Pleasanton City Council
April 21, 2026

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-4

Figure C-1. Regional setting map of the Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction Project site.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-5

Figure C-2. Treatment areas map of the Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction Project site.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-6

Figure C-3. Treatable landscape on the Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction Project site.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-7

Treatment types and activities described in the CalVTP aim to mimic conditions that exist in a natural environment where natural fires would have occurred. Strategic fuel removal would concentrate on areas of high fuel concentrations and disrupt the horizontal and vertical continuity of fuel beds.

Biological diversity in the area would be maintained by promoting conditions that favor native plant and animal species. Forest health would be improved through enhancing native, fire -resilient plant communities, primarily through ladder fuel and weed removal, opening space for native plants to return. Healthy mature trees and scrub dominating the canopy would be thinned out and retained, reducing new brush and understory growth while preserving the carbon sequestration function. Biomass would be strategically diminished in open grassy areas.

In addition to the project treatment types and activities being consistent with the CalVTP , the Project Proponent follows CAL FIRE’s best management practices (BMPs), which include identifying and avoiding sensitive resources to ensure environmental protection when designing and constructing fuels reduction projects. The Diablo FireSafe Council compiled the “Communit y Wildfire Protection Plan Alameda County” (DFSC 2025). This document examines and describes fuels management strategies to avoid impacts to sensitive resources. Implementation of these BMPs, in combination with the CalVTP’s Specific Project Requirements ( SPRs) and mitigation measures (MMs), would protect lives, property, and natural resources while implementing fuels reduction activities.

PD 3.1: Treatment Types
The proposed project would utilize two treatment types in combination to create fuel break and reduction for firefighting resources to contain or stop a fire: WUI fuel reduction and fuel break. Strategic placement of the WUI fuel break would be based upon the prevailing vegetation types, topographic characteristics, environmental considerations, and surrounding land uses. Fuels in the project area are primarily heavy loads of oak (Quercus spp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), sticky monkey flower (Diplacus aurantiacus), sage (Artemisia spp.), poison oak ( Toxicodendron diversilobum), and grass: the general topography is steep with difficult access. Residential homes adjacent to the Project are primarily moderate to large in size (2,000 to 4,000 square feet) on moderate to large lots with densely intermixed vegetation. Low -income and multi -family housing are also prevalent along portions of the shaded fuel break.

The placement of the Project considered downwind areas with an active fire history that currently have inadequate evacuation routes. In many areas, ingress and egress to portions of the impacted communities are limited to a single roadway. Existing access roads are typically steep, and driveways are long in many areas. Dead ends and few turnarounds further amplify the fire risk through delays in firefighting response and extended evacuation times.

In some areas, water supply for fire suppression is also limited. These conditions impact both the evacuation of at- risk portions of the community and fire suppression response. Based on a risk analysis, this project would treat hazardous fuels in the communities at greatest risk to ensure the highest return-on-investment. The Project would use a “light touch” approach with an emphasis on ladder fuel reduction adjacent to existing fire trails and roads.

This approach would minimize soil disturbance, maximize production rates, and limit the impact to special-status species of both flora and fauna.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-8

WUI and shaded fuel breaks are defined in the sections below, and they would be used in combination. Creation of the combined WUI shaded fuel break would strategically use several treatment activities based on the prevailing vegetation types, topographic c haracteristics, environmental considerations, and surrounding land uses. Work would be completed with minimal to no disturbance to the ground and remaining vegetation. Treatment activities by fuel type are described in more detail in Section 2.3 of the PSA.

PD-3.1.1: Wildland-Urban Interface Fuel Reduction
W U I f u e l r e d u c ti on i n v ol v e s s t r a t e g i c r e m o v a l of v e g e t a ti on t o p r e v e n t or s l o w t h e s p r e a d of n on-wind-driven wildfire between structures and wildlands. In areas where wildland and manmade structures overlap, higher intensity fuel reduction typical of defensible space would occur within 100 to 150 feet of manmade structures, as determined by fire professionals and based on site conditions. Beyond 100 to 150 feet from manmade structures, vegetation treatments would be implemented with lower intensity. Fuel reduction would focus primarily on removal of fire -hazardous vegetation, such as dead, dying, and diseased vegetation , including trees , invasive plants, and noxious weeds, as well as limbing up of healthy trees.

PD-3.1.2: Fuel Breaks
Fuel breaks give firefighters access to control wildfires and are useful in slowing fires before they grow beyond initial attack capabilities. Fuel breaks permit responders to reach the leading edges of a fire and protect isolated communities, and fuel breaks can stop or reduce the lateral spread of fires. In heavily wooded areas, a shaded fuel break would be implemented; the retained canopy shade would slow future growth of many grass and brush species and assist in future maintenance efforts. In suitable Alameda whipsnake ( Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) habitat, a “scrub island” strategy would be implemented to retain habitat function; this is discussed in more detail in later sections. Development and maintenance of a fuel reduction zone within a 100 -foot-wide fuel break would extend around community structures located adjacent to undeveloped open spaces. Portions of the fuel break would extend up to a width of 400 feet based on topography, site conditions, and land management constraints.

PD-3.2.1: Treatment Activities
Treatment activities to achieve project objectives would be applied singularly or in combination, depending on site conditions and site-specific goals. The Project’s proposed treatment activities are consistent with the CalVTP PEIR (Ascent Environmental 2019) and would include:
• Prescribed Burning: Includes broadcast burning (prescribed burning to reduce fuels over a larger area or restore fire resiliency in target fire-adapted plant communities conducted under specific conditions related to fuels, weather, and other variables) and pile burning (prescribed burning of piles of vegetative material to reduce fuel and/or remove biomass following treatment) • Mechanical Treatment: Use of motorized equipment to chip vegetation and mow select areas

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-9

• Manual Treatment: Use of hand tools and hand-operated power tools to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous or woody species
• Prescribed Herbivory: Use of domestic livestock to reduce a target plant population, thereby reducing fire fuels or competition of desired plant species
• Herbicides: Chemical application designed to inhibit growth of target plant species PD-3.2.1: Prescribed Burning (Broadcast)
Prescribed understory fires would mimic periodic low -intensity wildfires historically prevalent in the region and create similar structural and habitat conditions that benefit many plant and wildlife species. Gradual reintroduction of fire presents an opportunity to improve forest health, reduce critical fue l loading, improve emergency access, and regenerate a healthy ecosystem. Prescribed low-intensity surface fires (broadcast burning) would be used to control vegetation and manage fuel loads. Prescribed b urning would remain within a predetermined area and would occur only with specific fuels and in safe weather conditions. Prescribed burns would be used for maintenance of treatments, and they would occur approximately every 5 years, as appropriate.

Active burns would follow environmental safety guidelines, including burning only after consideration of specific weather conditions (e.g., appropriate humidity, wind direction, etc.) and coordinating with resource agencies, such as the California Air Resources Board ( CARB). Specifically, active burns would include the preparation and implementation of a burn plan, including a smoke management plan (SMP). The Project Proponent would report site conditions and request approval to burn through the Prescribed Fire Information Reporting System (PFIRS), which serves as an interface between air quality managers, land management agencies, and individuals that conduct prescribed burning in California. A prescribed burn SMP must be submitted to and approved by the Bay Area Air District (BAAD) at least 30 days prior to burning.

Prescribed burns would typically be ignited using a flamethrower from a side -by-side utility terrain vehicle, by walking with a drip torch or fusee, or via other methods , as determined by a professional. Prescribed burns are typically completed in a single day but, under certain circumstances, could be maintained for up to 1 week. On average, up to 45 workers are present on-site for a prescribed burn. Heavy equipment would typically be operated from an existing road. In anticipation of completely avoiding t he federally threatened Alameda whipsnake and minimizing habitat impacts for this species on the project site, prescribed burning within highly suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat would be restricted between November 1 and March 31 or when temperatures are conducive to snake movement, which is typically when soil surface temperatures reach or exceed 66 °F (19 °C).

PD-3.2.2: Mechanical Treatment
Mechanical treatments would mow target vegetation with special care to avoid ground disturbance in sensitive habitat. Lawn mowers, or similar, would target vegetation, including standing and downed vegetation. Mechanical treatments would also be employed as a biomass disposal method to chip and broadcast woody debris. Chipping and broadcasting equipment would typically remain on existing roads and fire trails. Mechanical treatment activities would occur predominantly on slopes below 40 percent grade and along ridges, and may occur on slopes

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-10

greater than 40 percent grade with equipment that can reach target vegetation from existing road infrastructure.

No mechanical treatment would occur on slopes above 50 percent grade. Mowing activity would avoid Alameda whipsnake habitat, state or federally jurisdictional waters, and riparian habitat by a no-work buffer, as defined in later sections of this document.

Typical mechanical treatments would require a team with up to 20 workers and equipment such as riding lawn mowers, bucket trucks, tow chippers, and track chippers. Typical mechanical treatments would require several days to several months to complete, depending on the size of the treatment area, steepness of terrain, and type and density of vegetation.

PD-3.2.3: Manual Treatment
Ground crews would use hand tools and hand-operated power tools, including chainsaws, hand saws, pole saws, McLeods, Pulaskis, weed pullers, weed eaters (e.g., string, plastic blades, or circular blades), brush cutters, and loppers to cut, clear, and/or prune trees, herbaceous vegetation, and woody shrubs. Where feasible, treatments would prioritize removal of invasive plants and noxious weeds. Within suitable Alameda whipsnake scrub habitat, hand-removal would prioritize removal of dead woody vegetation, d ead branches, and invasive weeds. Manual treatment activities would avoid state or federally jurisdictional waters and riparian habitat by a standard buffer, as described in a later section.

Manual treatments within the project area would require several days to several months to complete, depending on the size of the treatment area, steepness of terrain, and type and density of vegetation. Manual treatment typically clears 0.3 acres or more per day, per team. Manual treatments typically require 1 or 2 hand crew teams with a total of 20 to 40 crew members present on-site.

PD-3.2.4: Prescribed Herbivory
Prescribed herbivory involves transporting, releasing, herding, and moving grazing animals, such as cattle, sheep, goats, or horses, to designated sites. Herds would be installed strategically within areas with wildlife-safe fencing and a professional shepherd, who would coordinate animal movements to prevent excessive grazing and ground disturbance. Moving livestock from one grazing ground to another would occur at a frequency based on numerous site-specific factors, including slope, density and type of ve getation, stocking rate, type of livestock, and precipitation/moisture content of vegetation. Stocking rate would vary based on species of grazer (e.g., a herd of cattle would require a larger acreage than a herd of goats of the same size). Site conditions (e.g., relative density or quantity of the vegetation to be treated, etc.) would determine herd size and the grazing time to complete the job.

Prescribed herbivory would require temporary wildlife -safe fencing where natural barriers are not present, temporary water facilities and other infrastructure (e.g., corrals, fences), and guard animals and/or a shepherd to be present on-site. Any areas identified as sensitive to grazing activity would be clearly marked on project maps,

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-11

and protection measures would be communicated to the herder and project manager, including a pre-vegetation removal field visit, as appropriate.

To prevent undesirable introduction of invasive or noxious plant species to the site, consideration would be given to where animals are coming from and whether viable seeds of undesirable species are present. As necessary, the herd would be fed a weed -free diet for an appropriate period prior to being introduced to the grazing site. Any supplemental feed brought on-site would be free of noxious weeds.

PD-3.2.5: Herbicide Application
Herbicides would be used strategically to supplement other treatment methods to prevent the spread and resprouting of invasive species within the treatment areas and along roads. Effective herbicides identified by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal- IPC) and U .S. Department of Agriculture that are consistent with those described in the CalVTP PEIR (e.g., glyphosate and species -specific chemicals) would be applied. On -the-ground application methods include painting cut stems or stumps and using backpack hand applicators targeted on focal invasive plants; no aerial spraying or spraying from trucks would occur. No herbicide used would occur within 30 feet of aquatic habitat except for direct application to freshly cut invasive tree stumps.

Herbicide application would comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) label directions and both California Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Pesticide Regulation label standards. All herbicide application would be performed by certified and licensed pesticide applicators in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations. Herbicide application would not take place within 24 hours of a rain event.

PD-3.2.6: Biomass Disposal
The goal of biomass disposal is to reduce ignitable material and associated air quality impacts from wildfire, reduce brood material for harmful insects and disease, and enhance aesthetics. By reducing the available fuel in the shaded fuel break, the fuel continuity is disrupted, which slows down the spread of wildfires and decreases potential fire intensity.

Methods for managing biomass include natural decomposition (e.g., chip and broadcast, lop and scatter), hauling off-site, and pile burning. Downed woody debris may be masticated where it creates a fire hazard. To mitigate brood stratum opportunities for beetles, downed logs would not be left on -site, in accordance with California Forest Practice Rules (CAL FIRE 2019) and BMPs. Whenever feasible, natural decomposition of biomass would be preferred because: (1) forestry mulch aids in mitigating erosion and excessive soil disturbance; (2) keeping material on-site prevents the spread of disease and pathogens to other sites, with Sudden Oak Death (SOD; Phytophthora ramorum) being of particular concern in our region; and (3) GHG emissions are reduced by avoiding the transportation of material off-site to green waste facilities. For all these reasons, the most climate-friendly option is to leave woody biomass on-site to decompose naturally.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-12

Natural Decomposition
C u t v e g e t a ti o n m a y b e r e t a i n e d o n-site to decompose naturally via lopping and scattering or chipping and broadcasting across the landscape. Lopping plants involves cutting a plant low to the ground and distributing the cut material. In some cases, a road-based chipper or an all-terrain vehicle and tracked towable chipper would be used to process cut vegetative materials. The vegetative material would be fed through the chipper and broadcast widely into treatment areas. Biomass would be chipped to 3 inches o r smaller in size and spread up to 4 inches deep. Cut vegetation and chips would not be placed below the ordinary high water mark of aquatic features, within wetlands or riparian areas, or on top of burrows or rock piles. Understory debris chipped and scatt ered on-site would follow BMPs for reducing the spread of pests, disease, noxious weeds, and invasive species (see Section 2.5 of the PSA).

Hauling Off-Site
Vegetation moved off-site would be hauled to an appropriate biomass processing facility. Transported invasive plant materials would be stored in a closed container to prevent spreading during transport.

Pile Burning
Hand-cut material would be piled as “feeder piles,” with the cut stems facing in one direction in a manner to minimize any overstory scorch when the piles are restacked and burned. Most of the piles would be built in open areas of the forest floor or on the roadside. Suitable areas for pile burning are open areas away from tree canopies and power lines. Sites suitable for pile burning would depend on location of sensitive species habitat and safety guidelines (e.g., humidity, wind direction, etc.). General operations for pile burning would follow these guidelines:
• Multiple piles would be burned on a single day
• Pile size would not exceed 20 feet in diameter
• Piles would not block vehicle access on any road or trail • Piles created within suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat and left for any significant period of time would be dismantled and re-piled prior to igniting
Pile burning would be conducted in compliance with the local authority having jurisdiction or the CAL FIRE and BAAD Regulation 5 for open burning and burn day restrictions. Burns would be coordinated with appropriate resource agencies (e.g., CARB) and woul d follow a burn plan that includes a smoke management plan. The City would report site conditions and request approval to burn through PFIRS, which serves as an interface between air quality managers, land management agencies, and individuals that conduct prescribed burning in California.

PD-3.3: Treatment Prescriptions by Fuel Type
The Project is divided into two distinct operations: 1) removal of ladder and ground fuels and 2) removal of ground fuels such as dead, dying, diseased, and downed vegetation, branches, and trees. Both operations would manage

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-13

excess ladder and ground fuels through a combination of treatment activities, including manual, mechanical, prescribed burning, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide spot-treatment. Resulting biomass would be pile burned, left to decompose naturally, or hauled off-site.

PD-3.3.1: Ladder and Ground Fuel Removal
Fire Trails and Roads
Ladder and ground fuels along fire trails and roads would be managed at a distance of twice the flame length indicated by the prevailing fuel model for that area. This distance would ensure the effectiveness of fire trails and roads in slowing or stopping a fire’s spread during Diablo wind conditions. Trailside and roadside fuel reduction areas would provide an anchor point from which fire suppression resources would engage wildfires.

Treatment activities along fire trails and roads follow a combination of mowing and other similar mechanical means, hand crew trimming and thinning, prescribed grazing, prescribed burning, and spot herbicide treatment.

The prescription would remove ladder fuels, remove or pile leaf litter and duff for pile burning, thin or remove dense brush, and trim low-hanging branches within 6 feet of the ground or a height deemed appropriate to reach site goals by a professional. Annual grass and herbaceous weeds would be mowed or grazed by cattle or goats to less than approximately 6 inches, or a height deemed appropriate to reduce fire risk and maintain habitat function by a professional.

Off-Trail and Off-Road
Beyond twice the flame length of trails/roadsides, excess ladder and ground fuel would be removed by hand crews, chippers, and mowing.

PD-3.3.2: Dead, Dying, Diseased, and Downed Trees
The second operation would remove all dead, dying, diseased, and downed vegetation, branches , and trees presenting a fuel hazard, as determined by a Registered Professional Forester (RPF). Biomass would be hauled off- site or chipped and scattered on-site dependent on size, health of tree, and access to the biomass. Downed trees would be removed or piled for winter burning.

PD-3.3.3: Habitat-Specific Prescriptions
Traditional fuel reduction methods adopt treatment activities that are typically determined by fuel type.

Vegetation types for proposed treatment within the project footprint are a mosaic of blue and coastal oak woodland, coastal scrub, and annual grasslands. One other California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) classification system vegetation type found on the project site is urban, which corresponds primarily to roads.

Treatment strategies are a combination of treatment activities broadly described f or each vegetation type. The treatment approach would generally follow these basic guidelines:

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-14

• Prioritize removal of invasive plants and dead woody material while retaining live native vegetation • Hazardous trees (e.g., dead or dying trees) identified by a n RPF or qualified fire professional would be removed
• Tree canopy would be retained to the greatest extent feasible while removing ladder fuels o Large trees (greater than approximately 6 inches in diameter at breast height [DBH]) would be limbed up to approximately 6 feet or as determined by a professional o Small trees and brush (less than approximately 6 inches DBH) would be removed strategically, cutting stumps to within 4 inches of bare mineral soil
o Small trees and large shrubs in open areas that have the potential to provide shade and reduce invasive plant species would be limbed up to approximately 6 feet, or as deemed by a professional, and the canopy would be left intact
o T ree canopy over emergency access roads would be trimmed up to approximately 15 feet from the ground, or as deemed by a professional based on site goals, to facilitate passage of emergency vehicles during a fire event
o A 6-foot gap from the tree canopy to the nearest shrub will be maintained • No commercial forest products would be removed
Grass Fuel Type Treatment Activities
Grass fuel type would include habitat classified as annual grassland by the CWHR. Within non -native grassland, treatment activities would cut grasses to a maximum of approximately 6 inches, achieve horizontal spacing, and reduce overall fuel loading. Presc ribed herbivory, mowing, prescribed burning, and herbicide spot treatment would be strategically used in combined grass- and herb-dominated areas and in areas of shrub encroachment. • Prescribed Herbivory Treatment
o Goats, cattle, or other grazing animals would be installed strategically within areas with wildlife - safe fencing or other existing barriers
 A professional shepherd would coordinate animal movements to prevent excessive grazing and ground disturbance
• Mechanical Treatment Activities
o Mowing would be performed using riding lawn mowers, or similar, and would not be used within 50 feet of suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat
o Mechanical equipment that may be used to ignite or limit the spread of the prescribed burn would be present with appropriate fire department and Project Proponent personnel • Prescribed Burning Treatment Activities
o Burning would be timed to control invasive non-native grasses where present o Perimeter fire lines would include existing roads and natural features where possible to maintain aesthetic values
o Prescribed fires would be conducted in conditions promoting a light to moderate burn (i.e., when soil and duff are moist) to increase the productivity of the habitat without resulting in adverse impacts to wildlife
o All prescribed burning (both broadcast and pile burns) would be done under applicable burn and air quality permits to minimize potential environmental impacts o Within suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat, prescribed burning and pile burning would be restricted to times when temperatures are conducive to snake movement, which is typically when soil surface temperatures reach or exceed 66 °F (19 °C)

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-15

• Manual and Herbicide Treatment Activities
o Crews equipped with hand -tools would trim dead and dying branches from native shrubs occurring within grassland
o Small, isolated trees (6 inches or smaller DBH) growing in the grassland would be cut and piled for burning
o Larger trees encroaching on or distributed throughout grasslands would be limbed up to reduce vertical fuel continuity
o Cut vegetation would be lopped and scattered, chipped and broadcast, pile burned, or hauled off- site
o Invasive shrubs and noxious weeds encountered in the grasslands would be treated with the appropriate method for the species and life stage
o Herbicide spot treatment would target invasive species and would be applied by hand or targeted by backpack sprayer
• Biomass Disposal
o Biomass from non -invasive, non-noxious plants would be left to naturally decompose (e.g., lop and scatter, chip and broadcast), pile burned, or hauled off-site o Poison oak would be cut and left in place (lop and scatter) o Where chipper access is not practical, cut material would be piled strategically for later burning o Within suitable habitat for Alameda whipsnake, piles left in place for a critical length of time as determined by a professional would be dismantled and reconstructed prior to burning Shrub Fuel Type Treatment Activities
Shrub fuel type would include habitat classified by the CWHR as coastal scrub. The general approach in suitable Alameda whipsnake scrub habitat would be to strategically reduce hazardous fuels in a way that retains scrub habitat. Selective removal of invasive species and dead, woody vegetation and limbs would retain scrub habitat characteristics suitable for Alameda whipsnake with a mosaic of open and closed canopy patches. The resulting patches would be irregular, oblong shapes to maintain a natural conditi on and retaining rocky outcrops through avoidance. Scrub patch characteristics would model naturally occurring scrub and would include variable age classes. Treatment activities within suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat would involve primarily manual thinning to remove dead woody vegetation and invasive species to achieve horizontal spacing. Other treatment activities in shrub fuel types would include prescribed herbivory in shrubby areas with interspersed grasses and areas adjacent to grasslands being grazed. Vegetation removal activities would retain scrub, and the overall dominant scrub habitat type would not be converted to a different habitat type.

Specifications for suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat are described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as follows:
coastal scrub, coyote brush scrub, or maritime chaparral areas greater than 0.5 acres in size, or scrub areas greater than 0.2 acres in size that are within 50 feet of scrub patches greater than 0.5 acre s in size (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2013). Scrub islands created through mosaic thinning or patch retention thinning would result in a total canopy cover of between 30 and 5 0 percent shrubs and 50 to 70 percent grassy openings (FEMA 2013). Scrub retained in these dimensions also retains the overall habitat function for Alameda whipsnake while still serving the needs of the shaded fuel break.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-16

• Manual and Herbicide Treatment Activities
o Scrub would be retained in a natural mosaic through the removal of invasive species, thinning out dead branches from shrubs, and limbing up large shrubs
o Small encroaching trees (under 6 inches DBH) may be removed, and limbs would be removed from larger trees up to 6 feet, as appropriate
o Cut vegetation would be lopped and scattered, chipped and broadcast, pile burned, or hauled off- site
o Broom plants or other invasive shrubs and noxious weeds would either be uprooted and pulled or cut low to the ground and spot treated with herbicide
o Herbicide spot treatment of invasive species and noxious weeds would be hand-applied • Prescribed Herbivory Treatment
o Goats, cattle, or other grazing animals would be installed strategically within areas with wildlife - safe fencing or existing barriers
o A professional shepherd would coordinate animal movements to prevent excessive grazing and ground disturbance
• Biomass Disposal
o Biomass from non -invasive, non-noxious plants would be left to naturally decompose (e.g., lop and scatter, chip and broadcast), pile burned, or hauled off-site o Poison oak would be cut and left in place (lop and scatter) o Where chipper access is not practical, cut material would be piled strategically for later burning o Within suitable habitat for Alameda whipsnake, piles left in place for a critical length of time as determined by a professional would be dismantled and reconstructed prior to burning Tree Fuel Type Treatment Activities
Tree fuel types would include habitat classified by the CWHR as blue oak woodland and coastal oak woodland. The general approach to tree fuel types would be designed to prevent fire from approaching or departing the fuel break, prevent fire from laddering into the tree canopy, and promote establishment of native trees. Selective thinning would result in a shaded fuel break that retains the tree canopy. This would be achieved through removal of select trees, branches, shrubs, and both living and dead vegetati on that could facilitate the upward spread of fire from surface fuels to the forest canopy. The shade of the retained canopy would reduce the potential for rapid re-growth of understory, and the selectively treated areas would provide firefighters an oppo rtunity to access lower-intensity ground fires, should they occur. Within all wooded areas, vegetation removal would be addressed primarily with manual treatment activities to preserve a natural appearance. Other treatment activities used within forest fue l types would include mechanical equipment, herbicides, prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burning.
• Manual Treatment Activities
o Hand-held tools would remove and thin understory shrubs and brush, as well as dead and dying trees and small (less than 6 inches DBH) non-native, invasive trees o Lower tree limbs would be pruned, and most ground vegetation would be removed to break up the horizontal and vertical continuity of flammable vegetation o Invasive species and noxious weeds would be strategically removed first, followed by fire-prone native species, such as oak, pine, coffee berry (Frangula spp.), sage, etc.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-17

o Native trees would be strategically retained in forested areas with 25 to 50 feet of space between crowns, where the tree crown is approximately 10 to 15 feet wide  Spacing may be closer than 25 feet on level ground as needed, and greater than 50 feet on steeper ground to mitigate wildfire behavior or near structures for structure protection • Mechanical Treatment Activities
o Mowing would be performed using riding lawn mowers, or similar, to remove hazardous fuels in the understory and would not be used within 50 feet of suitable Alameda whipsnake scrub habitat o Mechanical equipment would be used to chip and scatter biomass from stable operating surfaces • Herbicide Treatment
o Invasive species and noxious weeds cut low to the ground may be hand-painted with herbicide • Prescribed Herbivory Treatment
o Goats, cattle, or other grazing animals would be installed strategically within areas with wildlife - safe fencing or existing barriers
o A professional shepherd would coordinate animal movements to prevent excessive grazing and ground disturbance
• Biomass Disposal
o Biomass from non -invasive, non-noxious plants would be left to naturally decompose (e.g., lop and scatter, chip and broadcast), pile burned, or hauled off-site o Poison oak would be cut and left in place (lop and scatter) o Where chipper access is not practical, cut material would be piled strategically for later burning Riparian Habitat and Watercourses
All treatment activities and biomass distribution would avoid wetland, riverine, and other aquatic features by a standard minimum 25-foot buffer, which would be increased based on recommendations of a qualified biologist or RPF and/or factors such as slope, existing erosion, sensitivity of the vegetative habitat, or presence of sensitive resources. Refueling of equipment would occur outside these buffers and would be performed using containment to mitigate the risk of spills.

PD-3.4: General
PD-3.4.1: Timing of Initial Treatment
The Project Proponent would commence initial fuel treatment within the project footprint in April 2026 and would complete the work by the end of 2029.

PD-3.4.2: Workers
The Project Proponent and/or subcontractors would conduct all treatment activities. Crew team sizes would vary and would typically be fewer than 25 workers per site, per day. Multiple teams would work at the same time.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-18

PD-3.4.3: Site Access
Treatment areas would be accessed via existing fire roads and trails. No new roads or access points would be created. The Augustin Bernal Community Park parking lot would be used as the primary access point. Vehicles and equipment would be staged at the contractor’s yard daily or on-site in the park, in coordination with the City.

PD-3.4.4: Treatment Schedule and Duration
Treatments except herbivory would occur primarily on weekdays during daylight hours only. Prescribed burning will also be limited to the months of November 1 to March 31 during the winter hibernation season for Alameda whipsnake, as described in Section 2.2.1 of the PSA . During prescribed burning, crews would need to conduct some maintenance burning on weekends to manage overall smoke impacts. Noise -generating treatments would comply with local regulations.

PD-3.5: Pests, Diseases, and Invasive Species
Without proper prevention, project treatments have potential to spread pathogens, diseases, pests, or invasive species. SOD, pitch canker (Fusarium circinatum), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), French broom (Genista monspessulana), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), and snake fungal disease (Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola) occur in the region and have potential to spread in the project area from one work area to another , or from the project area to off-site areas. The goal of reducing invasive plant species within the project area is in conformity with the overall project goals of fuels reduction and wildfire prevention. Invasive plants can be spread when crews and equipment travel between sites, transporting soil and mud contaminated with seeds.

PD-3.5.1: Sudden Oak Death
SOD infects coastal forests throughout California and Oregon and kills susceptible species , including valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak ( Q. agrifolia), California black oak ( Q. kelloggii), canyon live oak ( Q. chrysolepis), and Pacific madrone ( Arbutus menziesii) saplings. Host species that are in the treatment area include California bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica ) a n d c o a s t r e d w o o d (Sequoia sempervirens ). To avoid the spread of this pathogen, all hand equipment and boots worn by treatment c rews would be sanitized , and heavy equipment , hosed off, prior to operations in areas where the spread of SOD is possible. The California Oak Mortality Task Force offers additional information regarding treatment and disposal measures for plants infected with SOD, which would be monitored for changes in SOD treatment recommendations (California Oak Mortality Task Force 2023).

PD-3.5.2: Pitch Canker
The fungal disease commonly referred to as pitch canker affects many pine species and can infect Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). Most California native pines are susceptible to pitch canker, but Monterey pine is the most widely affected host. To avoid the spread of this pathogen, the same measures described above to prevent the spread of

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-19

SOD would be implemented. The Pitch Canker Task Force offers additional information regarding treatment and guidelines for handling woody material infected by pitch canker fungus, which would be monitored for recommendation changes (Pitch Canker Task Force 2023).

PD-3.5.3: Yellow Starthistle
Yellow starthistle is an annual that germinates in February and March and matures in June and July. It produces v i a b l e s e e d s a t l a t e s e n e s c e n c e o f t h e fl o w e r h e a d , a n d i t i s t h e r e f o r e v i t a l t o c o n t r o l b e f o r e t h a t p o i n t .

Management would strategically combine chemical, manual, and mechanical (mowing) methods for removal.

Physical methods should focus on reducing seed production and preventing seed germination. Methods for yellow starthistle removal would be based on treatments described by the Cal -IPC. Effective and common treatment methods for yellow starthistle include mowing and focused herbicide application, but other methods may be used as determined by a professional.

PD-3.5.4: French Broom
French broom is a particularly ignitable invasive species known for its ability to shade out seedlings, replace native plant species, and carry fire into tree canopies. This species creates a large seed bank and readily resprouts from the root after cutting, freezing, or fire (Cal-IPC 2020). Removal of French broom is a priority, as the species presents increased fire hazard, has a robust seedbank, and causes adverse impacts to habitat and aesthetics. Methods for French broom removal would be based on treatments described by the Cal-IPC. Effective and common treatment methods for French broom include pulling and focused herbicide application, but other methods may be used as determined by a professional.

PD-3.5.5: Stinkwort
Stinkwort is a strong-smelling, sticky annual that is common in disturbed areas. Due to prolific seed production, seed barbules, and lack of livestock palatability, stinkwort may easily colonize and subsequently disperse and outcompete native species. Pulling by hand or with a hoe to remove the entire plant, along with its roots, is the best method of control. Removal should occur prior to flowering in the fall to avoid spreading of seeds. Focused herbicide applications can be used as well, as determined by a professional.

PD-3.5.6: Snake Fungal Disease
Snake fungal disease comes from a fungus that lives in the soil. This disease causes face abnormalities, scabs, abnormal molting, and other issues as the fungus consumes keratin in the scales (Thompson et al. 2018).

Symptoms are typically mild but can be fatal, as they may prevent snakes from locating and consuming prey.

Snakes, such as the federally and state threatened Alameda whipsnake, are susceptible to this disease. Spread of the fungus to new locations may occur when people track contaminated soil em bedded in clothing, shoes, or

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-20

equipment. In addition to applicable CalVTP SPRs and MMs, the measures described to prevent the spread of SOD would be implemented.

PD-3.6: Treatment Maintenance
The City would monitor the treated areas for maintenance of desired vegetation conditions (“treatment maintenance,” per the CalVTP PEIR). The City would work with homeowner associations, Firewise USA Neighborhoods, and high -risk neighborhoods to identify areas for priority in treatment maintenance to ensure that the defensible space is maintained for maximum benefit. Timing between maintenance activities would vary by habitat type, by changing site condition, and as determined by a professional. In forested areas, treatment maintenance may occur every 3 to 5 years. In brush-dominated areas, treatment maintenance such as herbivory may occur every 1 to 5 years. In grassland areas or areas where initial treatments were primarily manual, treatment maintenance may occur annually.

Maintenance treatments are anticipated to follow the same methods as initial treatments but are subject to change depending on site response to initial treatment. For example, at locations where intensive vegetation removal (e.g., prescribed burning) occur red, treatment maintenance may use lower-intensity manual treatment activities in subsequent years. Because vegetation communities are dynamic, treatment activities would be modified to reflect changes.

Throughout the treatment maintenance period, the City would consider the continued relevance of the Project- Specific Analysis (PSA). Where the City determines that the PSA is no longer sufficiently relevant, the City would determine whether a new PSA or other environmental analysis is warranted. If more than 10 years pass since approval of the latest PSA update, the City would review the PSA for its applicability to current conditions. For example, the City would conduct a reconnaissance survey to verify that conditions are substantially similar to those anticipated in the PSA. Any updates would be documented.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-21

REFERENCES
Ascent Environmental. 2019. California Vegetation Treatment Program Final Program Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse #2019012052. Sacramento: California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

November. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/calvtp/calvtp-programmatic-eir/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, Alameda County. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022/.

California Oak Mortality Task Force. 2023. Sudden Oak Death. https://www.suddenoakdeath.org/.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2020. Weed Control User Tool (WeedCUT). https://weedcut.ipm.ucanr.edu/#gsc.tab=0.

Pitch Canker Task Force. 2023. Pitch Canker. https://ufei.calpoly.edu/pitch-canker-task-force/.

Thompson, N.E., E.W. Lankau, and G.M. Rogall. 2018. Snake Fungal Disease in North America: U.S. Geological Survey Updates, U.S. Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2017/3064/fs20173064.pdf.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-22

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Project Proponent followed the evaluation and reporting process outlined in the PSA and required under the CalVTP .

On August 5, 2025, when the Project Proponent began preparing the PSA, it submitted to CAL FIRE the required information regarding this project. The submittal included:
• GIS data that included project location (as a point)
• Project size
• Planned treatment types and activities
• Contact information for a representative of the Project Proponent Upon adoption of these findings and approval of the project, the Project Proponent will submit this completed PSA and associated geospatial data to CAL FIRE at the time a Notice of Determination is filed. The submittal will include the following:
• The completed PSA Environmental Checklist
• The completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP; using Attachment A to the Environmental Checklist)
• GIS data that includes a polygon(s) of the project area, showing the extent of each treatment type included in the project (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction) As required under the CalVTP , the Project Proponent will submit the following information to CAL FIRE after implementation of the treatment:
• GIS data that include s a polygon(s) of the treated area, showing the extent of each treatment type implemented (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction) • A post-project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) that includes:
o Size of treated area (typically acres)
o Treatment types and activities
o Dates of work
o A list of the SPRs and MMs that were implemented
o Any explanations regarding implementation if required by SPRs and MMs (e.g., explanation for feasibility determination required by SPR BIO -12; explanation for reduction of a no -disturbance buffer below the general minimum size described in MMs BIO-1a and BIO-2b)

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-23

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21167, Subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the Project Proponent’s decision to approve the vegetation treatment project under the CalVTP includes the following documents at a minimum:
• The certified Final PEIR for the CalVTP , including the Draft PEIR, responses to comments on the Draft PEIR, and appendices
• All recommendations and findings adopted by the Board in connection with the CalVTP and all documents cited or referred to therein
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the treatment project prepared by the Project Proponent, consultants to the Project Proponent, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the Project Prop onent’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the Project Proponent’s action on the CalVTP • Matters of common knowledge to the Project Proponent, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations
• Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above • Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, Subdivision (e)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, Subdivision (e), the documents constituting the record of proceedings are available for review during normal business hours at The City of Pleasanton, 200 Old Bernal Ave PO Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566. The custodian of these documents is Matthew Gruber, Project Manager and City Landscape Architect.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
An MMRP was adopted by the Board for the CalVTP , and the applicable MMs for this treatment project have been identified in the PSA. The Project Proponent will use the MMRP to track compliance with the CalVTP MMs. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final MMRP is attached to and approved in conjunction with the approval of the treatment project and adoption of these Findings.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-24

FINDINGS FOR DETERMINATIONS OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Project Proponent has reviewed and considered the information in the Final PEIR for the CalVTP addressing potential environmental effects, proposed MMs, and alternatives. The Project Proponent, relying on the facts and analysis in the Final PEIR and the treatment project PSA , which were presented to the Project Proponent and reviewed and considered prior to any approvals, concurs with the conclusions of the Final PEIR and the treatment project PSA regarding the potential environmental effects of the CalVTP and the treatment project.

The Project Proponent concurs with the conclusions in the Final PEIR and treatment project PSA that all of the following impacts will be less than significant . R e s o u r c e t o p i c s f o r w h i c h t h e r e a r e a n ti c i p a t e d o r c o n s i d e r e d impacts are not listed below.
1BAesthetics and Visual Resources
• Impact AES-1: Result in Short-Term, Substantial Degradation of a Scenic Vista or Visual Character or Quality of Public Views, or Damage to Scenic Resources in a State Scenic Highway from Treatment Activities • Impact AES-2: Result in Long-Term, Substantial Degradation of a Scenic Vista or Visual Character or Quality o f P u b l i c V i e w s , o r D a m a g e t o S c e n i c R e s o u r c e s i n a S t a t e S c e n i c H i g h w a y f r o m W U I F u e l R e d u c ti o n , Ecological Restoration, or Shaded Fuel Break Treatment Types 2BAgricultural and Forestry Resources
• Impact AG-1: Directly Result in the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to a Non -forest Use or Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Forest Land to Non-forest Use
3BAir Quality
• Impact AQ-2: Expose People to Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions and Related Health Risk • Impact AQ-5: Expose People to Objectionable Odors from Diesel Exhaust 4BArchaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources • Impact CUL-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Built Historical Resources • Impact CUL-3: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource • Impact CUL-4: Disturb Human Remains
5BBiological Resources
• Impact BIO -1: Substantially Affect Special- Status Plant Species e ither Directly or through Habitat Modifications
• Impact BIO-6: Substantially Reduce Habitat or Abundance of Common Wildlife

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-25

• Impact BIO-7: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources • Impact BIO-8: Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Habitat Plan
6BGeology, Soils, and Mineral Resources
• Impact GEO-1: Result in Substantial Erosion or Loss of Topsoil • Impact GEO-2: Increase Risk of Landslide
7BGreenhouse Gas Emissions
• Impact GHG-1: Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of GHGs
8BEnergy Resources
• Impact ENG-1: Result in Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy 9BHazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety
• Impact HAZ-1: Create a Significant Health Hazard from the Use of Hazardous Materials • Impact HAZ-2: Create a Significant Health Hazard from the Use of Herbicides • Impact HAZ -3: Expose the Public or Environment to Significant Hazards from Disturbance to Known Hazardous Material Sites
10BHydrology and Water Quality
• Impact HYD-1: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan through the Implementation of Prescribed Burning • Impact HYD-2: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan through the Implementation of Manual or Mechanical Treatment Activities • Impact HYD-3: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan through Prescribed Herbivory
• Impact HYD-4: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan through the Ground Application of Herbicides • Impact HYD-5: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of a Treatment Site or Area

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-26

11BLand Use and Planning, Population and Housing
• Impact LU-1: Cause a Significant Environmental Impact Due to a Conflict with a Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
• Impact LU-2: Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth 12BNoise
• Impact NOI-2: Result in a Substantial Short -Term Increase in Truck-Generated Single-Event Noise Levels During Treatment Activities
13BRecreation
• Impact REC-1: Directly or Indirectly Disrupt Recreational Activities within Designated Recreation Areas 14BTransportation
• Impact TRAN -1: Result in Temporary Traffic Operations Impacts by Conflicting with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing Roadway Facilities or Prolonged Road Closures • Impact TRAN-2: Substantially Increase Hazards due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses 15BPublic Services, Utilities, ad Service Systems
• Impact UTIL-1: Result in Physical Impacts Associated with Provision of Sufficient Water Supplies, including Related Infrastructure Needs
• Impact UTIL-2: Generate Solid Waste in Excess of State Standards or Exceed Local Infrastructure Capacity • Impact UTIL-3: Comply with Federal, State, and Local Management and Reduction Goals, Statutes, and Regulations Related to Solid Waste
16BWildfire
• Impact WIL-1: Substantially Exacerbate Fire Risk and Expose People to Uncontrolled Spread of a Wildfire • Impact WIL-2: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Risks Related to Post-fire Flooding or Landslides

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-27

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The PEIR identified a number of significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that the CalVTP will contribute to or cause. The Board determined that some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the application of feasible MMs. Other effects, however, cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible MMs or alternatives and , thus, will be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section 10.2 of the Board’s Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerati ons, however, the Board determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of the CalVTP .

The Board adopted the findings required by CEQA for all direct and indirect significant impacts. The findings provided a summary description of each impact, described the applicable mitigation measures identified in the PEIR and adopted by the Board, and stated the Board’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final PEIR, and the Board incorporated by reference into its findings the discussion in those documents supporting the Final PEIR’s determinations. In making those findings, the Board ratified, adopted, and incorporated into the findings the analyses and explanations in the Draft PEIR and Final PEIR relating to environmental impacts and MMs, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions were specifically and expressly modified by the findings.

Not every individual treatment project will have all of the significant environmental impacts that the CalVTP was determined to contribute to or cause. Additionally, some of the environmental impacts predicted by the CalVTP PEIR to be significant and unavoidable or less than significant after mitigation may be determined in a PSA to be less severe for an individual treatment project than determined in the statewide PEIR. The impacts and MMs identified in the sections below reflect the conclusions of the PSA by indicating which of the CalVTP’s impacts this treatment project will contribute to or cause. By indicating the project-specific effects of this treatment project as follows, the Project Proponent’s decisionmaker or decision -making body is hereby making the required findings under CEQA regarding the application or feasibility of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. 18B

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-28

FINDINGS FOR IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The Project Proponent finds that c hanges or alterations that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects indicated below have been required in, or incorporated into, the treatment project, as identified in the Final PEIR and the PSA. Implementation of the MMs indicated below to be applicable to the treatment project, which have been required or incorporated into the project, will reduce these impacts to a less- than-significant level. The Project Proponent hereby directs that these MMs be adopted.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Impact CUL-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources
☒ MM CUL-2: Protect Inadvertent Discoveries of Unique Archaeological Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources
19BBiological Resources
☒ Impact BIO -1: Substantially Affect Special -Status Plant Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications
☒ MM BIO-1a: Avoid Loss of Special-Status Plants Listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
☒ MM BIO-1b: Avoid Loss of Special-Status Plants Not Listed under ESA or CESA ☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Tree-Nesting and Cavity-Nesting Wildlife) ☒ MM BIO -2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities)
☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Shrub-Nesting Wildlife)
☒ MM BIO -2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities)

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-29

☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Ground-Nesting Wildlife)
☒ MM BIO -2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities)
☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Burrowing and Denning Wildlife)
☒ MM BIO -2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities)
☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Insects and Other Terrestrial Invertebrates) ☒ MM BIO -2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities)
☒ MM BIO-2e: Design Treatment to Retain Special-Status Butterfly Host Plants (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2g: Design Treatment to Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Special-Status Bumble Bees (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Bats)
☒ MM BIO -2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities)

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-30

☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Amphibians and Reptiles [in Wetlands, Vernal Pools, Associated Riparian]) ☒ MM BIO -2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) ☒ MM BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities)
☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ MM BIO-4: Avoid State and Federally Protected Wetlands ☒ Impact BIO-3: Substantially Affect Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community through Direct Loss or Degradation that Leads to Loss of Habitat Function ☒ MM BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands ☒ Impact BIO-4: Substantially Affect State or Federally Protected Wetlands ☒ MM BIO-4: Avoid State and Federally Protected Wetlands ☒ Impact BIO-5: Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement Corridors or Impede Use of Nurseries ☒ MM BIO-5: Retain Nursery Habitat and Implement Buffers to Avoid Nursery Sites Noise
☒ Impact NOI-1: Result in a Substantial Short-Term Increase in Exterior Ambient Noise Levels during Treatment Implementation
☒ MM NOI-1: Avoid Conflicts with Local Noise Ordinances during Prescribed Herbivory 2

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-31

FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The CalVTP (Program) PEIR determined that some impacts of the Program would be significant and unavoidable, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation. The Project Proponent finds that the treatment project would contribute to or cause the following significant and unavoidable impacts as indicated. Incorporating an d implementing the following MMs indicated to be applicable to the treatment project will reduce the severity of t h i s i m p a c t , b u t n o t t o a l e s s-than-significant level. The Project Proponent hereby directs th at these MM s be adopted. The Project Proponent therefore finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the treatment project that will substantially lessen, but not avoid, the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR and PSA.

The Project Proponent finds that fully mitigating these impacts is not feasible; there are no feasible MMs beyond the MMs indicated below to reduce these impacts. These impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. The Project Proponent concludes, however, that the benefits of the CalVTP and the vegetation treatment project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the Program and treatment project, as set forth in the Board’s Statement of Overriding Considerations.
21B22BAir Quality
☒ Impact AQ-1: Generate Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Treatment Activities that Would Exceed CAAQS Or NAAQS and Conflict with Regional Air Quality Plans ☒ MM AQ-1: Implement On-Road Vehicle and Off-Road Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Techniques Implementation of MM AQ-1 was required or incorporated into the CalVTP by the Board to reduce the severity of this impact, but it was not feasible to attain a less-than-significant level. The Project Proponent would implement the emission reduction techniques included in MM AQ-1 to the extent feasible. However, because the treatments would be implemented by a public agency with limited funding, procuring or paying additional amounts for contractors that use equipment meeting the latest efficiency standards, including meeting the EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards, using renewable diesel fuel, using electric - and gasoline-powered equipment, and using equipment with Best Available Control Technology may be cost prohibitive. Carpooling would be encouraged by the Project Proponent, but because crews may not all be employed with the same company , carpooling may not be feasible to implement for most of the workers. The Project Proponent will document the extent the agency and/or its contractors are able to implement MM AQ-1. Renewable diesel will be used by the Project Proponent and/or its contractors to the extent required by state regulations. The Project Proponent incorporated all feasible and applicable measures to prevent and minimize this potential impact, pursuant to SPRs AQ-1, AQ-4, and AQ-6. The P r o j e c t P r o p o n e n t fi n d s t h a t m i ti g a ti n g t h i s i m p a c t b e l o w a l e v e l o f s i g n i fi c a n c e i s n o t f e a sible. The Project Proponent concludes, however, that the benefits of the CalVTP and proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the Program and proposed vegetation treatment project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below. The Project Proponent therefore finds that changes or alterations that will

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-32

substantially lessen, but not avoid, the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project.
☒ Impact AQ-4: Expose People to Toxic Air Contaminants Emitted by Prescribed Burns and Related Health Risk ☒ No feasible mitigation is available.

All feasible precautions and notifications have been incorporated into the CalVTP to reduce the severity of this i m p a c t , b u t n o t t o a l e s s-than-significant level. No additional feasible measures are available for the Project Proponent to implement, and, for the same reasons explained in the PEIR, this impact would remain potentially significant and unavoidable. SPRs applicable to these treatment activities are AD-4, AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-6.

All feasible measures to prevent and minimize smoke emis sions, as well as e xposure t o smok e, ar e included in SPRs; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, as explained in the PEIR. The Project Proponent concludes, however, that the benefits of the CalVTP outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the Program, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below. The Project Proponent therefore finds that changes or alterations that will substantially lessen, but not avoid, the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project. ☒ Impact AQ-6: Expose People to Objectionable Odors from Smoke during Prescribed Burning ☒ No feasible mitigation is available.

All feasible precautions and notifications have been incorporated into the CalVTP to reduce the severity of this i m p a c t , b u t n o t t o a l e s s-than-significant level. No additional feasible measures are available for the Project Proponent to implement, and, for the same reasons explained in the PEIR, this impact would remain potentially significant and unavoidable. SPRs that are applicable to this treatment project are AD -4, AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-6. All feasible measures to prevent and minimize smoke odors, as well as exposure to smoke odors, are included in SPRs; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, as explained in the PEIR. The Project Proponent concludes, however, that the benefits of the CalVTP outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the Program, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below. The Project Proponent therefore finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that will substantially lessen, but not avoid, the significant environmental effect as identified in the PEIR. 23B24BBiological Resources
☒ Impact BIO -2: Substantially Affect Special -Status Wildlife Species either Directly or through Habitat Modifications (Insects and Other Terrestrial Invertebrates—Bumble Bees) ☒ MM BIO-2g: Design Treatment to Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Special-Status Bumble Bees (All Treatment Activities)

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-33

Direct and indirect impacts could occur to Crotch’s (Bombus crotchii ) and obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus) through off -road machinery, prescribed burning, herbicide use, and removal of flowering plants.

Primary threats to the survival of special- status bumble bees include habitat loss or modification due to development, agriculture, high -intensity fire, fire s uppression, and herbicide use (Xerces Society et al. 2018).

Because little is known about the life history and behaviors of bumble bees, and there is no established methodology for detecting overwintering or nesting colonies, they can be difficult to detec t and therefore to completely avoid during treatment activities. If colonies were destroyed, it is possible that populations of these species would be reduced below self -sustaining levels, and treatment activities could substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of species.

The does not impact chaparral or coastal sage scrub, is designed to avoid riparian habitat and no new roads would be created (SPR HYD-2). Pre-treatment surveys would combine a focused survey (SPR BIO-1, SPR BIO-3, SPR BIO- 10) to identify burrows and suitable habitat within the project site. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2023) issued “Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species,” which offers a survey methodology for Crotch’s and obscure bumble bees, among others. In lieu of or in addition to surveys, the Project Proponent may choose to assume presence and rely on habitat as an indicator of presence. Crew members and contractors would be trained to identify and avoid this species if encountered (SPR BIO-2), and a biologist would be available as needed to provide guidance when crews are working within suitable bumble bee habitat. If work occurs within occupied bumble bee habitat, MM BIO-2b requires flagging areas for avoidance and establishing no-work buffers.

MM BIO -2b also st ates: “A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will be required to monitor the effectiveness of the no-disturbance buffer around the nest, den, burrow, or other occurrence during treatment.” If identified, these burrows would be protected with an avoidance buffer (SPR AD -2). A Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPR HAZ-5) will be developed as part of project implementation, and the Project Proponent will comply with herbicide application regulations (SPR HAZ-6) and restrict use of herbicide to avoid native plants.

The objectives of the CalVTP treatment activities are to reduce the occurrence of high -intensity wildfire and to modify past practices of fire suppression. Project implementation could thus be beneficial to bumble bees by reducing high-intensity wildfire and improving habitat for bumble bee species; however, in the process of achieving this objective, there are potentially significant direct impacts to bumble bees. The CalVTP PEIR acknowledges the difficulty in detecting overwintering and nesting bumble bees and in determining the occurrence and severity of impacts; it concludes that implementation of the CalVTP could cause impacts that are potentially significant and unavoidable to special-status bumble bees. The proposed project impacts are consistent with those described in the CalVTP PEIR, and the proposed treatment activities may result in impacts to Crotch’s and obscure bumble bee that are potentially significant and unavoidable.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☒ Impact GHG-2: Generate GHG Emissions through Treatment Activities ☒ MM GHG-2: Implement GHG Emission Reduction Techniques during Prescribed Burns

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-34

The Project Proponent finds that GHG emissions from the use of vehicles and mechanical equipment, prescribed herbivory, herbicide application, and prescribed burning during initial and maintenance treatments cannot be avoided because they are necessary for effective treatments. Implementation of MM GHG-2 would reduce GHG emissions associated with pile burning by burning when fuels have a higher fuel moisture content, reducing the total area burned by mosaic burning and isolating and leaving large fuels unbu rned, and by scheduling burns before new fuels appear. Treatment activities would contribute to annual GHG emissions generated under the CalVTP . Methods for reducing GHG emissions from burns would be integrated into SPR AQ -3 (Burn Plan) , as described in MM GHG-2. The Project Proponent incorporated all feasible and applicable measures to prevent and minimize this potential impact, pursuant to MM GHG-2. The Project Proponent finds that mitigating this impact below a level of significance is not feasible. The Project Proponent concludes, however, that the benefits of the CalVTP and the proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the Program and the proposed vegetation treatment project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below. 26BTransportation
☒ Impact TRAN-3: Result in a Net Increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the Proposed CalVTP ☒ MM AQ-1: Implement On-Road Vehicle and Off-Road Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Techniques Although the PEIR determined that individual vegetation treatments would likely be less than significant, the overall impact was identified as potentially significant and unavoidable in the PEIR because implementation of the CalVTP would result in a net in crease in VMT attributable to the Program as a whole. Because the project would generate VMT during implementation, it would contribute to the environmental significance conclusion in the PEIR; therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidab le. No SPRs apply to this impact. The Project Proponent would implement MM AQ-1 to the extent feasible. MM AQ-1 would reduce the impact by encouraging workers to carpool and/or use public transportation. However, due to the required equipment and number of employees (i.e., the primary trip-generators associated with vegetation treatments) associated with the project, it would not be feasible to reduce VMT substantially. The Project Proponent incorporated all feasible and applicable measures to prevent and minimize this potential impact. The Project Proponent finds that mitigating this impact below a level of significance is not feasible. The Project Proponent concludes, however, that the benefits of the CalVTP and the proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the Program and the proposed vegetation treatment project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, below.

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-35

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS1F
As set forth in the Board’s adopted Findings, the Board determined that the CalVTP will result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided , even with the adoption of all feasible MMs, and there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite these effects, however, the Board, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, chose to approve the CalVTP because, in its view , the benefits to life, property, and other resources, and the other benefits of the CalVTP , will render the significant effects acceptable.

In the Board’s judgment, the CalVTP and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The Board’s Findings were based on substantial evidence in the record. The Board’s Statement of Overriding Considerations identified the specific reasons why, in the Board’s judgment, the benefits of the CalVTP as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects.

Exercising its independent judgment and review, the Project Proponent concurs that the benefits of the CalVTP and the treatment project outweigh the significant environmental effects and hereby incorporates by reference and adopts the Board’s Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP .

Any one of the reasons listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is sufficient to justify approval of the treatment project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the Project Proponent would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, which are described and defined above.
• The CalVTP will reduce dire risks to life, property, and natural resources in California • The CalVTP reflects the most current and commonly accepted science and conditions in California and allows for adaptation in response to potential evolution and changes in science and conditions • The CalVTP reflects the Board’s and CAL FIRE’s goals
o The CalVTP will help the Board and CAL FIRE achieve their central goals for reducing and preventing the impacts of fire in the state, as outlined in the 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California o The CalVTP will help to establish a natural environment that is more resilient and built assets that are more resistant to the occurrence and effects of wildland fire • The CalVTP will help implement Executive Orders, including:
o EO B-42-17: Governor Brown’s order issued to bolster the state’s response to unprecedented tree die-off through further expediting removal of millions of dead and dying trees across the state o EO B -52-1 8 : G o v e r n o r B r o w n ’ s o r d e r t o i m p r o v e f o r e s t m a n a g e m e n t a n d r e s t o r a ti o n , p r o v i d e regulatory relief, and reduce barriers for prescribed fire o EO N-05-19: Governor Newsom’s order directing CAL FIRE to recommend immediate-, medium-, and long-term actions to help prevent destructive wildfires

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

CalVTP Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuel Reduction
November 2025
C-36

• The Board is required by law to comply with SB 1260, signed into law by Governor Brown in February 2018, which improves California forest management practices to reduce the risk of wildfire in light of the changing climate and includes provisions for the CalVTP PEIR to serve as the programmatic CEQA coverage for prescribed burns within the State Responsibility Area. o The CalVTP will bring the Board into compliance with these requirements • The Board is r equired by law to c omply with SB 632, signed into law by Governor Newsom in Oct ober 2019, which requires the Board to certify a Final PEIR, pursuant to CEQA, f or the vegetation treatment program filed with the State Clearinghouse under Number 2019012052 in January 2019 o The CalVTP will bring the Board into compliance with this requirement • The CalVTP will help to meet California’s GHG emission goals consistent with the California Forest Carbon Plan, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada, and California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan o The CalVTP and the proposed vegetation treatment project reflect the City of Pleasanton’s goals to reduce wildfire fuels, reduce risks to homes, and increase access for firefighters through implementing the state’s Program

Third Amendment Page 1

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to Agreement ("Second Amendment") is entered into this 21st day of April 2026 by the City of Pleasanton ("City") and Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc. ("Consultant”)
Whereas, on July 16, 2024, the City and Consultant entered into a Design Professional Services Agreement for environmental design services ("Agreement"); and Whereas, the City and Consultant entered into a first amendment on May 5th, 2025 for necessary rare plant surveys additional compensation is required to conduct necessary special status plant species surveys; entered into a second amendment on August 19, 2025 for a special status plant species survey and bid support services; and Whereas, additional compensation is required to provide construction and environmental oversight and public outreach services and the contract terms require extension:

Whereas, the parties desire to amend the Agreement;
Now, therefore, in exchange for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of the Agreement “Consultant Services” is amended to include the special-status species survey, project management, and bid support services described in Exhibit A.

2. Section 4 of the Agreement, "Term" is amended to extend the contract term to December 31, 2027.

3. Section 5 of the Agreement, "Compensation" is amended to read: the compensation is increasing by $87,470 for a new total compensation amount of $259,955.

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

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 second above written.

CITY OF PLEASANTON CONSULTANT
_____________________________ By: __________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Signature
ATTACHMENT 2

Third Amendment Page 2
ATTEST:
__________________________
P r i n t n a m e

_____________________________ Title: __________________________ Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Rev. 3/23

1342 Creekside Drive  Walnut Creek, California 94596  (925) 855.5500  www.sequoiaeco.com Date: March 20, 2026
To: Matt Gruber | Project Manager and City Landscape Architect (925) 931-5672| [email protected]
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
PO Box 520
Pleasanton, California 94566
From: Alex Hirth | Project Manager and Biologist
(510) 684-2352| [email protected]
Sequoia Ecological Consulting
RE: Scope of Work and Cost Estimate for Project-Specific Analysis Implementation Services— Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuels Project
Dear Mr. Gruber:

Thank you for contacting Sequoia to request our proposal for Project-Specific Analysis ( PSA) Implementation Services and support work for the City of Pleasanton’s (City) Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuels Project (Project) in Pleasanton, C alifornia. Sequoia understands that t he East Bay H ills are considered to be one of the highest fire risk areas in California, with the potential for devastation exacerbated by their proximity to the wildland-urban interface. The City provides a proactive approach to reduce the risk of fire within Alameda County and mitigate the impacts resulting from wildfires by reducing fuels in the project area through use of the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP) PSA.

Sequoia previously submitted a scope and cost estimate for a PSA and addendum to support the City’s CalVTP project. Subsequently, Sequoia was asked for a quote to perform additional services to support the Project. To accomplish this, Sequoia proposes the following scope of work:
• Task 5: Implementation Services and Support
o 5.1: Project Management and Coordination
o 5.2: Biological Field Services
o 5.3: GIS Support
o 5.4: Completion Report
• Task 6: Public Outreach Support (Optional)
o Task 6.1: Public GIS/StoryMap Setup and Maintenance
o Task 6.2: Virtual Meeting/Townhall Attendance
o Task 6.3: On-Site Meeting Attendance
Exhibit A

Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
PSA Implementation Services and Support | City of Pleasanton Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuels Project March 2026
2 SCOPE OF WORK
Task 5: Implementation Services and Support

5.1 Project Management and Coordination
Sequoia will provide project management and coordination to ensure timely and efficient work activities, guidance, and deliverables are provided to the City. Sequoia’s project managers will oversee and coordinate the project and project team , though direct communication with the project team is encouraged to expedite delivery of sensitive information and materials. The project management team will maintain strict data management procedures and quality control measures to ensure that data are collected, compiled, reported, and archived properly. Finally, the project managers will be responsible for ensuring the project tasks do not exceed the budget and for the timely submittal of invoices. The project managers will track work in real time using our project management software to maintain project controls and ensure we are on track to meet p roject goals. This task also includes coordination efforts, such as communications and meetings, scheduling field work, or other miscellaneous tasks requiring senior biological review.

Deliverables
• Weekly email updates on project status, acres completed, and upcoming activities Assumptions
• Five (5) virtual one (1)-hour meetings are included

5.2 Biological Field Services
Sequoia anticipates that half-day and spot-check biological monitoring will be sufficient for this project.

Although the Project is situated in Critical Habitat for Alameda whipsnake , treatment design mitigated potential impacts to the species by avoiding ground disturbance and habitat type conversion. Under this task, Sequoia anticipates providing half days of biological field services support, including but not limited to biological pre-activity surveys and sweeps, environmental trainings, biological monitoring for special- status species and PSA compliance, and post-treatment surveys. Biologists will collect sensitive resource and post-treatment survey data in Esri’s Survey123 and Field Maps mobile applications while in the field.

Deliverables
• Daily Monitoring Report form, which will reflect all monitoring, survey, and environmental training activities performed on-site

Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
PSA Implementation Services and Support | City of Pleasanton Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuels Project March 2026
3 • Post-treatment survey forms will be completed and incorporated into the Completion Report, covered in Task 5.4
Assumptions
• Cost for a half-day of services assumes four (4) hours on-site for a project biologist and is inclusive of travel
• Based on the project size and treatment methods, Sequoia estimates that contractor implementation will take approximately sixty (60) days, requiring sixty (60) days of monitoring • Sequoia biologists will conduct post-treatment surveys simultaneously with biological monitoring, following the completion of treatment activities in treatment areas • Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) materials will be updated from previous similar projects under this task
o Sequoia can provide hard hat stickers to denote crew training, trifold training pamphlets, and project sensitive area signage for additional cost
o Sequoia can also provide biological resource training programs in Spanish, as well as a presentation in PowerPoint in English and Spanish for additional costs • Additional days for biological field services can be provided with a contract amendment

5.3 GIS Support
Sequoia will provide GIS assistance by developing a treatment tracking system including treatment units, active bird nests, photo points, and daily monitoring reports when applicable.

Deliverables
• ArcGIS Online web app for contractor use
• ArcGIS Online Dashboard for tracking
Assumptions
• Sequoia will develop treatment tracking system, including ArcGIS web maps for contractor use and an ArcGIS Online Dashboard that tracks project progress o The tracking dashboard will be shared with the City and include treatment units with completion status, active bird nests, photo points, and daily monitoring reports • Cost includes weekly maintenance of web GIS products to ensure accuracy and functionality

5.4 Completion Report
Under this task, Sequoia will prepare the completion report required by the CALFIRE CalVTP PSA process.

The report will summarize all treatments, including total area treated, treatment types in each area, work performed, species encountered, and protection measures implemented during the work, as required by the CalVTP P rogram Environmental Impact Report. Sequoia will provide geospatial data, details about treatments, and other metrics for inclusion in the completion report.

Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
PSA Implementation Services and Support | City of Pleasanton Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuels Project March 2026
4 Deliverables
• Draft completion report
• Final completion report
Assumptions
• One (1) round of edits with City will be included for the completion report o Any additional edits needed for report or supporting materials will be conducted as requested as time and materials (T&M)
Task 6: Public Outreach Support (Optional)
Task 6 includes several optional subtasks under which Sequoia can provide public outreach support for the project. Each subtask can be included individually or in conjunction with the other subtasks.

6.1 Public GIS/StoryMap Setup and Maintenance (Optional) Under this optional task, Sequoia will work with the City to develop public-facing web GIS products (web app and dashboard) and set up an Esri StoryMap. Sequoia will compile project GIS data to create interactive mapping products that provide project information and progress to the public. Additionally, Sequoia will provide multimedia (photos, video) content from implemented fu els projects and draft text to include in the StoryMap. Specifics of content and design will be coordinated with the City.

Deliverables
• Web map, app, and/or dashboard built in Esri ArcGIS Online to be shared with the public • One Esri StoryMap or ExperienceBuilder site to be shared with the public by the City Assumptions
• Cost includes setting up StoryMap or Experience Builder site and six (6) months of maintenance updates from launch date (this can be adjusted to the City’s preference) o Site will remain up longer, or can be transferred to City’s GIS department • A r c G I S O n l i n e s t o r a g e c r e d i t u s a g e c o s t s w i l l b e c h a r g e d t o t h e C i t y v i a t h e G I S d a t a storage/processing other direct cost listed on our rate sheet

6.2 Virtual Meeting/Townhall Attendance (Optional)
Under this optional task, Sequoia will prepare for and attend one (1) virtual meeting or townhall for the public. The Sequoia principal-in-charge and project manager will attend the meeting, present, and answer questions. Additional virtual meetings can be attended with additional units of this task.

Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
PSA Implementation Services and Support | City of Pleasanton Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuels Project March 2026
5 Deliverables
• Prepared presentation materials submitted prior to the meeting, with one (1) round of edits • Notes/reporting from meeting delivered within one (1) week following the meeting Assumptions:
• Cost is inclusive of preparation and reporting time, as well as up to two (2) hours of meeting time each for the Sequoia principal and project manager
Task 6.3: On-Site Meeting Attendance (Optional)
Under this optional task Sequoia will prepare for and attend one (1) in-person meeting for the public, hosted at the project site. The Sequoia principal-in-charge and project manager will attend the meeting, present, and answer questions. Additional on-site meetings can be attended with additional units of this task.

Deliverables
• Prepared presentation materials submitted prior to the meeting, assuming one (1) round of edits by the City
• Notes/reporting from meeting delivered within one (1) week following the meeting Assumptions
• Cost is inclusive of preparation and reporting time, as well as up to two (2) hours of on-site meeting time each for the Sequoia principal and project manager • Cost includes drive time and mileage from Sequoia’s office General Assumptions
• The City will provide Sequoia with safe access to the site, access routes, and all applicable survey areas at a time agreed upon between the City and Sequoia, and any necessary landowner notifications will be provided by City prior to field work • Mileage will be charged at standard GSA rate
• All deliverables and data will be submitted electronically • Cost estimate does not include installation or maintenance of any fencing, exclusions devices, or species barriers, but does include monitoring during installation of these features and inspection during routine biological monitoring
• Cost estimate does not include coordination or communication with any regulatory agencies, outside consultants, or other entities
o These services can be provided under an amended scope as requested

Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
PSA Implementation Services and Support | City of Pleasanton Augustin Bernal Community Park Fuels Project March 2026
6 COST ESTIMATE
Sequoia anticipates providing services on a T&M basis. This costing approach may be modified upon direction by the City. The estimated costs cover the scope of work and assumptions provided above.

Table 1. Cost estimate.

Task Cost Type
(Unit/T&M)
Unit
Price
Quantity
of Units
Total
Cost
Task 5: Implementation Services and Support

5.1: Project Management and Coordination T&M $9,483 1 $9,483

5.2: Biological Field Services T&M $927 60 $55,620

5.3: GIS Support T&M $8,748 1 $8,748

5.4: Completion Report T&M $5,023 1 $5,023
TOTAL—Task 5 $78,874
Task 6: Public Outreach Support (Optional)

6.1: Public GIS and StoryMap Setup and Maintenance T&M $5,097 1 $5,097

6.2: Virtual Meeting/Townhall Attendance T&M $3,499 1 $3,499

6.3: On-Site Meeting Attendance T&M $5,479 1 $5,479
TOTAL—Task 6 $14,075
TOTAL ALL PHASES $92,949
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at the email or phone number listed below. Thank you for the opportunity to support you on this project.

Sincerely,
Alex Hirth| Project Manager and Biologist
Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.

Mobile: (510) 684-2352 | Main: (925) 855-5500 | [email protected] $87,470
$8,596

www.sequoiaeco.com
SEQUOIA ECOLOGICAL CONSULTING, INC.
2026 HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Environmental Services
Field Technician 1 $99
Field Technician 2 $116
Field Technician 3 $127
Staff Biologist 1 $132
Staff Biologist 2 $138
Staff Biologist 3 $143
Associate Biologist 1 $149
Associate Biologist 2 $154
Associate Biologist 3 $160
Project Biologist 1 $165
Project Biologist 2 $171
Project Biologist 3 $176
Resource Specialist 1 $182
Resource Specialist 2 $187
Resource Specialist 3 $193
Senior (Sr.) Biologist 1 $198
Sr. Biologist 2 $204
Sr. Biologist 3 $209
Sr. Scientist 1 $221
Sr. Scientist 2 $232
Sr. Scientist 3 $243
Sr. Technical Specialist 1 $254
Sr. Technical Specialist 2 $265
Sr. Technical Specialist 3 $276
Sr. Regulatory Specialist 1 $287
Sr. Regulatory Specialist 2 $298
Sr. Regulatory Specialist 3 $309
Env. Project Management
Assistant Project Manager 1 $182
Assistant Project Manager 2 $187
Assistant Project Manager 3 $193
Project Manager 1 $198
Project Manager 2 $204
Project Manager 3 $209
Project Manager 4 $221
Project Manager 5 $232
Project Manager 6 $243
Sr. Project Manager 1 $254
Sr. Project Manager 2 $265
Sr. Project Manager 3 $276
Program Manager 1 $287
Program Manager 2 $298
Program Manager 3 $309
Principal 1 $320
Principal 2 $331
Principal 3 $342
Sr. Principal 1 $353
Sr. Principal 2 $364
Sr. Principal 3 $375
Botanist/Arborist Services
Botanist/Arborist 1 $142
Botanist/Arborist 2 $158
Botanist/Arborist 3 $173
Sr. Botanist/Arborist 1 $194
Sr. Botanist/Arborist 2 $210
Sr. Botanist/Arborist 3 $226
Administrative Support Services
Clerical $121
Project Administrator $149
Technical Editor 1 $165
Technical Editor 2 $176
Technical Editor 3 $187
Senior Technical Editor $215
Geographic Information
Services (GIS)
GIS Technician 1 $149
GIS Technician 2 $160
GIS Technician 3 $171
GIS Analyst 1 $182
GIS Analyst 2 $193
GIS Analyst 3 $204
GIS Project Manager 1 $221
GIS Project Manager 2 $232
GIS Project Manager 3 $243
GIS Specialist 1 $254
GIS Specialist 2 $265
GIS Specialist 3 $276
GIS Program Manager 1 $287
GIS Program Manager 2 $298
GIS Program Manager 3 $309

Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc.
2026 Hourly Rate Schedule
Page
2 of 2
Other Direct Costs
Regular Vehicle (GSA Rate) GSA Rate Kayak Kit $75/day
Submeter GPS $100/day Survey Flashlight (Streamlight) $12.50/day UTV and Trailer $95/day Aquatic Survey Sampling Kit $25/person/day Fleet Vehicle $95/day Drone/sUAS $250/day
iPad $25/day Wetsuit $70/week
Wildlife Remote Camera $20/ day Drysuit $195/week
Acoustic Bat Monitor $35/day YSI ProDSS Water Quality Meter $125/day Expense Reimbursement/Other:

1. Computer, facsimile, and telephone are included in the billing rates, and there is no additional charge.

2. Reproduction, equipment, and other direct expenses are reimbursed at cost plus a 15% administrative handling charge (excluding mileage).

3. Subconsultants will be billed at their indicated rate plus a 15% administrative handling charge; or the Sequoia labor category commensurate with their role.

4. Depending upon location, Per Diem may be charged where overnight stays are required.

5. Weekly or monthly equipment rates at a reduced amount may be available on a contract-specific basis.

6. Expert Witness Testimony, including Depositions, is billed at the time and half.

7. Non-standard invoice processing will be billed at standard hourly rates for support personnel.

8. Sequoia will review our hourly rates annually and may choose to escalate our rate sheet depending on changes to the cost- of living- index and other factors.

9. Hours beyond 8 hours per day are charged at an overtime rate of 1.5 times our standard hourly rates for qualifying personnel.

To comply with California Labor Code 512 and California Code of Regulations 11040, if on-site conditions prohibit personnel from taking required breaks, one additional hour of time will be billed per day for qualifying staff covered under the regulations.

GIS Data Storage/Processing $30/unit

ATTACHMENT 3
CIP NO. 25783
04/21/26
Project Funding to Date Amount Totals
2025-26 CIP Allocation (Fund 162 - Miscellaneous CIP Grants)* $1,048,900

TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING TO DATE
Project Expenditures to Date
Advertising $768
City Administrative Fees $10,764
Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc. (Contract #2025361) 116,310 Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc. (Amendment No. 1) 13,781 Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc. (Amendment No. 2) 20,870 Total Project Expenditures to Date $162,493
Anticipated Remaining Project Expenditures
21,524
$21,524
1,413
108,000
600,000
50,000
87,470
18,000
$864,883
$886,407
Environmental Ecological Services
Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc. (Contract #2025361) Sub-total of Anticipated Project Expenditures
Construction
Noticing/Public Outreach
Tools and Equipment
ACFD Agreement (Cost Recovery Agreement with Alameda County Fire Department)
Contingency
Environmental Oversight/ Construction Management/ Public outreach (Sequoia Ecological Consulting Amendment No. 3) Maintenance/Weed Abatement Work
Sub-total of Anticipated Construction
Total Anticipated Remaining Project Expenditures

TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES
Funding Balance/ (Shortfall)
Project Balance $0
*Funding from CAL Fire Grant of $1,048,900

AUGUSTIN BERNAL FUELS REDUCTION
$1,048,900
$1,048,900

COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT FOR

FIRE FUELS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This Agreement is made and entered into this day of 2026, by and between the CITY OF PLEASANTON, hereinafter referred to as “CITY” and the ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, hereinafter referred to as “ACFD,” through their lawfully designated representatives. The CITY and the ACFD are referred to collectively herein as the “Parties” and sometimes individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, ACFD currently provides fire protection services and fire fuels management services within its jurisdiction and under contract; and WHEREAS, fire fuels management services benefit the community by creating fire access trails and firebreaks, reducing fire hazards by removing dead trees and other flammable vegetation, and providing evacuation routes and safe zones in emergencies; and WHEREAS, the CITY is seeking fire fuels management services; and WHEREAS, the Parties believe that it is in the best interest of the CITY to have additional fuels management services to augment their resilience against the threat of wildfires in areas of wildland urban interface; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has secured a $1,048,900 grant from CALFIRE to plan and implement fuel management at Augustin Bernal Park,
WHEREAS, the CITY has completed an addendum to the California Vegetation Treatment Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Report and Project Specific Analysis and identified the scope of work for a proposed fuel management project, WHEREAS, each Party has determined that it desires to enter into this Agreement to exchange cost recovery funding for services based on the Party’s determination of the proper use of the resources available, including the use of equipment and personnel; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these mutual covenants, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

ARTICLE I

PURPOSE AND SERVICE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Purpose
ATTACHMENT 4

-2-
The purpose of this Agreement is to enhance the CITY’s resilience against the threat of wildland fires along the Pleasanton Ridge within the City of Pleasanton’s Augustin Bernal Park, Golden Eagle Homeowners Association property, and East Bay Regional Park District property.

The services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall not be used to supplant or substitute for day-to-day full and continuing fire protection within a Party’s own jurisdictional area. No Party shall be required to reduce its own fire protection resources, personnel, services or facilities to the detriment of its normal fire protection and emergency services capability within its borders in order to fulfill the terms of this Agreement.

2. Scope
a. It is agreed that the scope of this Agreement will include work listed in Exhibit A. b. The Parties further agree that continuous monitoring and maintenance of work in the areas will ensure long-term effectiveness of the fuel break, and the CITY and the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) will continue to assume responsibility for such monitoring and maintenance.

3. Service Obligations of City of Pleasanton
CITY will provide a notice of the work to the community prior to any work beginning and will remain the point of contact for the community, Golden Eagle Homeowner’s Association, East Bay Regional Park District, and all other groups seeking information related to the project.

CITY shall obtain adequate Right-of Entry Agreements for any work proposed on property not owned by the CITY and ensure coordination of work with relevant property owners.

CITY shall also be responsible for all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements related to the project.

CITY shall provide all services required to be performed by a certified and licensed pesticide applicator, qualified biologist, qualified tree professional, and/or Registered Professional Forester in Exhibit A.

Service Obligations of Alameda County Fire Department
ACFD will use Crew 8 to implement the fuel management work. as described in the Augustin Bernal Community Parks Fuel Reduction Project Plans and Specifications, Exhibit A (attached).

-3-

ARTICLE II

LIABILITIES AND ADMINISTRATION

1. Costs
CITY agrees to compensate ACFD at a rate of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) per week, up to forty (40) hours per week, with a maximum project cost of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) and a completion date of December 31, 2027.

Payment is due within thirty (30) days of invoice. Any disputes in costs are subject to mediation with a mutually agreed upon neutral if Parties cannot come to an agreement.

2. Liability
Each Party agrees to assume responsibility for all liabilities that occur or arise in any way out of the performance of this Agreement by its employees and to indemnify, defend, and save and hold the other party, including each of its respective elected officials, appointed board members and commissioners, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, harmless from all costs, expenses, losses and damages, including cost of defense, incurred as a result of any acts or omissions of the Party’s employees relating to this Agreement.

3. Insurance
Each party agrees to maintain at its sole and exclusive expense, insurance coverage, including: general liability, automobile, personal injury, property damage, and worker’s compensation.

4. Review of and Prospective Changes in Service
From time to time the Parties may deem that it is reasonably necessary to modify Exhibit A. At the request of the ACFD Fire Chief, the CITY, or their appointed designees, representatives for the Parties shall meet at a mutually agreed upon reasonable time and place to confer about such changes. Any such modification shall be in writing and shall be deemed an amendment to this Agreement once signed by the authorized representative of each Party. A copy of the amendment shall be appended to the Exhibit being modified and a copy filed with each duplicate and original copy of the Agreement being maintained by each Party.

5. Severability
If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of this Agreement to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions of them, will not be affected, unless an essential purpose of this Agreement would be defeated by the loss of the illegal, unenforceable, or invalid provision.

6. Choice of Law

-4-
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.

ARTICLE III

POWERS AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Non-relinquishment of Authority
a. Notwithstanding any part of this Agreement to the contrary, each Party retains, and in no way relinquishes its powers or responsibilities to determine and adopt its own fire prevention and response procedures.
b. It is not intended by this Agreement to create, and nothing in this Agreement shall create, any partnership, joint venture, or similar arrangement among the Parties hereto.

2. Primary Responsibility
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement shall not relieve any Party from the necessity and obligation of using its own resources for furnishing primary fire protection services within any part of its own jurisdiction, and that the Party’s services will be dependent upon the existing emergency conditions within its own jurisdiction and the status of its resources.

3. Labor Disputes
a. Should a labor controversy occur, the duly authorized representatives for the Parties shall meet to discuss the effect of the controversy on this Agreement. b. It is not the intent of this agreement to provide day-to-day fire protection.

4. Other Parties
a. This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of anyone not a Party hereto, and anyone who is not a Party hereto shall not have a right or claim or action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. No third- party beneficiaries are contemplated or created hereby and no person, organization, or entity not a party hereto shall derive any rights here from. b. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the ability of a Party from agreeing to participate in contracts for services, mutual assistance, or automatic response.

5. Independent Contractors
a. The Parties, for all purposes of this Agreement, are deemed to be independent contractors and nothing herein creates the relationship of employer and employee or agent between the Parties, or between one Party’s employees, agents or contractors and the other Party.

-5-
b. ACFD shall remain fully responsible as employer for all taxes, premiums, wages, withholdings, and other direct and indirect compensation, benefits, and related obligations with respect to its own employees. It is further agreed that each Party shall be responsible for the claims of its own personnel for wage and disability payments, pension and fringe benefit payments, unemployment and worker’s compensation benefits, damage to equipment or clothing and medical expenses.

ARTICLE IV

TERM AND TERMINATION

1. Effective Date
This Agreement shall commence on the date it is fully executed by the Parties, , 2026, and continue through December 31, 2027, or until terminated by written notice by one or both of the Parties as listed in paragraph 4 below.

2. Modification of Agreement
This Agreement may be supplemented, amended, or modified only by the mutual agreement of the Parties. No supplement, amendment, or modification of this Agreement shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both Parties.

3. Termination for Cause
Any substantial reduction of fire fuels management services by ACFD or failure of a Party to mutually agree to modifications to this Agreement after conferring as provided above, shall be cause for termination of this Agreement by any Party.

4. Termination
Either Party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving the other Party thirty (30) days’ advance written notice of intention to terminate the Agreement. Either Party may terminate this Agreement with cause (as set forth in Article IV, paragraph 3, above) by giving the other Party advance written notice of intention to terminate the Agreement.

In the event of termination, ACFD shall be paid for all services provided before the effective date of termination.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is dated the year and date first written above.

CITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT

-6-

Gerry Beaudin, David Haubert,
City Manager President of the Board of Directors
City of Pleasanton Alamed a County Fire Department

ATTEST:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk

Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:

Andrea L. Weddle, Interim County Counsel

Daniel S. Sodergren, City Attorney By: Kathy Lee, Deputy County Counsel

Exhibit A
1342 Creekside Drive    Walnut Creek, California 94596    (925) 855‐5500    www.sequoiaeco.com AUGUSTIN BERNAL COMMUNITY PARK FUELS REDUCTION
PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Project Background
The project footprint and surrounding area have a wildfire hazard risk that is considered by CAL FIRE to be “moderate” to “high.” Wildfire hazard risk is aƩributed to widespread invasive, noxious, fire‐hazardous vegetaƟon; decades of dead vegetaƟon accumulaƟon; and over a century of fire suppression. The desired result  of  the  Project  is  to  restore  fuel  loads  to  more  natural  levels  that  can  be  maintained  through prescribed  fire  and  other  methods.  The  Project  would  reduce  excess  and  ladder  fuels  within  an approximately  200‐foot‐wide  shaded  fuel  break  and  wildland‐urban  interface,  creaƟng  safer  access  for first responders and community members.

This Project was envisioned in collaboraƟon with CAL FIRE and includes a fuel break abuƫng the Golden Eagle Community (Figures 1 and 2). The objecƟve is to reduce dense vegetaƟon and remove ladder fuels (fuel that can carry fire from the ground into the tree canopy, like a ladder), such as small‐diameter trees and brush. In the event of a wildfire, this will provide safe access for firefighƟng personnel, support the creaƟon of fire lines, and potenƟally slow the spread and lower the intensity of fires.

Environmental  compliance  for  the  Project  was  achieved  through  a  Project‐Specific  Analysis  (PSA)  and Addendum  under  the  California  VegetaƟon  Treatment  Program  (CalVTP)  ProgrammaƟc  Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The PSA/Addendum approved a total of 162 acres, of which up to 126 acres will be implemented under this contract. The CalVTP permiƫng mechanism establishes a set of Standard Project Requirements (SPRs) and MiƟgaƟon Measures (MMs) that implemenƟng agencies, including contractors, are responsible for following. SPRs were considered and built into the OperaƟonal SpecificaƟons listed below.

Due  to  the  Project’s  locaƟon  within  federally  designated  criƟcal  habitat  for  the  state  and  federally threatened  Alameda  whipsnake  (Figure  2),  nearly  all  work  must  be  performed  with  hand  tools  (string trimmers, chainsaws, etc.). Mechanical equipment use will be limited to areas around the trailhead parking lot that are outside of criƟcal habitat for Alameda whipsnake and to truck and chipper use on established fire trails within criƟcal habitat (Figure 3).

Work will be conducted between May 2026 and December 2027.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
2 Project Site and LocaƟon
The Project will be implemented on public and private lands in and adjacent to AugusƟn Bernal Community Park. The Project is adjacent to the unincorporated community of Kilkare Woods and the neighborhoods of Golden Eagle Estates and The Club at Castlewood.

Treatment areas will be accessed via exisƟng fire roads and trails. No new roads will be created. All access to the park and surrounding treatment areas will be via the trailhead parking lot on Golden Eagle Way or via Santos Ranch Road. Vehicles and equipment will be staged at the Contractor’s yard daily or on‐site in coordinaƟon with the City. Throughout the course of project implementaƟon, the Contractor will maintain road integrity, including maintaining drainage features. Garbage and construcƟon debris will be regularly removed from the work site.

Project Treatments
Project treatments will reduce wildfire fuels in a deliberate manner designed to minimize environmental impacts to wildlife and protected plants, consistent with the CalVTP PEIR.

The overarching treatment approach will follow these basic guidelines:
 Class  I,  II,  and  III  watercourses  will  be  protected  by  a  year‐round  equipment  exclusion  zone  as designated  and  flagged  by  a  qualified  biologist,  dependent  on  slope,  access,  and  treatment prioriƟes
 Biomass disposal methods will avoid watercourses, including cut and chipped vegetaƟon and pile burning
 Removal of invasive plants and dead woody material will be prioriƟzed before removing live naƟve vegetaƟon
 Hazardous trees (e.g., dead or dying trees) idenƟfied by a qualified professional will be removed  Equipment used for mechanical treatment will not operate off of exisƟng fire trails in Alameda whipsnake criƟcal habitat
 No cleared Ɵmber or other forest products will be removed for commercial purposes  All treatment acƟviƟes and biomass distribuƟon will avoid riparian habitat by a standard minimum buffer of 50 feet
o Buffer size will increase if a qualified biologist or Registered Professional Forester (RPF) recommends this based on factors such as slope, exisƟng erosion, sensiƟvity of vegetaƟve habitat, or presence of sensiƟve resources
Manual  treatment  is  required  throughout  the  majority  of  the  project  area  due  to  its  locaƟon  within Alameda whipsnake habitat. Treatments are strategic removal of vegetaƟon to prevent or slow the spread of non‐wind‐driven wildfire between structures and wildlands. In areas where wildland and manufactured structures overlap, higher intensity fuel reducƟon typical of defensible space will occur within 100 to 150 feet of manufactured structures, as determined by fire professionals and based on site condiƟons. Beyond

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
3 100 to 150 feet from manufactured structures, vegetaƟon  treatments will be implemented with lower intensity. Fuel reducƟon will focus primarily on removal of invasive plants, noxious weeds, fire‐hazardous vegetaƟon, and dead and dying vegetaƟon, as well as limbing up of trees per the specificaƟons.

Mechanical Treatment
Mechanical treatments will include mowing, chipping, and broadcasƟng target vegetaƟon above ground surface, with parƟcular care to minimize ground disturbance. A variety of equipment, including but not limited to mowers, masƟcators, and track chippers, will be used, as appropriate. Due to the presence of Alameda  whipsnake  criƟcal  habitat,  mechanical  treatment  acƟviƟes  will  be  limited  to  areas  of  exisƟng disturbance, such as the trailhead parking lot and fire trails. Error! Reference source not found. provides a summary of treatment types and methods, broken down by treatment area. A map of treatment areas, their names, and acreages is provided in Figure 3.

No mechanical equipment will operate off exisƟng roads and trails, except in disturbed grassy areas of the trailhead  parking  lot.  Mechanical  treatments  will  be  limited  to  trailhead  area  mowing  and  broadcast chipping from exisƟng roads. Mechanical treatments will avoid state or federally jurisdicƟonal waters and riparian habitat by a minimum of 50 feet.

Manual Treatment
Ground crews will use hand tools and hand‐operated power tools, including but not limited to chainsaws, hand  saws,  pole  saws,  string  trimmers,  McLeods,  Pulaskis,  weed  pullers,  brush  cuƩers,  and  loppers.

Manual  treatments  will  cut,  clear,  and/or  prune  trees,  herbaceous  vegetaƟon,  and  woody  shrubs  to increase space between trees. Manual treatments will be used to treat dead, dying, and diseased trees.

Manual acƟviƟes will cut or chop standing and downed vegetaƟon using chainsaws and other methods.

Small‐diameter trees  (6 inches or less in diameter at breast  height [DBH]), downed woody debris, and woody shrubs will be strategically lopped and scaƩered, piled for later burning, or chipped to increase tree spacing and reduce fire fuel loads. NaƟve understory vegetaƟon, brush, and shrubs under the drip lines of trees will be cut and scaƩered, leaving root systems intact for resprouƟng. Error! Reference source not found. provides details on vegetaƟon cuƫng and removal or in‐place storage methods by treatment area.

Manual treatments will be the primary method of treatment throughout the project site. Herbicides may be used in conjuncƟon with manual treatments to prevent the spread and resprouƟng of invasive plant species  within  the  treatment  areas,  along  roads,  and  in  other  high‐traffic  areas.  Manual  treatment acƟviƟes will avoid riparian habitat by a minimum of 50 feet and state or federally jurisdicƟonal waters by a minimum of 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
4 Herbicide ApplicaƟon
Herbicides will be used strategically to supplement other treatment methods to prevent the spread and resprouƟng of invasive species within the treatment areas and along roads. EffecƟve herbicides idenƟfied by the California Invasive Plant Council and U.S. Department of Agriculture that are consistent with those described in the CalVTP PEIR will be applied. On‐the‐ground applicaƟon methods will include painƟng cut stems or stumps and  using backpack sprayers or hand applicators to target specific  invasive plants; no aerial spraying, broadcast spraying, or spraying from trucks will occur . No herbicide treatment will occur within  50  feet  of  aquaƟc  habitat.  Herbicides  should  not  be  applied  without  prior  discussion  with  and approval by the City of Pleasanton.

Herbicide applicaƟon will comply with the U.S. Environmental ProtecƟon Agency label direcƟons and both California  Environmental  ProtecƟon  Agency  and  California  Department  of  PesƟcide  RegulaƟon  label standards. All herbicide applicaƟon will be performed or supervised by cerƟfied and licensed pesƟcide applicators in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulaƟons. Herbicide applicaƟon will not take place within 24 hours of a rain event.

OperaƟonal SpecificaƟons
The following specificaƟons will act as the requirements for the Contractor to operate safely and efficiently while protecƟng and conserving sensiƟve resources. These specificaƟons were wriƩen to incorporate SPRs required by the CalVTP PSA/Addendum, which saƟsfies California Environmental Quality Act compliance for this project.

General OperaƟonal SpecificaƟons

1. A pre‐designated Contractor foreman will be required to be on‐site at all Ɵmes while the crew is working.  The  foreman  must  be  able  to  address  concerns  from  the  City  of  Pleasanton,  partner agencies, supervised designees, adjacent landowners, and/or the public. Contractor shall provide the full name, phone number, and email address of this person prior to work starƟng.

2. OperaƟons may occur during daylight hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

No operaƟons will occur on holidays. ConsideraƟon will be given to weekend operaƟons based upon project progression. ConsideraƟon will also be given to beginning operaƟons at 6:00 a.m. should daylight and weather condiƟons warrant.

3. OperaƟons are expected to occur primarily from May 1–October 15. OperaƟons may occur outside of  this  window  under  the  following  condiƟons,  if  saturated  soil  condiƟons  do  not  exist;  if operaƟons from appurtenant roads and staging areas can be conducted from a stable operaƟng surface;  and  if  requirements  under  OperaƟons  from  October  15–May  1,  Watercourse ProtecƟons, and Biological Resource Avoidance Measures can be met.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
5 4. The Contractor is responsible coordinaƟng with the City of Pleasanton to close trails as needed to complete treatments. Trail closures will include setup of appropriate signage (supplied by the City) and marking of detours when appropriate.

5. The Contractor shall be responsible for returning the trails and staging areas to an “as good or beƩer” condiƟon following operaƟons.

6. Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining a spill kit containing the following items:
a. ProtecƟve clothing or personal protecƟve equipment to protect body parts most likely to be exposed to spilled hazardous substances; and
b. Tools to clean up a spill, including highly absorbent towels, pads, and at least six (6) 3‐inch by 10‐foot‐long spill‐absorbent socks.

7. Prior to beginning operaƟons, the City of Pleasanton and its supervised designee will conduct a pre‐operaƟonal meeƟng to discuss project implementaƟon, special protecƟon measures, and any potenƟal operaƟonal constraints regarding the conduct of this contract that may impact project compleƟon,  including  but  not  limited  to  planned  start  date,  special  protecƟon  measures, operaƟonal constraints, operaƟng schedule, and order of project compleƟon.

8. The Contractor shall prepare and keep record of a daily checklist made available at the request of City, or its supervised designee, that checks the following for daily operaƟons:
a. Names  of  Contractor’s  daily  on‐site  operaƟonal  personnel  and  equipment.  Equipment with Hobbs hour meters will log daily meter readings.
b. InspecƟons around the equipment and staging area for any wildlife that may have decided to  occupy  the  area,  parƟcularly  Alameda  whipsnake.  If  any  Alameda  whipsnakes  are found, operaƟons at the locaƟon must stop, and City, or its supervised designee, must be noƟfied immediately. Contractor will not harm, harass, or injure Alameda whipsnakes. c. InspecƟons for any equipment leaks.
d. Ensure all water tanks for fire suppression are full. e. Confirm that nesƟng bird, bat roost, and other necessary surveys are completed for the treatment areas proposed for operaƟons that day if operaƟng from February 1 to August

31. f. Record wind speed and relaƟve humidity measurements at the beginning of operaƟons, 12:00 p.m., and the conclusion of operaƟons each day.

9. Contractor  will  provide  a  Pest  Control  RecommendaƟon  and  all  label  informaƟon,  safety  data sheets, and a proposed Spill Response Plan prior to any herbicide operaƟons on‐site(s). The City of  Pleasanton  and  its  supervised  designee  will  review  the  Spill  Response  Plan  prior  to implementaƟon.

10. Mechanized equipment operaƟons shall not occur if, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. the day prior to proposed  operaƟons,  there  is  a  NaƟonal  Weather  Service  (NWS)  forecast  average  of  rain  30 percent or greater for the day of proposed operaƟons.

11. Typical work areas are brush and forest, oŌen away from roads and on steep terrain, and with target species densiƟes ranging from 1 percent to 100 percent absolute cover . Poison oak, sƟnging neƩle,  and  sƟnging  and  biƟng  insects  are  abundant.  Access  is  via  unpaved  roads  and  trails.

Contractor  shall  also  access  remote  locaƟons  without  paved  roads.  Some  treatment  sites  shall require walking to site.
a. All vehicles used on the project site shall be covered by Contractor’s insurance; be in good funcƟoning order; have funcƟonal 4‐wheel drive with adequate clearance for off‐road use; and  have Ɵ res  that  have  minimum  3/32”  tread.  All  occupants  shall  wear  seat  belts.

Contractor shall operate vehicles at appropriate speeds within the preserves:

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
6 i. 15 miles per hour maximum;
ii. 5 miles per hour when passing pedestrians, bicycles, or horses; iii. When parking within any partner’s land, contractor must allow enough room for emergency vehicle access at all Ɵmes;
iv. Contractor shall have safety plans in place for heat illness, medical emergencies or injuries, and working adjacent to roads; and
v. Contractor shall have the ability to communicate from remote locaƟons in case of medical or fire emergencies.
b. All contractors must wear safety vests while on partners’ lands, including while in vehicles. c. All vehicles must display prominent markings idenƟfying them as contractor vehicles.

Treatment SpecificaƟons
The following secƟon outlines the specific treatment prescripƟons based on priority, treatment area, and fuel type. Treatments shall be conducted in priority order according to Table 1 below (Figure 3). Within each treatment area (Figures 2 and 3), the treatment prescripƟon shall match the priority descripƟon in Table  1  and  the  treatment  area  treatment  methods  in  Table  2.  Finally,  all  vegetaƟon  work  shall  occur according to the general and fuel type specificaƟons described below.

General Treatment SpecificaƟons

1. The treatment goal is the reducƟon of understory vegetaƟon and small‐diameter trees. Generally, remove dead, dying, and diseased trees and retain live trees less than or equal to (≤) 6 inches DBH.

Healthy trees selected for retenƟon that are less than 6 inches DBH will achieve an approximately 10–20‐foot spacing where feasible.

2. Where overstory canopy cover is less than 50 percent, or as idenƟfied in the field by the City of Pleasanton or its supervised designees, idenƟfy “save” trees of a variety of species for overstory recruitment at mixed distances from 6–15 feet.

3. IdenƟfy no‐cut species as applicable.

4. Where there are only stands made up of trees less than 6 inches DBH, these stands of smaller trees will be spaced approximately 10–20 feet apart. Healthy trees ≤6 inches DBH will be favored over diseased trees ≤6 inches DBH to meet the spacing goal and maintain a shaded fuel break.

5. All stumps will be cut no higher than 6 inches above the ground. All cuts will be a flat or parallel cut to the ground and will have a smooth appearance with no frayed material visible.

6. All  dead  and  downed  trees  less  than  12  inches  in  diameter  will  be  delimbed  and chipped/scaƩered, with the remaining trunks leŌ in place unless several trees have created a piled concentraƟon. In this case, the remaining tree trunks will be separated by at least 10 feet from any other logs and leŌ on‐site.

7. Dead, downed trees greater than 12 inches in diameter may be chipped/bucked with a chainsaw for access around treatment areas but should remain in place where feasible unless they create a significant fire hazard and shall be separated by at least 10 feet from any other logs and leŌ on‐ site.

8. Contractor shall consider maintaining an appropriate number of snags and downed woody debris within the treatment areas. Target snags should be approximately 1–2 per acre and similar for downed woody debris greater than 12 inches in diameter .

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
7 9. A tree of any size considered a hazard and direct threat to personal safety or infrastructure may be removed.

10. The City of Pleasanton, or its supervised designee, reserves the right to reasonably adjust tree treatments  in  areas  where  addiƟonal  sensiƟve  resources  are  idenƟfied  and  may  adjust  the treatment prescripƟon as needed.

11. Lopping and slash requirements for hand work where chipping is not feasible:
a. In  treatment  areas  idenƟfied  as  hand  work  that  are  within  50  feet  of  a  property  line, road/trail, water tank, exposed water line, water uptake, or other key infrastructure or asset idenƟfied by the City of Pleasanton or its supervised designee, slash height shall not exceed 12 inches.
b. In other treatment areas idenƟfied as hand work, slash height shall be treated to between 18 and 24 inches.
c. In hand work areas, all logs on the ground less than 16 inches in diameter shall be leŌ with as few cuts as possible to put them into contact with the ground. d. All slashes must have maximum contact with the ground. e. Do not cut trees or snags greater than 6 inches DBH or dead/dying trees and snags greater than 16 inches DBH unless specifically marked.
f. Limbed or pruned oak trees should be leŌ with supporƟng branches in place.

12. Damage to residual trees shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. If there is excessive damage to residual trees or shrubs, the Contractor shall remove these specimens.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
8 Table 1. Treatment priority phasing.

Phase/Priority  DescripƟon  Acres
Priority 1
50‐foot‐wide clearance around all trails in treatment areas 1–11, 13.

Treatments within Priority 1 areas shall include hand clearing of all understory vegetaƟon down to approximately 3 inches above ground level, including mowing of grasses. Shrub dominated areas shall be mosaiced according to shrub treatment specificaƟons below. Trees greater than 6 inches DBH will be retained. Retained trees will be pruned to reduce ladder fuels.

45.6 Priority 2  100‐foot‐wide clearance around all trails in treatment areas 1–11, 13.

Treatments within Priority 2 areas shall include removal of woody understory vegetaƟon, and tree pruning to reduce ladder fuels. No mowing of herbaceous vegetaƟon shall occur . All trees greater than 6 inches DBH will be retained.   26.9 Priority 3  Treatment of full area for treatment areas 1–11, 13.

Treatments within Priority 3 areas shall focus on tree pruning to reduce ladder fuels and removal of dead, woody material. Dense woody understory shall be thinned as appropriate and trees greater than 6 inches DBH will be retained.   53.8 Total  126.3
Table 2. Treatment method prescripƟons by treatment area.

Treatment
Area Number  Name  Treatment Type(s)  Treatment Method  Acres 01  HOA Break  Mechanical, hand work  Mechanical, with some hand trimming where terrain disallows mechanical treatment. There is evidence that it is already mowed annually. Thus, perhaps the treatment can extend beyond the work already done. Mowers come in from the north and in breaks along Clover Court. Southern to be treated with hand labor .   5.60 02  Parking Lot  Mechanical, hand work  Mechanical treatments with hand labor, trim lower tree branches and cut shrubs under tree canopy. The area is already being mowed annually.    11.30 03  Golden Eagle Trail  Hand work  Hand treatments, limbing trees, and cuƫng understory brush. Do not cut grass, except for 10 feet from the road. Create wildlife piles with dead material. Do not buck dead logs, leave them long and in contact with the ground.  33.99
04  Central Trails  Hand work, chipping  Hand treatment, limbing trees, and cuƫng understory brush. Chip material smaller than 4 inches in diameter, and leave larger material scaƩered, in contact with the ground. Cut grass within 25 feet of the road.  7.86
05  Longview Trail  Hand work, chipping  Hand treatment, limbing trees, and cuƫng understory brush. Chip material smaller than 4 inches in diameter, and leave larger material scaƩered, in contact with the ground. Cut grass within 25 feet of the road.  3.80
06  Longview Drive  Hand work, chipping  Hand treatment, cuƫng brush and dead limbs. Chip material smaller than 4 inches in diameter, and leave larger material scaƩered, in contact with the ground.  7.02 07  Toyon Trail  Hand work, chipping  Hand treatment, limbing trees, and cuƫng understory brush. Chip material smaller than 4 inches in diameter, and leave larger material scaƩered, in contact with the ground. Cut grass within 25 feet of the road.  9.59
08  Western Trails  Hand work  Hand treatments, limbing trees, and cuƫng understory brush. Cut grass within 25 feet of the road. Create wildlife piles with dead material. Do not buck dead logs, leave them long and in contact with the ground.  8.06
09  Western
Grassland  Hand work  Hand treatments, limbing trees, and cuƫng understory brush. Cut grass within 25 feet of the road. Create wildlife piles with dead material. Do not buck dead logs, leave them long and in contact with the ground.  8.54
10  Pond Cutoff  Hand work  Hand treatments, limbing trees, and cuƫng understory brush. Cut grass within 25 feet of the road. Create wildlife piles with dead material. Do not buck dead logs, leave them long and in contact with the ground.  16.05
11  Blue Oak Knoll  Hand work  Hand treatments to cut material on outside of the road and exisƟng burn border .  5.60 13  Southern Break  Hand work  Hand treatment, create wildlife piles with dead material. Do not buck dead logs but rather leave them long and in contact with the ground, perpendicular to the slope to act as dams for soil and water movement.   3.31
Total  126.3

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
9 Tree Treatments

1. Retain healthy trees greater than 6 inches DBH with appropriate canopy spacing

2. Strategically retain naƟve trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, grasses, and downed woody debris on the forest floor while reducing fuel connecƟvity

3. Strategically  remove  and  thin  understory  trees  as  well  as  dead  and  dying  trees  to  achieve separaƟon between the ground and the tree canopy

4. Dead, dying, and diseased trees will be prioriƟzed for removal; those with potenƟal to contribute to the natural forest process will be retained

5. Healthy trees less than 6 inches DBH will be removed to achieve spacing of 10–20 feet apart, as feasible, prioriƟzing those that do not contribute to canopy development

6. Remaining stumps will be cut flat at no more than 6 inches above the ground

7. For all trees, lower tree limbs will be pruned up to 15 feet, retaining 50 percent of the live crown of the tree; for trees less than 24 feet in height, the lower one‐third of tree branches less than 3 inches diameter will be removed, retaining 50 percent of the live crown Tree Pruning Treatments

1. Trees greater than 6 inches DBH will be pruned (live and dead limbs) up to a maximum height of 15 feet. No pruning will be done to a height greater than 33 percent of total tree height.

2. The City of Pleasanton, or its designee, will provide instrucƟon on hardwood pruning techniques using recognized arboricultural guidelines as needed.

Understory VegetaƟon and Shrub Treatments

1. Understory vegetaƟon and shrubs under the drip lines of trees shall be cut by hand leaving root systems intact for resprouƟng, except:
a. Contractor  shall  not  remove  through  hand  work,  hydrophyƟc  riparian  species  (e.g., sedges, rushes, and blue elderberry)

2. Outside of the drip line of retained trees and shrubs, vegetaƟon shall be cut, leaving root systems intact  for  resprouƟng  to  achieve  a  horizontal  crown  separaƟon  of  approximately  50–75  feet.

Spacing between remaining vegetaƟon may be closer to 50 feet on flaƩer ground and 75 feet on steeper  ground.  VegetaƟon  may  be  completely  removed  to  provide  defensible  space  when  in proximity to infrastructure or near homes within treatment areas. Remaining clumps of shrubs should  not  exceed  approximately  15–25  feet  in  diameter  and  will  consist  of  healthy‐appearing specimens where feasible.
a. ConsideraƟon shall be given to maintaining a diversity of understory vegetaƟon and shrub species in these areas.
b. Shrubs will be retained in clumps or shrub islands and in a manner that breaks long sight distances and provides adequate cover for wildlife.

3. Woodrat  nests  shall  receive  a  10‐foot  buffer  at  minimum.  The  majority  of  living  vegetaƟon associated with woodrat nest complexes should remain.

4. Damage to residual understory vegetaƟon and shrubs shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
10 5. The  City  of  Pleasanton,  or  its  designee,  reserves  the  right  to  reasonably  adjust  understory vegetaƟon  and  shrub  treatments  in  areas  where  addiƟonal  sensiƟve  resources  are  idenƟfied and/or may adjust the treatment prescripƟon as needed to meet specific condiƟons.

6. See  addiƟonal  shrub  treatment  requirements  under  Biological  Resource  Avoidance  Measures below.

Treated VegetaƟon within Treatment Areas

1. Residual  material,  i.e.,  chipped  material,  shall  be  dispersed  throughout  the  project  area  in  a mosaic  paƩern,  at  variable  depths,  concentraƟng  residual  material  in  areas  of  equipment disturbance  and,  to  the  extent  feasible,  minimize  residual  material  in  forest  gaps  or  openings where  increased  biodiversity  of  herbaceous  understory  regeneraƟon  is  more  likely.  In  general, residual material depths should average 3 inches and should not exceed a depth of approximately 6 inches. Chipped materials shall not be spread on suitable refugia for Alameda whipsnake, such as rodent burrows or rocky outcrops.

2. Excessive  residual  chipped  material  shall  not  obstruct  water  flow  in  drainage  features  such  as ditches and culverts. Such material shall be removed by the Contractor prior to a forecasted 30 percent precipitaƟon event or upon compleƟon of operaƟons, whichever occurs first.

3. Residual chipped material should be uƟlized to cover approximately 75 percent of any areas bared during operaƟons and shall not be piled at the base of remaining trees or sensiƟve vegetaƟon.

4. Upon compleƟon of a treatment area, the Contractor shall ensure that all roads and trails are open and passable.
a. ScaƩered  debris  is  acceptable  on  trail  surfaces  but  not  to  the  point  that  it  creates  any significant tripping hazards.

5. Damage to residual trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. If there is excessive damage to residual trees or shrubs, the Contractor shall remove those specimens.

6. The City of Pleasanton, or its designee, reserves the right to reasonably adjust treatments in areas where addiƟonal sensiƟve resources are idenƟfied and/or may adjust the treatment prescripƟon as needed to meet specific condiƟons.

Acceptable Heavy Equipment

1. Small, tracked tractor, such as a skid steer or mini excavator for mowing or moving material on exisƟng roads and trails

2. Tracked wood chipper capable of handling material greater than 16 inches DBH

3. Chip truck for hauling wood chips and logs

4. Other heavy equipment may be proposed for use by the Contractor and must be approved by the City of Pleasanton, or its designee
a. To propose other heavy equipment, the Contractor should be prepared with equipment dimensions, weight, and photos of equipment
General Provisions for Heavy Equipment

1. Heavy equipment shall not operate:
a. In any watercourse and lake protecƟon zones;
b. Off of any established roads or trails;

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
11 c. On  any  paved  or  chip‐sealed  surface,  with  the  excepƟon  that  heavy  equipment  with rubber tracks or excavators with street pads may operate on such surfaces; i. The Contractor shall be responsible for damage to surfaced roads resulƟng from heavy equipment use.
ii. The  Contractor  shall  be  responsible  for  grading  dirt  or  rocked  roads  that  have been impacted by the Contractor’s acƟons. Such roads shall be returned to their preoperaƟonal original condiƟon.
iii. Heavy  equipment  operaƟon  shall  cease  if  the  acƟvity  generates  a  significant amount of dust that impedes visibility.
d. If,  from  6:00  a.m.  to  6:00  p.m.  the  day  prior  to  proposed  operaƟons,  there  is  an  NWS forecast average of rain 30 percent or greater for the day of proposed operaƟons; e. On saturated soils, as defined in 14CCR §895.1 (shown here for reference):
i. “Saturated Soil CondiƟons means that soil and/or surface material pore spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur . Indicators of saturated soil condiƟons may include, but are not limited to: (1) areas of ponded water,  (2)  pumping  of  fines  from  the  soil  or  road  surfacing  material  during Mechanized Equipment OperaƟons, (3) loss of bearing strength resulƟng in the deflecƟon of soil or road surfaces under a load, such as the creaƟon of wheel ruts, (4)  spinning  or  churning  of  wheels  or  tracks  that  produces  a  wet  slurry,  or  (5) inadequate tracƟon without blading wet soil or surfacing materials.” f. Outside of the project boundary; or
g. In any other area idenƟfied for heavy equipment exclusion on the operaƟons map.

2. Leaking equipment shall not be allowed into the project area. If, during the course of operaƟons, a fuel or hydraulic fluid leak is discovered, the machine shall stop, and the leak shall be contained and fixed immediately. OperaƟons with that equipment shall not resume unƟl the leak has been fixed. The Contractor shall remove and dispose of any contaminated soil.

3. Care shall be taken to avoid damage to trees that will not be removed. If trees that are not slated for removal are damaged during operaƟons and deemed by an RPF or their supervised designee to pose a hazard or be unlikely to survive, the contractor shall be responsible for their removal or cuƫng.

4. No heavy equipment shall be fueled within 65 feet of any watercourse.

Fire Safety
CAL FIRE typically announces the start of the Fire Season in May of each year and usually doesn’t end the season unƟl November, depending on weather and fuel condiƟons. This secƟon applies to work occurring during the declared Fire Season and Red Flag condiƟons. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to follow these requirements. Contractor operaƟons may be suspended at any Ɵme by the City of Pleasanton, or its designee,  based  on  red  flag  warnings,  high  fire  danger,  Unit  Preparedness  Levels,  or  when  on‐site condiƟons determine that the operaƟon of the machine presents an elevated risk of starƟng a fire.

1. Contractor  shall  maintain  at  least  one  working  cell  phone,  radio,  or  satellite  phone  capable  of communicaƟng in case of an emergency, such as medical or fire incident. In an emergency, call 911, then noƟfy the City of Pleasanton or its supervised designee.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
12 2. The Contractor will have fire tools available on‐site during operaƟons for firefighƟng purposes per PRC 4428:
a. No person, except any member of an emergency crew, or except the driver or owner of any  service  vehicle  owned  or  operated  by  or  for,  or  operated  under  contract  with,  a publicly or privately owned uƟlity, which is used in the construcƟon, operaƟon, removal, or  repair  of  the  property  or  faciliƟes  of  such  uƟlity  when  engaged  in  emergency operaƟons, shall use or operate any vehicle, machine, tool or equipment powered by an internal combusƟon engine operated  on hydrocarbon fuels, in any industrial  operaƟon located  on  or  near  any  forest,  shrubland,  or  grass‐covered  land  between  April  1  and December  1  of  any  year,  or  at  any  other Ɵ me  when  ground  liƩer  and  vegetaƟon  will sustain combusƟon permiƫng the spread of fire, without providing and maintaining, for firefighƟng  purposes  only,  suitable  and  serviceable  tools  in  the  amounts,  manner,  and locaƟon prescribed in this secƟon.
b. On any such operaƟon, a sealed box of tools shall be located within the operaƟng area, at a point accessible in the event of fire. This fire toolbox shall contain: one backpack pump‐ type  fire  exƟnguisher  filled  with  water,  two  axes,  two  McLeod  fire  tools,  and  enough shovels so that each employee at the operaƟon can be equipped to fight fire. c. One  or  more  serviceable  chainsaws  of  3.5  or  more  horsepower  with  a  cuƫng  bar  20 inches  in  length  or  longer  shall  be  immediately  available  within  the  operaƟng  area,  or alternaƟvely, a full set of Ɵmber‐felling tools shall be located in the fire toolbox, including one crosscut falling saw 6 feet in length (chainsaw acceptable), one double‐bit axe with a 36‐inch handle (single bit axe acceptable), one sledge hammer or maul with a head weight of 6 or more pounds and handle length of 32 inches or more, and not less than two falling wedges.
d. Each passenger vehicle (including side‐by‐sides, UTVs, etc.) used on such operaƟon shall be equipped with one shovel and one axe, and any other vehicle used on the operaƟon shall be equipped with one shovel. Each tractor used in such operaƟon shall be equipped with one shovel.
i. As used in this secƟon:

1. “Vehicle”  means  a  device  by  which  any  person  or  property  may  be propelled,  moved,  or  drawn  over  any  land  surface,  excepƟng  a  device moved  by  human  power  or  used  exclusively  upon  staƟonary  rails  or tracks.

2. “Passenger vehicle” means a vehicle that is self‐propelled, and which is designed for carrying not more than 10 persons including the driver, and which is used or maintained for the transportaƟon of persons but does not include any motortruck or truck tractor .

3. The Contractor shall provide and be responsible for operaƟng and maintaining the following for iniƟal igniƟon aƩack and fire suppression:
a. A full 500‐gallon water buffalo trailer with a water pump and minimum 50‐foot fire hose, both aƩached to the trailer, to be within reasonable proximity to operaƟons at all Ɵmes. i. The  mobile  motorized  pump  shall  be  capable  of  reaching  and  dispensing  a minimum  of  250  gallons  of  water  to  all  areas  of  acƟve  equipment  operaƟons within 5 minutes of fire igniƟon.
ii. If the Contractor is operaƟng more than one crew out of different staging areas, the Contractor shall provide one of these units for each crew.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
13 *Contractor may propose an alterna Ɵv e m e t h o d t h a t m e e t s o r e x c e e d s t h e s e standards described in Item #2 above.

4. Treatment areas shall be walked prior to operaƟons to determine if there are any potenƟal igniƟon hazards such as rocks, metal objects, or highly combusƟble fuel sources. The Contractor should adjust operaƟonal schedules to operate in these areas when fire hazard risks are the lowest, such as early morning.

5. Contractor must remain on improved roads when driving between work sites. No cross‐country or off‐road driving is permiƩed. All vehicles must be parked on paved or dirt improved areas near the work site to minimize igniƟng grass. This also pertains to UTV and ATV use. a. Each vehicle or piece of heavy equipment shall be ouƞiƩed with a minimum 5‐pound Class ABC  fire  exƟnguisher,  and/or  a  2.5‐gallon  air  pressurized  gallon  Class  A  water  fire exƟnguisher,  and/or  a  5‐gallon  backpack  pump  physically  aƩached  to  the  heavy equipment or truck in an accessible locaƟon to respond to any possible igniƟons. Heavy equipment with foam fire suppressions system built in meets this requirement. b. Spark arrestors affixed to the exhaust system of engines or vehicles shall not be mounted in  a  manner  as  to  allow  flames  or  heat  from  exhaust  system  to  ignite  any  flammable material.

6. Spark arrestors are required for all mechanized tools.

7. No smoking is permiƩed within the project area.

8. During Ɵmes when vegetaƟon is flammable, a minimum 2‐hour fire watch is required each day following  conclusion  of  mechanized  operaƟons.  Fire  watch  may  include Ɵ me  spent  conducƟng rouƟne end‐of‐day equipment maintenance.

9. A 5‐gallon backpack pump, McLeod hand tool, and shovel shall be strategically staged within 250 feet  of  any  mechanized  masƟcaƟon  operaƟons  for  ground  crew  or  spoƩers  to  immediately exƟnguish any igniƟon.

10. Tree cuƫng crews are required to carry one fire exƟnguisher per chainsaw. Applicable laws and RegulaƟons: California Public Resource Code SecƟons 4442 and 4443 Spark arrester and muffler requirements; 4427 Clearance and equipment requirements. California Health and Safety Code SecƟons 13001 Causing Fire; 13005 Use of Hydrocarbon Engine without Exhaust Spark Arrester; 13007 and 13009 Liability.

11. If the relaƟve humidity is at or below 20 percent and/or winds are at or above 15 miles per hour at the end of the workday, Fire Watch patrol shall be required on‐site during and at least 3 hours aŌer operaƟons if mechanized masƟcaƟon equipment has been operaƟng. a. Contractor  shall  have  a  Kestrel  handheld  monitor  (or  equivalent)  to  monitor  wind  and relaƟve humidity and shall take readings at the beginning of operaƟons, 12:00 p.m., and the conclusion of operaƟons each day. Contractor shall maintain a record of readings as part of the daily operaƟonal checklist.

12. The City of Pleasanton, or its designee, reserves the right to restrict operaƟng hours or operaƟons in total during criƟcal fire weather.

OperaƟons from October 15 to May 1
The contractor may conduct operaƟons between October 15 and May 1, provided that no operaƟons on saturated soil condiƟons, as defined below, occur:

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
14 1. Saturated soil is defined as soil and/or surface material pore spaces that are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur . Indicators of saturated soil condiƟons may include but are not limited to:
a. Areas of ponded water;
b. Pumping of fines from the soil or road surfacing material during operaƟons; c. Loss of bearing strength resulƟng in the deflecƟon of soil or road surfaces under a load, such as the creaƟon of wheel ruts;
d. Spinning or churning of wheels or tracks that produces a wet slurry; or e. Inadequate tracƟon without blading wet soil or surfacing materials.

2. In  addiƟon,  operaƟons  on  appurtenant  roads  or  staging  areas  may  only  occur  from  a  stable operaƟng surface, as defined below:
a. A surface that can support vehicular traffic and that routes water off the road surface or into  drainage  faciliƟes  without  concentraƟng  flow  in  ruts  (Ɵre  tracks),  pumping  of  the roadbed, or ponding flow in depressions. A stable operaƟng surface shall include paved roads, structurally sound road base, unsaturated hard packed seasonal roads, and all must be appropriate for intended use.

Watercourse ProtecƟons

1. Class  I,  II,  and  III  watercourses  will  be  protected  by  a  year‐round  equipment  exclusion  zone  as designated  and  flagged  by  a  qualified  biologist  dependent  on  slope,  access,  and  treatment prioriƟes.

2. Heavy equipment used in project operaƟons shall not be serviced or fueled within 65 feet of a watercourse or in any locaƟons where servicing will allow grease, oil, or fuel to pass into lakes or watercourses.  Contractor  shall  maintain  a  spill  response  kit  within  reasonable  proximity  to equipment operaƟons.

3. Equipment shall be checked each day for any signs of leaks, and if any are discovered, they shall be repaired immediately.

4. OperaƟons shall not place, discharge, dispose of, or deposit in such a manner as to permit to pass into waters of the state any substances or materials, including but not limited to soil, silt, bark, slash,  sawdust,  or  petroleum  in  quanƟƟes  which  may  cause  harm  to  fish,  wildlife,  beneficial funcƟons of riparian zones, or the quality and beneficial uses of water.

5. All  staging  areas  and  fueling  or  maintenance  of  vehicles  and  equipment  shall  occur  outside  of sensiƟve  habitat  areas  and  at  least  65  feet  from  any  water  body,  drainages  (including  storm drains), or riparian habitat.
a. No petroleum products, chemicals, silt, fine soil, or any substance or material deleterious to sensiƟve species shall be allowed to pass into or be placed where it could enter a stream channel.
b. Any spills of hazardous materials shall be cleaned up and/or removed immediately. Any such spills shall be reported to the City of Pleasanton, or its supervised designee. c. Major vehicle maintenance, repairs, and washing shall be done off‐site. d. Chainsaw fueling shall occur on service roads and only where spills can be easily cleaned and at least 65 feet away from streams, bridges, or other areas that can transport spilled materials into natural waterways.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
15 Biological Resource Avoidance Measures

1. All crew members and Contractors are required to receive training from a qualified biologist prior to beginning treatments. The training will describe the appropriate work pracƟces necessary to effecƟvely implement the biological SPRs and MMs and comply with the applicable environmental laws and regulaƟons.

2. If  any  California  Endangered  Species  Act‐  or  Federally  Endangered  Species  Act‐listed  plant  or animal is encountered, operaƟons shall cease in proximity, and the area shall be avoided. The City of Pleasanton, or its designee, shall be noƟfied immediately.

NesƟng Birds and RoosƟng Bats
NesƟng  bird  and  bat  roost  surveys  are  required  from  February  1  to  August  31  and  shall  be  conducted within 7 days of any mechanical or manual treatment areas by a qualified biologist. AddiƟonal wildlife surveys may be required seasonally, as determined by the City of Pleasanton, or its qualified designee.

1. Areas where nesƟng birds and/or bat roosts are found to occur shall have a buffer zone of 500 feet or greater, as determined by the qualified biologist. The qualified biologist reserves the right to increase or decrease the buffer size as appropriate based on topography.

2. Disturbance  of  nests/dens/roosts/nest  caviƟes  shall  be  avoided.  If  the  Contractor  idenƟfies  an acƟve nest/den/roost/nest cavity, a buffer of 100 feet should be immediately established between construcƟon acƟviƟes and the acƟve nest/den/roost/nest cavity so that nesƟng acƟviƟes are not interrupted, and City of Pleasanton staff should be noƟfied. A qualified biologist reserves the right to increase or decrease the buffer size as appropriate based on topography.

San Francisco Dusky‐Footed Woodrat
Woodrats  and  woodrat  nests  receive  a  10‐foot  buffer  at  minimum.  The  majority  of  living  vegetaƟon associated with woodrat nest complexes should remain, where feasible.

1. Woodrat  nests  may  only  be  removed,  if  necessary,  to  access  a  porƟon  of  a  treatment  area otherwise inaccessible or reasonably pass from one treatment polygon to another .

2. Nest removal shall be avoided during the breeding season, if feasible (January 1–September 30).

If woodrat nests must be removed during the breeding season, they will be slowly removed by hand to determine if young are present. If young are present, the nest material shall be replaced, and the nest leŌ alone for 2–3 weeks, at which Ɵme the nest can be rechecked to verify that young are capable of independent survival before proceeding with nest dismantling. A qualified biologist shall be noƟfied to determine if young are present prior to removal.

Alameda Whipsnake
ImplemenƟng treatment acƟviƟes within suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat will require focused surveys to determine presence of Alameda whipsnake each day prior to working at each new area. When crews are working within suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat, a qualified biologist will conduct ongoing focused

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
16 pre‐treatment surveys during treatment acƟviƟes. Within highly suitable habitat, surveys will be repeated in treatment areas immediately prior to vegetaƟon removal to ensure that the species is not present prior to the start of work in each scrub area.

Suitable  Alameda  whipsnake  habitat  is  described  in  the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  (USFWS)  CriƟcal Habitat DesignaƟon as comprising three habitat types: core scrub, dispersal/foraging habitat, and rocky outcrop habitat. Dispersal and foraging habitat include woodland or annual grassland conƟguous to core scrub habitat. When work is occurring within core scrub habitat areas, the crew will work closely with the qualified biologist to selecƟvely remove scrub in a way that retains areas greater than 0.5 acres in size, or scrub areas above 0.2 acres in size that are within 50 feet of scrub patches greater than 0.5 acres in size dimensions areas, and, therefore, retains the overall habitat funcƟon while sƟll serving the needs of the shaded fuel break.

The following techniques would be implemented during treatment in scrub/shrub areas:

1. VegetaƟon removal would occur in irregular, oblong shapes to maintain a natural condiƟon.

2. VegetaƟon removal would avoid rocky outcrops.

3. The overall dominant habitat type would not be converted.

4. VegetaƟon removal would focus on dead, woody vegetaƟon, and invasive plants.

The following addiƟonal measures apply within suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat:

1. Within  suitable  habitat,  heavy  equipment,  including  mowing  equipment  that  may  collapse burrows, would be uƟlized exclusively from stable operaƟng surfaces, such as established roads and trails.

2. Prior to operaƟng staƟonary vehicles and equipment, all contractors, their employees, and agency personnel  would  check  under  and  near  vehicles/equipment  for  the  presence  of  Alameda whipsnake and any wildlife that may have moved there.
a. If  Alameda  whipsnake  or  any  wildlife  are  discovered,  the  qualified  biologist  would  be contacted  immediately;  the  qualified  biologist  shall  have  the  authority  to  halt  Project acƟviƟes unƟl the animal leaves the area of its own accord and shall contact USFWS, as necessary, to determine necessary steps.
b. Manual removal of the species is not anƟcipated during vegetaƟon treatment acƟviƟes, but  permiƩed  biologists  with  applicable  California  Department  of  Fish  and  Wildlife ScienƟfic CollecƟon Permits and/or USFWS 10(a)(1)(A) permits would be on‐call during project acƟviƟes.

3. Within  suitable  Alameda  whipsnake  habitat,  mechanical  treatment  would  be  avoided  when temperatures  are  determined  by  the  qualified  biologist  to  be  too  low  for  Alameda  whipsnake movement (soil surface temperatures reach 66 °F or warmer). a. Manual  treatments  may  occur  in  cooler  condiƟons  aŌer  the  qualified  biologist  has thoroughly surveyed the area.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
17 4. Contractors  would  immediately  (i.e.,  the  same  day)  process  (i.e.,  remove  completely  from  the treatment area, chip, permanently place within the treatment area for soil stabilizaƟon) all cut materials  as  they  are  produced  to  avoid  aƩracƟng  Alameda  whipsnake  to  the  vegetaƟon  piles unless  otherwise  provided  in  Table  2;  if  processing  within  the  same  day  is  not  feasible,  the qualified biologist would advise crews on a suitable locaƟon for temporary storage of cut materials that cannot be processed immediately, or the materials would be deconstructed and invesƟgated prior to processing under the advisory of the qualified biologist, and chipped materials would not be spread on suitable refugia for Alameda whipsnake, such as rodent burrows or rocky outcrops.

A full list of biological resource avoidance measures can be found in the AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon PSA/Addendum, which is available upon request and will be published prior to start of project.

Archaeological Resources
If evidence of archaeological or cultural resources is discovered during project operaƟons, all operaƟons will cease in the vicinity of the potenƟal resource, a 100‐foot buffer will be implemented, and the area shall be avoided. The City of Pleasanton, its supervised designee, or an archaeologist must be noƟfied immediately. The City of Pleasanton, its supervised designee, or an archaeologist may increase or decrease the buffer as deemed appropriate.

Forest Pathogens
Phytophthora ramorum, the pathogen commonly referred to as Sudden Oak Death, infects coastal forests throughout California and Oregon and kills suscepƟble species, including tanoak, coast live oak, California black oak, Shreve’s oak, canyon live oak, and madrone saplings. Host species that are in the Project area include, but are not limited to, California bay laurel, coast redwood, big‐leaf maple, and Douglas‐fir. To avoid the spread of this pathogen:

1. All hand equipment, including boots, will be saniƟzed, and heavy equipment hosed off, prior to and following operaƟons in areas where the spread of forest diseases is possible.

2. Each Ɵme equipment or vehicles leave or arrive at the site, the equipment or vehicles should be inspected by operaƟons personnel for soil and host plant debris (e.g., leaves, twigs, and branches).

Soil and host plant debris should be removed from equipment and vehicles prior to their arrival or departure. This applies to all equipment and vehicles associated with the operaƟon, including heavy equipment, equipment transport trucks and trailers, pick‐up trucks, employees’ personal vehicles, etc.

3. AddiƟonal informaƟon for treatment of diseased material and/or transport can be found at the following links for these forest diseases:
a. Sudden Oak Death: hƩps://www.suddenoakdeath.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2014/12/forestry‐08‐10‐with‐new‐2014‐map.pdf b. Pitch Canker: hƩps://ufei.calpoly.edu/pitch‐canker‐task‐force‐management/

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
18 Invasive Species

1. Invasive  species  should  only  be  chipped  back  into  areas  where  the  same  species  are  already present to avoid and minimize the risk of spread.

2. Equipment,  tools,  boots,  etc.  must  all  be  cleaned  of  dirt  and  debris  before  arriving  on‐site  to prevent import of weed seed into project areas.

3. Within the project area, invasive plant species and two diseases were idenƟfied as occurring or having high potenƟal to occur in the region and have potenƟal to spread in the project area from one work area to another, or from the project area to off‐site areas. These species include:
a. Pitch canker (Fusarium circinatum)
b. Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solsƟƟalis)
c. French broom (Genista monspessulana)
d. SƟnkwort (DiƩrichia graveolens)
Best Management PracƟces for ConstrucƟon
The Contractor shall take all precauƟons and uƟlize all measures necessary to protect the environmental integrity of the project site, including but not limited to the protecƟon of plant, animal, and aquaƟc life.

The following is an integral aspect of this construcƟon project:

LimitaƟons on Earthmoving
 Best management pracƟces for construcƟon period runoff and erosion control will be employed, including but not limited to silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bag berms, sandbag barriers, storm drain inlet protecƟon, tracking controls, and stockpile management  All access to the site shall be via the park staging area o Exact locaƟon of any in‐park staging areas, number of trips planned, and type of vehicles used shall be discussed
o Contractor  shall  be  responsible  for  repairing,  at  their  own  cost  above  and  beyond  the scope of work, any damage to exiƟng fire access roads
 No temporary access roads shall be constructed
 Temporar y staging areas shall avoid disturbance to wildlife habitat and shall be restored to pre‐ construcƟon condiƟons or beƩer
 Trash,  liƩer,  construcƟon  debris,  cigareƩe  buƩs,  etc.,  must  be  stored  in  a  designated  area approved by the inspector or removed from the site at the end of each working day o Upon  compleƟon  of  work,  Contractor  is  responsible  for  removing  all  debris  to  the saƟsfacƟon of the inspector
LimitaƟons on ConstrucƟon Equipment
 No work will occur in flowing or standing water
 Heavy equipment use shall be limited to exisƟng access routes and disturbed, annual grassland turnarounds to ensure protecƟon of the Alameda whipsnake

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
19  The  use  or  storage  of  petroleum‐powered  equipment  shall  be  accomplished  in  a  manner  to prevent the potenƟal release of petroleum materials into waters of the state (California Fish and Wildlife Code 5650)
 All vehicles and equipment on the site must not leak any type of hazardous materials, such as oil, hydraulic fluid, or fuel
o Vehicles and equipment must be inspected and approved by the inspector before use o Fueling shall take place outside of the riparian corridor  If needed, a contained area located at least 50 feet from any watercourse will be designated for equipment storage, short‐term maintenance, and refueling o If possible, these acƟviƟes will not take place on the project site  Vehicles shall be inspected for leaks and repaired immediately  Contractor shall have emergency spill cleanup gear (spill containment and absorpƟon materials) and fire equipment available on‐site at all Ɵmes
o These items are to be reviewed by inspector before construcƟon begins  Leaks,  drips,  and  other  spill  shall  be  cleaned  up  immediately  to  avoid  soil  or  groundwater contaminaƟon
 Major vehicle maintenance and washing shall be done off‐site  All spent fluids, including motor oil, radiator coolant, or other fluids, and used vehicle baƩeries, shall be collected, stored, and recycled as hazardous waste off‐site  Dry cleanup methods (e.g., absorbent materials, cat liƩer, and/or rags) shall be used whenever possible
o If water is used, the minimal amount required to keep dust levels down shall be used  Spilled dry materials shall be swept up immediately

CONCLUSION
If you have any quesƟons or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at the email or phone number listed below. Thank you for the opportunity to support you on this project.

Sincerely,
Alex Hirth
Project Manager
Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

Mobile: (510) 684‐2352| Main: (925) 855‐5500 | Fax: (510) 439‐1104 [email protected]

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
20 Figure 1. AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project locaƟon.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
21 Figure 2. Project details.

Sequoia Ecological ConsulƟng, Inc.

AugusƟn Bernal Community Park Fuel ReducƟon Project
InformaƟon for Request for Bids
March 2026
22 Figure 3. Priority areas and treatment areas.

Item #23

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

April 21, 2026
Public Works - Utilities Division

TITLE: RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE GROUNDWATER SUPPLY PROJECT AND APPROVE JOINT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WITH ZONE 7 WATER
AGENCY

SUMMARY
The City of Pleasanton has historically met its water demand through a combination of treated water purchases from Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) and use of its Groundwater Pumping Quota (GPQ) of 3,500 acre-feet per year (AFY). In November 2022, the City took its remaining active wells out of service after PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were detected, preventing the use of its GPQ. As an interim solution, the City increased water purchases from Zone 7 to offset the loss of groundwater.

In October 2023, the City established the Groundwater Supply Project to construct new wells in the Bernal groundwater sub-basin, with the long-term goal of restoring access to its GPQ through a more reliable and cost-effective supply. In June 2024, the City and Zone 7 entered into an agreement to evaluate the feasibility of jointly implementing the project, recognizing the potential to improve drought resiliency and expand groundwater supply in the Tri-Valley, and provide cost savings to both agencies through economies of scale. Completed in December 2025, the feasibility evaluation found that a joint project is technically feasible; groundwater wells at Tennis Park and Hansen Park would provide sufficient water yield and quality, and the project would not adversely affect groundwater basin sustainability.

In early 2026, the City developed draft terms for a potential joint project with Zone 7 and conducted a cost-benefit analysis comparing joint implementation with a City-only project. The analysis found that a joint project with Zone 7 would provide lower capital and life-cycle costs and a comparable total benefit score. For these reasons, staff recommends the joint implementation alternative.

If the City Council approves this recommendation, the next step would be to finalize agreements with Zone 7 for the design, construction, and operation of the project and return to the City Council for approval at a future meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive an update on the Groundwater Supply Project (CIP No. 24174).

2. Approve implementation of the Groundwater Supply Project as a joint project with Zone 7 Water Agency.

BACKGROUND
The City owns and operates a water distribution system consisting of approximately 330 miles

of piping, 14 pump stations, and 21 storage tanks serving approximately 22,000 customers.

Historically, the City has met its water demand through treated water purchases from Zone 7 and use of its Groundwater Pumping Quota (GPQ) of 3,500 AFY through City-owned Wells 5, 6, and 8. The City’s GPQ has historically represented approximately 20 to 30 percent of the City’s total water supply.

In June 2019, Well 8 was placed out of service due to PFAS detections above advisory levels.

In November 2022, Wells 5 and 6 were also placed out of service following PFAS detections above revised advisory levels. Without the ability to pump groundwater, the City entered into interim arrangements with Zone 7 in January 2023 to offset the loss of its GPQ through increased wholesale water purchases. While this arrangement has enabled the City to meet current demand, it has increased water supply costs and does not provide a reliable long-term solution, particularly during drought conditions.

In September 2020, the City Council approved the initiation of the PFAS Treatment and Wells 5, 6, and 8 Rehabilitation Project. This project was intended to rehabilitate the City’s existing wells to extend their useful life and install PFAS treatment in preparation for future regulations.

The project advanced to the 50 percent design level but was suspended by the City Council in September 2022 due to its estimated $50+ million cost and the City Council’s interest in evaluating alternative water supply strategies.

In October 2022, the City initiated preparation of the Water Supply Alternative Study (WSA), which evaluated multiple water supply alternatives, including a reduced PFAS treatment and well rehabilitation project, new groundwater wells in the Bernal groundwater subbasin, and 100 percent water purchases from Zone 7. In October 2023, the City Council approved the WSA recommendation to construct new groundwater wells in the Bernal groundwater sub-basin to restore the City’s use of its GPQ. This alternative was recommended because the location was expected to provide sufficient water yield and quality at a lower overall cost, given the apparent absence of PFAS and associated treatment needs. The City established the Groundwater Supply Project (CIP No. 24174), and an estimated project budget of $27 million in 2024 dollars was later incorporated into the 2025 Water Rate Study.

At the same time, Zone 7 was evaluating new groundwater wells in the Bernal groundwater sub-basin to increase regional groundwater production capacity and improve drought resiliency in the Tri-Valley region. Recognizing the potential for cost savings through economies of scale, the City and Zone 7 entered into an agreement in June 2024 to evaluate the feasibility of a joint project. Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE) was hired as the lead consultant, with technical engineer support from Carollo Engineers (Carollo), to perform the study. To help fund the City’s cost share of the study, the City received a $1,000,000 grant from the California State Water Resources Control Board.

The LSCE study was completed in December 2025, and an update was provided to the City Council in February 2026. The study found that a joint groundwater supply project in the Bernal sub-basin is technically feasible, groundwater wells at Tennis Park and Hansen Park would provide sufficient water yield and quality, and Zone 7 groundwater modeling indicated the project would not affect groundwater basin sustainability. At that meeting, staff identified the next steps as developing draft terms for a joint project with Zone 7 and performing a cost- benefit analysis comparing a joint project with a City-only project.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Groundwater Supply Project is to restore the City’s ability to use its GPQ, which has been unavailable due to PFAS impacts at Wells 5, 6, and 8. Project goals include:

1. Reduce the City’s overall water supply and distribution costs

2. Improve the City’s water supply reliability, water quality management, and ability to meet future regulatory requirements while minimizing impacts to the community and environment.

In February 2026, Carollo Engineers (Carollo) was hired to assist the City with a cost-benefit analysis comparing the implementation of the Groundwater Supply Project jointly with Zone 7 versus the City's independent implementation. This section provides a summary of that analysis. Attachment 1 provides a full technical report.

Alternatives
To evaluate potential implementation approaches, staff identified the three alternatives shown in Table 1. Each alternative represents a different approach to obtaining the City’s GPQ, including differences in ownership, cost sharing, and operational responsibility. All three alternatives also require improvements to the City’s distribution system to convey the GPQ under future demand conditions. These distribution improvements would be the full responsibility of the City under each alternative.

Alternative 1 (Baseline)
Alternative 1 assumes the City would continue to offset its GPQ through increased wholesale water purchases from Zone 7 as a long-term solution. This alternative does not include the City constructing any new groundwater supply facilities but does require new distribution improvements, including piping upgrades and a new turnout, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Alternative 1: City Distribution Improvements

Advantages of Alternative 1 include the lowest capital improvement cost because only City distribution improvements are required. This alternative would also remove the City from current and future water supply regulatory obligations, provide the shortest implementation schedule, and be the least impacted by delays, as distribution improvements are primarily needed for future conditions. In addition, this alternative would not impact City parks.

Disadvantages of Alternative 1 include the highest life-cycle cost due to continued wholesale GPQ purchases from Zone 7. It would also provide the City with limited control over Zone 7’s blending of surface water and groundwater, which affects the City’s ability to manage distribution system water quality during summer months. In addition, Zone 7 cannot commit to delivering the GPQ over the long term, particularly during drought conditions, and the absence of City wells would leave the City without a redundant water supply source in the event of Zone 7 emergency outages.

Alternative 2 (Joint Project)
Alternative 2 assumes the City and Zone 7 would jointly implement new groundwater wells in the Bernal groundwater sub-basin. As shown in Figure 2, the project would include new wells at Tennis Park and Hansen Park, a transmission main connecting the new wells to the Zone 7 Hopyard Chloramination Facility, and improvements to that facility. Treated groundwater would be delivered to the City through Zone 7’s transmission system and turnouts that also deliver wholesale water purchases. Key draft terms for the joint City and Zone 7 project are summarized in Table 2 and would require further development and finalization if the City Council selects this alternative. City distribution improvements would also be required to

deliver water to City customers. These improvements are identical to the improvements in Alternative 1 and would be the sole responsibility of the City.

Figure 2 – Alternative 2: Joint Groundwater Supply Improvements

Advantages of Alternative 2 include the lowest life-cycle cost and capital costs consistent with

the 2025 Water Rate Study. This alternative would also provide a long-term contract with Zone 7 for the delivery of the City’s GPQ, improved contractual controls on Zone 7’s surface and groundwater blending to support the City’s management of distribution system water quality, and may simplify permitting and create schedule efficiencies that could reduce overall project costs.

Disadvantages of Alternative 2 include the need to construct and operate new well facilities that impact City parks. In addition, the new facilities would rely on Zone 7 transmission systems and would not provide redundancy in the event of a Zone 7 outage. The City would also share responsibility for compliance with future water supply regulations associated with the project facilities and would have limited control over project implementation while remaining fiscally impacted by delays, unless the delay is the fault of Zone 7.

Alternative 3 (City Only Project)
Alternative 3 assumes the City will construct, own, and operate two new groundwater wells, including new chloramination and fluoridation facilities, located at Tennis Park and Hansen Park. Additional City distribution improvements would be required, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Alternative 3: City Well Facilities and Distribution Improvements

Advantages of Alternative 3 include full City control over project implementation and long-term GPQ production. This alternative would also provide the City with an independent groundwater supply source, providing redundancy in the event of regional Zone 7 outages and maximum flexibility to manage distribution system water quality.

Disadvantages of Alternative 3 include a higher life-cycle cost than Alternative 2, including a capital cost that exceeds assumptions in the 2025 Water Rate Study. The City would also be solely responsible for future water supply regulatory compliance associated with the project facilities. In addition, this alternative would have the greatest impact on City parks, including chemical treatment and the potential need for future expansion if required by regulations, and would carry the longest implementation schedule and the greatest financial impacts from delays.

Cost Comparison
Table 3 summarizes the capital cost comparison among the three alternatives. Note that water supply costs shown for Alternative 2 represent the City’s cost share of the joint project.

Table 4 summarizes the annualized costs of the three alternatives, including capital costs, O&M costs, and GPQ purchases from Zone 7. Under Alternative 1, the City would continue purchasing its GPQ from Zone 7 indefinitely to offset the loss of its wells. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the City would continue purchasing its GPQ from Zone 7 until the new groundwater facilities are constructed and operational, which is assumed to occur through 2029 and 2030, respectively.

Benefit Score
To quantify the relative advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, staff developed a weighted benefit score using the following evaluation criteria: Water Supply Reliability (25%), Water Quality Reliability (25%), Ease of Expansion for Treatment (15%), Community and

Environmental Impact (20%), and Implementation Schedule (15%). The resulting scores are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4 – Benefit Score Comparison of Alternatives

Recommendation and Next Step
Staff recommends implementing the Groundwater Supply Project as a joint project with Zone 7 (Alternative 2). As shown in Figure 5, Alternative 2 provides the lowest annualized cost and a benefit score that is comparable to the other options.

Figure 5 – Cost-Benefit Comparison of Alternatives

If the City Council elects to proceed with Alternative 2, the next step would be to finalize agreements with Zone 7 for the design, construction, and operation of the project and return to

the City Council for approval at a future meeting.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This project prepares community water resources for a changing climate, resulting in cost savings, enhanced water quality and availability, improved infrastructure, and increased resiliency.

OUTREACH
The joint feasibility study included community engagement efforts led by the City, including a project website, community engagement events, and notifications of exploratory drilling activities.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the citywide ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Investing in Our Environment, Strategy 3 – Identify funding and implement the recommendations from the Water Supply Alternative Study to resolve PFAS-related water quality issues.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no immediate fiscal impacts associated with approving the staff’s recommended project implementation approach.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Siew-Chin Yeong, Director
of Public Works
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Evaluation of Groundwater Supply Alternatives within Bernal Subbasin - April 2026

2. Groundwater Supply Project Presentation

ATTACHMENT 1

EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES WITHIN BERNAL SUBBASIN – APRIL 2026

The document is available for public viewing at the following link:
https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/weblink/0/doc/312482/Page1.aspx

1 Groundwater Supply Project Update and Recommended Next StepsApril 21, 2026ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda1.Project Purpose and Goals2.Background3.Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Project w/ Zone 7 vs. City Only Project4.Recommendation and Next Steps5.Questions, Discussion & Council Actions2 1 2

2 Project Purpose and Goals3
PurposeRecover the use of the City’s Groundwater Production Quota (GPQ) of 3,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) lost due to the presence of PFAS at City Wells 5, 6, & 8 4Goals1.Reduce the City’s overall water supply and distribution costs2.Improve the City’s water supply reliability, management of water quality, and ability to meet future regulations while mitigating impacts to the community and environment3 4

3 5
…addresses Strategic Plan C.3 –Identify funding and implement the recommendations from the Water Supply Alternative Study to resolve PFAS water quality issue.Groundwater Supply Project……is included in the 2025 Water Rate Study with an approximate budget of $27 million (2024 dollars) Background6
5 6

4 Water Supply and Distribution7 Water Supply1.Wholesale Purchases from Zone 7•Delivered to City via Turnouts 1 through 72.City GPQ of 3,500 AFY•Produced by City Wells 5, 6 and 8•20% to 30% of City demand Water Distribution1.330 miles of piping, 14 pump stations, 21 storage tanks to deliver water to 22,000 customers Impacts of PFAS and Path to Groundwater Supply Project8June 2019: Well 8 Out of Service Due to PFAS Advisory Levels Sept 2020: Council Approves Start of PFAS ProjectSept 2022: Council Suspends PFAS Project Oct 2022: Council Approves Start of WSA StudyNov 2022: Wells 5 & 6 Out of Service Due to Revised PFAS Advisory LevelsJan 2023: City Begins Interim Offset of its GPQ with Zone 7 SupplyOct 2023: Council Approves WSA & Start of GW Supply ProjectJune 2024: Council Approves Feasibility Review of a Joint Project with Zone 7Dec 2025: Feasibility Review of a Joint Project with Zone 7 Completed7 8

5 Summary of Joint Project City Council Presentation (Feb 3, 2026)Technical Feasibility of Joint Project•Implementing a groundwater supply project in the Bernal subbasin jointly with Zone 7 is technically feasible•Sufficient water yield and quality at Tennis Park and Hansen Park•Zone 7 modeling indicates no impacts to sustainability of groundwater basinNext Steps •Develop draft terms for a Joint Project with Zone 7•Perform a cost-benefit analysis of a Joint Project w/ Zone 7 vs. a City Only Project9 Cost-Benefit Analysis10
9 10

6 Evaluation Alternatives1.Alternative 1 – Continue to offset GPQ w/ wholesale purchases from Zone 7 (Baseline Project)2.Alternative 2 – New joint groundwater project w/ Zone 7 (Joint Project)3.Alternative 3 – New City independent groundwater project (City Only Project)11 Alternative 1 (Baseline Project) - Description12Water Supply1.No capital improvements2.City continues to offset its GPQ with Zone 7 purchases at wholesale rate Water Distribution (City Only)1.Pipe upsizing (F-1, F-2, F-6, and F-7)2.New Turnout 8 (NE corner of Bernal Ave. & Vineyard Ave.) 11 12

7 Alternative 1 (Baseline Project) - Pros/Cons13ConsProsHighest life-cycle costLowest capital improvement costLimited control of Zone 7 source blends(impacts ability of City to manage water quality within distribution system)Zone 7 fully responsible for compliance with current & future water supply / quality regulationsZone 7 cannot commit to offset of GPQ during drought or buildout conditionsNo impacts to City parksNo water supply redundancy to Zone 7Shortest implementation schedule and least impacts from delays Alternative 2 (Joint Project) - Description14Water Supply (w/ Zone 7)1.2 new wells (Hansen Park and Tennis Park)2.New transmission main from wells to Zone 7 Hopyard Chloramination Facility3.Upgrades to Hopyard Chloramination Facility4.City receives GPQ from Zone 7 via turnoutsWater Distribution (City Only)1.Same improvements as Alternative 1 13 14

8 Alternative 2 (Joint Project) – Draft Terms w/ Zone 7 151.City Production Capacity Rights: Annual = 3,500 AF; Max Day = 6.2 MG2.Design & Construction Phase:a)Zone 7 Lead Agency b)Consultant / Contractor agreements will be held with the lead agency but require approval from both governing bodiesc)City Cost Share: Wells & Piping = 36%; Hopyard Chloramination Facility = 23%d)Delivery of GPQ during design and construction: i.Zone 7 to supply at wholesale rate ii.Reduces to in-lieu treated water rate if project completion is delayed due to fault of Zone 7e)Provisions for design phase off-rampf)Both agencies to support funding requirements Alternative 2 (Joint Project) – Key Draft Terms 163.Operations Phasea)Zone 7 is responsible for O&M of Project Facilitiesb)City O&M Cost Sharei.Proportional to City vs. Regional annual productionii.Include labor, material/supplies, chemicals, and powerc)Zone 7 to own Project Facilities i.Ongoing discussions on facility buyback optionsd)Land Use: Zone 7 permanent easement and comply with the Public Parks Preservation Acte)Delivery of City GPQi.Zone 7 may use other sources for operational flexibilityii.Zone 7 limited to groundwater sources during summer months when requested by City 15 16

9 Alternative 2 (Joint Project) - Pros/Cons17ConsProsImpacts to City ParksLowest life-cycle cost(capital costs in line with rate study)No water supply redundancy to Zone 7Zone 7 contracted for long-term delivery of GPQCity shares cost responsibility of compliance with water supply / quality regulations at new wellsContractual controls on Zone 7 source blends(improves ability of City to manage water quality within distribution system)Limited implementation control w/ Zone 7 as lead agency and high financial impacts from delaysPartnering with Zone 7 can simplify permitting and offer schedule saving opportunities Alternative 3 (City Only Project) - Description18Water Supply (City Only)1.2 new wells with on-site chloramination and fluoridation (Hansen Park and Tennis Park)Water Distribution (City Only)1.Pipe upsizing (F-1, F-2, F-7, and F-8)2.No new turnout required 17 18

10 Alternative 3 (City Only Project) - Pros/Cons19ConsProsHigher life-cycle cost than Alt 2(capital cost exceeds that in rate study)City controls GPQ productionCity solely responsible for compliance with current & future water supply / quality regulations at new wellsWater supply redundancy to Zone 7Highest impacts to park(includes chemical treatment & potential for future expansion)City can source groundwater independent of Zone 7 (maximizes ability of City to manage water quality within distribution system)Longest schedule and high financial impacts from delaysCity as lead agency controls implementation of project Capital Cost Comparisons20Alternative 3(City Only Project)Alternative 2 (Joint Project)Alternative 1 (Baseline)$28,080,000$15,156,000-Water Supply$6,960,000$12,290,000$12,290,000Water Distribution$35,040,000$27,446,000$12,290,000Total19 20

11 Annualized Cost Comparisons21Alternative 3(City Only Project)Alternative 2 (Joint Project)Alternative 1 (Baseline)$1,361,847$1,066,702$477,657Annualized Capital Costs$1,103,378$895,551$6,018,455Annualized GPQ Offset Purchases from Zone 7$1,645,842$1,522,738$20,894Annualized O&M Costs$4,111,066$3,484,992$6,517,006Total Benefit Score22
(25%)(25%)(16%)(18%)(16%)21
22

12 Cost and Benefits23
Recommended Next Steps24
23 24

13 Recommendation1.Implement the Groundwater Supply Project as a joint project with Zone 7 (Alternative 2)25Next Step1.Finalize agreements with Zone 7 for design, construction, and operation of project and bring to City Council for approval at a future meeting Questions, Discussion, and Council Actions26
25 26

Item #24

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

April 21, 2026
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: CONSIDER AN APPEAL AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF A MINOR PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED STREET-SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO EIGHT FEET TO
ACCOMMODATE A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1011 VISTA OAKS COURT (PUD-25-02M)

SUMMARY
The appellant requests that the City Council overturn the Zoning Administrator’s (ZA) January 9, 2026, denial of a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Modification (Case No. PUD-25- 02M) to reduce the required street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate a detached accessory structure at 1011 Vista Oaks Court. The ZA denied the request, finding the required PUD Modification findings could not be made due to inconsistencies with the adopted PUD-25 development standards and potential impacts on neighborhood character, the streetscape, and public welfare.

The appellant contends that the structure’s open, low-profile design, unique site conditions adjacent to an emergency vehicle access (EVA) corridor, and existing landscaping and retaining walls preserve the streetscape and avoid safety impacts.

On March 25, 2026, the Planning Commission (PC) supported staff's recommendation and unanimously recommended that the City Council uphold the ZA’s decision and deny the appeal, finding the proposed setback reduction is inconsistent with the intent of the PUD-25 standards, as outlined in Attachment 1.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a Minor Planned Unit Development Modification request to reduce the required street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate a detached accessory structure at 1011 Vista Oaks Court (PUD- 25-02M).

BACKGROUND
Proposed Project
The applicant requests approval of a Minor PUD Modification to the approved PUD-25 development plan to reduce the required detached accessory structure street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate the construction of an approximately 360- square-foot, 10-foot-tall, detached accessory structure designed as an outdoor kitchen/storage structure at 1011 Vista Oaks Court. The detached accessory structure features a traditional architectural style, a stucco exterior finish, and a low-profile, sloped roof, all of which would complement the existing residence.

Area and Site Description
The subject property is located within the Lund Ranch II/Diamond Canyon subdivision. The lot is a flat, approximately 0.29-acre, corner parcel with frontage along Vista Oaks Court and along Lund Ranch Road/Spring Creek Terrace, which are connected by an EVA roadway corridor adjacent to the street-side yard. The subject property is developed with an approximately 4,838-square-foot, two-story residence. A previously approved swimming pool is currently under construction in the rear yard. See Figure 1 for more details on the location.

The Lund Ranch II/Diamond Canyon subdivision is a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD-25) approved by the City Council in 2016 (Ordinance No. 2133). PUD-25 includes development standards and Conditions of Approval (COAs) applicable to future development on individual lots. COA 14 establishes accessory structure setbacks that include a 20-foot street-side yard setback for detached accessory structures on corner lots.

Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Subject Property

For full site plan and design details, refer to the project narrative and plans (Attachment 2, Exhibit B).

Zoning Administrator Action
On January 9, 2026, the Zoning Administrator denied the application for failure to make the necessary findings for approval, as documented below and outlined in Attachment 1.

Attachment 2, Exhibit B, includes full details of the Zoning Administrator's decisions, including the findings supporting the denial of the project.

Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Denial
On February 23, 2026, the applicant filed an appeal of the ZA decision (Attachment 2, Exhibit D). As outlined in the letter, the applicant provides the following key points as the bases for the appeal:

1. The detached accessory structure is low-profile, open, and visually subordinate.

2. The project site’s street-side frontage abuts an EVA corridor and is separated by retaining walls, landscaping, and grade changes, making the condition distinct from other corner lots.

3. Streetscape character is maintained through landscape design, walls, and the structure’s transparency.

4. No public safety impacts are created because the pavilion does not obstruct sight lines or encroach into the EVA, and the denial acknowledges building/fire code compliance.

5. Approval can be conditioned to match the submitted design (footprint, height, openness, landscaping) to avoid precedent.

For full appeal details, refer to the appeal narrative attached as Attachment 2, Exhibit D.

On March 25, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council uphold the ZA determination and deny the appeal, based on the ZA’s findings.

Accordingly, the appeal is now before the City Council for consideration and action.

Minor PUD Modifications are reviewed to determine whether the required findings for project approval can be made. Pursuant to the appeal procedures established in the Municipal Code, the City Council is to hear the appeal as a de novo item, and may uphold the denial or grant the appeal and approve the Minor PUD Modification, based on its own findings. If the City Council were to uphold the appeal and approve the project, staff would return at a subsequent hearing with a resolution for approval, including recommended conditions of approval.

DISCUSSION
Minor PUD Modification Findings
After reviewing the proposed project and the applicable findings, the PC concurred with the ZA and staff’s determinations, recommending that the appeal be denied on the basis of the following finding, as summarized below. More exhaustive information supporting the ZA's determination is outlined in the ZA denial letter attached as Attachment 2, Exhibit C.

1. The plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare The ZA and PC found that the proposed reduction of the street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet is not in the best interests of public health, safety, and general welfare.

The 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement in PUD-25 was intentionally established to create a meaningful visual buffer between accessory structures and public streets, preserve the semi-rural and open character of the neighborhood, and maintain a cohesive residential streetscape along Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace. These setbacks ensure that accessory structures remain visually subordinate to the primary residence and allow for substantial landscaping along street frontages, reinforcing the visual openness and spatial separation envisioned for the neighborhood.

Reducing the street-side yard setback to eight feet would place the proposed detached accessory structure substantially closer to the street than permitted under the approved PUD and would alter the established relationship between private development and the public realm. At this reduced distance, the structure would appear more prominent when viewed from

Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace, increasing its apparent mass relative to the street and diminishing the open landscaped corridor that characterizes this portion of the neighborhood.

The reduced setback would also limit opportunities for meaningful landscaping between the structure and the street, resulting in a more built and enclosed appearance and weakening the visual transition from the roadway to the residential lot. This change would detract from the rural and semi-open character envisioned for PUD-25 and could create the perception that accessory development is encroaching into what is intended to function as a shared visual buffer along the street edge. Additionally, locating the structure closer to the roadway may affect sight lines along a corridor that includes an EVA roadway and functions as a secondary circulation route.

For these reasons, the ZA and PC determined that the proposed modification would not be consistent with the neighborhood's design objectives and could not make this finding.

2. The plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan and applicable PUD standards The ZA and PC found that the proposed modification is not consistent with the adopted development standards and intent of PUD-25.

Although PUD-25 generally follows the standards of the R-1-6,500 zoning district, COA 14 purposefully established more restrictive setback requirements for detached accessory structures, including a 20-foot street-side yard setback for corner lots. These standards were adopted following extensive public review during Planning Commission and City Council hearings and were intended to apply uniformly throughout the development.

Allowing a reduction to eight feet would conflict with the adopted PUD standards and weaken the consistency and predictability of the development framework established through the PUD approval process. The requested modification would effectively alter a core development standard that was intentionally adopted as part of the overall neighborhood design.

Accordingly, the ZA and PC determined that this finding could not be made.

3. The plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinity The ZA and PC found that the proposed modification would not be compatible with surrounding development within PUD-25.

The subject property is a corner lot with frontage along Vista Oaks Court and Lund Ranch Road/Spring Creek Terrace. Other similarly situated corner lots within the PUD are subject to and expected to comply with the same 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement for detached accessory structures. Comparable properties include, but are not limited to, 1012 Vista Oaks Court, 2192 Countryside Court, and 2175 Shadow Creek Court.

Allowing the proposed reduction would result in an accessory structure being located substantially closer to the street than permitted on comparable lots, creating an inconsistent development pattern and altering the established visual character of the neighborhood.

Therefore, the ZA and PC determined that this finding could not be made.

4. Grading and site conditions justify the requested modification The ZA/PC found that site conditions do not justify the requested modification.

The subject property is generally flat (especially in the location of the proposed accessory structure) with only a minor slope across the lot. The proposed detached accessory structure would not create grading, engineering, or utility constraints that would necessitate a reduction in the required setback.

Additionally, the lot is comparable in size, configuration, and orientation to other corner lots within PUD-25 that are subject to the same setback requirement and are expected to comply with the adopted development standards. Because no unique physical constraints exist that would warrant deviation from the PUD standards, the ZA/PC determined that this finding cannot be made.

5. Streets, buildings, and other man-made structures are designed and located to complement the established streetscape
The ZA and PC found that the proposed placement of the detached accessory structure would not complement the established streetscape envisioned by PUD-25.

The 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement was adopted specifically to maintain adequate separation between detached accessory structures and public streets and to allow for landscaping that reinforces a consistent residential edge along Lund Ranch Road, Spring Creek Terrace, and the EVA corridor.

Reducing the setback to eight feet would substantially diminish this buffer and disrupt the visual rhythm of development along the street frontage. The resulting condition would introduce a more prominent structure closer to the public right-of-way, contrary to the established streetscape character intended for the neighborhood. Therefore, the ZA and PC determined that this finding cannot be made.

6. Adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the plan While the proposed detached accessory structure could be constructed in compliance with applicable building and fire codes, the requested street-side yard setback reduction raises broader considerations regarding proximity to the street, sight lines, and neighborhood design objectives that were addressed in the original PUD standards (Attachment 2, Exhibit E).

Because these broader considerations are not adequately addressed through the requested Minor PUD Modification, the ZA and PC determined that this finding cannot be made.

7. The plan conforms to the purposes and intent of the PUD District The ZA and PC found that the proposed Minor PUD Modification does not conform to the purposes and intent of the PUD District.

PUD-25 was approved following a comprehensive planning process that established specific development standards for detached accessory structures, including the 20-foot street-side yard setback for corner lots. These standards were intentionally adopted to preserve neighborhood character and maintain a consistent development pattern throughout the subdivision.

To date, no modifications to the street-side yard setback requirement have been approved within PUD-25. Approving a reduction from 20 feet to eight feet—less than even PUD-25’s 10- foot interior side-yard setback requirement—would represent a significant departure from the

adopted standards and could establish a precedent for future deviations that would incrementally erode the integrity of the PUD framework. Accordingly, the ZA and PC determined that this finding cannot be made.

In addition to these above specific points, staff notes the following in support of the bases for denial:
• The development standards for PUD-25 were adopted following extensive public review of the Lund Ranch project over the course of several years, and during Planning Commission and City Council hearings, with such standards intended to apply uniformly throughout the subdivision.

• As part of the review process for PUD-25, the City Council required the subdivision developer to construct the EVA corridor adjacent to the subject property to address project traffic impacts by directing new vehicular trips away from Lund Ranch Road and toward the Sunset Creek Lane extension serving the easterly lots of the subdivision.

The City Council did not indicate that the EVA corridor would alter the applicability of the PUD development standards for the subject parcel as a corner lot. Accordingly, all PUD- 25 standards remain applicable, including the 20-foot street-side yard setback for detached accessory structures.

• While staff understands the desire of the property owner to improve their backyard, purchasers of homes in the subdivision were required to review and sign disclosures provided by the developer, as well as private Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that identify development restrictions specific to the neighborhood. These materials reference PUD-25 and the applicable development standards governing the subdivision.

Summary/Conclusion
In summary, based on the record, the City Council must determine whether the required findings for a Minor PUD Modification can be made. If the City Council determines the proposal is inconsistent with COA 14 of PUD-25 and the intended uniform application of the PUD’s detached accessory structure development standards, and would not complement the established streetscape, it should deny the appeal and uphold the ZA/PC determination.

Alternatively, if the City Council determines that the detached accessory structure’s design and the site’s EVA-adjacent conditions preserve the PUD’s intent and that findings can be made with appropriate, site-specific conditions, it may grant the appeal and approve the Minor PUD Modification and direct staff to return at a subsequent hearing with a resolution for approval and recommended conditions of approval.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 25, 2026, to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project. Only the property owner and their contractor were in attendance and spoke in support of the project. No public comments were submitted.

The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council uphold the ZA’s denial of the Minor PUD Modification, finding that the requested reduction of the street-side yard setback

from 20 feet to eight feet is not consistent with the adopted development standards or the broader design objectives of PUD-25. In its discussion, the Commission emphasized that the existing setbacks and development standards were intentionally established through a comprehensive public process to protect neighborhood character, preserve visual openness, and maintain a consistent and cohesive streetscape. Commissioners noted that these regulations are clear, uniformly applied, and specifically designed to ensure that accessory structures remain subordinate to primary residences while providing adequate landscaping and separation from the public right-of-way.

The Commission further concurred that no unique site constraints exist to justify deviation from the standards and that approving the request would create an inconsistent development pattern relative to other similarly situated corner lots. In affirming the ZA’s decision, the Planning Commission underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the PUD framework, stating that granting such a reduction could set an undesirable precedent for future requests that would incrementally erode established neighborhood protections. Overall, the Commission found that the ZA made the appropriate determination, and that strict adherence to the adopted standards remains necessary to protect public welfare, uphold the intent of the PUD, and ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The proposed use does not involve any hazardous substances, all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
This section is not applicable to this item, since it is a routine item of City business.

OUTREACH
Notice of this application was sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000- foot radius of the subject parcel (Attachment 2, Exhibit F), and published in the Valley Times newspaper on March 13, 2026. At the time this report was published, staff had not received any public comments.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This section is not applicable to this item, since it is a routine item of City business.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact from this item.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

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

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. City Council Resolution

2. Planning Commission Agenda Report and Exhibits B through F

3. Presentation

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DENIAL OF A MINOR PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED STREET-SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO EIGHT FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1011 VISTA OAKS COURT, AS FILED UNDER CASE NO. PUD-25-02M

WHEREAS, on December 5, 2025, Tim Nystrom of NYS Architecture, as the applicant, on behalf of the property owner Terence Tung, applied for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Modification to reduce the required street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate a detached accessory structure located at 1011 Vista Oaks Court (hereinafter “the Property”), Assessor Parcel No. 948-25-12-00, (hereinafter “the Project”); and

WHEREAS, the subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Open Space – Public Health and Safety; and

WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned PUD-LDR/RDR/OS-PHS/WO (Planned Unit Development – Low Density Residential/Rural Density Residential/Open Space – Public Health & Safety/Wildland Overlay) District; and

WHEREAS, a Minor PUD Modification is subject to findings listed in Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Section 18.68.110.B.1 through 7 and requires Zoning Administrator approval; and

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2026, the Zoning Administrator denied the Project pursuant to inconsistencies with the required findings listed in PMC Section 18.68.110.B.1 through 7 and as outlined in Section 4 below; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2026, Tim Nystrom of NYS Architecture, as the applicant, on behalf of the property owner Terence Tung, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination to deny the Project; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project on March 25, 2026, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the agenda report dated March 25, 2026, incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and

WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal pursuant to inconsistencies with the required findings listed in PMC Section

18.68.110.B.1 through 7 and as outlined in Section 4 below; and

WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton was the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council was the decision-making body for the approval of the Project; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project on April 21, 2026, at which time all interested

parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered the agenda report dated March 25, 2026, incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the project based on its inconsistencies with the required findings listed in PMC Section 18.68.110.B.1 through 7 and as outlined in Section 4 below.

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

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

Section 2. The Project is not consistent with the adopted General Plan as it aligns with the applicable land use designations and supports the General Plan’s Programs, Policies, and Goals related to sustainability, community development, and industrial, commercial, and office.

As such, the Project does not comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 65860 regarding zoning consistency with the General Plan.

Section 3. Findings for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) With respect to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The proposed use does not involve any hazardous substances, all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required.

Section 4. Findings for Minor PUD Modification Denial
With respect to the denial of PUD-25-02M, the City Council makes the following findings as required by Section 18.68.110.B.1 through 7 of the PMC:

1. The plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare

The 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement in PUD-25 was intentionally established to create a meaningful visual buffer between accessory structures and public streets, preserve the semi-rural and open character of the neighborhood, and maintain a cohesive residential streetscape along Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace. These setbacks ensure that accessory structures remain visually subordinate to the primary residence and allow for substantial landscaping along street frontages, reinforcing the visual openness and spatial separation envisioned for the neighborhood.

Reducing the street-side yard setback to eight feet would place the proposed detached accessory structure substantially closer to the street than permitted under the approved PUD and would alter the established relationship between private development and the public realm. At this reduced distance, the structure would appear more prominent when viewed from Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace, increasing its apparent mass relative to the street and diminishing the open landscaped corridor that characterizes this portion of the neighborhood.

The reduced setback would also limit opportunities for meaningful landscaping between the structure and the street, resulting in a more built and enclosed appearance and weakening the visual transition from the roadway to the residential lot. This change would detract from the rural and semi-open character envisioned for PUD-25 and could create the perception that accessory development is encroaching into what is intended to function as a shared visual buffer along the street edge.

Additionally, locating the structure closer to the roadway may affect visual sightlines along a corridor that includes an EVA roadway and functions as a secondary circulation route.

For these reasons, the City Council determines that the proposed Minor PUD Modification would not be consistent with the neighborhood's design objectives and that it cannot make this finding.

2. The plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan and applicable PUD standards

Although PUD-25 generally follows the standards of the R-1-6,500 zoning district, COA 14 deliberately established more restrictive setback requirements for detached accessory structures, including a 20-foot street-side yard setback for corner lots. These standards were adopted following extensive public review during Planning Commission and City Council hearings and were intended to apply uniformly throughout the development. As part of that process, the City Council required the subdivision developer to construct the EVA corridor adjacent to the Property to address project traffic impacts by directing new vehicular trips away from Lund Ranch Road and toward the Sunset Creek Lane extension serving the easterly lots of the subdivision. The City Council did not indicate that the EVA corridor would alter the applicability of the PUD development standards for the Property as a corner lot.

Accordingly, all PUD-25 standards remain applicable, including the 20-foot street-side yard setback for detached accessory structures.

Allowing a reduction to eight feet would conflict with the adopted PUD standards and weaken the consistency and predictability of the development framework established through the PUD approval process. The requested modification would effectively alter a core development standard that was intentionally adopted as part of the overall neighborhood design.

Accordingly, the City Council determines that the Project is inconsistent with the applicable PUD standards and that it cannot make this finding.

3. The plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinity

The Property is a corner lot with frontage along Vista Oaks Court and Lund Ranch Road/Spring Creek Terrace. Other similarly situated corner lots within the PUD are subject to and expected to comply with the same 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement for detached accessory structures. Comparable properties include, but are not limited to, 1012 Vista Oaks Court, 2192 Countryside Court, and 2175 Shadow Creek Court.

Allowing the proposed reduction would result in an accessory structure being located substantially closer to the street than permitted on comparable lots, creating an inconsistent development pattern and altering the established visual character of the neighborhood.

Therefore, the City Council determines that the Project is not compatible with the previously developed properties in the vicinity, and that it cannot make this finding.

4. Grading and site conditions justify the requested modification

The Property is generally flat (especially in the location of the proposed accessory structure) with only a minor slope across the lot. The proposed detached accessory structure would not create grading, engineering, or utility constraints that would necessitate a reduction in the required setback.

Additionally, the Property is comparable in size, configuration, and orientation to other corner lots within PUD-25 that are subject to the same setback requirement and are expected to comply with the adopted development standards.

Because no unique physical constraints exist that would warrant deviation from the PUD standards, the City Council determines that this finding cannot be made.

5. Streets, buildings, and other manmade structures are designed and located to complement the established streetscape

The 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement was adopted specifically to maintain adequate separation between detached accessory structures and public streets and to allow for landscaping that reinforces a consistent residential edge along Lund Ranch Road, Spring Creek Terrace, and the EVA corridor.

Reducing the setback to eight feet would substantially diminish this buffer and disrupt the visual rhythm of development along the street frontage. The resulting condition would introduce a more prominent structure closer to the public right-of-way, contrary to the established streetscape character intended for the neighborhood.

Therefore, the City Council determines that the Project is not designed to complement the established streetscape and that it cannot make this finding.

6. Adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the plan

While the proposed detached accessory structure could be constructed in compliance with applicable building and fire codes, the requested street-side yard setback reduction raises broader considerations regarding proximity to the street, sightlines, and neighborhood design objectives that were addressed in the original PUD standards.

Because these broader considerations are not adequately addressed through the requested Minor PUD Modification, the City Council determines that this finding cannot be made.

7. The plan conforms to the purposes and intent of the PUD District

PUD-25 was approved following a comprehensive planning process that established specific development standards for detached accessory structures, including the 20-foot street-side yard setback for corner lots. These standards were intentionally adopted to preserve neighborhood character and maintain a consistent development pattern throughout the subdivision.

To date, no modifications to the street-side yard setback requirement have been approved within PUD-25. Approving a reduction from 20 feet to 8 feet—less than even PUD-25’s 10-

foot interior side-yard setback requirement—would represent a significant departure from the adopted standards and could establish a precedent for future deviations that would incrementally erode the integrity of the PUD framework.

Accordingly, the City Council determines that the Project does not conform to the purposes and intent of the PUD District, and that it cannot make this finding.

Section 5. The City Council hereby denies the appeal of Case No. PUD-25-02M, the application of Tim Nystrom of NYS Architecture, as the applicant, on behalf of the property owner Terence Tung, for a Minor PUD Modification to reduce the required street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate a detached accessory structure located at 1011 Vista Oaks Court.

Section 6. The City Council directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Exemption with the Alameda County Clerk.

Section 7. 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 April 21, 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 April 21, 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Planning CommissionAgenda ReportMarch 25, 2026Item 5SUBJECT: PUD-25-02M APPLICANT: Tim Nystrom/NYS Architecture PROPERTY OWNER: Terence Tung PURPOSE: Appeal of a Zoning Administrator determination to deny a Planned Unit Development Minor Modification request to reduce the required street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate the construction of a detached accessory structure LOCATION: 1011 Vista Oaks Court GENERAL PLAN: Rural Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Open Space Public Health and Safety ZONING: PUD-LDR/RDR/OS-PHS/WO (Planned Unit Development Low Density Residential/Rural Density Residential/Open Space Public Health & Safety/Wildland Overlay) District EXHIBITS: A. Draft ResolutionB. Narrative and PDecember 5,2025C. Denial Letter dated January 9, 2026D.E. Excerpt of PUD-25 Development StandardsF. Location and Notification MapSTAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit A) recommending that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold -25-02M. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The appellant requests that the Planning Commission consider an appeal of the Zoning (ZA) denial of a Minor PUD Modification (Case No. PUD-25-02M) to reduce the required street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate the construction of a detached accessory structure at 1011 Vista Oaks Court. The ZA denied the request on January 9, 2026, finding that the required findings for a Minor PUD Modification could not be made due to inconsistencies with the adopted PUD-25 development standards and potential impacts on neighborhood character, streetscape, and public welfare. The appellant contends

PUD-25-02M, 1011 Vista Oaks Court Planning Commission 2 of 7 that the open, low-profile design, unique site conditions adjacent to an emergency vehicle access (EVA) corridor, and existing landscaping/retaining wall treatments preserve the streetscape and avoid public safety impacts, and requests approval as designed. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed street-side yard setback reduction would be inconsistent with the objectives of the PUD-25 development standards and recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the . BACKGROUND The subject property is located within Lund Ranch II/Diamond Canyon, a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD-25) approved by the City Council in 2016 under Ordinance No. 2133. PUD-25 includes development standards and Conditions of Approval (COAs) applicable to future development on individual lots. COA 14 establishes accessory structure setbacks that include a 20-foot street-side yard setback for detached accessory structures on corner lots. On January 9, 2026, the ZA reduce the detached accessory structure street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate a detached accessory structure. Accordingly, the appeal is now before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council that will consider and act on the appeal at a future City Council hearing. AREA AND SITE DESCRIPTIONS The subject property is in the Lund Ranch II/Diamond Canyon neighborhood. The lot is a flat, approximately 0.29 acre, corner parcel with frontage along Vista Oaks Court and along Lund Ranch Road/Spring Creek Terrace, which are connected by an EVA roadway corridor adjacent to the street-side yard. The subject property is developed with an approximately 4,838-square-foot, two-story residence. A previously approved swimming pool is currently under constructionin the rear yard. See Figure 1 for more details on the location. Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Subject Property

PUD-25-02M, 1011 Vista Oaks Court Planning Commission 3 of 7 PROPOSED PROJECTThe applicant requests approval of a Minor PUD Modification to the approved PUD-25 development plan to reduce the required detached accessory structure street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate the construction of an approximately 360-square-foot, 10-foot-tall, detached accessory structure designed as an outdoor kitchen/storage structure. The detached accessory structure features a traditional architectural style, a stucco exterior finish, and a low-profile, sloped roof, all of which would complement the existing residence. For full site plan and design details, refer to the project narrative and plans attached as Exhibit B. ANALYSIS Minor PUD Modifications are reviewed to determine whether the required findings for project approval can be made. This item is an appeal of the ZModification to reduce the required street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate the construction of a detached accessory structure. The Planning Commission may recommend that the City Council uphold the denial or grant the appeal and approve the Minor PUD Modification, based on the record and applicable findings. Minor PUD Modification Findings After review of the proposed project and the applicable findings, staff concurs with the ZA's determination that the required findings cannot be made for the requested Minor PUD modification as follows: 1. The plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare The ZA found that the proposed reduction of the street-side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet is not in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement in PUD-25 was intentionally established to create a meaningful visual buffer between accessory structures and public streets, preserve the semi-rural and open character of the neighborhood, and maintain a cohesive residential streetscape along Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace. These setbacks ensure that accessory structures remain visually subordinate to the primary residence and allow for substantial landscaping along street frontages, reinforcing the visual openness and spatial separation envisioned for the neighborhood. Reducing the street-side yard setback to eight feet would place the proposed detached accessory structure substantially closer to the street than permitted under the approved PUD and would alter the established relationship between private development and the public realm. At this reduced distance, the structure would appear more prominent when viewed from Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace, increasing its apparent mass relative to the street and diminishing the open landscaped corridor that characterizes this portion of the neighborhood. The reduced setback would also limit opportunities for meaningful landscaping between the structure and the street, resulting in a more built and enclosed appearance and weakening the visual transition from the roadway to the residential lot. This change would detract from

PUD-25-02M, 1011 Vista Oaks Court Planning Commission 4 of 7 the rural and semi-open character envisioned for PUD-25 and could create the perception that accessory development is encroaching into what is intended to function as a shared visual buffer along the street edge. Additionally, locating the structure closer to the roadway may affect visual sightlines along a corridor that includes an EVA roadway and functions as a secondary circulation route. For these reasons, the ZA determined that the proposed modification would not be consistent with the neighborhood's design objectives and could not make this finding. 2. The ZA found that the proposed modification is not consistent with the adopted development standards and intent of PUD-25. Although PUD-25 generally follows the standards of the R-1-6,500 zoning district, COA 14 deliberately established more restrictive setback requirements for detached accessory structures, including a 20-foot street-side yard setback for corner lots. These standards were adopted following extensive public review during Planning Commission and City Council hearings and were intended to apply uniformly throughout the development. Allowing a reduction to eight feet would conflict with the adopted PUD standards and weaken the consistency and predictability of the development framework established through the PUD approval process. The requested modification would effectively alter a core development standard that was intentionally adopted as part of the overall neighborhood design. Accordingly, the ZA determined that this finding could not be made. 3. The plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinity The ZA found that the proposed modification would not be compatible with surrounding development within PUD-25. The subject property is a corner lot with frontage along Vista Oaks Court and Lund Ranch Road/Spring Creek Terrace. Other similarly situated corner lots within the PUD are subject to and expected to comply with the same 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement for detached accessory structures. Comparable properties include, but are not limited to, 1012 Vista Oaks Court, 2192 Countryside Court, and 2175 Shadow Creek Court. Allowing the proposed reduction would result in an accessory structure being located substantially closer to the street than permitted on comparable lots, creating an inconsistent development pattern and altering the established visual character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the ZA determined that this finding could not be made.

PUD-25-02M, 1011 Vista Oaks Court Planning Commission 5 of 7

4. Grading and site conditions justify the requested modification The ZA found that site conditions do not justify the requested modification. The subject property is generally flat (especially in the location of the proposed accessory structure) with only a minor slope across the lot. The proposed detached accessory structure would not create grading, engineering, or utility constraints that would necessitate a reduction in the required setback. Additionally, the lot is comparable in size, configuration, and orientation to other corner lots within PUD-25 that are subject to the same setback requirement and are expected to comply with the adopted development standards. Because no unique physical constraints exist that would warrant deviation from the PUD standards, the ZA determined that this finding cannot be made. 5. Streets, buildings, and other manmade structures are designed and located to complement the established streetscape The ZA found that the proposed placement of the detached accessory structure would not complement the established streetscape envisioned by PUD-25. The 20-foot street-side yard setback requirement was adopted specifically to maintain adequate separation between detached accessory structures and public streets and to allow for landscaping that reinforces a consistent residential edge along Lund Ranch Road, Spring Creek Terrace, and the EVA corridor. Reducing the setback to eight feet would substantially diminish this buffer and disrupt the visual rhythm of development along the street frontage. The resulting condition would introduce a more prominent structure closer to the public right-of-way, contrary to the established streetscape character intended for the neighborhood. Therefore, the ZA determined that this finding cannot be made. 6. Adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the plan While the proposed detached accessory structure could be constructed in compliance with applicable building and fire codes, the requested street-side yard setback reduction raises broader considerations regarding proximity to the street, sightlines, and neighborhood design objectives that were addressed in the original PUD standards (Exhibit E). Because these broader considerations are not adequately addressed through the requested Minor PUD Modification, the ZA determined that this finding cannot be made. 7. The plan conforms to the purposes and intent of the PUD District The ZA found that the proposed Minor PUD Modification does not conform to the purposes and intent of the PUD District.

PUD-25-02M, 1011 Vista Oaks Court Planning Commission 6 of 7 PUD-25 was approved following a comprehensive planning process that established specific development standards for detached accessory structures, including the 20-foot street-side yard setback for corner lots. These standards were intentionally adopted to preserve neighborhood character and maintain a consistent development pattern throughout the subdivision. To date, no modifications to the street-side yard setback requirement have been approved within PUD-25. Approving a reduction from 20 feet to 8 feetless than even PUD--foot interior side-yard setback requirementwould represent a significant departure from the adopted standards and could establish a precedent for future deviations that would incrementally erode the integrity of the PUD framework. Accordingly, the ZA determined that this finding cannot be made. For full ZA determination details, refer to the ZA denial letter attached as Exhibit C. Staff again notes that the development standards for PUD-25 were adopted following extensive public review during Planning Commission and City Council hearings and were intended to apply uniformly throughout the subdivision. As part of that process, the City Council required the subdivision developer to construct the EVA corridor adjacent to the subject property to address project traffic impacts by directing new vehicular trips away from Lund Ranch Road and toward the Sunset Creek Lane extension serving the easterly lots of the subdivision. The City Council did not indicate that the EVA corridor would alter the applicability of the PUD development standards for the subject parcel as a corner lot. Accordingly, all PUD-25 standards remain applicable, including the 20-foot street-side yard setback for detached accessory structures. Staff also notes that purchasers in the subdivision were required to review and sign disclosures provided by the developer, as well as private Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that identify development restrictions specific to the neighborhood. These materials reference PUD-25 and the applicable development standards governing the subdivision. Finally, property owners and designers are always encouraged to consult with Planning Division staff prior to preparing plans for rear-yard improvements anywhere in the City to confirm the applicable development standards and requirements for a proposed project. In the appeal letter received February 23, 2026, the appellant asserts that: 1. The detached accessory structure is low-profile, open, and visually subordinate. 2. The project -side frontage abuts an EVA corridor and is separated by retaining walls, landscaping, and grade changes, making the condition distinct from other corner lots. 3. Streetscape character is maintained through landscape design, walls, and the . 4. No public safety impacts are created because the pavilion does not obstruct sightlines or encroach into the EVA, and the denial acknowledges building/fire code compliance.

PUD-25-02M, 1011 Vista Oaks Court Planning Commission 7 of 7

5. Approval can be conditioned to match the submitted design (footprint, height, openness, landscaping) to avoid precedent. For full appeal details, refer to the appeal narrative attached as Exhibit D. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject parcel (Exhibit F), and it was published in the Valley Times newspaper on March 13, 2026. At the time this report was published, staff had not received any public comments. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The proposed use does not involve any hazardous substances, all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION Based on the record, the Planning Commission must determine and recommend to the City Council whether the required findings for a Minor PUD Modification can be made. If the Planning Commission determines the proposal is inconsistent with COA 14 and the intended detached accessory structure development standards, and would not complement the established streetscape, it should recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Zdenial. Alternatively, if the Planning Commission determines that the -adjacent -specific conditions, it may recommend that the City Council grant the appeal and approve the Minor PUD Modification. Primary Author: Eric Luchini, Senior Planner, 925-931-5612 or [email protected]. Reviewed/Approved By: Derek Farmer, Assistant Director of Community and Economic Development and Planning Manager Julie Harryman, Assistant City Attorney

Date: November 21, 2025Subject: Request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Minor ModificationAddress: 1011 Vista Oaks Court, Pleasanton CA Dear City of Pleasanton Planning Manager,I am writing regarding the residential construction project currently underway at 1011 Vista Oaks Court where we have already secured and received a valid building permit for a new swimming pool. As part of the approved plans, the homeowner has also designed a comprehensive outdoor living environment, which includes landscaping, hardscaping, and a custom outdoor kitchen pavilion adjacent to the pool area.Recently, we were informed that the City has applied a 20-foot setback requirement specific to the pool area, and that in order to proceed with the pavilion, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning modification may be required. This unexpected condition has placed the entire project on hold, despite the fact that:1.The Pool Permit is Already Approved and Under Construction: Construction has commenced ingood faith, under the valid pool permit issued by the City. Halting the project mid-stream presentssignificant scheduling, weather, and cost concerns as winter approaches.2.No Utilities Conflict Identified:Through inspection and review, no underground utilities have beenlocated within the proposed construction area for the pavilion. There is no evident safety, access, orinfrastructure concern that would necessitate the 20-foot setback.3.Architectural and Design Integrity: The homeowner worked diligently with architects anddesigners to create a cohesive outdoor living plan that integrates the pool, pavilion, and hardscapefeatures into a single functional design. Relocation or removal of the pavilion would compromise theoverall flow and purpose of the project.4.Homeowner Expectations and Investment:The homeowner purchased this property and investedsubstantially in both design and construction without prior notice of a 20-foot setback affecting the poolarea. The setback condition was not evident during the initial permit process and has createdunforeseen hardship.In light of the above, we respectfully request that the City approve the construction of the outdoor kitchen pavilion as designed and allow us to proceed without delay. From both a construction andarchitectural standpoint, the pavilion poses no conflict with city infrastructure or safety standards. From a homeowner’s perspective, it represents significant personal investment and the centerpiece of their outdoor living vision. We ask the City of Pleasanton to consider modifying the PUD for this lot and allow for a reduction in the corner lot side yard setback from 20’-0” to 8’-0” in order to allow for the new kitchen pavilion to be designed and constructed. We greatly appreciate your time, attention, and consideration of this request, and we are available to provide any additional documentation, plans, or inspections as needed to support approval.Tim Nystrom, AIA ArchitectNYS Architecture, Inc. 707.227.2625 R E C E I V E DCITY OF PLEASANTON PLANNING DIVISIONEXHIBIT B12/05/25PUD-25-02M

PAVILLION ROOF FRAMINGLEGEND: B.O.B. --- BOTTOM OF BEAM. S.A.D. --- SEE ARCHITECTURE PLAN. 9'-1012 S.A.D.30'-0" S.A.D.8'-1012" S.A.D.12" TYPICALPAVILLION FOUNDATIONNOTE: ALL CABANA FRAMING ARE PRESSURE TREATED ORDENSE REDWOOD LUMBERSPOOL CABANA TRELLIS FRAMING12" TYPICAL7'-10" S.A.D.15'-7" S.A.D.POOL CABANA FOUNDATION

January 9, 2026 Via email Tim Nystrom NYS Architecture Napa, CA 94558 Subject: Planned Unit Development Minor Modification (PUD-25-02M) Proposed Reduction of Street-Side Yard Setback 1011 Vista Oaks Court Effective Date: January 25, 2026 Dear Mr. Nystrom: Thank you for your application as described above. The City of Pleasanton Planning Division reviewed your request for a Planned Unit Development Minor Modification and is unable to support the request as detailed below. As such, PUD-25-02M is denied by the Zoning Administrator. Notice of the Minor PUD Modification was sent to neighboring residents on December 30, 2025, and no public comments were received at the time this letter was prepared. Project Description: Application for a Planned Unit Development Minor Modification to the approved PUD development plan (PUD-25) to reduce the accessory structure street side yard setback from 20 feet to eight feet to accommodate a new kitchen pavilion at 1011 Vista Oaks Court. Property Background: The zoning for the subject property, 1011 Vista Oaks Court, is PUD-LDR/RDR/OS-PHS/WO (approved by ordinance 2133). The Planned Unit Development (PUD), referred to as Lunch Ranch II (PUD-25), was originally approved by the City Council in 2016. In 2021, a modification (PUD-25-01M) was made to the home designs in the PUD; however, no other changes were made to the original PUD-25 Conditions of Approval. The PUD has an extensive history, including an initial project in 2002 that was iterated upon and modified in 2007 and again in 2008. The Lund Ranch II project, which was eventually approved, underwent a series of hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council in 2015 and 2016. Ultimately, when approved, the PUD included a set of Conditions of Approval (COA), including development standards for future development on the lots. COA 14 outlines the development standardsand notes that the standards largely align with those of the R-1-6,500 district, with some exceptions, including those for accessory structures. The PUD intentionally increased the R-1-6,500 setbacks for accessory structures requiring 10 feet from any rear yard property line, 10 feet from any interior side

PUD-25-02M, 1011Vista Oaks CourtJanuary 9, 2026

yard property line, and 20 feet from any street side corner property line. The subject property is considered a corner lot as it has streets/access along both the north-west side (Vista Oaks Court) and the south-west side (Lund Ranch Road/Spring Creek Terrace connected/connected by an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) roadway), as shown in Exhibit A below. As such, the minimum street-side setback along the south-west side of the subject property for accessory structures is 20 feet as outlined in COA 14. This setback is the standard for accessory structures for other homes along Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace that have their side yard along either street (e.g., 1012 Vista Oaks Ct, 2192 Countryside Ct, 2175 Shadow Creek Ct, etc.). Exhibit A PUD Minor Modification Findings for Denial: 1. Whether the plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfareThe Zoning Administrator finds that the proposed PUD Minor Modification to reduce the street-side yard setback for an accessory structure is not in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Street-side setbacks within PUD-25 were intentionally increased beyond the standard R-1-6,500 requirements to provide a meaningful visual buffer between accessory structures and public streets, preserve a sense of openness and rural character, and maintain a cohesive and uncluttered residential streetscape along Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace. These setbacks were designed to ensure that accessory structures remain visually subordinate to the primary residence, allow for substantial landscaping and open space along street frontages, and prevent the appearance of development crowding the public right-of-way.

PUD-25-02M, 1011Vista Oaks CourtJanuary 9, 2026

Reducing the required street-side setback from 20 feet to eight feet would place the proposed kitchen pavilion substantially closer to the street than allowed under the approved PUD and would alter the established visual relationship between private development and the public/common area. At this reduced distance, the structure would be more prominent when viewed from Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace, increasing its apparent mass and scale relative to the street and diminishing the open, landscaped corridor that characterizes this portion of the neighborhood. The reduced setback would also limit the opportunity for meaningful landscaping between the structure and the street, resulting in a harder, more built appearance and weakening the visual transition from the roadway to the residential lot. This change would detract from the rural and semi-open character envisioned for PUD-25 and would create the perception that private accessory development is encroaching into what is expected to be a shared visual and spatial buffer along the street edge. Additionally, the closer proximity of the structure to the roadway may affect visual sightlines, particularly along a corridor that includes an EVA roadway and serves as a secondary circulation route. Collectively, these visual and spatial impacts would be inconsistent with the approved PUD design framework and the anticipated streetscape character of Lund Ranch Road and Spring Creek Terrace. Because the requested modification would undermine these established objectives, the Zoning Administrator is unable to make this finding. 2.The Zoning Administrator finds that the proposed PUD Minor Modification is not consistent with the development standards and intent of the approved PUD-for this area. While the PUD generally aligns with the R-1-6,500 district standards, COA 14 deliberately imposed more restrictive setback requirements for accessory structures, including a 20-foot street-side yard setback for corner lots. These standards were adopted following extensive review and deliberation during multiple Planning Commission and City Council hearings and were intended to apply uniformly throughout the development. Reducing the required street-side setback for this property to eight feet would conflict with the adopted PUD standards and weaken the consistency and predictability established by the PUD. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator is unable to make this finding. 3. Whether the plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinityThe Zoning Administrator finds that the proposed PUD Minor Modification is not compatible with the surrounding development within PUD-25. The subject property is a corner lot with frontage along both Vista Oaks Court and Lund Ranch Road/Spring Creek Terrace. Other similarly situated properties within the PUD are expected to comply

PUD-25-02M, 1011Vista Oaks CourtJanuary 9, 2026

with the 20-foot street-side setback standard for accessory structures. Other similarly situated properties include, but are not limited to, 1012 Vista Oaks Court, 2192 Countryside Court, and 2175 Shadow Creek Court. Allowing a reduction to eight feet would result in an accessory structure being located substantially closer to the street/EVA than would be permitted on comparable lots, creating a potentially inconsistent development pattern and altering the established visual character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator is unable to make this finding. 4. Whether grading and site conditions justify the requested modificationThe Zoning Administrator acknowledges that the subject property is generally flat with a minor slope across the lot and that the proposed kitchen pavilion would not create grading, utility, or engineering constraints. However, the absence of physical constraints does not constitute a special circumstance warranting modification of the established PUD development standards. The subject lot is similar in size, width, and configuration to other corner lots within PUD-25 that are subject to and are expected to comply with the same street-side setback requirements. As such, site conditions do not justify deviation from the approved standards, and the Zoning Administrator is unable to make this finding. 5. Whether streets, buildings, and other manmade structures are designed and located tocomplement the established streetscapeThe Zoning Administrator finds that the proposed placement of the accessory structure would not complement the established streetscape envisioned by PUD-25. The 20-foot street-side setback requirement was intentionally adopted to provide adequate separation between accessory structures and public streets, allow for landscaping, and to maintain a consistent residential edge along Lund Ranch Road, Spring Creek Terrace, and the EVA. Locating the proposed kitchen pavilion only eight feet from the street-side property line would significantly diminish this buffer and disrupt the visual rhythm of development along these streets. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator is unable to make this finding. 6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the planWhile the proposed accessory structure could be constructed in compliance with applicable building and fire codes, the requested setback reduction raises broader safety considerations related to proximity to the street, sightlines, and neighborhood character that were addressed through the original PUD standards. Because these considerations are not adequately mitigated by the proposed PUD Minor Modification, the Zoning Administrator is unable to make this finding.

PUD-25-02M, 1011Vista Oaks CourtJanuary 9, 2026

7. Whether the plan conforms to the purposes and intent of the PUD District The Zoning Administrator finds that the proposed PUD Minor Modification does not conform to the purposes and intent of the PUD District. PUD-25 was approved following a lengthy planning process that resulted in specific and intentionally conservative development standards for accessory structures. To date, no modifications to the street-side yard setback standards have been approved within the PUD. Approving a reduction from 20 feet to eight feet, which is less than even the 10-foot interior side yard standard, would set a precedent for future development and incrementally erode the integrity of the PUD framework. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator is unable to make this finding. Because the Zoning Administrator cannot make the required findings for approval of a PUD Minor Modification, the request to reduce the accessory structure street-side yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet for 1011 Vista Oaks Court is denied. Any interested party may file an appeal of this denial within 15 days of the date of denial. Further, per Pleasanton Municipal Code section 18.144.010, the City Council may elect to review this action within 15 days following the date of denial, or at its next regular meeting (January 20, 2026), whichever is later. Therefore, denial of the PUD Modification is effective on January 25, 2026, unless appealed prior to that time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 931-5612 or via email at [email protected] Sincerely, Eric Luchini Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator

R E C E I V E DCITY OF PLEASANTON PLANNING DIVISIONEXHIBIT B02-23-26PUD-25-02M

© Latitude Geographics Group Ltd.2,929.2THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONNAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_USFeet2,929.2Notes Notes
Legend
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is forreference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current, or otherwise reliable.1,464.600 1:17,575 Fire Station
School
Park
Parcels

4/9/2026
1 1011 Vista Oaks Court
Minor PUD Modification Appeal
PUD-25-02M
City Council
April 21, 2026
Summary and Purpose
• Request: Minor PUD Modification to reduce street-side yard setback from 20 ft. to 8 ft. for a detached accessory structure on a corner lot located at 1011 Vista Oaks Court (Case No. PUD-25-02M)
• Staff’s recommends the City Council deny the appeal, upholding the Zoning Administrator’s (ZA) determination to deny the Minor PUD Modification
1 2
ATTACHMENT 3

4/9/2026
2 Regulatory Framework•The City Council must determine whether the required Minor PUD Modification findings can be made•ZA, PC, and staff conclude that none of the required findings can be made due to inconsistencies with the PUD-25 objective development standards and adverse streetscape/neighborhood character effects•Key theme: COA 14’s 20-ft street-side setback for corner lots was intentionally adopted by the City Council to preserve streetscape and apply uniformly•Key theme: The street-side yard reduction request is less than the minimum required 10-ft interior side yard setback development standard for the subdivision•Key theme: All property owners were provided CC&Rs by the developer that included approved objective development standards and were required to sign disclosures acknowledging receipt of said CC&Rs 3 4

4/9/2026
3 5
6

4/9/2026
4 Zoning Administrator’s Findings for DenialZA Findings Supported by Planning Commission and Staff:•Finding 1: Public Health, Safety & General Welfare•Finding 2: Consistency with General Plan & Adopted PUD-25 Standards (COA 14)•Findings 3–5: Compatibility, Site Conditions, and Streetscape Design•Findings 6–7: Public Safety Design Objectives & PUD Intent / Precedent 7 8

4/9/2026
5 Addressing Appellant’s Key Points•Low-profile/open design does not resolve the Low-profile/open design does not resolve the fundamental conflict with COA 14•EVA adjacency was contemplated in subdivision approvals; the City Council did not indicate EVA presence changes corner-lot standards (20-ft street-side yard setback still applies)•Conditions to “avoid precedent” are limited because the land use action itself changes the standard and can be cited by future applicants Summary and RecommendationThe City Council may:• Find the proposal is inconsistent with COA 14 and the intended uniform applicability of the PUD’s detached accessory structure development standards and recommend denial of the appeal, upholding the ZA’s determination; or • Find the proposal preserves the PUD’s intent and that the required findings can be made, and recommend approval of the appeal, overturning the ZA’s determinationStaff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the ZA denial of Case No. PUD-25-02M 9 10

Item #25

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

April 21, 2026
Community and Economic Development

TITLE: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.110 OF THE

PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW

POLICES RELATED TO APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS FACILITIES (MACRO

TOWERS, SMALL CELLS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES),

AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPDATING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY

ADDING WIRELESS APPLICATION FEES

SUMMARY
Areas within Pleasanton lack adequate wireless phone, voice, and data services, negatively impacting residents, businesses, and visitors. The lack of cellular coverage also compromises the public's ability to communicate and receive alerts and information during an emergency.

Over the last few months, staff has performed a comprehensive review of the City’s current wireless rules and processes and determined that the City's existing wireless ordinance is outdated and overly restrictive, and has discouraged wireless providers from locating facilities in Pleasanton.

Staff has worked closely with specialized telecommunications counsel to draft a new ordinance and policies addressing the three major types of wireless projects: new large or “macro” facilities, small wireless facilities (small cells), and modifications to existing facilities. The goal of the attached draft ordinance and policies is to improve coverage throughout Pleasanton while maintaining standards related to appropriate siting and aesthetics. If adopted by the City Council, the new policies will also provide staff with the ability to begin work on the Cellular Lease Revenue Program, which the City Council identified as a priority.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt an ordinance repealing and replacing Chapter 18.110 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code concerning Personal Wireless Service Facilities

2. Approve a resolution adopting three new wireless policies related to applications for:
macro towers, small cells, and modifications to existing facilities

3. Adopt a resolution updating Section II of the Master Fee Schedule (MFS) to create Wireless Application Fees

BACKGROUND
Regulatory Background
Local authority over wireless communications facilities exists at an often-complex intersection of state law, federal law, technological changes, and public policies. Laws and regulations impact not only which aspects of wireless projects municipalities may regulate, but also how, when, and even for what purpose. The proposed policies establish the regulatory process for all requests for the City’s regulatory authorization to construct, install, operate, collocate,

modify, relocate, remove, or otherwise deploy wireless facilities within the City’s territorial and jurisdictional boundaries, consistent with the overarching regulatory framework established by federal and state law.

Key Points Regarding Federal and State Laws
The following outlines key aspects of federal and state laws regarding telecommunications facilities. A more robust discussion of the legal and technological developments relevant to the City’s ability to regulate wireless facilities is provided in Section 1 of each proposed policy (Attachment 2).
• Cities are prohibited from denying any telecommunications carrier the ability to provide service and meet their coverage needs, except in limited circumstances where a denial is supported by substantial evidence in a written record, such as when a proposed wireless facility would have a significant impact on the environment, historic resources, or community aesthetics that cannot be mitigated, or where the applicant has failed to comply with applicable, competitively neutral regulations.

• Cities are prohibited from denying applications based on health concerns associated with radio frequency (RF) emissions so long as the facility complies with the standards set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To ensure compliance, the City requires all applicants to submit an RF emissions report which is then reviewed for the City by an independent expert.

• Strict, presumptively reasonable timing requirements, commonly referred to as “shot clocks”, are placed on the City’s decision-making. If the City fails to render a decision on a wireless application within the specified timelines, which range from 60 to 150 days depending on the application type, the application may be deemed approved. Generally, the shot clock begins to run the day after an application is submitted. The shot clock may be tolled (paused) in limited circumstances, such as when an application is incomplete, but only if the locality notifies the applicant of the application’s deficiencies within a specified number of days. The tolling period ends once the applicant resubmits in response to the incomplete notice. The locality and applicant may also agree in writing to voluntarily toll the shot clock for mutually agreeable periods.

Purpose of the Ordinance Amendment and New Policies
In recent months, staff from the City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, Community and Economic Development, and Public Works Departments have worked collaboratively to review and recommend comprehensive updates to the existing Wireless Ordinance and related policies. A key observation is that the existing framework is outdated, and in its current form includes regulations scattered in various places, and that collectively are out of step with current state and federal regulations. The existing policies are also overly restrictive, resulting in very poor wireless coverage in many parts of Pleasanton. For example, under the City’s current rules, wireless facilities are not allowed to be located in any residential zoning district or within any zoning district if the facility is proposed within 200 feet of any dwelling unit, park, school, or senior care facility. The result is that there are large areas within Pleasanton where facilities are prohibited or otherwise infeasible.

With increased reliance on cellular technology and mobile devices in everyday life, these

deficiencies affect residents and businesses and impair emergency services' ability to receive and communicate in an emergency. Additionally, in August 2025, the City Council identified the development of the Cellular Lease Revenue Program as a City Council priority. The updated ordinance and policy would create additional opportunities to site wireless facilities on City- owned property, potentially generating lease revenue. As lessor of these properties, the City would have considerable latitude to determine where these types of facilities should be located and the most appropriate design for each site.

As part of the amendments to the City’s wireless ordinance and policies, City staff also recommends updating the Master Fee Schedule to reflect the actual cost of processing applications for wireless facilities through newly established Wireless Facility Fees.

The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended adoption of the ordinance and policies at its March 11, 2026, meeting.

DISCUSSION
The City retained specialized telecommunications counsel (attorney David Nagele of Coastal Tower Law, PC) to help navigate the complexity of these laws and to draft a new ordinance along with policies covering three different types of wireless applications (macro facilities, small cell facilities, and modifications to existing facilities).

Amendments to Wireless Ordinance (PMC Chapter 18.110)
The proposed amendments (Attachment 1) will repeal and replace Chapter 18.110 of the municipal code. Instead of providing detailed regulatory standards for wireless facilities in the ordinance, the new ordinance refers to and incorporates three policies that the City Council can adopt by resolution. Given the complex and continually evolving nature of federal and state laws concerning wireless, this approach enables the City to adapt its policies more flexibly over time and to remain in step with regulatory changes and technological developments.

Wireless Facilities Policies
Below is a brief description of each technology, followed by the key components in each policy.

Each policy is compliant with state and federal law and integrates requirements, such as location preferences, preferences for types of support structures, and encouraged, discouraged, or prohibited installations, as well as aesthetic requirements, to ensure that new facilities are well-sited and as visually unobtrusive as possible.

1. Macro Wireless Facilities
Macro wireless facilities are large scale cellular towers with antennas that are designed to provide cellular coverage over a large geographic area. They are considered the backbone of the cellular network provided by carriers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon and typically provide a coverage radius of one to three or more miles depending on terrain, vegetation, and other factors.

Macro facilities can take a variety of forms, including freestanding towers or other support structures (such as monopoles or faux-tree structures) or mounted on rooftops and buildings.

An important concept in the design of macro facilities is the use of “stealth” approaches, which are ways to conceal or disguise them to reduce visual impact. Examples of stealth approaches include concealment techniques such as faux-tree towers, integration into a building’s design

(such as within church steeples), and installed behind existing building features (mechanical screens on a rooftop that already conceal HVAC equipment). Attachment 4 includes photos of existing macro facilities in Pleasanton.
• Shot Clock: Public agencies have 90 to 150 shot clock days depending on the wireless facility type to render a decision for a macro application, or the applicant may seek remedies such as having the application be deemed approved under California Government Code Section 65964.1, or judicial review and action in court. • Noticing:
o Within 10 days of receipt of an application, staff will mail notice to all properties (owners and occupants) within 500 feet of the boundary of the proposed wireless facility. In its report to the Planning Commission, staff recommended a noticing radius of 300 feet. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council adopt a 500-foot noticing radius for macro facilities. Notice will also be published in the newspaper or posted. The notice will provide the location and general description of the project, and the contact information for City staff for interested persons to submit comments or request a hearing.
o Anyone interested in requesting a hearing must do so within 30 days of the date the notice was mailed. In its report to the Planning Commission, staff had recommended giving persons 10 days from the date of notice of an application to request a hearing.

The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council allow 30 days. While staff recognizes the challenges that the shot clock rules present, staff believes that it can accommodate the 30-day timeline.
• Decision: Within 5 days of the Zoning Administrator’s decision (or the Planning Commission’s decision, if referred by the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission) on an application, the City will provide written notice of the decision to the applicant and to the City Council.
• Appeals or Calls for Review: Any interested person may file an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s or Planning Commission’s decision within 10 days of the decision.

Appeals will be heard by the City Council. Additionally, any member of the City Council may submit a “call for review” within 10 days of the Zoning Administrator’s decision and have the application come to the City Council for consideration. • Locations: The policy ranks possible locations for facilities from Preferred to Discouraged.
o Preferred Locations include: parcels designated industrial, commercial, office, mixed use, agriculture, public and institutional, and parcels with a public park, City water tank, existing school or religious institution, and within the Downtown Specific Plan Area (if the facility is stealth and on a rooftop or architecturally integrated into an existing building), or parcels with no underlying zoning but adjacent to or within the land use designations previously identified.
o Discouraged Locations include: where the facility is not stealth and within 500 feet of an existing tower; where the facility is not stealth and visible from I-580 or I-680, a designated scenic corridor, or within 200 feet of an historic resource; or where the facility is not stealth and within the Downtown Specific Plan Area or is an installation of a tower or other freestanding facility (flagpole, sign, etc.) even if stealth; or residential land use designations; or any location within 100 feet from a residential

dwelling unit.
• Support Structures: The policy sets standards for support structures and ranks them preferred to discouraged, e.g., locating on a rooftop or on an existing structure is preferred while installation of a new pole in the public right of way is discouraged. • Design and Aesthetic Standards: The policy sets standards for the design and aesthetics of wireless facilities, including that the facilities be stealth to the maximum extent feasible with concealment elements, measures and techniques that mimic or blend with the underlying support structure, surrounding environment, and adjacent uses.
• Consultant Review: The Director will utilize an independent consultant with specialized expertise to review each permit for completeness and accuracy, compliance with RF regulations set by the FCC, and compliance with design and aesthetic requirements, with these costs borne by the applicant (through collection of a deposit).

2. Small Wireless Facilities
A small wireless facility (small cell) is a cell site designed to provide service coverage and capacity in areas where traditional macro wireless facilities either cannot reach or where additional capacity for users is needed. Small cells have a smaller coverage area than macro cell sites and are usually installed closer together to provide the desired coverage and capacity. The signal range for small cells varies from a few hundred feet to upwards of 1,000 feet, depending on terrain, vegetation, and the radio frequencies used. Small cells are often used (most commonly on city streetlights and utility poles) to add capacity in high-traffic areas, dense urban areas, and suburban communities, where people are using smartphones and other devices. Attachment 4 includes photos showing typical small cell facilities. • Shot Clock: Public agencies have 60 to 90 shot clock days depending on the small wireless facility type to render a decision on the application, or the applicant may seek remedies such as having the application be deemed approved under California Government Code Section 65964.1, or judicial review and action in court. • Noticing: Within 10 days of receipt of an application, staff will mail notice to all properties (owners and occupants) within 300 feet of the boundary of the proposed wireless facility.
• Decision: Within 5 days of the Zoning Administrator’s decision on an application, the Community Development Department will provide written notice of the decision to the applicant.
• Appeals: Any interested person may file an appeal within seven days of the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The appeal will be heard by the City Manager, whose decision shall be final.
• Locations: The policy ranks possible locations from “preferred” to “discouraged.” o Preferred Locations include arterial, collector, residential collector or local roads within industrial, commercial, office, or mixed-use and open space zoning areas, followed by areas categorized as open space, community facilities, and then arterial or collector roads in residential.
o Discouraged Locations include local or residential collector roads in residential zoning, locations on Main Street between Bernal Avenue and Del Valle Parkway, within a scenic corridor or within 200 feet of a historic resource, or within 100 feet of a

residential dwelling unit.
o The policy includes other considerations, e.g., not placing a small wireless facility directly in front of any door or window, or in any place that would obstruct view lines for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.
• Support Structures: The policy sets standards for support structures and ranks them preferred to discouraged, e.g., locating on an existing streetlight pole is preferred while installing a new pole is discouraged.
• Consultant Review: The Director will utilize an independent consultant with specialized expertise to review each permit for completeness and accuracy, compliance with RF regulations set by the FCC, and compliance with design and aesthetic requirements.

These costs are borne by the applicant through collection of a deposit.

Master Fee Schedule Amendments
With adoption of the Ordinance and policies, staff recommends updating the Master Fee Schedule to incorporate fees for review of the three major types of wireless facilities. The proposed fees, which would be incorporated in Section II of the Master Fee Schedule are as follows. Each fee was computed based on the estimated staff time to review the applications, and current hourly costs for each position.

Table 1. Wireless Facility Review Fees
Application Type Application Cost
Macro Wireless Facilities (per site) $3,713
Small Wireless Facility (per site) $3,168
Modifications to Existing Wireless Facilities (per site) $823 Consultant Review of Wireless Permits
(applies to all Wireless Facility application types)
$4,000 deposit (total fee is
actual cost)

A Resolution for adoption of the proposed updates to the Master Fee Schedule is included as Attachment 3.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission considered the Ordinance and proposed policies at a public hearing on March 25, 2026. As described above, the Planning Commission was supportive of the Ordinance and policies as recommended by staff, with suggested changes to a) increase the noticing radius for macro facilities from 300 feet to 500 feet; and b) increase the period during which a public hearing could be requested from 10 days to 30 days after notices are published. Staff had no objection to these changes, and so they are reflected in the draft policies as presented to City Council. One member of the public spoke at the meeting in support of the proposed Ordinance and policies. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance and policies with the aforementioned changes.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The proposed code amendment and three policies are not considered a “project” under the