Pleasanton City Council
January 21, 2025

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Contaminant Regulation MCL or TT(1) (ppm)(2) MCLG (ppm)(2) Endothall Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.1 0.1
Endrin Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.002 0.002
Epichlorohydrin Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) (TT) Zero Ethylbenzene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.7 0.7 Ethylene dibromide Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.00005 Zero Glyphosate Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.7 0.7
Heptachlor Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.0004 Zero Heptachlor epoxide Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.0002 Zero Hexachlorobenzene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.001 Zero Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.05 0.05 Lindane Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.0002 0.0002 Methoxychlor Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.04 0.04 Oxamyl (Vydate) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.2 0.2 Pentachlorophenol Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.001 Zero Picloram Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.5 0.5
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.0005 Zero Simazine Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.004 0.004 Styrene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.1 0.1
Tetrachloroethylene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.005 Zero Toluene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 1 1
Toxaphene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.003 Zero 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.05 0.05 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.07 0.07 1,1,1-Trichloroethane VOC Rule (Phase I) 0.2 0.2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.005 0.003 Trichloroethene VOC Rule (Phase I) 0.005 Zero
Vinyl chloride VOC Rule (Phase I) 0.002 Zero
Xylenes (total) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 10 10 Inorganic Substances
Antimony Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.006 0.006 Arsenic Arsenic Rule 0.010 Zero
Asbestos (fibers/L > 10 µm) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 7 million fibers/L 7 million fibers/L Barium Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 2 2
Beryllium Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.004 0.004 Cadmium Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.005 0.005

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Contaminant Regulation MCL or TT(1) (ppm)(2) MCLG (ppm)(2) Chromium (total) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.1 0.1 Copper LCR and LCRR (TT) AL=1.3 1.3
Cyanide Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.2 (as free cyanide) 0.2 Fluoride NPDWR 4 4
Lead LCR and LCRR (TT) AL = 0.015 Zero
Mercury (inorganic) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.002 0.002 Nitrate (as N) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 10 10 Nitrite (as N) Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 1 1 Selenium Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase II) 0.05 0.05 Thallium Chemical Contaminant Rule (Phase V) 0.002 0.0005 Radionuclides
Gross Alpha Radionuclides Rule 15 pCi/L Zero
Beta and photon radioactivity Radionuclides Rule 4 mrem/yr Zero Radium-226 + Radium-228 Radionuclides Rule 5 pCi/L Zero Uranium Radionuclides Rule 0.030 Zero
Microorganisms
Cryptosporidium LT2ESWTR (TT) oocyst/100L Zero
Fecal coliforms and E. coli RTCR MCL(3) Zero
Giardia lamblia SWTR (TT) cyst/100L Zero
Heterotrophic plate count (HPC) SWTR (TT) CFU/mL NA
Legionella SWTR (TT) #/mL Zero
Total coliforms RTCR 5.0 percent(4) #/mL Zero
Turbidity SWTR 0.3 NTU(5) NA
Viruses SWTR and GWR (TT) #/mL Zero
Disinfectant Byproducts
Bromate Stage 1 DBPR 0.010 Zero
Chlorite Stage 1 DBPR 1 0.8
Haloacetic Acids (HAA5(6)) Stage 2 DBPR 0.060(7) NA(8)
Trihalomethanes (total) Stage 2 DBPR 0.080(7) NA(8)
Bromodichloromethane Stage 1 DBPR - Zero
Bromoform Stage 1 DBPR - Zero
Chloroform Stage 2 DBPR - 0.07
Dibromochloromethane Stage 1 DBPR - 0.06
Dichloroacetic acid Stage 1 DBPR - Zero
Monochloroacetic acid Stage 2 DBPR - 0.07
Trichloroacetic acid Stage 2 DBPR - 0.02

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Contaminant Regulation MCL or TT(1) (ppm)(2) MCLG (ppm)(2) Disinfectant Residuals
Chloramines (as Cl2) Stage 1 DBPR 4
(9) 4(10)
Chlorine (as Cl2) Stage 1 DBPR 4
(9) 4(10)
Chlorine dioxide (as ClO2) Stage 1 DBPR 0.8(9) 0.8(10)
Notes:
(6) Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. (7) Units are ppm unless otherwise noted.
(8) Routine samples containing fecal coliform or E. coli triggers a repeat sampling event. If the repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive, an acute MCL violation occurs. If the repeat sample is negative, another repeat sampling is triggered. If the repeat sample is fecal coliformpositive, an acute MCL violation occurs. (9) No more than 5 percent of samples total coliform-positive in a month. Every sample that is coliform-positive must be analyzed for fecal coliforms and E. coli. If two consecutive samples are total coliform-positive and one is fecal coliform-positive, an acute MCL violation occurs.
(10) Performance standard: no more than 5 percent of monthly samples may exceed 0.3 NTU. (11) Sum of concentrations of five haloacetic acid species (monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, monobromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid).
(12) Measured as locational running annual average at each monitoring site. (13) The group itself does not have an MCLG, but some individual contaminants have an MCLG as shown in the table (bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, dibromochloromethane, dichloroacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid). (14) Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level.
(15) Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal.

Abbreviations: µm = micrometer(s); AL = action level; CFU = colony forming units; LCR = lead and copper rule; LT2ESWTR = Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; mL = milliliter(s); mrem = millirem (milli-roentgen equivalent man); NA = not applicable; NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit; PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; pCi/L = picocuries per liter; ppm = parts per million; SWTR = Surface Water Treatment Rule.

Table A2 National Secondary Drinking Water Standards (as of 1/7/2021) Contaminant Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) (ppm)(1) Aluminum 0.05 - 0.2
Chloride 250
Color 15 Color Units
Copper 1
Corrosivity Non-corrosive
Fluoride 2
Foaming Agents 0.5
Iron 0.3
Manganese 0.05
Odor 3 Threshold Odor Units
pH 6.5 – 8.5 standard units
Silver 0.10
Sulfate 250
Total Dissolved Solids 500
Zinc 5
Notes:
(1) Units are parts per million (ppm) unless otherwise noted.

REGULATORY REVIEW
APRIL 2023 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX B CALIFORNIA DRINKING WATER

REGULATIONS

MCLs, DLRs, PHGs, for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants (Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L), unless otherwise noted.) Last Update: January 3, 2023
The following tables includes California’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), detection limits for purposes of reporting (DLRs), public health goals (PHGs) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). For comparison, Federal MCLs and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) (USEPA) are also displayed.

Inorganic Chemicals Table, Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64431 State Regulated
Inorganic Chemical
Contaminant
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Aluminum 1 0.05 0.6 2001 -- --
Antimony 0.006 0.006 0.001 2016 0.006 0.006
Arsenic 0.010 0.002 0.000004 2004 0.010 zero
Asbestos (MFL =
million fibers per liter;
for fibers >10
microns long)
7 MFL 0.2 MFL 7 MFL 2003 7 MFL 7 MFL
Barium 1 0.1 2 2003 2 2
Beryllium 0.004 0.001 0.001 2003 0.004 0.004
Cadmium 0.005 0.001 0.00004 2006 0.005 0.005
Chromium, Total -
OEHHA withdrew the

0.0025-mg/L PHG

0.05 0.01 withdrawn
Nov. 2001
1999 0.1 0.1

State Regulated
Inorganic Chemical
Contaminant
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Chromium,
Hexavalent - 0.01-
mg/L MCL & 0.001-
mg/L DLR repealed
September 2017
-- -- 0.00002 2011 -- --
Cyanide 0.15 0.1 0.15 1997 0.2 0.2
Fluoride 2 0.1 1 1997 4.0 4.0
Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 0.001 0.0012 1999
(rev2005)*

0.002 0.002
Nickel 0.1 0.01 0.012 2001 -- --
Nitrate (as nitrogen,
N)
10 as N 0.4 45 as NO3
(=10 as N)
2018 10 10
Nitrite (as N) 1 as N 0.4 1 as N 2018 1 1
Nitrate + Nitrite (as
N)
10 as N -- 10 as N 2018 -- --
Perchlorate 0.006 0.002 0.001 2015 -- --
Selenium 0.05 0.005 0.03 2010 0.05 0.05
Thallium 0.002 0.001 0.0001 1999
(rev2004)

0.002 0.0005
Copper and Lead Table, 22 CCR §64672.3

Values referred to as MCLs for lead and copper are not actually MCLs; instead, they are called “Action Levels” under the lead and copper rule.

State Regulated
Copper and Lead
Contaminant
State
MCL
State
DLR
State
PHG
State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Copper 1.3 0.05 0.3 2008 1.3 1.3
Lead 0.015 0.005 0.0002 2009 0.015 zero
Radiological Table, Radionuclides with MCLs in 22 CCR §64441 and §64443 [units are picocuries per liter (pCi/L), unless otherwise state; n/a = not applicable] State Regulated
Radionuclides
Contaminant
State
MCL
State
DLR
State
PHG
State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Gross alpha particle
activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that
a PHG was not
practical
15 3 none n/a 15 zero
Gross beta particle
activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that
a PHG was not
practical
4 mrem/yr
4 none n/a 4
mrem/yr
zero
Radium-226 -- 1 0.05 2006
Radium-228 -- 1 0.019 2006
Radium-226 + Radium228 5 -- -- -- 5 zero

State Regulated
Radionuclides
Contaminant
State
MCL
State
DLR
State
PHG
State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Strontium-90 8 2 0.35 2006 -- --
Tritium "20,000" "1,000" 400 2006 -- --
Uranium 20 1 0.43 2001 30 µg/L zero
Organic Chemicals Table, Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64444 Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
State Regulated
Volatile Organic
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Benzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 2001 0.005 zero
Carbon tetrachloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 2000 0.005 zero 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.0005 0.6 1997
(rev2009)

0.6 0.6
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (pDCB)0.005 0.0005 0.006 1997 0.075 0.075 1,1-Dichloroethane
(1,1-DCA)

0.005 0.0005 0.003 2003 -- --
1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)

0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 1999
(rev2005)

0.005 zero
1,1-Dichloroethylene
(1,1-DCE)

0.006 0.0005 0.01 1999 0.007 0.007

State Regulated
Volatile Organic
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 0.0005 0.013 2018 0.07 0.07 trans-1,2-
Dichloroethylene

0.01 0.0005 0.05 2018 0.1 0.1
Dichloromethane
(Methylene chloride)

0.005 0.0005 0.004 2000 0.005 zero
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 1999 0.005 zero 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 1999
(rev2006)
-- --
Ethylbenzene 0.3 0.0005 0.3 1997 0.7 0.7
Methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE)

0.013 0.003 0.013 1999 -- --
Monochlorobenzene 0.07 0.0005 0.07 2014 0.1 0.1
Styrene 0.1 0.0005 0.0005 2010 0.1 0.1
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane

0.001 0.0005 0.0001 2003 0.1 0.1
Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE)

0.005 0.0005 0.00006 2001 0.005 zero
Toluene 0.15 0.0005 0.15 1999 1 1
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 0.0005 0.005 1999 0.07 0.07

State Regulated
Volatile Organic
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCA)

0.200 0.0005 1 2006 0.2 0.2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
(1,1,2-TCA)

0.005 0.0005 0.0003 2006 0.005 0.003
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.0017 2009 0.005 zero Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)

0.15 0.005 1.3 2014 -- --
"1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
Trifluoroethane (Freon
113)"

1.2 0.01 4 1997
(rev2011)
-- --
Vinyl chloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.00005 2000 0.002 zero
Xylenes 1.750 0.0005 1.8 1997 10 10
Non-Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs)
State Regulated
Non-Volatile
Synthetic Organic
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Alachlor 0.002 0.001 0.004 1997 0.002 zero
Atrazine 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 1999 0.003 0.003
Bentazon 0.018 0.002 0.2 1999
(rev2009)
-- --

State Regulated
Non-Volatile
Synthetic Organic
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 0.0001 0.000007 2010 0.0002 zero
Carbofuran 0.018 0.005 0.0007 2016 0.04 0.04
Chlordane 0.0001 0.0001 0.00003 1997
(rev2006)

0.002 zero
Dalapon 0.2 0.01 0.79 1997
(rev2009)

0.2 0.2
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane
(DBCP)

0.0002 0.00001 0.000003 2020 0.0002 zero
2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyaceti
c acid (2,4-D)

0.07 0.01 0.02 2009 0.07 0.07
Di(2-
ethylhexyl)adipate

0.4 0.005 0.2 2003 0.4 0.4
Di(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
(DEHP)

0.004 0.003 0.012 1997 0.006 zero
Dinoseb 0.007 0.002 0.014 1997
(rev2010)

0.007 0.007
Diquat 0.02 0.004 0.006 2016 0.02 0.02
Endothal 0.1 0.045 0.094 2014 0.1 0.1

State Regulated
Non-Volatile
Synthetic Organic
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Endrin 0.002 0.0001 0.0003 2016 0.002 0.002
Ethylene dibromide
(EDB)

0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 2003 0.0000
5 zero
Glyphosate 0.7 0.025 0.9 2007 0.7 0.7
Heptachlor 0.00001 0.00001 0.000008 1999 0.0004 zero
Heptachlor epoxide 0.00001 0.00001 0.000006 1999 0.0002 zero Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00003 2003 0.001 zero
Hexachlorocyclopent
adiene

0.05 0.001 0.002 2014 0.05 0.05
Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 0.000032 1999
(rev2005)

0.0002 0.0002
Methoxychlor 0.03 0.01 0.00009 2010 0.04 0.04
Molinate 0.02 0.002 0.001 2008 -- --
Oxamyl 0.05 0.02 0.026 2009 0.2 0.2
Pentachlorophenol 0.001 0.0002 0.0003 2009 0.001 zero
Picloram 0.5 0.001 0.166 2016 0.5 0.5

State Regulated
Non-Volatile
Synthetic Organic
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)

0.0005 0.0005 0.00009 2007 0.0005 zero
Simazine 0.004 0.001 0.004 2001 0.004 0.004
Thiobencarb 0.07 0.001 0.042 2016 -- --
Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 0.00003 2003 0.003 zero
1,2,3-
Trichloropropane

0.00000
5 0.00000
5 0.0000007 2009 -- --
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(dioxin)
3x10-8 5x10-9 5x10-11 2010 3x10-8 zero
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 0.001 0.003 2014 0.05 0.05
Disinfection Byproducts Table, Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64533 State Regulated
Disinfection
Byproducts
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State
PHG
State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Total Trihalomethanes 0.080 -- -- -- 0.080 --
Bromodichloromethane -- 0.0010 0.00006 2020 -- zero
Bromoform -- 0.0010 0.0005 2020 -- zero

State Regulated
Disinfection
Byproducts
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State
PHG
State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
Chloroform -- 0.0010 0.0004 2020 -- 0.07
Dibromochloromethane -- 0.0010 0.0001 2020 -- 0.06
Haloacetic Acids (five)
(HAA5)

0.060 -- -- -- 0.060 --
Monochloroacetic Acid -- 0.0020 0.053 2022 -- 0.07
Dichloroacetic Acid -- 0.0010 0.0002 2022 -- zero
Trichloroacetic Acid -- 0.0010 0.0001 2022 -- 0.02
Monobromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 0.025 2022 -- --
Dibromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 0.00003 2022 -- --
Bromate 0.010 0.0050** 0.0001 2009 0.01 zero
Chlorite 1.0 0.020 0.05 2009 1 0.8

Chemicals with PHGs established in response to DDW requests. These are not currently regulated drinking water contaminants.

State Regulated
Disinfection
Byproducts
Contaminants
State
MCL
State
DLR
State PHG State
Date of
PHG
Federal
MCL
Federal
MCLG
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA)
-- -- 0.000003 2006 -- --
*OEHHA's review of this chemical during the year indicated (rev20XX) resulted in no change in the PHG.
**The DLR for Bromate is 0.0010 mg/L for analysis performed using EPA Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 321.8, or 326.0.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX C CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER

CONSERVATION REGULATIONS MEMO

DRAFT / 1

PROJECT MEMORANDUM

CITY OF PLEASANTON
Water System Management Plan
Project No.: 201264
Date: September 18, 2023
Prepared By: Brianna Barton, Tim Loper
Reviewed By: Nicola Fontaine
Subject: Current and Future State of California Water
Conservation Regulations
The purpose of this Project Memorandum is to summarize current and future State of California water conservation regulations to help inform the City of Pleasanton (City) in planning and budgeting for the future.

Current State Water Conservation Emergency Regulations
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has two emergency regulations in effect that prohibit certain wasteful water use practices statewide and encourage Californians to use water wisely. Local water suppliers may adopt stricter water conservation measures than the State Water Board.

Refer to Appendix A for a summary of the current State water conservation emergency regulations.

The California Water Code (CWC) requires urban water suppliers within the state to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), including a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), every five years for submission to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The purpose of the UWMP is to maintain efficient use of urban water supplies, continue to promote conservation programs and policies, ensure that sufficient water supplies are available for future beneficial use, and provide a mechanism for response during water drought conditions. The goal of the WSCP is to have a procedure for managing and mitigating shortages, allowing the supplier to respond in an efficient and timely manner.

The Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report, also known as the Annual Water Shortage Assessment Report, Annual Shortage Report, Water Shortage Report, or Shortage Assessment Report, is due to DWR on or before July 1 of each year as required by the CWC. The annual water supply and demand assessment is a recurring process for determining the supply reliability each year and to prepare suppliers with tools to deal with anticipated water shortages.

Refer to
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/regs/emergency_regulation. html for additional information about current State water conservation emergency regulations.

Future State Water Conservation Regulations
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668 directing the State Water Board to establish a new foundation for long-term improvements in water conservation and

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 2
drought planning to adapt to climate change. In response, Making Conservation a California Way of Life1 is the regulatory framework proposed by State Water Board staff. The proposed regulation would require urban retail water suppliers (suppliers) to calculate and adhere to urban water use objectives (objectives), implement commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) performance measures, and submit annual progress reports.

The proposed regulation is expected to save a significant amount of water and would help to realize California’s Water Supply Strategy2
goal to reduce annual water demand by at least 500,000 acre-feet by 2030. The proposed regulation will also lessen the need for the emergency water use reduction targets that were important in recent droughts (such as the Water Conservation Emergency Regulations adopted in May 2022 to implement Governor’s Executive Order N-7-223 which required suppliers to implement Level 2 actions [up to 20 percent shortage]).

The objective would be calculated as the sum of standard-based budgets for efficient water use (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 recycled water use (if applicable). Suppliers would need to meet the overall objective, not each individual budget. The one exception is the budget for water loss which was set by a separate regulation. Individual households and businesses would not be subject to the proposed regulation. Refer to Appendix B for a summary of the objective components.

Per the proposed regulation, each supplier shall submit the supplier’s calculated objective along with relevant and supporting data no later than January 1, 2025, and by January 1 every year thereafter. The calculation shall be based on the supplier’s water use conditions for the previous state fiscal year.

The proposed regulation provides suppliers with flexibility to implement locally appropriate solutions. To meet annual objectives, suppliers may use a wide variety of tools to encourage customers to use water wisely, indoors and outdoors. Examples include education and outreach, leak detection, rate reform, incentives to plant “climate ready” landscapes, and rebates to replace old and inefficient fixtures and appliances.

Costs to the supplier include development of water reduction strategies, implementation of water use efficiency measures, annual calculation of the objective, preparation of annual progress reports, and lost revenues due to the water use reductions. Additional costs could include wastewater operations and maintenance or wastewater infrastructure improvements due to decreased influent volumes or increased influent concentrations.

Benefits include reduced water purchases or reduced water production, avoided stormwater measures, and energy cost savings. Additional benefits may include protecting human health and water resources, supporting practices that keep trees healthy, mitigating and adapting to climate change, accelerating nature-based solutions, diverting organic waste from landfills, building healthy soils, and advancing equity.
1 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/regs/docs/2023/proposed-reg-text-081723.pdf 2 https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Water-Resilience/CA-Water-SupplyStrategy.pdf 3 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/March-2022-Drought-EO.pdf

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 3
The State Water Board has predicted that statewide benefits will outweigh costs but that most of the costs will be incurred in earlier years while most of the benefits will be accrued in later years. Suppliers and wastewater agencies are expected to pass on costs and benefits of the proposed regulation to customers by adjusting their rates to customers over time.

The State Water Board has made a Water Use Objective Exploration Tool4 available to help suppliers learn
how the proposed regulation may affect urban water use. The tool includes 2017-2021 water use data for suppliers, as well as residential landscape area measurement and annual evapotranspiration and precipitation data provided by DWR. Refer to Appendix C for the tool results for the City of Pleasanton which shows that the City may not need to initially make any reductions to current water use in order to comply with the calculated objective (objective-based total).

Demands excluded from the objective include “other” uses, CII indoor use, CII landscape without DIMs, and apparent water losses which are caused by revenue meter under-registration, water theft and billing errors. Although CII indoor use and CII landscape without DIMs are excluded from the objective, they are subject to CII performance measures included in the proposed regulation. Refer to Appendix D for a summary of the CII performance measures.

The regular rulemaking process for the proposed regulation to Making Conservation a California Way of Life is underway. The notice of proposed rulemaking was released on August 18, 2023, and the first public comment period is open through October 17, 2023. The State Water Board will host a public hearing on the proposed regulation on October 4, 2023, starting at 9:30AM. To watch the meeting, join https://video.calepa.ca.gov/. The hearing will include an overview of the proposed regulation, the regulatory timeline and process, presentations from interested parties, and opportunity for public comment. The State Water Board will consider adopting the proposed regulation in 2024.

Refer to https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/regs/water_efficiency_legislation.html for additional information about the proposed Making Conservation a California Way of Life regulation.

California Water Loss Regulations
The State of California has adopted new regulations focused on water loss for urban water retailers as directed by California Water Code Section 10608.34. The regulations include a formulaic approach to the calculation of urban water retailers water loss standards and the percent reduction targets. The reduction targets are calculated based on a complex set of rules and economic factors as well as agency specific default factors. The economic model incorporates a multitude of inputs into its calculations. The inputs come from City submitted Annual Water Loss Audits, additional data submitted by the City, and factors provided by the State Water Board. The economic model inputs are summarized in Table 1. 4 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/water-use-explorer/

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 4
Table 1 – Economic Model Inputs
Annul Water Audits City Provided “Default” Data Board Provided Data • Average Baseline Real
Loss
• Average Length of
Mains
• Average Number of
Service Connections
• Average variable
production cost of water
• Average operating
pressure
• Rate of Rise of Leakage
• Infrastructure Condition
Factor (ICF)
• Annual Background
Leakage
• Annual Reported
Leakage
• Annual Unreported
Leakage
• Average Leak Detection
Survey Frequency
• Unit Average Cost of
Leak Detection
• Leak Detection
Efficiency Average
• Unit Leak Repair Costs
• Marginal Avoided Cost
of Water
• Average Annual Rise in
Price of Water*
Real discount rate (3.5%)
Time period for lifecycle benefitcost rat
*Average annual rise in price of water updates must at least as high as the real discount rate (3.5%) and be developed and certified by a licensed professional engineer.

The City can update the default factors based on a prescriptive approach provided in the regulation documentation.

The economic model is the basis for the development of the benefit cost ratio. The benefit cost ratio is the calculation of the relative value of leak detection and the amount of leakage that can be reduced with a positive net benefit.

Published Water Loss Standards
Based on data provided by the City in it’s annual water loss audits, and the output of the economic model the State has published water loss reduction standards and reduction goals. The standards and goals can be found on the California State Water Board Website5. There is significant detail related to the calculation of the City’s standards and goals contained in the regulation documentation.

Specific Standards and required reductions for the City of Pleasanton are summarized in Table 2. The City’s current baseline real loss is 30.9 gallons per service connection per day (gpscd). The current standard is 18.8 gpscd, which equates to a 39 percent reduction goal.

Table 2 – Pleasanton Real Loss Reduction Goals
Baseline Real Loss
(gpscd)1
Real Loss Standard
(gpscd)
Required Real Loss
Reduction from
Baseline (%)
30-Year Benefit
Cost Ratio
5-Year Benefit Cost
Rati

30.9 18.8 39 6.4 3.7
5 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/water_loss_control.html#water-loss-model

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 5

1. gpscd = gallons per service connection per day
Compliance Guidelines and Schedule
The State’s compliance timeline is included in Figure 1. The City’s needs to meet compliance guidelines by January 1, 2028.

Figure 1 – State Water Board Water Loss Compliance Timeline Compliance can be achieved in two ways. The City will need to calculate its real water loss in the annual audits for years 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027. Real losses are calculated based on the average of three of the four previous years, the highest year can be thrown out. The City will be in compliance by reducing the real loss from the 30.9 gpscd to 18.8 gpscd. If that goal is met, the City would need to maintain a real loss rate that is within 5 gpscd measure every three years to maintain compliance. If the City can’t meet the real loss reduction targets, there is a second compliance pathway. The second compliance pathway is summarized in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Alternative Compliance Pathway
Compliance Action Notes

1. Alternative compliance pathways obtainable if
real loss goal is greater than or equal to 30%
of baseline.

Currently the City’s goal is 39%

2. Show a 30% reduction in real losses over the
baseline
This is equivalent to a 77% reduction of the
current baseline loss.

3. Water Loss Audit Data Validity Score of 3 or
demonstration of improved data quality.

Consideration will be given to data validity score
reductions related to water audits prepared using
different versions of the water auditing software.

4. Completed one full cycle of leak detection
survey
Would require a complete system survey in a
three year period between 2025 and January. 1

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 6
2028

5. City has submitted a written request to follow
the secondary compliance request by January
1, 2028.

Need to include:

1. Reason why City was unable to meet standard.

2. List of leakage prevention activities the City
has engaged in to limit water loss.

3. Demonstrate how the City is being a good
steward of the water code WRT Div 6, 2.25,
Chapter 9. (Sustainable water use and demand
reduction: Urban Water Use Objectives and
Water Use Reporting)

4. A plan for how it will meet its real water loss
standard no later than January 1, 2031.

The alternative compliance pathway requires significant effort to achieve, even if the City can’t reach the current standard. With the alternative compliance pathway, the City will still needs to meet its standard by 2031. Essentially the City would have six years to reach the 39% reduction goals.

Water Loss Questionnaires
As part of the regulations, urban water suppliers will be required to submit responses to three questionnaires related to the City’s water loss tracking and data management activities. The list of questionnaires and the submission deadlines are listed in Table 4. The City has missed the deadlines for the Data Quality and Pressure Management deadlines. The details related to the questionnaires can be found in the documentation included in Appendix E.

Table 4 – Water Loss Questionnaires
Questionnaire Submission Deadline
Data Quality December 31, 2023
Pressure Management December 31, 2023
Asset Management July 2024, with Update in July 2027
Water Loss Recommendations
Real water loss, as documented by the State of California can occur in three forms. • Reported leakage that occurs in the form of visible failures over the ground. · • Unreported leakage that is not visible above ground but detectable by surveying the distribution system through specialized leak detection equipment. ·
• Background leakage that is too small to be detected with leak detection equipment but can be reduced by replacing or rehabilitating infrastructure or managing operational pressure.

These forms of real loss can be mitigated through the following methods.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 7

1. Active leak detection and repair

2. Timely repair of leaks after identification

3. Pressure management that reduces high pressures or spikes in pressure that strain the distribution system

4. Systematic asset management and replacement through prioritization of mains and appurtenances with the highest rates of leakage.

As required by the regulations The City will need to implement a leak detection program. Pressure management is currently part of the State’s questionnaire and needs to be further investigated. The City is currently developing a City wide asset management plan that will ultimately integrate the water utility. At this point the most important thing is for the City to make sure they move towards compliance.

Implementing a full system leak detection program over the next three years will be critical to finding and fixing leaks, but also will allow the City to achive the alternate compliance pathway in 2028.

Leak Detection
As part of the economic model the State conducted a study of leak detection vendors including costs.

Carollo has also been working with other vendors for other agencies across the Country. The cost for leak detection can be estimated to be approximalty $750/mile. At 295 miles the cost for system wide leak detection could range between $225,000 and $300,000 for vendor costs. Including contingencies the total costs could be $370,00 to $500,000. For budgetary planning purposes, the City should allocate $500,000 as a CIP costs.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 8
Appendix A
Summary of Current State Water Conservation Emergency Regulations  The decorative grass watering (non-functional turf irrigation) ban for commercial, institutional, and common areas of homeowners’ associations remains in effect (effective since June 2022). The Emergency Regulation to Ban Decorative Grass Watering is set to expire in June 2024, unless the State Water Board takes further action. The State Water Board may continue to enforce these prohibitions and may consider readopting them.
» “Non-functional turf” or “decorative grass” refers to ground cover surface of mowed grass that is ornamental and not otherwise used for human recreation purposes.  For all Californians, prohibition on wasteful water uses remains in effect (effective since January 2022).

The Emergency Regulation to Prohibit Wasteful Water Uses is set to expire in December 2023, unless the State Water Board takes further action. The State Water Board may continue to enforce these prohibitions and may consider readopting them. The prohibited water uses include:
» Hosing off sidewalks, driveways, and other hardscapes. » Washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut-off nozzle. » Using non-recirculated water in a fountain or other decorative water feature. » Watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff, or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation. » Irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 9
Appendix B
Summary of Urban Water Use Objective Components
 Standard-based budgets for efficient water use:
» Residential indoor use.
 The residential indoor use budget is calculated as the residential indoor standard multiplied by the number of people in the supplier’s service area multiplied by the number of days in the year. » Residential outdoor use.
 The residential outdoor use budget is calculated as the residential outdoor standard (landscape efficiency factor) multiplied by the net evapotranspiration (reference evapotranspiration minus effective precipitation) multiplied by the residential landscape area multiplied by a unit conversion factor. Suppliers may add the volume of water associated with newly constructed residential landscapes to its residential outdoor use budget.
 Residential landscape area includes residential “Irrigable Irrigated” area plus approved “Irrigable Not Irrigated area.” “Irrigable Irrigated Area” refers to area presumed to be maintained and managed through active irrigation. “Irrigable Not Irrigated” refers to area that is not currently being irrigated, but was irrigated in the past, or may be managed with irrigation in the future.  Through June 30, 2027, a supplier may include in its residential landscape area up to twenty percent of the supplier’s “Irrigable Not Irrigated” area, if the supplier’s actual urban water use for the reporting year is greater than the calculated objective without inclusion of “Irrigable Not Irrigated” area.  A supplier may, for each reporting year, use and report an alternative data source for residential landscape area, if it demonstrates to the State Water Board that the data is equivalent, or superior, in quality and accuracy to the provided data.
 “Residential special landscape area” means residential areas dedicated solely to edible plants and residential areas irrigated with recycled water. If a supplier delivers water to residential special landscape areas, the supplier may calculate its residential outdoor use budget accounting for the residential special landscape area and standard.
» CII landscapes with DIMs.
 Through June 30, 2028, a supplier’s budget for CII landscapes with DIMs shall be the supplier’s actual deliveries associated with landscape irrigation.
 Beginning July 1, 2028, the CII landscapes with DIMs is calculated as the standard (landscape efficiency factor) multiplied by the irrigated area of CII landscapes with DIMs multiplied by the net evapotranspiration multiplied by a unit conversion factor. A supplier may add the volume of water associated with newly constructed landscapes to its CII landscapes with DIMs budget.  CII landscapes with DIMs that are special landscape areas includes slopes designed and constructed with live vegetation as an integral component of stability, ponds or lakes receiving supplemental water for purposes of sustaining wildlife, recreation, or other public benefit, plant collections, botanical gardens, and arboretums, public swimming pools and similar recreational water features, and cemeteries built before 2015. If a supplier delivers water to CII landscapes with DIMs that are special landscape areas, the supplier may calculate its CII landscapes with DIMs budget accounting for the special landscape area and standard. » Real water losses.
 Distribution system water losses ("real" losses) are the physical water losses from the water distribution system and the supplier's storage facilities, up to the point of customer consumption.  The real water loss budget is calculated as the system-specific standard (gallons per connection per day or gallons per mile per day) multiplied by the number of connections served by the supplier (or number of miles) multiplied by the number of days in the year.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 10
 Suppliers must comply with individual volumetric loss standards over a three-year period beginning on January 1, 2028. Prior to this, the supplier’s water loss budget may, alternatively, be equal to its previous year’s real water losses reported in its annual water loss audit.  Variances (if applicable).
» “Variance” means an additional volume of water that a supplier may request to add to its objective for a unique use that has a material effect on a supplier’s objective. » Examples include:
 Residential indoor use: Significant fluctuations in seasonal population or significant use of evaporative coolers.
 Residential outdoor use: Populations of horses and other livestock, water for dust control on horse corrals or other animal exercise arenas, water for irrigating agricultural landscapes that are within residential areas but have not been classified as irrigable irrigated, water used to respond to emergency events not including drought, water for landscapes irrigated with recycled water containing high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), and water to supplement ponds and lakes to sustain wildlife as required by existing regulations or local ordinances.
 CII landscapes with DIMs or equivalent technology: Water used to respond to emergency events not including drought, water for landscapes irrigated with recycled water containing high levels of TDS, and water to supplement ponds and lakes to sustain wildlife as required by existing regulations or local ordinances.
» Most of the time, the associated water use, for any individual variance, must represent 5 percent or more of the sum of the budgets associated with the standards (residential indoor and outdoor use, CII landscapes with DIMs, and real water losses).
» Requests for variances must be submitted to the State Water Board annually by October 1. Requests must include information showing how the request is warranted and protects beneficial water uses, demonstrating that the amount of water requested was delivered by the supplier for the requested use, and verifying that the approval of the request would not jeopardize the ability to comply with existing permit requirements within the supplier’s service area.  Temporary provisions (if applicable).
» “Temporary provision” means an additional volume of water that a supplier may request to add to its objective for a limited time for a specified beneficial use that would require less water over time. » Examples include:
 Residential indoor use: To respond to negative impacts to wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse systems.
 Residential outdoor use: Water for existing pools, spas, and similar water features, water for the planting of new, climate-ready trees, and water for the establishment of qualifying landscapes. Qualifying landscapes are those that require temporary irrigation and are associated with low-impact development, ecological restoration, and mined-land reclamation projects.
 CII landscapes with DIMs or equivalent technology: Water for the planting of new, climate-ready trees and water for the establishment of qualifying landscapes.
» Requests for temporary provisions must be submitted to the State Water Board annually by October 1 and must include the same information as requests for variances.  The request for temporary provision for residential indoor use must also show to the satisfaction of the State Water Board that meeting the objective would require adhering to the applicable residential indoor standard and that meeting the budget for efficient residential indoor use is causing challenges within wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse systems.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 11
 The request for temporary provision for residential outdoor use must also include a description of efforts to prioritize water for existing trees, including, but not limited to rebate, direct install, and educational programs focused on transitioning from turf- to tree-centric irrigation systems that promote deep and healthy root growth. Tree-centric irrigation systems include but are not limited to soaker hoses, deep drip watering stakes, drip tubing, and emitters.
 Bonus incentive for potable recycled water use (if applicable). » If a supplier delivers water from a groundwater basin, reservoir, or other source that is augmented by potable reuse water, the supplier may add to its objective a bonus incentive.  For existing facilities, may be up to 15 percent of objective.  For all other facilities, may be up to 10 percent of objective.

Refer to the proposed text of regulations (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/regs/docs/2023/proposedreg-text-081723.pdf) for additional information including methods to calculate standard-based budgets, variances, temporary provisions, and bonus incentives and reporting requirements.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 12
Appendix C
Water Use Objective Exploration Tool Results
Source: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/water-use-explorer/.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 13
Appendix D
Summary of Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Performance Measures  Classification system.
» Supplier shall classify at least twenty percent of its CII customers by 2026, at least sixty percent by 2028, and one hundred percent by 2030. After 2030, the supplier shall maintain at least a 95 percent classification rate.
 Dedicated Irrigation Meters (DIMs) or “in-lieu” tech for qualifying landscapes. » Supplier shall identify all CII large landscapes that have mixed-use meters and shall either install DIMs or employ in-lieu water technologies for these large landscapes with at least twenty percent compliance by 2026, at least sixty percent compliance by 2028, and one hundred percent compliance by 2030. After 2030, the supplier shall ensure at least 95 percent of large landscapes either have a DIM installed or are employing in-lieu water technologies.  Best Management Practices for qualifying customers.
» Supplier shall identify all disclosable buildings in their service area by January 1, 2025. Disclosable Building refers to a covered Building of any property type that has more than 50,000 square feet of gross floor area. Supplier shall provide meter and water use information to the owners or Owner's Agents of disclosable buildings for at least twenty percent of disclosable buildings by 2026, at least sixty percent by 2028, and one hundred percent by 2030. » Supplier shall design and implement a conservation program including best management practices for customers at or above the 80th percentile for water use, excluding process water, by January 1, 2025. Suppliers shall make annual progress in meeting requirements with at least twenty percent compliance by 2026, at least sixty percent compliance by 2028, and one hundred percent compliance by 2030. After 2030, the supplier shall ensure at least 95 percent compliance. » Supplier shall ban the irrigation of non-functional turf with potable water on all CII landscapes in its service area, including homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, community service organizations, and other similar entities, by July 1, 2025. A supplier is not required to ban the irrigation of non-functional turf on CII landscapes in its service area that is necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial non-turf plantings or that is necessary to address an immediate health and safety need. A supplier may approve a request for continued irrigation of non-functional turf where the user certifies that the turf is a low water use plant with a plant factor of 0.3 or less, and demonstrates the actual use is less than 40 percent of reference evapotranspiration.

Refer to the proposed text of regulations (https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/regs/docs/2023/proposedreg-text-081723.pdf) for additional information and reporting requirements.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT / 14
Appendix E – Water Loss Questionnaires













 










 

 






 
! " #  #

$

%&$ 

&$
&'($

)*&+',#







$







#


'
-








.
##






'




,#

-
! 



  #

#

  '
/#










#





'
0'
,#




$

 




'
%'




1


" 


+
 


 




'2








#


 

'
&'



"








 

3#4$
0%&5(67+
5'


8


 ##

'2
 

 

'
('


8
 



 











 

 


 








 



 







 





 












 



 
 














 

 





 







! 





 






! 






"#$


%
 












&'
(

!


)$)*+)$,-
/
.




 




 

&'
0 







1

 

"








2




3"




4 

 

5
6



 




3"





4
 




&'
7




 





 







  
 





 
















  





 






  









 






  




 !
"  


  
















 

 #






 

 $




  
$
 
%
!

#
&!&'(&!)*
+# 

 






  

%
+,
,
  






 


"





 



"





 


"





 




-
 


.
 


/
 



0 





/
.
#
 


 

  







/
#






 
 
1

 

%
&



 





 




2 






 




)


 
 










 


 

   





 


Data Quality Ques
onnaire
This is a document summarizing the quesons asked in the data quality quesonnaire. To submit the quesonnaire, please respond here hps://forms.office.com/g/apdgLcBGcu Water System Informa
on

1. Name of the urban retail water supplier that owns the system for which you are compleng this survey.

2. Water system name.

3. Water system number.

4. Submier’s name.

5. Submier’s e-mail address.

Program for Volumetric Flow Tes
ng of Produc
on Meters

6. What percent of producon meters have been flow tested in the past 5 years?

7. Please provide any addional informaon regarding your answer to queson 6.

8. All meters flow tested within the past 5 years account for what percent of the total annual producon water volume?

9. Does the system currently have a program for regular volumetric flow tesng of producon meters?

10. Please provide any other relevant informaon regarding volumetric flow tesng programs.

Wri
en Program for Volumetric Flow Tes
ng of Produc
on Meters
Please provide your system’s program for volumetric flow tesng by filling out the following excel sheet
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/docs/data_quality_excel_submission.xlsx) and emailing it to [email protected] with "Program for Volumetric Flow Testing" as the subject header.

Program for Regular Electronic Calibra
on of Secondary Instrumenta
on

11. What percent of current producon meters have been calibrated in the last 5 years?

12. The current producon meters calibrated within the past 5 years produce what annual volume?

13. Does the system currently have a program for regular calibraon of producon meters?

14. What percent of producon meters were scheduled for calibraon in the last 5 years?

15. Please provide any other addional informaon regarding electronic calibraon programs.

Program for Volumetric Flow Tes
ng of Customer Meters

16. What percent of current customer meters were tested in the past 5 years? This refers to all customer meters regardless of size.

17. In the past 5 years, on average, how many customer meters were replaced each year?

18. A representave sample of meters is flow tested every ______ years. If you do not regularly test a representave sample, enter 0.

19. What methods are used to verify that the meters sampled are representave?

20. As of today, does the system have a program for regular flow tesng of customer meters?

21. Please provide any addional informaon regarding queson 20.

22. Please provide any other relevant informaon regarding customer meter tesng programs.

Wri
en Program of Volumetric Flow Tes
ng of Customer Meters
Please provide your system's program for volumetric flow testing of customer meters by filling out the following excel sheet
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/docs/data_quality_excel_submission.xlsx) and emailing it to [email protected] with "Program for Volumetric Flow Testing" as the subject header.

Systema
c Data Handling Errors

23. Some customer billing systems allow accounts that are not acve (such as a vacant house) to exist in “non-billed” status, under which a bill is not issued. Water used in inacve or “nonbilled” accounts can somemes result in apparent losses. This type of systemac data handling accounts can somemes result in apparent losses. This type of systemac data handling accounts for approximately what percent of apparent losses?

24. Please provide any addional informaon regarding queson 23.

25. Some customer billing system programming create monetary credits to customers by employing negave values in consumpon readings for the billing period. This type of systemac data handling accounts for approximately what percent of apparent losses?

26. Please provide any addional informaon regarding queson 25.

27. Some municipally owned properes do not have water meters or annual readings of water consumpon, thereby consuming water that is not tracked in the billing process. This accounts for approximately what percent of apparent losses?

28. Please provide any addional informaon regarding queson 27.

Pressure Management Quesonnaire
This is a document summarizing the quesons asked in the data quality quesonnaire. To submit the quesonnaire, please respond here hps://forms.office.com/g/Fj8kTwS1th Water System Informaon

1. Name of the urban retail water supplier that owns the system for which you are compleng this survey.

2. Water system name.

3. Water system number.

4. Submier’s name.

5. Submier’s e-mail address.

Pressure Control Devices

6. Does this system ulize any pressure control devices in the water distribuon system (on a temporary or permanent basis)?

7. Which pressure control devices does this system ulize in the distribuon system? Check all that apply. (Variable frequency drives (VFD) on distribuon system pumps, pressure control valves (including any kind of pressure control valve), Water storage tanks(including surge tanks), Hydropneumac tanks, Pressure transient control (in-pipe monitoring and dampening of pressure transients)

8. On average, this system inspects variable frequency drives (VFD) on distribuon system pumps once every _____ years.

9. On average, this system inspects pressure control valves once every _____ years.

10. On average, this system inspects water storage tanks once every _____ years.

11. On average, this system inspects hydro-pneumac tanks once every ____ years.

12. On average, this system inspects pressure transient control devices once every _____years.

13. Does this system currently have a program to regularly inspect, maintain, and repair installed pressure control devices to ensure they are maintained in working condion?

14. Does the current program specifically address regularly inspecng, maintaining, and repairing installed pressure control valves?
High Leakage Zones

15. Have you idenfied areas of the distribuon system that have higher rates of water loss than others?

16. For areas of the distribuon system that have higher rates of water loss, has the system evaluated controlling pressure to reduce leakage?

17. What challenges has your system faced in reducing pressure for the purpose of reducing leakage?

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX D WATER FACILITY CONDITION

ASSESSMENT

Water System Management Plan

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Water Facility Condition Assessment
October 2024

Water System Management Plan

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Water Facility Condition Assessment
October 2024
This document is released for the purpose of information exchange review and planning only under the authority of Michelle L. Eckard, May 31, 2024, California PE 90107.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN i
pw://Carollo/CA/Pleasanton/201264-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/TM_Water Facility Condition Assessment/ TM_Water Facility Condition Assessment and 10-Year CIP Contents
SECTION 1 WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP 5

1.1 Introduction 5

1.1.1 Objectives 5

1.1.2 Background 5

1.2 Water Facility State of the Assets 8

1.2.1 Probability of Failure 8

1.2.2 Consequence of Failure (COF) 38

1.3 Water Facility CIP and O&M Investment Strategies 43

1.3.1 Cost Estimating Methodology 43

1.3.2 Capital Improvement Strategies 44

1.3.3 O&M Investment Strategies 46

1.3.4 Next Steps 46
Appendices

APPENDIX A ASSET CLASS TABLE

APPENDIX B WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX C REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT WORKSHOP MATERIALS

APPENDIX D AWIA CONSEQUENCE METRICS TABLE

APPENDIX E WATER FACILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

APPENDIX F WATER FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FORECAST

APPENDIX G OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Tables
Table 1 Water Facility Asset Classes and EUL 9
Table 2 Translating Percent Life Consumed and POF Score 11 Table 3 Summary of Condition Question Categories by Discipline 12 Table 5 COF by Facility Location 40
Table 6 Replacement Cost Ranges 43
Table 7 Indirect Cost Factors 44
Table 8 10-Year CIP Projects for Water Facilities 44
Figures
Figure 1 Water System Overview (Source: Akel Engineering Group, Inc.) 7 Figure 2 Translating Percent Life Consumed and POF Score 11 Figure 3 Translating Percent Life Consumed to POF 13
Figure 4 Water Facility POF Scores 14
Figure 5 Water Facility Assets by Reinvestment Year 15

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN ii
Figure 6 Dublin Canyon Booster Station POF Results 16
Figure 7 Foothill Booster Station POF Results 16
Figure 8 Grey Eagle Booster Station POF Results 17
Figure 9 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station POF Results 17 Figure 10 Laurel Creek Booster Station POF Results 18
Figure 11 Longview Booster Station POF Results 18
Figure 12 McCloud Booster Station POF Results 19
Figure 13 Ruby Hills Booster Station POF Results 19
Figure 14 Sycamore Booster Station POF Results 20
Figure 15 Tank 510 Booster Station POF Results 20
Figure 16 Tank 900 Booster Station POF Results 21
Figure 17 Grey Eagle Booster Station POF Results 21
Figure 18 Vineyard Booster Station POF Results 22
Figure 19 Vineyard Hills Booster Station POF Results 22 Figure 20 Bonde I Reservoir POF Results 23
Figure 21 Bonde II Reservoir POF Results 23
Figure 22 Dublin Canyon Reservoir POF Results 24
Figure 23 Foothill Reservoir POF Results 24
Figure 24 Happy Valley Reservoir POF Results 25
Figure 25 Kottinger Ranch Reservoir POF Results 25
Figure 26 Laurel Creek Reservoir POF Results 26
Figure 27 Lower Ruby Hills Reservoir POF Results 26
Figure 28 Lund Reservoir POF Results 27
Figure 29 Bonde I Reservoir POF Results 27
Figure 30 Moller Ranch Reservoir POF Results 28
Figure 31 Sycamore Reservoir POF Results 28
Figure 32 Tank 510 Reservoir POF Results 29
Figure 33 Tank 900 Reservoir POF Results 29
Figure 34 Tank 1160 Reservoir POF Results 30
Figure 35 Tank 1300 Reservoir POF Results 30
Figure 36 Tank 1600 Reservoir POF Results 31
Figure 37 Tank 770 I Reservoir POF Results 31
Figure 38 Tank770 II Reservoir POF Results 32
Figure 39 Upper Ruby Hills Reservoir POF Results 32
Figure 40 Vineyard Hills Reservoir POF Results 33
Figure 41 Turnout 1 Turnout POF Results 33
Figure 42 Turnout 2 Turnout POF Results 34
Figure 43 Turnout 3 Turnout POF Results 34
Figure 44 Turnout 4 Turnout POF Results 35
Figure 45 Turnout 5 Turnout POF Results 35
Figure 46 Turnout 6 Turnout POF Results 36
Figure 47 Turnout 7 Turnout POF Results 36
Figure 48 Wells 5&6 Well POF Results 37
Figure 49 Well 7 Well POF Results 37
Figure 50 Well 8 Well POF Results 38

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN iii
Figure 51 Water Facility COF 42
Figure 52 10-year Capital Improvement Plan for Water Facilities 45 Figure 53 10-Year O&M Plan for Water Facilities 46

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN iv
Abbreviations
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering ARV automatic release valve
ATS automatic transfer switch
AWWA American Water Works Association
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.

CIP capital improvement projects
City City of Pleasanton
COF consequence of failure
EI&C electrical, instrumentation, and controls
EUL estimated useful life
evRUL evaluated remaining useful life
MCC motor control center
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PLC programmable logic controller
POF probability of failure
QAQC quality assurance/quality control
R&R Rehabilitation and Replacement
ROW right-of-way
RRA Risk and Resilience Assessment
RTU remote terminal unit
RUL remaining useful life
VFD variable frequency drive
WSMP Water System Management Plan

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 5
SECTION 1 WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
AND 10-YEAR CIP

1.1 Introduction
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 water system is illustrated on Figure 1. City staff recognize the need for a comprehensive water facility condition assessment to develop a 10-Year Capital Improvement Project (CIP). The recommendations will be incorporated into the Water System Management Plan (WSMP).

1.1.1 Objectives
The City’s primary objectives for implementing a condition assessment for the water facilities include:
 Improving the cost-effective management of assets throughout their life cycle.  Promoting data sharing and interconnectivity within and across departments.  Demonstrating fiscal responsibility.
 Identifying and prioritizing projects for the 10-year CIP.

1.1.2 Background
The WSMP is being implemented in three phases:

Phase 1 consisted of a high-level assessment of the City’s water system program that includes the development of evaluation guidelines, evaluation of the existing performance of the City’s current management of the water system, and identification of short- and long-term priorities for improvement as documented in the Technical Memorandum - High Level Utility Assessment Summary (April 2023) prepared by Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo).

Phase 2 involved reviewing the high-level assessment results and findings of Phase 1 to identify short- and long-term work plan priorities. This resulted in initiating condition assessments of water system facilities in the field and conducting a desktop assessment for the water mains. Additionally, a review of current and upcoming regulations was conducted to identify potential impacts to the City’s water system program. The results of the regulatory review and the condition assessments inform the recommendations to be developed for the initial WSMP in Phase 3.

This page intentionally left blank

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO
CITY OF PLEASANTON WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 7
Figure 1 Water System Overview (Source: Akel Engineering Group, Inc.)

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 8
Phase 3 is the preparation of the initial WSMP. An integral component of the WSMP, is the development of activities that support asset management business practices. These activities are documented within this TM and summarized below:
 Water Facility Renewal and Replacement:
» Develop a register of water facility assets.
» Analyze the results of the field condition assessment of water facilities. » Rank (or prioritize) replacement needs.
 Operations and Maintenance (O&M):
» Recommend a prioritized list of O&M practices and program improvements for managing water system assets.
 Capital Improvements:
» Recommend and prioritize the next 10-years of capital improvement projects with implementation cost estimates.

1.2 Water Facility State of the Assets
The City’s water facilities include 14 booster stations, 21 reservoirs, four groundwater wells, and seven turnouts that supply the water from Zone 7.

1.2.1 Probability of Failure
The Probability of Failure (POF) is the measure of likelihood that an asset will fail or degrade to a point where it is not meeting its required level of service. This section covers the estimated useful life (EUL), the condition of the assets (POF approach) and the results of the condition assessment and estimated remaining useful life (RUL) (POF results).

1.2.1.1 Estimated Useful Life
The EUL is the starting point for understanding the current state of the assets. For above ground assets, an EUL value is assigned by asset class based on industry standards and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Effective Useful Life Tool. The EUL can be adjusted based on conditions that are outside of assumed normal operating conditions. For example, the EUL may be adjusted down if an asset has an unusually high or low number of start and stop cycles. Conversely, an older asset that is performing optimally may have its EUL extended. The EUL by asset class is in Table 1 and Appendix A.

Using the EUL and the age of the asset, which is determined using Equation 1, the RUL, represented in years, can then be calculated as shown in Equation 2. If no installation date is available, then the installation date has been assumed using the facility commissioning date.

Equation 1

 
=

  −  
 
Equation 2
 
=  −


WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 9
The RUL represents an age-based assessment of the assets and is characterized as the time frame by which an asset is expected to need rehabilitation or replacement. For assets that are older than their EUL, the RUL is set to zero. The RUL can also be translated into a percent life consumed by way of Equation 3.

Assets with an RUL value of zero are considered to have 100 percent of their life consumed.

Equation 3
% 



 = 1 − !"#
$"#% × 100
Table 1 Water Facility Asset Classes and EUL
Discipline Asset Class EUL
EI&C Analyzer 15
EI&C ATS 20
EI&C Breaker 20
EI&C Control Panel 20
EI&C Controller 15
EI&C Engine 20
EI&C Generator Receptacle 30
EI&C MCC 30
EI&C PLC 15
EI&C RTU 15
EI&C Switch 30
EI&C Switchboard 25
EI&C Terminal Box 20
EI&C Transducer 15
EI&C Transformer 35
EI&C Transmitter 15
EI&C VFD 15
EI&C Water Meter 15
Mechanical Actuator 15
Mechanical ARV 15
Mechanical Chemical Dosing System 20
Mechanical Chemical Metering Pump 10
Mechanical Circulation System 20
Mechanical Compressor 20
Mechanical Crane 30
Mechanical Fan 20
Mechanical Generator 25
Mechanical Mixer 20
Mechanical Pipe 50
Mechanical Pump 25

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 10
Discipline Asset Class EUL
Mechanical Pump – Sump 10
Mechanical Strainer 15
Mechanical Valve 15
Mechanical Valve (CLA) 15
Structural Building 60
Structural Drainage 25
Structural Hydropneumatic Tank 50
Structural Reservoir 50
Structural Road 30
Structural Shed 30
Structural Site Security 25
Structural Tank 50
Structural Vault 60
Structural Well 30
Notes:

PLC – programmable logic controller; EI&C - electrical, instrumentation, and controls; VFD – variable frequency drive; ARV – automatic release valve; ATS – automatic transfer switch; MCC – motor control center; RTU – remote terminal unit.

1.2.1.2 Approach
The POF is determined using data collected through field evaluations or, when not available, a desktop evaluation. These evaluations are described as follows:
 Field Evaluations: A physical evaluation of assets in the City including visual interpretation of the general condition, deterioration, components, coating, corrosion, etc. (condition-based approach).

Additionally, during the field visit, Carollo discipline leads talked to operations staff about asset performance, reliability, O&M, and obsolescence (performance-based approach). The field evaluations occurred September 29, 2022, and October 5-6, 2022; and May 11-12, 2023 and May 18, 2023, by Carollo discipline leads for electrical, mechanical, and structural assets.  Desktop Evaluation: A RUL evaluation of the assets using available attribute information and the EUL as determined by asset class (age-based approach). This approach is used where a field evaluation was not conducted.

For both evaluations, a POF score on a scale of one to five is assigned to each asset. This score is defined in Table 2.

For field evaluations, the score POF score assigned in the field can be translated to a percent life consumed. For desktop evaluations, the percent life consumed that is calculated based on asset age and EUL can be translated to a POF score. In this way, assets can be compared using the same system whether they were evaluated in the field or on a computer. Figure 2 shows how the score can be translated to a percent life consumed, or vice versa, for assets using the upper value of each range listed in the table above.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 11
Table 2 Translating Percent Life Consumed and POF Score Percent Life Consumed POF Score Description of POF Score 0 – 39 1 Good: Asset is in good condition (no defects). 40 – 64 2 Acceptable: Asset has minor defects.
65 – 79 3 Fair: Asset has significant defects that will affect reliability or efficiency. 80 - 89 4 Poor: Asset is highly unreliable or inefficient. 90 - 100 5 Very Poor: Asset is no longer able to function in its current condition.

Figure 2 Translating Percent Life Consumed and POF Score When the RUL is calculated from a POF score, we call it an evaluated RUL (evRUL) estimate. The evRUL, represented in years, is calculated using Equation 4.

Equation 4
( = % 



 × 
The evRUL is the result of the percent life consumed (from Table 2) and the EUL. The EUL value is assigned by asset class. The evRUL plus the current year (2024) is then used to determine the reinvestment year timing for the asset as shown in Equation 5.

Equation 5
( 
 ) = 2024 + (
Field Evaluations
For assets that have been evaluated in the field (i.e., through condition assessments, inspections, or other tests), a condition-based assessment POF score is used. This score is determined in the field by condition assessment discipline leads. The lead scores the asset based on discipline specific criteria for condition 1 2
3 4
5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
POF Score (age-based)
Percent Life Consumed

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 12
and performance. The maximum (worst) score from each condition and performance assessment represents the overall POF score (field-based) for the asset as shown in Equation 6:

Equation 6
-./  0 
= 1
2


 3
, -

3 3


Using the maximum score (rather than the average) provides conservative results because this approach includes all assets in need of attention that might otherwise be lost due to averaging. This is important for identifying assets and issues that represent a high risk due to the POF score. In some cases, the cost to improve an individual POF score may be minor yet could have a significant impact on reducing risk.

The CONDITION SCORE is determined by the discipline lead scoring the asset on a one to five scale for the categories in Table 3. The condition question categories vary by discipline.

Table 3 Summary of Condition Question Categories by Discipline Discipline Condition Question Categories
Electrical/Instrumentation  General Condition
 Deterioration
 Wiring/Cable Condition
 Enclosure
 Equipment
 Functionality
 Fasteners, Belts, Caps, Washers, etc.

Mechanical  General Condition
 Corrosion
 Exterior
 Vibration
 Functionality
 Elements
 Temperature
 Piping
 Fasteners, Belts, Caps, Washers, etc.

Structural  General Condition
 Foundation
 Movement
 Joint
 Coating/Lining/Paint
 Safety Components
 Silt(1)
 Interior Coating(1)
 Exterior Coating(1)
Notes:
(1) Imported from the City’s Reservoir Inspection Log.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 13
For each asset, the highest condition score among all applicable category responses is used to represent the overall condition of the asset as shown in Equation 7. The descriptions of the score vary depending on the question; however, the scoring scale of one to five remains consistent.

Equation 7


 3
 = 1
25 36 7633


 8
 




The PERFORMANCE SCORE is determined by the discipline lead scoring the asset on a one to five scale using the following categories:
 Performance.
 Operations and Maintenance.
 Reliability.
 Redundancy.
 Obsolescence.
 Estimated Life Remaining.

The scores for performance, O&M, reliability, and obsolescence are incorporated into an overall performance score as shown in Equation 8:

Equation 8
-

3 3
 = 1
2 -

3, .&1, 0, .0
 33

Redundancy is captured for documentation purposes and the estimated life remaining is used for quality assurance/quality control (QAQC) purposes. Assets with significant differences between the estimated life remaining observations and the replacement timing results are flagged for further review.

Desktop Evaluation
For assets not evaluated in the field, an age-based desktop evaluation is used to calculate the POF score using the installation date and its EUL to calculate the POF score (i.e., the POF score is determined using equations 1 through 3), then the percent life consumed is translated to a POF score as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Translating Percent Life Consumed to POF
POF Score
1 2 3 4 5
Percent Life Consumed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 14
The condition-based POF evaluation method (field evaluation approach) provides a more representative assessment because of the nature of the POF score being based on visual observations of the asset, as well as feedback from staff on the asset performance. Nevertheless, it is not always practical to visually assess every asset. Hence, the age-based POF evaluation method (desktop evaluation approach) is useful in providing a generally conservative estimate for projecting asset replacement timing.

1.2.1.3 Results
POF scores are identified for each asset using field evaluation (condition-based and performance-based) results, or, if not available, desktop evaluation (age-based) results.

Across the water facilities there are 525 assets included in the assessment. Of those assets, 452 were assessed using condition information derived from a visual inspection and the remaining 24 were assessed in the desktop evaluation because they were unable to be accessed. The combined evaluations have resulted in a POF score for each asset, which is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Water Facility POF Scores
Over 75 percent of assets are in good (score of one), acceptable (two), or fair (three) condition. Typically, these assets do not need immediate attention and are operating as desired with a few recommendations for improvement (namely for assets with scores of three). On the other hand, almost a quarter of assets are in poor (four) or very poor (five) condition indicating that reinvestment is needed now or very soon.

Of the 75 assets assigned very poor condition scores, 35 were assigned a score of five through the age-based evaluation. The age-based evaluation represents six percent of all the assets, but nearly 44 percent of the assets with a score of five. This example helps demonstrate the variability between the desktop and field evaluations. The findings from the field are generally better than the desktop POF scores. This indicates that the assets are well maintained and appear to function well despite their apparent age. Some methods that will improve the desktop evaluation results in the future are to use accurate asset installation dates, consider additional factors (i.e., O&M history) that may impact the EUL, and updating EULs.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 15
The POF score and EUL for each asset were used to calculate RUL and associate each asset to a reinvestment year. Figure 5 presents the number of assets by reinvestment year.

Figure 5 Water Facility Assets by Reinvestment Year
The earliest reinvestment year represented is 2024, if there were any recommendations that occurred before 2024, they were reassigned to 2024.

The following sections take a closer look at the results by facility. For a list of all assets by site and their POF score, reinvestment timing, and any observations and recommendations refer to Appendix B.

Booster Stations
There are 14 booster stations representing a total of 246 assets. A figure for each booster station is shown below in Figures 6 through 19.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 16
Figure 6 Dublin Canyon Booster Station POF Results
Figure 7 Foothill Booster Station POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 17
Figure 8 Grey Eagle Booster Station POF Results
Figure 9 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 18
Figure 10 Laurel Creek Booster Station POF Results
Figure 11 Longview Booster Station POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 19
Figure 12 McCloud Booster Station POF Results
McCloud Booster Station is no longer in service and it is recommended that the facility is decommissioned.

Figure 13 Ruby Hills Booster Station POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 20
Figure 14 Sycamore Booster Station POF Results
Figure 15 Tank 510 Booster Station POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 21
Figure 16 Tank 900 Booster Station POF Results
Figure 17 Grey Eagle Booster Station POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 22
Figure 18 Vineyard Booster Station POF Results
Figure 19 Vineyard Hills Booster Station POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 23
Reservoirs
There are 21 reservoirs representing a total of 161 assets. A figure for each reservoir is shown below in Figures 20 through 41.

Figure 20 Bonde I Reservoir POF Results
Figure 21 Bonde II Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 24
Figure 22 Dublin Canyon Reservoir POF Results
Figure 23 Foothill Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 25
Figure 24 Happy Valley Reservoir POF Results
Figure 25 Kottinger Ranch Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 26
Figure 26 Laurel Creek Reservoir POF Results
Figure 27 Lower Ruby Hills Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 27
Figure 28 Lund Reservoir POF Results
Figure 29 McCloud Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 28
McCloud Reservoir is on the same site as the booster station and is no longer in service. Decommissioning this facility is recommended.

Figure 30 Moller Ranch Reservoir POF Results
Figure 31 Sycamore Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 29
Figure 32 Tank 510 Reservoir POF Results
Figure 33 Tank 900 Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 30
Figure 34 Tank 1160 Reservoir POF Results
Figure 35 Tank 1300 Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 31
Figure 36 Tank 1600 Reservoir POF Results
Figure 37 Tank 770 I Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 32
Figure 38 Tank770 II Reservoir POF Results
Figure 39 Upper Ruby Hills Reservoir POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 33
Figure 40 Vineyard Hills Reservoir POF Results
Turnouts
There are seven turnouts representing a total of 73 assets. A figure for each turnout is shown below in Figures 41 through 47.

Figure 41 Turnout 1 Turnout POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 34
Figure 42 Turnout 2 Turnout POF Results
Figure 43 Turnout 3 Turnout POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 35
Figure 44 Turnout 4 Turnout POF Results
Figure 45 Turnout 5 Turnout POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 36
Figure 46 Turnout 6 Turnout POF Results
Figure 47 Turnout 7 Turnout POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 37
Wells
There are four production well sites: Wells 5, 6, 7, and 8. Wells 5, 6, and 8 were evaluated as part of the Water Quality Evaluation Project (July 2020) and the results of that assessment have been included herein.

Well 7 was evaluated under this project on September 29, 2022. Across the well sites there are 45 assets. A figure for each well site is below in Figures 48 through 50. Well sites 5 and 6 are combined due to shared assets.

Figure 48 Wells 5&6 Well POF Results
Figure 49 Well 7 Well POF Results

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 38
Well 7 is no longer in service. Decommissioning this facility is recommended.

Figure 50 Well 8 Well POF Results

1.2.2 Consequence of Failure (COF)
COF represents the relative impacts to the City if an asset were to fail (i.e., a higher COF score indicates greater repercussions).

As part of the City’s AWIA Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA), consequence metrics of low, medium, or high were assigned to eight categories that represent relative financial, social, and environmental effects of an asset or system failing for each facility location:

1. Financial losses to the utility.

2. Economic losses to the community.

3. Impacts to essential critical infrastructure (non-agency).

4. Impacts to the environment.

5. Impacts to water quality.

6. Impacts to public confidence.

7. Fatalities.

8. Serious injuries.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 39
Building on the eight RRA categories above, a ninth one was established for this effort to capture operator input. Operators’ firsthand experience makes them invaluable in identifying areas where capital investments can yield the most significant improvements. The operator input was discussed and assigned at the Water Asset Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) Workshop on April 30, 2024. The workshop materials are in Appendix C.

9. Operator input.

The consequence metrics for the water facilities represent the worst reasonable consequences resulting from the destruction or loss of each facility. For each facility, it was determined if the destruction or loss of the asset has a high, medium, or low potential to cause the associated consequence. These are further defined as follows:
 High - The destruction or loss of this asset has a high likelihood of causing the consequence.  Medium - The destruction or loss of this asset has a medium likelihood of causing the consequence.  Low - The destruction or loss of this asset has a low likelihood of causing the consequence.  N/A - This consequence is not applicable to the asset.

The sum of the consequence among the categories was used to represent the COF score where a COF score of 1 represents low, a COF of 2 represents medium, and a COF score of 3 represents high. The COF categories and consequence metric assignments were developed in 2020 by the City and West Yost are provided as Appendix D and in Table 4.

The total COF score by facility is presented in Figure 51.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO
CITY OF PLEASANTON WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 40Table 4 COF by Facility Location Facility Financial
Losses to the Utility
Economic Losses to the Community
Impacts to Essential Critical Infrastructure
Impacts to the Environment
Impacts to Water Quality
Impacts to Public Confidence
Fatalities Serious
Injuries
Operator Input
Cumulative COF Score(1)
Bonde I 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 12Bonde II 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 12Dublin Canyon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Foothill 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 19Grey Eagle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8Happy Valley 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 Kottinger Ranch 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11
Laurel Creek 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11Longview 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11Lund 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11McCloud 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8Moller Ranch 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11Ruby Hills 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11Lower Ruby Hills 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11
Upper Ruby Hills
2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11
Sycamore 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 19Tank 510 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10 Tank 900 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO
CITY OF PLEASANTON WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 41
Facility Financial
Losses to the Utility
Economic Losses to the Community
Impacts to Essential Critical Infrastructure
Impacts to the Environment
Impacts to Water Quality
Impacts to Public Confidence
Fatalities Serious
Injuries
Operator Input
Cumulative COF Score(1)
Tank 1160 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10Tank 1300 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10Tank 1600 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 10Tank 770 I 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11Tank 770 II 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11Vineyard 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 Vineyard Hills 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11Turnout 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8Turnout 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9Turnout 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 16Turnout 4 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 19Turnout 5 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 22 Turnout 6 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 21 Turnout 7 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 21 Well 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8Well 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8Well 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8Well 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8 Note: (1) Scores have been updated from AWIA to reflect that facility is no longer used or needed.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO
CITY OF PLEASANTON WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 42Figure 51 Water Facility COF

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 43

1.3 Water Facility CIP and O&M Investment Strategies
The CIP investment strategy is a plan that outlines a water utility’s capital improvement needs and spending priorities over a 10-year horizon that should be updated on an annual basis to reflect changing conditions and priorities. The O&M investment strategy is a plan that outlines a water utility’s spending on the O&M of its infrastructure and typically occurs on a 1–3-year basis. Both strategies are based on the current state of the assets.

CIP and O&M investment strategies are complementary and should be developed in a coordinated manner. CIP investments can help to reduce O&M costs over the long-term by improving the efficiency and reliability of infrastructure. Moreover, inadequate O&M investment can lead to increased infrastructure deterioration and higher CIP costs in the future.

Costs have also been developed at the asset level so that the City can make informed decisions for R&R based on available resources. The following sections identify the cost estimating methodology, and the capital improvement and O&M investment strategies.

1.3.1 Cost Estimating Methodology
This section describes how the costs were developed for the water facilities.

1.3.1.1 Water Facilities
Material costs were assigned at the asset class level using the replacement cost ranges in Table 5.The replacement cost range was determined by Carollo’s discipline leads that participated in the field assessment and from Carollo’s in-house references for material costs from previous studies, projects, and vendor quotes. Appendix A shows the replacement cost range and assumed cost by asset class.

Table 5 Replacement Cost Ranges
Replacement Cost Range Assumed Material Cost(1)
(1) <$5,000 $2,500.00
(2) $5,000-$9,999 $7,500.00
(3) $10,000-$49,999 $30,000.00
(4) $50,000-$99,999 $75,000.00
(5) ≥$100,000 Asset Specific
Notes:
(1) Cost assumed for calculation may vary by asset type.

1.3.1.2 Planning Level Cost Markups
Cost markups were applied to the replacement cost assignments to develop Class 5 planning level estimates per the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) definitions of the five class

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 44
estimates. 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 are in Table 6.

Table 6 Indirect Cost Factors
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.

The table above demonstrates 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, legal fees, and the owner’s internal administrative expenses. 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.

1.3.2 Capital Improvement Strategies
Establishing CIPs is a key component of a CIP investment strategy because they are long-term plans for construction, rehabilitation, and replacement of infrastructure assets. CIPs through 2034 were identified using observations from the field condition assessments and asset management analyses. Table 7 includes the prioritized list of CIP projects. These projects were identified and prioritized at the R&R Workshop based on the current state of the assets.

Table 7 10-Year CIP Projects for Water Facilities
CIP Project Year Cost1 COF Score
Rehabilitation of Tank 1300 2025 $2,543,000 10
Decommission of McCloud Tank/PS 2025 $1,238,000 8
Rehabilitation of Foothill Pump Station 2026 $1,320,000 19 Decommission of Well 7 2026 $811,000 8
Tank Inspection 2027 $1,606,000 N/A
Rehabilitation of Vineyard Pump Station2 2027 $2,127,000 11 Rehabilitation of Kottinger Ranch Pump Station 2028 $1,903,000 11 Decommission of Well 5 and 63 2028 $701,000 8
Rehabilitation of Laurel Creek Pump Station 2029 $1,681,000 11 Rehabilitation of Ruby Hill Pump Station 2029 $2,042,000 11

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 45
CIP Project Year Cost1 COF Score
Rehabilitation of Tanks Placeholder 2030 $2,873,000 N/A Decommission of Grey Eagle4 2031 $1,293,000 8
Decommission of Well 8 2032 $1,207,000 8
Notes:
(1) Rounded to the nearest thousandth.
(2) Consider upsizing pump capacity to split Bonde Zone into smaller zones as desired by operations. Refer to Appendix I in the AKEL report.
(3) Wells 5 and 6 can be decommissioned when the Zone 7 project is completed. (4) Grey Eagle is assumed to not need to be rehabilitated; 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.

The total 10-Year CIP cost is nearly $21.4 million. Figure 52 is a graphical representation of the 10-year CIP forecast for water facilities. The breakdown of the assets within each project are in Appendix E. Note that the project year may change based on the timing of related projects and available resources.

Figure 52 10-year Capital Improvement Plan for Water Facilities The 10-year CIP list also considered whether R&R needs are or will be addressed in other projects. These considerations are as follows:
 Turnout 1 R&R will be addressed during the Regional Project. The Regional Project also includes funding for a new turnout.
 Turnout 4 R&R will be addressed during the current Interim Project.  Generator deficiencies are identified in the Generator Report and are to be replaced in the Generator Improvements Project identified in the WSMP.
 Capacity issues identified in the AKEL report for Tanks 550 and 770 are addressed in the Tank 510 Storage Capacity Increase and Tank 770 Storage Capacity Increase projects identified in the WSMP.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 46
These projects should also consider the O&M needs and include asset R&R at these sites where needed.
 PLCs should be replaced in facility rehabilitations; however, if not addressed in a timely manner, then a PLC replacement project is needed.

1.3.3 O&M Investment Strategies
O&M investments are essential for keeping a water utility's infrastructure in good working order, so the City can continue to deliver reliable service to their customers. They may include activities such as preventative maintenance and corrective maintenance.

The R&R needs that are not captured in the 10-Year CIP are addressed as O&M R&R needs. Figure 53 shows the projected O&M needs over the next ten years based on the current state of the assets. The cost is estimated to be $12.8M. Refer to Appendix F for list of assets included in the O&M forecast.

Figure 53 10-Year O&M Plan for Water Facilities

1.3.4 Next Steps
For the water facilities, the City should continue to refine the recommendations in the 10-year CIP. Next steps include reviewing and refining the proposed projects, defining and prioritizing the projects by risk, and developing a budget for implementing the CIP. It is important to monitor the CIP implementation progress and routinely re-evaluate project needs and priorities as asset condition changes and areas of improvement are identified.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX A ASSET CLASS TABLE

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table B.1 Asset Class Table
Discipline Asset Class EUL (years) Cost Range Assumed Cost EI&C ANALYZER 15 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
EI&C ATS 20 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000
EI&C BREAKER 20 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
EI&C CONTROL PANEL 20 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000
EI&C CONTROLLER 15 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
EI&C ENGINE 20 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000
EI&C GENERATOR RECEPTACLE 30 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
EI&C MCC 30 5 - >$100,000 $100,000
EI&C PLC 15 5 - >$100,000 $100,000
EI&C RTU 15 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
EI&C SWITCH 30 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
EI&C SWITCHBOARD 25 5 - >$100,000 $250,000
EI&C TERMINAL BOX 20 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
EI&C TRANSDUCER 15 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
EI&C TRANSFORMER 35 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000
EI&C TRANSMITTER 15 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
EI&C VFD 15 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000
EI&C WATER METER 15 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
MECHANICAL ACTUATOR 15 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
MECHANICAL ARV 15 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
MECHANICAL CHEMICAL DOSING SYSTEM 20 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000 MECHANICAL CHEMICAL METERING PUMP 10 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500 MECHANICAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM 20 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000 MECHANICAL COMPRESSOR 20 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
MECHANICAL CRANE 30 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000
MECHANICAL FAN 20 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
MECHANICAL GENERATOR 25 5 - >$100,000 $250,000
MECHANICAL MIXER 20 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
MECHANICAL PIPE 50 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
MECHANICAL PUMP 25 4 - $50,000 - $99,999 $75,000
MECHANICAL PUMP (SUMP) 10 1 - $0-$5,000 $2,500
MECHANICAL STRAINER 15 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
MECHANICAL VALVE 15 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
MECHANICAL VALVE (CLA) 15 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $20,000 STRUCTURAL BUILDING 60 5 - >$100,000 $250,000
STRUCTURAL DRAINAGE 25 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
STRUCTURAL HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK 50 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000 STRUCTURAL RESERVOIR 50 5 - >$100,000 $250,000
STRUCTURAL ROAD 30 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
STRUCTURAL SHED 30 2 - $5,000 - $9,999 $7,500
STRUCTURAL SITE SECURITY 25 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000 STRUCTURAL TANK 50 3 - $10,000 - $49,999 $30,000
STRUCTURAL VAULT 60 4 - $50,000 - $99,999 $75,000
STRUCTURAL WELL 30 4 - $50,000 - $99,999 $75,000
Abbreviations: EI&C - Electrical, Instrumentation & Controls

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX B WATER FACILITY CONDITION

ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Water Facility Condition Assessment Findings and Recommendations Level2 Level3 Type2 Asset_ID POF COF Observations Recommendations Year Booster Station Dublin Canyon ATS BS-DC-17 5 9 Transfer switch is in very poor condition. Replace within one year. 2024Booster Station Dublin Canyon BREAKER BS-DC-08 3 9 Panel is becoming obsolete. Replace within five years. 2027 Booster Station Dublin Canyon BUILDING BS-DC-01 2 9 1. S. Wall at SW corner has crack originating from penetration for 12 in Disc pipe, DI. 2. Lot of stains on N wall. Stains on the N wall may be due to roof leaking. 3. Concrete spalling at top of trench wall at grating rebate near west door and east door. Extents of spalling is minor. 4. Pump bases have rust, not detrimental.

1. Epoxy injection of crack can prevent further propagation.2. Investigate if the roof is leaking and repair as needed.3. Monitor rebate and anchor 2045
Booster Station Dublin Canyon GENERATOR BS-DC-06 5 9 Generator is non-compliant and decommissioned. Instead, there is a portable generator with connects inside the room. The door must be open to use the porta Install quick connects outside for portable generator. 2026 Booster Station Dublin Canyon PUMP BS-DC-04 5 9 No longer in service. Consider removal of pump, motor, and associated piping. 2026 Booster Station Dublin Canyon RTU BS-DC-15 3 9 RTU prompt replacement is recommended to improve functionality. RTU replacement within the next 10 years is necessary due to age.

Consider replacing RTU to improve functionality. 2026
Booster Station Dublin Canyon SITE SECURITY BS-DC-19 3 9 There are security concerns at this site. Currently there is only a local intrusion alarm.

Install security cameras. 2028
Booster Station Dublin Canyon TANK BS-DC-07 5 9 No longer in service. Consider removal. 2028 Booster Station Dublin Canyon TRANSFORMER BS-DC-09 4 9 Transformer is obsolete. There are concerns about the asset's performance and reliability.

Replace within one year. 2024
Booster Station Dublin Canyon VALVE BS-DC-16 3 9 Valve is maintained by Cla-Val. Fittings are not stainless steel. Replace fittings with stainless steep fittings. 2026Booster Station Foothill BREAKER BS-F-20 3 19 Panelboard is becoming obsolete and the circuit breakers have exceeded their useful life.

Replace within five years. 2026
Booster Station Foothill GENERATOR BS-F-04 4 19 Overall, generator is in poor condition. It is used when there are PG&E shut-offs (including PSPS).

Replace generator. May need to consider a portable generator given permitting requirements. 2025
Booster Station Foothill MCC BS-F-12 4 19 Operations staff reported difficulties with repair and maintenance due to age and lack of manufacturer support.

Replace MCC within five years. 2026
Booster Station Foothill PUMP BS-F-03 5 19 Scheduled for replacement. - 2026 Booster Station Foothill PUMP BS-F-05 2 19 City reported that there is not sufficient redundancy for the pumps. There is also no lifting mechanism at this site for pump removal/installation.

Consider installing an additional pump. 2026
Booster Station Foothill PUMP BS-F-07 5 19 No longer in service. Associated valve is leaking. Consider removing pump and replacing locked out valve with piping.
2026
Booster Station Foothill PUMP BS-F-08 5 19 No longer in service. Consider removal. 2026Booster Station Foothill SITE SECURITY BS-F-10 3 19 Fence does not meet current City standard. Consider replacing fence to meet new City standard. 2026 Booster Station Foothill SWITCH BS-F-13 4 19 Switch is in deteriorated condition and becoming obsolete. Replace within five years. 2026 Booster Station Foothill TRANSFORMER BS-F-11 3 19 Transformer has exceeded useful life and is obsolete. Replace within five years. 2026Booster Station Foothill TRANSMITTER BS-F-15 4 19 Transmitter is in deteriorated condition and becoming obsolete. Replace within five years. 2026Booster Station Foothill TRANSMITTER BS-F-16 4 19 Transmitter is in deteriorated condition and becoming obsolete. Replace within five years. 2026Booster Station Foothill WATER METER BS-F-17 4 19 Scheduled for replacement. - 2026 Booster Station Grey Eagle ATS BS-GE-03 4 8 ATS has exceeded its useful life . This ATS is integrated into MCCA. Replace. 2031Booster Station Grey Eagle BUILDING BS-GE-06 2 8 Wood frame building and roof with asphalt shingle roofing. Roof appears to be in acceptable condition. Building entrance needs a step.

Install a step at the entrance. 2031
Booster Station Grey Eagle Compressor BS-GE-28 5 8 Air compressor does not supply enough air pressure and has exceeded its useful life.

Replace. 2031
Booster Station Grey Eagle CONTROL PANEL BS-GE-04 3 8 Panel is in good condition, however the breakers have exceeded their useful life and should be replaced.

Replace breakers within one year and consider complete panelboard replacement within the next 10 years. 2031
Booster Station Grey Eagle CONTROL PANEL BS-GE-16 5 8 Panel is in failed condition and not connected. Replace. 2031Booster Station Grey Eagle GENERATOR BS-GE-07 4 8 In poor condition. Replace. 2025 Booster Station Grey Eagle HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK BS-GE-11 2 8 Piping and valving have minor corrosion. - 2031 1 of 7

Water Facility Condition Assessment Findings and Recommendations Level2 Level3 Type2 Asset_ID POF COF Observations Recommendations Year Booster Station Grey Eagle MCC BS-GE-12 4 8 MCC has exceeded its useful life and may no longer be reliable. Replace MCC within five years. 2031 Booster Station Grey Eagle PIPE BS-GE-19 3 8 Minor coating delamination and corrosion on the piping. - 2031 Booster Station Grey Eagle PUMP BS-GE-08 3 8 Staff are concerned about the design of the system, including the capacity.

Evaluate the capacity and efficiency of the BS. 2031
Booster Station Grey Eagle PUMP BS-GE-09 4 8 Leaks on shaft seal packing. Support is corroded significantly. Replace components. 2031 Booster Station Grey Eagle PUMP BS-GE-10 3 8 The coupling is an area of concern. Rehabilitate or replace the coupling. 2031 Booster Station Grey Eagle RTU BS-GE-05 5 8 Panel has exceeded useful life and is becoming obsolete. Panel may be unreliable given age.

Replace. 2031
Booster Station Grey Eagle SITE SECURITY BS-GE-27 3 8 Fence does not meet current City standard. No intrusion alarm system.

Consider replacing fence to meet new City standard. 2031 Booster Station Grey Eagle TRANSFORMER BS-GE-14 5 8 Transformer has exceeded its useful life and is obsolete. Replace. 2031 Booster Station Grey Eagle VALVE BS-GE-21 4 8 Exterior requires rehabilitation. Interior is in unknown condition. Replace. 2031Booster Station Grey Eagle WATER METER BS-GE-15 3 8 Meter is in moderate condition and approaching the end of useful life.

Replace within five years. 2031
Booster Station Kottinger Ranch BREAKER BS-KR-26 4 11 Panel is becoming obsolete and the circuit breakers have exceeded their useful life.

Replace within one year. 2028
Booster Station Kottinger Ranch MCC BS-KR-19 4 11 MCC has exceeded its useful life and equipment malfunctions were observed. For example, the sump pumps cannot run simultaneously because loss of phase occurs.

Manufacturer shall inspect and repair sump pump drives or starters immediately. Replace MCC within five years. 2028
Booster Station Kottinger Ranch PUMP BS-KR-07 4 11 Pump has exceeded useful life and shaft is leaking. Scheduled to be replaced when demand reduces. 2028Booster Station Kottinger Ranch SITE SECURITY BS-KR-25 3 11 Site has a local intrusion alarm. There is no site fencing. - 2028 Booster Station Kottinger Ranch SWITCHBOARD BS-KR-16 5 11 Switchboard has exceeded its useful life and may no longer be reliable.

Replace. 2028
Booster Station Kottinger Ranch TANK BS-KR-04 3 11 (blank) 2038Booster Station Kottinger Ranch TRANSFORMER BS-KR-23 4 11 Transformer has exceeded its useful life and is obsolete. Replace. 2028Booster Station Kottinger Ranch TRANSMITTER BS-KR-20 3 11 Staff reported that a digital transmitter is preferable. Replace with digital pressure transmitter. 2028Booster Station Kottinger Ranch PUMP - SUMP BS-KR-08 5 11 Staff reported that sump pump does not work. Replace. 2028 Booster Station Laurel Creek SITE SECURITY BS-LC-14 2 11 Removal of public access to parking and addition of fence has reduced security issues. However, there are no cameras.

Install cameras. 2029
Booster Station Laurel Creek TANK BS-LC-06 4 11 Enclosure roof is in bad condition. Staff reported issues with fuel leak sensor.

Replace roof and fuel leak sensor. 2029
Booster Station Longview GENERATOR W_BS_LV-25 5 11 Booster station is impacted by shutdowns, but does not have a permanent generator on site. Consider installing permanent generator. 2026 Booster Station Longview RTU BS-LV-18 3 11 Panel has exceeded useful life and is becoming obsolete. Replace within five years. 2025 Booster Station Longview SITE SECURITY BS-LV-01 3 11 Fence does not appear to serve its purpose since it does not completely surround the building. No intrusion alarm.

Consider replacing the fence. 2027
Booster Station McCloud BUILDING BS-MC-01 5 8 No longer in service. Decommission. 2025 Booster Station Ruby Hills ATS BS-RH-16 3 11 Transfer switch is in moderate condition and approaching the end of useful life.

Workshop 4/30/24: ATS has been replaced. 2029
Booster Station Ruby Hills BREAKER BS-RH-13 3 11 Panel is becoming obsolete and is approaching end of its useful life.

Replace within five years. 2029
Booster Station Ruby Hills BUILDING BS-RH-01 2 11 There were stains on floor, minor corrosion on base plates of pump, and minor corrosion on clamps for small tubing.

Periodic inspection recommended. 2045
Booster Station Ruby Hills CONTROL PANEL BS-RH-21 5 11 No longer in service. Decommission. 2029 Booster Station Ruby Hills MCC BS-RH-18 3 11 The MCC buckets for pumps 1 and 2 are not properly covered and live parts are exposed.

Provide proper MCC bucket covers to eliminate live part exposure. 2029
Booster Station Ruby Hills PLC BS-RH-19 4 11 PLC has exceeded useful life and may no longer be reliable. Replace within five years. 2029 Booster Station Ruby Hills PUMP BS-RH-03 2 11 Pumps 1 and 2 are no longer in service and locked out. Decommission pumps and piping. 2029 Booster Station Ruby Hills RTU BS-RH-20 4 11 Panel has exceeded useful life and is becoming obsolete. Panel may be unreliable given age.

Replace within five years. 2029
2 of 7

Water Facility Condition Assessment Findings and Recommendations Level2 Level3 Type2 Asset_ID POF COF Observations Recommendations Year Booster Station Tank 1300 BUILDING BS-T1300-01 2 10 There were stains and hairline cracks on the wall, hairline cracks on the foundation, and corrosion on the pump base plates.

Periodic inspection recommended. 2025
Booster Station Tank 510 BUILDING BS-T510-03 2 10 Minor cracks were observed on the masonry. - 2045 Booster Station Tank 900 BUILDING BS-T900-02 2 10 Stains on the floor, hairline cracks on the foundation, and minor rust on pump baseplates were observed.

Periodic inspection recommended. 2045
Booster Station Tank 900 VALVE BS-T900-10 2 10 Minor leak on bolt. Remove and reinstall bolt. 2028 Booster Station Tank 900 VALVE (CLA) BS-T900-08 2 10 Minor leak observed on valves. Valve is maintained by third party.

Have third party address leak. 2028
Booster Station Vineyard ATS BS-V-21 3 11 Meter is in moderate condition and approaching the end of useful life.

Replace within five years. 2027
Booster Station Vineyard BREAKER BS-V-01 5 11 Panelboard is becoming obsolete and the circuit breakers have exceeded their useful life.

Replace. 2027
Booster Station Vineyard BUILDING BS-V-05 2 11 Roofing material looks original and there is signs of leakage in the interior.

Investigate if the roof is leaking and repair as needed. 2044 Booster Station Vineyard MCC BS-V-07 5 11 MCC has exceeded its useful life and may no longer be reliable. Replace MCC within five years. 2027 Booster Station Vineyard PLC BS-V-13 5 11 - Replace when MCC is replaced. 2027 Booster Station Vineyard PUMP BS-V-08 5 11 Staff reported that pump station capacity is not sufficient and there is no redundancy. Additionally, staff have concerns for lead time (8+ months) on getting a replacement pump.

In the short term, have a spare pump on hand and in the long-term, consider upsizing pumps to meet capacity needs. 2027
Booster Station Vineyard PUMP BS-V-09 5 11 Staff reported that pump station capacity is not sufficient and there is no redundancy. Additionally, staff have concerns for lead time (8+ months) on getting a replacement pump. Pump 2 is exhibiting signs of an oil leak.

In the short term, have a spare pump on hand and in the long-term, consider upsizing pumps to meet capacity needs. Identify source of oil leak and repair. 2027
Booster Station Vineyard RTU BS-V-14 5 11 Panel has exceeded useful life and is becoming obsolete. Panel may be unreliable given age.

Replace. 2027
Booster Station Vineyard TRANSFORMER BS-V-06 4 11 Transformer has exceeded its useful life and runs hot or intermittently
Replace. 2027
Booster Station Vineyard VALVE BS-V-04 2 11 Maintained by third party and scheduled to be rebuilt. - 2027Booster Station Vineyard VALVE BS-V-20 2 11 Maintained by third party and scheduled to be rebuilt. - 2027Booster Station Vineyard PUMP - SUMP BS-V-11 4 11 There is water in the containment. Sump pump at breaker was off. Turned on and water was pumped out. Sump pump doesn’t turn off by float so turned breake Sump pump float will be replaced in house. 2027
Booster Station Vineyard Hills SITE SECURITY BS-VH-17 2 11 Site has no fence but security is not a concern here since building is shared with the fire department. There are also intrusion alarms. - 2032
Booster Station Vineyard Hills TANK BS-VH-12 5 11 Broken, $8000 ordered parts, currently fixing. - 2028 Booster Station Vineyard Hills VALVE BS-VH-18 3 11 Valve is maintained by Cla-Val. Fittings are not stainless steel. Replace fittings with stainless steep fittings. 2026 Booster Station Vineyard Hills VAULT BS-VH-11 2 11 Vault is wet and filled with debris (leaves). - 2045 Booster Station Vineyard Hills VAULT BS-VH-19 2 11 4/30/24 Workshop: The vaults were flooded out and the motor control valves are not functioning.

Repair the MOVs in the valve vault. 2045
Reservoir Bonde I BREAKER Res-B I-15 2 12 Circuit breakers are near the end of their life and testing or replacement should be considered.

Test or replace circuit breakers. Replace panel within 10 years. 2029
Reservoir Bonde I CONTROL PANEL Res-B I-11 2 12 Enclosure fan is near end of life and needs replacement to prevent down time.

Replace enclosure fan. 2029
Reservoir Bonde I GENERATOR Res-B I-14 5 12 Propane generator that is used for tank and radio communications. Generator has exceeded its useful life and is high maintenance (have a hard time firing it). During site visit, it was out of service.

Replace with diesel generator. 2025
Reservoir Bonde I PIPE Res-B I-09 3 12 There is an overflow pipe for the tank that goes into neighborhood. Staff reported there is a v-ditch below the pipe, but it was not visible. This is a potential liabi Confirm that there is v-ditch for the overflow pipe or install one.2033 Reservoir Bonde I VAULT Res-B I-05 2 12 Unable to access vault due to confined space entry. The vault lid is made of redwood and is high maintenance. The vault fills with water during rain events and board replacement is needed every 8 years.

Replace vault lid and install fall protection. 2044
3 of 7

Water Facility Condition Assessment Findings and Recommendations Level2 Level3 Type2 Asset_ID POF COF Observations Recommendations Year Reservoir Bonde I RESERVOIR Res-B I-03 3 12 The tank is half buried but visible concrete looks to be in acceptable condition. Tank requires near full depth cycling for water quality. Mixers were recently installed to see if this reduces the cycling. - 2027
Reservoir Bonde II CONTROL PANEL Res-B II-05 5 12 Panel is in deteriorating condition and has exceeded its useful life.

Replace. 2024
Reservoir Bonde II TRANSMITTER Res-B II-06 3 12 Transmitter is in moderate condition and becoming obsolete. Replace within five years. 2025 Reservoir Bonde II VAULT Res-B II-09 3 12 Did not enter vault, but viewed from above. Vault is damp and has poor ventilation. There is no hand hold to get out of vault.

Improve vault ventilation. Install hand hold for vault ingress/egress. 2043
Reservoir Bonde II RESERVOIR Res-B II-04 4 12 1. Coating is cracked and stucco will eventually start peeling off.

2. No exterior ladder. 3. PVC piping exposed to sun. 4. There is no seal between the tank and perimeter v-ditch.

1. Recoat.2. Install ladder.3. Replace pvc piping and paint.4. Add a seal between v-ditch and tank. 2027
Reservoir Dublin Canyon BREAKER Res-DC-03 5 9 Panel has excessive corrosion and has exceeded its useful life. Replace. 2025 Reservoir Dublin Canyon RTU Res-DC-04 5 9 Panel has excessive corrosion and has exceeded its useful life. Replace. 2025Reservoir Dublin Canyon VALVE Res-DC-01 4 9 Corroded pipe support. Replace pipe support. 2025Reservoir Dublin Canyon VALVE Res-DC-02 4 9 Corroded pipe support. Replace pipe support. 2025 Reservoir Foothill ROAD Res-F-05 3 19 The road has some cracking and spalling. Staff reported there are also drainage issues.

Rehab and regrade road to eliminate drainage concerns. 2028 Reservoir Foothill SITE SECURITY Res-F-15 4 19 Fence around the tank does not meet current City standard and there is evidence of previous graffiti.

Replace fence around tank. 2025
Reservoir Foothill VALVE Res-F-10 3 19 - Valves should be exercised at least annually. 2025 Reservoir Foothill VAULT Res-F-06 3 19 Need ventilation. Actuator was replaced because of dampness.

Ladder could use safety improvements.

Improve vault ventilation. Install hand hold for vault ingress/egress. 2042
Reservoir Foothill RESERVOIR Res-F-01 3 19 Riser is no longer needed and is an operational concern. Due to the riser, the tank must be kept full because the turnouts do not have the head needed to fill the tank. The tank under drain area has some missing coating.

Remove riser. Coat the underdrain area. 2027
Reservoir Happy Valley DRAINAGE Res-HV-05 2 10 The swale is filled with sediment and there is evidence of gopher/ground squirrel holes against wall, which could eventually compromise the wall and piping.

Fill in the holes and clear the swale. Periodic inspection recommended. 2032
Reservoir Happy Valley SITE SECURITY Res-HV-07 2 10 Evidence of previous graffiti. - 2032Reservoir Happy Valley RESERVOIR Res-HV-01 2 10 Pipe supports are rusted. Periodic inspection recommended. 2027 Reservoir Kottinger Ranch SITE SECURITY Res-KR-07 2 11 Entrance gate has minor coating flaking and there is evidence of previous graffiti. Additionally, there is minor soil erosion at the north corner. - 2032
Reservoir Laurel Creek BREAKER Res-LC-03 3 11 Panel is currently in moderate condition but approaching end of useful life.

Replace within five years. 2027
Reservoir Laurel Creek PLC Res-LC-04 3 11 PLC is currently in moderate condition but approaching end of useful life.

Replace within five years. 2026
Reservoir Laurel Creek RTU Res-LC-05 3 11 RTU is currently in moderate condition but approaching end of useful life.

Replace within five years. 2026
Reservoir Laurel Creek VAULT Res-LC-08 2 11 Pipe supports for inlet and outlet pipes are corroded. Replace pipe supports. 2045 Reservoir Lower Ruby Hills CONTROL PANEL Res-LRH-03 4 11 Panel is approaching end of useful life and is becoming obsolete. Replace. 2025 Reservoir Lower Ruby Hills SITE SECURITY Res-LRH-05 2 11 The coating on the fence posts are peeling. Re-coat the fence posts. 2032 Reservoir Lower Ruby Hills VAULT Res-LRH-09 2 11 Lot of water accumulation in vault, possibly due to rain. Surface rust on pipes. Hatch cover dampers are broken and severely rusted Periodic inspection of piping recommended. Replace dampers on hatch cover. 2045
Reservoir Lower Ruby Hills SHED Res-LRH-04 5 11 Structure is not durable and is a safety concern. There are signs of joints and wall failure.

Demo enclosure and replace if desired. 2026
4 of 7

Water Facility Condition Assessment Findings and Recommendations Level2 Level3 Type2 Asset_ID POF COF Observations Recommendations Year Reservoir Lower Ruby Hills RESERVOIR Res-LRH-01 2 11 Minor corrosion was observed at the base of the tank, on the restraint pipe coupling harness and all bolts on the pipe harness, and on the box near the pipe.

Periodic inspection recommended. 2027
Reservoir Lund RTU Res-L-07 3 11 RTU is becoming obsolete and approaching end of useful life. Replace within five years. 2026 Reservoir Lund SITE SECURITY Res-L-08 2 11 The coating is flaking on the horizontal beams. Recoat the horizontal beams. 2032 Reservoir McCloud RESERVOIR Res-MC-01 5 8 The tank is not structurally sound and was leaking through the sidewalls. The tank was officially flanged off this year from the water system and is empty. There is evidence of painted over graffiti on the tank. O&M is still expected to maintain the tank and they spend time painting it.

Decommission. 2025
Reservoir Moller Ranch BREAKER Res-MR-03 4 11 Panel has deteriorated and is in poor condition. Replace. 2025 Reservoir Moller Ranch RTU Res-MR-05 3 11 RTU is in moderate condition but is approaching end of useful life and is becoming obsolete.

Replace within five years. 2026
Reservoir Moller Ranch SITE SECURITY Res-MR-06 2 11 Fence does not meet current City standard. Consider replacing fence to meet new City standard. 2032 Reservoir Moller Ranch VAULT Res-MR-07 3 11 Vault cover support frame has significant corrosion. Cover plate at some locations are not flush or tightly closed.

Periodic inspection recommended. Consider replacing cover with aluminum cover. 2036
Reservoir Sycamore BREAKER Res-S-08 5 19 Panel is in deteriorated condition, require lots of maintenance and is becoming obsolete.

Replace. 2024
Reservoir Sycamore CONTROL PANEL Res-S-12 3 19 There is equipment inside the panel that is no longer in service, i.e., the irrigation panel.

Remove equipment that is no longer in service. 2026
Reservoir Sycamore FAN Res-S-14 5 19 Fan is scheduled to be replaced. The associated control panel has also exceeded its useful life and should also be replaced. - 2024
Reservoir Sycamore PUMP - SUMP Res-S-10 5 19 Gear has exceeded its useful life. Replace. 2024Reservoir Tank 1160 VAULT Res-T1160-03 3 10 - Periodic inspection recommended. 2036Reservoir Tank 1160 BATTERY W_Res_T1160-04 5 10 Tanks 1160 and 1600 have no power source and rely on batteries. Install solar panels. 2024 Reservoir Tank 1300 RESERVOIR Res-T1300-01 4 10 Updated findings based on 4/30/24 workshop: Staff reported that an internal inspection of the tank and review of the vapor zone indicates that the interior of the tank is in poor condition and needs to be rehabilitated.

Rehabilitate tank. 2025
Reservoir Tank 1600 BATTERY W_Res_T1600-04 5 10 Tanks 1160 and 1600 have no power source and rely on batteries. Install solar panels. 2024 Reservoir Tank 510 RESERVOIR Res-T510-02 2 10 Updated findings based on 4/30/24 workshop: AKEL report identified this zone to have an existing deficiency of insufficient capacity.

Increase storage capacity. Refer to AKEL report. 2027
Reservoir Tank 770 I VALVE Res-T770 I-02 5 11 Not functioning. Replace. 2025Reservoir Tank 770 I VALVE Res-T770 I-03 5 11 Not functioning. Replace. 2025Reservoir Tank 770 I VAULT Res-T770 I-07 4 11 Unsafe hatch. There are no hinges. Replace vault with standard. 2030Reservoir Tank 770 II BREAKER Res-T770 II-06 4 11 Obsolete and deteriorating condition. Replace. 2025 Reservoir Tank 770 II RTU Res-T770 II-07 4 11 Panel has exceeded useful life and is becoming obsolete. Panel may be unreliable given age.

Replace. 2025
Reservoir Tank 770 II SITE SECURITY Res-T770 II-08 3 11 The coating on the fence posts are peeling. There is vegetation growing along the fence.

Cut back vegetation to reduce fire risk and improve fence maintenance. 2028
Reservoir Tank 770 II VAULT Res-T770 II-09 3 11 Vault is a concrete box with a metal cover and no hinge. Replace vault with standard. 2036 Reservoir Tank 770 II RESERVOIR Res-T770 II-01 2 11 Updated findings based on 4/30/24 workshop: AKEL report identified this zone to have an existing deficiency of insufficient capacity.

Increase storage capacity. Refer to AKEL report. 2027
Reservoir Upper Ruby Hills SITE SECURITY Res-URH-09 1 11 No security concerns, located inside a gated community. - 2046Reservoir Upper Ruby Hills RESERVOIR Res-URH-01 2 11 Minor corrosion observed at the base of the tank. Periodic inspection recommended. 2027 Reservoir Vineyard Hills RTU Res-VH-08 3 11 Access to the PLC is via overgrown vegetation. The PLC is in moderate condition and becoming obsolete.

Clear a path in the vegetation. Replace the PLC within five years. 2026
Reservoir Vineyard Hills SITE SECURITY Res-VH-09 2 11 No security concerns at this site. - 2032Reservoir Vineyard Hills VALVE Res-VH-04 1 11 Missing label. Label the drain valve. 2032 Turnout Turnout 1 BREAKER Turnout-T1-06 4 8 Panel is deteriorating and in poor condition. It has exceeded its useful life.

Replace. 2025
Turnout Turnout 2 BREAKER Turnout-T2-07 5 9 Panel is deteriorating and in poor condition. It has exceeded its useful life. Replace. 2025 5 of 7

Water Facility Condition Assessment Findings and Recommendations Level2 Level3 Type2 Asset_ID POF COF Observations Recommendations Year Turnout Turnout 2 BUILDING Turnout-T2-01 4 9 Building tilting towards NE, left when facing the door. Tilt is significant and can be felt when entered.

Requires periodic inspection and complete replacement in future. 2030
Turnout Turnout 2 VAULT Turnout-T2-15 2 9 In close proximity to tilting building. Periodic inspection recommended. 2045 Turnout Turnout 3 BREAKER Turnout-T3-04 3 16 Panel is becoming obsolete and the circuit breakers have exceeded their useful life.

Replace circuit breakers. Replace panel within 10 years. 2026
Turnout Turnout 3 BUILDING Turnout-T3-03 3 16 Northwest corner of the building is damaged and rebar is exposed. Unknown if there is adequate ventilation for fluoride - one fan. There is not a lot of room in the building.

Recommend converting existing building to electrical room and installing new tank room. 2035
Turnout Turnout 3 CHEMICAL METERING
PUMP
Turnout-T3-01 3 16 Metering pump is located in the secondary containment on a rusted bracket with a plastic tub underneath. Pump is high maintenance.

Consider improving pump mounting. Consider moving away from a pressurized chemical injection system and replacing with peristaltic pumps. 2024
Turnout Turnout 3 RTU Turnout-T3-05 2 16 There is a lack of surge suppression on antenna cable. - 2027 Turnout Turnout 3 TANK Turnout-T3-06 3 16 Would like to have a second tank for redundancy and to confirm the concentration in the tank.

Add a redundant tank. Test existing tank's concentration. 2033 Turnout Turnout 3 VAULT Turnout-T3-02 3 16 Minor corrosion observed on the lifting mechanism. - 2035Turnout Turnout 4 BREAKER Turnout-T4-03 5 19 Panelboard is excessively corroded. Replace. 2024 Turnout Turnout 4 BUILDING Turnout-T4-02 3 19 Unknown if there is adequate ventilation for fluoride. There is not a lot of room in the building. Concrete sidewalk/entrance to the building shows signs of settlement.

Consider expansion of building (horizontally/vertically) because building is cramped. 2037
Turnout Turnout 4 CHEMICAL METERING
PUMP
Turnout-T4-05 3 19 Metering pump is mounted on the floor of the secondary containment. Pump is high maintenance.

Consider improving pump mounting. Consider moving away from a pressurized chemical injection system and replacing with peristaltic pumps. 2024
Turnout Turnout 4 RTU Turnout-T4-01 2 19 There is a lack of surge suppression on antenna cable. - 2027 Turnout Turnout 4 TANK Turnout-T4-06 3 19 Secondary containment was filled with water at time of visit due to fire testing. Secondary containment does not have a drain. Staff would like to have a second tank for redundancy and to confirm the concentration in the tank.

Consider installing redundant tank. 2033
Turnout Turnout 5 BREAKER Turnout-T5-09 5 22 Panel will reach end of its life within the next 10 years. However immediate replacement is suggested due to excessive corrosion and deterioration. NEMA 4X enclosure shall be provided given the environment is very corrosive.

Replace and provide NEMA 4X enclosure 2025
Turnout Turnout 5 BUILDING Turnout-T5-02 2 22 Pipe supports and anchors are moderately corroded. Periodic inspection recommended to monitor progress of corrosion.
2045
Turnout Turnout 5 CHEMICAL METERING
PUMP
Turnout-T5-10 3 22 Frequent leaks in tubing joints due to high pressure dosing.

Current pumps are high maintenance.

Consider moving away from a pressurized chemical injection system and replacing with peristaltic pumps. 2025
Turnout Turnout 5 SITE SECURITY Turnout-T5-12 3 22 There are security concerns at this site. Building has an intrusion alarm that communicates to central SCADA.

Consider installing a fence, if feasible. 2028
Turnout Turnout 5 TERMINAL BOX Turnout-T5-15 2 22 Analyzer IO terminal box replacement within the next 10 years is recommenced due to age. This is important to avoid signal interruption.

Replace within 10 years. 2030
Turnout Turnout 5 VAULT Turnout-T5-04 2 22 Pipe supports and anchors are moderately corroded. Periodic inspection recommended to monitor progress of corrosion.
2045
Turnout Turnout 6 ANALYZER Turnout-T6-06 3 21 This model of analyzer is high maintenance. Consider upgrading analyzer to newer model that is used. 2028 Turnout Turnout 6 ANALYZER Turnout-T6-09 3 21 This model of analyzer is high maintenance. Consider upgrading analyzer to newer model that is used. 2026 Turnout Turnout 6 CHEMICAL METERING
PUMP
Turnout-T6-08 3 21 Frequent leaks in tubing joints due to high pressure dosing.

Current pumps are high maintenance.

Consider moving away from a pressurized chemical injection system. 2025
Turnout Turnout 7 ANALYZER Turnout-T7-05 3 21 This model of analyzer is high maintenance. Consider upgrading analyzer to newer model that is used. 2028Turnout Turnout 7 ANALYZER Turnout-T7-07 3 21 This model of analyzer is high maintenance. Latch is broken. Consider upgrading analyzer to newer model that is used. 2026 Turnout Turnout 7 ANALYZER Turnout-T7-10 3 21 This model of analyzer is high maintenance. Consider upgrading analyzer to newer model that is used. 2026 6 of 7

Water Facility Condition Assessment Findings and Recommendations Level2 Level3 Type2 Asset_ID POF COF Observations Recommendations Year Turnout Turnout 7 CHEMICAL METERING
PUMP
Turnout-T7-06 3 21 Frequent leaks in tubing joints due to high pressure dosing.

Current pumps are high maintenance.

Consider moving away from a pressurized chemical injection system. 2025
Well Well 7 ATS Well-W7-06 5 8 This gear is not operable and functional. It should be demolished.

Decommission. 2026
Well Well 7 BUILDING Well-W7-05 4 8 Located in busy plaza. Challenging to access. Dry rot in beams.

Not suitable for chemical storage. Minimal ventilation.

Decommission, or if desired, replaced with a new building in a new location. 2026 Well Well 7 GENERATOR RECEPTACLE Well-W7-07 5 8 This gear is not operable nor functional. It should be demolished. Decommission. 2026 Well Well 7 PUMP Well-W7-03 5 8 Unknown if pump is pulled. Casing failed. Decommission. 2026Well Well 7 RTU Well-W7-08 5 8 Panel is not operable and should be demolished. Decommission. 2026 Well Well 7 SWITCHBOARD Well-W7-02 5 8 This gear is not operable, and functional. It should be demolished.

Decommission. 2026
Well Well 7 WELL Well-W7-01 5 8 Foundation was majorly buckling. Structurally failed. Decommission. 2026 7 of 7

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX C REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT

WORKSHOP MATERIALS

pw://Carollo/CA/Pleasanton/201264-000000/02 Project Information/02 Meetings/PleasantonWaterFacility10YearCIP_2024-04-30.docx 1

MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PLEASANTON
Water System Management Plan
Prepared By: Michelle Eckard Issued Date: May 6, 2024
Meeting Date: April 30, 2024 Project No.: 201264
Location OSC Remillard Room, City of Pleasanton
Subject: Water Asset Rehabilitation and Replacement Workshop Attendees: Client: Todd Yamello, Ryan Ravalin
Carollo: Michelle Eckard, Tim Loper
The following is our understanding of the subject matter. If this differs from your understanding, please notify us within 10 business days of receipt.

COF Prioritization Ranking
Updated based on discussions during the workshop.

Facility SUM (COF) AVG (POF) Notes
Turnout 5 22 2.55 Project: O&M
Turnout 6 21 2.44 Project: O&M
Turnout 7 21 2.18 Project: O&M
Foothill Booster Station 19 3.18 Project
Foothill Reservoir 19 2.64
Sycamore Booster Station 19 2.07
Sycamore Reservoir 19 2.36
Turnout 4 19 3.00 Project: Interim
Turnout 3 16 2.83 Project: O&M
Bonde I Reservoir 12 3.23
Bonde II Reservoir 12 3.14
Kottinger Ranch Booster Station 11 2.84 Project
Kottinger Ranch Reservoir 11 2.00
Laurel Creek Booster Station 11 2.13 Project
Laurel Creek Reservoir 11 2.38

MEETING MINUTES
2 Facility SUM (COF) AVG (POF) Notes
Longview Booster Station 11 2.41
Lower Ruby Hills Reservoir 11 3.00
Lund Reservoir 11 2.56
Moller Ranch Reservoir 11 2.71
Ruby Hills Booster Station 11 2.88
Tank 770 I Reservoir 11 3.67 Capacity project
Tank 770 II Reservoir 11 2.75 Capacity project
Upper Ruby Hills Reservoir 11 1.71
Vineyard Booster Station 11 3.10 Project
Vineyard Hills Booster Station 11 2.53
Vineyard Hills Reservoir 11 1.91
Happy Valley Reservoir 10 2.13
Tank 1160 Reservoir 10 2.33
Tank 1300 Booster Station 10 1.91 Project
Tank 1300 Reservoir 10 2.00 Project
Tank 1600 Reservoir 10 2.00
Tank 510 Booster Station 10 2.10 Capacity project
Tank 510 Reservoir 10 1.75 Capacity project
Tank 900 Booster Station 10 1.90
Tank 900 Reservoir 10 1.50
Dublin Canyon Booster Station 9 2.47
Dublin Canyon Reservoir 9 3.60
Turnout 2 9 3.07 Redundant; not used.

Grey Eagle Booster Station 8 2.96 Project: Decommission McCloud Booster Station 8 5.00 Project: Decommission
McCloud Reservoir 8 5.00 Project: Decommission
Turnout 1 8 2.17 Project: Decommission

MEETING MINUTES
3 Facility SUM (COF) AVG (POF) Notes
Well 5 8 3.00 Project: Decommission
Well 6 8 3.00 Project: Decommission
Well 7 8 4.83 Project: Decommission
Well 8 8 2.90 Project: Decommission
Operator input line added to AWIA COF scores to adjust the sum (COF). Booster stations and reservoirs should be treated separately.

Water Facilities – Wells

1. Assume that the Zone 7 project will be done. It is already on the CIP list. a. Then Wells 5 and 6 can be decommissioned.

2. ACTION: Rank all wells as lowest COF (7) under the assumption they should all be decommissioned.

Water Facilities – Turnouts

1. Turnout 1:
a. Project: Regional.
i. The reg. project also includes a new turnout.
ii. Add footnote to CIP about regional project.

2. Turnout 2: Not being used. It is a back-up to Turnout 4. Hydraulically the station does not perform. a. Project: N/A.
b. ACTION: Lowest COF (7).

3. Turnout 3:
a. Project: O&M.
b. There is a recommendation to replace the chemical metering pump with a peristaltic pump. However, the City cannot identify a manufacturer of peristaltic pumps that has tubing appropriate for acid (H2S).

4. Turnout 4:
a. Project: Interim.
i. Total rehabilitation project occurring now. Includes two new tanks, chemical system, etc. Adams is the contact.

5. Turnout 5:
a. Project: O&M.
b. ACTION: Highest COF (1).

6. Turnout 6:
a. Project: O&M.
b. ACTION: Follow Turnout 5 in COF ranking (2).

MEETING MINUTES
4 7. Turnout 7:
a. Project: O&M.
b. ACTION: Follow Turnout 5 in COF ranking (2).

Water Facilities – Reservoirs

1. All recommendations for reservoirs should start with an inspection project. a. ACTION: Create a CIP project for the structural internal inspection of reservoirs. Can also create a tank rehab project placeholder based on outcome of inspection.

2. There is a reservoir that has cathodic issues.
a. ACTION: Ryan will talk to Robert to ID site and review if there are any other CIPs needed at reservoirs.

Tank 1300

1. The interior of the tank is concerning. There is a recommendation from the state to rehabilitate this site based on diving footage from an inspection of the interior of the tank and review of the vapor zone. High priority.
a. Project: 10-Year CIP.
b. ACTION: Update POF score to reflect interior condition of the tank.

Capacity Issues - Tanks 510, 770

1. AKEL report found that these two zones have an existing deficiency of insufficient capacity (need storage improvements). Both tanks are 0.25 MG. The current budget is $2.1M. a. ACTION: Tim to review budget with AKEL. The cost should be for a new tank and include rehabilitation of other assets (valve vault, etc.).
b. Project: 10-Year CIP (based on capacity).

2. Vault at 770 that needs to be replaced is not a CIP project in itself.

Kilkare Tanks

1. Fire flow concerns are related to the piping and not the tanks. a. ACTION: Update finding in report.

2. Tanks 1160 and 1600 have no power source and rely on batteries. City would like to have a solar panel project to address lack of power. This is also in the energy recommendations (a wishlist project). a. ACTION: Add to project list in condition assessment report.

McCloud

1. Safety concern. Additionally, have received multiple calls this year regarding concerns about the tank in relation to buying a house in the area.

2. Project: Decommission.

MEETING MINUTES
5 Water Facilities – Booster Stations
Grey Eagle

1. Small service area, antiquated station (was supposed to be temporary), hydropneumatics issues (refer to AKEL report).

2. Site can be decommissioned with CIP project to install a pipeline to Kottinger Ranch and a PRV. a. Project: Decommission.
b. Add footnote to CIP: Grey Eagle is assumed to not need to be rehabilitated; however, if pipeline project does not occur in a timely manner, then rehabilitation of BS will be needed.

Vineyard

1. Supplemental LS only.

2. Need pump capacity improvements at this site to be able to split up the megazone (refer to Appendix I in the AKEL report).
a. Add footnote to CIP: Consider upsizing pump capacity to split Bonde Zone into smaller zones as desired by operations.

3. Project: Full rehabilitation project needed.

Laurel Creek

1. Have had issues with this BS. Needs a new generator and many electrical findings.

2. Project: 10-Year CIP.

Longview

1. BS rehabbed 12 years ago. The reservoir was rehabbed 3-4 years ago.

Foothill

1. Average POF: 3.35.

2. Site does have redundancy (can be fed water from elsewhere). Start of the daisy chain.

3. Project: 10-Year CIP.

Ruby Hills

1. ATS replaced already.
a. ACTION: Update findings.

2. Shed at Upper Ruby Hills Reservoir is an O&M project.

Vineyard Hills

1. The motor control valve vaults were flooded out and are currently not functioning. a. ACTION: Add to condition assessment report.

Kottinger Ranch

1. Average POF: 2.75

2. COF will increase if Grey Eagle is decommissioned. Would like 3 pumps because 2 are needed during peak demand. Not in AKEL report. Pump info used for report may not be correct.

3. As critical as Foothill and Grey Eagle?

4. MCC from the 70s. Ready for CIP.

MEETING MINUTES
6 Other
Generators

1. Need generator project that is supported by project memo. Todd to send so it can be incorporated into the findings. Lots of recommendations (mostly regarding portable generators).

2. Currently renting generators, which has been costly.

3. Non-compliant with permits and insufficient for PSPS (category A in priority). a. ACTION: Add to CIP.

PLC

1. Add footnote to CIP: PLCs should be replaced in facility rehabilitation; however, if not addressed in a timely manner, then a PLC replacement project is needed.

Water Loss

1. Conservation memo. Tim provided the water loss presentation to Todd. City needs to add leak detection program.

Next Steps

1. Prepare updated Water Facility Condition Assessment TM which will include projects discussed in this workshop, and updated costs.

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX D AWIA CONSEQUENCE METRICS TABLE

Asset Name
Financial Losses
to the Utility
Economic
Losses to the
Community
Impacts to the
Environment
Impacts to
Public
Confidence
Impacts to
Water
Quality
Impacts to
Essential Critical
Infrastructure
(non-agency) Fatalities Serious Injuries
Cumulative
Consequence
Score Discussed In Workshop vs. WY Estimate
Example Asset H M L H L L L L 13
Source Water
Turnout 1 L L L L L L L L 8 Discussed In Workshop Turnout 2 L L L L L M L M 10 Discussed In Workshop Turnout 3 M M L M M H L M 15 Discussed In Workshop Turnout 4 H H L H M H L M 18 Discussed In Workshop Turnout 5 H H L H H H L M 19 Discussed In Workshop Turnout 6 H H L H H H L M 19 Discussed In Workshop Turnout 7 H H L H H H L M 19 Discussed In Workshop Well 5 H H L H M H L M 18 Discussed In Workshop Well 6 H H L H M H L M 18 Discussed In Workshop Well 8 H H L H M M L L 16 Discussed In Workshop Finished Water Pump Station Lower Pressure Zone
Canyon Meadows L L L L L L L L 8 Discussed In Workshop Laurel Creek M L L M L L L L 10 Discussed In Workshop Longview M L L M L L L L 10 Discussed In Workshop Foothill 2 L L L M L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop McCloud (Kottinger on hydraulic profile) L L L L L L L L 8 Discussed In Workshop Vineyard M L L L L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop Vineyard Hills M L L M L L L L 10 Discussed In Workshop North Sycamore M L L M L L L L 10 Discussed In Workshop Bonde Pressure Zone Grey Eagle L L L L L L L L 8 Discussed In Workshop Grey Eagle Fire Pump L L L M L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop Kottinger Ranch L L L M L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop Ruby Hill Upper/Lower M L L M L L L L 10 Discussed In Workshop PS 510 L L L M L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop PS 900 L L L M L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop PS 1300 L L L M L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop Storage Reservoirs Lower Pressure Zone Foothill H H L H H H L L 18 Discussed In Workshop Sycamore H H L H H H L L 18 Discussed In Workshop Tassajara (Recycled Water) M L L M L M L L 11 Discussed In Workshop McCloud (Kottinger on hydraulic profile) L L L L L L L L 8 Discussed In Workshop Dublin Canyon (OWN P ZONE) L L L L L L L L 8 Discussed In Workshop Moller 770 Pressure Zone Laurel Creek M L L M L L L L 10 WY EstimateMoller 770 M L L M L L L L 10 WY Estimate Pressure Zone 770
770-1 M L L M L L L L 10 WY Estimate770-2 M L L M L L L L 10 WY Estimate 510 M L L M L L L L 10 WY EstimateBonde Pressure Zone
Bonde-1 M M L M L L L L 11 WY EstimateBonde-2 M M L M L L L L 11 WY EstimateHappy Valley L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateLund M L L M L L L L 10 WY Estimate Kottinger Ranch L L L M L L L L 9 WY Estimate
Consequence Metrics
Potential for: City of Pleasanton
Source: West Yost (2020) Page 1 of 2

Asset Name
Financial Losses
to the Utility
Economic
Losses to the
Community
Impacts to the
Environment
Impacts to
Public
Confidence
Impacts to
Water
Quality
Impacts to
Essential Critical
Infrastructure
(non-agency) Fatalities Serious Injuries
Cumulative
Consequence
Score Discussed In Workshop vs. WY Estimate
Consequence Metrics
Potential for: City of Pleasanton
Lower Ruby Hill M L L M L L L L 10 WY EstimateUpper Ruby Hill M L L M L L L L 10 WY EstimatePressure Reducing Stations Foothill 770 from Lower 770-Madden Station L L L M L L L L 9 Discussed In Workshop Upper Golden Eagle to Mid 770 - North L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateUpper Golden Eagle to Mid 770 - South L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateTwelve Oaks Drive - Deer Oaks from 770 L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateSerenity Terrace L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateMoller Ranch Rd @ EVA L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateKilkare #1 L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateKilkare #2 L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateKilkare #3 L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateJP Station L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateNipper Station L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateGrapevine Drive @ Vineyard L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateEl Capitan Drive @ Vineyard L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimateLaurel Creek to Dublin Canyon Zone L L L M L L L L 9 WY Estimate Finished Water Transmission Main
277 miles 6-in to 27-inT4 at Stone Ridge and Hopyard (~3 miles) M M L M L M L L 12 WY EstimateT5 to Sycamore M M L M M M L L 13 WY EstimateMains associated with turnouts WY EstimateT3 (West Las Pacitas) L L L L L M L L 9 WY EstimateMain up the ridge to Killkare L L L M L L L L 9 WY EstimatePleasanton Canal Crosstown Main (out of T2) L L L L L L L L 8 WY EstimateT7 to Ruby Hill M M L M M M L L 13 WY EstimateCastlewood and Foothill Road (770 Zone) M L L M L L L L 10 WY Estimate Distribution System M M L M M M L L 13 WY EstimateAdmin and Ops Building Operations Service Center (incl main SCADA) H M L H L L L L 13 WY EstimateGenerators H H L H H H L L 18 Per City: to match Foothill tank due to PSPS events
SCADA System H H M H H H L M 20
Per City comments - to match TO#5 plus "M" for impacts to environment Business/IT System H L L H L M L L 13 WY EstimateOrganization/Water System Field/Operations Staff H L L M L L L M 12 WY Estimate

9.37804878 Average
9 Median
82 Total Count37 Count >962 Count >8
Worst Reasonable Consequences: Estimate the worst reasonable consequences resulting from the destruction or loss of each asset, without regard to threat. For each of the assets, determine if the destruction or loss of the asset has a high, medium or low potential to cause the associated consequence. Enter H, M or L in the cooresponding cells. :
1) High - (H) The destruction or loss of this asset has a high likelihood of causing the consequence. Quantitative score: 3. 2) Medium - (M) The destruction or loss of this asset has a medium likelihood of causing the consequence. Quantitative score: 2. 3) Low - (L) The destruction or loss of this asset has a low likelihood of causing the consequence. Quantitative score: 1.4) N/A - (N) This consequence is not applicable to the asset. Quantitative score: 0.

Prioritize the critical assets using the sum of the estimated consequences. The sum of the associated quantitative score can be found in column I. The higher the score, the more critical the asset.

Source: West Yost (2020) Page 2 of 2

WATER FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX E WATER FACILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT

Water Facility 10-Year CIP
CIP Project Asset_Name POF Year Sum of Project Cost
Decommission of Grey Eagle Grey Eagle Booster Station 3-in Butterfly Valve, Pump 1 1 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station 3-in Butterfly Valve, Pump 2 4 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station 6” Pump Control Valve 2 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station 8" Pump Control Valve 2 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station 8-in Check Valve 2 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station Air Compressor 5 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station Air Compressor Control Panel 5 2031 $ 35,490 Grey Eagle Booster Station Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) 4 2031 $ 35,490 Grey Eagle Booster Station Building 2 2031 $ 295,750
Grey Eagle Booster Station Check Valve, Pump 1 1 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station Check Valve, Pump 2 1 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station Control Panel LP-1 3 2031 $ 35,490 Grey Eagle Booster Station Controller/RTU 5 2031 $ 2,958 Grey Eagle Booster Station Exhaust Fan 2 2031 $ 2,958
Grey Eagle Booster Station Flow Meter 3 2031 $ 8,873
Grey Eagle Booster Station Hydropneumatic Tank 2 2031 $ 35,490 Grey Eagle Booster Station Lighting Panel 2 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station Lighting Transformer 5 2031 $ 35,490 Grey Eagle Booster Station MCC-A 4 2031 $ 118,300
Grey Eagle Booster Station Piping 3 2031 $ 8,873
Grey Eagle Booster Station Pump 1 3 2031 $ 88,725
Grey Eagle Booster Station Pump 2 4 2031 $ 88,725
Grey Eagle Booster Station Pump 3 Fire Pump 3 2031 $ 88,725 Grey Eagle Booster Station Site Security 3 2031 $ 35,490 Grey Eagle Booster Station Spare parts: pump, motor, check valve 5 2031 $ 8,873 Grey Eagle Booster Station Switchboard 2 2031 $ 295,750 Decommission of McCloud Tank/PS McCloud Booster Station Building 5 2025 295,750$ McCloud Booster Station Pump 1 5 2025 $ 215,475
McCloud Booster Station Pump 2 5 2025 $ 215,475
McCloud Booster Station Pump 3 5 2025 $ 215,475
McCloud Reservoir Tank 5 2025 $ 295,750
Decommission of Well 5 and 6 Well 5 4 2028 $ 88,725
Well 5 Check Valve 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 5 Dump Control Valve 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 5 Dump Isolation Valve 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 5 Flowmeter 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 5 Pump 3 2028 $ 88,725
Well 5&6 Lighting Panel 4 2028 $ 35,490
Well 5&6 MCC 4 2028 $ 2,958
Well 5&6 Motor Control Center 4 2028 $ 118,300
Well 5&6 PLC Panel 4 2028 $ 118,300
Well 6 4 2028 $ 88,725
Well 6 Check Valve 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 6 Dump Control Valve 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 6 Dump Isolation Valve 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 6 Flowmeter 2 2028 $ 8,873
Well 6 Pump 5 2028 $ 88,725
Decommission of Well 7 Well 7 5 2026 $ 88,725
Well 7 Building 4 2026 $ 295,750
Well 7 Generator Transfer Switch 5 2026 $ 35,490
Well 7 Main Switchboard 5 2026 $ 295,750
Well 7 Portable Generator Connection 5 2026 $ 2,958
Well 7 Pump 5 2026 $ 88,725
Well 7 RTU 5 2026 $ 2,958
Decommission of Well 8 Well 8 5 2032 $ 88,725
Well 8 Ammonia Dosing System Components 3 2032 $ 2,958
Well 8 Ammonia Injection Vault 3 2032 $ 88,725
Well 8 Ammonia Storage Shed 5 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Building 3 2032 $ 295,750
1 of 4

Water Facility 10-Year CIP
CIP Project Asset_Name POF Year Sum of Project Cost
Decommission of Well 8 Well 8 Chlorine Dosing System Components 5 2032 $ 35,490 Well 8 Chlorine Dosing System Shed 5 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Chlorine/Fluoride Injection Vault 3 2032 $ 88,725 Well 8 Dump Control Valve 2 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Dump Isolation Valve 2 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Flow Meter 1 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Flow Switch 1 3 2032 $ 2,958
Well 8 Flow Switch 2 3 2032 $ 2,958
Well 8 Fluoride Analyzer 1 2 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Fluoride Analyzer 2 4 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Fluoride Dosing System Components 4 2032 $ 35,490 Well 8 Free Chlorine Analyzer 2 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Generator Hookup 3 2032 $ 2,958
Well 8 PLC Panel 4 2032 $ 118,300
Well 8 Pressure Transducer 2 2032 $ 2,958
Well 8 Pump 1 2032 $ 88,725
Well 8 Pump Check Valve 2 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Pump Pressure Switch High 3 2032 $ 2,958
Well 8 Pump Pressure Switch Low 3 2032 $ 2,958
Well 8 Pump VFD 2 2032 $ 35,490
Well 8 Switchboard 4 2032 $ 295,750
Well 8 Total Chlorine Analyzer 2 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Water Circulation Shed 1 2032 $ 8,873
Well 8 Water Circulation System Components 2 2032 $ 35,490 Rehabilitation of Foothill Pump
Station Foothill Booster Station Diesel Fuel Tank 3 2026 86,190$ Foothill Booster Station Electric Sump Pump 5 2026 $ -
Foothill Booster Station Flow Meter 4 2026 $ -
Foothill Booster Station Generator Transfer Switch (000719) 4 2026 $ 86,190 Foothill Booster Station Lighting Panel (LP-1) 3 2026 $ 21,548 Foothill Booster Station Lighting Transformer 3 2026 $ 86,190 Foothill Booster Station MCC 4 2026 $ 287,300
Foothill Booster Station Pressure Switch 4 2026 $ 7,183 3 2026 $ 7,183
Foothill Booster Station Pressure Transmitter 1 4 2026 $ 7,183 Foothill Booster Station Pressure Transmitter 2 4 2026 $ 7,183 Foothill Booster Station Pump 1 2 2026 $ 215,475
Foothill Booster Station Pump 2 2 2026 $ 215,475
Foothill Booster Station Pump 3 5 2026 $ 88,725
Foothill Booster Station Pump 4 5 2026 $ 88,725
Foothill Booster Station RTU 7 1 2026 $ 7,183
Foothill Booster Station Site Security 3 2026 $ 86,190
Foothill Booster Station Surge Anticipator Valve 2 2026 $ 21,548 Rehabilitation of Kottinger Ranch
Pump Station Kottinger Ranch Booster Station ARVs 1 2028 7,183$ Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Butterfly Valves 2 2028 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Control Valve, Pump 1 2 2028 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Control Valve, Pump 2 2 2028 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Crane/Hoist 2 2028 $ 86,190 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Diesel Engine 5 2028 $ 35,490 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Exhaust Fan 3 2028 $ 7,183 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Exterior 10" Butterfly Valve 3 2028 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Exterior Piping 3 2028 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Flow Meter 1 2028 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Lighting Panel 4 2028 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Lighting Transformer 4 2028 $ 86,190 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station MCC 4 2028 $ 287,300
Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Pressure Transmitter 3 2028 $ 7,183 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Pump 1 3 2028 $ 215,475 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Pump 2 4 2028 $ -
2 of 4

Water Facility 10-Year CIP
CIP Project Asset_Name POF Year Sum of Project Cost
Rehabilitation of Kottinger Ranch Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Site Security 3 2028 $ - Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Sump Pump 5 2028 $ 7,183 Kottinger Ranch Booster Station Switchboard 5 2028 $ 718,250 Kottinger Ranch PLC 3 2028 $ 287,300
Kottinger Ranch Pump Station RTU 1 2028 $ 7,183
Rehabilitation of Laurel Creek Pump
Station Laurel Creek Booster Station Diesel Fuel Tank 4 2029 $ 86,190 Laurel Creek Booster Station Flow Meter 2 2029 $ 21,548 Laurel Creek Booster Station Pump 1 2 2029 $ 215,475
Laurel Creek Booster Station Pump 1 Cla-Val 2 2029 $ 57,460 Laurel Creek Booster Station Pump 2 2 2029 $ 215,475
Laurel Creek Booster Station Pump 2 Cla-Val 2 2029 $ 57,460 Laurel Creek Booster Station Pump 3 2 2029 $ 215,475
Laurel Creek Booster Station Pump 3 Cla-Val 2 2029 $ 57,460 Laurel Creek Booster Station RTU 3 2029 $ 7,183
Laurel Creek Booster Station Site Security 2 2029 $ 7,183 Laurel Creek Booster Station Surge Anticipator 2 2029 $ 21,548 Laurel Creek Booster Station Switchboard 3 2029 $ 718,250 Rehabilitation of Ruby Hill Pump
Station Ruby Hills Booster Station Chemical Injection Control Panel 5 2029 $ 86,190 Ruby Hills Booster Station Cla-Val 3 3 2029 $ 57,460
Ruby Hills Booster Station Cla-Val 4 3 2029 $ 57,460
Ruby Hills Booster Station Cla-Val 5 3 2029 $ 57,460
Ruby Hills Booster Station Crane 3 2029 $ 86,190
Ruby Hills Booster Station Electrical Panel Board 3 2029 $ 21,548 Ruby Hills Booster Station Fan Control Panel 2 2029 $ 86,190 Ruby Hills Booster Station Generator Transfer Switch 3 2029 $ - Ruby Hills Booster Station Main Circuit Breaker 5 2029 $ 21,548 Ruby Hills Booster Station MCC 3 2029 $ 287,300
Ruby Hills Booster Station PLC 4 2029 $ 287,300
Ruby Hills Booster Station Pump 1 2 2029 $ 88,725
Ruby Hills Booster Station Pump 2 5 2029 $ 215,475
Ruby Hills Booster Station Pump 3 2 2029 $ 215,475
Ruby Hills Booster Station Pump 4 2 2029 $ 215,475
Ruby Hills Booster Station Pump 5 2 2029 $ 215,475
Ruby Hills Booster Station RTU 4 2029 $ 7,183
Ruby Hills Booster Station VFD Control Panel 5 2029 $ 35,490 Rehabilitation of Tank 1300 Tank 1300 4 2025 $ 718,250
Tank 1300 Booster Station Building 2 2025 $ 718,250
Tank 1300 Booster Station Generator Docking Station 3 2025 $ 7,183 Tank 1300 Booster Station Main Service Panel 1 2025 $ 21,548 Tank 1300 Booster Station MCC 13 2 2025 $ 287,300
Tank 1300 Booster Station Pump 1 2 2025 $ 215,475
Tank 1300 Booster Station Pump 1 Cla-Val 2 2025 $ 57,460 Tank 1300 Booster Station Pump 2 1 2025 $ 215,475
Tank 1300 Booster Station Pump 2 Cla-Val 2 2025 $ 57,460 Tank 1300 Booster Station Recirculation Pump 2 2025 $ 215,475 Tank 1300 Booster Station RTU 13 2 2025 $ 7,183
Tank 1300 Booster Station Surge Anticipator 2 2025 $ 21,548 Rehabilitation of Tanks Placeholder Tank Rehabilitation Placeholder 5 2030 2,873,000 $ Rehabilitation of Vineyard Pump
Station Vineyard Booster Station 10" Control Valve 1 2 2027 $ - Vineyard Booster Station 10" Control Valve 2 2 2027 $ 21,548 Vineyard Booster Station Automatic Transfer Switch 3 2027 $ 86,190 Vineyard Booster Station Butterfly Valve 1 2 2027 $ 21,548 Vineyard Booster Station Butterfly Valve 2 2 2027 $ 21,548 Vineyard Booster Station Butterfly Valve 3 2 2027 $ 21,548 Vineyard Booster Station Butterfly Valve 4 2 2027 $ 21,548 Vineyard Booster Station Butterfly Valve 5 2 2027 $ 21,548 3 of 4

Water Facility 10-Year CIP
CIP Project Asset_Name POF Year Sum of Project Cost
Rehabilitation of Vineyard Pump Vineyard Booster Station Exhaust fan 3 2027 $ 7,183 Vineyard Booster Station Flow Meter 2 2027 $ 21,548
Vineyard Booster Station Lighting Panel 5 2027 $ 21,548 Vineyard Booster Station Lighting Transformer 4 2027 $ 86,190 Vineyard Booster Station MCC 5 2027 $ 287,300
Vineyard Booster Station PLC 5 2027 $ 287,300
Vineyard Booster Station Pump 1 5 2027 $ 215,475
Vineyard Booster Station Pump 1 ARV 2 2027 $ 7,183
Vineyard Booster Station Pump 2 5 2027 $ 215,475
Vineyard Booster Station Pump 2 ARV 2 2027 $ 7,183
Vineyard Booster Station RTU 5 2027 $ 7,183
Vineyard Booster Station Service Switchboard 3 2027 $ 718,250 Vineyard Booster Station Sump Piping 3 2027 $ 21,548
Vineyard Booster Station Sump Pump 4 2027 $ 7,183
Tank Inspection Bonde I Tank 3 2027 $ 84,500
Bonde II Tank 4 2027 $ 84,500
Dublin Canyon Reservoir Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
Foothill Reservoir Tank 3 2027 $ 84,500
Happy Valley Reservoir Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
Kottinger Ranch Reservoir Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
Laurel Creek Reservoir Tank 1 2027 $ 84,500
Lower Ruby Hills Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
Lund Reservoir Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
Moller Ranch Reservoir Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
Sycamore Reservoir Tank 3 2027 $ 84,500
Tank 1160 2 2027 $ 84,500
Tank 1600 2 2027 $ 84,500
Tank 510 2 2027 $ 84,500
Tank 770 I 3 2027 $ 84,500
Tank 770 II 2 2027 $ 84,500
Tank 900 2 2027 $ 84,500
Upper Ruby Hills Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
Vineyard Hills Reservoir Tank 2 2027 $ 84,500
4 of 4

WATER FACILITY CONDITION
ASSESSMENT AND 10-YEAR CIP
OCTOBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX F WATER FACILITY OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE FORECAST

Water Facility 10-Year O and M
CIP Project Asset_Name Asset_ID POF Year Sum of Project Cost Booster Station O&M Dublin Canyon Booster Station Building BS-DC-01 2 2045 $ 718,250 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Crane 2 Ton BS-DC-18 2 2034 $ 86,190 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Flow Meter BS-DC-05 1 2032 $ 21,548 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Generator BS-DC-06 5 2026 $ 7,183 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Hydropneumatic Tank BS-DC-07 5 2028 $ 35,490 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Lighting Panel BS-DC-08 3 2027 $ 21,548 Dublin Canyon Booster Station LP-1 Transformer BS-DC-09 4 2024 $ 86,190 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Main Switchboard BS-DC-10 3 2028 $ 718,250 Dublin Canyon Booster Station MCC-A BS-DC-11 2 2034 $ 287,300 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Pressure Transmitters BS-DC-12 1 2033 $ 7,183 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Pump 1 BS-DC-02 2 2038 $ 215,475 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Pump 1 Cla-Val BS-DC-13 1 2034 $ 57,460 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Pump 2 BS-DC-03 2 2032 $ 215,475 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Pump 2 Cla-Val BS-DC-14 1 2034 $ 57,460 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Pump 3 BS-DC-04 5 2026 $ 88,725 Dublin Canyon Booster Station RTU 15 BS-DC-15 3 2026 $ 7,183 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Surge Anticipator BS-DC-16 3 2026 $ 21,548 Dublin Canyon Booster Station Transfer Switch BS-DC-17 5 2024 $ 86,190 Dublin Canyon Site Security BS-DC-19 3 2028 $ 7,183
Longview Booster Station Control Valve 1 BS-LV-02 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Control Valve 2 BS-LV-03 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Control Valve 3 BS-LV-04 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Discharge Piping BS-LV-09 3 2033 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Exhaust Fans BS-LV-21 2 2029 $ 7,183 Longview Booster Station Flow Meter BS-LV-15 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Gate Valve 1 BS-LV-17 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Gate Valve 2 W_BS_LV-24 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Gate Valve 3 W_BS_LV-23 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Lighting Panel BS-LV-16 2 2029 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Lighting Transformer BS-LV-22 3 2030 $ 86,190 Longview Booster Station MCC BS-LV-11 2 2033 $ 287,300
Longview Booster Station Power Panel BS-LV-20 2 2029 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Pump 1 BS-LV-12 3 2027 $ 215,475 Longview Booster Station Pump 2 BS-LV-13 3 2031 $ 215,475 Longview Booster Station Pump 3 BS-LV-14 3 2031 $ 215,475 Longview Booster Station RTU BS-LV-18 3 2025 $ 7,183
Longview Booster Station Service Entrance SwitchboardBS-LV-07 3 2027 $ 718,250 Longview Booster Station Site Security BS-LV-01 3 2027 $ 86,190 Longview Booster Station Surge Valve BS-LV-05 2 2027 $ 21,548 Longview Booster Station Temporary Bypass Pump StationBS-LV-06 4 2027 $ 88,725 Sycamore Booster Station Building BS-S-01 2 2045 $ 718,250 Sycamore Booster Station Check Valve BS-S-06 3 2026 $ 21,548 Sycamore Booster Station Chlorine Injection Vault BS-S-07 2 2045 $ 215,475 Sycamore Booster Station Cla-Val 1 BS-S-08 2 2028 $ 57,460 Sycamore Booster Station Cla-Val 2 BS-S-09 2 2028 $ 57,460 Sycamore Booster Station Cla-Val 3 BS-S-10 2 2028 $ 57,460 Sycamore Booster Station Control Valve Vault BS-S-14 2 2045 $ 215,475 Sycamore Booster Station Flow Meter BS-S-11 2 2028 $ 21,548 Sycamore Booster Station Flowmeter Vault BS-S-15 2 2045 $ 215,475 Sycamore Booster Station Pressure Transmitter BS-S-12 1 2032 $ 7,183 Sycamore Booster Station Pump 1 BS-S-02 2 2032 $ 215,475 Sycamore Booster Station Pump 2 BS-S-03 2 2032 $ 215,475 Sycamore Booster Station Pump 3 BS-S-04 2 2032 $ 215,475 Sycamore Booster Station Surge Valve BS-S-13 2 2028 $ 21,548 Tank 900 Booster Station Building BS-T900-02 2 2045 $ 718,250 Tank 900 Booster Station MCC 9 BS-T900-01 2 2036 $ 287,300 Tank 900 Booster Station MSB 9 BS-T900-05 1 2038 $ 718,250 Tank 900 Booster Station Portable Generator Docking Station BS-T900-06 3 2029 $ 7,183 Tank 900 Booster Station Pump 1 BS-T900-03 2 2032 $ 215,475 Tank 900 Booster Station Pump 1 Cla-Val BS-T900-07 2 2028 $ 57,460 Tank 900 Booster Station Pump 2 BS-T900-04 2 2032 $ 215,475 Tank 900 Booster Station Pump 2 Cla-Val BS-T900-08 2 2028 $ 57,460 Tank 900 Booster Station RTU 9 BS-T900-09 1 2032 $ 7,183 Tank 900 Booster Station Surge Anticipator BS-T900-10 2 2028 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Building BS-VH-02 2 2045 $ 718,250 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Cla-Val 1 BS-VH-07 3 2026 $ 57,460 1 of 4

Water Facility 10-Year O and M
CIP Project Asset_Name Asset_ID POF Year Sum of Project Cost Booster Station O&M Vineyard Hills Booster Station Cla-Val 2 BS-VH-08 3 2026 $ 57,460 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Cla-Val 3 BS-VH-09 3 2026 $ 57,460 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Diesel Fuel Tank BS-VH-10 2 2041 $ 86,190 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Flowmeter Vault BS-VH-11 2 2045 $ 215,475 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Fuel Oil Day Tank BS-VH-12 5 2028 $ - Vineyard Hills Booster Station MCC BS-VH-01 1 2041 $ 287,300 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Meter for Ruby Hills BS-VH-14 3 2026 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Meter for Vineyard Hills Reservoir BS-VH-15 3 2026 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Pump 1 BS-VH-04 2 2032 $ 215,475 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Pump 2 BS-VH-05 2 2032 $ 215,475 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Pump 3 BS-VH-06 2 2032 $ 215,475 Vineyard Hills Booster Station RTU BS-VH-16 2 2028 $ 7,183 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Site Security BS-VH-17 2 2032 $ - Vineyard Hills Booster Station Surge Anticipator BS-VH-18 3 2026 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Booster Station Valve Vault BS-VH-19 2 2045 $ 215,475 Reservoir O&M Bonde I 10" Altitude Valve Res-B I-01 5 2024 $ 21,548 Bonde I Air and Vacuum Valve Assembly Res-B I-02 5 2024 $ 21,548 Bonde I Bypass Valve (10" Butterfly Valve) Res-B I-04 5 2024 $ 21,548 Bonde I Control Panel Res-B I-11 2 2029 $ 86,190
Bonde I Main In-Outlet Valve Vault Res-B I-05 2 2044 $ 215,475 Bonde I Main Power Panel Res-B I-15 2 2029 $ 21,548
Bonde I PLC & Relays Res-B I-12 1 2031 $ 287,300
Bonde I Pressure Transmitter Res-B I-13 2 2028 $ 7,183
Bonde I RTU & Main Radio Repeater Res-B I-08 1 2031 $ 7,183 Bonde I Shutoff Valve 1 (10" Butterfly Valve) Res-B I-06 5 2024 $ 21,548 Bonde I Shutoff Valve 2 (10" Butterfly Valve) Res-B I-07 5 2024 $ 21,548 Bonde I Site Security Res-B I-10 1 2044 $ -
Bonde I Tank Overflow Pipe Res-B I-09 3 2033 $ -
Bonde II 12" Altitude Valve Res-B II-01 2 2027 $ 21,548 Bonde II 12" Check Valve Res-B II-02 2 2027 $ 21,548
Bonde II Air and Vacuum Relief Valve Res-B II-03 2 2027 $ 21,548 Bonde II Metering and Service Disconnect Panel Res-B II-05 5 2024 $ 86,190 Bonde II Pressure Transmitter Res-B II-06 3 2025 $ 7,183 Bonde II Site Security Res-B II-07 3 2027 $ 86,190
Bonde II Tank RTU Panel Res-B II-08 3 2026 $ 86,190
Bonde II Valve Vault Res-B II-09 3 2043 $ 215,475
Dublin Canyon Reservoir Check Valve Res-DC-01 4 2025 $ 21,548 Dublin Canyon Reservoir Globe Valve Res-DC-02 4 2025 $ 21,548 Dublin Canyon Reservoir Main Panel Res-DC-03 5 2025 $ 21,548 Dublin Canyon Reservoir RTU Res-DC-04 5 2025 $ 7,183
Dublin Canyon Reservoir Vault Res-DC-06 2 2045 $ 215,475 Foothill Reservoir Intrusion Level Switch Res-F-09 2 2033 $ 7,183 Foothill Reservoir Level Switch Res-F-02 2 2033 $ 7,183 Foothill Reservoir Road Res-F-05 3 2028 $ 21,548
Foothill Reservoir Site Security Res-F-15 4 2025 $ 86,190 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault Res-F-06 3 2042 $ 215,475 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault 16" BV No. 1 Res-F-10 3 2025 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault 16" BV No. 2 Res-F-11 3 2025 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault 16" BV No. 3 Res-F-12 3 2025 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault 16" BV No. 4 Res-F-13 3 2025 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault 16" BV No. 5 Res-F-14 3 2025 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault 16” Check Valve No. 1 Res-F-07 2 2027 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Valve Vault 16” Check Valve No. 2 Res-F-08 2 2027 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Vault Actuator Res-F-03 1 2031 $ 21,548 Foothill Reservoir Vault Pressure Transmitter Res-F-04 2 2027 $ 7,183 Happy Valley Reservoir Altitude Valve Res-HV-02 2 2028 $ 21,548 Happy Valley Reservoir Check Valve Res-HV-03 2 2028 $ 21,548 Happy Valley Reservoir Main Electrical Panel Res-HV-04 2 2030 $ 21,548 Happy Valley Reservoir Retention Wall and Drainage Res-HV-05 2 2032 $ 21,548 Happy Valley Reservoir RTU Res-HV-06 3 2026 $ 7,183
Happy Valley Reservoir Site Security Res-HV-07 2 2032 $ 86,190 Happy Valley Reservoir Valve Vault Res-HV-08 2 2045 $ 215,475 Kottinger Ranch Reservoir Altitude Valve Res-KR-02 3 2026 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Reservoir Cathodic Protection Res-KR-03 3 2029 $ - Kottinger Ranch Reservoir Check Valve Res-KR-04 3 2026 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Reservoir Main Electrical Panel Res-KR-05 1 2035 $ 21,548 Kottinger Ranch Reservoir RTU Res-KR-06 1 2035 $ 7,183
2 of 4

Water Facility 10-Year O and M
CIP Project Asset_Name Asset_ID POF Year Sum of Project Cost Reservoir O&M Kottinger Ranch Reservoir Site Security Res-KR-07 2 2032 $ 86,190 Kottinger Ranch Reservoir Vault Res-KR-08 2 2045 $ 215,475 Laurel Creek Booster Station Check Valve Res-LC-01 3 2026 $ 21,548 Laurel Creek Booster Station Globe Valve Res-LC-02 2 2028 $ 21,548 Laurel Creek Reservoir Main Service Panel Res-LC-03 3 2027 $ 21,548 Laurel Creek Reservoir PLC Res-LC-04 3 2026 $ 287,300
Laurel Creek Reservoir RTU Res-LC-05 3 2026 $ 7,183
Laurel Creek Reservoir Site Security Res-LC-07 2 2032 $ 86,190 Laurel Creek Reservoir Vault Res-LC-08 2 2045 $ 215,475 Lower Ruby Hills Altitude Valve Res-LRH-02 3 2026 $ 21,548 Lower Ruby Hills Control Panel - RTU and Breakers Res-LRH-03 4 2025 $ 86,190 Lower Ruby Hills Enclosure for Elec Panel Res-LRH-04 5 2026 $ 8,873 Lower Ruby Hills Site Security Res-LRH-05 2 2032 $ 86,190 Lower Ruby Hills Sump Pump Res-LRH-06 5 2024 $ 7,183
Lower Ruby Hills Tank Check Valve Res-LRH-07 3 2026 $ 21,548 Lower Ruby Hills UPS, Tank Level Sensors Res-LRH-08 5 2025 $ 86,190 Lower Ruby Hills Vault Res-LRH-09 2 2045 $ 215,475
Lund Reservoir Altitude Valve Res-L-02 3 2026 $ 21,548
Lund Reservoir Cathodic Protection Res-L-03 2 2034 $ -
Lund Reservoir Check Valve Res-L-04 2 2028 $ 21,548
Lund Reservoir Irrigation Booster Pump Res-L-05 5 2026 $ 215,475 Lund Reservoir Main Service Panel Res-L-06 2 2030 $ 21,548 Lund Reservoir RTU Res-L-07 3 2026 $ 7,183
Lund Reservoir Site Security Res-L-08 2 2032 $ 86,190
Lund Reservoir Valve Vault Res-L-09 2 2059 $ 215,475
Lund Reservoir Vault Res-L-10 2 2045 $ 215,475
Moller Ranch Reservoir Check Valve Res-MR-01 3 2026 $ 21,548 Moller Ranch Reservoir Globe Valve Res-MR-02 2 2028 $ 21,548 Moller Ranch Reservoir Main Service Panel Res-MR-03 4 2025 $ 21,548 Moller Ranch Reservoir RTU Res-MR-05 3 2026 $ 7,183
Moller Ranch Reservoir Site Security Res-MR-06 2 2032 $ 86,190 Moller Ranch Reservoir Vault Res-MR-07 3 2036 $ 215,475 Sycamore Reservoir Control Panel Res-S-12 3 2026 $ 86,190 Sycamore Reservoir Leak Detection Vault Res-S-03 1 2079 $ 215,475 Sycamore Reservoir MCC Res-S-04 4 2025 $ 118,300
Sycamore Reservoir PAX Mixer Res-S-01 1 2039 $ 21,548
Sycamore Reservoir PG&E Transformer Res-S-05 1 2043 $ 86,190 Sycamore Reservoir PLC Res-S-09 1 2033 $ 287,300
Sycamore Reservoir Power Panel Res-S-08 5 2024 $ 21,548 Sycamore Reservoir Pressure Transmitter Res-S-15 5 2024 $ 7,183 Sycamore Reservoir RTU Res-S-13 1 2033 $ 7,183
Sycamore Reservoir Site Security Res-S-07 1 2037 $ 86,190 Sycamore Reservoir Submersible Pump Res-S-06 1 2044 $ 215,475 Sycamore Reservoir Valve Vault Fan Res-S-14 5 2024 $ -
Sycamore Reservoir Valve Vault Sump Pump 1 Res-S-10 5 2024 $ 7,183 Sycamore Reservoir Valve Vault Sump Pump 2 Res-S-11 5 2024 $ 7,183 Tank 1160 RTU Panel Res-T1160-02 2 2028 $ 7,183
Tank 1160 Vault Res-T1160-03 3 2036 $ 215,475
Tank 1600 RTU Res-T1600-03 2 2028 $ 7,183
Tank 900 MCC-9 Res-T900-02 1 2041 $ 287,300
Tank 900 MSB-9 Res-T900-03 2 2032 $ 718,250
Tank 900 RTU Res-T900-04 1 2032 $ 7,183
Upper Ruby Hill Vault Res-URH-02 2 2045 $ 215,475
Upper Ruby Hills Altitude Valve Res-URH-03 2 2028 $ 21,548 Upper Ruby Hills Check Valve Res-URH-04 1 2032 $ 21,548 Upper Ruby Hills Main Circuit Breaker, UPS Res-URH-05 5 2025 $ 21,548 Upper Ruby Hills PLC Res-URH-06 5 2025 $ 287,300
Upper Ruby Hills Reservoir Butterfly Valve 1 Res-URH-07 2 2028 $ 21,548 Upper Ruby Hills Reservoir Butterfly Valve 2 Res-URH-08 2 2028 $ 21,548 Upper Ruby Hills Site Security Res-URH-09 1 2046 $ -
Vineyard Hills Reservoir Altitude Valve Res-VH-02 2 2028 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Check Valve Res-VH-03 2 2028 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Drain Valve Res-VH-04 1 2032 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Drainage Res-VH-11 2 2032 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Inlet Butterfly Valve Res-VH-05 1 2032 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Main Service Panel Res-VH-06 3 2027 $ 21,548 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Outlet Butterfly Valve Res-VH-07 1 2032 $ 21,548 3 of 4

Water Facility 10-Year O and M
CIP Project Asset_Name Asset_ID POF Year Sum of Project Cost Reservoir O&M Vineyard Hills Reservoir RTU Res-VH-08 3 2026 $ 7,183 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Site Security Res-VH-09 2 2032 $ 86,190 Vineyard Hills Reservoir Vault Res-VH-10 2 2045 $ 215,475 Tank 1160 Battery W_Res_T1160-04 5 2024 $ 21,548
Tank 1600 Battery W_Res_T1600-04 5 2024 $ 21,548
Turnout O&M Turnout 2 14" Butterfly Valve Turnout-T2-03 5 2025 $ 21,548 Turnout 2 16" Butterfly Valve Turnout-T2-02 5 2025 $ 21,548 Turnout 2 16" Plug Valve with Electric Motor Operator Turnout-T2-04 2 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 2 20" Butterfly Valve Turnout-T2-05 5 2025 $ 21,548 Turnout 2 Acid Building Turnout-T2-01 4 2030 $ 718,250
Turnout 2 Electrical Meter Box Turnout-T2-06 4 2025 $ 7,183 Turnout 2 Electrical Panel Turnout-T2-07 5 2025 $ 21,548 Turnout 2 Exhaust Fan Turnout-T2-08 3 2027 $ 7,183
Turnout 2 Flow Meter Turnout-T2-09 2 2028 $ 21,548
Turnout 2 Fluoride Analyzer Turnout-T2-10 2 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 2 Free Chlorine Analyzer Turnout-T2-11 2 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 2 Metering Pump Turnout-T2-12 2 2027 $ 7,183
Turnout 2 RTU Turnout-T2-13 2 2028 $ 7,183
Turnout 2 Total Chlorine Analyzer Turnout-T2-14 2 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 3 Building Turnout-T3-03 3 2035 $ 718,250
Turnout 3 Fluoridation Vault Turnout-T3-02 3 2035 $ 215,475 Turnout 3 Fluorosilic Acid Tank Turnout-T3-06 3 2033 $ 86,190 Turnout 3 Lighting Panel Turnout-T3-04 3 2026 $ 21,548
Turnout 3 Metering Pump Turnout-T3-01 3 2024 $ 7,183
Turnout 3 RTU Turnout-T3-05 2 2027 $ 7,183
Turnout 5 Field Instrument IO Terminal Box Turnout-T5-15 2 2030 $ 7,183 Turnout 5 Flow Meter Turnout-T5-06 2 2028 $ 21,548
Turnout 5 Fluoride Analyzer Turnout-T5-07 3 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 5 Fluoride Pump House Turnout-T5-02 2 2045 $ 718,250 Turnout 5 Free Chlorine Analyzer Turnout-T5-08 3 2026 $ 21,548 Turnout 5 Lighting Panel Turnout-T5-09 5 2025 $ 21,548
Turnout 5 Line Valve Vault Turnout-T5-04 2 2045 $ 215,475 Turnout 5 Metering Pump Turnout-T5-10 3 2025 $ 7,183
Turnout 5 PG&E Transformer Turnout-T5-03 5 2027 $ 86,190 Turnout 5 Rate Control Station Vault Turnout-T5-05 2 2045 $ 215,475 Turnout 5 RTU Turnout-T5-11 3 2026 $ 7,183
Turnout 5 Site Security Turnout-T5-12 3 2028 $ 86,190
Turnout 5 Total Chlorine Analyzer Turnout-T5-13 3 2026 $ 21,548 Turnout 5 Valve Turnout-T5-01 2 2028 $ 21,548
Turnout 5 Valve Actuator Turnout-T5-16 2 2028 $ 21,548
Turnout 5 Zone 7 PLC Turnout-T5-14 2 2028 $ 287,300
Turnout 6 10" Butterfly Valve Turnout-T6-02 2 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 6 10" Swing Check Valve Turnout-T6-04 2 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 6 Flourosilic Acid Tank Turnout-T6-12 2 2041 $ 86,190 Turnout 6 Flow Meter Turnout-T6-03 3 2026 $ 21,548
Turnout 6 Fluoride Analyzer Turnout-T6-06 3 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 6 Fluoride Injection Pump Control Panel Turnout-T6-07 2 2030 $ 86,190 Turnout 6 Free Chlorine Analyzer Turnout-T6-09 3 2026 $ 21,548 Turnout 6 Metering Pump Turnout-T6-08 3 2025 $ 7,183
Turnout 6 Sump Pump Turnout-T6-05 2 2027 $ 7,183
Turnout 6 Valve Turnout-T6-01 5 2025 $ 21,548
Turnout 6 Vault Turnout-T6-10 2 2045 $ 215,475
Turnout 6 Zone 7 PLC/RTU Turnout-T6-11 2 2028 $ 7,183
Turnout 7 Check Valve Turnout-T7-02 2 2028 $ 21,548
Turnout 7 Detector Check Valve Turnout-T7-03 2 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 7 Flow Meter Turnout-T7-04 1 2032 $ 21,548
Turnout 7 Fluoride Analyzer Turnout-T7-05 3 2028 $ 21,548 Turnout 7 Fluoride Metering Pump Turnout-T7-06 3 2025 $ 7,183 Turnout 7 Free Chlorine Analyzer Turnout-T7-07 3 2026 $ 21,548 Turnout 7 Plug Valve Turnout-T7-08 1 2032 $ 21,548
Turnout 7 Pressure Transmitter Turnout-T7-09 2 2028 $ 7,183 Turnout 7 Strainer Turnout-T7-01 2 2028 $ 21,548
Turnout 7 Total Chlorine Analyzer Turnout-T7-10 3 2026 $ 21,548 Turnout 7 Valve Actuator Turnout-T7-11 2 2028 $ 21,548
Turnout 7 Zone 7 PLC Turnout-T7-13 2 2028 $ 287,300
4 of 4

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX E O&M EVALUATION MEMO

Water System Management Plan

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Operations, Maintenance and
Management of the Water Distribution
System
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 ReviewOperationsandMaintenanceDistributionSystem Contents
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 4
SECTION 2 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 4
SECTION 3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 6

3.1 Valve Exercising, Main Flushing and Hydrant Maintenance 6

3.2 Potable Water Storage Tank Inspections 7

3.3 Preventative Maintenance Program (CMSS) 8

3.4 Residential and Commercial Meter Calibration Program 8

3.5 Energy Management Program 9

3.6 Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Program 9
SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10
SECTION 5 REFERENCES 11
Appendices

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B FIGURES
Figure 1 City of Pleasanton Distribution System 5
Figure 2 Examples of Unidirectional Flushing Zones 7
Figure 3 Flushing Velocities for Water Mains 8
Figure 4 Foothill Water Storage Tank

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN ii
Abbreviations
AL action level
AWIA
AWWA
American Water Infrastructure Ace
American Water Works Association
Carollo Carollo Engineers
CCL Contaminant Candidate List
CCR Consumer Confident Reports
CCT corrosion control treatment
CFU colony forming units
City
CMMS
City of Pleasanton
Computerized Maintenance Management System
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 line
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)
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 iii

RRA
SCADA
running annual average
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
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 4
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Pleasanton (City) is in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area region, south of Interstate 580, and west of Interstate 680 in Alameda County. The City owns and operates a potable water distribution system that serves approximately 80,000 residential customers as well as commercial and industrial users within its city limits. The City staff recognizes the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the current operations and management of the water system and selected Carollo Engineers (Carollo) to perform an assessment of the water system program. The evaluation not only includes a review of the operations of the water system, but also the City’s ability to deliver potable water to customers at an adequate supply and pressure, implement capital improvement programs, communicate with internal and external stakeholder groups, finance existing and future operations and capital improvement projects, and predict and analyze the risks from existing and future regulatory drivers.

This technical memorandum reviews current operations, maintenance and management of the City’s water distribution system. The memo reviews current practices using industry standards and includes recommendations to improve water distribution maintenance and water quality.

SECTION 2 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The City of Pleasanton receives treated water from Zone 7 and treats its own groundwater wells operated by City staff. The sources of supply are included in Error! Reference source not found.. 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, the City owned wells, the storage tanks, and key distribution sample locations.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 5
The City of Pleasanton has 22, 369 water connections and ____ miles of pipeline ranging in size from 6 inch to ____ inch water mains.

Figure 1 City of Pleasanton Distribution System

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 6
SECTION 3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
This section focuses on a non-regulatory potable drinking water system using best practices and current levels of maintenance. A note of some of these maintenance activities are reported in the City’s annual report to the State Water Resources Control Board Department of Health Services.

3.1 Valve Exercising, Main Flushing and Hydrant Maintenance Per the City’s revised water supply permit approved by the Department of Health services dated October 1997, “The City of Pleasanton shall conduct a program of regular valve exercise and maintenance to ensure the reliability of the distribution system. The City of Pleasanton shall conduct a program of regular distribution system flushing to maintain the quality of water delivered to the distribution system.”
An annual unidirectional distribution system flushing is performed to maintain water quality by scouring pipes surfaces to remove loose sediment, biofilm and scale. Unidirectional flushing is a planned, organized, sequential technique that begins from a clean starting point moving which minimizes the spread of sediment and higher velocity flow. Flushing will lower disinfectant demand, heterotrophic bacterial counts and concentrations of disinfection byproducts.

Figure 2. Examples of Unidirectional Flushing Program Zones To minimize water quality complaints and optimize staffing, water distribution valve exercising, unidirectional flushing and hydrant maintenance activities are often completed simultaneously.

Public notices are provided prior to flushing as sediment and color complaints are common. On-site dechlorination is required and storm drain maintenance crews should be notified prior to starting.

GIS based hydraulic mapping software programs are available to develop scheduled distribution system maintenance and provide detailed mapping for field use.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 7
Water main flushing programs consist of closing system valves and directing flows to obtain minimum of 2.5 ft/sec velocities, or greater and minimum flows per Figure 2. Hydrants can be inspected for flow and mechanical issues at time of flushing. Distribution system flushing is accomplished during low water demand months due to the amount of water required.

Figure 3 Minimum Flushing Velocities for Water Mains
The City GIS contains valve, water main and hydrant locations. The GIS system is a key for developing a unidirectional flushing plan and should be updated annually. The City is currently flushing dead ends on a needed basis to prohibit nitrification. The key to a valve exercising, hydrant maintenance, and flushing plan is a goal. The goal must be manageable given staffing levels and the size of distribution system. The program sets a goal for the number of transmission valves/hydrants to be exercised based on the percentage of total valves/hydrants in the system. The entire system flushing plan could take years to complete due to seasonal capacity restraints. The capital improvement plan (CIP) includes annual valve repair and replacement funding for valves/hydrants identified during the flushing program.

3.2 Potable Water Storage Tank Inspections
American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends dewatering, diving or Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) tank inspections every five (5) years. Tanks should be cleaned a minimum of every 5 years or as inspection dictates. Steel tank coating inspection results are evaluated against the current coating system design parameters per AWWA D102-21 to determine the lifespan of the coating. Annual tank inspections include a full external visual inspection seasonally to assess and repair external damage and verify integrity of vents, screens and security. Impressed current cathodic protection systems in storage tanks are recorded monthly and inspected annually. Failure to monitor current levels can cause premature coating and steel failures.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 8
Figure 4 Foothill Water Storage Tank
The City routinely inspects potable water storage facilities according to AWWA standards through diving and visual inspections. Once the inspection video and report are final, the City currently has no mechanism to convert these findings to a capital improvement plan. Failure to recoat water tanks as needed leads to costly structural rehabilitation or replacement and degrades water quality. Integrating an operations and maintenance plan for a cathodic protection system for both potable and recycled systems should be addressed.

3.3 Preventative Maintenance Program (CMSS)
Every well managed utility includes a preventative maintenance program, often in a software format such as a CMSS system. These programs require input from the manufacturer’s O&Ms, historical system knowledge and industry standards. The program disseminates work orders for reoccurring maintenance and can log emergency responses to water leaks, pump station failures, etc. The number of water main leaks and repairs are calculated annually and reported to the SWRCB as part of the annual water system report. The CMSS assists in workload management and staffing deficiencies.

Pump station maintenance, hydrants, tanks, wells and water main replacement schedules are included in the CMSS. Each utility should include system maintenance in the annual operating budget allowing funding for routine and emergency repairs.

3.4 Residential and Commercial Meter Calibration Program The City currently has over 23,000 residential water meters and commercial meters. The backbone of the water enterprise fund depends on accurate billing and collection. The meter calibration program ensures residential and commercial billing is accurate and defensible. Large meters should be calibrated biannually, and residential meters should be calibrated according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 9
Utility testing equipment is often capable of testing higher flow rates, such as commercial meters. A thirdparty contractor is the most cost-effective method to calibrate lower flow residential meters. All fireservice meters should be tested by a third-party contractor due to fire insurance requirements.

Record keeping is the critical component of a meter calibration and replacement system. Technicians, working with billing staff to identify abnormal monthly meter readings, is the number one reason for meter replacements. The water maintenance budget should include annual funding for maintenance and replacement of a percentage of residential and commercial water meters. Recording monthly meter readings will reduce water loss for rate payers and utility by identifying system leaks and large water users.

3.5 Energy Management Program
The City should have a robust energy management program to review and optimize energy usage at the pump stations and wells. The following are elements of a robust energy management plan.  Identification of energy use trends and cost tracking versus time.  Consideration of energy efficiency and costs in the evaluation of new distribution system facilities.  Changes to the existing system to enhance effective utilization of energy.  Record keeping for future federal and state energy grants.

The energy management system can be a simple recorded history of usage, trends and optimization plans. Other methods include a SCADA based energy management system that tracks energy usage in real time. This system will allow for the largest payback with the ability to optimize based on the electrical utility rate schedule.

3.6 Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Program
Per AWWA and RWQCB operation and management standards, each utility shall have a program for evaluating and upgrading water distribution pipelines. Historically, pipelines have long life spans but are expensive to replace and are critical to maintaining water quality and fire flow standards. Below are the keys to a rehabilitation and replacement program for pipelines.

1. Base prioritization of transmission and distribution mains on critical infrastructure matrix. Which pipelines affects the most residents, firefighting capabilities and water quality.

2. Track water main breaks by area, size, pressure zone and soil type. Establish an annual tracking of benchmarks based on breaks/100 miles/year of distribution pipe.

3. Keep accurate electronic as-builts. Electronic as-builts can be utilized by multiple field crews during emergency or routine operations. Annually updating water modeling software and GIS systems are critical to maintaining distribution infrastructure.

4. Record flow and pressure readings during unidirectional flushing periods. Historical records can determine problem areas before a catastrophic water main break.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 10
SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The City desires to develop a distribution maintenance program that meets industry standards. One of the critical components to a successful maintenance program is the staff’s ability and desire to implement change. The recommendations are based on short- and long-term goals with an idea to build program momentum as additional funding and staffing are available.

Short Term Recommendations

1. Develop a single unidirectional flushing program section map with clean water source identified. Start in the first area closest to a clean water source. Using the new water model, identify valves to close to achieve 2.5 ft/sec and desired flow rates. Perform the flushing, valve exercising and hydrant inspections in this area. Record findings and notes for developing full unidirectional flushing program software. Identify staffing levels required, traffic control, public notification, and tools and equipment required.

2. Implement a commercial water meter testing section with equipment and record keeping capabilities. This team should work closely with water billing to determine inconsistent metering locations and focus initial testing.

3. Select a well and potable water pumping station to implement a monthly, quarterly, semi annual and annual maintenance program. Record all maintenance activities to include tasks required, number of staff to complete each task, number of hours to complete each task and record keeping. This can be used as a “template” to design a full CMMS maintenance program for all facilities and aid in utilities staffing plan.

4. Develop a standard management matrix for identifying planned and emergency projects, mechanism for budget inclusion, and responsibility for project completion.

Long Term Recommendations

1. Develop a multi-year capital improvement program for unidirectional flushing software, tools, equipment and staffing to implement. Design and procure unidirectional flushing software program and continue water distribution GIS data entry.

2. Develop a capital improvement program to staff and equip a water meter section to test all commercial meters annually.

Solicit bids for third party residential water meter testing over multiple years as funding allows based on industry standards.

3. Procure a CMMS maintenance program for all water distribution mechanical locations.

Recommended staffing include a dedicated administrative position for record keeping and data input.

4. Implement an energy consumption record for each large electrical demand location in the distribution system. Work with local electrical utility on large user energy management plans which target peak cost reductions.

5. Develop a long-term staffing plan incorporating new maintenance programs, software and financing.

6. Develop a pipeline rehabilitation and replacement program utilizing water modeling software and GIS to identify capital improvement projects.

REGULATORY REVIEW
SEPTEMBER 2024 / DRAFT / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON
WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN 11
SECTION 5 REFERENCES

1. AWWA Standard M6 Meters – Selection, Installation, Testing and Maintenance (2021)

2. AWWA Standard D102-21 – Coating Steel Water Storage Tanks (2021)

3. City of Pleasanton. (2021). 2021 Annual Water Quality Report.

4. City of Pleasanton Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020)

5. City of Pleasanton Water Supply Permit

6. Carollo Engineers, Inc. – TM City of Pleasanton Regulatory Review (2022)

7. AWWA Management Standard G200-21 – Distribution Systems Operation and Management (2021)

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX F SCADA MASTER PLAN

CONFIDENTIAL

NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX G ENERGY MASTER PLAN

CONFIDENTIAL

NOT FOR

DISTRIBUTION

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX H GENERATOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Standby Generator Report
Preliminary Design and Standby Power Planning
Review Workshop
October 1, 2024
Paul Giorsetto, P.E.

TJC and Associates

Workshop Agenda

Introductions

Project Scope of Work

Approach

Summary Results

Results Breakdown by Department

Results Breakdown: Ops and CIP

Q&A

Generator Preliminary Design
Scope of Work
Replacement of ten stationary diesel generators that are past their expected operational life (Water and Sewer)
a. Water Sites (Stationary)

937 Sycamore Creek Way Booster

5875 Laurel Creek Booster

4301 Foothill Road, Foothill Booster

3033 West Ruby Hills Drive Booster

1202 Machado Vineyard Hills Booster
b. Sewer Sites (Stationary)

8019 Foothill Road, S-2

6900 West Las Positas, S-6

4950 Bernal Avenue, S-7

6890 Koll Center, S-8

302 Happy Valley Rd, S-12

3333 Busch Road, S-13

2299 Vineyard Ave, S-15

Generator Preliminary Design
Scope of Work
Development of a City-wide Public Works strategy for portable generators used to support Water, Sewer, and Storm Water stations
Water Sites (Portables)

3502 Vineyard Ave, Vineyard Booster

11599 Dublin Canyon Rd, Dublin
Booster

1201 Hearst Drive, Kottinger Ranch
Booster

8999 Longview Drive, Longview
Booster

3998 Foothill Road

9000 Santos Road

9400 Santos Road

Sewer Sites (Portables)

Valley Business Park, S-4

San Francisco, S-5

OSC Gun Range, S-13

Alisal, S-14

Stormwater Sites (Portables)

4950 Bernal Avenue, SD-1

4000 Del Valle Parkway, SD-2

3090 Valley Avenue, SD-3

1040 Valley Avenue SD-4

Approach

Task 1: Review Existing Documentation and Site Visits
Record Drawings from City

Large library of photographs for each site provided separately to City
Task 2: Stationary Generators - Preliminary Design

Sizing calculations, schematic 1-line diagrams, runtime and fueling requirements, identify possible sensitive receptors (air quality and noise), final design criteria, lead time and alternative delivery methods, cost estimate
Task 3: Portable Generators – Fleet Strategy

Sizing calculations, fleet configuration, site plans, schematic 1-line diagrams, connection methods and locations, runtime and fueling requirements, identify possible sensitive receptors (air quality and noise), lead times and alternative delivery methods, cost estimate

Task 4: Preliminary Design Report

Final Report TOC

Approach: Application Criteria
• Priority 1: Mission Critical Pump Station: Functionality during a PSPS or other power outage is required for meeting Utility Division objectives and performance criteria  Stationary generator may be required (unless insufficient space is available for unit installation or interim arrangement of portable is necessary for expediency); automatic transfer if paired with stationary; 24-hour minimum runtime
• Priority 2: Less-critical Pump Stations: Functionality during a PSPS or other power outage does not require immediate action
 May require mobilization of a portable generator during an extended outage; manual (local) power transfer; 24-hour minimum runtime
• Priority 3: Important Sites (typically not pump stations): Functionality during a PSPS or other power outage does not require immediate action; temporary back-up battery power for basic functions is available (e.g., status monitoring and alarming)  Will require remote monitoring and periodic site visits during outages to replace batteries or connection of a small portable generator; manual (local) power transfer; 24-hour minimum runtime (if required) From: City Emergency Protocol-Public Safety Power Shut-Off Appendix A

Approach: Application Criteria

Sizing Calculations

Unit sizing using Caterpillar (> 150 kW) and Generac (< 150kW)
All pumps in operation with nominal auxiliary loads

Pump loads started in step to alleviate inrush current effects
Electrical Criteria: 20% voltage dip and 20% frequency dip

Results Summary - Water

Preliminary Design Report – Table 1
Bold denotes portable generator needed

Results Summary - Sewer

Preliminary Design Report – Table 1
Bold denotes portable generator needed

Results Summary - Stormwater

Preliminary Design Report – Table 1
Bold denotes portable generator needed

Results Summary - Stationary
(NONE)

Results Summary - Portables

Results Summary – Portable Fleet Strategy

Minimize number of unit ratings to four

Two @ 56 kW for coverage of three sites

Two @ 120 kW for coverage of four sites

Three @ 176 kW for coverage of five sites

One @ 240 kW for coverage of two sites

Ratings selected to avoid “wet stacking” of oversized equipment
Attempt to limit total number (stationary and portable) ratings for commonality of spare parts and simplified maintenance

Includes DOT highway rated trailers for portables

Includes infrastructure for simplified and safe connection
“Cam-Lock” tap boxes with secure enclosures

Manual transfer switches

Results Summary – Portable Fleet Strategy

Results Summary – Site Specific Costs (Water)

WATER STATION GENERATORS
Aux.

XFMR
Total
Amps
System
Voltage
Generator
size kW
Generator
Total Load
Demand
No. of
Pumps
Total
Pump
HP
Total
Pump
kW
Estimated Site
Specific Costs
937 Sycamore Creek Way Booster 30KVA 391 480V 350 88% 3 300 225 $1,160,000 5875 Laurel Creek Booster 25KVA 254 480/277V 250 80% 3 150 113 $526,000 4301 Foothill Rd. Foothill Booster 9KVA 50 480V 56 70% 4 40 30 $241,000 3033 W Ruby Hills Dr. Booster 15KVA 332 480/277V 350 75% 5 305 229 $1,160,000 1202 Machado Vineyard Hills Booster 15KVA 201 480V 200 79% 3 180 135 $526,000 3502 Vineyard Ave. 9KVA 133 480V 176 60% 2 120 90 $280,000 11599 Dublin canyon Rd. 15KVA 274 480V 240 90% 2 250 188 $284,000 1201 Hearst Dr. 9KVA 92 480/277V 120 60% 2 80 60 $215,000 8999 Longview Dr. 15KVA 248 480V 240 82% 3 225 169 $284,000 3998 Foothill Rd. 9KVA 165 480V 176 74% 2 150 113 $280,000 9000 Santos Ranch Road 9KVA 165 480V 176 74% 2 150 113 $280,000 9400 Santos Ranch Road 9KVA 105 480/277V 176 47% 2 100 75 $280,000

Results Summary – Site Specific Costs (Sewer)
Aux.

XFMR
Total
Amps
System
Voltage
Generator
size kW
Generator
Total Load
Demand
No. of
Pumps
Total
Pump
HP
Total
Pump
kW
Estimated Site
Specific Costs

SEWER STATION GENERATORS
S-2 8019 Foothill Rd 15KVA 38 120/240V 30 50% 2 6 5 $158,000 S-4 1065 Serpentine Lane 15KVA 19 480V 56 27% 2 6 5 $161,000 S-5 1723 Laguna Creek Lane 15KVA 37 480V 56 51% 3 22.5 17 $161,000 S-6 6900 W. Las Positas 30KVA 130 480V 200 51% 5 100 75 $526,000 S-7 4950 Bernal Ave 15KVA 76 480V 120 50% 3 60 45 $383,000 S-8 6890 Koll Center 15KVA 201 480V 200 79% 3 180 135 $526,000 S-12 302 Happy Valley Rd. 75KVA 211 120/240V 120 69% 2 40 30 $383,000 S-13 3333 Busch Road 45KVA 43 480/277V 56 60% 2 4 3 $241,000 S-14 6614 Alisal St. 45KVA 119 120/240V 120 39% 2 20 15 $225,000 S-15 2299 Vineyard Ave 10KVA 40 480V 56 56% 2 30 23 $241,000

Results Summary – Site Specific Costs (Storm)
Aux.

XFMR
Total
Amps
System
Voltage
Generator
size kW
Generator
Total Load
Demand
No. of
Pumps
Total
Pump
HP
Total
Pump
kW
Estimated Site
Specific Costs

STORM STATION GENERATORS
SD-1 - 4950 Bernal Ave. 45KVA 60 480V 120 39% 2 20 15 $215,000 SD-2 - 4000 Del Valle Pkwy 45KVA 60 480V 120 39% 2 20 15 $215,000 SD-3 - 3090 Valley Ave. 45KVA 195 480V 176 87% 2 150 113 $280,000 SD-4 - 1040 Valley Ave. 15KVA 29 480V 56 40% 2 15 11 $161,000

BAAQMD Developments

BAAQMD Developments

Enforcement date is unknown but could be
as early as 1’st quarter 2025

Manufacturers have limited options

Option – Diesel with mitigation

Catalytic converter, passive particulate filter,
active particulate filter

Additional maintenance

Reliability impacts

Option – Natural gas fired

PG&E supply

Code exemption required to avoid on site
propane storage tank (NEC 701.12(C)(3) limits
systems that are “… solely dependent on a
public gas service…”

Any Final Questions or Comments

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX I NITRIFICATION EVALUATION

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
DRAFT

PROJECT MEMORANDUM

CITY OF PLEASANTON
Water System Management Plan
Project No.: 201264 This document is released for the
purpose of information exchange
review and planning only under the
authority of Timothy J Loper,
September 24, 2024, CA PE C-70847.

Date: September 24, 2024
Prepared By: Tim Loper
Reviewed By:

Subject: Nitrification Evaluation

1.0 BACKGROUND
Carollo Engineers (Carollo) evaluated nitrification in the City’s distribution system as part of the Water Supply and Distribution Facilities Improvements Project (Project). The results of the nitrification evaluation are summarized in Technical Memorandum 2 – Nitrification Evaluation (Carollo, 2020). Recommendations and the status of each are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Nitrification Evaluation Recommendations

2.0 PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
One of the key recommendations was to install chloramine boosting systems at the Foothill and Sycamore Reservoirs to allow the City to reduce the frequency of tank cycling currently required to maintain residuals in the distribution system. These systems allow both sodium hypochlorite, which is generated onsite, and liquid ammonium sulfate (LAS) to be dosed to maintain target chloramine residuals in the No. Recommendation Status
1 Develop a long-term nitrification monitoring plan. Implemented as part of a future project. 2 Develop a hydraulic model of the distribution system. Completed in 2023. 3 Install residual control systems in the Foothill and
Sycamore storage tanks.

Completed in 2022.
4 Improve chemical feed control and increase chloramine dose at the City’s wells.

City’s wells are not operational due to PFAS
concentrations above the MCL. Chemical feed and
Chloramine residual will be optimized as part of ongoing regional well project.
5 Increase chloramine residual form Zone 7’s groundwater supply.

Zone 7 began increasing the residual in the
groundwater supply in January 2020.
6 Develop a nitrification response plan. Preliminary plan completed in 2020 and updated in 2022. Finalized as part of a future project.

storage reservoirs. These systems also consist of monitoring equipment with control algorithms to monitor and maintain the target residual without exceeding a 5:1 Cl2/N ratio.

The RCS systems are set to maintain chloramine residuals between 2.5 and 2.75 in both the Foothill and Sycamore Tanks. Data from the distribution system before and after the RCS systems began operation were analyzed. Distribution system residual data is compared in Figure 1 – Figure 3 for three different time periods:
 Average residuals between January 2019 and April 2019 are shown in Figure 1. During this time period, a high percentage of groundwater was supplied at the turnouts by Zone 7 and the City’s wells were also online. This resulted in low residuals across the system since chloramine decay in the local groundwater supplies is more rapid than in the surface water supplies.  Average residuals between April 2019 and March 2020 are shown in Figure 2. During this time period, Zone 7 provided a high percentage of surface water to the City’s turnouts and the City’s wells were online. Comparing this data to Figure 1 illustrates the impact of Zone water supply (majority surface vs. majority groundwater) on chloramine residuals in the City’s distribution system. Residuals were higher across the distribution system, but still low near the storage tanks.  Average residuals between April 2023 and September 2023 are shown in Figure 3. During this time period, the RCS in the Sycamore and Foothill tanks were operational. Since consistent operation of the RCS began in 2023, residuals have increased in the distribution system, particularly near the foothill and sycamore storage tanks. The RCS systems have also allowed the City to reduce the frequency of tank cycling required to maintain distribution system residuals.

Weekly fill and drain cycles are used in the lower zone to reduce the water age in the storage tanks. Prior to RCS installation, the tanks were cycled from 6 feet to 25-28 feet. Current operations, with the RCS systems in service and the City’s wells offline, tanks are cycled from 18- 25 feet.

Figure 1 Average Distribution System Residuals (January 2019 – April 2019)

Figure 2 Average Distribution System Residuals (April 2019 – March 2020) Figure 3 Average Distribution System Residuals (April 2023 – September 2023) Implementation of the RCS systems in the Sycamore and Foothill Tanks was effective at increasing distribution system residuals and decreasing the tank cycling required. These installations are currently temporary and housed in trailers. It is recommended that these installations be upgraded to permanent installations.

A majority of the recommendations listed in Table 1 have been implemented since the completion of the Nitrification Evaluation in 2020. Based on reviewing distribution system residuals, the residuals have increased since the implementation of the RCS in the Sycamore and Foothill Tanks. The City also now has

a working hydraulic model to estimate source water blend (Zone 7 vs. City wells) and water age.

Therefore, it is recommended that the City develop a formal nitrification monitoring and response plan that incorporates these changes. The plan should:
 Define monitoring frequency and locations for key water quality to track nitrification.  Update and expand the preliminary response plan previously developed.  Incorporate detailed plans and monitoring strategies for free chlorination of areas of the distribution to manage nitrification.
 Consider the installation of tank mixers in the upper zone reservoirs.

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN
OCTOBER 2024 / CAROLLO

CITY OF PLEASANTON

WATER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX J CIP IMPLEMENTATION MEMO

pw://Carollo/CA/Pleasanton/201264-000000/03 Reports and Studies/02 Deliverables/Water System Management Plan/Ch. 4 Capital Improvements/CIP Implementation Strategeies.docx FINAL / 1

PROJECT MEMORANDUM

CITY OF PLEASANTON
Water System Management Plan
Project No.: 201264
Date: September 24, 2024
Prepared By: Tim Loper
Reviewed By:

Subject: CIP Rate Implementation Strategies

1.0 BACKGROUND
The City of Pleasanton (City) as part of the Water System Management Plan (WSMP) has identified both Capital and O&M projects and programs that have been recommended for the improvement and enhancement of the City water system utility operations. Critical to the implementation of the Capital and O&M projects and programs is the coordination with the City’s rate consultant on the development of varying phased CIP program costs scenarios. This project memorandum summarizes the CIP and O&M recommendations, and three phased funding scenarios as well as a qualitative assessment of the pros and cons of each alternative.

2.0 CAPITAL PROJECTS
The Capital projects have been developed based on multiple assessments conducted by the City and as part of the WSMP. The CIP projects have been prioritized based on three priority definitions.

1. Priority 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.

2. Priority 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.

3. Priority 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.

The projects have also been categorized based on specific facility categories including:

1. Water Supply.

2. Water Distribution.

3. Rehabilitation and Replacement (Above Ground).

4. Rehabilitation and Replacement (Below Ground).

5. Other Projects.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 2
The overall CIP project recommendations are summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1 Capital Improvement Plan Summary – Implementation Scenario 1 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
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

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 3
Project Type Total Costs
($Millions)
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 million. "Costs show in this table is just for water".

3.0 O&M PROJECT AND PROGRAMS
The O&M projects and programs were developed based on coordination with City Staff, and the O&M evaluation conducted by Carollo. The O&M programs were categorized based on the following:

1. Water Quality Regulations.

2. Water Conservation and Water Loss.

3. Rehabilitation and Replacement Assessment.

4. O&M Evaluations.

5. SCADA Master Plan.

The O&M project and programs are summarized in Table 2.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 4
Table 2 O&M Project and Programs
Project Type Project Descriptions Total 20-Year Program Costs
($ Million)
CIP Phasing ($Million)
Near Term Mid Term Long Term
2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 - 2033/2034
2034/2035 -
2043/2044
Water Quality Regs
WQ – 1 Lead and Copper Rule Program
Tracking
Under the LCRR, after the initial survey has been completed the City will need to complete the following. Costs to be reevaluated after initial phases of the program are completed.  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
$0.25 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $- $-
WQ - 2 Cross Connection Control Plan Initial budgetary estimates will need to be revised for adequacy after initial planning phases $0.25 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $- $- WQ - 3 Nitrification Response Plan Update and enhance nitrification response plan $0.05 $- $0.05 $- $- $- Water Conservation and Water Loss
WC- 1 Water Meter Testing Program: Establish Water Meter Testing Program $0.24 $ $ $0.05 $0.02 $0.02 $0.05 $0.10 WC- 2 Water Conservation Program Enhance water conservation program based on developing California Regulations $0.25 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $- $- WC - 3 Water Loss Contracted leak detection of entire water system by 2028 $0.55 $0.05 $ 0.25 $0.25 $- $- $- $- WC – 4 Systematic Data Handling Error
Audit:

Data error audit. Related to data accuracy and annually water loss audits. $0.05 $- $0.05 $- $- $- $- $- Rehabilitation and Replacement Assessment
RR-17 Asset Management Program Funded for water system portion. Coordination with City-wide asset management efforts $0.40 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.10 RR - 4 Tank Inspection Program Inspection of interior of all tanks and reservoirs $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- RR - 18 Corrosion Protection: Annual inspection of cathodic protection systems $0.37 $- $- $0.20 $0.01 $0.01 $0.05 $0.10 O&M Evaluation
OM – 1 Unidirectional Flushing Program Implement a Unidirectional Flushing pilot by hiring a consultant to develop an initial plan based on a single pressure zone. Includes valve exercising $0.98 $- $0.08 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.25 $0.50
OM – 2 Utility Training Program Continue using contractors to conduct staff training, and develop SOPs $1.00 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.25 $0.50 OM – 3 Water System Operations and
Maintenance Manual
Hire consultant to develop electronic O&M manual $0.15 $- $0.15 $- $- $- $- $- SCADA Master Plan
SP - 4 SCADA Standards Development: Development of SCADA stands $0.17 $ $0.17 $ $ $ $ $ SP – 5 SCADA Preventive Maintenance
Program
Development and Implementation of a preventative maintenance program $0.95 $- $- $0.10 $0.05 $0.05 $0.25 $0.50 SP – 6 Backup Core Server Relocation Relocate core SCADA servers to a cloud-based structure $0.21 $- $- $0.21 $ $ $ $ SP – 7 Remote Access Improvements Development of remote SCADA access options $0.37 $ $ $ $0.37 $ $ $ SP- 8 OT System Monitoring
Implementation
Implementation of OT focused cybersecurity monitoring $0.86 $ $ $0.43 $0.43 $ $ $ Increased FTE Costs(2) $12.00 $ $ $0.67(3) $0.67 $0.67 $3.33 $6.67 Total Costs $19.09 $0.30 $0.99 $2.20 $1.85 $1.05 $4.23 $8.47 Notes:

Projects are in 2024 dollars.
(1) 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). - 3 Additional FTEs starting in FY26/27 which is included in this line item.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL 5

4.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS
Three project phasing scenarios were developed for the evaluation of rate increases. The implementation scenarios are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 CIP Phasing Implementation Scenarios
Scenario 1
Deferrals to Steady ENG FTE
Requirements (3 FTE / Year)
Scenario 2
No Deferrals
Scenario 3
Maximum Deferrals
 Priority A in Near- Term with some
deferral into Mid-Term
 Priority B in Mid-Term with some
deferral into Long-term
 Priority C in Long-Term
 All Priority A in Short-Term
 All Priority B in Mid-Term
 All Priority C in Long-Term
 Priority A spread between Near
and Mid-Terms
 Priority B and C in Long-Term

4.1 Implementation Scenario Comparison
The implementation scenarios, pros, cons, and risks are summarized in Table 4. Detailed tables of each CIP scenario are included as attachments to this memorandum. As can be seen in Figure 1, Scenario 2 has the highest near-term costs, while Scenario 3 has the lowest with the highest costs in the long term. Scenario 1 slowly ramps up over the near and mid-terms, and then ramps down over the long term.

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 6
Figure 1 Summary of CIP Implementation Scenario Comparisons $0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 CIP Costs ($)
CIP Implemenation Scenario Comparions
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 7
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
20252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044 CIP Cost ($M)
Years
Scenario 1 - Priority
Priority C
Priority B
Priority A
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
CIP Cost ($M)
Year
Scenario 2 - Priority
Priority C
Priority B
Priority A

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL / 8
Table 4 CIP Phasing Implementation Risks, Pros, and Cons Scenario 1 – Risks, Pros, Cons Scenario 2 - Risks, Pros, Cons Scenario 3 - Risks, Pros, Cons Pros:
 Program and project load can be
handled by existing public works
structure
 Only partial deferment of Priority A
R&R projects

Pros:
 All priority A projects completed in the
Near-Term
 No Priority A R&R projects deferred
beyond 2029
Pros:
 Slowest implementation rate
makes meeting CIP
schedule more obtainable
 Potentially lower near-term
rate impacts
Cons:
 While some Priority A projects are
completed in the Near-term, some
high risk R&R projects are deferred
for over 5-years.
 Risk of deferred could increase
annual O&M costs for identified
R&R projects
Cons:
 Near Term Priority A project schedule will
require outside engineering assistance
(i.e., program manager) to complete all
project by 2029
 Public impacts due to multiple projects
being completed in Near-term
 Highest Near-term rate impacts
 Largest Financing Requirement
Cons:
 Potential deferment of
Priority A R&R projects for
up to 10-years
 Increased O&M cost due to
deferment of Priority A R&R
projects
 Highest rate of spending
over years 6-20 (2029 to
2044)
Risk:
 Facility failure due to deferment
 Increased O&M costs
Risk:
 Not meeting CIP schedules after high
rates increases creates public and
institutional challenges
Risks:
 Facility failure due to
deferment
 Increased O&M costs
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
CIP Cost ($M)
20252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044 Years
Scenario 3 - Priority
Priority C
Priority B
Priority A

PROJECT MEMORANDUM
FINAL

ATTACHMENT A CIP DETAIL SHEETS

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY - IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO 1 City of PleasantonWater System Management Plan
Mid Term Long Term Existing Customers Future Customers
2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 - 3033/2034 2034/2035 - 2038/2044 ($Million) ($Million) Water Supply Projects $ 52.00 $ 15.00 $ 2.00 $ 12.00 $ 11.00 $ - $ - $ 12.00 $ 46.14 $ 5.86Priority A Projects $ 40.00 $ 15.00 $ 2.00 $ 12.00 $ 11.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 34.14 $ 5.86 WS -1 Near Term Improvements for Water Supply Change3 13.50$ 13.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11.42$ 2.08$ WS-2 Long Term Improvements for Water Supply Change4 26.50$ 1.50$ 2.00$ 12.00$ 11.00$ -$ -$ -$ 22.72$ 3.78$ Priority C Projects 12.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12.00$ 12.00$ -$ WS-3 Future Water Supply Treatment 10.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10.00$ 10.00$ -$ WS-4 RCS Permanent Installation 2.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.00$ 2.00$ -$ Distribution Capacity 81.50$ -$ -$ 3.80$ 4.34$ 7.87$ 35.19$ 30.30$ 65.12$ 16.39$ Priority A Projects $ 44.06 $ - $ - $ 3.80 $ 4.34 $ 7.87 $ 21.94 $ 6.11 $ 41.49 $ 2.58 DS-1 Existing Pipeline Deficiencies Improvements (I-1, I-4 through I-10 from Akel Report) 1.46$ -$ -$ 0.46$ 1.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1.46$ -$ DS -2 Priority A Fire Flow (>30% Def) 16.71$ -$ -$ 3.34$ 3.34$ 3.34$ 6.69$ -$ 14.21$ 2.50$ DS-3 Kilkare - Sunol Fire Flow 23.78$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.42$ 15.25$ 6.11$ 23.71$ 0.08$ DS-4 Gray Eagle Connection to Kottinger Pressure Zone 1.86 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.86$ -$ -$ 1.86$ -$ DS -5 Lemoine Bypass Pipeline Project 0.25$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.25$ -$ -$ 0.25$ -$ Priority B Projects $ 26.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13.25 $ 12.81 $ 12.53 $ 13.53 DS-6 Priority B Fire Flow 9.43$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.43$ -$ 8.91$ 0.52$ DS-7 Tank 510 Site (Additional 0.25 MG) 2.14$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.14$ -$ 2.12$ 0.02$ DS-8 Tank 770 Site (Additional 0.15 MG) 1.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.68$ -$ 1.50$ 0.18$ DS-9 New 4.5 MG Tanks 12.81$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12.81$ 12.81$ Priority C Projects $ 11.38 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11.38 $ 11.10 $ 0.28 DS -10 Priority C Fire Flow 9.88$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.88$ 9.60$ 0.28$ DS - 11 Upper Zone Tank Mixers 1.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.50$ 1.50$ Rehabilitation and Replacement (Above Ground Facilities) $ 50.59 $ - $ - $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 5.64 $ 17.35 $ 26.52 $ 50.59 $ - Priority A Projects 12.04$ -$ -$ 0.54$ 0.54$ 5.64 $ 5.32$ -$ 12.04$ -$ RR-1 Tank 1300 Rehab 2.54$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.54$ -$ -$ 2.54$ -$ RR-2 McCloud Tank/PS Decommission 1.24$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.24$ -$ -$ 1.24$ -$ RR- 3 Foothill PS Rehab 1.32$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.32$ -$ -$ 1.32$ -$ RR - 4 Tank Inspections 1.62$ -$ -$ 0.54$ 0.54$ 0.54$ -$ -$ 1.62$ -$ RR- 5 Vineyard PS Rehab 2.13$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.13$ -$ 2.13$ -$ RR- 6 Kottinger PS Rehab 1.90$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.90$ -$ 1.90$ -$ RR- 7 Decommission of Grey Eagle PS 1.29$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.29$ -$ 1.29$ -$ Priority B Projects 15.75$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12.03$ 3.72$ 15.75$ -$ RR - 8 Customer Meter Replacement 9.30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.30$ -$ 9.30$ -$ RR- 9 Laurel Creek PS Rehab 1.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.68$ 1.68$ -$ RR - 10 Ruby Hill PS Rehab 2.04$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.04$ 2.04$ -$ RR- 11 Decommission Well No. 7 0.81$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.81$ -$ 0.81$ -$ RR- 12 Decommission Well 5 and 6 0.71$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.71$ -$ 0.71$ -$ RR- 13 Decommission Well No. 8 1.21$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.21$ -$ 1.21$ -$ Priority C Projects 22.80$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22.80$ 22.80$ -$ RR- 14 Other Facility Rehabilitation 22.80$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22.80$ 22.80$ -$ Rehabilitation and Replacement (Below Ground Facilities) $ 71.28 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31.68 $ 39.60 $ 71.28 $ - Priority B Projects 31.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31.68$ -$ 31.68$ -$ RR - 15 Pipeline Rehabilitation Backlog (4.8-miles/year) 31.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31.68$ -$ 31.68$ -$ Priority C Projects 39.60$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39.60$ 39.60$ -$ RR - 16 Pipeline Rehabilitation (3-miles/year) 39.60$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39.60$ 39.60$ -$ Other Projects $ 6.73 $ - $ - $ - $ 2.76 $ 3.77 $ 0.20 $ - $ 6.73 $ - Priority A Projects 6.53$ -$ -$ -$ 2.76$ 3.77$ -$ -$ 6.53$ -$ SP - 1 Network Architecture (SCADA) 1.01$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.01$ -$ -$ 1.01$ -$ SP - 2 Generator Projects7 5.52$ -$ -$ -$ 2.76$ 2.76$ -$ -$ 5.52$ -$ Priority B Projects 0.20$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.20$ -$ 0.20$ -$ SP - 3 DER Projects (Tassajara and TO3) 0.20$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ 0.20$ -$ 0.20$ -$ Project Total 262.10$ 15.00$ 2.00$ 16.34$ 18.64$ 17.28$ 84.42$ 108.42$ 239.87$ 22.25$ Engineering/Administration FTE's5 11.09$ 0.62 0.62 0.62 3.08 6.16 Increased O&M Needs6 15.02$ -$ -$ -$ 0.25$ 0.53$ 3.90$ 10.34$ Total CIP 288.23$ 15.00$ 2.00$ 16.96$ 19.51$ 18.43$ 91.40$ 124.92$ Notes:1. Projects are in 2024 dollars. 2. Costs are total projectdelivery costs 7. Total costs for all generators including water, sewer, and storm is $9.39 million. "Costs show in this table is just for water".

Project Type

3. Project includes:"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. Engineering FTE to Implement CIP - 1 FTE starting in FY24/25 which has already been approved and included in baseline operating expenses (not included here)- 2 Additional FTE starting in FY26/27 which is included in this line item.6. Includes increase in O&M for new facilities, and a 2.5% increase in O&M annually for project deferment.

CIP Phasing ($Million) Cost Sharing
Total Costs
($Millions)
Near Term

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY - IMPLEMENTATION SCEANRIO 2 City of PleasantonWater System Management Plan
Mid Term Long Term Existing Customers Future Customers
2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 - 3033/2034 2034/2035 - 2038/2044 ($Million) ($Million) Water Supply Projects $ 52.00 $ 15.00 $ 2.00 $ 12.00 $ 11.00 $ - $ - $ 12.00 $ 46.14 $ 5.86Priority A Projects $ 40.00 $ 15.00 $ 2.00 $ 12.00 $ 11.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 34.14 $ 5.86 WS -1 Near Term Improvements for Water Supply Change3 13.50$ 13.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11.42$ 2.08$ WS-2 Long Term Improvements for Water Supply Change4 26.50$ 1.50$ 2.00$ 12.00$ 11.00$ -$ -$ -$ 22.72$ 3.78$ Priority C Projects 12.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12.00$ 12.00$ -$ WS-3 Future Water Supply Treatment 10.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10.00$ 10.00$ -$ WS-4 RCS Permanent Installation 2.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.00$ 2.00$ -$ Distribution Capacity 81.5$ -$ -$ 13.96$ 14.50$ 15.60$ 26.06$ 11.38$ 65.12$ 16.39$ Priority A Projects $ 44.06 $ - $ - $ 13.96 $ 14.50 $ 15.60 $ - $ - $ 41.49 $ 2.58 DS-1 Existing Pipeline Deficiencies Improvements (I-1, I-4 through I-10 from Akel Report) 1.46$ -$ -$ 0.46$ 1.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1.46$ -$ DS -2 Priority A Fire Flow (>30% Def) 16.71$ -$ -$ 5.57$ 5.57$ 5.57$ -$ -$ 14.21$ 2.50$ DS-3 Kilkare - Sunol Fire Flow 23.78$ -$ -$ 7.93$ 7.93$ 7.92$ -$ -$ 23.71$ 0.08$ DS-4 Gray Eagle Connection to Kottinger Pressure Zone 1.86 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.86$ -$ -$ 1.86$ -$ DS -5 Lemoine Bypass Pipeline Project 0.25$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.25$ -$ -$ 0.25$ -$ Priority B Projects $ 26.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26.06 $ - $ 12.53 $ 13.53 DS-6 Priority B Fire Flow 9.43$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.43$ -$ 8.91$ 0.52$ DS-7 Tank 510 Site (Additional 0.25 MG) 2.14$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.14$ -$ 2.12$ 0.02$ DS-8 Tank 770 Site (Additional 0.15 MG) 1.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.68$ -$ 1.50$ 0.18$ DS-9 New 4.5 MG Tanks 12.81$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12.81$ -$ 12.81$ Priority C Projects $ 11.38 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11.38 $ 11.10 $ 0.28 DS -10 Priority C Fire Flow 9.88$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.88$ 9.60$ 0.28$ DS - 11 Upper Zone Tank Mixers 1.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.50$ 1.50$ Rehabilitation and Replacement (Above Ground Facilities) $ 50.59 $ - $ - $ 4.32 $ 1.86 $ 5.86 $ 15.75 $ 22.80 $ 50.59 $ - Priority A Projects 12.04$ -$ -$ 4.32$ 1.86$ 5.86 $ -$ -$ 12.04$ -$ RR-1 Tank 1300 Rehab 2.54$ -$ -$ 2.54$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.54$ -$ RR-2 McCloud Tank/PS Decommission 1.24$ -$ -$ 1.24$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.24$ -$ RR- 3 Foothill PS Rehab 1.32$ -$ -$ -$ 1.32$ -$ -$ -$ 1.32$ -$ RR - 4 Tank Inspections 1.62$ -$ -$ 0.54$ 0.54$ 0.54$ -$ -$ 1.62$ -$ RR- 5 Vineyard PS Rehab 2.13$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.13$ -$ -$ 2.13$ -$ RR- 6 Kottinger PS Rehab 1.90$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.90$ -$ -$ 1.90$ -$ RR- 7 Decommission of Grey Eagle PS 1.29$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.29$ -$ -$ 1.29$ -$ Priority B Projects 15.75$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15.75$ -$ 15.75$ -$ RR - 8 Customer Meter Replacement 9.30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.30$ -$ 9.30$ -$ RR- 9 Laurel Creek PS Rehab 1.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.68$ -$ 1.68$ -$ RR - 10 Ruby Hill PS Rehab 2.04$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.04$ -$ 2.04$ -$ RR- 11 Decommission Well No. 7 0.81$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.81$ -$ 0.81$ -$ RR- 12 Decommission Well 5 and 6 0.71$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.71$ -$ 0.71$ -$ RR- 13 Decommission Well No. 8 1.21$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.21$ -$ 1.21$ -$ Priority C Projects 22.80$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22.80$ 22.80$ -$ RR- 14 Other Facility Rehabilitation 22.80$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22.80$ 22.80$ -$ Rehabilitation and Replacement (Below Ground Facilities) $ 71.28 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 31.68 $ 39.60 $ 71.28 $ - Priority B Projects 31.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31.68$ -$ 31.68$ -$ RR - 15 Pipeline Rehabilitation Backlog (4.8-miles/year) 31.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31.68$ -$ 31.68$ -$ Priority C Projects 39.60$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39.60$ 39.60$ -$ RR - 16 Pipeline Rehabilitation (3-miles/year) 39.60$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39.60$ 39.60$ -$ Other Projects $ 6.7 $ - $ - $ - $ 2.76 $ 3.77 $ 0.20 $ - $ 6.73 $ - Priority A Projects 6.53$ -$ -$ -$ 2.76$ 3.77$ -$ -$ 6.53$ -$ SP - 1 Network Architecture (SCADA) 1.01$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.01$ -$ -$ 1.01$ -$ SP - 2 Generator Projects7 5.52$ -$ -$ -$ 2.76$ 2.76$ -$ -$ 5.52$ -$ Priority B Projects 0.20$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.20$ -$ 0.20$ -$ SP - 3 DER Projects (Tassajara and TO3) 0.20$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ 0.20$ -$ 0.20$ -$ Project Total 262.10$ 15.00$ 2.00$ 30.28$ 30.12$ 25.23$ 73.69$ 85.78$ 239.86$ 22.25$ Engineering/Administration FTE's5 9.24$ 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 3.08 Increased O&M Needs6 12.42$ -$ -$ -$ 0.25$ 0.53$ 2.95$ 8.69$ Total CIP 283.77$ 15.00$ 2.00$ 31.82$ 31.91$ 27.30$ 78.18$ 97.55$ Notes:1. Projects are in 2024 dollars. 2. Costs are total projectdelivery costs 7. Total costs for all generators including water, sewer, and storm is $9.39 million. "Costs show in this table is just for water.4. City is considering one of two options: Project includes W-1, W-2, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5 from Akel Report. Alternatively, City is evaluating a Regional Groundwater Facility project with Zone 7 with related distribution changes. Costs provided by City supersede the Akel report.5. Engineering FTE to Implement CIP - 1 FTE starting in FY24/25 which has already been approved and included in baseline operating expenses (not included here)- 1 Additional FTE starting in FY26/27 which is included in this line item.- 4 Limited duration FTE between FY26/27 and FY28/296. Includes increase in O&M for new facilities Project Type
CIP Phasing ($Million)

3. Project includes: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.

Cost Sharing
Total Costs
($Millions)
Near Term

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY - IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO 3 City of PleasantonWater System Management Plan
Mid Term Long Term Existing Customers Future Customers
2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028 2028/2029 2029/2030 - 3033/2034 2034/2035 - 2038/2044 ($Million) ($Million) Water Supply Projects $ 52.00 $ 15.00 $ 2.00 $ 12.00 $ 11.00 $ - $ - $ 12.00 $ 46.14 $ 5.86Priority A Projects $ 40.00 $ 15.00 $ 2.00 $ 12.00 $ 11.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 34.14 $ 5.86 WS -1 Near Term Distribution Capacity Improvements3 13.50$ 13.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11.42$ 2.08$ WS-2 Long Term Improvements for Water Supply Change4 26.50$ 1.50$ 2.00$ 12.00$ 11.00$ -$ -$ -$ 22.72$ 3.78$ Priority C Projects 12.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12.00$ 12.00$ -$ WS-3 Future Water Supply Treatment 10.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10.00$ 10.00$ -$ WS-4 RCS Permanent Installation 2.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.00$ 2.00$ -$ Distribution Capacity 81.5$ -$ -$ 0.46$ 1.00$ 8.85$ 33.75$ 37 65.12$ 16.39$ .44$ Priority A Projects $ 44.06 $ - $ - $ 0.46 $ 1.00 $ 8.85 $ 33.75 $ - $ 41.49 $ 2.58 DS-1 Existing Pipeline Deficiencies Improvements (I-1, I-4 through I-10 from Akel Report) 1.46$ -$ -$ 0.46$ 1.00$ -$ -$ -$ 1.46$ -$ DS -2 Priority A Fire Flow (>30% Def) 16.71$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.78$ 13.93$ -$ 14.21$ 2.50$ DS-3 Kilkare - Sunol Fire Flow 23.78$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.96$ 19.82$ -$ 23.71$ 0.08$ DS-4 Gray Eagle Connection to Kottinger Pressure Zone 1.86$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.86$ -$ -$ 1.86$ -$ DS -5 Lemoine Bypass Pipeline Project 0.25$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.25$ -$ -$ 0.25$ -$ Priority B Projects $ 26.06 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 26.06 $ 12.53 $ 13.53 DS-6 Priority B Fire Flow 9.43$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9. 8.91$ 0.52$ 43$ DS-7 Tank 510 Site (Additional 0.25 MG) 2.14$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.14$ 2.12$ 0.02$ DS-8 Tank 770 Site (Additional 0.15 MG) 1.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.68$ 1.50$ 0.18$ DS-9 New 4.5 MG Tanks 12.81$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 12.81$ 12.81 $ Priority C Projects $ 11.38 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11.38 $ 11.10 $ 0.28 DS -10 Priority C Fire Flow 9.88$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9 9.60$ 0.28$ .88$ DS - 11 Upper Zone Tank Mixers 1.50$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.50$ 1.50$ Rehabilitation and Replacement (Above Ground Facilities) $ 50.59 $ - $ - $ - $ 0.54 $ 0.54 $ 10.96 $ 38.55 $ 50.59 $ - Priority A Projects 12.04$ -$ -$ -$ 0.54$ 0.54$ 10.96 $ -$ 12.04$ -$ RR-1 Tank 1300 Rehab 2.54$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.54$ -$ 2.54 $ -$ RR-2 McCloud Tank/PS Decommission 1.24$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.24$ -$ 1.24$ -$ RR- 3 Foothill PS Rehab 1.32$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.32$ -$ 1.32$ -$ RR - 4 Tank Inspections 1.62$ -$ -$ -$ 0.54$ 0.54$ 0.54$ -$ 1.62$ -$ RR- 5 Vineyard PS Rehab 2.13$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.13$ -$ 2.13$ -$ RR- 6 Kottinger PS Rehab 1.90$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.90$ -$ 1.90$ -$ RR- 7 Decommission of Grey Eagle PS 1.29$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.29$ -$ 1.29$ -$ Priority B Projects 15.75$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 15.75$ 15.75$ -$ RR - 8 Customer Meter Replacement 9.30$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9.30$ 9.30$ -$ RR- 9 Laurel Creek PS Rehab 1.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1 1.68$ -$ .68$ RR - 10 Ruby Hill PS Rehab 2.04$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2. 2.04$ -$ 04$ RR- 11 Decommission Well No. 7 0.81$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.81$ 0.81$ -$ RR- 12 Decommission Well 5 and 6 0.71$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.71$ 0.71$ -$ RR- 13 Decommission Well No. 8 1.21$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.21$ 1.21$ -$ Priority C Projects 22.80$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22.80$ 22.80$ -$ RR- 14 Other Facility Rehabilitation 22.80$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22.80$ 22.80$ -$ Rehabilitation and Replacement (Below Ground Facilities) $ 71.28 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 71.28 $ 71.28 $ - Priority B Projects 31.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31.68$ 31.68$ -$ RR - 15 Pipeline Rehabilitation Backlog (4.8-miles/year) 31.68$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 31.68$ 31.68$ -$ Priority C Projects 39.60$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39.60$ 39.60$ -$ RR - 16 Pipeline Rehabilitation (3-miles/year) 39.60 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 39.60$ 39.60$ -$ Other Projects $ 6.7 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2.76 $ 3.76 $ 0.20 $ 6.72 $ - Priority A Projects 6.52$ -$ -$ -$ - $ 2.76$ 3.76 $ -$ 6.52$ -$ SP - 1 Network Architecture (SCADA) 1.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.00$ -$ 1.00$ -$ SP - 2 Generator Projects7 5.52$ -$ -$ - $ -$ 2.76$ 2.76$ -$ 5.52$ -$ Priority B Projects 0.20$ -$ -$ -$ - $ -$ -$ 0.20$ 0.20$ -$ SP - 3 DER Projects (Tassajara and TO3) 0.20$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.20$ 0.20$ -$ Project Total 262.10$ 15.00$ 2.00$ 12.46$ 12.54$ 12.15$ 48.47$ 159.47$ 239.85$ 22.25$ Engineering/Administration FTE's5 8.62$ 0.31 0.31 0.31 1.54 6.16 Increased O&M Needs6 17.36$ -$ -$ -$ 0.25$ 0.50$ 4.75$ 11.86$ Total CIP 288.09$ 15.00$ 2.00$ 12.77$ 13.10$ 12.96$ 54.76$ 177.49$ Notes:1. Projects are in 2024 dollars. 2. Costs are total project delivery costs 7. Total costs for all generators including water, sewer, and storm is $9.39 million. "Costs show in this table is just for water.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. Engineering FTE to Implement CIP - 1 FTE starting in FY24/25 which has already been approved and included in baseline operating expenses (not included here)- 1 Additional FTE starting in FY26/27 which is included in this line item.- 1 Additional FTE starting in FY34/35 which is included in this line item.6. Includes increase in O&M for new facilities, and a 5% increase in O&M annually for project deferment.

Project Type
CIP Phasing ($Million)

3. Project includes: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.

Cost Sharing
Total Costs
($Millions)
Near Term

1 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/1
Water System
Management Plan
City Council Meeting
January 21, 2025
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/2
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Purpose of WSMP is to provide a “comprehensive” management plan to ensure “long-term” sustainability of water program
2 O&M Program
Improvements
Groundwater
Supply
20-Year Capital
Program Drivers Improvement Program
Aging Assets
New Regulations
1 2

2 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/3
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Currently completing step 1 of three step process
3 Step 1
Program Needs
(Jan 2025)
Step 2:

Implementation Plan
(part of rate study)
List of CIP and O&M
project needs with cost
estimates
Evaluate alternatives for “timing”
of projects that considers
financing and risk
Step 3
Adoption
(July 2025)
Amend WSMP Report to
include selected
implementation plan
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/4
J U N E 2 0 2 1
WSMP to be a living document
4 Monitor implementation
progress and make minor
adjustments
Review Every 2 -Years
Identify major changes in program
drivers / needs and update
implementation plan
Update Every 6 -Years
3 4

3 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/5
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Multiple program drivers were considered in identifying program needs 5 Water Distribution
Capacity by Akel
Water Supply Evaluation
by Brown & Caldwell
Water supply cost
efficiency and reliability to
meet demands
Deliver water to users at
adequate flow and
pressure
Condition Assessments
by Carollo
Rehabilitation &
replacement of aging
infrastructure
Regulatory Review
by Carollo
Compliance with future
water quality and
conservation regulations
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/6
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Multiple program drivers were considered in identifying program needs 6 SCADA and Energy by
West Yost
O&M Review by
Carollo AWIA by West Yost Standby Power by
TJC
Cybersecurity and reliability
of system controls and
communications
Consistency with
industry best practices
for O&M
Emergency risk and
resiliency
Backup power during
PG&E outages
5 6

4 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/7
Capital Improvements
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/8
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Capital improvement projects were grouped by prioritization categories 8 • Health & Safety
• Req by Law, Regs, or
Current Contracts
• Current Construction
• Funding Requirements
Priority
Grouping A
• Moves City Towards
Goals
• Moderate Level of
Control in Schedule
and Funding
Priority
Grouping B
• Do Not Meet A or B
Criteria
• No defined Scope,
Schedule, or Funding
Priority
Grouping C
7 8

5 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/9
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Capital improvement projects were also grouped by project type 9 Water Supply Distribution Capacity Rehabilitation & Replacement Other
Projects to improve water supply
sources, treatment, and
transmission into City’s distribution
system
Projects to improve distribution to
customers at adequate flow and
pressure
Projects to improve age and
condition of assets
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/10
J U N E 2 0 2 1 10
Water Supply Projects
Priority Grouping A
Near Term Improvements for Water Supply
Long Term Improvements for Water Supply
Priority Grouping C
Long Term Groundwater Supply Treatment
Permanent Residual Control Systems
Active projects to support transmission of additional
water supply from Zone 7 while City wells are offline
Evaluate &
implement
cost-effective
solution for
replacement
of City
groundwater
wells
9 10

6 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/11
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Distribution Capacity Projects
11 Priority Grouping B
Storage Tank Capacity Increases
Fire Flow Pipeline Deficiencies (15 - 30%)
Priority Grouping C
Upper Zone Tank Mixers
Fire Flow Pipeline Deficiencies (below 15%)
Priority Grouping A
Existing Pipeline Capacity Deficiencies
Fire Flow Pipeline Deficiencies (above 30%)
Gray Eagle Connection to Kottinger
Pressure Zone
Lemoine Bypass Pipeline
Projects to improve fire flow and pressure
capacity
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/12
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects
12 Priority Grouping C
Facility Rehabilitation (other)
Pipeline Rehabilitation (~30 miles)
Priority Grouping A
Facility Rehab
(Tank 1300, Foothill PS, Vineyard PS, Kottinger PS)
Facility Decommission
(McCloud Tank and PS, Gray Eagle PS)
Tank Structural Inspections
Priority Grouping B
Facility Rehab
(Laurel Creek PS, Ruby Hill PS)
Well 5 through 8 Decommission
Pipeline Rehabilitation (backlog of ~24 miles)
Customer Meter Replacements
20-Year Recommendations
Include:
- 1 storage tank facility rehab
(City has 21 Storage Tanks)
- 5 pump station facility rehabs
(City has 14 Pump Stations)
- Partial rehabs at various facilities
- 54 miles of pipeline rehab
(City has 330 miles of pipeline with
average age ~40 years)
11 12

7 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/13
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Other Projects
13 Priority Grouping A
SCADA Network Improvements
Generator Improvements
Priority Grouping B
Distributed Energy Resources Piloting
Projects to improve emergency power
reliability
(considers impacts of PG&E Public Safety
Power Shutoff procedures)
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/14
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Association of the Advancement of Cost Estimating Classes 14 13
14

8 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/15
J U N E 2 0 2 1
CIP Project Costs by Category (20-year window)
15 CIP Cost ($Million)
Priority
Total Costs
($Million) Water Supply
Distribution
Capacity
Rehabilitation and
Replacement Other
A $102.6 $40.0 $44.0 $12.1 $6.5
B $73.7 $0.0 $26.1 $47.4 $0.2
C $85.8 $12.00 $11.4 $62.4 $0.0
Total Costs $262.1 $52.0 $81.5 $121.9 $6.7
Notes:
- Cost estimates are tied to ENR Index for San Francisco of May 2024 - Cost estimates are considered total project costs and include contingencies for legal, administration, design, and construction.

Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/16
J U N E 2 0 2 1
CIP Implementation Costs (20-year window)
16 New City Engineering Staff
• $8 to $12 million
New O&M Requirements
• newly installed infrastructure
• aging existing infrastructure
• $12 to $18 million
Total CIP Projects + Implementation ~ $283 to $289 million.

Notes:
- Cost estimates are tied to ENR Index for San Francisco of May 2024 - One Full Time Employee (FTE) is estimated to be required for every $4 to $5 million/year of CIP projects. - One FTE has already been approved and included in baseline budget. Cost range reflects remaining FTE needed to implement CIP projects. 15 16

9 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/17
O&M Improvements
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/18
J U N E 2 0 2 1
O&M Program Improvements and Cost Summary (20-year window) 18 Category Costs ($Million)
Water Quality Regulations $0.5
Water Conservations and Water Loss $1.1
Rehabilitation and Replacement Assessment $0.8
O&M Best Practices $2.1
SCADA and Power $2.6
Additional Operational Staff $12.0
Total Costs $19.1
Notes:
- Cost estimates are tied to ENR Index for San Francisco of May 2024 - 5 FTE are recommended to implement O&M program improvements. - 2 FTEs already approved and included in baseline budget. Cost range reflects remaining 3 FTE needed to implement O&M program improvements.
17 18

10 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/19
Next Steps
Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/20
J U N E 2 0 2 1
Next steps schedule
20 1. Connection Fee Study (new customers)
−Council workshop - November 19, 2024
−Council adoption - January 2025
−Fees effective – March 2025

2. User Rate Study (existing customers)
−Council presentation on financial scenarios – March 4, 2025 −Council presentation on water rate scenarios – April 15, 2025 −Council presentation on final water rates – June 3, 2025 −Council approve public notice of review (Prop 218) – July 15, 2025 −Public hearing and Council adoption – October 7, 2025
−New rates effective – January 1, 2026
19 20

11 Pleasanton0621i2.ppt/21
Thank You
21

Item #19

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
January 21, 2025
City Manager
TITLE: ACCEPT DOWNTOWN PLEASANTON PROPERTY AND BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ALLOCATE UP TO $70,000 TO IMPLEMENT THE PBID FORMATION PROCESS FOR DOWNTOWN

PLEASANTON

SUMMARY
Under previous agreements with the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA), through which the PDA manages the Downtown Pleasanton Business Improvement District (BID), the City matches the annual Business Improvement District assessment. While staff anticipates the 2025 annual assessments will similarly be around $80,000, under a new one-year agreement the City will provide matching funds up to 50 percent of the collected assessments.

Over the decades, it has become apparent the funding generated through the annual BID assessment does not provide sufficient revenue to support the PDA in meeting the PDA’s and City’s shared expectations to sustain and increase the vitality and economic health of the downtown district. To that end, staff has been working with Civitas Advisors for the past four months to evaluate the current Downtown Pleasanton Business Improvement District structure and the feasibility of a Property & Business Improvement District (PBID) as Phase 1 of the project. It is anticipated that creating a PBID would generate significantly more revenue than the approximately $80,000 provided through the current assessment.

RECOMMENDATION
Accept Downtown Pleasanton Property and Business Improvement District Feasibility Report and Allocate up to $70,000 to Implement the PBID Formation Process for Downtown Pleasanton.

BACKGROUND
In August 2023, the City Council adopted the updated Economic Development Strategic Plan (Plan). The five-year plan is comprised of five implementation plan priorities:

1.0 Economic Development Capacity Building

2.0 Business Retention, Expansion & Attraction

3.0 Local Revenue Growth

4.0 Entrepreneurship & Innovation Outreach

5.0 Major Projects Accelerator Program
There are several action items under 3.0 Local Revenue Growth that are related to downtown Pleasanton, specifically including:

3.2 Evaluate the Pleasanton Downtown Association’s Business Improvement District Structure

To ensure economic vitality in Downtown Pleasanton, it is recommended the City and Pleasanton Downtown Association evaluate the current business improvement district structure for increased funding for economic development opportunities.

Several decades ago, the City established a Downtown Pleasanton Business Improvement District (BID) with the purpose and boundaries of which are set forth in Chapter 5.28 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Through an agreement with the City, the Pleasanton Downtown Association (PDA) serves as the manager of the BID. The recent 5-year agreement that expired on December 31, 2024, obligates the City to match the annual assessments paid by businesses in the BID. These City funds are remitted to the PDA and used to conduct promotions, programs and activities that benefit downtown Pleasanton. Under a new one-year agreement for 2025 - which allows time for Phase 2 of the PBID process to be conducted - staff recommends the City provide matching funds up to 50 percent of the collected assessments; this percentage could be reevaluated by the City Council at a later date in 2025 based on the City's financial position. This one-year agreement is presented to the City Council as a separate agenda item at this January 21 meeting.

The assessment formula is based on the annual business license payment and is calculated as follows:
• businesses located curbside and downstairs on Main Street are assessed at two times (2X) their business license;
• businesses with a Main Street address located upstairs, or not curbside, are assessed at a rate of one and a half times (1½X) their business license; • all other businesses (those located off Main Street) pay an amount equal to one times (1X) their business license.

The minimum assessment is $50 and the maximum is $350. Non-profit businesses within the district are not assessed.

DISCUSSION
The feasibility of a Property & Business Improvement District (PBID) is being explored to sustain and increase the vitality and economic health of the downtown district. PBIDs are funded through an assessment on properties within the district. The amount of the assessment is determined by property owners at the formation of the district, within particular legal guidelines. Certain types of property can be exempt from all or part of the assessment if they do not benefit from district services. Funds raised through the assessment must be spent within the district for the benefit of the properties paying the assessment. A PBID is typically formed for five years, initially. After five years, it can be renewed by property owners for up to 10 years.

PBID assessments would be managed by the PDA and tailored to benefit the property owners paying the assessment. Possible services may include:
• Marketing and Advertising
• Signage Improvements and Wayfinding
• Street and Sidewalk Sweeping
• Graffiti removal

• Installation of bus benches, trash cans, tree wells, and art • Landscape maintenance
• Special event sponsorship
• Business attraction and retention
• Capital improvements.

The recently conducted PBID feasibility study (Phase 1) included the following six steps:

1. Project Initiation & Infrastructure
A steering committee of property owners was formed to determine the district parameters and consider an initial assessment potential stakeholder support.

2. Database Development
The foundation of the District formation process is an accurate property owner database.

3. Boundary Map
Civitas with City input created a map of the District boundaries, any benefit zones, and assessment scenarios. The current business improvement district map was used as a basis for this step. The boundary map was then divided into three zones based on the highest level of benefit from PBID services.

4. Property Owner Outreach
Outreach to property owners consisted of an open house and a survey to engage stakeholders (all property owners) within the District. The purpose of the outreach included the identification of priorities for specific services and the level of support for financing these services.

5. District Service Plan & Assessment Scenarios
Based on input from stakeholders, Civitas provided the City with a draft service plan, which includes proposed boundaries, assessment rate, budget, and services. A service plan will be the basis of the Management District Plan (MDP), if it is recommended to proceed with the PBID formation. Civitas also worked with the City to clarify the base level of services the City will continue providing in the District. The draft service plan was shared with the PDA Interim Executive Director and Board of Directors for feedback.

6. Financial Analysis and Recommendation
A feasibility study report, provided as Attachment 1, was prepared based on input received from the property owner outreach and includes the proposed district parameters, assessment of stakeholder support, and recommendations for PBID formation (Phase 2).

For reference, Civitas Advisors was the consultant for the development and renewal of the TriValley Tourism Marketing District that is managed by Visit Tri-Valley, so Civitas has familiarity with the Pleasanton community. Civitas Project Manager Kelly Rankin will provide an overview of the feasibility process, draft service plan, results, and recommendations at the January 21

City Council meeting.

Economic Vitality Committee Recommendation
The Economic Vitality Committee (EVC) received an overview of the feasibility process, draft service plan, and results at its December 19, 2024, meeting for a recommendation to the City Council on the formation of a PBID. The proposed schedule for Phase 2 PBID formation as presented to the EVC was approximately five months to complete.

Based on the feasibility study results that noted additional education with property owners to reach a level of engagement necessary to generate majority support for PBID formation, the EVC voted to proceed with Phase 2 of the PBID feasibility comprising of two parts. The first part, Phase 2A – Outreach consists of additional education and engagement with the property owners which would include additional Open House events, Steering Committee meetings, and one-on-one stakeholder meetings. The Service Plan would also be finalized during this period. Phase 2A is recommended to take approximately four months to complete, at which point it will be determined if enough support has been generated for the PBID formation, which Civitas recommends being 30-40 percent of the assessed value from property owners.

The second part, Phase 2B – Formation would take six months to complete and include the following steps:

1. Develop, review and approval of Management District Plan (MDP) The Steering Committee and City staff will use the finalized Service Plan as the basis for the MDP. The final MDP, Engineer’s Report and Petition will be approved.

2. Hold the Petition Drive
The Petition Drive must obtain Greater than 50 percent in signatures, representing the assessment value to form the PBID. The City Council would sign the Petition and Ballot for City-owned properties.

3. Initial Hearing at City Council Meeting
The City Council would adopt a Resolution of Intention to hold an initial hearing. The ballot and notice of Public Hearing would be mailed to all property owners.

4. Public Hearing and Resolution of Formation
The City Council would hold a Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution of Formation, which must be held at least 45 days after notice and ballot is mailed.

Based on the EVC’s recommendation to divide Phase 2 into two parts, a conservative timeline was recommended for the City Council to consider: the original ambitious timeline presented to the EVC outlined five months to complete the District renewal for the County tax roll in July 2025 to begin collection in January 2026. A EVC-proposed conservative timeline provides additional outreach and education and would take approximately 10 months. With the conservative timeline, the City could consider collecting the assessment for the first year and the County assessment could begin in January 2026, otherwise the assessment would not begin until January 2027 through the County tax roll. The Proposed Formation Timelines are

provided as Attachment 2.

Pleasanton Downtown Association Board of Directors Feedback The feasibility process, draft service plan, and results were shared with the PDA board of Directors at its meeting on December 17, 2024. The PDA Board was asked for feedback on the draft service plan, particularly the services a PBID could provide and the level of assessments that could be raised by a PBID. Within the proposed PBID parameters, three assessment scenarios were prepared which include annual assessment rates for parcel types and corresponding budget categories for intended services (refer to pages 10-11 in Attachment 1). There was support from the PDA Board for Scenarios #2 or #3 as those would yield more funding than the current BID assessment collection, estimated at annual budgets of $209,444 and $314,166, respectively. Clarification on certain services the PBID could provide was requested since items such as enhanced maintenance would be in addition to what the City is currently providing and whether that level of service would be reduced given the City’s current financial constraints.

Business Improvement District Structure Renewal Alternative If the City Council determines not to proceed with a PBID formation, staff will begin an evaluation toward the transition of the current business improvement district (BID) from the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 to the 1994 law, as the 1994 law allows the district term to be formed for up to five years, which aligns with previous five-year terms of the City-PDA agreement. The initiation process would also be based on the submission of petitions signed by businesses that will pay at least 50 percent of the proposed assessment rather than by resolution adopted by the City Council. The calendar year 2026 would be the target for implementing a new or updated BID structure.

As the partnership between the City and PDA is essential in the downtown’s success in stimulating economic growth, both parties will work collaboratively throughout the process. It is intended that completion of the project will identify priorities of stakeholders and focus on strengthening existing downtown businesses and attracting new businesses to create a balance of commercial offerings for the community.

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

OUTREACH
The feasibility report findings and draft service plan were reviewed by the Pleasanton Downtown Association Board of Directors at its December 17, 2024, meeting and the Economic Vitality Committee at its December 19, 2024, meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Building a Community Where Everyone Belongs by ensuring the vibrancy of Pleasanton’s downtown as prioritized in the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
The PBID feasibility study and anticipated expenses for formation are included in the Economic Development Division FY 2024/25 budget. The cost of the original five-month Phase

2 timeline is $31,200 plus travel expenses. The cost of the proposed conservative Phase 2A – Outreach for 4 months is $24,960 and Phase 2B – Formation for 6 months is $37,440 for a total of $62,400 plus travel expenses. Travel for Civitas Advisors staff to attend open houses and meetings would be required, and expenses are estimated to be approximately $650-1,000 per trip. While some portion of the cost is currently budgeted in FY 2024/25, an allocation of up to $70,000 to complete the PBID Formation is necessary to complete the restructure in FY 2025/26.

If a business improvement district structure update is chosen, it would take approximately seven months to complete at a cost of $43,680 plus travel expenses. This amount is currently budgeted in FY 2024/25.

Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:

Lisa Adamos, Economic
Development Manager
Pamela Ott, Assistant City Manager Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:

1. Downtown Pleasanton PBID Feasibility Report

2. Proposed PBID Formation Timelines

3. PBID Feasibility Study Meeting Presentation Slides

Attachment 1

Several methods were used to gather information:
• The City and Civitas identified the area for a potential PBID, as shown on the map below:
5

Pleasanton Property & Business Improvement District
Proposed Formation Timelines
Action Goal Timeline - Ambitious
Additional Outreach
Timeline -
Conservative
Phase 2A - Outreach
Engage & Commit Steering
Committee February - March 2025
Continued Outreach & Education;
increase support thresholds to ~30-
40%
• Steering Committee one-onones
• Additional Open House (inperson or virtual)
March – May 2025
Finalize Service Plan following owner
meetings May 2025
Decide to continue/end Phase 1 or
move to Phase 2 (contingent on
support level)
End of May 2025
Phase 2B – Formation
Develop Management District Plan
(MDP) February 2025 June 2025
Steering Committee & City staff
review and approval of MDP February 2025 June 2025
Submit Final MDP to Engineer; draft
Engineer’s Report February 2025 July 2025
Final MDP + Engineer’s Report and
Petition approved by City staff March 2025 July 2025
Petition drive; must obtain 50%+ in
signatures, representing assessment
value
April 2025 August – September
2025
Attachment 2

City Council
Authorize City to sign Petition &
Ballot for City-owned properties
April 2025 August 2025
Submit Petitions totaling over 50% of
assessment to City April 2025 September 2025
City Council – Initial Hearing
Resolution of Intention (can be on
consent calendar)
May 2025 October 2025
Mail
Ballot / Notice of Public Hearing -
typically mailed 1-2 days after ROI is
adopted.

May 2025 October 2025
City Council – Public Hearing &
Resolution of Formation
Must be held at least 45 days after
Notice/Ballot are mailed
June 2025 November 2025
Deadline to complete District
renewal for County tax rolls July 2025 July 2026*
New District begins collecting
assessment
January 1, 2026 January 1, 2027*
*Unless the City is willing to collect the assessments in the first year of the PBID’s term, in lieu of the County. If so, January 2026 start date is feasible.

Downtown Pleasanton Property and Business
Improvement District Feasibility Study
City Council Meeting, January 21, 2025
City Manager’s Office – Economic Development
Feasibility Study Objectives
ƒ To increase vitality and economic health of the downtown district by identifying a sustainable revenue source for the Pleasanton Downtown Association, as manager of the
current Business Improvement District (BID)
ƒ Explore a restructure of the BID and consider a Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) through a
feasibility study
ƒ A PBID could raise significant revenue to provide additional or new services for the benefit of the downtown property owners and district, as a whole

PBID Overview
ƒ PBID services are chosen by property owners and customized to fit the area’s needs. Services must provide a special benefit.
ƒ Services are funded by an assessment on property, which would appear on the property tax bill.

Legal Basis: Established under California's Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.

Service Model: Offers supplemental services and improvements beyond local government, funded by special parcel assessments.

Prevalence: Over 2,500 PBIDs operate in North America, providing collective services for property owners.

Proven Benefits: Demonstrated to improve commercial district viability Feasibility Study Methodology
ƒ Project Initiation: Formed Steering Committee and held two meetings ƒ Area Identification: Developed district database, and defined district boundary as current BID boundary
ƒ Property Owner Outreach & Engagement:
• Emailed online survey to assess demographics, desired services, and willingness to fund
• Mailed postcards with online survey link and open house announcement • Conducted an open house at Veteran’s Hall
ƒ Draft Service Plan: Developed assessment rate, budget, and services which serves as the basis for the Management District Plan (MDP)

Analysis
ƒ Support Analysis: Based on assessment revenue, 14% of engaged property owners support the PBID, with 19% leaning towards support and 12% undecided or opposed.
ƒ Key Survey Findings
• Public parking and property vacancies emerged as top challenges • Overall satisfaction with the City’s level of service • Indication of misunderstanding of how the PBID would supplement PDA • Concern passing the assessment to tenants
ƒ Priority Services: Holiday lighting received most interest, with safety and lighting programs ranking highest in priority.
ƒ Support Likelihood: 39% of respondents were “Very Likely" or “Likely” to support PBID formation, indicating a need for further outreach and education.

Proposed PBID Boundaries

Proposed Assessment Scenarios
Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3
Parcel Type
Annual Assessment Rate ($/sq ft) Annual Assessment Rate ($/sq ft) Annual Assessment Rate ($/sq ft) Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Commercial
Uses $0.0500 $0.0375 $0.0250 $0.1000 $0.0750 $0.0500 $0.1500 $0.1125 $0.0750 Non-Profit,
Parking Lots,
Government
$0.0250 $0.01875 $0.0125 $0.0500 $0.0375 $0.0250 $0.0750 $0.05625 $0.0375 ^ŝŶŐůĞͲ&ĂŵŝůLJZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůhƐĞƐĂƌĞŶŽƚĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚŝŶĂůůƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ͘ Proposed Budget Scenarios
Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3
Service % Annual Budget % Annual Budget % Annual Budget Marketing, Special Events &
Business Development 45% $47,124.83 45% $94,249.67 45% $141,374.50 Enhanced Maintenance &
Safety 25% $26,180.46 25% $52,360.93 25% $78,541.39
Capital Improvements,
Wayfinding, & Art Installations 15% $15,708.28 15% $31,416.56 15% $47,124.83 Administration 10% $10,472.19 10% $20,944.37 10% $31,416.56 Contingency/Reserve 3% $3,141.65 3% $6,283.30 3% $9,424.96 City Collection Fee 2% $2,094.44 2% $4,188.87 2% $6,283.31 TOTAL 100% $104,721.85 100% $209,443.70 100% $314,165.55

Proposed Services
ƒ Marketing & Events: Develop unified marketing program to promote Downtown Pleasanton as a single destination, including visitor guides, decorative lighting, and special events.
ƒ Business Development: Focus on attracting and retaining businesses through recruitment, cooperative marketing, business liaison services, and creating an active evening and weekend environment.
ƒ Enhanced Maintenance: Provide services to keep downtown clean and attractive, including pressure washing, litter removal, and landscape maintenance. ƒ Safety Initiatives: Improve pedestrian experience through enhanced lighting, crime prevention, law enforcement partnerships, and addressing nuisance behaviors. ƒ Capital Improvements: Create a unique sense of place with wayfinding signage, street amenities, pedestrian and bike infrastructure, parking, and communityfocused development efforts.

Feasibility Study Conclusion
Survey Insights: Revealed need for further extensive education and outreach to property owners about PBID benefits.

Key Recommendation: Continue stakeholder engagement to address misconceptions and build support.

Support Threshold: Aim to achieve 30-40% support (based on assessment revenue) before initiating formal formation process.

Feedback & Recommendation
ƒ PDA Board of Directors Meeting, December 17, 2024
• Draft Service Plan Feedback
ƒ Economic Vitality Committee Meeting, December 19, 2024 • Feasibility Study Results Feedback & PBID Formation Recommendation

&ƵƌƚŚĞƌKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚΘ
ŽŶƐĞŶƐƵƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ƒ KƉĞŶ,ŽƵƐĞ
ĞǀĞŶƚƐ
ƒ ^ƚĞĞƌŝŶŐ
ŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞ
ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ
ƒ WƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ
ŽǁŶĞƌ
ŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƐ
ƒ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂů
ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ
DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚWůĂŶ;DWͿ
ƒ >ĞŐĂůĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ
ĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬ
ͻ ŽƵŶĚĂƌLJ
ͻ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ
ͻ ƵĚŐĞƚ
ͻ dĞƌŵ
ͻ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ
ͻ 'ŽǀĞƌŶĂŶĐĞ
WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƌŝǀĞ
ƒ ^ŝŐŶĞĚ
ƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶƐ
ǁĞŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ
ϱϬйнďĂƐĞĚ
ŽŶĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ
WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐƐΘ
ĂůůŽƚ
ƒ ZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶŽĨ
/ŶƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƚŽ
ŚŽůĚŝŶŝƚŝĂů
WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐ
ƒ DĂŝůďĂůůŽƚƚŽ
ĂůůĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ
ŽǁŶĞƌƐ
ƒ WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐ
ƒ ZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶŽĨ
&ŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
Phase 2: PBID Formation & Timeline
WŚĂƐĞϮʹ ϰŵŽŶƚŚƐ WŚĂƐĞϮʹ ϲŵŽŶƚŚƐ
WŚĂƐĞϮʹϱŵŽŶƚŚƐ
Next Step: Options & Recommendation

1. Phase 2 PBID Formation ‘Ambitious’ Timeline 5 months $31,200

2. Phase 2A + 2B PBID Formation
‘Conservative' Timeline
10 months $62,400

3. Current BID transition from 1989 to 1994 Law
– allows for 5-year renewal
7 months $43,680
Staff Recommendation
ƒ As recommended by EVC, move to Phase 2A + 2B Formation, which allows further outreach and consensus building and an evaluation at the end of Phase 2A to gauge support levels
ƒ Allocate up to $70,000 to implement the PBID Formation Process

Questions?