a conservation easement is proposed, indicate what the easement holder’s monitoring plan is for the property.) Properties will continue to be operated and maintained by their landowners throughout this process.

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Item #6

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
Public Works - Operations Division

TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE ORDER WITH BELKORP AG, LLC FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE JOHN DEERE 9009A TERRAINCUT ROUGH MOWER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $129,161, INCLUSIVE OF A 15 PERCENT CONTINGENCY

SUMMARY
The City is responsible for managing and maintaining a fleet of 445 vehicles and equipment that support essential citywide operations. As part of the City’s Asset Management Plan, a data-driven analysis identified one mower that has exceeded its useful service life, carrying a high-risk rating, and facing escalating maintenance costs and reduced reliability. This unit was prioritized for replacement to ensure operational efficiency, compliance with regulatory requirements, and alignment with the City’s long-term fleet replacement strategy.

Staff recommends replacing mower No. 8009, a 2008 Toro Groundsmaster 4500 with over 5,400 operating hours. The proposed replacement unit is a John Deere 9009A TerrainCut Rough mower to be purchased from Belkorp Ag, LLC through Sourcewell Contract No. 112624-DAC (PG BT CG 76). The total purchase amount, including contingency, shall not exceed $129,161. This mower replacement supports critical parks operations and aligns with the City’s long-term equipment replacement plan.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the purchase order of one John Deere 9009A TerrainCut Rough Mower from Belkorp Ag, LLC in an amount not to exceed $129,161, inclusive of a 15 percent contingency, and authorize the City Manager to execute all purchase documents related to this procurement.

BACKGROUND
The City relies on large-scale commercial mowing equipment to maintain over 400 acres of developed parkland and sports fields. Mower No. 8009, a 2008 Toro Groundsmaster 4500, has been in service beyond its expected lifecycle and is now functionally obsolete due to frequent breakdowns, rising repair costs, and reduced operational reliability.

This unit has accumulated over $20,000 in lifetime repair costs. The replacement of this equipment was planned as part of the City’s 20-Year Repair and Replacement Plan and the FY 2025/26 budget. The replacement of the equipment is mandatory to continue providing essential services to the City.

The City, working with Kayuga Solutions, conducted a high-level asset management analysis of the City’s fleet and equipment inventory and developed a 10-Year Fleet Repair and Replacement Plan, identifying all Fleet assets scheduled for replacement within this period.

The City’s 10-Year Fleet Repair and Replacement plan scheduled the retirement of all vehicles that have reached the end of their useful service life. The plan incorporates multiple evaluation

factors, including installation year, useful life, current condition, condition rating, and risk rating.

Based on this analysis, mower No. 8009 was identified as a high-risk vehicle requiring immediate replacement.

Through that process, more than 191,000 municipal assets were consolidated into a unified database for lifecycle tracking and long-term budgeting, and it was determined that the City faces an estimated $15.7 million in fleet replacement costs for Fiscal Year 2025/26. This data- driven approach reinforces the need to prioritize replacement of critical vehicles and infrastructure before failure, ensuring operational reliability and financial sustainability. Within this forecast, the Fleet Section has prioritized mower No. 8009 as a high-priority replacement on the recommended list.

DISCUSSION
The replacement mower, a John Deere 9009A TerrainCut Rough Mower, is a high- performance, five-cutting deck rotary mower designed for professional-grade turf maintenance on parks and sports fields. Its wide cutting deck and robust durability provide improved efficiency, reliability, and operator safety. This model was selected based on staff evaluation, operational fit, and compatibility with city maintenance standards.

Table 1. Cost Breakdown

Item Amount
Equipment Total Cost $ 112,314.00
15 percent Contingency $ 16,847.00
Total Not-to-Exceed $ 129,161.00

Staff recommends purchasing the replacement mower to support continued park maintenance operations. The new equipment will replace an aging mower with high operating costs, increase mowing efficiency, and reduce downtime due to equipment failures.

The equipment will be procured via Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract No. 112624- DAC. This nationally bid agreement enables competitive pricing and contract compliance without the need for a separate formal bid process.

An alternative to the purchase is for the City to enter into a long-term rental agreement with an equipment rental company; however, that option would cost more over the term of the agreement.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This equipment upgrade supports the City’s goal of maintaining clean, safe, and accessible green spaces for all residents. The replacement mower’s fuel-efficient operation contributes to reduced emissions, aligns with the City’s environmental stewardship values, and supports operational equity.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the Citywide ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment by aligning with the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 by reducing municipal fleet emissions through hybrid vehicle integration and promoting sustainability and environmental stewardship.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total not-to-exceed amount for the purchase and outfitting of a John Deere 9009A TerrainCut Rough Mower is $129,161, which includes a 15 percent contingency. This amount covers the equipment’s acquisition and sales tax. Funding for this procurement will come from Internal Service Fund 514 – Vehicle & Equipment Replacement (51440131-440104) in FY 2025/26, which was adopted in the budget.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Tamara Baptista, Assistant
Dir. of Public Works -
Operations & Maintenance
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Belkorp Ag, LLC Quote

Quote Id: 33548272
Date: 21 October 2025 Offer Expires: 30 November 2025 Confidential

ALL PURCHASE ORDERS MUST BE MADE OUT
TO (VENDOR):

ALL PURCHASE ORDERS MUST BE SENT
TO DELIVERING DEALER:

Belkorp Ag, LLC
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
US
Belkorp Ag, LLC
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
408-727-5660
[email protected]
Prepared For:

CITY OF PLEASANTON PARKS AND COMMUNITY SVCS
Proposal For:

Delivering Dealer:

Joseph Recupero
Belkorp Ag, LLC
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
408-727-5660
[email protected]
Quote Prepared By:

Joseph Recupero
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 1

ALL PURCHASE ORDERS MUST BE MADE OUT
TO (VENDOR):

ALL PURCHASE ORDERS MUST BE SENT
TO DELIVERING DEALER:

Belkorp Ag, LLC
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
US
Belkorp Ag, LLC
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
408-727-5660
[email protected]
Salesperson: X_____________ Accepted By: X______________ Confidential
Equipment Summary Suggested List Selling Price Qty Extended 2025 JOHN DEERE 9009A
TerrainCut Rough Mower -
1TC9009AKSV100142
$ 134,042.00 $ 101,871.92 X 1 = $ 101,871.92
Contract: Sourcewell Grounds Maint 112624-DAC (PG BT CG 76) Price Effective Date:

Equipment Total $ 101,871.92
Trade In Total $ 0.00
* Includes Fees and Non-contract items Quote Summary
Equipment Total $ 101,871.92
Trade In
SubTotal $ 101,871.92
Sales Tax - (10.25%) $ 10,441.87
Est. Service
Agreement Tax
$ 0.00
Total $ 112,313.79
Down Payment (0.00)
Rental Applied (0.00)
Balance Due $ 112,313.79
Quote Summary
Prepared For: Delivering Dealer:

CITY OF PLEASANTON PARKS AND COMMUNITY
SVCS
PO BOX 520
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Belkorp Ag, LLC
Joseph Recupero
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: 408-727-5660
[email protected]
Quote Id: 33548272
Created On: 21 October 2025
Last Modified On: 22 October 2025
Expiration Date:30 November 2025

Selling Equipment
Quote Id: 33548272 Customer Name: CITY OF PLEASANTON PARKS AND COMMUNITY SVCS

ALL PURCHASE ORDERS MUST BE MADE OUT
TO (VENDOR):

ALL PURCHASE ORDERS MUST BE SENT
TO DELIVERING DEALER:

Belkorp Ag, LLC
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
US
Belkorp Ag, LLC
2715 Lafayette Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
408-727-5660
[email protected]
Confidential
2025 JOHN DEERE 9009A TerrainCut Rough Mower - 1TC9009AKSV100142 Hours: 0
Stock Number: 102700
Contract: Sourcewell Grounds Maint
112624-DAC (PG BT CG
76)
Suggested List *
$ 134,042.00
Selling Price *
$ 101,871.92
* Price per item - includes Fees and Non-contract items Code Description Qty List Price Discount% Discount
Amount
Contract
Price
Extended
Contract Price
1449TC 2025 JOHN DEERE 9009A
TerrainCut Rough Mower
1449TC
1 $
130,406.00

24.00 $ 31,297.44 $ 99,108.56 $ 99,108.56
Standard Options - Per Unit
001A United StatesCanada 1 $ 0.00 24.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 183E JDLink Modem 1 $ 0.00 24.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
0443 All Other Countries English
Spanish
1 $ 0.00 24.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
9764 Canopy Kit 1 $ 907.00 24.00 $ 217.68 $ 689.32 $ 689.32 9859 27" Cast Front Roller Kit,
9009A
1 $ 2,729.00 24.00 $ 654.96 $ 2,074.04 $ 2,074.04
Standard Options Total $ 3,636.00 $ 872.64 $ 2,763.36 $ 2,763.36 Value Added Services Total $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Total Selling Price $
134,042.00
$ 32,170.08 $
101,871.92
$ 101,871.92

Item #7

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
Public Works - Operations Division

TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PURCHASE ORDER WITH PETERSON CAT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE CATERPILLAR 255

COMPACT TRACK LOADER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$200,022,INCLUSIVE OF A 15 PERCENT CONTINGENCY

SUMMARY
The City is responsible for managing and maintaining a fleet of 445 vehicles and equipment that support essential citywide operations. As part of the City’s Asset Management Plan, a data-driven analysis identified two trucks that have exceeded their useful service life, carrying a high-risk rating, and facing escalating maintenance costs and reduced reliability. These units have been prioritized for replacement to ensure operational efficiency, compliance with regulatory requirements, and alignment with the City’s long-term fleet replacement strategy.

Staff recommends replacing Unit No. 232, a 1995 Bobcat 853H Front-End Loader currently used by the Streets and Traffic Safety Section. The unit is equipped with a Tier 1 diesel engine, no longer compliant with California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations.

Continued use of this equipment carries the risk of noncompliance penalties, increased emissions, and higher maintenance costs. The proposed replacement—a Caterpillar 255 Compact Track Loader—will be purchased from Peterson CAT through Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract No. 011723-CAT in an amount not to exceed $200,022, inclusive of a 15 percent contingency.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a purchase order with Peterson CAT for the purchase of one Caterpillar 255 Compact Track Loader in an amount not to exceed $200,022,inclusive of a 15 percent contingency.

BACKGROUND
The City’s Streets and Traffic Safety Section relies on specialized equipment to perform critical infrastructure maintenance, including street repairs, utility trenching, and debris removal. Unit No. 232, a 1995 Bobcat 853H, has surpassed its intended service life and is currently outfitted with a Tier 1 diesel engine, which is noncompliant under the California Air Resources Board (CARB’s) In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. Thus, the current equipment must be replaced to meet the compliance requirement and to support the City's critical operational needs.

The unit has experienced increased mechanical failures, downtime, and escalating maintenance costs. Since 2024, the loader has required over $4,170 in repairs and accumulated over $13,938 in lifetime maintenance expenses. The City, working with Kayuga Solutions, conducted a high-level asset management analysis of the City’s fleet and equipment inventory and developed a 10-year Fleet Repair and Replacement Plan. This plan identifies all

Fleet assets scheduled for replacement within this period. The City’s 10-Year Fleet Repair and Replacement plan scheduled the retirement of all vehicles that have reached the end of their useful service life. The plan incorporates multiple evaluation factors, including installation year, useful life, current condition, condition rating, and risk rating. Based on this analysis, Unit No. 232 was identified as a high-risk piece of equipment and requires immediate replacement. This data-driven approach reinforces the need to prioritize replacement of critical vehicles and infrastructure before failure, ensuring operational reliability and financial sustainability. Within this forecast, the Fleet Section has prioritized units in support of addressing these challenges.

DISCUSSION
To maintain reliable service levels and remain compliant with state regulations, staff recommends replacing Unit No. 232 with a Caterpillar 255 Compact Track Loader. This equipment includes modern features such as a fully enclosed cab with air conditioning, advanced safety components, and multiple work attachments (cold planer, broom, hammer, and auger) for flexible use in varied operations.

Table 1. Cost Breakdown

Item Amount
Equipment Total Cost $ 173,932.00
15 percent Contingency $ 26,090.00
Total Not-to-Exceed $ 200,022.00

Staff seeks approval for the full purchase of this equipment, which is a direct replacement for an aging loader critical to day-to-day operations in the field. The new equipment will improve safety, reliability, and performance across a range of tasks and reduce the department’s dependency on outdated, high-maintenance equipment. This action is consistent with the City’s Equipment Replacement Plan.

The loader meets CARB Tier 4 Final emission standards and significantly reduces diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions. The purchase will be made under Sourcewell Contract #011723-CAT, a competitively bid cooperative purchasing agreement that ensures contract compliance and pricing competitiveness.

An alternative to purchasing the equipment is for the City to enter a long-term rental agreement; however that option would cost more overall.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This purchase supports the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 by replacing a Tier 1 diesel-powered unit with a cleaner, Tier 4 Final emissions-compliant machine. The updated loader will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants while helping the City maintain environmental compliance with state-mandated CARB regulations.

OUTREACH
No additional outreach was conducted. The purchase aligns with the City's long-range fleet and equipment replacement strategy and utilizes an established cooperative purchasing

agreement to streamline procurement.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the Citywide ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment by aligning with the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 by reducing municipal fleet emissions through hybrid vehicle integration and promoting sustainability and environmental stewardship.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total not-to-exceed amount for the purchase and outfitting of a Caterpillar 255 Compact Track Loader $200,022, which includes a 15 percent contingency. This amount covers equipment acquisition, sales tax, and outfitting costs such as emergency lighting and safety systems. Funding for this procurement will come from Internal Service Fund 514 – Vehicle & Equipment Replacement (51440131-440104) in Fiscal Year 2025/26 and was adopted in the budget.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Tamara Baptista, Assistant
Dir. of Public Works -
Operations & Maintenance
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Peterson CAT Quote 242233-01

Oct 24, 2025

CITY OF PLEASANTON

UTILITIES DIVISION
PO BOX 520

PLEASANTON
California
94566-0802
Attention: JON ENGELBREKTSON
RE: Quote 242233-01
Sourcewell Contract 011723-CAT Quote
Dear Sir,
We would like to thank you for your interest in our company and our products. We are pleased to quote the following for your consideration.

One (1) New Caterpillar Model: 255 Compact Construction Equipment STOCK NUMBER: PM04764 SERIAL NUMBER: 0FL713342 YEAR: 2025 SMU: 1.90

MACHINE SPECIFICATIONS
255 05A COMPACT TRACK LOADER 586-0258
LANE 2 ORDER 0P-9002
CAB PACKAGE, ULTRA 661-5338
HYDRAULICS, PERFORMANCE, (HP3) 585-9684
WORKLIGHTS,LED,FRONT/REAR/SIDE 579-2311
COMFORT PKG, ENCLOSED CAB,HVAC 657-2194
SEAT,AIR SUSPENSION,HEAT/VENT 585-9588
PACKAGE, TECHNOLOGY (T5) 601-6604
FAN, COOLING, DEMAND 585-9666
QUICK COUPLER, HYD, SELF LEVEL 586-0291
HOSE GUIDE, ATTACHMENT 640-5405
GUARDING / SEALING PKG, (HD1) 586-0092
IDLER WHEELS, TRIPLE FLANGE 642-3004
TRACK,RUBBER,400MM(15.7 IN)BAR 594-1466
RIDE CONTROL 586-0028
FUEL, ELECTRIC PRIMING 590-1211
REAR LIGHTS 579-2312
DOOR, CAB, POLYCARBONATE 593-7244
INTEGRATED RADIO 651-8586
ATTACHMENT 1

SEAT BELT, 3'' 613-1925
PRODUCT LINK, CELLULAR PL243 579-2323
CERTIFICATION ARR, P65 643-7208
INSTRUCTIONS, ANSI, USA 585-9582
SERIALIZED TECHNICAL MEDIA KIT 421-8926
PACK, DOMESTIC TRUCK 0P-0210
STARTING PACKAGE, STANDARD 652-2073
AIR CONDITIONING, R134A REF 661-1437
PDI @ KEEN
BEACON, AMBER LED 638-6745
KIT, DEMAND FAN, REVERSING 637-2983
AUGER, A41, SSL 219-7706
BROOM, PICKUP, BP118C 448-5690
BUCKET-MP, 68'', BOCE 426-6490
BUCKET-MP, 68'', BOT 426-6487
BUCKET-UT, 68'', BOCE 285-6100
COLD PLANER, PC306, 42GAL TANK 529-5791
BRACKET, LINES, SSL, MD-LG 532-9240
BRACKET, SSL, MD-LG 532-9250
HAMMER, H55S 561-2551
LINES, H55-H65, SSL 269-7271
COUNTERWEIGHT,MACHINE,EXTERNAL 585-9676

SELL PRICE $156,850.27
EXT WARRANTY $911.39
NET BALANCE DUE $157,761.66
SALES TAX (10.25%) $16,170.57
AFTER TAX BALANCE $173,932.23

WARRANTY
Standard Warranty: 24 Months, 2000 Hours Standard Warranty Extended Warranty: 255-36 MO/3000 HR POWERTRAIN + HYDRAULICS + TECH

F.O.B/TERMS Pleasanton

Sourcewell Contract 011723-CAT Quote

Accepted by___________________________________ on ____________________

______________________________
Signature

This Quote is valid for 30 days, after which time we reserve the right to re-quote. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Mathew Durflinger
Machine Sales Representative
Peterson CAT
+1 (510) 2541203
[email protected]

Item #10

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
Public Works - Utilities Division

TITLE: RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE OUTCOME OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

AND FACILITY FEASIBILITY AND COST ANALYSIS, AND DIRECT STAFF TO

MEET AND CONFER WITH PLEASANTON GARBAGE SERVICE TO

NEGOTIATE A THREE TO FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT

FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN

PLEASANTON AND BRING A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO CITY COUNCIL NO LATER THAN JULY 2026

SUMMARY
The City of Pleasanton (City) has issued an exclusive franchise service agreement with Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS) for waste, recycling, and organic materials collection, effective July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2029. As the agreement nears expiration, the City has been evaluating service options to inform the decision to issue a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) or negotiate a sole-source agreement with PGS. This report provides relevant information on community and stakeholder input, facility feasibility and cost analysis, and consideration of different approaches and models in other California cities.

While much of the analysis and public input supports a recommendation for a competitive RFP to consider all available options, certain specific issues related to the transfer station and the ability to maintain that operation for public use indicate the value of additional short-term sole- source negotiations with PGS. During this additional negotiation period, the City and PGS will meet and confer for up to six months to determine whether and how the transfer station can mitigate current and likely future issues related to permit compliance, operational adjustments resulting from less available space, and neighbor concerns over noise, odor, and traffic at the site.

Staff recommends that the extension negotiations with PGS focus on a short-term three-year extension, with two one-year options, for a maximum extension period of five-years. This extension will allow the City to ensure this critical service worth approximately $500 million for the full scope of the franchise agreement, is cost-effective, high quality, and delivers the best possible value to ratepayers.

PGS has represented, and staff agrees, that these negotiations should be resolved within six months. As such, staff proposes to return to the City Council no later than July 2026 to present the outcome of the discussion and a recommendation for next steps. At that time, if negotiations with PGS have been successful, staff will bring back an amendment to extend the current agreement and a framework within that amendment for arranging for transfer station services separate from collection services in the future. If negotiations with PGS have not been successful, staff intends to recommend proceeding with a competitive RFP for these services to preserve sufficient time for an RFP and service provider transition before the expiration of the current agreement.

RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on the outcome of stakeholder engagement and facility feasibility and cost analysis, and direct staff to meet and confer with Pleasanton Garbage Service to negotiate a three- to five-year extension of the current franchise agreement for solid waste management services in Pleasanton and bring a recommendation back to City Council no later than July 2026.

BACKGROUND
PGS has been the City's exclusive franchise service provider since 1989, without a competitive bidding process. PGS began servicing the City in the 1969 (the franchise was first awarded in 1989, but PGS serviced the City prior to the agreement). Throughout that history, the City’s ratepayers supported the development of the Pleasanton Transfer Station, which encompasses a transfer facility, community drop-off area, and collection vehicle yard, as well as generations of solid waste infrastructure privately owned by PGS, located at their site on Busch Road. Planned residential development and compliance issues with the existing transfer station site have prompted a review by both PGS and the City of the suitability of the current site and potential mitigations or alternative sites for this infrastructure.

As directed by the Waste and Recycling Subcommittee, staff, along with HF&H Consultants, LLC (HF&H), implemented a community engagement plan earlier this year to assist in the evaluation of the City’s solid waste services and future facility planning. The results, presented in more detail below, show that the Pleasanton community is largely satisfied with the services provided by PGS, finds value in the benefits of the local transfer station, but is sensitive to the cost and caliber of services received. This is demonstrated by feedback received as part of a statistically valid public opinion survey, which found that approximately 58 percent of Pleasanton residents support conducting a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, regardless of their opinion of PGS or the quality of services provided.

On September 23, 2025, a publicly noticed City Council Waste and Recycling Subcommittee meeting was held. At that meeting, the subcommittee discussed the value of the transfer station to Pleasanton residents, and expressed support for continuing negotiations with PGS for a limited period to more fully develop mitigation options at the current transfer facility.

As with all agreements, it is the City's responsibility to periodically assess existing conditions and monitor performance to ensure long-term strategic value, as well as identify potential risks and benefits. At this juncture, the City has an opportunity to implement an RFP process (a standard governmental practice) or negotiate solely with PGS to determine the next generation of solid waste services. With either option, it is crucial to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness as stewards of public resources. The RFP process enables the City to ensure that services directly impacting ratepayers are cost-effective, innovative, and of the highest possible quality. Choosing to forego a competitive RFP process limits the City’s ability to ensure that services rendered meet the highest standard available. A short-term sole source negotiation, however, may allow the City to continue to use the existing publicly available transfer facility and/or the only likely available land for this type of development in the City. If the City Council’s priority is to

maintain public access to a transfer site in the City, a long-term service agreement for a transfer station should be developed that ensures access for the public as well as for materials collected by the City’s franchisee.

It is essential to note that the transfer station services represent a relatively small component of the overall solid waste management services, accounting for less than 5 percent of total contract costs. Staff believe it is important to evaluate decisions regarding the transfer station or any future facility independently of the franchise collection services agreement, yet in parallel, to ensure that each decision aligns with the City’s overall contract objections.

DISCUSSION
Planning Process and Information Gathering
The franchise agreement with PGS expires on June 30, 2029. To prepare, staff, following the direction of the Waste and Recycling subcommittee, developed a multi-pronged process to gather information about options for the future of waste and recycling in Pleasanton. The outcome of this process, along with analysis of ongoing regulatory compliance issues at the current transfer station, informs the decision about whether to negotiate with PGS in a sole-source environment or to issue a competitive RFP to solicit proposals.

First, staff, working in collaboration with HF&H and Probolsky Research, developed a comprehensive stakeholder engagement plan to gather community input and better understand local needs and opinions related to waste and recycling services. This included conducting a statistically valid survey of residential customers designed to assess current
service satisfaction, identify community priorities regarding environmental sustainability ve rsus cost considerations, evaluate transfer station usage and support, and gauge interest in additional services not currently provided. Other engagement efforts included residential community meetings, direct outreach to multi-family property owners and building managers, discussions with leaders in the business community, and meetings with potential service providers.

The City also engaged SCS Engineers, a leading national solid waste engineering firm, to conduct a facility feasibility study analysis. This included a review of the following considerations:
• Assessment of future public needs
• Assessment of current satisfaction with waste and recycling collection services • Resolution of current regulatory issues
• Need for future facility franchisee use
• Assessment of improved current versus new transfer station site • Requirements for development of new infrastructure (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) studies; ownership and operation decisions; acquisition; permitting; and development).

Compliance with Regulatory Requirements
PGS has historically provided reliable collection services for the City. However,

performance under the most recent franchise agreement has shown ongoing inconsistencies. A key area of concern is compliance with state-mandated requirements, particularly SB 1383, which establishes strict standards for organics diversion, recycling, and recordkeeping. While PGS has corrected reporting gaps identified early in the contract term, Pleasanton has not yet been reviewed by the state’s enforcement team.

That review is required to happen before 2027. State regulators will look to ensure full compliance by all waste generators in the City and will rely on detailed records for evidence of that compliance. In meetings with Pleasanton businesses, concerns were raised by those businesses about their compliance with SB 1383 and other state laws and their perception that they needed more support from PGS to meet those requirements.

In 2022, the City conducted a comprehensive performance review and subsequent correc tive action plan. The review focused on PGS’ compliance with three broad and interrelated areas of the Franchise Agreement:

1. SB 1383 and other key regulatory compliance issues, including recordkeeping and reporting;

2. Additional new and expanded programs and services; and

3. Customer service.

As a result of this review, staff worked with PGS to implement 20 corrective actions. These included:
• Establishing adequate staffing levels and staff training; • Developing an education and outreach plan;
• Creating protocols for route audits and establishing a regular audit schedule; and • Improving data collection and reporting practices.

While progress has been made in several areas, PGS’s corrective actions for data collection related to Tower, the software system it uses, remain.

In 2024, the City worked with SCS Engineers to develop a compliance plan and conduct an annual site visit to audit the transfer station. Phase One of the project involved creating a compliance plan and providing a method for the City to monitor and track enforcement.

In Phase Two, City staff, in coordination with the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD), conducted an unannounced site visit of the transfer station. Following this visit, SCS Engineers prepared a summary inspection report that included comments from all participating agencies. The report identified multiple outstanding compliance issues requiring immediate corrective action. Specifically, 21 corrective actions were outlined, including:
• 12 LPFD violations related to fire safety, hazardous materials management, petrole um storage, hazardous waste, and household hazardous waste. • Environmental Services violations, including stormwater management deficiencies

such as improper containment of contaminants and inadequate housekeeping practices.
• Expired permits, including the facility’s Temporary Use Permit and its Stormwater Industrial General Permit.

As a result of these findings, in March 2025, LPFD—acting as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for both Livermore and Pleasanton—issued a consent order to PGS. The order included fines and required PGS to retain an Environmental Health and Safety professional or consultant, as well as establish and maintain employee training programs on hazardous waste handling.

The persistence of both the franchise agreement and transfer station compliance issues reflects a broader pattern of management not adequately addressing critical reporting, operational, and regulatory requirements. The City has a responsibility to ensure that all reporting and compliance obligations are met to remain in compliance with state law.

Failure to comply could carry significant financial and regulatory risks. The City is evaluated annually for SB 1383 compliance, and if found to be in violation during a CalRecycle review, it could face administrative civil penalties ranging from $7,500 to $10,000 or more per day, per violation. Similarly, violations under CUPA or the State Water Resources Control Board can result in fines of up to $25,000 per day per violation.

Regardless of the specific actions taken to address noise, odor, traffic, and stormwater concerns at the current Transfer Station, the related capital costs will be substantial (tens of millions of dollars).

Infrastructure and Capital Investment Needs
The transfer station has supported the City’s solid waste operations and provided a location for the public to dispose of materials for many years. However, current conditions, including unresolved compliance matters, site constraints, and land use concerns, have prompted long- term facility planning and evaluation of alternatives.

Significant capital improvements, estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, will be required to upgrade the existing transfer station and address operational and neighborhood impacts.

Relocating to a new site would involve even greater costs and permitting risks. A study conducted by SCS Engineers on behalf of the City estimated a low- and high-range cost of $10,000,000 to $23,000,000 to relocate the existing facility. However, this range does not include land acquisition or site-specific factors that would increase costs, such as extensive excavation, rock removal, retaining wall construction, or additional utility infrastructure for power and water. PGS estimates a potential cost range of $50,000,000 to $100,000,000, including land acquisition.

PGS has provided a preliminary proposal concept stating that upgrades to the existing facility could be completed within two to four years, whereas a new facility would likely take six to ten years, contingent upon land acquisition, permitting, and other infrastructure development for a new site. Modifying the existing facility could address near-term needs.

However, further analysis is needed to determine the extent to which such mitigations could serve as a longer-term or permanent solution, especially given the proximity of new residential development to the current site. If, after investing in upgrades to the existing

facility, relocation is later determined to be necessary, ratepayers would bear the compounded costs of both projects.

In either scenario, PGS would expect to recover the costs of these improvements through customer rates, placing the financial burden on City ratepayers. City staff have significant concerns about investing tens of millions of dollars from Pleasanton ratepayers into infrastructure that is owned and controlled by a private business. It is also important to note that the proposed improvements and new facilities will significantly increase the enterprise value of PGS in the event of a company sale (as has recently occurred in both Dublin and Livermore). If the City Council places a priority on maintaining this asset for public use and benefit, staff recommend negotiating a separate contract with the transfer station, including provisions for transfer to public ownership under certain conditions, such as a sale of PGS or the property. If a new site is developed and funded by the ratepayers, the City may consider whether that site should be owned by the City, but developed and operated by a private contractor to ensure permanent public access.

Cost Analysis: Direct Hauling and Transfer Station Options As part of the community engagement plan, staff met with multiple waste service providers who demonstrated both an interest in and an ability to serve the City. Several of these companies have existing assets in the region that could be adapted for the City’s use, though some level of additional buildout and investment would still be required. This indicates the City has viable alternatives beyond continued sole reliance on the current PGS transfer station.

As part of this engagement and in evaluating long-term options, the City commissioned an analysis to determine whether direct hauling of material could serve as a feasible alternative to maintaining or upgrading a transfer station. While the City’s partnership with PGS has historically been cost-effective—since transferring was more efficient than direct hauling—the financial outlook will change once the costs of a major facility upgrade or new construction are considered.

Table 1: Cost Comparison of Direct Hauling and Transfer Station Options

The analysis shows that the existing PGS transfer station upgrade will require a substantial

investment. Once debt service from that capital investment is factored in, direct hauling would reduce expenses by $812,933 annually compared to using the upgraded PGS transfer station. Alternatively, if a new transfer station were constructed, direct hauling would result in even greater savings at $3,242,508 annually and reduced cost to rate payers over time.

Any potential service provider responding to an RFP will need to develop a clear capital strategy, at minimum addressing vehicle parking and yard infrastructure.

Community Drop-off Service Offerings
The community drop-off service at the transfer station provides value to residents with a convenient, centralized location for the disposal of certain materials. This complements existing curbside and other waste management services. While 51 percent of residents have not used the transfer station in the past 12 months, surveys and engagement indicate there remains significant interest in maintaining access to this service. It should also be noted that approximately 12 percent of facility use comes from users outside of Pleasanton.

While the current drop-
off service at the transfer station is valued for its convenience, it is not the sole mechanism for meeting residents’ disposal needs. Should the City determine in the future that upgrading or relocating the transfer station is not feasible or cost-effective, alternative service models could be considered to maintain access to disposal options.

Pleasanton is the only community in the Tri-Valley that has a public transfer station.

Residents of Livermore tend to use either the Vasco Road or Altamont Landfills, located just outside Livermore. Residents of Dublin, San Ramon, and Danville have no in-town drop-off, but have robust programs for collecting extra materials. Those communities report very high levels of resident satisfaction with their solid waste services, despite having to drive 20-45 minutes to use the Vasco Road site on the occasion that a drop-off site is needed.

Engagement with industry stakeholders identified several potential alternatives, including expanded curbside collection programs to capture a wider range of materials, expanded or more frequent on-call or as-needed collections to handle occasional high volumes, drop-off locations for certain items, and community collection events to supplement existing services. These approaches provide residents with continued access to disposal options in the event that a transfer station in the City of Pleasanton is ultimately determined to be infeasible.

Community Input
As discussed above, staff developed and implemented a comprehensive community engagement plan, which gathered input from a broad cross-section of stakeholders on the City’s solid waste services and future facility planning. The plan was designed to ensure meaningful opportunities for participation from residential customers, commercial businesses, multi-family property managers, and industry stakeholders.

Engagement Methods

• Residential Customers: The City hosted one in-person and two virtual community meetings to gather input. Recognizing that attendance at such meetings can be limited and subject to selection bias, the City also contracted for a statistically valid survey of 400 residents to capture broad community perspectives.
• Commercial Customers: Outreach was conducted by attending regularly scheduled business meetings and conducting drop-ins with neighboring businesses located near the PGS transfer station.
• Multi-Family Property Managers: Staff engaged property managers directly through targeted phone calls.
• Industry Stakeholders: Representatives from the solid waste and recycling industry were invited to present directly to the Subcommittee and share their perspectives and interest in providing services to the City.

Key Themes Identified
Through this outreach, several key themes and points of input emerged. These points are outlined below by sector.

Residential Customers:
• Residents have overall satisfaction with current solid waste and recycling services provided by PGS.

• Many residents have not used the PGS transfer station in the past year, yet strong support remains for maintaining a local drop-off facility.

Residents value sustainability but emphasize that cost and convenience should remain a priority when making decisions about waste and recycling services.

• Many residents view their service rates as reasonable, though some feel their bills are too high.

• While most residents have a favorable view of PGS, 58 percent support a competitive RFP process.

Multi-Family Property Owners and Managers:
• Property owners and managers are generally satisfied with PGS’s solid waste and recycling services.
• Opinions are mixed regarding PGS’s communication, educational offerings, and reliability.
• Nearly all owners and managers inform tenants that the transfer station is available for disposal, though few use it themselves.
• There is a clear need for more tenant education on proper source separation across all building sizes.
• Most owners and managers had no strong opinion on conducting an RFP process, with cost being their primary concern.

Commercial Customers:
• The business community generally expressed satisfaction with PGS services. • There is a need for more support to help businesses comply with solid waste and recycling requirements.
• Tailored service offerings are needed to address unique business needs. • The business community prefers an approach that ensures competitive pricing.

Industry Stakeholders:
• Companies are enthusiastic about the opportunity to serve the City. • Many are confident in their ability to provide cost-competitive services to residents and businesses.
• A mix of existing infrastructure and new or upgraded facilities will likely be

required, regardless of the selected provider.

The community engagement process found that, although residents and businesses gener ally express satisfaction with PGS, there is strong support for conducting a competitive RFP process. Feedback highlighted that cost and convenience are key priorities, and input from industry stakeholders indicates multiple options exist for enhanced offerings and advanced technology to support quality service and regulatory compliance.

Options for Procuring Future Services
Extend Sole-Source Discussions with PGS for 6-months
At the Waste and Recycling Subcommittee meeting on September 23, 2025, committee members expressed the value they see in maintaining a transfer station within the City.

The subcommittee recommended that staff extend sole-source discussions with PGS for six months to allow additional time to evaluate the feasibility of upgrading the existing transfer station to meet both current and future community needs. Under this approach, PGS would work in partnership with their engineering contractor and development counsel to develop a facility upgrade plan that meets specific requirements for the City to assess the plan’s feasibility.

The facility plan would be provided to City staff no later than February 18, 2026, to allow time to review, discuss, and refine the approach. The terms of the collection agreement discussions would continue through May 18, 2026, providing six additional months for analysis and planning. At that time, staff would return to the City Council with the results of these discussions and if successful, a recommendation to extend the current franchise agreement 3-5 years in order to implement the negotiated plan.

To successfully assess the feasibility of the transfer station plan, City staff would request the plan from PGS to adequately detail how the following key considerations will be addressed:

1. Past compliance issues. How site upgrades will resolve current compliance issues and ensure ongoing compliance.

2. Site space limitations. A description of how to overcome the limitations or challenges of land acquisition, permitting, or other issues that may affect the feasibility and future expansion of the current transfer station site. Some operational solutions, such as vehicle parking, will need to be identified.

3. Adequate traffic control and queuing for access to the transfer station will need to be identified.

4. East Pleasanton development. How operations at the transfer station may affect future residents living adjacent to the site, and what specific measures will be implemented to mitigate potential concerns such as noise, odor, traffic, litter, and other quality-of-life impacts.

In parallel to the above discussions, proposed terms of the extended collection agreement would also be reviewed, ensuring alignment with operational needs, community impacts, and City objectives. Staff will meet and confer with PGS on proposed service offerings for a 3-year extension of the agreement, including but not limited to:

• Service requests through multiple platforms: website and mobile phone app • Additional container options: 35gal organics and recycling, 65gal MSW • Organics leaf collection program
• Expansion of education and outreach to residential and commercial customers to increase utilization of programs
• Enhanced technical assistance to commercial and multi-family customers to improve diversion.
• Hours of operation for transfer station dumping
• Weekend city events collection
• Household Hazardous Waste Collection Events
• Partnership with City on compost hub operations
• Acceptance of compostable bags in organics collection stream

Alternative Competitive RFP Timeline and Next Steps
To meet the schedule of the expiring franchise agreement in 2029, the City would begin the RFP process in early 2026. A typical RFP process lasts 12 to 18 months and includes drafting and finalizing an RFP, soliciting proposals, responding to prospective operators’ questions, interviewing proposers, evaluating proposals, negotiating contract terms, and seeking final approval by the City Council. This process is anticipated to last through 2026, with a potential award of the new franchise in the first half of 2027, pending direction from the City Council and the outcome of negotiations. This will allow the selected service provider approximately two years to address any infrastructure needs, acquire vehicles, establish new programs or services, and conduct community outreach and engagement to ensure the public is aware of any changes.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In consideration of the analysis presented above and the recommendation by the Waste and Recycling Subcommittee, staff requests that the City Council receive an update on the outcome of stakeholder engagement and cost analysis and direct staff to negotiate, within six months, a 3-5 year extension of the current agreement with PGS to allow time to resolve existing compliance and space constraint issues at the transfer station, develop a plan that ensures long term public access to the transfer station services separate from collection, and enhances the collection services to respond to community input on new services.

Staff proposes to bring this matter back to City Council no later than July 2026. At that time, if negotiations with PGS have been successful, staff will bring back an amendment to extend the current agreement and a framework, within that amendment, for arranging for transfer station services separate from collection services in the future. If negotiations with PGS have not been successful, staff will recommend issuing an RFP for these services in order to preserve sufficient time for an RFP and service provider transition before the expiration of the current agreement.

ALTERNATIVE
Staff requests that the City Council receive an update on the outcome of stakeholder engagement and cost analysis and direct staff to initiate a competitive RFP process for solid waste collection services that would include allowance for a transfer station and

allow PGS and other providers to compete for the new franchise. This option would see the City forgo the 6-month negotiation and move to an RFP process early in 2026.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
As a full-service municipality, the City provides a wide range of services and programs to meet the needs of all members of the community. The waste and recycling program takes into account both equity and sustainability considerations to ensure fair access to services and promote environmentally responsible waste management practices. Consulting assistance for waste disposal is vital to ensuring that the services the City provides are available in a healthy and safe manner to all members of the Pleasanton community.

OUTREACH
On September 23, 2025, a publicly noticed City Council Waste and Recycling Subcommittee meeting was held.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment to continue to implement priority items from the Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP) to lead by example in environmental sustainability.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving this update or directing staff to initiate the Request for Proposals (RFP) process. However, future fiscal impacts are anticipated depending on which course of action the City Council directs. Funding will be needed for consultant services associated with either a competitive RFP process or a sole source RFP negotiation with PGS.

Any consultant costs associated with preparing and administering the RFP or a sole source RFP negotiation with PGS will be funded through the Solid Waste Reserve (Fund 171) within the existing FY 2025-26 budget for professional services.

Future franchise terms will determine rate structures and any required capital investments, which will be addressed during contract award.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

ZeeLaura Page, Waste &
Recycling Manager
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Summary of Stakeholder Engagement

2. Transfer Station Feasibility Analysis conducted by SCS Engineers

3. Presentation

1 Executive Summary

The City contracted with Probolsky Research to conduct a statistically valid survey of Pleasanton residents regarding solid waste services provided by Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS) and community preferences for future service decisions. The survey conducted August 8–12, 2025, collected responses from 400 residents with a margin of error of +/-5%.

Key findings demonstrate strong overall satisfaction with current services, with 94% of residents reporting satisfaction with PGS services and 74% of those indicating they are very satisfied. Most significantly, residents initially express strong support (84%) for maintaining a waste transfer station in Pleasanton.

After receiving additional information, support drops slightly to 80%.

The survey clear demonstrates broad public support for the current hauler and the transfer station.

Background

The City's current solid waste services contract with Pleasanton Garbage Service has provided residential and commercial waste collection, recycling, and organics services to the community. As the City approaches contract renewal decisions and considers the future of the transfer station facility, Council directed staff to conduct a comprehensive community survey to understand resident satisfaction levels, service priorities, and preferences for future service delivery.

The survey was designed to assess current service satisfaction, identify community priorities regarding environmental sustainability versus cost considerations, evaluate transfer station usage and support, and gauge interest in additional services not currently provided. The research was conducted by Probolsky Research, a woman- and minority-owned market research firm specializing in municipal and public policy research.

Survey development included input from Public Works staff and was designed to provide statistically valid results representative of Pleasanton's demographic composition. The timing of the survey in August 2025 allows Council to consider findings during the upcoming budget development process and contract negotiation timeline.

Methodology and Findings / Survey Design and Implementation

The survey employed a multimode methodology to provide easy access for all residents. Data collection included both telephone interviews (19% of responses) and online surveys (81% of responses).

Telephone participants were reached through both landline (28%) and mobile phone (72%) c alls. Online participants received invitations through email (35%) and text messaging (65%).

Language accessibility was provided in English (92%), Spanish (4%), and Chinese (4%). Security measures prevented duplicate responses, and the 14 minutes survey length was designed to maximize completion rates by avoiding survey fatigue while gathering comprehensive data.

The sample matched Pleasanton demographic characteristics across age, gender, ethnicity, and geographic distribution.

Service Satisfaction Results

Current service satisfaction rates exceed typical municipal service benchmarks. Among all respondents, 94% express satisfaction with PGS services, with 74% of satisfied residents reporting they are "very

2 satisfied." Only 4% of residents (16 individuals) expressed dissatisfaction, primarily citing cost concerns relative to service levels received.

Satisfaction levels remain consistently high across demographic groups, with minimal variation by age, gender, ethnicity, or council district. This show that service quality perceptions are broadly shared throughout the community rather than concentrated in particular neighborhoods or population segments.

Service reliability metrics support satisfaction ratings. Residents (79%) report that their waste collection carts were emptied on schedule every time during the past 12 months. This reliability rate, while stronger than we see in other markets, suggests some room for improvement in collection consistency.

Community Priority Analysis

The survey revealed important insights about community values regarding solid waste policy decisions.

When presented with competing priorities, 58% of residents agreed that "environmental sustainability is important, but other factors like cost and convenience should come first when making decisions about solid waste and recycling." Only 32% prioritized environmental sustainability as the top consideration.

These findings are consistent across most demographic groups, though some variation exists by age and ethnicity. The results suggest future solid waste policy decisions should be framed within a balanced approach that acknowledges environmental goals while emphasizing fiscal responsibility and service convenience.

Program Participation and Barriers

Current program participation varies significantly across available services. Bulky item pickup and transfer station drop-off show the highest participation rates, while awareness gaps limit engagement in other programs. Among residents who have not participated in available programs (12% of the total sample, 51 individuals), lack of awareness represents the primary barrier rather than service design or access issues.

This finding suggests targeted communication strategies could increase program utilization without requiring service modifications or additional costs. The 12% non-participation rate is relatively low compared to similar municipalities, indicating generally effective program design and community engagement.

Transfer Station Analysis

Transfer station usage and support present complex findings with significant policy implications. Among residents, 47% have personally used the transfer station within the past 12 months, indicating substantial community reliance on this facility. Users report primarily disposing of household trash, yard waste, and construction debris.

Initial support for maintaining a transfer station in Pleasanton reaches 84%, with 77% expressing strong support. After receiving information about future cost implications, support levels remain high at 80%, with 71% expressing strong support.

Opposition to the transfer station remains limited, with only 3% of the total sample (13 individuals) expressing concerns.

The survey assessed community willingness to travel for waste disposal if access to the local transfer stations was eliminated. Results show 53% of residents would not be willing to drive approximately 15 miles outside the city for transfer station services, suggesting closure could create significant service gaps or lead to inappropriate disposal practices.

Analysis and Implications / Service Contract Considerations

3 The survey provides clear direction regarding the community's approach to future contract decisions.

While 94% of satisfaction rates suggest that residents value the current service quality, 56% believe the city should conduct competitive bidding that allows other qualified providers to submit proposals. Only 36% prefer continuing with current arrangements without competitive evaluation.

This finding suggests residents trust competitive processes to maintain or improve service quality while potentially providing cost benefits. The preference for competitive bidding aligns with general public administration best practices and resident expectations for transparent procurement processes.

Cost and Billing Perceptions

Among respondents, 68% consider their quarterly trash and recycling bills to be "just about right," while 20% consider costs too high and 2% consider them too low.

These cost perceptions provide some flexibility for future rate adjustments, particularly if linked to service improvements or regulatory compliance requirements. However, having a group that views the costs as too high suggests that any rate increases should be accompanied by clear justification and demonstrated value.

Service Enhancement Opportunities

The survey identified some interest in service enhancements not currently provided by the hauler.

Curbside leaf pickup generates the highest interest (24%), but it's worth noting that all the services presented failed to generate substantial interest, and 46% of respondents specifically answered “none”.

Willingness to pay for enhanced services shows varying levels of support. Among residents who expressed interest in each specific service:

• Weekend pick-up: 49% (based on 41 individuals).
• Curbside leaf pick-up: 36% (based on 95 individuals). • Unlimited organics disposal: 31% (based on 68 individuals). • Optional vacation hold: 13% (based on 87 individuals).

Transfer Station Policy Direction

The transfer station findings provide strong community direction despite operational and financial complexities. Consistent support levels before and after cost information suggest resident preferences are robust rather than superficial.

Environmental and quality-of-life concerns, while not eliminating support, suggest that any facility upgrades should incorporate enhanced environmental protections and traffic management measures.

Facility Type Kind of Infrastructure being considered
Facility Uses primary function of the facility
Site & Access Assumptions Site size and access requirements for the size use Queue Lane Requirements Queuing requirement, road access needs, etc.

Site Size Lot size needed to support facility type
Building Size Size of building to be constructed to meet operational needs Total Size Total size of property needed to support facility operations Compatible Zoning/General Plan Designation Compatible land use for the facility type Compatible Surrounding Land Uses Compatibility with nearby area and potential developments Permitting Requirements* Zoning, land use, facility, waste handling permits required Permitting Timeline Timeline to obtain necessary permits Permitting Costs Costs associated with the required permits Construction Timeline Timeline to construct the proposed facility use Construction Cost Assumptions Assumption used to calculate the construction costs. Based on facility square footage Construction Costs Labor and equipment costs associated with facility construction Total Construction Costs Cost to complete the construction of the proposed facility use Legend

Facility Capacity
1,248 tons/day
Facility Type Full Transfer Station Collection Vehicle Parking Drop-off for Green Waste Drop-off for Garbage C&D Drop Off Maintenance Shop Est. Minimum Permit Costs $303,000 $730 $34,600 $34,600 $41,500 $49,000 Est. High End Permit Costs $659,200 $730 $159,600 $159,600 $166,500 $176,000 Minimum Construction Costs $14,200,000 $1,300,000 $370,000 $510,000 $360,000 $900,000 High End Construction Costs $34,200,000 $1,600,000 $470,000 $630,000 $450,000 $1,500,000 Est. Minimum Total Costs $14,503,000 $1,300,730 $404,600 $544,600 $401,500 $949,000 Est. High End Total Costs $34,859,200 $1,600,730 $629,600 $789,600 $616,500 $1,676,000 Several site-specific factors may contribute to increased project costs and timelines. These include, but are not limited to, extensive excavation requirements, rock removal, and extensive retaining wall construction. Additional unforeseen conditions may include insufficient power supply from the utility, requiring the procurement and installation of supplemental electrical equipment to power the site. Similarly, limited water availability may necessitate the construction of a large water storage tank and possibly pump station(s) to meet fire suppression requirements. These conditions can significantly impact both the budget and schedule of the project.

Summary of Unknowns - Construction Cost and Timeline Impacts

Pleasanton Solid Waste and Recycling System
Development
City Council
November 18, 2025
Agenda
• Current State of Solid Waste Services
• Challenges and City Needs
• Facility Feasibility and Cost Analysis
• Outcome of Stakeholder Engagement
• Timeline
• Council Direction

Current State
Current Service Provider
• PGS, serving the City of Pleasanton since 1969
• General satisfaction from the public with PGS’ services Services Provided
• Collection of organics, recycling, trash, bulky items, motor oil and filters, household batteries, and cell phones
• Transfer of materials from PGS Transfer Station for processing and disposal Material from the transfer station is taken to:

DISPOSAL
Landfill
Waste Management
Altamont Landfill
Organics
Recology
Blossom Valley
Composting
Recyclables
Green Waste Recovery
Processing Facility

PROCESSING
City Needs
Collection Services
• Current contract resulted in low rates due to expiration of debt service at PGS • Ongoing compliance with state-mandated requirements including reporting and outreach under SB 1383
• Current PGS contract expires on June 30, 2029
Transfer Station and/or Vehicle Parking
• Compliance issues with regulatory requirements
• Infrastructure and capital needs
• Impact mitigation due to new development (noise, traffic, odor) Council Subcommittee Direction from May 22, 2025 Meeting • Engage public for input on future collection services and transfer station needs • Engage PGS to assess issues with current and potential transfer station sites • Return with recommendation: sole-source negotiations with PGS or competitive RFP

Solid Waste Management Services Agreement
Figure 1: Total Annual Operating Costs for Rate Period 8 • Transfer and Transport is less than 5% of total contract costs City Analysis – Transfer Station Costs
Ratepayer costs are expected to increase regardless of service provider, in part due to the need for private infrastructure development. • A study conducted by SCS Engineers on behalf of the City, estimated a minimum cost of $10M - $23M for retrofitting of PGS’ current transfer station facility. • This estimate is in line with proposals from PGS for the cost of a retrofit. • Land acquisition is not included in estimate, which could double the cost if there is a need to relocate the current facility.
• Most expensive option (est. $70M - $100M+) will be to refurbish current facility for 6-10 years more service AND build a new facility for long-term needs. • Alternative service providers expressed the feasibility of utilizing current facilities with expanded collection and drop off service options to serve the City in a similar way. Expanded infrastructure may be required (e.g., additional space for truck parking).

City Analysis – Feasibility of Direct Haul
Without a local transfer station, material from the City may require hauling directly to a landfill or processing facility.
• The City heard, during the August 21 waste and recycling subcommittee meeting from alternative service providers with existing facilities that could feasibly accept materials hauled directly from the City.
• Compared to utilizing the local transfer station, direct hauling would result in an increased annual cost of $1,230,931.
• The incremental cost of upgrading the local transfer station or relocating it would outweigh direct haul costs, resulting in a saving of $812,9331 to $3,242,5082 annually to direct haul vs. transfer materials from the City. 1Cost assumes a $15M investment to upgrade the transfer station, paid over 10 years at a rate of 6.5% 2Cost assumes a $50M investment to relocate the transfer station, paid over 20 years at a rate of 6.5% City-Analysis – Surrounding Infrastructure

City Analysis – Community Drop-Off Service
Offerings
Transfer station community drop-off services
• 51% residents self-report using drop-off facility in past 12 months • PGS reports that ~12% of users are from outside of Pleasanton Alternative Programs Used in Neighboring Communities
• Expanded curbside collection programs (e.g. added carts at no cost) • On-call or as needed collections (e.g. increased curbside bulky frequency, expanded items)
• Drop-off locations for certain items (e.g. permanent drop off sites at City facilities) • Community collection events (e.g. scheduled neighborhood drop off days) City Analysis – Stakeholder Feedback
Residents, businesses, and potential service providers were engaged via a community outreach plan approved by the Subcommittee on May 22. 2025.

Engagement included:
• A statistically valid, residential, survey conducted by Probolskly Research to 400 residents.
• Direct feedback from 21 multi-family property owners and building managers. • Five public meetings to hear directly from businesses and residential ratepayers.

Overall, residential and commercial stakeholders prioritize cost competitiveness and reliable and tailored services.

City Analysis – Commercial Stakeholders
Multi-family property owners/managers identified the following:
• Overall satisfaction with PGS services.
• A need exists for additional educational tools, resources, and staff support to enhance tenant engagement, reduce contamination, and improve compliance. • Concern over increased costs.

Commercial businesses identified the following:
• Overall satisfaction with PGS services; appreciation of community partnership by the company.
• A need for tailored service options and technical assistance to support regulatory compliance.
• Concern over increased costs and value of the services provided.

Residential Survey – Key Findings
Residents have overall satisfaction with current solid waste and recycling services provided by PGS.

Residential Survey – Key Findings
Many residents have not used the PGS Transfer Station in the past year, yet strong support remains for maintaining a local drop-off facility.

Residential Survey – Key Findings
Residents value sustainability but emphasize
that cost and convenience should remain a
priority when making decisions about waste
and recycling services.

Many residents view their service rates
as reasonable, though some feel their
bills are too high.

Residential Survey – Key Findings
While most residents have a favorable view of PGS, 58% support a competitive RFP process.

Staff Recommendation
Direct Staff to, within six months, negotiate an amendment to PGS’ current contract that includes:
• A3 - 5year extension of the current contract.
• A process and timeline for developing a current and future design plan for the PGS transfer station.
• Additional services to meet high priority needs of the City. • A process for decoupling transfer station services from the current solid waste services agreement.

The Transfer Station Design Plan will include:
• How the City and PGS will work to resolve current compliance issues and capacity needs. • Capital costs and ratepayer impacts for developing a new transfer station. • Solutions for mitigating community impacts of transfer station operations. • Considerations for a transfer of ownership due to sale of PGS or property.

Alternative Recommendation
Direct Staff to Issue a Competitive Request for Proposals for Solid Waste Management Services in Pleasanton
This approach:
• Reflects best practices in contracting for public services • Responds to public interest in competition for these services • Maintains the PGS option to participate and propose the updated facility • Reduces risk by allowing Council to evaluate multiple infrastructure options for cost and feasibility and to shift technology/construction risks to contractor Thank You

Appendix A
Summary of Stakeholder Engagement
Engagement Goal
Receive Stakeholder Input On:

1. Solid Waste Services
• Understand community’s level of
satisfaction with current:
• Programs
• Customer Service
• Operations
• Identify new service opportunities

2. Transfer Station and Land Use
• Identify current community value
• Assess future public needs
• Understand facility impact on the
community

Engagement Purpose
Upcoming City decisions:
• How to proceed at the end of PGS’ current
contract term.
ƒ Solicit Requests for Proposals (RFP) or
negotiate on a sole-source basis with PGS
• What to do with current Transfer Station site.
ƒ Improve, move, or close current facility
ƒ How to manage land use
Key Findings
•General satisfaction with PGS’
services, though gaps exist in
communication and technical
assistance.
•Local drop-off at PGS is valued by
users as a convenient option.
•Increased technical support and
education needed for both business
and residents.
•Cost sensitivity is high; ratepayers want
reliable, consistent service at competitive
rates.
•Strong interest in a competitive RFP to
procure the next generation of services.

Residential Engagement Approach
• Residential Survey
• A statistically valid survey was
administered from July 8 to July 12
• 400 participants surveyed
• Three community meetings
• One in-person meeting held on July
17 (two participants)
• Two virtual meetings held on July 22
(three participants) and August 13 (14
participants)
Residential Engagement Results
•Overall satisfaction with PGS’ services
and rates.
•Roughly half of participants use the
local transfer station, showing strong
community reliance.
•Environmental sustainability is valued,
but cost and convenience are higher
priorities.
•Majority support for a competitive
procurement process for future services.

Multi-Family Dwelling (MFD) Engagement
Approach
Desktop outreach to MFD property owners
and managers conducted in August.
• Called or emailed contacts at 92 of
106 properties.
• Spoke with:
- Six property managers for MFDs
with 5-16 units
- Five property managers for MFDs
with 17-100 units
- Ten property managers for MFDs
with 100+ units
•General satisfaction with current PGS
solid waste and recycling services.
•Most inform tenants about the transfer
station but rarely use it themselves.
•Need for more tenant education on
proper source separation across all
building sizes.
•Mixed satisfaction with PGS in key
areas:
•Communication
•Educational offerings (e.g., trainings,
flyers)
•Service reliability
•Most are neutral on the RFP process,
with cost remaining the primary concern.

Multi-Family Dwelling (MFD) Engagement Results

Commercial Engagement Approach
• Presented at the City’s Business
Organization Partner (BOP) Meeting
on August 12.
• Presented during the City’s Energy
and Environment Commission on
August 13.
• Short survey and call for feedback
sent to BOP partners on August 28.
• Direct calls to four industrial sites
located near the PGS transfer station.
•General satisfaction with PGS’
services.
•Need for increased support to help
developers and businesses comply
with solid waste and recycling
regulations.
•Demand for tailored service offerings
to address unique business needs.
•Appreciation for PGS’ community
partnership.
•Cost sensitivity is high; preference for a
competitive pricing approach.
•Concern from industrial sites about
residential development in the area.

Commercial Engagement Results

Industry Engagement Approach
• Staff held one-on-one conversations with
three different companies throughout
August.
• These companies presented at the August
21 Waste and Recycling Subcommittee
Meeting along with PGS.
• Companies are excited about the
potential opportunity to serve the City.
• Multiple companies feel they are
poised to offer cost-competitive
services to the City’s residents and
businesses.
• A mix of existing and new or upgraded
infrastructure may be required
regardless of who the next service
provider is.

Industry Engagement Results

Item #11

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 18, 2025
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION

CONCEPT PLAN AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON PRELIMINARY SITE RE-USE

OPTIONS

SUMMARY
The 6th Cycle Housing Element, adopted by the City Council and certified by the State, identifies the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station as a future location for high-density housing, and includes a program to prepare a concept plan for the station, intended to further redevelopment of the site while addressing parking for new uses and existing commuters. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission - Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC- ABAG) awarded grant funding to the City to support development of a concept plan with support of a consultant team, with work underway since April 2025. This report is to provide site re-use options to the City Council for its feedback, following the Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 2025. Feedback received from the public at a community meeting held on September 17, 2025, is also summarized in this report for the City Council’s consideration.

The options represent a range of development scenarios that could be incorporated into future development of the subject site. The City Council is being asked to comment generally on these options (i.e., not select a preferred option).

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report on the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Concept Plan and provide direction on preliminary site re-use options.

BACKGROUND
Implementation of the Housing Element
The City Council re-adopted the Housing Element at its September 19, 2023, meeting, following California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) certification in August 2023. Program 1.3 of the Housing Element identifies the preparation of a Concept Plan for the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (the BART site) to plan for housing in accordance with the densities assigned in the Housing Element and State law. It also calls for the Plan to assess potential complementary non-residential uses and to evaluate vehicular parking demand of the on-site uses in addition to BART rider parking. The program calls for this work to be started in 2024 and completed by December 2026, with the objective of facilitating redevelopment and housing on the site to occur within the timeframe of the 2023-31 (6th Cycle) Housing Element. Staff has initiated the Concept Plan with a professional services team, with the contract administered and funded through a grant awarded as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission - Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC- ABAG’s) Priority Sites Program.

Site Zoning, Regional Policy, and State Law

The 6th Cycle Housing Element identifies the BART site for residential development, as did the 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Elements. Since adoption of the most recent Housing Element, the site has been rezoned to the Housing Opportunity Zone (HOZ) and therefore, the BART site is both assumed and designated to allow for housing at densities identified in the Housing Element (i.e., 75 dwelling units per acre, minimum of 555 units). Since the 4th and 5th Housing Element cycles, changes have occurred, including State law changes such as adoption of AB 2923, the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy adopted by MTC-ABAG, and other site conditions, particularly a significant decrease in BART rider parking demand post-pandemic as travel patterns have changed.

Specifically, although the Housing Element conservatively assumed 555 units for the site, the minimum allowable density of 75 dwelling units per acre prescribed by AB 2923 (BART transit- oriented development) and the TOC (transit-oriented communities) Policy yields 1,118 units on

14.9 gross acres. AB 2923 also requires the City to allow a minimum of five stories and limit parking to a maximum of one space per residential unit (whereas the City’s municipal code requires parking based on the number of bedrooms). Further, SB 79, which was recently signed into law and takes effect July 1, 2026, will require that up to nine stories be allowed on sites at BART stations.

In addition to these statutory requirements, the site would also need to comply with the standards and design parameters in the Hacienda Design Guidelines and the City’s adopted Objective Design Standards, although in the event of a conflict, State law would prevail.

Scope of Work
The project scope of work includes:
• Project initiation – introductory meetings with the consultant team and key stakeholders, evaluation of existing conditions and input by the community/Planning Commission/City Council. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) with BART to memorialize the collaborative and cooperative relationship of the project was also part of this stage and was approved by the City Council on July 15, 2025.

• Market analysis – an analysis to evaluate potential future scenarios of non-residential uses.

• Station Access and Parking Management – evaluation of station access and parking demand to understand the need for and opportunities to accommodate BART rider parking on the site and alternative parking strategies, as well as to accommodate multimodal circulation. A preliminary review has been completed, but a more in-depth, focused review and evaluation is anticipated to occur with a second set of project grants the City has been awarded from MTC-ABAG, specific to both station access and parking management.

• Re-use Options – draft re-use scenarios for the site identify conceptual blocks, circulation framework, open space areas, BART station access, vehicular and bicycle parking, and potential multi-modal transportation improvements. These scenarios are before the City Council for review at this meeting for feedback.

• Concept Plan and Implementation Strategies – a concept plan would establish a comprehensive vision for the site that includes housing, but potentially other uses, along with implementation measures. Collectively, these would facilitate the ultimate goal that BART could solicit a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop the site within the 6th Cycle Housing Element timeframe. Adjustments to related documents (e.g., Objective Design Standards, municipal code, Hacienda Design Guidelines, etc.) would be incorporated.

• Second MOU – a second MOU with BART outlining procedural steps needed to advance an RFP to develop the site would be established for review and approval by BART and the City.

Overview of BART Site and Existing Conditions
The BART site currently consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 14 gross acres, located between Owens Drive and Interstate 580. The Iron Horse Trail bisects the site, dividing it into areas distinguished by Reserved and Daily Fee vehicular parking. Notably, the new Iron Horse Trail (IHT) crossing over Dublin Boulevard in Dublin provides an enhanced connection for bicycles and pedestrians to the BART Station. A bus access road runs along the eastern and partially along the northern property boundaries, continuing to the Dublin side of the station. Bus service and bus stops are located along this road. A small plaza area and vacant retail kiosks are located near the entrance to the BART station. In addition to the transit service provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), the Iron Horse Trail facilitates bicycle and pedestrian access to the station and the site. Additional pedestrian access is available from Owens Drive and Willow Road.

As mentioned, vehicular parking is divided into Reserved and Daily Fee parking and is available on both the Pleasanton and Dublin sides of the station. Table 1 summarizes the station's existing vehicular capacities on both sides of the station. Data from a BART parking occupancy survey completed in autumn 2024 is included in the table to identify the parking occupancy rate.

Table 1: Existing Vehicular Parking Spaces in Pleasanton and Dublin* Pleasanton Dublin
BART parking
spaces
1,352 spaces
(about 51% occupied)
1,521 spaces in parking garage;
189 surface parking spaces
SUBTOTAL: 1,710 spaces total
(about 58% occupied)
Other parking
spaces
507 spaces in Alameda County
parking garage
Parking counts for occupancy taken in Spring 2025; details in Attachment 2 (page 8 as identified in the footer)
TOTAL 1,352 spaces 2,217 spaces

Planned Capital Improvements to the Site and Proximate to the Site Planned capital improvements to the site and adjacent to the site include improvements to the

Iron Horse Trail and the proposed construction of the Valley Link Rail Station. These improvements are not contingent upon the site’s redevelopment as outlined in the scenarios (i.e., they are planned independently of the site's redevelopment); however, they have been taken into account in evaluating site opportunities and constraints, as well as in the overall site planning.

Iron Horse Trail Improvements
Starting in early 2026, BART will improve the Iron Horse Trail segment at the station with a two-way bicycle track that would be separated from vehicle traffic and from the pedestrian sidewalk, pedestrian-scale lighting, improved lighting under the freeway and elevated BART structures, additional secure bicycle parking, wayfinding and signage, landscaping and storm water management features, safety and security features, a small park/plaza/gateway treatment at the transition to the Iron Horse Trail to the north, and public art. To facilitate and encourage bicycle access to the station, the bike lanes along Owens Drive will be striped to allow bicyclists to cross the street more efficiently at the existing signalized intersection.

Valley Link Station
Construction of the Valley Link Rail line would provide a rail connection between the subject BART station (and therefore the Tri-Valley and greater Bay Area) and the San Joaquin Valley.

A new aerial station platform would be constructed, along with pedestrian access, including stairs, elevators, and escalators. Currently, the anticipated timeframe for the construction of the Valley Link station is 2028.

Attachment 2 to this report provides additional detail regarding the site’s existing conditions, planned improvements, and constraints.

DISCUSSION
Process to Date
As mentioned in this report, the City’s Housing Element identifies the site for housing and, as part of an implementation program, calls for the preparation of a concept plan to facilitate the future construction of housing on the site. To date, the project team has initiated this process and conducted preliminary analysis in the form of an evaluation of civil engineering constraints, a market assessment to understand the potential for complementary non-residential uses, and an assessment of other opportunities and constraints as described above. The project team has drafted goals and objectives (discussed further below) that would be incorporated into the final concept plan. Additionally, due to the collaborative nature of the project, BART, as the property owner, and the City have signed an MOU to formalize the cooperation between the two agencies for this effort.

The site scenarios presented at this City Council meeting were shared at a Community Meeting on September 17 and with the Planning Commission at its October 22 meeting.

Feedback from both is summarized below.

Community Meeting, September 17, 2025
The City, in collaboration with the project team, hosted a virtual Community Meeting on September 17, 2025, to provide the general public with an introduction to the project and solicit feedback on the site-reuse options. While attendance at the meeting was low despite outreach, the project team anticipates that interest in the project will increase as more materials are drafted, circulated, and discussed at public meetings. Feedback received from attendees of the

meeting includes the following:

Uses and Buildings
• New development should fit into the feel of Pleasanton and complement the long-term vision for Hacienda.
• Noise abatement is necessary for any new buildings and in residential units in particular, since BART trains and the adjacent freeway are noisy. • Placemaking and a destination draw for the community, such as retail or dining, would be essential to make this site a place to draw a critical mass of visitors.

BART Use and Station Access
• Developing BART parking lots makes sense since they are sitting partly empty. • Before the COVID-19 pandemic, BART parking would often be fully occupied. A resident expressed concern about whether parking demand will increase again, if there is a decrease in remote work.
• BART riders prefer to drive to the station because bus service to the station is infrequent and not timed well to sync with train departures and arrivals, making public transit a less convenient option over driving.
• While biking to the BART station is a viable alternative and great way to get to the station, there should be more secure bicycle parking at the station or potential for bike sharing.

Planning Commission, October 22, 2025
The Planning Commission reviewed the site scenarios at its October 22, 2025, meeting. Two members of the public spoke at this meeting, and several members of the community sent emails prior to the meeting (attached to this report as Attachment 4, and comments summarized below).

The Commission provided comments on a variety of topics, including parking, circulation, density/height, type of development and proposed uses, Owens Drive improvements, and the overall project. The project team, including BART staff, was at the meeting to respond to questions and clarifications.

BART rider parking was identified as a specific topic of concern in the written comments submitted for the Planning Commission meeting; this concern was also echoed by several members of the Commission. If the site were to be developed, the housing would be built where the existing parking spaces are located, resulting in higher levels of ridership at the station. To enable the development, the number of BART rider parking spaces on the Pleasanton side of the station would be reduced from the current number of underutilized parking spaces, since it will not be feasible to both substantially redevelop the site and provide a 1:1 replacement of any parking removed. The Planning Commission was in favor of the development to achieve Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals and provide more vibrancy to the area. Several members of the Commission indicated that the existing BART rider parking should not be reduced since the demand in the near- or medium-term may at some point be equivalent to before the COVID pandemic. Comments noted that prior to

COVID, on most weekdays, parking was fully occupied by early morning. If demand increases to pre-COVID levels, BART rider parking demand may exceed the existing capacity. One Commission member, however, commented on whether any BART rider parking is needed at all on the Pleasanton side of the station given the significant supply on the Dublin side of the station, including the new County garage that is currently vacant. The Commission also discussed and inquired about how new parking would be financed and the uncertainty about driving patterns and parking demand, especially given that autonomous vehicles could play a key role in transporting people in the future. Finally, Commissioners also inquired about what entity (i.e., City or BART) would have final say in the number of BART rider spaces.

Most Commissioners expressed support for the plaza along the Iron Horse Trail. The Commission also discussed whether the site could sustain retail or other active uses and expressed that if the space was not consistently occupied to generate adequate pedestrian traffic, the empty space would result in a potentially undesirable or unsafe area and would be a deterrent for BART patrons. A Commissioner also inquired whether the housing units would be rental or for-sale and indicated a preference for at least some for-sale units to encourage young families to locate in Pleasanton on a long-term or permanent basis.

A member of the Commission questioned the number of proposed building stories while several others indicated the site is best suited for high-density development and should be optimized for housing since it is farther away from existing neighborhoods and is adjacent to the BART station. Aside from affordable units, which one Commissioner indicated would be a definite positive attribute for the project, some members of the Commission indicated it was unclear what benefit the City and residents would receive from development of the site.

Two members of the public spoke and expressed support for a protected bicycle lane along Owens Drive to encourage multimodal access to the station (and to encourage biking in general). Comments also suggested improving the crossing at Owens Drive and the Iron Horse Trail.

Public comment received after the Community Meeting but in advance of both this City Council meeting and the October 22 Planning Commission meeting is included as Attachment 4 to this report. As summarized earlier, the commentators indicate that vehicular parking for BART riders should not be reduced since, in their observation, demand for parking lot spaces has increased recently compared to just after the COVID-19 pandemic. A commenter observed that prior to the pandemic, the parking lots filled up quickly – resulting in BART riders having to park far from the station.

Conceptual Development Scenarios
Key Planning Considerations: There are several background conditions and planning considerations for the site. They include:
• Site planning and configuration that takes into account the property's ongoing functioning as a BART station (i.e., station access), existing infrastructure and easements, such as the Iron Horse trail alignments, utilities, and BART service equipment
• Transit stops and multi-modal circulation through the station • Parking demand for both on-site development and BART rider parking • Parking supply factoring in off-site parking capacity in vicinity (including the Alameda

County parking garage)
• Complementary uses to the allowable housing
• Integration of other site improvements, particularly the anticipated Valley Link station • Minimum zoning requirements of State law and regional policy requirements • Mitigation of noise and freeway-related impacts
• Connectivity to the broader area and adjacent properties, and potential future development of the adjacent vacant Oracle property
• Building design requirements for proposed development • Input and comments from key stakeholders

Policy Goals and Objectives for Transit-Oriented Development BART has established policy goals for transit-oriented development (TOD) around its stations, covering the following topic areas: Complete Communities, Sustainable Communities Strategy, Ridership, Value Creation and Value Capture, Transportation Choice, and Affordability. The Concept Plan would incorporate these goals, tailored to the subject station and project site, specifically in focused on increasing vitality in the area with a variety of supportive uses, addressing both affordable and market-rate housing needs, and increasing the share of BART patrons who use alternatives to driving to get to the station (e.g., walk, bike, take transit). A draft of the goals and objectives (named Pleasanton Transit-Oriented Development at Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station – Goals and Objectives) is included as Attachment 3 to this report.

Site Re-use Scenarios
The draft re-use options are included in detail as Attachment 1 to this report. The following is a summary of the scenarios:
• Development Scenarios: The site is approximately 14.9 gross acres (about 11.34 net acres) and could be developed as three to four parcels (compared to the two existing parcels).

In the four-parcel scenario, each parcel would be between 2.4 and 4.3 acres, with buildings five to seven stories high and housing between 870 and 1,088 units (for a density range of 58-77 dwelling units per gross acre; parking would be 0.82 to one space per unit).

In the three-parcel scenario, the larger parcel on the eastern side of the site would be about eight acres with a five-story building (the western two parcels similar in size to the first scenario). This second scenario includes a range of 818 to 1,023 housing units, for a density range of about 75 dwelling units per gross acre (parking would be 0.82 to one space per unit). As an alternative to this three-parcel scenario, the larger, eastern parcel would have an eight-story tall building, for a range of 1,047 to 1,309 housing units (for a density range of 75-92 dwelling units per gross acre and 0.78 to 0.97 parking spaces per unit).

The Site Re-use Options memorandum (Attachment 1) provides additional details on scenarios, including test-fitting options that evaluate suitable building types for each of the sites (e.g., a wrap building, courtyard building, or podium building).

• Circulation Options: Two circulation approaches, a turnaround (cul-de-sac) option and a loop option, are considered for the western portion of the site, between Site 1 and Site

2. The cul-de-sac option provides one entry and exit point and reduces potential conflicts between vehicular traffic and pedestrians/cyclists. It also allows for more space along the Iron Horse Trail for sidewalks and landscaping. However, it has a smaller drop-off area and no commercial loading for businesses adjacent to the plaza. The loop option does have an on-site drop-off area and loading space for commercial and customer loading, but results in more paved area on the site (thereby reducing developable area), and a second driveway near the Iron Horse Trail could result in conflicts between motor vehicles and other modes of transit.

• Owens Drive Bicycle Lane Configurations: An off-street bicycle lane (located between the sidewalk and drop-off areas, adjacent to building frontages) or an on-street bicycle lane (located between vehicular traffic lanes and passenger drop-off zones) along Owens Drive is also considered. While the on-street bicycle lane would provide separation between bicyclists and pedestrians on the sidewalk, it would not provide separation between the bicycle lane and through traffic on Owens Drive. In contrast, an off-street bicycle lane would provide a separate space for bicyclists, offering fewer opportunities for conflicts with vehicular traffic, while also sharing the space with pedestrians and cyclists.

• Plaza: A new plaza, running parallel to the Iron Horse Trail would provide landscaping and open space for seating and gathering. The plaza is situated over easements that are not buildable due to utility lines that run through this area. Active uses would ideally be located in close proximity to the plaza to help increase pedestrian presence and encourage vitality.

• BART Rider Parking: As noted in this report, based on data collected in Spring 2025, approximately 51 percent of the 1,352 vehicular parking spaces on the Pleasanton side of the station are occupied on a regular basis. Using driver origin data, of the occupied spaces, about 250 spaces are taken by Pleasanton residents (approximately 18.5 percent of the total parking spaces). The Dublin side of the station also offers opportunities for vehicular parking, including dedicated BART surface and garage spaces, as well as additional spaces in a recently constructed (2024) Alameda County parking garage. Given the density of residential development and the space required on the site to accommodate parking for the housing units and any non-residential uses, BART rider parking will be reduced from the existing 1,352 surface spaces. BART policy also encourages and prioritizes non-vehicular modes of travel, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit/shuttle, paratransit, and rider pick-up and drop-off. Further evaluation and strategies to offset the loss of BART rider parking at the station are expected to be forthcoming as part of a focused analysis on parking management and station area access. BART, as the property owner and transit agency, will ultimately determine the appropriate amount of replacement parking to serve its riders, balancing consideration of the agency’s TOD policies and development objectives for the site.

With respect to parking, the reuse scenarios all assume some amount of BART rider parking on-site, but do not assign a target or total parking supply number. Instead, the scenarios include some flexibility through building design and phasing to accommodate

some amount of BART rider parking. As noted, separate grant-funded efforts are planned, including a Parking Management Study and a Station Access Study. Work on these studies will commence in early 2026 and is expected to take four to six months to complete. These studies will look holistically at parking supply (including shared, on- street, and off-site parking opportunities), overall parking management, and opportunities to improve multimodal access across a broader half-mile area around the station, including on the Dublin side, with the presumption that parking counts on the BART site itself will be reduced. Results and outcomes of the parking study will be reflected in the concept plan before it is finalized.

• Non-residential Uses: The site would principally consist of residential development, but it will also evaluate the range of potential non-residential uses that could be located on the site. Active uses, especially located adjacent to the plaza, would help to activate the area and contribute to the overall vitality and ambiance of the station. The market assessment and analysis indicate that these active uses could include local-serving retail or personal services. Other potential uses that are not currently found in North Pleasanton include educational facilities, community spaces or a public facility such as a self-serve library or flexible space. While generally not considered active use, a medical office could also be considered. Future planning and phasing of the project could indicate that non-residential uses should be constructed later in the market cycle, when support for other uses, such as a hotel, is more likely.

Work Session
Staff requests input and feedback from the City Council regarding these site development options. While the options are preliminary at this stage, feedback would be incorporated into a Concept Plan document to provide guidance for the site's development and facilitate BART issuing an RFP to develop it.

Discussion Question 1: Does the City Council have any comments regarding the site development scenarios (e.g., building height, maximum units)? Discussion Question 2: Does the City Council have any feedback on any of the other topics included in this report (e.g., plaza, non-residential uses, etc.)? Discussion Question 3: Is the City Council generally supportive of the concepts presented tonight?
Discussion Question 4: Does the City Council have any other feedback that it would like incorporated into the Concept Plan?

Schedule and Next Steps
The Concept Plan is intended to be completed by the end of 2026, such that the site re-use options have been vetted by the community and adopted by the City Council, and a second MOU with BART is in place and ready for future advancement to facilitate development of the site. When a developer is ready to commence development, the City and BART would continue to coordinate and complete additional analysis (e.g., further CEQA, if needed). As noted, as a separate but related near-term effort, the City will advance the analysis of parking management and station access planning for the half-mile radius around the BART station to complement the planning for the subject site with grant funding. The project team anticipates

coordinating this second effort to align with the Concept Plan for the BART site and will evaluate whether certain aspects of the Concept Plan can be deferred while the technical analysis associated with parking and station access is scoped and completed.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Equity and sustainability are both a strong focus of the BART Concept Plan, particularly the furtherance of investments in areas proximate to major transit stations, promoting decreased reliance on automobiles, and providing access to affordable housing opportunities.

OUTREACH
An email notification was sent to both interested parties and stakeholders regarding this meeting and the prior Planning Commission meeting, and the public workshop. Staff has also offered stakeholders the opportunity to meet regarding specific comments, questions, or concerns. A notice regarding this meeting was published in the Valley Times in accordance with noticing requirements. Public comments received prior to the publication of this agenda report have been included as Attachment 4 to this report.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Completion of the BART Concept Plan is supportive of the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Building a Community where Everyone Belongs - Strategy 6 to implement the Housing Element, since the effort will support the Housing Element program around redevelopment of the east Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Shweta Bonn, Senior
Planner
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Site Re-Use Options Memorandum, dated October 9, 2025

2. Attachment 2 - BART Memo

3. Attachment 3 - Goals and Objectives

4. Attachment 4 - BCP Public Comments - City Council - November 18, 2025

5. Attachment 5 - Presentation - City Council - November 18, 2025

Pleasanton BART Station Concept Plan
Site Re-Use Options
Memorandum

FINAL MEMO
10/09/2025
ATTACHMENT 1

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

2 Contents

1. Objective and Document Structure ........................................................................................ 3

2. Site Circulation ...................................................................................................................... 4 a. Vehicle Access to Station: Alternatives ................................................................................. 4 i. Access Option A-1: Turnaround .................................................................................... 5 ii. Access Option A-2: Loop ............................................................................................... 6 iii. Comparison between options ........................................................................................ 7 b. Bicycle Circulation Alternatives ............................................................................................. 8 i. Option B-1: Bike Lane Class II “On-Street” Configuration ............................................. 8 ii. Option B-2: Protected Bike Lane “Off-Street” Configuration ......................................... 8 iii. Comparison between options ........................................................................................ 9

3. BART Rider Parking ............................................................................................................ 10 a. BART Rider Parking Location .............................................................................................. 10 b. BART Rider Parking Amount and Upcoming Study............................................................. 11

4. Development Capacity ........................................................................................................ 12 a. Development Sites .............................................................................................................. 12 b. Holding Capacity ................................................................................................................. 13 i. Option C-1 ................................................................................................................... 13 i. Option C-2 ................................................................................................................... 13

5. Test Fits ............................................................................................................................... 14 a. Building Types ..................................................................................................................... 14 b. Test Fit Options ................................................................................................................... 15 i. Option TF-1 ................................................................................................................. 15 ii. Option TF-2 ................................................................................................................. 18 iii. Summary of Test Fit Options ....................................................................................... 21 c. Non-residential uses ............................................................................................................ 22

6. Phasing ................................................................................................................................ 23 Considerations: .................................................................................................................... 23 ii. Scenario P-1................................................................................................................ 24 iii. Scenario P-2................................................................................................................ 25 iv. Scenario P-3: All Podium Buildings ............................................................................. 25 v. Summary of Phasing Scenarios .................................................................................. 26

7. Conclusion and Next Steps ................................................................................................. 26

8. Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 28 a. Case studies of transit-oriented development at other BART stations ................................ 28

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

3 1. Objective and Document Structure

The draft Site Reuse Option Memorandum presents multiple options for reuse of the Pleasanton BART site by identifying conceptual blocks (or development sites), a circulation framework, open spaces, BART station access, and vehicle and bicycle parking.

These options also define a generalized development program, primarily focused on residential development (with the potential for affordable housing), but also including complementary non- residential uses, informed by BART and City requirements and by the market study. This memo also addresses development types and densities and overall holding capacity to be anticipated for future development.

This memorandum is prepared for City and BART leadership, as well as for the public.

Three main concerns were identified during the concept design process:
• Site Circulation
• Development Capacity
• BART Rider Parking Location

Additionally, the following salient issues are also addressed here:
• Building Types
• Non-residential uses

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

4 2. Site Circulation

The preliminary design concepts explore two key distinctions in site circulation:
a. A turnaround layout versus a loop layout for vehicle access on the west side of the BART station, and
b. Off-street versus on-street configurations for the existing bicycle lane on Owens Drive along the BART station frontage, which also connects to the Iron Horse trail that goes through the station.

Each option reflects different approaches to internal circulation, mode separation, and interaction with future development sites. The selection of the vehicular circulation layout and the bicycle lane configuration are independent of each other and can be combined depending on the overall site design. However, the preferences of BART and/or City staff indicated during the concept design process are noted in the sections below.

Figure 2-1: The four proposed development sites.
a. Vehicle Access to Station: Alternatives
The existing passenger loading area on the Pleasanton side of the BART station provides about 350 feet of curbside loading space with the first 150 feet designated for taxis and the remainder designated as passenger drop-off zone, including 40 feet of accessible curb space nearest to the station entrance. A reduction in BART rider parking in the future may lead to an increased requirement for the curb length dedicated to passenger loading. This analysis will be part of a future study.

Two configurations for vehicular access to accommodate passenger loading within the station are under consideration, which are described below. In accordance with BART policy and priority, both options prioritize accessible drop-offs (with clear signage) close to the station entry for convenient access. The Americans with Disabilities (ADA) standards require at least one accessible passenger loading zone to be provided for every continuous 100 linear feet of passenger loading zone (or fraction thereof). Both configurations would also accommodate curbside drop-off areas on Owens Drive along the BART station frontage on one or both sides of the Iron Horse trail. The corresponding curb length is indicated in each option below.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

5 Along with right-sized passenger loading, the new street frontage would also incorporate residential loading, rideshare pick-up/drop-off areas, and commercial loading (such as those for delivery vehicles) as required by City of Pleasanton standards. Any remaining curb space may become short-term street parking.

Both options also maintain the existing circulation on the north and eastern portions of the site, with potential reduction in lanes in the east access street if all modal circulation needs are met.

This circulation will continue to be used by buses and service vehicles. It is necessary to maintain this circulation as it provides the necessary connection to the Dublin side of the BART station, as well as providing maintenance access to the Hewlett Canal running north of the project site and BART’s Traction Power Sub Station. Garage access for residential parking of the new developments on Sites 3 and 4 may be provided at the rear of these sites from this road.

In both options, a continuous sidewalk along Owens Drive provides pedestrian access to the site. A central plaza and pathways around each building provide pedestrian connection through the site. The plaza also leads towards the entry to the BART station.

Please note that while graphics below show the turnaround with the 4-parcel configuration and the loop with a 3-parcel configuration, either vehicle access alternative can work with either parcel configuration. The key difference is that the loop option reduces the developable area of Site 2.

i. Access Option A-1: Turnaround
Figure 2-2: Turnaround option for vehicular access.

The Turnaround option provides all internal BART rider pick-up and drop-off (also known as passenger loading) via a single entry/exit point and turning area (similar to a “cul-de-sac”). This offers a more compact footprint and consolidates drop-off activity near the station entrance along the extension of Willow Road between Sites 1 and 2. One pedestrian crossing will be needed along the Owens Drive frontage at the Willow Road intersection.

The Turnaround configuration provides up to 300 feet of curb length for passenger pick-up and drop-off within the station. With a width of 26 feet, the roadway at the turnaround can accommodate the required 13-foot-wide accessible passenger loading area on the right side of the roadway while providing one lane for circulation. This accessible passenger loading area includes a 5-foot-wide minimum access aisle and 8-foot-wide minimum vehicle pull-up space.

The Turnaround configuration could provide a total of up to 1,170 feet of curb length along the Owens Drive street frontage. As shown in Figure 2-2, this could be used to accommodate BART rider loading in front of Sites 2 and 3, with the rest used for residential and commercial loading

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

6 needs. An additional 130 feet of residential loading area is shown along the western edge of Site 2. All loading needs are subject to further analysis.

The cul-de-sac also provides service (such as trash collection) and fire department access to the rear/side of Sites 1 and 2. This option does not show direct vehicular access for potential plaza-facing retail or commercial space at Site 2, such as for deliveries. Commercial loading space needed for these uses could be located along Owens Drive, or the design could be refined to accommodate limited vehicle access onto the plaza.

In the Turnaround option, the BART rider parking garage is shown on Site 1. In that case, the primary access to the BART rider parking garage would be from Owens Drive at the west end of Site 1. An alternative for BART rider parking is to locate it on Site 4 on the east side of the station, with access along the north side of Site 4 from the BART station roadway.

ii. Access Option A-2: Loop

Figure 2-3: Loop option for vehicular access.

This option would introduce a two-way internal loop road with one driveway along the extension of Willow Road and a new driveway on Owens Drive just west of the Iron Horse trail, providing service and fire department access around Site 2 and at the rear of Site 1. Both driveways would accommodate entrances and exits, which would allow drop-offs to occur closer to the station entrance. The new driveway on Owens Drive just west of the Iron Horse trail would be limited to right turns in and out only. Two pedestrian crossings will be needed along the Owens Drive frontage- one at either end of the loop.

The Loop configuration provides up to 760 feet of curb length for passenger pick-up and drop- off within the station. This configuration could also provide a total of up to 1,190 feet of curb length along the Owens Drive street frontage. As shown in Figure 2-3, this could be used to accommodate BART rider loading in front of Sites 2, with the rest used for residential and commercial loading needs. All loading needs are subject to further analysis.

In the Loop option, potential plaza-facing retail or commercial space at Site 2 would be provided with direct vehicular access, such as for deliveries.

In contrast to the Turnaround Configuration, this configuration shows the BART rider parking garage on Site 3 with access along the north side of the garage on the BART station roadway.

Alternatively, the BART rider parking could be located on Site 1 with access from Owens Drive.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

7 iii. Comparison between options
The table below summarizes the main advantages and disadvantages of each alternative in terms of access and circulation:

Vehicle Access Alternatives
Option Advantages Disadvantages
Option A-1:

Turnaround
(Cul-de-sac)
• One entry/exit point simplifies
circulation and reduces conflict
points between motor vehicles and
pedestrians and cyclists
• More space along the Iron Horse
trail for sidewalks and landscaping
• Smaller on-site drop-off area
• Higher potential for queues to spill
back onto Owens Drive
• No commercial or customer loading
for potential plaza-facing retail at
Site 2.

Option A-2:

Loop
• Drop-off area closer to the station
entrance
• Larger on-site drop-off area
• Commercial and customer loading
for potential plaza-facing retail at
Site 2.
• Second driveway near Iron Horse
trail crossing introduces new conflict
points between motor vehicles and
pedestrians and cyclists
• Larger paved area

The turnaround option is preferred by City staff to reduce traffic and relieve congestion at the Willow Road / Owens Drive intersection, as well as at the BART access point. BART staff also prefer this option as it minimizes the circulation area on site and allows for drop-offs along Owens Drive on each side of the Iron Horse trail, making it more convenient for most pick-ups and drop-offs, but would expect it to be refined to provide direct vehicular access for any plaza- facing retail uses.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

8 b. Bicycle Circulation Alternatives
Two options were developed for the configuration of the bicycle lane on Owens Drive—retain the class II design (bike lane located between the travel lane and drop-off zone) or create a class IV protected bike lane (bicycle lane located between the sidewalk and drop-off zone).

i. Option B-1: Bike Lane Class II “On-Street” Configuration

Figure 2-4: "On-Street" configuration for bike lane along Owens Drive with circulation option A-1.

Figure 2-5: "On-Street" configuration for bike lane along Owens Drive with circulation option A-2.

This configuration places the bicycle lane between the travel lane and the passenger drop-off zones, creating separation between cyclists and pedestrians. This configuration also delineates the BART drop-off zone by establishing a dedicated drop-off lane and an access lane, with a six-foot-wide median separating the drop-off zone from the bike lane and the motor vehicles lanes on Owens Drive.

ii. Option B-2: Protected Bike Lane “Off-Street” Configuration

Figure 2-6: "Off-Street" configuration for bike lane along Owens Drive with circulation option A-1.

Figure 2-7: "Off-Street" configuration for bike lane along Owens Drive with circulation option A-2.

This configuration creates a protected bike lane by placing the bicycle lane between the sidewalk and drop-off zones. This layout provides separation between bicycle and vehicle traffic. In this configuration, passengers would be dropped off curbside with a drop-off lane

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

9 separating them from the moving traffic on Owens Drive. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 show a 10-foot- wide curbside area for passenger drop-off (measured from the face of curb to the bike lane).

Figure 2-8: Examples of off-street bike lanes, landscape buffers and sidewalk condition.

iii. Comparison between options
The table below summarizes the main advantages and disadvantages of each alternative:

Bicycle Circulation Alternatives
Option Advantages Disadvantages
Option B-1:

Class II “On-Street”
Bike Lane
• Separation between pedestrians and
cyclists
• Separation between drop-off activity
and through traffic on Owens Drive
• No separation between the bicycle
lane and through traffic on Owens
Drive
• Increased conflict between vehicles
entering and existing drop-off areas
and bicycles along Owens Drive
Option B-2:

Protected “Off-
Street” Bike Lane
• Fewer conflict points between motor
vehicles and cyclists
• Increased level of comfort for
bicyclists
• Potential conflicts between
pedestrians and cyclists

Option B2, the protected off-street bike lane configuration, is the alternative preferred by the City Traffic Engineering Division and BART staff as it results in fewer points of conflict between vehicles and bicyclists and will provide a more comfortable biking experience along this stretch of Owens Drive.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

10 3. BART Rider Parking

BART policy prioritizes pedestrian, bicycle, transit/shuttle and paratransit, and passenger pick up/drop off access to stations over driving and parking. The location and provision of replacement BART rider parking at TOD sites is contingent on design tradeoffs, funding availability and optimizing land lease values.

Given current regional, local and BART policies to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to maximize housing, as well as reduced parking demand due to post-pandemic remote work trends, there will be less parking at the station in the future.

Based on Fehr and Peers’ preliminary high-level station parking analysis, Pleasanton residents use approximately 250 spaces on the Pleasanton side on a regular basis. The Dublin side BART rider parking garage's occupancy is around 60% and provides convenient access for those riders coming from 580 and the north. BART rider parking. The recently constructed County parking garage on the Dublin side (Dublin Transit Center Garage) is currently underutilized, and could be explored as a potential option for BART rider parking.

a. BART Rider Parking Location

The Site Re-Use Options locate BART rider parking on either Site 1 or Site 3/4.

Figure 3-1: Potential locations for future BART rider parking, and location of BART and County garages on the Dublin side.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

11 b. BART Rider Parking Amount and Upcoming Study
A station access planning and parking management study will be conducted prior to BART releasing its developer Request for Proposals. That study is slated to begin soon, and will include parking analysis to determine the maximum level of on-site BART rider parking to be provided in the TOD. The analysis will consider many factors including:
• Current access patterns and options (how people have historically gotten to the station)
• Station access alternatives to driving and parking on-site • The availability of existing or future off-site parking opportunities o this will include parking resources on both sides of the station as well as in the area, including the West Dublin/Pleasanton station
• BART policy prioritizing pedestrian, bicycle and transit access to stations over private auto access and parking.
• Potential increase in ridership and consequent increase in parking demand at the station
• Potential future increases in BART rider parking rates. • Effects of implementation of the Valley Link project
o If a new station is built at Pleasanton, it is likely to reduce the number of people driving in from areas further east as they will be able to take Valley Link and transfer here to BART.
• Cost of funding BART commuter parking.
o The analysis will provide a maximum parking amount, subject to available funding. BART policy prohibits putting this burden on a future developer.

The development framework that will result from this planning effort will be flexible to reflect that the amount of BART rider parking has not yet been determined.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

12 4. Development Capacity
a. Development Sites1
The project site currently consists of two sites, with a gross area of 14.9 acres and a net area of

11.34 acres excluding easement areas. The site is located in the City of Pleasanton’s “Planned Unit Development Mixed Use (PUD- MU)/Housing Opportunity Zone (HOZ)” district. As per BART's TOD Guidelines, the site’s TOD Place Type is “Neighborhood/Town Center.” BART’s TOD Zoning standards and Assembly Bill 2923 (2018) set the following standards for zoning of the site:
• Minimum allowable residential density: 75 dwelling units per acre • Minimum allowable height: five stories
• Minimum allowable FAR: 3.00

The overall site may be developed as three to four distinct sites/developments with the central area (encompassing the Iron Horse trail), envisioned as a plaza. The gross site area for each prospective site is shown in the diagram below.

Figure 4-1: Project site divided into four prospective development sites.

1 Please note that the parcels and areas shown only conceptual. The project site currently exists as two parcels (Sites 1+2+Plaza and Sites 3+4).

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

13 b. Holding Capacity
i. Option C-1: Four Sites, Five to Seven Stories Tall, up to 1,088 units This option divides the site into four sites ranging in size from ~2.35 to 4.25 acres. Sites 3 and 4 are imagined as separate buildings with a mews in the middle. Sites 1 and 2 are shown at five stories tall while Sites 3 and 4 comprise seven stories. The total number of units ranges from 870-1,088 (assuming an average unit area of 800-1,000 SF per unit). BART rider parking is assumed to be located within the westernmost building.

Figure 4-2: Holding capacity study across 4 Sites.

i. Option C-2: Three Sites, Five to Seven Stories Tall, up to 1,309 units This option divides the site into three sites with the two on the west being roughly similar to the first option. The east side, however, is imagined as one large development with site area ~7.98 acres. Sites 1 and 2 are shown at seven stories tall while in the base option, Site 3-4 has five stories. The total number of units shown in the base option ranges from 818-1,023 (assuming an average unit area of 800-1,000 SF per unit). BART rider parking is assumed to be located within the building to the east of the plaza.

An alternative for Site 3 shows the maximum buildout at eight stories with a total of 1,047-1,309 units.

Figure 4-3: Holding capacity study across 3 Sites.

TOTAL NEW HOMES:
870-1,088
Density: 58-77 units
per acre
Parking ratio: 0.82-1
space per unit
Base option
(anticipated holding
capacity)

TOTAL NEW HOMES: 818-
1,023

Density: ~75 units per acre
Parking ratio: 0.82-1 space
per unit
Max holding capacity
TOTAL NEW APARTMENT HOMES:
1,047-1,309
Density: 75-92 units per acre
Parking ratio: 0.78-0.97 spaces per unit

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

14 5. Test Fits
a. Building Types
The following building types are best suited for development on this site:

i. Seven to Eight-Story Podium Building
(5-over-2 or 5-over-3)
Commonly used in multifamily residential,
this building type consists of five stories of
wood-framed Type 3A residential on top of
two to three concrete levels of Type 1 podium
parking. The podium levels may also include
an exterior liner of apartments and/or stoop-
style residential units, as well as residential
common areas, commercial uses and utility
spaces on the ground floor.

While these buildings are allowed to be up to
85 feet tall per the California Building Code,
they must adhere to a 75 foot life safety limit
(i.e. the floor level of the topmost residential
floor must be less than 75 feet). This limits the
floor-to-floor heights to eight stories. Podium
buildings usually have a courtyard at the top
of the podium which provides a shared open
space for residents.

ii. Five to Eight-Story Wrap Building
This building type typically consists of a
central concrete parking structure “wrapped”
by five to eight stories of wood-framed
residential (usually in the form of a residential
liner with a single-loaded corridor). The
residential is usually one or more stories taller
than the parking levels. The ground floor may
be mixed-use with both residential (homes
and/or common areas) as well as commercial
uses.

iii. Five to Six-Story Courtyard Building
Also Type 3A construction, this building type
consists of 5 stories of wood-framed Type 3A
residential with limited or no parking. The
ground floor may be mixed-use with a
combination of residential (homes and/or
common areas) as well as commercial uses.

This building type also includes an at-grade
courtyard. Alternatively, the entire ground floor
could be Type 1 and commercial, with five
stories of Type 3A residential above.

Figure 5-1: Typical section of an 8-story podium building with 2-3 levels of parking.

Figure 5-2: Typical section of a 5-story wrap building.

Figure 5-4: Typical section of a 5-story courtyard building.

Figure 5-3: Typical section of an 8-story wrap building.

Figure 5-5: Typical section of a 6-story courtyard building.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

15 b. Test Fit Options2
i. Option TF-1

Figure 5-6: Test fit option TF-1 with wrap building and BART and residential parking on Site 1.

Figure 5-7: Articulated 3D massing of test option TF-1.

2 The diagrams in this section show the turnaround option for vehicular access in test fit option 01 and the loop option in test fit option 02. This is only to illustrate how these different circulation options may work with either test fit. The test fits are otherwise independent of the vehicular access option.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

16 • SITE 1:

Five-story Wrap Building with BART rider parking
Depending on the final amount of BART rider parking, as determined by BART, the number of levels in the garage dedicated to BART rider parking can vary.

Figure 5-8: Floor plans showing a wrap building on Site 1.

• SITE 2:

One or Two Five-story Courtyard Buildings
All residential parking required for this Site would be located in the Site 1 building. One or both of these buildings could be standalone affordable housing developments. This Site could have retail or other non-residential uses along the Iron Horse trail plaza and/or Owens Drive as desired. This building could also include a childcare use on the ground floor.

Figure 5-9: Floor plans showing a courtyard building on Site 2.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

17 • SITE 3:

Seven-story podium building
This would have five stories of residential over two levels of podium parking for residents, with a courtyard at the third floor. This building could also have retail or other non-residential uses along the Iron Horse trail plaza.

Figure 5-10: Floor plans showing a podium building on Site 3.

• SITE 4:

Seven-story podium building
This would have five stories of residential over two levels of podium parking for residents, with a courtyard at the third floor. A mews between the buildings on Sites 3 and 4 could provide additional outdoor space.

Figure 5-11: Floor plans showing a podium building on Site 4.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

18 ii. Option TF-2

Figure 5-12: Test fit option with wrap building and BART and residential parking on Site 3.

Base totals show the Site 3 building at five stories, while the alternative totals reflect a “maximized” eight-story version.

Figure 5-13: Articulated 3D massing of test option TF-2.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

19 • SITE 1:

Seven-story podium building
This would have five stories of residential over two levels of podium parking for residents, with a courtyard at the third floor.

Figure 5-14: Floor plans showing a podium building on Site 1.

• SITE 2:

Seven-story podium building
This would have five stories of residential over two levels of podium parking for residents, with a courtyard at the third floor. This building could also have retail or other non-residential uses along the Iron Horse trail plaza and/or Owens Drive.

Figure 5-15: Floor plans showing a podium building on Site 2.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

20 • SITE 3:

Five-story Wrap Building with BART and residential parking This is a wrap building with a central four-story garage and two five-story “wings” on either side with at-grade courtyards. Alternatively, this has also been studied as an eight- story wrap building with a five-story central garage, a “max buildout” scenario.

Depending on the final BART amount of parking, as determined by BART, the number of levels in the garage dedicated to BART rider parking can vary.

Figure 5-16: Floor plans showing a wrap building on the larger Site 3/4.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

21 iii. Summary of Test Fit Options

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

22 c. Non-residential uses
Based on market assessment, this development would
potentially be primarily residential, with complementary ground floor active uses in some of the buildings.

Active uses could include local-serving retail or
services, educational facilities, community space or
public facility such as a library, flex space, and/or
medical offices. 6,000-7,000 SF of retail is currently
shown in the test fits on Sites 2 and 3. While the
location of this commercial space can be flexible, it
should be used to activate the new plaza around the
Iron Horse trail first and secondarily the Owens Drive
frontage.

Another scenario laid out in the market assessment is a phased strategy that allows for the possibility of
developing one of the sites with a commercial or
institutional use at a later stage in the market cycle.

The non-residential building could be an educational
facility or part of a mixed-use office, or there could be support for a hotel, depending on how market
conditions evolve.

While reserving a whole site for non-residential use might lead to a substantial drop in the amount of housing the site could deliver, it may be possible to instead provide just one whole floor of non-residential use on a single site. For instance, in Site 2, this would yield approximately 35,000 square feet of non-residential use at the ground floor with a loss of only 25 units.

Site 3

Site 2
Site 2

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

23 6. Phasing

The phasing for development on the Pleasanton BART station property is somewhat flexible as there are multiple potential areas which could be defined as individual phases of development.

There are a few strategies which inform the final phasing.

Considerations:

1. Whether any BART rider parking is maintained on the site and the location of the parking may impact the phasing. If BART rider parking is to be provided, the funding for that may take extended time, thus that location/site may need to go later in the phasing to allow time to secure funding. However, any new BART rider parking would need to be built prior to the final phase of development, since per BART policy, the overall parking number on site may not dip below the final parking number.

2. If BART rider parking is located on Site 1 and built in the initial phase, it would free up the remaining property for development, including Site 2 which fronts the station.

3. The largest eastern Site (3/4) is large enough to be a single development or multiple developments.

4. If Sites 1 and 2 are developed first as a combined development (with or without BART rider parking), it would make an immediate positive impact on the user experience for BART patrons by implementing the new circulation, accessible drop-offs, and Owens Drive frontage improvements. Developing Sites 2 and 3 first would similarly result in an immediate positive impact with the new plaza and drop-offs along Owens Drive.

Applying these considerations to the test fits and phasing strategies, three fundamental scenarios have been developed:

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

24 ii. Scenario P-1
• Phase 1:
- Site 1 with wrap garage with BART rider parking as well as residential parking for Sites 1 and 2.
- Site 2 with one or two mixed-use buildings (residential & retail/commercial) and no parking.
• Phase 2:
- Site 3 with one or two buildings and podium parking and residential potentially with retail. This could also include Site 4 with podium or wrap garage. • Phase 3:
- Site 4 with a podium building, similar to Site 3.

Figure 6-1: Phasing scenario P-1A.

Figure 6-2: Phasing scenario P-1B.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

25 iii. Scenario P-2
• Phase 1: Site 3 and 4 combined as a wrap garage residential development, potentially with retail and BART rider parking.
• Phase 2: Site 1 as a wrap or podium with residential
• Phase 3: Site 2 as a podium mixed-use building with a small amount of retail or commercial uses along the Iron Horse trail plaza.

Note: If in Phase 2 (Site 1) is a wrap building with or without BART rider parking, then Phase 3 (Site 2) would be one or two five-to-six-story mixed use buildings with five or more of residential levels.

Figure 6-3: Phasing scenario P-2

iv. Scenario P-3: All Podium Buildings
• All 4 sites would be phased as desired with each development primarily residential with its own parking. Site 2 would have some retail / commercial uses. Each development would be approximately 250+ units and sites 3 and 4 could be smaller buildings if the parking ratio desired is substantially less than 1:1. While the location of BART rider parking is shown on Site 1, it could also be located on Site 4.

The order of phasing of the sites is generally flexible.

Figure 6-4: Phasing scenario P-3

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

26 v. Summary of Phasing Scenarios

7. Conclusion and Next Steps

This memo presents a variety of likely scenarios for future development on this site by identifying conceptual development sites, circulation frameworks, public and private open spaces, BART station access, vehicular and bicycle parking, as well as improvements to the Owens Drive street frontage. It provides the City and BART with a toolkit of building types for each of the sites. These do not aim to be prescriptive – rather, they allow for mixing and matching based on the below considerations:

• Program: While the development is likely to be primarily residential, the size and type of non-residential uses is yet to be determined. Related parking and access requirements will need to be determined in the future.
• Replacement BART rider parking: This number will be determined as the result of a future parking study. This parking study will evaluate the amount of parking needed given the parking resources on both sides of the station and other factors. The development framework that will result from this planning effort will be flexible to allow a range of parking.
• Vehicle access alternatives: A turnaround option and a loop option are shown. While each has pros and cons, the ultimately viable option will be the one that best supports creating a station area that is both inviting and efficient for all users and development program.
• Bicycle circulation alternatives: Two approaches were studied and the option best suited for this site will be determined by City staff in the future. • Holding capacities and building types: This memo explores two likely alternatives for this. The building types and final number of units will be determined once a developer team is selected for this site.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

27 The goal of this memo is to inform a variety of stakeholders and decision makers and to garner their feedback, which will then be used to inform a robust development framework. Refinement of these options will help outline development goals and project characteristics that will be included in BART’s future developer solicitation for the site.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

28 8. Appendix

a. Case studies of transit-oriented development at other BART stations

BART defined transit-oriented development (TOD) as well-designed, mixed-use, higher-density development adjacent to frequent transit. Over the years, BART has completed 22 TOD projects, with one currently in construction and nine in predevelopment. This memo highlights a few of these relevant projects in this section. The following common themes and features have been identified, which may provide valuable lessons for this planning exercise:

• Open spaces in the form of plazas and paseos activated by adjacent commercial spaces • A mix of housing types, retail, dining, and services
• Better walking & biking environment and improved transit access • New streetscapes and drop-off zones

Figure 8-2: Proposed apartments at El Cerrito Plaza BART, breaking ground in 2026.

Figure 8-1: Apartments with retail, dining, & paseo at Walnut Creek BART, completed 2023.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

29 i. Pleasant Hill BART TOD

In 2008, the first phase of the
Contra Costa Centre Transit Village
was completed, providing 422 rental
housing units (20% affordable), over
35,000 square feet of retail, a
replacement parking garage, and a
new bus transfer hub. In 2020, the
second phase delivered an
additional 200 units of market-rate
rental housing and 2,300 square
feet retail. The third and final phase
is in predevelopment.

Prior to the addition of the transit
village, the site had 3,407 BART
rider parking spaces. The current
number is 2,864.

Figure 8-4: Aerial view of the Pleasant Hill BART TOD.

Figure 8-3: BART Plaza and mixed-use residential buildings at Pleasant Hill BART.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

30 ii. Walnut Creek BART TOD

The first two phases of TOD at Walnut
Creek BART station were completed in
2022. This development has strong direct
diagonal walks to BART and a small open
space at the station entry. Once fully
complete, the transit village will comprise
about 600 market-rate homes and 27,000
sq. ft. of retail. Here the existing BART
garage was retained and supplemented
with an additional, privately operated
garage, while the surface parking area
has been redeveloped.

Prior to this development, the site had
2,089 BART rider parking spaces. The
current number is 1,244, not including the
private garage.

Figure 8-6: Aerial view of the Walnut Creek BART TOD.

Figure 8-5: Phase 2 mixed-use residential building and paseo at Walnut Creek transit village.

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

31 iii. North Berkeley BART TOD

This TOD project is in
development and is anticipated
to break ground in 2026. The
TOD will includes 750 homes (of
which 52% will be affordable), a
small amount of retail space, a
childcare center, a bike station,
and a large diagonal plaza.

Currently the site has 620 BART
rider parking spaces, while the
future development will have
120 spaces in a wrap-building
garage and will retain an
additional 80 spaces in an
auxiliary lot.

Figure 8-8: North Berkeley BART TOD Siteplan.

Figure 8-7: Proposed bike path, drop-offs and station access.

Site Area: 7.3 Acres
Residential: 750
units, 52% affordable
Retail: ~6,500 square
feet (including childcare
center)

Pleasanton BART October 9, 2025
Site Re-Use Options Memorandum

32 iv. El Cerrito Plaza BART TOD

The City approved the master plan
for this TOD project, and the first
building is expected to break
ground in November 2025. This
development plan includes 743
housing units, a small amount of
commercial space (e.g., a café), a
bike station, and a library.

Currently the site has 740 BART
rider parking spaces, while the
future development will have 145
spaces in one level of a podium
garage.

Figure 8-10: El Cerrito Plaza BART TOD Site plan.

Figure 8-9: Aerial rendering showing the proposed plaza and buildings.

PLEASANTON BART STATION CONCEPT PLAN
Existing Physical Site Conditions
Opportunities and Constraints
Evaluation

FINAL MEMO
10/16/2025

FINAL DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 2

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

2 Contents

1. Physical Site Conditions......................................................................................................................... 3 a. General description ................................................................................................................................ 3 b. Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station ........................................................................................................... 4 c. Project Area Context .............................................................................................................................. 4

2. Engineering Due Diligence Report Summary ....................................................................................... 6

3. Access and Circulation Report Summary ............................................................................................ 7 a. Site and Station Access ......................................................................................................................... 7 b. BART Rider Parking .............................................................................................................................. 8 c. Planned Infrastructure Improvements .................................................................................................... 9 d. Regulatory and Planning Context ........................................................................................................ 11

4. BART’s Basis of Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 14

5. Development Opportunities & Constraints ......................................................................................... 18 a. Development potential of the Site ........................................................................................................ 18 b. Owens Dr Street Frontage ................................................................................................................... 19 c. Access to adjacent canals ................................................................................................................... 19 d. Kinder Morgan Gas Line ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. e. Planned infrastructure improvements .................................................................................................. 20 f. Proximity to Freeway ........................................................................................................................... 19 g. Adjacent Housing development ........................................................................................................... 20 h. Other proposed projects nearby .......................................................................................................... 21

6. Key Takeaways ...................................................................................................................................... 22 a. Determining project density and affordability ....................................................................................... 22 b. Determining development and BART rider parking requirements ....................................................... 22 c. Site Circulation ..................................................................................................................................... 22

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

3 1. Physical Site Conditions

a. General description

The project site comprises two parcels of land located along Owens Drive, immediately to the south of Interstate-580 and the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The gross site area of the overall project site is 14.9 acres The parcel to the west (labelled “West Parcel” in the image below) is 6.93 acres, while the one to the east (“East Parcel” in the image below) is 7.97 acres.

The overall site measures approximately 1,920 feet in length, while the width varies between approximately 300’ on the western property line to about 410 feet along the eastern property line. This memo refers to these two parcels APN 941-2771-15 and 941-2778-2 as the “West Parcel” and “East Parcel” respectively.

The site is currently owned by BART and provides surface parking and access to the BART station and through access to Dublin to the north. It is currently configured into four parking lots (with a total of 1,352 BART rider parking spaces) that distinguish between Reserved and Daily Fee vehicular parking. The site is also diagonally bisected by a segment of the Iron Horse Regional Trail, a pedestrian and bicycle trail extending approximately 32 miles between Concord and Pleasanton.

The project site has primary street frontage along Owens Drive and includes an access road that loops along the east and partially along the north of the site. This road turns into a bus-only access road that connects to the Dublin side of the transit station via an underpass. The site also has internal drive-aisles to facilitate vehicular drop-offs close to the station and access to parking areas. The Owens Drive frontage also includes an existing bike lane.

The site also includes a covered pedestrian walkway with multiple bus stops (mostly disused) along the north side, and a triangular central plaza with vacant retail kiosks near the entrance of the station.

Figure 1-1: Basemap showing existing conditions
DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

4 b. Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station

The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is located immediately north of the project site, on the border of Dublin and Pleasanton. It is the eastern terminus of the Blue Line and a major bus terminal served by six providers. The station itself is in the form of an island platform located in the center median of the elevated Interstate 580. The fare lobby is located under the platform and access to the station itself is via the underpass under I-580.

With a typical weekday ridership of ~3,000 in 2024, this station has experienced a 61% decline in ridership from 2019 to 2024.

c. Project Area Context

The project site is adjacent to the Chabot Canal to the west and the Hewlett Canal to the north.

Most of the surrounding development is zoned PUD-Industrial/Commercial-Offices and as such, consists of two- to five-story office buildings with large parking structures and surface parking lots, such as the five-story Oracle campus east of the site and the Kaiser offices to the southeast. A notable exception is the Galloway Apartments (zoned PUD-Mixed Use, same as the project site), a multifamily residential project directly to the south, across Owens Dr.

In addition to BART facilities and rider parking, the Dublin side of the BART station (further north of the project site) has seen a spur of transit-oriented development over the past few years.

Most of this development has been multifamily or mixed-use residential from three to seven stories.

Figure 1-2: Context map showing zoning
DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

5 Based on Walk Score data, the project site has the following scores:
• Walk score 40/100: Car-dependent, as most errands in this area require a car. The average walk score for the city is 42.
• Transit score 54/100: Good transit, as there are many nearby public transportation options. • Bike score 76/100: Very bikeable, as biking is a convenient option for most trips.

The following amenities are located in the vicinity:

• Retail
o The closest convenience store is approximately 0.5 miles west at Owens Dr and Hopyard Rd, while the closest full-service grocery store is approximately 0.7 miles west along Owens Dr (between Hopyard Rd and Johnson Dr).
o The closest department store and pharmacy is about 0.6 miles east at Owens Dr and Hacienda Dr.
o The closest shopping center is approximately 0.7 miles west along Owens Dr, while the nearest movie theater is 1.1 miles northeast in Dublin. o There is also a gym less than 0.4 miles south of the site.

• Medical
o The nearest urgent care facility is about 0.5 miles west on Owens Dr o The nearest hospital is approximately 1.2 miles southeast at Owens Dr and W Las Positas Blvd.

• Educational (preK-12)
o Multiple local preschools 0.7-0.8 miles south of the site o Closest elementary school is ~0.9 miles south
o Closest middle school is ~0.9 miles west
o Two high schools are located ~3 miles south

• Houses of Worship
o Multiple churches approximately 1 mile from the site
o The closest mosque is ~1.6 miles south
o The nearest Hindu temple is ~2 miles northwest in Dublin o The closest synagogue is ~2 miles south
o The nearest Gurudwara is ~8.2 miles east in Livermore o The closest Buddhist temple is ~12 miles northwest in Castro Valley

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

6 2. Engineering Due Diligence Report Summary

The Due Diligence Report prepared by BKF Engineers is included in the appendix section of this document (Section 7.a.). This report analyzes the existing physical site conditions including site elevations, important title information such as the location of easements, flood zone review, and existing utilities.

Below is a summary of findings from this report:
• The project site is mostly paved with asphalt and includes minor landscaping. An enclosure at the northeast corner of the site houses BART's gap breaker station as well as three service parking spaces.
• The site is relatively flat, with average slopes of about two to three percent. The title report for the sites includes information on various easements, most notably a 100-foot easement for gas utility running along the middle of the overall site and a 33-foot public service easement along Owens Dr. The easement exhibit is included in the BKF report. • Primary fire access to the site will be from Owens Dr. Secondary fire access will be required from fire lanes within the site.
• The site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. The two adjacent canals are located in floodway areas, and must be kept free of any encroachment.

The finished floor elevation of any future buildings should be located above the base flood elevation of the adjacent canals.
• There is a 16-inch DIPS (ductile iron pipe) water main in Owens Dr. and an existing 10-inch DIP water main that runs north-south through the site. An existing 16-inch DIP water service enters the site on the west side, and an existing 10-inch DIP water service enters the site on the east. There is also a 24”-diameter Zone 7-owned pipe that runs through the site along the alignment of the Iron Horse trail.
• There are four existing fire hydrants along Owens Dr. frontage and one within the property near the retail kiosks.
• There is a six-inch recycled water pipe extending into the southeast corner of the site along Owens Dr. Any future development should anticipate extending this six-inch line from Willow and Owens to create a looped system.
• There is an eight-inch VCPS (vitrified clay pipe) sewer main is located in Owens Dr west of Willow Rd, and a 12-inch VCP sewer main is located in Owens Dr east of Willow Rd. A six- inch" sanitary sewer main runs through the site, connecting the BART station to the sewer main in Owens Dr.
• City-owned storm drain mains are located in Owens Dr. A 24-inch line flows to the Willow Rd. intersection, and a 42-inch line from the same intersection to outfall into the Chabot Canal.
• A 60-inch storm drain main flows toward Iron Horse Trail, where it meets a County-owned 66-inch storm drain main that runs through the project site along the Iron Horse Trail. Catch basins on the site flow into one of the following: City mains in Owens Dr., a County main in the Iron Horse Trail, or directly into Hewlett Canal.
• The project will have to provide approximately 0.5 acres of LID treatment areas (such as bioretention areas).Proposed development on the site may be eligible for LID (low impact development) treatment reduction credits if it includes an affordable housing component and a minimum gross density of 40 DU/Ac (dwelling units per acre). If the project uses treatment reduction credits, the required bioretention areas could be reduced and stormwater treatment could be provided using non-LID treatment, such as filters. • If the project successfully demonstrates a decrease in total impervious area on site, it will not be subject to hydromodification management requirements.

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

7 3. Access and Circulation Report Summary

The Existing Conditions - Access and Circulation report prepared by Fehr & Peers is included in the appendix section of this document (Section 7.b.). That report analyzes the station area, ridership and access at the station, site circulation, as well as planned and proposed improvements. It provides further context and analysis relevant to this section of this memo.

a. Site and Station Access

• Pedestrian access to the BART station as well as the site is via the Iron Horse trail and via sidewalks from the intersection of Owens Dr. and Willow Rd. The Owens Dr. frontage also includes an eight-foot-wide sidewalk lined on both sides by existing trees, although some of the ground landscaping is in need of updating and upkeep. This sidewalk and almost all the associated landscaping is within the BART property.
o Notably, a BART Station Profile Study from 2015 showed that access by walking accounts for 9% of home trips and 40% of non-home-based trips to/from the station.

Complete mode share information can be found in section 7.b. of this document. • The Iron Horse trail provides pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. The 32-mile-long multi-use, whole-access regional trail between the cities of Concord and Pleasanton follows the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and directly connects to both the Dublin/Pleasanton and Pleasant Hill BART stations. The trail also has several bridges over busy thoroughfares to help improve traffic flow; with the latest addition being one over the Dublin Boulevard in Dublin.
• There is also a bicycle lane along Owens Drive and Willow Road. The station currently accommodates bike parking for 173 bicycles.
• A variety of bus lines service this area, most of which are part of the public bus service Wheels, operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). Stops for the BART station are primarily on the Dublin side, although nearly all of the routes use the East BART Station intersection at Owens Drive. Four out of 16 of the total number of bus bays are located along the transit-only road on the Pleasanton side of the station. Two bus routes currently use these stops, Wheels Route 54 and County Connection Route 636. Wheels Route 54 connects to the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) Pleasanton station, which is located near Downtown Pleasanton.

See section 7.b of this document for a full list of major bus lines connecting to this station as well as their frequencies and ridership.
• People driving into this area from the adjacent regions normally arrive via the freeway directly north of the site (I-580). Two nearby exits allow drivers to get on Owens Dr. from either the west (via Hopyard Rd.) or east (via Hacienda Dr.). Drivers from Dublin and other areas to the north similarly arrive via the same two streets (Hopyard. Rd. & Hacienda Dr.).

Drivers from the south can use additional roads such as Chabot Dr. and Willow Rd. to reach Owens Dr.
• The designated passenger and taxi zone loading on the Pleasanton side is located just north of the BART Permit parking lot on the site. The passenger loading area provides about 350 feet of curbside loading space with the first 150 feet designated for taxis and the remainder designated as passenger drop-off zone, including 40 feet of accessible curb space nearest to the station entrance.
• There is also a taxi-only zone south of the project site along Owens Dr. City staff noted that these spaces currently have minimal usage.

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

8 b. BART Rider Parking

The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is served by multiple vehicular parking facilities on the Dublin and Pleasanton sides, as shown in the map below. The capacities are as follows:
• Pleasanton side (surface parking only): total 1,352 spaces spread across four surface lots • Dublin side (garage and surface parking): total 1,797 spaces • Parking garage: 1,521 spaces
• Three surface parking lots: 276 spaces

Figure 3-1: Map of BART parking facilities at the Dublin/Pleasanton station

In addition to the above BART-owned parking facilities, the Dublin Transit Center garage, constructed for the purpose of providing much needed transit parking at the Dublin/Pleasanton hub and completed in June 2024, also adds 507 spaces. As of April 2025, it appears to be minimally used.

Based on the BART occupancy count from spring 2025, parking on the Dublin side is about 58% occupied (1,035 spaces) while that on the Pleasanton side is about 51% occupied (693 spaces).

The City has received additional MTC grant funding for a parking management study on parking availability in the area- this is separate from this effort and will be carried out in the near future.

The station accommodates bike parking for 173 bicycles at multiple locations:
• Near the station entrance: 56 BikeLink lockers and 24 BART bike lockers • Opposite the station entrance: 35 bike racks and 28 BikeLink lockers • Adjacent to the Dublin Transit Center garage: 30 bike lockers

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

9 c. Planned Infrastructure Improvements

i. Iron Horse Trail improvements

Improvements are planned to the section of the Iron Horse Trail (IHT) - a 32-mile regional multi- use transportation and recreational corridor - running through the project site. BART’s Iron Horse Trail Project aims to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the Dublin/ Pleasanton Station, for the purpose of implementing its latest Station Access Policy (adopted 2016). The improvements will tie into IHT improvements being made in the adjacent city of Dublin. This will help to close the gap (from Dublin to Pleasanton) in the IHT, allowing BART riders to reach the station more easily using active transportation. The improvements will also improve safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists traveling to and through the station area.

In addition to BART riders who walk and bike to the station as part of their commute, the Dublin/ Pleasanton station itself is a recreational destination for users of the IHT. The improvements are intended to help visitors locate and access the trail easily. The trail also connects BART riders with the broader network of pathways, trails, and green spaces in the area.

The scope of this work that impacts the project site includes the following:
• The diagonal multi-use pathway running through the site will be upgraded to a designated two-way bicycle track, separated from vehicle traffic and from the pedestrian sidewalk. • Reconfiguration of the bus area adjacent to the station entrance. • Two out of four kiosks in the existing central plaza will be removed. • New landscaping and storm water management features- including new trees along the trail.

Figure 3-2: Exhibit showing the IHT improvements on the project site DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

10 • Restriping of bike lanes along a section of Owens Dr. to enable bicyclists to cross the street more smoothly at the existing signalized mid-block crosswalk. • The westernmost parking lot (Lot D; used for Reserved Parking) will likely be used as a staging area during construction.
• Pedestrian-scale lighting
• Added wayfinding and signage
• Public art panels

Project stage: Invitation for Bid drawings were issued in Dec 2024. Construction is expected to start in late 2025 or early 2026.

ii. Valley Link Line and Station

Valley Link is a planned passenger rail service connecting the northern San Joaquin Valley to the Tri-Valley. The first leg of this new system is proposed to run between Dublin/Pleasanton and the Vasco Road ACE station with one additional station along the way. The alignment of this segment is mostly to be constructed within the existing freeway median (along I-580).

Exhibits included in the Environmental Assessment from late 2024 show the proposed Dublin/ Pleasanton Valley Link Station sited south of the eastbound I-580 freeway and the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. The new station is designed to provide intermodal service between Valley Link, BART and local bus transit. Passengers wishing to transfer from Valley Link to BART or vice versa, would travel down to ground level, exit the station, and cross under part of I-580 to go to the transfer station. The proposed station design does not include the construction of any additional parking for the new station.

The scope of this work that impacts the project site includes:
• A 642-foot-long by 30-foot-wide, double-track Valley Link aerial station platform, approximately 34 feet above ground with shade canopies. • Stairs, escalators, and elevators for vertical circulation within the station

Figure 3-3: Right of way plan for new Valley Link station and track, showing station location adjacent to the project site and the temporary construction easement required.

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

11 Project stage: The environmental assessment for NEPA was completed in December 2024, and a determination of FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) was made in June 2025. Funding gaps have been identified and phasing studies are currently underway. The final design is scheduled to be completed in 2025, with construction proposed from 2025-2027. The project's initial operating phase is projected to begin in 2028, though this is subject to change.

d. Regulatory and Planning Context

i. BART Station Access Policy

The Board Adopted the 2016 Station Access Policy to guide BART rider access practices and investment priorities with walking as the primary investment priority followed by biking then transit/shuttle and paratransit, then drop off. Investments in parking are permitted at this station considered “Auto Dependent.” However, reducing the need for parking helps BART advance the access policy goals, as well as its TOD policy goals to maximize the amount of housing on BART property.

The Station Access Policy identifies the following goals:
a. Safer, Healthier, Greener: Advance the region’s safety, public health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) and pollution-reduction goals.
b. More Riders: Invest in station access to connect more riders cost effectively, especially where and when BART has available capacity.
c. More Productive and Efficient: Manage access investments, programs, and current assets to achieve goals at the least cost.
d. Better Experience: Be a better neighbor, and strive for an excellent customer experience, including on the first and last mile of the trip to and from BART stations. e. Equitable Services: Invest in access choices for all riders, particularly those with the fewest choices.
f. Innovation and Partnerships: Be an innovation leader, and establish durable partnerships with municipalities, access providers, and technology companies.

Figure 3-4: Visual simulation from Valley Link EIR document showing the new station and track as seen from the south side of Owens Dr.

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

12 In December 2016, the BART Board adopted Performance Measures with targets to help evaluate how BART is doing in implementing the Station Access Policy. A key performance measure is the home-based access mode share target, which seeks to increase active access (access by walking and bicycling) systemwide from 44% to 52%. BART’s 2015 Station Profile Study revealed that 20% of riders walk or bike from home to access the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. That data is currently being updated with a 2024 Station Profile Survey that is still being processed.

ii. Multimodal Access Design Guidelines (“MADG”)

BART’s MADG is focused on the rider experience with the goal of prioritizing active and high- occupancy modes to ensure that the station areas contribute to the community fabric and encourage BART ridership. By prioritizing human activity, the MADG encourages station area design to:
• Reduce conflicts between modes;
• Enable direct, efficient access and seamless connectivity between multiple modes; and • Make station areas easy to navigate.

Internal circulation within the Project will be expected to comply with these guidelines and other best practices in pedestrian- and bicycle-centered street design.

iii. General Plan Housing Element and Objective Design Standards

The City of Pleasanton adopted its 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element in 2023. The project site has been consistently inventoried as a Housing Element site since the 4th Cycle Housing Element. in the Housing Element inventory. The 4th Cycle Housing Element also notes the range of units that can be developed here (447-555 units). As a high-density housing site1, the Housing Element inventory counts this location as suitable for the construction of lower-income units.

The site is not required to be rezoned for housing development.

Along with the Housing Element, the City also adopted objective design standards (ODS) for the housing sites consistent with State law. All standards and guidelines that apply to all housing sites and/or apply specifically to multifamily development (including mixed-use), located in Part 3 of the Objective Design Standards for Housing Sites document are applicable to the project site.

The ODS helps to shape development by setting standards for buildings and open spaces- specifically focusing on building massing and articulation, the ground-floor interface of buildings (with respect to building entrances, stoops, active uses etc.), and the size and treatment of open spaces.

iv. Site Zoning

The site is currently zoned PUD-MU (Planned Unit Development - Mixed Use). Previously zoned PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development - Industrial/Commercial-Offices), it was rezoned in 2012 to allow housing development on the site. The most recent rezoning ordinance (O.2026) identifies the requirements for the minimum number of units to be developed on site and by extension, the minimum density (75 DU/Ac).

1 High-density as defined by the State (i.e., being more than 30 DU/Ac), which allows it to count units towards the low-income category for purposes of RHNA (regional housing needs allocation).

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

13 v. Housing Affordability Requirements and Goals

• Any development on the site is required to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Amended in 2024, this process involves recording Affordable Housing Agreements between the City and each developer. Inclusionary units are to be deed- restricted to be affordable in perpetuity. ADUs/J-ADUs cannot be counted towards the IZO’s minimum requirements. Per the IZO, multifamily residential developments (rental or ownership) with 10 or more units are required to maintain 15% of the units as affordable to Very Low and/or Low Income households (50-80% AMI level). • The 2023-2031 Housing Element identified this site in its inventory as potentially providing 100% affordable housing. However, this is not a regulatory requirement and a project that is constructed may have a smaller percentage of affordable units, but still comply with the IZO. • AB 2923 requires a minimum of 20% of all units at each TOD site to be affordable at low/very low-/moderate income levels, and BART has adopted a goal of 35% affordable units across its portfolio. BART's Framework for Financial Return from Affordable Housing (2021) lays out additional incentives for projects meeting or exceeding the portfolio-wide goal of 35% affordable housing units.

vi. Hacienda Design Guidelines

The project site falls under the Hacienda
PUD district, an area located as per the
vicinity map below. Updated in 2019, the
Hacienda Design Guidelines are an integral
part of the City’s PUD ordinances and
Hacienda’s CC&R’s, and help to shape the
vision of the Hacienda PUD district
masterplan. The basic objective of these
TODDGL (Transit Oriented Development
Mixed Use Development Standards and
Guidelines) is to develop this district as a
TOD “Village”.

Per this document, the project site is classified as a “Housing Parcel” (54/56B). As such the Housing Development Standards and Guidelines (Housing DGL) in the document apply here:
• Chapter 2 Site Planning Guidelines
• Chapter 3 Streets, Landscape and Common Area Guidelines • Chapter 4 Signing Guidelines
The document provides a helpful list of Service & Retail Uses, as well as Public & Community Uses permitted on this site. Additionally, it also includes a list of conditional uses (including Childcare centers) allowed on the site.

vii. MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy

Adopted in 2022, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy aims to increase overall housing supply and further the implementation of Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies. It does so by setting thresholds for core elements of land use density, affordable housing, commercial intensity (FAR), parking management, and complete streets/multimodal access. The policy applies to a half-mile area Figure 3-5: Hacienda vicinity map
DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

14 around existing and planned transit stops and stations, and as such applies to the project site.

According to the level of transit service, the project site is classified as Tier 3 (a stop/station served by one BART line, Caltrain, light rail transit, or bus rapid transit).

The table on the following pages compares applicable controls/standards/thresholds included in the documents referenced in this section (1.d., i-vi). Note that where local zoning was inconsistent with the BART AB 2923 standards on July 1, 2022, the AB 2923 standards became the local zoning for the BART-owned parcels.

viii. Assembly Bill 2923

Signed into law in 2018, Assembly Bill (AB) 2923 changed the zoning requirements on existing BART-owned property in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties within a half mile of the stations. BART also adopted the AB 2923 Baseline Zoning Standards shown in the table below as its TOD zoning standards. In conjunction with Senate Bill (SB) 35 (2017) and SB 423 (2023), it enables the streamlining of approvals for certain developments on BART sites, including exemption from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Per BART's TOD guidelines, the Dublin/Pleasanton station’s “TOD Place Type” is Neighborhood/Town Center.

Figure 3-6: BART System Map showing the TOD Place
Types for stations subject to AB 2923.

Figure 3-7: Baseline Zoning standards for each TOD
Place Type, with applicable standards highlighted.

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

15 Comparison between applicable regulatory standards

City of Pleasanton (i, ii, iii)
(Housing Element, Zoning,
IZO)

Hacienda Design
Guidelines (iv)

BART AB 2923 (v)
(this prevails over the
others)

MTC TOC Policy
(vi)
Designation PUD-MU
(Mixed Use-Business Park) Housing Parcel Neighborhood/Town Center Station Type Tier 3

F.A.R.

N/A Max

N/A

Min. 3.00
Commercial Office
Intensity Avg min. FAR 2
or higher
Avg max. FAR 4 or
higher

Height Max. 65' (or 5 stories)
Exception for AB 2923 sites

N/A

Min. 5 stories

MIN

MAX

MIN

MAX

MIN

MAX

AVG MIN OR
HIGHER

AVG MAX OR
HIGHER
Density

DU/Ac 75 Unlimited N/A N/A 75 Unlimited 50 75

Unit
Yield*
on Gross
site area
(14.9 Ac)

1,118

1,118

745 1,118
on Net
site area
(11.34 Ac)

851

851

567 851

Affordability
requirements

Inclusionary Zoning
ordinance
15% of all units at 50-80%
AMI

N/A
Min. 20% units to be
affordable at low/very low-
/moderate income levels
BART's Framework for
Financial Return from
Affordable Housing (2021)
lays out additional
incentives for projects with
at least 35% affordable
housing units.

N/A

Parking
requirements
Condos: 2 spaces per unit
For Apartments:
- Studio/1/2BR units: Min. 2
spaces for first 4 units and

1.5 spaces for each additional
unit.
- 3BR or larger: Min. 2 spaces
per unit
- Visitor parking: 1 space per
7 units

Residential: Max. 1
space per unit
Office: Max. 2.5 per
1,000 SF

Residential: Max.
1 space per unit
Office: Max. 2.5
per 1,000 SF

Bike parking
requirements

Long term: Min. 168 cubic feet
of storage space per unit

Long term: 1 space
per res. unit
Long term: Min. 1 space
per res. unit + 1 space
per 5,000SF of
commercial office
space
*Unit yield does not consider state density bonus.

DRAFT

Pleasanton BART
Existing Physical Site Conditions Opportunities and Constraints Evaluation Oct 16, 2025

16 Comparison between applicable regulatory standards

City of Pleasanton (i, ii, iii)
(Housing Element, Zoning,
IZO)

Hacienda Design
Guidelines (iv)

BART AB 2923 (v)

MTC TOC Policy
(vi)

Setback
requirements

Front Yard: 15'
Side Yard: 8' on one side/total
20' on both sides
Rear Yard: 20'
In the case of a 33'
Public service easement
PSE (such as along
Owens Dr)
Allowed encroachment
into PSE: 4'
Minimum setback
without parking: 21'
Minimum PSE and
Setback (Curb-building
face): 29'
Minimum front setback
from parking: N/A

N/A

N/A
15' setback/5'
encroachment allowed
with enhanced private
and public open space
landscaping

Open Space
requirements
For development sites less
than 3 Acres:

Multifamily- 240SF/per unit
(cumulative of group and
private open spaces)
i. Group usable open space:

Min. 200SF/unit
ii. Private open spaces: not
required (but where provided
can be deducted from the
group usable open space
requirement upto 20%)
For development sites 3 or
more Acres:

Multifamily- 300SF/per unit
(cumulative of group and
private open spaces)
i. Group usable open space:

Min. 250SF/unit
ii. Private open spaces: not
required (but where provided
can be deducted from the
group usable open space
requirement upto 20%)

Development standards
for Common usable
open spaces:
d. 51-100 units: Min.
1 space of min. 30'
dimension and 900SF
area
e. 101 or more units:

Min. 1 space of min. 40'
dimension and 1,600SF
area

N/A

N/A
Development standards for
Group usable open spaces:
d. 61-100 units: Min. 2 spaces,
with min. 50' dimension and
min. 4,000SF area each
e. 101 or more units: Min.
3 spaces with min. 60'
dimension and min. total
12,500SF area

DRAFT