Agenda packet — Pleasanton City Council, August 11, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Rules Name Limit Actual Compliance
Status Notes
Max % (MV) 30.0 20.9 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 1.3 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 4 Compliant
Min Rating (A- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

FDIC INSURED TIME DEPOSITS (NON-NEGOTIABLE
CD/TD)
Max % (MV) 30.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 0.0 Compliant

FEDERAL AGENCIES
Max % (MV) 100.0 12.9 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 30.0 12.9 Compliant
Max Callables (MV) 20.0 11.4 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 0.0 Compliant

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF)
Max Concentration (MV) 75.0 0.0 Compliant

MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS
Max % (MV) 20.0 0.3 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 20.0 0.3 Compliant
Min Rating (AAA by 2) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (NON-AGENCY)
Max % (MV) 20.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (AA- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES (CA, LOCAL AGENCY)
Max % (MV) 30.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (A- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES (CA, OTHER STATES)
18

Page 188 of 373 ends

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Rules Name Limit Actual Compliance
Status Notes
Max % (MV) 30.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (A- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

MUTUAL FUNDS
Max % (MV) 20.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 10.0 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (AAA by 2) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT (NCD)
Max % (MV) 30.0 0.0 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 5.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 0.0 Compliant
Min Rating (A-1 by 1 or A- by 1 if > FDIC Limit) 0.0 0.0 Compliant

REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS
Max % (MV) 15.0 0.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 1.0 0.0 Compliant

SRI PROHIBITED INVESTMENTS
Prohibited Investment - Fossil Fuels 0.0 0.0 Compliant
Prohibited Investments - Firearms 0.0 0.0 Compliant
Prohibited Investments - Tobacco 0.0 0.0 Compliant

SUPRANATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Max % (MV) 30.0 1.5 Compliant
Max % Issuer (MV) 10.0 1.0 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 2 Compliant
Min Rating (AA- by 1) 0.0 0.0 Compliant
U.S. TREASURIES
Max % (MV) 100.0 54.1 Compliant
Max Maturity (Years) 5 5 Compliant
19

Page 189 of 373 ends

PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Benchmark* 6/30/2026
Portfolio
3/31/2026
Portfolio
Average Maturity (yrs) 2.64 2.76 2.57
Average Modified Duration 2.46 2.34 2.24
Average Purchase Yield 3.70% 3.31%
Average Market Yield 4.16% 4.26% 3.98%
Average Quality** AA+ AA+ AA+
Total Market Value 202,743,993 194,480,896
*Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index **The credit quality is a weighted average calculation of the highest of S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. 20

Page 190 of 373 ends

SECTOR DISTRIBUTION
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Sector/MV/Percent
06/30/2026 03/31/2026
Sector % Market Value % Market Value
ABS 8.6% 17,303,102.78 4.6% 8,912,096.76
Agency 13.0% 26,036,522.85 22.7% 43,762,376.79
Agency CMBS 1.8% 3,655,497.13 0.9% 1,773,770.54
Corporate 20.8% 41,812,397.70 20.8% 40,145,635.55
Money Mkt Fd 0.3% 513,106.62 0.1% 221,006.95
Supras 1.5% 2,975,685.00 1.5% 2,990,281.00
US Treasury 54.1% 108,697,688.19 49.4% 95,388,089.42
21

Page 191 of 373 ends

ISSUERS
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Issuer Investment Type % Portfolio
United States US Treasury 54.07%
Federal Home Loan Banks Agency 12.95%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp Agency CMBS 1.82%
Bank of America Corporation Corporate 1.31%
Morgan Stanley Corporate 1.25%
Deere & Company Corporate 1.25%
Honda Auto Receivables Owner Trust ABS 1.17%
Met Tower Global Funding Corporate 1.11%
BMW Vehicle Lease Trust ABS 1.02%
Cisco Systems, Inc. Corporate 1.01%
Florida Power & Light Corporate 1.00%
International Bank for Recon and Dev Supras 0.98%
Simon Property Group, Inc. Corporate 0.98%
Realty Income Corporation Corporate 0.96%
Amazon.com, Inc. Corporate 0.95%
Hyundai Auto Lease Sec Trust ABS 0.91%
Mercedes-Benz Auto Lease Trust ABS 0.89%
American Express Company Corporate 0.87%
Eli Lilly and Company Corporate 0.85%
GM Financial Auto Leasing Trust ABS 0.83%
Toyota Motor Corporation Corporate 0.75%
Abbvie Inc. Corporate 0.75%
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Corporate 0.75%
Caterpillar Inc. Corporate 0.75%
U.S. Bancorp Corporate 0.75%
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Corporate 0.75%
Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust ABS 0.74%
Toyota Auto Receivables Owner Trust ABS 0.73%
Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust ABS 0.70%
BNY Mellon Corp Corporate 0.62%
22

Page 192 of 373 ends

ISSUERS
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Issuer Investment Type % Portfolio
Prologis, Inc. Corporate 0.62%
Duke Energy Corporation Corporate 0.61%
Hyundai Motor Company ABS 0.57%
International Finance Corporation Supras 0.50%
State Street Corporation Corporate 0.50%
NVIDIA Corporation Corporate 0.50%
Public Service Enterprise Group Corporate 0.48%
Toyota Lease Owner Trust ABS 0.40%
T-Mobile Us Trust 2026-1 ABS 0.34%
John Deere Owner Trust ABS 0.32%
BNY Mellon Corp Money Mkt Fd 0.26%
PACCAR Inc Corporate 0.25%
Chubb Limited Corporate 0.25%
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Corporate 0.25%
Meta Platforms, Inc. Corporate 0.25%
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Corporate 0.25%
Salesforce, Inc. Corporate 0.21%
Cash Cash 0.01%
TOTAL 100.00%
23

Page 193 of 373 ends

QUALITY DISTRIBUTION
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 S&P Rating Moody’s Rating Fitch Rating
Rating 06/30/2026 03/31/2026
AAA 7.62% 4.29%
AA 71.99% 77.53%
A 16.23% 15.83%
A-1+ 1.47% 0.39%
NA 2.69% 1.96%
Rating 06/30/2026 03/31/2026
Aaa 6.75% 4.71%
Aa 71.28% 77.05%
A 16.07% 15.39%
P-1 1.47% 0.39%
NA 4.43% 2.46%
Rating 06/30/2026 03/31/2026
AAA 8.06% 4.20%
AA 72.63% 80.26%
A 6.90% 6.67%
F1+ 1.47% 0.39%
NA 10.94% 8.49%
24

Page 194 of 373 ends

DURATION DISTRIBUTION
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Portfolio Compared to the Benchmark
0-.25 .25-.5 .5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-7 7+
Portfolio 1.7% 9.9% 8.1% 19.7% 27.2% 18.5% 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury &
Agency Index 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 36.2% 28.4% 20.6% 12.3% 0.0% 0.0% 25

Page 195 of 373 ends

DURATION DISTRIBUTION
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Date 0-.25 .25-.5 .5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-7 7+
06/30/2026 1.7% 9.9% 8.1% 19.7% 27.2% 18.5% 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 03/31/2026 6.7% 3.1% 18.8% 12.4% 28.9% 16.9% 13.3% 0.0% 0.0% 26

Page 196 of 373 ends

INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Total Rate of Return: Inception | 07/01/2025
TOTAL RATE OF RETURN* 3 Months 12 Months 2 Years 3 Years 5 Years 10 Years Since Inception City of Pleasanton Mgd Account 0.43% 3.34% 3.34%
Benchmark 0.24% 2.47% 2.47%
*Periods over 1 year are annualized.

Total rate of return: A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending market value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains and losses in the portfolio.

Benchmark: ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index 27

Page 197 of 373 ends

PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS
28

Page 198 of 373 ends

HOLDINGS REPORT
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313 | As of June 30, 2026 Cusip Security Description Par Value/
Units
Purchase
Date
Purchase
Yield
Cost Value
Book Value
Mkt
Price
Mkt
YTM
Market Value
Accrued Int.
% of Port.

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
ABS
096912AD2 BMWLT 2025-1 A3 4.43
06/26/2028 175,000.00 06/03/20254.82%
174,996.15
174,997.49
100.13

4.31%
175,220.85
129.21

0.09%
223.36
NA/AAA
AAA

1.99 0.80
89240NAD4 TLOT 2025-B A3 3.96 11/20/2028 805,000.00 09/09/2025

3.97%
804,855.91
804,891.56

99.38 4.45%
800,038.79
974.05

0.40%
(4,852.78)
Aaa/NA
AAA

2.39 1.35
448970AD5 HALST 2026-A A3 3.97
12/15/2028 590,000.00 01/12/20263.98%
589,913.51
589,926.66

99.32 4.46%
586,016.91
1,041.02

0.29%
(3,909.75)
NA/AAA
AAA

2.46 1.49
36273VAD7 GMALT 2026-1 A3 3.88
01/22/2029 1,050,000.00 02/03/20264.11%
1,049,862.56
1,049,880.33

99.29 4.44%
1,042,567.05
1,244.83

0.52%
(7,313.28)
NA/AAA
AAA

2.56 1.35
36275AAD1 GMALT 2026-2 A3 4.3 03/20/2029 635,000.00 05/05/2026

4.40%
634,931.29
634,934.46

99.86 4.43%
634,083.06
682.63

0.32%
(851.40)
NA/AAA
AAA

2.72 1.57
448972AD1 HALST 26B A3 4.21 04/16/2029 1,250,000.00 --

4.21%
1,249,836.35
1,249,846.40

99.61 4.47%
1,245,138.75
2,338.89

0.62%
(4,707.65)
NA/AAA
AAA

2.79 1.74
58770XAD5 MBALT 2025-B A3 3.88
04/16/2029 1,260,000.00 10/16/20254.57%
1,259,793.23
1,259,834.19

99.38 4.35%
1,252,156.50
2,172.80

0.62%
(7,677.69)
NA/AAA
AAA

2.79 1.41
05594YAD8 BMWLT 2026-1 A3 4.15
05/25/2029 1,875,000.00 --4.64%
1,870,997.06
1,871,021.41

99.56 4.46%
1,866,703.13
1,296.88

0.93%
(4,318.29)
Aaa/NA
AAA

2.90 1.65
44935XAD7 HART 2025-B A3 4.36 12/17/2029 265,000.00 06/03/2025

4.36%
264,976.07
264,981.65
100.03

4.37%
265,081.36
513.51

0.13%

99.70 NA/AAA
AAA

3.47 1.20
58770YAD3 MBALT 2026-A A3 3.93
01/15/2030 535,000.00 01/13/20263.97%
534,893.91
534,905.65

99.21 4.40%
530,791.16
934.47

0.26%
(4,114.49)
Aaa/NA
AAA

3.54 1.78
47787DAD3 JDOT 2026 A3 3.87 08/15/2030 650,000.00 03/10/2026

4.49%
649,884.82
649,892.33

98.68 4.46%
641,391.40
1,118.00

0.32%
(8,500.93)
Aaa/NA
AAA

4.13 2.38
89240KAD0 TAOT 2026-A A3 3.86 09/15/2030 770,000.00 01/13/2026

4.13%
769,934.40
769,940.62

99.04 4.43%
762,605.69
1,320.98

0.38%
(7,334.93)
Aaa/AAA
NA

4.21 1.80
43815CAD0 HAROT 2026-1 A3 3.78
09/23/2030 930,000.00 02/10/20263.03%
929,851.85
929,863.59

98.83 4.46%
919,125.51
976.50

0.46%
(10,738.08)
Aaa/NA
AAA

4.23 1.80
58769MAD2 MBART 261 A3 4.36 10/15/2030 1,400,000.00 05/12/2026

4.60%
1,399,695.08
1,399,703.04

99.81 4.49%
1,397,369.40
2,712.89

0.70%
(2,333.64)
NA/AAA
AAA

4.29 2.07
87269AAA8 TMUST 2026-1 A 4.25 10/21/2030 690,000.00 03/12/2026

4.26%
689,853.58
689,862.58

99.47 4.54%
686,364.39
896.04

0.34%
(3,498.19)
Aaa/NA
AAA

4.31 2.09
43814YAD3 HAROT 2026-2 A3 4.3 11/15/2030 1,435,000.00 05/05/2026

3.02%
1,434,958.53
1,434,959.76

99.74 4.46%
1,431,330.71
2,742.44

0.71%
(3,629.06)
Aaa/AAA
NA

4.38 2.14
29

Page 199 of 373 ends

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
89240QAD7 TAOT 2026-B A3 4.13 12/16/2030 710,000.00 04/14/2026

4.27%
709,850.26
709,856.51

99.42 4.46%
705,859.28
1,303.24

0.35%
(3,997.23)
Aaa/AAA
NA

4.46 1.97
44935KAD5 HART 26B A3 4.81 02/18/2031 1,135,000.00 06/09/2026

4.86%
1,134,863.01
1,134,864.13
100.24

4.44%
1,137,728.54
2,123.08

0.57%
2,864.41
NA/AAA
AAA

4.64 2.20
448981AD2 HART 2026-A A3 3.79 02/18/2031 1,240,000.00 02/10/2026

4.30%
1,239,916.30
1,239,922.40

98.67 4.48%
1,223,530.32
2,088.71

0.61%
(16,392.08)
NA/AAA
AAA

4.64 2.01
17,393,863.87 99.44 17,303,102.78 8.61% 3.60
Total ABS 17,400,000.00 4.20% 17,394,084.77 4.45% 26,610.17 (90,981.99) 1.80 AGENCY
3130APUR4 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.3
11/24/2026 1,840,000.00 12/09/20211.42%
1,829,401.60
1,839,145.57

98.91 4.08%
1,819,953.20
2,458.44

0.91%
(19,192.37)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.40 0.39
3130APU78 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.3
11/24/2026 530,000.00 12/09/20211.42%
526,947.20
529,753.89

98.91 4.08%
524,225.65
708.14

0.26%
(5,528.24)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.40 0.39
3130APVC6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

1.375 12/01/2026 3,000,000.00 12/09/20211.46%
2,988,000.00
2,998,990.10

98.91 4.03%
2,967,246.00
3,437.50

1.48%
(31,744.10)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.42 0.41
3130AQF65 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.25
12/21/2026 3,000,000.00 12/22/20211.28%
2,995,657.09
2,999,588.32

98.71 4.03%
2,961,390.00
1,041.67

1.47%
(38,198.32)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.48 0.46
3130AQG80 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.42
12/29/2026 6,000,000.00 --1.48%
5,982,000.00
5,998,204.26

98.72 4.05%
5,923,392.00
473.33

2.95%
(74,812.26)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.50 0.48
3130AQEC3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.37
12/30/2026 3,000,000.00 12/30/20211.37%
3,000,000.00
3,000,000.00

98.61 4.22%
2,958,312.00
114.17

1.47%
(41,688.00)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.50 0.49
3130AQEF6 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS

1.375 12/30/2026 3,000,000.00 12/30/20211.39%
2,998,500.00
2,999,850.49

98.67 4.11%
2,960,076.00
114.58

1.47%
(39,774.49)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.50 0.49
3130AQLD3 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 1.75
01/28/2027 3,000,000.00 02/08/20221.93%
2,975,010.00
2,997,094.83

98.70 4.06%
2,961,009.00
22,312.50

1.47%
(36,085.83)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.58 0.56
3130AQW66 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 2.08
02/25/2027 3,000,000.00 03/08/20222.11%
2,995,500.00
2,999,407.44

98.70 4.13%
2,960,919.00
21,840.00

1.47%
(38,488.44)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.66 0.63
26,291,015.89 98.74 26,036,522.85 12.95% 0.51
Total Agency 26,370,000.00 1.55% 26,362,034.89 4.09% 52,500.33 (325,512.04) 0.49

AGENCY CMBS
30

Page 200 of 373 ends

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
3137FKZZ2 FHMS K-088 A2 3.69 01/25/2029 1,795,000.00 03/26/2026

4.24%
1,766,883.01
1,769,451.79

98.12 4.43%
1,761,279.13
5,519.63

0.88%
(8,172.66)
Aaa/AA+
AA+

2.57 2.33
3137FQ3A9 FHMS K-100 A2 2.673 09/25/2029 2,000,000.00 05/21/2026

4.44%
1,891,093.75
1,894,288.82

94.71 4.43%
1,894,218.00
4,455.00

0.94%
(70.82)
Aa1/AA+
AAA

3.24 2.99
3,657,976.76 96.35 3,655,497.13 1.82% 2.92
Total Agency CMBS 3,795,000.00 4.34% 3,663,740.61 4.43% 9,974.63 (8,243.48) 2.67 CASH
CCYUSD Receivable 24,014.85 -- 24,014.85
24,014.85

1.00 24,014.85

0.00 0.01%

0.00 Aaa/AAA
AAA

0.00 0.00
24,014.85 1.00 24,014.85 0.01% 0.00
Total Cash 24,014.85 24,014.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

CORPORATE
14913UAR1 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES
CORP 4.4 10/15/2027 1,500,000.00 --4.17%
1,507,375.00
1,504,227.49
100.18

4.25%
1,502,649.00
13,933.33

0.75%
(1,578.49)
A1/A
A+

1.29 1.23
571748BY7 MARSH & MCLENNAN
COMPANIES INC 4.55 11/08/2027 1,000,000.00 07/21/20254.22% 1,006,950.00
1,003,991.09
100.18

4.41%
1,001,756.00
6,698.61

0.50%
(2,235.09)
A3/AA1.36

1.21 532457CU0 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.55 02/12/2028 500,000.00 03/19/2025

4.32%
502,955.00
501,609.73
100.42

4.28%
502,100.00
8,784.03

0.25%
490.27
Aa3/AANA1.62

1.44 857477CU5 STATE STREET CORP 4.536
02/28/2028 500,000.00 03/19/20254.50%
500,095.00
500,052.41
100.38

4.29%
501,898.00
7,749.00

0.25%
1,845.59
Aa3/A
AA1.671.48
46647PAF3 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 3.54
05/01/2028 750,000.00 07/22/20254.38%
739,305.00
744,974.84

99.18 5.00%
743,838.00
4,425.00

0.37%
(1,136.84)
A1/A
AA1.840.81
26444HAE1 DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA LLC 3.8
07/15/2028 1,250,000.00 --4.20%
1,235,640.00
1,240,628.62

98.72 4.46%
1,234,000.00
21,902.78

0.61%
(6,628.62)
A1/A
NA

2.04 1.90
61744YAK4 MORGAN STANLEY 3.591
07/22/2028 750,000.00 07/22/20254.21%
736,972.50
741,053.26

98.91 4.16%
741,792.00
11,895.19

0.37%
738.74
A1/AA+2.06

1.01 74340XBX8 PROLOGIS LP 4.0 09/15/2028 1,250,000.00 --

4.38%
1,235,247.50
1,240,297.90

98.98 4.49%
1,237,280.00
14,722.22

0.62%
(3,017.90)
A2/A
NA

2.21 2.06
023135CS3 AMAZON.COM INC 3.9
11/20/2028 925,000.00 11/17/20253.91%
924,796.50
924,837.91

98.95 4.37%
915,256.05
4,108.54

0.46%
(9,581.86)
A1/AA
AA2.392.24
31

Page 201 of 373 ends

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
06051GHD4 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 3.419
12/20/2028 750,000.00 07/22/20254.40%
733,402.50
739,871.75

98.33 4.79%
737,463.75
783.52

0.37%
(2,408.00)
A1/AAA2.47

1.41 58989V2M5 MET TOWER GLOBAL FUNDING

4.0 01/14/2029 1,225,000.00 01/07/20264.05%
1,223,419.75
1,223,661.98

98.60 4.59%
1,207,892.88
22,730.56

0.60%
(15,769.10)
Aa3/AAAA2.54

2.34 24422EXH7 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 4.5
01/16/2029 1,500,000.00 --4.47%
1,500,745.00
1,501,322.48
100.26

4.39%
1,503,867.00
30,937.50

0.75%
2,544.52
A1/A
A+

2.55 2.33
69371RS80 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 4.6
01/31/2029 500,000.00 03/19/20254.54%
501,095.00
500,732.32
100.64

4.33%
503,193.00
9,647.22

0.25%
2,460.68
A1/A+
NA

2.59 2.37
06406RBN6 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORP 4.543 02/01/2029 1,250,000.00 --4.38%
1,251,885.00
1,253,243.52
100.09

4.61%
1,251,126.25
23,661.46

0.62%
(2,117.27)
Aa3/A
AA2.591.48
91159HJK7 US BANCORP 4.653 02/01/2029 1,500,000.00 --

4.30%
1,509,580.00
1,507,926.61
100.07

4.71%
1,501,050.00
29,081.25

0.75%
(6,876.61)
A3/A
A+

2.59 1.48
009158BH8 AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS
INC 4.6 02/08/2029 500,000.00 04/17/20254.37%
503,835.00
502,603.73
100.35

4.46%
501,733.50
9,136.11

0.25%
(870.23)
A3/A
NA

2.61 2.31
756109CF9 REALTY INCOME CORP 4.75
02/15/2029 1,000,000.00 07/22/20254.30%
1,014,460.00
1,010,560.80
100.43

4.57%
1,004,290.00
17,944.44

0.50%
(6,270.80)
A3/ANA2.63

2.33 17275RBR2 CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.85
02/26/2029 2,000,000.00 --4.04%
2,046,800.00
2,038,584.97
101.06

4.42%
2,021,238.00
33,680.56

1.01%
(17,346.97)
A1/AANA2.66

2.36 571748BG6

MARSH & MCLENNAN
COMPANIES INC 4.375
03/15/2029
500,000.00
05/22/2025

4.55%
496,995.00
497,867.14

99.61 4.53%
498,036.00
6,440.97

0.25%
168.86
A3/AA2.71

2.49 79466LAR5 SALESFORCE INC 4.65 03/15/2029 425,000.00 03/19/2026

4.65%
425,029.75
425,026.87

99.95 4.67%
424,779.85
5,928.75

0.21%
(247.02)
A2/A+
NA

2.71 2.48
00287YDS5 ABBVIE INC 4.8 03/15/2029 1,500,000.00 --

4.23%
1,524,390.00
1,520,826.45
100.78

4.49%
1,511,631.00
21,200.00

0.75%
(9,195.45)
A2/ANA2.71

2.41 58989V2H6 MET TOWER GLOBAL FUNDING

5.25 04/12/2029 1,000,000.00 07/21/20254.39%
1,029,130.00
1,021,761.82
101.65

4.61%
1,016,478.00
11,520.83

0.51%
(5,283.82)
Aa3/AAAA2.78

2.54 91324PEH1 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 4.0
05/15/2029 500,000.00 02/20/20254.74%
485,910.00
490,427.20

98.61 4.52%
493,043.00
2,555.56

0.25%
2,615.80
A2/A+
A

2.87 2.67
74456QBY1 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRICAND
GAS CO 3.2 05/15/2029 1,000,000.00 07/22/20254.27%
962,760.00
971,936.24

96.79 4.40%
967,866.00
4,088.89

0.48%
(4,070.24)
A1/A
NA

2.87 2.69
61747YFF7 MORGAN STANLEY 5.449
07/20/2029 750,000.00 --4.87%
762,862.50
758,170.80
101.32

4.92%
759,927.75
18,276.85

0.38%
1,756.95
A1/AA+3.05

1.88 32

Page 202 of 373 ends

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
025816EJ4 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 4.351
07/20/2029 1,750,000.00 --4.27%
1,753,312.50
1,752,785.24

99.49 4.56%
1,741,050.50
34,052.62

0.87%
(11,734.74)
A2/AA3.05

1.90 06051GHM4 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 4.271
07/23/2029 750,000.00 --4.93%
734,265.00
740,722.67

99.21 4.88%
744,084.75
14,058.71

0.37%
3,362.08
A1/AAA3.06

1.91 46647PDU7 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 5.299
07/24/2029 750,000.00 --4.81%
760,890.00
756,976.40
101.30

4.78%
759,765.00
17,332.15

0.38%
2,788.60
A1/A
AA3.071.90
30303M8S4 META PLATFORMS INC 4.3
08/15/2029 500,000.00 03/19/20254.47%
496,715.00
497,670.49

99.78 4.38%
498,890.00
8,122.22

0.25%
1,219.51
Aa3/AANA3.13

2.85 171239AL0 CHUBB INA HOLDINGS LLC 4.65
08/15/2029 500,000.00 04/17/20254.45%
503,710.00
502,663.71
100.49

4.48%
502,462.00
8,783.33

0.25%
(201.71)
A2/A
A

3.13 2.76
857477BD4 STATE STREET CORP 4.141
12/03/2029 500,000.00 05/22/20254.57%
493,045.00
495,223.16

99.07 4.69%
495,328.50
1,610.39

0.25%
105.35
Aa3/A
AA3.432.27
89236TNA9 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP

4.95 01/09/2030 1,500,000.00 08/27/20254.19%
1,544,835.00
1,536,205.32
101.15

4.59%
1,517,217.00
35,475.00

0.75%
(18,988.32)
A1/A+
A+

3.53 3.13
341081GP6 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO

4.625 05/15/2030 2,000,000.00 03/05/20264.06%
2,041,320.00
2,038,031.27
100.28

4.54%
2,005,532.00
11,819.44

1.00%
(32,499.27)
Aa2/A+
AA3.873.35
24422EYE3 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 4.55
06/05/2030 1,000,000.00 03/19/20264.38%
1,006,290.00
1,005,868.76
100.13

4.51%
1,001,260.00
3,286.11

0.50%
(4,608.76)
A1/A
A+

3.93 3.55
828807EB9 SIMON PROPERTY GROUP LP 4.3
01/15/2031 2,000,000.00 03/05/20264.33%
1,997,040.00
1,997,235.00

98.34 4.71%
1,966,818.00
40,133.33

0.98%
(30,417.00)
A3/A
NA

4.54 3.99
756109CD4 REALTY INCOME CORP 3.2
02/15/2031 1,000,000.00 04/21/20264.54%
942,640.00
944,921.36

93.51 4.78%
935,145.00
12,088.89

0.47%
(9,776.36)
A3/ANA4.63

4.17 023135DD5 AMAZON.COM INC 4.25
03/13/2031 1,000,000.00 --4.40%
993,589.00
993,939.71

98.47 4.62%
984,655.00
12,750.00

0.49%
(9,284.71)
A1/AA
AA4.704.16
61747YFZ3 MORGAN STANLEY 5.192
04/17/2031 1,000,000.00 06/11/20264.89%
1,010,480.00
1,010,338.28
101.05

4.94%
1,010,535.00
10,672.44

0.50%
196.72
A1/AA+4.80

3.38 06051GJB6 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 2.592
04/29/2031 1,250,000.00 06/04/20264.95%
1,154,875.00
1,156,257.48

92.28 5.02%
1,153,438.75
5,580.00

0.57%
(2,818.73)
A1/AAA4.83

3.56 532457DL9 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.375
05/20/2031 1,225,000.00 --4.41%
1,222,894.05
1,222,942.49

99.23 4.55%
1,215,571.18
6,103.73

0.60%
(7,371.31)
Aa3/AANA4.89

4.33 67066GAR5 NVIDIA CORP 4.5 06/15/2031 1,000,000.00 06/22/2026

4.66%
993,050.00
993,080.58

99.65 4.58%
996,460.00
1,625.00

0.50%
3,379.42
Aa1/AA
NA

4.96 4.39
Total Corporate 42,050,000.00 4.37%
42,010,586.55
42,011,059.84

99.47 4.57%
41,812,397.70
565,326.54

20.80%
(198,662.14)

3.08 2.53
33

Page 203 of 373 ends

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration

MONEY MARKET
FUND
262006208 BNY DREYFUS GVT CM INST 513,106.62 --

3.55%
513,106.62
513,106.62

1.00 3.55%
513,106.62

0.00 0.26%

0.00 Aaa/AAAm
NA

0.00 0.00
Total Money Market
Fund 513,106.62 3.55%
513,106.62
513,106.62

1.00 3.55%
513,106.62

0.00 0.26%

0.00 0.00

0.00 SUPRANATIONAL
45950KDF4 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP

4.375 01/15/2027 1,000,000.00 06/27/20253.89%
1,007,230.00
1,002,538.19
100.15

4.09%
1,001,521.00
20,173.61

0.50%
(1,017.19)
Aaa/AAA
NA

0.54 0.52
459058KT9

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR

RECONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPM 3.5 07/12/2028
2,000,000.00
06/17/2025

3.98%
1,972,780.00
1,981,966.75

98.71 4.17%
1,974,164.00
32,861.11

0.98%
(7,802.75)
Aaa/AAA
NA

2.03 1.91
Total Supranational 3,000,000.00 3.95%
2,980,010.00
2,984,504.94

99.19 4.14%
2,975,685.00
53,034.72

1.48%
(8,819.94)

1.53 1.44

US TREASURY
912797UF2 UNITED STATES TREASURY
09/10/2026 3,000,000.00 06/30/20263.74%
2,978,034.00
2,978,339.08

99.28 3.72%
2,978,433.00

0.00 1.48%

93.92 P-1/A-1+
F1+

0.20 0.19
91282CJT9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
01/15/2027 3,000,000.00 07/21/20253.95%
3,002,109.38
3,000,770.59
100.01

3.98%
3,000,228.00
55,359.12

1.49%
(542.59)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.54 0.52
91282CMP3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
02/28/2027 2,695,000.00 --3.67%
2,711,219.73
2,702,818.88
100.07

4.01%
2,696,813.74
37,156.95

1.34%
(6,005.14)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.67 0.64
91282CMV0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
03/31/2027 750,000.00 04/17/20253.80%
750,966.80
750,372.27

99.90 4.01%
749,216.25
7,305.33

0.37%
(1,156.02)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.75 0.72
91282CMY4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75
04/30/2027 1,000,000.00 05/22/20254.00%
995,273.44
997,974.33

99.73 4.07%
997,344.00
6,317.93

0.50%
(630.33)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.83 0.81
91282CKV2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625
06/15/2027 1,000,000.00 06/04/20253.86%
1,014,765.63
1,006,963.79
100.48

4.10%
1,004,813.00
2,021.86

0.50%
(2,150.79)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

0.96 0.93
91282CLG4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75
08/15/2027 3,000,000.00 07/22/20253.82%
2,995,664.06
2,997,639.13

99.57 4.14%
2,987,109.00
42,265.19

1.49%
(10,530.13)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.13 1.07
34

Page 204 of 373 ends

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CPE5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
10/31/2027 2,000,000.00 11/24/20253.51%
1,999,609.38
1,999,730.17

99.14 4.17%
1,982,812.00
11,793.48

0.99%
(16,918.17)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.34 1.28
91282CLX7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
11/15/2027 750,000.00 12/19/20244.33%
745,810.55
748,015.94

99.94 4.17%
749,531.25
3,951.26

0.37%
1,515.31
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.38 1.31
91282CMF5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
01/15/2028 750,000.00 01/14/20254.48%
745,283.20
747,574.83
100.11

4.17%
750,820.50
14,704.77

0.37%
3,245.67
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.54 1.45
91282CMS7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
03/15/2028 750,000.00 03/19/20254.05%
746,279.30
747,875.35

99.52 4.17%
746,367.00
8,529.21

0.37%
(1,508.35)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.71 1.62
91282CMW8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75
04/15/2028 1,000,000.00 04/17/20253.80%
998,515.63
999,109.38

99.29 4.16%
992,891.00
7,889.34

0.49%
(6,218.38)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.79 1.70
91282CHE4 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
05/31/2028 1,200,000.00 --4.12%
1,182,328.13
1,189,499.08

99.02 4.16%
1,188,187.20
3,684.43

0.59%
(1,311.88)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.92 1.82
91282CNH0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
06/15/2028 1,500,000.00 06/17/20253.90%
1,499,003.91
1,499,348.39

99.45 4.17%
1,491,796.50
2,540.98

0.74%
(7,551.89)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

1.96 1.86
91282CNM9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
07/15/2028 3,000,000.00 07/22/20253.78%
3,008,203.13
3,005,617.03

99.43 4.17%
2,982,774.00
53,629.14

1.48%
(22,843.03)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.04 1.91
91282CHX2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
08/31/2028 3,000,000.00 --3.85%
3,040,302.73
3,032,356.35
100.42

4.17%
3,012,657.00
43,868.89

1.50%
(19,699.35)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.17 2.02
91282CNY3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.375
09/15/2028 3,000,000.00 09/29/20253.63%
2,978,671.88
2,984,077.90

98.34 4.17%
2,950,077.00
29,714.67

1.47%
(34,000.90)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.21 2.08
91282CJA0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.625
09/30/2028 2,000,000.00 --4.05%
2,033,945.31
2,024,056.23
100.97

4.17%
2,019,376.00
23,251.37

1.00%
(4,680.23)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.25 2.10
91282CJN2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.375
11/30/2028 3,000,000.00 --3.81%
3,053,671.88
3,038,001.40
100.46

4.17%
3,013,827.00
11,116.80

1.50%
(24,174.40)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.42 2.26
91282CPP0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
12/15/2028 2,250,000.00 01/27/20263.63%
2,241,826.17
2,243,022.72

98.45 4.17%
2,215,194.75
3,442.62

1.10%
(27,827.97)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.46 2.32
91282CJW2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
01/31/2029 3,000,000.00 --3.91%
3,008,828.13
3,006,540.92

99.57 4.18%
2,987,109.00
50,055.25

1.49%
(19,431.92)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.59 2.39
91282CKG5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
03/31/2029 5,000,000.00 --3.96%
5,028,720.70
5,020,883.95

99.88 4.17%
4,994,140.00
51,844.26

2.48%
(26,743.95)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.75 2.55
91282CKT7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.5
05/31/2029 3,000,000.00 --3.90%
3,064,218.75
3,048,011.01
100.91

4.17%
3,027,189.00
11,434.43

1.51%
(20,822.01)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

2.92 2.70
91282CLC3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
07/31/2029 5,000,000.00 --3.96%
5,010,390.63
5,006,129.10

99.52 4.17%
4,976,170.00
83,425.41

2.48%
(29,959.10)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.08 2.82
35

Page 205 of 373 ends

Gain/Loss
Moody's/
S&P/
Fitch
Maturity
Duration
91282CMA6 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
11/30/2029 3,000,000.00 07/22/20253.85%
3,032,226.56
3,025,278.91

99.84 4.17%
2,995,314.00
10,481.56

1.49%
(29,964.91)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.42 3.14
91282CMG3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.25
01/31/2030 3,000,000.00 --3.72%
3,062,050.78
3,052,683.01
100.22

4.18%
3,006,564.00
53,183.70

1.50%
(46,119.01)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.59 3.24
91282CGZ8 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
04/30/2030 3,000,000.00 09/29/20253.72%
2,971,875.00
2,976,481.25

97.58 4.19%
2,927,343.00
17,690.22

1.46%
(49,138.25)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.83 3.52
91282CHF1 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75
05/31/2030 5,000,000.00 --3.74%
5,002,617.19
5,002,440.82

98.42 4.19%
4,920,900.00
15,881.15

2.45%
(81,540.82)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

3.92 3.59
91282CHJ3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75
06/30/2030 5,000,000.00 --3.70%
5,010,468.75
5,009,348.01

98.38 4.20%
4,918,750.00
509.51

2.45%
(90,598.01)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.00 3.67
91282CNN7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
07/31/2030 5,000,000.00 --3.75%
5,026,367.19
5,024,196.37

98.82 4.19%
4,941,015.00
80,818.37

2.46%
(83,181.37)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.08 3.68
91282CPA3 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.625
09/30/2030 5,000,000.00 --3.76%
4,970,507.81
4,973,012.50

97.80 4.20%
4,889,845.00
45,560.11

2.43%
(83,167.50)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.25 3.86
91282CPN5 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.5
11/30/2030 7,500,000.00 --3.90%
7,373,945.32
7,380,130.19

97.20 4.20%
7,289,647.50
22,233.61

3.63%
(90,482.69)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.42 4.03
91282CJX0 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.0
01/31/2031 8,000,000.00 --3.88%
8,040,546.87
8,038,007.13

99.13 4.21%
7,930,624.00
133,480.66

3.95%
(107,383.13)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.59 4.08
91282CQG9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.875
03/31/2031 7,500,000.00 --4.00%
7,457,910.16
7,459,747.31

98.58 4.21%
7,393,357.50
73,053.28

3.68%
(66,389.81)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

4.75 4.25
91282CQX2 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125
06/30/2031 3,000,000.00 06/30/20264.17%
2,993,320.31
2,993,323.97

99.65 4.20%
2,989,452.00
336.28

1.49%
(3,871.97)
Aa1/AA+
AA+

5.00 4.47
Total US Treasury 109,645,000.00 3.85%
109,775,478.39
109,709,377.27

99.15 4.16%
108,697,688.19
1,018,531.13

54.07%
(1,011,689.08)

3.09 2.82
Total Portfolio 202,797,121.47 3.70%
202,646,052.93
202,661,923.78

98.87 4.26%
201,018,015.11
1,725,977.52
100.00%
(1,643,908.67)

2.76 2.34
Total Market Value +
Accrued 202,743,992.63
36

Page 206 of 373 ends

TRANSACTIONS
37

Page 207 of 373 ends

ACQUISITIONS
Purchase 04/21/2026 89240QAD7 710,000.00 TAOT 2026-B A3 4.13 12/16/2030 99.979 4.27% (709,850.26) 0.00 (709,850.26) 0.00 Purchase 04/22/2026 05594YAD8 875,000.00 BMWLT 2026-1 A3

4.15 05/25/2029 99.989 4.85% (874,903.31) 0.00 (874,903.31) 0.00 Purchase 04/22/2026 448972AD1 600,000.00 HALST 26B A3 4.21 04/16/2029 99.985 4.22% (599,912.52) 0.00 (599,912.52) 0.00 Purchase 04/22/2026 756109CD4 1,000,000.00 REALTY INCOME CORP

3.2 02/15/2031 94.264 4.54% (942,640.00) (5,955.56) (948,595.56) 0.00 Purchase 04/29/2026 448972AD1 650,000.00 HALST 26B A3 4.21 04/16/2029 99.988 4.21% (649,923.83) (532.10) (650,455.93) 0.00 Purchase 04/30/2026 91282CQG9 2,500,000.00

UNITED STATES
TREASURY 3.875
03/31/2031

99.285 4.04% (2,482,128.91) (7,940.57) (2,490,069.48) 0.00 Purchase 05/13/2026 43814YAD3 1,435,000.00 HAROT 2026-2 A3 4.3 11/15/2030 99.997 3.02% (1,434,958.53) 0.00 (1,434,958.53) 0.00 Purchase 05/14/2026 36275AAD1 635,000.00 GMALT 2026-2 A3 4.3 03/20/2029 99.989 4.40% (634,931.29) 0.00 (634,931.29) 0.00 Purchase 05/20/2026 58769MAD2 1,400,000.00 MBART 261 A3 4.36 10/15/2030 99.978 4.60% (1,399,695.08) 0.00 (1,399,695.08) 0.00 Purchase 05/20/2026 532457DL9 665,000.00 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.375 05/20/2031 99.893 4.40% (664,288.45) 0.00 (664,288.45) 0.00 Purchase 05/20/2026 532457DL9 560,000.00 ELI LILLY AND CO 4.375 05/20/2031 99.751 4.43% (558,605.60) 0.00 (558,605.60) 0.00 Purchase 05/27/2026 3137FQ3A9 2,000,000.00 FHMS K-100 A2 2.673 09/25/2029 94.555 4.44% (1,891,093.75) (3,861.00) (1,894,954.75) 0.00 Purchase 05/29/2026 91282CPN5 2,500,000.00

UNITED STATES
TREASURY 3.5
11/30/2030

97.367 4.15% (2,434,179.69) (43,269.23) (2,477,448.92) 0.00 Purchase 06/05/2026 06051GJB6 1,250,000.00

BANK OF AMERICA
CORP 2.592
04/29/2031

92.390 4.95% (1,154,875.00) (3,240.00) (1,158,115.00) 0.00 Purchase 06/12/2026 61747YFZ3 1,000,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY

5.192 04/17/2031 101.048 4.89% (1,010,480.00) (7,932.22) (1,018,412.22) 0.00 Purchase 06/17/2026 44935KAD5 1,135,000.00 HART 26B A3 4.81 02/18/2031 99.988 4.86% (1,134,863.01) 0.00 (1,134,863.01) 0.00 38

Page 208 of 373 ends

TRANSACTION LEDGER
City of Pleasanton Managed Account | Account #11313|04/01/2026 Through 06/30/2026| Transaction
Type
Settlement
Date CUSIP Quantity Security Description Price Acq/DispYield Amount Interest Pur/Sold Total Amount Gain/Loss Purchase 06/23/2026 67066GAR5 1,000,000.00 NVIDIA CORP 4.5 06/15/2031 99.305 4.66% (993,050.00) (625.00) (993,675.00) 0.00 Purchase 06/26/2026 05594YAD8 1,000,000.00 BMWLT 2026-1 A3

4.15 05/25/2029 99.609 4.44% (996,093.75) (115.28) (996,209.03) 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2026 91282CLC3 2,000,000.00

UNITED STATES
TREASURY 4.0
07/31/2029

99.605 4.14% (1,992,109.38) (33,149.17) (2,025,258.55) 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2026 91282CKG5 2,000,000.00

UNITED STATES
TREASURY 4.125
03/31/2029

99.953 4.14% (1,999,062.50) (20,512.30) (2,019,574.80) 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2026 912797UF2 3,000,000.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY 09/10/2026 99.268 3.74% (2,978,034.00) 0.00 (2,978,034.00) 0.00 Purchase 06/30/2026 91282CQX2 3,000,000.00

UNITED STATES
TREASURY 4.125
06/30/2031

99.777 4.17% (2,993,320.31) 0.00 (2,993,320.31) 0.00
Total Purchase 30,915,000.00 (30,528,999.17) (127,132.43) (30,656,131.60) 0.00 TOTAL
ACQUISITIONS 30,915,000.00 (30,528,999.17) (127,132.43) (30,656,131.60) 0.00

DISPOSITIONS
Maturity 06/11/2026 912797QX8 (760,000.00) UNITED STATES TREASURY 06/11/2026 100.000 3.68% 760,000.00 0.00 760,000.00 0.00 Maturity 06/15/2026 3133EMH21 (3,000,000.00)

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT

BANKS FUNDING CORP

0.9 06/15/2026
100.000 0.92% 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00
Maturity 06/22/2026 46632FSC0 (3,000,000.00)

JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A. 1.1
06/22/2026
100.000 0.00% 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00
Total Maturity (6,760,000.00) 6,760,000.00 0.00 6,760,000.00 0.00 Sale 04/16/2026 3130AMSL7 (3,000,000.00)

FEDERAL HOME
LOAN BANKS 1.03
06/30/2026

99.442 1.03% 2,983,260.00 9,098.33 2,992,358.33 (16,740.00) Sale 04/29/2026 3130AMYA4 (3,000,000.00)

FEDERAL HOME
LOAN BANKS 1.07
06/30/2026

99.546 1.07% 2,986,380.00 10,610.83 2,996,990.83 (13,620.00) 39

Page 209 of 373 ends

FEDERAL HOME
LOAN BANKS 1.02
07/14/2026

99.501 1.03% 2,985,030.00 9,690.00 2,994,720.00 (14,942.48) Sale 05/14/2026 3130AP2P9 (3,000,000.00)

FEDERAL HOME
LOAN BANKS 0.92
09/30/2026

98.918 1.03% 2,967,540.00 3,373.33 2,970,913.33 (31,203.98) Sale 05/22/2026 3130APC94 (3,000,000.00)

FEDERAL HOME
LOAN BANKS 1.07
10/14/2026

98.929 1.09% 2,967,870.00 3,388.33 2,971,258.33 (31,951.33) Sale 06/12/2026 78017DAA6 (500,000.00)

ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA 4.965
01/24/2029
100.584 4.82% 502,920.00 9,516.25 512,436.25 1,839.92
Total Sale (15,500,000.00) 15,393,000.00 45,677.07 15,438,677.07 (106,617.87) TOTAL
DISPOSITIONS (22,260,000.00) 22,153,000.00 45,677.07 22,198,677.07 (106,617.87) 40

Page 210 of 373 ends

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES
2026 Chandler Asset Management, Inc, An Independent Registered Investment Adviser.

Information contained herein is confidential. Prices are provided by ICE Data Services Inc (“IDS”), an independent pricing source. In the event IDS does not provide a price or if the price provided is not reflective of fair market value, Chandler will obtain pricing from an alternative approved third party pricing source in accordance with our written valuation policy and procedures. Our valuation procedures are also disclosed in Item 5 of our Form ADV Part 2A.

Performance results are presented gross-of-advisory fees and represent the client’s Total Return. The deduction of advisory fees lowers performance results. These results include the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Therefore, clients should not assume that future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy will be profitable or equal to past performance levels. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Economic factors, market conditions or changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio.

Index returns assume reinvestment of all distributions. Historical performance results for investment indexes generally do not reflect the deduction of transaction and/or custodial charges or the deduction of an investment management fee, the incurrence of which would have the effect of decreasing historical performance results. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Source ICE Data Indices, LLC (“ICE”), used with permission. ICE permits use of the ICE indices and related data on an “asis” basis; ICE, its affiliates and their respective third party suppliers disclaim any and all warranties and representations, express and/or implied, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use, including the indices, index data and any data included in, related to, or derived therefrom. Neither ICE data, its affiliates or their respective third party providers guarantee the quality, adequacy, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the indices or the index data or any component thereof, and the indices and index data and all components thereof are provided on an “as is” basis and licensee’s use it at licensee’s own risk. ICE data, its affiliates and their respective third party do not sponsor, endorse, or recommend chandler asset management, or any of its products or services.

This report is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a specific investment or legal advice. The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed to be reliable as of the date of publication, but may become outdated or superseded at any time without notice. Any opinions or views expressed are based on current market conditions and are subject to change. This report may contain forecasts and forward-looking statements which are inherently limited and should not be relied upon as indicator of future results. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This report is not intended to constitute an offer, solicitation, recommendation or advice regarding any securities or investment strategy and should not be regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment.

Fixed income investments are subject to interest, credit and market risk. Interest rate risk: the value of fixed income investments will decline as interest rates rise. Credit risk: the possibility that the borrower may not be able to repay interest and principal. Low rated bonds generally have to pay higher interest rates to attract investors willing to take on greater risk. Market risk: the bond market in general could decline due to economic conditions, especially during periods of rising interest rates.

Ratings information have been provided by Moody’s, S&P and Fitch through data feeds we believe to be reliable as of the date of this statement, however we cannot guarantee its accuracy.

Security level ratings for U.S. Agency issued mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) reflect the issuer rating because the securities themselves are not rated. The issuing U.S. Agency guarantees the full and timely payment of both principal and interest.

LGIP Yields: Reported yields for local government investment pools may be presented as either the 30-day yield or the monthly distribution yield, as applicable. For certain funds, the 30-day yield is calculated using reported daily yield data. Yield calculations are subject to change and may not be directly comparable across funds.

LAIF Yields: Additional Disclosure for CA Clients - As a result of a reporting lag from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), reported LAIF yieldsrepresent the most recently available Daily Effective Yield and may reflect data from approximately 7–10 days prior to month-end. 41

Page 211 of 373 ends

BENCHMARK DISCLOSURES
Benchmark Disclosure
ICE BofA 1-5 Yr Unsubordinated US
Treasury & Agency Index
The ICE BofA 1-5 Year Unsubordinated US Treasury & Agency Index tracks the performance of US dollar denominated US Treasury and nonsubordinated US agency debt issued in the US domestic market. Qualifying securities must have an investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch). Qualifying securities must have at least one year remaining term to final maturity and less than five years remaining term to final maturity, at least 18 months to maturity at time of issuance, a fixed coupon schedule, and a minimum amount outstanding of $1 billion for sovereigns and $250 million for agencies. 42

Page 212 of 373 ends

Local Agency Investment
Fund
July Ol, 2026
LAIFHome
PMIA Average Monthly: Yields
P.O. Box 942809
Sacramento, CA 94209-0001
(916) 653-3001

CITY OF PLEASANTON

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
P.O. BOX520
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
Account Number:

June 2026 Statement
Account SummarY.

Total Deposit:

Total Withdrawal:

Tran TY.P-e Definitions

0.00 Beginning Balance:

0.00 Ending Balance:
74,000,000.00
74,000,000.00

Page 213 of 373 ends

CITY OF PLEASANTON
PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 6/1/2026 to 6/30/2026 Susan Hsieh
Director of Finance
City of Pleasanton
123 Main Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Account Summary
Source 6/1/2026 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 6/30/2026 PENSION - Short Term 1075 $22,135,731.66 $0.00 $29,149.00 $5,908.76 $0.00 $0.00 $22,158,971.90 PENSION - Long Term 1076 $41,954,010.04 $0.00 -$2,521.69 $11,281.36 $0.00 $0.00 $41,940,206.99 Totals $64,089,741.70 $0.00 $26,627.31 $17,190.12 $0.00 $0.00 $64,099,178.89 Investment Selection
Source
PENSION - Short Term
PENSION - Long Term
Investment Objective
Source
PENSION - Short Term
PENSION - Long Term
Investment Return
Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years PENSION - Short Term 0.13% 2.69% 6.55% 7.13% 3.96% - 6/21/2018 PENSION - Long Term -0.01% 10.39% 18.63% 14.72% 7.76% - 6/21/2018 Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees Annualized Return
Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change.

Individual Custom Account
Account Report for the Period
Balance as of
City of Pleasanton
Balance as of
Individual Custom Account
City of Pleasanton - Capital Growth
Plan's Inception Date

Page 214 of 373 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item #5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
August 11, 2026
Fire
TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SECOND

AMENDMENT TO THE LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT (LPFD)

JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT WITH STOEL RIVES LLP FOR

WORK RELATED TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY

CONTROL BOARD'S PFAS INVESTIGATION OF VARIOUS LPFD FACILITIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000

SUMMARY
Staff is requesting that the City Council Authorize the Interim City Manager to enter into a second amendment to the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) Joint Powers Authority Agreement with Stoel Rives LL to increase the total amount payable from $400,000 to an amount not to exceed $1,000,000. This is needed to complete per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) investigations of various LPFD facilities in cooperation with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board).

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Interim City Manager to enter into a second amendment to the LivermorePleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority Agreement with Stoel Rives LLP for work related to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's PFAS investigation of various LPFD facilities in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.

BACKGROUND
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is investigating PFAS detected in groundwater in the Livermore-Pleasanton area. The Water Board has requested that the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) conduct investigations to evaluate if PFAS was discharged from: LPFD’s Fire Training Center; and Fire Stations 1 (3560 Nevada Street, Pleasanton), 3 (3200 Santa Rita Road, Pleasanton), 5 (1200 Machado Place, Pleasanton), and 10 (330 Airway Boulevard, Livermore). LPFD has been working cooperatively with the Water Board to complete these investigations.

DISCUSSION
To assist with the Water Board PFAS investigations, LPFD contracted with Stoel Rives LLP.

Stoel Rives LLP has a subcontract with Integral Consulting Inc. to complete most of the work, which includes, but is not limited to: surveying sites; collecting sediment and groundwater samples; installing test wells and monitoring wells; completing mitigation measures; and issuing reports to the Water Board.

The original contract with Stoel Rives LLP for this work was entered into on November 13, 2024, in the not to exceed amount of $200,000. On March 24, 2026, this contract was amended to increase the not to exceed amount to $400,000. These previous expenditure amounts fell within the authorized expenditure limits for the City Managers of Livermore and

Page 215 of 373 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Pleasanton, and were authorized by the respective City Managers.

The extent and scope of the work required to be completed to meet the Water Boards requirements has now been expanded to additional locations. As a result, staff is requesting that the City Council approve a Second Amendment to the Contract to increase the not to exceed amount by an additional $600,000 to complete the remaining work on the investigations.

Because this contract involves expenditures by both the City of Pleasanton and the City of Livermore, both City Councils are required to approve it.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is a routine matter of City business.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This item aligns with ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal C. Investing in Our Environment, to address PFAS water quality issues.

FISCAL IMPACT
Under the LPFD Joint Powers Agreement, both cities are jointly responsible for the costs associated with the investigation of LPFD’s Fire Training Tower. The Cites are separately responsible for the costs associated with investigations of the Fire Stations in their jurisdictions. The additional $600,000 in contract costs will be apportioned among the two cities depending upon the amount and extent of work required in each location. As such, it is not anticipated that the City of Pleasanton will expend the full amount of additional funding being reserved.

The City of Pleasanton’s portion of these costs will be paid using settlement proceeds it has received through its participation in Multi-District Litigation against various manufactures of products containing PFAS.

Submitted by: Approved by:

Aaron Lacey, Fire Chief Joe Calabrigo, Interim
City Manager
Attachments:

1. Stoel Rives Legal Services Second Amendment

Page 216 of 373 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY

AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
(Advisory and/or Litigation Services)
This Amendment is entered into on this ____ day of ________________, 2026, by and between the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority, a Joint Powers Authority (“LPFD”), and Stoel Rives LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership (“Attorney”).

Recitals
This Amendment is based on the following facts:

A. On November 13, 2024, LPFD and Attorney entered into an Agreement for Legal Services (“Agreement”).

B. On March 24, 2026, LPFD and Attorney entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement.

C. LPFD and Attorney wish to amend the Agreement to increase the total amount payable from $400,000 to $1,000,000.

Agreement

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

1. Section 3 of the Agreement (“Compensation”) is amended to read as follows:

LPFD shall compensate Attorney for Services rendered at the hourly rates set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Those hourly rates include all secretarial time, word processing, local telephone costs, time for preparing bills and other general overhead, unless provided otherwise in Exhibit A. Travel time spent commuting to any meeting, appearance, or to attend any other matter related to the Services shall be billed at fifty percent (50%) of the applicable hourly rate (with no separate charge for mileage). All time will be charged by the Attorney in increments of 1/10 of an hour (i.e., six-minute units). The rate structure in general, or the rates of attorneys of particular levels of experience, may be increased or altered from time to time, after written notice to, and approval by, LPFD. No such change shall affect the Services provided under this Agreement.

The total amount payable under this Agreement for Services shall not exceed $1,000,000 without the prior written approval of LPFD. LPFD will reimburse expenses incurred by Attorney in performing the services under this Agreement, as follows:
a. Photocopying at no more than $.10 per page.
b. Computerized legal research at the actual amount charged to Attorney (verification to be attached to invoice).
c. Statutory fees, witness fees, reporter’s per diem costs, stenographic transcription, service of process fees, courier fees and other charges directly related to the services rendered.

Attorney agrees to send LPFD an itemized invoice monthly, including work performed and expenses. Attorney will send invoice with a cover page showing

Page 217 of 373 ends

Page 2 ends

only a summary of the hours and amount billed. LPFD agrees to pay Attorney within thirty days. Attorney agrees to provide its Federal Tax Identification Number to facilitate tax reporting.

2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

ATTORNEY (Stoel Rives LLP)
By:

Nicole E. Granquist
LPFD

Marianna Burch
City Manager for the City of Livermore in her
capacity as a Joint Executive Director
for LPFD
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Kimberly D. Cilley
City Attorney, City of Livermore
APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE:

Jas Sidhu
Risk Manager/Analyst
____________________________________
Joseph Calabrigo
Interim City Manager for the City of Pleasanton
in his Capacity as a Joint Executive Director
for LPFD
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren
City Attorney, City of Pleasanton

Page 218 of 373 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item #6

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
August 11, 2026
Information Technology
TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A THREE YEAR AGREEMENT

WITH DARKTRACE HOLDINGS, LIMITED, FOR CYBERSECURITY DETECTION

AND RESPONSE SOFTWARE AND MANAGED DETECTION AND RESPONSE SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $935,373

SUMMARY
The City utilizes Darktrace's security platform to safeguard against cyber threats across City information technology (IT) network, email system, and user identities. The City's current Darktrace subscription is up for renewal.

Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a new three-year agreement with Darktrace to continued coverage through June 30, 2029.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Darktrace Holdings, Limited, for Darktrace cybersecurity detection and response software and managed detection and response services in an amount not-to-exceed $935,373 over a three-year term

BACKGROUND
The City uses Darktrace's ActiveAI Security Platform to provide AI-driven detection and autonomous response to cyber threats across its network, email, and identity environments.

The City's current Darktrace subscription is nearing the end of its term, and staff have negotiated a renewal quote with Darktrace for a new three-year term beginning July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2029. In addition to continuing the current cybersecurity detection and response services currently provided, the agreement will add two new capabilities: monitoring of the City's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) network and Darktrace's Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service.

DISCUSSION
The proposed agreement continues the City's existing Darktrace coverage across its Identity, Network, and Email products. These products monitor user identities and cloud application access, core network traffic, and email systems for anomalous or malicious activity, and use autonomous response capabilities to contain threats in real time.

The recommended renewal includes Darktrace's new operational technology (OT) product, which extends the platform's AI-driven anomaly detection to the City's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) network that monitors and controls critical infrastructure.

Cyberattacks targeting municipal OT and SCADA systems have increased in recent years, and this addition closes a gap in the City's ability to detect threats to systems that could disrupt essential City services.

Page 219 of 373 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

This renewal also adds Darktrace's Managed Detection and Response (MDR) service, which pairs the platform's autonomous AI detection with a team of Darktrace security analysts who provide continuous, human-led monitoring, investigation, and triage of security alerts. MDR strengthens the City's cybersecurity posture by providing 24/7/365 expert review of alerts, delivering faster, more informed incident response, extending the City's effective security operations capacity without adding City staff, and supporting incident documentation and response with analyst-authored investigation notes that can inform post-incident review.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is a routine matter of City business.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Safeguarding Our City by delivering effective and responsive government services by protecting the City's technology and critical infrastructure systems from cyber threats.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total not to exceed cost of the three-year agreement with Darktrace is $935,373 over the three-year term, or approximately $311,791 annually.

Funding for this agreement is included in the Information Technology Department's approved operating budget for Network and Cybersecurity Services.

Prepared and Submitted by: Approved by:

Allen Hammond, Director of
Information Technology
Joe Calabrigo, Interim
City Manager
Attachments:

None

Page 220 of 373 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item #7

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
August 11, 2026
Public Works - Utilities Division
TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT

WITH SPEARUS, LLC FOR REPLACEMENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND

DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SERVER AND STORAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $289,532

SUMMARY
This report recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase of replacement server and storage infrastructure for the City's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system from Spearus, LLC. The existing platform that hosts the City's SCADA environment is approaching the end of its manufacturer support life cycle. Replacing it with current-generation infrastructure improves system reliability, survivability, and resiliency, which is critical to the continuous operation of the City's water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm drain utilities.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement with Spearus, LLC for a replacement SCADA server and storage infrastructure, utilizing OMNIA Partners cooperative contract No. 01-137 (EC America), for an amount not to exceed $289,532.

BACKGROUND
The City's SCADA system provides centralized monitoring and control of critical utility infrastructure across the City's water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm drain systems.

The system currently runs on a virtualized server platform approaching the end of its manufacturer support life cycle.

In 2023, the City completed a SCADA Management Plan that established a baseline assessment of the existing SCADA system and outlined a phased program to strengthen system resilience. Among the projects identified were relocating the backup core SCADA server, improving remote access, and monitoring operational technology (OT) systems. The City is currently advancing a companion SCADA Standards Development effort to formalize instrumentation, hardware, and cybersecurity standards. This procurement provides the server and storage refresh that supports those resilience objectives and addresses the current end-of-support condition.

DISCUSSION
The proposed procurement provides current-generation, enterprise-class infrastructure for the City's SCADA environment with full redundancy and manufacturer support for the platform's useful life. This delivers the reliability, survivability, and resiliency the SCADA network requires and enables the enterprise disaster recovery that the City already operates for other systems, supporting the backup resilience objective identified in the SCADA Management Plan.

Spearus, LLC is an authorized Dell Technologies reseller listed under OMNIA Partners

Page 221 of 373 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

cooperative contract No. 01-137, awarded to EC America. OMNIA Partners is a national cooperative purchasing organization whose supplier contracts are competitively solicited by a lead public agency and made available to participating public agencies nationwide. Purchasing through this contract allows the City to purchase Dell products at competitively established government pricing without conducting a separate formal solicitation, consistent with the City's purchasing requirements for cooperative purchases. This approach satisfies the City's competitive procurement requirements and streamlines acquisition of standardized enterprise infrastructure.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
A reliable SCADA platform supports the continuous delivery of water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm drain services to residents and businesses citywide. The replacement infrastructure is also more energy efficient than the end-of-life equipment it replaces, and decommissioned hardware will be recycled through the City's electronic waste process, consistent with Climate Action Plan 2.0.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the citywide ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan goal of Safeguarding Our City: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness by strengthening the resilience and cybersecurity of the critical control systems that support essential utility services and emergency preparedness.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the procurement is $289,532. This is a one-time capital expenditure. Funding is available through the Water/Sewer Enterprise Fund (42040602/43041202-440104).

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
for
Allen Hammond, Director of
Information Technology
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Joe Calabrigo, Interim
City Manager
Attachments:

None

Page 222 of 373 ends

Page 1 of 5 ends

Item #9

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
August 11, 2026
Finance
TITLE: RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON DEBT FINANCING REGARDING WATER

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE

CITY'S INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES RELATING TO CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FROM THE PROCEEDS OF TAX-EXEMPT

OBLIGATIONS

SUMMARY
The City is undertaking various capital improvement projects for the Water System, collectively referred to as the 2026 Water Project, which were previously approved by the City Council through the 5-year Water Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The 2026 Water Project will improve water system capacity, reliability, and supply diversification, including advancing the City's efforts to restore local groundwater production by developing new wells. Staff will be recommending that the Pleasanton Joint Powers Financing Authority (PJPFA) issue Water Revenue Bonds in the principal amount not-to-exceed $16,500,000 to finance all or a portion of the planned improvements to the Water System.

At the August 11, 2026, City Council meeting, staff will present a debt-financing overview and recommendation with the City’s financial advisor, PFM, and bond and disclosure counsel, Jones Hall. A resolution declaring the City’s intent to reimburse expenditures relating to capital improvement projects from the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations will be submitted to the Council for approval.

Staff anticipate returning to the City Council on September 15, 2026, to seek approval of the bond sale. As planned, the City would sell bonds around the fourth week of September and close (money would be in the project fund) during the second week of October.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution declaring the City’s intention to reimburse expenditures relating to capital improvement projects from the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations.

BACKGROUND
2024 Water Revenue Bonds
In 2024, the City issued $19 million in water revenue bonds, including premiums, through the PJPFA to fund critical capital improvements to the water system. Bond proceeds are anticipated to be fully expended or legally encumbered by June 2027.

The 2024 Water Revenue Bonds were allocated to fund the Near-Term Water Improvements Project, the feasibility and design phase of the Groundwater Supply Project, the design and initial construction of the Emergency Power Improvements Project, and other water system infrastructure improvements. As of the end of June 2026, the Near-Term Water Improvements Project is approximately 92% complete and is expected to be fully complete by the end of

Page 223 of 373 ends

Page 2 of 5 ends

2026. The feasibility phase of the Groundwater Supply Project is complete, the design of the Emergency Power Improvements Project is complete, and construction for the latter is anticipated to start by the end of 2026.

In 2025, the City was awarded a $1 million State grant to fund approximately 70 percent of the feasibility phase costs for the Groundwater Supply Project. The feasibility phase was completed in early 2026, and staff anticipate presenting the negotiated agreements to the City Council for consideration in September 2026, subject to successful completion of negotiations with Zone 7. Because of delays in the start of the design and construction of the Groundwater Supply Project, a portion of the remaining 2024 Water Revenue Bond proceeds will instead be used to advance Phase 1 of the Water Meter and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System Replacement Program, including proof-of-concept testing and replacement of failed water meters. Phase 1 is expected to replace approximately 25 percent of the City's meter inventory by the end of 2026. With the current project delivery schedule, staff expects to expend or encumber the 2024 Water Revenue Bond in 2027.

Water Fund
The City’s Water Fund is operated as an enterprise fund to deliver potable water. The City Council adopted new water rates on October 7, 2025, for the next four years, beginning in January 2026. The adopted rates were based on revenue adjustments of 15 percent increases in each of Calendar Year 2026 and 2027, and 8 percent increases in each of Calendar Year 2028 and 2029. The water rate increases were adopted to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the City's water utility by providing sufficient funding for daily operations, debt service, infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement, regulatory compliance, and future capital improvements identified in the WSMP. The updated rates also support appropriate reserve levels while balancing affordability, revenue stability, and water conservation objectives. The proposed issuance of debt was incorporated into the new rate increases. 2026 Water Revenue Bonds
Following completion of the City’s Water System Management Plan (WSMP) in 2024, the City completed a comprehensive water rate study in 2025. The study identified the need to issue approximately $35 million in additional debt financing through 2030 to implement the City's water capital improvements. The anticipated financing schedule includes approximately $15 million in FY 2026/27, $10 million in FY 2027/28, and $10 million in FY 2028/29.

Major projects anticipated to be funded through the proposed 2026 Water Revenue Bonds include:
• Water Meter and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System Replacement; • Design and construction of City Groundwater Supply Project; • Completion of construction of Water System Emergency Power Improvements; • Annual Water Distribution System Improvements; and
• Other water system capital improvements
As some of the projects are in active implementation using a portion of the unspent proceeds from the 2024 Water Revenue Bonds, certain costs related to the Water System capital improvement projects will be incurred before the 2026 Bonds are issued. Therefore, the City is required to adopt a resolution declaring its official intent to reimburse such expenditures from

Page 224 of 373 ends

Page 3 of 5 ends

the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations, in accordance with United States Income Tax Regulations Section 1.150-2.

Adopting this resolution will preserve the City's ability to reimburse itself, from future taxexempt bond proceeds, for eligible costs incurred in connection with the Water System capital improvement projects before such proceeds are available. The resolution does not commit the City to incurring any debt at this time. When the time comes to issue debt for the Water System, staff will return to the City Council with additional analysis and financing documents for approval.

DISCUSSION
Financing Options
Finance staff worked with the City’s financial advisor, PFM, to evaluate the feasibility of financing the City’s proposed capital expenditures through various financing methods and structures. PFM reviewed the cost of capital for a public sale versus a bank loan (private placement). In this scenario, staff reviewed annual debt service payments for a structure with 20-year level debt service. The total debt service for a public sale is estimated to be $1.16 million less than the total debt service of a bank loan. The true interest cost is estimated at

3.96 percent for a public sale and 4.61 percent for a bank loan, as shown in the table below.

In a 30-year term
scenario for the proposed 2026 Water Revenue Bonds, the average annual debt service is approximately $916K. There are limited capital market options for 30-year bank loans.

A public offering is currently the least expensive option. To reduce the annual debt service payment, keep potential rate increases to a minimum, and retain capacity for future debt issuances, the initial recommendation is to structure the 2026 bonds with a 30-year term. The cost of issuance is estimated at $280,000 (underwriter’s discount, financing team, rating agency, and other). The true interest cost – with interest rate cushion - is estimated at 4.48 percent. For a bank loan, the fee is estimated at $130,000, not including bank loan origination fees.

Table 1 Scenarios
Public Sale Bank Loan
Project Fund $15,000,000 $15,000,000
Repayment Term 20 Years 20 Years
Debt Service Level Level
Average Annual Debt
Service
$1,097,813 $1,155,724
Total Debt Service $21,956,250 $23,114,500
Table 2 Scenario
Public Sale
Repayment Term 30 Years
Debt Service Level
Average Annual Debt Service $915,805
Total Debt Service $27,474,125

Page 225 of 373 ends

Page 4 of 5 ends

Method of Sale
The goal in choosing the method of sale is to place the City in the best possible position to meet its debt issuance financing goals by leveraging the characteristics of the chosen method to our advantage. The table below provides a brief summary of the various sale types.

Table 3. Summary of Method of Sales Types
The City would benefit from working with an underwriter in a negotiated sale. While the water fund has a strong credit rating, Net Revenues recently (FY 2022/23) provided less than 100 percent coverage on current debt service. With a negotiated sale, there is greater flexibility in terms of timing, an increased ability to develop a robust investor marketing plan, and a commitment from underwriters to underwrite bonds as needed. For example, Siebert Williams Shank took in $12.8 million of the $17.3 million on the 2024 Bonds, maintaining competitive pricing levels.

Staff anticipates returning to Council on September 15, 2026, to approve the bond sale, with the sale occurring around the fourth week of September and close (money in the project fund) in the second week of October.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is an administrative matter of City business.

OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is an administrative matter of City business.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action aligns with the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment, including:
• Implementing the five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to complete the design and construction of budgeted projects;

Page 226 of 373 ends

Page 5 of 5 ends

• Identifying funding and implementing the recommendations from the Water Supply Alternative Study to resolve PFAS water quality issues.

FISCAL IMPACT
Currently, the fund balance in the Water Fund and the unspent 2024 Water Bond proceeds are being used to cover a portion of the project costs. It is anticipated that long-term debt, to be paid from the Water Fund's net revenues, will finance these long-term improvements. Approval of the proposed resolution permits the City to be reimbursed from the proceeds of those longterm obligations.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Susan Hsieh, Director of
Finance
Susan Hsieh, Director of Finance
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Joe Calabrigo, Interim
City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Presentation

Page 227 of 373 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON

DECLARING INTENTION TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES RELATING TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FROM THE PROCEEDS OF TAXEXEMPT OBLIGATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton (the “City”) owns and operates facilities and property for the collection, treatment and supply of water within the service area of the City (the “Water System”); and
WHEREAS, the City anticipates undertaking certain capital improvement projects, to issue debt for such projects, and to use a portion of the proceeds of such debt to reimburse expenditures made for the projects prior to the issuance of the debt; and WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides generally that proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not deemed to be expended when such proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that prior to the payment of any such expenditures, the issuer declares an intention to reimburse such expenditure; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the City declares its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton as follows:

Section 1. Description of Project. The City Council hereby declares that it reasonably expects the City, or a related entity, to issue tax-exempt obligations in one or more series (the “Obligations”) for the purpose of financing improvements (generally described as the “2026 Water Project”) and any other improvements to the Water System approved by the City Council, including but not limited to associated management, administration, financing, planning, environmental studies, permitting, procurement, rightof-way acquisition, legal service, engineering, inspection, outreach, construction, and closeout costs. The proceeds will be used to finance all or a portion of the following improvements:
• Water Meter and AMI System Replacement
• City Groundwater Supply Project(s)
• Water System Emergency Power Improvements Program
• Annual Water Distribution System Improvements
• Any other improvements to the Water System approved by the City Council Section 2. City Expectations. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects to pay certain costs of the Project prior to the date of issuance of the Obligations and to use a portion of the proceeds of the Obligations for reimbursement of expenditures for the Project that are paid before the date of issuance of the Obligations. The maximum principal amount of Obligations expected to be issued is $16,500,000.

Page 228 of 373 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on August 11, 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 11th day of August 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney

Page 229 of 373 ends

7/17/2026
1 Presentation on Water Fund Debt Financing
City Council Meeting
August 11, 2026
Agenda
2 Background Financing
Options Next Steps
1 2

Page 230 of 373 ends

7/17/2026
2 Background
• The City’s programmatic goals for its water system capital improvement program are: • Replacing aging infrastructure to maintain or improve system reliability and operability • Improve water system capacity
• Comply with regulatory requirements
• Align with ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Investing in Our Environment • Debt financing is being pursued to fund these improvements • Adopt a resolution declaring the City’s intention to reimburse expenditures relating to capital improvement projects 3 Water System Management Plan and Water Rate Study 4 Enhance Scenario with $73 million of CIP
over 5 years with $35 million of new debt
3 4

Page 231 of 373 ends

7/17/2026
3 2026 Water Project Scope
The bond proceeds will be used to finance all or a portion of the following improvements, collectively referred to as the 2026 Water Project: • Water Meter and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System Replacement • City Groundwater Supply Project • Water System Emergency Power Improvements Program • Annual Water Distribution System Improvements
• Any other improvements to the Water System approved by the City Council 5 2026 Revenue Bonds
6 Estimated Project Costs for
Bond Reimbursement**
Estimated Total 5-Yr
CIP Budget* Project Name
City Groundwater Supply Project 30,471,247 6,015,000
Water Meter and AMI System Replacement 10,930,000 5,837,000 Annual Water Distribution System Improvements 8,667,500 1,230,000 Water System Emergency Power Improvements Program 6,530,000 1,918,000 Total 56,598,747 15,000,000
* The 2026 Bonds are strategically planned to fund the total or partial amounts of the estimated total 5-year CIP budget. Other sources of funding include, but may not be limited to, 2024 Water Bonds, 2026 Water Bonds, future bonds, grants, water operating revenue, etc. **Any other improvements to the Water System, not shown in the table and approved by the City Council, may utilize 2026 Bond funds, if needed.
5 6

Page 232 of 373 ends

7/17/2026
4 Project Scope
7 City Groundwater
Supply Project
Develop two new
groundwater wells
in partnership with
Zone 7 including
transmission line and
distribution systems
Water Meter and AMI
System Replacement
Replace aging
metering infrastructure
and AMI system with a
modern integrated
system
Water System
Emergency Power
Improvements
Program
Upgrade emergency
power systems at
water pump stations to
improve reliability and
ensure continuous
operation during
power outages and
emergencies
Annual Water
Distribution System
Improvements
Annual replacement
and installation of
water mains, valves,
services, and
appurtenances
prioritized with street
resurfacing projects
Financing Options
• A public sale and a bank loan (private placement) are under consideration • 20- or 30- year repayment terms for a public offering • 20-year repayment term for a bank loan
• Effective interest rates range from 3.96% to 4.61%
• Assumes a credit rating in the AA category for public bond sale 8 7
8

Page 233 of 373 ends

7/17/2026
5 Financing Options (cont.) • Annual debt service payments are estimated to range from $916K to $1.2M • A public offering is the less expensive option
• A 30-year public offering will keep potential rate increases at a minimum and retain capacity for future debt issuances
• The averaged annual debt service payment is $916K
9 Public Sale Bank Loan Public Sale Project Fund $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 Repayment Term 20 Years 20 Years 30 Years Debt Service Level Level Level True Interest Costs (TIC) 3.96% 4.61% 4.48% Average Annual Debt Service $1,097,813 $1,155,724 $915,805 Total Debt Service $21,956,250 $23,114,500 $27,474,125 Financing Options (cont.) • Issuance costs are estimated to be*: • $189,000 for bond issuance including credit rating fees • $130,000 for a bank loan
10 *Does not include underwriter’s discount or bank loan origination fees 9 10

Page 234 of 373 ends

7/17/2026
6 Next Steps
11 August 2026
- Obtain Credit Rating
September 2026
- Council Approves Bond
Documents
September-October 2026
- Finalize Official
Statement and Issue
Bonds
Recommendation
• Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution declaring the City’s intention to reimburse expenditures relating to capital improvement projects 12 11
12

Page 235 of 373 ends

7/17/2026
7 Thank You!
13

Page 236 of 373 ends

Page 1 of 9 ends

Item #10

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
August 11, 2026
Community and Economic Development
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO DENY APPLICATIONS FOR: (1) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING (P26-0360) TO REZONE THE SUBJECT

PARCEL FROM MU-T (MIXED USE-TRANSITIONAL) DISTRICT TO PUD-MU-T (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE-TRANSITIONAL) DISTRICT; (2) A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 6,160-

SQUARE-FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING IN THE DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION DISTRICT; AND (3) A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD-152)

TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY, FOUR-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, WITH UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 430 SQUARE FEET TO 13,626 SQUARE FEET AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 231 OLD

BERNAL AVENUE

SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story commercial office building and construct a new, three-story, four-unit residential building. As proposed, the project plans are incomplete, and the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, applicable Objective Design Standards (ODS), the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), and Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) regulations. While the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process allows for deviations from the strict application of various standards, staff finds that the extent to which the project would deviate from these standards, and from the intent and policies of the Downtown Specific Plan, do not allow the necessary findings for approval.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to deny applications for:

1. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning (P26-0360) to rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District to PUD-MU-T (Planned Unit DevelopmentMixed Use-Transitional) District;

2. A Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160-square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and

3. A PUD Development Plan (PUD-152) to construct a three-story, four-unit, residential building, with units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements located at 231 Old Bernal Avenue.

BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes redeveloping the site to replace an existing office building with a multiunit residential building. The following summarizes the key information related to the proposed project. More detailed background information can be found in the May 27, 2026, Planning Commission agenda report, provided as Attachment 2, or available online at:
https://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/weblink/0/doc/312943/Page1.aspx.

Page 237 of 373 ends

Page 2 of 9 ends

Site and Area Description
The 0.49-acre subject lot is located along Old Bernal Avenue between Augustine Street and Peters Avenue. The site is currently developed with an approximately 6,160-square-foot, twostory multi-tenant commercial office building set back 20 feet from the front property line, with 21 surface parking spaces at the rear accessible from both streets. The site contains 34 protected trees, none of which are classified as heritage trees under Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 17.16. (Attachment 2, Exhibit D). Surrounding uses include residential and vacant parcels to the north, east, and west, with City Hall directly to the south across Old Bernal Avenue; the broader corridor features a mix of one- and two-story commercial and residential buildings, including a three-story mixed-use building at 301 Old Bernal Avenue.

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph
Regulatory Context
General Plan : The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use. Per Table 2-3 of the General Plan Land Use Element, the allowable density for Mixed-Use Residential is 20+ du/acre. The General Plan cites the Downtown Specific Plan in establishing a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 125 percent.

Downtown Specific Plan (DSP)
The project site is within the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area and has a land use designation of Mixed Use – Transitional (MU-T). In the Downtown, the Mixed-Use land use designation permits residential uses located behind or above commercial uses.

Zoning District & Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Multifamily Housing in R-M, C-C, and M-U Districts (adopted January 26, 2023)
The project site is zoned Mixed Use – Transitional (MU-T) District. Per PMC Chapter 18.46, one of the objectives of the Mixed-Use Districts is the inclusion of residential uses, which may include residential-only development. The MU-T District permits a maximum FAR of 125 percent. The District also requires a minimum site area of 1,000 square-feet per dwelling unit.

In addition, due to its MU-T zoning designation, the project site is also subject to the specified 2023 ODS for residential development.

Page 238 of 373 ends

Page 3 of 9 ends

Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) and Affordable Housing Per PMC Section 17.44.040(A), the IZO applies to all new residential for-sale and rental projects, including mixed residential and non-residential projects, consisting of 10 or more residential units or parcels. As such, the IZO does not apply to the proposed four-unit residential project; however, the project must pay affordable housing fees pursuant to the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Analysis of the project's conformance to the standards and key policies reflected in the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, PMC and ODS is provided in the Discussion section below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes: a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning to rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District to PUD-MU-T (Planned Unit DevelopmentMixed Use-Transitional) District; a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160-square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and a PUD Development Plan to construct a three-story, four-unit, residential building consisting of three studio units (Units A, B, and C), each approximately 430 square feet, and one larger unit (Unit D), approximately 13,626 square feet, occupying portions of all three floors.

The project also includes approximately 6,192 square feet of pervious landscaping, including two new street trees along Old Bernal Avenue. An arborist report identified 34 trees on site, of which 12 are recommended for removal due to project-related impacts. In addition, the applicant seeks to use the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which limits the City's ability to impose minimum parking requirements for qualifying projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.

Architectural & Building Design
The proposed building incorporates a modern farmhouse architectural style, combining traditional residential design elements with contemporary detailing. The design features gabled roof forms, vertical board-and-batten siding, brick veneer accents, and a black standing-seam metal roof. Additional architectural details include black-framed doors and windows, as well as black-painted guardrails serving the rear second-floor balcony.

The proposed building is designed with a three-story west elevation, with a maximum height of 34 feet, in which the third floor is recessed from the lower levels. While the upper-floor setback provides some variation in the building's massing, the first and second floors remain largely aligned to a single plane, with relatively little additional articulation. The project also includes an attached two-car garage, a rear-facing balcony of approximately 681 square feet, and a 230-square-foot second-floor terrace. Refer to Attachment 2, Exhibit B, for complete architectural plans and project details.

Site Layout, Pedestrian and Vehicular Access
The proposed building’s rear elevation is oriented to the primary frontage along Old Bernal Avenue with a nine-foot front setback and no primary entrance. The project would provide all vehicle and pedestrian access to the large primary residential unit from the rear of the site via the driveway on Augustine Street.

Page 239 of 373 ends

Page 4 of 9 ends

Lighting & Landscape/Open Space
The project proposes limited on-site lighting, typical for a residential project, consisting primarily of wall sconces and low-voltage landscape lighting. The pedestrian scale lighting meets the photometric standards outlined in the ODS; no lighting fixture exceeds 25 feet in height and all light would be entirely contained within the site.

A total of 6,192 square feet of pervious landscaping area is proposed, with most of the landscaped area located at the rear yard for Unit D, the large single unit. The rear yard for Unit D consists of a raised vegetable garden, pool, spa, and fire pit. No private open space is proposed for units A, B, and C. The property contains 34 existing trees, none of which are classified as heritage trees pursuant to PMC Chapter 17.16. The landscape plans also indicate a new vehicle gate along Augustine Street and perimeter fencing; however, the project plans do not provide details for the vehicle gate, including its material, color, or height.

Notably, the plans are inconsistent as to whether a vehicle gate is proposed. The proposed perimeter fencing consists of a seven-foot-tall fence along the west property line and a sixfoot-tall front-facing stucco wall with a wood swinging gate along the east side.

Utilities and Service Areas
The proposed project has not demonstrated conformance with City standards for the Clean Water Program, sanitary sewer connection, and utility enclosures (see Engineering comments in Attachment 2, Exhibit C). Moreover, the applicant still has not responded to outstanding comments from staff pertaining to the conformance of the proposed driveway design; the potential for ponding on Augustine Street; the existing trees adjacent to the Augustine Street driveway impacting the proposed improvements; design issues with the proposed lateral connecting to Augustine Street; and meeting the Clear Water Program requirements, such as including conforming stormwater treatment measures.

In addition, the project proposes locating the refuse area within an impermissible 50-foot radius of the primary building entrance. The refuse area would consist of 12 bins, as required by Pleasanton Garbage Service (one each for regular waste, recyclables, and green waste per unit). Plans show an inconsistent location, but in either layout are within a 50-foot radius of the primary entry and would therefore not be consistent with ODS standards.

DISCUSSION
The following discussion summarizes the key information regarding the proposed project's compliance with applicable City plans, policies, and code requirements. A more detailed discussion can be found in the May 27, 2026, Planning Commission agenda report, provided as Attachment 2.

General Plan Land Use and Policy Conformance
Per Table 2-3 of the General Plan Land Use Element, the allowable density for Mixed-Use Residential is 20+ du/acre. The General Plan notes that the maximum floor area ratio (FAR), as specified in the Downtown Specific Plan, is 125 percent. As proposed, the project’s density is 8 du/acre with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.71. To be consistent with the 20+ du/acre density requirement, the project would need to propose at least 10 units. Accordingly, the project’s density is inconsistent with the General Plan.

The proposed project is also inconsistent with several applicable General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies and programs. Specifically, the project does not support objectives

Page 240 of 373 ends

Page 5 of 9 ends

related to higher-density development near transportation corridors, consistency between land use designations and zoning, implementation of adopted specific plans, preservation of existing neighborhood character, and compliance with zoning and design standards. The project is also inconsistent with Housing Element policies that encourage development at permitted building heights and support downtown housing opportunities in a manner consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and applicable design guidelines. (See Attachment 2 for further analysis of General Plan conformance).

Downtown Specific Plan (DSP)
The proposed project is inconsistent with multiple Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) land use, design, and economic vitality policies intended to preserve downtown character, support commercial viability, and promote pedestrian-oriented development. The site is designated Mixed Use–Transitional (MU-T), where residential uses are generally expected to be located behind or above commercial uses. However, the project proposes a solely residential development with no commercial frontage, resulting in a complete loss of existing commercial floor area and failing to provide flexible ground-floor spaces that could accommodate future commercial uses (LD-P.20). The project also proposes a residential density substantially below the range envisioned for the site (LD-P.45). While the project provides fewer parking spaces than would otherwise be required, the applicant proposes use of the provisions of AB 2097, which preclude the City from imposing minimum parking requirements due to the site's proximity to public transit. (In this case, being within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop, the ACE station.)
The project is also inconsistent with DSP height and design standards. The proposed threestory, 34-foot-tall building exceeds the DSP’s two-story residential limit and is more than 15 feet taller than an adjacent residential structure, and, as designed, results in inadequate visual transitions, since its west-side setback does not meet required standards for building height, sloping plane requirements and other key standards specified in the ODS. (LD-P.50, LDP.54). In addition, the design does not incorporate key pedestrian-oriented features encouraged by the DSP, such as street-facing entrances, storefront elements, integrated landscaping, or architectural features that reinforce downtown character (LD-P.2). Staff and the Planning Commission also found the project does not further several DSP goals related to preserving downtown character, maintaining appropriate scale and neighborhood compatibility, supporting commercial vitality, and promoting attractive, pedestrian-oriented design.

Objective Design Standards (ODS) and Site Development Standards The subject site is zoned Mixed Use–Transitional (MU-T), which permits residential uses, including residential-only development. As noted above, the project is also subject to the City's 2023 Objective Design Standards (ODS), which supersede any conflicting provisions of the underlying zoning regulations.

The submitted application materials do not provide sufficient information for staff to fully evaluate compliance with the ODS. The applicant is requesting deviations from all objective design standards staff has identified in comments as having not been addressed. Staff have identified 33 standards that the project either does not meet or cannot be assessed due to missing information (Attachment 2, Exhibit C). Table 1 below summarizes the project’s conformance with the key site development standards for the DSP, MU-T District, and ODS.

Please refer to the May 27, 2026, Planning Commission agenda report for more detailed

Page 241 of 373 ends

Page 6 of 9 ends

information about each ODS standard inconsistency.

Table 1: Site Development Standards Conformance
1 One dwelling unit permitted per 1,000 square-feet
The proposed project presents multiple inconsistencies with ODS related to site layout and circulation. While vehicle access is provided from Augustine Street and some units have street-facing entries, the plans are inconsistent with respect to access to the studio units and do not provide clear pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way to unit entrances (ODS B1). The project also includes nonconforming setbacks, including a reduced front setback and a west-side setback that does not meet required standards for building height and sloping plane requirements.

The proposed building’s height, massing, and architectural design are also inconsistent with ODS requirements: B2, B2.4, B7.6, C1, C1.5, C2, C3.b, C4.1, C4.2, C5.1, C5.2, C5.a, C7.1, C7.2, C7.5, C7.7, C7.6, and C7.9, as detailed in the May 27, 2026, agenda report. The proposed three-story, 34-foot structure exceeds the allowable two-story, 30-foot residential height limit and does not provide sufficient step-backs or articulation to reduce building mass.

Additionally, the building orientation does not establish an active street frontage, and entries are not clearly visible or directly connected to the public sidewalk, resulting in a lack of pedestrian-oriented design. Staff and the Planning Commission found the design to be overly driven by building mass rather than neighborhood integration, with insufficient façade modulation and entry prominence.

Parking, open space, and landscaping elements also raise compliance concerns. Bicycle parking details are incomplete, and required private usable open space is not provided for all units, particularly the studio units (ODS B6.5, B6.6). While landscaping is substantial, tree removal is proposed without clear identification of which trees would be retained, and some existing specimen redwoods may be impacted due to traffic safety and visibility requirements at the driveway (although this condition exists to some degree today). Proposed fencing and gates also do not comply with height and design standards, and key details for vehicle gates

Page 242 of 373 ends

Page 7 of 9 ends

are missing or inconsistently shown within the submitted plans.

Finally, the project does not fully comply with utility, service, and infrastructure standards, including stormwater management, sewer lateral design, and utility enclosure placement and refuse area placement, as discussed in the Background section above. Overall, staff identifies widespread nonconformance with ODS requirements across site design, architecture, circulation, landscaping, and infrastructure elements.

Other Topics
Other topics relevant to the project, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, and Climate Action Plan consistency, are discussed in more detail in the May 27, 2026 Planning Commission agenda report.

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 are set forth in the draft Resolution (Attachment 1) and include whether the plan is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, is in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and whether the plan would be compatible with developed properties in the vicinity. Based on the information and analysis provided in this agenda report, staff recommends the City Council deny the application for Rezoning, and a PUD Development Plan filed as Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152.

Certificate of Appropriateness
PMC Section 18.74 sets forth the purposes and considerations to be addressed in reviewing for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of a primary structure within the Downtown Revitalization District. These are set forth in the draft Resolution (Attachment 1) and include a review of whether the plan conforms to applicable policies and standards.

Based on the information and analysis provided in this agenda report, staff recommends the City Council deny the requested Certificate of Appropriateness because the proposed future use and design of the property would be inconsistent with the applicable guidelines and standards discussed above, and as a result, do not support demolition and replacement of the existing office building.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 27, 2026, to review the proposed project and provide a recommendation to the City Council. In addition to the applicant, two members of the public spoke. Two speakers—an adjacent neighbor to the north and a local resident on Augustine Street—expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns about the number of requested deviations from applicable standards and policies; the characterization of the project as a single-unit residence rather than a multifamily or mixed-use development, future use of the building following ownership changes, and potential impacts on parking, privacy, sunlight, and property values.

After listening to public testimony and discussing the project, the Commission voted 3-1 to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-14 (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council deny the applications for Rezoning, a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a PUD Development Plan filed as Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152.

Page 243 of 373 ends

Page 8 of 9 ends

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
CEQA does not apply to projects that the City intends to reject or disapprove. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15270.) Should the City Council wish to approve the project, staff would evaluate it for CEQA compliance and return to the City Council at a future public hearing for formal consideration and action.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
The project plans are incomplete and inconsistent with numerous policies, standards and guidelines of the General Plan, DSP, Downtown Design Guidelines, applicable ODS, and PMC regulations. The PUD District is intended to promote well-planned projects that achieve high-quality design, superior site planning, and compatibility with surrounding uses while advancing adopted General Plan and specific plan goals.

Significant efforts were made throughout the process to work with the applicant and develop a project scope and design that could be supported by staff. Several iterations of the project were presented, including versions with and without a commercial component, in various configurations, and with staff generally encouraging the applicant to come as close as possible to meeting key standards for frontage design, dimensions, and functionality of the commercial space. While the PUD process allows for deviations or flexibility in considering strict adherence to established standards, the applicant ultimately requested that the version of the project under consideration by the City Council be brought forward for review. Despite efforts to work constructively with the applicant to make changes to the project to better align it with key policies and standards, the proposed project continues to fall short in multiple areas of policy conformance.

Staff finds that the proposed project does not satisfy the objectives of the PUD District, and given the number and extent of the requested deviations from applicable standards and regulations, the required findings for approval cannot be made. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) to deny the applications for Rezoning, a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a PUD Development Plan for Case Nos. P26- 0360 and PUD-152.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable to this project, since this is a routine item of City business.

OUTREACH
Notice of this application was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within a 1,000- foot radius of the subject site (Attachment 2, Exhibit F), and the applicant has posted project identification signage on-site. At the time this report was published, no public comments had been received. Public comments received after publication will be forwarded to the City Council.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Not applicable to this project, since this is a routine item of City business.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable to this project, since this is a routine item of City business.

Page 244 of 373 ends

Page 9 of 9 ends

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

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

1. City Council Resolution

2. May 27, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Report with Exhibits A to F

3. Planning Commission Resolution PC-2026-14

4. Presentation

Page 245 of 373 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TO DENY APPLICATIONS FOR: (1) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING (P26-0360) TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM MU-T (MIXED USE-TRANSITIONAL) DISTRICT TO PUD-MU-T (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE-TRANSITIONAL) DISTRICT; (2) A
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 6,160-

SQUARE-FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING IN THE DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION DISTRICT; AND (3) A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD152) TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY, FOUR-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, WITH UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 430 SQUARE FEET TO 13,626 SQUARE FEET AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 231 OLD BERNAL AVENUE, AS FILED UNDER CASE NOS. P26-0360 AND PUD-152
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, Gautam Patel (“Applicant”) applied for Rezoning and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan approval under case Nos. P26- 0360 and PUD-152 to 1) rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District to PUD-MUT-T (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use-Transitional) District; (2) approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160 square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and (3) approve a PUD Development Plan to construct a three-story, four-unit residential building, with units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements (hereinafter “the Project”) located at 231 Old Bernal Avenue, Assessors Parcel No. 94-156-21 (hereinafter “the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use; and
WHEREAS, the subject property has a Downtown Specific Plan land use designation of Mixed Use – Transitional; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District; and
WHEREAS, the Certificate of Appropriateness is subject to the findings listed in Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Section 18.74.190 and requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a PUD is subject to the findings listed in Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 18.68.110.B., subsections (1) - (7), and requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project on May 27, 2026, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning

Page 246 of 373 ends

Resolution No.

Page 2 ends

Commission considered the agenda report dated May 27, 2026, incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony; and

WHEREAS, on May 27, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC2026-14, recommending the City Council deny case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152, pursuant to inconsistencies with the required findings listed in PMC Section 18.74.190 and Section 18.68.110.B.1 through 7, and as outlined in Sections 3 and 4 below; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project on August 11, 2026, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council considered the agenda report dated August 11, 2026, incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony.

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

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

SECTION 2. Findings for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, which statutorily exempt projects that a public agency intends to deny.

SECTION 3. The Project is not consistent with the adopted General Plan as it does not aligns with the applicable land use designations and supports the General Plan’s Programs, Policies, and Goals related to sustainability, community development, and housing element. As such, the Project does not comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 65860 regarding zoning consistency with the General Plan.

SECTION 4. Findings for Certificate of Appropriateness Denial With respect to the denial of PUD-152, the City Council makes the following findings as required by Section 18.74.190, subsections (1) - (3), of the PMC:

1. The proposed demolition of a structure would be inappropriate or inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; or

2. The proposed demolition would have an adverse effect on adjoining property, or on the built context; or

3. The proposed future use and design of the property would be inconsistent with PMC Chapter 18.74 or the adopted guidelines.

Page 247 of 373 ends

Resolution No.

Page 3 ends

The City Council finds that the proposed future use and design of the property are inconsistent with PMC Chapter 18.74 and the adopted Downtown design guidelines. The Project does not maintain the commercial or mixed-use character intended for the site, lacks active ground-floor engagement with the public realm, and introduces building form, scale, and orientation that are not consistent with the pedestrian-oriented design and architectural standards required within the Downtown Revitalization District. Accordingly, the criteria for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness are not met. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

The City Council further finds that the applicant has not established that there is unnecessary hardship in the strict application of PMC Chapter 18.74.

SECTION 5. Findings for PUD Development Plan Denial
With respect to the denial of PUD-152, the City Council makes the following findings as required by Section 18.68.110.B (1) - (7) of the PMC:

1. Whether the proposed development plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

The City Council finds that the proposed project does not adequately support the public health, safety, and general welfare due to several unresolved design and site planning concerns. The project includes limited pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way to unit entrances and lacks clearly identifiable street-facing entries, which may reduce opportunities for natural surveillance (“eyes on the street”) and create potential circulation conflicts. In addition, outstanding inconsistencies and incomplete details within the project plans—including items related to utilities, stormwater management, and unit access—limit the City’s ability to fully evaluate compliance with applicable development and safety standards. The project also provides limited private usable open space, includes a unit mix and building configuration that results in a concentration of mass within a large single building, lacking a pedestrianoriented frontage. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks, building height, and transitions adjacent to lower-scale residential development raise concerns about neighborhood compatibility and appropriateness of the scale of the building as designed and sited. Taken together, these issues indicate that the project, as currently proposed, does not demonstrate a fully compatible and well-integrated residential development. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

2. Whether the proposed development plan is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

Page 248 of 373 ends

Resolution No.

Page 4 ends

Mixed Use–Transitional (MU-T) under the DSP, both of which envision development that supports a mix of residential and commercial uses at densities that advance housing goals and promote an active, pedestrianoriented environment. As proposed, the project includes only four residential units (approximately 8 du/acre), which is substantially below the General Plan’s expected density of 20 or more units per acre, and does not provide commercial or flexibly designed ground-floor space, resulting in a complete loss of existing commercial square footage. This is inconsistent with DSP policies that require or strongly encourage commercial frontage, active ground-floor uses, and development patterns that enhance economic vitality.

Additionally, the project’s building height, massing, and three-story design exceed DSP limits for residential development and do not provide appropriate transitions to adjacent lower-scale uses, contrary to policies intended to preserve downtown’s small-town character and ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. The project also does not meet DSP design objectives related to pedestrian orientation, including the absence of a streetfacing primary entrance and the absence of active frontage along Old Bernal Avenue. Collectively, these inconsistencies demonstrate that the project does not implement the land use, density, design, and economic vitality objectives of the General Plan and DSP, and therefore cannot be found consistent with these adopted plans. As such, the Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

3. Whether the proposed development plan is compatible with the previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural, topographic features of the site.

The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by predominantly one- and two-story structures with articulated building forms, pedestrian-oriented design, and established transitions in scale between residential and mixeduse buildings. In contrast, the proposed three-story, 34-foot-tall building introduces a level of height, massing, and density that is not consistent with the prevailing development pattern and does not provide adequate transitions to adjacent lower-scale uses. The building’s orientation, setbacks, and lack of street-facing entry and landscaping, as part of its architectural design, further reduce its compatibility with the established downtown and residential context. As a result, the development does not comply with the requirements of the Objective Design Standards or other applicable objective standards established in adopted City plans and documents, reflect the scale, character, or environmental context of surrounding properties and is therefore found to be incompatible. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

4. Whether grading in conjunction with the proposed development plan takes into account environmental characteristics and is designed in keeping with the best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides, or flooring, and to have as minimal an effect upon the environment as possible.

Page 249 of 373 ends

Resolution No.

Page 5 ends

The City Council finds that the proposed grading does not demonstrate that it has been designed in accordance with the site’s environmental characteristics or in keeping with best engineering practices to avoid erosion, instability, or flooding, or to minimize environmental impacts. The project application materials are incomplete and lack sufficient detail regarding stormwater treatment measures, drainage design, and utility coordination, including unresolved issues related to the Clean Water Program and sewer infrastructure. The absence of comprehensive grading, drainage, and erosion control information prevents the City from verifying that the project would avoid potential erosion, surface runoff impacts, or localized flooding conditions. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

5. Whether streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed and located in such a manner to complement the natural terrain and landscape.

The proposed development plan includes a building layout and site design that is primarily driven by building mass rather than a cohesive visual relationship with the surrounding environment. The project emphasizes large building massing with limited articulation and minimal integration of landscaping into the architectural design. The building’s orientation—featuring a rear-facing elevation along Old Bernal Avenue and a lack of a street-facing primary entrance—fails to integrate with the established streetscape and surrounding landscape context. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design or the proposed development plan.

The proposed development plan does not demonstrate that adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design. The project’s site layout and circulation pattern do not provide clear, safe, and intuitive pedestrian pathways from the public right-of-way to individual residential unit entrances, resulting in potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, particularly given the reliance on driveway access for primary entry points.

The absence of a street-facing primary entrance along Old Bernal Avenue reduces natural surveillance and “eyes on the street,” which are key elements of passive public safety. In addition, inconsistencies in the submitted plans regarding unit access, bicycle facilities, refuse location, and utility design prevent a full evaluation of operational safety and emergency access considerations. Furthermore, incomplete information regarding fencing and gate design limits the ability to confirm that the project provides adequate visibility, access control, and safety features throughout the site. Collectively, these deficiencies indicate that the development plan does not sufficiently incorporate public safety measures into its design. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

Page 250 of 373 ends

Resolution No.

Page 6 ends

7. Whether the proposed development plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD district.

The City Council finds that the proposed development plan does not conform to the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. The PUD District is intended to promote well-planned projects that achieve high-quality design, superior site planning, and compatibility with surrounding uses while advancing adopted General Plan and specific plan goals. As proposed, the project does not meet these objectives because it is inconsistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, removes commercial or mixeduse components, and does not provide active, pedestrian-oriented groundfloor design. The project also fails to demonstrate superior site planning due to limited pedestrian connectivity, constrained circulation, inconsistent access design, and insufficient integration of landscaping and site features. In addition, the building’s height, massing, and orientation do not provide appropriate transitions to surrounding development or contribute to the intended downtown character. As such, the City Council finds that this finding cannot be made.

SECTION 6. After review of the materials presented, the City Council determined the proposed Project is not consistent with the City’s General Plan and purposes of the PUD ordinance and certificate of appropriateness, and by this reference adopted and reaffirmed all findings set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No.

PC-2026-14.

SECTION 7. The City Council denies Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152 for a (1) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning to rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District to PUD-MU-T (Planned Unit Development-Mixed UseTransitional) District; (2) a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160 square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and (3) a PUD Development Plan to construct a three-story, four-unit, residential building with units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements located at 231 Old Bernal Avenue.

SECTION 8. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

Page 251 of 373 ends

Resolution No.

Page 7 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on August 11, 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 August 11, 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

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

Page 252 of 373 ends

Planning Commission
Agenda Report
May 27, 2026
Item 5
SUBJECT: P26-0360 and PUD-152

APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY OWNER: Gautam Patel
PURPOSE: Applications for: (1) a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning (P26-0360) to rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed UseTransitional) District to PUD-MU-T (Planned Unit DevelopmentMixed Use-Transitional) District; (2) a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160-square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and (3) a PUD Development Plan (PUD-152) to construct a three-story, four-unit, residential building, with units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements.

LOCATION: 231 Old Bernal Avenue
GENERAL PLAN: Mixed-Use
SPECIFIC PLAN: Downtown Specific Plan – Mixed Use – Transitional ZONING: Mixed Use – Transitional (MU-T) District, Downtown Revitalization Area, Core Area Overlay
EXHIBITS:

A. Draft Resolution
B. Project Narrative and Plans dated “Received February 19, 2026” C. Staff Review Board Comment Letter with Attachments dated March 17, 2026
D. Arborist Report dated “Received June 11, 2025”
E. Rezoning Map
F. Location and Notification Map

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit A) recommending that the City Council deny the applications for Rezoning, a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a PUD Development Plan filed as Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 6,160-square-foot, two-story commercial office building and construct a new, approximately 34-foot-tall, three-story, four-unit, residential

Page 253 of 373 ends

building, with units ranging in size from approximately 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements. As proposed, the project plans are incomplete, and the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, applicable Objective Design Standards (ODS), the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), and the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) regulations.

While the PUD process allows for deviations from the strict application of various standards, staff finds that the extent to which the project would deviate from these standards, and from the intent and policies of the Downtown Specific Plan, do not allow the necessary findings for approval to be made.

BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2024, the applicant first submitted applications for Rezoning, a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a PUD Development Plan that originally proposed a three-story mixeduse project consisting of 3,110 square feet of ground-floor commercial floor area and a 14,334 square-foot single-family residence occupying all three floors. In staff’s initial review, there were concerns regarding non-conformance with the site’s minimum densities, the applicable ODS for the MU-T District, and the PMC. Staff also identified concerns regarding the proposed project’s ability to satisfy the PUD findings required pursuant to Section 18.68.110.B.1 through 7 of the PMC:

1. Whether the proposed development plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

2. Whether the proposed development plan is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

3. Whether the proposed development plan is compatible with the previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural, topographic features of the site.

5. Whether streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed and located in such a manner to complement the natural terrain and landscape.

6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design or the proposed development plan.

7. Whether the proposed development plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD district.

The applicant engaged with staff multiple times between September 2024 and August 2025 to review various iterations of a residential-only project. Staff evaluated these proposals based on the subject site’s current land use designations and in each case found them to be noncompliant, or to raise significant concerns about the overall compatibility of the project with the Downtown Specific Plan’s policies with respect to aspects such as inclusion of ground floor commercial space, pedestrian orientation and activation, density, and design.

Planning Commission Workshop
The Planning Commission reviewed a previous version of this project at a workshop on August 27, 2025. At that time, the project proposed to demolish the existing office building and construct a new, approximately 38-foot-tall, three-story, residential building consisting of an approximately 15,088 square-foot single-family residence with an approximately 725-squarePage 254 of 373 foot, ground-floor, live-work space, and associated site improvements.

The Planning Commission discussion reflected a range of perspectives regarding land use, design, and site context. Several Commissioners raised concerns related to building height, parking, and overall architectural compatibility with the surrounding area. While opinions varied on the need to include commercial uses, making the project more consistent with the mixed use land use designation, the overarching direction was that commercial space is not essential; however, if proposed, the commercial uses should function as a true and viable commercial use rather than being ancillary to the proposed residential uses. Additionally, several Commissioners expressed a preference for increased residential density, such as townhome-style development (approximately 8–10 units), to better align with City housing goals, provided the proposal included appropriate setbacks and design considerations. The Planning Commission further emphasized the importance of achieving a cohesive design, adequate on-site parking, sufficient setbacks, and supporting the City’s housing goals.

Public comments included input from two adjacent neighbors. One neighbor at 4702 Augustine Street indicated uncertainty regarding support, noting that potential impacts to their property are not yet clear. Another neighbor expressed concern about the introduction of multiple residential units due to existing parking constraints in the area and emphasized the importance of tree preservation, specifically requesting that the redwood trees near the proposed Augustine driveway be retained.

Project Modifications
The current project plans (Exhibit B) reflect the applicant’s latest submission following the Planning Commission workshop. Although staff has determined the plans are incomplete, the applicant has requested that this version proceed through the development review process.

The revised project, as described further in the Project Description section of this report, is subject to different but similar standards and regulations due to the change in scope from a single-family residence with a live-work component to a four-unit multi-residential development.

SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION
The 21,384-square-foot (0.49-acre) subject lot is located along Old Bernal Avenue between Augustine Street and Peters Avenue. The lot is generally flat and currently developed with an approximately 6,160 square-foot, two-story multi-tenant commercial office building measuring approximately 25 feet in height (see Figures 1 and 2). The structure is set back approximately 20 feet from the front property line.

Twenty-one surface parking spaces are situated at the rear of the building, with access provided via driveways from both Old Bernal Avenue and Augustine Street. The site is predominantly paved, with limited landscaping confined to a narrow area along the Old Bernal Avenue frontage. The property contains 34 protected trees, none of which are classified as heritage trees pursuant to PMC Chapter 17.16 (Exhibit D).

Page 255 of 373 ends

Figure 1: Google Street View (from Old Bernal Ave. looking north toward the subject lot) Figure 2: Aerial Photograph
Surrounding land uses consist of a vacant parcel and a small one-story apartment complex to the east, a one-story single-family residence to the north, and a one-story residential structure currently used as an office to the west. Additionally, City Hall is located directly across Old Bernal Avenue to the south.

Other residential development is also present near the site, including a three-story, approximately 30-foot-tall mixed-use building at 301 Old Bernal Avenue, located across Augustine Street. Overall, the Old Bernal Avenue corridor is characterized by a mix of commercial and residential uses, predominantly of one- and two-story buildings, and one three-story building.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to demolish an existing 6,160-square-foot, two-story commercial office building and construct a new, approximately 34-foot-tall, three-story, four-unit multi-residential building. The revised project scope represents a significant change from the previously proposed single-family residence with a live-work component and includes the following notable modifications: an increase from one unit to four units; conversion to a fully residential project with no live-work or commercial space; removal of the active frontage condition, resulting in the rear of the residential building facing Old Bernal Avenue; utilization of California Assembly Bill 2097 (AB 2097), which prohibits public agencies from enforcing minimum parking requirements for eligible projects; and a reduction in building height from 38 feet to 34 feet.

Page 256 of 373 ends

The proposed residential development includes three studio units (Units A, B, and C), each measuring approximately 430 square feet, and one larger unit (Unit D) measuring approximately 13,626 square feet, consisting of occupancy across all three floors. Although the project includes a two-car garage, the applicant is invoking AB 2097, which prohibits public agencies from imposing minimum parking requirements for most development projects within

0.5 miles of a major transit stop (discussed further in this report).

Additionally, the project includes approximately 6,192 square feet of pervious landscaping area, including a new parkway strip with two new trees along the south sidewalk of Old Bernal Avenue. The project’s arborist report identified 34 protected trees on site, of which 12 are recommended for removal due to design impacts (Exhibit D).

Building Design
The applicant is proposing traditional architecture with modern elements. This “modern farmhouse” style is characterized by wood siding and gable roof forms. Additionally, the design incorporates vertical board-and-batten wood siding, brick veneer tiles, and a black standingseam metal roof. Detail/trim elements include black door and window trims and black-painted guardrails for the rear second-story balcony. The building’s west elevation rises to three stories, with the third story slightly setback from the first and second floors; no additional articulation is provided between the lower floors, such as belly bands or step backs.

The building also includes an attached two-car garage, an approximately 681 square-foot upper rear-facing balcony, and an approximately 230-square-foot terrace on the second floor.

Please refer to Exhibit B for full project plans and design details.

ANALYSIS
General Plan
With respect to the PUD finding concerning whether the proposed development plan is consistent with the General Plan, the subject lot has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use. Per Table 2-3 of the General Plan Land Use Element, the allowable density for Mixed-Use Residential is 20+ du/acre. The General Plan notes that the maximum floor area ratio (FAR), as specified in the Downtown Specific Plan, is 125 percent.

As proposed, the project’s density is 8 du/acre with a conforming FAR of 0.71. To strictly conform to the 20+ du/acre density, the project would need to propose a minimum of 10 units.

Accordingly, the project’s density is inconsistent with the General Plan. In the past, the City has allowed projects at densities below 20 units per acre, in conjunction with a PUD. However, per the August 2025 Planning Commission workshop, the size and location of the site, as well as policies encouraging multi-unit development on downtown sites, suggest that more than four units and more comparable square footage between all of the units is preferable.

The following General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element policies and programs are relevant to the proposed redevelopment of the site. The project, as proposed, is not consistent with the following General Plan policies and programs:

Land Use Element
Sustainability
Program 2.4: Require higher residential and commercial densities in the proximity of transportation corridors and hubs, where feasible.

Page 257 of 373 ends

Overall Community Development
Program 4.1: Ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the zoning designation for all properties within the City’s sphere of influence.

Program 4.2: While mid-points and maximum densities/floor area ratios are used to calculate holding capacity for planning purposes, these numbers are not entitlements. The appropriate density and intensity will be determined based on General Plan policies, Specific Plans where appropriate, site conditions, project design, and other considerations. Notwithstanding this program, the minimum and maximum allowable density for identified housing sites has been established for each site in the Housing Element.

Special Interest Areas
Policy 7: Continue to implement adopted specific plans along with relevant rezoning Residential
Policy 8: Preserve and enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods.

Program 8.1: Enforce the provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and related planning ordinances to maintain the character of existing residential neighborhoods.

Housing Element
Policy 1.3: Encourage residential and mixed-use projects to be designed at the maximum building height permitted consistent with standards to be adopted in the Objective Design Standards as referenced in Program 6.1. However, in the downtown, multi-family residential building height should be consistent with the requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines.

Policy 1.7: Increase housing in the commercial portion of the downtown area by permitting up to three‑story construction in the downtown area pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, with one or two stories of residential over commercial in mixed‑use buildings, or residential behind commercial on the same lot, pursuant to Land Use and Design policies (e.g., LD-P.16) of the Downtown Specific Plan.

Downtown Specific Plan
The DSP includes Land Use and Design Goals (LD-G), Land Use and Design Policies (LD-P), and Economic Vitality Policies (EV-P) that strive for a harmonious visual transition of new development, and to preserve the character and development traditions of the downtown.

Overall, these policies include guiding development to be pedestrian in scale, avoiding inappropriately scaled new construction, and achieving cohesive visual transitions between buildings. As described further below, staff finds the project is inconsistent with five goals and 13 policies of the DSP.

Land Use
The subject lot is within the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area and has a land use designation of Mixed Use – Transitional (MU-T). In the Downtown, the Mixed-Use land use designation permits residential uses located behind or above commercial uses.

DSP Policy LD-P.20 notes that ground-floor residential is permitted at this location if the following are met:

Page 258 of 373 ends

• Street fronting commercial space is required, with a minimum building depth of 50 feet to ensure viable commercial uses
• Redevelopment sites have no net loss of commercial square-footage • Corner lots maintain a commercial character on secondary frontages to the maximum extent feasible
• Residential at the rear of the site is designed to minimize visibility from the commercial street-frontage
• The proposed residential is fully parked on-site
Aside from the specific policy noted above, the DSP includes further policy guidance for new development in the Mixed Use – Transitional land use area, including DSP Policy LD-P.22.

This policy, intended to create flexibly-designed ground floor spaces, states that ground floor spaces should be designed to accommodate a variety of uses by providing adequately sized areas equipped with necessary building infrastructure — such as gas lines, ventilation, and water — for food service establishments. Additionally, DSP Policies LD-P.5 and EV-P.2, also require and encourage commercial frontage for new development in the MU-T land use and residential space on upper floors.

As proposed, the multi-unit residential project does not currently include any commercial space or a flexibly designed ground floor space to accommodate a variety of uses. Per LD-P.20, the project is not providing street fronting commercial space, has 100% net loss of commercial square-footage, and has no commercial street-frontage to minimize visibility of the residential component. Additionally, DSP Policy LD-P.45 encourages development at densities that generally exceed the General Plan range midpoints. As mentioned in the General Plan section of this report above, the project proposes a density substantially below the bottom end of the density range.

The project proposes two covered parking stalls, one of which is an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stall. This is below the standard that would ordinarily be required by the PMC, which is two spaces, including at least one space per dwelling unit in a garage or carport and one visitor parking space. However, the applicant proposes to use the provisions of AB 2097, which prohibits public agencies from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project that is located within 0.5 miles of public transit1. The subject lot is located within 0.5 miles of public transit via the ACE Train Station on Pleasanton Avenue. As such, there is no minimum parking requirement for the site, and so a shortfall of parking cannot be a basis for denial.

In conjunction with the residential project inconsistencies to the noted DSP policies above, staff finds the proposed project will not further the DSP goals LD-G.1 and LD-G.2:
• LD-G.1: Preserve the character and development traditions of the downtown while improving upon its commercial and residential viability. • LD-G.2: Retain the small-town scale and physical character of the downtown through the implementation of appropriate land use and development standards, including infill 1 “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.

Page 259 of 373 ends

development that is sensitive to the context, scale and character of existing neighborhoods.

As proposed and per the DSP, staff finds the project would not further commercial viability and would deviate too greatly from the land use and development standards as outlined in the DSP policies mentioned above to warrant approval.

Height & Design
Height
DSP policies LD-P.2, LD-P.50, and LD-P.54 provide standards for preserving character and height. The project proposes a three-story multi—unit residential building measuring 34 feet in height. In comparison, the existing on-site commercial office building is approximately 25 feet in height. In addition, the three-story mixed-use building across the project site at the westnorth intersection of Old Bernal Avenue and Augustine Street is approximately 30 feet in height. For the MU-T designation, the DSP states that “Buildings shall be a maximum of twostories and have a height limit of 36 feet.” However, for residential uses, DSP LD-P.50 limits residential building height to no more than 30 feet and a maximum of two stories.

In addition, DSP LD-P.2 calls for buildings to be pedestrian in scale, and to include first-story storefront windows, recessed entries, building details, and awnings. The policy also calls for stepping back upper floors and maintaining an overall horizontal design character. Additionally, DSP LD-P.54 regulates visual transitions between apartment buildings and single-family homes by avoiding placement of new buildings more than 15 feet taller than an existing adjacent primary structure.

Per DSP LD-P.50, the project’s proposed height exceeds the maximum by four feet and includes one additional story beyond what is permitted. In addition, the proposed project proposes the building to be more than 15 feet taller than the adjacent primary structure at 287 Old Bernal Avenue by at least 16 feet2.

Design
Per the DSP, buildings must be pedestrian in scale, encourage landscaping in building design, design entrances to be visible and accessible, and foster harmonious visual transitions (see DSP Land Use and Design Goals below).

Relevant design policies of the DSP include the following:
• LD-P.10: Diversity of Architectural Styles. Encourage a diversity of architectural styles in new construction the employ caried rooflines, upper facades, and storefronts. • LD-P.14: Landscaping in Building Design. Encourage the use of landscaping in building design, such as flowering vines on trellises or arcades, ivy over blank side walls, and flower pots and window boxes.
• LD-P.21: Design entrances to be visible and accessible. Residential entrances: In mixed-use projects with a residential component, design residential entrances to be separate and clearly distinguishable from commercial entrances or office lobbies. Street fronting residential entrances are allowed in areas designated as Mixed-Use Downtown and Mixed-Use Transitional.
2 City records indicate that the primary structure at 287 Old Bernal Avenue to be approximatley18 feet tall.

Page 260 of 373 ends

o Primary and secondary entrances: Locate main entrances to face onto public streets or the Town Square. Secondary building entrances are encouraged to access pedestrian connections and side streets.
• LD-P.51: Residential Character. Preserve and enhance the character of downtown residential neighborhoods by avoiding inappropriately-scaled new construction, additions, and excessive lot coverage, and by encouraging architectural elements and details, such as porches, picket fences, flower boxes, and street-facing entrances and windows.

As proposed, the building’s design proposes a rear-facing elevation to Old Bernal Avenue. The primary entrance is located off the driveway on Augustine Street. In result, the project’s primary entrance does not face public streets. Staff finds the proposed project does not satisfy the design policies above. The project does not integrate storefronts, landscaping within the building through trellises or arcades, or visible, accessible street-facing entrances, for the goal of preserving and enhancing downtown character. Staff finds the residential project inconsistencies to the noted DSP policies above will not further the DSP goals LD-G.3, LD-G.6 and LD-G.11:
• LD-G.3: Encourage attractive building architecture that reinforces the traditional, pedestrian-oriented design character and scale of downtown. • LD-G.6: Design residential projects so that the scale, architecture, and massing enhance and preserve the character of existing residential neighborhoods. • LD-G.11: streetscape enhancements and improvements that are compatible with downtown’s buildings.

Downtown Design Guidelines
In accordance with the DSP goals and policies, the Downtown Design Guidelines also call for design features to be sensitive to the historic character of the Downtown by encouraging multiple-family housing to be sited and designed to fit in with the character of the single-family neighborhood. Per the Downtown Design Guidelines, key residential design guidelines include:
• Transition from multi-story, multi-family housing to adjacent single-story, single-family homes can be made with the stepping down of building forms. Dormers, articulated chimneys and stairways, landscaping, architectural molding, and window bays that reduce the mass of the building wall can also be helpful. • Multiple-family housing complexes should be designed to follow the rhythm and scale of the surrounding homes.
• Groupings of townhomes are preferred in multiple-family developments instead of large continuous monolithic buildings with little distinction between residential units.

As proposed, the current project design does not conform to the residential design guidelines.

The building’s rear is oriented to the primary frontage along Old Bernal Avenue, with a proposed front setback of approximately 9 feet (10 feet required) and a front façade consisting of a flat roof and 2-story elements up to 30 feet tall. In combination with the vertical siding on two-story flush walls and stone veneer titles, staff finds the proposed design, in conjunction with a non-conforming front setback emphasizes the bulk and mass of the building and does not conform to the rhythm and scale of the surrounding homes. With the absence of articulation, such as a primary entrance along Old Bernal Avenue, landscape features as part of the building design, and massing breaks between floors one and two, the result is

Page 261 of 373 ends

incompatible with the general features of the existing residential neighborhood, which consists of pedestrian-scale buildings no taller than two stories and façade breaks by architectural features and/or step back of upper floors. While the guidelines do not preclude apartment or multi-unit buildings, it specifies that townhome-type groupings are “preferred” – the single building containing multiple units are not of the preferred type.

Zoning & Objective Design Standards (ODS) for Multifamily Housing in R-M, C-C, and M-U Districts (adopted January 26, 2023)
The subject lot is zoned Mixed Use – Transitional (MU-T). Per PMC Chapter 18.46, one of the objectives of the Mixed-Use Districts is the inclusion of residential uses, which may include residential-only development. Consistent with the DSP, the MU-T District permits a maximum FAR of 125 percent. The District also requires a minimum site area of 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit (Table 1). In addition to the ODS, the subject lot is also subject to the specified 2023 ODS for residential development.

At this time, the submitted application materials do not provide enough information for staff to comprehensively evaluate the project’s conformance with the ODS. Nonetheless, in review of the submitted application material, the applicant has requested deviation from all the objective design standards as specifically referenced in this section of the report.

Attachment 3 in Exhibit C sets out the applicant’s most recent list of requested deviations from the ODS, and also provides a summary list of 33 ODS standards that staff have identified as the project failing to meet or have been unable to assess without further information. Note, per the ODS, the ODS takes precedence over any conflicting requirement or guideline established in the PMC.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the project’s conformance with the key site development standards for the DSP, MU-T District, and ODS. The subsections of the report below evaluate Zoning and ODS conformance accordingly
Table 1: MU-T Site Development Standards Conformance
Site Development Standards
DSP/MU-T-District/
ODS
Proposed Project Conforms?
Front Yard Setback 10’ per ODS 9’ (Building Wall) No
Side Yard Setbacks 7’ Min./16’ Combined per
ODS
6’-4” min. / >10’ Combined No
Rear Yard Setbacks 10’ >10’ Yes
Maximum Dwelling
Units
21 max.3 4 Yes
Private Useable Open
Space
75 sf per unit; or 50 sf
per bedroom, whichever
is greater per ODS
0 sf for units A, B, C
>50sf for unit D
No, for units A, B, C
Yes, for units D
Floor Area Maximum 1.25 .071 Yes
3 One dwelling unit permitted per 1,000 square-feet

Page 262 of 373 ends

Site Development Standards
DSP/MU-T-District/
ODS
Proposed Project Conforms?
Height Maximum 30’ per DSP 34’ No
Parking Minimum Not Applicable per AB 2097
Site Layout, Pedestrian and Vehicular Access
The project would provide all vehicle access, and access to the primary unit from the driveway on Augustine Street, with the three smaller units having front door entries onto Augustine Street. Per ODS B1, site circulation should connect and integrate with broader street networks that serve housing, workplaces, transit, parks, and other facilities essential to the daily lives of Pleasanton residents. Although the project plans are inconsistent regarding how the three studio units are accessed (see Comment #2(f)(v) in Exhibit C), none of the iterations include pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way to the unit entrances.

Setbacks
Per Table 1 above, the project is proposing a nonconforming nine-foot front setback and a sixfoot side setback from the west property line. Further, per ODS C1.3, no structure abutting existing residential development shall exceed the height of a sloping plane 15 feet in height at the interior of the minimum required side yard required by the PMC and sloping away from the side property line five feet for each additional 15 feet in height. ODS C1.3 defers to the PMC for the District’s minimum side yard, which is 10 feet. Also, per ODS C1.3, the project’s west side property line setback requirement is 15 feet. Based on the project’s proposed height, the west side setback is nonconforming by nine feet (see sheet A100 in Exhibit B).

Building Height, Architecture, and Design
Given the submitted application material, staff finds that the proposed project is nonconforming to the following ODS regarding height, architecture, and design: B2, B2.4, B7.6, C1, C1.5, C2, C3.b, C4.1, C4.2, C5.1, C5.2, C5.a, C7.1, C7.2, C7.5, C7.7, C7.6, and C7.9.

These ODS standards collectively guide building orientation, architectural design, and material quality. These standards are intended to ensure that development contributes to an active, pedestrian-oriented environment through features such as active frontages, clearly defined and visible entries, and building orientations that promote “eyes on the street.” The standards further regulate site layout and circulation, including required landscape buffers, and emphasize high-quality architectural design by requiring modulation of building massing, vertically oriented roof forms, and prominent entry features. Additionally, the standards prescribe specific requirements for façade composition, transparency, and materials, including minimum glazing percentages, restrictions on cladding materials, and the use of durable, highquality finishes such as brick, stone, and tile. Collectively, these Objective Design Standards apply to the project to ensure consistency with the intended character, safety, and visual quality of the downtown area.

As proposed, staff finds the project is nonconforming to the ODS per the specific sections noted above and reflects a building layout and site design that appears to be principally driven by building mass and intensity, rather than by a cohesive integration with the surrounding neighborhood context and visual environment. Exhibit C annotates how each of these

Page 263 of 373 ends

standards is nonconforming or requires additional information. Specific emphasis includes the proposed project’s height, building orientation, frontage, and volume/massing.

Per ODS C1.5, height is limited to two stories and 30 feet, except where an additional story and height are permissible by provisions in the DSP and PMC. As noted in the DSP section above, DSP LD-P.50 limits residential building height to no more than 30 feet and a maximum of two stories. As proposed, the project’s three-story and 34-foot height design is inconsistent with the ODS.

As previously noted, the building’s rear is oriented to the primary frontage along Old Bernal Avenue with a nine-foot front setback with no primary entrance. As a result, the project does not provide an active building frontage (ODS B2, B2.4), nor a primary entry (lobby) for the multi-unit residential building adjacent to the public sidewalk (ODS C3.b, C5.2). Additionally, the proposal does not provide entries as a predominant feature of front facades (ODS C5.a).

The nonconformance of the design and orientation to the ODS, staff finds, results in a building design that articulates large building volume and mass (ODS C1 and C5.a). The front elevation proposes three wall breaks: two are set back approximately one and one-half feet, and the third is set back four feet (see sheet A200 in Exhibit B). Staff finds the approximately one and one-half-foot staggered wall setback is insufficient and results in a larger building volume and mass.

Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
The project proposes a two-car garage, including one van-accessible parking space, with no additional on-site vehicle parking. Short- and long-term bicycle parking is also proposed, with short-term spaces located along Old Bernal Avenue and long-term spaces within the groundfloor utility room. However, the plans do not clearly identify the number of bicycle parking spaces or demonstrate compliance with ODS B5.10 bicycle parking requirements, including required proximity to building entrances. Staff has requested additional information to verify compliance.

Lighting & Landscape/Open Space
The project proposes limited on-site lighting consisting primarily of wall sconces and lowvoltage landscape lighting. The pedestrian scale lighting meets the photometric standards outlined in ODS B7; no lighting fixture exceeds 25 feet in height and is entirely contained on the site.

As proposed, the project is required to provide Private Usable Open Space (PUOS) at a quantity of 75 square-feet per unit; or 50 square-feet per bedroom, whichever is greater. The project consists of 15 bedrooms (all-inclusive of units). As a result, the project is required to provide 750 square-feet of PUOS. The project does not provide PUOS for the three studio units. Per ODS B6.5 and B6.6., PUOS for the units are required to conform to the following:
• B6.5: Where provided, Private Usable Open Space including, but not limited to, balconies, porches, stoops and terraces, shall provide a minimum dimension: a. Private Useable Open Space at grade shall have an unobstructed minimum dimension of ten feet. b. Private Useable Open Space above grade shall have an unobstructed minimum dimension of five feet.

Page 264 of 373 ends

• B6.6: Private Usable Open Space shall be located directly adjacent to unit interiors and shall be directly accessible from the unit.

Further, a total of 6,192 square feet of pervious (landscaping) area is proposed, with most of the landscaped area located at the rear yard for Unit D, the large single unit. The rear yard for Unit D consists of general landscape, raised vegetable garden, pool, spa, and fire pit. The property contains 34 existing trees, none of which are classified as heritage trees pursuant to PMC Chapter 17.16. Per the arborist report, 12 trees are recommended for removal. The project plans do not indicate which trees are proposed for removal. Staff has requested that the plans specify which trees are proposed to remain or be removed.

As referenced, during the August 2025 Planning Commission workshop, there was public and Planning Commission interest in maintaining the existing redwoods on-site. However, trees #31 and 32 are located within the traffic sight distance triangle; while recognizing there may be value in retaining these trees due to their size and character, Traffic Engineering staff notes that removing them would improve visibility for vehicles exiting the site and meet City guidelines for safety (see Sheet C3.0 of Exhibit B).

The landscape plans also include a new vehicle gate and perimeter fencing. The project plans do not provide details for the vehicle gate along Augustine Street, such as material, color, height etc. Notably, the plans are inconsistent if the vehicle gate is truly proposed throughout the plans. In addition, the project proposes new seven-foot-tall fencing (one-foot-tall concrete masonry unit with a six-foot-tall wood fence) along the west side property line within the required side and front yards. A front-facing six-foot-tall stucco wall and wood swinging gate is also proposed along the east side. Per ODS 7.6, masonry or wood fences are limited to 30 inches in height. As proposed, the fencing and side gate do not conform to the ODS, and it’s unclear if the vehicle gate conforms, given the missing additional information. With respect to adequate public safety measures, the proposed fencing is also recommended for relocation outside the traffic sight distance triangle.

Utilities and Service Areas
As proposed, staff finds the project plans have not demonstrated conformance regarding the Clean Water Program, sanitary sewer, and utility enclosures (see Engineering comments via Exhibit C). As a result, proposed project plans do not demonstrate a design that keeps with the best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides, or flooring, and to have as minimal an effect upon the environment as possible. Specifically, outstanding conformance comments pertain to stormwater treatment measures, sewer lateral connecting design, and the location of utility enclosures.

In addition, per ODS B9.1, exterior refuse areas are required to be located outside of a 50-foot radius centered on the primary building entrance and shall be screened by opaque, roofed enclosures built of durable materials and designed to harmonize with the proposed architecture. The project proposes locating the refuse area within a 50-foot radius of the primary building entrance. The refuse area will consist of 12 bins, as required by Pleasanton Garbage Service (bins for regular waste, recyclables, and green waste for each unit). Plans show an inconsistent location, but in either layout are within a 50-foot radius of the entry and would not conform to this standard (Figure 4).

Page 265 of 373 ends

Figure 4: Inconsistent location of Refuse Area Bins

Certificate of Appropriateness
Per PMC Chapter 18.74, a certificate of appropriateness is required for demolition of a primary structure within the Downtown Revitalization District.

Unless the applicant can establish that there is “unnecessary hardship” in the strict application of Chapter 18.74, a requested certificate of appropriateness may be denied or delayed if:

1. The proposed demolition of a structure would be inappropriate or inconsistent with the purposes of PMC Chapter 18.74, or that;

2. The proposed demolition would have an adverse effect on adjoining property, or on the built context, or that;

3. The proposed future use and design of the property would be inconsistent with PMC Chapter 18.74 or the adopted guidelines.

To establish hardship, the applicant must show that:

1. no reasonable use of the property can be made unless the structure is demolished; and

2. the hardship is the result of the application of Chapter 18.74 and is not the result of any act or omission by the applicant or the applicant's predecessor in interest.

If the City finds that such unnecessary hardship exists, it must approve the certificate of appropriateness, unless the proposed demolition would alter the essential character of the built context.

Given the analysis above regarding conformance with applicable policies and standards, staff finds that the Commission should recommend the City Council deny the requested certificate of appropriateness because the proposed future use and design of the property would be inconsistent with the applicable guidelines and standards discussed above.

Page 266 of 373 ends

residential project; however, the project is required to pay affordable housing fees pursuant to the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Climate Action Plan 2.0
In 2022, the City adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0, which was recognized by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.

CAP 2.0 establishes mandatory and voluntary measures related to land use, transportation, energy, waste, and water to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with AB 32 targets.

Projects consistent with the CAP 2.0 Greenhouse Gas Compliance Checklist (GHG Checklist) may rely on the programmatic CAP 2.0 environmental analysis for greenhouse gas impacts.

The project’s GHG Checklist provides general compliance. However, staff has requested information that includes clarifying annotations on plans (e.g. bicycle amenities, energy storage system) and revising water use calculations for evaluation with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO).

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this application was sent to property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site, as shown in Exhibit F. A project notification sign was also posted on-site on May 14, 2026. At the time of report publication, staff has not received any public comments. Public comments received after publication of this report will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CEQA does not apply to projects that the City rejects or disapproves. (CEQA Guidelines § 15270.) Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of the project, staff would evaluate the project for compliance with CEQA and return to the Planning Commission at a future public hearing for formal consideration and action.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
As outlined in this report, the project plans are incomplete and inconsistent with numerous policies, standards and guidelines of the General Plan, DSP, Downtown Design Guidelines, applicable ODS, and PMC regulations. The PUD District is intended to promote well-planned projects that achieve high-quality design, superior site planning, and compatibility with surrounding uses while advancing adopted General Plan and specific plan goals. As proposed, staff finds the project does not meet these objectives, and that the number and extent of deviations from the applicable standards do not allow the necessary findings for approval to be made. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit A) recommending that the City Council deny the applications for Rezoning, a Certificate of Appropriateness, and a PUD Development Plan filed as Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152.

Primary Author: Diego Mora, AICP, Associate Planner 925-931-5618 or [email protected] Reviewed/Approved By:

Eric Luchini, Senior Planner
Derek Farmer, Assistant Director of Community and Economic Development Katy Wisinski, Assistant City Attorney
Ellen Clark, Director of Community and Economic Development

Page 267 of 373 ends

RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

PLEASANTON RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE
APPLICATIONS FOR: (1) A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING (P26-0360) TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM MU-T (MIXED USETRANSITIONAL) DISTRICT TO PUD-MU-T (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE-TRANSITIONAL) DISTRICT; (2) A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 6,160-SQUARE-FOOT COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING IN THE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION DISTRICT; AND (3) A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD-152) TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY, FOUR-UNIT, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, WITH UNITS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 430 SQUARE FEET TO 13,626 SQUARE FEET AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 231 OLD BERNAL AVENUE, AS FILED UNDER CASE NOS. P26-0360 AND PUD-152 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2024, Gautam Patel (“Applicant”) applied for Rezoning and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval under case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152 to 1) rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District to PUD-MUT-T (Planned Unit Development-Mixed UseTransitional) District; (2) receive a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160-square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and (3) approve a PUD Development Plan to construct a three-story, four-unit residential building, with units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements (hereinafter “the Project”) located at 231 Old Bernal Avenue, Assessors Parcel No. 94-156-21 (hereinafter “the Property”); and WHEREAS, the subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use; and
WHEREAS, the subject property has a Downtown Specific Plan land use designation of Mixed Use – Transitional; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District; and
WHEREAS, the Certificate of Appropriateness is subject to the findings listed in Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Section 18.74.190 and requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a PUD is subject to the findings listed in Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 18.68.110.B., subsections (1) - (7), and requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65905 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project on May 27, 2026, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The Planning Commission considered the agenda report dated May 27, 2026, incorporated herein by reference, and all written and oral testimony.

EXHIBIT A

Page 268 of 373 ends

Resolution No. PC-2026-14
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton does resolve, declare, determine, and order the following:

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

Section 2: Findings for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Section 3: Findings for Certificate of Appropriateness Denial With respect to the denial of PUD-152, the Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council make the following findings as required by Section

18.74.190, subsections (1) - (3), of the PMC:

1. The proposed demolition of a structure would be inappropriate or inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; or

2. The proposed demolition would have an adverse effect on adjoining property, or on the built context; or

3. The proposed future use and design of the property would be inconsistent with PMC Chapter 18.74 or the adopted guidelines.

The Planning Commission finds that the proposed future use and design of the property are inconsistent with Chapter 18.74 and the adopted Downtown design guidelines. The Project does not maintain the commercial or mixeduse character intended for the site, lacks active ground-floor engagement with the public realm, and introduces building form, scale, and orientation that are not consistent with the pedestrian-oriented design and architectural standards required within the Downtown Revitalization District. Accordingly, the criteria for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness are not met. As such, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

The Planning Commission further finds and recommends the City Council determine that the applicant has not established that there is unnecessary hardship in the strict application of PMC Chapter 18.74.

Section 4: Findings for PUD Development Plan Denial

Page 269 of 373 ends

Resolution No. PC-2026-14
Page Three
With respect to the denial of PUD-152, the Planning Commission finds and recommends that the City Council make the following findings as required by Section

18.68.110.B (1) - (7) of the PMC:

1. Whether the proposed development plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare.

The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project does not adequately support the public health, safety, and general welfare due to several unresolved design and site planning concerns. The project includes limited pedestrian connectivity from the public right-of-way to unit entrances and lacks clearly identifiable street-facing entries, which may reduce opportunities for natural surveillance (“eyes on the street”) and create potential circulation conflicts. In addition, outstanding inconsistencies and incomplete details within the project plans—including items related to utilities, stormwater management, and unit access—limit the City’s ability to fully evaluate compliance with applicable development and safety standards. The project also provides limited private usable open space, includes a unit mix and building configuration that results in a concentration of mass within a large single building, lacking a pedestrian-oriented frontage. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks, building height, and transitions adjacent to lower-scale residential development raise concerns about neighborhood compatibility and appropriateness of the scale of the building as designed and sited. Taken together, these issues indicate that the project, as currently proposed, does not demonstrate a fully compatible and well-integrated residential development. As such, the Planning Commission finds and recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

2. Whether the proposed development plan is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The proposed development plan is not consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Pleasanton General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The subject site is designated Mixed-Use under the General Plan and Mixed Use–Transitional (MU-T) under the DSP, both of which envision development that supports a mix of residential and commercial uses at densities that advance housing goals and promote an active, pedestrianoriented environment. As proposed, the project includes only four residential units (approximately 8 du/acre), which is substantially below the General Plan’s expected density of 20 or more units per acre, and does not provide commercial or flexibly designed ground-floor space, resulting in a complete loss of existing commercial square footage. This is inconsistent with DSP policies that require or strongly encourage commercial frontage, active ground-floor uses, and development patterns that enhance economic vitality.

Additionally, the project’s building height, massing, and three-story design exceed DSP limits for residential development and do not provide appropriate

Page 270 of 373 ends

Resolution No. PC-2026-14
Page Four
transitions to adjacent lower-scale uses, contrary to policies intended to preserve downtown’s small-town character and ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. The project also does not meet DSP design objectives related to pedestrian orientation, including the absence of a streetfacing primary entrance and the absence of active frontage along Old Bernal Avenue. Collectively, these inconsistencies demonstrate that the project does not implement the land use, density, design, and economic vitality objectives of the General Plan and DSP, and therefore cannot be found consistent with these adopted plans. As such, the Planning Commission finds and recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

3. Whether the proposed development plan is compatible with the previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural, topographic features of the site.

The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by predominantly one- and two-story structures with articulated building forms, pedestrian-oriented design, and established transitions in scale between residential and mixeduse buildings. In contrast, the proposed three-story, 34-foot-tall building introduces a level of height, massing, and density that is not consistent with the prevailing development pattern and does not provide adequate transitions to adjacent lower-scale uses. The building’s orientation, setbacks, and lack of street-facing entry and landscaping, as part of its architectural design, further reduce its compatibility with the established downtown and residential context. As a result, the development does not comply with the requirements of the Objective Design Standards or other applicable objective standards established in adopted City plans and documents, reflect the scale, character, or environmental context of surrounding properties and is therefore found to be incompatible. As such, the Planning Commission finds and recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

The Planning Commission finds that the proposed grading does not demonstrate that it has been designed in accordance with the site’s environmental characteristics or in keeping with best engineering practices to avoid erosion, instability, or flooding, or to minimize environmental impacts.

The project application materials are incomplete and lack sufficient detail regarding stormwater treatment measures, drainage design, and utility coordination, including unresolved issues related to the Clean Water Program and sewer infrastructure. The absence of comprehensive grading, drainage, and erosion control information prevents the City from verifying that the project would avoid potential erosion, surface runoff impacts, or localized

Page 271 of 373 ends

Resolution No. PC-2026-14
Page Five
flooding conditions. As such, the Planning Commission finds and recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

5. Whether streets, buildings, and other manmade structures have been designed and located in such a manner to complement the natural terrain and landscape.

The proposed development plan includes a building layout and site design that is primarily driven by building mass rather than a cohesive visual relationship with the surrounding environment. The project emphasizes large building massing with limited articulation and minimal integration of landscaping into the architectural design. The building’s orientation—featuring a rear-facing elevation along Old Bernal Avenue and a lack of a street-facing primary entrance—fails to integrate with the established streetscape and surrounding landscape context. As such, the Planning Commission finds and recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design or the proposed development plan.

The absence of a street-facing primary entrance along Old Bernal Avenue reduces natural surveillance and “eyes on the street,” which are key elements of passive public safety. In addition, inconsistencies in the submitted plans regarding unit access, bicycle facilities, refuse location, and utility design prevent a full evaluation of operational safety and emergency access considerations. Furthermore, incomplete information regarding fencing and gate design limits the ability to confirm that the project provides adequate visibility, access control, and safety features throughout the site. Collectively, these deficiencies indicate that the development plan does not sufficiently incorporate public safety measures into its design. As such, the Planning Commission finds and recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

7. Whether the proposed development plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD district.

The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development plan does not conform to the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. The PUD District is intended to promote well-planned projects that achieve highquality design, superior site planning, and compatibility with surrounding uses while advancing adopted General Plan and specific plan goals. As proposed,

Page 272 of 373 ends

Resolution No. PC-2026-14
Page Six
the project does not meet these objectives because it is inconsistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, removes commercial or mixeduse components, and does not provide active, pedestrian-oriented groundfloor design. The project also fails to demonstrate superior site planning due to limited pedestrian connectivity, constrained circulation, inconsistent access design, and insufficient integration of landscaping and site features. In addition, the building’s height, massing, and orientation do not provide appropriate transitions to surrounding development or contribute to the intended downtown character. As such, the Commission finds and recommends the City Council determine that this finding cannot be made.

Section 5: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny Case Nos. P26-0360 and PUD-152 for a (1) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning to rezone the subject parcel from MU-T (Mixed Use-Transitional) District to PUD-MU-T (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use-Transitional) District; (2) a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing 6,160-square-foot commercial office building in the Downtown Revitalization District; and (3) a PUD Development Plan to construct a three-story, four-unit, residential building with units ranging in size from 430 square feet to 13,626 square feet and associated site improvements located at 231 Old Bernal Avenue.

Section 6: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on May 27, 2026, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

ATTEST:
_____________________________ ______________________________ Derek Farmer Brandon Pace
Secretary, Planning Commission Chairperson
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Katherine Wisinski
Assistant City Attorney

Page 273 of 373 ends

February 12, 2026
Project Narrative
The submission is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application on an existing mixed-use transitional zoned property, which currently has a 2-story office building on it. The property fronts onto Old Bernal Avenue. The current property is 0.49 acres, situated in the MU-T (Mixed Use Transitional). The current property has a one-way driveway access from Old Bernal as well as a one-way outlet at Augustine Street.

Over the course of more than a year, the Owner has worked closely with City staff, the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, and members of the City Council to refine this proposal. Through this collaborative process, extensive feedback was sought and incorporated into the design. The resulting proposal balances community goals and site potential by adding residential units, maintaining a commercial component, maintaining the redwood trees, and preserving the neighborhood character. The architectural design has been modified to align with the design preferences expressed by the Planning Department. In addition, a public workshop was held in which neighbors expressed support for this proposal in comparison to alternative options previously discussed.

The Owner proposes to create a 3-story multi-family residential building which would include 4 units as described here: 3 studio units located at the ground floor and a larger 3-story unit, all connected via a common corridor and access. The design proposes a lower unit count than required by the underlying MU-T zone.

Per the provisions of Table 18.44.080 of the PMC, the proposed multi-family residential use is a prohibited use in the MU-T zone. The application proposes a PUD and deviation from this standard to be determined by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, per the provisions of 18.128.040 of the PMC.

Additionally, the project proposes flexibility to current development standards for the purpose of the proposed PUD only, which include reduced setbacks as shown on the Site Plan. The front setback is proposed at 9 feet, rather than 10 feet minimum.
a height limit of 32 feet, rather than 30 feet, and overall design deviations. This includes a deviation of standards relating to frontage along the public right of way at Bernal Street. The project proposes a more private development without any building entrances, porches or access from the public right of way at Bernal. Instead, access will be from a private court at the rear of the building to access parking and the front entry doors for all units.

The project proposes 15,219 sf of residential area. The residential units would be accessed via a private entry at the side and rear of the house. The project will also propose a landscaped area at the rear for the larger residential unit, including green space, a pool/spa, and garden. As well as a private outdoor common are at the west side of the building for the 3 studio units.

The site plan and building footprint propose to protect all existing redwood trees as well as majority of existing tree lines, vegetation and landscaping. Additional planting and landscaping would be added to enhance the simple and modern building style at both street frontages. The project also proposes to preserve the existing driveway and entry located along Augustine Street, in order to avoid disturbing the existing redwood trees at the edges of that driveway.

The current property is located within ½ mile walking distance to a major transit stop, the Ace Train Station. Per AB2097, no minimum parking is required for residential development. The project proposes to have 2 covered parking spaces in the garage, with 1 being an ADA van parking stall as required by code. See below exhibit showing the ½ mile walking distance to the Ace Train Station.

R E C E I V E D

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF PLEASANTON

PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT B

02.19.26 PUD-152 Page 274 of 373
Google Maps 231 Old Bernal Ave, Pleasanton, CA 94566 to Pleasanton, CA 94566
Walk 0.5 mile, 11 min
Demul
Google Maps
Imagery ©2026 Google, Imagery ©2026 Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Vexcel Imaging US, Inc., Map data ©2026 100 ft via Augustine St 11 min

0.5 mile
齐
via Old Bernal Ave and Bernal
Ave
12 min

0.5 mile
All routes are mostly flat
sajni design & architecture

CREATIVE STUDIO
4195 Chino Hills Pkwy, Suite 599
Chino Hills, CA 91709
☑ www.sajnidesign.com
[email protected]
714.390.0525

Page 275 of 373 ends

The proposed architectural style is a modern farmhouse style architecture utilizing flat as well as pitched roofs and a soft palette of materials. Featured materials would include a vertical board & batten wood siding, a thin stone veneer, black metal railings, and a black standing seam metal roof. In addition, a black accent color would be used for all window and door frames, as well as trims, fascias, downspouts, etc.

The proposal is in compliance with a majority of ODS requirements. Please see attached ODS chart for proposed exceptions. The project proposes to have 22% hardscape area and 78% landscape area. The current height requirement for the MU-T allows for a 36 foot building height and this proposal complies with this requirement.

The proposed height of the tallest roof point will be 32 feet. The current zoning allows for a 1.25 FAR, which the project is in compliance with at a 0.71 FAR. Additionally, the project proposes a 39% lot coverage.

Page 276 of 373 ends

X
X

X X AXXX
X
AXXX
X
AXXX

SECTION

OPENING SYMBOL

DOOR SYMBOL

INTERIOR ELEVATION
X
AXXX

AREA DETAIL
DETAIL #
SHEET #
DETAIL #
SHEET #
DETAIL #
SHEET #
DETAIL #
SHEET #
DXX
WXX
101
150 SF
Name
Occupant Load
Occupancy Classification

ROOM TAG

ROOM NAME
ROOM #
AREA
101
Length X Width
Name

ROOM TAG

ROOM NAME
ROOM #
L x W WINDOW SYMBOL

NORTH ARROW

ELEVATION
EXISTING LOT AREA:

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED):
21,384.0 SQ.FT (0.49 ACRES)

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA (UNCONDITIONED):
1,375 SQ.FT. (FIRST FLOOR AREA)
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO:

PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO:

REQUIRED YARDS:
= 1.25
= 15,219 SQ. FT. / 21,384 SQ. FT.
= 0.71 < 1.25 OK
10' (FRONT), 7'/16' (ONE SIDE/COMBINED),
10' (REAR)
9' (FRONT), 6' (SIDE), 10' (REAR)
PROPOSED PARKING SPACES: 2 COVERED SPACES (GARAGE)
INCLUDES 1 ADA VAN SPACE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT: 36'-0" (3 STORIES)
4,832 SQ.FT. (UNIT D - FIRST FLOOR)
6,666 SQ.FT. (UNIT D - SECOND FLOOR)
15,219 SQ.FT. (TOTAL)
2,278 SQ.FT. (TOTAL)
PROPOSED HEIGHT: 34'-0" (3 STORIES)
2,127 SQ.FT. (UNIT D - THIRD FLOOR)
PROPOSED YARDS:

LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION: = 8,320 SQ. FT. / 21,384 SQ. FT. = 39%
903 SQ.FT. (SECOND FLOOR AREA)
430 SQ.FT. (UNIT A)
430 SQ.FT. (UNIT B)
430 SQ.FT. (UNIT C)
13,626 SQ.FT. (UNIT D)
*NO MINIMUM PARKING IS REQUIRED PER AB2097. PROJECT IS WITHIN 1/2 MILE WALKING DISTANCE TO MAJOR TRANSIT - ACE TRAIN STOP.

GARAGE, PORCH, PATIO, ETC.
303 SQ.FT. (COMMON LOBBY/CORRIDOR)
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

IF SHEET IS LESS THAN SIZE INDICATED ABOVE, THIS IS A REDUCED PRINT. REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
24" x 36"
THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF sda AND IS NOT TO BE
REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IT IS TO BE USED FOR THE

PROJECT AND SITE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED HEREIN AND IS NOT TO BE USED ON ANY OTHER PROJECT. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE
RETURNED UPON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF sda.
© COPYRIGHT 2023 SAJNI DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
A001
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

COVER SHEET
Author

BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVENUE, PLEASANTON, CA 94566
OWNER

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]

ARCHITECT

SAJNI DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE
4195 CHINO HILLS PARKWAY, SUITE 599, CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
EMAIL: [email protected]
TEL: 714.390.0525

CIVIL ENGENEER

YCG CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONTACT: YUSHIN IMURA, P.E.

EMAIL: [email protected]
TEL: 510.228.6961

ARCHITECTURAL
A001 COVER SHEET
A100 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A101 SHADOW STUDY
A102 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
A200 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A201 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A202 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A203 ROOF PLAN
A300 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A301 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A500 COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD
A501 WINDOW SPECS
A502 WINDOW SCHEDULE
A600 INSPIRATION BOARD
A700 LIGHTING PLAN
CIVIL
C1.0 COVER SHEET
C2.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
C3.0 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
C4.0 GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
C5.0 STORMWATER - PRE-CONSTRUCTION
C5.1 STORMWATER - POST-CONSTRUCTION

APPLICABLE CODES

DRAWING SYMBOLS
@ AT

CENTERLINE
ABV. ABOVE
A.C.U. AIR CONDITIONING UNIT
ALUM. ALUMINUM
A.P. ACCESS PANEL
BD. BOARD
BLDG. BUILDING
BLK. BLOCK
BLKG. BLOCKING
BM. BEAM
BOT. BOTTOM
CAB. CABINET

CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING
CODE
CLG. CEILING
CLR. CLEAR
COL. COLUMN
CONC. CONCRETE
CONT. CONTINUOUS
CORR. CORRIDOR
C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY
UNIT
D. DRYER
DBL. DOUBLE
DEPT. DEPARTMENT
DET. DETAIL
DIA. DIAMETER
DIM. DIMENSION
DISP. DISPENSER
DN. DOWN
DWR. DRAWER
DS. DOWNSPOUT

DW DISHWASHER
DWG. DRAWING
EA. EACH
EL. ELEVATION
ELEC. ELECTRICAL
EQ. EQUAL
EQPT. EQUIPMENT
EXT. EXTERIOR
F.D. FLOOR DRAIN
F.F. FINIGH FLOOR
FIN. FINISH
FLR. FLOOR
FLASH. FLASHING
F.O. FACE OF
F.P. FIREPLACE
FTG. FOOTING
GA. GAUGE
GALV. GALVANIZED
G.D. GARBAGE DISPOSER
GR. GRADE
GYP. GYPSUM
INSUL. INSULATION
INT. INTERIOR
JAN. JANITOR
JT. JOINT
LAV. LAVATORY
LIN. LINEN
MAX. MAXIMUM
MECH. MECHANICAL
MFR. MANUFACTURER
MIN. MINIMUM
MISC. MISCELLANEOUS
MTD. MOUNTED
MTL. METAL
NO. OR # NUMBER
N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE
O.C. ON CENTER
OPNG. OPENING
OPP. OPPOSITE
PL. PLATE
PLYWD. PLYWOOD
RAD. RADIUS
R.D. ROOF DRAIN
REC. RECESSED
REF. REFRIGERATOR
REQ'D. REQUIRED
RM. ROOM
SCHED. SCHEDULE
SECT. SECTION
S.F. SQUARE FEET
SHT. SHEET
SIM. SIMILAR
SPEC. SPECIFICATION
SQ. SQUARE
STD. STANDARD
STL. STEEL
STOR. STORAGE
STRUCT. STRUCTURAL
T.C. TOP OF CURB;

OR TOP OF CONCRETE
TEL. TELEPHONE
TEMP. TEMPERED
'T' TEMPERED
THK. THICK
T.O.P. TOP OF PLATE
T.W. TOP OF WALL
TYP. TYPICAL
UON. UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED
VERT. VERTICAL
V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD

ABBREVIATIONS VICINITY MAP

PROJECT TITLE

NEW MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
NOTES

DEFERRED SUBMITTALS PROJECT DATA LEGAL INFORMATION OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS

ALL CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT

EDITIONS OF ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS,

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) (NOTE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EXEMPT) AND THE FOLLOWING:
2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS CODE

THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROVIDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH

ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS. IT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO DESCRIBE ALL WORK

NECESSARY AS THAT IS ONLY DEFINED BY THE ENTIRETY OF THE DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE THE BID PRESENTED HERE-IN SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING WORK:

1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A NEW MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ZONED LOT.

NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO INCLUDE:
a. 3-STORY BUILDING
• 4 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
b. 2-CAR GARAGE

2. SITEWORK:
a. NEW DRIVEWAY CONNECTING TO EXISTING STREET
b. NEW HARDSCAPE & LANDSCAPE DESIGN
c. NEW POOL & BACKYARD
d. NEW PARKING AREA

3. DEMOLITION:
a. DEMO EXISTING 2-STORY OFFICE BUILDING
APN NUMBER: 94-156-21
LAND USE: MIXED USE
ZONING CODE: MU-T (MIXED USED TRANSITIONAL)
OCCUPANCY: R-2/U (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)

B (BUSINESS)
FIRE SEVERITY ZONE: NO
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-B
SPRINKLERED: YES, PER NFPA 13R
EXISTING LOT AREA: 21,384.0 SF (0.49 ACRES)
EXISTING BUILDING: 6,160 SF (2 STORY)
EXISTING PARKING: 21 SPACES (UNCOVERED)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT: 0000A, PM: 0116, PAGE: 0043

SCOPE OF WORK

SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS FOR DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS SHALL BE

SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS ARE LISTED BELOW:

1. FIRE SPRINKLERS (FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMIT)

2. PV SYSTEM

3. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

DRAWING INDEX
TOTAL LOT SIZE: 21,384 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 8,320 SF
TOTAL OPEN SPACE: 13,064 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA: 10,279 SF (78%)
HARDSCAPE AREA: 2,785 SF (22%)

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

LANDSCAPE
LT-1 LANDSCAPE COVER SHEET
LH-1 HARDSCAPE PLAN
LS-1 SHADE TREE EXHIBIT PLAN
LI-1 IRRIGATION PLAN
LI-2 HYDROZONE PLAN
LI-3 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET
LI-4 IRRIGATION DETAILS
LL-1 LIGHTING PLAN
LL-2 LIGHTING DETAILS
LP-1 PLANTING PLAN
LP-2 PLANTING IMAGES
LP-3 PLANTING DETAILS
LP-4 EXISTING TREE EXHIBIT

PROJECT DIRECTORY

1. A 1-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN THE R-2 AND B OCCUPANCY.

R E C E I V E D

CITY OF PLEASANTON

PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT B

02.19.26 PUD-152 Page 277 of 373

X X X X
W W W
G G G
S S S
F F F

CONCRETE OR PAVED
AREA

CONCRETE BLOCK WALL

LANDSCAPE

BUILDINGS

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK LINE

FENCE LINE

ELECTRICAL PANEL

ELECTRICAL METER

GAS METER

WH WATER HEATER

WATER LINE

GAS LINE

SANITARY LINE

FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

1. DRAWINGS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF CRITICAL DIMENSIONS, LAYOUT AND CLEARANCES.

ALL FINISHES, MATERIALS, DETAILS TO BE VERIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

4. REFERENCE TO ANY DETAIL OR DRAWING IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND DOES NOT LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DETAIL OR DRAWINGS.

5. MINIMUM SEWER SLOPE TO BE 2%

6. TEMPORARY POWER POLE MAY BE REQUIRED PER SITE CONDITIONS. IT WILL BE DETEREMINED BY CITY INSPECTOR.

7. CONSTRUCTION FENCE MAY BE REQUIRED IF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PLACED IN FRONT OF

THE PROPERTY OR NO ONE LIVING INSIDE THE HOUSE DURING CONSTRUCTION OR NO EXISTEING FENCE IS AROUND THE PROPERTY. TO BE DETERMINED BY CITY INSPECTOR.

8. LOCATION OF THE ELECTRIC METER MAYBE CHANGED DUE TO EDISON'S REQUIREMENTS AND CLEARANCE.

PROPERTY LINE 90.30'
PROPERTY LINE 88.79'
PROPERTY LINE 51.29'
PROPERTY LINE 24.95'

PROPERTY
LINE
110.63'
PROPERTY LINE 123.0'
PROPERTY LINE 147.02'

PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL
AUGUSTINE ST.

OLD BERNAL AVE

LINE OF BUILDING

SPRINKLERED

PROPOSED YARD

PER LANDSCAPE DESIGN

LINE OF BUILDING

LINE OF

BUILDING
PROPOSED 6' HIGH

WOOD FENCE
PROPOSED 6' HIGH

FENCE AND GATE

RESIDENTIAL
TRASH
BINS

ELECTRIC
PANEL,
METERS

PROPOSED YARD

PER LANDSCAPE DESIGN

EXISTING DRIVEWAY

CURB CUT

LINE OF ROOF

BICYCLE PARKING
PROPOSED 6'

HIGH FENCE &

SWING GATE
REPLACE EXISTING 7.5'

HIGH WOOD FENCE
ON 1' HIGH CMU WALL W/
PROPOSED 6' HIGH

WOOD FENCE
EXISTING 5'

HIGH CMU WALL
EXISTING 1'

HIGH CMU WALL
EXISTING 5'

HIGH CMU WALL
EXISTING 1'

HIGH CMU WALL W/
PROPOSED 6' HIGH

WOOD FENCE
EXISTING 1'

HIGH CMU WALL W/
PROPOSED 6' HIGH

WOOD FENCE
EXISTING 1'

HIGH CMU WALL W/
PROPOSED 6' HIGH

WOOD FENCE
EXISTING 1'

HIGH CMU WALL W/
PROPOSED 6' HIGH

WOOD FENCE
EXISTING 6"

HIGH CURB
PROPOSED 6"

HIGH CURB
(E) TREE TO BE

REMOVED

NO PARKING NO PARKING

FIRE DEPARTMENT AERIAL ACCESS

NO PARKING
40' - 0"
(E) ELECTRIC POLE
(E) ELECTRICAL
POLE
(E) HVE BOX
7' - 0"
PROPOSED 5'

HIGH STUCCO WALL &

WOOD SWING GATE
(E) CURB CUT TO BE

FILLED IN, PER CIVIL

NO PARKING
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
10' - 7 1/2"
9' - 0"
12' - 10"12' - 10"
15' - 8"

PRIVATE

OPEN SPACE

PROPOSED

DRIVEWAY
300 SF

HVAC CONDENSER UNITS
10' - 0"
PROPOSED 5'

HIGH STUCCO WALL
18' - 10"
13' - 10"
6' - 0"
6' - 4"
37' - 6"
46' - 0"
EXISTING 6"

HIGH CURB
(P) STREET IMPROVEMENT,

PER CIVIL PLANS
7' - 11"
15' - 8"
6' - 1"
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A100
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

PROPOSED SITE
PLAN
KM

SITE SYMBOL LEGEND

GENERAL NOTES SITE PLAN
SCALE:

PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" 1
0' 10' 20'
1" - 10'-0"
5'

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 278 of 373 ends

02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
1" = 30'-0"
A101
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

SHADOW STUDY
KM

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE
SHADOW STUDY - SUMMER MORNING 8 AM
SHADOW STUDY - SPRING MORNING 8 AM
SHADOW STUDY - WINTER MORNING 8 AM
SHADOW STUDY - SUMMER NOON 12 PM
SHADOW STUDY - SPRING NOON 12 PM
SHADOW STUDY - WINTER NOON 12 PM
SHADOW STUDY - SUMMER AFTERNOON 3 PM
SHADOW STUDY - SPRING AFTERNOON 3 PM
SHADOW STUDY - WINTER AFTERNOON 3 PM

Page 279 of 373 ends

AUGUSTINE ST.

OLD BERNAL AVE
1 2
3 4
5 02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
1" = 40'-0"
A102
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

NEIGHBORHOOD

CONTEXT
KM

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE
1 - VIEW FROM BERNAL AVENUE 2 - VIEW FROM OLD BERNAL AVE & PETERS AVE 3 - VIEW FROM OLD BERNAL AVE AND AUGUSTINE STREET 4 - VIEW FROM AUGUSTINE STREET 5 - AERIAL VIEW

KEY MAP

Page 280 of 373 ends

UP
WH WH

PARTITION RATING WALL ASSEMBLY LEGEND
XX.X
SEE SHEET A800 FOR

ASSEMBLY DETAILS

PROPOSED

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL

PARTIAL HEIGHT

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL
PROPOSED 1-HOUR RATED

TYPE-V WALL

WALL TYPE

STRUCTURAL MEMBER SIZE

1. DRAWINGS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF CRITICAL DIMENSIONS, LAYOUT AND CLEARANCES. ALL FINISHES, MATERIALS, DETAILS TO BE VERIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF STUDS, FACE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY, AND CENTERLINE OF, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED AS "CLEAR" SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISH.

5. REFERENCE TO ANY DETAIL OR DRAWING IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND DOES NOT LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DETAIL OR DRAWINGS.

6. REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR WALL FRAMING INFORMATION, U.N.O.

7. 6” EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL HAVE R-19 INSULATION (4” WALLS SHALL HAVE R-13). ROOFS SHALL HAVE R-30 INSULATION, VERIFY WITH TITLE 24 REPORT.

8. OPEN GUARDRAILS SHALL HAVE INTERMEDIATE RAILS, OR AN ORNAMENTAL PATTERN SUCH THAT A SPHERE 4” IN DIAMETER CANNOT PASS THROUGH.

9. EXTERIOR GLAZING: EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS AND GLAZED DOORS, WINDOWS

WITHIN EXTERIOR DOORS, AND SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS, MULTI LAYERED GLAZED PANELS, GLASS BLOCK OR HAVE A FIRE-PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES.

10. EXTEROR DOORS: EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE APPROVED NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SOLID CORE WOOD NOT LESS THAN 1-3/4” THICK, OR HAVE A FIRE PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES. WINDOWS WITHIN DOORS AND GLAZED DOORS SHALL ALSO HAVE A FIRE-PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES.

11. HANDRAILS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:
a. TOP OF HANDRAIL SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN 34” & 38” ABOVE LANDINGS AND THE NOSING OF THE TREAD.
b. HANDGRIP SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-1/4” NOR MORE THAN 2” IN CROSS-SECTIONAL DIMENSION WITH NO SHARP CORNERS.
c. HANDRAILS PROJECTING FROM THE WALL SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 1-1/2” BETWEEN WALL AND THE HANDRAIL.

12. DRYER VENT SHALL BE VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 14’ DISTANCE WITH MAX (2) 90° ELBOWS. EACH ADDITIONAL ELBOW SHALL REDUCE THE MAX LENGTH BY 2’.

13. SHOWERS AND SHOWER/TUB SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF

THE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR COMBINATION PRESSURE

BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THAT PROVIDE SCALD AND THERMAL SHOCK PROTECTION.

A301
A301
A300
A300
2 1
1 2
241 SF
123

UTILITY
624 SF
124
GARAGE
73 SF
106
MEMETOS +

STORAGE
58 SF
104
BATH
774 SF
105
MANDIR
115 SF
112
PANTRY
543 SF
111

KITCHEN
432 SF
108
DINING
1077 SF
107
LIVING
113

CORRIDOR
97 SF
116
BATH
98 SF
118
BATH
98 SF
120
BATH
5' - 9"
121

HALLWAY
249 SF
122
LOBBY
ELEV.

COVERED PATIO
15' - 2" 1' - 7" 1' - 7" 15' - 2" 1' - 7" 15' - 2" 16' - 3" 22' - 11" 29' - 10"
17' - 2"
54' - 2"
23' - 2"
4' - 0"
24' - 7" 8' - 8" 4' - 0"
31' - 8 1/2"
12' - 10"
40' - 7"5' - 5"53' - 2"
4' - 5"
14' - 10"
4' - 0 1/2"
10' - 0" 12' - 9"
10' - 9" 10' - 10" 5' - 11" 10' - 10"
9' - 5"
4' - 9" 5' - 8"
5' - 9 1/2" 2' - 9 1/2"
11' - 9" 5' - 0" 3' - 0" 13' - 7"
4' - 0" 6' - 0"
4' - 3" 11' - 11" 4' - 3"
4' - 0"
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET

FIREPLACE
96' - 3 1/2"
30' - 10"
99' - 2"
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
3' - 6"
30 SF
126
POWDER
172 SF
125

MUD ROOM

COVERED
WALK
20' - 0"
29' - 6"
8"
1' - 6"

SITTING AREA
6' - 5" 29' - 6"

STORAGE
5' - 6"
3' - 6"
2' - 0"
327 SF
103

LIBRARY
3' - 0"

SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS

FOR YARD DESIGN

SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS

FOR YARD DESIGN

SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS

FOR YARD DESIGN
100' - 8"
430 SF
UNIT A
430 SF
UNIT B
430 SF
UNIT C
11' - 0" X 11' - 6 1/2"
C102
OFFICE
UNIT D
20' - 0"
4' - 5"
3' - 9 1/2"
3' - 2"
11' - 6 1/2" X 18' - 5"
130

FAMILY ROOM
60' - 7"
25' - 1" 30' - 9 1/2" 25' - 3 1/2" 19' - 6 1/2"
VAN
8' - 0" 9' - 0"
18' - 0"
LEVEL EVCS4

CHARGING STATION
LEVEL 2

EV READY STALL

CARPOOL

LOCKERS
1 LONG-TERM

BICYCLE PARKING

AT-LEAST ONE BATHROOM AT THE ENTRY LEVEL SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AGIN-IN-PLACE / FALL PREVENTION REINFORCEMENT PER THE FOLLOWING:

1. SOLID LUMBER REINFORCEMENT

2. REINFORCEMENT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2 X 8 NOMINAL LUMBER.

3. REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE LOCATED BETWEEN 32" AND 39-1/4" ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR, FLUSH WITH THE WALL FRAMING.

4. WATER CLOSET REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON BOTH SIDE WALLS OF THE FIXTURE, OR ONE SIDE WALL AND THE BACK WALL.

5. SHOWER REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS WHERE WALL FRAMING IS PROVIDED.

6. BATHTUB AND COMBINATION BATHTUB/SHOWER REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS ON EACH END OF THE BATHTUB AND THE BACK WALL. ADDITIONALLY, BACK WALL

REINFORCEMENT FOR A LOWER GRAB BAR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE BOTTOM EDGE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 6 INCHES ABOVE THE BATHTUB RIM.

ELECTRICAL PANEL

ELECTRICAL METER

GAS METER

WH WATER HEATER

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A200
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

FIRST LEVEL

FLOOR PLAN
Author

WALL LEGEND

KEYNOTE LEGEND

KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT

GENERAL NOTES FLOOR PLAN
SCALE:

FIRST FLOOR FINISH LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1

AGING-IN-PLACE NOTES
0' 4' 8'
3/16" = 1'

FLOOR PLAN SYMBOL LEGEND MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 281 of 373 ends

PARTITION RATING WALL ASSEMBLY LEGEND
XX.X
SEE SHEET A800 FOR

ASSEMBLY DETAILS

PROPOSED

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL

PARTIAL HEIGHT

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL
PROPOSED 1-HOUR RATED

TYPE-V WALL

WALL TYPE

STRUCTURAL MEMBER SIZE

1. DRAWINGS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF CRITICAL DIMENSIONS, LAYOUT AND CLEARANCES. ALL FINISHES, MATERIALS, DETAILS TO BE VERIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF STUDS, FACE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY, AND CENTERLINE OF, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED AS "CLEAR" SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISH.

5. REFERENCE TO ANY DETAIL OR DRAWING IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND DOES NOT LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DETAIL OR DRAWINGS.

6. REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR WALL FRAMING INFORMATION, U.N.O.

7. 6” EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL HAVE R-19 INSULATION (4” WALLS SHALL HAVE R-13). ROOFS SHALL HAVE R-30 INSULATION, VERIFY WITH TITLE 24 REPORT.

8. OPEN GUARDRAILS SHALL HAVE INTERMEDIATE RAILS, OR AN ORNAMENTAL PATTERN SUCH THAT A SPHERE 4” IN DIAMETER CANNOT PASS THROUGH.

9. EXTERIOR GLAZING: EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS AND GLAZED DOORS, WINDOWS

WITHIN EXTERIOR DOORS, AND SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS, MULTI LAYERED GLAZED PANELS, GLASS BLOCK OR HAVE A FIRE-PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES.

12. DRYER VENT SHALL BE VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 14’ DISTANCE WITH MAX (2) 90° ELBOWS. EACH ADDITIONAL ELBOW SHALL REDUCE THE MAX LENGTH BY 2’.

13. SHOWERS AND SHOWER/TUB SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF

THE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR COMBINATION PRESSURE

BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THAT PROVIDE SCALD AND THERMAL SHOCK PROTECTION.

A301
A301
A300
A300
2 1
1 2
25' - 1" X 27' - 11"
200
DEN
14' - 10" X 20' - 0"
201
GYM
7' - 7" X 9' - 2"
228
POWDER
5' - 9" X 13' - 0"
210

STORAGE
3' - 8" X 5' - 6"
218

STORAGE
3' - 8" X 5' - 6"
213

STORAGE
7' - 4" X 13' - 0 1/2"
222
BATH
5' - 6" X 15' - 1"
217
BATH
5' - 6" X 13' - 4 1/2"
212
BATH
8' - 6" X 10' - 10"
209
BATH
8' - 6" X 10' - 10"
205
BATH
9' - 0" X 14' - 10"
225
BATH
14' - 10" X 16' - 11 1/2"
230

STORAGE
8' - 6" X 16' - 11 1/2"
229

LAUNDRY
16' - 4" X 17' - 2"
206
GUEST
15' - 2" X 15' - 9"
208
BEDROOM 05
7' - 11" X 12' - 9"
207

GUEST BATH
15' - 2" X 15' - 9"
204
BEDROOM 04
9' - 0" X 11' - 5 1/2"
211
KIDS #1
9' - 0" X 13' - 2"
216
KIDS #3
8' - 10" X 11' - 5 1/2"
215
KIDS #2
9' - 1 1/2" X 13' - 2"
219
KIDS #4 9' - 5" X 13' - 0 1/2"
221
KIDS #5
9' - 6" X 17' - 2"
224
KIDS #6
16' - 4" X 21' - 2"
226
BEDROOM 06
6' - 0" X 20' - 2 1/2"
214

HALLWAY
6' - 2 1/2" X 30' - 7"
203

HALLWAY

BALCONY

TERRACE

FIREPLACE CLOSETCLOSETCLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET
CLOSET

WIC WIC WIC WIC
WIC
WIC
CLOSET 2' DEPTH

OPEN TO BELOW

SKYLIGHT ABOVE
1' - 7" 15' - 2" 17' - 2" 1' - 7" 15' - 2"
15' - 9" 8' - 6" 5' - 8" 9' - 0" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 9' - 1 1/2" 5" 5' - 7" 13' - 0 1/2" 46' - 0"53' - 2"2' - 2 1/2"
25' - 1" 56' - 0 1/2" 19' - 6 1/2"
36' - 6"
16' - 4" 9' - 0" 9' - 6"
7' - 4" 9' - 5"
1' - 7" 21' - 2"
32' - 5 1/2"
29' - 10"
7' - 7"
30' - 10"
9' - 0"
9' - 2" 11' - 10"
5' - 0" 8' - 6" 14' - 10"
6' - 2 1/2" 2' - 0" 16' - 11 1/2" 7' - 7 1/2" 7' - 7 1/2" 7' - 7 1/2" 16' - 4" 7' - 11" 12' - 9" 4' - 0" 10' - 10" 5' - 11"
11' - 5 1/2" 5' - 7"
4' - 4 1/2" 4' - 2 1/2" 4' - 2 1/2" 4' - 1" 4' - 4" 4' - 4 1/2" 4' - 3 1/2" 4' - 8 1/2"
12' - 11 1/2" 4' - 6"
5' - 8" 4' - 9"
10' - 10" 5' - 11"
5' - 9 1/2" 2' - 3"
3' - 10"
5' - 7"
13' - 0 1/2"5' - 6" 1' - 5"
4' - 4 1/2" 4' - 8 1/2" 5' - 7" 3' - 5" 15' - 11"
5' - 6" 14' - 10"
28' - 9 1/2"
35' - 7"
58' - 0"
100' - 8"
101' - 4 1/2"
8' - 5"
96' - 3 1/2"
6' - 0"
56' - 5 1/2"
5' - 9"
25' - 7"
13' - 4 1/2" 3' - 8"
19' - 5"
7' - 7"
7' - 7" X 11' - 5"
231

STORAGE
20' - 0"
8' - 10" 9' - 0"
6' - 0"
6' - 4"
6' - 0"
17' - 8"
25' - 1"
ELEV.
5' - 4" X 5' - 6"
202
CLOSET
5' - 2"
1' - 7 1/2"
3' - 0"
CLOSET
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A201
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

SECOND LEVEL

FLOOR PLAN
Author

WALL LEGEND

KEYNOTE LEGEND

KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT

GENERAL NOTES FLOOR PLAN
SCALE:

SECOND FLOOR FINISH LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1
0' 4' 8'
3/16" = 1'

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 282 of 373 ends

PARTITION RATING WALL ASSEMBLY LEGEND
XX.X
SEE SHEET A800 FOR

ASSEMBLY DETAILS

PROPOSED

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL

PARTIAL HEIGHT

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL
PROPOSED 1-HOUR RATED

TYPE-V WALL

WALL TYPE

STRUCTURAL MEMBER SIZE

1. DRAWINGS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF CRITICAL DIMENSIONS, LAYOUT AND CLEARANCES. ALL FINISHES, MATERIALS, DETAILS TO BE VERIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF STUDS, FACE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY, AND CENTERLINE OF, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED AS "CLEAR" SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISH.

5. REFERENCE TO ANY DETAIL OR DRAWING IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND DOES NOT LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DETAIL OR DRAWINGS.

6. REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR WALL FRAMING INFORMATION, U.N.O.

7. 6” EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL HAVE R-19 INSULATION (4” WALLS SHALL HAVE R-13). ROOFS SHALL HAVE R-30 INSULATION, VERIFY WITH TITLE 24 REPORT.

8. OPEN GUARDRAILS SHALL HAVE INTERMEDIATE RAILS, OR AN ORNAMENTAL PATTERN SUCH THAT A SPHERE 4” IN DIAMETER CANNOT PASS THROUGH.

9. EXTERIOR GLAZING: EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS AND GLAZED DOORS, WINDOWS

WITHIN EXTERIOR DOORS, AND SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS, MULTI LAYERED GLAZED PANELS, GLASS BLOCK OR HAVE A FIRE-PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES.

12. DRYER VENT SHALL BE VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 14’ DISTANCE WITH MAX (2) 90° ELBOWS. EACH ADDITIONAL ELBOW SHALL REDUCE THE MAX LENGTH BY 2’.

13. SHOWERS AND SHOWER/TUB SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF

THE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR COMBINATION PRESSURE

BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THAT PROVIDE SCALD AND THERMAL SHOCK PROTECTION.

A301
A301
A300
A300
2 1
1 2
13' - 1" 9' - 0" 13' - 2"
16' - 0" 7' - 3" 5' - 1" 12' - 5" 6' - 8" 6' - 6" 6' - 3" 11' - 8" 11' - 7"
5' - 9" 2' - 0" 3' - 6"
2' - 9 1/2" 5' - 9 1/2"
13' - 1" X 16' - 0"
306
GUEST
BEDROOM 02
9' - 0" X 11' - 8"
305
BATH
9' - 0" X 11' - 7"
307
BATH
13' - 2" X 16' - 0"
303
GUEST
BEDROOM 01
6' - 3" X 7' - 3"
304
WIC
12' - 5" X 14' - 0"
310
OFFICE
302

HALLWAY
6' - 0" X 7' - 3"
308
WIC
42' - 10"
5' - 1" X 6' - 3"
312
POWDER
6' - 0"
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
10' - 0" 14' - 0" 11' - 3"
10' - 0" X 12' - 5"
309
OFFICE
11' - 3" X 12' - 5"
311
OFFICE
ELEV.
8' - 1"
362

SUNROOM
5' - 1"
5' - 4" X 10' - 11"
364

STORAGE
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
DN
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
13' - 7 1/2" 13' - 7 1/2"
27' - 3"
20' - 6 1/2"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
18' - 8" 38' - 6"
13' - 0" 13' - 0"
31' - 5 1/2" 26' - 0" 2' - 0"
4" / 12"
16' - 5"16' - 5"
32' - 10"
46' - 0" 55' - 2"
13' - 10 1/2" 13' - 8 1/2"
27' - 7"
1' - 0"
30' - 9 1/2"
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A202
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

THIRD LEVEL

FLOOR PLAN
Author

WALL LEGEND

KEYNOTE LEGEND

KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT

GENERAL NOTES FLOOR PLAN
0' 4' 8'
3/16" = 1'
SCALE:

THIRD FLOOR FINISH LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 283 of 373 ends

1. DRAWINGS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF CRITICAL DIMENSIONS, LAYOUT AND CLEARANCES. ALL FINISHES, MATERIALS, DETAILS TO BE VERIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

4.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF STUDS, FACE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY, AND CENTERLINE OF, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED AS "CLEAR" SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISH.

5.REFERENCE TO ANY DETAIL OR DRAWING IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND DOES NOT LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DETAIL OR DRAWINGS.

6.REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR WALL FRAMING INFORMATION, U.N.O.

7. GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS.

8.UNDERSIDES OF EAVES SHALL BE PROTECTED IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIALS OR NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION.

PARTITION RATING WALL ASSEMBLY LEGEND
XX.X
SEE SHEET A800 FOR

ASSEMBLY DETAILS

PROPOSED

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL

PARTIAL HEIGHT

NON-RATED TYPE-V WALL
PROPOSED 1-HOUR RATED

TYPE-V WALL

WALL TYPE

STRUCTURAL MEMBER SIZE
A301
A301
A300
A300
2 1
1 2
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
RIDGE
RIDGE

FLAT ROOF

FLAT ROOF
1/4 : 12

FLAT ROOF
1/4 : 12
1/4 : 12
1/4 : 12
16' - 5"16' - 5"
32' - 10"
8' - 0"
46' - 0"
13' - 10" 13' - 9"
27' - 7"
55' - 2"
13' - 9 1/2" 13' - 9 1/2"
27' - 7"
13' - 7 1/2"13' - 7 1/2" 20' - 6 1/2"
27' - 3"
18' - 8"
13' - 0"13' - 0"
26' - 0"
38' - 6"
1' - 0"
2' - 0"
2' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"
1' - 0"

PROPOSED SOLAR

PANEL LOCATION

PROPOSED SOLAR

PANEL LOCATION

PROPOSED SOLAR

PANEL LOCATION

PROPOSED SOLAR

PANEL LOCATION

PROPOSED SOLAR

PANEL LOCATION

PROPOSED SOLAR

PANEL LOCATION

PROPOSED SOLAR

PANEL LOCATION
I
I
I
I
11' - 0"
4" / 12" 4" / 12"
I
J
J
J
J
J
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A203
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

ROOF PLAN
Author

GENERAL NOTES ROOF PLAN

WALL LEGEND

KEYNOTE LEGEND

KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT

I STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, CLASS A FIRE RATED, METAL SALES VERTICAL SEAM, ESR #2385, SEE SPECS A500, BLACK FASCIA COLOR TO MATCH ROOF FINISH
J 60 MIL. CLASS A TPO ROOFING MEMBRANE MECHANICALLY FASTENED PER

MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS WITH VERASHIELD FIRE-RESISTANT SLIP

SHEET OVER SLOPED RIGID INSULATION , PROVIDE FLASHING STRIP, SEE SPECS ON A500
SCALE:

TOP OF ROOF LEVEL 3/16" = 1'-0" 1
0' 4' 8'
3/16" = 1'

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 284 of 373 ends

1. DRAWINGS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF CRITICAL DIMENSIONS, LAYOUT AND CLEARANCES. ALL FINISHES, MATERIALS, DETAILS TO BE VERIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF STUDS, FACE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY, AND CENTERLINE OF, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED AS "CLEAR" SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISH.

5. REFERENCE TO ANY DETAIL OR DRAWING IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND DOES NOT LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DETAIL OR DRAWINGS.

6. REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR WALL FRAMING INFORMATION, U.N.O.

7. GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS.

8. UNDERSIDES OF EAVES SHALL BE PROTECTED IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIALS OR NON- COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION.

FIRST FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
0' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
10' - 0"

TOP OF ROOF LEVEL
34' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
11' - 6"

SECOND FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
21' - 6"

THIRD FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
23' - 0"

THIRD FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
32' - 0"
2' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"
34' - 0"
J I H

J I G B
AG

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH
EGRESS

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH

EGRESS EGRESS

FIRST FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
0' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
10' - 0"

TOP OF ROOF LEVEL
34' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
11' - 6"

SECOND FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
21' - 6"

THIRD FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
23' - 0"

THIRD FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
32' - 0"
2' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"
34' - 0"
4 4
"
/
12 "
"
/
12" 4
"
/
12 "
4"
/
12"
4 "
/
12 "
4"
/
12"
4 "
/
12 "
4"
/
12"

JA I B D
A
G
E

AGD I I C C
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A300
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
Author

ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES
SCALE: WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
2 SCALE: NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"
1 MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

NO CHANGE IN GRADE

PROPOSED

KEYNOTE LEGEND

KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT

A EXTERIOR VERTICAL SIDING, ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANELS, BOARD & BATTEN FINISH, ESR-4508, CLASS A FIRE RATING, SEE SPECS ON A500

B EXTERIOR THIN STONE VENEER TILES, CUT COARSE STONE, ELDORADO STONE, ESR #1215, COLOR: OYSTER, INSTALL PER MFR INSTRUCTIONS, SEE SPECS ON A500 C EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE, OUTDOOR RATED FIXTURE, 6'-0" TO CENTER OF FIXTURE A.F.F.

D NATURAL OAK VENEER FINISH

E VERTICAL RAILING, BLACK METAL FINISH

G WINDOW, THIN FRAMES, BLACK FINISH, DUAL-PANE LOW-E GLASS H 4" WOOD SURROUND TRIM, COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT MATERIAL FINISH

I STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, CLASS A FIRE RATED, METAL SALES VERTICAL SEAM, ESR #2385, SEE SPECS A500, BLACK FASCIA COLOR TO MATCH ROOF FINISH J 60 MIL. CLASS A TPO ROOFING MEMBRANE MECHANICALLY FASTENED PER

MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS WITH VERASHIELD FIRE-RESISTANT SLIP SHEET OVER SLOPED RIGID INSULATION , PROVIDE FLASHING STRIP, SEE SPECS ON A500

Page 285 of 373 ends

1. DRAWINGS ARE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF CRITICAL DIMENSIONS, LAYOUT AND CLEARANCES. ALL FINISHES, MATERIALS, DETAILS TO BE VERIFIED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.

3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.

4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE FACE OF STUDS, FACE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY, AND CENTERLINE OF, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED AS "CLEAR" SHALL BE TO FACE OF FINISH.

5. REFERENCE TO ANY DETAIL OR DRAWING IS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND DOES NOT LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH DETAIL OR DRAWINGS.

6. REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR WALL FRAMING INFORMATION, U.N.O.

7. GUTTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS.

8. UNDERSIDES OF EAVES SHALL BE PROTECTED IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIALS OR NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION.

FIRST FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
0' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
10' - 0"

TOP OF ROOF LEVEL
34' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
11' - 6"

SECOND FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
21' - 6"

THIRD FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
23' - 0"

THIRD FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
32' - 0"
2' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"
34' - 0"
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
4" / 12"
I A
J J
C B C

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH
EGRESS

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH
14' - 6"

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH
EGRESS
EGRESS

EGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESS

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH
14' - 6"14' - 6"

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACHFIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH 15' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
0' - 0"

FIRST FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
10' - 0"

TOP OF ROOF LEVEL
34' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
11' - 6"

SECOND FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
21' - 6"

THIRD FLOOR FINISH LEVEL
23' - 0"

THIRD FLOOR PLATE LEVEL
32' - 0"
2' - 0"9' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"1' - 6"10' - 0"
34' - 0"
I
J
B G
J G
I
H D B
I E E
C G

FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH

EGRESS EGRESS FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACHEGRESSFIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER REACH 02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A301
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
Author

ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES

KEYNOTE LEGEND

KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT

A EXTERIOR VERTICAL SIDING, ENGINEERED WOOD-LOOK PANELS, BOARD & BATTEN FINISH, ESR-4508, CLASS A FIRE RATING, SEE SPECS ON A500

D NATURAL OAK VENEER FINISH

E VERTICAL RAILING, BLACK METAL FINISH

G WINDOW, THIN FRAMES, BLACK FINISH, DUAL-PANE LOW-E GLASS H 4" WOOD SURROUND TRIM, COLOR TO MATCH ADJACENT MATERIAL FINISH

I STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, CLASS A FIRE RATED, METAL SALES VERTICAL SEAM, ESR #2385, SEE SPECS A500, BLACK FASCIA COLOR TO MATCH ROOF FINISH J 60 MIL. CLASS A TPO ROOFING MEMBRANE MECHANICALLY FASTENED PER

MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS WITH VERASHIELD FIRE-RESISTANT SLIP SHEET OVER SLOPED RIGID INSULATION , PROVIDE FLASHING STRIP, SEE SPECS ON A500 SCALE:

SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 1
SCALE:

EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 2

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

NO CHANGE IN GRADE

PROPOSED

Page 286 of 373 ends

02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
A500
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

COLOR AND

MATERIAL BOARD
Author
EXTERIOR TRIMS, FASCIA, ETC.

COLOR: SW6258, TRICORN BLACK

DOORS/WINDOWS/SLIDING DOORS
MATERIAL: VINYL

LOW-E, DUAL PANE GLASS
MANUFACTURER: MILGARD V300 TRINSIC SERIES
COLOR: BLACK

WOOD ACCENT DOOR/WINDOW TRIMS
MATERIAL: WOOD OR COMPOSITE
COLOR: WHITE

FLAT AREA ROOFING
MATERIAL: CLASS A, 60 MIL, TPO MEMBRANE
COLOR: WHITE

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

VERTICAL WOOD SIDING

BOARD & BATTEN
MATERIAL: ENGINEERED WOOD
MANUFACTURER: AZEK, ESR-4508
COLOR: CLASSIC WHITE

PRIMARY ROOFING

STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
MANUFACTURER: ATAS
PROFILE: 1-1/2" FIELD-LOK
COLOR: BLACK

STONE VENEER TILES

CUT COARSE STONE
MATERIAL: STONE
MANUFACTURER: ELDORADO STONE, ESR-1215
COLOR: OYSTER
A B

WOOD ACCENT

THIN VENEER OR BOARDS D
COLOR: NATURAL OAK

EXTERIOR LIGHTING SCONCE
23" TALL OUTDOOR LANTERN
MANUFACTURER: GENERATION LIGHTING
COLLECTION: VADO
COLOR: BLACK
C

E F G H
I J

RAILING

VERTICAL METAL PICKET RAILING
COLOR: BLACK

SKYLIGHT

PYRAMID THIN FRAME
FRAME COLOR: BLACK

Page 287 of 373 ends

TYPICAL INTERIOR WALL

ASSEMBLY & INSULATION

WINDOW HEADER FRAMING,

SEE STRUCTURAL

BUILDING PAPER, LAP

SELF-SEALING MEMBRANE
26 GA. G.S.M. HEAD FLASHING IF WINDOW MFR

DOES NOT PROVIDE INTEGRAL STUCCO STOP -

INSTALL PER MFR REQUIREMENTS

SEALANT

WINDOW -INSTALL PER MFR REQUIREMENTS

SELF-SEALING MEMBRANE

EXTERIOR FINISH
4"
RECESS
3"

EXTERIOR WOOD TRIM AROUND WINDOWS,
MIN. 4" HEIGHT

SEALANT

BUILDING PAPER, LAP

SELF-SEALING MEMBRANE
GYP. BD. JAMB

WINDOW -INSTALL

PER MFR

REQUIREMENTS

SELF-SEALING MEMBRANE

EXTERIOR FINISH
2X SILL FRAMING,
PER STRUCT.

TYPICAL INTERIOR WALL

ASSEMBLY & INSULATION

EXTERIOR WOOD TRIM AROUND WINDOWS,
4" MIN. 4" HEIGHT

SEALANT

TYPICAL INTERIOR WALL

ASSEMBLY & INSULATION

WINDOW -INSTALL PER MFR REQUIREMENTS

SELF-SEALING MEMBRANE

EXTERIOR FINISH
SILL
2X SILL FRAMING, PER

STRUCTURE

BUILDING PAPER

EXTERIOR WOOD TRIM AROUND
4"
WINDOWS, MIN. 4" HEIGHT
RECESS
3"
A

FIXED WINDOW
B

SINGLE-HUNG
C

SINGLE SLIDER
SILL

SEE SCHEDULE
HEIGHT

PER SCHEDULE
SILL

SEE SCHEDULE
HEIGHT

PER SCHEDULE
WIDTH

PER SCHEDULE

HEAD HEIGHTHEAD HEIGHT
WIDTH

PER SCHEDULE
WIDTH

PER SCHEDULE
SILL

SEE SCHEDULE
HEIGHT

PER SCHEDULE

HEAD HEIGHT
02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
As indicated
A501
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

WINDOW SPECS
Author

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE
SCALE:

TYPICAL WINDOW HEAD 3" = 1'-0" 1
SCALE:

TYPICAL WINDOW JAMB 3" = 1'-0" 2
SCALE: WINDOW LEGEND TYPICAL WINDOW SILL 3" = 1'-0" 3

Page 288 of 373 ends

02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
A502
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024
WINDOW

SCHEDULE
Author

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 289 of 373 ends

02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
A600
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

INSPIRATION
BOARD
Author

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 290 of 373 ends

02 - 28 - 2025
Sheet:

PROJECT NO
DRAWING DATA:

ISSUE DATE
SCALE

DRAWN BY

SHEET SIZE

STAMP:

REVISION:

PROJECT:

CLIENT:
4195 CHINO HILLS PKWY, SUITE 599
CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
714.390.0525
[email protected]

GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
A700
BERNAL

MULTI-FAMILY
231 OLD BERNAL AVE,
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
24-008

09.19.2024

LIGHTING PLAN
Author

MARK DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 291 of 373 ends

PROJECT #
DATE:

PROFESSIONAL SEAL
DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:
24144
ABV/AZ
AUS

REVISIONS
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
2/17/2026

CIVIL ENGINEERING
OREGON [email protected] 231 OLD BERNAL AVE PLEASANTON CALIFORNIA Z:\SHARED\_PROJECTS\24144-231 OLD BERNAL-PLEASANTON\_DWG\PUD-PHASE\24144-COVER.DWG 2/17/2026 10:19 AM

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHEET #
SHEET TITLE:

SCALE:

WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA WWW.YCG.IO DEVELOPMENT SET BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C1.0 COVER SHEET
C2.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
C3.0 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
C4.0 GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
C5.0 STORMWATER - PRE-CONSTRUCTION
C5.1 STORMWATER - POST-CONSTRUCTION

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.

CONTACT INFORMATION
CITY OF PLEASANTON BENCHMARK M1.

CITY OF PLEASANTON BRASS DISK ON TOP OF CURB OVER CATCH BASIN AT SOUTH END OF MAIN STREET EAST CURB RETURN NEAR BERNAL AVE.

ELEVATION = 340.94'
(ADJUSTED TO NAVD 88 DATUM)
BENCHMARK:

SHEET INDEX

FLOOD ZONE NOTE
C1.0

COVER SHEET

AS SHOWN
APN: 094-0156-021-00
TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 0.49 AC
TOTAL PARKING SPACES: 2 (GARAGE PARKING)

SUMMARY

BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT SET
0 SCALE: 1" = 20'
10 20 30 40

OLD BERNAL AVE

AUGUSTINE ST
APPLICANT: AMRUT GROUP LLC
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
CONTACT: GAUTAM PATEL
(559) 789-3250
[email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER: YCG CIVIL ENGINEERING
WWW.YCG.IO
CONTACT: YUSHIN IMURA
(510) 228-6961
[email protected]
THIS PROJECT IS IN FLOOD ZONE X - 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD, AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL

CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTH LESS THAN ONE FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS OF LESS THAN ONE SQUARE MILE, PER FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (F.E.M.A.) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (F.I.R.M.) IN ALAMEDA COUNTY.

PANEL NO: 06001C0317G
EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/03/09

1. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 094-0156-021-00

2. RECORD OWNER(S) GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: 559.789.3250
EMAIL: [email protected]

3. EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION: MIXED USE TRANSITIONAL

4. EXISTING LAND USE: ONE TO FIVE STORY OFFICE BUILDING

5. PROPOSED LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

6. PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

7. UTILITIES:

WATER CITY OF PLEASANTON

GAS & ELECTRIC PG&E

SANITARY SEWER CITY OF PLEASANTON

STORM DRAIN CITY OF PLEASANTON

TELEPHONE COMCAST / AT&T U-VERSE

GENERAL NOTES

PROPOSED BUILDING
POOL
287 OLD
BERNAL AVE 195 OLD BERNAL AVE
4702 AUGUSTINE ST

1. ENGINEERING DIVISION FEES FOR SERVICE: THE ENGINEERING DIVISION ASSESSES FEES FOR SERVICES INCLUDING PLAN-CHECK, PERMIT ISSUANCE, AND INSPECTION ACCORDING TO THE CITY’S ADOPTED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. THESE FEES ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM FEES ASSESSED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (INCLUDING PLANNING AND BUILDING DIVISION FEES). THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ALL ENGINEERING DIVISION FEES PRIOR TO SERVICES RENDERED OR PERMIT ISSUANCE, WHICHEVER IS FIRST.

2. POTABLE WATER SERVICE: ACCORDING TO CITY RECORDS, THE PROPERTY IS SERVED BY A 5/8” WATER METER (#55882904) LOCATED ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE LOT ON OLD BERNAL AVENUE. IF A LARGER METER IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERICAL USE, A FEE CREDIT WILL BE OFFERED FOR THE EXISTING METER, BUT NEW CONNECTION FEES WILL BE DUE TO ZONE 7 AND THE CITY BASED ON CURRENTLY ADOPTED FEES.

THE CITY PURCHASES WATER WHOLESALE FROM ZONE 7 WATER AGENCY. FEES ARE DUE TO BOTH THE CITY OF PLEASANTON AND ZONE 7 FOR NEW CONNECTIONS TO THE PIPE NETWORK. SAID FEE AMOUNTS APPEAR IN THE CITY’S ADOPTED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WATER USAGE IN PLEASANTON, REFER TO PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 14.

3. BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES: BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT CITY STANDARDS 704, 705, 706; PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 14.16, STATE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE; STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ADOPTED CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL POLICY HANDBOOK (CCCPH); AND AS REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. ALL BACKFLOW PREVENTER ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE TESTED AND CERTIFIED BY A CITY APPROVED TESTER WITH THE CERTIFICATION SUBMITTED TO THE CITY’S CONTRACTOR. TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED AT THE TIME CITY WATER IS TURNED ON TO THE SITE. IF AN EXISTING

BACKFLOW PREVENTER IS ON THE SITE, IT SHALL BE TESTED AND CERTIFIED BY A CITY-APPROVED TESTER WITH THE CERTIFICATION SUBMITTED TO THE CITY’S CONTRACTOR BEFORE PROJECT WATER IS DRAWN THROUGH IT. AN ALL-WEATHER COVER SHALL BE PLACED OVER ALL BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES 4-INCH AND SMALLER, AND FOLLOW CITY STANDARD 19-02N FOR BACKFLOW ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

4. SIDEWALK WIDENING: AUGUSTINE STREET AND OLD BERNAL AVENUE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 6’-WIDE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED SIMILAR TO CITY OF PLEASANTON STANDARD DRAWING 102. INCLUDE THE CITY STANDARD DRAWING REFERENCE TO THE PLANS.

5. UN-USED DRIVEWAY APPROACH: THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH THAT FORMERLY SERVED THE PROPERTY FROM OLD BERNAL AVE TO BE

DEMOLISHED, SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH STANDARD PUBLIC SIDEWALK ACCORDING TO CITY OF PLEASANTON STANDARD DRAWING 102. INCLUDE THE CITY STANDARD DRAWING REFERENCE TO THE PLANS.

6. UTILITY ENCLOSURES: PROPOSED UTILITY ENCLOSURES INCLUDING VAULTS, METER BOXES, SPLICE BOXES, AND PEDESTALS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, IN A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT OR IN A UTILITY COMPANY SPECIFIC EASEMENT. THE LOCATIONS FOR UTILITY ENCLOSURES SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PREFERENCE: (1) PSE AREA BEHIND PUBLIC SIDEWALK; (2) PARKSTRIP AREA BETWEEN THE ROADWAY CURB & GUTTER AND THE SIDEWALK; (3) WITHIN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK SET FLUSH TO GRADE; (4) WITHIN DRIVEWAY APPROACH AREAS SET FLUSH TO THE SURFACE WITH TRAFFIC-RATED LIDS. IN NO CASE SHALL AN ABOVE-GROUND PEDESTAL OR UTILITY CABINET OBSTRUCT SIGHT-LINEVISIBILITY FOR VEHICLE DRIVERS AT INTERSECTIONS OR DRIVEWAYS. ABOVE-GROUND PEDESTALS OR UTILITY CABINETS ARE PREFERRED WITHIN THE SIDE-YARD AREA OF A CORNER RESIDENTIAL LOT RATHER THAN THE FRONT-YARD. DEVIATIONS FROM THIS STANDARD MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

7. DRY UTILITIES (ELECTRICITY, CATV, TELECOM): ALL DRY UTILITIES INCLUDING ELECTRICITY, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, CABLE TELEVISION, STREET LIGHTS, ALARM SYSTEMS, ETC. REQUIRED TO SERVE THE PROJECT SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND FROM THE POINT-OF-CONNECTION AT THE UTILITY PURVEYOR’S NETWORK TO THE SERVICE POINT. AERIAL DROPS FROM UTILITY POLES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.

8. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: ANY WORK PERFORMED WITHIN THE CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY, CITY EASEMENTS, OR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AS DEFINED IN PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.04. ALL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK

IS SUBJECT TO ADOPTED CITY OF PLEASANTON STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS, AND SHALL BE PERFORMED BY PROPERLY-LICENSED CONTRACTORS AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. SAID CONTRACTORS MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PROPER LICENSURE (TYPICALLY A CLASS “A” GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR LICENSE OR APPROPRIATE CLASS “C” SPECIALTY CONTRACTOR LICENSE AS ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD), INSURANCE AND CITY-ISSUED BUSINESS LICENSE UPON APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT.

9. HAUL ROUTE: DELIVERIES TO AND FROM THE PROJECT SITE SHALL CONFORM TO THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11.48. VEHICLES WITH GROSS WEIGHTS EXCEEDING 3 TONS BUT LESS THAN 8 TONS ARE PROHIBITED

ON ANY CITY ROADWAY OTHER THAN THOSE DESIGNATED A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ROUTE UNLESS A TRANSPORTATION PERMIT HAS FIRST BEEN OBTAINED. SAID COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ROUTES INCLUDE FIRST STREET, STANLEY BOULEVARD, AND SUNOL BOULEVARD. IN ADDITION TO WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, VEHICLES THAT EXCEED 96 INCHES IN WIDTH AND/OR 60 FEET IN LENGTH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A TRANSPORTATION PERMIT. FOR INFORMATION ABOUT TRANSPORTATION PERMITS CALL 925-931-5677.

10. CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT: THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO A CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PERMIT NO. CAS000002. THE GENERAL PERMIT IS APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENT SITES THAT DISTURB ONE OR MORE ACRES OF LAND SURFACE. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER THE PROJECT WITH THE STATE WATER BOARD’S STORMWATER MULTI-APPLICATION AND REPORT TRACKING SYSTEM WEBSITE. A QUALIFIED SWPPP DEVELOPER (QSD) AND A QUALIFIED SWPPP PRACTITIONER (QSP) MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMIT COMPLIANCE. THE SMARTS SYSTEM WILL

GENERATE A WASTE DISCHARGERS IDENTIFICATION (WDID) NUMBER, WHICH MUST BE PRINTED ON THE GRADING AND/OR EROSION CONTROL PLANS.

11. HIGH VISIBILITY SAFETY APPAREL: ALL WORKERS ON FOOT WHO ARE EXPOSED TO THE HAZARD OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SHALL WEAR WARNING

GARMENTS SUCH AS VESTS, JACKETS, OR SHIRTS MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI)/INTERNATIONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION (ISEA) 107-2004 PERFORMANCE CLASS 2, HIGH VISIBILITY SAFETY APPAREL AND HEADWEAR, OR ANY UPDATES ADOPTED BY CAL OSHA. DURING HOURS OF DARKNESS, WARNING GARMENTS SHALL BE RETROREFLECTIVE WITH VISIBILITY FROM A MINIMUM 1,000 FEET.

12. EXCAVATION SAFETY: ALL EXCAVATIONS MUST BE PERFORMED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 4216 ET SEQ. NO EXCAVATION SHALL OCCUR UNTIL PROPER NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USANORTH811.ORG) BY CALLING EITHER 811 OR 800-642-2444 AT LEAST 72-HOURS PRIOR TO THE WORK SO BURIED UTILITIES CAN BE MARKED. ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE COVERED OR BARRICADED TO PREVENT ENTRY WHEN WORK IS INACTIVE. OPEN EXCAVATIONS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE COVERED BY SKID-RESISTANT STEEL PLATES THAT ARE FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE SURFACE WITH LEADING EDGES RAMPED. EXCAVATIONS 5-FEET AND DEEPER REQUIRE A PROTECTIVE SYSTEM AS DEFINED BY CAL-OSHA. IF A SHORING SYSTEM OR TRENCH BOXES WILL BE UTILIZED AS THE

PROTECTIVE SYSTEM, SAID SYSTEM SHALL EITHER BE MANUFACTURED AND INSTALLED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS, OR DESIGNED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND INSTALLED ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS. NO EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED ATOP OR ADJACENT TO A HIGH-RISK FACILITY UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER OF THE FACILITY. HIGH-RISK FACILITIES ARE DEFINED AS GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINES AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINES AS REGULATED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (US DOT PHMSA).

13. POLLUTANT REDUCTION IN STORMWATER: AT NO TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT SHALL POLLUTANTS BE ALLOWED TO ENTER,

CLOG, OR CONTAMINATE STORM DRAIN PIPE NETWORKS OR OPEN STORMWATER CHANNELS IN VIOLATION OF PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE §9.14.080 ET SEQ. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTAIN ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS FOR PROPER DISPOSAL TO AUTHORIZED LANDFILLS OR RECYCLERS.

EROSION CONTROL FEATURES SHALL BE DEPLOYED DURING THE RAINY SEASON THAT EXTENDS FROM OCTOBER 1ST TO APRIL 15TH EACH YEAR, OR ANY TIME RAIN IS FORECAST OUTSIDE OF THIS PERIOD. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) SHALL BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED. STREET SWEEPERS MUST BE EMPLOYED IF SOIL OR DEBRIS IS TRACKED ONTO THE PUBLIC ROADS FROM VEHICLES EXITING THE SITE. STANDARD BMPS

ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE CALIFORNIA STORMWATER QUALITY ASSOCIATION (CASQA), THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), CALTRANS, AND OTHERS. NOTES AND/OR ILLUSTRATIONS SHALL BE ADDED TO THE PLANS THAT DESCRIBE THE BMPS TO BE UTILIZED DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE USE OF MANUFACTURED EROSION CONTROL WOVEN BLANKETS AND STRAW WATTLES THAT UTILIZE PLASTIC MONOFILAMENT NETTING IS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED.

14. DUST CONTROL: DUST CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE EMPLOYED DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT AIRBORNE NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. ALL STOCKPILES OR UNUSED MATERIALS THAT CAN CREATE DUST SHALL BE COVERED OR REMOVED. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS SHALL BE ROUTINELY WATERED UNTIL SURFACING MATERIALS OR LANDSCAPING IS INSTALLED. USE OF DUST PALLIATIVES SHALL CONFORM TO CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATION SECTION 18. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY AIRBORNE DUST TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES SHALL BE CLEANED WITH COSTS PAID BY THE APPLICANT. IF THE APPLICANT FAILS THE ADDRESS DUST AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY, THE CITY

SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE PROPERTY TO EFFECTUATE THE CORRECTION, WITH ALL COSTS PAID BY THE APPLICANT OR LEVIED AS A LIEN AGAINST THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY.

15. PROPERTY NUISANCE: AT NO TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT SHALL THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY BECOME A NUISANCE AS DEFINED IN PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE §9.28.020. THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY FOR CONDITIONS THAT VIOLATE THE CODE STANDARD. IF A NUISANCE IS FOUND, THE APPLICANT SHALL IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT A PLAN OF CORRECTION. DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF THE NUISANCE, THE CITY MAY SUSPEND ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK UNTIL THE CONDITION IS CORRECTED. ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED SEVERE: LEAKING CHEMICALS THAT CAN CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE; OPEN EXCAVATIONS OR ANY EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN 4 FEET THAT LACKS PROPER SHORING; UNSECURED MATERIALS THAT CAN FALL TO THE GROUND CAUSING DAMAGE OR INJURY; OPEN OR EXPOSED UTILITIES THAT COULD CAUSE ELECTRICAL SHOCK OR CONTAMINATION OF SEWER, POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS, GROUNDWATER WELLS, OR STORM DRAINAGE NETWORKS. IF THE APPLICANT FAILS THE ADDRESS THE NUISANCE AS

DIRECTED BY THE CITY, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE PROPERTY TO EFFECTUATE THE CORRECTION, WITH ALL COSTS PAID BY THE APPLICANT OR LEVIED AS A LIEN AGAINST THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY.

16. NOISE: CONSTRUCTION NOISE IS REGULATED UNDER PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.04. NOISE IS PROHIBITED OUTSIDE OF THE HOURS OF 8:00 AM AND 8:00 PM DAILY EXCEPT SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS WHEN NOISE IS PROHIBITED OUTSIDE THE HOURS OF 10:00 AM AND 6:00 PM. NOISE IS DEFINED AS A LEVEL EXCEEDING 83 DBA AT A DISTANCE OF 25 FEET OR 86 DBA AT ANY POINT BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IF THE APPLICANT FAILS THE ADDRESS THE NOISE AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE

RIGHT TO ENTER THE PROPERTY TO EFFECTUATE THE CORRECTION, WITH ALL COSTS PAID BY THE APPLICANT OR LEVIED AS A LIEN AGAINST THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY. EXCEPTIONS TO THESE REGULATIONS REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED BY THE CITY FOR CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN

STRICT COMPLIANCE WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL OR UNREASONABLE, AND CONTINGENT UPON PROPER NOTICING TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY

OWNERS THAT INCLUDES THE DATES AND TIMES WHEN NOISE LEVELS WILL BE EXCEEDED AND THE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY AN EXCEPTION TO THE REGULATION HAS BEEN GRANTED.

17. GEOTECHNICAL FINAL REPORT: AT THE CONCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE CITY A FINAL REPORT FROM

THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST TESTIFYING TO THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF ALL MATERIAL TESTING AND/OR OBSERVATION WORK PERFORMED. THE FINAL REPORT MUST PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS HAD BEEN STRICTLY FOLLOWED. THE APPLICANT SHALL BEAR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CONDITION.

18. DAMAGE TO EXISTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS: THE APPLICANT SHALL REPAIR DAMAGE TO EXISTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS ON AND NEAR THE PROJECT SITE AND ALONG THE HAUL ROUTE AT THE APPLICANT’S EXPENSE IF CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

NOTES

Page 292 of 373 ends

PROJECT # DATE: PROFESSIONAL SEAL DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 24144 ABV/AZ AUS REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 2/17/2026 CIVIL ENGINEERING OREGON [email protected] 231 OLD BERNAL AVE

PLEASANTON CALIFORNIA
Z:\SHARED\_PROJECTS\24144-231 OLD BERNAL-PLEASANTON\_DWG\PUD-PHASE\24144-TOPO PLAN.DWG 10/23/2025 2:40 PM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET # SHEET TITLE: SCALE: WASHINGTON CALIFORNIA WWW.YCG.IO

DEVELOPMENT SET
BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R C2.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1" = 20' SCALE: 1" = 20'
0 10 20 30 40 OLD BERNAL AVE

AUGUSTINE ST

Page 293 of 373 ends

PROJECT # DATE: PROFESSIONAL SEAL DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 24144 ABV/AZ AUS REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 2/17/2026 CIVIL ENGINEERING OREGON [email protected] 231 OLD BERNAL AVE

PLEASANTON CALIFORNIA
Z:\SHARED\_PROJECTS\24144-231 OLD BERNAL-PLEASANTON\_DWG\PUD-PHASE\24144-HORIZ.DWG 2/16/2026 2:38 PM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET # SHEET TITLE: SCALE: WASHINGTON CALIFORNIA WWW.YCG.IO

DEVELOPMENT SET
BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R C3.0 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN 1" = 20' SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 5 10 15 20 CONCRETE PAVEMENT GRAVEL PERMEABLE PAVEMENT LANDSCAPE OLD BERNAL AVE AUGUSTINE ST 4702 AUGUSTINE ST PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED POOL PROPOSED BUILDING 287 OLD BERNAL AVE 195 OLD BERNAL AVE LEGEND PROPOSED CONCRETE

PROPOSED

PERMEABLE

PAVEMENT AT GRADE FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER

Page 294 of 373 ends

RESIDENTIAL FF 338.40 POOL 287 OLD BERNAL AVE 4702 AUGUSTINE ST COVERED PATIO COVERED PATIO COVERED PATIO PROJECT # DATE: PROFESSIONAL SEAL DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 24144 ABV/AZ AUS REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 2/17/2026 CIVIL ENGINEERING OREGON [email protected] 231 OLD BERNAL AVE

PLEASANTON CALIFORNIA
Z:\SHARED\_PROJECTS\24144-231 OLD BERNAL-PLEASANTON\_DWG\PUD-PHASE\24144-GRAD.DWG 2/17/2026 11:10 AM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET # SHEET TITLE: SCALE: WASHINGTON CALIFORNIA WWW.YCG.IO

DEVELOPMENT SET
BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED ELEVATION LEGEND: BS BOTTOM OF STAIR BW BOTTOM OF WALL C CONCRETE CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE DI DRAIN INLET EL ELEVATION FF FINISHED FLOOR FG FINISH GRADE FL FLOW LINE GB GRADE BREAK LP LOW POINT MIN MINIMUM PV PAVEMENT SS SANITARY SEWER SD STORM DRAIN SDCO STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT TC TOP OF CURB TS TOP OF STAIR TW TOP OF WALL W WATER MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION SLOPE AND DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE GRADE BREAK Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig.

R 1. SLOPE IN ADA PARKING STALLS, LOADING AREAS, AND LANDING AREAS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% IN ANY DIRECTION. 2. SLOPE IN ADA PATHS-OF-TRAVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% CROSS SLOPE AND 5% RUNNING SLOPE. 3. ADA RAMPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% CROSS SLOPE AND 8.33% RUNNING SLOPE. 4. ALL CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER LASTEST CBC CODE. 5. ADJUST ALL UTILITY BOXES TO GRADE. REFER TO PLANS BY OTHERS FOR FINAL LOCATION. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT BMPs PER THE MUNICIPALITY'S CONSTRUCTION BMP PLAN SHEET. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS BEEN REACHED. 7. EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES SHALL ONLY OCCUR DURING DRY WEATHER. 8. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING BERMS, FIBER ROLLS, OR FILTERS. 9. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE USING BERMS, SILT FENCES, COVER STOCK PILES, ETC. AND PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 10. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS. 11. NO CLEANING, FUELING, OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE EXCEPT IN A DESIGNATED AREA WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED. 12. STORE, HANDLE, AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTES TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALL EMPLOYEES RE: CONSTRUCTION BMPS. 14. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING PAVEMENT CUTTING WASTES, PAINTS, CONCRETE, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, CHEMICALS, WASHWATER OR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROM ARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES. NOTES: C4.0 GRADING & UTILITY PLAN 1" = 10' SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 5 10 15 20 OLD BERNAL AVE
AUGUSTINE ST WATER LINE SANITARY SEWER LINE SDDI STORM DRAIN LINE STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX WITH SOLID LID REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER WATER METER SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT RETAINING WALL STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT STORM DRAIN DROP INLET (GRATES SHALL BE STAMPED WITH "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY") SDCO SSCO PROPOSED TREATMENT - FLOW THROUGH PLANTER SEE DETAIL B, SHEET C5.1.

Page 295 of 373 ends

PROJECT # DATE: PROFESSIONAL SEAL DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 24144 ABV/AZ AUS REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 2/17/2026 CIVIL ENGINEERING OREGON [email protected] 231 OLD BERNAL AVE

PLEASANTON CALIFORNIA
Z:\SHARED\_PROJECTS\24144-231 OLD BERNAL-PLEASANTON\_DWG\PUD-PHASE\24144-STORM.DWG 2/17/2026 11:10 AM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET # SHEET TITLE: SCALE: WASHINGTON CALIFORNIA WWW.YCG.IO

DEVELOPMENT SET
BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SCALE: 1"=10'

AUGUSTINE ST
OLD BERNAL AVE EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA TO BE REMOVED LEGEND EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED SITE DATA TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 21,384 SF EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA 6,362 SF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 15,022 SF EXISTING PERVIOUS SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 5 10 15 20EXISTING IMPERVIOUS - BUILDING EXISTING IMPERVIOUS - BRICK PAVERS EXISTING IMPERVIOUS - ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXISTING IMPERVIOUS - CONCRETE PAVEMENT EXISTING PERVIOUS - GRAVEL C5.0 STORMWATER - PRE-CONSTRUCTION

Page 296 of 373 ends

DMA 2 DMA 3 DMA 5 DMA 6 DMA 1 DMA 4 PROJECT # DATE: PROFESSIONAL SEAL DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 24144 ABV/AZ AUS REVISIONS NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 2/17/2026 CIVIL ENGINEERING OREGON [email protected] 231 OLD BERNAL AVE

DEVELOPMENT SET
BERNAL MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SCALE: 1"=10' LEGEND IMPERVIOUS AREA PROPOSED PERVIOUS - LANDSCAPING SITE DATA TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 21,081 SF TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA 6,192 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 13,153 SF TOTAL SELF-TREATED AREA 1,736 SF SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 5 10 15 20

AUGUSTINE ST
OLD BERNAL AVE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS - GRAVEL FLOW THROUGH PLANTER SIZING CALCULATIONS AREA NO. AREA (SF) IMPERV. (SF) LANDSCAPE (SF) SELF-TREATED (SF) EFFECTIVE IMPERV. AREA (SF) TREATMENT REQUIRED (SF) TREATMENT PROVIDED (SF) SIZING METHOD TREATMENT TYPE 2 10,629 5,347 3,546 1,736 5,702 228 237 4% METHOD FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER3 2,117 1,439 678 - 1,507 60 95 4% METHOD FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER 4 1,609 1,317 292 - 1,346 54 70 4% METHOD FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER 5 1,785 893 892 - 982 40 48 4% METHOD FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER6 1,095 674 421 - 716 29 40 4% METHOD FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER DMA LIMITS SELF-TREATED PROPOSED TREATMENT - PERVIOUS PAVEMENT SEE DETAIL A BELOW. PERVIOUS PAVEMENT SIZING CALCULATIONS AREA NO. AREA (SF) IMPERV. (SF) LANDSCAPE (SF) EFFECTIVE IMPERV. AREA (SF) CAPTURE VOLUME REQUIRED (CF) PERVIOUS PAVEMENT AREA (SF) BASE RESERVOIR DEPTH (IN) VOID SPACE CAPTURE VOLUME PROVIDED (CF) SIZING METHOD TREATMENT TYPE 1 3,846 3,483 363 3,519 214 1,810 6 35% 317 80% CAPTURE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT PROPOSED TREATMENT - FLOW THROUGH PLANTER SEE DETAIL B BELOW. MINIMUM DRAWDOWN TIME KMIN KMIN = D*V/T KMIN = 6IN * 0.35 / 48HRKMIN = 0.04 IN/HR
D = BASE RESERVOIR DEPTH (INCHES) V = VOID SPACE T = DRAW-DOWN TIME (HOURS) C5.1 STORMWATER - POST-CONSTRUCTION

B TYPICAL FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER SECTION NTS

A TYPICAL PERVIOUS PAVEMENT NTS

Page 297 of 373 ends

PATEL RESIDENCE STUIO 317 DESIGNS TITLE SHEET
LT-1 1

PATEL RESIDENCE
231 OLD BERNAL AVENUE
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
LT-1 TITLE SHEET
LH-1 HARDSCAPE PLAN
LS-1 SHADE TREE EXHIBIT PLAN
LI-1 IRRIGATION PLAN
LI-2 HYDROZONE PLAN
LI-3 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET
LI-4 IRRIGATION DETAILS
LL-1 LIGHTING PLAN
LL-2 LIGHTING DETAILS
LP-1 PLANTING PLAN
LP-2 PLANTING IMAGES
LP-3 PLANTING DETAILS
NEW MIXED USE BUILDING WITH NEW DRIVEWAY TO EXSITING STREET, POOL, LAWN AREA, GARDEN AND PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE.

APN#: 94-156-21
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR:
3D CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS

1. FIELD VERIFICATION - CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL FIELD MEASUREMENTS PRIOR TO ANY FORMING OR CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE. ANY DESCREPANCY BETWEEN THE PLANS AND FIELD MEASUREMENT SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND CIVIL ENGINEER.

2. INSTALLATION - ALL LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE INSTALLATION SHALL MEET CITY REQUIREMENTS AND COMPLY WITH CITY CODES AND ZONING ORDINANCES.

3. TRASH AND DEBRIS - HARDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING ALL TRASH, FORM BOARDS, STAKES, ROCKS, CONCRETE, AND DEBRIS FROM THE SITE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF WORK. ANY CLEAN-UP, REMOVAL OF SLURRY, OR COLLECTION OF OTHER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHER TRADES SHALL BE BACK-CHARGED TO THE HARDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.

4. ELECTRICAL SERVICE - ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ROUGH UNDERGROUND SLEEVING AND ELECTRICAL CONDUIT FOR THE FOUNTAIN, AUTOMATIC GATE, SIGNAGE, LIGHTING AND TIMERS AT THE APPROVED LOCATIONS. AFTER COMPLETION OF HARDSCAPE INSTALLATION, THE FINAL ELECTRICAL HOOK-UPS OF ALL TIMERS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE MADE BY THE ELECTRICIAN. COORDINATE THIS PORTION OF THE WORK WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OWNER.

5. UTILITY SLEEVING - HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS SHALL COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL NECESSARY SLEEVING IN AND UNDER THE HARDSCAPE AREAS FOR THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION. ALL SLEEVES SHALL BE TWO (2) TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE PROPOSED PIPING OR CONDUIT. THE USE OF 3/4" PIPE FOR SLEEVING IS UNACCEPTABLE. HARDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE IRRIGATION, LIGHTING OR OTHER UTILITY SLEEVING PER CITY CODES AND STANDARDS OR INDIVIDUAL UTILITY SPECIFICATIONS AS A PART OF HIS CONTRACT.

6. DRAINAGE - HARDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL DRAIN THE SITE AT A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1% AWAY FROM ALL BUILDINGS TO THE CURB. ALL DRAINAGE WATER SHALL BE COLLECTED IN A 4" DIA. ABS PIPE AND ROUTED TO THE CURB OR A CITY APPROVED BASIN. FOR ALL DRAINAGE INFORMATION, SEE CIVIL PLANS. THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT STORM OR OTHER WATERS MAY PROCEED UNINTERUPTED AND WITHOUT EROSION ALONG THEIR EXISTING STREET OR DRAINAGE COURSE. THE COURSE OF RUNOFF WATER CONTROL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL WATER COURSES, THE GROUNDWATER AND BODIES OF WATER FROM POLLUTION BY FUELS, OILS, BITUMENS OR OTHER HARMFUL MATERIALS.

7. DIG ALERT - PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION WORK DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO CALL DIG ALERT AND ALSO LOCATE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND DOCUMENT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH DEMOLITION.

8. AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF DEL MAR, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY; SUCH AS FOR DRIVEWAY, SIDEWALKS, ETC.

SOIL REMOVED FROM SITE AND PLACED WITHIN THE CITY OF DEL MAR REQUIRES ADDITIONALGRADING OR LAND CONSERVATION PERMITS

9. ALL CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTRACTORS MUST HAVE A VALID CITY OF DEL MAR BUSINESS LICENSE PRIOR TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY WORK (ORD. #324)

10. NO GRADING SHALL OCCUR OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN UNLESS PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION IS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY AND THE OWNERS OF ANY OTHER AFFECTED PROPERTIES.

11. NO PROPERTY ENCUMBRANCES

GENERAL NOTES

VICINITY MAP

LANDSCAPE SHEET INDEX

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CONTACTS
OWNER: GAUTAM PATEL
5776 STONERIDGE MALL ROAD, STE 155
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: (559) 789-3250
EMAIL: [email protected]
ARCHITECT: SAJNI DESIGN & ARCHITECTURE
4195 CHINO HILLS PARKWAY, SUITE 599, CHINO HILLS, CA 91709 CONTACT: KEYUR MARU
TEL: (714) 390-0525
EMAIL: [email protected]
CIVIL ENGINEER: YCG CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONTACT: YUSHIN IMURA, P.E.

TEL: (510) 228-6961
EMAIL: [email protected]

THE CONTRACTOR WILL CONDUCT AN IRRIGATION AUDIT USING A

CERTIFIED IRRIGATION AUDITOR, AFTER THE FINAL FIELD OBSERVATION

HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL IRRIGATION COMPONENTS ARE

INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND

THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS ACCEPTED BY THE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR MAINTENANCE. THE IRRIGATION AUDIT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE.

1. PLACE FLAGS AT EACH HEAD IN THE ZONE.

2. MEASURE SPACING AND MARK MID POINTS BETWEEN HEADS.

3. PLACE WATER MEASURING RECEPTACLES.

4. TAKE READINGS OF WATER LEVEL IN RECEPTACLES AND RECORD RESULTS.

5. MEASURE HEAD PRESSURE IN EACH ZONE AND RECORD RESULTS.

6. AFTER COMPLETING ZONE ADVANCE TO NEXT ZONE AND REPEAT PROCEDURE.

7. SUBMIT THE RESULTS OF THE AUDIT TO THE PROJECT ARCHITECT.

THE IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE TASKS LISTED BELOW ARE

INTENDED AS MINIMUM STANDARDS AND MORE FREQUENT ATTENTION MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR SITE CONDITIONS.

MAINTENANCE TASK

CONTROLLER CABINET - OPEN CABINET AND CLEAN OUT DEBRIS AND REPLACE BATTERY AS NECESSARY. CHECK WIRING AND REPAIR AS NEEDED AND CHECK CLOCK AND RESET IF NECESSARY.-QUARTERLY

IRRIGATION SCHEDULE - ADJUST SCHEDULE FOR SEASONAL VARIATIONS

AND OTHER CONDITIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE REPAIR AS NEEDED AND CHECK CLOCK AND RESET IF NECESSARY.-MONTHLY

POC - VISUALLY INSPECT COMPONENTS FOR LEAKS, PRESURE SETTINGS,

SETTLEMENT OR OTHER DAMAGE AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF A COMPONENT REPAIR AS NEEDED. -QUARTERLY

REMOTE CONTROL VALVES, ISOLATION VALVES AND QUICK COUPLER

VALVES VISUALLY INSPECT FOR LEAKS, SETTLEMENT, WIRE CONNECTIONS AND PRESSURE SETTINGS. REPAIR OR ADJUST AS NEEDED. -QUARTERLY

MAINLINE & LATERALS VISUALLY INSPECT FOR LEAKS OR SETTLEMENT OF TRENCH. -QUARTERLY

SPRINKLERS VISUALLY CHECK FOR ANY BROKEN MISSIGNED OR CLOGGED

HEADS, HEADS WITH INCORRECT ARC, INADEQUATE COVERAGE OR OVERSPRAY AND LOW HEAD DRAINAGE REPAIR AS NEEDED. -WEEKLY

FILTERS AND STRAINERS VISUALLY CHECK FOR LEAKS, BROKEN FITTING CLEAN AND FLUSH SCREENS. -MONTHLY

WATER AUDIT NOTES

AUDIT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST STATE OF

CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS

DESCRIBED IN THE LATEST LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION AUDITOR
HANDBOOK. THE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION AUDITS TO BE

CONDUCTED BY A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL AND THE AUDIT SCHEDULE

SHALL BE CONDUCTED AT LEAST ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 20, DIVISION 1 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE.

MONUMENT NOTE:

CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE IN PLACE ALL EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS. ANY MONUMENTS DISTURBED SHALL BE

RESET BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AND THE APPROPRIATE
CORNER RECORD MUST BE FILLED WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE.

LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM SERVICE WILL BE DETERMINED

BY THE OWNER
ROSE AVE.

FAIRGROUNDS RD.

OLD BERNAL AVE. MAIN ST. BERNAL AVE.

CASE AVE. SUNOL BLVD. MONACO DR. BERNAL AVE. FIRST ST.

THIRD ST. SECOND ST. GALE AVE NEAL ST.

W. ANGELA ST. ROSE AVE. PETERS AVE.ST MARY ST.

SPRING ST.

HARRISON ST.

Page 298 of 373 ends

WH WH PATEL RESIDENCE STUIO 317 DESIGNS HARDSCAPE PLAN
LH-1 2

HARDSCAPE PLAN
NOTE: PLAN IS SHOWN DIAGRAMATICALLY. 0 8' 16' 24'
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
NORTH

EXISTING CITY SIDEWALK

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE WALL
5'H CMU BLOCK WALL WITH STUCCO FINISH (TO MATCH HOUSE)

MULCH WALKWAY

TRASH CAN STAGING AREA
OUTWARD SWINGING 5'H GATE

UTILITIES

PARKING SPACES

SWINGING DOUBLE DRIVEWAY GATE
BELGARD GLOCAL PORCELAIN PAVER COLOR:PERFECT
BAJA

PIP CONCRETE STEPS INTO SUNKEN FIRE PIT
POOL
18" H RAISED SPA

CIUSTOM CMU FIRE PIT

CATCH BASIN FOR INFINITY EDGE

FLOATING CONCRETE BENCH

SPILLWAY

RAISED VEGETABLE GARDEN

CMU BLOCK WALL W/ STUCCO FINISH

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE WALL TO REMAIN

NATURAL GRAY CONCRETE W/ TOPCAST FINISH

NEW PARKWAY

BIKE RACKS

UTILITY POLE

OUTWARD SWINGING GATE

Page 299 of 373 ends

WH WH
SHADE TREE CALCULATIONS : PROPERTY SIZE: 15,990 SF
SURFACE PARKING AREA: 1,974 SF.

HARDSCAPE AREA: 5,586 SF
SHADE: 358 SF. 6%
LANDSCAPE AREA: 6,320 SF.

SHADE: 885 SF. 14%

SHADE TREE LEGEND

TREES PROJECTED CANOPY
15'

QUANTITY
9 PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA
'COLUMBIA'

COLUMBIA PLANE TREE
20' 1 OLEA EUROPAEA
'MAJESTIC BEAUTY'

FRUITLESS OLIVE TREE
15' 1 CITRUS X SINENSIS

ORANGE TREE
15' 1 CITRUS LEMON
'MEYER IMPROVED'

IMPROVED MEYER LEMON
15' 2 PRUNUS CAROLINIANA
CAROLINA CHERRY LAUREL PATEL RESIDENCE STUIO 317 DESIGNS SHADE TREE EXHIBIT PLAN LS-1
3 SHADE TREE EXHIBIT PLAN
NOTE: PLAN IS SHOWN DIAGRAMATICALLY.
0 8' 16' 24'
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
NORTH

Page 300 of 373 ends

WH WH M FS BFP
Q.C.

Q.C.

A-9
1" 8.5
A-10
1" 6.1
A-6
3/4" 4.1
A-7
3/4" 1.0
Q.C.

A-8
3/4" 0.8
A-1
3/4" 3.0
A-2
3/4" 4.8
A-3
3/4" 2.0
Q.C. A-4
3/4" 4.0
A-5
1" 4.8
1" PRESSURE MAINLINE
NEW 1" SUB WATER METER
FOR IRRI. USE ONLY

TO WATER METER
P.V.C. SLEEVE TYP.

P.V.C. SLEEVE TYP. A S

WEATHER-BASED AUTOMATIC

RAIN SENSOR

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
1"
1"
1"
1"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4" 3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
3/4"
1 1/4" PRESSURE MAINLINE - SCH. 40 IPS PVC (SIZE PER PLAN) NON-PRESSURE LATERAL - SCH. 40 IPS PVC (SIZE PER PLAN)
P.V.C. SLEEVE (UNDER IN PAVING), SCH. 40 P.V.C. 2X DIA. OF PIPE.

INSTALL SLEEVE UNDER ALL PAVEMENT. (PER PLAN)

PLACE WIRES IN MAINLINE SLEEVE

IRRIGATION LEGEND
RAINBIRD XCZ-075-PRF
RAINBIRD LANDSCAPE DRIP XF SERIES XFS-06-18 (SUB SURFACE)

LOW FLOW CONTROL ZONE KITS W/ PR FILTER
W/ P.V.C. SLEEVE UNDER IN PAVING
BFP REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW FEBCO 825-Y 1 1/2" W/
MANUAL SHUT OFF VALVE 1" BALL VALVE BRASS NIBCO T-580 A ROOT ZONE WATERING SYSTEM RAINBIRD RWS-B-C-1402 (0.5 GPM) FS FLOW SENSOR RAIN BIRD FS100B 1 1/2" BRASS TEE FLOW SENSOR M MASTER VALVE RAIN BIRD 1 1/2" BRASS VALVE EFB-CP SERIES SUB LANDSCAPE WATER METERS FM150B 1 1/2"
1 1/4" BRONZE WATER PRESSURE REGULATOR ZURN WILKINS 1-500XL Q.C. QUICK COUPLER VALVE - RAINBIRD 33 DRC--3/4"
G.P.M.

A-1

VALVE SIZE
VALVE SEQUENCE S 3
(PER LAMC. 4.304.1)

RAINBIRD - RAIN SHUT OFF RSD SERIES
1" 10

WEATHER-BASED AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
RAINBIRD ESP-ME3 4 TO 22 STATIONS
INSTALL IN-DOOR / OUT -DOOR CABINET (PER LAMC. 4.304.1) A RAINBIRD XCZ-100-PRF

MEDIUM FLOW CONTROL ZONE KITS W/ PR FILTER
BACKFILL TO PREVENT ARCHINGOR SLIPPING OF PIPE. ALL JOINTS SHALL

OVER SPRAY ON TO WALKS, ROADS, AND/OR BUILDINGS INCLUDING SELECTING

4. PROVIDE MINIMUM 18" COVER FROM FINISH GRADE TO TOP OF PIPE, PRESSURE VALVE BOXES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12" APART.

3. VALVE BOXES SHALL BE LOCATED 12" FROM THE EDGE OF CURB, WALKWAYS AND BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.

THE FIELD CONDITIONS ARE OBVIOUS, THAT OBSTRUCTIONS, GRADE DIFFERENCE

2. DO NOT INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN WIRE CONNECTORS IN VALVE BOXES ONLY.

FOR A MINIMUM OF 2 HOURS. CONTRACTOR MAY CENTER-LOAD PIPE WITH A: PRESSURE TEST MAINLINE UNDER HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE OF 150 PSI

10. IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE:

9. TRENCHES SHALL BE COMPACTED AND/ OR JETTED TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT.

COMMON WIRES. ALL WIRE RUN TO FOLLOW MAINLINE.

8. ROUTE ONE EXTRA WIRE WITH A COLOR DIFFERENT THAN THE CONTROL AND

7. WIRE CONNECTIONS, ALL SPLICES SHALL BE MADE WITH PENTILE ON EQUAL CENTER AND BURIED BENEATH THE MAINLINE.

6. CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE BUNDLED WITH ELECTRICAL TAPE AT 10 FT. ON THE BEST DEGREE OF ARC TO FIT THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.

5. ADJUST ALL SPRINKLER HEADS FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND TO PREVENT PIPE (MAINLINE), AND 12" COVER FOR NON PRESSURE PIPE, LATERAL LINE.

AND AREA DIMENSIONS ARE NOT ACCURATE. SUCH DIFFERENCES SHALL BE SHALL BE LOCATED IN PLANTING AREAS WHEREVER POSSIBLE.

1. IRRIGATION PLAN IS DIAGRAMATIC. ALL PIPING AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS

IRRIGATION NOTES
AND FAULTY PARTS FOR PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS.

11. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE WORK AGAINST DEFECTIVE INSTALLATION COVERAGE IS COMPLETEAND ADEQUATE.

B: COVERAGE TEST, SHALL BE PERFORMED TO DETERMINE IF THE REMAIN EXPOSED FOR INSPECTION.

CONSTRUCTION NOTES

1. WATER METER AND SERVICE LINE SHALL BE A MINIMUM SIZE OF 1".

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM WATER PRESSURE PRIOR TO INSTALLING THE

IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND REQUEST PLAN CHANGE IF PRESSURE IS LOWER THAN THE DESIGN RATING.

3. RIGID PIPE, COPPER TYPE "K" AND/OR BRONZE PIPE SHALL CONNECT THE BACK FLOW TO THE SERVICE LINE.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND MODIFICATION SERVICE, "DIG ALERT," PRIOR TO ANY UNDERGROUND ACTIVITY AND REQUEST DRAWINGS OF THE EXISTING SITE UTILITIES.

5. OWNER SHALL PROVIDE AN 1" GATE VALVE AT THE EXISTING WATER SERVICE FOR THE IRRIGATION MAINLINE POINT OF CONNECTION (P.O.C).

6. OWNER SHALL PROVIDE 120 VOLT ELECTRICAL POWER OUTLET AT THE

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER LOCATION, CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE FINAL ELECTRICAL CONNECTION TO THE CONTROLLER.

7. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ALL CAL OSHA REQUIREMENTS, AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM HIS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

8. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST UNIFORM PLUMBING CODES AS WELL AS LOCAL ORDINANCES.

9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PULL ALL WIRES THROUGH CONDUIT FROM STREET LEVEL TO PODIUM LEVEL.

10. ALL CONDUITS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

11. SUBSLAB COPPER PIPES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY PLUMBING CONTRACTOR W/ STUB - OUT AT PLANTERS.

12. ELECTRICAL CONDUITS FOR CONTROL WIRES TO CONTROLLERS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR.

13. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PULL WIRES THROUGH EXISTING CONDUIT FROM CONTROLLER LOCATION TO EACH REMOTE CONTROL VALVE ABOVE SLAB.

14. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL UNDER SLAB WORK WITH GENERAL

CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK
NOTE: "AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, THE PERMIT APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WITH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE." "UNLESS CONTRADICTED BY A SOIL TEST, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THE SOIL." "FOR SOILS LESS THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP 6" OF SOIL, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THE SOIL."
"A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FOR SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES."
"A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE SIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT." "AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION." RECIRCULATING WATER SYSTEMS SHALL BE USED FOR WATER FEATURES. A MINIMUM OF 3-INCH LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEED THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIED IRRIGATION DEVICES. PATEL RESIDENCE STUIO 317 DESIGNS IRRIGATION PLAN LI-1 4

IRRIGATION PLAN
NOTE: PLAN IS SHOWN DIAGRAMATICALLY. 0 8' 16' 24'
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
NORTH

Page 301 of 373 ends

Pleasanton City CouncilAugust 11, 2026

Pleasanton City Council
August 11, 2026