19. Waiver. In the event either City or Consultant at any time waive any breach of this Agreement by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or succeeding breach of this Agreement, whether of the same or of any other covenant, condition or obligation.
20. Governing Law. California law shall govern any legal action pursuant to this Agreement with venue in the applicable court or forum for Alameda County.
21. No Personal Liability. No official or employee of City shall be personally liable to Consultant in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount due Consultant.
22. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein.
23. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.
24. Scope of Agreement. This writing constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties.
Any modification to the Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
THIS AGREEMENT executed the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PLEASANTON CONSULTANT
By:
Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Erik Piller,
Executive Vice President
ATTEST:
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
[If Consultant is a corporation, signatures must comply with California Corporations Code §313] Rev. 11/23
SCOPE OF WORK
General Statement of Understanding
Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC (BV) understands that it will provide consulting services to ensure the City of Pleasanton (City) complies with all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), American Barriers Act (ABA), State
Building Code, and local accessibility regulations with regards to its programs, services, public buildings, facilities, and paths of travel. The work will ultimately culminate in the production of an ADA Transition Plan, which will include a schedule of improvements necessary to meet the ADA,
the State, and local accessibility requirements, associated order of magnitude cost estimates for barrier removal,
a prioritized list of improvements, and a timeline for
completion of needed improvements or modifications.
EXPERIENCE WITH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
BV has extensive experience and expertise with ADA
Accessibility Standards, Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines, and State Building Codes, which are relevant to this project. Our assessors and management staff
have project experience in multiple states and locales
nationwide, and apply the 2010 ADA Standards for
Accessible Design, the current ADA accessibility guidelines (ADAAG), and other state and local building codes
as required by laws, statutes and ordinances. When
prioritizing barrier removal, we will follow the order of preference advised by the Department of Justice in Title II requirements, or as modified through agreement with the City and by public survey results. BV is experienced with the application of the program access test defined in Title II 35.150(b), and understands that not all individual barriers must be removed, but the overall program must be made
accessible.
Proposed Project Approach
The scope of the work, as defined by the City, includes:
• ADA Self Evaluation
– Physical Assessment of Facilities and Sites
– Accessibility Transition Plan
• Program Access and Policy Review
• Public Outreach Meetings (6)
• Public Rights-of-Way (PROW) Evaluation: public
sidewalks and curb ramps
The City has requested services for:
• Sixty-nine (69) Structural Assets (41 Sites)
• Public Rights of Way (PROW)
– 360 miles of sidewalks
BV will complete the following:
• Conduct comprehensive accessibility assessment and
inventory of facilities identified on the Buildings/Site list. • Ensure compliance with applicable standards,
regulations, and codes for accessibility
• Perform site visits to observe, document, and
photograph specific conditions and modifications of
facilities and components subject to federal, state, and local access requirements.
• Assessment of the content and location of the
City’s programs, services, policies, training and
communication practices.
• Create public outreach to ensure public input into the transition planning process, including public meetings
and public survey.
• Create criteria to prioritize facilities and/or categories of work to support a phased approach to implementation
of the ADA Transition Plan.
• Establish order of magnitude (pre-planning level)
estimated costs for each barrier removal necessary to
make facilities accessible.
• Prepare interim and final presentations of findings and recommendations to the City.
• Deliver draft and final reports per protocol established by the City.
• Maintain the electronic database the City can use to
track barrier removals as each is completed, which
serves as a living Transition Plan.
APPROACH
BV will conduct a kick-off meeting with the City to define communication channels, define the scope of work, and
to review the facility and program lists. Discussions will include recent and proposed capital improvements and
available programs at each of the facilities. BV will note public use patterns and prioritization of the facilities and programs.
Prior to the kick-off meeting, BV will provide a pre-
assessment questionnaire for each site and other
documentation. Documents requested, if readily available, are:
• Prior accessibility transition plans or self-evaluations • Site plans / floor plans
• Identification of any/all historic structures
• Description of each facility’s purpose
• As-built drawings (with dates of construction)
• Current reasonable accommodation policy
• Intersection / street / curb plans / previous sidewalk survey
The initial discussions with City staff will include the following elements:
• Roles and lines of communication between and within
both the City and BV.
• Protocols for interaction between all parties throughout the project: Contact information should include the
office and cell numbers for a minimum of 2+ contacts
with the appropriate City staff and BV.
• Field assessment logistics: Normally, BV does not require escorts to perform the field assessments, except where
escorts may be required within restricted areas. Outline areas of City’s highest priority for any assessment to be completed during any training phases, likely complexity of assessment data processing, efficient workflow each
day of the assessment, and City requests.
• Protocol for handling paths not clearly designated on the map, not collected due to construction, or otherwise deemed inaccessible. (PROW Survey)
• Strategies for connectivity between isolated urbanized areas. (PROW Survey)
Field schedules and facility management interviews will be conducted once the schedule is approved by the City.
Once the field schedule is approved, BV will deploy trained accessibility assessors with backgrounds in Landscape
Architecture, Architecture, Engineering, and Building
Systems for facility assessments. All field resources
assigned have been professionally trained in accessibility assessments and have performed numerous assessments.
Program Access and Policy Review
BV is experienced with the program access test defined in Title II 35.150(b), and realizes that not all amenities are required to be accessible. BV’s goal is to assist the City in providing the most economically viable improvements for its users. Through consultation with staff, stakeholder surveys and our field observations, BV will provide barrier removal recommendations to improve the amenities
necessary to comply with the applicable standards to
provide program access.
An assessment of the City’s programs will be performed.
The United States Department of Justice defines
“programs” as the “programs, services and facilities” of a Title II entity. The current status of the City’s programs as defined by the DOJ will be evaluated through discussions with City staff and a review of documentation. The goal mandated by Title II of the ADA is to ensure that
individuals with disabilities are not excluded from
services, programs, and activities because buildings are inaccessible or other assistance is not available. Steps needed to make programs accessible to disabled
individuals will be detailed, such as, providing sign
language interpreters to enable an individual with a
disability to obtain the service, or providing benefits at an alternative accessible location in order to ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services.
BV will meet with the designated representatives of the City to gather information from the various departments
regarding the access opportunities or problems which have arisen in the past. BV will evaluate the issues and
experiences with respect to the provision of services to people with disabilities.
A program survey will address issues with respect to the delivery of accessible programs and services. A policy and program review provides a greater scope of information
about structural changes required for barrier removal.
The list of public programs and methods of communication with the public has not been provided to BV as part of the City’s request for a proposal. As such, BV has limited the review of said programs and communications to eighty
(80) man hours. BV will work with the City to prioritize the review to those programs with the highest impact to the community.
It is possible that the program assessment will determine that providing full access to a given program, service or activity is simply not possible. In such a case, BV will work with the City to determine if providing full access to the program would be an “undue financial and administrative burden.” Determinations regarding a finding of an “undue financial and administrative burden” require specific
documentation as set forth in the Title II regulations.
Public Outreach
Community engagement is an essential part of creating a successful Transition Plan and Policy Procedure Guideline.
BV with work with the City to seek input from Staff, the general public, and the accessible community. This input is critical for understanding how facilities are actually being used and how to increase usability. Early
engagement increases community awareness,
engagement after the draft Transition Plan increases buy- in from the community, especially those advocating for
accessibility.
The community engagement results and the City’s ADA
Compliance Team’s advice will be incorporated into the
Transition Plan. The Transition Plan can establish phases of barrier removal, without a calendar timeframe. To the extent that a facility, program, service, or activity is not going to be fully accessible to and usable by people with disabilities in the immediate future, we will work with the ADA Compliance Team to determine the best interim
procedure or policy in order to enhance accessibility to the maximum extent possible.
BV has experience with public outreach, including public input to the transition plan. Public outreach must be
conducted prior to development of the Transition Plan, in order to determine user priorities and program opinion.
BV will arrange for and conduct a public outreach meeting for the community at large. BV will reach out to local
disability rights and service organizations for their valuable community input.
BV’s goal is to assist the City in providing the most
economically viable improvements for its users. The
results of the initial public outreach and the advice of the City’s ADA Compliance Team will be incorporated
into the Transition Plan. BV will provide barrier removal recommendations to improve the amenities necessary to
comply with the applicable standards to provide facility and program access.
The ADA requires that a public entity solicit and allow for the participation of interested persons in the development of a Transition Plan. The public outreach effort for the Draft Transition Plan will include advertisements in local newspapers in the weeks leading up to a public meeting
for presentation of the draft Transition Plan. It will be the responsibility of the City to post notice of the public meeting on the City’s website. An example of survey results from public sessions is included below.
OPTION: Website Accessibility Review
The ADA applies to Title III public accommodations’
websites, regardless of whether there is a specific regulation or technical standard in the ADA standards.
In a 2018 letter to Congress regarding business owned
websites, the Department of Justice (DOJ) noted, as it has in the past with other elements, spaces, or technologies for which there are no technical accessibility specifications, that the absence of a technical standard does not “serve as a basis for noncompliance” with the ADA’s general
obligation to ensure equal access to goods and services.
Rather, it means that public accommodations have
“flexibility” in how to facilitate that access.
Existing website standards and guidelines can help web
developers create and maintain accessible websites.
DOJ has often referred to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0), developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), as a way of measuring the accessibility of websites.
BV will analyze and evaluate the City’s website for
accessible content, including use of the WAVE web
accessibility evaluation tool or similar technology. Applying the current WCAG version (currently 2.1), BV will determine barriers to accessibility within the City’s website and present appropriate barrier removal.
This review is limited to up to 7 templated pages and forms that are representative to your website and those general edits will need to be remedied throughout the entire site.
Facility Assessments
An experience accessibility field observer will visit each property to observe the general condition of the site,
facility interior, facility exterior improvements, and review available documents in order to familiarize themselves with each site’s specific accessibility issues. BV will conduct a walk-through visit of each facility in order to observe and identify physical accessibility deficiencies and formulate recommendations to eliminate the physical barriers.
As a part of the assessment process, BV will meet with a City representative in order to gain a clear understanding of the overall features and programs, property condition, and completion dates of additions and/or renovations, either on-site as part of the individual site assessment or at the City’s offices reviewing the entire inventory. Areas to be observed include all interior and exterior features of the property, including parking lots, amenities, sidewalk/
pathways, recreational assets, exterior access ramps, all interior areas accessible to the public, and employee areas.
The field observer will develop recommendations based on the walk-through visit and interviews with City
representatives and BV’s vast experience gained on
similar properties previously evaluated. The field observer may also question others who are knowledgeable of
the property’s physical condition and operation, or of
similar systems to gain comparative information to use in evaluation of the property.
The field observer will review documents and information provided by the City that could aid BV’s knowledge of the subject property’s physical improvements, extent and type of use, and/or assist in identifying material discrepancies between reported information and observed conditions.
During the walk-through, the observer will utilize a field checklist based on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, which are the current ADA accessibility guidelines (ADAAG), as well as any more stringent accessibility
standards defined by the State and local accessibility codes.
The field observer will utilize a digital level, measuring tape, door pressure gauge, light and sound meters, and
digital camera or an iPad with equivalent capability to evaluate existing elements to determine if barriers are present. The observer will identify and prioritize any
existing improvements not in accordance with ADA,
state, and local accessibility requirements, in the order of preference advised by the Department of Justice in Title II requirements, or as modified through agreement with the City and by public survey results, such as:
• Physical access to the property
• Access to interior public areas
• Access to common areas, including recreation facilities and other observable space
• Access to restrooms; and
• Removal of remaining barriers
The field checklists will incorporate the applicable
standards. An excerpt of the field checklist is included below.
The BV team will assess exterior areas and interior common areas that are defined as areas of public accommodation, as well as the employee areas defined by the City. BV will identify existing non-compliant conditions, including but not limited to, the elements specified below (if applicable):
• Space allowance/ranges
• Accessible routes, vestibules, corridors
• Protruding object
• Ground/floor surfaces
• Loading zones
• Curb ramps
• Ramps
• Stairs
• Elevators
• Platform lifts
• Windows
• Doors
• Hardware
• Work surfaces
• Entrances and exits
• Drinking fountains and water coolers
• Water closets
• Toilet stalls
• Urinals
• Lavatories and mirrors
• Bathtubs
• Shower stalls
• Toilet rooms
• Bathrooms
• Dressing/fitting rooms
• Sinks
• Storage
• Handrails, grab bars, and tub/shower seats
• Controls and operating mechanisms
• Alarms (visual, audible)
• Detectable warnings
• Signage (Braille, visual)
• Telephones
• Switches and outlets
• Seating and tables
• Assembly areas
• Parking
• Sidewalks and walkways
• Playgrounds and play areas
• Pools/aquatic facilities
• Recreational assets
If proposed solutions to the identified barriers to
accessibility would place an undue administrative or
financial burden on the City, BV will discuss these solutions in advance with City staff. BV will provide an order of magnitude (pre-planning level) estimate for all items of work necessary to bring each facility into compliance. All estimates will be based upon current year costs without escalation. Escalation factors can be included if preferred by the City.
PRIORITY RANKING AND CLASSIFICATION
The analysis will include all barriers to be ranked by Priority Classes. The four classes below are DOJ recommended but can be altered to meet your specifications and needs:
Priority 1: Accessible Approach and Entrances – An
entity providing accommodation to the public is
required to take measures to provide access to a place
of public accommodation from public sidewalks,
parking, or public transportation. These measures
include, for example, installing an entrance ramp,
correcting tripping hazards or lessening the slope of a curb ramp. At least one route of travel to each amenity or feature should be safe and accessible for everyone,
including people with disabilities.
Priority 2: Elements along the Accessible Route
– Barriers which occur along the path of travel
shall be removed, where such a barrier is easily
accomplishable. Examples include moving items
within reach range, widening doors, installing
accessible door hardware, and removing high-pile
carpeting.
Priority 3: Restroom Facilities – Barrier removal may
include widening of toilet stalls, installation of grab bars. replacement of sinks and drinking fountains.
Priority 4: Access to All Other Features and Amenities
– Measures are required to provide access to other
areas. This priority is for items not required for basic access in the other three higher priorities.
Public Rights-of-Way Evaluation
Prior to initiating the public right-of-way (PROW) portions of the contract, BV will confirm the list of sidewalks, streets, and curb ramps that will be analyzed. If sidewalk locations are not known, BV will take a strategic approach using
the GIS street network to ensure a complete dataset is
collected.
BV will systematically survey the sidewalk surface
environment for compliance with state, local, and federal accessibility standards. BV will document changes in level, roughness, running slope, cross slope, width, and other pathway events that may pose a barrier in the pedestrian network. Objective sensor-based data along with
technician observed barriers will be recorded. BV will assess curb ramps for ADA compliance, measuring necessary
attributes, including but not limited to running slope, cross slope, landings, flares, and detectable warnings.
Image documentation of all curb ramps will be provided.
The barriers of each curb ramp or the lack of a curb ramp will be documented. BV will capture deficiency data for transit stops, signalized intersections, and unsignalized intersections, including access to pedestrian pushbuttons and the condition and presence of markings.
The PROW survey will begin in those priority areas that received the highest rank and will then extend to the
other areas which are part of the rights-of-way list. This evaluation will identify and record any gaps in connectivity, potential safety hazards, obstructions, missing curb ramps, and general noncompliance with accessibility regulations, including the following:
• Assessment of the Pedestrian Right of Way (Sidewalks) • Assessment of Curb Ramps
• Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings, Signalized
Intersections, Un-signalized Intersections
Public Rights of Way Assessment Technology
The BV team will utilize proprietary technology to efficiently and accurately assess the conditions that exist in the
sidewalk environment within the City’s jurisdiction. An assessment coordinator utilizes a manually-propelled
sensor-based device (or in some cases an autonomous
robotic device) to systematically evaluate the sidewalk surface. The device automates the process of identifying important pathway measurements for ADA compliance and
infrastructure management, including:
a) level changes (tripping hazards);
b) running slope;
c) cross slope;
d) WPRI roughness;
e) width (including pinch points);
f) images every ten feet;
g) low clearances;
h) presence of obstructions;
i) presence of vegetation;
j) presence of other manually flagged attributes; and other qualitative attributes.
If required, one of our technology devices is uniquely
qualified to measure wheelchair pathway roughness index (WPRI) according to ASTM E3028 (standard development
funded by the Access Board).
The technology utilizes lasers, inertial measurement
sensors, and HD cameras to facilitate data collection
of all necessary measurements. It supports sidewalk,
crosswalk, and public right-of-way data collection up to five times faster than standard methods (tape measures
and levels), while providing the best data. Unlike other tools and software, our technology delivers continuous data
rather than individual points of only tripping hazards and obstructions on a map. This means that the City receives the most complete dataset without missing any part of the pedestrian network.
BV gathers all of the typical curb ramp, pedestrian signal, and bus stop measurements for ADA compliance, including but not limited to:
a) running and cross slopes;
b) lengths and widths;
c) detectable warning surfaces;
d) landing measurements;
e) presence of obstructions;
f) photos; and other configurable measurements and
qualitative attributes.
Federal, state, or local curb ramp types are utilized as a guide to facilitate data collection of all necessary
measurements. Our technology supports data collection
up to six times faster than standard methods, providing the best data. Unlike Lidar collection methods, which can have difficulty measuring slopes the technology provides accurate slope and distance measurements comparable
to the standard tape measure and digital level. Its unique rating index, which is customizable, makes it easy to
prioritize improvements, delivering data-driven results, and saving time and money.
PROW Deliverable
All data is delivered in a GIS-compatible format (.gdb or .shp), making it easy to integrate into the City’s GIS software enabling easy data-driven decision-making. Data may be
exported in a Microsoft Excel format with GPS coordinates for easy spreadsheet analysis. Sidewalk data is delivered as connected ten foot segments to match with the collected images and on a block-face system. An accessibility score and pavement score is given to each 10-foot segment and each block-face, which allows for prioritization at both the micro (segment) and macro (block) levels. Curb ramp, transit stop, and pedestrian signal information is delivered as individual GIS point layers containing all associated data and condition scores. The scoring methodology is
configurable based on the weighted value assigned to
each attribute.
ADA Training
Bureau Veritas has extensive experience providing
comprehensive training on ADA laws, regulations, and
compliance best practices. Our team of ADA experts has
worked with numerous municipalities across the country
to educate staff on the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and how to effectively implement and maintain ADA self-evaluation and transition plans.
We will work closely with the City to tailor the
training curriculum to address the specific needs and
responsibilities of designated staff. This will include in- depth instruction on applicable ADA laws and regulations, as well as hands-on guidance for using and maintaining
the City’s self-evaluation, transition plan, and associated project database and mapping tools. Our training will
ensure that City staff are fully equipped to comply with all ADA requirements within the built environment and
sustain ongoing accessibility efforts. We have a proven track record of delivering high-quality, interactive training that empowers public sector clients to proactively address ADA compliance.
Transition Plan
The field assessment data and costs, programs assessment, and the public rights-of-way data and costs will be brought together in one document to form the Transition Plan. Once the assessments of the programs, buildings, facilities, and parks are complete, data will be analyzed and prioritized.
The Transition Plan document will include all identified barriers to accessibility, associated costs for barrier removal, and tentative solutions.
Solutions will be discussed with City staff and presented to stakeholders, as needed. Once all facility assessments
have been completed, a Draft Transition Plan will be
prepared. The Transition Plan will provide a
framework for full compliance with the accessibility
regulations.
The Transition Plan process comprises the following
components:
• Identification of physical and programmatic barriers in facilities under the City’s jurisdiction.
• Determination of the barrier removal remedy and an
order of magnitude estimate of the cost of the barrier
removal required to eliminate the physical barrier or
discriminatory practice.
• Assignment of priority level to the barrier removal.
• Formulation of the Transition Plan within the
parameters of projected fiscal year budget constraints.
Within the Transition Plan, BV notes work that shall remove physical and programmatic barriers in existing facilities, and communication barriers structural in nature, where such removal is able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. This document will outline in detail the steps required for the City to achieve accessibility compliance.
Where the Transition Plan identifies work which will take longer than one year to complete, a multi-year schedule with priorities will be provided.
Results of the initial public outreach and the advice of the City’s ADA Compliance Team will be incorporated into the Transition Plan. The Transition Plan can establish phases of barrier removal, without a calendar timeframe. To the extent that a facility, program, service, or activity is not going to be fully accessible to and usable by people with disabilities in the immediate future, we will work with the ADA Compliance Team to determine the best interim
procedure or policy in order to enhance accessibility to the maximum extent possible.
BV will meet with the ADA Compliance Team to present a
Draft Transition Plan and gain its input and commentary on the Draft Transition Plan prior to presentation to the community.
The ADA requires that a public entity solicit and allow for the participation of interested persons in the development of a Transition Plan. The public outreach effort for the Draft Transition Plan will include advertisements in local newspapers in the weeks leading up to a public meeting
for presentation of the draft Transition Plan. It will be the responsibility of the City to post notice of the public meeting on the City’s website. Following the public
meeting, BV will meet with the ADA Compliance Team to
review all applicable commentary and to make choices
regarding the draft final plan to be presented to the City.
Regular maintenance or rehabilitation projects and that accessibility projects are blended into other scheduled work, when possible.
Following the review and inclusion of public comments in the Transition Plan, BV will submit the Final Transition Plan in printed and electronic copies to the designated parties and stakeholders. The Final Transition Plan will include an executive summary, and a description of how the
entire self-evaluation and transition planning process was conducted. BV will present the Final Transition Plan to the City at a scheduled meeting. Along with the Transition Plan and a summary, BV will prepare a PowerPoint presentation that will explain how the Transition Plan was formed, the choices which were made with respect to accessibility
solutions, the manner in which budget decisions were
made, and the benefits that the implementation of the
Transition Plan will bring to the City.
ADA Cost Estimates
The ADA AssetCALC™ cost estimating database is based
on industry cost benchmarks and further customized with proprietary cost tables developed by BV, based on historical and localized actual costs. BV maintains and updates the cost estimating system with information received from the field. Through ADA project management and construction
monitoring work, BV has current cost data from hundreds of in-progress construction and rehabilitation projects. This data allows BV to calculate costs based on local conditions to maintain a cost database that is up-to-date.
Typically, barrier removal planning level cost estimates are based upon the removal of the specific element, for example, a parking stall or curb ramp. In some site-specific instances, barrier removal may affect an area beyond
the specific location of the barrier. Grading plans based on field surveys using land surveyor instrumentation, or architectural plans requiring wall relocation could result in significantly different material quantities and subsequent higher project costs. The database contains standardized order of magnitude cost estimates for barrier removal
for use in prioritizing the work in the Transition Plan. At the implementation stage, it is anticipated a detailed
specification will be prepared and bids will be generated to establish planning level costs. ADA AssetCALC™ cost
estimates are pre-planning level, order of magnitude
barrier removal cost estimates. Cost tables, similar to the ones detailed in the table below, will be provided for each facility/site.
Deliverables
The deliverables are:
• Facility ADA Assessments - individual facility reports • Public Rights-of-way Assessments - individual rights-of- way reports
• Program Access and Policy Review
• Public Outreach Meetings (2) and Public Survey
• Transition Plan
The facility assessment and program assessment reports
are provided in electronic format and are typically
represented in three formats:
• Word® document converted to an Adobe PDF, with
photographic images of barriers and GPS positioning of
exterior barriers.
• Excel® spreadsheet with code references, existing
conditions, barrier resolution, and cost data.
• Cloud-based database ADA AssetCALC™.
BV will provide an ADA report for each facility assessment with a description of each barrier observed and recorded, and will define the location, recorded measurements,
barrier description, applicable ADAAG/state/local code
reference, viable corrective action, priority, and order of magnitude (pre-planning level) cost estimate of repair.
Color photographs of each barrier are included with the barrier record. Barriers will be identified and presented by individual facility. Each report will include an executive summary, including a summary cost table identifying the estimated cost to correct each facility.
The Public Rights-of-Way (PROW) reports will be provided with all of the collected and derived data in a spreadsheet format compatible with Microsoft Excel and as a file
geodatabase that is compatible with GIS products. The
PROW data is separated into two primary data sets; the
Segment Data that contains surface information, and the Feature Data.
Line data and point data can be spatially displayed via the GPS information recorded for the stations and features they contain. Segment Summary data is a table of information about each segment that is derived from the collected data.
Feature data is separated into three different tables. The first is the spatial feature summary that contains the spatial location and type information for each feature collected.
The second feature is a table created for each individual feature type collected contain the specific attribute data for that feature type. The third table is the compliance table that derives the compliance of each feature based on a series of queries comparing the collected data and the minimum requirements of the Draft Guidelines for
Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG).
Both the feature data and compliance data can be joined or related to the spatial feature summary table via a unique ID that the PROW software generates.
BV will use our web-based database, ADA AssetCALC™
for the facility assessments, and for components of the
Transition Plan. ADA AssetCALC™ will provide the City with the ability to generate cost tables for all facilities, or for each individual facility. Similar types of barriers can be queried within the ADA AssetCALC™ database across all
facilities, with the resulting ability to improve purchasing and contracting power. Barriers can be ranked by priority for removal. Photos will be uploaded to ADA AssetCALC™
to be viewed as a photo log or individually, when reviewing a specific barrier. BV will provide a Transition Plan, which will include the program access report, presented in a
Word document converted to an Adobe PDF, with the data
exportable to an Excel format. BV will provide an electronic draft of the reports for review, including text, tables, digital photos, field notes, and supporting documentation. Final reports will be provided after all the City’s comments have been addressed.
BV is providing access, at no additional charge, to ADA AssetCALC™ for a period of one year. This platform
streamlines the Capital Planning and ADA Transition
Planning process by compiling funding requirements for
barriers and creating budget models based on project
priority, life cycle maintenance, and repair requirements.
The City is not required to utilize this software as we will provide hardcopy reports and we can export the data to
Excel and Word formats. We have included ADA AssetCALC™ licenses for three (3) years with unlimited users.
ADA AssetCALC™ is a web-based SQL database platform
that enables users to query, edit, and analyze their facility accessibility and condition data to plan immediate and
short-term barrier repairs, and budget capital expenditures throughout the lifecycle of a single building or an entire portfolio. The system unites BV’s experienced field data collection methods with advanced planning and reporting tools, construction cost library, location mapping features, digital photo management, and document storage.
ADA AssetCALC™ will provide the City with the ability
to list, prioritize, query, and track deficiencies recorded through the Self-Assessment Process. It is easy to use, and populated with accessibility requirements pertinent to the City. BV recognizes that budgets change and the Transition Plan must be able to account for unplanned occurrences.
ADA AssetCALC™ provides a process to complete work on
those barriers that have been corrected over time. Reports can be queried instantaneously to reflect the barriers
corrected. ADA AssetCALC™ provides the ability to track progress over time.
Prior to populating the database, BV will work with the City to establish required attributes and data points associated with each asset. This will include a discussion of the relative priority of the asset requiring barrier removal. This will include all of the City’s physical assets and will be grouped in a hierarchy based on site location, asset group, and function.
BV will utilize ADA AssetCALC™ to track physical accessibility needs associated with the Implementation/Transition Plan.
The database contains a capital planning and transition planning module in which accessibility construction
projects may be established, including barrier removal
priorities. It will provide the City with a consolidated database of capital projects related to barrier removal.
Capabilities of ADA AssetCALC™ include, but are not limited to:
• Microsoft.net web-enabled software
• Customizable fields, groupings, and reporting
• Reports, charts and graphs to forecast capital needs for individual buildings and construction projects
• Progress reports and tracking of the corrective measure progress
• Capital budget planning tools to assign and track
progress over fiscal years
• Corrective action work completed/progress complete
• Access to the observed site conditions of barriers with photographs and GPS positions of exterior barriers
• Updateable cost library makes budgets more accurate
over time
• Customizable priority framework and search tools to
help decision makers
• Export tools to take data to other applications, including Microsoft Excel
• Repository for storing and searching documents related to buildings and component
• ADA compliance library to plan and track accessibility improvements
• Administrative tools for managing user access
ADA AssetCALC™‘ reporting can include GPS coordinates
for locations of each exterior barrier on a satellite map.
BV, in conjunction with Google Earth imaging, provides
the most recent satellite mapping. Each exterior barrier is indicated by its own GPS marker. Screenshots and a live demonstration are available upon request.
Data Management Solution -
ADA AssetCALC™ Software
6. SCHEDULE OF WORK
BV has the ability and resources to complete the ADA assessments in a timely manner. The following details our proposed timeline to complete the project. This schedule is open to negotiations between the City and BV.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
a. Bureau Veritas has no financial, business, or other relationship with the City of Pleasanton that may have an impact upon the outcome of the contract or the construction project. b. There are no clients of BV that may have a financial interest in the outcome of this contract or the construction project that will follow.
c. BV has no financial interest or relationship with any construction company that might submit a bid on the construction project.
d. BV has no staffing or company relationship with staff or City employee that may have any involvement or benefit to the outcome of the contract.
LITIGATION
In the course of our business meritless claims arise from time to time. It is BV’s policy not to comment on any current litigation. However, without waiving its policy, BV has no judgments, pending litigation, liens, or claims that would adversely impact the financial stability, insurability, or performance of professional services of BV.
CONTRACT AGREEMENT
BV has no issues or needed changes to the proposed contract agreement included as Attachment 1.
The proposal terms shall remain in effect for ninety (90) days following the date proposal submittals are due.
ATTACHMENT 2
Project Funding to Date Amount Totals
2023-26 CIP Allocation (Fund 201 - Miscellaneous CIP) $1,000,000
TOTAL FUNDING TO DATE
Project Expenditures to Date
Advertisting $316
GIS Mapping & Associated Work (Eclipse Mapping & GIS, C#2025311)14,300 Total Project Expenditures to Date $14,616
Anticipated Project Expenditures
Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC Professional Services Agreement (includes 10% contingency Optional Services) $435,276
Total Anticipated Project Expenditures $435,276
TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Funding Balance/ (Shortfall)
Project Balance 550,108
$1,000,000
ADA TRANSITION PLAN
CIP NO. 16437
$449,892
Item #8
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 17, 2026
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF PONDEROSA–DEL PRADO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-1 (PONDEROSA LMD 2026-1) AND BONDE RANCH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-2 (BONDE RANCH LMD 2026-2)
SUMMARY
The City manages five Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs) provide for the maintenance of landscape improvements intended to benefit properties within each district. All five LMDs were formed prior to the adoption of Proposition 218, and their assessment levels have not kept pace with rising maintenance, water, and capital replacement costs. Two of these districts, Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1 (Ponderosa-Del Prado) and Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch), face more immediate funding and maintenance challenges, and neither district has sufficient reserves to sustainably fund ongoing maintenance and capital repair needs.
Since late 2025, staff and the City’s consultant, SCI Consulting Group, have engaged with residents regarding the potential formation of new districts. Initial neighborhood meetings were held in November 2025 to explain the need for a Proposition 218 ballot proceeding. Follow-up meetings in February provided an opportunity to respond to community feedback and present updated maintenance and cost options for consideration.
Staff recommends initiating proceedings to form two new landscape maintenance assessment districts to replace the existing districts. This action represents the initial phase of a multi-step process required under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Approval of this action will initiate proceedings and direct the preparation of Engineer’s Reports to identify proposed assessments, describe and evaluate special benefits, and define district boundaries. Subsequent actions will include City Council acceptance of the Engineer’s Reports, public noticing, and a Proposition 218 property owner ballot proceeding.
The proposed new districts would be named Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 and Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2. The existing districts would be replaced only if the proposed districts are approved in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements and are not subject to a majority protest.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolutions that:
1. Initiate proceedings for the formation of Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 to replace Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1 (Ponderosa-Del Prado).
2. Initiate proceedings for the formation of Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 to replace Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch).
3. Designate SCI Consulting Group as Engineer of Work and direct the preparation of Engineer’s Reports for both proposed districts in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
BACKGROUND
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, codified in Division 15, Part 2, Chapter 2, Sections 22500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code, authorizes local agencies to impose annual assessments on real property that receives a special benefit from the installation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping and lighting improvements. These assessments are collected by Alameda County through the annual property tax bill.
The City currently administers five Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs). Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1 (Ponderosa-Del Prado) and Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch) were formed prior to the 1996 adoption of Proposition 218, commonly referred to as the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act.” While these LMDs have continued to operate, their assessment structures were established decades ago and do not reflect current maintenance and repair costs or the need to accumulate adequate reserves for capital repairs and the replacement of aging infrastructure.
Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution by adding Article XIIID, which establishes procedural and substantive requirements for property-related assessments. These requirements include preparation of an Engineer’s Report demonstrating special benefits to assessed parcels, notice and public hearing procedures, and approval of proposed assessments through a weighted property owner ballot proceeding (the property owner’s vote is weighted based on the amount they pay). As a result, adjustments to assessment structures or rates must be evaluated through a formal assessment proceeding, rather than through administrative rate changes.
On July 15, 2025, the City Council approved the assessments for the districts, including budgeting for the Proposition 218 process, and approved an amendment to the agreement with SCI Consulting Group to perform related services.
Initiating proceedings at this time allows the City to engage specialized assessment consultants and prepare updated Engineer’s Reports consistent with Proposition 218 requirements. The Engineer’s Reports will provide the technical analysis necessary to identify district improvements, evaluate special benefits, and develop proposed assessment methodologies for future City Council consideration and property owner review.
DISCUSSION
The Ponderosa-Del Prado and Bonde Ranch LMDs provide for the maintenance of landscape improvements intended to benefit properties within each district. These improvements include irrigation systems, landscaping, and related infrastructure. Over time, increasing water and labor costs, along with aging infrastructure, have placed growing pressure on district finances.
The Ponderosa-Del Prado and Bonde Ranch LMDs were prioritized for a Proposition 218
ballot proceeding because they do not have homeowner’s associations positioned to assume maintenance responsibilities. In addition, unlike the Moller Ranch and Oak Tree Farm LMDs, these districts were not established with an annual inflationary adjustment factor. As a result, assessment revenues have not kept pace with escalating costs, leading to insufficient reserves and deferred maintenance needs.
In preparation for initiating proceedings, staff and SCI Consulting Group conducted neighborhood outreach meetings to inform property owners about the potential Proposition 218 process, gather community input, and present maintenance and funding options for consideration. The initial meetings, held in November 2025, focused on explaining the financial challenges facing the districts and outlining the requirements of Proposition 218.
Feedback received during the November meetings reflected both support and opposition to potential assessment increases. In response, the City launched an informational website providing detailed background on the districts and the Proposition 218 process. At follow-up meetings in February 2026, staff presented three maintenance level options to gauge community preferences:
• High - Maintenance consistent with the original intent at the time of district formation • Moderate - City recommended level aligned with maintenance standards for mature municipal landscapes
• Low - Reduced maintenance in response to cost concerns, with maintenance similar to the existing maintenance level, which will only address basic safety and liability concerns
Ponderosa-Del Prado Assessment Options – current cost is $61 annually/$5 monthly
Bonde Ranch Assessment Options – current cost is $396 annually/$33 monthly
Informal surveys were distributed to district residents who provided email addresses to obtain general feedback regarding preferred maintenance levels. The survey also included an option indicating opposition to any assessment increase, which would maintain the existing assessment structure and associated service levels.
Initiating proceedings does not approve any assessment amount at this time. Rather, it authorizes the technical and legal steps necessary to define proposed assessments and to evaluate special benefits for future consideration by property owners and the City Council. No assessment amounts, rates, or methodologies are being approved as part of this action.
Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1 (Ponderosa-Del Prado) The Ponderosa Homes subdivision includes 344 parcels and was originally formed as a landscape maintenance district in 1984, with the earliest recorded assessment dating to 1988.
Maintenance responsibilities within the district include trees, shrubbery, groundcover, and irrigation systems along Paseo Santa Cruz. These improvements are associated with Tract 5256 Phase III and Tract 4986, known as the Arroyo de la Laguna Improvements.
The landscaped areas maintained by the district are specifically located north of Corte de Flores on the west side of Paseo Santa Cruz, extending approximately 160 feet, and north of Corte Pacifica on the east side of Paseo Santa Cruz, extending approximately 1,370 feet.
These improvements are intended to provide a direct and distinct benefit to the properties within the subdivision through neighborhood aesthetics, visual buffering, and functional landscaping.
Under the current assessment funding level, available revenues are limited relative to the district’s maintenance and infrastructure needs. While funding supports basic routine maintenance activities, it does not provide sufficient capacity for capital repairs or planned replacement of aging improvements. As a result, maintenance activities are largely reactive, with limited ability to address long-term system needs.
Deferred maintenance has contributed to irrigation system failures, loss of trees and plant material, and increased weed growth within maintained areas. The district does not maintain adequate reserves to address these conditions through planned repair or replacement, which
may result in higher future costs if maintenance and infrastructure needs continue to be deferred.
Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch)
The Bonde Ranch subdivision consists of 103 parcels and was formed as a Landscape Maintenance District in 1993. Maintenance responsibilities include entry features, open space areas, firebreaks, trees, shrubbery, groundcover, irrigation systems, and related appurtenances within Tracts 6483 and 6518.
Under the current assessment funding level, available revenues are limited relative to the district’s ongoing maintenance and long-term infrastructure needs. While existing revenues support routine maintenance and administrative costs, they do not provide sufficient capacity to address deferred maintenance or capital repair needs as district improvements age.
The irrigation system has experienced failures and operational inefficiencies over time, and portions of the system were shut off approximately five years ago due to funding constraints associated with repair and replacement. Limited funding has also resulted in deferred vegetation management activities, including tree pruning and weed abatement. In addition, the district does not maintain adequate reserves to address unanticipated repairs, which may result in higher future costs if maintenance and infrastructure needs continue to be deferred.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Maintenance of existing landscape improvements within the proposed districts is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction. In addition, initiation of assessment proceedings is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because it involves a governmental funding mechanism without commitment to a specific physical project.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable. This item addresses routine administration and funding of existing neighborhood infrastructure.
OUTREACH
The City conducted two public meetings for each district to inform property owners about the proposed process and gather input. The initial meetings were held virtually to introduce the potential formation of new districts and provide background information. Following those meetings, informational flyers were mailed to affected property owners summarizing key discussion points, addressing questions raised, and providing additional context.
The second meetings were held in person and offered a virtual attendance option. Prior to the meetings, the City launched dedicated websites for each district to provide ongoing access to project information. After the meetings, summaries and an informal survey regarding potential voting options were shared with property owners.
If directed by the City Council to proceed, formal noticing and balloting will be conducted in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements. An additional joint meeting with property owners from both districts is planned for April 2026 to continue outreach and information sharing as the process advances.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Funding Our Future by supporting long-term financial sustainability and responsible stewardship of community-owned infrastructure and landscape improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impact to the City of Pleasanton General Fund occurs by initiating proceedings.
All costs associated with the formation of the proposed districts are to be borne by the respective assessment districts and have been included in this fiscal year's budget.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1
2. Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF A LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS PONDEROSA-DEL PRADO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-1
WHEREAS, the formation of the Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 (“District”) is being initiated pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “Act”), Division 15, Part 2, Chapter 2, Sections 22500 et. seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code, for the installation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping and other improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 is intended to replace the Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1 (Ponderosa-Del Prado); and WHEREAS, the Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1 (Ponderosa-Del Prado) will be replaced only if there is not a majority protest against the proposed Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that said territory will be specifically benefited by the maintenance and servicing of said improvements; and WHEREAS, Section 22585 of the Act provides that the formation of Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 shall be initiated by resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare an Engineer's Report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act and Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
The Engineer’s Report shall include a description of the improvements, the boundaries of the proposed assessment district, the estimated costs, the proposed method of assessment, and the assessment diagram. Upon completion, the Engineer shall file the Engineer's Report with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council.
SECTION 2. The proposed assessment district shall be designated as Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1, City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, and shall include that certain real property situated in the State of California, County of Alameda, City of Pleasanton.
SECTION 3. The proposed improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as follows:
The installation, maintenance, and servicing of designated landscaped areas, including trees, shrubs, and irrigation systems, all as delineated on the landscape and irrigation plans for Tract 5256 (Phase III Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1) and Tract 4986 (Arroyo de la Laguna Improvements).
These improvements are located in the following areas:
• North of Corte de Flores on the west side of Paseo Santa Cruz, approximately 160 feet long by 6 feet wide.
• North of Corte Pacifica on the east side of Paseo Santa Cruz, approximately 1,370 feet long by 6 feet wide.
The areas are generally depicted in Exhibit A attached to this resolution.
SECTION 4. 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 March 17, 2026.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORMATION OF A LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS BONDE RANCH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-2
WHEREAS, the formation of the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 (“District”) is being initiated pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “Act”), Division 15, Part 2, Chapter 2, Sections 22500 et. seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code, for the installation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping and other improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 is intended to replace the Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch); and WHEREAS, the Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch) will be replaced only if there is not a majority protest against the proposed Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determines that said territory will be specifically benefited by the maintenance and servicing of said improvements; and WHEREAS, Section 22585 of the Act provides that the formation of Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 shall be initiated by resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. SCI Consulting Group is hereby designated as Engineer of Work for purposes of these proceedings and is hereby ordered to prepare an Engineer's Report in accordance with Article 4 of Chapter 1 of the Act and Article XIIID of the California Constitution.
The Engineer’s Report shall include a description of the improvements, the boundaries of the proposed assessment district, the estimated costs, the proposed method of assessment, and the assessment diagram. Upon completion, the Engineer shall file the Engineer's Report with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council.
SECTION 2. The proposed assessment district shall be designated as Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2, City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, and shall include that certain real property situated in the State of California, County of Alameda, City of Pleasanton.
SECTION 3. The proposed improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as follows:
The installation, maintenance, and servicing of designated landscaped areas, open space slopes, fuel transition zones (fire breaks), entry features, open space drainage ditches, irrigation systems, trees in the open space and designated landscape areas, and the furnishing of water and power for irrigation systems, together with all appurtenant and incidental expenses within
Tract 6483 and Tract 6518, City of Pleasanton, as generally illustrated in Exhibit A, which depicts the areas proposed for maintenance responsibilities within Tract 6483 and Tract 6518.
The official boundaries of the assessment district will be determined and described in the Engineer’s Report.
SECTION 4. 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 March 17, 2026.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of March, 2026, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
.
Item #9
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 17, 2026
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR
THE USE OF SANTOS RANCH ROAD
SUMMARY
The City of Pleasanton seeks to renew license agreements governing the use of Santos Ranch Road, a City-owned private roadway, with property owners, telecommunications companies, and the East Bay Regional Park District. The agreements authorize use of the roadway for the purposes specified therein and establish updated maintenance responsibilities, operational standards, and insurance and indemnification requirements.
The prior Maintenance Agreement, executed on August 4, 1994, expired on August 4, 2024.
Staff has prepared an updated License Agreement reflecting current City standards. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the renewed license agreements.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute License Agreements for the use of Santos Ranch Road.
BACKGROUND
Santos Ranch Road was constructed using funds from the Pleasanton Township County Water District Assessment District No. 3. Following the dissolution of the Pleasanton Township County Water District, the City of Pleasanton became the successor agency and assumed ownership of the roadway.
The County of Alameda and the City of Hayward subsequently quitclaimed their respective interests in Santos Ranch Road to the City. As a result, the City holds fee title ownership of Santos Ranch Road as a private roadway. The roadway does not meet minimum design standards for use as a public street and is therefore not open to the general public. Access is controlled by an automatic gate.
In 1994, the City entered into a Maintenance Agreement with eleven (11) other parties that utilize Santos Ranch Road. These parties include residential property owners who access their homes via the roadway, the East Bay Regional Park District for access to park property, and telecommunication and cellular service providers that maintain facilities on City-owned property accessible from the roadway. The 1994 Agreement established maintenance responsibilities, cost-sharing provisions, and operational standards among the parties for a term of twenty-five (25) years. A central component of the agreement was the requirement that all parties maintain insurance and provide indemnification to protect the City from liability arising from their use of the roadway.
DISCUSSION
The 1994 Maintenance Agreement expired on August 4, 2024, at the conclusion of its 25-year term (Attachment 4). Since that time, no updated agreement has been executed among all parties utilizing Santos Ranch Road. The expiration of the agreement created the need to formalize updated terms governing use of the roadway and to incorporate current City standards for maintenance, insurance, and indemnification.
Staff prepared a Proposed License Agreement (Attachment 1) that reflects the City’s current contractual and risk management standards. The Proposed Agreement differs from the 1994 Agreement in several key respects:
1. The 1994 Agreement required the parties to perform maintenance pursuant to a defined schedule. The Proposed Agreement clarifies which maintenance obligations, if any, belong to the City and provides the City with discretion to maintain the roadway as necessary for City operations and in accordance with City standards.
2. The 1994 Agreement required nominal annual maintenance contributions ranging from $100 to $150 per party. The Proposed Agreement eliminates this fee requirement.
3. The Proposed Agreement updates and strengthens insurance and indemnification provisions to reflect current City risk management standards and to ensure appropriate liability protection associated with private use of a City-owned roadway.
Beginning on August 13, 2024, the City initiated outreach to the eleven (11) interested parties.
Correspondence describing the City’s ownership of Santos Ranch Road and enclosing the Proposed Agreement was mailed on August 13, 2024; October 17, 2024; November 15, 2024; and July 16, 2025.
To date, five of the eleven parties have responded. Two agreements have been received, including agreements with the East Bay Regional Park District (Attachment 2) and Geno Tolari (Attachment 3). Staff continues to coordinate with the remaining responding parties.
Challenges in securing executed agreements include property owners residing outside the country, outdated or limited contact information, and a lack of response despite repeated follow-up. In certain instances, agreements require internal review by the respective parties prior to execution.
Staff’s next steps include continued phone outreach and in-person visits to residential property owners. As the fee title owner of Santos Ranch Road, the City retains the authority to manage and restrict access to the private roadway if agreements are not executed, including modifying gate access credentials.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Proposed Agreements with those parties that have responded, and to execute future Proposed Agreements in substantially the same form as Attachment 1 for the remaining residential parties, as outreach efforts continue.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is an administrative matter of City business.
OUTREACH
Beginning on August 13, 2024, City staff initiated direct outreach to the eleven (11) parties utilizing Santos Ranch Road. Outreach efforts included multiple mailed notices enclosing the Proposed License Agreement, as well as follow-up phone calls and coordination with responding parties. Staff continue to conduct direct outreach to secure executed agreements.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable, as this item is an administrative matter of City business.
FISCAL IMPACT
To date, the maintenance account for Santos Ranch Road has a remaining balance of approximately $326,000.
Under the 1994 Agreement, parties were required to pay an annual maintenance fee ranging from $150/year for parties with a residence accessed by Santos Ranch Road to $100/year for parties with non-residential improvements accessed by Santos Ranch Road. Historically, these fees were inconsistently collected and enforced, resulting in minimal impact on mitigating the City’s costs when the City performed in accordance with the maintenance schedule of Santos Ranch Road.
The Proposed Agreement eliminates the annual maintenance fee and does not obligate the City to adhere to a defined maintenance schedule. Instead, the City may maintain Santos Ranch Road on an as-needed basis to meet City operational requirements. As a result, approval of the Proposed Agreement is anticipated to have minimal fiscal impact.
If the interested parties elect to maintain Santos Ranch Road to a higher standard than required for City use, they would be required to enter into a separate agreement to fund such improvements. The City would not be obligated to finance additional maintenance beyond what is necessary for its operational needs.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Proposed License Agreement (Form for Residential Owners)
2. Resolution for Agreement with East Bay Regional Park District
3. Resolution for Agreement with Geno Tolari
4. 1994 Maintenance Agreement (Historical Reference)
1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of Pleasanton
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Office of the City Clerk
City of Pleasanton
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Exempt from Recording Fees
pursuant to Gov’t Code
§§ 27383 and 6103
LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
AND [FULL LEGAL NAME OF OWNER] FOR SANTOS RANCH ROAD LOCATED AT
[SPECIFIC ADDRESS LOCATION]
This Property Entry Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and _____________ (the "Owner”). City and Owner may be collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. The City is the owner of the real property located in the City of Pleasanton, generally described as Santos Ranch Road, also known as “Parcel 1”, and more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated by this reference (the "Road"); and
B. The Road provides a means for the Owner to reach his or her residence; and
C. The Owner has requested permission from the City to use the Road for the purposes identified in this Agreement, in return for the Owner's agreement to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED HEREIN, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. PERMISSION FOR ENTRY AND USE. The City grants permission to the Owner (including its invitees and agents) to enter all of Parcel 1 (the “Premises”), for the purpose of ingress to and egress from the Owner’s residence located at _____________.
2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon full execution of this Agreement by the parties and shall terminate upon written agreement by the Parties.
CITY OF PLEASANTON – LICENSE AGREEMENT
[SPECIFIC ADDRESS LOCATION]
2 3. DAMAGE. The Owner, the Owner’s family member, guest, agent, employee, or subtenant of the Owner, who causes damage to the road, gate, or storm drain, shall be referred to as “Responsible Party.” The Responsible Party shall immediately repair the same within fourteen (14) days at the Responsible Party’s sole expense.
4. INDEMNIFICATION. The Owner shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City from and against any and all claims or injury to property, including but not limited to, the Road or any structures, foundations, or other improvements of the indemnifying party, and persons and property, arising from the indemnifying party, or its invitees’ and agents’ use of the Road or from any activity, work, or thing done, permitted or suffered in or about the Road by the Owner, its invitees, and agents, except that no Party shall be indemnified for its own negligence or willful misconduct or the negligence or willful misconduct of its contractors, agents, or employees.
5. NOTICES. All notices required or contemplated by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective party as set forth in this section.
Communications shall be deemed to be effective upon the first to occur of: (a) actual receipt by a party’s Authorized Representative, or (b) actual receipt at the address designated below, or (c) three working days following deposit in the United States Mail of registered or certified mail sent to the address designated below.
TO: City To: Owner
Attn: ____________________ Attn: __________________
__________________________ ________________________
__________________________ ________________________
__________________________ ________________________
__________________________ ________________________
6. SEVERABILITY. If any term of this Agreement (including any phrase, provision, covenant, or condition) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the Agreement shall be construed as not containing that term, and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect; provided, however, this paragraph shall not be applied to the extent that it would result in a frustration of the parties’ intent under this Agreement.
7. GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE. The interpretation, validity, and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any suit, claim, or legal proceeding of any kind related to this Agreement shall be filed and heard in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Alameda.
8. RUNS WITH THE LAND. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall apply to subsequent owners of the Property.
9. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office.
10. ATTORNEY’S FEES. In the event any legal action is commenced to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred.
CITY OF PLEASANTON – LICENSE AGREEMENT
[SPECIFIC ADDRESS LOCATION]
3 11. MODIFICATIONS. This Agreement may not be modified orally or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by both parties.
12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all documents incorporated herein by reference, comprises the entire integrated understanding between the parties concerning the work described herein. This Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, and understandings regarding this matter, whether written or oral. The documents incorporated by reference into this Agreement are complementary; what is called for in one is binding as if called for in all.
13. SIGNATURES. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of the Owner and the City.
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner do hereby agree to the full performance of the terms set forth herein.
CITY OF PLEASANTON OWNER
[FULL LEGAL NAME OF OWNER]
______________________________ ______________________________ By: _______________________ By: _______________________ Title: _______________________ Title: _______________________
(Signature of Owner must be notarized)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AND THE
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FOR USE OF ROADS WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE PLEASANTON TOWNSHIP COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #3
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton, as successor to the Pleasanton Township County Water District (PTCWD), owns fee title to Santos Ranch Road, which was constructed with funds from the PTCWD Assessment District #3 Fund; and;
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton, as the successor to the Pleasanton Township County Water District (PTCWD), controls the surplus funds in the PTCWD Assessment District #3 Fund; and
WHEREAS, the original Santos Ranch Road Shared Maintenance Agreement was entered on August 4, 1999 and expired on August 4, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the EBRPD requires use of portions of Santos Ranch Road to access property owned by the East Bay Regional Park District; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2025 the EBRPD Board of Directors authorized EBRPD staff to enter into this Agreement; and
WHERAS, this agreement is required to define the obligations and maintenance responsibilities for the City of Pleasanton and the EBRPD.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. Approves the Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement between the City of Pleasanton and East Bay Regional Parks District, a copy of which is attached hereto, and directs the City Manager to execute all appropriate documents.
SECTION 2. This resolution shall be 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 March 17, 2026.
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 17 th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
Resolution No.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Resolution No.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AND GENO TOLARI FOR SANTOS RANCH ROAD LOCATED AT APN 946-3800-4-12
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton, as successor to the Pleasanton Township County Water District (PTCWD), owns fee title to Santos Ranch Road, which was constructed with funds from the PTCWD Assessment District #3 Fund; and
WHEREAS, Santos Ranch Road has been a private roadway since the County of Alameda and the City of Hayward abandoned their public right-of-way in the road; and
WHEREAS, the original Santos Ranch Road Shared Maintenance Agreement was entered on August 4, 1999 and expired on August 4, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Geno Tolari requires the use of Santos Ranch Road to access their residence located at APN 946-3800-4-12; and
WHEREAS, a new agreement is required to define the obligations and maintenance responsibilities for the City of Pleasanton and Geno Tolari.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. Approves the Agreement attached as Exhibit A between the City of Pleasanton and Geno Tolari and directs the City Manager to execute all appropriate documents.
SECTION 2. This resolution shall be 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 March 17, 2026.
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 17 th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Resolution No.
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
•
SANTOS RANCH ROAD
SHARED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this l..ft1'- day of Av5v:.f. 1999, by and between Sheldon M. Berz, Anatol J. Jordan, Ajit Paul Singh Sandhu, Surinder Sandu, Geno P.
Tolari, Elaine D. Tolari, East Bay Regional Park District ("District"), City of Pleasanton {"City"), (collectively referred to as "Property Owners"), Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, a California general partnership doing business as CellularOne {"CellularOne"), American Tower Systems, a Delaware Limited Partnership, with ATSC GP Inc. as its sole general partner, Sprint PCS ( collectively referred to "Lessees"); collectively the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. City, as successor in interest to the Pleasanton Township County Water District, is the record owner of real property consisting of a 0.9 mile private road, commonly known as Santos Ranch Road {"Road"), and as described more particularly in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
B. Property Owners are record owners of real property having access to Road.
C. Lessees are lessees or licensees who utilize Road.
D. Parties desire to enter into an agreement to share maintenance costs related to the Road, related weed abatement, adjacent storm drains, and gate with adjoining masonry walls, lights and iron panels.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for mutual consideration, the value of which is hereby acknowledged, Parties agree as follows:
I. MAINTENANCE WORK
a. The Parties shall plan, maintain, repair, replace, finance, or participate in the following:
I. Maintenance of the Road to keep the Road in good, safe, and passable condition, based upon standards of a private road. Maintenance shall occur from the base of the Road at the intersection with Foothill Road, 0.9 miles to the terminus point of the Road.
2. Maintenance of all storm drains adjacent to and under the Road to ensure that such storm drains are capable of having rainwater enter into the storm drain and flow reasonably unimpeded into the City's storm water system.
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement I
•
3. Maintenance of one (1) lighted gate, with number-pad lock, adjacent masonry walls, and iron panels in an operational condition at the base of the Road.
4. Abatement of weeds four feet (4') on each side of the Road or to a natural ledge or berm.
5. Install safety features for the Road, which may include, but are not limited to: a new crash barrier at the base of the Road., new signage regarding how to drive on the road, and reflectors.
b. All work or use done under this Agreement shall conform to the standards and specifications established by state and local law.
II. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
The maintenance work shall be completed according to the following schedule:
a. On or about January, May and September of each year, there shall be a field review of the Road and all cracks on the Road which are significant or harmful to the safety and the passable condition shall be sealed.
b. On or about December, February, and March of each year, herbicides shall be applied to areas of weed growth on four feet ( 4') of each side of the Road or to the top of a natural ledge or berm.
c. On or about May and October of each year, debris shall be removed from the storm drains adjacent to the Road. In addition, drain grates will be cleared of debris following major storms as needed.
d. On or about May and September of each year, weeds shall be removed on four feet ( 4') on each side of the Road or to the top of a natural ledge or berm. e. The gate, number-pad lock, and gate light shall be repaired as necessary, or as needed in the event of damage or vandalism if the responsible party cannot be located.
f. In 2004, and every five (5) years thereafter, the Road shall be seal coated, except in years when asphalt overlay is applied pursuant to the following subsection. g. In 1999, and every twenty (20) years thereafter, the Road shall be asphalt overlaid.
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 2
III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES
The Parties shall be responsible for the following:
a. The Parties shall exercise reasonable care in using the Road and gate. b. The Parties shall use their best efforts to prevent injury or damage to the Road and gate.
c. Any Party (for purposes of this subsection referred to as the "Responsible Party") who causes damage to the Road, gate or storm drains shall, at Responsible Party's sole expense, immediately repair the same within fourteen (14) days. If the damage, or nuisance is caused by a family member, guest, agent, employee, or subtenant of a Party, then said Party shall be the Responsible Party.
1. If the Responsible Party fails to act promptly, or should the exigencies of the damage require repairs or replacement to be made before the Responsible Party can be notified or can respond to the notifications, City or any other Party to this Agreement may, at its option, make the necessary repairs or replacement or perform the necessary work. Under such circumstances, City or any such other Party shall provide Responsible Party with notice of intent within three (3) business days of performing such necessary work, and the responsible Party shall be charged with all the reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of the work.
2. If a Responsible Party cannot be determined, the cost of repairs shall be added to the maintenance work set forth in Section I.
d. No Party may store, dump, or leave on, along, or adjacent to the Road or storm drains any material, including but not limited to construction materials, debris, soil, rocks, or plant material, unless previously approved by the City, local ordinance, or other local agency approval.
IV. ALLOCATION OF COSTS
a. On July 1 of each year of this Agreement:
1. Property Owners who have a residence which is accessed by the Road shall pay to the City One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per residence for maintenance costs;
2. Property Owners who have non-residential improvements which are accessed by the Road shall pay to the City One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for maintenance;
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 3
3. Property Owners with unimproved property which is accessed by the Road shall pay no maintenance costs, until such time as such Property Owner develops his or her property; and
4. Lessees or licensees shall pay to the City One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) each for maintenance costs.
b. All additional funds needed to pay for maintenance costs shall be paid from the funds of the Pleasanton Township County Water District Assessment District #3 Fund.
V. ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
The City shall administer this Agreement and all contracts made pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall charge its customary administrative fee often percent (10%) which shall be paid from the funds of the Pleasanton Township County Water District Assessment District #3 Fund.
VI. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
a. Nothing in this Agreement shall be understood or construed to prevent the City of Pleasanton, as the record owner of the Road, from undertaking on any part of the Road or adjacent property, actions reasonably necessary to preserve its title to and use of Road, in City's sole and absolute discretion. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the City's existing or future title to and use of the roadway, nor be construed as granting Parties any property interest in Road, except as expressly granted by the City.
b. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the existing or future rights of the Property Owners and Lessees to the use of the roadway.
VII. OBLIGATION TO REBUILD ROAD.
If all or any portion of the Road is damaged or destroyed by land slide or other casualty, the City shall undertake the repair, rebuilding, or reconstruction of the road using funds from the account of the Pleasanton Township County Water District Assessment District #3 Fund upon approval by the City Council.
VIII. RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR REPAIRS AND ACCESS
Parties, their agents and employees will be permitted to travel on, cross, enter the Road at any reasonable hour of the day to make or facilitate repairs on any part of the Road. In addition, Parties shall have unrestricted use of the Road for access to and from their property.
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 4
IX. INDEMNITY
Each Party, except the City, shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and each other Party against any and all claims or suits for damages or injury to property, including but not limited to, the Road or any structures, foundations, or other improvements of the indemnifying Party, and persons and property, arising from the indemnifying Party's, or its invitees' and agents' use of the Road or from any activity, work or thing done, permitted or suffered in or about the Road by the indemnifying Party, its invitees and agents, except that no Party shall be indemnified for its own negligence or willful misconduct or the negligence or willful misconduct of its contractors, agents, or employees.
X. ATTORNEY'S FEES
In the event any litigation is commenced between the Parties with respect to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of litigation.
XI. NOTICE
All notices herein required shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid to the addresses listed in the attached Exhibit B.
Any Party or successor in interest may change the foregoing address by giving notice of a new address to every other Party in the manner provided herein.
XII. ADDITIONAL PARTIES
If new record owners of real property having access to the Road, or new lessees or licensees utilize the Road, desire to become a party to this Agreement, City may add such new owners, lessees, or licensees as signatories to the Agreement after prior written notice to the Parties.
XIII. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon any and all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of Parties. The obligations of any Lessee under this Agreement shall be terminated automatically upon termination or expiration of the lease, license, or other agreement under which that Lessee uses property adjacent to or accessed by the Road.
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 5
XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire agreement between Parties. No promise, representation, warranty, or covenant not included in the Agreement has been or is relied on by any Party.
XV. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended upon written consent of all parties to this Agreement.
XVI. DURATION
This Agreement shall remain in force and effect for twenty-five (25) years.
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS
a. Severability. If any section or portion of this Agreement is found to be invalid, such findings shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.
b. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart. c. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any suit to enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be filed in the Superior Court of Alameda County, Pleasanton Branch.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first written above.
CellularOne: Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company,
a Cali£ · ru:t::~r~lµp
By.~----c::.=--:~._
Its: ------------
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Deborah Acosta
City Manager
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 6
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
By: MtO ~w,--
Its: G \)M...hJ. M~C{~
American Tower Systems,
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
ATSC GP Inc. as its sole general partner
By: ___________ _
Its: ------------
Sprint PCS
By: ___________ _
Its: ------------
Sheldon M. Berz
Anatol J. Jordan
Ajit Paul Singh Sandhu
Surinder Sandu
Elaine D. Tolari
Geno P. Tolari
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 7
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
By: ____________ _
Its: -------------
American Tower
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
ATC GP Inc. as its sole general partner
By:___.!:./4~~-·. ---=-=-·0-~--==·-------=
I ts:_-'-l.1_KE..___,_'fh5t==-=Pft./7:=------
Sprint PCS
By: ___________ _
Its: ____________ _
Sheldon M. Berz
Anatol J. Jordan
Ajit Paul Singh Sandhu
Surinder Sandu
Elaine D. Tolari
Geno P. Tolari
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 7
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
By: ___________ _
Its: -------------
American Tower Systems,
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
ATSC GP Inc. as its sole general partner
By: -------------Its: -------------
SprinMU
By: ,
Its: ~
MIKE iODD
IJt~ $ITii OE'i,'ElOPMB~,ii'
Sheldon M. Berz
Anatol J. Jordan
Ajit Paul Singh Sandhu
Surinder Sandu
Elaine D. Tolari
Geno P. Tolari
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 7
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
By: ____________ _
Its: -------------
American Tower Systems,
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
ATSC GP Inc. as its sole general partner
By: -------------Its: -------------
Sprint PCS
By: ___________ _
Its: -------------
Anatol J. Jordan
Ajit Paul Singh Sandhu
Surinder Sandu
Elaine D. Tolari
Geno P. Tolari
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 7
··•
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
By: ____________ _
Its: -------------
American Tower Systems,
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
A TSC GP Inc. as its sole general partner
By: -------------Its: -------------
Sprint PCS
By: -------------Its: -------------
Sheldon M. Berz
~Le-----
Ajit Paul Singh Sandhu
Surinder Sandu
Elaine D. Tolari
Geno P. Tolari
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 7
1 •
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
By: ___________ _
Its: ------------
American Tower Systems,
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
ATSC GP Inc. as its sole general partner
By: ___________ _
Its: ------------
Sprint PCS
By: ------------Its: ------------
Sheldon M. Ben;
Anatol J. Jordan
Ajit Patti-Singh Sandhu
f/Jl-
1'-1~ )la1Yd<A_
Surinder Sandu
Elaine D. Tolari
Geno P. Tolari
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement
•
7
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
By: ____________ _
Its: -------------
American Tower Systems,
a Delaware Limited Partnership, with
A TSC GP Inc. as its sole general partner
By: ____________ _
Its: -------------
Sprint PCS
By: ____________ _
Its: -------------
Sheldon M. Berz
Anatol J. Jordan
Ajit Paul Singh Sandhu
Surinder Sandu
~~;M~
Elaine D. Tolari
.1/404 {l_ ~ .
1 Geno P. Tolari
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 7
•
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~)(M/Uhk
. Michael H. Roush, City Attorney
w-
LMS (C:\DATA\DOCS\AGREE_99\SANTOS\3-23-99.SAM)
Santos Ranch Road Maintenance Agreement 8
:1Xt27718
GRANT DEED • 11£4-, --f* 1
------ ----- r
For value received AXl277.l8
GRANTS to
TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE CO., a corporation,
PLEASANTON TOWNSHIP COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a political
subdivision of the State of California,
all the real property sHU0te in the County of Alameda, State of California, c:ie,cribed as follows:
Parcel one:
A portion of Sections 13 and 24, Township 3 South, Range ! West, M.D.B.&M., Alameda County, California, more particularly described as follows:
Corrimt:ncir-; at a point on the center line of Foothill Road, Oi'l Al0111eda Lounty Road, at Engineer•~ Station 6 plus 82.50; thence N. as° 45' 02" W. 74.71 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Fcothill R(IQd, said point being the true point of begiming for this description; thence from said point of beginning S. 430 45' W. 101. 93 fMt along said Southwesterly line of mid Road; th~nce leaving said Southwesterly line of seid .
Road olong a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 20.00 fNt through a central angle of 8fP 58' 53" on ore distance of 28.27 feet to a point from which the center of curve bears S. 3-4"' 43' 53" E. 20. :JO feet; thence along o co.i,pound curve to the right having a radius of 270.00 feet through a centrai angle of 34° 31' 06" on arc distance of 162.66 feet; thence S. 890 47; 13" W. tangent to said curve,383.06 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 fNt, through a central angle of 44° 13' 47'' an arc distance of 177.55 feet; thence along reverse curve to the left naving a radius of 170.00 feet, through a central an9'e of 5(/' 10' an arc disronce of 148.85 feet; thence S. 83° 51' W., tangent to said curve 360.89 feet; thence along a tar;gent curve to the right having a radius of 270.00 feet, through a central angle of 35° -41' an ore distance of 168.15 feet; ff.nee N. 6r1' 28' W., tangent to sa;d curve, 211.48 feet; thence olong o ianu-r.t curve to the right, having a radius of 230.00 feet through a central angle of 54° 22' -45" an arc distance of 118.29 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet through a central angle of 94° 39' 45" an arc distance of 280. 87 feet; thence along a rewne curv. to the right having a radius of 390.00 feet, through a central angle of 270 43' 23• an arc distance of 188. 70 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet through a central angle of 820 55' 45" an arc distance of 246. 06 feet; th.-nce S. 2-4° 02' 38" W., tangent to said curve, 236.17 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left having a rodius of 170.00 ffft fnough a centm.l angle of 55°34' 36" an arc distance of 164. 90 feet; ther.ce along a Nftf'M curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet through a central angle of 96°13 1 58• an arc di,tance of 386.30 feet; thence S. 64° 42' W. tangent to said curve, 96.67 feet; hnce along a tangent curve to the left having a radius of i70.09 fttt through a central anti• of 670 11' 21" an arc distance of 199.46 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet, tlirough., central cmgle of 26° 06' 21" an ore distance of 104.80 ffft; thence S. 23° 37' W., tangent to said curve, 160.00 feet; thence along a tangtmt curve to the left, hoving a radius of 210.00 feet through a central angle of 28'> 39' an arc diatance of 105.01 feet; thence S. 5° 02' E., tangent to said curve, 132.00 feet; t~nca cl,,.,Q a tangent curve to EXHIBIT_lf_
~
RE=1597 IM:615
2 the left, having a radius of 170.00 feet through a central angle of 24° '46' on ore distance of 73.48 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 ffft througt-. a central angle of 8-4° 33' an arc distance of 339.41 f-t; to a point here after referred to as " Point A; " thence N. 35°15' W., non-tangent to said curve 60:00 feet; thence northeasterly along a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of l 70.00 fuet through a central angle of 84 ° 33' an arc distance of 250. 86 feet; thence along o revene curve to the right having o radius of 230.00 feet,through a central angle of 2"4° -46' on ore distance of 99A2 feet; thence N. 05° 02' W ., tangent to said curve 132.0(HHt; thence along a tangent curve to the right having a radius~ 270.00 feet through a central angle of 280 39' an arc distance of 135.01 feet; thence N. 230 3r E., tangent to said curve 160.00 feet; thence along a tangent curve ta the left having a radha of 170.00 feet through a central angle of 26° 06' 21" on ore distance of 77 .-46 feet; thence along o reverse curve to the right having a radius of 230.09 feet through a centr,'21 angle of 670111 21" on ore distance of 269.82 feet; thence N. 64° 42' E. tangent to said curve 96.67 feet; thenc• along a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet, through c1 central angle of 96° 13' 58" an ore distonce of 230.00 feet through a central angle of 55° 34' 36" on ore distan of 223.10 feet; thence N. 24° 02' 38
11 E., tangent t~ said Cllfve 236.17 feet; thence along o tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 230.00 feet through a central angle of 820 55' 45" an arc length of 332.90 feet; then:;e along a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 330.00 feet, through a central angle of 27° 43' 23· ~narc distance of 159.67 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet, through a central angle of 94° 39' 45" an arc distance of 380.00 feet; thence along a reverse c:urve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet, thr01.gh ~ central angle of 54° 22' 45" an arc distance of 161.35 feet; thence S. 6fl' 28' E., tangent to said curve 211.48 feet; thence along a tangent cu.-ve to the left having a radius of 210.00 feet an ore dis tance of 130.79 feet; thence N. 83° 51' E., tangent ta said curve 360.89 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet through a central angle of 5<1' 10' on arc dis tance of :01.38 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet through a central angle of 44° 13' -47'' on arc distance of 131.23 feet; thence N. 890 -47' 1311 E., tangent to 10id cvrve 383.06 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left having o radius of 210.00 feet through o central angle of 290-41' 39'' on arc distanc:a of 108.83 feet to a point from which the center of curve bears N. 290 5-4' 26" W., a tfistance of 210.00 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the left having o radius of 20.00 feet through a central angle of 1()30 50' 34" an arc distance of 36.25 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel Two:
A portion of Section 24, Township 3 South, Range 1 West M.D.B.& M., Alameda County, Col ifornia, more particularly, described as follows:
Beginning at "POINT A", as described in Parcel one; thence from said point of beginning easterly r.ilong a curv~ to the left havbg a radius of 230.00 feet through o central angle of 90 03' 16" ar. arc distance of 15.80 feet too point from which the center of said curve bear'! N. 44° 18' 16" W., 230.00 feet; thence southerly dong a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 20.00 feet, through a central angle of 99° 09' 36" an arc distance of 34.61 feet to a point from which the center of said curve bears N. 240 18' 36" E. 20.00 feet; thence along a compound curve to the left, having a radius of 170.00 feet through a central angle of 120 13' 32" · an arc distance of 36.27 feet; thence along a reverse curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet ~ro!.!gh o c!!ntrn! o~!e t)f l:..t1' 57' 2-4" ""' Qrc diJttJ~"' t)f 2.U, 70 f"t; thence S. ,40 .W' E., tangent to 50id curve 246.30 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left having o radius of 170.00 feet through a central angle of 29° -47' 3-4" an arc dbtance of 88.-40 feet; thence S. 3"'° 31' 34" E., tangent to ,aid curve, 191.80 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 390.00 feet, through o central antle of 58° 06' 34" on arc distance of 395.54 fNt; thence along a reverse curve to the left having a radlUI of 250.00 feet, through a central anQle ~ 65° 05' on arc distance of 283. 98 feet; thence S. •41° 30' E., tangent to !90id curve, 166. 77 fNt; thence along a tangent curve to the right, having a radiu. of 370. 00 ffft, through o c•ntral angle of 2f:I' 30' an ore. distance of 132.38 feet; thence S. 21° 00' E., tang,,nt to soid curve, 450. 95 feet; thence on a tangent curve to ttle right having o radius of 630.00 feet, thrauii a AX1:?7718
central angle of HP 42' 50" on ore distonce of '20fJ.77 feet; 1h.nce S. ~ 17' 10" E., ta,igent to ,oid curve, 2'40.42 feet; thence along a tangent cun,e ta the left having a radiua of 370.00 feet, through a central angle of 44° 07' 21" an arc distance c:,f 284.93 feet; thence S. ~o 2,41 31• E., tangent to said curve, 219. U fee+ to a point hereinoftw rer.n..d to ca "POINT I"; thence S. ,43° 35' 29" W ., 60.00 feet; thence N. ~o 24' 31" W ., 219.14 feet; thence alo-,g a tangent C\11"19 to the right having o radius of '430.00 fe,t, through a central angle of 4,40 07' 21" an an: distance of 331 • 14 feet; thence N. 'P 17' 1 O" W., tangent to said curw, 2.C0.-42 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left having o rodius of 570.00 feet, fhrouah a centn,I angle of UP 42' 50" an arc diitance of 186. 17 feet; thence N. 21° 00' W., tangent to said curve, "50. 95 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the left having a radius of Jl0.00 feet, through a central angle of 2<1' 30' an arc distance of 110.92 feet; thence N. 41° 30' W ., tangent to said curw, 166.77 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right having a radiw of 310.00 feet, through a central angle of 65° 05' an arc distance of 352.13 feet; thence al0n9 a nsvene curve to the left having a radiw of 330.00 feet, throu&h o central anefe of 58° 06' 34" an an: distanca of 33-4.69 feet; thence N. 3.f> 31" 34" W., tangent to 10id curve, 191.80 feet; thence along a tangent cuNe tothe right having a radius of 230.00 feet, through a cen!rol flnfi• of~ 47' 3,4• an an: dis tance of H9.60 feet; thence N. ~ 44' W., tangent to 10id curve, 2~.30 feet; thenceolong a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 170.00 feet, through a central angle of 6fl' 57' 24" an ore distance of 180.86 feet; thence alone a reWIBe curve to the right having a radius of 230.00 feet, through a central angle of UJO 54' 22" an arc distance of 75.89 Fe.t to a point from which the center of said curw beoB N. 430 12' 58" E. 230.00 feet; thence along a com pound curve to the left havin; a radius of 20.00 feet, through a central angle of 102° 02' 44• an arc distance of 35.62 ,_t to a point from which the center of said curve bears S. 34044'18" E., 20.00 feet; thence easterly along a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 330.00 feet, through a cennol angle of fl' 30' 42" an ore distance 2. 95 feet to a point from which the center of :.aid curve beaB N. 35° 15' W. 330.00 feet; thence N. J50 \5' W. 60.00 ,_t; thence N. 54° ~• E. 60.00 ,_t; thence S. 35° 15' E. 60.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel Thre~:
(Easement 60 fe,et in width)
A portion of Section 24, Tow.-.hip 3 South, Range 1 West, M.D.B.& M., Alameda County, Califar:-iia, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at "POINT 8" as described in Parcel two; thence, from 10id point of beginning, southeasterly along a curve to th6 right having o radius of '430.00 feet, through a central angle of 370 41' 16• an ore dish.1nce of 282.84 feet; th<rnce S. f1' 431 15• E., tongent to said curve, 491.59 feet; thence along o tongent curve to the right having o radius of 5:>0.00 feet, through a central angle of 21° 56' 07" an arc distance of 202.91 feet; thence S. JJO 12' 52" W., tangent to soid curve, 55.58 feet; thence N. 811' 27' 51" W., 61. 26 feet; thence N. 13° 12' 52" E., 61.78fNt; thence olongo tangent curve to the left having a radiU5 of 470.00 feet, through a centrai angle of 21° 56' 07" an arc distance of 179. 94 feet; thence N. f1' 43' 15" W., tangent to said curve, 491. 59 fHt; thence along a curve to the left h,.yjng o radius of 370.00 feet, through o central angle of ,~XJ277ts
RE:1597 tM:617 ..
370 -41' 16" an arc distance of 2-43.38 feet; thence N. -43° 35' 29" E., radial to said curve,
60.00 feet to the point of beginning.
together with all of the improvements thereon and therein.
STATB OF CALIFORNIA,
AX127718 -···-··· ____ c-r, of--Canlm.-Cmto .... -... .. . .... ·-··· J •· o. 1/u _ ___ht._1 of- ._.A!J.9.'-:!~! ... _ ....... . .. ···-• ,,w ~ _ ,--- toiu......., _. sixty-five "b,/orr -. atr.i_~i.Q ... ~ .•... ~~~~··· ········---- • N-,.,y Pw& • Ml for,- C"""'Y., -···-·······--••·••Coatra .. Costa .................. _F;;;;:;k··c;~··Frf~' of c.a,-,,,-.,.. HI:, ,_,.ui.,..-' -. ,__., .,__ !)t'. --·-•···----·--··--------- ,o - low lM Assjstant~f9..!)'.. ____________ _ of tit, nir,.,._.,, ~ii,-',,,., ,nna- • ~ ~. • 111H ,__,. _,. H Iii# ;..----. r~ Iii, wit.. ~ oa bdaif of IM nw,.,.._ IINrwit ~-' od,,u,.w,,_ lo - ,,,., _.. _,_,_ ufflllft ""----·---··J ranpntrico Title --..... lmuraocc Co,
IN WITNESS WHERJjOP I kw IIC'rn.,,to sn n:y ,__ IMll •lfiltl •Y o#irilll--' ill 1k -·--·-·--··-·-·--·--C-,Y of--···Cmitm~Qlkl ·-·········--·'lw 4ay Mtl-,- ii, tltit rwti~ ~n ,?bow .,,;,,,.,.
WITNESS our hand5 this 31 clay of Augvst, 1965.
AX127718
• 41E:1597 IM:618
RESOLUTION N0. __ 299...._ __ _
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DEED FOR ROAD NO. 917 AND FOR
WESTRIDGE ROAD, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, RIDGE
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, PLEASANTON TOWNSHIP COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BE IT RESOl.VED by the Board of Directors of tl •. ,} Pleasanton Township County Water District, Alameda County,Califarnia, that that certain deed dated the 11th day ~f August, 1965, from th~ TRANSA.\iERICA TITLE INSU:1ANCE COMPANY, a corporation, to the PLEASAXTON TOWNSHIP COUNTY WATER DISTRICT conveying Road No. 917 and Westridge Road to the Pleasanton Township County Water District be~ and the same is hereby accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the acceptance of Road NO. 917 is conditioned upon the acceptance of said road by the Board of Super visors of the County of Alameda.
:It
* * I llERERY CER'i'IFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Pleasanton Township County l(ater District, Alameda County, California, at a re~ular ~eeting thereof, held on the 12th day of August, 1965, by th~ follow{i,g V('te, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABHNT:
Directors wnl, .,,...,, JH1J1Jcer aDll Mm,...
Di rectors lone
------=--------------------Directors -Ju.1115------------------- ltl ~ /Jt -~
Secretary, Pleasanton Township
r~unty Water Di~trict, Alameda
County, California.
(SEAL)
./) "- \ Wt11v > .M -Jlt(X)iE0£1>. RJAUEst..~ r.:.a* --..J.Q.BM. • )On.hit SEP 151965
OFFICIAL RECORD!\ OF .
·••· .u,n:oA COUNTY, ,~ALffOilNlA
- JACK G. SLUE
O()l•'ITY u,.;of.lJIIS
ORIGINAL
Sprint PCS
4683 Chabot Drive, Suite # l 00
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Attn: Janine Lenk
James Heard (Cellular One)
MacKenzie & Albritton
One Post Street, Suite #500
San Francisco, CA 94104
American Tower
1220 Brickyard-Cove Road, #200
Point Richmond, CA 94801-4134
Attn: Bill Nevin
Anatol J. Jordan
126 Beachcomber Drive
Shell Beach, CA 93449
(G:L:uissas\Ltr _99\SRDISLST.sam)
•
Geno P_ Tolari and Elaine D. Tolari
5300 Deloache
Dallas, TX 75220
Sheldon Berz
97 4 5 Santos Ranch Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
Oakland, CA 94608
Attn: Abby Waddell
Ajit Paul Singh Sandu and Surinder Sandhu
9500 Santos Ranch Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Exhibit B
Item #10
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 17, 2026
Public Works - Operations Division
TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITH VISTA UNIVERSAL, INC. FOR AN INCREASE OF $150,000 FOR STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/2026, BRINGING THE TOTAL CONTRACT CAPACITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/2026 TO $450,000 AND THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO $1,350,000
SUMMARY
In 2023, Vista Universal, Inc. was selected as the most responsive bidder through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the maintenance of the City’s streetlights, pathway, and parking lot lights. The term of the current three-year agreement is September 1, 2023, through June 30, 2026, with an option to extend for two additional one-year terms with allowable cost adjustments based on the local Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Staff is requesting approval of a second amendment to increase the contract capacity by $150,000 for Fiscal Year 2025/26. This additional funding addresses increased material costs and a rise in accident-related pole knockdowns, ensuring the City’s lighting infrastructure remains secure, functional, and compliant with applicable regulations. The amendment also enhances the City’s ability to respond to unforeseen conditions while maintaining operational efficiency and public safety.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into the second amendment with Vista Universal, Inc. for an increase of $150,000 for Street Light Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2025/2026, bringing the total contract capacity for fiscal year 2025/2026 to $450,000 and the total cumulative compensation amount to $1,350,000.
BACKGROUND
The City maintains more than 8,100 streetlights, pathway lights, and parking lot lights throughout the community. Maintenance services include routine night checks of arterial roadways, fixture and photocell replacements, ultrasonic pole testing, pole painting, emergency response to knockdowns, and infrastructure repairs.
In 2023, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP), and Vista Universal, Inc. (Vista) was selected as the most responsive bidder. The City entered into a three-year agreement with Vista for annual maintenance services, with an option to extend for two additional one-year terms, with allowable cost adjustments based on the local Consumer Price Index (CPI). The original agreement was $300,000 annually, with a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $900,000 for the initial three-year term. In February 2025, the City Council approved the First Amendment, increasing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 by $300,000, for a total FY 2024/25 contract capacity of $600,000, and cumulative compensation amount of $1,200,000, to address increased replacement needs, copper wire theft mitigation, and improvements within
the Hacienda Business Park.
Since that time, the City has continued to experience infrastructure failures associated with aging equipment, increasing accident-related damage, and rising material costs. These factors have accelerated the need for responsive maintenance and proactive repairs.
This agreement provides for the ongoing maintenance of the City’s streetlights, pathways, and parking lot lights. Staff is currently preparing an RFP for annual streetlight pole testing and replacement as part of the City’s Repair and Replacement Program (Fund 519), which is anticipated to be presented to the City Council in the coming months. Staff anticipates replacing approximately 15 to 20 poles annually as part of this program.
DISCUSSION
As a result of the aforementioned failures, staff is proposing a Second Amendment to the agreement with Vista to increase the contract capacity by $150,000 for FY 2025/2026, bringing the total FY 2025/2026 contract capacity to $450,000 and the total cumulative compensation amount to $1,350,000.
Additional funding is necessary to address the following factors:
Increased Material Costs — Recent tariffs and supply chain pressures have significantly increased the cost of copper wire, conduit, LED fixtures, pole components, and related materials. These cost escalations have reduced the purchasing power of the existing contract capacity. The additional funding ensures continuity of maintenance services and replacement activities without service disruption.
Pole Knockdowns and Emergency Repairs — Accident-related incidents, weather events, and vandalism have increased the frequency of emergency responses. Prompt restoration of lighting infrastructure is essential to maintain roadway visibility and pedestrian safety. The additional contract capacity allows the City to respond efficiently to unplanned incidents.
Maintaining adequate contract capacity ensures the City can continue to provide reliable lighting services, address unforeseen conditions, and support ongoing system improvements.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Reliable public lighting supports equitable access to transportation corridors, pedestrian pathways, parks, and public facilities. Well-maintained lighting infrastructure enhances safety for residents and visitors across all neighborhoods.
To the extent that LED lighting replacements occur under this agreement, the work supports the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0), specifically “Materials & Consumption Strategy MC-2:
Enhance sustainable production and reduce consumption.”
OUTREACH
No public outreach was conducted as this item is a routine operational contract amendment.
Staff continues to coordinate internally and with relevant stakeholders to prioritize infrastructure needs.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Investing in Our Environment: Strategy 7 — Continue to invest in parks, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure, and public art to improve traffic safety, promote climate resilience, and increase equitable access to cultural and recreational opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed $150,000 increase for Fiscal Year 2025/26 is funded within existing budget appropriations in the General Fund - Traffic Operating Budget (00140201-420101). Approval of this amendment will increase the contract capacity for Fiscal Year 2025/26 to $450,000 and adjust the total cumulative compensation amount accordingly.
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. Second Amendment to Agreement with Vista Universal, Inc
Second Amendment Page 1
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Second Amendment to Agreement ("Second Amendment") is entered into this 17th day of March 2026, by the City of Pleasanton ("City") and Vista Universal, Inc. ("Contractor”).
Whereas, on August 22, 2023, the City and Contractor entered into a Maintenance and Trade Services Agreement for Streetlights, Parking Lots and Pathway Lights maintenance, emergency repair, and replacement services as identified in RFP 23.402, as amended by the First Amendment dated February 20, 2025 to increase the annual not to exceed amount for Fiscal 2024/25 (collectively the "Agreement"); and
Whereas, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to increase the cumulative not to exceed amount for the term of this Agreement from $1,200,000 to $1,350,000 for streetlight pole replacements.
Now, therefore, in exchange for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 3 of the Agreement (Compensation) is amended to provide for an increase in the Cumulative Compensation Amount, shall be increased to $450,000 for Fiscal Year 2025/26, which bring the total Cumulative Compensation Amount to $1,350,000 for the first three years of the term of the Agreement.
2. This Second Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.
3. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
In witness whereof, authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Second Amendment to the Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PLEASANTON CONTRACTOR – Vista Universal, Inc.
_____________________________ By: __________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Signature
__________________________
Print name
ATTEST: Title: __________________________
_____________________________ [If Contractor is a corporation, signatures must comply Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk with California Corporations Code §313]
Second Amendment Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: __________________________
_____________________________ Signature
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney __________________________ Print name
Title: __________________________
Item #14
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 17, 2026
Finance
TITLE: RECEIVE A REPORT AND PRESENTATION ON THE CITY'S PENSION
OBLIGATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND ADOPT THE PENSION
FUNDING POLICY
SUMMARY
This report and the attached presentation are provided to update the City Council on the City’s ongoing efforts to manage its pension obligations. City staff prepared these materials with assistance from NHA Advisors (NHA), the City’s municipal financial advisory firm. NHA was retained through a request for proposals (RFP) process in January 2026 to provide strategic and policy advisory services for this project.
The strategies outlined in the proposed pension funding policy will help the City maintain fiscally responsible management practices and better manage rising pension costs.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a report and presentation on the City’s pension obligation management strategy.
2. Adopt the pension funding policy effective March 17, 2026.
BACKGROUND
The City participates in several pension plans administered by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). These include agency multiple-employer defined pension plans for Miscellaneous and Fire Safety (covering the Pleasanton-Livermore Fire Department JPA) employees and a cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan for Police Safety employees. These plans include classic and non-classic tiers, with classic members receiving more generous benefits.
The City has been proactive in implementing approaches to pay down pension liabilities. In addition to the assets held by CalPERS for the plans discussed above, the City established the Section 115 Pension Supplemental Trust to set aside funds and earn greater returns than the investment pool. These assets are intended to stabilize pension costs in future years.
The City’s pension expenses have substantially increased since the Great Recession (around 2007), primarily due to CalPERS investment losses and various changes in CalPERS policies related to calculating pension liabilities. The most significant of these changes is the reduced discount rate (the assumed rate of return CalPERS expects to earn on its investments). In January 2017, CalPERS adopted a policy reducing the CalPERS discount rate from 7.5 percent in FY 2017/18 to 7.0 percent in fiscal year (FY) 2020/21, and then 6.8 percent in FY 2021/22. Prior to the Great Recession, when the classic plan benefit levels were established
and enhanced, the discount rate was above 8.0 percent. Every time the discount rate is reduced, the unfunded accrued liability (UAL) for all CalPERS members increases.
Based on the latest projections (which are subject to change based on a number of factors), the City’s CalPERS contributions are expected to peak around FY 2030/31 and then decrease until the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) is fully paid off. Citywide annual pension costs are budgeted at $29.0 million for FY 2025/26 and $31.0 million for FY 2026/27. Pension contributions are expected to stabilize in the future as a higher percentage of current members will be subject to reduced pension benefits under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). While the UAL is projected to fully amortize by FY 2046 based on the latest actuarial reports published by CalPERS, that assumes that CalPERS consistently meets its investment return assumptions and doesn’t make any changes to actuarial assumptions in the future. New UAL will be added when CalPERS underperforms or makes changes to actuarial assumptions, with impacts being paid off over a 20-year period.
The City has allocated $38.0 million to the Section 115 Pension Trust Fund. The current Trust balance is $60.0 million, with investment earnings accounting for close to 40.0 percent of the balance. Due to the City’s ongoing fiscal challenges with General Fund structural deficits, the City Council approved the use of $2.0 million from the Trust Fund for FY 2026/27 to help balance the City's operating budget.
DISCUSSION
In developing the pension cost management strategy and the funding policy, the City evaluated the options presented below. These strategies are incorporated into the pension funding policy attached to this report. The policy establishes a clear plan and methodology for funding current and future pension costs/liabilities. It also promotes long-term fiscal sustainability and demonstrates prudent financial management practices.
To provide more immediate relief to the General Fund budget and help sustain core services and programs, the City also conducted a more in-depth analysis on the use of Section 115 Pension Trust Fund. Because the City’s fiscal conditions may change over time, one or more of the strategies listed below—including hybrid approaches—may be implemented to reduce the unfunded liability and achieve cost savings.
1. Annual Unfunded Accrued Liability Prepayment: CalPERS offers the option to make monthly payments on the UAL or prepay the entire annual UAL amount at a discounted level by the end of July. The City will continue to prepay its annual UAL payments each July to achieve budgetary savings.
2. Section 115 Pension Trust: The City will continue to maintain a pension stabilization fund in the form of a Section 115 Pension Trust (Trust). Assets in the Trust may be used only for pension-related costs and at the direction of the Council. The City’s objective with the Trust is to accumulate assets to fund its CalPERS pension costs and mitigate the budget impact of future UAL costs.
Target Trust Balance: At a minimum, the Trust balance will be maintained at a level totaling 100 percent of annual pension costs (UAL + Normal Costs for the current fiscal
year). The target/ideal balance for the trust shall be 150 percent of annual pension costs.
3. Additional Discretionary Payments: CalPERS allows member agencies to make Additional Discretionary Payments (ADPs) at any time and in any amount, which would serve to reduce the City’s UAL and future required contributions. The City has the option to make ADPs to CalPERS using the assets held in the Trust or other available resources, such as one-time revenues or year-end surplus, if desired.
4. Contributions from Employees: This requires employee contributions towards the employer portion of the CalPERS normal cost (on top of the employee share).
Currently, certain employee groups (Classic members) contribute 3.0 percent or 3.5 percent towards employer contributions, depending on the tier. The City intends to maintain these contributions from employees through labor negotiations.
5. Pension Obligation Bonds: Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) are a tool that can be used to provide an ADP to CalPERS upon the determination that the cost to borrow the funds for the payment is less than continuing to make the projected prescribed UAL payments at the current discount rate. If the City considers issuing POBs, the guidelines in the funding policy, such as significant projected cash flow savings and POB interest rates at least 2.25 percent below the current CalPERS discount rate, will apply.
6. Fresh Start Amortization: CalPERS allows for permanent adjustments to be made to the UAL amortization schedule by combining amortization bases, resulting in a shorter payment period and level payments. Despite higher payments in the early years, the shorter repayment period leads to interest savings in the later years. While less common and restrictive, this tool should be evaluated as a potential strategy when appropriate.
As shown in Table 2 below, four options were analyzed on the use of the Section 115 Pension Trust Fund, with Table 1 summarizing the assumptions used in the analysis. For each option, the analysis presents: (1) the City’s annual net payment from the General Fund and Non- General Funds; (2) the cumulative cost reduction over the withdrawal period (approximately 12 to 16 years); (3) the average annual cost reduction (i.e., use of trust funds); (4) the projected remaining trust balance; (5) the remaining balance expressed as a percentage of FY 2025/26 pension costs (including UAL and normal cost); and (6) the final fiscal year in which pension trust funds are used for smoothing. Please refer to slides 22–27 for additional detail.
All the options attempt to smooth out the “mountain peak” in payments for enhanced budgetary savings and predictability.
If the Council wishes to use pension trust funds to help balance the budget, Option 4 is recommended. This option provides for an estimated $4.4 million of average annual cost reductions (use of pension trust funds) over the next 12 fiscal years and is projected to leave approximately $44.3 million in the trust at the end of the withdrawal period—about 150.0 percent of the City’s FY 2025/26 annual pension costs. This recommendation is also consistent with the City’s actuary’s guidance provided to the Council in March 2025 regarding minimum use of pension trust funds. Maintaining an adequate balance in the trust will help the
City to cover future pension costs and provide a buffer for unexpected spikes in pension contributions due to CalPERS investment losses or changes in actuarial assumptions.
While considering the use of pension trust funds (one-time resources) to balance the budget, the City should take a balanced approach that accounts for significant needs in other areas— particularly the $44.0 million annual infrastructure funding gap identified in the Asset Management Plan. To maintain essential City services, the City should adopt a holistic approach to support programs and fund serviceable community assets, such as the library, public safety buildings, streets and roadways, and parks and trails. Establishing a clear vision and implementing a long-term financial strategy will strengthen the City’s ability to sustain core services and critical infrastructure while containing costs over time.
Table 1 Section 115 Trust Modeling Assumptions
Table 2 Summary of Section 115 Pension Trust Smoothing Options
The City will review the pension funding policy periodically to determine whether changes are necessary to ensure progress towards funding the City’s CalPERS pension costs and
mitigating the impact of future UAL costs. This policy supersedes the Trust withdrawal policy approved by the Council in February 2020. The prior policy is attached to the staff report.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this matter is a routine administrative item of City business.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted as this item is a routine administrative matter of City business.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This matter is aligned with the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Funding Our Future supporting the City’s financial health and sound fiscal policies.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the item. However, a prudent pension management strategy and policy help ensure the City’s available financial resources are used effectively and sustainably.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Susan Hsieh, Director of
Finance
Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. City of Pleasanton Pension Funding Policy
2. PARS Withdrawal Policy - Amended February 2020
3. Presentation - City of Pleasanton Pension Funding Strategy
1 City of Pleasanton
Pension Funding Policy
Effective March 17, 2026
Policy:
It is the policy of the City to fulfill its obligation to ma intain fiscally responsible management practices and to ensure that promised pension benefits are funded. To that end, the City will meet its pension funding obligations as follows:
1. Actuarially Determined Contributions: Each fiscal year, the City will contribute to CalPERS the amount determined by CalPERS actuaries to be the minimum required employer contribution for that year. The minimum contribution consists of two components, no rmal cost and unfunded accrued liability (“UAL”).
The normal cost is expressed as a rate that is applied to pensionable payroll costs and reflects the cost of pension benefits earned by employees in the current fiscal year. The UAL payment is a flat dollar amount that represents a portion of the cost of past benefits earned by employees, but for which, because of deviations in actual experience and changes in assumptions about investment performance, the normal cost rates established for those prior years have b een determined to be insufficient to provide the promised retirement benefit. The CalPERS actuaries recalculate the total UAL each year, and an updated multi-year amortization schedule is provided to show the projected annual minimum payments.
2. Annual UAL Prepayment: CalPERS offers the option to make monthly payments on the UAL or prepay the entire annual UAL amount at a disc ounted level by the end of July. Assuming the City’s current reserves meet their respective reserve policies, at that point, the City will prepay its annual UAL payment each July to achieve budgetary savings.
3. Funded Ratio Goal: The City’s goal is to achieve and maintain a funded ratio, for each of its pension plans, of 90%, with the ultimate goal of fully funding the obligations over time. A funded ratio of 100% signifies that the City’s assets held with CalPERS, in addition to assets held in other pension accounts, match its accrued liabilities for pension. If the City has assets in a Section 115 Trust, these assets should be included in the City’s funded ratio calculation.
4. Section 115 Pension Trust: The City will establish and maintain a pension stabilization fund in the form of a Section 115 Pension Trust (“Trust”). Assets in the Trust may be used only for pension-related costs and at the direction of the City Council. The City’s objective with the Trust is to accumulate assets to fund its CalPERS pension costs and mitigate the budget impact of future UAL costs. The City will strive to meet the following guidelines:
Investment Portfolio Selection: City staff will work with its advisory team, including the Trust’s investment advisor, to select investment port folios based on the City’s risk tolerance and projected withdrawal schedule from the Trust.
Ongoing Deposits: In any fiscal year, the City can make annual contributions to the Trust with surplus remaining after all other City reserve policies have been met. The City will also consider depositing a portion of one-time/unexpected revenues into the trust. Enterprise Funds: A portion of the City’s pension costs within its CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan is attributable to employees within the City’s Enterprise Funds. Therefore, the City will ensure that any deposits to the Trust and withdrawals from the Trust relevant to the General Fund and Non- General Funds are made in consideration of this fact to ensure equitable cost/benefit between City funds and CalPERS Plans. In years when Enterprise Funds have met their minimum reserve Attachment 1
2 policy goals, such Enterprise Funds can contribut e a portion of their remaining surplus to the Trust. The City will strive to ensure that any withdrawals from the Trust benefit the Enterprise Funds equitably.
Use of Trust Funds: The funds in the Trust may be used for any of the following purposes at the City’s discretion: (1) City’s annual UAL payment to CalPERS, (2) City’s annual normal cost payment to CalPERS, (3) reimbursement to the City fo r CalPERS pension costs, and (4) Additional Discretionary Payments to CalPERS. Irrespecti ve of the other policy objectives, the City will consider withdrawing from the Trust when (a) Ca lPERS pension costs are rising quicker than City revenues, (b) a structural deficit needs to be addr essed, (c) City reserves need to be replenished and (d) other factors that will help enhance the City’s financial stability and resiliency. Funding Goals: As stated above, the City is targeting a funded ratio of 90% for each of its pension plans, with the ultimate goal of fully funding the obligations over time. When measuring its funded ratio, the City should incorporate assets in the Trust, in addition to the assets under management by CalPERS. The City may consider foregoing cont ributions to the Trust if its funded ratio is determined to be too high, or if the current asse ts on deposit in the Trust are projected to be sufficient to cover budgetary fluctuations in the future. Target Trust Balance: At a minimum, the Trust balance will be maintained at a level totaling 100% of annual pension costs (UAL + Normal Costs for the current fiscal year). The target/ideal balance for the trust shall be 150% of annual pension costs.
5. Additional Discretionary Payments: CalPERS allows member agencies to make Additional Discretionary Payments (“ADPs”) at any time and in any amount, which would serve to reduce the City’s UAL and future required contributions. The City has the option to make ADPs to CalPERS using the assets held in the Trust, if desired. The City will consider ADPs within th e context of its annual evaluation of reserve levels, budgetary requirements, funded ratio, and other timing considerations unique to CalPERS’ investment performance. ADPs may prove to be advantageous in the future once Trust levels are funded to sufficient thresholds to stabilize budgetary volatility. When addi tional resources, such as one-time funds and year- end surplus, are available, the City may also consider using them for ADPs.
6. Contributions from Employees: This requires employee contributions towards the employer portion of the CalPERS normal cost (on top of the employee share). Currently, certain employee groups (Classic members) contribute 3.0% or 3.5% towards employer contributions, depending on the tier. The City intends to maintain these contributions from employees through labor negotiations.
7. Pension Obligation Bonds: Pension Obligation Bonds (“POBs”) are a tool that can be used to provide an ADP to CalPERS upon the determination that the cost to borrow the funds for the payment is less than continuing to make the projected prescribed UAL pa yments at the current discount rate. If the City considers issuing POBs, the following guidelines will apply:
Expert advice and analysis by actuaries and municipal advisors will be utilized to quantify the risk of CalPERS investment underperformance (inclu ding discount rate reductions, stock market crashes, or sustained investment underperforman ce) and the threshold at which the City would be worse off issuing POBs versus not.
Significant education and evaluation will occur at the City staff and Council level given the complexity of POBs.
The interest rate on the POBs shall be at least 2.25% less than the current CalPERS discount rate.
3 The POBs structure will contain an early call provision. The POBs shall not finance normal costs and shall only be used to refinance UAL. The POBs should provide significant projected cash flow savings. The City shall budget and transfer at least 25% of projected cash flow savings to the Trust to mitigate against future UAL likely to occur. Any cash flow savings not transferred to the Trust shall be transferred to the City’s other reserves.
8. Fresh Start Amortization: CalPERS allows for permanent adjustments to be made to the UAL amortization schedule by combining amortization bases, resulting in a shorter payment period and level payments.
Despite higher payments in the early years, the shorter repayment period leads to interest savings in the later years. While less common and restrictive, this tool will be evaluated as a potential strategy.
9. Review of Funding Policy: The City will review this policy periodically to determine if changes to this policy are necessary to ensure progress is being made to wards funding the City’s CalPERS pension costs and mitigating the impact of the costs associated with future UAL. This policy supersedes the PARS Trust withdrawal policy approved by the City Council in February 2020.
Attachment 2
3/9/2026
1 CITY OFPLEASANTONCALPERS PENSIONSTRATEGYPROJECTMARCH17, 2026 2 Brief Intro to NHA AdvisorsBased in San Rafael, California, NHA Advisors provides Municipal Advisory and Consulting services to Cities throughout the State9 Registered Municipal Advisors and 8 consulting Practice GroupsNHA’s Pension & Fiscal Sustainability Practice Group was established in 2014 and has served over 100 CalPERS membersEducation –NHA Summary Reports, White Papers, Newsletters, Workshops, Labor GroupsFinancial Planning – CalPERS Sensitivity Analysis & Projection ModelingCost Management Strategies –Section 115 Trusts, Strategic Additional Discretionary Payments (ADPs), POBs/UAL Restructurings, Hard and Soft Fresh Starts, Hybrid StrategiesSection 115 Trust Optimization ModelsStress Testing and Risk AssessmentPension Funding Policy Development Consulting Practice Groups
1 2
3/9/2026
2 3
Today’s DiscussionI.Background on CalPERS CostsII.Historical and Projected CalPERS CostsIII.Cost Management Strategy OverviewIV.City’s Section 115 Trust and Preliminary Strategy OptionsV.Observations and Recommendations BACKGROUND ONCALPERS COSTS3
4
3/9/2026
3 5
City of Pleasanton CalPERS SummaryCity of Pleasanton has a $239M CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (“UAL”), as of the latest CalPERS valuation for 6/30/2024 (excludes 50% of Fire Plan given share with City of Livermore) Miscellaneous Plan: $133M | Safety Plans: $106MCalPERS FY 2024-25 Preliminary Investment Returns: 12.1%Projected to decrease UAL to $211M (as of 6/30/2025)Projected benefit may be partially offset by CalPERS’ non-investment adjustments resulting from CalPERS’ 2025 Asset Liability Management (ALM) StudyCity has a Section 115 Pension Trust with a $60M balance as of December 31, 2025This equates to 203% of FY26 total annual pension costsPension Strategy Project provides options for leveraging Section 115 Trust to generate General Fund savings and enhance budgetary predictability, while ensuring sufficient funds remain for future economic shocks/UAL volatilityRecommended refinements to City Pension Funding Policy based on results 6 Market Value of CalPERS Assets: $510 MillionAccrued Liability: $749 MillionShortfall (UAL): $239 Million$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800MillionsCity of PleasantonCalPERS Pension Funded StatusBackground on How CalPERS WorksTwo Payments Made to CalPERS Annually(1) Normal Cost (“NC”):Annual cost for current employees(2) Unfunded Accrued Liability (“UAL”):Annual payment to amortize the “debt” to CalPERSCurrent UAL comprised of 102 layers, amortized over various terms from 2 - 24 yearsCauses irregular repayment shapeNew UAL is created when CalPERS investment returns <6.80%New UAL is amortized over 20 yearsSource:CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2024*Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore. 5 6
3/9/2026
4 7
Now…Assumptions have changed/grown more conservativeDiscount Rate (assumed rate of investment returns): 8.25% → 7.00% → 6.80%Inflation rate (prices going up)Mortality rates (people living longer)Shorter, more conservative amortizationsInvestment returns not meeting original expectationsWhy CalPERS Costs Have Trended HigherThen (late 1990s)…Robust investment returns (10%+)Retirement plans were “Super-Funded” through the late 1990sEarnings on funds were more than adequate to cover retirement costsSuper-funded status induced widespread retirement benefits enhancementsPast funding policies led to contribution holidays and “free” benefit improvementsHistorical PERS Returns5-Year: 8.0%10-Year: 7.1%20-Year: 6.7%30-Year: 7.6% 8 How CalPERS Benefits Get Funded
Investment earnings used to make up a higher percentage (65%-70%+) of total contributions (pre-2008)As investments underperform assumptions, employers must make up the difference 7 8
3/9/2026
5 9
City’s CalPERS Retirement Plans3 Main CalPERS plans: Miscellaneous, Safety Police, Safety FireMiscellaneous:1,097 covered members; $133M UALSafety Police:265 covered members; $56.7M UALSafety Fire:335 covered members; $98.6M UAL (City is responsible for 50% = $49.3M)PEPRA (effective 2013) helpful to manage long term pension costs for new employeesEnacted revised benefit levels for new plan membersHigher employee contribution rates mean more normal cost is being paid by the employee However, 99% of current UAL comes from Classic plansCurrent UAL not impacted by PEPRA, nor other potential future changes to new employee packages (i.e. 401k, non-CalPERS)Focus of presentation are options to address the $239M UAL in a fiscally strategic and sustainable way HISTORICAL ANDPROJECTEDCALPERS COSTS9
10
3/9/2026
6 11
$187$200$150$231$244$239$21168.3%67.4%77.0%66.3%65.9%68.1%72.6%73.2%74.0%84.4%72.6%72.4%74.9%79.9%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0% $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $3002019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025MillionsUALFunded RatioHistory of the City’s UAL Balance & Funded RatioFunded Ratio With and Without Section 115 Trust6.5% 5.0% 22.4% -7.5% 6.1% 9.5% 12.1%CalPERS Returns*:Source: CalPERS Actuarial Valuation Reports & CalPERS Pension Outlook Tool*CalPERS’ Money-Weighted Rate of Return, as reported by CalPERS in its ACFRs**Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore.Funded Ratio w/ Trust 12 63.2%68.6%72.0%74.9%75.5%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%Concord Antioch Livermore Pleasanton Walnut Creek$239M UALAssets:Section 115 Trust ($51M) Source: CalPERS Actuarial Reports and city audited financial statements*Assumes 50% ($49.3M) of Pleasanton’s Safety Fire UAL is paid for by City of Livermore. The 50%/50% allocation is factored into the UAL and Funded Ratio metrics for Livermore and Pleasanton in the chart above. CalPERS Funded Ratio Comparison (As of June 30, 2024)Funded Ratio Includes Trust Assets & Pension Reserves$254M UALAssets:Section 115 Trust ($0)$157M UALAssets:Section 115 Trust ($27M) + Pension Reserve ($2.0M)$164M UAL Assets:Section 115 Trust ($0)$221M UALAssets:Section 115 Trust ($6.2M)11 12
3/9/2026
7 13
Historical & Projected CalPERS Payments (UAL + Normal Cost)Total payments projected to rise to $35M by FY 2031UAL biggest contributor$8M in FY 2018 → $18M in FY 2025 → $25M in FY 2031 FY25 12.1% investment returns could potentially reduce future UAL payments by $3M per yearMay be partially offset by CalPERS’ non-investment adjustments (e.g., inflation)Won’t be known until July 2026 –all analysis based on June 30, 2024 to be conservativeSection 115 Trust Balance ($60M) is 203% of FY 2026 annual pension costs (UAL + NC)Source: CalPERS Actuarial Valuation Reports*Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL and Normal Cost that ispaid for by City of Livermore.$0$2$4$6$8$10$12$14$16$18$20$22$24$26$28$30$32$34$3620182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 MillionsUAL Payments (6/30/2024 Actuarial Valuation)Normal Cost COSTMANAGEMENTSTRATEGYOVERVIEW13
14
3/9/2026
8 15
Pension Cost-Containment Strategies – Most Common(1) Prepay UAL in July (≈ 3.3% discount)(2) Use Cash Reserves to Pay Extra•Section 115 Trust – Separate trust solely dedicated to pension/OPEB•Additional Discretionary Payment (ADP) – Direct payments to CalPERS to reduce UAL• Internal Reserve – Internally held reserve earmarked for pension costs; limited on investment optionsCity does thisCity maintains $60M Section 115 Trust; Analysis provided on following slides 16 Pension Cost-Containment Strategies – Less Common(3) Negotiate Cost Sharing With Employees• New employees already governed by lower cost/benefit PEPRA plans• Some agencies have negotiated employee cost sharing of the employer share of costs(4) Fresh Start Amortization offered by CalPERS• Pros: Smooths payment, shortens repayment period; reduces overall interest paid from shorter amortization period• Cons: New structure “locked-in” + increased annual payments in near term; still amortized at discount rate(5) Restructure All/Portion of UAL (Pension Obligation Bond)• Restructure portion of UAL at lower bond interest rate and “smooth out” payments for enhanced budget predictability and cash flow savings; Reinvestment risk associated with POBs which should be evaluatedNot common; rough analysis provided in Appendix (slide 34)Not common; sample analysis provided in Appendix (slide 35)100 agencies executed these during 2020-22; not recommend now given high interest rates 15 16
3/9/2026
9 CITY’SSECTION115 TRUST ANDPRELIMINARYSTRATEGYOPTIONS
18 Section 115 Pension Trust – BackgroundCity’s Pension Trust was established in FY 2017-18Trust balance has grown from $28M (initial deposits) to $60M (as of 12/31/2025), due to City contributions and Trust investment earnings$60M balance is allocated between conservative, short-term investments ($21.6M) & more aggressive, long-term investments ($38.4M)5-Year Annualized Return: 3.87% (Short-Term); 7.90% (Long-Term)City Contributions: $28M$5M$29.3$40.3$47.9$43.3$46.3$51.1$56.3$60.0$0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70FYE 2019 FYE 2020 FYE 2021 FYE 2022 FYE 2023 FYE 2024 FYE 2025 12/31/2025MillionsCity of PleasantonSection 115 Pension Trust Balance$5MSource: City Audited Financial Statements and PARS Section 115 Pension Trust Statement 17 18
3/9/2026
10 19
Section 115 Pension Trust Strategy Options4 Preliminary Options to “Smooth the Peak” in Payments Withdraw allfunds from Section 115 Pension Trust over 18-year periodOption 1 Withdraw funds from Section 115 Pension Trust until $14.8M remains (50% of FY26 UAL + NC)Option 2 Withdraw funds from Section 115 Pension Trust until $29.5M remains (100% of FY26 UAL + NC)Option 3 Withdraw funds from Section 115 Pension Trust until $44.3M remains (150% of FY26 UAL + NC)Option 4 20 Section 115 Trust Smoothing - Tradeoffs
Use More of Trust • Lower annual net payment for City• More savings and budgetary predictability• More resources for other priorities (CIP , operations, etc.)• Less dedicated resources for future pension costs Use Less of Trust• Higher annual payment for City• Less budgetary savings • Less resources for other City priorities• More Dedicated Resources for Future Pension Costs 19 20
3/9/2026
11 21
Section 115 Trust Modeling AssumptionsBeginning Trust Balance (as of 12/31/2025): $60.0MTotal Additional Deposits: $0MAnnual Investment Return:6.8%Investment Returns: 6/30/2024 Actuarial Valuation (9.5% return in FY 2023-24; 6.8% thereafter)UAL Balance: $239M (City Portion)Discount Rate:6.8% (no change) CalPERS AssumptionsSection 115 Trust Assumptions 22 $0$5$10$15$20$25$30202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 MillionsOption 1: Ending Trust Balance of $0Full Exhaustion of the TrustUAL Payments*Net PaymentsSmoothing Level: $16.6M Withdrawals from Trust (FY 2027 - 2041, FY 2044)$84M of Cumulative Cost Reduction (~$5.2M average/year)*Source:CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2024**Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore. 21 22
3/9/2026
12 23
$0$5$10$15$20$25$30202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 MillionsOption 2: Ending Trust Balance of $14.8M (FYE 2041)50% of FY 2026 UAL + Normal CostUAL Payments*Net PaymentsSmoothing Level: $17.1M Withdrawals from Trust (FY 2027 - 2041)$74M of Cumulative Cost Reduction (~$5.0M average/year)*Source:CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2024**Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore. 24 $0$5$10$15$20$25$30202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 MillionsOption 3: Ending Trust Balance of $29.5M (FYE 2039)100% of FY 2026 UAL + Normal CostUAL Payments*Net PaymentsSmoothing Level: $17.8M Withdrawals from Trust (FY 2027 - 2039)$64M of Cumulative Cost Reduction (~$4.9M average/year)*Source:CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2024**Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore. 23 24
3/9/2026
13 25
$0$5$10$15$20$25$30202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 MillionsOption 4: Ending Trust Balance of $44.3M (FYE 2038)150% of FY 2026 UAL + Normal CostUAL Payments*Net PaymentsSmoothing Level: $18.7M Withdrawals from Trust (FY 2027 - 2038)$53M of Cumulative Cost Reduction (~$4.4M average/year)*Source:CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2024**Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore. 26 $0$5$10$15$20$25$30202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 MillionsSection 115 Pension Trust SmoothingSummary of OptionsOption 4 (150%)Option 3 (100%)Option 2 (50%)Option 1 (0%)Source:CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2024*Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore. 25 26
3/9/2026
14 27
Section 115 Pension Trust SmoothingSummary of OptionsOption 4Option 3Option 2Option 1$18.7M$17.8M$17.1M$16.6MAnnual Net Payment$53.3M$64.1M$74.5M$84.0MCumulative Cost Reduction$4.4M$4.9M$5.0M$5.2MAverage Annual Cost Reduction$44.3M$29.5M$14.8M$0 Remaining Balance ($)150%100%50%0%Remaining Balance (% of FY 2026 UAL + NC)FY 2038FY 2039FY 2041FY 2044Last Year of SmoothingRECOMMENDED 28 Option 4 (Alternative): ADP to CalPERSEnsuring 150% of Annual Costs Remain in Section 115 TrustSimilar results to 115 Trust Smoothing Option 4:$52.9M cumulative cost reduction$4.4M average annual reductionTrust Balance (FYE 2038): $44.3M (150% of FY 2026 UAL + NC)Downside: Significantly less budgetary flex / liquidity in the near term:Initial Required ADP: $39.9MPays off amortization bases with terms ranging from 2 - 12 yearsTrust Balance After ADP (FYE 2026): $20.1M 68% of FY 2026 UAL + NC$0$5$10$15$20$25$30202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 MillionsUAL Payments*Option 4 (150%)Option 4 ADP (150%)*Source:CalPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2024**Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore. 27 28
3/9/2026
15 OBSERVATIONS ANDRECOMMENDATION
30 NHA Observations and RecommendationsCurrent Section 115 Trust balance is strong- 203% of annual expenses is above most peersCautious/strategic leveraging some of the Section 115 Trust is justified How much is dependent on other City priorities and budgetary constraintsNHA recommends keeping a minimum of 100% to 150% of annual pension costs in the Section 115 TrustOption 4 (150%) provides robust savings/cost reductions while still maintaining strong balance that can be used to absorb future economic shocks and UAL volatilityNote that trust assets can be used for future Normal Cost too (if no UAL)Having a target range in policy allows for natural reduction in trust assets if/when overall annual costs decreaseNHA recommends leveraging the 115 Trust to “smooth” payments instead of an ADPADP requires significantly more funds up front to effectuate similar cost reductions; depletes 115 Trust by 2/3Section 115 Trust allows City to “adapt” deposit/withdrawal strategy to a changing UAL shape; unlike an ADPCity’s Pension Funding Policy should include (1) target range for 115 balance, (2) Flexibility to use variety of strategies (ADP , 115, Fresh Start, POBs, etc.), (3) Annual “re-assessment” to ensure strategy is being re-calibrated to adapt to CalPERS UAL volatility and assumption changesCity should work with its investment advisor to ensure 115 Trust investment profile is in line with projected withdrawal schedule/risk tolerance (NHA is not an investment advisor) 29 30
3/9/2026
16 31
Staff Recommendation1.Receive a report and presentation on the City’s pension obligation management strategy.2.Adopt the pension funding policy effective March 17, 2026.
APPENDIX– ADDITIONALRESOURCES31
32
3/9/2026
17 33
CalPERS Historical Preliminary Investment Returns (Time-Weighted)**Preliminary Investment Returns represent the time-weighted rate of return andreflect private market asset valuations as of March 31. The money-weightedrate of return, used in the CalPERS ACFR and Valuation Reports may differ fromthe Preliminary Investment Returns.Source:CalPERS.12.2%11.9%18.8%-2.9%-23.6%11.1%20.7%1.0%12.5%18.4%2.4%0.6%11.2%8.6%6.7%4.7%21.3%-6.1%5.8%9.3%11.6%-30.0%-25.0%-20.0%-15.0%-10.0%-5.0%0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Annual ReturnTarget Discount Rate 34 CalPERS 2025 Asset-Liability Management (ALM) Study ResultsHow Does it Impact Pleasanton?UAL: No material impact projected for PleasantonNote, some agencies with larger COLA’s (5-7%) seeing >10% jumps in UAL just from ALM assumption adjustmentsNormal Cost: Annual increase of ~3.6% ($337K) starting in FY 2028Little support/guidance from CalPERS for further discount rate reductionsNotable Assumptions* •Discount Rate:No change; remains at 6.8%•Price Inflation:Increase from 2.3% to 2.5%•Wage Growth Assumption:Increase from 2.8% to 3.0%•Salary Scale:Moderate to higher merit increases for most plans *Source: CalPERS Asset Liability Management Stakeholder Webinar (December 4, 2025)Source:CalPERS Pension Outlook Tool*Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL and Normal Cost thatis paid for by City of Livermore. 33 34
3/9/2026
18 35
Hypothetical Employee Cost-SharingSafety Police Plan1.50%1.00%0.50%Decrease in Employer Contribution Rate:$3,040,843$3,040,843$3,040,843Average Annual Employer Normal Cost (Status Quo, FY 2026 – FY 2055):$2,747,452 $2,845,249$2,943,046Average Annual Employer Normal Cost (Cost Sharing, FY 2026 – FY 2055):$293,392 $195,595$97,797Average Annual Savings for Employer:*Amounts may not add up due to roundingSource:CalPERS Pension Outlook Tool 36 $0$5$10$15$20$25$3020272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046 Millions15-Year Fresh Start OptionCalPERS allows for permanent adjustments to be made to the UAL amortization schedule, by combining amortization bases resulting in a shorter payment period and interest savingsCurrent UAL amortization payments: $380M15-Year Fresh Start Payments: $365M Source: CalPERS June 30, 2024 Actuarial Valuation*Excludes 50% of Safety Fire UAL that is paid for by City of Livermore.UAL Payments (6/30/2024 Actuarial Valuation)Fresh Start Payments (6/30/2024 Actuarial Valuation)35 36
3/9/2026
19 37
Section 115 Trust – OverviewFunds Earmarked for Pension and OPEBWhat is it? Restricted Account for pension and/or OPEBAdvantages:Potential Higher Investment Returns in Managed AccountIn FY 2025, Moderate Risk Section 115 Trust portfolios (40-50% Equity / 50-60% Fixed Income) had investment returns of 8.5-11.0%Longer-Term Benefit: Trust funds can grow over time and pay off a large % of UAL or OPEB liability in the futureShorter-Term Benefit: Apply funds to “smooth”payment spikes in UAL, Normal Cost, or OPEB; can reimburse City for pensions costs made if severe budgetary challengesFlexibility – more investment options than CalPERS and the City can decide when and how to useDisadvantages: Doesn’t directly reduce UAL until funds are transferred to CalPERSRequires reserves/surplus contributions to build account balanceInvestment risk (dependent on type of investment portfolio) 38 Additional Discretionary Payment (“ADP”)What is it?City makes ADP directly to CalPERS and CalPERS eliminates payments associated with the portion of the UAL paid off, essentially giving the City credit at the discount/interest rate (currently 6.8%)Advantages:Reduced UAL / higher CalPERS funding ratioReduced future paymentsBroader, less restrictive CalPERS investment portfolio has potential for higher returnsDisadvantages:Requires reserves / surplus to fundRe-investment and market timing risk with ADP fundsLess budgetary flexibility and investment control (vs. Section 115 Trust option) 37 38
3/9/2026
20 39
Section 115 Trust vs. CalPERS ADP ComparisonCalPERS ADPSection 115 TrustOPTIONYesNoReduced UAL & UAL Payments with CalPERSYesNo (Show up as an asset on the City’s financial statements)Reduced Pension Liability in Financial Report (ACFR)NoYesControl of Investment StrategyCalPERSTrust AdministratorFunds Managed ByNoYesFlexibility in UsesNoYesEnhanced Budgetary FlexibilityImmediate; Length of time varies based on which amortization component is paid offVaries; Depends on when City utilizes funds to pay liabilitiesSavings 40 Classic vs. PEPRA Pension Example ComparisonEmployee #1 is a Classic member and Employee #2 is a PEPRA member – both have served for 25 years and have a final average compensation of $125KEmployee #2 will have a lower pension than Employee #1 due to a lower benefit factor, and will also retire at 57 years old instead of 50 years old like the Classic memberThe City will save money from PEPRA’s lower pension amount and because PEPRA’s pension may be paid out for a shorter amount of time due to retirement occurring 7 years later compared to ClassicThe difference in pension between Classic and PEPRA is even more apparent at higher compensation levels, as there is a pensionable compensation limit of approximately $175K for PEPRA and $330K for ClassicService CreditBenefit FactorFinal CompensationAnnual PensionEmployee #1 (Classic)$93,750 =$125,000 x3.0% @ 50x25 YearsEmployee #2 (PEPRA)$84,375 =$125,000 x2.7% @ 57x25 Years 39 40
Item #15
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 17, 2026
Community and Economic Development
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING A POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR
EARLY PROJECT REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR PROJECTS REQUIRING
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW, AND AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO
ADOPT A FEE FOR SUCH APPLICATIONS
SUMMARY
The City has received an increasing volume of inquiries over recent months from property owners and developers seeking discretionary legislative actions, such as General Plan amendments and rezoning, to enable land-use changes. On February 3, 2026, the City Council considered whether to develop a structured approach for evaluation of such requests, and after discussion, directed staff to return with a policy framework for adoption. This item presents and recommends adoption of an Early Project Review policy that establishes a clear, consistent pathway for early City Council consideration and direction on projects requiring legislative approval, prior to the applicant and City committing substantial resources to preparing and processing such applications. It also includes a proposed amendment to the Master Fee Schedule to adopt a fee for processing Early Project Review applications.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution establishing a policy and procedures for Early Project Review and amending the Master Fee Schedule, and direct staff to implement the Early Project Review program consistent with the adopted policy.
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2026, the City Council considered a staff recommendation to develop a policy for evaluation of development-related General Plan amendments and re-zoning requests for both residential and commercial projects. The February 3 Agenda Report for the item outlined several reasons supporting the need for a policy. These reasons include an increasing volume and frequency of such requests and lack of an established City policy or process for whether or how these requests should be considered, with discretionary rezoning remaining a policy choice for the City Council. This creates an ongoing challenge for staff to provide guidance to applicants interested in seeking zoning changes. Staff recommended establishing a structured review process, including standardized application materials, review criteria, and procedures.
Such a process could offer the opportunity for the City Council to conduct an early review to consider whether to prioritize the allocation of resources to processing an application in light of the project's specific merits, its consistency with the Strategic Plan and other City policy goals, ability to offer community benefits, and available staff resources.
After discussion, the City Council unanimously agreed that developing such a policy would have benefits and directed staff to prepare a draft policy for consideration and adoption.
DISCUSSION
Draft Early Review Policy and Procedures
The Draft Early Project Review Policy and Procedures are included as Exhibit A to Attachment
1. The following sections summarize the key elements of the proposed policy:
Policy Purpose
As described, the Early Project Review process provides a structured framework for early consideration of private development projects that require legislative amendments, to provide a clear, consistent, and predictable pathway for the City, applicants, and stakeholders prior to allocation of substantial additional resources towards processing such applications.
Applicability and Exemptions.
The policy applies to private development projects requiring legislative approval, including changes to a property’s General Plan land use designation, Specific Plan land use designation, zoning, or projects subject to annexation. The policy provides two specific exemptions:
• Projects comprising 100 percent affordable (below market-rate) housing. • Projects on sites under one acre involving 5 or fewer residential units or 5,000 square feet of commercial development (or a combination thereof).
The exemptions are suggested based on a) the evident community benefit provided by an affordable housing development and b) the expectation that small projects will generally be more limited in the range of community benefits that they can offer, and typically require fewer staff resources to process, making the early review process less critical.
Note that even projects exempt from the Early Review process would be required to go through a discretionary project approval, meaning that the ultimate decision about whether or not to approve such projects, would still rest with the City Council.
Application Requirements and Timing
This section of the policy describes the submittal requirements and timing for Early Review Project applications, including the following:
• While early review project applications may be submitted at any time, they must a) be deemed complete at least 90 days before a scheduled hearing, in order to allow adequate time to prepare a staff report and place the item on the agenda and b) will be presented at a public hearing on a schedule to be determined by staff, at least once annually.
• To be deemed complete, applicants must pay all fees and provide required materials, including: project narrative; site photos/context; current and proposed land use/zoning and requested legislative amendments; statement of community benefits; affordable housing approach (as applicable); an applicant-prepared fiscal impact assessment subject to City peer review; and conceptual plans/elevations/renderings and related exhibits.
Application Review Criteria
Section D.4 of the policy provides a number of parameters to guide staff and City Council
consideration of Early Project Review applications and decisions as to which projects will be prioritized for staff review. These parameters are focused around alignment with adopted City goals, objectives, priorities, and community needs, with particular focus on the five-year ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan. The policy notes that the criteria are non-exhaustive (i.e., other benefits or policy objectives not listed could be cited in an application). It also clarifies that comprehensive compliance is not a prerequisite for "completeness" or for a project to proceed to an authorization hearing.
Key parameters identified in Section D.4 include:
1. Alignment with the Citywide Strategic Plan, including the following relevant goals • Strategic Plan – Goal A (Funding Our Future: Fiscal Sustainability): Projects should demonstrate a neutral or positive fiscal balance (new revenues vs. service costs) and minimize/avoid long-term unfunded maintenance or service obligations.
• Strategic Plan – Goal C (Investing in Our Environment: Infrastructure, Public Facilities, and Sustainability): Projects should advance/support Capital Improvement Program (CIP) priorities and/or investments in parks, bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, facilities, and public art; and advance Climate Action Plan goals through measures that exceed baseline code where feasible (energy efficiency, green building/site design, multimodal transportation).
• Strategic Plan – Goal D (Safeguarding Our City: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Projects should support/enhance emergency services and related strategic plan initiatives and/or contribute to improvement of emergency service facilities/equipment.
• Strategic Plan – Goal E (Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs:
Livability and Community Development): For commercial projects: support Five-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan priorities (e.g., downtown vibrancy, retail revitalization, business retention/expansion, workforce development). For residential projects: support Housing Element objectives, Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance compliance, homelessness strategies, and positively contribute to meeting Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), with particular interest in below-market-rate targets.
2. Other Policy–based Items. The policy also references items that are key themes of the City's General Plan with respect to new development and land use change. Again, the list is not intended to be exhaustive, since a project may uniquely address other General Plan goals or policies, which would not be precluded from consideration.
Policy topics include:
• Location and neighborhood compatibility (appropriate scale/design, and transitions to adjacent development)
• Proximity to services and facilities, and ability to promote multi-modal connectivity (evaluated relative to project type/occupancy)
• Project design/livability, including adequate parking, preservation of protected trees and
on-site natural resources, and provision of quality on-site open space and amenities.
City Council Hearing
The Policy provides that the City will hold at least one Early Project Authorization Hearing per calendar year, and that additional hearings may be scheduled as needed. Staff generally recommends that the hearing be scheduled in late Spring, as the annual and two-year budget update is being developed, so that the clearest picture of overall workload and CIty Council priorities is available. A hearing may include one or more applications, depending on the volume of Early Project Review applications received.
To help prospective applicants understand the process and schedule for submittal and review of projects, staff will maintain a dedicated City webpage and subscription email list which will provide Early Project Review information and upcoming hearing dates.
Council Review and Determination
At the hearing, Council would have the opportunity to review all relevant project information and staff analysis, and may:
• Authorize the near-term allocation of staff resources to process a formal planning application
• Delay or defer authorizing staff resources to process an application until a specified date
• Decline to authorize allocation of staff resources, in which case the applicant must wait a minimum of two years before resubmitting a substantially similar application unless Council authorizes an earlier resubmittal.
In providing this authorization, the CIty Council would not be guaranteeing approval or any entitlement; any subsequent application will remain subject to all applicable discretionary review and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Formal Application Requirements
For projects that proceed to legislative amendments, the policy requires a development agreement (DA) to be approved prior to or concurrent with final project approval. This is to ensure that project features and community benefits that influenced the legislative decision are enforceable, while also securing vesting of development rights for the applicant provided that the project proceeds in the timeframe specified in the DA.
Projects advancing to the formal application stage must also undergo at least one study session with both the Planning Commission and the City Council, with additional study sessions as needed.
Expiration and Reauthorization Triggers
Once staff resources are allocated, specified events trigger a requirement to return to the City Council for reauthorization, including:
• Change in ownership of project parcel(s) before formal application submittal unless the new owner affirms acceptance of prior City Council direction;
• Failure to submit a formal planning application within one year of authorization (after any City Council-imposed deferral period); and
• Substantial changes to the project, generally defined as a deviation of 10 percent or more in units, land use type, square footage, or community benefits, as determined by staff.
Master Fee Schedule Amendment
As suggested in the February 3 City Council Agenda Report, staff proposes that the Master Fee Schedule be amended to include an application fee for processing Early Project Review Applications. Staff has developed the fee based on an estimate of staff time needed to process these applications, including project intake, review by various City departments and divisions, and preparation of the Agenda Report for the City Council hearing. Since this is a new application type, staff also reviewed comparable fees for similar processes in other jurisdictions, such as the CIty of Mountain View, which has had a similar policy in place for many years.
The attached Resolution, Attachment 2, outlines the proposed fees as follows:
• Early Project Review Application, Large Project (More than 25 residential units, or 25,000 square feet or more of non-residential development): $14,500 • Early Project Review Application, Small Project (25 or fewer residential units, or up to 25,000 square feet of non-residential development): $9,500 • Third Party consultant fees, e.g. Fiscal Peer Review, to be billed at actual cost, plus 25 percent
As shown, the fee reflects a tiered approach based on project size, with larger and more complex projects requiring a higher fee to reflect the staff time expected to be required.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The Early Project Review process supports transparent and consistent early City Council consideration of how discretionary legislative requests may advance City equity and sustainability priorities, including affordable housing objectives (where applicable), climate/green building measures, and neighborhood compatibility.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted for adoption of the policy. A public notice of the proposed policy and Master Fee Schedule Amendment were published in the Valley Times, a newspaper of general circulation. The proposed policy establishes ongoing transparency tools for future hearings, including a dedicated webpage and a subscription email list, and project notifications to neighboring property owners and occupants, in accordance with the requirements of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC).
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan Goal A, Funding Our Future, through a structured early evaluation of fiscal implications and cost recovery, and Goal C, Investing in Our Environment, by foregrounding sustainability and infrastructure
considerations during early City Council direction. As described, conformance and support of strategic plan goals is a critical component of the evaluation of Early Project Review applications by City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adoption of the policy itself. Adoption of the Resolution in Attachment 2 would establish/confirm an Early Project Review application fee in the Master Fee Schedule to support cost recovery, including peer review of applicant-prepared fiscal analyses. As outlined in the policy, consideration of the availability of staff resources could include applicant commitments to funding of third-party consultants to augment City staff, with costs to be reimbursed by applicants.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Ellen Clark, Director of
Community and Economic
Development
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution Adopting Early Project Review Policy
2. Resolution Adopting Master Fee Schedule Amendments
3. Presentation - Early Review Policy
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON ADOPTING
A POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THE EARLY REVIEW OF PROJECTS
REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City routinely receives requests and inquiries from property owners concerning residential and commercial development projects that require legislative approval by the City, such as General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map Amendments, and Specific Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, such applications tend to be costly and complex for applicants to prepare and for the City to process, requiring significant dedication of staff resources; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have a formal process in place to allow for early input on such proposals, in light of their potential merits and with respect to their prioritization for allocation of staff resources among other City Council work plan priorities; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2026, the City Council considered the merits of developing a structured process and procedures for early consideration of such requests, and directed staff to develop a draft policy for review and consideration; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared a draft policy in accordance with the City Council’s direction, establishing procedures for timing, application content, review parameters with, particular focus on evaluation of potential community benefits, fiscal balance, and conformance to Strategic Plan goals and strategies and othe City-adopted plans and policies;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. The adoption of the proposed policy would be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), since adoption of the policy itself would have no effect on the environment. Adoption of the policy would establish administrative procedures for early review and direction by City Council for projects requiring legislative amendments, but would not entitle, approve or confer land use changes or any specific development rights. Such entitlements would be duly considered and analyzed as part of a subsequent formal application and discretionary review process, and subject to separate CEQA review at the time of application.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Policy and Procedures for the Early Review of Projects Requiring Legislative Amendments, as reflected in Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2026.
Resolution No.
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 17 th day of March, 2026, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Resolution No.
EXHIBIT A
POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR EARLY REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL
A. Purpose
The City of Pleasanton Policy and Procedures for Early Review of Development Projects Requiring Legislative Approval (Early Review Policy) provides a structured framework for early consideration of private development projects involving legislative amendments. The intent of the process and this implementing policy is to provide a clear, consistent, and predictable pathway for the City, developers ,and stakeholders for early consideration of projects, prior to allocation of substantial additional resources by either the City or the developer in preparing and processing such applications.
B. Applicability
This policy shall apply to any private development project requiring legislative approval, such as, but not limited to, a change to a property’s General Plan Land Use Designation, Specific Plan Land Use Designation, or Zoning, or subject to annexation by the City of Pleasanton.
This policy shall not apply to:
Any project proposed as a 100% affordable (Below Market-Rate) housing development, A project on a site of less than an acre, involving construction of 5 or fewer residential units, or 5,000 square feet of commercial development, or a combination thereof.
Such projects may proceed to submittal of a formal application to the City, without an Early Project Review Hearing.
This provision only exempts the above project types from a requirement to be taken to City Council for the early determination on whether resources should be allocated towards processing. It does not exempt such projects from going through any necessary discretionary review and approval process if legislative action is needed to allow for a project to move forward, and the City Council shall retain full discretion in any such future approvals.
C. Definitions
Community Benefit: A voluntary, project-related public amenity, program or contribution offered by the applicant beyond what is required by the City’s Municipal Code or other standards, CEQA mitigation, or standard conditions of approval, intended to advance adopted City goals, adopted plans and programs, and provide measurable public value to the community.
Early Project Review Authorization Hearing (Authorization Hearing): A public hearing before the City Council to review Early Project Review applications, which shall be noticed in accordance with the provisions of Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Section 18.12.040.
Resolution No.
D. Early Project Review Applications
1. Submission of Application: An Early Project Review application may be submitted at any time to the Planning Division of the Community and Economic Development Department.
2. Timing of Submission: Early Review applications submitted and deemed complete less than 90 days before a scheduled City Council Authorization Hearing will be heard at a subsequently scheduled hearing. Refer to Section E for Hearing process.
3. Required Application Materials: To be deemed complete, an Early Project Review application must have paid in full all application fees, and submitted all documents specified in the City’s Early Review Application, including but not limited to the items listed below.
a. Application Fee. The required application fee for an Early Project Review application shall be established by City Council resolution and listed in the Master Fee Schedule.
b. Required materials. The following materials shall be included in any Early Review Application submittal:
1. Project Narrative, including a summary of the proposed project characteristics, location, proposed uses, unit and/or building sizes and key characteristics, proposed density and intensity of development, and operational characteristics.
2. Summary and photographs of the existing site, site conditions, and adjacent neighborhood context.
3. Statement of how the application aligns with, advances or supports City Strategic Plan and other City goals as enumerated in Section D.4., below.
4. Summary of current General Plan, any applicable Specific Plan Zoning (including any applicable Planned Unit Development requirements), and Existing Uses, description of surrounding uses, land use and zoning designations
5. Summary of proposed legislative amendment, including GP, Zoning, and/or specific plan amendment.
6. Statement of proposed community benefits
7. Statement of how the affordable housing proposal will comply with the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO)
8. Fiscal impact assessment, which shall either be prepared by the applicant and subject to peer review by the City or prepared by the City or its qualified consultant on behalf of the applicant.
9. Preliminary Title Report prepared within the last six months, including copies of relevant recorded documents if report is not hyperlinked.
Resolution No.
10. Existing site plan showing existing topography, site development features (buildings, parking areas, circulation, etc.), vegetation, natural features, existing utilities, title encumbrances
11. Project Plans
a. Proposed site plans, depicting building locations, setbacks, vehicular and non-vehicular circulation, landscape concept, off-street parking, public and private open space, with project data sheets as necessary to summarize key project statistics such as parking counts and size of proposed open space area.
b. Representative Building Elevations
c. Conceptual Renderings, inclusive of on-site and off-site (public) viewpoints d. Site sections, showing relationship of proposed project to adjacent development. e. Fire access
4. Support of City Goals, Objectives, Priorities and Community Needs The Pleasanton City Council retains full discretion in deciding what formal planning applications will be prioritized for staff review. In exercising this discretion, the City Council will evaluate whether a proposed project aligns with, advances or supports established City goals, objectives, priorities and community needs.
It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate how a proposed Early Project Review aligns with, advances or supports a City goal, objective and/or priority, or other community need.
To guide applicants, a non-exhaustive list of these goals, priorities, objectives and community needs is provided below, which can assist in the evaluation of their application.
While applicants are encouraged to demonstrate how their project advances or supports one or more of these goals, priorities, objectives or community needs, it is not a requirement. The presence or absence of one or more of these criteria will not affect whether an Early Review application proceeds to a Council Authorization Hearing; all Early Review applications that have been deemed complete will proceed to a Council Authorization Hearing. a. Alignment with Citywide Strategic Plan
The City of Pleasanton has adopted a Citywide Strategic Plan in 2023, the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan, which sets forth the mission, vision and values that guide the City’s priorities and actions. The Plan includes key strategic goals and strategies for the plan period (2023-2028).
Relevant goals and strategies of ONE Pleasanton with respect to evaluation of Early Review Applications are as follows:
Resolution No.
Goal A: Funding Our Future: Fiscal Sustainability. Support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, increased revenue, and cost containment.
Projects should demonstrate a neutral or positive fiscal balance with respect to any new direct and indirect revenues associated with the project, versus any new or additional costs to provide public services to the project.
Projects should minimize or avoid generating new or additional long-term, unfunded maintenance or service obligations for the City, and pay Development Impact Fees in accordance with the City’s adopted programs and the PMC, with the preference for such fees to be levied at the rates in place at the time of building permit issuance whenever possible.
Goal C: Investing in Our Environment. Infrastructure, Public Facilities and Sustainability.
Promote effective use of existing facilities through maintenance and repair and plan for future facilities, amenities and infrastructure to benefit the community with a focus on environmental stewardship.
Projects should advance or support project(s) identified in the City’s four-year Capital Improvement Plan, and/or investments in the City’s parks, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and amenities, facilities, and public art. (Strategy 1, Strategy 7)
Project should advance or support environmental sustainability goals of the adopted Climate Action Plan through incorporation of advanced energy efficiency measures, green building and site design features, and promotion of multi-modal transportation. Such features shall generally reflect measures that exceed the requirements of the City’s Green Building Code, and California Building Code. (Strategy 6)
Goal D: Safeguarding our City Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Project should support or advance the provision and enhancement of emergency services, including items identified in the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) Strategic Plan, and Pleasanton Police Department Strategic Plan, and/or contribute to the improvement of emergency services facilities and equipment (Strategies 5 and 6)
Goal E: Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs: Livability and Community Development. Foster community engagement and conduct effective planning to promote a livable and economically vibrant community.
Economic Development (Commercial Projects). Project should support or advance key goals and initiatives from the Five-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan, including retail revitalization, ensuring the vibrancy of Pleasanton’s Downtown,
Resolution No.
business retention and expansion and workforce development. (Strategy 4)
Affordable Housing (Residential Projects): Project should support or advance key objectives of the Housing Element, including increasing the supply of affordable housing in accordance with the City’s adopted Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO), and efforts to address homelessness. (Strategy 6)
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): Projects should positively contribute to the City’s ability to meet its RHNA obligations, as documented in the City’s adopted Housing Element, with a particular interest in meeting below-market-rate housing targets.
b. Other Policy Items
The following additional policy goals reflect key themes of the Pleasanton 2005 General Plan, with respect to new development and change in use. Note that the policies cited are not exhaustive, and conformance to other General Plan or Specific Plan policies may be considered in evaluation of specific proposals.
1. Location and Neighborhood Compatibility
Project should provide appropriately scaled and designed buildings that fit into the overall neighborhood context and provide appropriate setbacks and transitions to any adjacent or adjoining residential developments. (General Plan Land Use Element Policy 5, Policy 8)
2. Proximity to community facilities and services
Project location should provide its occupants with convenient access to services and facilities, such as schools, shopping and employment areas, transit stops, parks and other amenities, and promote multimodal connectivity to activity centers and amenities to the extent possible. (Evaluation of this goal should be made in consideration of the project type and expected occupancy) (General Plan Land Use Element Goal 1, Program 1.2; Policy 2 and related programs)
3. Project Design and Livability:
Project should provide a high-quality of design, inclusive of adequate on-site parking, prioritizing preservation of protected trees and any on-site natural resources, and provision of quality shared and private open space and amenities for project occupants. (General Plan Community Character Element, Goal 6, Policy 15, Policy 17 and related programs)
Resolution No.
E. Early Project Review Hearings
1. Frequency.
There shall be at least one Early Project Review Hearing per calendar year, typically in the Spring. The City Manager or their designee can schedule additional Council Prioritization Hearings, if necessary, based on the volume and complexity of Early Project Review applications received during the year.
2. Notice of Council Prioritization Hearings. In addition to complying with the hearing notice requirements in PMC Section 18.12.040, staff shall:
a. Develop and maintain a dedicated location or page on the City’s website to provide information about the Early Project Review process, including application criteria, procedural requirements, and dates for scheduled or upcoming Council Prioritization Hearings.
b. Maintain a subscription-based email list of interested parties who wish to receive notification of upcoming Council Prioritization Hearing dates and other updates or announcements related to the Early Project Review process.
3. Council Report.
For each Council Prioritization Hearing, staff shall prepare an Agenda Report that includes, at a minimum, the following information and analysis:
a. Project Overview. A summary of the proposed project, specifying its type (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, mixed use), density/intensity, size, and location. b. Existing Land Use. A description of the current General Plan land use designation, Zoning classification, and existing use of the project site, along with an analysis of surrounding land uses and designations and project compatibility thereof. c. Legislative Amendments. An outline of the legislative amendments required for the project to advance, including their scope and implications.
d. Alignment with City Objectives. An assessment of the project's consistency with established City Council goals, priorities, and objectives, with particular focus on those noted in section D.4, as well as its potential to address broader community needs. e. Evaluation of fiscal implications of the proposed project, and any proposed community benefits.
f. Staff Recommendations. A compilation of proposed amendments or adjustments to the Project aimed at enhancing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, reducing potential project off-site impacts, and advancing other City objectives. g. Resource Assessment. An evaluation of staff capacity and resources to process the application, including an analysis of current workloads. If resources are determined to be
Resolution No.
insufficient, the report shall propose options for reprioritizing or deferring discretionary City initiatives, such as Council Work Plan projects, long-range planning efforts, or procedural and technological improvements, to ensure the effective processing of the Project. Such assessment may also incorporate provisions for applicant-funded third-party consultant services to augment in-house staff, provided that the applicant agrees in writing to fund such services.
4. Applicant Presentation.
Project applicants shall have the opportunity to deliver a presentation on their proposed project during the Council Prioritization Hearing, subject to time limits or other procedural guidelines established by the Mayor or applicable Council policies.
5. Council Review and Determination.
a. Review. The City Council shall evaluate each Early Project Review application and may require modifications to the project application as a condition of prioritizing the project. Unless otherwise specified by Council motion, revisions mandated by a majority vote during the Hearing shall become prerequisites for both the filing of a formal planning permit application and its continued processing by the City.
b. Determination. At the conclusion of the Council Prioritization Hearing, the Council may take one of the following actions on each Project application:
i. Authorize allocation of staff resources to processing a formal planning permit application.
ii. Defer authorization of allocation of staff resources to processing such application until a specified date.
iii. Decline to authorize allocation of staff resources to processing a formal planning permit application. In such cases, the applicant must wait a minimum of two years from the date of submission of the subject Early Project Review application before resubmitting a substantially similar application unless the Council, by majority vote, authorizes resubmission of an Early Project Application at an earlier time.
c. Project Approval Not Guaranteed. A decision to allocate staff resources to a formal planning permit application shall not be construed as a guarantee of final project approval. Early Project Review applications are subject to the same subsequent discretionary review and approvals as all non-Early Review authorized development projects, inclusive of review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
F. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
In recognition of the unique benefits conferred by City Council approval of a legislative amendment, all Early Project Review applicants shall be required to execute a development agreement with the City of Pleasanton prior to or concurrent with final enactment of the requested legislative amendment(s). A
Resolution No.
development agreement is necessary to ensure that the project features and community benefits, which influenced the City Council’s decision to approve the legislative amendment, are memorialized and enforceable.
G. STUDY SESSIONS
All Early Project Review applications advancing to the formal planning permit application stage must undergo at least one Study Session with both the Planning Commission and City Council during the development review process. Furthermore, the City may convene additional Study Sessions with either or both decision-making bodies if necessary to obtain further policy or project guidance.
H. UPDATES TO POLICY
This policy may be amended at any time by Resolution adopted by City Council. An Early Project Review application shall be evaluated in accordance with the policy in effect on the date the application was deemed complete.
I. EXPIRATION
Once staff resources are allocated to a project pursuant to this Section, the following actions shall require the project to return to the City Council for reauthorization consistent with the application submittal requirements and hearing procedures of the Pleasanton Municipal Code and this City Council Policy.
1. Change in ownership of project parcel(s). If a parcel included within the project site of the Early Review project application changes ownership prior to submitting a formal planning application, unless a new owner has submitted, in writing, their agreement to all relevant terms, requirements or direction provided as part of the City Council’s authorization.
2. Expiration. A formal planning application for the project has not been submitted to the Planning Division within one (1) year of City Council authorization. This one (1) year period shall not begin until after any deferral required by the Council.
3. Change in project. Substantial changes to the project as determined by the Director of Community and Economic Development to be a deviation of ten (10) percent or more from the original project authorized, including, but not limited, to the number of units, land use type, square footage or community benefits.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TO
APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE, ADOPTING FEES
FOR PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE POLICY AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE EARLY REVIEW OF PROJECTS REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE
AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City Council Adopted Resolution No. ______, adopting policies and procedures for the Early Review of Projects Requiring Legislative Amendments (Early Review Policy); and
WHEREAS, the Early Review Policy states that the City Council shall adopt a fee for processing such applications, with such fee reflecting the staff time and costs associated with the processing;
WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule compiles City Council-approved fees for specific City services provided to residents and companies in the community; and
WHEREAS, agencies are allowed to set fees at rates providing fair and reasonable recovery of costs incurred in providing the services, minimizing or eliminating the use of general tax revenues; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted an analysis to ensure these fees charged do not exceed the cost of providing services with respect to processing applications under the Policy.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the amendments to the Master Fee Schedule as reflected in Exhibit A;
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2026.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of March 2026 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Resolution No.
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
Section II, Planning Division, of the Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to add the following to Subsection B: Application Fees:
Projects of up to 25 Residential
Units (exclusive of ADUs), or
non-residential projects of up to
25,000 square feet
$9,500
Projects of more than 25
Residential Units (exclusive of
ADUs), or non-residential
projects greater than 25,000
square feet
$14,500 Early Review of Projects
Requiring Legislative
Amendments
Preparation of Associated
Technical or Fiscal Study or Peer
Review of Applicant-Prepared
Study(ies)
Actual Costs, plus 25%
3/9/2026
1 Early Project Review Policy & ProceduresCity CouncilMarch 17, 2026 Background and Purpose•Increasing volume of requests for General Plan amendments and rezoning from property owners and developers, without a formal policy or process to evaluate•February 3, 2026: City Council direction to develop a structured policy framework•Policy Goal:Create a clear, consistent, and predictable pathway before significant City or applicant resources are committed 1 2
3/9/2026
2 What is Early Project Review?•A structured, pre-application process for projects requiring legislative approval(e.g. General Plan amendments, rezoning, Specific Plan amendments, annexations)•Allows City Council to provide early direction on whether to prioritize staff resources for processing a formal application; early input on project features and benefits•Early review does notguarantee project approval — City Council discretionary review and CEQA still apply Applicability•Any private development project requiring a legislative amendment•Two Exemptions:•100% Affordable Projects•Projects on sites under one acre, with 5 or fewer residential units, up to 5,000 sq ft of commercial development (or a combination) 3 4
3/9/2026
3 Review Criteria – Strategic Plan Alignment•Goal A – Fiscal Sustainability:Demonstrate neutral or positive fiscal balance; minimize unfunded obligations•Goal C – Environment & Infrastructure:Support Capital Improvement Program priorities; advance Climate Action Plan goals beyond baseline code•Goal D – Public Safety:Support emergency services and related facilities/equipment•Goal E – Livability & Community Development:•Commercial: Advance Economic Development Strategic Plan (downtown vibrancy, retail, business retention)•Residential: Support Housing Element goals, Inclusionary Zoning, RHNA obligations, and below-market-rate targets Review Criteria – General Plan Policy Themes•Neighborhood Compatibility:Appropriate scale, design, and transitions to adjacent development•Proximity to Services:Convenient access to schools, shopping, transit, parks; multimodal connectivity (tailored evaluation based on project type)•Project Design & Livability:High-quality design, adequate parking, natural resource preservation, quality open space and amenities 5 6
3/9/2026
4 Hearing Process•At least one Early Project Review Authorization Hearingper calendar year (typically Spring)•Notification to neighbors in accordance with PMC•Additional hearings may be scheduled as needed, based on volume of applications•Dedicated City webpage and subscription email list for updates and hearing dates•Opportunity for applicant presentation•Staff analysis and recommendation:•Conformance to review criteria•Availability of staff resources to support application review City Council Determination1.Authorizeallocation of staff resources to process a formal planning application2.Deferauthorization to a specified future date3.Declineto authorize — applicant must wait a minimum of 2 yearsbefore resubmitting a substantially similar application7 8
3/9/2026
5 Formal Application Requirements•Development Agreementis required prior to or concurrent with final legislative approval, to ensure project features and community benefits enforceable, and provide applicant vesting•Study Sessionswith Planning Commission and City Council required•Authorization Lapsesif:•Project ownership changes, without agreement to assume Council-specified direction•Formal application is not submitted within 1 yearof authorization•Project changes by 10% or morein units, land use type, square footage, or community benefits, as determined by CEDD Director Proposed Application Fee ScheduleFeeProject Type$9,500Up to 25 residential units or 25,000 sf non-residential$14,500More than 25 residential units or 25,000 non-residentialActual Cost + 25%Third Party Technical/Fiscal Study or Peer Review•Fees based on estimated staff time and benchmarked against comparable processes in other jurisdictions (e.g., City of Mountain View) 9 10
3/9/2026
6 Recommendation•Adopt the Resolution establishing the Early Project Review Policy and Procedures (Attachment 1)•Adopt the Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule(Attachment 2) Early Project Review Policy & ProceduresCity CouncilMarch 17, 202611 12