Pleasanton City Council
July 21, 2026

Approval of this action advances the citywide ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Funding our Future, supporting financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, increased revenue, and cost containment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The LMDs are special assessment districts managed by the City. Funds collected within each district may be used only for that district and may not be commingled. As required by law, the City will continue to bear the cost of assessments attributable to general benefit and Cityowned parcels.

Table 3. City Annual Assessment
The proposed FY 2026/27 budget includes this expense from the General Fund.

Public Property Location Fiscal Impact
Parcel 946-4563-125 (Ponderosa-Del Prado Park) $241.44
Parcel 948-0014-1-39 (water tank site) in District 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch) $1,266.06
Total $1,507.50
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Michael Stella, City
Engineer
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Joe Calabrigo, Interim
City Manager
Attachments:

1. Assessment Diagrams

2. Resolution Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 (with Exhibit A – Engineer’s Report)

3. Resolution Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 (with Exhibit A - Engineer's Report)

4. Presentation

PONDEROSA – DEL PRADO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-1 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM Attachment 1

BONDE RANCH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-2 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM

Attachment 2
1 RESOLUTION NO. 26-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TO

APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND

ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF THE PONDEROSA-DEL PRADO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/27 WHEREAS, the City Council on May 5, 2026 ordered the initiation of proceedings for the levy of an assessment pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500 thereof) (“the Act”) and Article XIII-D of the California Constitution, for the purpose of financing the installation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping and other improvements (the “Improvements”) as specified in the Engineer’s Report prepared by the Assessment Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved and filed an Engineer’s Report which includes:

1. A description of the public improvements to be funded with assessment proceeds;

2. An estimate of the annual cost of said improvements, services, and programs;

3. A description of the assessable parcels of land within the proposed assessment district;

4. A description of the proportionate special and general benefits conferred on property by the proposed assessment;

5. A diagram and boundary map for the Assessment; and

6. A specification of the amount to be assessed upon various types of assessable land within the Assessment to fund the cost of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention providing notice of the public hearing on the proposed assessments, stating that the hearing would be held on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, California, for the purpose of this City Council’s determination of whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity require the levy of the assessments; and WHEREAS, the City provided a 45-day written mailed notice to each record owner of assessable parcels of real property located within the boundaries of the assessment district, containing the information required by Article XIII-D of the California Constitution, including an assessment ballot by which each property owner could express support or opposition to the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII-D, an opportunity for protest was afforded, and the assessment ballots mailed to owners of assessable real property within the proposed boundaries were received and tabulated, with assessment ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of each affected parcel; and WHEREAS, any timely written objections to the assessment received by the deadline posted in the Notice of Public Hearing have been duly considered and a written response has been provided pursuant to Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing, written protests and verbal protests were received, which the City Council noted and has considered along with all other information received during the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 supersedes and replaces the existing Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1, the assessments for which have been accounted for in Fund 134, and upon formation of the new District the predecessor district will be dissolved and any unexpended balance remaining in Fund 134, estimated at approximately $73,260 as of April 2026, having been collected for the special benefit of the same parcels, will remain available to fund the Improvements within the same area.

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

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The canvass of the assessment ballots submitted by property owners is complete and certified by the City Clerk, and the votes cast are as follows:

Ballot Category Number of
Ballots
Weighted Assessment
Amount
Weighted
Percentage
Valid Ballots
Processed _________ $_____________ 100%
Yes Votes _________ $_____________ _________%
No Votes _________ $_____________ _________%
Invalid Ballots _________ $_____________ N/A
SECTION 3. ______ assessment ballots were returned and received prior to the close of the public hearing on July 21, 2026. This represents a _____% ballot return rate on the 344 ballots. Of the assessment ballots returned, _____ assessment ballots were declared invalid, in that they were either not marked with a “Yes” or “No”, were marked with both a “Yes” and a “No”, were not signed, or the property ownership and barcode information was illegible.

SECTION 4. As determined by ballots cast, on an unweighted basis, _____% of the property owners cast ballots in support of the measure. As determined by ballots cast, as weighted according to the amount of assessment for each parcel, _____% of the property owners cast ballots in support of the District. Since a majority protest, as defined by Article XIIID of the California Constitution, did not exist, the City Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy of assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

SECTION 5. The Final Engineer’s Report, together with the diagram and boundary map of the assessment contained therein, and the proposed assessment roll for fiscal year 2026-2027 are hereby confirmed and approved.

SECTION 6. Based on oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer’s Report, offered and received at the public hearing, the City Council expressly finds and determines that:
a) each of the several assessed lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District will be specially benefited by the Improvements (as described in the Engineer’s Report) in at least the amount of the Assessment apportioned against such lots and parcels of land, respectively; and
b) there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, said finding and determination as to special benefit to property within the Assessment District from the Improvements to be financed with assessment proceeds.

SECTION 7. That the Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026-1 is hereby formed, and assessments consistent with the Engineer’s Report are hereby levied, pursuant to the provisions of Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500 thereof) (“the Act”) and Article XIII-D of the California Constitution.

SECTION 8. The assessment for fiscal year 2026-2027 shall be levied at the rate of TWO HUNDRED FORTY-ONE DOLLARS AND FORTY-FOUR CENTS ($241.44) for Zone 1 (Base Level), TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY-FIVE CENTS ($252.55) for Zone 2 (Central), TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND FORTY-FOUR CENTS ($255.44) for Zone 3 (Adjacent to Trail), TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX DOLLARS AND FIFTY-FIVE CENTS ($266.55) for Zone 4 (Proximate Trail Access), and TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS AND FIFTY-FIVE CENTS ($280.55) for Zone 5 (Proximate Trail Access + Adjacent to Trail) per singlefamily equivalent (SFE) benefit unit, with estimated total annual assessment revenues as set forth in the Engineer’s Report.

SECTION 9. The authorized maximum assessment to be levied in future fiscal years shall be increased annually based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a maximum of 3% without a further vote or balloting process. In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the CPI change, any such deferred assessment increase may be added to the total amount assessed in any subsequent year. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment amount shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years.

SECTION 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, but no later than August 10 following its adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor-Controller. Upon such filing, the County Auditor-Controller shall enter on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the Assessment.

SECTION 11. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County property taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.

After collection, the net amount of assessments, after deduction of County collection costs, shall be paid to the City of Pleasanton.

SECTION 12. The monies representing assessments collected shall be deposited in a separate fund established under the distinctive designation of the Assessment District. Funds collected shall be expended only for the special benefit of parcels within the Assessment District.

SECTION 13. The Assessment, as it applies to any parcel, may be corrected, cancelled, or refunded as appropriate by order of the City Council upon a determination from the Assessment Engineer that the Assessment should be revised to be consistent with the method of assessment established in the Engineer’s Report. Any such corrections, cancellations, or refunds shall be limited to the current fiscal year.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on July 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 the 21st day of July 2026 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Fiscal Year 2026‐27 ENGINEER’S REPORT
City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa ‐Del Prado
Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1
June 2026
Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution
Exhibit A

(This page Intentionally left blank)

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

City of Pleasanton
Mayor
Jack Balch
City Council
Matt Gaidos, District 4, Vice Mayor
Jeff Nibert, District 1, Member
Craig Eicher, District 2, Member
Julie Testa, District 3, Member
City of Pleasanton Staff
Siew‐Chin Yeong, Director of Public Works
Michael Stella, City Engineer
Matt Gruber, Landscape Architect

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................... 4 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 4 Community Outreach................................................................................................... 5 Assessment Process ..................................................................................................... 6 Legislative Analysis....................................................................................................... 8 Plans and Specifications.................................................................................. 11 Estimate of Cost and Budget........................................................................... 13 Notes for Estimates of Costs...................................................................................... 15 Method of Apportionment......................................................................................... 16 Discussion of Benefit.................................................................................................. 17 Benefit Factors ........................................................................................................... 18 General versus Special Benefit................................................................................... 21 Benefit Finding ........................................................................................................... 22 Source of Contributions from Other Funds................................................................ 25 Zones of Benefit ......................................................................................................... 27 Method of Assessment............................................................................................... 30 Residential Properties................................................................................................ 30 Other Properties......................................................................................................... 31 Consumer Price Index Adjustments........................................................................... 32 Government Code § 53759.1 and 53759.2 ................................................................ 32 Assessment Statement ................................................................................... 34 Assessment Diagram....................................................................................... 36 Assessment Roll.............................................................................................. 38

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

List of Tables
Table 1 ‐ Fiscal Year 2026‐27 Estimate of Cost and Budget.............................................. 14 Table 2 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels....................................................................................... 21 Table 3 – Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District ....................................... 23 Table 4 – Summary of General Benefit............................................................................. 25 Table 5 – City In‐Kind General Benefit Contributions....................................................... 27 Table 6 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels By Zone ......................................................................... 29 Table 7 ‐ Assessment Rate Determination by Estimate of Costs...................................... 31 Table 8 – Summary of Combined Cost Estimate............................................................... 34

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Introduction
Overview
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984‐1, Ponderosa‐Del Prado ("1984‐1 Ponderosa LMD") was established by the City of Pleasanton in 1984 as a condition of approval for the Ponderosa residential development. The 1984‐1 Ponderosa LMD was formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 22500 et seq., the "Act") to fund the ongoing maintenance of landscaping, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and irrigation systems within the Ponderosa subdivision. The Ponderosa single‐family residential project was approved in two phases, October 1983 and January 1985.

The original assessment was established in 1984, prior to the passage of Proposition 218.

The first assessment on record, approved by Resolution 88‐375, was $60.08 per parcel per year. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2000‐01, the assessment was reduced to $16.62 per parcel, where it remained through Fiscal Year 2024‐25. With no inflation escalator, assessment revenues have not kept pace with the rising costs of maintenance, water, utilities, and capital replacement. The resulting funding shortfall has produced a measurable decline in the condition of the landscape and infrastructure within the 1984‐ 1 Ponderosa LMD.

In Fiscal Year 2025‐26, the City restored the assessment to $60.08 per parcel per year, the amount established by Resolution 88‐375. However, thisrestoration isinsufficient to fund the full scope of maintenance and capital improvements needed within the District.

Water costs increased thirty percent in calendar year 2024, an additional twelve percent in 2025, and rates were restructured in 2026, moving away from the tiered system based on quantity, which will more heavily impact low water‐use properties, such as the 1984‐ 1 Ponderosa LMD. Water rates are projected to continue to increase in future years to pay for necessary infrastructure and treatment costs. The reserve fund has been partially drawn to fund the costs of the Proposition 218 ballot proceeding.

The City Council has directed that a new assessment be proposed and voted on by property owners within the District in accordance with Proposition 218 (Article XIIID of the California Constitution). The intent is to replace the existing District No. 1984‐1 with a new Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 ("Assessment District" or "District") that includes a cost‐of‐living adjustment provision to provide adequate and sustainable funding for maintenance and services going forward. If approved by property owner ballot, the existing 1984‐1 Ponderosa LMD will be replaced by the Assessment District.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

This Engineer's Report ("Report") was prepared to establish the budget for the improvements and services ("Improvements") that will be funded by the proposed assessments, to determine the general and special benefits received from the Improvements by property within the Assessment District, and to establish the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels. This Report and the assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the "Article"). The boundaries of the Assessment District are the same as the boundaries of the existing District No. 1984‐1 and include all parcels within the Ponderosa subdivision as shown on the Assessment Diagram incorporated in this Report.

Community Outreach
Prior to initiating Proposition 218 proceedings, the City of Pleasanton conducted an extensive community outreach process to inform property owners of the District's financial condition, solicit input on proposed maintenance levels, and explain the Proposition 218 ballot process. Prior to each community meeting, the City mailed and emailed informational flyers to all district property owners summarizing the meeting date, location, and topics to be covered.

On November 17, 2025, the City held its first informational community meeting virtually.

City staff and SCI Consulting Group presented information about the District's formation and history, the current state of the landscape and infrastructure, the funding shortfall resulting from decades of unchanged assessments, and the Proposition 218 process required to increase the assessment. Property owners were invited to submit written feedback to the City and notified that the City would be holding another meeting in response to the input received and to present more detailed cost information.

On February 19, 2026, the City held its second community meeting at the Pleasanton Senior Center, available both in person and virtually. The City presented updated budget options, the zone of benefit structure, the Proposition 218 ballot process and timeline, and an overview of the survey to date.

The informal survey was distributed via mail to all district property owners and email for all property owners that had provided the City with their email addresses. The survey sought input on preferred maintenance levels, priorities for improvements, and attitudes toward the proposed assessment.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

The survey closed on March 16, 2026. Of the 47 unique survey responses ultimately received, 61.7% of respondents, weighted by proposed assessment, indicated cumulative support for the City Recommended maintenance level. The top priorities identified by respondents were weed abatement, tree maintenance pruning and removal, fire prevention management, and irrigation system repairs and replacement. Survey results are directional and are not statistically valid as a prediction of ballot outcome.

On March 17, 2026, the City Council adopted resolutions initiating proceedings for the formation of the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 and designated SCI Consulting Group as Engineer of Work for the proposed district.

The third and final neighborhood meeting was held on April 7, 2026, at the Pleasanton Senior Center, available both in‐person and virtually. The meeting presented the final survey results, the proposed ballot option recommended by the City, a detailed explanation of the Proposition 218 weighted ballot process, and the next steps in the proceedings.

Throughout the outreach process, the City maintained a dedicated informational website for the District available to property owners at all times. The website includes recordings of all three community meetings, slide decks, meeting Q&A summaries, frequently asked questions, formation documents, and budget information. The website has been updated following each community meeting to reflect the most current information available.

Assessment Process
This Engineer’s Report establishes the budget for the maintenance and services to be undertaken by the Assessment District that will be funded by the proposed Fiscal Year 2026‐27 assessments and also determines the benefits received from the maintenance and services by property within the Assessment District as well as the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels. This Report and the proposed assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”).

Following the submittal of this Report to the City of Pleasanton City Council (“Council”) for preliminary approval, the Council may, by Resolution, call for an assessment ballot proceeding and Public Hearing on the establishment of the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

If the Council approves such Resolution and calls for the mailing of notices and ballots, a notice of assessment and assessment ballot will be mailed to property owners at least 45 days prior to the date of the Public Hearing set by the Council. Such notice would include a description of the assessments as well as an explanation of the method of voting on the assessments. Each notice would include a ballot on which the property owner could mark his or her approval or disapproval of the assessments and a ballot return envelope.

After the ballots are mailed to property owners, a minimum 45‐day time period must be provided for the return of the assessment ballots. Following this 45‐day time period, a public hearing must be held for the purpose of allowing public testimony regarding the proposed assessments and services. At this hearing, the public would have the opportunity to provide input on this issue and would have a final opportunity to submit ballots. After the conclusion of the public input portion of the hearing, the hearing may be continued to a later time to allow time for the tabulation of ballots.

With the passage of Proposition 218 on November 6, 1996, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution, the proposed assessments can be levied for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 and future years, only if the ballots submitted in favor of the assessments are greater than the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessments. Each ballot is weighted by the amount of proposed assessment for the property that it represents.

If it is determined, when the tabulation results are announced, that the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments do not exceed the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments (weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the property for which ballots are submitted) the Council may take action, by resolution, to approve the levy of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 and future fiscal years. If the assessments are confirmed and approved, the levies, as outlined in this Engineer’s Report, will be submitted to the Alameda County Auditor for inclusion on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2026‐27. If the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments do exceed assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments, the assessment rates will be consistent with the previous year’s assessment rates as indicated in a separate Engineer’s Report to be submitted at a future date.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Legislative Analysis
Proposition 218
The Right to Vote on Taxes Act was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996 and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution.  Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services and improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property.

Proposition 218 describes several important requirements, including a property owner balloting, for the formation and continuation of assessments, and these requirements are satisfied by the process used to establish this assessment.

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 431
In July of 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA”).  This ruling is significant in that the Court clarified how Proposition 218 made changes to the determination of special benefit. The Court also found that:
 Benefit assessments are for special, not general, benefit.  The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined.
 Special benefits are directly received by and provide a direct advantage to property in the assessment district.

Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 708 In Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property (“Dahms”) the Court upheld an assessment that was 100% special benefit (i.e. 0% general benefit) on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were directly provided to property in the assessment district. The Court also upheld discounts and exemptions from the assessment for certain properties.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 103 Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (“Bonander”), the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing overhead utility lines underground in an area of the Town of Tiburon.  The Court invalidated the assessments primarily on the grounds that the assessments had been apportioned to assessed property based on the costs within sub‐areas of the assessment district instead of the overall cost of the improvements and the overall proportional special benefits.

Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1516 Steven Beutz v. County of Riverside (“Beutz”) the Court overturned an assessment for park maintenance in Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits associated with improvements and services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits.

Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego (2011) 199 Cal.

App. 4th 416
On September 22, 2011, the 4th District Court of Appeal issued a decision on the Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego (“Greater Golden Hill”) appeal. This decision overturned an assessment forstreet and landscaping maintenance in the Greater Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The court described two primary reasonsfor its decision. First, like in Beutz, the court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified, and separated from the special benefits. Second, the court found that the City had failed to record the basis for the assessment on its own parcels.

Compliance with Current Law
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the assessments are for special, not general, benefit; the improvements to be funded are clearly defined; the improvements are directly available to and will directly benefit property in the Assessment District; and the improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.

This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Dahms because, similar to the Downtown Pomona assessment validated in Dahms, the services will be directly provided to property in the Assessment District. Moreover, while Dahms could be used asthe basisfor a finding of 0% general benefits, this Engineer’s Report establishes a more conservative measure of general benefits.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Beutz, Dahms, and Greater Golden Hill because the improvements will directly benefit property in the Assessment District, and the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded from the Assessments. The Engineer’s Report is consistent with Bonander because the Assessments have been apportioned based on the overall cost of the improvements and proportional special benefit to each property.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Plans and Specifications
The City of Pleasanton maintains landscaping and other improvements in locations within the Assessment District's boundaries. The work and improvements to be undertaken by the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1, and the cost thereof paid from the levy of the annual Assessment, provide special benefit to parcels within the Assessment District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein. In addition to the definitions provided by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act"), the work and improvements are generally described as designated landscaping, trees, shrubs, groundcover, irrigation systems, and trail landscaping within the Ponderosa subdivision, including the landscaped strip north of Corte de Flores on the west side of Paseo Santa Cruz and north of Corte Pacifica on the east side of Paseo Santa Cruz, and the landscaped area on the east side of the Arroyo de la Laguna trail between the Pleasanton Canal and Arroyo del Valle, within the City of Pleasanton. The Assessment Diagram shows the location and extent of the Improvements to be installed, maintained, or serviced by the proceeds from this Assessment District.

Installation, maintenance, and servicing of Improvements may include, but are not limited to, landscaping, ground cover, shrubs and trees, irrigation systems, fencing, and labor, materials, supplies, utilities, and equipment, as applicable, at each of the locations owned, operated, or maintained by the Assessment District.

As applied herein, "Installation" means the construction of Improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation (such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling), sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, walkways, and drainage facilities. "Maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury; and the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste.
"Servicing" means the furnishing of electric current or energy for the operation of irrigation system controllers, and water for the irrigation of any landscaping or the maintenance of any other improvements.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

"Incidental expenses" include all of the following: (a) the costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment; (b) the costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices; (c) compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; (d) compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part; (e) any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the Improvements; (f) any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22662.5; and (g) costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment (Streets and Highways Code Section 22526).

All assessment proceeds will be used exclusively for the Improvements described herein and incidental expenses within the Assessment District.

Landscape plans and specifications for the Improvements to this Assessment District are those prepared for Tracts 5256 and 4986 by The Environmental Center, dated October 30, 1984, and January 13, 1986. These plans and specifications have been filed with the City Clerk and are incorporated in this Report by reference.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Estimate of Cost and Budget
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 provides that the total costs for providing the maintenance and services of the Assessment District, including incidental expenses, can be recovered through the assessment. An estimate of Assessment District costs for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 is provided in Table 1 on the following page.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Table 1 ‐ Fiscal Year 2026‐27 Estimate of Cost and Budget

CITY OF PLEASANTON
Ponderosa ‐ Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Budget
Installation, Maintenance & Servicing Costs
Landscaping (maintenance)
Basic maintenance $20,960.00
Extra Work
Tree pruning and removal $32,004.71
Irrigation repair and replacement $16,332.00

Water $9,000.00
Power ‐ One controller $200.00
Total for Installation, Maintenance & Servicing $78,496.71

Incidental and Administration Costs 1
City administration fees $1,800.00
County Collection Costs $1,427.71
Annual Engineer's Report $2,500.00
Total Incidental and Administration Costs $5,727.71

Amount to/(from) Reserve Fund 2
Reserve/Long‐Term Replacement Fund for scheduled
Long‐term replacement of various district improvements $0

City's Contribution for General Benefit*

TOTAL COSTS $84,224.42

BUDGET ALLOCATION TO PROPERTY
Number of Parcels/Units
Single
Family
Equivalent
Units (SFE) 4

Proposed
Assessment
Rate
Total Assessment 5

344 348.84 $241.44 $84,224.42

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Notes for Estimates of Costs

1. Incidental and administration cost estimates include City staff hours dedicated to the administration of the assessment (including staff time to bid work, monitor contracts and contractors, respond to residents’ inquiries, etc.), county charges for inclusion of assessments on property tax bills, and other incidental costs.

2. If approved, the existing Fund 134 balance (approximately $73,260 as of April 2026) will be transferred to the new Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1.

3. As determined in the Benefit Findings section, at least 24.51% of the expenditures must be funded from sources other than the assessments to cover any general benefits. Therefore, out of the total cost of $84,224, the City must contribute at least 24.51% from other sources. The City will contribute in‐kind, non‐monetary contributions conservatively estimated at 50% of the total district cost, which more than covers any general benefits from the expenditures. For additional information, see ‘Source of Contributions from Other Funds’ on page 23.

4. The rate shown here is for a single‐family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term Single‐Family Equivalent (SFE) and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment” and the sections following it in this report.

5. The Act requires that proceeds from the assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the Maintenance District. Moreover, funds raised by the assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carried over to the next Fiscal Year.  The District may also establish a reserve fund for contingencies and special projects as well as a capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would either be placed in the reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' assessments.

The proposed Assessment District reserve/replacement funds will be held in an interest bearing account until needed for repairs to the irrigation system, landscaping or other District features.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Method of Apportionment
This section includes an explanation of the special benefits to be derived from the maintenance, operations, and repair activities, the criteria for the expenditure of assessment funds and the methodology used to apportion the total assessments to properties within the Assessment District. The proposed Assessment District area consists of all Assessor Parcels included within the District No. 1984‐1 boundary.

Pursuant to Proposition 218, the method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits conferred to the properties over and above the general benefits conferred to real property in the proposed Assessment District, or to the public at large. Special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the District using the following process:

1.) Identification of all benefit factors derived from the Improvements.

2.) Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general.

3.) Determination of the relative special benefit within different areas (zones of benefit) of the Assessment District.

4.) Determination of the relative special benefit per property type.

5.) Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based upon special vs. general benefit, zones, property type and other supporting attributes.

The District consists of certain assessor parcels within the boundaries as defined by the Assessment Diagram referenced in this report and the parcels identified by the Assessor Parcel Numbers listed with the levy roll. The parcel list includes all privately and publicly owned parcels as shown. The method used for apportioning the Assessment is based upon the relative special benefits to be derived by the properties in the District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The Assessment is apportioned to lots and parcels in proportion to the relative special benefit from the improvements.

The apportionment of special benefit is a two‐step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the improvements and the second step is to allocate the Assessmentsto property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Discussion of Benefit
In summary, the Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property.

This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property and that the value of the special benefits must exceed the cost of the assessment:
"No assessmentshall be imposed on any parcel which exceedsthe reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." The following benefit categories summarize the types of special benefits to residential and other lots and parcels resulting from the installation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping, irrigation systems, and fencing funded by the Assessment. These types of special benefits are summarized as follows:

1. Access to the Arroyo de la Laguna trail and Centennial Trail corridor maintained within or adjacent to the Assessment District.

2. Views of improved and maintained landscaping within the Assessment District.

3. Security and sound reduction provided by the maintenance of the landscape adjacent to the soundwalls along Interstate 680 within the Assessment District.

4. Creation of individual lots for residential use that, in absence of the Assessments, would not have been created.

In this case, the SVTA decision provides enhanced clarity to the definitions of special benefits to properties from similar improvements in three distinct areas:
 Proximity
 Expanded or improved access

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

 Views
The SVTA decision also clarifies that a special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel and that indirect or derivative advantages resulting from the overall public benefits from a service or improvement are general benefits. The SVTA decision also provides specific guidance that park improvements are a direct advantage and special benefit to property that is proximate to a park that is improved by an assessment:
“The characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g. proximity to a park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g. general enhancement of the district’s property values).” Proximity, improved access, and views, in addition to the other special benefits listed above further strengthen the basis of these assessments.

Moreover, the Dahms decision further clarified that certain services and improvements funded by assessments, that are over and above what otherwise would be provided and that other property in general and the public do not share or receive are 100% special benefit. The assessment‐funded services upheld by Dahms included streetscape maintenance and security services.

Benefit Factors
The special benefits from the improvements are further detailed below:

Views of improved and maintained landscaping
Only the specific properties within close proximity to the improvements are included in the Assessment District. Therefore, property in the Assessment District enjoys unique and valuable proximity to and views of the improvementsthat the public at large and property outside the Assessment District do not share in the same manner.

In absence of the assessments, the improvements and the landscaping areas in the Assessment District would be degraded due to insufficient funding for maintenance, upkeep, and repair. Therefore, the assessments provide improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided. When combined with the unique proximity and views enjoyed by parcels in the Assessment District, the maintained landscaping provides a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Assessment District.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

All 343 residential parcels in the Assessment District receive the view benefit from maintained landscaping along Paseo Santa Cruz and the Arroyo trail corridor. This benefit is received to the same degree by all parcels in the District and therefore does not differentiate among zones. The view benefit is the most broadly and uniformly received special benefit in the Assessment District.

Access to the Arroyo de la Laguna Trail and Centennial Trail Corridor The landscaping and improvements maintained along the Arroyo de la Laguna trail corridor provide the properties in the Assessment District with improved access to the trail and Centennial Trail system. The City, by maintaining permanent public improvementsfunded by the Assessmentsin the District, provides maintained trail access and landscaping to properties in the District.

The degree of access benefit varies materially by proximity to trail access points. Parcels with direct or proximate access to the trail corridor receive the highest access benefit.

Parcels at greater distance receive a reduced access benefit commensurate with their distance from trail access points. This variation in access benefit is a primary driver of the zone structure established in this Report.

Security and Sound Reduction
Parcels adjacent to the landscaping along the soundwall which is along Interstate 680 receive a direct and tangible benefit from the maintenance of this landscaping. This landscaping provides noise attenuation and a security buffer between those residential properties and the trail/canal/freeway corridor. This elevated special benefit is direct, proximate, and particular to those parcels that are immediately adjacent to this maintained landscaping.

Parcels not adjacent to the soundwall landscaping do not receive the same level ofspecial benefit from this landscaping. The security and sound reduction benefit therefore varies by zone and is reflected in the zone scores established in this Report.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Creation of Individual Lots for Residential Use that, in Absence of the Assessments, Would Not Have Been Created
The residential parcels within the Assessment District were created through a subdivision and development process that required the installation of landscaping, trail improvements, irrigation systems, and other public improvements as conditions of approval. These Improvements were not optional enhancements but mandatory prerequisites for the subdivision to be approved and the individual lots to be created. The proposed Assessments provide the necessary funding for the continued maintenance of these Improvements, which support the ongoing safety and habitability of those parcels.

As parcels are sold, new owners are informed of the Assessment through title reports and Department of Real Estate disclosure reports indicating that the parcels are subject to assessment. Purchase of property within the Assessment District constitutes notice of the Assessment obligation.

In the absence of the proposed Assessments, the continued maintenance and servicing of the Improvements associated with the residential lots within the Assessment District would not be adequately funded. These parcels, and the Improvements that were constructed to serve them, receive a direct advantage and special benefit from the Assessments.

Summary of Relative Weight of Benefit Factors
The relative weight assigned to each benefit factor reflects the primacy of views and landscaping as the most broadly received and highest‐value benefit to all properties within the Assessment District. The maintained landscaping along Paseo Santa Cruz and the Arroyo trail corridor provides aesthetic and quality‐of‐life benefits to all 343 residential parcels and is accordingly assigned a weight of 60% of the total benefit.

Access to the Arroyo de la Laguna trail and Centennial Trail corridor is assigned a weight of 30%, reflecting the direct and ongoing advantage of proximity to and use of the maintained trail system. This is a significant benefit that varies by proximity to trail access points and is the primary driver of zone differentiation within the Assessment District.

Security and sound reduction is assigned a weight of 5%, reflecting the direct but geographically limited benefit conferred to parcels adjacent to the landscaping along the soundwall along Interstate 680.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

The Creation of Individual Lots is assigned a weight of 5%. While this benefit is real and legally recognized, it is foundational rather than ongoing. The lots were created once under conditions of approval thatrequired these Improvements, and the Assessment now funds the continued maintenance that supports their habitability. The relative benefit levels used in this Report are shown below. The relative benefit levels used in this Report are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels
Creation of Lots
Views of
Improved
Landscaping
Access to
Centennial Trail
Security/Sound
Reduction
5% 60% 30% 5%
General versus Special Benefit
Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a benefit assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying for general benefits. An assessment can fund special benefits but cannot fund general benefits. Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefit is given in this section.

Article XIIID never defines the term “general benefit.” The definition of special benefit in Section 2(i) includes the statement that general enhancement of property value does not constitute a special benefit. A general benefit may be described as an “indirect, derivative advantage” resulting from the improvements.

In other words:

Total
Benefit = GeneralBenefit + SpecialBenefit

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for general benefit. General benefits are benefits from improvements or services that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” benefits received by other properties. SVTA provides some clarification by indicating that general benefits provide “an indirect, derivative advantage” and are not necessarily proximate to the improvements.

In this Report, the general benefit isliberally estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the Assessment.

A formula to estimate the general benefit is listed below:

General
Benefit =
Benefit to Real
Property Outside
the Assessment
District
+
Benefit to Real
Property Inside the
Assessment District
that is Indirect and
Derivative
+
Benefit to
the Public
at Large
Special benefit, on the other hand, is defined in the California Constitution as "a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large." The SVTA decision indicates that a special benefit is conferred to a property if it "receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to a park)." In this Assessment, properties in the District have close and unique proximity, views, and access to the Improvements that other properties and the public at large do not share. Therefore, the overwhelming proportion of the benefits conferred to property within the District is special, and only minimal benefit is received by property outside the District or the public at large.

Benefit Finding
Quantification of General Benefit
The starting point for evaluating general and special benefits is the current baseline level of service. In the absence of the Assessment, no alternative funding source exists for the maintenance of the Improvements within the Assessment District. The baseline level of service without the Assessment is therefore the absence of funded maintenance, and all Improvements funded by the Assessment are over and above that baseline. The general benefits estimated in this section are measured against that baseline.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Benefit to Property Nearby and Outside the Assessment Districts Properties within the District receive almost all of the special benefits from the Improvements because properties in the District enjoy unique close proximity and access to the Improvements that is not enjoyed by other properties or the public at large.

However, certain properties within the proximity/access radius of the Improvements, but outside of the boundaries of the District, may receive some benefit from the Improvements. Since this benefit is conferred to some properties outside the District boundaries, it contributesto the overall general benefit calculation and will not be funded by the Assessments. The general benefit to property outside of the District is calculated with the parcel and data analysis performed by SCI Consulting Group.

Since certain properties outside the District enjoy close proximity and access to the improvements cannot be assessed by the District, thisis a form of general benefit to other property. There are 62 parcels outside the District that are directly adjacent to areas where pathways and landscaped areas are maintained by the District. The benefits conferred to these properties do not include the Lot Creation benefit factor, therefore the benefit is reduced to 95%. The general benefit to property outside of the District is calculated as follows.

Table 3 – Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District
Assumptions:

Parcels outside and adjacent to the District 62
Parcels in the Maintenance District 344
Calculation: ((62 / (62 + 344)) * Factor applied
Factor applied 95%
General Benefit to Property outside the District 14.51%

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Benefit to Property Inside the Assessment Districts that is Indirect and Derivative
The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property within the District is particularly difficult to calculate. A solid argument can be presented that all benefit within the District is special because the other improvements are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when compared with the baseline level of service and the unique proximity, access and views of the other improvements enjoyed by benefiting properties in the District.

Nevertheless, the SVTA decision indicates there may be general benefit “conferred on real property located in the district.” A measure of the general benefitsto property within the Assessment area is the percentage of land area within or directly abutting the District that is publicly owned and used for regional purposes such asregional parks, major roads, rail lines and other regional facilities because such properties used for regional purposes could provide indirect benefits to the public at large. The Assessment boundaries are narrowly drawn to include only the residential parcels within Tracts 4986, 5093, 5160‐ 5163, 5224, 5256, 5257, and 5281 and there are no regional facilities within the Assessment District. Therefore, the indirect and derivative general benefits to property within the Assessment District are zero.

General Benefit Inside the District (Indirect and Derivative) = 0.0% Benefit To The Public At Large
The general benefit to the public at large can be estimated by the proportionate amount of time that the Assessment’simprovements are used and enjoyed by individuals who are not residents or property owners in the Assessment District. These improvements do not attract the public at large in the same way as park improvements, and they confer far less benefit to the public at large than do similar park improvements. In essence, the public does not visit an area to enjoy outdoor and landscaped area improvements in the same way as they may visit a park.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

However, the Arroyo de la Laguna trail corridor maintained in connection with the Assessment District does attract some beneficial use by individuals who are not residents of the District, (and not including nearby individual associated parcels discussed above).

Based on surveys and research in which visitorsto similar landscape, open space, and trail areas were asked to identify whether they lived or worked within the assessment area, and factoring in the relative convenience of access by District parcels, approximately  10% of the benefit of the use of similar landscape, open space, and trail improvements is by the public at large. When people outside the Assessment District use landscape and trail improvements, they diminish the benefit of such facilities for people within the District and this further supports the determination that 10% of the benefits from the Improvements are general benefits to the public at large.

Summary of General Benefit
Using a sum of these three measures of general benefit, we find that approximately

24.51% of the benefits conferred by the improvements may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the assessment.

Table 4 – Summary of General Benefit
General Benefit Component Percentage
Benefit to property outside the Assessment District 14.51% Indirect and derivative benefit to property inside the District 0.00% Benefit to the public at large 10.00%
Total General Benefit 24.51%
Source of Contributions from Other Funds
The general benefit of 24.51% must be funded by sources other than the Assessment. The City of Pleasanton satisfies this requirement through the following in‐kind, non‐monetary contributions to the Assessment District.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

The City of Pleasanton owns, maintains, rehabilitates, and replaces the curb and gutter along the border of the Assessment District. This infrastructure serves to support and contain the Improvements and manage irrigation flow. The contribution from the City toward the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of curb and gutter is conservatively estimated at 10%. In other words, if the Assessment District were required to construct and maintain the local curb and gutter, the budget would increase by at least 10%.

The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the Assessment District. This system serves to prevent flooding and manage urban runoff from the Improvements. The contribution from the City toward the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated at 10%.

The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains local public streets throughout the Assessment District. These streets provide access to the Improvements for their enjoyment and efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City toward the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of local public streets is conservatively estimated at 10%.

The value of the initial Improvements constructed by the Developer can be quantified and monetized as an annuity to be amortized. Since the initial Improvements were performed and paid for by non‐assessment funds, this annuity is conservatively estimated to contribute 20% toward the general benefit requirement.

In addition to the infrastructure contributions described above, the City of Pleasanton provides ongoing staff support for the administration of the Assessment District that is not reimbursed through the assessment and is not included in the percentage estimates above. The City's Landscape Architect dedicates time throughout the year to the preparation of bid documents, contractor selection and monitoring, property owner inquiries, site inspections, coordination with other City departments, and general district administration. The City administration fee collected through the assessment is $1,800 per year. The value of the City Landscape Architect's time dedicated to the Assessment District exceeds this amount, meaning the City absorbs the difference as a further in‐kind contribution toward the general benefit requirement. This unreimbursed staff time represents an ongoing financial contribution by the City to the Assessment District that is separate from and in addition to the infrastructure contributions described above, and further demonstrates that the City's total contributions to the District more than satisfy the general benefit requirement.

In total, the City of Pleasanton's in‐kind contributions represent 50% of the total district cost, which more than satisfies the 24.51% general benefit requirement.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Table 5 – City In‐Kind General Benefit Contributions
City In‐Kind Contribution Percentage
Curb and gutter maintenance, rehabilitation, and
replacement 10.0%
Storm drainage system maintenance, rehabilitation, and
replacement 10.0%
Local public streets maintenance, rehabilitation, and
replacement 10.0%
Amortized value of initial Improvements constructed by
Developer 20.0%
Total City In‐Kind Contributions 50.0%
Zones of Benefit
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 was formed to provide a funding source for the maintenance and services of landscaping improvements within the boundaries of the Assessment District. The boundaries of the Assessment District have been narrowly drawn to include only properties that will specially benefit from the maintenance and services and would receive a declining level of service if the Assessments were not approved.

The SVTA decision indicates:

In a well‐drawn district — limited to only parcels receiving special benefits from the improvement — every parcel within that district receives a shared special benefit. Under section 2, subdivision (i), these benefits can be construed as being general benefits since they are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” the benefits received by other properties “located in the district.” We do not believe that the voters intended to invalidate an assessment district that is narrowly drawn to include only properties directly benefiting from an improvement. Indeed, the ballot materials reflect otherwise. Thus, if an assessment district is narrowly drawn, the fact that a benefit is conferred throughout the district does not make it general rather than special. In that circumstance, the characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

benefits of the improvement (e.g., general enhancement of the district’s property values).

The Engineer determined that, based on proximity to the Improvements and the nature of the benefits received, the Assessment District shall consist of five zones of benefit. The zones reflect material differences in the degree of trail access and soundwall landscaping adjacency received by different properties within the District. All zones receive the Creation of Lots benefit (5% weight) and the Views of Improved Landscaping benefit (60% weight) equally. The zones differ with respect to the Access to Centennial Trail benefit (30% weight) and the Security and Sound Reduction benefit (5% weight).

Base Level
Zone 1 is the Base Level, which includes the majority of residential parcels in the Assessment District. These parcels receive the full view and landscaping benefit from the maintained improvements along Paseo Santa Cruz and the Arroyo trail corridor, and the Creation of Lots benefit. Zone 1 parcels are at greater distance from the trail access points and are not adjacent to the soundwall landscaping along Interstate 680. They receive a trail access score of 70 out of 100, reflecting that while they are within the District and benefit from the maintained trail corridor, they do not have direct proximate access to trail entry points. They receive a security/sound reduction score of 0, as they are not adjacent to the soundwall landscaping.

Central Wall
Zone 2 is the Central Wall area which includes parcels located along the interior semi‐ circle adjacent to the soundwall with landscaping maintained along the sidewalk edges.

In addition to the view, landscaping, and lot creation benefits received by all zones, these parcels receive a direct and tangible security and sound reduction benefit from the maintained landscaping. Central Wall parcels receive the same trail access score as Base Level (70 out of 100) and a security/sound reduction score of 80 out of 100, reflecting their proximity to and benefit from the maintained landscaping along the interior soundwall.

Adjacent to Trail
Zone 3 is called Adjacent to Trail and includes parcels that are directly adjacent to the Arroyo de la Laguna trail and the maintained landscaping along the soundwall along Interstate 680. These parcels receive both an enhanced  landscaping benefit and a trail adjacency benefit. Adjacent to Trail parcels receive a trail access score of 70 out of 100 and a security/sound reduction score of 100 out of 100, reflecting their direct adjacency to the maintained landscaping (along the soundwall).

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Proximate Trail Access
Zone 4 or Proximate Trail Access includes parcels located in close proximity to trail access points along the Arroyo de la Laguna trail corridor. These parcels receive the highest trail access benefit of any zone that is not also adjacent to the maintained landscaping along the soundwall. Proximate Trail Access parcels receive a trail access score of 100 out of 100, reflecting their direct and convenient accessto the trailsystem, and a security/sound reduction score of 0, as they are not adjacent to the soundwall landscaping.

Proximate Trail Access and Adjacent to Trail
Zone 5 is called Proximate Trail Access and Adjacent to Trail includes parcels that receive both the maximum trail access benefit and the maximum soundwall landscaping adjacency benefit. These are parcels located in close proximity to trail access points and also adjacent to the maintained landscaping along the soundwall. Proximate Trail Access and Adjacent to Trail parcels receive a trail access score of 100 out of 100 and a security/sound reduction score of 100 out of 100, and therefore receive the highest total benefit score of any zone in the Assessment District.

The relative benefit scores for each zone, weighted by the benefit factors established in this Report, are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels By Zone
Zone Creation of
Lots (5%)
Views of
Improved
Landscaping
(60%)
Access to
Centennial
Trail (30%)
Security/
Sound (5%)
Weighted
Score
Relative Zone
Factor
Relative Weight 5% 60% 30% 5%
Base Level 100 100 70 0 8,600 1.000
Central Wall 100 100 70 80 9,000 1.046
Adjacent to Trail 100 100 70 100 9,100 1.058
Proximate Trail Access 100 100 100 0 9,500 1.104
Proximate Trail +
Adjacent 100 100 100 100 10,000 1.162

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Method of Assessment
The assessments are apportioned to properties within the Assessment District in proportion to the relative special benefit each property receives from the Improvements.

As established in the Zones of Benefit section, the Assessment District consists of five zones reflecting materially different levels of special benefit. Zone 1 parcels receive a normalized benefit score of 100% and the other Zones have normalized benefit scores based on the weighted benefit factor analysis in Table 6. This zone differential is the primary basis for the difference in assessment rates between the Zones.

Within each zone, assessments are further apportioned on the basis of Single‐Family Equivalents (SFE). The SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing a fair and appropriate basis for apportionment. For the purposes of this Engineer's Report, all properties are designated an SFE value representing each property's relative benefit in relation to a single‐family home on one parcel. The benchmark property is the single‐ family detached dwelling, which equals one Single‐Family Equivalent or one SFE.

The special benefits conferred by the Assessments are benefits to property and are not based on a specific property owner's use of the Improvements, occupancy of the property, or demographic status. The method of apportionment is further described below.

Residential Properties
In the Assessment District, there is only one type of residential property present: the single‐family home.  Other types of residential property, such as multifamily, apartments and condominiums, are not present. Furthermore, the property in the Assessment District is fully developed, has been stable since its original development in the early 1980s, and is zoned such that a change in that dominate land use is not expected in the future. As a result, there is no need for a detailed analysis of population densities to determine relative benefit for other types of residential properties. Each single‐family residential property is assigned one SFE.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Other Properties
Article XIIID stipulates that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment.

The City of Pleasanton owns one parcel within the Assessment District, which is the location of Del Prado Park. Del Prado Park is a neighborhood park that benefits from the maintained landscaping and improvements within the Assessment District, including proximity to the maintained trail corridor and improved views of landscaped areas. Del Prado Park is assessed within Base Level at a rate of $241.44 per year, without the county collection fee.

Miscellaneous, public right‐of‐way parcels and common area parcels typically do not generate employees, residents, customers, or guests. Such parcels do not receive a special benefit from the Improvements and are not assessed.

Table 7 ‐ Assessment Rate Determination by Estimate of Costs Zone No. Parcels SFE Factor Total SFEs
Annual
Assessment
Rate
Total
Assessment
Base Level 278 1.000 278.000 $241.44   $67,120
Central 24 1.046 25.104 $252.55   $6,061
Adjacent to Trail 20 1.058 21.160 $255.44   $5,109
Proximate Trail
Access 17 1.104 18.768 $266.55   $4,531
Proximate Trail
Access + Adjacent
to Trail
5 1.162 5.810 $280.55   $1,403
TOTAL 344 348.842 $84,224

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Consumer Price Index Adjustments
The maximum assessment rate within the Assessment District may be increased by an amount equal to the annual change in the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (“CPI”), not to exceed 3%. In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the CPI change, any such deferred assessment increase may be added to the total amount assessed in any subsequent year. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment amount shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years.

Government Code § 53759.1 and 53759.2
AB 2257, effective January 1, 2025, is codified at Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 and establishes an exhaustion of administrative remedies framework applicable to Proposition 218 property‐related fees and assessments.

Government Code Section 53759.1 authorizes public agencies to implement an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement in connection with a proposed Proposition 218 property‐related fee or assessment. Where a local agency complies with the requirements of that section, property owners are required to submit a written objection during the ratemaking process by a specified deadline, no less than 45 days after mailing of the Proposition 218 notice, and are prohibited from challenging the fee or assessment in litigation if they did not submit a timely written objection. The agency is required to prepare written responses to timely submitted objections and present them to the governing body, which must make certain specified determinations prior to the close of the Proposition 218 protest hearing. This process runs concurrently with the Proposition 218 timeline and does not affect a property owner's right to submit a protest pursuant to Proposition 218.

Government Code Section 53759.2 specifies the scope of judicial review of the administrative record of the underlying ratemaking proceeding where the local agency complied with Section 53759.1 in adopting the fee or assessment being challenged.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

The City of Pleasanton has implemented the requirements of Government Code Section 53759.1 through Ordinance No. 2292, codified at Pleasanton Municipal Code Section

1.04.120. The City intends to comply fully with Government Code Section 53759.1 with respect to the proposed Assessment. Property owners will be informed of the deadline and process to submit a written objection, and all other dates and requirements related to the City's compliance with this provision, in the ballot notice mailed pursuant to Proposition 218.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Assessment Statement
The City Council of the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”), directed the formation of the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1, which replaces the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 1984‐1;
The Council directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance and services upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District;
The undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act and the order of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, hereby makes the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the maintenance and services, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

The amount to be paid for said Improvements and the expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 is generally as follows:

Table 8 – Summary of Combined Cost Estimate
Budget Item Budgeted Cost
Installation, Maintenance & Servicing Costs $78,497
Incidental and Administration Costs $5,727
Total Budget $84,224
As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Assessment is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

And I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within the City of Pleasanton, Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Cost Estimate and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

The assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the improvements.

The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area as of December of each succeeding year (the CPI), with a maximum annual increase not to exceed 3%. In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the CPI change, any such deferred assessment increase may be added to the total amount assessed in any subsequent year. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment amount shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2026‐

27. For a more particular description of the property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County.

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 for each parcel or lot of land within the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1.

Dated: May 13, 2026
Engineer of Work
By
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 in the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram.

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

City of Pleasanton
Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 Engineer’s Report

Assessment Roll
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 and the amount of the assessment) has been filed with the City Clerk and is, by reference, made part of this report and will be available for public inspection during normal office hours.

Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report.

These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
1 946-4556-010 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
2 946-4556-009 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
3 946-4556-008 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
4 946-4556-007 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
5 946-4556-006 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
6 946-4556-005 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
7 946-4556-004 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
8 946-4556-003 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
9 946-4556-011 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
10 946-4556-012 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
11 946-4556-013 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
12 946-4556-014 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
13 946-4556-015 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
14 946-4556-016 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
15 946-4556-017 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
16 946-4556-018 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
17 946-4556-019 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
18 946-4556-020 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
19 946-4556-021 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
20 946-4556-031 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
21 946-4556-032 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
22 946-4556-033 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
23 946-4556-034 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
24 946-4556-035 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
25 946-4556-036 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
26 946-4556-037 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
27 946-4556-038 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
28 946-4556-039 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
29 946-4556-040 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
30 946-4556-041 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
31 946-4556-042 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
32 946-4556-043 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
33 946-4556-044 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
34 946-4556-045 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
35 946-4556-046 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
36 946-4556-047 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
PONDEROSA - DEL PRADO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-1

CITY OF PLEASANTON

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
37 946-4556-048 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
38 946-4556-049 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
39 946-4556-050 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
40 946-4556-051 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
41 946-4556-052 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
42 946-4556-053 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
43 946-4556-054 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
44 946-4556-055 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
45 946-4556-056 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
46 946-4556-057 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
47 946-4556-058 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
48 946-4556-059-2 $275.78 $4.77 $280.55
49 946-4556-060-2 $275.78 $4.77 $280.55
50 946-4556-061 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
51 946-4556-062 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
52 946-4556-063 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
53 946-4556-064 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
54 946-4556-065 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
55 946-4556-066 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
56 946-4556-030 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
57 946-4556-029 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
58 946-4556-028 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
59 946-4556-067 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
60 946-4556-068 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
61 946-4556-069 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
62 946-4556-070 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
63 946-4556-071 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
64 946-4556-072 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
65 946-4556-073-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
66 946-4556-074-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
67 946-4556-075 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
68 946-4556-076 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
69 946-4556-077 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
70 946-4556-078 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
71 946-4556-079 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
72 946-4556-027 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
73 946-4556-026 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
74 946-4556-025 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
75 946-4556-082 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
76 946-4556-083 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
77 946-4556-084 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
78 946-4556-085 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
79 946-4556-086 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
80 946-4556-087-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
81 946-4556-088-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
82 946-4556-089 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
83 946-4556-090 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
84 946-4556-091 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
85 946-4556-092 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
86 946-4556-093 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
87 946-4556-024 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
88 946-4556-023 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
89 946-4556-022 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
90 946-4556-094 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
91 946-4556-097 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
92 946-4556-098 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
93 946-4556-099 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
94 946-4556-100 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
95 946-4556-101 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
96 946-4556-102-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
97 946-4556-104-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
98 946-4556-105 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
99 946-4556-106 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
100 946-4556-107 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
101 946-4556-108 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
102 946-4562-040-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
103 946-4562-039 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
104 946-4562-038 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
105 946-4562-037 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
106 946-4562-036 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
107 946-4562-004 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
108 946-4562-003 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
109 946-4562-001 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
110 946-4562-005 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
111 946-4562-007 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
112 946-4562-010-1 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
113 946-4562-011 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
114 946-4562-013 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
115 946-4562-014 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
116 946-4562-015 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
117 946-4562-016 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
118 946-4562-045 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
119 946-4562-044 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
120 946-4562-043 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
121 946-4562-042 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
122 946-4562-041-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
123 946-4562-050-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
124 946-4562-049 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
125 946-4562-048 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
126 946-4562-047 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
127 946-4562-046 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
128 946-4562-017 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
129 946-4562-018 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
130 946-4562-019 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
131 946-4562-020 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
132 946-4562-021 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
133 946-4562-022 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
134 946-4562-023 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
135 946-4562-024 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
136 946-4562-025 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
137 946-4562-055 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
138 946-4562-054 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
139 946-4562-053 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
140 946-4562-052 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
141 946-4562-051-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
142 946-4562-060 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
143 946-4562-059 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
144 946-4562-058 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
145 946-4562-057 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
146 946-4562-056 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
147 946-4562-026 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
148 946-4562-027 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
149 946-4562-028 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
150 946-4562-029 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
151 946-4562-030 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
152 946-4562-031 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
153 946-4562-032 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
154 946-4562-033 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
155 946-4562-065 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
156 946-4562-064 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
157 946-4562-063 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
158 946-4562-062 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
159 946-4562-061-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
160 946-4562-066 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
161 946-4562-067 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
162 946-4562-068 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
163 946-4562-069 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
164 946-4562-070 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
165 946-4563-001 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
166 946-4563-002-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
167 946-4563-004-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
168 946-4563-005 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
169 946-4563-006 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
170 946-4563-007 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
171 946-4563-008 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
172 946-4563-009 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
173 946-4563-010 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
174 946-4563-011-2 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
175 946-4563-012-1 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
176 946-4563-013 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
177 946-4563-014 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
178 946-4563-015 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
179 946-4563-016 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
180 946-4563-017-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
181 946-4563-018-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
182 946-4563-019 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
183 946-4563-020 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
184 946-4563-021 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
185 946-4563-022 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
186 946-4563-023 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
187 946-4563-024 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
188 946-4563-025 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
189 946-4563-026 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
190 946-4563-027 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
191 946-4563-028 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
192 946-4563-029 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
193 946-4563-030-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
194 946-4563-031-1 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
195 946-4563-032 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
196 946-4563-033 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
197 946-4563-034 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
198 946-4563-035 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
199 946-4563-036 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
200 946-4563-037 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
201 946-4563-038-1 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
202 946-4563-039-3 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
203 946-4563-040-2 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
204 946-4563-041 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
205 946-4563-042 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
206 946-4563-043 $251.10 $4.34 $255.44
207 946-4563-044 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
208 946-4563-045 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
209 946-4563-046 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
210 946-4563-047 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
211 946-4563-048 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
212 946-4563-049 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
213 946-4563-050 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
214 946-4563-051 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
215 946-4563-052 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
216 946-4563-053 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
217 946-4563-054 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
218 946-4563-055 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
219 946-4563-056 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
220 946-4563-057 $275.78 $4.77 $280.55
221 946-4563-058-3 $275.78 $4.77 $280.55
222 946-4563-060-2 $275.78 $4.77 $280.55
223 946-4563-061 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
224 946-4563-062 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
225 946-4563-063 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
226 946-4563-064 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
227 946-4563-065 $262.02 $4.53 $266.55
228 946-4563-066 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
229 946-4563-067 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
230 946-4563-068 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
231 946-4563-069 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
232 946-4563-070 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
233 946-4563-071 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
234 946-4563-072 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
235 946-4563-073 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
236 946-4563-074 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
237 946-4563-075 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
238 946-4563-076 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
239 946-4563-077 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
240 946-4563-078-2 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
241 946-4563-079-1 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
242 946-4563-080 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
243 946-4563-082 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
244 946-4563-083 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
245 946-4563-084 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
246 946-4563-085 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
247 946-4563-086 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
248 946-4563-087 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
249 946-4563-088 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
250 946-4563-089 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
251 946-4563-090 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
252 946-4563-091 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
253 946-4563-092 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
254 946-4563-093 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
255 946-4563-094 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
256 946-4563-095 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
257 946-4563-096 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
258 946-4563-097 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
259 946-4563-130 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
260 946-4563-129 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
261 946-4563-128 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
262 946-4563-127 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
263 946-4563-126 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
264 946-4563-140 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
265 946-4563-141 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
266 946-4563-142 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
267 946-4563-143 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
268 946-4563-182 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
269 946-4563-183 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
270 946-4563-146 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
271 946-4563-147 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
272 946-4563-148 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
273 946-4563-149 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
274 946-4563-150 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
275 946-4563-151 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
276 946-4563-152 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
277 946-4563-153 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
278 946-4563-154 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
279 946-4563-113 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
280 946-4563-112 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
281 946-4563-111 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
282 946-4563-110 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
283 946-4563-109 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
284 946-4563-108 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
285 946-4563-107 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
286 946-4563-106 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
287 946-4563-105 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
288 946-4563-104 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
289 946-4563-103 $248.26 $4.29 $252.55
290 946-4563-102 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
291 946-4563-101 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
292 946-4563-100 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
293 946-4563-099 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
294 946-4563-098 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
295 946-4563-120 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
296 946-4563-121 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
297 946-4563-122 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
298 946-4563-123 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
299 946-4563-134 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
300 946-4563-133 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
301 946-4563-132 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
302 946-4563-131 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
303 946-4563-139 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
304 946-4563-138 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
305 946-4563-137 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
306 946-4563-136 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
307 946-4563-135 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
308 946-4563-114 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
309 946-4563-115 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
310 946-4563-116 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
311 946-4563-117 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
312 946-4563-118 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
313 946-4563-119 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
314 946-4563-155 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
315 946-4563-156 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
316 946-4563-157 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
317 946-4563-158 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
318 946-4563-159 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
319 946-4563-160 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
320 946-4563-161 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
321 946-4563-162 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
322 946-4563-163 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
323 946-4563-164 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
324 946-4563-165 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
325 946-4563-166 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
326 946-4563-167 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
327 946-4563-168 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
328 946-4563-169 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
329 946-4563-170 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
330 946-4563-171 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
331 946-4563-172 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
332 946-4563-173 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
333 946-4563-174 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
334 946-4563-175 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
335 946-4563-176 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
336 946-4563-177 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
337 946-4563-178 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
338 946-4563-179 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
339 946-4563-180 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
340 946-4562-071 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
PROPOSED 2026-27 ASSESSMENT ROLL
341 946-4562-072 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
342 946-4562-073 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
343 946-4562-074 $237.34 $4.10 $241.44
CITY 946-4563-125 $241.44 $241.44
344 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS: $82,796.71 $1,427.71 $84,224.42

Attachment 3
1 RESOLUTION NO. 26-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TO

APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND

ASSESSMENT, AND ORDERING LEVY OF THE BONDE RANCH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2026-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026/27
WHEREAS, the City Council on May 5, 2026 ordered the initiation of proceedings for the levy of an assessment pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500 thereof) (“the Act”) and Article XIII-D of the California Constitution, for the purpose of financing the installation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping and other improvements (the “Improvements”) as specified in the Engineer’s Report prepared by the Assessment Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved and filed an Engineer’s Report which includes:

1. A description of the public improvements to be funded with assessment proceeds;

2. An estimate of the annual cost of said improvements, services, and programs;

3. A description of the assessable parcels of land within the proposed assessment district;

4. A description of the proportionate special and general benefits conferred on property by the proposed assessment;

5. A diagram and boundary map for the Assessment; and

6. A specification of the amount to be assessed upon various types of assessable land within the Assessment to fund the cost of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention providing notice of the public hearing on the proposed assessments, stating that the hearing would be held on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue, Pleasanton, California, for the purpose of this City Council’s determination of whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity require the levy of the assessments; and WHEREAS, the City provided a 45-day written mailed notice to each record owner of assessable parcels of real property located within the boundaries of the assessment district, containing the information required by Article XIII-D of the California Constitution, including an assessment ballot by which each property owner could express support or opposition to the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII-D, an opportunity for protest was afforded, and the assessment ballots mailed to owners of assessable real property within the proposed boundaries were received and tabulated, with assessment ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of each affected parcel; and WHEREAS, any timely written objections to the assessment received by the deadline posted in the Notice of Public Hearing have been duly considered and a written response has been provided pursuant to Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing, written protests and verbal protests were received, which the City Council noted and has considered along with all other information received during the public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 supersedes and replaces the existing Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2, the assessments for which have been accounted for in Fund 136, and upon formation of the new District the predecessor district will be dissolved and any unexpended balance remaining in Fund 136, estimated at approximately $35,155 as of April 2026, having been collected for the special benefit of the same parcels, will remain available to fund the Improvements within the same area.

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

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The canvass of the assessment ballots submitted by property owners is complete and certified by the City Clerk, and the votes cast are as follows:

Ballot Category Number of
Ballots
Weighted Assessment
Amount
Weighted
Percentage
Valid Ballots
Processed _________ $_____________ 100%
Yes Votes _________ $_____________ _________%
No Votes _________ $_____________ _________%
Invalid Ballots _________ $_____________ N/A
SECTION 3. ______ assessment ballots were returned and received prior to the close of the public hearing on July 21, 2026. This represents a _____% ballot return rate on the 103 ballots. Of the assessment ballots returned, _____ assessment ballots were declared invalid, in that they were either not marked with a “Yes” or “No”, were marked with both a “Yes” and a “No”, were not signed, or the property ownership and barcode information was illegible.

SECTION 4. As determined by ballots cast, on an unweighted basis, _____% of the property owners cast ballots in support of the measure. As determined by ballots cast, as weighted according to the amount of assessment for each parcel, _____% of the property owners cast ballots in support of the District Measure. Since a majority protest, as defined by Article XIIID of the California Constitution, did not exist, the City Council thereby acquired jurisdiction to order the levy of assessment prepared by and made a part of the Engineer's Report to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

SECTION 5. The Final Engineer’s Report, together with the diagram and boundary map of the assessment contained therein, and the proposed assessment roll for fiscal year 2026-2027 are hereby confirmed and approved.

SECTION 6. Based on oral and documentary evidence, including the Engineer’s Report, offered and received at the public hearing, the City Council expressly finds and determines that:
a) each of the several assessed lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District will be specially benefited by the Improvements (as described in the Engineer’s Report) in at least the amount of the Assessment apportioned against such lots and parcels of land, respectively; and
b) there is substantial evidence to support, and the weight of the evidence preponderates in favor of, said finding and determination as to special benefit to property within the Assessment District from the Improvements to be financed with assessment proceeds.

SECTION 7. That the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026-2 is hereby formed, and assessments consistent with the Engineer’s Report are hereby levied, pursuant to the provisions of Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500 thereof) (“the Act”) and Article XIIID of the California Constitution.

SECTION 8. The assessment for fiscal year 2026-2027 shall be levied at the rate of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE DOLLARS AND THREE CENTS ($633.03) for Zone A (100% of SFE), and TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS AND FIFTY-THREE CENTS ($278.53) for Zone B (44% of SFE) per single-family equivalent (SFE) benefit unit, with estimated total annual assessment revenues as set forth in the Engineer’s Report.

SECTION 9. The authorized maximum assessment to be levied in future fiscal years shall be increased annually based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a maximum of 3% without a further vote or balloting process. In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the CPI change, any such deferred assessment increase may be added to the total amount assessed in any subsequent year. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment amount shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years.

SECTION 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, but no later than August 10 following its adoption, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor-Controller. Upon such filing, the County Auditor-Controller shall enter on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount of assessment thereupon as shown in the Assessment.

SECTION 11. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County property taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments.

After collection, the net amount of assessments, after deduction of County collection costs, shall be paid to the City of Pleasanton.

SECTION 12. The monies representing assessments collected shall be deposited in a separate fund established under the distinctive designation of the Assessment District. Funds collected shall be expended only for the special benefit of parcels within the Assessment District.

SECTION 13. The Assessment, as it applies to any parcel, may be corrected, cancelled, or refunded as appropriate by order of the City Council upon a determination from the Assessment Engineer that the Assessment should be revised to be consistent with the method of assessment

established in the Engineer’s Report. Any such corrections, cancellations, or refunds shall be limited to the current fiscal year.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on July 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 the 21st day of July 2026 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Fiscal Year 2026‐27 ENGINEER’S REPORT
City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch
Landscape and Lighting Maintenance
Assessment District 2026‐2
June 2026
Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution
Exhibit A

(This page Intentionally left blank)

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

City of Pleasanton
Mayor
Jack Balch
City Council
Matt Gaidos, District 4, Vice Mayor
Jeff Nibert, District 1, Member
Craig Eicher, District 2, Member
Julie Testa, District 3, Member
City of Pleasanton Staff
Siew‐Chin Yeong, Director of Public Works
Michael Stella, City Engineer
Matt Gruber, Landscape Architect

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................... 4 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 4 Assessment Process ..................................................................................................... 6 Legislative Analysis....................................................................................................... 8 Plans and Specifications.................................................................................. 11 Estimate of Cost and Budget........................................................................... 13 Notes for Estimates of Costs...................................................................................... 15 Method of Apportionment......................................................................................... 16 Discussion of Benefit.................................................................................................. 17 Benefit Factors ........................................................................................................... 18 General versus Special Benefit................................................................................... 21 Benefit Finding ........................................................................................................... 22 Source of Contributions from Other Funds................................................................ 25 Zones of Benefit ......................................................................................................... 28 Method of Assessment............................................................................................... 29 Residential Properties................................................................................................ 30 Other Properties......................................................................................................... 30 Consumer Price Index Adjustments........................................................................... 31 Government Code § 53759.1 and 53759.2 ................................................................ 31 Assessment Statement ................................................................................... 33 Assessment Diagram....................................................................................... 35 Assessment Roll.............................................................................................. 37

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

List of Tables
Table 1 ‐ Fiscal Year 2026‐27 Estimate of Cost and Budget.............................................. 14 Table 2 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels....................................................................................... 21 Table 3 – Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District ....................................... 23 Table 4 – Summary of General Benefit............................................................................. 25 Table 5 – City In‐Kind General Benefit Contributions....................................................... 27 Table 6 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels by Zone ......................................................................... 29 Table 7 ‐ Assessment Rate Determination by Estimate of Costs...................................... 31 Table 8 – Summary of Combined Cost Estimate............................................................... 33

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Introduction
Overview
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993‐2, Bonde Ranch (“1993‐2 Bonde Ranch LMD”) was established by the City of Pleasanton (“City”) in 1993 as a condition of approval for the Bonde Ranch residential development (Tracts 6483 and 6518). The 1993‐2 Bonde Ranch LMD was formed pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 22500 et seq., the “Act”) to fund the ongoing maintenance of landscaping and trees, open space areas, fuel transition zones (fire breaks), entry features, fencing, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and street lighting within the subdivision.

The original assessment was established in 1993, prior to the passage of Proposition 218.

The assessment was set at $386.18 per parcel per year in Fiscal Year 1997‐98 (Resolution No. 97‐83), following Proposition 218’s effective date. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2000‐01, the assessment wasreduced to $252.91 per parcel, where it remained through Fiscal Year 2024‐25. With no inflation escalator, assessment revenues have not kept pace with the rising costs of maintenance, water, utilities, and capital replacement. The resulting funding shortfall has produced a measurable decline in the condition of the landscape and infrastructure. In FY 2025‐26, the City restored the assessment rate to $386.18 per parcel per year, however the rate is insufficient to fund the full scope of maintenance and capital improvements needed in the district.

The City Council has directed that a new assessment be proposed and voted on by property owners within the District in accordance with Proposition 218 (Article XIIID of the California Constitution). The intent isto replace the existing District 1993‐2 with a new Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2 (“Assessment District” or “District”) that includes a cost‐of‐living adjustment provision to provide adequate and sustainable funding for maintenance and services going forward. If approved by property owner ballot, the existing 1993‐2 Bonde Ranch LMD will be replaced by the Assessment District.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

This Engineer’s Report (“Report”) was prepared to establish the budget for the improvements and services (“Improvements”) that will be funded by the proposed assessments, to determine the general and special benefits received from the Improvements by property within the Assessment District, and to establish the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels. This Report and the assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the “Act”) and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”). The boundaries of the Assessment District are the same as the boundaries of the existing District No. 1993‐2 and include all parcels within the Bonde Ranch subdivision as shown on the Assessment Diagram incorporated in this Report.

Community Outreach
The City of Pleasanton engaged SCI Consulting Group in 2019 to begin the analysis necessary to pursue Proposition 218 compliant assessment increase for the Bonde Ranch LMD. That process was suspended in 2020 due to the COVID‐19 pandemic.

In early 2022, City staff resumed the process of potentially increasing assessments for the District through a Proposition 218 compliant assessment ballot preceding. A neighborhood outreach meeting was held in February 2022. Property owners who attended or communicated with staff by phone or email expressed strong opposition to increasing the assessment. Staff placed the pursuit of a sustainable assessment on hold at that time.

Prior to initiating Proposition 218 proceedings, the City of Pleasanton conducted an extensive community outreach process to inform property owners of the District's financial condition, solicit input on proposed maintenance levels, and explain the Proposition 218 ballot process. Prior to each community meeting, the City mailed and emailed informational flyers to all district property owners summarizing the meeting date, location, and topics to be covered.

On November 20, 2025, the City held its first informational community meeting virtually.

City staff and SCI Consulting Group presented information about the District's formation and history, the current state of the landscape and infrastructure, the funding shortfall resulting from decades of unchanged assessments, and the Proposition 218 process required to increase the assessment. Property owners were invited to submit written feedback to the City. Property owners were invited to submit written feedback to the City and notified that the City would be holding another meeting in response to the input received and to present more detailed cost information.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

The second neighborhood meeting was held on February 18, 2026, at St. Augustine Church Hall. That meeting presented three maintenance level options for community input and introduced a property owner survey to help the City determine which option to bring forward as the ballot measure.

The informal survey was distributed via mail to all district property owners and email for all property owners that had provided the City with their email addresses. The survey sought input on preferred maintenance levels, priorities for improvements, and attitudes toward the proposed assessment.

The survey closed on March 16, 2026. Of the 36 unique survey responses received, 65.6% of respondents, weighted by proposed assessment, indicated cumulative support for the Reduced Maintenance level. Survey results are directional and are not statistically representative of all property owners in the District.

On March 17, 2026, the City Council adopted resolutions initiating proceedings for the formation of the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2 and designated SCI Consulting Group as Engineer of Work for the proposed district.

The third and final neighborhood meeting was held on April 6, 2026, at the Pleasanton Senior Center. That meeting presented the survey results, the proposed ballot option, a detailed explanation of the Proposition 218 weighted ballot process, and the next steps in the proceedings. The meeting was open to in‐person and virtual attendance.

Throughout the outreach process, the City maintained a dedicated informational website for the District available to property owners at all times. The website includes recordings of all three community meetings, slide decks, meeting Q&A summaries, frequently asked questions, formation documents, and budget information. The website has been updated following each community meeting to reflect the most current information available.

Assessment Process
This Engineer’s Report establishes the budget for the maintenance and services to be undertaken by the Assessment District that will be funded by the proposed Fiscal Year 2026‐27 assessments and also determines the benefits received from the maintenance and services by property within the Assessment District as well as the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels. This Report and the proposed assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (the “Article”).

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Following the submittal of this Report to the City of Pleasanton City Council (“Council”) for preliminary approval, the Council may, by Resolution, call for an assessment ballot proceeding and Public Hearing on the establishment of the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2.

If the Council approves such Resolution and calls for the mailing of notices and ballots, a notice of assessment and assessment ballot will be mailed to property owners at least 45 days prior to the date of the Public Hearing set by the Council. Such notice would include a description of the assessments as well as an explanation of the method of voting on the assessments. Each notice would include a ballot on which the property owner could mark his or her approval or disapproval of the assessments and a ballot return envelope.

After the ballots are mailed to property owners, a minimum 45‐day time period must be provided for the return of the assessment ballots. Following this 45‐day time period, a public hearing must be held for the purpose of allowing public testimony regarding the proposed assessments and services. At this hearing, the public would have the opportunity to provide input on this issue and would have a final opportunity to submit ballots. After the conclusion of the public input portion of the hearing, the hearing may be continued to a later time to allow time for the tabulation of ballots.

With the passage of Proposition 218 on November 6, 1996, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution, the proposed assessments can be levied for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 and future years, only if the ballots submitted in favor of the assessments are greater than the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessments. Each ballot is weighted by the amount of proposed assessment for the property that it represents.

If it is determined, when the tabulation results are announced, that the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments do not exceed the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments (weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the property for which ballots are submitted) the Council may take action, by resolution, to approve the levy of the assessments for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 and future fiscal years. If the assessments are confirmed and approved, the levies, as outlined in this Engineer’s Report, will be submitted to the Alameda County Auditor for inclusion on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2026‐27. If the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to the proposed assessments do exceed assessment ballots submitted in favor of the assessments, the assessment rates will be consistent with the previous year’s assessment rates as indicated in a separate Engineer’s Report to be submitted at a future date.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Legislative Analysis
Proposition 218
The Right to Vote on Taxes Act was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996 and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution.  Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services and improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which benefits the assessed property.

Proposition 218 describes several important requirements, including a property owner balloting, for the formation and continuation of assessments, and these requirements are satisfied by the process used to establish this assessment.

Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 431
In July of 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA”).  This ruling is significant in that the Court clarified how Proposition 218 made changes to the determination of special benefit. The Court also found that:
 Benefit assessments are for special, not general, benefit.  The services and/or improvements funded by assessments must be clearly defined.
 Special benefits are directly received by and provide a direct advantage to property in the assessment district.

Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 708 In Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property (“Dahms”) the Court upheld an assessment that was 100% special benefit (i.e. 0% general benefit) on the rationale that the services and improvements funded by the assessments were directly provided to property in the assessment district. The Court also upheld discounts and exemptions from the assessment for certain properties.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 103 Bonander v. Town of Tiburon (“Bonander”), the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned a benefit assessment approved by property owners to pay for placing overhead utility lines underground in an area of the Town of Tiburon.  The Court invalidated the assessments primarily on the grounds that the assessments had been apportioned to assessed property based on the costs within sub‐areas of the assessment district instead of the overall cost of the improvements and the overall proportional special benefits.

Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 1516 Steven Beutz v. County of Riverside (“Beutz”) the Court overturned an assessment for park maintenance in Wildomar, California, primarily because the general benefits associated with improvements and services were not explicitly calculated, quantified and separated from the special benefits.

Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego (2011) 199 Cal.

App. 4th 416
On September 22, 2011, the 4th District Court of Appeal issued a decision on the Golden Hill Neighborhood Association v. City of San Diego (“Greater Golden Hill”) appeal. This decision overturned an assessment forstreet and landscaping maintenance in the Greater Golden Hill neighborhood of San Diego, California. The court described two primary reasonsfor its decision. First, like in Beutz, the court found the general benefits associated with services were not explicitly calculated, quantified, and separated from the special benefits. Second, the court found that the City had failed to record the basis for the assessment on its own parcels.

Compliance with Current Law
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with the SVTA decision because the assessments are for special, not general, benefit; the improvements to be funded are clearly defined; the improvements are directly available to and will directly benefit property in the Assessment District; and the improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the Assessment District that would not be received in absence of the Assessments.

This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Dahms because, similar to the Downtown Pomona assessment validated in Dahms, the services will be directly provided to property in the Assessment District. Moreover, while Dahms could be used asthe basisfor a finding of 0% general benefits, this Engineer’s Report establishes a more conservative measure of general benefits.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

This Engineer’s Report is consistent with Beutz, Dahms, and Greater Golden Hill because the improvements will directly benefit property in the Assessment District, and the general benefits have been explicitly calculated and quantified and excluded from the Assessments. The Engineer’s Report is consistent with Bonander because the Assessments have been apportioned based on the overall cost of the improvements and proportional special benefit to each property.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Plans and Specifications
The City of Pleasanton maintains landscaping and other improvements in locations within the Assessment District's boundaries. The work and improvements to be undertaken by the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2, and the cost thereof paid from the levy of the annual Assessment, provide special benefit to parcels within the Assessment District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein. In addition to the definitions provided by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the "Act"), the work and improvements are generally described as designated landscaping and trees, open space areas, fuel transition zones (fire breaks), entry features, fencing, irrigation systems, street lighting and drainage systems within Tracts 6483 and 6518 in the City of Pleasanton.

The Assessment Diagram shows the location and extent of the Improvements to be installed, maintained, or serviced by the proceeds from this Assessment District.

Installation, maintenance, and servicing of Improvements may include, but are not limited to, landscaping, ground cover, shrubs and trees, irrigation systems, fencing, entry monuments, open space drainage ditches, fuel transition zones (fire breaks), and labor, materials, supplies, utilities, and equipment, as applicable, at each of the locations owned, operated, or maintained by the Assessment District.

As applied herein, "Installation" means the construction of Improvements, including, but not limited to, land preparation (such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling), sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, walkways, and drainage facilities. "Maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement; providing for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and othersolid waste; and the clearing and management of vegetation within fuel transition zones for fire risk reduction purposes.
"Servicing" means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping or the maintenance of any other improvements.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

"Incidental expenses" include all of the following: (a) the costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment; (b) the costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices; (c) compensation payable to the County for collection of assessments; (d) compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part; (e) any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the Improvements; (f) any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22662.5; and (g) costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment (Streets and Highways Code § 22526).

All assessment proceeds will be used exclusively for the Improvements described herein and incidental expenses within the Assessment District.

Landscape plans and specifications for the Improvements to this Assessment District are those prepared by Samson Associates, dated July 1992. These plans and specifications have been filed with the City Clerk and are incorporated in this Report by reference.

Note on District Boundary: The Assessment District boundary reflectsthe area established at the formation of the original Bonde Ranch LMD in 1993. The property directly behind the Ventana Hills neighborhood was excluded from the Bonde Ranch assessment area at formation in 2017 and is incorporated into the Bonde Ranch Open Space. That exclusion is carried forward into this Assessment District.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Estimate of Cost and Budget
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 provides that the total costs for providing the maintenance and services of the Assessment District, including incidental expenses, can be recovered through the assessment. An estimate of Assessment District costs for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 is provided in Table 1 on the following page.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Table 1 ‐ Fiscal Year 2026‐27 Estimate of Cost and Budget Budget
Installation, Maintenance & Servicing Costs
Landscaping (maintenance)
Basic maintenance $6,000.00
Extra Work
tree pruning and removal $23,323.45
cleaning out v‐ditches (3x per year) $1,500.00
repair backflow preventers/irrigation $4,400.00
planting $2,500.00
Water $1,500.00
Fuel Transition Zones (Firebreak) 287,000 sq.ft.

Weed abatement $7,972.00
Total for Installation, Maintenance & Servicing $47,195.45 Incidental and Administration Costs 1
City administration fees $1,800.00
County Collection Costs $868.67
Annual Engineer's Report $2,500.00
Total Incidental and Administration Costs $5,168.67
Amount to/(from) Reserve Fund 2
Reserve/Long‐Term Replacement Fund for scheduled
Long‐term replacement of various district improvements $0 $0
City's Contribution for General Benefit3
TOTAL COSTS $52,364.12

BUDGET ALLOCATION TO PROPERTY
Number of
Parcels/Units
Single Family
Equivalent
Units (SFE) 4

Proposed
Assessment
Rate
Total
Assessment 5

103 82.72 $633.03 $52,364.12

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Notes for Estimates of Costs

1. Incidental and administration cost estimates include City staff hours dedicated to the administration of the assessment (including staff time to bid work, monitor contracts and contractors, respond to residents’ inquiries, etc.), county charges for inclusion of assessments on property tax bills, and other incidental costs.

2. If approved, the Fund 136 balance (approximately $35,155 as of April 2026) for the 1993 Bonde Ranch LMD will be transferred to the new Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2.

3. As determined in the Benefit Findings section, at least 36.94% of the expenditures must be funded from sources other than the assessments to cover any general benefits. Therefore, out of the total cost of $52,364, the City must contribute at least 36.94% from other sources. The City will contribute in‐kind, non‐monetary contributions conservatively estimated at 60% of the total district cost, which more than covers any general benefits from the expenditures. For additional information, see ‘Source of Contributions from Other Funds’ on page 23.

4. The rate shown here is for a single‐family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term Single‐Family Equivalent (SFE) and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment” and the sections following it in this report.

5. The Act requires that proceeds from the assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the Maintenance District. Moreover, funds raised by the assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carried over to the next Fiscal Year.  The District may also establish a reserve fund for contingencies and special projects as well as a capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would either be placed in the reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' assessments.

The proposed Assessment District reserve/replacement funds will be held in an interest bearing account until needed for repairs to the irrigation system, landscaping or other District features.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Method of Apportionment
This section includes an explanation of the special benefits to be derived from the maintenance, operations, and repair activities, the criteria for the expenditure of assessment funds and the methodology used to apportion the total assessments to properties within the Assessment District. The proposed Assessment District area consists of all Assessor Parcels included within the Bonde Ranch LMD 1993 boundary.

Pursuant to Proposition 218, the method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits conferred to the properties over and above the general benefits conferred to real property in the proposed Assessment District, or to the public at large. Special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the District using the following process:

1.) Identification of all benefit factors derived from the Improvements.

2.) Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general.

3.) Determination of the relative special benefit within different areas (zones of benefit) of the Assessment District.

4.) Determination of the relative special benefit per property type.

5.) Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based upon special vs. general benefit, zones, property type and other supporting attributes.

The District consists of certain assessor parcels within the boundaries as defined by the Assessment Diagram referenced in this report and the parcels identified by the Assessor Parcel Numbers listed with the levy roll. The parcel list includes all privately and publicly owned parcels as shown. The method used for apportioning the Assessment is based upon the relative special benefits to be derived by the properties in the District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The Assessment is apportioned to lots and parcels in proportion to the relative special benefit from the improvements.

The apportionment of special benefit is a two‐step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the improvements and the second step is to allocate the Assessmentsto property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Discussion of Benefit
In summary, the Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property.

This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property and that the value of the special benefits must exceed the cost of the assessment:
"No assessmentshall be imposed on any parcel which exceedsthe reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." The following benefit categories summarize the types of special benefits to residential and other lots and parcels resulting from the installation, maintenance, and servicing of landscaping, fuel transition zones, open space areas, irrigation systems, fencing, entry features, and drainage systemsfunded by the Assessment. These types ofspecial benefits are summarized as follows:

1. Proximity to improved landscaped areas, open space, and other permanent public improvements within the Assessment District

2. Access to improved landscaped areas within the Assessment District

3. Improved views within the Assessment District

4. Reduction of the wildland fire risk by the maintenance of fuel transition zones and fire breaks within or immediately adjacent to a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone

5. Creation of individual lots for residential and commercial use that, in absence of the Assessments, would not have been created.

In this case, the SVTA decision provides enhanced clarity to the definitions of special benefits to properties from similar improvements in three distinct areas:
 Proximity
 Expanded or improved access

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

 Views
The SVTA decision also clarifies that a special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel and that indirect or derivative advantages resulting from the overall public benefits from a service or improvement are general benefits. The SVTA decision also provides specific guidance that park improvements are a direct advantage and special benefit to property that is proximate to a park that is improved by an assessment:
“The characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g. proximity to a park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g. general enhancement of the district’s property values).” Proximity, improved access, and views, in addition to the other special benefits listed above further strengthen the basis of these assessments.

Moreover, the Dahms decision further clarified that certain services and improvements funded by assessments, that are over and above what otherwise would be provided and that other property in general and the public do not share or receive are 100% special benefit. The assessment‐funded services upheld by Dahms included streetscape maintenance and security services.

Benefit Factors
The special benefits from the improvements are further detailed below:

Proximity to improved landscaped areas within the Assessment District Only the specific properties within close proximity to the improvements are included in the Assessment District. Therefore, property in the Assessment District enjoys unique and valuable proximity and access to the improvements that the public at large and property outside the Assessment District do not share.

In absence of the assessments, the improvements and the landscaping areas in the Assessment District would be degraded due to insufficient funding for maintenance, upkeep, and repair. Therefore, the assessments provide improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided. Improvements that are over and above what otherwise would be provided do not by themselves translate into special benefits but when combined with the unique proximity and access enjoyed by parcels in the Assessment District, they provide a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Assessment District.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Access to improved outdoor and landscaped areas within the Assessment District
Since the parcelsin the Assessment District are the primary parcelsthat enjoy close access to the improvements, they directly benefit from the unique close access to improved landscaping areas that are provided by the Assessments. This is a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Assessment District.

Improved views within the Assessment District
The City, by maintaining permanent public improvements funded by the Assessments in the District, provides improved views to properties in the District. The properties in the District enjoy close and unique proximity, access and views of the specific improvements funded in the District; therefore, the improved and protected views provided by the Assessments are another direct and tangible advantage that is uniquely conferred upon property in the District.

Wildland Fire Risk Reduction
The Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District was formed in large part to protect the subdivision from wildland fire risk. The district's fuel transition zones (fire breaks) and open space slopes were required as conditions of approval for the development and have served as the primary buffer between the residential properties and the surrounding wildland interface since the district's formation in 1993.

In 2025, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CAL FIRE”) updated its fire hazard severity zone map, and the eastern portion of the Assessment District is now designated within a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The maintenance of fuel transition zones and open space slopes within the Assessment District directly reduces the risk of wildland fire ignition and spread to properties within the Assessment District.

Thisfire risk reduction is a direct, tangible benefit that is particular and distinct to property within the Assessment District, as properties outside the District boundaries do not receive the same proximate protection from the District's fire management activities.

The degree of fire risk reduction benefit varies materially by proximity to the maintained fuel transition zones. Zone A parcels are directly adjacent to the LMD landscape maintenance areas and fuel transition zones and receive the full fire risk reduction benefit. These parcels sit within or immediately proximate to the Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation and are the properties most directly protected by the District's fuel management activities.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Zone B parcels are located across Bernal Avenue and at substantially greater distance from the maintained fuel transition zones. While Zone B parcels remain within the Assessment District boundary and receive some indirect benefit from the District's fire management activities, the direct protective effect of the fuel transition zones diminishes significantly with distance. The CAL FIRE hazard mapping confirms that Zone B parcels lie at the periphery of or outside the Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, further reflecting their reduced exposure and the correspondingly reduced protective benefit conferred by the District's fuel management program. On a scale of 1 to 10, Zone B parcels receive a fire risk reduction benefit score of 2, compared to a score of 10 for Zone A parcels, reflecting this material difference in proximate protection.

Creation of Individual Lots for Residential Use that, in Absence of the Assessments, Would Not Have Been Created
The residential parcels within the Assessment District were created through a subdivision and development process that required the installation of landscaping, open space improvements, fuel transition zones, and other public improvements as conditions of approval. These Improvements were not optional enhancements but mandatory prerequisites for the subdivision to be approved and the individual lots to be created. The proposed Assessments provide the necessary funding for the continued maintenance of these Improvements, which support the ongoing safety and habitability of those parcels.

As parcels are sold, new owners are informed of the Assessment through title reports and Department of Real Estate disclosure reports indicating that the parcels are subject to assessment. Purchase of property within the Assessment District constitutes notice of the Assessment obligation.

In the absence of the proposed Assessments, the continued maintenance and servicing of the Improvements associated with the residential lots within the Assessment District would not be adequately funded. These parcels, and the Improvements that were constructed to serve them, receive a direct advantage and special benefit from the Assessments.

Summary of Relative Weight of Benefit Factors
The relative weight assigned to each benefit factor reflects the primacy of wildland fire risk reduction to the safety and habitability of properties within the Assessment District.

The fuel transition zones and open space slopes maintained by the District were required as conditions of subdivision approval and serve as the primary buffer between the residential properties and the surrounding wildland interface. Wildland fire risk reduction is accordingly assigned a weight of 70% of the total benefit.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Views, decorative landscaping, and access are assigned a combined weight of 20%, reflecting the direct and ongoing advantage of proximity to and views of the maintained open space and landscaped areas enjoyed by all parcels within the Assessment District.

The Creation of Individual Lots is assigned a weight of 10%. While this benefit is real and legally recognized, it is foundational rather than ongoing. The lots were created once under conditions of approval thatrequired these Improvements, and the Assessment now funds the continued maintenance that supports their habitability. The relative benefit levels used in this Report are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels
Creation of Lots Views/Decorative
Landscaping/Access
Wildland Fire
Risk Reduction
10% 20% 70%
General versus Special Benefit
Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a benefit assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying for general benefits. An assessment can fund special benefits but cannot fund general benefits. Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefit is given in this section.

Article XIIID never defines the term “general benefit.” The definition of special benefit in Section 2(i) includes the statement that general enhancement of property value does not constitute a special benefit. A general benefit may be described as an “indirect, derivative advantage” resulting from the improvements.

In other words:

Total
Benefit = GeneralBenefit + SpecialBenefit

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for general benefit. General benefits are benefits from improvements or services that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” benefits received by other properties. SVTA provides some clarification by indicating that general benefits provide “an indirect, derivative advantage” and are not necessarily proximate to the improvements.

In this Report, the general benefit isliberally estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the Assessment.

A formula to estimate the general benefit is listed below:

General
Benefit =
Benefit to Real
Property Outside
the Assessment
District
+
Benefit to Real
Property Inside the
Assessment District
that is Indirect and
Derivative
+
Benefit to
the Public
at Large
Special benefit, on the other hand, is defined in the California Constitution as "a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large." The SVTA decision indicates that a special benefit is conferred to a property if it "receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to a park)." In this Assessment, properties in the District have close and unique proximity, views, and access to the Improvements that other properties and the public at large do not share. Therefore, the overwhelming proportion of the benefits conferred to property within the District is special, and only minimal benefit is received by property outside the District or the public at large.

Benefit Finding
Quantification of General Benefit
The starting point for evaluating general and special benefits is the current baseline level of service. In the absence of the Assessment, no alternative funding source exists for the maintenance of the Improvements within the Assessment District. The baseline level of service without the Assessment is therefore the absence of funded maintenance, and all Improvements funded by the Assessment are over and above that baseline. The general benefits estimated in this section are measured against that baseline.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment Districts
Properties within the District receive almost all of the special benefits from the Improvements because properties in the District enjoy unique close proximity and access to the Improvements that is not enjoyed by other properties or the public at large.

However, certain properties within the proximity/access radius of the Improvements, but outside of the boundaries of the District, may receive some benefit from the Improvements. Since this benefit is conferred to some properties outside the District boundaries, it contributesto the overall general benefit calculation and will not be funded by the Assessments. The general benefit to property outside of the District is calculated with the parcel and data analysis performed by SCI Consulting Group.

Since certain properties outside the District enjoy close proximity and access to the improvements cannot be assessed by the District, thisis a form of general benefit to other property. There are 44 parcels outside the District that are directly adjacent to areas where pathways and landscaped areas are maintained by the District. The benefits conferred to these properties do not include the Lot Creation benefit factor, therefore the benefit is reduced by 90%. The general benefit to property outside of the District is calculated as follows.

Table 3 – Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District Benefit to Property Outside the Assessment District
Assumptions:

Parcels outside and adjacent to the District 44
Parcels in the Maintenance District 103
Calculation: ((44 / (44 + 103)) * Factor applied
Factor applied 90%
General Benefit to Property outside the District 26.94%

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Benefit to Property Inside the Assessment Districts that is Indirect and Derivative
The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property within the District is particularly difficult to calculate. A solid argument can be presented that all benefit within the District is special because the other improvements are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when compared with the baseline level of service and the unique proximity, access and views of the other improvements enjoyed by benefiting properties in the District.

Nevertheless, the SVTA decision indicates there may be general benefit “conferred on real property located in the district.” A measure of the general benefitsto property within the Assessment area is the percentage of land area within or directly abutting the District that is publicly owned and used for regional purposes such asregional parks, major roads, rail lines and other regional facilities because such properties used for regional purposes could provide indirect benefits to the public at large. The Assessment boundaries are narrowly drawn to include only the residential parcels within Tracts 6483 and 6518, and there are no regional facilities within the Assessment District. Therefore, the indirect and derivative general benefits to property within the Assessment District are zero.

General Benefit Inside the District (Indirect and Derivative) = 0.0% Benefit To The Public At Large
The general benefit to the public at large can be estimated by the proportionate amount of time that the Assessment’simprovements are used and enjoyed by individuals who are not residents or property owners in the Assessment District. These improvements do not attract the public at large in the same way as park improvements, and they confer far less benefit to the public at large than do similar park improvements. In essence, the public does not visit an area to enjoy outdoor and landscaped area improvements in the same way as they may visit a park.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

However, certain outdoor and landscaped areas maintained by the Assessment District may provide some enhancement to views enjoyed by the public as they drive past. Based on surveys and research in which visitors to similar landscape, open space and parks, at various times of the day, evening, and week, were asked to look at a District map and to identify whether they lived or worked within the City, less than 5% of the use of similar landscape, open space, parks or recreation areas is by the public at large. When people outside the Maintenance District use landscape, open space, parks, or recreation areas, they diminish the availability of such facilities for people within the Maintenance District.

Therefore, another 5% of general benefits are allocated for people within the Maintenance District. Combining these two elements of general benefit, we find that 10% of the benefits from the Improvements are general benefits to the public at large.

Summary of General Benefit
Using a sum of these three measures of general benefit, we find that approximately

36.94% of the benefits conferred by the improvements may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the assessment.

Table 4 – Summary of General Benefit
General Benefit Component Percentage
Benefit to property outside the Assessment District 26.94% Indirect and derivative benefit to property inside the District 0.00% Benefit to the public at large 10.00%
Total General Benefit 36.94%
Source of Contributions from Other Funds
The general benefit of 36.94% must be funded by sources other than the Assessment. The City of Pleasanton satisfies this requirement through the following in‐kind, non‐monetary contributions to the Assessment District.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

The City of Pleasanton owns, maintains, rehabilitates, and replaces the curb and gutter along the border of the Assessment District. This infrastructure serves to support and contain the Improvements and manage irrigation flow. The contribution from the City toward the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of curb and gutter is conservatively estimated at 10%. In other words, if the Assessment District were required to construct and maintain the local curb and gutter, the budget would increase by at least 10%.

The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the Assessment District. This system serves to prevent flooding and manage urban runoff from the Improvements. The contribution from the City toward the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated at 10%.

The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains local public streets throughout the Assessment District. These streets provide access to the Improvements for their enjoyment and efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City toward the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of local public streets is conservatively estimated at 10%.

The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains the open space area directly behind the Ventana Hills neighborhood, including eucalyptus trees and associated vegetation, which was excluded from the Bonde Ranch assessment area in 2017 and incorporated into the Bonde Ranch Open Space. Prior to that exclusion, maintenance of this area was the financial responsibility of the District. The City's ongoing maintenance of this open space reduces the annual cost burden on the Assessment District and provides a continuing in‐ kind contribution toward the general benefit requirement. This contribution is conservatively estimated at 5%.

The City of Pleasanton maintains street lighting within the Assessment District. Street lighting was included as a District obligation in the original 1993 formation documents and the City has absorbed this obligation The contribution from the City toward the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of street lights is conservatively estimated at 5%.

The value of the initial Improvements constructed by the Developer can be quantified and monetized as an annuity to be amortized. Since the initial Improvements were performed and paid for by non‐assessment funds, this annuity is conservatively estimated to contribute 20% toward the general benefit requirement.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

In addition to the infrastructure contributions described above, the City of Pleasanton provides ongoing staff support for the administration of the Assessment District that is not reimbursed through the assessment and is not included in the percentage estimates above. The City's Landscape Architect dedicates time throughout the year to the preparation of bid documents, contractor selection and monitoring, property owner inquiries, site inspections, coordination with other City departments, and general district administration. The City administration fee collected through the assessment is $1,800 per year. The value of the City Landscape Architect's time dedicated to the Assessment District exceeds this amount, meaning the City absorbs the difference as a further in‐kind contribution toward the general benefit requirement. This unreimbursed staff time represents an ongoing financial contribution by the City to the Assessment District that is separate from and in addition to the infrastructure contributions described above, and further demonstrates that the City's total contributions to the District more than satisfy the general benefit requirement.

In total, the City of Pleasanton's in‐kind contributions represent 60% of the total district cost, which more than satisfies the 36.94% general benefit requirement.

Table 5 – City In‐Kind General Benefit Contributions
City In‐Kind Contribution Percentage
Curb and gutter maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement 10.0% Storm drainage system maintenance, rehabilitation, and
replacement 10.0%
Local public streets maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement 10.0% Maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of property directly behind Ventana Hills neighborhood 10.0%
Amortized value of initial Improvements constructed by
Developer 20.0%
Total City In‐Kind Contributions 60.0%

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Zones of Benefit
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2 was formed to provide a funding source for the maintenance and services of landscaping improvements within the boundaries of the Assessment District. The boundaries of the Assessment District have been narrowly drawn to include only properties that will specially benefit from the maintenance and services and would receive a declining level of service if the Assessments were not approved.

The SVTA decision indicates:

In a well‐drawn district — limited to only parcels receiving special benefits from the improvement — every parcel within that district receives a shared special benefit. Under section 2, subdivision (i), these benefits can be construed as being general benefits since they are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” the benefits received by other properties “located in the district.” We do not believe that the voters intended to invalidate an assessment district that is narrowly drawn to include only properties directly benefiting from an improvement. Indeed, the ballot materials reflect otherwise. Thus, if an assessment district is narrowly drawn, the fact that a benefit is conferred throughout the district does not make it general rather than special. In that circumstance, the characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g., general enhancement of the district’s property values).

The Engineer determined that, based on proximity to the Improvements and the nature of the benefits received, the Assessment District shall consist of two zones of benefit:

Zone A and Zone B.

Zone A includes all residential parcels that are directly adjacent to and immediately proximate to the LMD landscape maintenance areas and fuel transition zones. These parcels receive the full set of special benefits from all categories of Improvements, including direct proximity and access to landscaped areas, improved views, the maximum degree of wildland fire risk reduction, and lot creation.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Zone B includes residential parcels located across Bernal Avenue and at greater distance from the LMD maintenance areas. While Zone B parcels receive the lot creation benefit and some proximity, views, and landscaping benefit, they receive a substantially reduced wildland fire risk reduction benefit due to their greater distance from the maintained fuel transition zones. The CAL FIRE hazard mapping confirms that most Zone B parcels lie outside the Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with only a small number of parcels at the northeastern edge of Zone B falling within the designated zone. Even for those parcels, the direct protective effect of the District's fuel management activities is materially reduced at that distance compared to Zone A.

The relative benefit scores for each zone, weighted by the benefit factors established in this Report, are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6 ‐ Relative Benefit Levels by Zone
Zone Creation of
Lots
Views/Decorative
Landscaping/Access
Wildland
Fire Risk
Reduction
Weighted
Score
Normalized
Score
Relative Weight 10% 20% 70%
Zone A Score (1‐10) 10 10 10 10 100%
Zone B Score (1‐10) 10 10 2 4.4 44%
Method of Assessment
The assessments are apportioned to properties within the Assessment District in proportion to the relative special benefit each property receives from the Improvements.

As established in the Zones of Benefit section, the Assessment District consists of two zones reflecting materially different levels of special benefit. Zone A parcels receive a normalized benefit score of 100% and Zone B parcels receive a normalized benefit score of 44%, based on the weighted benefit factor analysis in Table 6. This zone differential is the primary basis for the difference in assessment rates between Zone A and Zone B.

Within each zone, assessments are further apportioned on the basis of Single‐Family Equivalents (SFE). The SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing a fair and appropriate basis for apportionment. For the purposes of this Engineer's Report, all properties are designated an SFE value representing each property's relative benefit in relation to a single‐family home on one parcel. The benchmark property is the single‐ family detached dwelling, which equals one Single‐Family Equivalent or one SFE.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

The special benefits conferred by the Assessments are benefits to property and are not based on a specific property owner's use of the Improvements, occupancy of the property, or demographic status. The method of apportionment is further described below.

Residential Properties
In the Assessment District, there is only one type of residential property present: the single‐family home.  Other types of residential property, such as multifamily, apartments and condominiums, are not present.   Furthermore, the property in the Assessment District isfully developed, has been stable since its original development in the late 1990s, and is zoned such that a change in that dominate land use is not expected in the future.

As a result, there is no need for a detailed analysis of population densities to determine relative benefit for other types of residential properties. Each single‐family residential property is assigned one SFE.

Other Properties
Article XIIID stipulates that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment.

The City of Pleasanton owns a parcel with a very large water tank and associated critical infrastructure used to supply water for domestic use and fire protection.   This critical infrastructure receives significant special benefit from District services supporting reduced wildland fire risk and potential damage and is assigned 2 SFEs.

Miscellaneous, public right‐of‐way parcels, , limited access open space parcels, watershed parcels and common area parcels typically do not generate employees, residents, customers, or guests. Moreover, many of these parcels have limited economic value and, therefore, do not benefit from specific enhancement of property value. Such parcels are, therefore, not specially benefited and are not assessed.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Table 7 ‐ Assessment Rate Determination by Estimate of Costs Zone No. Parcels SFE
Factor
Total
SFEs
Annual
Assessment
Rate
Total
Assessment
Zone A SFR 64 1.00 64.00 $633.03 $40,514
Zone A Water Tank 1 2.00 2.00 $633.03   $1,266
Zone B SFR 38 0.44 16.72 $278.53   $10,584
TOTAL 103 82.72 $52,364
Consumer Price Index Adjustments
The maximum assessment rate within the Assessment District may be increased by an amount equal to the annual change in the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (“CPI”), not to exceed 3%. In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the CPI change, any such deferred assessment increase may be added to the total amount assessed in any subsequent year. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment amount shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years.

Government Code § 53759.1 and 53759.2
AB 2257, effective January 1, 2025, is codified at Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 and establishes an exhaustion of administrative remedies framework applicable to Proposition 218 property‐related fees and assessments.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Government Code Section 53759.1 authorizes public agencies to implement an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement in connection with a proposed Proposition 218 property‐related fee or assessment. Where a local agency complies with the requirements of that section, property owners are required to submit a written objection during the ratemaking process by a specified deadline, no less than 45 days after mailing of the Proposition 218 notice, and are prohibited from challenging the fee or assessment in litigation if they did not submit a timely written objection. The agency is required to prepare written responses to timely submitted objections and present them to the governing body, which must make certain specified determinations prior to the close of the Proposition 218 protest hearing. This process runs concurrently with the Proposition 218 timeline and does not affect a property owner's right to submit a protest pursuant to Proposition 218.

Government Code Section 53759.2 specifies the scope of judicial review of the administrative record of the underlying ratemaking proceeding where the local agency complied with Section 53759.1 in adopting the fee or assessment being challenged.

The City of Pleasanton has implemented the requirements of Government Code Section 53759.1 through Ordinance No. 2292, codified at Pleasanton Municipal Code Section

1.04.120. The City intends to comply fully with Government Code Section 53759.1 with respect to the proposed Assessment. Property owners will be informed of the deadline and process to submit a written objection, and all other dates and requirements related to the City's compliance with this provision, in the ballot notice mailed pursuant to Proposition 218.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Assessment Statement
The City Council of the City of Pleasanton, County of Alameda, California, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (collectively “the Act”), directed the formation of the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2, which replaces the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 1993‐2;
The Council directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Assessment District and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance and services upon all assessable parcels within the Assessment District;
The undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act and the order of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, hereby makes the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the maintenance and services, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Assessment District.

The amount to be paid for said Improvements and the expenses incidental thereto, to be paid by the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2 for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 is generally as follows:

Table 8 – Summary of Combined Cost Estimate
Budget Item Budgeted
Cost
Installation, Maintenance & Servicing Costs $47,195
Incidental and Administration Costs $5,169
Total Budget $52,364
As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram is hereto attached and made a part hereof showing the exterior boundaries of the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Assessment is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

And I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within the City of Pleasanton, Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Cost Estimate and Method of Assessment hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof.

The assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2 in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the improvements.

The assessment is subject to an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area as of December of each succeeding year (the CPI). In the event that the actual assessment rate for any given year is not increased by an amount equal to the CPI change, any such deferred assessment increase may be added to the total amount assessed in any subsequent year. In such event, the maximum authorized assessment amount shall be equal to the base year assessment as adjusted by the increase to the CPI, plus any and all CPI adjustments deferred in any and all prior years.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2026‐

27. For a more particular description of the property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County.

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2026‐27 for each parcel or lot of land within the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2.

Dated: May 13, 2026
Engineer of Work
By
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2 in the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, are displayed on the following Assessment Diagram.

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

City of Pleasanton
Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2
Engineer’s Report

Assessment Roll
An Assessment Roll (a listing of all parcels assessed within the Bonde Ranch Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐2 and the amount of the assessment) has been filed with the City Clerk and is, by reference, made part of this report and will be available for public inspection during normal office hours.

Each lot or parcel listed on the Assessment Roll is shown and illustrated on the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report.

These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL
1 948-0019-39 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
2 948-0019-40 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
3 948-0018-04 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
4 948-0018-05 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
5 948-0018-06 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
6 948-0018-08 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
7 948-0018-09 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
8 948-0018-10-1 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
9C 948-0018-11-2 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
11 946-2542-79 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
12 946-2542-80 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
13 946-2542-81 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
14 946-2542-82 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
15 946-2542-83 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
16 946-2542-84 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
17 946-2542-85-3 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
18C 946-2542-86-5 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
19 946-2542-87-3 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
20 946-2542-88-2 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
21 946-2542-89-3 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
22 946-2542-90 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
23 946-2550-38 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
24 946-2550-39 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
25 946-2550-40 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
26 946-2550-41 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
27 946-2550-42 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
28 946-2542-69 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
29 946-2542-68 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
30 946-2542-67 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
31 946-2542-66 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
32 946-2542-65 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
33 946-2542-64 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
34 946-2542-63 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
35 946-2542-62 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
36 946-2542-61 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
37 946-2542-60 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
38C 946-2542-59 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53

CITY OF PLEASANTON
BONDE RANCH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 2026-2
2026-27 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL

CITY OF PLEASANTON
BONDE RANCH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 2026-2
2026-27 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL
39 946-2542-58 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
40 946-2542-78 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
41 946-2542-77 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
42 946-2542-76 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
43 946-2542-75 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
44 946-2542-74 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
45 946-2542-73 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
46 946-2542-72 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
47 946-2542-71 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
48 946-2542-70 $273.79 $4.74 $278.53
49 948-0019-03 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
50 948-0019-04 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
51 948-0019-05 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
52 948-0019-06 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
53 948-0019-07 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
54 948-0019-08 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
55 948-0019-09 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
56 948-0019-10 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
57 948-0019-11 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
58C 948-0005-29 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
59 948-0005-30 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
60 948-0005-31 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
61 948-0005-32 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
62 948-0005-33 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
63 948-0005-34 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
64 948-0005-35 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
65 948-0005-36 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
66 948-0005-37 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
67 948-0005-38 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
68 948-0005-39 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
69 948-0005-40 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
70 948-0005-41 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
71 948-0019-14 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
72 948-0019-15 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
73 948-0019-16 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
74 948-0019-17 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
75 948-0019-18 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
76 948-0019-19 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03

ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM NO.

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER

ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT

COLLECTION
CHARGE (0.017) TOTAL

CITY OF PLEASANTON
BONDE RANCH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 2026-2
2026-27 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL
77 948-0019-20 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
78 948-0019-21 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
79 948-0019-22 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
80 948-0019-23 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
81 948-0019-25 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
82 948-0019-26 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
83 948-0019-27 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
84 948-0019-28 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
85 948-0019-29 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
86 948-0019-30 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
87 948-0019-32 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
88 948-0019-33 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
89 948-0019-34 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
90 948-0019-35 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
91 948-0019-36 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
92 948-0019-37 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
93 948-0019-38 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M1 948-0018-16 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M2 948-0018-17 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M3 948-0018-18 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M4 948-0018-19 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M5 948-0018-20 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M6 948-0018-21 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M7 948-0018-22 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M8 948-0018-23 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M9 948-0018-24 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
M10 948-0018-25 $622.27 $10.76 $633.03
CITY 948-0014-1-39 $1,266.06 $1,266.06
103 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS: $51,495.45 $868.67 $52,364.12

1 Proposition 218 Assessment Ballot Proceedings
Ponderosa-Del Prado LMD 2026-1 and Bonde Ranch LMD 2026-2 Public Hearing | July 21, 2026
Recommendation

1. Conduct the public hearing on the proposed assessments for Ponderosa-Del Prado LMD 2026-1 and Bonde Ranch LMD 2026-2.

2. Following close of public testimony, direct the City Clerk to tabulate ballots returned for each proposed district.

3. If no majority protest exists, adopt the resolution approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the FY 2026/27 levy for PonderosaDel Prado LMD 2026-1 for FY 2026/27.

4. If no majority protest exists, adopt the resolution for Bonde Ranch LMD 2026-2 for FY 2026/27.

Tabulation results for each district will be announced at the public hearing and recorded in the resolutions. 1 2
Attachment 4

2 Background
• The City administers five Landscape Maintenance Districts, all formed before Proposition 218 was adopted in 1996.
• Ponderosa-Del Prado LMD and Bonde Ranch LMD were prioritized for a Proposition 218 vote because they face the most significant funding shortfalls. • Existing assessment structures do not include annual inflationary adjustment factors; consequently, revenues have not kept pace with rising maintenance and water costs.
• Current reserve levels are inadequate for capital repair and replacement. • If approved through the Article XIIID property owner ballot process, the proposed Ponderosa-Del Prado and Bonde Ranch districts would replace their corresponding existing districts.

Proposition 218 Process Timeline
Nov 2025 – Apr 2026
Three neighborhood
meetings per district;
surveys, mailed flyers, and
dedicated district
websites
Mar 17, 2026
Council initiated
proceedings (Resolutions
2026-009 & 2026-010) and
designated SCI Consulting
Group as Engineer of Work
May 5, 2026
Council preliminarily
approved the
Engineer’s Reports and
ordered Proposition
218 ballot proceedings
May 15, 2026
Official ballots and
notices mailed to all
record property
owners
July 21, 2026
Public hearing; ballots
must be received by
the City Clerk by the
close of the hearing
Aug 10, 2026
If approved,
assessments will be
submitted to the
Alameda County
Auditor-Controller for
FY 2026/27 tax bills
3 4

3 Ponderosa-Del Prado LMD 2026-1 Bonde Ranch LMD 2026-2 District Maps
Ponderosa-Del Prado LMD 2026-1
344 parcels
343 single-family residential parcels +
Del Prado Park
$61.10
current annual assessment per parcel
$84,224
proposed annual district budget
Moderate Level
proposed maintenance level in report
Zone Parcels Annual Rate* Total Assessment
Base Level 278 $241.44 $67,120
Central - Wall 24 $252.55 $6,061
Adjacent to Trail 20 $255.44 $5,109
Proximate Trail Access 17 $266.55 $4,531
Proximate Trail Access + Adjacent 5 $280.55 $1,403
to Trail
TOTAL 344 $84,224
*Annual assessment rates include 1.7% collection charge; rates would be subject to annual CPI adjustment capped at 3%. $241.44 to
$280.55*
proposed annual assessment per
parcel
5 6

4 Bonde Ranch LMD 2026-2
103 parcels
102 single-family residential parcels +
City-owned water tank parcel
$396.18
current annual assessment per parcel
$52,364
proposed annual district budget
Reduced Level
proposed maintenance level in report
Zone Parcels Annual Rate* Total Assessment
Bonde Ranch LMD Zone A 64 $633.03 $40,514
Bonde Ranch LMD Zone A Water 1 $633.03 $1,266
Tank
Bonde Ranch LMD Zone B SFR 38 $278.53 $10,584
TOTAL 103 $52,364
Zone A parcels are weighted more heavily because they receive greater special benefit from fire protection and landscape maintenance services. *Annual assessment rates include 1.7% collection charge; rates would be subject to annual CPI adjustment capped at 3%. $278.53 to
633.03*
proposed annual assessment per
parcel
How Ballots Are Tabulated
Receive
Ballots must reach the City
Clerk by the close of the
public hearing —
postmarks don’t count
1 Tabulate
After testimony closes,
the City Clerk tabulates
the returned ballots for
each District
2 Weight
Each ballot is weighted by
the parcel’s proportional
assessment; only returned
ballots count
3 Compare
Weigh the returned “No”
ballots against the
returned “Yes” ballots
4 Announce
Results are announced at
the hearing and recorded
in the resolutions
5 Majority Protest
A majority protest exists when the weighted value of returned “No” ballots exceeds the weighted value of returned “Yes” ballots — and the assessment cannot be imposed.

Returned “No” > Returned “Yes”
weighted by each parcel’s assessment
7 8

5 Outcome by District after Tabulation
If No Majority Protest
• Council may adopt resolutions confirming
the Engineer's Reports and ordering the levy
for FY 2026/27.
• Ponderosa-Del Prado LMD 1984-1 dissolves
and is replaced by LMD 2026-1; Fund 134
balance transfers.
• LMD 1993-2 dissolves and is replaced by
LMD 2026-2; Fund 136 balance transfers.
• Proposed assessments take effect upon
adoption of the resolutions.

If a Majority Protest Exists
• The proposed assessment for that district
may not be imposed.
• The corresponding existing district continues
to operate under its current assessment
structure.
>
Comments and Questions
>
9 10

Item #16

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
July 21, 2026
Community and Economic Development
TITLE: TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT: 1) ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO

ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH2023050339) IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164; 2) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO A) INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNEXATION (P25-0115) OF TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES FROM UNINCORPORATED ALAMEDA COUNTY TO THE CITY OF PLEASANTON; AND TO APPROVE (B) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (P25-0116) TO DESIGNATE LAND USES MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (C) PRE/REZONING (P25-0118) OF SAID PARCELS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY TO PUD–MDR (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT; (D) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND REZONING (PUD-154) TO CONSTRUCT 189 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH 48 DEED-RESTRICTED

JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND INSTALL RELATED ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE; AND (E) A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 8423 TO SUBDIVIDE SAID PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES INTO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS; AND 3)

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PRE-ANNEXATION AND

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROJECT

SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to annex approximately 30 acres consisting of APN 946-4634-1 and an approximately 3.4-acre portion of APN 946-4634-2 (the Project Site) into City limits for the construction of a subdivision comprising 189 unit detached, single-family residences and 48 deed-restricted Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) along with related site features including a 0.7-acre park area and on- and off-site improvements, commonly referred to as the Arroyo Lago residential development (the Project).

The Project requires an amendment to the General Plan to apply a land use designation to the project site and pre-zone it to allow the proposed medium-density residential use. The Project will be processed as a Planned Unit Development and rezoning application. Funding for the maintenance of public infrastructure associated with the Project, other than that maintained by the Homeowners Association, will be provided through a Community Facilities District (CFD) funded by homeowners’ property assessments.

The Planning Commission reviewed the project on June 24, 2026 and unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the County EIR and approve the Project, initiate annexation proceedings, and approve or adopt General Plan amendments, Pre/Rezoning, the PUD Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8423. The

Commission, on a 3-1 vote (with one absence), conditioned its recommendation to the City Council to approve the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) on an amendment of PADA Section 3.2.h to increase the applicant’s contribution to the improvement of El Charro Road from three million dollars ($3,000,000) to its estimated full fair share cost of eight million dollars ($8,000,000).

The Project, along with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation in the form of an addendum to Alameda County EIR (Addendum) previously prepared for the Project when in was proposed in the County, consideration for annexation and Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement, including the form of an Affordable Housing Agreement, are now before the City Council for a decision.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a resolution finding the Addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH 2023050339) has been prepared in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15264 and has addressed minor revisions to the proposed annexation of the Project to the City (Attachment 1).

2. Introduce an ordinance making the findings and approving the applications to: (a) Initiate proceedings for annexation (P25-0115) of totaling approximately 30 acres (consisting of APN 946-4634-1 and an approximately 3.4-acre portion of APN 946-4634-2) from unincorporated Alameda County to the City of Pleasanton; and (b) adopt General Plan Amendments (P25- 0116) to designate land uses Medium Density Residential; (c) Pre-zone (P25-0118) said site in County to PUD–MDR (Planned Unit Development - Medium Density Residential) Districts; (d) approve Planned Unit Development and rezoning (PUD-154) to construct 189 detached singlefamily residences with 48 deed-restricted JADUs, and install related on- and off-site improvements and infrastructure; and (e) approve of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 8423) to subdivide approximately 30 acres into single-family lots and common open space areas (Attachment 2); and

3. Introduce an ordinance approving the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement, which is inclusive of the Affordable Housing Agreement (Attachment 3).

BACKGROUND
The Project site is one of the properties in the East Pleasanton planning area, for which the General Plan contemplates adoption of a Specific Plan to guide future development. The owners have had a long-standing interest in the City annexing the site to allow development within Pleasanton. However, a Specific Plan has not been adopted, and the City Council did not select the Project site for housing in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process.

While remaining under Alameda County jurisdiction, in August 2022, 330 Land Company (Applicant), on behalf of the landowner, USL Pleasanton LP (USL), filed an SB 330 application with the County for the construction of a community consisting of 194 residential units and 49 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) (hereinafter, the County Project). The County Project included on- and off-site utility facilities for sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater retention and treatment, and did not propose connecting to City of Pleasanton utilities or systems, nor would it be subject to City of Pleasanton standards, policies, impact fees or other requirements.

While the application was under review by County staff, the applicant team continued dialogue with the City to advance a proposal to annex and develop the project in Pleasanton. The County Project was approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, on an appeal, on February 10, 2026, and this entitlement remains valid, although the entitled development is not being actively pursued pending the City’s consideration of the proposed annexation and development of the site under the current applications.

City Council Direction on Annexation and Development
The City Council held several work sessions in 2024 and 2025 discussing overall developments in the East Pleasanton area, including the Arroyo Lago residential development. City Council comments and direction related to the annexation and development of Arroyo Lago are summarized below:

August 20, 2024 (Initial Study Session) (City Council Agenda Report Link) The City Council received an update on the Arroyo Lago development proposal and directed staff to continue the discussion with the applicant, further analyze issues and the advantages and disadvantages of annexing the properties, and explore potential project revisions to the Arroyo Lago application to address concerns raised by residents of the adjacent Village at Ironwood and other nearby neighborhoods.

February 18, 2025 (Continued from February 4, 2025) (City Council Agenda Report Link) The City Council received and reviewed technical studies evaluating fiscal impacts, roadway capacity, and utilities capacity associated with the potential annexation of Arroyo Lago and another site just to the east. Based on the collective conclusion of the studies that annexation into Pleasanton would result in more positive fiscal, environmental, utilities and transportation outcomes than the County Project, the City Council directed staff to accept and process an application for annexation and development of the Arroyo Lago residential project in Pleasanton that would include connections to City utilities. With respect to the impacts to neighboring residences, the City Council conceptually supported proposed revisions to the County project that incorporated larger lots, single-story homes, and increased setbacks for lots adjoining the western property line, with direction for setbacks to be maintained at a minimum of 15 feet. These changes resulted in a reduction in the lot count, as well as adjustments to the street section of Street D to eliminate parking and a landscape strip on one side.

The City Council preliminarily agreed with staff’s recommendation to allow other deviations from the City’s adopted Objective Design Standards, and beyond increasing the setback as noted, to not require further changes that would result in a significant re-design of the project.

The City Council agenda report included the findings of a traffic study, which confirmed that the through-connection of El Charro Road, optimally to include a connection from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard, remained a critical improvement. Construction of El Charro was needed both to address existing traffic and congestion within the City and accommodate future traffic from East Pleasanton development. Although construction of El Charro was costly, particularly the southern leg from Busch Road to Stanley Boulevard, staff concluded that annexation provided the best opportunity to create a long-term funding mechanism for the extension, whether through a cooperative funding arrangement (shared costs) among major property owners, or through creation of a funding structure such as a Community Facilities District (CFD).

The applicant subsequently submitted a formal application, reflective of the revised site plan, on February 25, 2025.

October 21, 2025(CITY COUNCIL REPORT LINK)
Staff presented the proposed key terms of the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) for the Arroyo Lago residential development to the City Council for initial input and direction, with formal approval of the PADA to be part of the future consideration of the project entitlements. The proposed key terms included:
• Duration of the term of the PADA
• Park and Trail Improvements
• Project Maintenance
• Water and Sewer System Improvements
• Off-Site Street Improvements
• Development Impact Fees and Fee Credits
• Point of Sale Designation
• Developer Public Benefit Contribution (financial contribution towards El Charro Road) • Affordable Housing Proposal
More details on the specific terms of the PADA are provided in the Discussion section below, and the following specific outcomes of the City Council’s discussion and direction are highlighted with respect to the public benefit contribution.

With respect to the public benefit contribution, staff and the applicant achieved initial agreement on the proposed key terms except for the amount of a financial contribution towards design and construction of El Charro Road. The City Traffic Engineer estimated Arroyo Lago’s share for the El Charro Road at just over $8 million. The applicant was initially willing to contribute $2.25 Million; however, just prior to the meeting, the applicant agreed to increase this amount to $3 Million, as recommended by staff.

Staff noted in the agenda report that the proposed total contribution for transportation improvements, even at $3 million, would be less than Arroyo Lago’s “fair share” cost of constructing El Charro. Reducing the contribution would create a larger financial gap for the City and/or other projects to overcome.

The applicant expressed that paying the entire fair share amount would not be financially feasible, and the proposed contribution was fair and reasonable based on the project's total development cost burden if developed in the City. Staff noted that, if developed in the County, no contribution to the El Charro improvements could be required, nor would the project be subject to City impact fees. Further, not annexing the project to Pleasanton would create an impediment to the adjacent East Lakes project developing in the city and run the risk that it, too, would develop in the County, contributing additional traffic with no requirement to mitigate or pay towards the cost of City transportation improvements. Staff recommended the $3 Million contribution as reasonable and appropriate, based on the reduction achieved by allowing payment of the 2024 Impact Fee rates, balanced against the fact that the applicant did not contemplate payment of City impact fees or a public benefit contribution in its County

application/proposal.

The City Council reviewed the agenda report and concurred with the staff recommendation to include a $3 Million contribution for the El Charro Road in the draft PADA.

The October work session also reviewed the applicant’s proposal to provide 48 deedrestricted JADUs to satisfy the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO). Deed-restricted JADUs could be counted toward the City’s lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City Council supported the applicant’s proposed means to satisfy the IZO requirements.

Annexation and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) The proposed annexation of the project site requires separate approval by the Alameda County LAFCo, pursuant to the provisions of the Cortese Knox Hertzberg (CKH) Act. City Council action to approve the project would include authorization to submit the necessary application to LAFCo. As part of the annexation process, the City would need to negotiate with Alameda County about how future property tax revenues would be shared and how any portion of the County’s RHNA units would be re-allocated to Pleasanton.

Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD)
A Community Facilities District (CFD) is proposed for the Project, with the costs of professional services to support its formation paid by the Project. The CFD is a mechanism that would allow for project residents to contribute to financing for maintenance, in perpetuity, of essential public infrastructure and services associated with the Property. Establishing the CFD would help ensure long-term sustainability and service delivery for the future residents of the Project.

Site and Area Description
The Project site is on the north side of Busch Road, immediately east of the Pleasanton city limits, and shares the westerly property line with the City’s Operations Services Center and the Village at Ironwood, an age 50+ active living community. Lake I of the Zone 7 Chain of Lakes is located to the north of the Project site; a vacant parcel owned by the same owners is located to the east; and Cope Lake is further northeast. Please see Figure 1.

The Project site itself is relatively flat. An informal access road (gravel/dirt) travels along the western boundary of the Project site. Primary access to the site is from Busch Road. While the Project site is within unincorporated Alameda County, it is also located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and General Plan Planning Area.

Please see the Planning Commission Agenda Report, Attachment 4, for further details of the project site and the surrounding area.

Figure 1: Aerial of Project Site and Surrounding Area

Project Description
The applicant proposes the following:

1. Annexation (P25-0115) of approximately 30 acres from unincorporated Alameda County to the City of Pleasanton;

2. General Plan amendments (P25-0116) designating land uses Medium Density Residential;

3. Pre-zoning (P25-0118) of the associated land in Alameda County to PUD–MDR (Planned Unit Development - Medium Density Residential) Districts;

4. Planned Unit Development and rezoning (PUD-154) to construct 189 detached singlefamily residences with 48 deed-restricted JADUs, and install related on- and off- site improvements and infrastructure;

5. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map Tract 8423 to subdivide approximately 30 acres into 189 single-family home lots; and

6. Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement with the Affordable Housing Agreement for vesting entitlements and fees.

Site Design and Development
The Project includes 189 new detached single-family homes with 48 JADUs, an approximately

0.7-acre private park with public access and related on- and off-site improvements and infrastructure. Please see Figure 2 for the overall site plan.

Figure 2: Overall Site Plan

The proposed development standards, including minimum lot area, minimum setbacks, maximum floor area ratio, and maximum building height, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed Setbacks, Height, FAR

Several architectural styles representing typical California-style homes are proposed:

Farmhouse, Craftsman, Modern Ranch, and Prairie designs. A selection of exterior color schemes (three per elevation style) would maintain continuity with the design themes and add variety within the new subdivision.

The Project includes frontage improvements along Busch Road, including the construction of a six-foot-wide sidewalk and curb/gutter along the Project frontage. Internal circulation would be provided by a network of new public streets (Streets A-F and Loop A), private drive aisles, and a Class I trail extension from Street D to Mohr Avenue is designed to facilitate external and internal circulation.

The Project would connect to the City’s water and sanitary sewer systems on Mohr Avenue.

Stormwater generated by the Project would be conveyed easterly to a proposed off-site bioretention area located adjacent to El Charro Road. Grading is proposed for both on- and off-site improvements. It is estimated that approximately 150,000 cubic yards of fill material would be imported to the project site.

Please refer to the Planning Commission agenda report for a complete description of Project components and amenities.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 24, 2026, to review the proposed project and provide recommendations to the City Council. In addition to the applicant, a member of the Zone 7 Board, speaking on her own behalf and not on behalf of the Board as a whole, expressed support for the project and for annexing and connecting it to the City utility system.

While finding most aspects of the overall project's design acceptable, the Commission expressed a desire to have been more involved in providing design direction earlier in the process, acknowledging that the City Council’s existing direction limited the Commission’s

ability to further modify the project. Some Commissioners expressed disappointment with the uniform and linear design of the lots and setbacks along the westerly property line.

The Commission’s discussion was focused on circulation and the project’s monetary contribution towards the design and construction of El Charro Road. The majority of the Commission found that the applicant should be required to pay its full fair share of eight million dollars ($8,000,000) toward El Charro Road, rather than the reduced amount of three million dollars ($3,000,000) indicated in the draft PADA. The Commission stated that in prior discussions of development in the East Pleasanton area, the construction of El Charro Road has been an integral part. Projects in the East Pleasanton area, such as East Lakes and Amazon, should also be required to pay their full fair share.

The Commission also heard the applicant’s request to include subdivision map design alternatives in the draft PADA if they could not obtain the easement from Zone 7 for off-site improvements, or to abandon its annexation process if the City could not approve an alternative design. The Commission did not accept the applicant's proposed modifications to the PADA, agreeing with staff’s position that the Subdivision Map Act provided alternative means for the City to secure the easement.

The Commission voted 4-0 to adopt resolutions recommending the City Council: 1) adopt the CEQA Addendum; 2) approve the initiation of the annexation process, General Plan amendment, Pre/rezone, PUD Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.

The Commission voted 3-1 to adopt a resolution to condition its recommendation to the City Council to approve the PADA on the condition that Section 3.2.h be amended to increase the applicant’s contribution to the improvement of El Charro Road to its full fair share of eight million dollars ($8,000,000).

DISCUSSION
Annexation and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The project site is located outside of Pleasanton city limits, but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). As such, annexation of the project site by the City is required prior to development as specified in the current project applications.

Annexation of the property would include negotiation of a tax-sharing agreement with the County, and negotiation of the apportionment of RHNA between the City and the County.

General Plan Land Use and Policy Conformance
Despite its location in unincorporated Alameda County, the project site is within the City’s SOI, UGB, and General Plan Planning Area. The project site is within the East Pleasanton Area, where the General Plan designates the entire area with a broad range of potentially allowable land uses, including commercial, residential, public, and open space uses, but provides no formal land use designation for the project site. The General Plan contemplates development of a Specific Plan for the area; since this planning has yet to occur, the specific land use of a site is being evaluated through a site-specific project review.

As proposed, the project is a single-family residential community with a density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre, which falls within the Pleasanton General Plan Medium Density Residential (MDR) density range of 2 to 8 dwelling units/acre. The application proposes a General Plan

amendment to designate this site as MDR.

Zoning and Use Conformance
The project site is not currently pre-zoned to a specific zoning district, given that it is outside city limits. Zoning must be consistent with the General Plan land-use designation. With the Project having a proposed General Plan land use designation of MDR, the project site will be pre-zoned to Planned Unit Development and ultimately zoned Planned Unit Development – Medium Density Residential (PUD-MDR) District.

Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and Affordable Housing Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Section 17.44.040(A) provides that for all new single-family residential projects of 10 units or more, at least 15 percent of the project’s dwelling units shall be affordable to very low, low-income, and/or moderate-income households, with such units provided on-site. The applicant’s proposal would provide 48 deed-restricted JADUs to satisfy the City’s IZO. It should be noted that JADUs need not be rented; however, if leased to a third party, tenants in the restricted units must meet qualifying income standards. The Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) is reflected in the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA). As noted, the State permits JADU’s to be counted towards the City’s annual RHNA, including as lower-income units if a deed restriction applies. The City Council supported the proposed approach for compliance with the IZO during its February 2025 Workshop (see discussion above).

Climate Action Plan (CAP2.0)
Staff analyzed consistency with the applicable measures outlined in the City of Pleasanton’s CAP. While the proposed Project is consistent with multiple goals and strategies outlined in the CAP; it does not respond to all applicable items. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring the Project to meet all applicable CAP requirements.

Planning Unit Development (PUD)
As specified in PMC Chapter 18.68, a PUD development plan allows flexibility in applying Municipal Code standards to achieve an innovative overall plan for project sites and the area.

The applicant developed the current site plan, which reflects direction from the City Council at prior workshops, and incorporates staff comments through multiple rounds of staff review.

The Project is substantially similar to the residential development approved in the County, with certain key changes, including modifications to the grading plan facilitated by the ability to connect to City utilities and direct overland storm flows to the City’s storm drain system. The project, as proposed in the City, would be an improvement over the County project and would reduce the Project’s environmental impacts as reflected in the Addendum. Staff finds that the proposed siting, massing, and lot and unit sizes are appropriate for this site and would result in an attractive development for this area. The buildings would be in keeping with the scale and massing of the surrounding homes, specifically the recently approved Villages at the Quarry residential development across the street. As noted, the single-story home design and proposed grading plan would reduce potential privacy impacts and improve compatibility with the adjacent Village at Ironwood development to the west, as directed by the City Council.

Further, the PUD supports the annexation and extension of public services to the site in a logical and orderly manner, by providing flexibility in certain development standards that allow the project to remain feasible to develop. With respect to the Planning Commission’s concerns

about the relatively uniform lotting plan and setbacks on the western side of the property, staff notes that this is largely a product of the changes made to address neighbor concerns, with larger footprint single-story homes and the City’s stipulated 15 foot minimum setback, and preference to maintain driveway lengths of at least 18 feet, setting some practical limitation on options to vary the front setback of the homes.

The proposed project would generate new vehicular traffic. A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was prepared for the Project that analyzed three new long-term scenarios, including a General Plan buildout condition scenario that includes the (approved) Kiewit and (pending) Arroyo Lago projects and assumes El Charro Road is not extended, and a similar development scenario that assumes El Charro Road would be extended between Stoneridge Drive and Busch Road.

The TIA indicates all study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at level of service (LOS) D or better, except for the Santa Rita Road at Valley Avenue intersection, which operates at LOS E during the evening peak hour. Minor signal timing adjustments, such as allocating additional green time to the eastbound left-turn movement, would improve operations at this intersection to LOS D. The TIA confirms that the proposed Project can be accommodated within the City’s circulation system with the implementation of the targeted intersections. The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the TIA and concurred with its analysis.

Please refer to the Planning Commission agenda report for detailed details of the traffic impact analysis, including the scenarios described above.

Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA)
The Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (PADA) between the City and the applicant would establish the terms and conditions under which the Project may proceed. The key provisions of the PADA are in Exhibit A and are summarized as follows:
• Agreement term of 10 years, with no extensions allowed. • Completion of public improvements, including the private park with public access allowed, trail to Mohr Avenue; Busch Road improvements as described, including completion of a six-foot sidewalk along Busch Road in front of the City Operations Services Center (OSC); and downstream improvements to the City water and sewer system. Certain of these improvements would be eligible for fee credits or third-party reimbursement by other benefitting projects.
• Vesting of Development Impact Fees and City Water and Sewer Connection Fees to the rates in place as of December 2024, subject to any established annual escalator. • Formation of a CFD to address long-term maintenance of public improvements. • Improvements to be designed and constructed per City’s specifications. • Point of Sale Designation for certain construction materials and fixtures. • Developer public benefit contribution towards the design and construction of a future El Charro Road Extension. Note that the Draft PADA included among the attachments to this Agenda Report reflects the Planning Commission’s recommendation for an $8.0 M contribution, whereas staff had recommended, and City Council had supported, a lower contribution of $3.0 Million.
• Affordable Housing Agreement, addressing the provision of 48 deed-restricted Junior ADUs.

Based on the above terms, staff concludes that the PADA would provide substantial public benefits, including transportation and infrastructure improvements, and financial contributions toward public facilities. In exchange, the applicant receives certainty regarding applicable development regulations and project timing.

It is noted that securing the proposed easement across Zone 7’s property is essential to facilitate the utilities configuration and grading plan reflected in the project plans. The draft PADA assumes this easement will be secured prior to construction of the project. The applicant indicated a preference for the PADA to include a further “backstop” provision recognizing their ability to abandon the City project and annexation efforts should the easement not be granted. The Planning Commission did not support the addition of this language, since it could infer City support in the agreement for the County project that the City has previously opposed on numerous grounds.

Notwithstanding the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the decision regarding the amount of the proposed contribution for the El Charro design and construction ultimately lies with the City Council. The basis for staff’s prior recommendation, and the applicant’s stated position on the level of the contribution are outlined in the background section, above.

Planned Unit Development Considerations
PMC Section 18.68.110 sets forth the purposes of the PUD District and considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan. These purposes and considerations are set forth in the draft Resolution included as Exhibit B and include whether the plan is in conformance with the City’s General Plan; is in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare; and whether the plan would be compatible with developed properties in the vicinity. As described in Exhibit A and based on the information and analysis provided in this report, the City Council makes the required findings and approves the PUD development plan.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
An Addendum to the Project FEIR (SCH No.2023050339), certified by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on February 10, 2026, was prepared for the Project to be annexed and developed within the City of Pleasanton in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.

The Addendum addresses minor revisions to the proposed project associated with the proposed annexation of the project site into the City. The Addendum includes applicable mitigation measures identified and discussed in the County FEIR, as well as related implementation measures to ensure compliance therewith, which would be implemented by the proposed Project.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The County Project’s EIR identifies transportation-related vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts as significant and unavoidable. The County Project’s EIR incorporates several Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was used in approving the County Project, finding that the project's benefits outweighed the significant and unavoidable VMT impacts. The Addendum identified similar Project VMT impacts as significant and unavoidable. While mitigation measures would reduce VMT, they would not achieve the level of reduction necessary to meet applicable thresholds, and no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified to further reduce these impacts.

Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC)
A Statement of Overriding Considerations was used in certifying the County Project EIR. The proposed Project includes minor changes to the County Project and does not create any significant new impacts not already studied in the EIR. The Project itself, however, still results in similar significant and unavoidable impacts (VMT) as identified in the certified EIR. Based on the Addendum and Project’s MMRP, the proposed Project has been analyzed in compliance with CEQA.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The proposed development reflected the City Council's direction regarding grading, building height, and rear-yard setback for the homes along the westerly property lines. The overall project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential communities, including the recently approved Villages at the Quarry, located across Busch Road, which are currently in rough grading.

The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council of an amendment to PADA Section 3.2.h would require the project to pay its full fair share toward the improvement of El Charro Road; however, this recommendation differs from the direction provided by City Council at the October 2025 Study Session to discuss initial PADA terms, and it rests with the City Council to determine the amount of the contribution to be reflected in the adopted PADA.

The formation of a Community Facility District would fund facility maintenance.

Based on the above factors, and notwithstanding resolution of the El Charro contribution, the Planning Commission recommended and found that the annexation, General Plan amendments, rezoning, PUD development plan, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and PreAnnexation and Development Agreement, would provide an appropriate degree of community and financial benefits to merit a favorable approval by the City Council, subject to the draft conditions included in Attachment 2.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The proposed project would increase housing opportunities by providing both new market-rate housing and deed-restricted JADUs and adhering to green building practices.

OUTREACH
Notice of this public hearing was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within 1,000 feet of the site as shown in Exhibit D, and staff-approved Project identification signage has been posted on the site by the applicant.

On the day of the Planning Commission, Kelilah D. Federman of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, representing East Bay Residents for Responsible Development (EBRRD) wrote to the Commission and staff to “… ensure that development construction activities support the local economy, support local workers, and support local job creation.” It asks that the PADA be modified to include provisions on workforce standards. Please see Attachment 5.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Building a

Community Where Everyone Belongs – Strategy 6.b, which aims to implement the Housing Element of additional residential rezoning. The project would add 189 new residential units and 48 deed-restricted JADUs to Pleasanton’s housing stock.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project developer would be responsible for payment of fees and for the costs (either fully or on a pro rata basis) of required utility or infrastructure improvements, as set forth in the conditions of approval and the draft PADA. Further, a Community Facility District would be established to fund the development's maintenance costs in perpetuity. As was analyzed in the February 2025 Fiscal Impact Analysis, annexation of the project would result in a net fiscal benefit to the City, compared to a similar project if developed in Alameda County, principally due to the increment of new property taxes that would accrue to the City.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Jenny Soo, Associate
Planner
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and
Economic Development
Joe Calabrigo, Interim
City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution Adopting CEQA Addendum

2. Ordinance for Approving Various Project Entitlements

3. Ordinance for Adoption of Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement

4. Planning Commission Agenda Report, June 24, 2026

5. Public Comments

6. Location/Notice Map

7. Presentation (DFEC)

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON

ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (SCH NO. 2023050339), AS FILED UNDER CASE NO. P25-0115, P25-0116, P25-0118, PUD-154, and TRACT 8423 WHEREAS, on August 26, 2022, 330 Land Company (“Applicant”), on behalf of USL Pleasanton, LP, (“Property Owner”), submitted an application to the County of Alameda (“County”) for the construction of a residential project consisting of 194 residential units and 49 junior accessory dwelling units, on and off-site utilities and related improvements (“County Project”); and
WHEREAS, per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) the County caused an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (SCH No. 2023050339) to be prepared for the County Project, providing the public and the decision-makers with detailed information about the County Project's environmental effects, ways to minimize the project's significant environmental effects, and reasonable alternatives to the project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified that most environmental impacts from development of the County Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to less than significant through incorporation of feasible and reasonable mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the EIR identified impacts from development of the County Project related to greenhouse gas emissions and transportation that were significant and unavoidable, even with the incorporation of feasible and reasonable mitigation measures, requiring the County to adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR included a comparative impact assessment of reasonable alternatives to the County Project, including Alternative 2: Annexation into the City of Pleasanton Alternative, which concluded that most environmental impacts from the project would be reduced under this alternative due to access to City of Pleasanton (”City”) utilities and a reduced development footprint; and WHEREAS, the EIR determined that due to these reduced environmental impact levels, Alternative 2 was the Environmentally Superior Alternative, and

WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the County Board of Supervisors adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certified the EIR in compliance with all applicable provisions under CEQA; and approved the County Project.

WHEREAS, on February 25, 2026, the Applicant, on behalf of the Property Owner, submitted applications to the City for: (1) Annexation (P25-0115) of an approximately 30 acres (the Project Site) from unincorporated Alameda County to the City; (2) General Plan Amendments (P25-0116) to designate land use to Medium Density Residential; (3) Pre-zoning ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. 2026-

(P25-0118) said parcels in County to City PUD–MDR (Planned Unit Development - Medium Density Residential) District; (4) a rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD-154) to construct 189 detached single-family residences with 48 deed-restricted Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, and install related on- and off-site improvements and infrastructure; (5) a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8423 to subdivide said parcels totaling approximately 30 acres into single-family lots, private open space and private access easements (hereinafter “the Project”); and (6) a Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement (“PADA”); and WHEREAS, the Project site is a vacant site located on the north side of Busch Road consisting of APN 946-4634-1 and an approximately 3.4-acre portion of APN 946-4634-2; and WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the applicable provisions of CEQA; and WHEREAS, Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an addendum to a previously adopted environmental impact report may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions to the project are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report have occurred; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum (“Addendum”) to the previously certified EIR to address minor revisions to the Project associated with the proposed annexation of the Project site to the City. With the annexation, the City would assume land use jurisdiction over the Project and would rely on the EIR as the primary environmental document, and WHEREAS, the Addendum, labeled Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, determined that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 will occur as a result of implementation of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum identified and discussed environmental impacts of the Project, previously analyzed and disclosed in the EIR, that will be reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the Project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included in Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, in addition, the Addendum discussed significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project concerning greenhouse gas emissions and transportation that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with the incorporation of feasible and reasonable mitigation measures, previously analyzed and disclosed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Addendum was posted to the City’s website and referenced in the public notice for the June 24, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing; and

Resolution No. 2026-

WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public meeting of June 24, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum along with the written agenda report, all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and staff recommendations as to the Project; and WHEREAS, prior to making its recommendation to the City Council on the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC-2026-15, recommending the City Council adopt the Addendum, finding that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15164, and finding that the Addendum adequately described the Project, its significant environmental impacts, and mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the Addendum was referenced in the public notice for the July 21, 2026, City Council public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public meeting of July 21, 2026, the City Council considered the Addendum along with the written agenda report, all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and staff recommendations as to the Project.

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

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.

B. The Addendum reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and provides information to the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of approving the Project.

Specifically, the City Council does make and adopt the following findings and certifications in compliance with the requirements of CEQA:

1. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Addendum for the Project, along with the County EIR; and

2. The mitigation measures from the County EIR for the Project remain applicable to the Project, and no new mitigation measures are required; and

3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that, pursuant to 14 CCR § 15162, there is no substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that one or more of the following have occurred with regard to the Project:
a. Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the County EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the County EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

Resolution No. 2026-

c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the County EIR were adopted, shows any of the following:

I. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the County EIR;
II. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the County EIR;
III. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the applicant declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or IV. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the County EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the applicant declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

4. The City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan and existing policies, including General Plan Land Use Policy 25 (“Annex urbanized pockets of unincorporated land adjacent to the city limits in areas where landowners are willing to accept City services and development standards”), insomuch as the Project will annex a nearly 30-acre pocket of unincorporated Alameda County adjacent to the city limits into the City and the Applicant is willing to accept City services and development standards; and

5. The City Council does hereby find and certify that the Addendum to the County EIR for the Project has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA; and

6. The City Council does hereby certify that the Addendum to the County EIR for the Project reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis; and

7. To the extent required by law, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared by Alameda County with regard to the EIR remain accurate and are hereby incorporated by reference; and

8. The City Council confirms that no new or additional environmental analysis is required for the Project, as the Addendum to the County EIR for the Project adequately addresses the environmental impacts of the Project, consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council adopts the Addendum as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on July 21, 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Resolution No. 2026-

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Alameda County EIR documents
County of Alameda Arroyo Lago Residential Project Final EIR (SCH 2026050339) available online at: https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/Project/2023050339

Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Addendum to the County of Alameda Environmental
Impact Report for the Arroyo Lago Residential
Project
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2023050339
PREPARED FOR:

City of Pleasanton
Community and Economic Development Department
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
925.931.5630
Contact: Jenny Soo, Associate Planner
PREPARED BY:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Laura Campion, Project Manager
June 3, 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
FCS iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations v
1 - Introduction 1

1.1 - Environmental Checklist 1

1.2 - Environmental Analysis and Conclusions 1

1.3 - Mitigation Monitoring Program 3
2 - Project Description 5

2.1 - Location and Setting 5

2.2 - Project Background 15

2.3 - Project Characteristics 16

2.4 - Required Actions and Approvals 54

2.5 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies 55
3 - CEQA Checklist 57

3.1 - Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories 57

3.2 - Discussion and Mitigation Sections 59

3.3 - Environmental Topics 59
I. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare 60
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 68
III. Air Quality 72
IV. Biological Resources 83
V. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 93
VI. Energy 102
VII. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils 108
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 118
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 123
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 132
XI. Land Use and Planning 144
XII. Mineral Resources 148
XIII. Noise 150
XIV. Population and Housing 159
XV. Public Services 162
XVI. Recreation 170
XVII. Transportation 173
XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems 181
XIX. Wildfire 192
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance 197

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
iv FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx Appendix A: Geology and Soils Supporting Information
Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information Appendix C: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Appendix D: Transportation Supporting Information
Appendix E: Utilities Supporting Information
Tables
Table 1: Proposed 50x70 Lot, 50x80 Lot, and 59.5x97 Design Standards 23 Table 2: Comparison of County Project, Alternative 2, and Proposed Project 23 Table 3: Housing Details 33
Table 4: Proposed Project Preliminary Construction Schedule 54 Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map 7
Exhibit 2a: Local Vicinity Map 9
Exhibit 2b: Project Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 11
Exhibit 3: Existing Land Use and Zoning 17
Exhibit 4: Site Plan 21
Exhibit 5: Proposed Land Use and Zoning 27
Exhibit 6: Existing and Planned City of Pleasanton Bicycle Facilities 31 Exhibit 7a: Landscaping Plan 35
Exhibit 7b: Conceptual Park Plan 37
Exhibit 8a: Utility Plan (Northern Portion) 39
Exhibit 8b: Utility Plan (Southern Portion) 41
Exhibit 9a: Overall Off-site Utility Plan 43
Exhibit 9b: Off-site Utility Plan–East Toward El Charro 45 Exhibit 9c: Off-site Utility Plan–Mohr Avenue Connection 47 Exhibit 9d: Potential Bioretention Locations 49

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
FCS v
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACDEH Alameda County Department of Environmental Health ACE Altamont Corridor Express
ACFD Alameda County Fire Department
ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFY acre-feet per year
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AOC Areas of Concern
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARB California Air Resources Board
ATCM Airborne Toxics Control Measure
Ava Community Energy
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
Bay Area Air District Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMP Best Management Practice
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Health and Safety Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Cal Water California Water Service
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFD Community Facilities District
CHP California Highway Patrol
CIP Capital Improvement Program

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
vi FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COA Condition of Approval
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOF California Department of Finance
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
du/acre dwelling units per gross acre
EACCS East Alameda County Conservation Strategy
EBRPD East Bay Regional Parks District
ECAP East County Area Plan
EFZ Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HOA Homeowner’s Association
HRA Health Risk Assessment
kBTU kilo-British Thermal Unit
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LAVTA Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
Ldn day/night average noise level

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
FCS vii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx Leq(8-hr) 8-hour equivalent sound level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
LPA Large Parcel Agriculture
LPFD Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MDR Medium Density Residential
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
MT CO2e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Negative Declaration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 ozone
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PADA Pre-Annexation Development Agreement
PAM Public Access Map
PFAS polyfluoroalkyl substances
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PGS Pleasanton Garbage Service
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PUD Planned Unit Development
PUSD Pleasanton Unified School District
REC Recognized Environmental Condition

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
viii FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCH State Clearinghouse
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOI Sphere of Influence
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM Transportation Demand Management
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USGS California United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WM Water Management
WSE Water Supply Evaluation
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Addendum
FCS 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx 1 - INTRODUCTION
This Addendum, checklist, and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the Arroyo Lago Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2023050339) (Prior FEIR) prepared for and certified by the County of Alameda (County Project) remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed Arroyo Lago Residential Project (proposed project) being proposed in the City of Pleasanton (City), which is serving as a responsible agency, or whether additional documentation is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §§ 15000–15387).

1.1 - Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 (a), the attached Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the proposed project. Consistent with the thresholds used by the Lead Agency (Alameda County) in the Prior FEIR and the City’s thresholds, the attached Addendum uses the standard environmental checklist categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a).

1.2 - Environmental Analysis and Conclusions
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (a) provides that the Lead Agency or a responsible agency (in this case, the City) shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or adopted Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines § 15164 (a)).

An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR or ND (CEQA Guidelines § 15164 (c)). The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum to the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines § 15164 (d)).

An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162, which must be supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines § 15164 (e)).

Consequently, once an EIR has been certified or a ND adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND is required under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence:

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the ND was adopted shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or ND;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or ND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 (a); see also Public Resources Code, Section 21166).

The Prior FEIR was certified by the County’s Planning Commission on January 5, 2026, in compliance with CEQA. Subsequently, the County Project was appealed by the Zone 7 Water Agency; however, the County’s Board of Supervisors denied the appeal on February 10, 2026, upholding the County Planning Commission’s approval of the County Project and certification of the Prior FEIR.

On February 4, 2025, the Pleasanton City Council discussed the proposed project and directed City staff to process the annexation and development applications for this project.2 This Addendum has been prepared to address minor revisions to the proposed project associated with the proposed annexation of the project site to the City. With the annexation, the City would assume land use jurisdiction over the proposed project and would rely on the Prior FEIR as the primary environmental document, with the City serving in the role of the Lead Agency. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum evaluates the proposed changes and documents the basis for the conclusion that the proposed changes would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, and further, that no new information of 1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “ . . . a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance . . .” (see also PRC § 21068). 2 City of Pleasanton. 2026. East Pleasanton. Website: https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/our-government/communityand-economic-development/east-pleasanton/. Accessed April 20, 2026.

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
FCS 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx substantial importance has occurred. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required.

This Addendum, checklist, and attached documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required.

1.2.1 - Findings
There are no substantial changes to the Prior FEIR that would be triggered by the minor revisions to the County Project that are reflected in the proposed project, nor are there circumstances in which the proposed project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Prior FEIR. The proposed revisions do not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, nor has the Prior FEIR proponent declined to adopt any additional mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Applicable mitigation measures from the Prior FEIR are identified and discussed in this Addendum as well as related implementation measures to ensure compliance therewith, which would be implemented by the proposed project.

As illustrated herein, the proposed project is consistent with and within the scope of the certified Prior FEIR and would involve only minor changes to the County Project comprehensively studied in the Prior FEIR; therefore, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project.

1.2.2 - Conclusions
The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the Prior FEIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15164), and therefore no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required.

1.3 - Mitigation Monitoring Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a)(1), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed project in order to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that have been adopted for the proposed project. Any long-term monitoring of mitigation measures imposed on the overall development will be implemented through the MMRP.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Arroyo Lago Residential Project
Addendum
FCS 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Location and Setting

2.1.1 - Location
Regional Location
The City of Pleasanton (City) is located in Alameda County (County) in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area of California. The City is bordered to the north by the City of Dublin, to the east by unincorporated Alameda County and the City of Livermore, to the south by Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park and open space, and to the west by the Diablo Mountain Range (Exhibit 1). The City covers approximately 24 square miles and has historically consisted of a suburban community with a mix of residential neighborhoods and employment centers.

Local Setting
The project site consists of approximately 30 acres3 and is located directly east of the city limits, just north of Busch Road. Lake I of the Zone 7 Chain of Lakes is located to the north of the project site, and Cope Lake is located to the east (Exhibit 2a). The project site does not currently have a street address but can be accessed from Busch Road. While the project site is within unincorporated Alameda County, it is also located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Presently, the project site is vacant and graded with no structures or existing development. An informal access road (gravel/dirt) travels along the western boundary of the project site.

The project site consists of two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): APN 946-4634-1 (the subdivision property itself) and an approximately 3.4-acre portion of APN 946-4634-2, which would support Street A. APN 946-4634-2 would also support proposed off-site utilities infrastructure, including a bioretention area, discharge pump, and detention basin (Exhibit 2b). The project site is located within the Livermore, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map (Latitude 37° 40' 38.28" North; Longitude 121° 51' 22.68" West). 3 This Addendum does not evaluate an expansion of the proposed project’s overall size; rather, it reclassifies the construction of Street A along the project site’s eastern boundary as part of the project site, whereas it was previously identified as an off-site improvement in the Prior FEIR.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

21480036 • 11/2025 | 1_regional.m xd
Exhibit 1

A R R O Y O L A G O R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T Alameda County
Santa Clara County
Contra Costa County
Alameda County
92 84
880
680
237
101
84 San Joaquin County
4 Mount Diablo
State Park
Knightsen
Brentwood
Discovery Bay
Byron
Blackhawk
242
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
Clifton
Court
Forebay
680
580
Pleasanton
Livermore
San Ramon
Dublin Castro Valley San Leandro
San Lorenzo
Hayward
Union City
Fremont
Newark
Menlo Park
East Palo
Alto
Milpitas
East
Foothills
Santa Clara
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
F C S
Regional Loc ation Map

ADDENDUM
Text
Projec t Site
Sourc e: Cens us Data, The California Sp atial Inform ation Library (CaSIL).

Projec t Site
Legend
City of Pleas anton

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

21480036 • 03/2026 | 2a_ lo cal_ vicinity.m xd
Exhibit 2a
So urce: ESRI Aerial Im agery. City o f Pleasanto n. Co unty o f Alam eda.

Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd
Mohr Ave
Chatham Pl
Bradford Way
Martin Ave
Nichole Ave
Cameron Ave
Ironwood Dr
Baur Ct
Donahue Ct
Wenig Ct
Nolan Ct
Mils Ct
Madsen Ct
Kamp Dr
Valley Ave
Union Pacific Rail Line
Boulder St
Serpentine Ln
Quarry Ln
Lake I
Lake H
Cope Lake
County of Alameda
City of Pleasanton
Villages at the Quarry Site Pleasanton
Garbage Service, Inc.

Livermore-Pleasanton
Fire Department Training Tower
Montessori School
of Pleasanton
Amaral Park Mohr Elementary School
Iron Horse Trail
Dennis Dr
Stoneridge Dr
Martin Ave
¥ 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
F C S
Lo cal Vicinity Map
Legend
Pro ject Site30.00 acres
Lim its o f Disturbance111.96 acres
Urban Gro w th Bo undary
Airport Safety Zones
Zo ne 6: Traffic Pattern Zo ne

A R R O Y O L A G O R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

ADDENDUM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

21480036 • 03/2026 | 2b_ APN.m xd
Exhibit 2b
So urce: ESRI Aerial Im ag ery. City o f Pleasanto n. Co unty o f Alam eda.

Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd
Mohr Ave
Chatham Pl
Bradford Way
Martin Ave
Nichole Ave
Cameron Ave
Ironwood Dr
Baur Ct
Donahue Ct
Wenig Ct Nolan Ct
Mils Ct
Madsen Ct
Kamp Dr
Valley Ave
Union Pacific Rail Line
Boulder St
Serpentine Ln
Quarry Ln
Californ ai Ave
Lake I
Lake H
Cope Lake
County of Alameda
City of Pleasanton
946-4634-1
946-4634-2
¥ 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
F C S
Pro ject Assesso r's Parcel Num bers
Legend
Pro ject Site
Lim its o f Disturbance
Urban Gro w th Bo undary
Pro ject Site Assesso r Parcel Num bers
Airport Safety Zones
Zo ne 6: Traffic Pattern Zo ne

A R R O Y O L A G O R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

ADDENDUM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
FCS 13
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx Circulation and Transit
Major roadway networks, including State Route (SR) 84, Interstate 580 (I-580), and I-680, provide regional access to the City and the project site. I-580 is an east–west highway that is the main point of access connecting cities in the western portion of Alameda County to cities in the eastern portion of the County. I-680 is a north–south highway that travels through the western portion of the City. The portion of SR-84 closest to the project site begins at I-580 in the City of Livermore, passing the City along its eastern boundary.

Bus
The Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) Tri-Valley Wheels bus service (Wheels) provides fixed route bus service in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Wheels operates Routes 10R, 605, and 608 within 0.5 mile of the project site.4 However, Routes 605 and 608 provide only morning and afternoon school services. The closest bus stops to the project site are located at Martin Avenue and Mohr Avenue, approximately 0.3 mile to the northwest, and Stanley Boulevard and Valley Avenue, approximately 0.45 mile southwest of the project site. 5 Project residents could bike from the
project site to these transit stops and board with their bikes.

Rail
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is a regional rail transit service that operates within the County and provides connections to Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is approximately 2.60 miles northwest of the project site.

Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) is a regional transit service that operates from Stockton to San José, passing through Tracy, Livermore, Pleasanton, and Fremont. The closest station, Pleasanton Station, is located approximately 2.10 miles southwest of the project site.

2.1.2 - Surrounding Land Uses
West
The northern portion of the project site is adjacent to an existing age-qualified single-family residential neighborhood to the west (the Village at Ironwood), while the southern portion of the project site is adjacent to the Pleasanton Public Works campus, which in addition to offices and maintenance facilities, houses the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Training Tower, and Pleasanton Police Department (Pleasanton PD) shooting range. Further to the west of the Pleasanton Public Works campus is an existing private Montessori preschool for children ages 18 months to 6 years old 4 Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). 2025. Wheels System Map. Website:
https://www.wheelsbus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/System-Map-Brochure-2025-CIRCA-production-MC2-WEB.pdf.

Accessed March 10, 2026.
5 Although certain transit stops are located within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site when measured as a straight-line (“as-the-crow-flies”) distance, the actual pedestrian travel distance exceeds 0.5 mile due to the absence of direct walking routes and the need to follow the existing street and path network.

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
14 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx (located approximately 0.25 mile from the project site) and a single-family residential neighborhood (located approximately 0.25 mile from the project site).

North
Lake I of the Zone 7 Chain of Lakes is located to the north of the project site. Areas beyond Lake I consist primarily of existing residential uses. Mohr Elementary School and Amaral Park are approximately 0.72 mile to the north, while I-580 is approximately 1.38 miles to the north.

East
The project site is adjacent to vacant land designated Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA) by the County.

This LPA-designated area is also within the existing UGB and the City of Pleasanton’s SOI.

Approximately 1,700 feet to the east of the project site is El Charro Road, a paved two-lane private road that connects Stoneridge Drive to the north, to the eastern end of Busch Road. Beyond El Charro Road are lands used for mineral extraction operations, located approximately 5,000 feet to the east. North of the mineral extraction operations and approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site is Cope Lake, which is part of the complex of water bodies that includes the Zone 7 Chain of Lakes.

South
The project site is bounded by Busch Road to the south. South of Busch Road, the project site is adjacent to a vacant site that is the subject of a recently approved, but yet to be constructed, singlefamily and multi-family residential development, as well as industrial uses, including truck storage and yard facilities and the Pleasanton Garbage Service (PGS) Transfer Station. The existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), which supports ACE)passenger trains, and Stanley Boulevard are located further south, approximately 0.36 mile from the project site.

2.1.3 - General Plan and Zoning
Land Use Designation
The project site falls within the City’s East Pleasanton Specific Plan Area although it does not currently have an identified land use designation under the City of Pleasanton General Plan 2005- 2025 (General Plan).The current General Plan land use map identifies the following potential uses for the project site: Residential High Density, Other Public and Institutional, General and Limited Industrial, Business Park, Retail/Highway/Service Commercial/Business and Professional Offices, Parks and Recreation, with the exact location and distribution of these uses intended to be determined through a Specific Plan process.

According to the County’s East County Area Plan (ECAP), the project site’s primary parcel land use designation is Medium Density Residential (MDR).6 APN 946-4634-2, which is located immediately 6 County of Alameda. 2026. Unincorporated Alameda County Public Access Map (PAM). Website:
https://acpwa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4a648cb409d744b8a4f645e6e35fe773. Accessed March 10, 2026.

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
FCS 15
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx east of the project site and would support the project’s off-site utility facilities/infrastructure, is designated as Large Parcel Agriculture (LPA)by the ECAP.

The County MDR designation allows for densities between 4.1 and 8.0 units per acre. Land uses allowed within this designation include single-family detached and attached homes, multiple family residential units, group quarters, public and quasi-public uses, limited agricultural uses, community and neighborhood commercial uses, neighborhood support uses, and similar compatible uses.7 The LPA designation allows for agricultural uses, along with the construction of one single-family home per parcel.8 Existing land use designations for the project site and surrounding parcels are shown in Exhibit 3.

Zoning
The project site does not currently have City-designated zoning. The project site is zoned Agriculture (A) by Alameda County (Exhibit 3).
9 The County “A” districts are established to promote
implementation of general plan land use proposals for agricultural and other nonurban uses, to conserve and protect existing agricultural uses, and to provide space for and encourage such uses in places where more intensive development is not desirable or necessary for the general welfare.10

2.2 - Project Background

2.2.1 - Arroyo Lago Residential Project Environmental Impact Report
The County certified the Arroyo Lago Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023050339) (Prior FEIR11) on January 5, 2026. Subsequently, the County Project was appealed by the Zone 7 Water Agency; however, the County’s Board of Supervisors denied the appeal on February 10, 2026, upholding the County Planning Commission’s approval of the County Project and certification of the Prior FEIR. The Prior FEIR evaluated development of up to 194 dwelling units with approximately 25 percent of those units (49) being designed with junior Accessory Dwelling Units (junior ADUs), and related on- and off-site infrastructure including an approximately 1-acre Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), an approximately 0.4-acre water storage and booster pump 7 County of Alameda. 1994. East County Area Plan. May 5. 8 County of Alameda. 1994. East County Area Plan. May 5. 9 County of Alameda. 2026. Unincorporated Alameda County Public Access Map (PAM). Website:
https://acpwa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=4a648cb409d744b8a4f645e6e35fe773. Accessed March 10, 2026.
10 County of Alameda. 2026. Alameda County, California, Municipal Code Chapter 17.06. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/alameda_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_CH17.06ADI. Accessed March 10, 2026.
11 The term “Final EIR” refers to the complete environmental review record prepared in accordance with CEQA, which includes the Draft EIR, all written responses to comments received during public review, any errata or revisions, the Findings of Fact, and all other materials that constitute the record of proceedings for the County Project.

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
16 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx facility, an approximately 2.5-acre recycled water storage facility with an approximately 10-to 15-foot depth, approximately 8.5 acres of agricultural irrigation fields, and two bioretention areas (collectively, the County Project).

Prior to project approval, the County Planning Commission and applicant agreed to revise the County Project to reflect a total unit count of up to 190 dwelling units with 48 junior ADUs. Other revisions included repositioning the agricultural irrigation fields to a location west of El Charro Road, and incorporating single-story homes on the western property boundary. None of these minor modifications would result in new or more severe significant impacts as detailed in the Additional Clarifying Information for the Final EIR memorandum prepared by FCS and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., dated December 9, 2025.

The County Project, as revised, was approved by the County’s Planning Commission on January 5, 2026.

The County Project was subsequently appealed by the Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7), and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors denied the appeal on February 10, 2026, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the County Project.

The Prior FEIR included the evaluation of a project alternative known as Alternative 2: Annexation into the City of Pleasanton Alternative. As detailed more fully therein, Alternative 2 considered annexation of the project site into the City, including provision of municipal water, sewer, and stormwater service.

Accordingly, this Alternative would not include construction of certain off-site utility infrastructure studied as part of the County Project, including the water storage and booster pump facility, WWTP, recycled water storage facility, and agricultural irrigation fields. The County ultimately determined Alternative 2 not to be feasible because the County does not have land use jurisdiction over a project within the City; however, this Alternative was nevertheless identified in the Prior FEIR as the environmentally superior alternative, as it would have reduced impacts as a result of connection to municipal services rather than developing the off-site utility infrastructure.

2.3 - Project Characteristics
Following certification of the Prior FEIR by Alameda County, the City is now considering annexation of the project site, which would transfer land use authority from the County to the City. The project site lies within the City’s SO) and UGB, making annexation a feasible option. Under City jurisdiction, the proposed project remains substantially similar to the County Project in overall use and residential development but, consistent with Alternative 2 evaluated in the Prior FEIR, would eliminate certain off-site utility infrastructure in favor of connection to existing City water and sanitary sewer systems.

Minor modifications to site grading, lotting, and residential design are also proposed. These changes reduce the proposed development footprint and associated environmental impacts.

A R R O Y O L A G O R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

ADDENDUM
21480036 • 03/2026 | 3_existing_land_use_zoning.m xd
Exhibit 3
Source: ESRI Aerial Im agery . City of Pleasanton. County of Alam eda.

F C S
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd
Mohr Ave
Chatham Pl
Bradford Way
Martin Ave
Nichole Ave
Cameron Ave
Ironwood Dr
Baur Ct
Donahue Ct
Wenig Ct
Nolan Ct
Mils Ct
Madsen Ct
Kamp Dr
Valley Ave
Union Pacific Rail Line
Boulder St
Serpentine Ln
Quarry Ln
California
Ave
Lake I
Lake
H
Cope Lake
County of Alameda
City of Pleasanton

ECAP-WM

ECAP-LPA

ECAP-MDR
ECAP-P
LD
MD
MD
LD
HD
PI
LI
LI
LI
MD
PHS
C
C
C
MD
PI
HD
HD
PR
MD
HD
PHS
MD
HD

ECAP-LPA
WO
Busch Rd
Stanley Blvd
El Charro Rd
Mohr Ave
Chatham Pl
Bradford Way
Martin Ave
Nichole Ave
Cameron Ave
Ironwood Dr
Baur Ct
Donahue Ct
Wenig Ct
Nolan Ct
Mils Ct
Madsen Ct
Kamp Dr
Valley Ave
Union Pacific Rail Line
Boulder St
Serpentine Ln
Quarry Ln
California Ave
Lake I
Lake
H
Cope Lake
County of Alameda
City of Pleasanton
A

PUD-LDR

PUD-MDR

PUD-LDR/HDR/P&I
& Mixed P&I/MDR
S
P
I-G-40
PUD-R-1-65

C-S PUD-C
PUD-C
MD
A

PUD-HDR

PUD-HDR
P
MD C-F RM-4

PUD-MDR

PUD-MDR

PUD-LDR

PUD-LDR
PUD-I
PUD-C
I-G-40
PUD-I

PUD-MDR-HDR/HOZ
A
A
C1
U
Legend
Project Site
Lim its of Disturbance
County Land Use Designations
ECAP-LPA: Large Parcel Agriculture
ECAP-MDR: Medium Density Residential
ECAP-P: Park lands
ECAP-W M: W ater Managem ent
City Land Use Designations
C - Com m ercial
LI - Lim ited Industrial
HD - High Density
LD - Low Density
MD - Medium Density
PR - Park s and Recreation
PHS - Public Health and Safety
PI - Public and Institutional
W O - W ildland Overlay
Legend
Project Site
Lim its of Disturbance
County Land Use Designations
A - Agriculture
U - Unspecified
City Zoning Designations
A - Agriculture
C-F - Com m ercial Freew ay
C-S - Com m ercial Service
I-G-40 - General Industrial
P - Public & Institutional
PUD-C - Com m ercial-PUD
PUD-HDR - PUD - High Density Residential
PUD-I - Industrial-PUD
PUD-LDR - Low Density Residential
PUD-LDR/HDR/P&I & Mix P&I/MDR - Low Den Res/Hi Den Res/Pub & Inst-Mix Pub & Inst/Med Den Res-PUD PUD-MDR - PUD - Medium Density Residential
PUD-MDR-HDR/HOZ - Med Den Res & Hi Den Res/Historic Overlay Zone PUD-R-1-65 - Single Fam ily Residential-PUD
RM-4 - Multiple-Fam ily Residential
S - Study District
¥ 1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ARROYO LAGO RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

ADDENDUM
FCS 19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480036/Addendum/21480036 Arroyo Lago Residential Project Addendum.docx

2.3.1 - Proposed Residential Development
The 330 Land Company, LLC (project applicant) proposes the construction of a maximum of 189 single-family homes, with approximately 25 percent of those homes (48) being designed with deedrestricted junior ADUs, as shown on Exhibit 4. The dwelling units would range in height from approximately 19.5 feet (single-story homes) to 30 feet (2-story homes).

The approximately 30-acre12 project site (inclusive of a portion of APN 946-4634-2, which would support Street A) would be developed with an approximate density of 6.3 dwelling units per gross acre (du/acre).13 The proposed project is expected to include up to approximately 588 residents.14,15 As part of the proposed project, the existing parcels comprising the project site would be reconfigured into 189 residential lots, ranging from approximately 3,500 square feet to 8,305 square feet, as well as an approximately 0.7-acre, centrally-located park. Furthermore, the proposed project would include construction of seven internal streets (Streets A-F and Loop A) to provide internal circulation, as well as a trail extension. All circulation, excluding private drive aisles, would be public roads maintained by the City, utilizing funding from a proposed Community Facilities District (CFD), which the City would require to be in place prior to the final map’s approval through a Condition of Approval (COA) or Development Agreement. The CFD would finance and maintain essential public infrastructure and services associated with the proposed project, such as roads and sidewalks, the proposed trail extension, along with in-tract landscaping, lighting, and utilities facilities (i.e., water, sewer, and storm drainage). The proposed project’s HOA would be responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of the bioretention areas. Establishing the CFD would help ensure longterm sustainability and service delivery for the future residents of the proposed project, while also providing a structured mechanism for funding ongoing maintenance and improvements without placing undue burden on the City’s General Fund or existing municipal resources. 12 This Addendum does not evaluate an increase in the overall project size; rather, it considers certain previously identified 'off-site' improvements as part of the “project site” for environmental analysis. 13 189 dwelling units (not inclusive of junior ADUs which do not count toward density calculations) / 30.00 acres = 6.3 dwelling units per acre (du/acre)
14 City of Pleasanton. 2022. Program Environmental Impact Report City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update. Website: https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/277712-3/attachment/-bwDNIbsCtS27yQFn3dCFDFxvAATXvXAuUCWntLOWyyE9xYwOCV3-nixSHdoCaK6829Yoe_cKtAK_Xs0. Accessed March 10, 2026.
15 189 single-family dwelling units plus 48 junior ADUs equals 237 total dwelling units. The City’s average number of persons per medium-density housing (8 to 14 du/acre) is 2.48 per the Housing Element Update EIR. 237 multiplied by

2.48 equals approximately 588 residents.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

F C S 21480036 • 03/2026 | 4_site_plan.cdr
Site Plan
Exhibit 4
Source: CBG Civil Engineers, January, 2026.

A D D E N D U M

A R R O Y O L A G O R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK