Pleasanton City Council
November 19, 2024

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

4 Introduction and Results
Introduction
This Fee Update and Nexus Study (Nexus Study) is designed to provide the City of Pleasanton with the necessary technical documentation to support the adoption of an update to the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF), Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF), and Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee (AHF) programs. It has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), with technical support from Fehr & Peers for transportation as well as input from City of Pleasanton staff. The DIF, CLF, and AHF Programs must be approved by the City Council and will be effective 60 days following the City’s adoption of the fees.

Impact fees are one-time charges on new development collected and used by jurisdictions (e.g., a City or County) to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure needed to serve new residential and commercial growth. Meanwhile, affordable housing in-lieu fees provide developers, in certain circumstances, an alternative to meeting the City’s inclusionary affordable housing requirements. This Nexus Study provides a legal basis for requiring payment of a development impact fee consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600/ Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and subsequent related legislation.

This Study is designed to support a comprehensive DIF program and update to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO). It provides the nexus arguments and associated fee calculations for the maximum fees the City can charge for the facilities described herein.

The calculated fees are proposed to be collected on a citywide basis given the broad scope of capital improvements included in this study. While the City may elect to charge lower fees for particular land uses, areas of the city, or across the board, it should consider the implications of doing so on funding for the identified improvements.

Legal Context
Development Impact Fees
This Nexus Study is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis to support the Pleasanton DIF and CLF programs to be established by a City Ordinance and implemented by Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt, by resolution, the citywide DIF and CLF programs consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Nexus Report, and consistent with the basic parameters of the fee that have been adopted by an enabling ordinance and codified in the Municipal Code. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling ordinance.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

5 Impact fee revenues are used to cover the cost of constructing capital and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the area in which they apply. As such, impact fees must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new development and the need for specific capital facilities and improvements.

Impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure. In addition, impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of preexisting infrastructure needs or deficiencies.

In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project, Government Code 66001(a) and (b) require a local agency to:

1. Identify the purpose of the fee;

2. Identify how the fee is to be used;

3. Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee use and type of development project for which the fee is being used;

4. Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed; and

5. Show the relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility.

In September 2021, the State of California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 602, which includes several new requirements related to the development and implementation of impact fee programs. The key provisions related to the calculations documented in this Nexus Report are summarized below.
 Capital Improvement Plan: AB 602 requires that jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study process. This adoption can occur at the same time as the fee ordinance adoption. Accordingly, this Nexus Study relies on a Pleasanton DIF Long-Term Capital Improvement Plan (Pleasanton DIF CIP) to be approved by the City Council in conjunction with the DIF Program. 1The
Pleasanton DIF CIP presented in this Nexus Study is derived from the capital improvements identified as part of the Nexus Study and is attached as Appendix Table A-1.
 Explanation of Level of Service and Fee Increase: AB 602 requires that when applicable, the nexus study identifies the existing level of service for each public facility, identifies the proposed new level of service, and includes an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate. This Nexus Study relies on service standards developed in consultation with City staff, based on City planning documents, and with reference to the existing capital facilities and improvements in

1 The Pleasanton DIF CIP is different from and does not replace the City's 5 year CIP budget (balanced) and 10 year CIP. These separate CIP documents serve a shorter-term frame and generally rely on more specific project parameters than the DIF CIP. That said, the DIF CIP may provide funding to support some projects included in the 5-year and 10-year CIPs.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

6 the City as appropriate and documented herein. The level of service is articulated in the CIP provided in Appendix A-1.
 Per Square Foot Residential Fees: AB 602 notes that for fees adopted after July 1, 2022, the nexus study must “either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, or make specific findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fees.” AB 602 also notes that “This bill would require that a local agency that calculates fees proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.” This analysis relies on assumptions about the average unit size for residential units developed following market research and conversations with City staff. The average home sizes were then applied to the per unit fees, to determine the maximum per square foot fee for both single family and multifamily development.

All State statutory requirements have been followed in establishing this DIF, as documented in subsequent chapters. Chapter 6 summarizes the specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. If the DIF is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City to ensure its accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources.

To the extent that infrastructure requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the DIF will need to be updated. AB 602 requires the DIF to be updated at least every 8 years.

Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees
Inclusionary housing programs require that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households. Instead of providing required affordable housing units on site, developers may opt to pay an in-lieu fee. Local governments gain the authority to enact inclusionary housing programs and charge in-lieu fees through their general police power to regulate the development and use of real property. 2 The City of
Pleasanton is updating its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, and as part of the process is updating the in-lieu fee levels. These in-lieu fees are not “mitigation fees” and therefore do not require a nexus study illustrating demand generated by new housing developments. The City’s authority impose in-lieu fees was confirmed with the approval of AB 1505 in 2017 which allows jurisdictions to require the inclusion of affordable housing in new rental housing projects, thereby superseding the 2009 decision of Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P., et al. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396.

2 California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal.4th 435 (2015).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024 7 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees
Table 1 summarizes the City’s maximum allowable fee schedule for the capital facility and equipment needs as evaluated in this Fee Update. The three fee categories updated in this analysis are:
• Development Impact Fees – This fee includes the capital facilities fees and transportation fees for the City. Calculations can be found in Chapters 2-4. • Commercial Linkage Fee – This fee only applies to nonresidential developments and is designed to mitigate its impact on the need for affordable housing in the city.

Calculations can be found in Chapter 5.
• Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee – This fee only applies to residential developments not providing the affordable housing on site required in the IZO. Calculations can be found in Chapter 7.

Table 1 Summ
ary of Maximum Fee Calculations
As noted, the fees represent the maximum allowable amount that the City can charge based on the nexus requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. The fees also include a two percent administration charge to cover the cost of implementation, as described further in Chapter 6.

Note that the maximum allowable commercial linkage fee is very large and significantly exceeds levels that could feasibly be borne by new commercial developments. This is a typical outcome for commercial linkage fee calculations and reflects the fundamental impact that most employment generating uses have on the need for affordable housing.

This is why among the relatively small proportion of cities that impose commercial linkage fees, few, if any, charge the maximum allowable amount. To do so would likely have a deleterious effect on a city’s economic development and fiscal health.

Land Use
Capital Facilties
Fees1
Transportation
Fee1
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Inclusionary
In-Lieu Fee Total
Residential (per sq. ft.)
Single Family Detached $11.87 $8.23 $84.25 $104.35
Townhomes $11.87 $8.23 $42.10 $62.20
Condos $23.48 $12.47 $54.87 $90.82
Multifamily Rental $23.48 $12.47 $69.19 $105.14
Nonres idential (per s q. ft.)
Office $13.41 $31.50 $142.42 $187.34
Retail $9.15 $48.35 $578.73 $636.23
Industrial $4.02 $17.94 $143.39 $165.35
Lodging $1.34 $25.82 $72.86 $100.02
(1) Includes 2% adminstrative charge.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

8 This Fee Update and Nexus Study is provided to support the City Council’s ultimate approval of a total fee schedule by land use. As part of these process, City staff has also prepared an analysis of various fee levels and their implications on various City policy considerations, including the need to fund future capital needs, to support affordable housing development, and to ensure that future residential and commercial projects are economically viable. Cities frequently approval impact fees that fall below the maximum allowable amount based on economic and fiscal considerations.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

9 Development Impact Fee Methodology
This section provides a brief overview of the nexus methodology and key assumptions used in this Study. It also summarizes the demographic and land use projections underlying the fee. Subsequent chapters provide more detailed calculations for each DIF category. While the commercial linkage fee is considered a development impact fee, the methodology for determining the maximum justifiable fee level differs slightly and will be described in Chapter 5.

Summary of Methodology
While the nexus methodology employed in this study varies by fee category as appropriate given the range of capital facilities and improvements covered, there are basic steps common to all. Specifically, for each fee category, EPS has applied the following general steps to calculate the nexus-supported fee amounts:

1. EPS estimated existing and future population and employment in Pleasanton through buildout of the current General Plan using a variety of City and third- party sources, as described in the subsequent section.

2. The EPS consultant team identified the universe of new infrastructure and capital facility improvements needed to serve both existing and future residents and employees. These needs were based on interviews with City staff and analysis of existing City facility capacity and service standards. Capital facilities exclude water, sewer and storm drain facilities since these are part of a separate fee program.

3. The EPS consultant team developed cost estimates for the capital facility improvements described in step 2 above. These cost estimates were developed based on information provided by City departmental staff as well as additional research and in-house resources.

4. EPS allocated the capital facility costs identified in step 3 above between existing and new development to determine the share included in the DIF program. These allocation shares were determined in a variety of ways depending on improvement, available data, and City guidance. In cases where the improvement is expected to service both the existing population and the future population equally, the share of costs attributable to new development is based on the City’s current versus future service population.

5. Once costs have been allocated between new and existing development, they are further distributed among residential and commercial uses to arrive at a cost per resident and a cost per employee. This distribution was based on the proportion of total forecasted service population composed of residents and employees, respectively.

6. Once costs were allocated to a “cost per resident” and “cost per employee” basis, they are multiplied by the people per household for each residential fee category

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

10 to derive a fee per unit, or by the average square feet per employee to estimate a fee per square foot for each commercial land use.

7. As a final step, EPS converted the residential fee per unit to a fee per square foot, as required by AB 602, based on data on typical housing unit sizes.

Demographic and Land Use Assumptions
This section describes the demographic and land use assumptions utilized in this study for both existing and future General Plan buildout conditions. The estimates are used for the following primary purposes in the fee calculation:
 Existing population and employment levels are used to estimate service levels for specific capital improvement categories as well as to ascertain existing needs relative to existing standards.
 Future population and employment growth in the city are the basis for determining future capital facility needs and apportioning these costs between existing and new development.
 Estimates related to population and employment density (e.g., persons per household or employees per square foot) are used to allocate costs between land use categories.

Service Population Calculations
The DIF is largely predicated on calculations that translate the population and employment projections provided above into estimates of existing and future “service populations.” The “service population,” in turn, is derived from assumptions that compare residents and employees based on the relative service demands or typical service profiles of each (e.g., amount of time spent in the city, likely utilization of specific infrastructure).

While the service population characterization can differ by infrastructure category, in cases where detailed estimates are not available, EPS has relied upon a default service population calculation. This calculation is based on the City’s existing “daytime population” as derived using the City’s existing residents, employees, and commute patterns for each to estimate the relative time spent within the City. This approach is used to derive an employee to resident equivalency factor to allocate costs between existing and new growth and between residential and commercial development.

As illustrated in Table 2, the City’s existing population, employment, and commute patterns (derived from US Census data) suggest a total estimated service population of 99,343. The service population is composed of 76,459 residents and 55,650 employees, with each employee equivalent to .411 residents (e.g., the typical service demand of an employee is about 41 percent of a resident).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

11 Table 2 Existing Service Population Factor Estimate

Population and Employment Growth Projections
The nexus analysis relies on estimated population and employment growth likely to occur by buildout of existing City plans. EPS reviewed projections from several sources including the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the California Department of Finance (DOF) but relied primarily on Pleasanton’s 6 th Cycle Housing Element Draft EIR
and General Plan to estimate population growth. Employment growth is based on an employee to resident ratio of 0.81, which is sourced from Pleasanton’s transportation model. EPS growth projections are based on approved City planning documents rather than specific projects “in the pipeline” at the local level, as such projects are, at this point, potentially speculative, and do not cover all years in the planning horizon.

As summarized in Table 3, this approach results in a total population of approximately 96,400 residents and total employment of approximately 78,080 employees at buildout.

This equates to an increase of 19,941 residents and 22,434 jobs, representing a 26.1 percent and 40.3 percent increase over existing conditions, respectively. The buildout estimate does not correspond to a particular year, but rather reflects projected development embodied in City-wide planning documents.
#%
Employment Status of
Pleas anton Res idents1 Formula: a = b *
76,459 b 1 c= b * c
Not in Labor Force 41,149 53.8% 100% 53.8%
Employed in the City 5,007 6.5% 50% 3.3%
Employed Outside of the City 30,303 39.6% 67% 26.6%
Total Residents 76,459 100.0% 83.7%
Residence Status of
Pleas anton Employees1 Formula: a = b *
55,650 b 1 c= b * c
Live in the City 5,007 9.0% 50% 4.5%
Live Outside the City 50,643 91.0% 33% 29.9%
Total Jobs 55,650 100.0% 34.4%
Employee to Resident Equivalency Factor3 (34.4% / 83.7%) = 41.1% (3) Equals weighted average of residents divided by weighted average of employees.

Sources: LEHD OnTheMap 2021, Department of Finance, and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (2) Represents EPS estimate of how various types of residents and employees relate to each other in terms of demand for City Services.

Item
Existing
Weight2
Weighted
Average
(1) Distribution based on data from U.S. Census (OnTheMap 2021). Total residents are based on 2023 estimates provided by DOF in Table 2. Total jobs are based on 2021 estimates from U.S. Census (OnTheMap 2021).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

12 Table 3 Existing Development and Development at Buildout

At buildout, the service population is projected to reach 128,510, with new growth accounting for about 22.7 percent of the service population total at that time as shown in Table 4. New residents are estimated to account for approximately 68.4 percent of the growth in service population while new employees account for the remaining 31.6 percent. These proportions are used to allocate costs for many of the facilities included in the DIF, unless otherwise indicated. These percentages are used repeatedly throughout the nexus study to allocate cost between new and existing (22.7 percent) and between residential and non-residential development (68.4 and 31.6 percent, respectively).

Amount % Change
Resident Population 1 76,459 96,400 19,941 26.1%
Housing Units 30,992 37,781 6,788 21.9%
Employment2 55,650 78,084 22,434 40.3%
Nonresidential Development (KSF) 19,886 28,024 8,138 40.9% Service Population 3 99,343 128,510 29,167 29.4%
(1) Resident population growth is sourced from 6th Cycle Housing Element Dra ft EIR. (2) Employment growth is based on an employees to residents ratio of 0.81 at the time of buildout. (3) Service population represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given a 40 percent weighting of residents, due to more modest service demands. It is calculated by adding total residential population and 40 percent of total employment (see Table 2).

Item Existing Buildout
Growth
Sources: City of Pleasanton Housing Element Draft EIR; Fehr & Peers; Economic & Planning Systems,

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

13 Table 4 Forecasted Service Population Estimate

Population and Employment Density Assumptions
In addition to the demographic calculations described above, the DIF utilizes assumptions related to population and employment densities by land use type. Specifically, DIF improvement cost estimates per capita or per job are converted to fee rates per unit or square foot based on average persons per household and square foot per employee factors. Note that for methodological simplicity, EPS first calculates all residential fees on a per unit basis (i.e., per single family and multi-family) and then converts the fee to per square foot based on data on typical housing unit sizes. Single Family units include single family detached and townhome units, therefore the average size is less than the typical single family detached home. These assumptions are summarized in Table 5 and rely on data from the U.S. Census, CoStar, and the City of Pleasanton.

The commercial linkage fee also uses these employment densities in order to estimate the number of employees generated by 100,000 square feet of development for each land use type.
#% # % # %
Employment Status of Pleasanton
Residents1
Not in Labor Force 41,149 53.8% 51,881
Employed in the City 5,007 6.5% 6,313
Employed Outside of the City 30,303

39.6% 38,206
Total Residents 76,459 100.0% 96,400 19,941 26%
Residence Status of Pleasanton
Employees
Live in the City 5,007 9.0% 11,562
Liv e Outside the City 50,643 91.0% 116,948
Total Jobs 55,650 100.0% 128,510 72,860 131%
Service Population Calculation 3
Amount Attributable to Residents (@ 100%) 76,459 77.0% 96,400 75.0% 19,941 68.4% Amount Attributable to Employees (@ 41.1%) 22,884 23.0% 32,110 25.0% 9,225 31.6% Total Service Population 99,343 100.0% 128,510 100.0% 29,167 100.0% Service Population Growth as % Build-out Service Population 22.7% Sources: LEHD OnTheMap 2021, Department of Finance, and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (2) Resident and Job totals per Table 3. Composition based on existing (1) Existing Resident and Job totals per Table 3, percent distributions per Table 2. (3) Amount attributable to Employees per Table 2.

Net NewItem Existing1 Buildout2

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

14 Table 5 Average Household Size and Density Assumptions

Land Use Fee Categories
Average Unit Size
Single Family 2,500 square feet
Multifamily 895 square feet
Residential1
Single Family 3.03 people per household
Multifamily 2.15 people per household
Nonres idential2
Office 300 square feet per employee
Retail 440 square feet per employee
Industrial 1,000 square feet per employee
Lodging 2 employees per room
(1) Average household size per occupied housing unit in the City of Pleasanton based on data from the 2022 American Community Survey (5-Year Estimates) conducted by U.S. Census Bureau.
(2) Average employment density is based on previous Pleasanton nexus studies and EPS review of relevant sources.

Sources: U.S. Census ACS 2022 5-Year Estimates; CoStar; Redfin; City of Pleasanton; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Assumption for Population
& Employment

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

15 Capital Facilities Fees
This Chapter describes the technical methodology for the Capital Facilities fees which consist of a variety of public buildings and facilities, including those for needed for Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire, and other City department functions. The transportation fee is calculated separately in Chapter 4. Since most City government services serve the needs of both residents and businesses (employees), it is assumed that both residential and nonresidential development will pay both the parks and recreational impact fee and the public facilities impact fee.

Facility Needs and Costs
In an effort to maximize the fee program’s adaptability, this analysis determined the facility improvements necessary to serve future development primarily by calculating the City’s existing service levels for its facilities. Table 6 shows the inventory of existing parks and recreational facilities, as well as their calculated service levels, based on the City’s current service population. In a select few instances, the City has identified that the existing service level is insufficient to meet the City’s existing facility needs. These facilities are identified with an asterisk (*) and instead use a service standard approach to determine the facility needs for future development.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

16 Table 6 Parks and Recreation Facilities Service Level

Existing
Inventory Service Level 1 New Total Space
Space Attributable
to Growth
a b = (a / 99,343) *
1,000
c = (b * 128,510) /
1,000 d = c - a
Library & Recreation
Library Building 32,802 750* 96,383 63,581 square feet
Community Center
2 22,000 221 28,459 6,459 square feet
Cultural & Arts Buildings3 58,266 587 75,373 17,107 square feet Parks & Trails
Open Space 1,016 10 1,314 298 acres
Developed Parkland 385 4 498 113 acres
Restrooms 12,622 127 16,328 3,706 square feet
Trails 80 1.24* 159 79 miles
Fields 67.25 0.68 87 20 acres
Synthetic Fields 7.46 0.08 10 2 acres
Outdoor Hard Surface Facilities
4 6.45 0.06 8 2 acres
(2) Existing square footage refers to Senior Center
(3) See Appendix Table A-2 table for detailed list of facilities included. (4) Includes basketball courts, tennis courts, pickleball courts, bocce courts and skate park.

Item Units
(1) Calculations are based on the existing facility space per 1,000 service population, except where indicated by an asterisk ( *), which signifies a service standard identified by City Staff.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

17 Table 7 shows the inventory of existing public facilities, as well as their calculated service levels, based on the City’s current service population.

Table 7 Pleasanton Public Facilities Service Levels
Existing
Inventory Service Level 1
New Total
Space
Space
Attributable to
Growth
a b = (a / 99,343) *
1,000
c = (b * 128,510)
/ 1,000 d = c - a
General Government
Civic Center2 45,384 456.84 58,709 13,325 square feet
Parking Spaces2 370 4 479 109 spaces
Public Works
Public Works Yard 2 53,709 541 69,478 15,769 square feet Fleet Expansion/ Replacement3 939 9 1,215 276 vehicles
Police
Police Station2 21,797 219 28,197 6,400 square feet
Public Works Yard Space 4 11,600 117 15,006 3,406 square feet Fleet Expansion/ Replacement3 258 3 334 76 vehicles
Fire
Fire Stations 53,298 537 68,946 15,648 square feet
Public Works Yard Space
4 9,200 93 11,901 2,701 square feet
Fleet Expansion/ Replacement3 111 1 144 33 vehicles
(2) See Appendix Table A-2 table for detailed list of facilities included. (3) This analysis assumes vehicles are replaced on average, 3 times within the term of the fee study. (4) An evidence storage building (Police), firing range (Police), and fire training tower (Fire) are located at the Public Work s Y ard. (1) Calculations are based on the existing facility space per 1,000 service population, except where indicated by an asterisk ( *), which signifies a service standard identified by City Staff.

Item Units

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

18 There are a few capital improvement projects which do not fit into this methodology.

Those facilities and their related costs are outlined in Table 8.

Table 8 Specialized Facilities
Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
The public facility improvements allocated to new development are based on maintaining the same level of service for new development as is currently provided to existing residents. The portion of the cost allocated to new development is based on growth in the City’s service population relative to the City’s future service population, or 22.7 percent (see Table 4).

Facilities Department Cost
Allocation to Fee
Program (22.7%)
Aquatic Center Modernization 1 Library & Recreation $6,400,000 $1,452,562 Emergency Operations Center Police/Public Works $5,600,000 $1,270,992 Cemetery 2 Library & Recreation $660,000 $149,796
(1) Cost sourced from Capital Improvement Program.
(2) Cost sourced from Cemetery Master Plan. This cost assumes there is no expansion in the South Hill Area of the Cemetery and all designs are completed in-house.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

19 Table 9 Costs Attributable to Growth

Table 10 illustrates the total costs included in the fee program for each department. This figure includes the portion of the specialized facility costs identified in Table 8, as well as the costs attributable to growth identified in Table 9.

Facilities
Cost Attributable
to Growth
Library & Recreation
Library Building 63,581 square feet $550 per square foot $34,969,275 Community Center 6,459 square feet $500 per square foot $3,229,588 Cultural & Arts Buildings 17,107 square feet $500 per square foot $8,553,418 Parks & Trails
Open Space
2 298 acres $1,000 per acre $298,297
Developed Parkland 113 acres $500,000 per acre $56,517,797 Restrooms 3,706 square feet $2,000 per square foot $7,411,612 Trails 79 miles $560,000 per mile $44,296,000
Fields 20 acres $1,000,000 per acre $19,744,529
Synthetic Fields 2 acres $1,000,000 per acre $2,190,534 Outdoor Hard Surface Facilities 2 acres $2,500,000 per acre $4,734,283 General Government
Civic Center 13,325 square feet $500 per square foot $6,662,347 Parking Spaces
1 109 spaces $10,000 per space $1,086,316
Public Works
Public Works Yard 15,769 square feet $550 per square foot $8,672,898 Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 276 vehicles $85,000 per vehicle $23,433,600 Police
Police Station 6,400 square feet $1,000 per square foot $6,399,576 Public Works Yard Space 3,406 square feet $550 per square foot $1,873,161 Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 76 vehicles $70,000 per vehicle $5,302,397 Fire
Fire Stations 15,648 square feet $2,000 per square foot $31,296,473 Public Works Yard Space 2,701 square feet $550 per square foot $1,485,611 Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 33 vehicles $270,000 per vehicle $8,799,160 Total $276,956,873
(1) Estimate assumes all spaces are surface parking.

Sources: City of Pleasanton
Space Attributable
to Grow th Cost Assumption

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

20 Table 10 Costs per Facility Category

Table 11 allocates these costs by land use, either residential or nonresidential, and then calculates a facilities cost per resident. Table 12 utilizes that cost per resident figure to calculate fees for each department, and Table 13 summarizes those department fees into the larger fee categories: Parks and Recreation Facilities and Public Facilities.

It is noted that the analysis included in this chapter calculates the initial residential impact fees on a per unit basis, however, AB 602 requires residential impact fees be charged on a per square foot basis. As described and outlined in the summary of fees at the end of this report, residential fees per unit have been converted into a fee per square foot, as required by AB 602, based on data on typical housing unit sizes.

Facilities Cost
General Government $7,748,663
Public Works $32,106,498
Library and Recreation $48,354,639
Parks and Trails $135,193,051
Police $14,846,127
Fire $41,581,244
Total $279,830,223

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

21 Table 11 Facilities Costs per Resident & Employee

Cost Allocation Factor Formula
Library &
Recreation Parks & Trails
General
Government Fire Police Public Works
Facility Costs Allocated to Fee Program a $48,354,639 $135,193,051 $7,748,663 $41,581,244 $14,846,127 $32,106,498 Cost Allocation to Land Use1
Residential Development b 68% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68%
Nonresidential Development c 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32%
Allocated Costs by Land Use
Residential Development d = a * b $33,059,275 $92,429,274 $5,297,634 $28,428,415 $10,150,053 $21,950,687 Nonresidential Development e = a * c $15,294,226 $42,760,595 $2,450,847 $13,151,850 $4,695,724 $10,155,056 Service Population Growth
Residents f 19,941 19,941 19,941 19,941 19,941 19,941
Employees g 22,434 22,434 22,434 22,434 22,434 22,434
Facilities Cost per Resident h = d / f $1,658 $4,635 $266 $1,426 $509 $1,101 Facilities Cost per Employee i = e / g $682 $1,906 $109 $586 $209 $453 Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Public Facilities
[1] The cost allocation to residential and nonresidential development is based on the service population attribution calculated in Table 5.

Parks and Recreation Facilities

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

22 Table 12 DIF Calculation Summary

Land Use
Density
(See Table 6)
Library and
Recreation
Parks and
Trails
General
Government Fire Police
Public
Works
Residential Persons / Household
Single Family 3.03 $5,028 $14,057 $806 $4,323 $1,544 $3,338 Multifamily 2.15 $3,560 $9,954 $571 $3,062 $1,093 $2,364 Nonres idential Average Employment Density
Office 300 $2.27 $6.35 $0.36 $1.95 $0.70 $1.51
Retail 440 $1.55 $4.33 $0.25 $1.33 $0.48 $1.03
Industrial 1,000 $0.68 $1.91 $0.11 $0.59 $0.21 $0.45
Lodging 3,000 $0.23 $0.64 $0.04 $0.20 $0.07 $0.15
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

23 Table 13 Capital Facilities Fees Summary
Land Use
Parks &
Recreation
Facilities
Public
Facilities
Total Capital
Facilities Fees
Residential (per unit)
Single Family Residential $19,084 $10,011 $29,095
Multifamily Residential $13,515 $7,089 $20,604
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
Office $8.63 $4.52 $13.15
Retail $5.88 $3.09 $8.97
Industrial $2.59 $1.36 $3.95
Lodging $0.86 $0.45 $1.32
Source: City of Pleasanton; Economic & Planning Systems Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study September 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 24
Transportation DIF
This section describes the methodology and assumptions used to calculate the transportation component of the Pleasanton Impact fee program, also known as the Transportation Impact Fee or TIF. Transportation consultant Fehr & Peers (F&P) provided research and technical analysis to support the analysis and assumptions used in this fee calculation. The more detailed documentation of their assumptions, methodology, and data sources is provided in Appendix B.

Capital Needs, Costs, and Allocation
F&P, in coordination with City staff, developed a list of capital improvement projects for inclusion as part of the Transportation category of the citywide Development Impact Fee.

The projects reflect the goals and objectives identified by the Pleasanton General Plan and City budget documents, with some project needs determined based on existing service standards as described below. The capital project list has a particular emphasis on improving traffic flow and reducing conflicts for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through the application of new signalized intersections, upgraded signal infrastructure, and various pedestrian/bicycle safety improvements such as new bike lanes and bridge railing.

The Transportation analysis uses the same service population calculations as those used for the capital facilities fees, therefore the fair share allocation to new development used for transportation items is 23 percent.

Table 14 lists each project type, the number of projects, and the resulting costs allocated to new development and included in the fee program. As shown, the total transportation-related costs included in the fee program sum to $293 million. A more detailed list of these items and their descriptions can be found in Appendix Table B-1.

Following the same approach that was used in the 2018 TIF nexus study, if more than 70 percent of the usage of the facility was from Pleasanton, that indicates that the need for the improvement is predominantly due to Pleasanton-related travel so the entire cost of the project was considered to be included in the TIF program. If less than 70 percent of the usage was from Pleasanton, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton was used directly from the model. The result is shown in Appendix Table B-1 in the column called Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted. Note that these percentages have been newly calculated only for the 18 additional transportation improvement projects proposed to be included in the TIF program. For all the projects that are remaining from the current TIF project list, the percentage of future traffic volume attributable to Pleasanton has not been re-calculated but is carried forward from the 2018 TIF nexus study.

For projects that involve bicycle, pedestrian or safety enhancements, or those that are citywide projects, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton is calculated based on

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

25 current data about existing service population and projections of future growth. Per the growth projections described above, that value is 22.7 percent.

Table 14 Transportation Costs included in Fee Program

Transportation Fee Calculations
This analysis allocates the $293 million in fair share costs attributed to new growth based on trip rate factors drawn from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), with a 35 percent adjustment for pass-by trips applied to retail uses (consistent with the approach from the 2018 TIF nexus study). Table 15 determines the growth in total dwelling unit equivalents (DUE) for the buildout of the General Plan. Table 16 establishes a cost per DUE and then applies that figure to each land use to calculate a fee.

This analysis included in this chapter calculates the initial residential impact fees on a per unit basis, however, AB 602 requires residential impact fees be charged on a per square foot basis. As described and summarized in the summary of fees at the end of this report, residential fees per unit have been converted into a fee per square foot, as required by AB 602, based on data on typical housing unit sizes.

Project Type
Number of
Projects Cost
Roadway Improvements 40 $233,144,000
New Traffic Signals 1 $22,200,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 53 $37,912,360
Citywide Projects 3 $576,100
Total 97 $293,832,460
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

26 Table 15 DUE Growth

Table 16 Transportation Fee Calculation

Item Growth Trip Rate 1
DUE
Growth
Housing Units 6,788 0.56 3,769
Non Residential (KSF) 8,138 1.22 9,930
Total 13,699
(1) Reflects weighted average based on estimated development distribution.

Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Item Trip Rate Total
Total Costs $293,832,460
DUE Growth 13,699
Cost per DUE $21,449
Fee Calculation
Single Family (per unit) 0.94 $20,162
Multifamily (per unit) 0.51 $10,939
Office (per KSF) 1.44 $30,886
Retail (per KSF) 2.21 $47,402
Industrial (per KSF) 0.82 $17,588
Lodging (per room)1 0.59 $12,655
Other (per Trip Rate) $21,449
Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual (11th Edition), Fehr & Peers, 2024.
(1) Analysis assumes hotel/motel rooms will average 500 gross sq. ft. per room.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

27 Commercial Linkage Fee
The commercial linkage fee is charged to non-residential development, exclusively, in order to mitigate its impact on the need for affordable housing in the city. Development of nonresidential buildings in the city will attract tenants or businesses who, in turn, hire additional workers. The wages of a significant portion of the new workers will be inadequate to support sufficient rent prices to attract residential developers to provide housing opportunities without further subsidy. The fee will be used to help to fill the “affordability gap” for housing development and increase the number of homes available for the local workforce.

As a development impact fee, this linkage fee can only be charged to new development and must be based on the impact of new development on the need for resources to subsidize the development of new affordable housing. Fee revenue may be collected by the City and used to subsidize the production or preservation of affordable units for lower-income households. Expenditures may include, but are not limited to, direct contributions to affordable housing developers, land acquisition, and funding local match requirements to leverage other funding opportunities. This use of funds is consistent with how the City has been using commercial linkage fee revenue collected since the fee’s adoption, and consistent with Chapter 17.40 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the enabling legislation for the City’s Affordable Housing Fee.

Methodology
Estimates for Level of Service
The City of Pleasanton currently has over approximately 1,000 affordable (non-senior) housing units for an employment base of 41,319 workers.3 This represents a ratio of

0.024 affordable units per worker. The “adjusted maximum” linkage fee levels identified herein would allow the City to subsidize a greater number of affordable units per worker than the current ratio – 0.5 per Commercial worker, 0.2 per Office worker, 0.5 per Lodging worker, and 0.4 per Industrial worker.4 These higher proportions may be appropriate given the shortfall of such affordable units in the city, region, and state, and the impacts of new commercial development on the city’s need for affordable housing.

3 Assisted rental unit count is from the City of Pleasanton Community Development department as of 2024. The employment base is from the US Census Bureau, ACS, Five-Year Estimates, 2022.
4 Proportions are calculated as the number of affordable units that could be subsidized by the maximum fee on a 100,000 square foot space, divided by the total number of employees that would work in a given building type (as shown on Table 18).

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

28 Primary Sources
To estimate the fee, EPS relied on numerous sources of data, including the following:
 JobsEQ, which is a software tool that compiles industry and wage occupation data for 2023 from a variety of sources, including U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Center of Education Statistics, and others.
 State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) annual income limits for Alameda County, 2024 (Appendix Table C-1)
 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (2018- 2022)
In addition, EPS sought input from City of Pleasanton staff regarding affordability levels and recently developed affordable housing projects. Data from recent Pleasanton developments and land transactions were combined with information collected from various market-rate and affordable housing developers to estimate appropriate development cost assumptions for use in Pleasanton. These and other data sources are identified on the tables provided throughout this report.

Land Use Categories
The linkage fee program uses the same land use categories as the Capital Facilities and Transportation fees. While most land use categories are unique to a particular type of building, others may be interchangeable as tenants often shift between building types (e.g., businesses located in industrial space moving to office space). The commercial land uses analyzed in this study, along with a description of the types of businesses that often locate in each category, are presented in Appendix Table D-1. In general, each land use category is intended to be associated with a particular type of building or land use, to which the fees can be applied. This analysis bases its employment projections on North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes associated with the most typical tenants for each land use category.

Estimates of New Worker Households
The following section details the methodology for estimating the distribution of household income levels for new worker households in the city, and the number of these households that will be generated by new development in each commercial land use category.

Occupational Category and Wage Distribution
The first step in determining the number of new worker households requiring affordable residential units is to associate each land use type with occupational categories and the wage distribution within those categories. This estimate included the following analytical steps:
 EPS used JobsEQ to calculate the proportion of occupations likely to be represented under each land use category in the Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024 29 Metropolitan Division (MD) which includes Pleasanton.5 For example, EPS evaluated the occupation categories within the lodging industry to determine the proportional distribution of occupations for the land use category “Lodging.” Using JobsEQ, the NAICS sector 721000 (“Accommodation”) for Oakland-Fremont- Berkeley MD shows that 7.9 percent of the jobs in the Lodging industry nationwide are filled by managers, while 30.04 percent are in the category of buildings and grounds cleaning and maintenance (see Table E-4). The occupational distribution for all designated employment categories is provided in Appendix E. In addition to the distribution by occupation, JobsEQ provided the average wage for each occupation in each land use category.  The wages for each occupation were multiplied by 1.79, the average number of workers per working household in the city.6 While certainly there will be some variation in wages per employee within a household, in the absence of more specific data, this analysis assumes comparable levels of education and training and thus hourly earnings among all workers in a household.7  Each occupation is placed into its income category and the distribution is calculated based on JobsEQ’s reported percent of each industry’s jobs that is in the income category. This sorting uses HCD’s income classifications for a 3-person household because there are 3.4 people per working household in the City of Pleasanton. For consistency, the affordability gap calculation averages the respective affordability gaps of a two-person household multifamily rental unit and a four-person household townhome. The unit values used in this calculation are consistent with the unit values calculated as part of the Affordable Housing In- Lieu Fee Study in Chapter 7.

Household Formation
After calculating the estimated number of new employees (see Table 5 for density assumptions) generated for each land use category, EPS estimated the number of households represented by these new employees (detailed in Appendix Table F-1). To calculate new households, EPS first adjusted the number of workers expected to form new households, accounting for those workers who are typically too young (aged 16 to 19) to form their own households.8 The resulting adjusted estimate of new workers was 5 The Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley Metropolitan Division (MD) is comprised of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
6 From the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
7 This assumption is consistent with “Assortative Mating” theory. See National Bureau of Economic Research, “Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality.” 8 Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate this age cohort represents about 2.0 percent of the overall workforce. This proportion was applied to all industries except Commercial, which represents retail and food service industries, where the younger worker cohort represents 7.7 percent of the overall industry employment.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

30 divided by 1.79, which represents the average number of workers per households in Pleasanton.9
Table 17 Income Distribution of Worker Households by Employment Category

9 Based on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2018-2022 data regarding the number of Pleasanton residents who are defined as “workers” in households that have workers.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

31 Table 18 Household Generation Rates by Employment Category

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

32 Housing Development Costs and Affordability Gap
To calculate the maximum justifiable fee for each land use category, EPS estimated the “affordability gap” related to developing residential units affordable to very-low, low, and moderate-income households. The average household size in Pleasanton is 2.83 people per household according to 2022 Five-Year Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS), but the average number of people, per working household (households with earnings – not including retired households, etc.) is 3.40.

To estimate the development cost of a “typical” affordable unit, a development prototype is defined. In an effort to provide consistency between the Commercial Linkage Fee Study and the Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study, EPS has relied on prototypes developed for the Inclusionary Housing analysis in this study as well. Since there was no three-person household prototype used in the Inclusionary Housing analysis, the Commercial Linkage Fee analysis uses an average affordability gap of two development prototypes to characterize the cost of a “typical” affordable unit. The first assumed prototype reflects multifamily construction at over 30 dwelling units to the acre with podium parking. Based on comparable recent projects, EPS assumes the typical gross square footage of a one-bedroom rental unit will be approximately 800 square feet.

The second assumed prototype reflects single family townhome construction at 20 dwelling units to the acre, consistent with recent townhome production in Pleasanton. EPS assumes the typical gross square footage of a three-bedroom townhome unit will be 2,000 square feet. These assumptions are based on the average sizes of similar housing units recently constructed in Pleasanton and nearby jurisdictions. The multifamily prototype is assumed to be rental and the townhome prototype is assumed to be for sale. The City of Pleasanton does not anticipate a significant amount of single family detached development, so it is less appropriate when estimating the “typical” affordable unit.

Development Cost Assumptions
Affordable housing development costs include land costs, direct costs (e.g., labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.). Data from recent land transactions in and around Pleasanton have been combined with EPS’s information from various market-rate and affordable housing developers in the surrounding region to estimate appropriate development cost assumptions for use in Pleasanton. A developer fee is also estimated and represents the compensation to the developer for their efforts, investment, and risk. These assumptions are shown on Table 19 and indicate that the total development cost per unit for rental apartments is about $595,000 and the total development cost per unit for for sale townhomes is about $1.07 million. By necessity, this figure represents a “prototypical” project; the actual costs for a given project will vary by location and project design characteristics.

Revenue Assumptions
Assumptions must be made regarding the applicable income level (very-low, low, and moderate) and the percentage of household income spent on housing costs to calculate the values of the affordable units. In addition, translating these assumptions into unit prices and values requires estimates of operating expenses and capitalization rates. Additional details about assumptions used to estimate unit prices and values can be found in Chapter 7.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

33 Affordability Gap Results
Table 19 shows the costs and values for developing rental apartments in the city for households at various income levels. Across all categories, the cost of constructing the unit is higher than the supportable value of the unit. This is considered the “affordability gap,” and serves as the basis for calculating the subsidies required to provide housing for the lower-wage worker households generated by new nonresidential development. The results of the analysis illustrate that rents affordable to households earning moderate incomes and below cannot support the costs of new construction without subsidy.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

34 Table 19 Affordability Gap Analysis

Item
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Low
Income
Median
Income
Moderate
Income
50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI
Multifamily Rental
Project Development Cost Assumptions (per unit) $595,227 $595,227 $595,227 $595,227 $595,227 Maximum Supported Home Value
Household Income1 $62,300 $74,730 $96,650 $124,550 $149,500 Income Available for Housing Costs/Year2 $15,528 $19,257 $25,833 $34,203 $41,688 (less) Operating Expenses per Unit/Year3 ($7,500) ($7,500) ($7,500) ($10,000) ($10,000) Net Operating Income $8,028 $11,757 $18,333 $24,203 $31,688 Capitalization Rate4 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total Supportable Unit Value5 $160,560 $235,140 $366,660 $484,060 $633,760 Affordability Gap $434,667 $360,087 $228,567 $111,167 -$38,533 Townhomes
Project Development Cost Assumptions (per unit) $1,069,670 $1,069,670 $1,069,670 $1,069,670 $1,069,670 Maximum Supported Home Price
Household Income
6 $77,850 $93,420 $108,990 $140,130 $171,270
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year7 $27,248 $32,697 $38,147 $49,046 $59,945 Less Annual Housing Expenses8 $13,167 $14,204 $16,277 $18,350 $21,025 Income Availably for Mortgage Payments $14,080 $18,493 $21,869 $30,695 $38,920 Interest Rate 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
Total Supportable Mortgage Amount9 $174,719 $229,478 $271,376 $380,897 $482,955 Down Payment % 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Total Supportable Unit Value $183,915 $241,556 $285,659 $400,944 $508,374 Affordability Gap $885,754 $828,113 $784,011 $668,726 $561,295 Average Affordability Gap $660,211 $594,100 $506,289 $389,946 $261,381 (2) Assumes 30% of income available for housing related expenses. (7) Assumes 35% of household income is spent on housing related expenses. (8) Includes property tax, mortgage insurance, and utility payments. (9) Assumes 30-year mortage term.

Sources: City of Pleasanton; Alameda County Housing Authority; California Housing and Community Development (HCD); CoStar; Econ omic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(5) The total supportable unit value is determined by dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate. (1) Incomes are based on 2024 HCD Income Limits for two-person households in Alameda County for rental. (6) Incomes are based on 2024 HCD Income Limits for four-person households in Alameda County. Per California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, incomes for households above 70% AMI are set at a lower percent of AMI than the cutoff, (ex. Moderate Income is 110% o f AMI rather than 120%).
(3) Operating expenses are generally based on EPS feasibility studies in the region and are inclusive of utility costs; lower-i ncome units (at or below 80% of AMI) are assumed to be built as non-profit and are, therefore, exempt from property taxes. Property taxes are assumed to comprise a share of the operating expenses for the moderate-income category. (4) The capitalization rate is used to determine the current value of a property based on estimated future operating income, an d is typically a measure of estimated operating risk.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 35
Fee Calculation
Tables 20 through 23 provide the maximum nonresidential housing fee calculations for each of the four land use categories.

The fee is calculated by the following steps:

1. Estimate the number of new households by income category generated by a prototype 100,000-square foot building in the land use category.

2. Multiply the number of households generated by the per-unit affordability gap (as calculated in Table 19) to determine the level of subsidy required to provide housing in Pleasanton for all new worker households.

3. Divide the total affordability gap by 100,000 square feet (the size of the prototype building) to determine a maximum fee per building square foot.

The “Maximum Fee per Square Foot” calculated in the following tables represents the maximum justifiable linkage fee that the City can charge for each land use category based on the required nexus findings. The City may, however, decide to adopt fees below the maximum justifiable levels based on economic or policy considerations The fee level ultimately adopted by City Council will depend on policy considerations regarding development feasibility and overall fee burdens.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 36
Table 20 Fee Calculation – Office

Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 0 $594,100 $0
Low Income - 80% 24 $506,289 $12,150,927
Median Income 35 $389,946 $13,648,116
Moderate 8 $261,381 $2,091,048
Total 67 $14,241,976
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $14,241,976
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $142.42
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 37
Table 21 Fee Calculation – Commercial / Retail

Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 43 $594,100 $25,546,301
Low Income - 80% 60 $506,289 $30,377,318
Median Income 5 $389,946 $1,949,731
Moderate 0
$261,381 $0
Total 108 $57,873,350
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $57,873,350
Total Building Sq. Ft. b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $578.73
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 38
Table 22 Fee Calculation – Industrial

Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 0 $594,100 $0
Low Income - 80% 8 $506,289 $4,050,309
Median Income 17 $389,946 $6,629,085
Moderate 14 $261,381 $3,659,335
Total 39 $14,338,729
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $14,338,729
Total Building Sq. Ft.1 b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $143.39
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 39
Table 23 Fee Calculation – Lodging

Worker
Households Affordability Gap Total Gap
Item per 100k sq. ft. per household
Aggregate Financing Gap per 100K Sq. Ft
Affordability Level
Very Low Income 0 $660,211 $0
Low Income - 60% 0 $594,100 $0
Low Income - 80% 9 $506,289 $4,556,598
Median Income 7 $389,946 $2,729,623
Moderate 0 $261,381 $0
Total 16 $7,286,221
Fee Calculation formula
Total Financing Gap a $7,286,221
Total Building Sq. Ft.1 b 100,000
Maximum Fee per Sq. Ft. c = a / b $72.86
Sources: US Census Bureau "On The Map"; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 40
Nexus Findings and Impact Fee Summary
This chapter documents the necessary findings for the approval of a comprehensive DIF program for Pleasanton, as required under Government Code Section 66000 (also referred to as AB1600/the Mitigation Fee Act). Specifically, it demonstrates the "nexus" between new development in Pleasanton and the infrastructure improvements needed to serve it. It also summarizes the DIF calculations presented in previous chapters.

Nexus Findings
The development impact fees to be collected for all new development are calculated based on the proportionate share of the total facility demand that the land uses included in the DIF are anticipated to represent at build-out of the General Plan. With this context, the following findings are made regarding the Fee Program.

Purpose and Use of Fees
Parks and Recreation Facilities
The fee will fund acquisition and improvements of new parks as well as existing facility improvements and renovations, as documented in Chapter 3.

Public Facilities
The fee will fund construction and expansion of public facilities, including general government, fire, police, and public works. The public facility components are documented in Chapter 3.

Transportation
Fee revenue will be used to fund City transportation improvements, including interchange, pedestrian / bicycle safety, and traffic signal improvements required to serve future growth. A list of projects and costs is included in Appendix Table B-1.

Commercial Linkage Fee
The fee generated by this program will be deposited in the City’s Lower Income Housing Fund, to assist in the production, acquisition of at-risk units, or rehabilitation of affordable housing.

Relationship between Use of Fees and Type of Development New development in the City of Pleasanton will require additional public facilities and capital improvements, to maintain adequate levels of service and meet the needs of new residents and employees. The DIF revenue will be used to fund the “fair share” cost of these facilities and improvements based on the nexus relationships described in previous

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 41
chapters. While some of the infrastructure improvements included in the DIF Long Term CIP will also benefit existing land uses, the cost allocated to the DIF only reflect the proportion of the cost attributable to new development.

New development will also generate demand for affordable housing. The Commercial Linkage Fee revenue will be used to support the development of affordable housing.

Relationship between Need for Facility and Type of Project The specific infrastructure improvements identified in this study are designed to accommodate the needs of new development. In addition, the infrastructure is based on the level of service standards and goals that reflect what is currently provided and/or addresses future needs identified by City staff. To establish a proper nexus between the demand for affordable housing and the type of project, EPS has assessed the proportion of lower wage workers and the number of square feet per employee for each employment category.

Relationship between Fee Amount and Cost Facilities Attributed to Development
The fee levels calculated in this Nexus Study are based on a fair share cost allocation to new citywide development. Overall, about 22.7 percent of the facility improvement costs are allocated to future development, which corresponds with growth as a percentage of future population, with the remainder attributable to existing land uses in the city.

EPS estimated the difference between the cost of developing new rental housing and the value of the new rental units based on rents affordable to workers at wages typical of businesses in different commercial land uses. The affordable rents yielded unit values below the cost of construction, indicating an “affordability gap.” To estimate the fee for each non-residential land use, this gap was multiplied by the anticipated number of lower wage workers generated by the new development projects and the number of households of various income categories those workers are likely to form.

Summary of Impact Fees
Table 24 summarizes the Capital Facilities fees and Transportation fees for residential and nonresidential uses.

The maximum fee estimates include a 2 percent fee program administration fee, consistent with other Mitigation Fee Act program administrative costs in many other California jurisdictions. This 2 percent administration cost is designed to cover expenses for preparation of the development impact fee and subsequent updates, as well as the required reporting, auditing, collection and other annual administrative costs involved in overseeing the program.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 42
Table 24 Capital Facilities & Transportation Fees

This analysis calculates the initial residential impact fees on a per unit basis, however, AB 602 requires residential impact fees be charged on a per square foot basis. Table 25 and Table 26 convert the Capital Facilities and Transportation fees for single family and multifamily into per square foot fees using the average unit sizes for those units. EPS has also provided a minimum and maximum per unit fee, based on the range of typical unit sizes. The minimum unit size has been adjusted to reflect the minimum square footage of a one-person household, based on the average unit sizes and average persons per household for single family and multifamily.

Land Use
Capital Facilties
Fees1
Transportation
Fee1 Total1
Residential (per unit)
Single Family $29,677 $20,565 $50,243
Multifamily $21,016 $11,158 $32,174
Nonres idential (per s q. ft.)
Office $13.41 $31.50 $44.92
Retail $9.15 $48.35 $57.50
Industrial $4.02 $17.94 $21.96
Lodging $1.34 $25.82 $27.16
(1) Includes 2% adminstrative charge.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 43
Table 25 Capital Facilities & Transportation Single Family Fee Per Sq. Ft. Conversion

Capital
Facilities Transportation
Unit Size (sq.ft.)
Average1 a Redfin
Units equal or less than2 b
Units equal or greater than3 c Redfin
Fee / Unit
Average4 $29,677 $20,565 d
Minimum5 $9,786 $6,781 e = d * (b / a)
Maximum6 $53,419 $37,017 f = d * (c / a)
Fee Amounts
Units equal to or less than 824 sq.ft. (per unit) $9,786 $6,781 see "e" Units between 824 - 4,500 sq.ft. (per sq. ft.) $11.87 $8.23 = d / a Units equal to or greater than 4,500 sq.ft. (per unit) $53,419 $37,017 see "f" Formula Source /
Assumption
Amount
2,500
4,500
824
Item
(4) Based on the average development impact fee per unit as calculated in Table 24. (5) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of minimum unit size to the average unit size. (6) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of maximum unit size to the average unit size. (1) Represents average square footage of recently built single family housing (both detached and attached) in Pleasanton, based on Redfin sales data.
(2) Minimum size has been adjusted to reflect the square footage for a 1-person household, based on the average unit size (2,50 0 sq. ft.) and average persons per household (3.03) in Pleasanton. (3) Represents high end of recent home built in Pleasanton based on Redfin sales data.

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study October 2024

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 44
Table 26 Capital Facilities & Transportation Multifamily Fee Per Square Foot Conversion Capital
Facilities Transportation
Unit Size (sq.ft.)
Average1 aC o S t a r
Units equal or less than2 b
Units equal or greater than3 cC o S t a r
Fee / Unit
Average4 $21,016 $11,158 d
Minimum5 $9,786 $5,196 e = d * (b / a)
Maximum6 $37,570 $19,947 f = d * (c / a)
Fee Amounts
Units equal to or less than 417 sq.ft. (per unit) $9,786 $5,196 see "e" Units between 417 - 1,600 sq.ft. (per sq. ft.) $23.48 $12.47 = d / a Units equal to or greater than 1,600 sq.ft. (per unit) $37,570 $19,947 see "f" Source /
Assumption
(1) Represents average square footage of recently built single family housing (both detached and attached) in Pleasanton, based on (5) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of minimum unit size to the average unit size. (6) Adjusts the average fee based on the ratio of maximum unit size to the average unit size. (2) Minimum size has been adjusted to reflect the square footage for a 1-person household, based on the average unit size (895 sq. ft.) and average persons per household (2.15) in Pleasanton. (3) Represents high end of recent rental apartments built in Pleasanton based on CoStar rental data. (4) Based on the average development impact fee per unit as calculated in Table 24. 895
417
1,600
Item
Amount
Formula

Administrative Draft Report
Affordable Housing Fees Study

45 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee
The City of Pleasanton’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) requires that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households. This program also includes the option for new development to pay a fee in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site, as an alternative means of compliance. This Chapter provides the calculation needed to establish the maximum allowable in-lieu fee amount that corresponds to the City’s IZO requirements.

When a developer builds the affordable units on-site, the project’s development costs are not significantly affected as it usually costs roughly the same to build a market- rate unit as an affordable unit, unless the units are materially different. However, the revenue the developer can expect from the affordable units is less than the revenue from the market-rate units. The developer is, in effect, subsidizing the development of the affordable units. Generally, the deeper the affordability for the units, the greater the amount of subsidy needed for the development.

As an alternative to on-site construction of the full inclusionary requirement, the developer may request to pay in-lieu fees. Pleasanton’s IZO also allows for smaller residential projects, below a threshold number of units, to pay in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees, which are a common alternative means of complying with an inclusionary requirement, are typically calculated based on the financial subsidy needed to support the development of affordable units that are not being provided on-site. The fee revenues are collected in a dedicated fund that can be utilized to support the production and preservation of affordable units in the city.

IZO Policy Scenarios
EPS worked closely with City staff to develop the inclusionary housing scenarios used in this analysis. Additionally, the study process was informed by input from City Council received at two separate public meetings in May and August, 2024. It is important to stress that the affordable housing in-lieu fee represents only one component of a large IZO policy framework that has been developed by City staff with City Council input, and which will be considered separately as part of a comprehensive update to the Ordinance. Other elements of the IZO will play a more significant role in the amount and type of affordable housing developed in the city over time.

EPS calculated an updated maximum in-lieu fee to align with the proposed changes to the IZO recommended by City staff and supported by City Council as illustrated in Table 27. Specifically, the calculations reflect the City’s intent to change the inclusionary percentage for ownership units (generally, single-family units) from 20 percent to 15 percent, bringing it into alignment with the inclusionary percentage for rental properties (generally, multi-family units). The subsidy between market rate and

Economic & Planning Systems
46 affordable rates tends to be greater for ownership units, therefore the affordability level for these units is set at Moderate-income (120% AMI). For rental units, the affordable units will be evenly split between Very Low-income and Low-income households (50% and 60% AMI, respectively).

Table 27 Inclusionary Housing Requirements

Methodology
To calculate the subsidy needed to support the development of affordable units, EPS developed several residential prototypes to determine their respective development costs and estimated anticipated revenues.

Housing Prototypes
The prototype residential products used in the feasibility analysis were informed by EPS research on the local housing market. Research included review of recent developments and proposed projects, discussions with developers active in the region, and discussions with City staff. The chosen prototypes include one rental prototype – podium multifamily apartments - and three for-sale prototypes – condominiums, townhomes, and single-family detached homes.

The critical differentiator between the for-sale prototypes is the density at which they are built and how parking is provided, with the condominium product assumed to be built at a higher density (45 units per acre) than the townhome product (20 units per acre) and with wrap-around style parking. The townhome product is assumed to include an attached, “tuck-under” garage. The single-family detached product is assumed to be developed at an even lower density (5 units per acre) and with an attached garage. The analysis also assumes that the prototypical townhome is smaller than the prototypical single-family home. In some cases, there may be additional design factors – such as whether a unit is detached or attached – that are used to define a project as a townhome or single-family home. This analysis does not account for those types of factors, only differentiating the two prototypes based on density, parking, and unit size.

Overall
Very Low Income
(50% of AMI)
Low Income
(60% of AMI)
Moderate Income
(120% of AMI)
Ownership 15% 0% 0% 15%
Rental 15% 7.5% 7.5% 0%
Source: City of Pleasanton

Economic & Planning Systems
47 The unit characteristics for each prototype are meant to represent average unit sizes and other generic project parameters. The analysis assumes that the unique unit mix of any particular project will, in aggregate, conform to these average unit sizes.

However, any specific project will have its own cost and revenue factors that may be impacted in part by its unit mix.

Development Cost Assumptions
Housing development costs categories include land acquisition, site preparation, indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture, entitlement, marketing, etc.), and hard costs (e.g., construction labor and materials). For multifamily projects that include a structured garage, EPS also defines parking costs per unit as a separate line item.

Data from recent developments and land transactions in the local market have been combined with information from interviews with various housing developers to inform the development cost assumptions used in this analysis. Table 28 calculates the cost per unit for all four development types. More detailed cost calculations can be found in Appendix G.

Administrative Draft Report
Affordable Housing Fees Study

48 Table 28 Prototype Development Costs (per unit)

Affordable Housing Values
Based on the maximum household income at each income level, which as defined in Pleasanton is based on the Alameda County Area Median Income, EPS calculated the maximum spending toward housing costs affordable at each income level. Consistent with the City’s published inclusionary program guidelines, the analysis assumes that rental households spend 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs and for-sale households spending 35 percent of gross annual income. For rental units, housing costs include rent and utilities. For for-sale units, housing costs include mortgage and interest payments, insurance, property taxes, and Homeowners Association (HOA) fees.

To calculate the maximum affordable sale price for these for-sale units, EPS estimated other housing costs based on professional assumptions as well as assumptions given in the City’s inclusionary program guidelines and subtracted them from 35 percent of gross annual income to obtain the maximum income available for a mortgage payment. This mortgage payment was converted into an affordable home sale price assuming a 5 percent down payment 10 and a 30-year
mortgage with a fixed interest rate of 7 percent.

Table 29 indicates the maximum annual incomes for Alameda County households associated with each income category for the associated household size, as well as the affordable rents and sale prices associated with each category.

10 While The City’s affordable housing guidelines allow for down payments as low as 3 percent, 5 percent is commonly used when estimating affordable values due to the availability of assistance programs.

Economic & Planning Systems
49 Table 29 Affordable Home Values

Pleasanton Comprehensive Development Impact Fee Nexus Study September 2024 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 50
Fee Calculations
Table 30 summarizes the development costs and supportable home values for all prototypes and calculates the corresponding maximum justifiable in-lieu fee.

Table 30 Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee Calculations

APPENDIX A:

2024 Pleasanton Development Impact Fee
Capital Improvement Program

Appendix Table A-1
2024 Pleasanton Development Impact Fee CIP
Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Update
Improvement Item Cost Allocated to Fee
Protram
Library & Recreation
Library Building 63,581 square feet $34,969,275
Community Center 6, 459 square feet $3,229,588
Cultural & Arts Buildings 17,107 square feet $8,553,418 Aquatic Center Modernization $1,452,562
Cemetery $149,796
Parks & Trails
Open Space 298 acres $298,297
Developed Parkland 113 acres $56,517,797
Restrooms 3,706 square feet $7,411,612
Trails 79 miles $44,296,000
Fields 20 acres $19,744,529
Synthetic Fields 2 acres $2,190,534
Outdoor Hard Surface Facilities 2 acres $4,734,283
General Government
Civic Center 13,325 square feet $6,662,347
Parking Spaces 109 spaces $1,086,316
Public Works
Public Works Yard 15,769 square feet $8,672,898
Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 276 vehicles $23,433,600
Police
Police Station 6,400 square feet $6,399,576
Public Works Yard Space 3,406 square feet $1,873,161
Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 76 vehicles $5,302,397
Emergency Operations Center $1,270,992
Fire
Fire Stations 15,648 square feet $31,296,473
Public Works Yard Space 2,701 square feet $1,485,611
Fleet Expansion/ Replacement 33 vehicles $8,799,160
Sources: City of Pleasanton, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Space Attributable to Growth

Appendix Table A-2
Baseline Data of Existing Facilities
Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Update
Facilit
y Existing Amount
Civic Center (square feet)
200 Bernal 16,209
200 Bernal HR Modular 2,666
123 Main 9,243
123 Main IT Modular 2,048
157 Main 15,218
Subtotal 45,384
Parking Spaces (number of spaces)
Library 113
Police 88
123 Main 26
IT Modular 2
157 Main 40
200 Old Bernal 89
HR Modular 12
Subtotal 370
Public Works Yard (square feet)
Administrative Building1 7,808
Control Tower/Office 5,100
Parks Building 12,900
Steam Cleaning Office 493
Streets Building 12,900
Support Services Storage 2,500
Support Services Building 17,800
Vehicle Services Building 2,016
Subtotal 61,517
Cultural & Arts Buildings (square feet)
Cultural Arts Building (4477 Black Ave) 3,200
Amador Recreation Building 2,015
Amador Theater 12,530
Century House 2,730
Historical Building (603 Main St) 4,716
Nature House 800
VFW Building 9,025
Adobe House 750
Alviso Adobe 2,500
Fire House Arts Center 20,000
Subtotal 58,266

Appendix Table A-2
Baseline Data of Existing Facilities
Pleasanton Development Impact Fee Update
Facilit
y Existing Amount
Police Buildings
Police Station 20,297
Joint BART/Pleasanton (50%)2 1,500
Subtotal 21,797
Source: City of Pleasanton
(1) The Public Works Yard Administrative Building is shared with the Utilities Department, which is funded by an enterprise fund. While the Administrative Building is actually 10,410 square feet, this analysis assumes 25% of that space is used by the Utilities Department and therefore is not included in this fee program.
(2) Analysis assumes responsibilities for 3,000 sf joint BART/Pleasanton substation are split 50/50 between BART and Pleasanton

APPENDIX B:

2024 Transportation Improvements

100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Technical Memorandum

Date: September 24, 2024
To: Jason Moody and Megan Gregory, Economic & Planning Systems From: Julie Morgan and Bruno Lertora, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Pleasanton Transportation Impact Fee Update: Documentation of Nexus Analysis WC24-4053
Introduction
The Pleasanton Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program, as most recently updated in 2018, has a capital improvement list made up of 111 projects. As documented in previous nexus studies, the transportation facilities included in the Pleasanton TIF project list are needed in whole or in part to serve the demand created by new development in Pleasanton. The primary purpose of this current effort is to update the TIF project list by removing completed projects and incorporating 19 additional transportation improvement projects that are consistent with the purpose of the TIF program. As part of that effort, Fehr & Peers has completed a technical analysis regarding the nexus between new development, the need for the 19 additional transportation projects, and the costs associated with those improvements. This technical memorandum documents the steps in that analysis.

Transportation Project List
The list of new transportation improvement projects to be included in the TIF was developed by City staff. The projects are drawn from recent studies and plans that identified the needs for future improvements in order to serve the City’s transportation needs. Table 1 shows a summary of the project costs by type of improvement for the projects from the current TIF program that will remain on the project list, as well as for the new projects to be included in the TIF program.

Improvement projects have been subdivided into four categories: roadway improvements, new traffic signals, bicycle projects, and supporting citywide infrastructure. Projects that have already been completed or those for which TIF funding has already been secured have been removed from the list. Attachment 1 shows the detailed project list with project descriptions and extents,

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

along with the source for each project. The locations of the roadway improvements are shown geographically in Figure 1.

Table 1: Pleasanton TIF Transportation Project List
Project Type
2018 TIF Remaining
Projects New Projects Total 2024 TIF Project List
# of
Projects Cost* # of
Projects Cost* # of
Projects Cost*
Roadway
Improvements 31 $259,170,000 9 $11,685,000 40 $270,855,000 New Traffic
Signals 0 $0 1 $22,200,000 1 $22,200,000
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Improvements
45 $129,560,000 8 $64,280,000 53 $193,840,000
Citywide Projects 2 $2,570,000 1 $500,000 3 $3,070,000
Total 78 $391,300,000 19 $98,665,000 97 $489,965,000
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Note: *The costs are in 2024 US dollars.

For the projects that are already part of the TIF program, the cost estimates from the 2018 TIF nexus study have been escalated to the current year to adjust for inflation. For the newly added projects, cost estimates have been developed based on assumptions about the planned right-of- way, roadway cross-sections, and landscaping treatments for each corridor. These assumptions have been based on similar existing corridors within the City of Pleasanton as well as the City’s roadway design standards, and have been reviewed and confirmed by City staff. In some cases, the estimated project cost is presented as a range, depending on design details that are not known at this point.

As shown in Table 1, the total cost of all projects is about $490 million. The results of the nexus analysis procedures are described in the following sections of this memorandum.

Nexus Analysis
In order to include the 19 additional projects that are proposed to be added to the TIF program, it is necessary to establish a “nexus” or relationship between new development in Pleasanton, the need for transportation improvements in order to serve that new development, and the cost of the improvements that would be covered by the TIF. The following procedures have been used to evaluate that nexus relationship.

! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
2222
2020
1212
44 55
2424
1616
11 22
99 88
3030
1717
1111
1010
2121
3232
4040
3939
3838 3838
3838
3838
3838
3333
3636
3737
3434
3535
1919
1414
1515
66 7733
1313
1818
2727
25252626
2828
2929
2323
Pleasanton
Transportation Impact Fee
Legend
Roadway Improvement
! Intersection Improvement
Project Number##
City Limits
Figure 1
Roadway Improvements

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

First, there has been an evaluation of whether there is an existing deficiency at any of the 18 new project locations, and if so, the magnitude of that deficiency. Existing deficiencies are accounted for by reducing the project cost that is included in the fee program. The concept of accounting for existing deficiencies in a fee study is that new development should not be charged the full cost of improving a facility if that facility is not meeting current operating standards during the critical peak hour (typically the PM peak period). As in the original TIF study, the determination of existing deficiencies is being drawn from the results of prior traffic analyses and the traffic count data available from the City, and no new traffic data has been collected. Based on the available information, no existing deficiencies were identified for the 19 new projects being added to the TIF list.

Anticipated Direct Developer Contributions
Some of the projects listed in Attachment 1 are anticipated to be partially funded through direct contributions from nearby developments, because those projects are needed to provide access to the developments or as mitigation for the developments’ direct impacts. In those instances, the percent eligibility for the TIF program has been set per direction from City staff. None of the 1 9 new projects proposed to be added to the TIF program involve any direct developer contributions.

Growth Projections
The City of Pleasanton’s Travel Demand Model was used to project future traffic volumes for the Buildout Year scenario. The travel demand model includes forecasted land use changes and roadway improvements, reflecting the growth anticipated in the Pleasanton General Plan. The total amount of citywide growth in the major land use categories is presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Growth Projections by Land Use Category
Land Use Unit Existing Buildout
Growth
(Existing -
Buildout)
% Growth
Residential Dwelling Units 30,992 37,781 6,788 22%
Non-Residential KSF 19,237 26,990 7,753 40%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

As part of this TIF study, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) has prepared refined projections of the number of residents and workers who would be associated with the new residential and non - residential development summarized above. The EPS projections calculate that the “Service Population” which is defined as all of the residential population and 40% of the employees, is expected to grow from roughly 99,343 today to approximately 128,510 over the planning horizon

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

of this study. Thus, the Service Population added as a result of new growth will represent 22.7% of the total future Service Population.

Costs Attributable to Pleasanton
The next step in the nexus analysis is to determine the proportion of project costs attributable to the land uses within the City of Pleasanton.

Land use growth to the buildout year was incorporated into the Pleasanton travel demand model and the model was applied to generate estimates of travel patterns and volumes in the future. A common modeling technique called a select zone analysis was applied to identify the amount of future traffic volume on each roadway link that would be generated by land uses in Pleasanton.

On each model link that represents the location of a project, the future traffic volume attributable to Pleasanton was compared to the overall future traffic volume, thereby calculating the share of the usage of that link that can be attributed to land uses in Pleasanton. These usage percentages are shown in Attachment 1 in the column called Percent Pleasanton Trips, From Model.

Following the same approach that was used in the 2018 TIF nexus study, if more than 70% of the usage of the facility was from Pleasanton, that indicates that the need for the improvement is predominantly due to Pleasanton-related travel so the entire cost of the project was considered to be included in the TIF program. This approach was used in recognition of the “lumpiness” of most transportation infrastructure (for example, it is not possible to build half of a left-turn lane or half of a traffic signal), and the consideration that if Pleasanton traffic was contributing more than 70% of the need for an improvement then it would be reasonable to conclude that the improvement would not be needed but for the growth in Pleasanton. If less than 70% of the usage was from Pleasanton, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton was used directly from the model. The result is shown in Attachment 1 in the column called Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted. Note that these percentages have been newly calculated only for the 19 additional projects proposed to be included in the TIF program. For all of the projects that are remaining from the current TIF project list, the percentage of future traffic volume attributable to Pleasanton has not been re-calculated but is carried forward from the 2018 TIF nexus study.

For projects that involve bicycle, pedestrian or safety enhancements, or those that are city-wide projects, the percentage attributable to Pleasanton is calculated based on current data about existing service population and projections of future growth. Per the growth projections described above, that value is 22.7%.

Final Nexus Results
For each project, the cost to be included in the TIF program was calculated as the estimated project cost multiplied by the eligibility factor (thus accounting for existing deficiencies and direct developer contributions) and then multiplied by the Percent Pleasanton Trips, Adjusted. As shown

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

in Table 3, the final project costs eligible for funding through the TIF program are approximately $294 million, with about $49 million of that total being associated with the 19 new projects to be added to the program.

Table 3: Pleasanton TIF Transportation Projects Cost Eligibility Project Type
2018 TIF Remaining
Projects New Projects Total 2024 TIF Project List
# of
Projects Cost* # of
Projects Cost* # of
Projects Cost*
Roadway
Improvements 31 $221,459,000 9 $11,685,000 40 $233,144,000 New Traffic
Signals 0 $0 1 $22,200,000 1 $22,200,000
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Improvements
45 $23,320,800 8 $14,591,560 53 $37,912,360
Citywide Projects 2 $462,600 1 $113,500 3 $576,100
Total 78 $245,242,400 19 $48,590,060 97 $293,832,460
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Note: *The costs are in 2024 US dollars.

Trip Rate Factors
The costs attributable to new development in Pleasanton, described above, can be distributed across the various land uses that will make up the new development, in order to determine a reasonable fee for each land use category.

A typical method for achieving this distribution is to develop a set of factors that relate the transportation demands of different land use categories to each other. Table 4 presents a set of factors for the land use categories that might occur in Pleasanton; these factors are drawn from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), and an adjustment of 35% for pass-by trips is applied to retail uses (consistent with the approach from the 2018 TIF nexus study). Each land use factor is then multiplied by the corresponding growth projection to result in a Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) growth that can be added across categories.

Table 5 displays the calculated maximum impact fees based on this nexus analysis. The total potential future fee contribution toward all the projects shown in Table 3 ($293.8 million) has been divided by the total number of future Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUEs) expected in Pleasanton as shown in Table 4 (13,699 DUEs), to calculate the resulting maximum fee per trip of

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

21,449. That maximum fee per trip is then multiplied by the Adjusted PM Peak Hour Trip Rate for each of the categories shown in the previous table, and the results are presented in Table 5.

Table 4: Trip Rates and DUE Growth by Land Use Category Category Unit
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate
Pass-by
Adjustment
Adjusted
PM Peak
Hour Trip
Rate
Growth
(Existing -
Buildout)
DUE
Growth
Single-Family Residential DU 0.94 0% 0.94
6,788 3,769
Multi-Family Residential DU 0.51 0% 0.51
General Office KSF 1.44 0% 1.44
7,753 9,930
Light Industrial/R&D KSF 0.82 0% 0.82
Retail KSF 3.40 -35% 2.21
Hotel Rooms 0.59 0% 0.59
Total - 13,699
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), Fehr & Peers, 2024.

Table 5: New Maximum Fee Calculations
Category Unit New Maximum Fee
Single-Family Residential DU $20,162
Multi-Family Residential DU $10,939
General Office KSF $30,886
Light Industrial/R&D KSF $17,588
Retail KSF $47,402
Hotel Rooms $12,655
Other Categories PM Peak Hour Trip Rate $21,449
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.

This concludes the technical elements of the transportation nexus analysis. Please contact us with any questions.

Jason Moody and Megan Gregory
September 24, 2024

Attachment 1

Low High Minimum Maximum
1 Bernal Avenue I-680 to East of Foothill
Construct a new bridge to the south of the
existing bridge to provide new bike lane and
two eastbound travel lanes. Existing bridge
will be converted to "westbound" direction
only.
$7,350,000 $7,350,000 No 100% 100% 100% $7,350,000 $7,350,000 2 Bernal Avenue I-680 to Valley Avenue
Widen to 6 lanes; at the intersection of Valley
Avenue, convert the westbound right turn
only lane into a through/right option lane;
convert the SBR only lane to a channelized
free right turn lane and convert the SB shared
through/right lane to an exclusive SBT lane
$1,470,000 $1,470,000 No 100% 96% 100% $1,470,000 $1,470,000 3 Bernal Avenue Case Avenue/Old Bernal Avenue Add southbound right turn lane on Old Bernal Avenue $740,000 $740,000 No 100% 96% 100% $740,000 $740,000 4 Busch Road East of Ironwood Drive to El Charro Road
Construct as 4 lane divided with Class I bike
facility along south side or Class IV bike
facilities
$12,340,000 $12,340,000 No 100% 100% 100% $12,340,000 $12,340,000 5 El Charro Road Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard
Construct as 4 lane divided with Class I bike
facility along west side or Class IV bike
facilities
$78,670,000 $78,670,000 No 100% 99% 100% $78,670,000 $78,670,000 6 First Street Vineyard Avenue/Ray Street Convert east/west to protected/permissive left turn phasing $110,000 $110,000 No 100% 97% 100% $110,000 $110,000 7 First Street/Sunol Boulevard Bernal Avenue
Add 2nd WBL lane on Bernal and extend 2nd
SBT lane on First Street/Sunol Boulevard;
include bike lanes
$6,100,000 $6,100,000 No 100% 97% 100% $6,100,000 $6,100,000 8 Foothill Road Stoneridge Drive Add a third southbound left turn lane; consider removing split phasing $590,000 $890,000 No 100% 90% 100% $590,000 $890,000 9 Foothill Road Foothill High School Widen SB approach to provide 2nd left-turn lane and NB right turns $1,620,000 $1,620,000 No 100% 100% 100% $1,620,000 $1,620,000 10 Hacienda Drive Owens Drive Add 3rd southbound and eastbound left turn lanes from through lanes $2,360,000 $2,360,000 No 100% 95% 100% $2,360,000 $2,360,000 11A Hopyard Road Owens Drive (Phase I)
Modify northbound lanes to full build
configuration: 2 left turns, 3 through, 1 right
turn
$0 $0 No 100% 86% 100% $0 $0
11B Hopyard Road Owens Drive (Full Build)
Modify lanes; Northbound: 2 left turns, 3
through, 1 right turn; Southbound: 3 left turns,
3 through, 1 right turn (free); Eastbound: 2 left
turn, 2 through, 1 right turn; Westbound: 2
left turn, 2 through, 1 right turn (free); unsplit
eastbound/westbound; narrow lane to reduce
pedestrian clearance to 20 seconds
$2,500,000 $2,500,000 No 100% 86% 100% $2,500,000 $2,500,000 12 Nevada Street First Street to California Avenue Construct as 2 lane street with TWLTL and bike lanes $7,350,000 $7,350,000 No 100% 100% 100% $7,350,000 $7,350,000 13 Santa Rita Road I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp/Pimlico Construct 2nd southbound left turn lane $11,310,000 $11,310,000 No 100% 91% 100% $11,310,000 $11,310,000 Attachment 1: 2024 Pleasanton TIF Update Project List
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Roadway Improvements
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for
Fee ProgramRoadway Explanation of
Eligibility
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, from Model
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, AdjustedImprovementsIntersection/Segment
1

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for
Fee ProgramRoadway Explanation of
Eligibility
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, from Model
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, AdjustedImprovementsIntersection/Segment
14 Santa Rita Road Valley Avenue
Construct second WB left-turn lane. Construct
3rd SB left-turn. Timing to be determined by
City Council under Program 2.3.
$2,940,000 $2,940,000 No 100% 100% 100% $2,940,000 $2,940,000 15 Stanley Boulevard Valley Avenue/Bernal Avenue
Extend sidewalk on east side of Valley Avenue
(from the termination near the train
overcrossing) to Stanley Boulevard and modify
intersection to provide crosswalk on the east
leg of the intersection and construct free
westbound right turn lane.
$3,680,000 $3,680,000 No 100% 99% 100% $3,680,000 $3,680,000 16 Stoneridge Drive I-680 Overpass Widen WB overpass by 1 to 2 lanes $11,760,000 $18,510,000 No 100% 90% 100% $11,760,000 $18,510,000 17 Stoneridge Drive Hopyard Road Provide EB free right turn (maybe remove one SB through lane). Change cycle to 100 sec $1,140,000 $1,140,000 No 100% 97% 100% $1,140,000 $1,140,000 18 Stoneridge Drive Springdale Avenue Unsplit north/south phasing (safety improvement) $110,000 $110,000 Yes 18%
Treated as existing
deficiency because
project is primarily
safety-focused.
88% 100% $19,800 $19,800
19 Stoneridge Drive W Las Positas Boulevard
Convert a through lane for the northbound
and southbound approaches to a left turn
lane; restripe WB and EB lanes to add separate
WB and EB right turn lanes on Stoneridge
$80,000 $80,000 No 100% 100% 100% $80,000 $80,000
20 Sunol Boulevard I-680 Interchange
Widen roadway in interchange area; signalize
both ramp intersections at Sunol Boulevard;
widen structure over Happy Valley Road and
provide a southbound acceleration lane from
Sunol On-Ramp
$31,000,000 $31,000,000 No 100% 97% 100% $31,000,000 $31,000,000 21 W Las Positas Boulevard Hopyard Road Construct 3rd westbound left turn lane $1,210,000 $1,210,000 No 100% 98% 100% $1,210,000 $1,210,000 22 Park and Ride Lot - Park and Ride lot at Bernal/I-680 $5,880,000 $5,880,000 No 100% 100% 100% $5,880,000 $5,880,000 23 Embarcadero Court Embarcadero Court at two-way stop-controlled intersection Construct a roundabout $1,470,000 $1,470,000 No 100% 100% 100% $1,470,000 $1,470,000 24 El Charro Road I-580 Interchange
I-580/El Charro Road Interchange
Improvements (Phase 2): reconstruction of
overcrossing to provide four-lanes in each
direction with bike lanes; reconstruction of the
southbound to eastbound loop on-ramp;
widening of the eastbound off-ramp to
provide two exit lanes with two left turn and
two right tum lanes; widening of the
eastbound on-ramp; widening of the
westbound off-ramp to provide two left tum
and two right tum lanes; and widening of the
westbound on-ramp
$46,120,000 $46,120,000 No 25%
City of Pleasanton is
only responsible for
25% of the project
cost
77% 100% $11,530,000 $11,530,000
25 Hacienda Drive Hacienda Drive at I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp Modify signal and striping to convert #2 left turn lane to a left/right option lane $60,000 $60,000 No 100% 84% 100% $60,000 $60,000 26 Hopyard Road Hopyard Road at I-580 Eastbound Ramp Modify signal to provide eastbound right/northbound through overlap period $50,000 $50,000 No 100% 72% 100% $50,000 $50,000 27 Hopyard Road Hopyard Road at I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp Re-stripe off-ramp to convert #2 left turn lane into a left/right option lane $30,000 $30,000 No 100% 56% 56% $16,800 $16,800 28 Stoneridge Drive Stoneridge Drive at I-680 Northbound Modify signal to allow a northbound right/westbound through overlap period $50,000 $50,000 No 100% 96% 100% $50,000 $50,000 29 Valley Avenue Valley Avenue at Koll Center Parkway North Un-split east/west signal phasing $60,000 $60,000 No 100% 100% 100% $60,000 $60,000 2

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for
Fee ProgramRoadway Explanation of
Eligibility
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, from Model
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, AdjustedImprovementsIntersection/Segment
30 - Johnson Drive at Stoneridge Drive
Construct 3rd eastbound left turn lane; widen
southbound approach to six lanes for at least
700 feet north of intersection to provide an
additional northbound receiving lane and an
additional southbound right turn lane; add an
additional southbound left turn lane; extend
the westbound right turn pocket 800 feet,
convert the lane to a shared through-right
lane, and construct a second on-ramp lane to
northbound I-680
$10,290,000 $10,290,000 No 100% 98% 100% $10,290,000 $10,290,000 31 Various Locations - Install flashing yellow arrows at up to 25 traffic signals $1,840,000 $3,680,000 Yes 18%
Treated as existing
deficiency because
project is primarily
safety-focused.
100% $331,200 $662,400
32* Hopyard Road Hopyard @ Valley Unsplit eastbound and westbound and add a second eastbound left turn $890,000 $890,000 No 100% 97% 100% $890,000 $890,000 33* West Las Positas Boulevard West Las Positas @ Muirwood Drive Widen eastbound and westbound approaches
to allow for 2 through lanes. Need 200 feet of
additional lane to improve intersection
capacity
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 No 100% 96% 100% $2,000,000 $2,000,000 34* West Las Positas Boulevard West Las Positas @ Foothill Road Add a second westbound left turn lane. Widen
the south side of intersection to receive
second left turn lane. Extend westbound left
turn pocket
$1,250,000 $1,250,000 No 100% 94% 100% $1,250,000 $1,250,000 35* Bernal Avenue Bernal Avenue at Foothill Road
Add a second southbound left turn lane and
widen east side of intersection to receive
additional turn lane
$1,110,000 $1,110,000 No 100% 96% 100% $1,110,000 $1,110,000 36* Santa Rita Road Santa Rita @ Rosewood Add a second northbound left turn lane $1,210,000 $1,210,000 No 100% 93% 100% $1,210,000 $1,210,000 37* Owens Drive Owens @ Willow Reduce crossing distance on west side of intersection $825,000 $825,000 No 100% 100% 100% $825,000 $825,000 38* Valley Avenue Crestline, Blackbird, Paseo Santa Cruz (N), Hansen, Paseo Santa Cruz (S) Construct roundabouts $3,000,000 $3,000,000 No 100% 98% 100% $3,000,000 $3,000,000 39* Hopyard Road Hopyard @ Black
Redesign south side of intersection to allow 2
southbound through lanes through the
intersection.
$200,000 $200,000 No 100% 100% 100% $200,000 $200,000
40* Santa Rita Road at Amador High Modify design to allow southbound right turn lane into parking lot. Elevate bike lane $1,200,000 $1,200,000 No 100% 95% 100% $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $261,965,000 $270,855,000 $225,762,800 $233,144,000
41* Citywide Citywide Installation of new traffic signals $22,200,000 $22,200,000 No 100% $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $22,200,000
42 Dublin Canyon Road Foothill Road to Canyon Meadow Circle Six foot bike lanes $350,000 $350,000 18% $63,000 $63,000 43 Foothill Road Canyon Way to Castlewood Drive Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $1,250,000 $7,740,000 18% $225,000 $1,393,200
SUBTOTAL, Roadway Improvements
SUBTOTAL, New Traffic Signals
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
New Traffic Signals
3

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for
Fee ProgramRoadway Explanation of
Eligibility
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, from Model
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, AdjustedImprovementsIntersection/Segment
44 Hopyard Road I-580 WB Off-Ramp to Black Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $1,500,000 $9,290,000 18% $270,000 $1,672,200
45 Santa Rita Road Stoneridge Drive to Black Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $750,000 $4,650,000 18% $135,000 $837,000
46 St Mary Street Division Street to Main Street Six foot bike lanes $40,000 $100,000 18% $7,200 $18,000 47 Main Street Old Bernal Avenue to Bernal Avenue Six foot bike lanes $30,000 $490,000 18% $5,400 $88,200 48 Abbie Street Main Street to First Street Six foot bike lanes $40,000 $40,000 18% $7,200 $7,200 49 First Street Vineyard Avenue to Bernal Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $380,000 $2,330,000 18% $68,400 $419,400
50 Owens Drive Hopyard Avenue to W Las Positas Boulevard Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $940,000 $5,810,000 18% $169,200 $1,045,800
51 Stoneridge Drive Foothill Road to Santa Rita Road Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $1,100,000 $1,900,000 18% $198,000 $342,000
52 W Las Positas Boulevard Santa Rita Road to Hacienda Drive Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $630,000 $3,870,000 18% $113,400 $696,600
53 W Las Positas Boulevard Dorman Road to Hopyard Road Five to five and a half foot bike lanes $70,000 $390,000 18% $12,600 $70,200 54 Valley Avenue Sunol Boulevard to Case Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $190,000 $1,170,000 18% $34,200 $210,600
55 Valley Avenue Hopyard Road to Bernal Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $470,000 $5,030,000 18% $84,600 $905,400
56 Valley Avenue Northway Road to Greenwood Road Six foot eastbound bike lanes $110,000 $110,000 18% $19,800 $19,800 57 Valley Avenue Santa Rita Road to Stanley Boulevard Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $400,000 $4,260,000 18% $72,000 $766,800
58 Bernal Avenue Foothill Road to Pleasanton Avenue Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $470,000 $5,030,000 18% $84,600 $905,400
59 Bernal Avenue Kottinger Drive to Stanley Boulevard Six foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffer or cycle track $630,000 $3,870,000 18% $113,400 $696,600
60 Sunol Boulevard Arlington Drive to I-680 Six foot bike lanes $110,000 $190,000 18% $19,800 $34,200 61 Pleasanton Sunol Boulevard I-680 Interchange to Castlewood Drive Six foot bike lanes $70,000 $70,000 18% $12,600 $12,600 62 Val Vista Community Park Trail Arroyo de la Laguna to Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive East bank:
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
$680,000 $1,090,000 18% $122,400 $196,200
63 Val Vista Community Park Trail Johnson Drive/Stoneridge Drive to Johnson Drive North/I-580 South and east banks:
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
Intersection/trail crossing at Stoneridge
$1,710,000 $2,730,000 18% $307,800 $491,400
4

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for
Fee ProgramRoadway Explanation of
Eligibility
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, from Model
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, AdjustedImprovementsIntersection/Segment
64 Val Vista Bridge Improvements Val Vista Community Park Trail & Arroyo de la Laguna Update bridge railing to meet Caltrans standards $140,000 $140,000 18% $25,200 $25,200
65 Arroyo de la Laguna Arroyo Mocho to Arroyo del Valle East bank:
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
$1,870,000 $2,990,000 18% $336,600 $538,200
66 W Las Positas/Arroyo de la Laguna Trail Access Point Arroyo de la Laguna to W Las Positas Access gate and pathway from north side of W Las Positas Road $170,000 $170,000 18% $30,600 $30,600 67 Arroyo de la Laguna Trail - South Extension Arroyo del Valle to near south end of Laguna Creek Lane 10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
Requires new bike/ped bridge at junction of
Arroyo del Valle. Intersection improvements at
Bernal Ave, Potential access points at
Lylewood Drive, Bernal Avenue, and along
Laguna Creek Lane
$3,070,000 $3,070,000 18% $552,600 $552,600
68 Pleasanton Canal Bridge Improvements Alamo Canal Trail to Pleasanton Canal Change bridge railing to meet Caltrans standards, 55" height $110,000 $110,000 18% $19,800 $19,800 69 Chabot Canal Owens Drive/Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station to W Las Positas Boulevard/Arroyo Mocho Trail
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
Intersection Improvements at W Las Positas,
Inglewood, Stoneridge, Gibraltar, Owens.

Requires bridge at Arroyo Mocho. Provides
between Arroyo Mocho Trail and Dublin-
Pleasanton BART, and Hart Middle School
(Constrain: multiple mid-block crossings)
$6,000,000 $6,000,000 18% $1,080,000 $1,080,000
70 Iron Horse Trail Between Stoneridge Drive and Santa Rita Road Iron Horse Trail, intersection/trail crossing and
signage improvements are needed; this area
includes the intersection of W Las Positas with
Stoneridge Drive and the Arroyo Mocho Trail
with the Iron Horse Trail Corridor; construct
bridge across Arroyo Mocho Trail
$2,360,000 $4,120,000 18% $424,800 $741,600
71 Iron Horse Trail Busch Road to Stanley Boulevard
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
from Busch Road, to Stanley Boulevard, at
Shadow Cliffs Regional Park Entrance.

Intersection/trail crossings improvements at
Busch Road and Valley/Stanley intersection,
and railroad crossing
$12,360,000 $12,360,000 18% $2,224,800 $2,224,800
5

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for
Fee ProgramRoadway Explanation of
Eligibility
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, from Model
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, AdjustedImprovementsIntersection/Segment
72 Tassajara Canal Rosewood Drive/I-580 to W Las Positas Boulevard/Arroyo Mocho Trail
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
Intersection Improvements at Rosewood,
Owens, Stoneridge, W Las Positas. Requires
bridge at Arroyo Mocho. Study potential for
crossing at I-580 to connect with Tassajara
Creek Trail in Dublin, (constraints, multiple
mid-block crossings, current adjacent land
uses are commercial office/industrial parks
which turn backs to canal with no access
$3,450,000 $4,770,000 18% $621,000 $858,600
73 Arroyo Mocho Hopyard Road to City Limit near Busch Road South bank:
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
Provides connection to future trails to
Livermore
$4,770,000 $7,610,000 18% $858,600 $1,369,800
74 Arroyo Mocho Near Gulfstream Street to City Limit near Busch Road Access improvements from Fairlands Park and
Meadows Park neighborhoods
North bank:
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
Provides connection to future trails to
Livermore
$1,570,000 $2,500,000 18% $282,600 $450,000
75 Arroyo Mocho Hopyard Road to Santa Rita Road Access Improvements from Parkside neighborhood $100,000 $100,000 18% $18,000 $18,000
76 Arroyo Mocho - Fairlands Connector W Las Positas to Arroyo Mocho Trail In coordination with any future major
redevelopment of the Nob Hill shopping
center site at the SW corner of W Las Positas
and Hopyard, provide a multi-use trail
connecting from Fairlands Elementary School
to the Arroyo Mocho trail. Consider new
bike/pedestrian bridge for this connection
$480,000 $760,000 18% $86,400 $136,800
77 Pleasanton Canal Arroyo de la Laguna to Hopyard Road North bank:
10 foot paved bikeway
Compacted soil/decompressed granite side
path for pedestrian/runner/equestrian use
Provides connection Tennis & Community
Park and Pleasanton Sports & Recreation Park
$1,190,000 $1,900,000 18% $214,200 $342,000
78 Pleasanton Canal Arroyo de la Laguna to Hopyard Road Trail Access Improvements $2,190,000 $3,110,000 18% $394,200 $559,800 79 Pleasanton Sports & Recreation Park Hopyard Road to Omega Circle Trail Access Improvements $50,000 $50,000 18% $9,000 $9,000 80 Arroyo del Valle Main Street to Shadow Cliffs Regional Park Trail improvements per Community Trails Master Plan $4,280,000 $4,280,000 18% $770,400 $770,400 81 Main Street/Santa Rita to Stanley connector South end of Santa Rita frontage road to Stanley Boulevard Realign existing path on east side of Main
Street south side of railroad. Add bike/ped
crossing gate at the railroad crossing from
Santa Rita frontage road southbound
$680,000 $680,000 18% $122,400 $122,400
82 Regional Trail Bernal Avenue to Stanley Boulevard
10' concrete pedestrian/bike path
6' decomposed granite multi-use path.

Intersection/trail crossing improvements
$2,790,000 $2,790,000 18% $502,200 $502,200
83 Regional Trail Bernal Avenue to City Limit near I-680 Class I Multi-Use Trail, connecting with
planned East Bay Regional Parks District Trail
south. Provides route avoiding the Sunol
Boulevard crossing of I-680
$1,700,000 $2,720,000 18% $306,000 $489,600
84 Interchanges I-580 (Foothill, Hopyard, Hacienda, Santa Rita and El Charro) and I-680 (Stoneridge, Bernal and Sunol) Interchange improvements for bikes $8,390,000 $8,390,000 18% $1,510,200 $1,510,200 85 Foothill Road - Foothill Road Bike Master Plan $60,000 $60,000 18% $10,800 $10,800 6

Low High Minimum Maximum
#
Estimated Cost ($2024) Cost Included in TIF Program
Existing Deficiency? Percent Eligible for
Fee ProgramRoadway Explanation of
Eligibility
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, from Model
Percent Pleasanton
Trips, AdjustedImprovementsIntersection/Segment
86 Downtown - Downtown Bike Master Plan $230,000 $370,000 18% $41,400 $66,600 87* West Las Positas Corridor Foothill to Fairlands Pedestrian and bicycle improvements identified in WLP Corridor plan $50,000,000 $50,000,000 No 23% $11,350,000 $11,350,000 88* Stoneridge Mall Road Full loop Add sidewalk $510,000 $510,000 No 23% $115,770 $115,770 89* Stoneridge Mall Road Full loop Add cycle track $3,780,000 $3,780,000 No 23% $858,060 $858,060 90* Bernal Avenue Valley to Fire Station Add bike lane in the eastbound direction $110,000 $110,000 No 23% $24,970 $24,970 91* Peters Avenue St. John to Old Bernal Construct two-way cycle track on west side of roadway $2,000,000 $2,000,000 No 23% $454,000 $454,000
92* Safety Corridors Santa Rita, Stoneridge Hopyard Convert to protected intersections $6,600,000 $6,600,000 No 23% $1,498,200 $1,498,200 93* Stanley Boulevard Valley to City Limit
Extend two-way cycle track / mixed use path
design from intersection to the mixed use
path that exists to the east of the BMX park
$880,000 $880,000 No 23% $199,760 $199,760
94* Citywide Trails Improve trail access by adding gates and paths from existing sidewalks $400,000 $400,000 No 23% $90,800 $90,800 $134,210,000 $193,840,000 $27,178,960 $37,912,360
95 Citywide -
Expand the City's ITS equipment and
capabilities; update the City's Traffic
Operations Center Hardware (computers,
servers, switches, monitors, etc.); web
integration and information dissemination
project to provide information to public
through various media (i.e., web, mobile,
phone, etc.); includes 5 years of service
$950,000 $950,000 18% $171,000 $171,000
96 Citywide -
Upgrade and update of approximately 70
traffic controllers to allow for Ethernet
communications; upgrade system
communication to Ethernet and establish
communication to all signals; upgrade existing
controller software to the latest version
$1,620,000 $1,620,000 18% $291,600 $291,600
97* Citywide - Update to the existing traffic model $500,000 $500,000 23% $113,500 $113,500 $322,780,000 $391,300,000 $227,127,800 $245,242,400
$98,665,000 $98,665,000 $48,590,060 $48,590,060
$421,445,000 $489,965,000 $275,717,860 $293,832,460
Note: New projects added in the 2024 TIF Update are marked with asterisk symbol (*).

Remaining Project TOTAL
New Projects TOTAL
OVERALL TOTAL (Remaining + New Projects)
SUBTOTAL, Bicycle Improvements
Citywide Projects
7

APPENDIX C:

Affordable Housing Income Limits

Appendix Table C-1
Alameda County 2024 Income Limits by Persons in Household Pleasanton Fee Update
1 234567
Acutely Low Income 0% - 15% $16,350 $18,700 $21,000 $23,350 $25,200 $27,100 $28,950 Extremely Low Income 30% $32,700 $37,400 $42,050 $46,700 $50,450 $54,200 $57,950 Very Low Income 50% $54,500 $62,300 $70,100 $77,850 $84,100 $90,350 $96,550 Low Income 60% $65,400 $74,730 $84,090 $93,420 $100,890 $108,360 $115,830 Low Income 80% $84,600 $96,650 $108,750 $120,800 $130,500 $140,150 $149,800 Median Income 100% $109,000 $124,550 $140,150 $155,700 $168,150 $180,600 $193,050 Moderate Income 120% $130,800 $149,500 $168,150 $186,850 $201,900 $216,750 $231,700 Moderate Income 150% $163,500 $186,825 $210,225 $233,550 $252,225 $270,900 $289,575 Sources: CA Department of Housing and Community Development; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Affordability Category
Maximum Percentage of
County Median
Number of Persons in Household

APPENDIX D:

Non Residential Land Use Descriptions

Appendix Table D-1
Non-Residential Category Descriptions
Pleasanton Fee Study
Land Use Category Description and Examples NAICS Sectors Commercial/Retail Businesses selling or providing merchandise, entertainment, and personal services to the general public. Examples include grocery stores, drug stores, clothing stores, general merchandise stores, beauty salons, and gas stations. Food and drinking places are also included in this category.
44 and 45 - Retail Trade
532 - Rental and Leasing Services
722 - Food Services and Drinking Places
812 - Personal and Laundry Services
Lodging Lodging or short-term accommodations for travelers, vacationers, and others in facilities known as hotels, motor hotels, resort hotels, and motels. Does not include short-term rentals. 721000 - Accommodation.

Office Employers engaged in business activity with limited direct access from the general public; businesses focused on professional, financial, scientific, and technical services. Examples include finance, insurance, real estate, law, engineering, medical offices, and science and technology.
51 - Information
52 - Finance and Insurance
53 - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (excluding 532000 -Rental and Leasing Services)
54 - Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 - Management of Companies and Enterprises
561 - Admin. and Support Services
6211 - Offices of Physicians
6212 - Offices of Dentists
6213 - Offices of Other Health Practitioners
6214 - Outpatient Care Centers
6215 - Medical and Diagonostic Laboratories
Industrial/R&D Employers engaged in business activity with limited direct access from the general public; businesses focused on assembling, distributing, or repairing products; businesses focused on the testing and invention of new materials, products, or processes; and businesses engaged in the transformation of raw materials into consumable products. Examples include auto repair, self-storage facilities, and food/beverage products manufacturing. Additionally includes warehousing, and the storage and distribution of goods. 22 - Utilities
23 - Construction
31 - Manufacturing
42 - Wholesale Trade
484 - Truck Transportation
493 - Warehousing & Storage
811 - Repair and Maintenance
Sources: City of Pleasanton; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/27/2024 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\231000s\231081_Pleasanton_ImpactFee\CommercialLinkage\231081_PleasantonLinkage09042024.xlsb.xlsx\T3_Emp_Category_Def

APPENDIX E:

Occupation Distributions By Land Use Category

Appendix Table E-1
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Office
Pleasanton Fee Update
Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HH
Management Occupations $190,189.69 12.08% $340,439.54 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $109,574.09 12.72% $196,137.62 Above Moderate Computer and Mathematical Occupations $143,171.62 9.73% $256,277.19 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering Occupations $126,733.41 4.35% $226,852.81 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $117,113.42 3.35% $209,633.02 Above Moderate Community and Social Service Occupations $72,901.01 1.47% $130,492.81 Moderate Legal Occupations $177,265.53 1.93% $317,305.30 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $77,620.09 0.17% $138,939.96 Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $107,865.12 2.99% $193,078.57 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $146,806.42 9.65% $262,783.50 Above Moderate Healthcare Support Occupations $58,401.33 4.56% $104,538.38 Median Protective Service Occupations $45,503.11 2.85% $81,450.57 Low - 80% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $42,081.80 0.31% $75,326.43 Low - 80% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $49,239.19 5.76% $88,138.16 Low - 80% Personal Care and Service Occupations $45,408.38 0.49% $81,281.00 Low - 80% Sales and Related Occupations $95,622.38 6.17% $171,164.06 Above Moderate Office and Administrative Support Occupations $59,331.54 14.75% $106,203.46 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $50,329.29 0.11% $90,089.43 Low - 80% Construction and Extraction Occupations $81,943.93 0.69% $146,679.63 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $69,898.86 2.09% $125,118.97 Moderate Production Occupations $50,311.25 1.54% $90,057.14 Low - 80% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $45,028.98 2.26% $80,601.87 Low - 80% Total or Weighted Average $107,955.58 100.00% $193,240.49 Sources: JobsEQ, 2023; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Oakland-Fremont-
Berkeley, CA MD
Average Wage
% of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
Office
[1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 51 - Information; 52 - Finance and Insurance; 53 - Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (excluding 532000 -Rental and Leasing Services); 54 - Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; 55 - Management of Companies and Enterprises; 561 - Admin. and Support Services; 6211 - Offices of Physicians; 6212 - Offices of Dentists; 6213 - Offices of Other Health Practitioners; 6214 - Outpatient Care Centers; and 621500 - Medical and Diagonostic Laboratories.

Income Category
HH Income at

Appendix Table E-2
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Commercial/Retail
Pleasanton Fee Update
Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HH
Management Occupations $113,984.36 4.15% $204,032.01 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $83,844.08 1.28% $150,080.90 Above Moderate Computer and Mathematical Occupations $110,151.18 0.27% $197,170.60 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering Occupations $108,059.95 0.02% $193,427.32 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $72,681.78 0.01% $130,100.38 Moderate Community and Social Service Occupations $48,053.74 0.04% $86,016.19 Low - 80% Legal Occupations $103,257.95 0.02% $184,831.73 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $57,721.53 0.05% $103,321.53 Median Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $63,118.73 0.88% $112,982.53 Median Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $99,977.79 1.72% $178,960.25 Above Moderate Healthcare Support Occupations $65,049.21 0.49% $116,438.09 Median Protective Service Occupations $46,978.54 0.32% $84,091.59 Low - 80% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $39,864.03 36.91% $71,356.62 Low - 60% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $45,703.53 0.83% $81,809.32 Low - 80% Personal Care and Service Occupations $46,413.98 5.09% $83,081.02 Low - 80% Sales and Related Occupations $45,282.34 26.00% $81,055.40 Low - 80% Office and Administrative Support Occupations $52,341.58 5.40% $93,691.43 Low - 80% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $42,195.83 0.14% $75,530.53 Low - 80% Construction and Extraction Occupations $68,067.59 0.19% $121,840.99 Median Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $63,064.55 2.63% $112,885.54 Median Production Occupations $46,988.54 2.23% $84,109.48 Low - 80% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $43,635.21 11.35% $78,107.02 Low - 80% Total or Weighted Average $48,833.76 100.00% $87,412.42 Sources: JobsEQ, 2021; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 44 and 45 - Retail Trade; 532000 - Rental and Leasing Services; 812000 - Personal and Laundry Services; and 722000 - Food Services and Drinking Places.

Commercial/Retail
Oakland-Fremont-
Berkeley, CA MD
Average Wage
% of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category Income Category
HH Income at

Appendix Table E-3
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Industrial
Pleasanton Fee Update
Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HH
Management Occupations $170,068.19 8.09% $304,422.05 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $107,128.27 5.63% $191,759.60 Above Moderate Computer and Mathematical Occupations $150,750.78 2.34% $269,843.90 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering Occupations $126,716.77 3.75% $226,823.01 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $100,708.55 0.72% $180,268.30 Above Moderate Community and Social Service Occupations $78,825.42 0.00% $141,097.51 Moderate Legal Occupations $224,628.17 0.07% $402,084.43 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $69,671.15 0.01% $124,711.37 Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $86,811.16 0.78% $155,391.98 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $113,972.14 0.11% $204,010.12 Above Moderate Healthcare Support Occupations $69,978.63 0.01% $125,261.74 Moderate Protective Service Occupations $58,763.47 0.13% $105,186.61 Median Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $41,626.70 0.51% $74,511.79 Low - 60% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $52,033.86 0.58% $93,140.60 Low - 80% Personal Care and Service Occupations $47,839.93 0.01% $85,633.48 Low - 80% Sales and Related Occupations $88,773.80 5.87% $158,905.10 Above Moderate Office and Administrative Support Occupations $60,870.71 9.10% $108,958.57 Median Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $46,920.74 0.25% $83,988.12 Low - 80% Construction and Extraction Occupations $81,208.86 19.00% $145,363.86 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $76,268.71 7.28% $136,521.00 Moderate Production Occupations $60,443.04 21.87% $108,193.05 Median Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $53,036.54 13.89% $94,935.40 Low - 80% Total or Weighted Average $82,806.00 100.00% $148,222.75 Sources: JobsEQ, 2023; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [1] Includes NAICS Sectors: 22 - Utilities; 23 - Construction; 42 - Wholesale Trade; 484 - Truck Transportation; 493 - Warehousing & Storage; and 811 - Repair and Maintenance % of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category Income Category
HH Income at
Industrial
Oakland-Fremont-
Berkeley, CA MD
Average Wage

Appendix Table E-4
Occupation and Wage Distribution - Lodging
Pleasanton Fee Update
Occupation Category [1] 1.79 workers/HH
Management Occupations $127,300.00 7.90% $227,867.00 Above Moderate Business and Financial Operations Occupations $72,100.00 2.32% $129,059.00 Moderate Computer and Mathematical Occupations $95,600.00 0.20% $171,124.00 Above Moderate Architecture and Engineering Occupations $134,300.00 0.07% $240,397.00 Above Moderate Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations $92,900.00 0.01% $166,291.00 Above Moderate Community and Social Service Occupations $70,700.00 0.03% $126,553.00 Moderate Legal Occupations $311,900.00 0.01% $558,301.00 Above Moderate Educational Instruction and Library Occupations $74,500.00 0.10% $133,355.00 Moderate Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations $89,700.00 0.20% $160,563.00 Above Moderate Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations $121,600.00 0.01% $217,664.00 Above Moderate Healthcare Support Occupations $63,100.00 0.60% $112,949.00 Median Protective Service Occupations $47,700.00 1.96% $85,383.00 Low - 80% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations $46,100.00 21.07% $82,519.00 Low - 80% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $54,000.00 30.04% $96,660.00 Median Personal Care and Service Occupations $48,500.00 4.12% $86,815.00 Low - 80% Sales and Related Occupations $67,000.00 2.50% $119,930.00 Median Office and Administrative Support Occupations $48,900.00 19.34% $87,531.00 Low - 80% Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations $51,800.00 0.08% $92,722.00 Low - 80% Construction and Extraction Occupations $77,500.00 0.20% $138,725.00 Moderate Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations $67,500.00 5.91% $120,825.00 Median Production Occupations $53,100.00 2.44% $95,049.00 Low - 80% Transportation and Material Moving Occupations $45,600.00 0.87% $81,624.00 Low - 80% Total or Weighted Average $58,598.75 100.00% $104,891.77 [1] Includes NAICS Sector: 721 - Accommodation.

Sources: JobsEQ, 2023; U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2021; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Lodging
Oakland-Fremont-
Berkeley, CA MD
Average Wage
% of Industry Jobs
in Occupation
Category
HH Income at
Income Category

APPENDIX F:

Demographic Assumptions

Appendix Table F-1
Commercial Linkage Fee Demographic Assumptions
Pleasanton Fee Update
Item Source
Demographic Assumptions
Households with Earnings 23,111 households American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022 Workers per Household with Workers 1.79 persons American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022 Persons per Working Household 3.40 persons American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022 Pleasanton Workers Living in Pleasanton 9.0% of workers US Census Bureau "On The Map" 2021 data Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2022;US Census Bureau "On The Map"; City of Pleasanton

APPENDIX G:

Housing Proformas

Appendix Table G-1
Market-Rate Prototypes and Development Cost Assumptions Pleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update
Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 5 units/acre
Unit Size 3,000 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 4.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $800,000
Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $261,360
Subtotal, Land $1,061,360
Direct Construction Costs $200 per bldg. sq.ft. $600,000 Parking Costs $0 per space $0
Builder Fee 5.0% of direct const. costs $30,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $630,000
Development Impact Fees [1] $175,981 per unit $175,981
Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $126,000
Subtotal, Indirect Costs 48% of direct costs $301,981
Total Construction Costs $1,993,341
[1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing incl usionary fee requirements study
; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency. [2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and market Sources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers Ownership
Single Family Detached
Assumptions

Appendix Table G-2
Market-Rate Prototypes and Development Cost Assumptions Pleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update
Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Densit
y 20 units/acre
Unit Size 2,000 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 3.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,500,000 per acre $225,000
Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $65,340
Subtotal, Land $290,340
Direct Construction Costs $225 per sq.ft. $450,000
Parking Costs $0 per space $0
Builder Fee 5.0% of direct const. costs $22,500
Subtotal, Direct Costs $472,500
Development Impact Fees [1] $97,722 per unit $97,722
Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $94,500
Subtotal, Indirect Costs 41% of direct costs $192,222
Total Construction Costs $955,062
Sources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers [1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements [2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency.

Ownership
Single Family Attached Townhome
Assumptions

Appendix Table G-3
Market-Rate Prototypes and Development Cost Assumptions Pleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update
Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 40 units/acre
Unit Size 1,500 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 1.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,500,000 per acre $112,500
Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $32,670
Subtotal, Land $145,170
Direct Construction Costs $325 per sq.ft. $487,500
Parking Costs $40,000 per space, wrap-style $60,000
Builder Fee 5.0% of direct costs, incl.
parking $27,375
Subtotal, Direct Costs $574,875
Development Impact Fees [1] $65,550 per unit $65,550
Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $114,975
Subtotal, Indirect Costs 31% of direct costs $180,525
Total Construction Costs $900,570
Sources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers [1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements [2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency.

Ownership
Multifamily Attached Condo
Assumptions

Appendix Table G-4
Market-Rate Prototypes and Development Cost Assumptions Pleasanton Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Update
Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 75 units/acre
Unit Size 800 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 1.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 1.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $5,000,000 per acre $66,667
Site Preparation $30 per sq.ft. of land $17,424
Subtotal, Land $84,091
Direct Construction Costs $325 per sq.ft. $260,000
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $75,000
Builder Fee 5.0% of direct costs, incl.
parking $16,750
Subtotal, Direct Costs $351,750
Development Impact Fees [1] $60,692 per unit $60,692
Indirect Costs [2] 20% of direct costs $70,350
Subtotal, Indirect Costs 37% of direct costs $131,04 2
Total Construction Costs $566,883
Sources: Costar; Marshall & Swift; EPS discussions with local active developers [1] Development impact fee total does not include current affordable housing inclusionary fee requirements [2] Includes costs for architecture and engineering; entitlement and fees; project management; appraisal and market study; marketing, commissions, and general administration; financing and charges; insurance; and contingency.

Multifamily Attached Podium
Assumptions
Rental

Water and Wastewater
Connection Fee Study
October 17, 2024
City of
Pleasanton
ATTACHMENT 2

This page was intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

445 S Figueroa Street , Suite 1925
Los Angeles, CA 90071

www.raftelis.com

October 17, 2024

Tamara Baptista
Deputy Director of Business Services, Operations Services Department City of Pleasanton
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566

Subject: Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study

Dear Ms. Baptista,

Raftelis is pleased to provide this Water and Wastewater Connection Fee Study Report (Report) for the City of Pleasanton (City).

The major objectives of the study include the following:
• Review the current connection fee structure and propose updates to reflect the current state of the water and wastewater systems and future capital improvements as well as industry standards • Provide subject matter expertise in the methodology used to calculate the proposed connection fee schedules
• Confirm that proposed connection charges are fair to both future users and existing users who have invested and reinvested in the water and wastewater systems

This Report summarizes the analyses, key assumptions, results, and proposed fees.

It has been a pleasure working with you, and we thank you and the City staff for their support during the study.

Sincerely,

Brian Bass
Project Manager

This page was intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

5 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...................................... 7 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 7 ECONOMIC AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................ 7 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CALIFORNIA REQUIREMENTS ............................ 8 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW ............................................................... 9 CONNECTION FEE METHODOLOGIES .............................................................. 9 Buy-In Method .............................................................................................................................9 Incremental Cost Method ......................................................................................................... 10 Hybrid Method........................................................................................................................... 10 Recommended Methodology ................................................................................................... 11 SYSTEM VALUE AND EQUIVALENT UNITS ..................................... 11 WATER CONNECTION FEE .............................................................................. 11 System Value ............................................................................................................................ 11 Equivalent Units........................................................................................................................ 11 Incremental Unit Cost ............................................................................................................... 12 WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEE ................................................................. 12 System Value ............................................................................................................................ 12 Equivalent Units........................................................................................................................ 12 Incremental Unit Cost ............................................................................................................... 13 PROPOSED CONNECTION FEES ...................................................... 14 WATER CONNECTION FEE .............................................................................. 14 WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEE ................................................................. 16

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 6
This page was intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.

7 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Introduction
Connection fees are also commonly known as developer fees, development impact fees, capacity fees, tap fees, and system development charges, among others. This report uses the term connection fees reflecting the nomenclature used by the City. Connection fees are one-time capital charges assessed against new development to recover the proportional share of capital facility investment previously constructed by a utility (or to be constructed) to accommodate growth. Connection fees are codified in the California Government Code Sections 66000-60025.

Connection fees must reflect the link between the fee imposed on, and the benefit received by, a new connection to the system. The fee charged may not exceed the reasonable share of costs associated with providing the service.

Broadly, utilities use one of three different methodologies to calculate capacity fees: Buy-In, Incremental, and Hybrid. Variations of each are dictated by local community and system characteristics and policy objectives.

Utilities have broad latitude in the method and approach used to calculate fees, provided the fees reflect the cost and do not exceed the reasonable costs for providing service to the connection. These fees are designed to be proportional to the burden placed on the system by new connections.

Background and Legal
Framework
Background of the Study
The City revised its water connection fees in 1992, wastewater connection fees in 2008, and recycled water connection fees in 2015. The adopted connection fees have not consistently been adjusted annually for inflation.

The City engaged Raftelis in 2024 to conduct a connection fee study to examine the existing approach against alternatives that may better reflect current community conditions, system characteristics, and policy objectives.

Raftelis worked collaboratively with City staff throughout the study to calculate the proposed connection fees.

This report documents the findings, analyses, and proposed changes to the City’s water and wastewater connection fees. The updated connection fees documented in this report are in accordance with the rules and regulations of California State Government Code Section 66013. This report is the formal technical documentation supporting modifications to the water and wastewater connection fees within the City’s service area, including data sources, methodology, results, and comparisons.

Economic and Legal Framework
For publicly owned systems, most of the assets are typically paid for by the contributions of existing customers through rates, charges, securing debt, and taxes. In service areas that incorporate new customers, the infrastructure developed by previous customers is generally extended towards the service of new customers. Existing customers’ investment in the existing system capacity allows newly connecting customers to take advantage of unused surplus capacity. To further economic equality among new and existing customers, new connectors will typically “Buy-In” to the existing and pre-funded facilities based on the existing assets, effectively putting them on par with existing customers. In other words, the new users are buying into the existing system based on the replacement costs of existing assets to continue providing the same service level to new customers through repairs, expansions, and upgrades to the system.

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 8
The basic economic philosophy behind connection fees is that those who receive utility from the product should pay for service costs. To effect fair distribution of the system's value, the charge should reflect a reasonable estimate of the cost of providing capacity to new users and not unduly burden existing users through a comparable rate increase. Accordingly, many utilities make this philosophy one of their primary guiding principles when developing their connection fee structure.

The philosophy that service should be paid for by those who receive utility service is often referred to as “growth - should-pay-for-growth.” The principle is summarized in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual M26: Water Rates and Related Charges:
“The purpose of designing customer-contributed-capital system charges is to prevent or reduce the inequity to existing customers that results when these customers must pay the increase in water rates that are needed to pay for added plant costs for new cus tomers. Contributed capital reduces the need for new outside sources of capital, which ordinarily has been serviced from the revenue stream. Under a system of contributed capital, many water utilities are able to finance required facilities by use of a ‘growth-pays-for-growth’ policy.” This principle, in general, applies to water and wastewater systems. In the excerpt above, customer-contributed capital system charges are equivalent to connection fees.

Legal Framework and California Requirements
In establishing connection fees, it is important to understand and comply with local laws and regulations governing establishing, calculating, and implementing connection fees. The following sections summarize Raftelis’ understanding1 of the regulations applicable to developing connection fees for the City.

Connection fees must be established based on a reasonable relationship to the costs and benefits of the development or expansion. Courts have long used a standard of reasonableness to evaluate the legality of development charges.

The basic statutory standards governing connection fees are embodied by California Government Code Sections 66013, 66016, 66022, and 66023. Government Code Section 66013 contains requirements specific to determining utility development charges:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections, or imposes capacity charges, those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount the fee or charge in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.”

Section 66013 also includes the following general requirements:
• Local agencies must follow a process set forth in the law, making certain determinations regarding the purpose and use of the charge; they must establish a nexus, or relationship, between a development project and the improvement being financed with the charge.
• The capacity charge revenue must be segregated from the General Fund to avoid commingling of connection fees and the General Fund.

1 Raftelis does not practice law, nor does it provide legal advice. Our discussion provides a general overview of Raftelis’ understanding as utility rate and charges practitioners and is labeled “Legal Framework and California Requirements” for literary convenience only. The City should consult with its legal counsel for clarification and/or specific guidance.

9 CITY OF PLEASANTON

Methodology Overview
A connection fee is a one-time charge paid by a newly connecting water or wastewater system customer for the cost of backbone facilities necessary to provide water system capacity to that new customer. New customers are directly impacted when the City requires them to mitigate the costs of backbone facilities. If the impacts are cumulative over time, then the impact is indirectly addressed by the payment of connection fees. Backbone facilities are built in advance with the capacity needed for new customers, and as customers connect and use this capacity, they are expected to pay their fair share of those costs. Revenues generated by this charge are used to pay for growth- related water and wastewater facilities. Backbone facilities refer to those components of the system that are necessary to provide service to all customers. Water backbone facilities include sources of supply, treatment, pumping, major water transmission lines, and daily storage; and wastewater backbone facilities include conveyance, pumping, and treatment.

A connection fee may be developed as a single charge for the entire backbone system or as individual charges for each backbone component. The City has historically calculated the capacity fee as a single charge, which is the most common approach across California. The City’s water connection fees have historically been charged by meter size. The City’s wastewater connection fees have historically been charged by a unit factor, which differs by customer class. Residential customers are charged per dwelling unit, while non-residential customers are charged per square foot with some exceptions, such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are charged per square foot, and churches and hotels/motels, which are charged per seat and per room, respectively. Under specific conditions, the City Building Official has the discretion to adjust a connection fee based on historical water usage, among other factors.

Connection Fee Methodologies
The method for calculating connection fees generally utilizes one of the following three approaches: Buy-In, Incremental, or Hybrid. The Buy-In approach is designed to recover the historical costs of plant investment in proportion to the amount of built capacity, some of which is available for new growth. The Incremental approach is designed to recover the costs of future growth-related projects and the additional capacity those projects will yield. The Hybrid approach combines aspects of the buy-in and incremental approaches. It is appropriate where some remaining capacity is available in the existing system and new future facilities are required for development.

BUY-IN METHOD
The “Buy-In Method” is backward-looking and based on the premise that new customers are entitled to service at the same cost as existing customers. Under this approach, new customers pay only an amount equal to the current system value, either using the original cost or replacement cost as the valuation basis and either deducting the value of depreciation or not. This net investment, or value of the system, is then divided by the current system capacity to determine the Buy-In cost per unit.

For example, if the existing system has 100 units of equivalent 3/4" meters and the new connector uses a 3/4" meter, then the new customer would pay 1/100 of the total value of the existing system. The new connector has “bought in” to the existing system by contributing this connection fee . The new user has effectively acquired a financial position on par with existing customers and will face future capital re-investment on an equal financial footing with those customers. This approach is suitable when: (1) an agency has built most or all of its facilities and only a small, or no, portion of future facilities are required for additional development, (2) an agency does not have a detailed adopted long-term capital improvement plan, or (3) an agency’s “build-out” date is so far out in the future that it is

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 10
difficult to project growth and required facilities with precision accurately . Figure 1 shows the framework for calculating a Buy-In connection fee.

Figure 1: Formula for Buy-In Approach

INCREMENTAL COST METHOD
The Incremental Cost Method is forward-looking and states that new development (new users) should pay for the additional capacity and expansions necessary to accommodate them. This method is typically used when specific capital improvements are needed to facilitate growth for new development. Under the Incremental -Cost Method, growth-related capital improvements are allocated to new development based on their estimated usage or capacity requirements, irrespective of the value of past investments made by existing customers.

For instance, if it costs X dollars ($X) to provide water for 100 3/4” meter equivalent connection and a new connector uses one of those equivalent units, then the new user would pay $X/100 to connect to the system. In other words, new customers pay the incremental cost of capacity based on the estimated cost of the new facilities.

This method is generally used when detailed future facilities have been identified to meet the capacity required to serve new customers and limited existing system capacity is available for development. While California Code 66013 (b)(3) does not define a specific period to include future projects, these periods can be as long as a master planning period. Figure 2 shows the framework for calculating an incremental cost connection fee.

Figure 2: Formula for Incremental-Cost Approach

HYBRID METHOD
The hybrid method is typically used where some capacity is available to serve new growth, but additional expansion is necessary to accommodate new development. Under the hybrid method, the connection fee is based on the existing capacity value and the costs of necessary expansions (i.e., the Buy-In component and the Incremental-cost component). Capital improvements that expand system capacity to serve future customers may be included proportionally to the percentage of the cost specifically required for expansion of the system versus the percentage of cost incurred in repair and replacement of existing capacity (and therefore benefitting existing users).

Figure 3: Formula for Hybrid Approach summarizes the framework for calculating the Hybrid connection fee.

11 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Figure 3: Formula for Hybrid Approach

RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY
Since new capacity is currently being constructed to meet expansion needs, and the existing capacity is insufficient for new development, the City selected the Incremental approach, which is forward-looking.

System Value and Equivalent
Units

This section details the calculation of the per-unit costs for the Incremental approach.

Water Connection Fee

SYSTEM VALUE
The cost basis for determining the Incremental, or expansion, system value was provided by City Staff. The $22.3 million valuation includes all expansion-related capital expenses identified in the Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan dated November 2023 and adopted by the City in May 2024. These expenses are the share of the City’s water capital improvement plan that are allocated to future users. The growth-related expenses identified in the new water master plan are used for the water system value.

The 1992 water master plan had specific costs applicable to N. Pleasanton District 2B; thus, a separate connection fee was calculated for those customers. A future review of the water connection fees will use a hybrid approach and reevaluate the backbone water costs applicable to N. Pleasanton District 2B customers. Therefore, the City’s existing water connection fees for N. Pleasanton District 2B customers should be used until this future analysis using the hybrid approach has been completed.

EQUIVALENT UNITS
To determine the Incremental component, the second step is to determine the capacity that can be served by the expansion improvements above. The expansion CIP projects are estimated to add approximately 6.06 million gallons per day (MGD) per the East Pleasanton Specific Plan and Tri-Valley Municipal and Industrial Water Demand Study. The single-family residential (SFR) equivalent capacity demand is calculated by taking the gallon per day (GPD) demand for a typical single-family home and multiplying it by the SFR maximum day peaking factor to obtain the GPD maximum day demand2. This value is used to divide the GPD additional capacity to calculate the additional SFR equivalent units served by expansion projects. This calculation is detailed in Table 1.

2 SFR demand and peaking factors were identified in the Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan, November 2023.

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 12

Table 1: Projected Water SFR Equivalents
Line No. Description Derivation Values
Future Water System Capacity
1 Future Capacity (MGD) - 6.06
2 Future Capacity (GPD) Line 1 x 1,000,000 6,060,000

SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
3 GPD Demand - 390
4 Max Day Peaking Factor - 1.9
5 GPD Max Day Demand Line 3 x Line 4 741

6 SFR Equivalent Units Served Line 2 / Line 5 8,178

INCREMENTAL UNIT COST
The Incremental unit cost for an SFR equivalent is the quotient of the Incremental system valuation divided by the additional SFR equivalent units served by expansion projects. The Incremental unit cost component is $2,721.29 per SFR equivalent unit. Table 2 shows the unit cost calculation.

Table 2: Water Incremental Unit Cost Calculation
Line No. Fee Calculation Derivation Values
1 Expansion CIP - $22,255,100
2 SFR Equivalent Units Served Table 1 8,178
3 SFR Equivalent Unit Fee Line 1 / Line 2 $2,721.29
Wastewater Connection Fee

SYSTEM VALUE
The cost basis for determining the Incremental, or expansion, system value was provided by City Staff. The $5.0 million valuation includes expansion projects related to upsizing pipes in the system, as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Wastewater Incremental System Value
Line No. System Valuation Derivation Values
1 Project 3: Upsize Pipes downstream of Stoneridge
Mall - $3,000,000
2 Project 4: Upsize Pipes on Kamp and Stoneridge
Drive - $2,019,000
3 Total Expansion CIP Line 1 + Line 2 $5,019,000

EQUIVALENT UNITS
To determine the Incremental capacity fee, the next step is to determine the demands that can be served by the expansion improvements above. The SFR equivalent capacity demand for wastewater is calculated by multiplying the SFR demand based on billed water consumption times a return to sewer factor to estimate the amount of water usage entering the wastewater system. The return to sewer factor calculation is outlined in Table 4. The City provided the estimated billed water consumption in hundred cubic feet (HCF) and the number of wastewater accounts for previous financial planning work. Table S1101 (2022: ACS 1-Year Estimates) from the U.S. Census Bureau is used for the average family size. The flow per day is based on California Water Code Section 10608.20 (b) (2) (A). The SFR equivalent capacity demand calculation is outlined in Table 5.

13 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table 4: Wastewater Return to Sewer Factor
Line No. Description Derivation Values
1 Estimated billed water consumption
for SFR (HCF) - 3,012,950
Estimated wastewater flow for SFR
2 Wastewater Accounts - 19,235
3 Household density - 3.4
4 Flow per day (GPD) - 55
5 Estimated wastewater flow (HCF) Line 2 x Line 3 x Line 4 x 365 / 748 1,755,194
6 Return to Sewer Factor Line 1 / Line 5 0.58

Table 5: Wastewater SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
Line No. Description Derivation Values
SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
1 GPD Flow - 390
2 Return to Sewer Factor Table 4 0.58
3 Estimated GPD Demand Line 1 x Line 2 227

The demands that the expansion improvements can serve are calculated by dividing the future capacity by the SFR equivalent capacity demand. The expansion CIP projects are estimated to add 2.05 MGD. This calculation is detailed in Table 6.

Table 6: Wastewater Projected SFR Equivalents
Line No. Description Derivation Values
Future Wastewater System Capacity
1 Future Capacity (MGD) - Project 3 - 1.6
2 Future Capacity (MGD) - Project 4 - 0.45
3 Future Capacity (MGD) - Total Line 1+ Line 2 2.05
4 Future Capacity (GPD) Line 3 x 1,000,000 2,050,000

SFR Equivalent Capacity Demand
5 Estimated GPD Demand Table 5 227

6 SFR Equivalent Units Served Line 4 / Line 5 9,023

INCREMENTAL UNIT COST
The Incremental unit cost for an SRF equivalent is the quotient of the Incremental system valuation divided by the additional SFR equivalent units served by expansion projects. The Incremental unit cost component is $556.24 per SFR equivalent. Table 7 shows the unit cost calculation.

Table 7: Wastewater Incremental Unit Cost Calculation
Line No. Fee Calculation Derivation Values
1 Total Expansion CIP Table 3 $5,019,000
2 SFR Equivalent Units Served Table 6 9,023
3 SFR Equivalent Unit Fee Line 1 / Line 2 $556.24

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 14
Proposed Connection Fees
Water Connection Fee
Table 8 compares the proposed fee calculated under this approach by meter size to the existing capacity fee. Fees are levied per meter size. Meter size is a common approach for assessing water connection fees. This approach is popular because it is easy to administer and explain to customers. Using the meter size approach, connection fees are increased based on the size or capacity of the meter. The projected water connection fees shown in Table 8 below are calculated for each meter size using the meter capacity ratio normalized to the 5/8” meter size. For example, if a 1-inch meter has 2.5 times the flow capacity of a 5/8-inch meter, the connection fee will be 2.5 times higher. The City of Pleasanton currently installs meters from three manufacturers – Diehl, Sensus, and Kamstrup.

New meters installed in the future will be either Sensus, Kamstrup, Master Meter, Metron Farnier, or Metron Spectrum. These meters have different meter capacities for each meter size. Table 8 shows the meter capacities, resulting meter ratios, and proposed rates by meter size for each manufacturer. Table 9 shows the proposed water connection fees for N. Pleasanton Improvement District 2B are the same as the existing fees.

15 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table 8: Proposed Water Incremental Unit Charge Connection Fee and Existing Connection Fee Ultrasonic
Proposed Fees –
Diehl/Sensus Meters
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch - Diehl 22 0.9 $2,394.74 $1,200.00 $1,194.74
5/8 inch - Sensus 25 1.0 $2,721.29 $1,200.00 $1,521.29
3/4 inch - Diehl 32 1.3 $3,483.25 $1,800.00 $1,683.25
3/4 inch - Sensus 35 1.4 $3,809.81 $1,800.00 $2,009.81
1 inch - Diehl 55 2.2 $5,986.84 $3,000.00 $2,986.84
1 inch - Sensus 55 2.2 $5,986.84 $3,000.00 $2,986.84
1-1/2 inch - Diehl 100 4.0 $10,885.17 $6,000.00 $4,885.17 1-1/2 inch - Sensus 160 6.4 $17,416.27 $6,000.00 $11,416.27 2 inch - Sensus 160 6.4 $17,416.27 $19,200.00 -$1,783.73 2 inch - Diehl 170 6.8 $18,504.79 $19,200.00 -$695.21
3 inch - Sensus 500 20.0 $54,425.84 $21,000.00 $33,425.84 4 inch - Sensus 1000 40.0 $108,851.68 $60,000.00 $48,851.68 6 inch - Sensus 2000 80.0 $217,703.35 $120,000.00 $97,703.35 8 inch - Sensus 2700 108.0 $293,899.53 $210,000.00 $83,899.53 10 inch - Sensus 4000 160.0 $435,406.71 $330,000.00 $105,406.71 Proposed Fees -
Kamstrup Meters
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch 25 1.0 $2,721.29 $1,200.00 $1,521.29
3/4 inch 35 1.4 $3,809.81 $1,800.00 $2,009.81
1 inch 55 2.2 $5,986.84 $3,000.00 $2,986.84
1-1/2 inch 120 4.8 $13,062.20 $6,000.00 $7,062.20
2 inch 160 6.4 $17,416.27 $19,200.00 -$1,783.73
3 inch 350 14.0 $38,098.09 $21,000.00 $17,098.09
4 inch 700 28.0 $76,196.17 $60,000.00 $16,196.17
6 inch 1600 64.0 $174,162.68 $120,000.00 $54,162.68
8 inch 2800 112.0 $304,784.70 $210,000.00 $94,784.70
10 inch 4500 180.0 $489,832.55 $330,000.00 $159,832.55
12 inch 5500 220.0 $598,684.22
Proposed Fees -
Metron Spectrum
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 x 3/4 25 1.0 $2,721.29 $1,800.00 $921.29

Positive Displacement
Proposed Fees -
Master Meter (BLMJ)
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch 20 0.8 $2,177.03 $1,200.00 $977.03
3/4 inch 30 1.2 $3,265.55 $1,800.00 $1,465.55
1 inch 50 2.0 $5,442.58 $3,000.00 $2,442.58
Proposed Fees -
Metron Farnier
Meter
Capacity
Meter
Ratio
$/Meter
Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch 20 0.8 $2,177.03 $1,200.00 $977.03
3/4 inch 30 1.2 $3,265.55 $1,800.00 $1,465.55
1 inch 70 2.8 $7,619.62 $3,000.00 $4,619.62

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 16
Table 9: Proposed and Existing N. Pleasanton Improvement District 2B Water Connection Fees Proposed Fees –
Sensus Meters
Proposed
$/Meter Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
5/8 inch $460.00 $460.00 $0
3/4 inch $690.00 $690.00 $0
1 inch $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $0
1-1/2 inch $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $0
2 inch $7,360.00 $7,360.00 $0
3 inch $8,050.00 $8,050.00 $0
4 inch $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $0
6 inch $46,000.00 $46,000.00 $0
8 inch $80,500.00 $80,500.00 $0
10 inch $126,500.00 $126,500.00 $0
Proposed Fees –
Kamstrup Meters
Proposed
$/Meter Size
Existing
$/Meter Size
Difference
($)
1-1/2 inch $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $0
2 inch $7,360.00 $7,360.00 $0
3 inch $8,050.00 $8,050.00 $0
4 inch $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $0
6 inch $46,000.00 $46,000.00 $0
8 inch $80,500.00 $80,500.00 $0
10 inch $126,500.00 $126,500.00 $0

Wastewater Connection Fee
Table 10 compares the proposed fees by factor calculated under this approach to the existing capacity fee. Fees are assessed per SFR equivalent dwelling units (EDU), and EDU factor ratios are based on those previously developed by the City. The EDU factor ratios also match the connection fee factor ratios used by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). This agency processes and treats all sewage from the City. The Projected connection fees shown in Table 10 below are calculated for each customer class using their respective SFR EDU factor ratio.

17 CITY OF PLEASANTON
Table 10: Proposed Wastewater Incremental Unit Charge Connection Fee and Existing Connection Fee Proposed Fees EDU Ratio Factor Proposed Fee Existing Fee Difference ($) Residential
Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00 per house/unit $556.24 $500.00 $56.24 Auxiliary (Secondary) Dwelling Unit 0.004 per square foot $2.22 $2.00 $0.22 Townhome, Townhouse, Duet, Duplex 1.00 per unit $556.24 $500.00 $56.24 Condominium 0.75 per unit $417.18 $375.00 $42.18
Apartment, Mobile Home 0.66 per unit $367.12 $330.00 $37.12 Regular (low)
Auditoriums 0.0091 per seat $5.06 $4.55 $0.51
Auto body shops/Auto dealers 0.0005 per square foot $0.28 $0.25 $0.03 Banks, Financial Offices 0.0003 per square foot $0.16 $0.14 $0.02 Barber shops / Beauty shops 0.0014 per square foot $0.76 $0.68 $0.08 Bars, Cocktail lounges, taverns (w/o dining) 0.0016 per square foot $0.89 $0.80 $0.09 Bowling alleys 0.0014 per square foot $0.78 $0.70 $0.08 Car washes 0.0077 per square foot $4.29 $3.86 $0.43
Churches 0.0227 per seat $12.64 $11.36 $1.28
Delicatessen 0.0032 per square foot $1.79 $1.61 $0.18
Dental Clinic 0.0041 per square foot $2.28 $2.05 $0.23
Dry Cleaners 0.0020 per square foot $1.13 $1.02 $0.11
Gas Stations 0.0021 per square foot $1.19 $1.07 $0.12
General Retail/ Commercial 0.0002 per square foot $0.12 $0.11 $0.01 Gyms, Health Clubs 0.0019 per square foot $1.06 $0.95 $0.11 Hospital 1.1364 per bed $632.09 $568.18 $63.91
Hotels, Motels (no dining facilities) 0.5909 per room $328.68 $295.45 $33.23 Institutional (Resident) 0.4545 per bed $252.83 $227.27 $25.56 Laundries, coin-operated 0.5909 per machine $328.68 $295.45 $33.23 Laundries, full service (commercial) 0.0045 per square foot $2.53 $2.27 $0.26 Market - Dry Goods 0.0009 per square foot $0.48 $0.43 $0.05 Medical Clinic 0.0017 per square foot $0.93 $0.84 $0.09 Medical/ Dental Complex 0.0010 per square foot $0.56 $0.50 $0.06 Office Buildings 0.0002 per square foot $0.12 $0.11 $0.01 Parks/ Rec
Country Club 0.3182 per person $176.98 $159.09 $17.89
Picnic Park 0.0455 per person $25.29 $22.73 $2.56
Pool 0.0455 per person $25.29 $22.73 $2.56
Tennis Courts, w/ toilet & shower 0.4545 per court $252.83 $227.27 $25.56 Plant Nursery 0.0004 per square foot $0.20 $0.18 $0.02
Printers 0.0006 per square foot $0.36 $0.32 $0.04
Public Agencies 0.0002 per square foot $0.12 $0.11 $0.01 Recreational vehicle R.V. Park 0.5454 per RV $303.39 $272.72 $30.67 Schools (excluding cafeteria)
W/o showers 0.0682 per student $37.92 $34.09 $3.83
With showers 0.0909 per student $50.56 $45.45 $5.11
Theaters 0.0091 per seat $5.06 $4.55 $0.51
Veterinary Hospital 0.0015 per square foot $0.86 $0.77 $0.09 Warehouse/distribution 0.0001 per square foot $0.08 $0.07 $0.01 Regular (medium)

WATER CAPACITY AND MISCELLANEOUS FEE STUDY 18
Proposed Fees EDU Ratio Factor Proposed Fee Existing Fee Difference ($) Banquet Facilities - intermittent use 0.0012 per square foot $0.68 $0.61 $0.07 Business with cafeteria 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Cafeteria 0.0025 per square foot $1.37 $1.23 $0.14
Hotels/Motels with dining facilities 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Restaurant, Fast Food 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Restaurant, Full Service 0.0025 per square foot $1.37 $1.23 $0.14 School with cafeteria 0.0027 per square foot $1.51 $1.36 $0.15 Regular (high)
Bakeries/ Donut Shops/ Ice Cream Shops 0.0028 per square foot $1.57 $1.41 $0.16 Car washes w/ steam cleaning 0.0018 per square foot $1.01 $0.91 $0.10 Markets with garbage disposals 0.0077 per square foot $4.29 $3.86 $0.43 Mortuaries 0.0009 per square foot $0.48 $0.43 $0.05
Industrial (other)
Wastewater Flow Gallons per day $2.45 $2.27 $0.18

ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3: Draft Policy Regarding Imposition of New Fees for Projects in Process For those projects which were already in process with the City' s Community Development Department at the time of adoption of updates to the Capital Facilities Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, and Lower-Income Housing (referred to as the Affordable Housing Fee), such in- process projects shall not be required to pay the updated Capital Facility, Transportation and Affordable Housing fees which go into effect [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE] but may pay the fee in effect on [INSERT ADOPTION DATE], with the determination of a project being in process generally defined as:

Planning Applications — Permit Streamlining Act
For planning applications related to projects subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, applications that have been " deemed complete" before [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE], be subject to the fees in effect on [INSERT ADOPTION DATE].

Planning Applications — Legislative Changes
Planning applications not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (i.e., including a legislative change) which are deemed complete or have made a " significant financial investment" with staff prior to [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE] shall be subject to the fees in effect on [INSERT ADOPTION DATE] unless an alternate agreement (i.e., Development Agreement, Affordable Housing Agreement, Improvement Agreement, or similar) is negotiated by the applicant, staff, and the City Council, and includes adjustments to applicable fees." “Substantial financial investment" would generally be interpreted to mean the application has been actively under review or in process 3 months or longer, or that milestones such as conducting of one or more public workshops with the Planning Commission or City Council, or issuance of a CEQA Notice of Preparation for an EIR or similar environmental document, have occurred.

Building Permit Applications
Substantially complete applications for building permit submitted prior to [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE] shall be subject to the fees in effect on [INSERT ADOPTION DATE].

These examples of projects in process subject to the fees in effect on [INSERT ADOPTION DATE] are in addition to other provisions provided by California law, or existing agreements with the City. All fees shall be subject to allowable adjustments under applicable provisions of the Pleasanton Municipal Code.

Any disputes about the applicability of these provisions shall be subject to the reasonable determination of the Community Development Director (who shall issue their written determination within15 business days of a written request from a property owner or developer), with the decision of the director subject to appeal to the City Manager.

1 Draft Nexus Studies, Development Impact Fees,
Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, Affordable
Housing Fee, and Water and Sewer Connection
Fee Update
Pleasanton City Council Study Session
November 19, 2024
Agenda
•Nexus Studies and Fee Program Overview
•Fee Updates
• Capital Facilities & Transportation Impacts Fees
• Commercial Linkage Fee
• Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee
• Water/Sewer Connection Fee
•Policy Considerations & Feasibility
•Fee Program Alternatives and Recommendations
•Fee Rates
•Policy for Applicability of Fees to Projects in Process •Questions, Discussion and Direction
0 1

2 Professional Services Team
Economic and Planning Systems (EPS)
Development Impact Fees, IZO, Affordable
Housing Fee Update
• Jason Moody, Managing Principal
• Darin Smith, Managing Principal
• Megan Gregory, Associate
Raftelis Associates
Water and Sewer Connection Fee Update
•Brian Bass, Manager
Fehr & Peers
Traffic / Transportation
• Julie Morgan, Principal
Key Regulations
AB 1600
AB 602
What are Development Impact Fees?
A one-time fee on new development to capture its “fair share” impact on City public infrastructure and housing needs. $#
Use of Funds: Public facilities and
affordable housing needed to address
growth (cannot fund existing deficiencies).

Who Pays & When? Developers pay
fees, typically at time of building permit
or filing of subdivision map.

Fee Amounts: Determined by “nexus”
calculations; Generally proportional to project
size (e.g., per unit or sq. ft.)
Approval: City Council approves based on
policy considerations and subject to State law.

Housing Fees: Not subject to AB 1600, but best
practice to document and create a reasonable basis for
fee calculation, including feasibility.
2 3

3 Study Purpose
City needs to update its Capital Facility and Affordable Housing Fees because…..

City’s capital facilities needs have changed
Updated Housing Element creates new housing policies /
goals
State law and best practice suggest updates every 5 –8
years
Fee amounts / categories should be coordinated to
balance City priorities and ensure feasible outcomes
Study and Fee Program Overview
4 5

4 Approach and Methodology
•Evaluate City growth trends
•Interview City Departments about capital facility needs •Evaluate City’s inclusionary housing goal and policies •Review the fee programs of nearby jurisdictions
•Evaluate impact of fees on real estate development
feasibility
•Review of preliminary findings and receive direction at two City Council study sessions
Study Results/Themes
•Population and employment growth will generate
additional burdens on facilities and infrastructure
•A broader capital program + inflation have escalated maximum potential fee amounts
•Pleasanton’s single family affordable housing fee is much more subsidized than its multifamily fee, and falls well below cost to construct
•Multifamily development feasibility is challenging for market rate projects
•Challenging to adopt all fees at the maximum level allowed by legislation and based on inclusionary rates, without threatening development feasibility
6 7

5 Development Impact Fee Update
Projected City Growth
The service population increase (29,167) represents 22.7% of the service population at buildout. This percentage is used to allocate costs related to most of the impact fees, by informing the proportion of costs related to new growth.

Growth
BuildoutExistingItem
% ChangeAmount

26.1%19,94196,40076,459Resident
Population

40.3%22,43478,08455,650Employment

29.4%29,167128,51099,343Service
Population
8 9

6 Capital Facilities and Transportation Impact Fee
CFF: New and expanded parks, open space, community and government facilities, etc.

TIF: New and expanded road and intersection improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic signals, etc.
* Existing fee has multiple industrial land use categories Transportation Impact FeeCapital Facilities Fee
Total Max.

Fee
Maximum
Amount1
Current
Amount
Maximum
Amount1
Current
Amount
Residential (per unit)
$50,243$20,565$11,642$29,677$20,483Single‐Family
$32,174$11,158$7,158$21,016$14,593Multi‐Family
Non‐Residential
$44.92$31.50$18.17$13.41$2.97Office (sq.ft)
$57.50$48.35$26.71$9.15$2.16Commercial/Retail
(sq.ft)
$21.96$17.94$10.99$4.02$0.95 to
$2.38
Industrial (sq.ft)2
$13,579$12,908$7,675$671$1,173Lodging (room)
$21,449$21,449$11,642N/AN/AOther Uses (trip)
Residential Fee Per Square Foot:

CFF and TIF
Fee per Square FootUnit Type
$20.10 per square foot (Units 824‐4,500
square feet)
Single‐Family Minimum Fee (Units 824 square feet or
less: $16,567
Maximum Fee: Units 4,500 square feet or
more: $90,437
$35.95 per square foot
Multi‐Family
Minimum Fee (Units 417 square feet or
less): $14,982 per unit
Maximum Fee (Units 1,600 square feet or
more): $57,517 per unit
*Minimum and Maximum Fee Cap reflects level where nexus between unit size and fee is no longer supportable/proportionate to impact 10 11

7 Commercial Linkage Fee
•Fee charged to commercial projects to offset or mitigate the demand they generate for new affordable units
•Maximum supportable fee is well above limits of feasibility – thus typically set at a fraction of the maximum
2018 Maximum
(per Sq. Ft.)
2024 Maximum
(per Sq. Ft.)
Existing Fee
(per Sq. Ft.)Category
$211.08 $578.73 $5.38
Commercial/
Retail
$82.56 $142.42$8.98 Office
$49.69 $72.86$3.71 Lodging
$82.56 $143.39$14.91 Industrial
Inclusionary Requirements & Affordable Housing Fee
•City Council separate consideration of Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) update
•Fee study and corresponding in-lieu rates based on recommended IZO rates and affordability:
•15% Inclusionary Rate for all housing types (ownership & rental) •Target incomes at 50% and 60% AMI for rental projects, and 120% for ownership projects
•Affordable Housing Fee:
•Applies to residential projects <10 units
•Larger projects for which the City may grant discretionary approval to pay fees in lieu of on-site construction
•Maximum justifiable Affordable Housing Fee amount based on actual cost to build the affordable units, per amended IZO 12 13

8 Affordable Housing (In-Lieu) Fee
Maximum Fee
(per sq ft)
Current Fee
Amount
(per sq ft
equivalent)*
Current Fee
Amount
(per unit)
Unit Type
$84.24$17.40$52,203Single Family
Detached
$42.10$25.54$51,077Townhome
$54.87$63.84$51,077Multi-Family
(Condo)
$69.19$63.84$51,077Multi-Family
(Rental)
* Assumes Single-Family Detached Unit is 3,000 sf, Townhome is 2,000 sf, and multi-family condos and apartments are 800 sf.

Water Connection Fee
•One-time charge – funds new and expanded water infrastructure to meet the demands of new residents and employees
•Differs from Water Rates, which are ongoing user fees that fund on-going operation and maintenance costs
2024 Update
Maximum AllowableCurrent Fee Amount Meter Size / Capacity $2,721.29$1,2005/8” / 25
$3,809.81$1,8003/4” / 35
$5,986.84$3,0001” / 55
$13,062.20$6,0001.5” / 120
14 15

9 Wastewater Connection Fees
2024 Update
Maximum
Allowable
Current FeeFactor
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
Ratio
$556.24$500Unit1Single Family
Residential
$2.22$2Sq Ft0.004Secondary
Dwelling Unit
$556.24$500Per unit1Townhome /
Duplex
$417.18$375Per unit0.75Condominium
$367.12$330Per unit0.66Apartment / Mobile
Home
• One-time charge – funds new and expanded wastewater
infrastructure to meet the demands of new residents and employees • Differs from ongoing sewer fees that fund on-going operation and maintenance costs
Summary of Development Impact and Housing
Fees – Maximum Amounts
TotalInclusionary
In-Lieu Fee
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Transportation
Fee*
Capital Facilities
Fees*
Residential
(per sq ft)
$104.35$84.25-$8.23$11.87Single Family
Detached
$105.14$69.19-$12.47$23.48Multifamily
Rental
Nonresidential
(per sq ft)
$187.34-$142.42$31.50$13.41Office
$636.23-$578.73$48.35$9.15Retail
$165.35-$143.39$17.94$4.02Industrial
$100.02-$72.86$25.82$1.34Lodging
*Capital Facilities and Transportation Fees include a 2% administrative charge
16 17

10 Policy Considerations and
Recommendations
Policy Considerations and Feasibility
•Nexus and Fee Studies support increases to almost all fees - study calculates maximum allowable fee amounts
•City Council may choose to set fees at or below the maximum amounts if desired to:
•Promote desired investment
•Maintain regional competitiveness
•Meet housing and economic development goals
•Balance those goals with need to charge fees at adequate level to maintain and improve infrastructure to meet growth demands •If Council wants to consider alternatives below the maximum, staff seeks direction on which fees, and by how much, they should be reduced
18 19

11 Fee Alternatives: Framing Concepts
Residential Fee Alternatives
Guiding Principles
• Avoid impediments to housing production (State law, RHNA and Housing Element Policy Goals)
• Encourage on-site affordable housing to be built, vs. “fee out” Alternatives Benchmarks
• Development feasibility and capacity to absorb fee increases • Peer Cities and Regional Fee Averages
Commercial Fee Alternatives
Guiding Principles
• Ensure Pleasanton is regionally competitive as a place to invest • Grow long-term property and sales tax revenues
Alternatives Benchmarks
•Peer Cities and Regional Fee Averages
Balancing Fee Program Trade-offs
Housing
Public Infrastructure &
Facilities
Economic & Fiscal
Health
20 21

12 Alternatives and
Recommendations
Residential Single Family: Alternatives
Alternative 1:
• Adopt all fees at maximum level supported by the studies • Results in maximum fee of $124.44 sq. ft. or ~$313,000 per unit Alternative 2:
• Charge CFF and TIF at maximum level
• Reduce Affordable Housing Fee to match Townhome fee ($42.10/sq. ft.) vs. $84.25 sq. ft.
• Results in Maximum fee of $62.20 sq. ft. or ~ $186,500 per unit RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT ALTERNATIVE 2
• Sets fee within the feasible range, based on analysis of total development costs
• May encourage some projects to fee out – but very few large SFR developments remain to be built – negligible impact on production • Supports small-scale and individual SFR developers of infill projects 22 23

13 Residential - Single-Family Detached
Fee Alternatives and Recommendation
• Estimated Fee Burden “Capacity” - $228,280
• Peer Jurisdictions Average Fee Burden - $162,890
Alternative 2:

Reduce In-Lieu Housing
Fee (Recommended)
Alternative 1:

Max Fee Amounts
Fee
(unit)
Fee
(sq ft)Fee (unit)Fee (sq.ft.)
$35,613$11.87$35,613$11.87Capital Facilities
Fee
$24,678$8.23$24,678$8.23Transportation
Fee
$125,300$42.10$252,750$84.25Affordable
Housing Fee
$186,591$62.20$313,041$124.44Total Fee
Burden
Residential Townhomes: Alternative
•Alternative 1:
•Adopt all fees at maximum level supported by the studies •Results in maximum fee of $62.20 sq. ft. or ~$124,000 per unit
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT ALTERNATIVE 1
• Sets fee within the feasible range, based on analysis of total development costs
• Matches AH fee to cost to develop, thereby encouraging on-site production
24 25

14 Residential – Townhomes: Fee Recommendation
• Estimated Fee Burden “Capacity” - $118,096
• No alternatives are proposed; total fee burden is within estimated capacity for this unit type
Recommendation: Adopt Maximum Fees
Estimated Fee
(per unit, typ. 2,000 sq ft)Fee (sq ft)
$23,742$11.87Capital Facilities Fee
$16,452$8.23Transportation Fee
$84,200$42.10Affordable Housing Fee
$124,394$62.20Total Fee Burden
Residential Multi-Family: Alternatives
• Alternative 1:
• Retain aggregate local fees at same level as today ($92.00 per square foot)
• Alternative 2:
• Reduce aggregate fees to match average of peer jurisdictions ($78.00 per square foot, $62,500 per unit)
• 2A: Lower the Housing Fee to meet this target
• 2B: Lower the CFF and TIF to meet this target
• With 2A, consider 2-year provision to allow “fee out” of up to 30% of on- site inclusionary requirement per IZO
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT ALTERNATIVE 2A AND 2-YEAR FEE OUT OPTION
• Multi-family development comprises the majority of Pleasanton’s housing capacity, but is the most financially challenging today • Provides short-term catalyst to encourage multi-family production • Acknowledged potential effect on af fordable production – but no production at all may be worse outcome
26 27

15 Residential – Multifamily Alternatives
Alternative 2:

Lower Aggregate Fee to Regional Average
Alternative 1:

Retain Existing
Aggregate Fee Level
Alternative 2B:

Reduce CFF and TIF,
Maximize AHF
Alternative 2A:

Reduce AHF, Maximize
CFF and TIF
(Recommended)
Fee
(unit)
Fee
(sq. ft.)
Fee
(unit)
Fee
(sq. ft.)
Fee
(unit)
Fee
(sq. ft.)
$4,685$5.86$18,785$23.48$18,785$23.48Capital Facilities Fee $2,488$3.11$9,973$12.47$9,973$12.47Transportation Fee
$55,352$69.19$33,766$42.21$44,841$56.05Affordable Housing Fee
$62,525$78.16$62,525$78.16$73,600$92.00Total Fee Burden • Estimated Fee Burden “Capacity” - $0
• Peer Jurisdictions Average Fee Burden - $62,525
Non-Residential: Alternatives
• Alternative 1:
• Increase CFF and TIF to maximum supportable ($13.41/sq. ft. and $31.50/sq. ft.)
• Retain Commercial Linkage Fee at current amount ($3.71/sq. ft.) • Alternative 2:
• Retain existing aggregate fee, inclusive of CFF, TIF and Commercial Linkage at current level ($30.12/sq. ft.)
• CFF and TIF each at $13.4/sq. ft, CLF at $3.29/sq. ft. • Alternative 3:
• Lower aggregate fee to peer cities average ($22.78/sq. ft.) • Reduce CFF, TIF and CLF by 24% (CFF and TIF each at $10.15/sq. ft., CLF at $2.49/sq. ft.)
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT ALTERNATIVE 3
• Reducing fees to peer cities’ average helps Pleasanton be regionally competitive as a location for new investment that will generate long-term property and sales tax
Note: Figures cited are for “Office” category – other commercial categories would be similarly structured/proportionately adjusted
28 29

16 Non-Residential Fees -
Alternatives and Recommendation
• Peer Jurisdictions Average Fee Burden per sq ft - $22.78 Alternative 3:

Discount Fee to
Match Peer
Cities Average
(Recommended)
Alternative 2:

Match Existing
Aggregate Fee
Alternative 1:

Increase CFF
and TIF to Max
Allowable
Fee
(per sq ft)
Fee
(per sq ft)
Fee
(per sq ft)
$10.15$13.41$13.41Capital Facilities Fee
$10.15$13.41$31.50Transportation Fee
$2.49$3.29$3.71Affordable Housing
Fee
$22.78$30.12$48.72Total Fee Burden
Draft Policy: Applicability of Updated Fees
to Projects in Process
•Defines which projects subject to existing fee:
•Projects not subject to legislative approval - if “deemed complete” by the effective date
•Projects subject to legislative approval - if “deemed
complete,” in process for > 3 months, or completed
milestones reflecting significant financial investment by the fees’ effective date
•Projects with a Building Permit application deemed
substantially complete by the effective date
•Policy does not supersede other vesting provisions of State law, or existing Development Agreements
•Annual Cost Index increases still apply
30 31

17 Summary of Alternatives and Recommendations

1. Sewer and Water Connection Fees – No alternatives proposed •Recommendation: Adopt fees at maximum levels

2. Single Family Detached
•Alternative 1: Adopt maximum fee levels
•Alternative 2: Reduce Single Family Detached Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee amount to $42.10 per square foot to match
Townhomes
•Recommendation: Adopt Alternative 2

3. Residential Townhomes – No alternatives proposed
•Recommendation: Adopt CFF, TIF, and AHF at maximum levels Summary of Recommendations, ctd.

4. Residential – Multifamily Rental
•Alternative 1: Maintain existing aggregate fee level
•Alternative 2: Reduce aggregate fee level to the average of peer jurisdictions
•Option 2A: Focus reductions on AH In-Lieu Fee, with secondary recommendation for 2 year “fee out” option for up to 30% of inclusionary units
•Option 2B: Focus reductions on CFF and TIF
•Recommendation: Adopt Alternative Option 2A, with 2-year fee out option
32 33

18 Summary of Recommendations, ctd.

5. Commercial
• Alternative 1: Increase CFF and TIF to maximum fee
• Alternative 2: Maintain existing aggregate fee level
• Alternative 3: Reduce aggregate fee level to the average of peer jurisdictions
• Recommendation: Adopt Alternative 3

6. Policy for Applicability of Updated Fees
• Recommendation: Adopt Policy as outlined in Attachment 3 to the staff report, which would provide exceptions for development projects in process
•Based on Council direction, staff will update and prepare final drafts of studies, PMC and ODS Amendments for
adoption in December
•Council will consider adopting the new fees in December •Fees become effective 60 days after adoption
•For example, if the second reading of ordinances is held on January 7, 2025, fees will be effective March 8, 2025 Next Steps
34 35

19 Questions and Discussion
36

Item #18

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

November 19, 2024
Public Works - Utilities Division

TITLE: ACCEPT THE FINAL WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED OCTOBER 2024

SUMMARY
The City has developed a Water System Management Plan (WSMP) that recommends a near- , mid-, and long-term Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and improvements to the operation and maintenance (O&M) program to determine funding needs that will ensure the sustainability of the water system. As a foundational planning document, the WSMP will be reviewed on a 2- year cycle to evaluate implementation progress and will be updated on a 6-year cycle to reflect any changes in key factors and needs. These regular updates are necessary to accommodate changes in system priorities and to update the City’s rates and connection fees that support effective water system management.

The City Council approved a contract for Carollo Engineers (Carollo) in 2022 to prepare the WSMP. The effort focused on conducting and reviewing several technical evaluations on water supply and quality, water distribution system capacity, condition of facilities, system risk and resilience, and O&M best practices to inform the City’s CIP and O&M program recommendations. The resulting CIP includes prioritized projects to be implemented over a 20- year timeframe.

The resulting long-term CIP includes prioritized projects to be implemented over the 20-year span with a cost estimate of $262 million; however, as implementation will require additional City engineering staff and result in new O&M requirements, the total estimated cost impact ranges from $283 to $289 million. Additionally, O&M program improvements were recommended for compliance with future regulations and to be consistent with industry best practices; implementation and additional O&M staff over the 20-year span is $19 million.

The WSMP will be used as the foundation for the City's upcoming water rate connection fee studies. The studies will utilize the results of the WSMP to calculate and recommend a water rate structure for the City, including user rates and connection fees that support the City’s water system capital and operational needs. Different alternatives and scenarios, including the phasing of projects and the pros and cons of the delivery alternatives, will be evaluated during the water rate and connection fee studies. As part of these studies, options for financing, near versus long-term funding, risk to operations, and resource impacts to the City for each alternative will be evaluated.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the 2024 Water System Management Plan dated 2024.

BACKGROUND
The City owns and operates a potable water system under a permit from the State Water

Resources Control Board's Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The City serves potable water to approximately 22,000 customers through a water distribution system comprising approximately 330 miles of piping, 19 storage tanks, and 14 booster stations. The City’s water supply comes from wholesale purchases from the Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) and a groundwater production quota (GPQ) of 3,500 ac/year (representing approximately 20 percent of the City’s total water supply needs). The City is currently not utilizing its GPQ because all its groundwater wells contain measurable PFAS concentrations and are not equipped with treatment technology for PFAS removal treatment. Instead, the City is purchasing 100 percent of its water from Zone 7 at wholesale cost because Zone 7 has highly effective PFAS treatment for the drinking water it supplies.

The City has developed the attached Water System Management Plan (WSMP), provided as Attachment 1, to serve as a foundational planning document for the management of its water system. This initial WSMP's focus is to develop a near-, mid-, and long-term Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and recommend improvements to the operation and maintenance (O&M) program to determine funding needs that will ensure water system sustainability. The WSMP will be reviewed on a 2-year cycle to evaluate implementation progress and will be updated on a 6-year cycle to reflect any changes in key factors and needs. The next WSMP update will include evaluating the water system using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Effective Utility Management (EUM) framework. The EUM focuses on attributes such as product quality, customer satisfaction, stakeholder understanding and support, financial viability, operational optimization, employee leadership and development, and enterprise resilience.

DISCUSSION
Carollo Engineers was contracted by the City to prepare the WSMP. Carollo conducted and reviewed several technical evaluations on topics including water supply, water distribution system capacity, water quality, water conservation, condition of facilities, overall system risk and resilience, energy and emergency power, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), and O&M best practices. These efforts were used to inform the CIP and O&M program recommendations discussed in this section.

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The CIP is a list of recommended projects that fall within the major categories listed below:
• Water Supply
• Water Distribution
• Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R)
• Other (includes other projects such as SCADA, power, etc.).

Each recommended project has been prioritized based on the following system:
• Priority Level A- Projects required for health and safety; required by law, regulation, or contract; are currently under construction; and/or are funded by applicants or outside funding sources.
o These projects include emergency backup generator replacements, near- and long-term improvements for water supply, projects that address pipeline deficiencies or improve fire system flow, and tank and booster station

rehabilitation or replacement.
• Priority Level B- Projects that provide measurable progress toward achieving the City’s goals, but the City has a moderate level of control as to when these projects should be accomplished.
o These projects include decommissioning Wells #5-8, lower priority fire water flow improvements, additional booster station rehabilitation projects, and customer meter replacements.
• Priority Level C- Projects anticipated to be needed but may still need to define scopes and schedules or meet the criteria for Priority Levels A and B. o These projects include future water supply treatment projects (i.e., disinfection), lower priority pipeline replacements, tank mixers, and other facility rehabilitation projects.

Class 5 planning level cost estimates per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) were prepared for each project. Class 5 estimates may represent an overestimate of cost by 100 percent or an underestimate of cost by 50 percent. The project cost estimates include administration, design, construction, and a contingency of 30 percent.

All costs are tied to a May 2024 ENR Index for San Francisco.

The table below provides a cost summary of the recommended CIP based on project category and prioritization. The recommended long-term CIP has been developed to be implemented over a 20-year timeframe.

Notably, implementation of the WSMP will require additional City engineering staff to manage projects. The number and timing of staff increases will ultimately depend on the project phasing strategy implemented by the City, but over a 20-year period is estimated to be within the range of $8 million-$12 million. Note that one engineering staff position was already approved in FY24/25 and is not included in this cost range.

Implementation of the WSMP will also result in O&M support requirements with the new infrastructure installed. Additionally, existing infrastructure will continue to age and require additional O&M until Repair & Replacement projects are completed. O&M needs will also depend on the project phasing strategy implemented by the City, but over a 20-year period is estimated to be within the range of $12 million-$18 million. When including combined engineering and O&M cost increases, the implementation of WSMP is estimated to have a funding need of $283 million-$289 million over 20 years.

O&M Program Improvements
The WSMP also identifies a list of recommended O&M program improvements to comply with future regulations and be consistent with industry best practices. The recommendations are

summarized in the table below.

As outlined, the WSMP identifies the needed financial investment over the next 20 years; however, the current financial position of the water system enterprise fund is wholly insufficient to address these needs in any substantial way. As such, it is likely that several strategies (e.g., water rate and connection fee increases, grant funding, partnerships, etc.) will need to be utilized toward improving the City's water system.

Funding
Two primary funding sources for the water system are new customer connection fees and existing customer user rates. Approximately $22.3 million of the total costs identified in the WSMP are associated with new customer connections. The City is currently conducting a water connection fee study that will utilize the results of the WSMP to calculate and recommend connection fee increases for City Council consideration. The remaining portion of the total costs identified in the WSMP are associated with existing customers and infrastructure.

The City has initiated a water rate study that will utilize the results of the WSMP as a foundation on which to calculate and recommend to the City Council a water rate structure

and user rate and connection fee increases to support the City's water system capital and operational needs. During this process, the City will evaluate strategies for implementing the WSMP based on different alternatives and scenarios, including the phasing of projects and the pros and cons of the delivery alternatives, options for financing (near versus long-term funding), risk to operations, and resource impacts to the City.

EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Approval of this action advances the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP) - Water Resources - Reduce GHG emissions from water usage (including conveyance) and prepare community water resources for a changing climate which will result in cost savings, enhance water quality and availability, improve infrastructure, and increase resiliency.

OUTREACH
The City has created an e-newsletter series, the Pleasanton Pipeline, to share information about water initiatives, including those related to the WSMP. The series is shared via direct email and the City’s social media platforms. The City also has created the Pleasanton Water Advisory Group (PWAG) to provide input and feedback on water initiatives. The PWAG consists of members who reflect a broad spectrum of community interests and perspectives.

An overview of the WSMP development process and findings from the draft report were presented during the August and September PWAG meetings.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Accepting the Final Water System Management Plan advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Investing in Our Environment - Strategy 4 to complete the Water System Management Plan to reflect current and future operations, and identify system improvements and necessary maintenance.

FISCAL IMPACT
Development of the WSMP is funded by CIP 22190. Funding requirements to support the implementation of the WSMP will be determined as part of the upcoming water rate and connection fee studies. Staff will propose necessary budget adjustments based on these rate studies in future budget cycles for City Council consideration and approval.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Ryan Smith, Assistant Dir. of
Public Works - Utilities
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works

Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager

Attachments:

1. Water System Management Plan, Carollo Engineers

2. WSMP October 2024 Presentation

Water System Management Plan
Water System Management Plan
October 2024

Water System Management Plan
Water System Management Plan
October 2024

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Pleasanton/201264-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Water System Management Plan /Water_System_Management_Plan Contents
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 1

1.1 Purpose of the WSMP 1

1.1.1 Initial WSMP 1

1.1.2 Future WSMP Updates 1

1.2 WSMP Updates 2

1.3 Existing Water Distribution System 2

1.3.1 Water Supply Facilities 4

1.3.2 Water Distribution Pipelines 4

1.3.3 Water Booster Stations 4

1.3.4 Water Storage Tanks 5
SECTION 2 WATER SYSTEM PROGRAM EVALUATIONS AS PART OF THE WSMP 5 SECTION 3 WATER SYSTEM PROGRAM EVALUATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE WSMP 7 SECTION 4 FUTURE EVALUATION EFFORTS 8
SECTION 5 LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 8

5.1 Project Prioritization 9

5.2 Priority A Project Descriptions 9

5.2.1 Water Supply Projects 9

5.2.2 Distribution System Capacity Projects 10

5.2.3 Distribution System Fire Flow Projects 11

5.2.4 Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects 11

5.2.5 Other Projects 12

5.3 Priority B Project Descriptions 12

5.3.1 Distribution System Fire Flow Projects 12

5.3.2 Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects 12

5.3.3 Other Projects 13

5.4 Priority C Project Descriptions 13

5.4.1 Water Supply Projects 13

5.4.2 Distribution Projects 13

5.4.3 Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects 13
SECTION 6 COST ESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS 14

6.1 Planning Level Costs and Markups 14
SECTION 7 LONG TERM CIP COSTS 15

7.1 Long Term CIP Summary 15
SECTION 8 O&M PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS 17

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN ii

8.1 O&M Project and Program Recommendations 17

8.1.1 Water Quality Regulatory Review 17

8.1.2 Water Conservation and Water Loss 18

8.1.3 Repair and Replacement Assessment 18

8.1.4 O&M Review 18

8.1.5 SCADA Master Plan 19

8.1.6 O&M Recommendations Summary 19
Appendices

APPENDIX A EUM PRIMER

APPENDIX B WATER QUALITY REGULATORY REVIEW

APPENDIX C CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER CONSERVATION REGULATIONS MEMO

APPENDIX D WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX E O&M EVALUATION MEMO

APPENDIX F SCADA MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX G ENERGY MASTER PLAN

APPENDIX H GENERATOR RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX I NITRIFICATION EVALUATION

APPENDIX J CIP IMPLEMENTATIOM MEMO
Tables
Table 1 Water Supply - Zone 7 Turnouts 4
Table 2 Booster Station Inventory 4
Table 3 Indirect Cost Factors – Rehabilitation and Replacement 14 Table 4 Indirect Cost Factors – Capacity Projects 14
Table 5 Capital Improvement Plan Summary 15
Table 6 Capital Improvement Plan Summary by Project Type 17 Table 7 O&M Program 20
Figures
Figure 1 WSMP and CIP Budget Adoption Cycle 2
Figure 2 Existing Water Distribution System 3

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN iii
Abbreviations
10-Year CIP 10-Year Capital Improvement Program
AACE Advancement of Cost Engineering
AC asbestos cement
AWIA American Water Infrastructure Act
BESS battery energy storage systems
Carollo Carollo Engineers
CI cast iron
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Pleasanton
CMMS computerized maintenance management system
COF consequence of failure
DDW Department of Drinking Water
DER Distributed Energy Resources
DI ductile iron
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERP Emergency Response Plan
EUM Effective Utility Management
fps feet per second
ft foot/feet
gpm gallons per minute
hp horsepower
kW kilowatt(s)
LCRI Lead and Copper Rule Improvements
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
O&M operations and maintenance
OT operational technology
PFAS polyfluoroalkyl substances
PGR Pleasanton Generator Report
POF probability of failure
PV photovoltaic
PVC polyvinyl chloride
R&R rehabilitation and replacement
RCS Residual Control System
ROW right-of-way
RRA Risk and Resilience Assessment
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
TOU time-of-use management

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN iv
WDSCMP Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan
WQRR Water Quality Regulatory Review
WSAS Water Supply Alternatives Study
WSMP Water System Management Plan
WTP water treatment plant
WY West Yost

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 1
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City of Pleasanton (City) is in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area region, South of Interstate 580, and East of Interstate 680 in Alameda County. The City owns and operates a potable water system that serves residential customers as well as commercial and industrial users within its City limits. The City has initiated the development of a Water System Management Plan (WSMP), that will be a living document to guide management of its water system.

1.1 Purpose of the WSMP

1.1.1 Initial WSMP
The main purpose of the WSMP is to define near-term and long-term spending and programmatic priorities as a basis for water rate and connection fee requirements. This WSMP focuses on capacity, operational, and rehabilitation and repair need to define costs and programmatic priorities designed to move the City's water utility to a sustainable operational framework. The two main outcomes of the initial WSMP, and future WSMP updates, is to define two critical operational elements.

1. Near, Mid, and Long-Term Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

2. List of recommended operations and maintenance (O&M) program improvements.

Both elements should be reviewed and updated on a 2-year-, and 6-year cycle respectively to account for changes in system priorities, as well as updates to the City's rates and connections fees.

1.1.2 Future WSMP Updates
Future updates should also include evaluations of the City's water utility structure and organizations using the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Effective Utility Management (EUM) framework. The EUM was developed through a collaboration of ten regulatory and public utility partners to define a framework definition of effective utility operations, and prioritization. The EUM focuses on the ten EUM attributes listed below:

1. Product Quality.

2. Customer Satisfaction.

3. Stakeholder Understanding and Support.

4. Financial Viability.

5. Operational Optimization.

6. Employee Leadership and Development.

7. Enterprise Resilience.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2

8. Infrastructure Strategy and Performance.

9. Community Sustainability.

10. Water Resource Sustainability.

1.2 WSMP Updates
The WSMP will be reviewed and updated based on two-and six-year cycles. 2-Year WSMP Review Cycle: The WSMP should be reviewed on a 2-Year review cycle where project completion, project prioritization, and current funding are compared against the plan established in the initial WSMP. The 2-Year cycle will provide the City with an opportunity to evaluate progress towards the capital project completion and the implementation of new O&M programs. Additionally, the 2 -year WSMP review provides an opportunity to consider if any new technical evaluations are needed to address issues not identified in the current WSMP so they can be initiated with results to be included in the 6-Year WSMP Update (described below).
6-Year WSMP Update: Every six years the City will undergo an update of the WSMP that is adopted by City Council. The first update in this six-year cycle will include an evaluation of the water utility using the EUM Primer (Appendix A). The EUM primer will evaluate and rate the water utility on the 10 attributes of utility management and develop recommendations for organization enhancements.

The review and updates are scheduled to coordinate with the City’s CIP and Operations budgeting process. This cycle is illustrated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 WSMP and CIP Budget Adoption Cycle

1.3 Existing Water Distribution System
The City's water distribution system includes water supply facilities, distribution system pipelines, pump stations, and water storage tanks. The City's existing water system is illustrated in Figure 2.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 3

Figure 2 Existing Water Distribution System

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 4

1.3.1 Water Supply Facilities
The City's water supply comes from two sources: City owned groundwater supply wells and turnout connections to the Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). The City has an allocation of 3,500 ac -ft of groundwater. However, the City is not currently utilizing all of that allocation due to Wells, 5, 6 and 8 having measurable amounts of PFAS contamination. In addition, Well 7 became inoperable in the 1990s due to turbidity and structural settlement of the building. All water sources are disinfected and fluoridated before delivery to customers.

The Turnouts from Zone 7 are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Water Supply - Zone 7 Turnouts
Turnouts Type Status
Turnout 1 Flow Control Active
Turnout 2 Flow Control Active
Turnout 3 Flow Control Active
Turnout 4 Flow Control (Boosted in 2025) Active
Turnout 5 Flow Control Active
Turnout 6 Boosted Active
Turnout 7 Boosted Active
Water supply from Zone 7 comes from three primary sources: State Water Project supply via the South Bay Aqueduct, water from local watersheds via Lake Del Valle, and groundwater within the Livermore - Valley Groundwater Basin. Surface water sources are treated at both the Paterson Pass and Del Valle Water Treatment Plants (WTPs).

1.3.2 Water Distribution Pipelines
The City has approximately 339 miles of water system pipelines ranging from 2 to 27 inches in diameter.

The City's pipeline materials vary from asbestos cement (AC), cast iron (CI), ductile iron (DI), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), steel, and welded steel. The breakdown of pipeline diameters, materials and age can be found in the Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan (WDSCMP Akel, October 2024)

1.3.3 Water Booster Stations
The City’s water booster stations are summarized in Table 2. For further details on the booster stations refer to the WDSCMP.

Table 2 Booster Station Inventory
Pump Station Source Pressure Zone Destination Pressure Zone Longview (Foothill 1) Lower 770
Foothill 2 Lower 510
Dublin Canyon Lower Dublin Canyon
Laurel Creek Lower Moller 770
Vineyard Lower Bonde

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 5
Pump Station Source Pressure Zone Destination Pressure Zone North Sycamore Lower Bonde
Vineyard Hills Zone 7 Bonde
McCloud (Inactive) Lower Bonde
Ruby Hill Zone 7 Bonde
Gray Eagle Bonde Hydropneumatic
Kottinger Ranch Bonde Kottinger
Santos Ranch 510 510 Kilkare 900
Kilkare 900 Kilkare 900 Kilkare 1300
Kilkare 1300 Kilkare 1300 Kilkare 1600

1.3.4 Water Storage Tanks
The City has 19 storage tanks ranging in size from 0.25 to 8 million gallons (MG). A summary of the City 's water storage tanks can be found in the WDSCMP.

SECTION 2 WATER SYSTEM PROGRAM EVALUATIONS AS

PART OF THE WSMP
The City conducted a number of evaluations as part of the WSMP to help define the near and long-term needs. The evaluations covered a suite of topics including capacity evaluations for existing and currently planned long term conditions, overall water system condition, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and power, as well as water quality and existing and future regulations. The specific evaluations included the following:

1. Water Quality Regulatory Review: Carollo conducted a review of the existing and potential future federal and state of California water quality regulations. The report details water quality regulations that the City is subject to as of 2023 including but not limited to the lead and copper rule, PFAS, new requirements for the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), and the requirements for water quality of new groundwater sources. The City is currently in compliance but will need to be diligent related to tracking the City’s water quality relative to these programs. The report also details the potential for new regulations regarding M/DBPR, PFAS, and Cr(VI) MCLS. The Water Quality Regulatory Review is included in Appendix B.

2. Water Conservation Regulatory Review: Carollo conducted a review of existing and proposed water conservations regulations as well as including a review of the new California Water Loss regulations .

The main action items related to this report is the implementation of the water loss regulations and the need to implement a leak detection program. For upcoming water conservation regulations, the City is required to complete Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Performance Measures. The water use objective includes calculations for each budget (residential indoor use, residential outdoor use, CII landscapes with dedicated irrigation meters (DIMs) or equivalent technology, real water losses, variances if applicable, temporary provisions if applicable, and bonus incentive for potable reuse if applicable). Additional data is needed to calculate what the water use objective will be,

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 6
considering the tightening of the efficiency standards (ex. standard for CII landscapes with DIMs is

0.80 starting 2020, 0.63 starting 2035, and 0.45 starting 2040). It should be noted that the state’s update of the water conservation regulations are ongoing, and the City will need to track progress related to water conservation continually. The information documented in the WSMP may not be the most current status of the state’s requirements. The Water Conservation Regulatory Review is included as Appendix C

3. Condition Assessment Report: Carollo conducted field condition assessments of all of the City's above ground water facilities over the course of multiple days. The results of the assessment were used to develop a prioritized list of rehabilitation-based capital projects. Carollo also conducted a desktop analysis of the distribution system pipelines and those results were used to develop the pipeline rehabilitation recommendations. The highest priority projects were identified based on risk. The Condition Assessment Report is included as Appendix D.

4. Operations, Maintenance, and Management of the Water Distribution System: Carollo conducted an evaluation of the City’s Operations and Maintenance (O&M) practices and developed a list of recommended O&M programs to implement. Recommendations include but are not limited to, unidirectional flushing, water meter testing program, and others. The Operations, Maintenance, and Management, of the Water Distribution System Technical Memorandum is included in Appendix E

5. SCADA Master Plan: West Yost (WY) completed a planning study focused on evaluating improvements to the City's SCADA system including equipment, preventive maintenance, and cyber security. The report documents multiple projects and programs to improve and harden the SCADA system. The SCADA Master Plan also identified specific RTU upgrades. However, RTU upgrades are assumed to be included in the pump station rehabilitation and replacement improvement projects and thus is not specifically called out as a standalone project. If the City observes in the future that RTU replacement needs occur faster than implementation of pump station CIP projects, the City may want to consider implementing a dedicated project for RTU replacements. The SCADA Master Plan is included as Appendix F.

6. Energy Master Plan: West Yost also completed an analysis looking at the Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), microgrids, time-of-use management (TOU), as well as process control strategies to evaluate energy optimization. The analysis looks at maximum allowable downtime (MAD) to evaluate and develop mitigation measures related to system resilience. The Energy Master Plan is included as Appendix G.

T
he findings from these evaluations were used to inform the capital and O&M program recommendations.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 7
SECTION 3 WATER SYSTEM PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

OUTSIDE OF THE WSMP
There were four additional evaluations conducted outside of the WSMP where the findings were used to inform project recommendations and prioritization. The evaluations included the following:

1. American Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018, Risk and Resilience Assessment: West Yost, Final Report April 2021. AWIA Section 2013 requires communities with greater than 3,300 people to develop a Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) and an Emergency Response Plan (ERP). The RRA and ERP identifies critical water infrastructure and develops a plan to mitigate potential disruptions to water service in the event of any number of issues.

2. Water Distribution System Capacity Master Plan (WDSCMP): Akel Engineering Group, Inc, Final October 2024. The WDSCMP evaluated the system's ability to provide adequate water supply and pressure for existing and future conditions during peak demand times. The WDSCMP identifies pipeline, storage, and pumping improvements required in the near and long term.

3. Water Supply Alternatives Study (WSAS): Brown and Caldwell, Final Report November 2023. The WSAS evaluated the City's options for long term water supply and developed a recommended approach for moving forward with required supply projects. The supply analysis was to develop a recommended approach to recover use of the City's Groundwater Pumping Quota that has been lo st due to PFAS contamination. The report recommended the construction of new supply wells outside of the existing PFAS plume.

4. Pleasanton Generator Report (PGR): TJC and Associates, Final Report November 2023. The purpose of the PGR was to analyze and document the required functionality, design criteria, and execution approach for the integration of backup power systems at the City of Pleasanton Utilities Division potable water pump stations as well as critical sewer and storm stations. The report identified the size and location of new backup power supply through the City for the water, sewer, and storm drainage systems. On October 1, 2024, TJC and Associates provided a presentation of the results of the report to City staff. This presentation had slightly higher cost estimates from that contained in the report and serve as the basis for that included in this WSMP. A copy of the presentation is included in Appendix H.

All four of these efforts were used to inform the City's capital and O&M program recommendations.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 8
SECTION 4 FUTURE EVALUATION EFFORTS
Additional evaluation efforts will be conducted by the City to inform future WSMP updates. Additional efforts can include but may not be limited to:

1. Recycled Water Master Plan. The goals of the recycled water master plan are to develop a system hydraulic model to better assess operational performance and aid decision making for possible system expansion; develop processes to expand cost effective service opportunities; and assess opportunities to work with DERWA to develop mutually beneficial outcomes

2. 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP is a state mandated document that evaluates existing supply vs. proposed demands. The City must update the UWMP every five years.

3. Asset Management Plan. The City is currently in the process of developing a City-wide asset management program. The water utility will need to develop its approach for asset management that integrates with the City-wide effort
.

SECTION 5 LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAM
The Long-Term Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a prioritized list of recommended projects within multiple categories. The main categories include:

1. Water Supply: Water Supply requirements generally fall within two categories, volumetric/available daily rates, and water quality. This includes the City's recent action to proceed with developing an alternative water supply to replace the City's polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contaminated sources. a. California State standards target is that an agency's water supply is adequate to meet maximum day demand with the largest water supply source out of service. Peak hour demands are met through water in storage reservoirs.
b. The California Department of Drinking Water (DDW) controls water quality standards related to regulated constituents of concern as mandated by the City's distribution system permit.

2. Distribution: Distribution system performance is based on City standards as well as additional criteria established by the water system management team through the WDSCMP.

3. Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R): R&R projects fall into two categories, above ground facilities (pump stations, turnouts, tanks, etc.) and below ground (pipelines).

4. Other: Projects include those developed for SCADA, power, or other systems for both capital and O&M project and program recommendations.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 9

5.1 Project Prioritization
Project recommendations were prioritized based on a system of categorization.  Priority Level A: These projects are ranked the highest if they are required for health and safety; required by law, regulation, or contract; are under construction; and/or are funded by applicants or outside funding source
.
 Pr
iority Level B: These projects are those that provide measurable progress toward achieving the City's goals, but the City has a moderate level of control as to when these projects should be accomplished.
 Priority Level C: Projects not meeting the criteria for priority level A or B are ranked as priority level C. These are projects that are anticipated to be needed, but may not yet have defined scopes, and schedules.

5.2 Priority A Project Descriptions

5.2.1 Water Supply Projects
WS-1 Near Term Improvements for Water Supply Change
The project entails constructing distribution improvements as described in the WDSCMP to facilitate the City (in the near-term) receiving one hundred percent of its water supply from Zone 7 purchases that are delivered through the seven turnouts.

1. S-1. Construct 3,250 feet of 24-inch pipeline (the existing 12-inch to be abandoned) in Stoneridge Road between Hopyard Road and Johnson Drive.

2. S-2. Construct 1,600 feet of 18-inch pipeline in Bernal Avenue between Nevada Court and Vineyard Avenue.

3. S-3. Construct 4,650 feet of 20-inch pipeline in Sunol Boulevard between Bernal Avenue and Sycamore Road.

4. BS-1. Booster Station at Turnout 4 at Hopyard Road and Stoneridge Drive with a capacity of 5,200 gallons per minute.

5. I-2. Construct 160 feet of 18-inch pipeline in Stoneridge Drive from Turnout #4 to Hopyard Road

6. I-3. Replace 210 feet of existing 10-inch pipeline with a new 16-inch pipeline in Vineyard Avenue between the Vineyard Booster Station and Bernal Avenue.

WS-2 Long Term Improvements for Water Supply Change
Project entails constructing improvements to recover the use of the City's Groundwater Pump Quota. The City is considering a City owned option versus a regional option with Zone 7 as defined below.

City Owned Option:

1. New City groundwater wells W-1, and W-2 as defined in the WDSCMP.

2. Pipeline projects F-1 through F-5, as defined in the WDSCMP:

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 10
a. F-1 includes the replacement of 3,250 liner feet of existing 12-inch main on Stoneridge Drive with a new 24-inch diameter main.
b. F-2 includes the replacement of 310 linear feet of existing 12-inch main on Foothill Road with a new 24-inch diameter main.
c. F-3 includes 3,100 linear feet of new 12-inch diameter main on Valley Avenue from Pleasanton Avenue to Sunol Boulevard.
d. F-4 includes 975 linear feet of new 12-inch diameter main on Oak Vista Way from Cotton Mill W
ay to Valley Avenue.
e. F-5 includes 2,300 linear feet of new 16-inch diameter main on Hansen Drive between Del Prado Well to Valley Avenue.

Regional Zone 7 Options:

If the City decides to go with the regional supply project, W-1 and W-2 would be replaced with regional wells constructed and operated by Zone 7. Pipeline projects F-1 and F-2 would still be required. However, pipeline projects F-3 through F-5 would not be required and instead additional turnout and distribution improvements would be needed to receive the groundwater supply from Zone 7 via turnouts.

5.2.2 Distribution System Capacity Projects
DS-1 Existing Pipeline Deficiencies Improvements (I-1, I-4 through I-10 from Akel Report) Descriptions from the WDSCMP Report. Does not include Projects I-2 and I-3, which are included in project WS-1.

1. I-1. Replace 200 feet of the existing 8-inch pipeline in Payne Road with a new 12-inch pipeline between Denker Drive and Payne Court.

2. I-4. Replace 310 feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with a new 8-inch pipeline in Hopkins Court between Hopkins Way and the end of Hopkins Way cul-de-sac.

3. I-5. Replace 410 feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with a new 8-inch pipeline in San Antonio Street between San Gabriel Court and the end of San Antonino Street cul-de-sac.

4. I-6. Replace 200 feet of existing 8-inch pipeline with a new 12-inch pipeline in Sycamore Creek Way between Dalton Creek Way and 200 feet east of Dalton Creek Way.

5. I-7. Replace 140 feet of existing 10- and 12-inch pipeline with a new 16-inch pipeline at the Sycamore Booster Station (suction and discharge pipelines).

6. I-8. Replace 200 feet of existing 8- and 10-inch pipeline with a new 12-inch pipeline at the Foothill B
ooster Station (suction and discharge pipelines).

7. I-9. Replace 2,225 feet of existing 6-inch pipeline with a new 10-inch pipeline in Sinbad Creek Trail b
etween 410 feet west of Ridgeline Trail and Tank 1160.

8. I-10. Replace 200 feet of existing 8- and 10-inch pipeline with a new 12-inch pipeline in Pleasant Hill R
oad between Stoneridge and Baldwin Way extension.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 11
Other distribution projects in the WDSCMP include the following:

1. DS-4 Gray Eagle Connection to Kottinger Pressure Zone (FF-229 through FF-231): Pipeline to move water from the Gray Eagle pressure zone to the Kottinger Pressure zone as described in the WD
SCMP.

2. DS-5 Lemoine Bypass Pipeline Project: This project constructs piping improvements that reduced water age near the Lemoine development in the Moller 770 pressure zone. Refer to the WDSCMP for more details.

5.2.3 Distribution System Fire Flow Projects
The WDSCMP also identified fire flow improvements. The WDSCMP categorized fire flow capacity deficiencies above 30 percent deficient as Priority A. The Priority A fire flow improvements are documented in the WDSCMP.

1. DS-2: Priority A Fire Flow Deficiencies (Defined in the WDSCMP).

2. DS-3: Kilkare – Sunol Priority A Fire Flow Deficiencies (Defined in the WDSCMP).

5.2.4 Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects
The rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) projects have been developed based on the condition assessment effort. The facility condition assessment technical memorandum is included as Appendix D.

Based on the findings of the condition assessment as well as the criticality evaluation that was conducted as part of the AWIA project, the following capital projects were developed and prioritized . The descriptions below include major drivers for rehabilitation, but it is intended that the entire facilities are rehabbed as part of each project to cost effectively extend their useful life.

1. RR-1 Tank 1300: Interior tank corrosion

2. RR-2 McCloud Tank and Pump Station: Decommissioning and demolition

3. RR-3 Foothill Pump Station: Rehabilitation includes electrical and instrumentation replacements and upgrades, pump and valve replacements, security and road improvements.

4. RR
-4 Tank Inspection Program: Costs associated with the internal inspection of the City's storage tanks and reservoirs.

5. RR-5 Vineyard Pump Station: Rehabilitation includes electrical and instrumentation replacements and upgrades, pump and valve replacements. Project should include a preliminary design to evaluate breaking the City’s largest pressure zone (Mega Zone) into three separate pressure zones. If so, the Vineyard Pump Station capacity will need to be increased as discussed in the WDSCMP .

6. RR
-6 Kottinger Pump Station: Rehabilitation includes electrical and instrumentation upgrades, valve replacements and upgrades, lighting improvements, and crane improvements.

7. RR
-7 Grey Eagle: Grey Eagle is assumed to be decommissioned since it will no longer be needed after construction of project DS-4. However, if the Grey Eagle connection to Kottinger Pressure Zone project does not occur in a timely manner, then rehabilitation of the pump station will be needed.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 12

5.2.5 Other Projects
SP-1 Network Architecture Improvements: The SCADA Master Plan recommended conducting a phased approach to updating the City's network architecture. Reinforcing the network can be accomplished by rearchitecting the existing radio network, installing fiber connections between communication sites, utilizing cellular technology, or utilizing a hybrid of both cellular and radio technologies. The phased approach would include a network communications evaluation, design of the new system, and implementation.

SP-2 Generator Upgrades/Replacement: The Pleasanton Generator Report (PGR) detailed the recommendations related to the installation of backup power generators at water, sewer, and storm drain pumping facilities. The list of projects is included in Appendix H.

5.3 Priority B Project Descriptions

5.3.1 Distribution System Fire Flow Projects
The WDSCMP categorized fire flow capacity deficiencies between 15 percent and 30 percent as Priority B improvements. The fire flow improvements are documented in the WDSCMP.

1. DS-6 Priority B Fire Flow Deficiencies: (Defined in the WDSCMP).

There were three tank projects identified in the WDSCMP.

2. DS-7 Increase total storage at the 510 tanks site by 0.25 million gallons (MG) to improve storage for operational, emergency, and fire flow conditions.

3. DS-8 Increase total storage at the 770 tank site by 0.15 MG to improve storage for operational, emergency, and fire flow conditions.

4. DS-9 Construct a new 4.5 MG tank in the Lower Zone to account for additional demands from new growth.

5.3.2 Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects

1. RR-8 Customer Meter Replacement: Customer Meter Replacement: Project is to replace customer meters as they reach the end of their useful lives.

2. RR-9 Laural Creek Pump Station: Electrical and instrumentation upgrades, pump upgrades, and security upgrades.

3. RR-10 Ruby Hills Pump Station: Electrical and instrumentation replacements, valve replacements, and pump replacements.

4. RR-11 Well 7 Decommissioning: Decommission and abandon well site.

5. RR-12 Well 5 and Well 6: Decommission and abandon well sites.

6. RR-13 Well 8: Decommission and abandon well site.

7. RR-15 Pipeline Rehabilitation Backlog: The cost for the rehabilitation or replacement of the identified backlog (approximately 4.8 miles/year) .

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 13

5.3.3 Other Projects

5.3.3.1 DER P iloting Projects
SP-3 DER Piloting Projects: Distributed Energy Resources projects (DER) include a range of options related to energy management at above ground facilities. The Energy Master Plan (Appendix G) identified four potential sites for piloting of DER projects. The City is planning to move forward with DER system piloting at the Tassajara Tank site and Turnout No. 3. For the Tassajara site th e p iloting options include roof mounted solar panels, ground mounted solar arrays, and a solar canopy. For Turnout No. 3 the options include the potential for roof mounted panels, and a solar canopy.

5.4 Priority C Projec t Descriptions

5.4.1 Water Supply Projects
WS-3 Long Term Groundwater Supply Treatment: This project is a placeholder for additional costs related to groundwater treatment to address increasingly stringent water quality regulations in the future and/or to support sustainability of the groundwater basin.

WS-
4 Permanent Residual Control System (RCS) Installation: This project includes moving the existing RCS equipment inside a building (not container type structure) and evaluating switching to bulk chemical from self-generation process at both the Foothill and Sycamore reservoirs. The RCS system has shown to improve the chlorine residual in the system and has allowed the City to minimize the draining and manual cycling of the water storage tanks. The City would like to make the RCS system improvements at both the Foothill and Sycamore reservoirs. Carollo conducted an evaluation of th e performance of t he RCS system.

The evaluation is documented in Appendix I.

5.4.2 Distribution Projects
DS-10 Priority C Fire Flow Improvements. The WDSCMP categorized fire flow capacity de ficiencies l ess than 15% as Priority C improvements. The fire flow improvements are documented in the WDSCMP.

DS-11 Upper Zone Tank Mixers. Distribution system water quality analysis has identified the potential need for tank mixers in the upper zones to mitigate the reduction in chlorine residual. Preliminary estimates included five mixers in the upper zone reservoirs. The evaluation of distribution system nitrification are inc luded in the Ni trification Evaluation Project Memorandum (Appendix I).

5.4.3 Rehabilitation a nd Replacement Projects
RR-14 Other Facility Rehabilitation: Priority A and B projects for facility rehabilitation was developed based on the grouping of asset replacement and rehabilitation recommendations into capital projects based on facilities. There are many other assets identified in the Condition Assessment report that were not grouped into capital projects. Those asset replacement costs are captured in this project description as a placeholder for the additional funds needed in the long term.

RR-16 Pipeline Rehabilitation: Co st f or the rehabilitation or replacement of the underground pipelines (approximately 3 miles/year) to extend the overall useful life of the City's water system piping.

Identification of the specifics of these projects will be completed later.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 14
SECTION 6 COST ESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS

6.1 Planning Level Costs and Markups
Cost markups were applied to develop Class 5 planning level estimates per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). The resulting AACE class 5 estimates may represent an overestimate of cost by 100 percent or an underestimate of cost by 50 percent. The markup categories for R&R project are in Table 3. The markups for all other projects are included in Table 4.

Table 3 Indirect Cost Factors – Rehabilitation and Replacement Markup Category Percentage of Direct Cost Total
Installation 70 percent
Direct Cost Multiple(1) 1.70
Owner's Costs 30 percent
Subtotal Multiple(2) 2.21
Design/Construction Contingency 30 percent
Total Estimated Construction Cost Multiplier(3) 2.87
Notes:
(1) Direct Cost Multiple: 1*1.70=1.70.
(2) Subtotal Multiple: 1.70*1.30=2.21.
(3) Total Estimated Construction Cost Multiplier: 2.21*1.30 = 2.87. (4) E NR Index for San Francisco, May 2024, 15418
Table 4 Indirect Cost Factors – Capacity Projects
Markup Category Percentage of Direct Cost Total
Baseline Construction 1.0
Owner's Costs 30 percent
Subtotal Multiple(2) 1.3
Design/Construction Contingency 30 percent
Total Estimated Construction Cost Multiplier(3) 1.69
Notes:
(1) Baseline Construction is the cost for a contractor to build the project (2) Subtotal Multiple: 1.0*1.30=1.30
(3) Total Estimated Construction Cost Multiplier: 1.30*1.30 = 1.69 (4) E NR Index for San Francisco, May 2024, 15418
The tables above demonstrate how to calculate the total estimated construction cost. Note that if the recommendation is to decommission the asset, then the material cost is $0; however, the installation cost is still based on the cost range for said asset class.

The construction cost also accounts for the owner's costs. These are the amounts included in the total program budget to cover the owner's expenses for engineering fees, and legal fees. These costs may also include property/easement/right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, bid advertising, etc., and can range from 15 to 40 percent of the total construction cost. For this project, we are assuming 30 percent.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 15
SECTION 7 LONG TERM CIP COSTS

7.1 Long Term CIP Summary
The Long-Term CIP costs are included in Table 5. The City phasing and prioritization process involves developing implementation strategies that consider needed increases to City engineering staff to manage projects (not included in Table 5), O&M impacts/risks, and funding. A project memorandum that takes an initial look at these implementation strategies is included in Appendix J. Further development will occur as part of the upcoming water rate study.

Table 5 Capital Improvement Plan Summary
Project Type Total Costs
($Millions)
Water Supply Projects $ 52.00
Priority A Projects $ 40.00
WS -1 Near Term Improvements for Water Supply Change3 $ 13.50 WS-2 Long Term Improvements for Water Supply Change4 $ 26.50 Priority C Projects $ 12.00
WS-3 Future Water Supply Treatment $ 10.00
WS-4 RCS Permanent Installation $ 2.00
Distribution Capacity $ 81.50
Priority A Projects $ 44.06
DS-1 Existing Pipeline Deficiencies Improvements (I-1, I-4 through I-10 from Akel Report)
$ 1.46
DS -2 Priority A Fire Flow (>30% Def) $ 16.71
DS-3 Kilkare - Sunol Fire Flow $ 23.78
DS-4 Gray Eagle Connection to Kottinger Pressure Zone $ 1.86 DS -5 Lemoine Bypass Pipeline Project $ 0.25
Priority B Projects $ 26.06
DS-6 Priority B Fire Flow $ 9.43
DS-7 Tank 510 Site (Additional 0.25 MG) $ 2.14
DS-8 Tank 770 Site (Additional 0.15 MG) $ 1.68
DS-9 New 4.5 MG Tanks $ 12.81
Priority C Projects $ 11.38
DS -10 Priority C Fire Flow $ 9.88
DS - 11 Upper Zone Tank Mixers $ 1.50
Rehabilitation and Replacement (Above Ground Facilities) $ 50.59 Priority A Projects $ 12.04
RR-1 Tank 1300 Rehab $ 2.54

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 16
Project Type Total Costs
($Millions)
RR-2 McCloud Tank/PS Decommission $ 1.24
RR- 3 Foothill PS Rehab $ 1.32
RR - 4 Tank Inspections $ 1.62
RR- 5 Vineyard PS Rehab $ 2.13
RR- 6 Kottinger PS Rehab $ 1.90
RR- 7 Decommission of Grey Eagle PS $ 1.29
Priority B Projects $ 15.75
RR - 8 Customer Meter Replacement $ 9.30
RR- 9 Laurel Creek PS Rehab $ 1.68
RR - 10 Ruby Hill PS Rehab $ 2.04
RR- 11 Decommission Well No. 7 $ 0.81
RR- 12 Decommission Well 5 and 6 $ 0.71
RR- 13 Decommission Well No. 8 $ 1.21
Priority C Projects $ 22.80
RR- 14 Other Facility Rehabilitation $ 22.80
Rehabilitation and Replacement (Below Ground Facilities) $ 71.28 Priority B Projects $ 31.68
RR - 15 Pipeline Rehabilitation Backlog (4.8-miles/year) $ 31.68 Priority C Projects $ 39.60
RR - 16 Pipeline Rehabilitation (3-miles/year) $ 39.60 Other Projects $ 6.73
Priority A Projects $ 6.53
SP - 1 Network Architecture (SCADA) $ 1.01
SP - 2 Generator Projects5 $ 5.52
Priority B Projects $ 0.20
SP - 3 DER Projects (Tassajara and TO3) $ 0.20
Project Total $ 262.10
Notes:
(1) Projects are in 2024 dollars.
(2) Costs are total project delivery costs. Increase in City engineering staff to manage is not included. (3) Project includes S-1, S-2, S-3, BS-1, I-2, and I-3 from Akel Report. Costs provided by City supersede Akel Report.""" (4) City is considering one of two options: Project includes W-1, W-2, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5 from Akel Report. Alternatively, City is evaluating a Regional Groundwater Facility project with Zone 7 with related distribution changes. Costs provided by City supersede the Akel report."
(5) Total costs for all generators including water, sewer, and storm is $9.39 m illion. "Costs show in this table is just for water".

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 17
Table 6 Capital Improvement Plan Summary by Project Type Priority Total Cost
($Million)
CIP Cost
($Million)

Water Supply Distribution
Capacity
Rehabilitation and
Replacement
Other
Priority A $ 102.63 $ 40.00 $ 44.06 $ 12.04 $ 6.53 Priority B $ 73.69 $ $ 26.06 $ 47.43 $ 0.20
Priority C $ 85.78 $ 12.00 11.38 $ 62.40 $
Total Costs $ 262.10 $ 52.00 $ 81.50 $ 121.87 $ 6.73 SECTION 8 O&M PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
O&M project and program recommendations and priorities were developed as part of the WSMP effort.

The recommendations were compiled based on a number of evaluation efforts. The recommendations are based on regulatory drivers, best practice approaches and O&M preventive maintenance projects. The projects have been grouped according to the evaluation effort used to determine the need.

8.1 O&M Project and Program Recommendations

8.1.1 Water Quality Regulatory Review
Carollo conducted an evaluation of the current and future water quality regulations. The Water Quality Regulatory Review (WQRR) technical memorandum is included in Appendix B. The recommendations from the WQRR include the following:

WQ-1 Lead and Copper Rule Program Tracking: Under the Lead and Copper Rule, the City will need to complete its initial service line inventory by October 16, 2024. By October 16, 2027, the City will need to:
 Develop and submit an LSL replacement plan.
 Revised sampling plan that captures updated sample tiers.  Start sampling in schools and childcare facilities.
 Comply with revised Action level.
 Comply with updated public notification.

Actions required by the City will be based on findings from the Phase 1 survey currently being conducted by the City.

WQ-2 Cross Connection Control Plan: O&M funds allocated to update the City's cross connection control plan in compliance with new regulations.

WQ-3 Nitrification Response Plan: O&M funds allocated to update the City’s nitrification response plan to incorporate changes to the water system since installation of the residual control system and for better documentation of procedures related to monitoring and control of disinfection byproducts in areas of water system where free chlorination occurs.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 18

8.1.2 Water Conservation and Water Loss
Carollo also developed a Water Conservation and Water Loss technical memorandum. Part of the new California water loss regulations revolves around data accuracy, leak detection, and water loss reduction through mitigation of water system leaks. The project recommendations from this memo include:
 WC-1 Water Meter Testing Program: The City should implement a water meter testing program to build accuracy in water usage data. The City can contract this service or train staff to conduct the meter testing program.
 WC-2 Water Conservation Program: This project includes funding for unknown changes and modifications to the current water conservation framework for California. Many of the current regulations are in draft form and things are changing annually.  WC-3 Water Loss Program: The water loss regulations require full system leak detection every three years until compliance with the water loss standards. Leak Detection includes a complete system survey of all the City's pipelines before the compliance date of January 2028.  WC-4 Systematic Data Handling Error Audit: This project included the evaluation of the City’s water meter data collection and handling program. This program will determine if errors in data collection are occurring and will develop programs to mitigate the issues.

8.1.3 Repair and Replacement Assessment
The condition assessment program identified additional evaluation needs associated with water system assets.
 RR-4 Tank Inspection Program: Costs associated with the internal inspection of the City's storage tanks and reservoirs. This project was included in the long-term CIP as a project.  RR-17 Asset Management: The City is currently developing a City-wide asset management program.

This project is to fund for the development of the water utility elements of the asset management program and to coordinate with the City-wide efforts.
 RR-18 Corrosion Protection: The City should implement a program to establish a corrosion protection strategy for water distribution piping and O&M program for steel tanks (i.e. monitoring and maintenance of cathodic protection systems).

8.1.4 O&M Review
Carollo conducted an O&M review based on the City's existing California Division of Drinking Water (DDW), and water utility best practices. Details on the O&M review are included in the Operations, Maintenance, and Management, of the Water Distribution System Technical Memorandum in Appendix E.

The project and program recommendations include the following:
 OM-1 Unidirectional Flushing Program: Develop a single unidirectional flushing program. Valve exercising and hydrant maintenance to be integrated with flushing program.  OM-2 Utility Training Program: Incorporate/implement utility training program recommendations prepared by DKF into overall Public Works training program and continue to develop elements including SOPs and training materials. Costs shown are water related only (does not include sewer and storm related tasks).

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 19
 OM-3 Water System Operations Manual: The City should update its Water System Operations Manual to reflect current conditions and practices.

8.1.5 SCADA Master Plan
The following projects and programs were developed as part of the SCADA M aster Plan. Additional details for all these recommendations are included in the SCADA Master Plan located in Appendix F.  SP-4 SCADA Standards Development: The City currently does not have an official set of comprehensive SCADA standards. Development of SCADA standards is a vital component for any SCADA system. The City should formalize standards that can be provided to internal or external resources. SCADA standards encompass items such as instrumentation standards, PLC/OITs, PLC cabinet hardware and layouts, SCADA software, SCADA hardware, and SCADA programming.  SP-5 SCADA Preventive Maintenance Program: The City should develop a formalized preventative maintenance program for critical electrical, instrumentation, and controls assets, and re -evaluate third-party maintenance contracts to include these activities.  SP-6 Backup Core Server Relocation: The City should diversify and relocate its core SCADA server to the virtual environment and eliminate the risk of the current server hardware access locations.  SP-7 Remote Access Improvements: The City should implement remote SCADA access solutions to offer granular access control, enabling customized control per protocol, per user activity, and per seat, with continuous monitoring and enforcement for the duration of every session.  SP-8 Operational Technology (OT) System Monitoring Implementation: The City should investigate implementing an OT focused cybersecurity monitoring solution that provides OT-specific asset visibility and inventory, vulnerability management, threat detection and investigation tools. The implementation of such a monitoring tool would considerably improve overall monitoring coverage and additionally assist the City in being compliant with new EPA cybersecurity requirements released in March of 2023.

8.1.6 O&M Recommendations Summary
The recommendations included in Section 8.1 are summarized in Table 7

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 20
Table 7 O&M Program
Project Type Cost
WQ – 1 Lead and Copper Rule Program Tracking $250,000 for initial implementation WQ - 2 Cross Connection Control Plan $250,000 for initial implementation plan WQ - 3 Nitrification Response Plan $50,000
WC- 1 Water Meter Testing Program $100,000 for initial implementation followed by annual costs of $10,000.

WC- 2 Water Conservation Program $250,000 for initial implementation WC - 3 Water Loss $550,000 for initial leak detection program (pipe repairs assumed to be included in CIP)
WC – 4 Systematic Data Handling Error Audit $50,000
RR-17 Asset Management Program $250,000 for initial implementation followed by annual costs of $10,000.

RR - 4 Tank Inspection Program Costs included in Long-Term CIP RR - 18 Corrosion Protection $200,000 initial, then $10,000 annually OM – 1 Unidirectional Flushing Program $75,000 for initial study, then followed by annual costs of $50,000 (major valve replacements assumed to be included in CIP)
OM – 2 Utility Training Program $50,000 annually
OM – 3 Water System Operations and Maintenance
Manual
$150,000 one-time
SP - 4 SCADA Standards Development: $169,000
SP – 5 SCADA Preventive Maintenance Program $100,000 initial with 50,000 per year after SP – 6 Backup Core Server Relocation $211,000
SP – 7 Remote Access Improvements $371,000
SP- 8 OT System Monitoring Implementation $850,000
Full Time Employees $12.00 million over a 20-year period.(2) Notes:
(1) Projects are in 2024 dollars.
(2) Five Operator FTEs to facilitate programs.
-2 FTEs starting in FY24/25 which has already been approved and included in baseline operating expenses (not included here). -A dditional 3 FTEs starting in FY 26/27 which is included in this line item.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX A EUM PRIMER
Effective Utility Management,
a Primer for Water Sector Utilities
is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2024-08/eum-primer.pdf

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX B WATER QUALITY REGULATORY REVIEW

Water System Management Plan

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Water Quality Regulatory Review
Final DRAFT / September 2024

Water System Management Plan

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Regulatory Review
DRAFT / September 2024
This document is released for the purpose of information exchange review and planning only under the authority of Timothy J. Loper, April 19, 2023, State of California, PE 70847.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Pleasanton/201264-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/TM_Regulatory Review/TM_Regulatory Review Contents
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 2 SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 1
SECTION 3 CURRENT DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 3

3.1 National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations 3

3.2 California Drinking Water Regulations 4

3.3 Health Advisory and Notification Levels 5

3.4 City Compliance with Current Regulations, Health Advisory and Notification Levels 5

3.4.1 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) 5

3.4.2 Groundwater Rule 7

3.4.3 Stage 1 and 2 D/DBPR 8

3.4.4 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) 9

3.4.5 Consumer Confidence Reports 10
SECTION 4 POTENTIAL FUTURE REGULATIONS 10

4.1 Microbial / Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBP) Rule 13

4.2 Arsenic Rule 14

4.3 Hexavalent Chromium (Cr(VI)) 14

4.4 Manganese 14

4.5 Microplastics 14
SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15
SECTION 6 REFERENCES 16
Appendices

APPENDIX A NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

APPENDIX B STATE AND FEDERAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS Tables
Table 1 City of Pleasanton Water Sources 1
Table 2 Summary for Lead Copper Rule Revisions 6
Table 3 Summary of TTHM and HAA5 Concentrations 9
Table 4 PFAS Federal and State Health Advisory Levels (USEPA, 2022; CA SWRCB, 2023). 9
Table 7 Contaminant Candidate List History 11
Table 8 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule History 12 Table 9 List of Recent and Anticipated Near-Term Regulatory Actions 12

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN ii
Figures
Figure 1 City of Pleasanton Distribution System 2
Figure 2 Water Quality Regulations and Drinking Water Standards 4 Figure 3 USEPA Process for Establishing New Drinking Water Regulations (AWWA, 2015) 11

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN iii
Abbreviations
AL action level
AWIA American Water Infrastructure Ace
Carollo Carollo Engineers
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CCR Consumer Confident Reports
CCT corrosion control treatment
CFU colony forming units
City City of Pleasanton
D/DBPR Disinfectant and Disinfection By-Product Rules
DDW California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water DVWTP Del Valley Water Treatment Plant
EPA or USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GWR groundwater rule
HA health advisory
HAA5 haloacetic acids
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
µg/L micrograms per liter
µm micrometer(s)
LCR Lead and Copper Rule
LCRI Lean and Copper Rule Improvements
LCRR Lean and Copper Rule Revisions
LRAA locational running annual average
LSL lead service linePQL
LT1 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LT2ESWTR Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule MCLs maximum contaminant levels
MCLGs maximum contaminant level goals
M/DBPs Microbial / Disinfection Byproducts Rules
mL milliliter(s)
Mocho DMWTP Mocho Demineralization WTP (Mocho DMWTP)
mrem millirem (milli-roentgen equivalent man)
NA not applicable
NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council
ng/L nanogram per liter
NL notification levels
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NSDWR National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN iv
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
pCI/L picocuries per liter
PFAS per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances
PFBS perfluorobutane sulfonate
PFHxS perfluorohexane sulfonic acid
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS perfluorooctanoic acid
PHGs public health goals
PQL practical quantitation level
ppm parts per million
PPWTP Patterson Pass Water Treatment Plant
RRA running annual average
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board Division
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TT treatment technique
TTHM total trihalomethane
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
UV ultraviolet
WQP water quality parameter
WSMP water system management plan
WTP water treatment plant

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum reviews current and upcoming water quality regulations that could impact the City’s water system program during the span of the initial water system management plan (WSMP) (i.e., 5 years).

SECTION 2 SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The City's drinking water supply is a combination of treated water purchased from Zone 7 and groundwater wells own and operated by the City. Sources of supply are included in Table 1. A map of the City's distribution system is shown in Figure 1. The figure shows the location of the City's turnouts where Zone 7 water is delivered, City owned wells, storage tanks, and pump stations.

Table 1 City of Pleasanton Water Sources
Source Water Type Supplier
Patterson Pass WTP (PPWTP) surface water Zone 7
Del Valle WTP (DVWTP) surface water Zone 7
Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plant (MGDP) groundwater Zone 7 Mocho Wellfield groundwater Zone 7
Hopyard Wellfield groundwater Zone 7
Chain of Lakes Wellfield groundwater Zone 7
Stoneridge Wellfield groundwater Zone 7
Wells 5/6 groundwater Pleasanton
Well 8 groundwater Pleasanton
Zone 7 water typically comprises approximately 75 to 80 percent of the City’s annual water supply, with the remaining water supply coming from the City's 3,500 AF/year groundwater pumping allotment. Zone 7 water can be a blend of treated surface water and groundwater. The proportion of surface and groundwater provided by Zone 7 varies, as outlined in a Nitrification Evaluation for the City (Carollo, 2019). The City’s groundwater is disinfected and fluoridated prior to distribution. Chloramines are used to maintain the distributions system disinfection residual.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2

Figure 1 City of Pleasanton Distribution System

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 3
SECTION 3 CURRENT DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Drinking water quality in the United States is governed by legislation enacted by the federal and state governments. Statutes, more commonly known as laws, direct the appropriate government agency to develop and publish regulations or rules to implement the requirements of the law. Standards specify the amount or concentration of a particular constituent that is legally allowed in drinking water. At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is primarily responsible for developing and enforcing drinking water regulations, whereas state health departments typically regulate drinking water quality at the state level.

Any drinking water regulations promulgated by a state are required to include standards that are at least as stringent as those imposed by comparable federal regulations; states may implement regulations in addition to those mandated by federal statutes or standards that are more restrictive than federal ones.

The State of California has adopted and codified these rules, along with several state-specific requirements. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) administers and enforces these rules. The following subsections present an overview of federal and state regulations, followed by a discussion of current regulations that warrant consideration for continued City compliance with all drinking water regulations.

3.1 National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 and its amendments (1986 and 1996) provide a regulatory framework that specifies how National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) are developed, promulgated, and implemented. Elements of this regulatory framework require that EPA periodically review existing NPDWRs for continued protection of public health, evaluate potential risks associated with unregulated contaminants that are known to occur in drinking water supplies, and monitor the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water supplies.

The NPDWRs established by the EPA are legally enforceable primary standards applicable to all potable water systems and intended to protect the public from consuming water containing contaminants that present a risk to human health. The regulations set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), and treatment technique requirements for a total of 94 contaminants.

As shown in Figure 2, the number of contaminants regulated has increased dramatically from the original 22 listed in 1975 and 1976.

The USEPA has also established National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs), adopted by California’s SWRCB, that set non-mandatory water quality standards for 15 contaminants. Secondary regulations are not legally enforceable and function as guidelines for water utilities to provide aesthetically pleasing drinking water and avoid cosmetic effects such as tooth discoloration. Taste and odor, for example, are aesthetic issues, as opposed to health issues, and secondary drinking water regulations are therefore applicable. The secondary standards set secondary MCLs for a total of 15 compounds that do not present a health risk at such levels.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 4

Figure 2 Water Quality Regulations and Drinking Water Standards The national primary and secondary drinking water standards are listed in Appendix A. Some regulations are based on compliance at the entry point to the distribution system, whereas others are based on compliance within the distribution system (e.g., chlorine residuals, disinfection by-products (DBPs), and at household taps (e.g., lead and copper). Zone 7 is required to meet NPDWRs in its groundwater and surface water supplies for contaminants with compliance points at the entry point to the distribution system. The City is required to meet NPDWRs for its groundwater supplies for contaminants with compliance points at the entry point to the distribution system. The City is also required to meet NPDWRs for contaminants that are regulated within the distribution system, and at household taps. The City has forty-eight (48) distribution system sample points that are used to monitor water quality for compliance with the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), Stage 1 and 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection By-Product Rules (D/DBPR), and for nitrification monitoring and control.

3.2 California Drinking Water Regulations
The State of California has established several drinking water standards that are additive to the NPDWRs, including for perchlorate, nickel, and strontium. Appendix B lists both the Federal and California MCLs.

Contaminants that are regulated in California, but not federally, are highlighted in yellow. Contaminants for which California has established more stringent standards are highlighted in blue.

Appendix B also lists the public health goals (PHGs) corresponding to the different regulated contaminants. PHGs are established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). These are concentrations of drinking water contaminants at or below which no significant public health risk is presented from consumption of the water over a lifetime, based on current risk assessment principles, practices, and methods. OEHHA establishes PHGs pursuant to Health & Safety Code §116365(c) for contaminants with MCLs, and for those for which MCLs will be adopted. PHGs are analogous to 01020304050607080901001975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Number of ContaminantsYearPhase II & V Chemical Contaminant Rules, Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)Stage 1 Disinfectant Byproduct Rule (DBPR) and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)Stage 2 DBPR and IESWTRSafe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Phase I Rule (VOC rule)
Arsenic Rule

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 5
MCLGs, with the exception that California requires that water systems provide information on contaminants that exceed the PHG in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports. Certain public water systems must provide a report to their customers about health risks from a contaminant that exceeds its PHG and about the cost of treatment to meet the PHG and hold a public hearing on the report.

3.3 Health Advisory and Notification Levels
In recent years, the USEPA has issued health advisory (HA) levels for emerging contaminants such as cyanotoxins and per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS). While HAs are not enforceable, they can prompt state and/or local action. For example, the USEPA established a combined 70 nanogram per liter (ng/L) HAs for PFOS plus PFOA on May 25, 2016.

The California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has established health-based notification levels (NLs) for chemicals in drinking water that lack MCLs. There are currently 32 chemicals with NLs, including chlorate, manganese, three nitrosamines, and four PFAS. The chemicals with NLs, and the corresponding NL, are listed on DDW’s website: Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels: An Overview. Certain requirements and recommendations apply when chemicals are found at concentrations above their NLs. DDW has also established response levels (see DDW Website link above) corresponding for chemicals with NLs. Water systems are required to treat, take out of service or notify public if continuing to supply source water where a contaminant is detected at a concentration above the response level. As an example, the response level for NDMA is 30 times the NL, W\whereas the response level for PFOA and PFOS is currently 100 times the cancer risk. Relevant requirements that the City must meet for PFAS are discussed below.

3.4 City Compliance with Current Regulations, Health Advisory and Notification Levels
The City meets all current federal and state drinking water standards. A review of the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) indicated that the City has not been in violation of any drinking water standard since late 1995 when the City experienced a compliance violation related to the TCR. However, there are several regulations that warrant consideration for the City’s continued compliance, either in anticipation of new regulations, or changes to the City’s supplies:
 Lead and Copper Rule
 Groundwater Rule
 Stage 1 and 2 D/DBPR
 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
 American Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) requirements for Consumer Confident Reports (CCR) This section summarizes these rules and their implications for the City.

3.4.1 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR)
The final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) were published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 4198), with the rules placed in effect beginning on December 16, 2021. The final rule lists a

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 6
compliance date of October 16, 2024. Notably, the USEPA is also developing Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) that could further impact requirements for public water system compliance.

The LCRR includes revisions in the following key areas:
 Identifying areas most impacted.
 Strengthening treatment requirements.
 Systematically replacing lead service lines.
 Increasing sample reliability.
 Improving risk communication.
 Protecting children in schools and childcare facilities.

Table 2 summarizes rule requirements within each of the six key areas. The requirements that are anticipated to most significantly impact the City include: development of a lead service line (LSL) inventory, potential action in the event of an individual lead concentration above 15 µg/L, potential revisions to the lead and copper compliance sampling locations, notification requirements until all service line materials are confirmed, and sampling requirements for schools and childcare facilities.

The City developed an inventory of the publicly-owned service lines to meet state requirements. Of the 22,229 service lines inventoried, none were identified as lead, and none were identified as unknown. The City will need to update the inventory to include a review of records and potential field inspections to characterize the material for the privately-owned portion of the service line.

The City is on a reduced triennial sampling schedule for lead and copper. Ninetieth (90th) percentile lead concentrations have been below the 5 microgram per liter (µg/L) practical quantitation level (PQL) for the past three triennial sampling events. In the most recent 2019 compliance sampling event, 1 of 58 samples had lead above 15 µg/L. Following the October 16, 2024 compliance deadline, individual samples with lead above 15 µg/L will be subject to “find-and-fix” requirements. Initial proactive recommended steps are to evaluate where in the distribution system the individual sample above 15 µg/L from 2019 is located and the likely source of lead serving that area.

Table 2 Summary for Lead Copper Rule Revisions
Focus Area Rule Requirement
Identifying areas most impacted  Complete an LSL inventory.  Systems without LSLs must demonstrate their absence.

Strengthening treatment
requirements  10 µg/L trigger level (TL) in addition to the current 15 µg/L Action level (AL).  If the TL is exceeded based on 90th percentile lead concentrations, systems must re- optimize corrosion control treatment (CCT) or conduct a study if CCT is not currently in place.
 Calcium hardness adjustment is no longer a lead CCT option and phosphate inhibitors must be orthophosphate.
 Calcium, conductivity, and temperature analyses are no longer required as part of the water quality parameter (WQP) sampling.
 If an individual tap sample exceeds 15 µg/L, systems must collect a follow-up sample, conduct WQP monitoring at or near the site (0.5-mile radius, similar pressure zone), and perform a corrective action. This is termed a "find-and-fix" approach.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 7
Focus Area Rule Requirement
Systematically replacing lead
service lines
 Systems with lead above the TL must develop a goal for LSL replacement; 3% LSL replaced per year with systems above the AL.
 No partial LSLs can be conducted.
 Utilities must replace their portion of an LSL within 45 days if the customer replaces their portion.

Increasing sample reliability  Prioritize sample collection from sites served by LSLs.  For sites with LSLs, the 5th liter should be collected.  Collect samples in wide-mouth bottles with no cleaning, flushing, etc. prior to sample collection.

Improving risk communication  Utilities must notify individual tap sample consumers within 3 days of a 15 µg/L sample detection.
 Utilities must inform customers served by an LSL or lead status unknown service line.  CCR must provide updated health effects language and information regarding LSL replacement programs.
 Utilities must notify system-wide customers of lead AL exceedance within 24 hours.  Systems must improve public access to lead information, including LSL locations, and respond to requests for LSL information, deliver educational materials to customers during water-related work that could disturb LSLs, and provide increased information to health care providers.

Protecting children in schools and
childcare facilities
 Develop a list of schools and childcare facilities by the 2024 compliance deadline.  Test 20% of licensed childcare facilities and elementary schools each year.  Provide testing to secondary schools on request.
 Provide information and communicate results to users of the facility, parents, Primacy Agency, and the local or state health department.

3.4.2 Groundwater Rule
The groundwater rule (GWR) applies to public water systems that use groundwater as a source of drinking water. This rule was put in place to minimize public health risk associated with potential occurrence of microbial pathogens (e.g., virus) in groundwater supplies. The GWR requires that public water systems using groundwater complete the following steps (USEPA, 2022):

1. Perform routine sanitary surveys to identify any significant deficiencies.

2. Monitor systems that identified a positive sample during regular Total Coliform monitoring or assessment monitoring targeted at high-risk systems. This is triggered if the drinking water is not treated to remove 4-log of viruses.

3. Implement corrective action for any system with a significant deficiency or source water fecal contamination.

4. Monitor compliance with 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses by treatment technique.

The City has already completed steps for compliance with the GWR for existing wells. However, if the City were to construct any new wells (e.g., following demolition of Wells 5 and 6), the City would need to complete steps for continued compliance with the GWR. New groundwater sources would require monitoring after construction if they can’t prove 4-log inactivation or removal of viruses.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 8

3.4.3 Stage 1 and 2 D/DBPR
The Stage 1 and 2 D/DBPR Rules provide protection from DBPs. These are part of the EPA’s suite of Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Rules (M/DBPs). Disinfectants can combine with naturally occurring materials found in the water and form DBPs that can pose risks to public health.

The Stage 1 D/DBPR was finalized in December 1998 and became effective on January 1, 2002. All public water systems serving populations greater than 500 and using a primary disinfectant other than ultraviolet (UV) light are subject to the Stage 1 D/DBPR.

The Stage 1 D/DBPR reduced the total trihalomethane (TTHM) MCL to 80 µg/L and established MCLs for a group of haloacetic acids (HAA5) at 60 µg/L, bromate, and chlorite. Under the Stage 1 D/DBPR, compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 MCLs was established based on the running annual averages (RAAs) across all monitoring sites.

The Stage 2 D/DBPR was finalized in December of 2005 and became effective on January 4, 2006.

Compliance monitoring for the Stage 2 D/DBPR was phased in from April 2012 to October 2013. This rule was established to strengthen the requirements of the Stage 1 D/DBPR by reducing occurrences of DBP concentration spikes in distribution systems. The MCLs for TTHM and HAA5 remained the same; however, the method used to calculate MCL compliance was altered. Under the Stage 2 D/DBPR, TTHM and HAA5 MCLs must be met as locational running annual averages (LRAAs) - the average concentration at each individual monitoring location, rather than RAAs of the system as a whole. Furthermore, monitoring samples must be collected at distribution system locations with high DBP concentrations as determined by an Initial Distribution System Evaluation, and during peak months of TTHM and HAA5 occurrence.

LRAAs are calculated by collecting quarterly samples at each monitoring location and taking the average of the most recent sample and the three preceding samples.

Table 3 summarizes the TTHM and HAA5 compliance concentrations in City distribution system samples collected since 2013, based on data reported in the City’s annual water quality reports. The highest LRAA TTHM concentration was within 1 µg/L of the MCL in 2013. TTHM LRAA concentrations have been lower in all subsequent years, and generally below 80 percent of the MCL. However, the maximum TTHM concentrations each year can exceed the MCL, indicating the City will need to plan for any changes in source water quality (e.g., wildfire impacted supplies) or treatment on DBP formation and implement any mitigation strategies required for continued compliance. HAA5 LRAA concentrations are well below 60 percent of the MCL and maximum HAA5 concentrations are also below the MCL.

Zone 7 recently implemented ozone at their surface water treatment plants. In 2021, the maximum running annual average bromate concentration in the treated surface water was 8 µg/L, 80 percent of the MCL. The City should closely track bromate compliance data from Zone 7 to confirm that they are providing water that meets the MCL.

The Stage 2 D/DBPR requires that systems consult with the State regulatory agency to determine if changes in DBP sample locations are needed in response to a source water or treatment modification. If the City adjusts the water supply strategy to solely rely on Zone 7, the City should meet with DDW to discuss whether any changes to the Stage 2 D/DBPR monitoring plan are required.